Abstract
Georgia van Toorn’s The New Political Economy of Disability: Transnational Networks and Individualized Funding in the Age of Neoliberalism examines how and why individualized funding (IF), which is related to market-based models of disability, support provision. It has become widespread and has been adopted in the disability service sector across a number of countries in recent years by analyzing the multidimensional relationship between neoliberalism, disability rights movements, their international advocacy networks, and other nongovernment actors. The study also offers a comprehensive perspective on the IF model, driven by neoliberal ideology and practices, through the critical lens of the political economy. Moreover, it sheds light on the struggles, debates, and criticisms of the conventional welfare system and the concept of social justice among disability rights-based activists and scholars.
The book consists of eight chapters and an introduction that covers the study’s main points and outlines. Chapter 1 briefly summarizes the intellectual and historical background of the Individualized Funding model. Van Toorn claims that the origin of the IF goes back to the market-oriented paradigm of the key figures of the Chicago school, such as Milton Friedman, who considered the consumer’s right to choose the subject of services and goods as one of the ethical premises of capitalism, even though they do not have rigorous and in-depth views on disability service provision (15–17). On the other hand, this work emphasizes that the ideologues of neoliberalism do not have an unaccompanied role in the emergence of IF. This signifies that the resistance of the new leftist movement in the 1960s–70s, which contended that the postwar welfare state had a paternalistic understanding and outdated bureaucratic logic that created a culture of dependency, was also a paramount part of this process (18–20). Chapter 2 explores the origins of IF in the English context by focusing on the struggles and negotiations of disability movements that led to its formation/mobilization in light of the conceptual framework presented by Nancy Fraser, an influential feminist theorist. Fraser’s theoretical priority is the importance of having a voice and political representation in the public sphere in the liberating program of the feminist movement; Toorn adapts this theoretical framework by underscoring that it can also be valid and crucial for the disability movement. It also touches upon various perspectives and tensions within the internal dynamics of disability movements regarding developments in care policies under Thatcher’s rule. The disability social model has emerged in England, accentuating the struggle for equivalency of representation and the decision-making process to struggle against social and political barriers against disabled people (51–57). However, the author asserts that despite some disagreements between diverse disability activists (66–69), the relative consensus among them was that Thatcher’s drastic reforms in care policies, which brought market mechanisms to the fore, were progressive, in line with the idea of the disabled living independently and self-determination. According to this consensus, these reforms have played a substantial role in shelving the radically comprehensive political agenda of the social model. Hence, the study stresses that leading disability movements in England have begun to become more moderate and apolitical by integrating market discourse and concepts.
Chapter 3 demystifies how and to what extent the IF model and disability movements were transformed from Thatcher’s rule to the New Labor period. The book criticizes the conventional approach of an irreconcilable contradiction between neoliberalism and the state apparatus. On the contrary, the New Labor government contributed to the emergence of a new form of neoliberalism, which is intertwined with the state apparatus in which IF could be operated more effectively by devising renewed bureaucratic techniques that could augment budget/fiscal calculation and individual spending regulations. Furthermore, during this period, a tech-scientific orientation, which reduced the concerns of disability to only the economic dimension (92–97), was initiated to accumulate popularity. Thus, instead of bringing more collective and comprehensive emancipatory policies to the vanguard, the depoliticization process continued among the disability movements, similar to Thatcher’s rule. Chapter 4 seeks to unveil IF implementations in the Scottish context, called Self Directed Support (SDS), by referencing the ethnographic and sociological material, which encompasses the experiences of people with disabilities from interviews and secondary sources. The author underlines Scottish exceptionalism, since SDS is based more on participatory parity and emphasizes human rights (105–6) than its English counterpart, which regards disability care services only in terms of “free” consumer choices. On the other side of the coin, the study reminds us that although the SDS model has some critical progressive features in the neoliberal transformation, the inability to adjust the services and budgets at the local level properly has led to the disabled individuals being unable to satisfy social care services sufficiently (110–15).
Chapter 5 unearths the central role played by Transnational Advocacy Networks (TAN) and other related actors in constructing neoliberalism by tracing the IF’s journey from England to Scotland. Toorn indicates that TANs, like In Control, have a prominent position in adopting and disseminating IF by developing political strategies/tactics such as mobilizing information (122–25), symbols (126–28), and calling upon powerful political actors (129–31) that sustain their political purposes. In short, the book reveals TANs have played a major role in the nation state’s adoption of market-oriented and more individualized disability service provision. Moreover, it presents a unique perspective covering both international and local levels by underscoring the role of domestic political actors as well as TANs in bolstering the IF model and neoliberal discourses and practices (120–21). Chapter 6 tries to elucidate what social and political dynamics are involved in the spread of IF within the context of Australia, called the National Disability Insurance Scheme, amid a climate of global processes of neoliberal state restructuring. The author highlights that the Australian case has distinguishable aspects in IF practices, despite the fact that Australian IF advocates claim that they have similar restrictions and opportunities when compared to England and Scotland (153–54). For instance, considering the historical background before the neoliberal restructuring era, apart from the pro-IF tactics of TANs and locally led groups, the nondisabled managers and professionals of the leading disability NGOs in Australia were treating people with disabilities as service consumers rather than right-bearers (149–50). The book suggests that this standing has been instrumental in the emergence of IF as a specific form shaped by discourse and rhetoric that considers disability services much more explicitly as a consumer issue/demand (140).
Chapter 7 is a complementary part of the previous chapter. It sheds light on the main facets of Australia’s transforming political economy of disability service provision by referring to the concept of path dependency. Toorn’s research is reminiscent of the phenomenon in which discourses and practices from elsewhere are always filtered through local political culture and institutional structures (169). Accordingly, in the development of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in Australia, the social services tradition with a long historical legacy of private provision, which was enriched by state subsidies, was vital in the emergence of a highly marketized form of the IF model. Chapter 8 is devoted to concluding remarks and reviewing the book’s main arguments. The author once again emphasizes the significance of the manifold and reciprocal interactions of local, national, and international actors who have a key function in apprehending the origins of IF (177–78). Such interactions have diffused into the policies of these countries. Additionally, the chapter provides an opportunity for the critical assessment of the possible consequences of integrating IF advocacy with the deep neoliberalization in terms of the political, economic, and social emancipation of the disabled communities and other marginalized groups.
One of the robust points of Toorn’s book is that it considers disability NGOs and actors not as passive victims of hegemonic neoliberal discourses and practices but as active agents. This study contributes to the disability studies literature by demonstrating that disabled actors have organized, manipulated, and reproduced the neoliberalization process. Another key contribution of this study is a rigorous analysis of the political-economic dimension of disability experience, which is often neglected in disability studies. Similarly, it must be emphasized that the book made critical contributions to the political economy literature by stressing the importance of the active role of communities with disabilities because the relevant literature has not resonated with their voice. At the same time, the book strengthened its main arguments by considering neoliberalism as a dynamic concept shaped by the political and historical background of the countries and actors’ strategies instead of treating neoliberalism as a universal homogeneous discursive category with the same dynamics everywhere. Moreover, the crucial aspect of this study was not limited to its content. It has a fertile methodology that can bring together noteworthy conceptual tools from both studies with empirical data from interviews with the subjects of IF. It is appropriate to call her method fertile, as it combines not only the conceptual toolbox of disability studies but also concepts of political philosophy and political economy with empirical data obtained from detailed interviews with disabled actors.
On the other hand, it is possible to come up with some possible suggestions that could make the book more fruitful. In terms of the scope of the study, it would have been more productive if the author had examined the gender dimension and the impact of disability type on experience while evaluating the discourse and practices of disabled activists in TANs and local organizations. For instance, depending on whether the disabled person’s disability is mental or physical, their position in the local organization and how they are affected by the neoliberalization process may differ. Therefore, the book could have been more rigorous with regard to the variability of disability types. However, instead of considering this as a nuance that strains the main discussions in the book, it may be reasonable to consider it as a recommendation that can open the door to new research questions for future studies.
In a nutshell, The New Political Economy of Disability: Transnational Networks and Individualized Funding in the Age of Neoliberalism is a book that critically introduces the nature of the complex relationship between neoliberalization and the role of different actors in the origin and dissemination of IF, with a particular focus on the Scottish, English, and Australian contexts. Hereby, Toorn has provided an erudite book for interested readers that brings together political economy and disability studies.
