Disability, Work Status, and Deprivation among working age-group: Shreds of evidence from NSS 76 TH round Data

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1739232/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Disability, Work Status, and Deprivation among working age-group: Shreds of evidence from NSS 76 TH round Data

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1739232/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: In India, where most of the population is in the working-age group and as per census 2011, 2.1 % of the total population are disabled, the biggest concern is the onset of different types of disability among the working-age population as it directly affects the nation productivity and economy. This study aims to assess the consequences of disability in terms of loss and change of work experiences by the working-age population and to calculate the disability deprivation index of India and its states.

Methods: Multinomial logistic regression has been used to find the impact of the onset of disability on the working-age population. The disability deprivation index has been calculated for Indian states.

Results: The overall prevalence of disability is 2.2 %. Persons who worked before the onset of disability, maximum of them losses their work due to the onset of disability. The disability deprivation index shows which state is more deprived. Highest the ranking is the lowest deprivation, Kerala is the lowest deprived state, and Bihar is the highest.

Conclusion: There are many facilities provided by government and NGOs for disabled, however the condition of disabled in India is severe since the availability of these facilities is limited to certain proportion of the population, there is requirement to upsurge these services and spread them. The disability deprivation index of majority of states of India lies in category of poor living conditions. The government and NGOs should work in specific direction so that quality of life of person with disability can improve.

Disability Deprivation Index

Difficulty in Public Transport

Loss of work

Change of work

Work status

WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) defines “disability as an umbrella term for physical impairments, activity limitations, and physical participation restrictions” (WHO, 1981). According to ICF, “disability is the interaction between an individual’s physical or mental health condition (cerebral palsy, down syndrome, or depression), personal and environmental factors “(Leonardi et al., 2006). According to World report on disability, approximately 15% of the global population have any form of disability, with 80% of them belonging to the working-age group, living in the developing countries and 2–4% experience substantial complications in functioning. This number is expected to double to 2 billion by 2050 (WHO & World Bank, 2011). Despite such a large number and concern raised by WHO or World bank, disability has occupied a minor role in policy research and development studies. Persons with disabilities have predetermined notions about their abilities and skills, they live a very challenging life, their disability considered as inability by people around them. Sometimes their disability leads to loss of their job and denied for a job citing the reason not found suitable. (Bound & Waidmann, 2002).

World Report on Disability 2011 delivers the definition of disability by stating that “Disability is complex, dynamic, multidimensional, and contested”. Based on internationally comparable data, it is found that prevalence of disability is higher in developing countries than developed countries (WHO & World Bank, 2011). These findings contrast with the result of prior comparison of country-level estimates that showed prevalence of disability is higher in high-income countries than low and middle-income countries (WHO & World Bank, 2011). These variations in results found due to variation in definition of disability in low and middle-income countries, which often includes only definitions related to impairment or functional limitations whereas high-income countries use activity limitation measures in definition, which tend to be higher. Similarly, assessment of the prevalence of disability from national and international couldn’t be compared (Kramarow et al., 2004). Furthermore, during the 2000s, disability has started been considered as a development issue by multilateral agencies (UNDP, 2008; World Bank, 2007a), bilateral donors (e.g., DFID, 2000), as well as scholars (Kett, Lang & Trani, 2009; Majumder, Misra & Walls, 2005; Mitra, 2005).

One can find the gap in employment between person with and without disabilities which is due to discrimination between them. Discrimination may occur due to prejudgment, sense of discrepancy about the average productivity of persons with and without disabilities or the exploitation of workers with disability by employers (Becker, 1971; Baldwin & Johnson, 2005). Accessibility of the work environment, the availability of the workplace from the place of accommodation, and the presence of discrimination all these factors may affect the employment of disabled person (Baldwin & Johnson, 2005). At some cultural context, there is negative attitude towards the employment potential of person with disabilities in society or within the household which might result in limits to access of work for disabled people (Mitra & Sambamoorthi, 2008). There are many wide pragmatic literatures on disability and employment covering many developed countries (OECD, 2003, 2009) and transition countries (Scott & Mete, 2008; OECD, 2003) which shows that persons with disabilities are tends to have lower employment rates than persons without disabilities.

Waidmann (2002) found a significant association between disability and work limitation.

An analysis of retrospective disability data from a Health and Retirement Study in the USA (Daly & Bound, 1996) found that 29.2% of disabled men and 36.9% of disabled women stated that the process of accommodation has been done by employers by considering their disability status. The most common type comprised job interchanges, assistance with the job, and change in job suitable with the type of disability, and very few disabled people could able to retain their job. Countries which have returned to work programme for person with disability have better prospects of retaining the job among disabled people (Habeck et al., 1998). Over a period of time, many countries have raised the issues of policy making agenda on opportunities to involvement in economically gainful activities for people with disabilities (Krishna et al., 2001; Kapteyan et al., 2004). the international year of disabled (IYD)-1981 was the pioneer year from which the focus has been increased on the economic consequences of disability in the prime working-age population.

In India, the person with disability act 1995 gave the most common definition and classification of disability by considering Equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation. It states that “a person with more than 40% disability is considered a disability as certified by a medical authority”. According to the census of India 2001, “defining and measuring disability is a complex issue. It is not easy to communicate these concepts during the census process. Only a limited amount of questioning time is possible with a household for obtaining detailed information on every individual”. The census, therefore, used its version of disability types, classified into five categories: (i) sight, (ii) speech, (iii) hearing, (iv) movement, and (v) mental, covering blindness, low vision, leprosy cured, hearing impairment, locomotion, mental retardation, and mental illness. This definition has been accepted by the government, both administratively and legally.

As per the Census of India 2011, 26.8 million constitutes 2.2% of the country’s total population (Census of India, 2011) are disabled whereas, as per World Bank data, the total number of persons with disabilities in India ranges between 40 and 80 million. There is the difference between official figures and figures estimated by world bank, however, it is clear that persons with disabilities constitute a noteworthy proportion of the Indian population. India has one of the highest numbers of people with disabilities globally, their numbers are more than the total population of many countries (Groce & Bakshi, 2011). Out of 49.8 % of the Indian population of working-age group, 3 percent of the population are disabled (World Bank, 2018). Disability among working age population should have major concern but there is a shortage of literature that can demonstrate the consequences of disability on the working-age population in India. Nation’s productivity and economy directly affected by onset of disability among working age population. In a developing country like India, with many emerging issues such as appalling poverty, illiteracy, and unemployment, the provision of availability of services, the equality and civil rights of disabled persons are often neglected. Person with a disability faces many challenges and barriers to full involvement in society as well as in the labour market. There is linkage between disability status and work participation as wellbeing of disabled people also affected by the nature and extent of their participation in labour market. Research on these linkages will not only facilitate us to look beyond the provision of services for disabled persons but also will manage to bring equity in work participation for all persons irrespective of disability status. Keeping this in view, the paper first measures the prevalence of disability in the working-age population. The further aim is to assess the consequences of disability in terms of loss or change of work experienced by the working age population in India and its correlations. Ahead we calculate the deprivation index of India and its states.

Data and Sample

Unit level data from the 76^th (2018-2019) round of the National Sample Survey (NSS), conducted by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), India, has been analyzed to address the objectives. NSS’s 76^th round collecting data on drinking water, sanitation, hygiene, and housing conditions, and persons with disabilities. During the 15^th round, NSSO attempted to collect information from July 1959 - June 1960 on the disability of visual, hearing, speech, and locomotor persons, followed by the 58^th round from July-December 2002. Information on mental disability was added in the 58^th round. The main objective of the 76^th round on “survey of persons with disabilities” is to estimate incidence and prevalence of disability, cause of disability, age at onset of disability, facilities available to the persons with disability, difficulties faced by persons with disability in accessing the public building, public transport, arrangement of regular caregiver, out of pocket expense relating to disability, etc. Further, data was collected on various employment and unemployment particulars for household members with at least one disability. For each household member aged 12 to 59 years, information on vocational/technical training and its aspects was collected (NSSO Report, 2019).

The NSS is a national representative survey organized by NSSO; the NSSO is a population-based survey organization that collects data to facilitate the policymakers and researchers. NSS 76^th round data has been used for this paper which covered 8992 village/urban blocks (5378 rural villages and 3614 urban blocks), 118,152 households (69.8% in rural and 30.2% in urban areas), enumerating 576,569 persons (402,589 rural and 173,980 urban). The present study based on youth contains 103,831 youths, out of which 12,951 youth have suffered from any disability. Seven disabilities were considered during the survey period: Locomotor, Visual, Hearing, Speech and language, Mental retardation/ intellectual disability, Mental illness, and other types of disability. For detailed methodology NSS, 76th Round (July- December 2018), report on persons with disabilities in India can be seen (NSS Report, 2019).

Sampling technique

For NSS 76^th round survey, the Census 2011 population of villages was projected by applying reasonable growth rates and considered a sampling frame. A stratified two-stage sampling design has been used for the NSS 76th round survey. In the first stage, villages/urban blocks were chosen by Probability Proportional to Size with Replacement. In the second stage, Simple Random Sampling without replacement has been used to select households in both rural and urban areas. Stratified seven-second stage strata (SSS) has been used for listing households in the selected village/UFS Block/SU. First SSS was formed using the households having a person(s) with any of the eleven disabilities among cerebral palsy, dwarfism, haemophilia, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, acid attack victims, autism spectrum disorder, other chronic neurological conditions, Parkinson’s disease, sickle cell disease, and thalassemia (NSSO Report, 2019).

Definitions

Working-age population- the age group 15-59 currently employed or seeking employment (NSSO Report, 2019).
Living arrangement- The arrangement that existed for the household member regarding where and with whom they lived. This was decided based on Composition of the household in which the person with a disability is a member, Age of the household member and Marital status of the household member (NSSO Report, 2019).
Household’s usual monthly consumer expenditure (UMCE) - This information was collected to classify the households into different UMPCE (Usual Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure) classes. A Household’s usual monthly consumer expenditure is the total monetary value of all goods and services consumed on a domestic account with a monthly regularity. Unusual expenditures, such as expenditure on social ceremonies, capitation fee, hospitalization, etc., were excluded for deriving the usual monthly consumer expenditure of the household. However, expenditure on durable household goods was included, and monthly expenditure on durable goods was derived by apportioning the total expenditure made by the household on durable goods during the last 365 days (NSSO Report, 2019).

Outcome variable

The dependent variable is change or loss of work due to the onset of disability. The three categories of the dependent variable for the present study are loss of work, change of work, and no loss and change of work due to onset of disability.

Covariates

The socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents were used as independent variables. All of them were definite and prominent determinants of change or loss of work due to the onset of disability in India. We include the following variable as potential determinants in statistical analysis: sex (male and female), place of residence (rural and urban), religion (Hindu, Muslim, others), marital status (never married, currently married, (widowed/divorced/separated), an education level (illiterate, up to the middle, up to higher secondary, graduate and above), UMPCE (poorer, poor, middle, richer, richest) and region (north, northeast, west, south, east, central)

Statistical analysis

Univariate and bivariate analysis has been used to calculate the prevalence of disabled persons by selected background characteristics. Multinomial logistic regression has been used to assess the impact of the onset of disability on employment opportunities among the working-age population. Disability deprivation index has been calculated for states of India

The multinomial logistic regression technique facilitates eliciting the effect of several independent variables that may be quantitative, categorical or a mixture of two on the response variable with more than two categories. A brief presentation of the functional form of the multinomial logit model for the present study is as follows

Where P₁ is the probability of changing of work, P₂denotes the probability of loss of work and P₃ is the probability of no loss or change of work after the onset of disability. The reference category in the present model is no loss or change of work, and it may be noted that the three categories of work status due to onset of disability are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, k signifies the number of independent variables. The MCA table for the adjusted value of P_j’s is constructed by substituting the appropriate combination of ones, zeros, and mean values for the independent variables. The adjusted values are based on elicited parametric estimates for the complete model, including all independent variables simultaneously. Alternatively, all the independent variables are controlled at their mean value except the one whose effect is elicited at its particular level. When multiplied by a hundred, the elicited probabilities provide estimates of loss of work, change of work, and no loss or change of work amongst persons in the particular categories.

Deprivation index:

Disability Deprivation Index (DDI): This index was calculated by taking the average of four selected indicators: loss or change of work due to onset of disability, illiteracy, beggars, and difficulty in public transportation, all expressed as a percentage. The reason behind including loss or change of work and illiteracy is that in the developing countries, the disabled population has poor access to literacy and employment. People with disabilities have consistently described how barriers related to transportation affect their livings. (J. Field & M. Jette, 2007). The fourth indicator, “beggars,” is an essential occupational category as disabled beggars belong to poor and disadvantaged communities. Yet, they are virtually invisible in countries worldwide' policy agendas and are overlooked in advocacy efforts to improve opportunities for people with disabilities in general (Kaur & Van Brakel, 2002). The disability deprivation index has been calculated for only twenty-three states and UTs since others have a tiny sample. The methodology of computation of the composite index was adopted from the Human Development Report (HRD, 2015)

This methodology involves two steps.

In step 1, the computation of the dimension index for each of the indicators considered for the specific composite index is done using the following expression:

Where V_i is the actual value of the indicator, V_min is the minimum, and V_max is the maximum value percentage of the indicators in distribution.

In step 2, the computation of the composite index (CI) is done, assigning equal weights to each indicator included in the composite index as under:

Where Di is the dimension index, and N is the number of dimension indices included in the composite index. (Awasthi et al., 2017)

3.1.1 Prevalence of disability

Table 1.1 depicts the prevalence of disability by selected background characteristics of both working age and total sample populations. The prevalence of disability among the working-age population and total sample population is 1.8 % and 2.2 %, respectively. The overall prevalence of disability for males and females in the working-age population is 2.2% and 1.5%. This table shows that the prevalence of disability for OBC is 1.8 % and 2.2%, and for SC/ST, it is 2% and 2.3% among the working-age group and total sample population, respectively. Prevalence of disability for never married is 2.3% in the working-age group and 1.6% in the total population. For widowed/divorced or separated, prevalence is 4.1% in the working-age group and 8.1% in the total population. The prevalence of illiterate (15-59 age group) is 3.6%, and the prevalence of illiterate in the total population is 4%. Graduates and above have the lowest prevalence of disability among all the education level categories for the working-age group and the total population.

(Table 1.1 here)

Figure 1.1 shows the age-sex pyramid of the total sample population and disabled persons among the total sample population. It is evident from the figure that the proportion of disabled persons is minimum in age group 0-4. It is higher in other age groups, i.e., the proportion of disabled people increases with the increase in age. The number of disabled people is maximum in the age group 60-64 followed by 35-39. It is also shown that the proportion of disabled people is more female than males, increasing with the increase in age.

(Figure1.1 here)

3.1.2 Effect of disability on loss or change of work

Table 2.1 depicts the percentage distribution of activity status of disabled persons before and after the onset of disability. This table clearly shows that persons who were engaged in self-employment are higher before the onset of disability. For all types of disability, the percentage of neither working nor available for work is maximum followed by self-employed. Also, self-employed is maximum in persons with hearing disability. Similarly, the percentage of regular wage salaried highest in locomotor disability. Unemployed is maximum in speech and language disability. There is a decline in the percentage of disabled persons engaged in all types of activity status after the onset of disability.

(Table 2.1 here)

Table 2.2 – The estimated coefficient of the multinomial logit regression model is described in this table. The coefficient under a log (P1/P3) depicts the odds ratio of change in work relative to no loss or change of work due to the onset of disability. Similarly, the column under a log (P2/P3) is the odds ratio of loss in work relative to no loss or change of work due to onset of disability. Relative risk can be obtained by taking exponentiation of the linear equations, yielding regression coefficients that are relative risk ratios for a unit change in the independent variable. This table shows that loss of work due to the onset of the disability is found to be less likely for disabled persons in urban areas compared to rural areas; this may be due to people in rural areas do not receive any aid or help as compared to urban areas also in urban areas facilities are available at somewhat level than rural areas.

Similarly, age groups 35-39 are more likely to lose their work due to the onset of disability. SC/ST disabled persons are less likely to change their work but more likely to lose their work. Marital status does not affect change or loss of work due to the onset of disability. Graduates are less likely to lose or change their work due to the onset of disability. The person living with parents or spouse is more likely to lose their work, whereas the opposite scenario occurs in the case of a person living alone. Persons with mental retardation, mental illness, and other disability are significantly more likely of losing work, and this may be due to severability of mental illness or retardation so that it directly causes loss of work; also, north eastern people are less likely to change their work due to onset of disability whereas central and western disabled persons are more likely to lose their work due to onset of disability.

(Table 2.2 here)

Table 2.3- The multiple classification analysis tables of adjusted percentage(probabilities) of change of work, loss of work, and no loss or change of work derived from multinomial logit regression are presented in this table to complement better understanding and interpretation. The unadjusted percentage of loss, change, and no loss or change of work is also presented for comparison and reference. The result depicts that a marginal differential exists between the rural and urban places of work and for males and females due to the onset of disability, i.e., 16 % of males have changed their work compared to 13 % of females after the onset of disability. Loss of work of disabled persons aged 15-34 years turns out to be almost 55 %. Loss of work for never married disabled persons is 63.9 % compared to 51 % for currently married disabled persons. Illiterate have a higher percentage of loss of work compared to other categories of education level. Mental retardation and mental illness have a much higher percentage of loss of work than all other types of disability. Persons with hearing disabilities have a minuscule percentage of loss of work among all the disabilities. Poorer disabled people have highs percent of change of work as well as loss of work as compared to middle richer or richest. Northeast region has the highest percentage of change in work as compare to other regions.

(Table 2.3 here)

3.1.2 Level of deprivation due to disability: Disability Deprivation Index

Table 3.1 shows the stepwise calculation of the disability deprivation index for all states of India and their ranking. From this table, it is evident that 73.2 % of disabled persons loosed or changed their work due to the onset of the disability, and approximately 48 % of disabled are illiterate, 65.8 % of disabled faced difficulty in public transportation, and out of all disabled 7.5 % beggars/prostitute/venders. The percentage of loss or change of work for disabled persons is maximum in Himanchal Pradesh and minimum in Delhi; similarly, illiteracy is highest in Andhra Pradesh and lowest in Kerala. Difficulty in public transport was highest in Chandigarh and lowest in Sikkim, and the percentage of beggars was highest in Meghalaya. Taking all these variables into consideration disability deprivation index has been calculated for 23 states of India. Bihar has the poorest condition for the disabled population with a disability deprivation index of 0.72, whereas Kerala has the best condition among all India's states. Therefore, Kerala ranked one and Bihar ranked 23, highest the rank lowest the deprivation index.

(Table 3.1 here)

The overall prevalence of disability is 2.2% which accounts for nearly one million cases in India. Rural India has a higher prevalence of disability as compared to urban also the prevalence of disability is higher in males than females. Differences in the prevalence of disability among different religions is not very high but significant differences among caste can be seen. Illiterate section of the population have a higher prevalence of disability than other categories of education level. This study has found that the maximum share of disability is contributed by the age group of 60–79. This shows that with the increasing old age population, disability percentage has also increased. Still, as per the data, it is observed to be highest for the middle-aged or working-age population since this age group has population proportion. This study also shows that persons who worked before the onset of disability, maximum of them had lost their job due to onset of disability as SC/ST disabled person. A disabled person more likely to lose their work this may indicate the discrimination and ignorance of the capabilities of disabled person, this study also illustrates that disabled person living with parents and without a spouse are more prone to lose their work due to onset of disability. The discrimination may also arise through low expectations and negative attitudes. There should be conductive environment to a person with disability to enter into the labour force, these conductive environments should provide by household members but in most of the cases they failed to do so (Sophie Mitra, 2005). In development studies and research, this form of judgement has received very little attention in the literature (Adrienne & Dianna, 2005). Disability-based employment discrimination is complex and it is very tough to identify this type of discrimination; disability-based employment discrimination varies depending on environment, including workplace environment, institutional environment, anti-discrimination laws may affect by reducing earnings and employment differentials across disability status. Probability of employment can be reduced by any kind of discrimination present in institution or workplace. The effect of disability on employment is a pragmatic question. The significance and magnitude of the effect of disability on employment are expected to vary across various contexts (Mizunaya & Mitra, 2013). In developing countries most of the employees are engaged with the informal sector, where people are self-employed or work in microenterprises, The results of the current study also shows that illiterate and disabled people are more likely to lose or change their work due to the onset of disability; also, the richest section of the society is less exposed to losing or changing their work as compared to the poorest people, this may be accounted as a consequence of illiterate people being primarily engaged in the informal sector or in the casual labour force. The informal sector has commonly been characterized as an “easy-entry sector that workers can enter to earn some cash in preference to earning nothing” (Fields, 2009). Fields also explained that barriers to entry to such occupations are small or non-existent. In some contexts, primarily in urban areas, all those would-be workers’ need is to make a minimal investment in the product or in the services in order to get sold. Therefore, availability of cheaper and easy services the disabled population faces frequent loss or change of work. In developing countries, anti-discrimination legislation, workplace accommodations, vocational rehabilitation programs to boost employment opportunities for persons with disabilities are scarce; therefore, one could expect to find a disability gap in employment rates. Securing employment by a disabled person remains a far cry in the developing countries which are already facing an unemployment crisis even among the general population (Ann, 1999). There is a need to draw a clear and detailed picture of the factors associated with loss or change of work after the onset of the disability and taking preventive measures to minimize the incidence of disabilities (Tania, 2003).

Disability deprivation index shows which state is more deprived in the scenario of disabled population considering loss or change of work, illiteracy, difficulty in public transport, and beggars. The lowest ranked state is Kerala, and Bihar occupies the highest position in the deprivation index, since there are lots of policies and programs for disabled people in Kerala and all of these worked efficiently to offer a better standard of living for the disabled population. The status and conditions of the people with disabilities has so far received inadequate attention in the developmental research. They have also been habitually assumed to be an undersized group. Also, the experts’ attention on health or rehabilitation professionals are outside the scope of development studies.

The above analyses show the severe condition of the disabled population in India. Though the government and NGOs provide various facilities for the disabled, services are accessible only to a limited proportion of the disabled population. There is a need to increase the scale of the facilities provided and increase the outreach. There’s a gloomy picture of the situation of disabled population concerning their working status. The disability deprivation index has shown that most of the states have poor living conditions for the disabled population; Moreover, a huge majority of the disabled population faces problems in day-to-day living. There is a definite need to improvise the quality of life of a person with a disability.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Authors’ contributions

JG, DG and AS contributed in conceptualizing the study. JG is responsible for the analysis. JG and AS contributed to the interpretation of the data, JG, DG and AS were critically revised all versions of the manuscript and approved the final version.

Funding

No Financial Support was used during the paper writing

Availability of data and materials

The data is freely available in the public domain and survey agencies that conducted the field survey for the data collection have collected prior consent from the respondent. Therefore, prior ethical approval for using the datasets was not required. Link for the data is given below.

https://www.mospi.gov.in/web/mospi/download-tables-data/-/reports/view/templateTwo/16204?q=TBDCAT

Ethics approval and consent to participate:

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ameri, M., Schur, L., Adya, M., Bentley, F. S., McKay, P., & Kruse, D. (2018). The disability employment puzzle: A field experiment on employer hiring behavior. ILR Review, 71(2), 329–364.
Awasthi, A., Pandey, C.M., Dubey, M., Rastogi, S., (2017). Trends, prospects and deprivation index of disability in India: Evidences from census 2001 and 2011. Disability and Health Journal. 247–256
Baldwin, M. L., & Johnson, W. G. (2005). A critical review of studies of discrimination against workers with disabilities. Handbook on the economics of discrimination.119–160.
Becker, G. (1971). Employer discrimination: evidence from self-employed workers. The economics of discrimination. Chicago, USA.
Bound, J., & Waidmann, T. (2002). Accounting for recent declines in employment rates among working-aged men and women with disabilities. Journal of Human Resources, 231–250.
Burchardt, T. (2003). Being and becoming: Social exclusion and the onset of disability.
Daly, M. C., & Bound, J. (1996). Worker adaptation and employer accommodation following the onset of a health impairment. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51(2), S53-S60.
DFID (2000). Disability, poverty and development. London, UK: Department for International Development.
Elwan, A. (1999). Poverty and disability: A survey of the literature (Vol. 9932, pp. 1–48). Washington, DC: Social Protection Advisory Service.
Fields, G. S. (2009). Segmented labour market models in developing countries.
Groce, N. E., & Bakhshi, P. (2011). Illiteracy among adults with disabilities in the developing world: A review of the literature and a call for action. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(10), 1153–1168.
Habeck, R. V., Allan, H.H. & Brett V. (1998). Work place factors associated with preventing and managing work disability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 42, 98–139.
Jette, A. M., & Field, M. J. (Eds.). (2007). The future of disability in America.
Kapteyan, A. (2004). Measuring disability. PAA – 2004 annual meeting program, Session 142–144, April 1–3, 28–65.
Kaur, H. A. R. V. I. N. D. E. R., & Van Brakel, W. (2002). Dehabilitation of leprosy affected peopleÐa study on leprosy affected beggars. Lepr Rev, 73, 346ą355.
Kett, M., Lang, R., & Trani, J. (2009). Disability, development and the dawning of a new convention: A cause for optimism?. Journal of International Development, 21(5), 649–661.
Kramarow, E. A., & Elsie, P. (2004). Alternate definition of disability: implications of increasing inclusiveness, PAA 2004 annual meeting program, Session 142–144, April 1–3, 66–71.
Krishna, V. V, Dutt, B.S.V., & Rao, K.H. (2001). Disabled Persons. Discovery Publishing House, New Delhi.
Leonardi, M., Bickenbach, J., Ustun, T. B., Kostanjsek, N., & Chatterji, S. (2006). The definition of disability: what is in a name?. The Lancet, 368(9543), 1219–1221.
Majumder, R., Misra, S., & Walls (2005). Disability: Economic and social development, international. In G. Albrecht (Ed.), The encyclopedia of disability. CA, USA: Sage Publication.
Mitra, S. (2005). Disability: Economic and social development, international.In G. Albrecht (Ed.), The encyclopedia of disability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mitra, S., & Sambamoorthi, U. (2008). Disability and the rural labour market in India: Evidence for males in Tamil Nadu. World Development, 36(5), 934–952.
Mizunoya, S., & Mitra, S. (2013). Is there a disability gap in employment rates in developing countries?. World Development, 42, 28–43.
National Sample Survey Office (2019): “Person with Disability in India” (NSSO 76th Round, July–December 2018, Report No 583(76/26/1)), New Delhi
OECD (2003). Transforming disability into ability: Policies to promote work and income security for persons with disabilities. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2009). Sickness, disability and work: Keeping on track in the economic downturn. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
ORGI. Census of India, 2011. In: Office of the Registrar General Census Commissioner I, ed. Final Population Totals. New Delhi: Government of India; 2011.
Scott, K., & Mete, C. (2008). Measurement of disability and linkages with welfare, employment, and schooling. Economic Implications of Chronic Illnesses and Disability in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Washington, DC: World Bank, 35–66.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2008). Summary of blog discussion on inclusion and disability.
Waidmann, T. (2002). Options for projecting job demands and health status. Revised Projectiomn of Retirement Income Through 2020. For the 1931-60 Birth Cohort, Project report, Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.
WHO & World Bank (2011). World report on disability. Geneva: World Health Organization and World Bank.
WHO. (1981). Disability prevention and rehabilitation. Technical Report Series No. 668. Geneva: WHO.
World Bank (2007a). Social analysis and disability: A guidance note –Incorporating disability- inclusive development into bank-supported projects. Washington, DC: World Bank. 0
World Bank (2011). People with disabilities in India: From commitments to outcomes. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Table 1.1 Prevalence of disability by selected background characteristics of the working-age population and total population, NSSO (2018-19), India.

Background Characteristics	Prevalence
Background Characteristics	15-59 Age Group (N=58236)	All-Age Group (N=106894)
Place of Residence
Rural	2.0 (41112)	2.3 (74946)
Urban	1.5 (17124)	2 (31948)
Gender
Male	2.2 (35124)	2.4 (61567)
Female	1.5 (23099)	2 (45305)
Caste
Others	1.7 (14493)	2.1 (28194)
OBC	1.8 (25408)	2.2 (46121)
SC/ST	2 (18335)	2.3 (32579)
Religion
Hindu	1.8 (46139)	2.2 (84561)
Muslim	1.8 (8182)	2 (14632)
Others	2 (3915)	2.5 (7731)
Marital Status
never married	2.3 (22414)	1.6 (36697)
currently married	1.5 (31261)	2.2 (50025)
widowed/Divorced/Separated	4.1 (4561)	8.1 (20172)
Education Level
Illiterate	3.6 (22556)	4 (50745)
Up to middle	1.9 (21587)	1.7 (37882)
Up to higher secondary	1.1 (10884)	1.3 (13849)
Graduate and above	0.8 (3209)	1.1 (4418)
UMPCE
Poorer	2.3 (11905)	2.8 (21384)
Poor	2 (11402)	2.2 (21400)
Middle	1.7 (12873)	2 (21770)
Richer	1.5 (10412)	1.9 (20979)
Richest	1.5 (11644)	1.9 (21361)
Region
North	1.9 (7748)	2.2 (14280)
North East	1.3 (4826)	1.6 (8824)
West	1.6 (7198)	2 (13538)
South	1.8 (12333)	2.5 (23748)
East	1.9 (12887)	2.1 (23025)
Central	2 (13244)	2.3 (23479)
Total	1.8 (58236)	2.2 (106894)

Table 2.1 Percentage distribution of activity status of all types of disability, NSSO (2018-19), India.

	Employment Status before the onset of disability
Activity Status	Visual	Hearing	Speech and Language	Locomotor	Mental Retardation	Mental Illness	Others
Self employed	13.1	28.8	25.7	17.6	9.2	9.4	10
Regular wage salaried	1.5	2.7	4.9	4.3	_	1.7	2.9
Casual labor	4.1	12.6	8.6	6.0	3.3	5.7	5.4
Unemployed	0.1	0.2	1.4	0.4	_	0.1	0.4
Neither work nor	81.2	55.7	59.4	71.9	87.5	83.1	81.2
available for work
	Employment Status before the onset of disability
Activity Status	Visual	Hearing	Speech and Language	Locomotor	Mental Retardation	Mental Illness	Others
Self employed	8	17.2	12.3	13.9	2.1	4.8	9.0
Regular wage salaried	1.4	2.0	2.4	4.1	0.4	0.8	2.8
Casual labor	2.7	8.6	9.7	5.0	1.5	1.5	4.8
Unemployed	0.6	0.6	2.2	1.0	0.2	0.2	1.2
Neither work nor	87.2	71.7	73.5	76.0	96.0	90.8	82.3
available for work
N	10107	10341	8631	58269	8154	6675	2990

Table 2.2 Multinomial logit regression of loss or change of work due to onset of disability on working-age population (15-59) by their background characteristics, NSSO (2018-19), India.

Background Characteristics	Change of Work LOG(P1/P3)		Loss of Work (P2/P3)
Background Characteristics	RRR	CI	RRR	CI
Place of Residence
Rural ®
Urban	0.746***	[0.681,0.818]	0.831***	[0.775,0.891]
Gender
Male ®
Female	0.966	[0.884,1.056]	0.914*	[0.853,0.980]
Age Group
15-34 ®
35-59	0.725***	[0.630,0.835]	1.238*	[1.092,1.403]
Caste
Others ®
OBC	0.999	[0.912,1.095]	1.043**	[0.971,1.121]
SC/ST	0.866**	[0.782,0.958]	1.054**	[0.974,1.140]
Marital Status
never married ®
currently married	1.039	[0.724,1.490]	0.768	[0.582,1.012]
widowed/Divorced/Separated	1.07	[0.814,1.408]	0.835	[0.680,1.027]
Education Level
Illiterate ®
Up to middle	0.878**	[0.805,0.959]	0.744***	[0.695,0.797]
Up to higher secondary	0.706***	[0.628,0.792]	0.475***	[0.433,0.521]
Graduate and above	0.534***	[0.442,0.645]	0.358***	[0.310,0.414]
Living arrangement
Living with spouse and other household®
Living with spouse only	1.057	[0.930,1.203]	0.900*	[0.815,0.995]
Living without spouse but with parents	0.886	[0.616,1.273]	1.561**	[1.184,2.057]
Children	0.885	[0.654,1.197]	1.093	[0.867,1.376]
Alone	1.05	[0.748,1.472]	0.674**	[0.518,0.877]
Others	0.969	[0.691,1.358]	1.035	[0.800,1.340]
Type of disability
Visual ®
Hearing	0.394***	[0.336,0.461]	0.130***	[0.116,0.146]
Speech and Language	0.494***	[0.330,0.740]	0.459***	[0.356,0.593]
Locomotor	1.847***	[1.627,2.096]	1.293***	[1.184,1.412]
Mental retardation	0.732	[0.333,1.605]	3.300***	[2.139,5.091]
Mental illness	1.131	[0.917,1.395]	2.016***	[1.748,2.326]
Others	1.119	[0.813,1.542]	1.707***	[1.385,2.104]
UMPCE
Poorer ®
Poor	0.95	[0.845,1.069]	0.917	[0.837,1.004]
Middle	1.067	[0.943,1.208]	1.007	[0.914,1.109]
Richer	1.091	[0.959,1.241]	0.968	[0.876,1.071]
Richest	0.856*	[0.739,0.990]	0.884*	[0.791,0.988]
Region
North ®
North East	0.742*	[0.580,0.948]	0.496***	[0.409,0.601]
West	1.373***	[1.198,1.575]	1.191**	[1.068,1.327]
South	0.978	[0.865,1.106]	1.174***	[1.070,1.288]
East	1.002	[0.883,1.137]	0.903*	[0.819,0.996]
Central	1.056	[0.940,1.186]	1.852***	[0.779,0.933]

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001® is reference category

Table 2.3 Unadjusted and Adjusted percentage of loss or change of work due to the onset of disability on working-age population by their background characteristics, NSSO (2018-19), India

Background Characteristics	No loss or change of work		Change of work		loss of work
Background Characteristics	Unadjusted	Adjusted	Unadjusted	Adjusted	Unadjusted	Adjusted
Place of Residence
Rural	25.6	26.4	16.5	16.0	57.9	57.6
Urban	30.6	26.7	14.6	15.0	54.8	58.3
Gender
Male	27.1	25.3	15.9	16.2	57.0	58.5
Female	27.2	29.8	15.9	13.9	57.0	56.4
Age Group
15-34	27.4	26.2	25.0	18.8	47.6	55.0
35-59	29.4	29.5	19.7	18.5	50.9	52.0
Caste
Others	29.5	28.3	16.2	15.9	54.3	55.9
OBC	26.5	25.9	15.5	16.0	57.9	58.1
SC/ST	26.9	25.9	15.8	14.7	57.3	59.3
Marital Status
Never married	22.6	22.3	15.0	13.8	62.4	63.9
Currently married	28.0	29.7	17.4	18.3	54.6	52.0
widowed/Divorced/Separated	24.1	25.3	12.1	11.8	63.8	62.9
Education Level
Illiterate	23.6	22.9	14.2	13.3	62.2	63.8
Up to middle	27.2	27.1	17.4	17.0	55.4	55.9
Up to higher secondary	34.7	34.1	19.6	19.8	45.7	46.1
Graduate and above	41.5	41.1	16.2	17.6	42.3	41.3
Living arrangement
Living with spouse and other household	28.2	29.9	17.8	18.8	54.0	51.4
Living with spouse only	27.3	28.7	15.7	16.2	57.1	55.1
Living without spouse but with parents	21.1	21.9	14.2	13.6	64.8	64.6
Children	23.6	25.0	11.2	11.0	65.2	64.1
Alone	29.1	31.2	17.1	17.3	53.8	51.5
Others	24.3	25.3	13.4	13.8	62.4	60.8
Type of disability
Visual	25.4	25.5	11.6	12.2	63.0	62.3
Hearing	65.5	65.6	11.8	12.1	22.8	22.3
Speech and Language	45.5	42.2	10.3	11.8	44.2	46.0
Locomotor	21.6	22.0	18.3	19.3	60.1	58.8
Mental retardation	13.8	9.4	4.6	4.1	81.6	86.5
Mental illness	18.1	16.7	10.0	9.6	71.9	73.7
Others	21.1	20.3	9.5	10.8	69.5	68.8
UMPCE
Poorer	25.8	26.6	16.1	16.4	58.2	57.1
Poor	27.4	25.9	16.2	16.2	56.4	57.9
Middle	25.3	26.2	16.9	15.9	57.9	57.8
Richer	26.2	26.0	16.6	15.0	57.2	59.0
Richest	30.3	27.9	14.0	14.4	55.8	57.8
Region
North	27.1	26.4	15.5	15.0	57.4	58.5
North East	44.4	41.0	15.6	15.8	40.1	43.2
West	23.4	23.1	18.2	17.2	58.4	59.8
South	24.7	25.3	13.2	12.6	62.1	62.1
East	27.7	27.3	16.4	15.8	55.9	56.9
Central	28.1	27.0	17.6	17.7	54.3	55.3
Total	25.2	26.5	15.3	15.6	59.5	57.9

Table 3.1 Disability Deprivation Index of all Indian states, NSSO (2018-19), India.

States	(D₁)	(D₂)	(D₃)	(D₄)	Di1	Di2	Di3	Di4	Deprivation Index	Rank
Kerala	70.74	18.68	53.49	5.6	0.56	0	0.25	0.3	0.28	1
Delhi	53.96	27.7	62.75	6.94	0	0.21	0.62	0.42	0.31	2
Chhattisgarh	68.9	43.96	47.42	6.81	0.5	0.59	0	0.41	0.37	3
Tripura	81.28	35.72	56.79	2.14	0.91	0.4	0.38	0	0.42	4
Assam	54.68	38.5	54.77	13.49	0.02	0.46	0.3	1	0.45	5
Haryana	69.63	45.62	64.13	3.04	0.52	0.63	0.68	0.08	0.48	6
Himachal Pradesh	83.97	37.41	59.87	2.26	1	0.44	0.5	0.01	0.49	7
Tamil Nadu	69.17	45.62	64.94	4.26	0.51	0.63	0.71	0.19	0.51	8
Gujarat	76.12	39.83	57.95	7	0.74	0.49	0.43	0.43	0.52	9
Odisha	67.88	49.31	59.2	8.27	0.46	0.71	0.48	0.54	0.55	10
West Bengal	70.49	44.22	69.78	5.49	0.55	0.6	0.9	0.3	0.59	11
Karnataka	72.41	49.05	67.74	4.73	0.61	0.71	0.82	0.23	0.59	12
Uttarakhand	66.28	38.24	63.2	12.54	0.41	0.46	0.64	0.92	0.61	13
Maharashtra	76.65	38.06	68.63	7.91	0.76	0.45	0.86	0.51	0.64	14
Jharkhand	72.99	51.37	66.93	7.1	0.63	0.76	0.79	0.44	0.66	15
Uttar Pradesh	71.26	54.87	69.4	7.13	0.58	0.84	0.89	0.44	0.69	16
Madhya Pradesh	75.59	47.77	65.85	9.13	0.72	0.68	0.75	0.62	0.69	17
J&K	70.47	53.12	71.16	8.21	0.55	0.8	0.96	0.53	0.71	18
Punjab	63.98	48.68	72.13	11.68	0.33	0.7	1	0.84	0.72	19
Telangana	81.28	59.35	66.7	6.65	0.91	0.95	0.78	0.4	0.76	20
Andhra Pradesh	80.99	61.57	61.05	8.97	0.9	1	0.55	0.6	0.76	21
Rajasthan	78.47	55.39	69.59	9.79	0.82	0.86	0.9	0.67	0.81	22
Bihar	79.82	52.4	71.32	10.43	0.86	0.79	0.97	0.73	0.84	23
India	73.18	47.78	65.8	7.52	0.64	0.68	0.74	0.47	0.63

D1 - Loss or change of work, D2 - Illiteracy, D3 - Difficulty in Public Transport, D4 - Beggars

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Disability, Work Status, and Deprivation among working age-group: Shreds of evidence from NSS 76 TH round Data

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Data And Methodology

Results

3.1.2 Effect of disability on loss or change of work

3.1.2 Level of deprivation due to disability: Disability Deprivation Index

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1