Welfare Policy Reforms, Citizenship and Social Movement Mobilization: A Comparative Case-Study of the Disability Movement in Germany, Norway and the UK

This paper examines the relationship between welfare policy reforms and the capacity for social movement mobilisation among disabled citizens. More specifically, we evaluate to what extent strong structuration theory (Stones, O’Reilly) and political opportunity theory (McAdam, Meyer, Tarrow) may inform our understanding of the relationship between welfare policy reforms and the capacity for social movement mobilisation among disabled citizens. For this purpose we draw on examples from country case studies of the disability movement in Germany, Norway and UK. Adopting a historical-comparative approach we examine the relations disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) have developed to public authorities and their capacity for collective voice and influencing public policy. We examine how the historical relations to the government and capacity for collective voice have shaped how DPOs have mobilised around the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. While existing research has argued that the emerging human rights regime has created new opportunities for DPOs to side-step national authorities and mobilise at the EU and UN level, we examine how national policies influence the capacities of DPOs to take advantage of the new political opportunities. While Norway has been characterised by relatively benign relations between the government and DPOs and high degree of coordination among national DPOs, UK has been characterised by more adversarial relations between the government and DPOs and a more fragmented disability movement. Germany has represented an intermediary case between Norway and the UK, with phases of both cooperation and contention. This paper examines the social mechanisms behind the national differences. We argue that national disability policies have shaped not only the relationship between national authorities and the DPOs but also the capacity for collective action and social mobilisation among disabled people. The paper concludes by identifying implications for social movement theory and welfare policy research.