Inclusive education for children with disabilities in third world countries (intersectionality between disability, gender and poverty)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ragn20

Agenda Empowering women for gender equity

ISSN: 1013-0950 (Print) 2158-978X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ragn20

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies

Jacqueline Moodley & Lauren Graham

To cite this article: Jacqueline Moodley & Lauren Graham (2015) The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies, Agenda, 29:2, 24-33, DOI: 10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802

Published online: 14 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5581

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

The importance of intersectionality in

disability and gender studies

Jacqueline Moodley and Lauren Graham

abstract Investigations into the relationship between poverty and disability are limited, particularly from a South African perspective. In addition, when this relationship is addressed it is usually in isolation of other social characteristics, such as gender. As such the intersections between disability, gender, race and poverty are often overlooked – yet internationally research points to gender gaps in outcomes for people with disabilities. This briefing seeks to address this gap by reporting on a national study on poverty and disability in South Africa. We make use of the theory of intersectionality as a lens to interpret evidence from a national survey, the South African National Income Dynamics Study (South African Labour and Development Research Unit, 2014). Specifically, we assess how poverty and disability intersect to shape particular outcomes for women as compared to men with disabilities. This briefing demonstrates that in South Africa disability intersects with gender as well as age and race to result in negative outcomes in education, employment and income for all people with disabilities, but particularly black women with disabilities. Evidence is provided for what we theorise to be the case – that disability and gender intersect to compound negative outcomes for black women with disabilities.

keywords disability, gender, poverty, intersectionality, South Africa

Introduction

In the last decade the link between poverty and disability in developing nations has received increased research attention (Lustig and Strauser, 2007; Braithwaite and Mont, 2009; Barnes and Sheldon, 2010; Grech, 2011; Mitra et al, 2013). While this has been a welcome development in the literature on disability, thus far a gendered lens on the relationship has largely been missing, particu- larly in research focusing on developing coun- tries. This is despite data in developed country contexts that point to greater disad- vantages faced by women with disabilities (Emmett and Alant, 2006). In South Africa in particular reliable data on disability have been limited until recently, and analysis thereof has

largely overlooked the intersections of race, gender and disability (Emmet, 2006). On the other hand, feminist writers have under-inves- tigated the experiences of women with dis- abilities. There therefore seems to be a gap in various bodies of literature, through which women with disabilities fall.

In applying theories of intersectionality (Cho et al, 2013) to the context of poverty and disability in South Africa, it becomes evident that women with disabilities are likely to fare worse than their male counterparts. Despite this theoretical contention, and not- withstanding Emmet and Alant (2006) point- ing to the need for a gendered lens on disability and poverty research, to date no studies have taken on the task of empirically

Agenda 104/29.2 2015

ISSN 1013-0950 print/ISSN 2158-978X online # 2015 J. Moodley and L. Graham http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802 pp. 24–33

b ri e fi n g

assessing whether or not there are gendered gaps in the experiences of people with disab- ilities. The question then arises: Can we prove empirically that gender and disability intersect to produce poorer outcomes for women with disabilities?

In this briefing we argue that the intersec- tion between gender and disability (as well as race) can be empirically demonstrated in rela- tion to education, employment and income outcomes for people with disabilities. We do this by comparing data on these outcomes for people with and without disabilities, and for men and women with disabilities. We also show the role that race plays in shaping these outcomes. In assessing poverty in this briefing we take a multidimensional view and measure aspects of poverty including education, employment and income for both men and women with disabilities (Noble, 2006).

It must be noted that poverty outcomes are shaped by many factors including gender, race, class and, in the context of this article, type and severity of impairment. This article does not undertake to investigate all of these complexities, but rather to highlight the rela- tionship between gender, race and disability in shaping poverty outcomes. However, we do acknowledge that various other identity mar- kers, such as class, mediate these outcomes. The social and material assets that come from being middle class can, for instance, mitigate the vulnerabilities of disability. While this is acknowledged, we do not explore this further in this briefing.

We recognise that qualitative research is best placed to investigate how gendered relationships manifest and shape outcomes for men and women, including those with disabilities. Although surveys obscure such complexities, they nevertheless play a crucial role in demonstrating empirically overarching outcomes of inequality for particular groups of people. This is particularly important in contexts where such high-level empirical data have not been available or analysed with a gendered lens.

Understanding the link between

poverty and disability and the under-

investigated role of gender

“Disability may increase the risk of poverty, and poverty may increase the risk of disabil-

ity”, says the World Health Organization (WHO) (2011:10). This concomitant relation- ship between poverty and disability has received increasing attention in recent years, with research demonstrating causal links in both directions between poverty and disability (Braithwaite and Mont, 2009; Barnes and Sheldon, 2010; Grech, 2011; Groce et al, 2011). Therefore if a person has a disability they are less likely to have benefitted from formal education, and more likely to be unemployed. If employed, they will earn sig- nificantly less than their non-disabled coun- terparts (Lang and Upah, 2008; Graham et al, 2014). Similarly, poorer people have a higher risk of becoming disabled.

Can we prove empirically that gender and disability intersect to produce poorer outcomes for women with disabilities?

While this research has enhanced our understanding of the ways in which poverty and disability interact, Yeo (2005) argues that the focus on causal relationships obscures the similarities between the processes of margin- alisation experienced by people living with a disability and poor people. She therefore argues that disability and poverty are often manifestations of the same processes.

Theories of intersectionality provide a lens to better understand the mutual processes of marginalisation and exclusion that pertain to poverty and disability. Originating in the fem- inist writings of Crenshaw (1991), intersec- tionality as an analytical tool allows us to acknowledge the multiple identities of an individual and how these result in various experiences of disadvantage or advantage. Intersectionality lends itself to understanding qualitatively different experiences of margin- alisation based on the multiple identities that people hold (Symington, 2004). While the focus is on the different experiences, inter- sectionality can also be used to understand the compounding effects of multiple identities (Emmet and Alant, 2006). In this briefing we use intersectionality to demonstrate the latter.

When considering the effects of poverty and disability there are clear indications of how one compounds the other. Research demonstrates, for instance, that both poverty and disability can result in reduced education levels. Emmett (2006:230) explains that

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies 25

b rie

fin g

schools (whether special or mainstream) “often do not make sufficient provision for the special educational needs of children with disabilities”. In essence early-onset disability may result in limited education. In addition, late-onset disability in the face of a poor education due to poverty means that when an individual incurs impairment, they also do not have education assets to convert into productive capacity. Groce and colleagues (2011) identify lack of education as a contrib- uting factor to poverty amongst people with disabilities. Equally poverty has an adverse impact on education (Mitra et al, 2011).

Davaki and colleagues (2013) use inter- sectionality to show that the interaction of gender, disability, race and poverty restrict women’s access to education, resulting in later exclusion from employment. Mizunoya and Mitra (2013) note that employment rates among people with disabilities were lower than for non-disabled people in eight develop- ing countries. But poverty also plays a role in these outcomes. Loeb et al (2008) found that in the Eastern Cape of South Africa, where unemployment is generally high, there was a negligible difference in employment rates among disabled and non-disabled working- age people. However, in the Western Cape, where the economy is stronger, there were significant differences with the employment rate among non-disabled working-age adults being double that of those with disabilities. Clearly therefore poverty and disability have compounding effects due to processes of marginalisation arising from both identities.

However, very little research in developing contexts has demonstrated similar intersec- tional effects of disability, poverty and gender (amongst other identity markers) (Emmet and Alant, 2006). Drawing on data from developed country contexts (Elwan, 1999; Jans and Stoddard, 1999), Emmet and Alant (2006) note that women with disabilities fare worse on employment rates and income when they are employed. Similarly, women with disabilities fare worse than their male counterparts on education outcomes and access to social assistance. In developing countries data are largely anecdotal, but do point to the instances where girls with disab- ilities receive less health and education atten- tion and inadequate nutrition (Emmet and Alant, 2006).

The abuse of women with disabilities has also received some attention in research

(Mays, 2006; Smith, 2008). Naidu and collea- gues (2005) indicate how African-American women with disabilities experience what is known as the triple jeopardy syndrome of oppression based on their gender, race and disability. In addition, they describe African women, who make up the greatest proportion of people with disabilities in South Africa, as the most marginalised group in society. Yet strong empirical evidence of the ways in which gender, poverty, race and disability intersect to compound negative outcomes in South Africa has thus far been absent.

With this in mind, we present data that demonstrate the compounding effects of gen- der, race and disability in three areas – education, employment and income. While we consider poverty to be multidimensional, these three variables are key indicators of a person’s level of human and financial capital and therefore provide a good indication of poverty outcomes.

Methodology

Research design This article draws on the secondary data analysis of Wave 2 (2011) data from the National Income Dynamic Study (NIDS) (South African Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU), 2014). According to Leib- brandt, Woolard and De Villiers (2009), sam- pling for NIDS involved a stratified, two-stage cluster sample design. The target population for NIDS was private households as well as respondents living in workers’ hostels, con- vents and monasteries. Wave 2 of the NIDS data included 16 898 adults in the survey. The data are representative at national level.

The adult questionnaire included a number of questions on activities of daily living that could be used to determine whether an indi- vidual had an impairment. These included questions related to lower- and upper-body mobility, sight, hearing, and self-care. The self- reported answers were used as an operational proxy for persons with disabilities and reflected the respondents’ own self-reported indication of experiences of difficulties in activities of daily living (i.e. in the relationship between an impairment and their environment).

While self-reporting of difficulties is a reliable way of questioning people about individual difficulties, there was no medical assessment of levels of vision, hearing and

26 AGENDA 104/29.2 2015

b ri e fi n g

mobility (WHO, 2011). In order to assess differences in education, income and employ- ment between respondents with disabilities and those without, as well as between males and females, two forms of analysis were conducted. First, analysis of measures of central tendency, such as the mean or median for people with disabilities and those without, and men and women were conducted. Sec- ond, where differences were found, linear or logistic multiple regression was conducted to identify which factors contributed most strongly to the differences.

The questions in the NIDS data allowed assessment of mobility, sight and hearing impairments, but did not allow for a reliable assessment of psychosocial, emotional and intellectual difficulties. The study therefore used a narrow categorisation of disability.

Results

Prevalence of disability The data indicated that 14% of the sample experienced disabilities. In line with interna- tional experience, the average age for people with disabilities was 49 years, compared to 35 years for people without a disability. This is due to the fact that experience of impair- ment increases with age due to onset of chronic ailments such as arthritis. Further- more, 67% of people with disabilities were female and 33% were male. This is probably explained by the fact that women tend to be more likely to report difficulties than men (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012).

The 2011 South African Census indicated that the demographic population of 51.7 million people comprised 79.2% black Afri- cans, 8.9% Whites, 8.9% Coloureds1 and 2.5% Indians/Asians. In terms of race, 83% of people with disabilities in the NIDS were black, reflecting this general population breakdown. People with disabilities were more likely to live in larger households and

were more likely than those without disabilit- ies to be married or living with a partner. Like those without disabilities, adults with disabil- ities were likely to have around two children living with them.

Education In terms of education, people with disabilities had an average of 2.5 years less education than non-disabled people (p<0.05). Further- more, women with disabilities acquired the lowest levels of education, as seen in Table 1.

When schooling categories are compared, it is clear that more people with disabilities, and specifically more women with disabilities, did not attend school. In addition, Figure 1 shows that fewer people with disabilities were accessing and completing secondary school education. Overall, even fewer num- bers of people with disabilities indicated hav- ing accessed tertiary education. This clearly demonstrates that overall people with disabil- ities fare worse on educational attainment than their non-disabled counterparts. Men with disabilities fare worse than women with- out disabilities. Further, women with disabilit- ies are at a greater disadvantage than men with disabilities.

Regression analysis revealed that while age and disability had an impact on the level of educational attainment, race was in fact the largest contributor to lower levels of education, as might be expected given South Africa’s apartheid education policies. White individuals had on average 5.7 years more education than Black individuals, while Asian/Indian indivi- duals had an average of 2.4 years more educa- tion than Black individuals. On average, Coloured individuals had only 0.5 more years of education than Black individuals.

Gender was not a significant contributor to education levels. Thus, while gender and disability intersect to produce particular out- comes, it is important to note that other aspects of identity, including age and race, must also be considered. Race particularly

Table 1: Educational attainment (mean) by disability status and gender, NIDS Wave 2.

People with disabilities Non-disabled people

Male (n=764) Female (n=1546) Male (n=6225) Female (n=8363)

6.1 5.7 8.5 8.2

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies 27

b rie

fin g

destabilises the poverty-disability nexus in South Africa, as is seen in Table 2, which highlights (for example) that White women with disabilities attain more years of educa- tion than Black men without disabilities.

Employment The second major outcome to consider is employment. Table 3 demonstrates that peo- ple with disabilities are significantly less likely to be employed. They are also less likely to be unemployed. This is because they are far more likely not to be economically active. As can be expected, race interacts to shape these outcomes. As an example, the advantages of being White in South Africa counteract the negative effects of gender and disability in the labour market. A White woman with a

disability is as likely to be employed as a Black man without a disability.2

A logistic regression shows that Africans have much lower odds than Blacks, Asian/ Indians and Whites to be employed. Black people with disabilities face a double exclu- sion and Black women with disabilities fare the worst in terms of labour market out- comes. While for some people with disabilit- ies impairments may be so severe as to limit ability to work, most people with disabilities are likely to be able to work but face difficult- ies associated with the workplace environ- ment and attitudes. Therefore while some of the explanation for low levels of labour market participation are likely to be linked to the experience of disability, other factors such as labour market disillusionment are also prob- ably a significant contributor.

9.9

21.4

50.6

16.5

1.6

27.8 26.1

32.7

12.8

0.7

13.5

20.0

48.4

16.6

1.6

30.8 28.6 30.8

9.2

0.7 0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

No schooling Primary school completed

Some secondary schooling

Secondary school completed

Ter�ary educa�on

Non-disabled males Men with disabili�es Non-disabled females Females with disabili�es

Figure 1. Categories of education by disability status and gender, NIDS Wave 2.

Table 2: Educational attainments (mean) by race and disability status, NIDS Wave 2.

People with disabilities Non-disabled people

Male Female Male Female

Black (n=13 998) 5.9 5.5 8.3 8 Coloured (n=2119) 5.8 6.2 8.5 8.2 Indian/Asian (n=175) 8 7.7 10.5 10 White (n=464) 10.8 10.8 12.2 11.8

28 AGENDA 104/29.2 2015

b ri e fi n g

The table also demonstrates the gender inequalities that exist within the labour mar- ket. Men with disabilities are slightly more likely than women without disabilities to be employed. Women with and without disabilit- ies are more likely than their male counter- parts to be unemployed or not economically active. Household care responsibilities and gendered attitudes regarding employment are likely to explain these differences. Clearly therefore both disability and gender intersect to produce particularly negative employment outcomes for women with disabilities.

Income In this research Income is measured both by income earned from employment as well as from social grants. The data were interpreted in terms of the Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) indices (Foster et al, 2010), which provide a lower-bound (below ZAR 502) and upper- bound (above ZAR 924) poverty line. The FGT index determines the extent of absolute poverty that individuals experience, providing a lower and upper poverty line determined by

the minimum monthly income required to meet basic needs. While an absolute measure of poverty has limitations, it is useful in providing a clear basis upon which to com- pare how different groups fare and to assess whether progress in poverty levels is being made over time.

In terms of earnings from work, non- disabled people earned a median monthly income of ZAR 1643 compared to ZAR 1189 for people with disabilities. When the median income is assessed by gender in Table 4, it is clear that women with disabilities again fare worse that the other groups, and are the lowest earners in terms of income from work.

It was clear that people with disabilities benefit a great deal from social grants, as is demonstrated in Table 4 when all grants are included in the income calculation. Further analysis demonstrates the poverty-alleviating effects of grants, particularly for women.

As is demonstrated in Figures 2 and 3, when combining income from employment and the Disability Grant, the majority of respondents fall below the lower bound of the poverty line. Women (both with and

Table 3: Employment status by disability status and gender for people aged between 15 and 59 years, NIDS Wave 2.

People with disabilities Non-disabled people

Male (n=533)

Female (n=962)

Total (n=1495)

Male (n=5638)

Female (n=7372)

Total (n=

13 010)

Not economically active

56.5% 63.1% 60.7% 45.7% 54.6% 50.7%

Unemployed 11.8% 13.1% 12.6% 15.3% 17.3% 16.4% Employed 31.7% 23.8% 26.6% 39.0% 28.1% 32.8%

Table 4: Monthly median income from employment, and employment and social grants by disability status and gender.

People with disabilities Non-disabled people

Male (n=764)

Female (n=1546)

Male (n=6225)

Female (n=8363)

Median income from employment

ZAR 1639 ZAR 986 ZAR 1829 ZAR 1367

Median income from employment and social grants

ZAR 987 ZAR 986 ZAR 1370 ZAR 924

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies 29

b rie

fin g

without disabilities) make up the largest per- centage of people to earn less than ZAR 502 per month. In addition, the percentage of women with disabilities earning more than ZAR 924 per month was very low when compared to men with disabilities and non- disabled people.

When all social grant income is taken into consideration, it is clear that all people bene- fit, but that women with disabilities benefit most. The percentage of women with disab- ilities who are pushed above the upper bound of the poverty line is 36.8%. The social grants therefore play a huge role in poverty alleviation for all.

While some of the significant differences in income can be attributed to disability and

gender, regression analysis showed that a further determinant of earnings (both from work and social grants) is race, with White, Coloured and Indian/Asian individuals earning ZAR 4563, ZAR 422 and ZAR 1238 respect- ively more than Black individuals. Interest- ingly, with regard to median income from employment and social grants, white women with disabilities were found to earn a median of ZAR 294 less than black men without disabilities. In addition, black non-disabled women earned a median income of ZAR 71 less than black women with disabilities, once again highlighting the poverty alleviation effects of social grants for women with disabilities. These findings further demon- strate the complexities of intersectionality.

65.9

4.8

29.3

70.9

4.1

25.0

77.0

4.9

18.0

83.6

3.8 12.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Below ZAR 502 Between ZAR 502 and ZAR 924

More than ZAR 924

Non-disabled males Men with disabili�es Non-disabled females Females with disabili�es

Figure 2. FGT levels of income from work and the Disability Grant by gender and disability status.

59.2

5.6

35.2 44.8

5.5

49.7

59.9

9.7

30.4

42.1

8.5

49.4

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Below ZAR 502 Between ZAR 502 and ZAR 924

More than ZAR 924

Non-disabled males Men with disabili�es Non-disabled females Females with disabili�es

Figure 3. FGT levels of income from work and all grants by gender and disability status.

30 AGENDA 104/29.2 2015

b ri e fi n g

Discussion and conclusion

The above data demonstrate empirically what has been argued theoretically – that disability and gender intersect to create negative out- comes for people with disabilities, for women and particularly for black women with disab- ilities. Women with disabilities on average have the lowest levels of education, are the most likely to be economically inactive and earn the lowest median income. However, race destabilises this relationship and high- lights how black men without disabilities still fare worse than white women with disabilities with regard to education and employment.

In addition, women with disabilities face key constraints in terms of their gender, particularly with regard to labour market par- ticipation and income. These include being primarily responsible for household care, thus limiting participation in the labour market, and pay inequalities within the labour market. In addition, their disability serves to compound their experience, creating further barriers. Low levels of employment of people with disabilit- ies means that those with disabilities are likely to experience increased disillusionment in the labour market, leading to greater likeliness of opting out of the labour market. Other burdens such as travel costs for work seeking for people with disabilities may contribute to limited labour market participation. As a res- ult, women with disabilities have compounded barriers to accessing the labour market. When they do so they are likely to earn less, demon- strating the many ways in which disability and poverty compound one another.

In the face of this situation social grants evidently play a key role in poverty alleviation, particularly for women and women with dis- abilities. Social grants, as shown in this brief- ing, are seen as instrumental in lifting women with disabilities above the upper bound of the poverty line and affording them a minimum daily standard of living. However, grants are limited in their transformative effects, parti- cularly in the face of additional costs that people with disabilities may face, including health and transport costs.

While other identity markers have not been considered in this briefing in any depth, the data allude to the fact that in South Africa race is still the strongest predictor of earn- ings, education and employment and inter- sects with gender and disability to generate

negative outcomes. The data presented in this briefing show empirically that white women with disabilities fare better than black non- disabled men, which challenges common conclusions about the relationship between poverty and disability solely.

These findings highlight the importance of intersectionality when analysing such rela- tionships. They also show that black women with disabilities are the worst affected, as they face a triple burden of the legacy of inequalities in race, gender and disabilities.

in South Africa race is still the strongest predictor of earnings, education and employment and intersects with gender and disability to generate negative outcomes

What is clear throughout this briefing is that there are complexities in the intersection- ality between gender, race, poverty and dis- ability. While some policies exist to address disability, gender and race, the results show that black women with disabilities are not benefitting optimally from these. These wo- men with disabilities therefore need to be identified as a group requiring specific inter- ventions so that inequalities based on their identities are addressed successfully.

Notes

1. In South Africa the term ‘Coloured’ is an ethnic label for people of mixed ethnic origin. The gov- ernment requires all organisations to report on the number of people registered in terms of the four official race categories so that it can monitor transformation.

2. Data need to be interpreted with caution due to high non-response error.

References

Barnes C and Sheldon A (2010) ‘Disability, politics and poverty in a majority world context’, In Disability and Society 25, 7, 771–782. doi:10.1080/ 09687599.2010.520889.

Braithwaite J and Mont D (2009) ‘Disability and poverty: A survey of World Bank poverty assess- ments and implications’, in ALTER - European Journal of Disability Research / Revue Européenne de Recherche Sur Le Handicap 3, 3, 219–232. doi:10.1016/j.alter.2008.10.002.

Cho S, Crenshaw KW and McCall L (2013) ‘Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applica- tions and praxis’, in Signs 38, 4, 785–810.

Crenshaw K (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: Intersection- ality, identity politics, and violence against women of color’, in Stanford Law Review 43, 6.

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies 31

b rie

fin g

Davaki K, Marzo C, Narminio E and Arvanitidou M (2013) Discrimination generated by the intersec- tion of gender and disability, Brussels, Belgium: European Parliament: Policy Department C – Citi- zens Rights and Constitutional Affairs.

Elwan A (1999) Poverty and disability: a survey of the literature. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Emmett T (2006) ‘Disability, poverty, gender and race’, in Brian Watermeyer, Leslie Swartz, Theresa Lor- enzo, Marguerite Schneider and Mark Priestley (eds) Disability and Social Change: A South African Perspective, Cape Town: HSRC Press, p. 207–233.

Emmett T and Alant E (2006) ‘Women and disability: Exploring the interface of multiple disadvantage’, Development Southern Africa 23, 4, 445–460. doi:10.1080/03768350600927144.

Foster J, Greer J and Thorbecke E (2010) ‘The Foster– Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty measures: 25 years later’, in Journal of Economic Inequality 8, 4, 491–524. doi:10.1007/s10888-010-9136-1

Graham L, Moodley J, Ismail Z, Munsaka E, Ross E and Schneider M (2014) Poverty and Disability in South Africa: A National Study, Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg.

Grech S (2011) ‘Poverty and disability’, in Disability and Society 26, 7, 888–891. doi:10.1080/096875 99.2011.618747.

Groce N, Kett M, Lang R and Trani J (2011) ‘Disability and poverty: The need for a more nuanced under- standing of implications for development policy and practice’, in Third World Quarterly, available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1306106/.

Jans L and Stoddard S (1999) Chartbook on women and disability in the United States. An InfoUse Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Edu- cation, National Institute on Disability and Rehab- ilitation Research.

Lang R and Upah L (2008) Scoping Study: Disability Issues in Nigeria. Commissioned by DFID. United Kingdom: DFID. Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ lc-ccr/downloads/scopingstudies/dfid_nigeriareport.

Leibbrandt M, Woolard I and De Villiers L (2009) Methodology: Report on NIDS Wave 1. National Income Dynamics Study, Cape Town: Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.

Loeb M, Eide AH, Jelsma J, Ka Toni M and Maart S (2008) ‘Poverty and disability in Eastern and West- ern Cape provinces, South Africa’, in Disability & Society 23, 4, 311–321. doi:10.1080/096875908 02038803

Lustig D and Strauser D (2007) ‘Causal relationships between poverty and disability’, in Rehabilitation

Counseling Bulletin 50, 4, 194–202. doi:10.1177/ 00343552070500040101.

Mays J (2006) ‘Feminist disability theory: Domestic violence against women with a disability’, in Dis- ability and Society 21, 2, 147–58. doi:10.1080/ 09687590500498077.

Mitra S, Posarac A and Vick BC (2011) Disability and poverty in developing countries: A snapshot from the World Health Survey, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1908128, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abs tract=1908128

Mitra S, Posarac A and Vick B (2013) ‘Disability and poverty in developing countries: A multidimen- sional study’, in World Development 41 (January), 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.024.

Mizunoya S and Mitra S (2013) ‘Is there a disability gap in employment rates in developing countries?’, in World Development 42, 28–43. doi:10.1016/j. worlddev.2012.05.037

Naidu E, Haffejee S, Vetten L and Hargreaves S (2005) On the margins: Violence against women with disabilities, Johannesburg: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Noble M (2006) The provincial indices of multiple deprivation for South Africa 2001, Oxford: Centre for the Analysis of South Africa Social Policy, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ment (OECD) (2012) ‘Self-reported health and disability’, in Health at a Glance: Europe 2012, OECD Publishing.

Smith D (2008) ‘Disability, gender and intimate partner violence: Relationships from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System’, in Sexuality and Dis- ability 26, 1, 15–28. doi:10.1007/s11195-007- 9064-6.

South African Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU) (2014) National Income Dynamics Study 2010–2011, Wave 2 [dataset], Version 2.2, Cape Town: SALDRU [producer], DataFirst [distributor].

Symington A (2004) ‘Intersectionality: a tool for gender and economic justice’, in Women’s Rights and Economic Change, 9 (August), 1–8.

World Health Organization (2011) World Report on Disability, Geneva: World Health Organization Press.

Yeo R (2005) Disability, poverty and the new develop- ment agenda, Research report prepared for the KaR Programme, available at: http://www.disabilitykar. net, site accessed June 1, 2008.

32 AGENDA 104/29.2 2015

b ri e fi n g

JACQUELINE MOODLEY is a researcher at the Centre for Social Develop- ment at the University of Johannesburg, and is a trained research psycho- logist. Jacqueline has worked on a study on poverty and disability in Johannesburg, as well as the National Study on Poverty and Disability. Her other research interests include mental illness and resilience amongst women. Email: [email protected]

LAUREN GRAHAM is a senior researcher at the Centre for Social Develop- ment in Africa at the University of Johannesburg. She is trained as a development sociologist. She has a keen interest in disability studies, and was the lead researcher on the National Study on Poverty and Disability that the CSDA recently concluded with funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. She also retains an interest in youth studies, including a focus on youth employability. She completed her doctorate on young people’s negotiation of risk in their everyday identity work in 2012. Email: [email protected]

The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies 33

b rie

fin g