Advertisement

Illness Behaviour and Disability

  • Monroe Berkowitz

Abstract

The recent crisis in the administration of the Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) program in the United States highlights the failure of social scientists in general and economists in particular to influence the development of public policy in this crucial area. Perhaps the DI experience is only one of many illustrations of how difficult it is to have complex human conditions responded to by welfare decisions which are attuned to individual circumstances yet are explicit, predictable, challengeable and politically palatable (Bolderson, 1985).

Keywords

Current Population Survey Work Disability Vocational Rehabilitation Disable Person Direct Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berkowitz, E. D. (1979). The American disability system in historical perspective. In E. D. Berkowitz . (Eds.), Disability policies and government programs. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Berkowitz, E. D., & Berkowitz, M. (1983, January). Benefit cost analysis. National Rehabilitation Information Center.Google Scholar
  3. Berkowitz, M. (1985, January). Disability expenditures 1970–1982. New Brunswick, NJ: University Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  4. Bolderson, H. (1985, March). Disability benefits and administrative law judges in the United States of America. Journal of Social Welfare Law. Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  5. Committee on Finance. (1983, September). U.S. Senate, staff data and materials related to the Social Security Act disability programs (Senate Print No. 98–93). 98th Congress, 1st Session.Google Scholar
  6. Crewe, N. M., & Turner, R. R. (1984). A functional assessment system for vocational rehabilitation. Functional assessment in rehabilitation. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. General Accounting Office. (1981, March 3).More diligent needed to weed out ineligible SSA disability beneficiaries.(Report No. HRD8l– 48). Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General.Google Scholar
  8. Haber, L. (198A, November 29-30 Trends in demographic studies on programs and disabled persons. Switzer Memorial Seminar, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Haveman, R. H., & Wolfe, B. L. (1984). The decline in male labor force participation: Comment. Journal of Political Economy, 92, No. 3.Google Scholar
  10. Leonard, J. (1979). The social security and disability program and labor force participation. (Working Paper No. 392). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  11. Nagi, S. (1969). Disability and rehabilitation. Columbus, OH: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Parsons, D. 0. (1980, February). The decline in male labor force participation. Journal of Political Economy (pp.117–134.)Google Scholar
  13. Treitel, R. (1979). Recovery of disabled benef iciaries: A 1975 followup study of 1972 allowances. Social Security Bulletin, 42, 3–23.Google Scholar
  14. Weaver, C. (1986). Thinking about social security disability policy in the 1980’s and beyond. In M. Berkowitz & M. A. Hill (Eds.), Disability and the labor market: Ecomonic problems, policies and programs. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
  15. World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  16. Worrall, J. D., & Butler, R. J. (1986). Some lessons of workers’ compensation. In M. Berkowitz & M. A. Hill (Eds.), Disability and the labor market: Economic problems, policies and programs. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monroe Berkowitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations