6.1 What is disability?
There are many different ways of understanding and interpreting disability. Disability takes various forms and is quite difficult to understand for both non-disabled persons and people with disabilities. The available data reflect this confusion as well: according to an oft-cited WHO figure, the prevalence of people with disabilities is on average 10% worldwide. However, DISTAT, the UN database on disability, which summarises statistics from different countries, mentions figures ranging from as low as 0.3% in Thailand to as high as 20% in New Zealand, . These examples show that disability is difficult to measure and define. There is no single definition of disability, but rather a variety of differing understandings and concepts. For example, does short-sightedness qualify as a disability? Is a person with an artificial finger considered to be disabled? Is a deaf person who can communicate efficiently using sign language disabled? Each country collects data on disability based on its understanding of disability, which varies greatly from one country to the next. In the PRS context, data and figures are very useful means of convincing decision-makers. In order to obtain a comprehensive understanding as well as to produce reliable and comparable data, international agencies – such as the WHO – are currently working on a general definition. Modifications of existing models in the last few years, and the emergence of a new definition (the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)), show that we are still in a process of understanding disability.
The research currently underway towards achieving an international definition is extremely challenging, as models of disability are strongly influenced by culture. The following sub-sections explain the four main models for understanding disability:
On top of this, the ICF and the international guidelines on disability will be introduced. However, we need to keep in mind that these models and definitions are proposals for understanding “disability”, and that a personal situation, or a country-specific one, may not absolutely fit the models. These models and definitions are moreover mainly influenced by western researchers and/or DPOs in industrialised countries. Consequently they do not necessarily fit other country contexts and cultural backgrounds. These models (especially the social and rights-based models) provide the basis for any action concerning disability, e.g. development programmes. It is helpful to be aware of these models when communicating with somebody from another context in order to know what s/he is talking about and to find effective ways of explaining your own position.
A note on language
The following sub-sections also explore the differences between the terms “disability”, “impairment”, etc., because there is a lack of common understanding of the distinction. The problem is also linked to the use of different definitions. Problems of understanding are exacerbated when translating terms into or from other languages: some languages do not have an equivalent word for “disability”, but instead many words for different types of disabilities. Even different European languages face this problem. There is an ongoing discussion about the use of non-discriminatory language. This text does not seek to judge which words are right or wrong, but rather to encourage reflection and discussion about the different terms.
