Delia Ferri

Fostering accessible technology and sculpting an inclusive market through regulation

Technology has attracted an increasing level of attention within disability studies. Even though an ambivalent attitude towards technological innovation still remains (Sheldon 2003; Macdonald and Clayton 2013), several scholars appreciate that advances in technology have enabled more persons with disabilities than ever before to actively participate in society (Halvorsen 2010; Blanck 2014; Giannoumis 2014). Disability studies’ scepticism towards technology derives from the fear that technology becomes another way to ‘fix’ impairments, perpetuating and reinforcing the outdated medical approach to disability, which identified disability with impaired invalid bodies that needed to be cured, helped, assisted, ‘supplemented’ (ex pluribus Barnes and Mercer 2010; Oliver and Barnes 2012). In addition, some scholars see technology as another impairing barrier, rather than a facilitator or a tool to overcome existing obstacles (Jaeger 2013; Blanck 2014). Goggin and Newell (2003, 131 ff.), for example, affirm that digital technologies, have created a system of exclusion, further isolating people with disabilities.

Film Funding Law in the European Union: Discussing the Rationale and Reviewing the Practice

European States have well-rooted promotional legislation and funding tools within the audiovisual sector. The latter take on various forms: direct grants, tax rebates, screen quotas, licencing restrictions or soft loans. Each of these tools or mechanisms for promoting and funding audiovisual projects is considered to fall within the scope of the European Union (EU)’s State aid rules. Building on existing scholarship, this chapter explores the implementation of these EU State aid rules and discusses the European Commission’s approach to Member States’ support schemes aimed to sustain film production and post-production activities. It attempts to highlight trends and patterns in film funding within the EU and investigates to what extent EU State policy has contributed to the flowering of cultural diversity in the film sector. The chapter argues that the EU’s State aid control has become a highly politicized field and the Commission’s reasoning is vested of clear cultural policy objectives.

Tracing the Boundaries between Disability and Sickness in the European Union: Squaring the Circle?

In recent years the European Union (EU) has sought to develop a far-reaching policy regarding persons with disabilities. However, to date, EU non-discrimination legislation does not provide any clear legal definition of what constitutes a disability. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has attempted to fill this gap and, in several decisions, has elaborated on the concept of disability and its meaning under EU law. The CJEU, with reference to the application of the Employment Equality Directive, has explained the notion of disability mainly by comparing and contrasting it to the concept of sickness. Against this background, this article critically discusses recent case law and attempts to highlight that, even though the Court has firmly embraced the social model of disability envisaged by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the boundaries between the concepts of sickness and disability remain blurred.

Cultural Diversity and State Aids to the Cultural Sector

In the context of their domestic cultural policies, the member states of the European Union (EU) resort to a variety of funding tools in order to encourage cultural activities, foster the creation and broad distribution of cultural products and ensure the conservation of heritage (Psychogiopoulou, 2006, 2008). The rationale of public funding is that a laissez-faire economy does not guarantee the protection of cultural and linguistic identities and is not suitable to promote the multiplicity of artistic expressions. By reinforcing domestic industries and the production of niche cultural goods at national and regional levels, public funding aims to prevent ‘cultural uniformity’ (Ferri, 2008).

Participation in eu Governance: A “Multi-Level” Perspective and a “Multifold” Approach

At the beginning of its history, the European Economic Community (eec) was a sui generis organization with a narrow focus on economic matters.1 Now, after over fifty-five years, the European Union (hereafter, the “eu”) encompasses twenty-eight Member States, pursues an extensive set of purposes and has accordingly gained the power to legislate in many areas, ranging from social policy to asylum and immigration. Since 1957, profound constitutional changes have occurred, these being dictated by the geographic and functional expansion of the eu but also by the need to heal its original sin: the “democratic deficit”. David Marquand first used the term “democratic deficit” in 1970.2 Since then, for over forty years, scholars, journalists and politicians have claimed that the eu suffers from such a deficit, making it an ambiguous cliché.3 The substance of the “democratic deficit”, the reasons for its existence, its fundamental causes and the ways to eliminate it have been variously theorized.4 As Craig

Does accessible technology need an ‘entrepreneurial state’? The creation of an EU market of universally designed and assistive technology through state aid

EU State aid law has sought to enable people with disabilities to obtain employment, yet has not been explicitly included in the toolbox of policy options to improve the availability and choice of accessible technology within the EU Internal market. This seems to be the consequence of an inherent bias against State intervention in the market, which is mostly unwelcome since it can limit open and free competition. This also reiterates the ‘less-aid’ policy and the purely economic approach to State aid professed by the European Commission. Against this background, this article discusses the potential for EU State aid policy to foster both ‘design for all’ and innovative assistive devices for people with disabilities. It seeks to argue that the goal of an EU-wide market of accessible technology can be achieved using EU State aid law. In particular, this article aims to highlight that a more targeted use of EU State aid law can lead developers to increase the production of accessible goods, to adjust or reduce prices and to provide consumers with a greater degree of choice in a greater number of marketplaces. Whilst it adopts a legal approach, this analysis relies inter alia on economic evidence and recalls the pamphlet recently published by Mazzuccato, from which the title of this work has drawn inspiration.