Introduction
How do countries shift from signing international conventions to implementing policy change when the intent of the convention challenges the policy approach of the country? Implementing reasonable accommodation for disability employment is an example of this tension in East Asia. Taiwan has been classified as typical of a productivist welfare regime, where social policies prioritise economic development over social protection.
Disability employment policies in Taiwan traditionally focused on enhancing a person’s employability rather than modifying work environments to support employees with disabilities, known as reasonable accommodation. Taiwan passed laws to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, 2006), but lacks policies to address core principles, such as anti-discrimination. This gap leaves employers, local labor authorities, and people with disabilities without clear regulatory guidance about reasonable accommodation. The policy gap also reflects the wider policy context that prioritises business over employees.
This article examines how employees and employers manage reasonable accommodation for people with intellectual disabilities in the absence of explicit legal mandates. The question is relevant to current literature about the degree to which East Asia welfare regimes are making gradual shifts toward developmentalism away from productivist logics or not.
The background explains the context of the productivist regime and policy context in Taiwan. The methods describe the qualitative data and analysis from the perspective of people with disabilities. The findings present workplace experiences from the perspective of employees, employers, and employment support providers. The discussion draws implications for understanding reasonable accommodation within a productivist welfare regime.
Reasonable accommodation in a productivist welfare regime
Productivism and developmentalism
Holliday (Reference Holliday2000) coined the term productivist welfare capitalism to describe how East Asian countries integrate welfare policies with economic objectives. In this model, social policies such as health insurance and educational investment are viewed as tools for economic development rather than as mechanisms for social protection (Choi, Reference Choi2013). Gough (Reference Gough2017) examined the impact of globalisation on East Asian welfare regimes, concluding that their policies continue to be primarily designed to facilitate economic growth (also Hudson and Kühner, Reference Hudson and Kühner2011; Lee and Ku, Reference Lee and Ku2007). Papadopoulos and Roumpakis (Reference Papadopoulos and Roumpakis2017) found that economic policies directly shape welfare designs in China, South Korea, and Singapore, particularly in long-term care and social welfare provisions (Ochiai, Reference Ochiai2009).
In contrast, developmentalism highlights the state’s central role in driving both economic growth and social development (Kwon, Reference Kwon2005; Choi, Reference Choi2013). Developmentalism seeks to balance economic efficiency with social equity by integrating social policies with economic production goals, such as employer-based welfare programmes and selective social insurance schemes.
Key differences exist between them. Both anti-discrimination approaches and productivist welfare regimes may involve market-oriented logics, but they differ in important ways. Anti-discrimination frameworks define reasonable accommodation as an individual right, enabling people with disabilities to challenge exclusion through legal mechanisms, even if access to such mechanisms may be uneven in practice. In contrast, productivist regimes prioritise economic growth and firm competitiveness, and tend to condition support on economic contribution. In this context, accommodation may be selectively provided when it enhances productivity, but is more likely to be resisted when it is perceived as costly or disruptive.
This distinction is important for understanding the Taiwanese case. Rather than representing a full anti-discrimination model, reasonable accommodation in Taiwan is shaped by a productivist policy environment in which employer discretion remains central, and the provision of accommodation is not institutionalised as an enforceable right.
Productivism is market-driven and prioritises economic competitiveness, whereas developmentalism involves greater state intervention and broader social policy coverage. Productivism’s reliance on market forces and family support has resulted in inadequate welfare coverage, particularly in highly marketised economies like Singapore and Hong Kong (Gough, Reference Gough2017). Meanwhile, developmentalist policies face fiscal sustainability issues, especially in South Korea and Taiwan (Choi, Reference Choi2013).
East Asian welfare regimes retain productivist features, while they are also influenced by internal and external factors, including ageing population, globalisation, and democratisation. With rapidly ageing societies, many East Asian countries are restructuring their social policies, such as Japan’s universal long-term care services (Hudson and Kühner, Reference Hudson and Kühner2011). Second, as these economies compete in the global market, the sustainability of welfare expenditure is increasingly challenged. Transnational corporations favour low-tax and flexible labour market policies, limiting governments’ capacity to expand social protection. This has led to greater marketisation and privatisation of welfare (Gough, Reference Gough2017; Aspalter, Reference Aspalter2006). However, the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis served as a catalyst for South Korea’s transition toward more public welfare provisions (Ku and Jones Finer, Reference Ku and Jones Finer2007). Additionally, cross-border migration and foreign workers have introduced new demands for social protection policies, including health insurance and social security for migrant laborers (Choi, Reference Choi2012). Third, democratisation processes have broadened welfare coverage, pushing welfare states to transition from productivist to more inclusive models (Fleckenstein and Lee, Reference Fleckenstein and Lee2017). Taiwan’s democratisation, for example, led to the implementation of National Health Insurance, reflecting increased state responsibility for social protection and safeguarding the rights of marginalised groups (Ku and Jones Finer, Reference Ku and Jones Finer2007).
These dynamics suggest that East Asian productivist welfare regimes like Taiwan’s may gradually adopt developmentalist features too. Kwon (Reference Kwon2005) examined Taiwan and South Korea, noting that while their welfare policies remain tied to economic objectives, they are gradually incorporating social inclusion measures (Fleckenstein and Lee, Reference Fleckenstein and Lee2017; Ku and Jones Finer, Reference Ku and Jones Finer2007).
CRPD reasonable accommodation in East Asia
In the context of productivist welfare, East Asian countries have also committed to UN Conventions about the rights of people often marginalised from economic participation, including the UN CRPD 2006. East Asian countries, including China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, have ratified or signed the CRPD and enacted laws for implementation. However, significant steps remain for legal adjustments, policy implementation, and social inclusion across these countries. Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms still require action. Many countries in the region adopted employment quota systems. Research highlights important differences between quota-based systems and anti-discrimination approaches to disability employment policy. Heyer (Reference Heyer2015), in a comparative analysis of Germany, Japan, and the United States, argues that anti-discrimination frameworks such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are, in important respects, market-oriented. The principle of reasonable accommodation is constrained by the concept of undue burden, which introduces cost considerations into the provision of workplace adjustments. Conflicts between employers and employees are often resolved through litigation, placing responsibility on individuals to claim their rights. In this sense, the role of the state is primarily that of an arbiter, rather than a direct provider of welfare.
In contrast, quota-based systems represent a more direct form of state intervention, requiring employers to hire a fixed proportion of workers with disabilities or face financial penalties. However, such systems are criticised for their paternalistic features and for allowing employers to treat penalties as a cost of non-compliance rather than promoting meaningful inclusion (Heyer, Reference Heyer2015).
However, implementation under either approach varies, and workplace discrimination persists (Thornton, Reference Thornton2005). Barriers include inaccessible workplaces and poor reasonable accommodation (Henfling and Leslie, Reference Henfling and Leslie2022; Alexander et al., Reference Alexander, Gendera, Robinson, Fisher and Howe2023; Meltzer et al., Reference Meltzer, Robinson and Fisher2019).
Taiwan is not a member of the UN, but the government responded to the advocacy of disability rights organisations by enacting the Act to Implement the CRPD 2014 (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 2022b). The Taiwan CRPD Review Committee was responsible for policy evaluation and recommendations (Henfling and Leslie, Reference Henfling and Leslie2022). One of the recommendations was that workplace accessibility required significant enhancement and the employment support system for people with disabilities remained insufficient (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 2022a). The lack of widespread employment adjustments or support services for people with disabilities suggests that employers still perceive reasonable accommodation as an optional and additional financial and administrative burden.
This situation highlights a characteristic of East Asian welfare productivism, which prioritises economic growth and individual responsibility for people with disabilities. Within this framework, policies tend to minimise employers’ obligations to provide financial or structural adjustments for employees with disabilities, thereby limiting the scope of inclusive employment practices.
Employment status of people with disabilities in Taiwan
The labour force participation rate of people with disabilities in Taiwan is about 20 per cent, which is significantly lower than that of other countries (Ministry of Health and Welfare, 2021). The rate has not changed since the implementation of the CRPD Act (Chou et al., Reference Chou, Nakagawa, Yoo, Robinson and Fisher2023). Compared to Taiwan’s overall labour force participation rate of approximately 60 per cent, the gap highlights the severe underemployment of people with disabilities. Similarly, the average monthly salary of workers with disabilities is NT$13,426 lower than that of the general workforce (Ministry of Labor, 2019).
People with disabilities are employed in the manufacturing sector (26.7 per cent), elementary occupations and manual labour (24.5 per cent), and service and sales (21.8 per cent) (Ministry of Labor, 2019). Only 21 per cent of workers with disabilities indicated a need for workplace assistance, with the most common support requests being on-the-job training and second-skill training (Ministry of Labor, 2019). In contrast, reasonable accommodation measures emphasised by the CRPD, such as workplace accessibility modifications, task restructuring, peer awareness programmes, human support services, accessible commuting assistance, and work schedule adjustments, ranked lower in demand (Chou, Reference Chou2025).
One explanation for the low labour force participation rate is that Taiwanese employers predominantly hire people with disabilities who do not require workplace adjustments or accessibility modifications (Chen, Reference Chen2025). The impact of the CRPD on awareness of employer responsibility and disability rights appears to be limited.
Taiwan policy on disability employment and reasonable accommodation
Taiwan’s first disability-related law, the Welfare Law for Handicapped Person 1980, introduced employment quotas and community-based supported employment. The law did not include provisions to integrate people with disabilities into mainstream workplaces or reasonable accommodation. The new Physically and Mentally Disabled Citizens Protection Act 1997 introduced individualised vocational training, employment services and sheltered employment for people with disabilities. The newest law, the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act 2007 (Disability Rights Act), expanded the scope of disability policy and rights protections. The revised law established a link between employment rights and discrimination. For instance, it explicitly states that people with disabilities should not be subjected to ‘unequal pay for equal work’, which would constitute discrimination. However, a contradiction remains: workers in sheltered workshops still receive productivity-based wages, decoupled from the minimum wage. Additionally, the law does not explicitly mention ‘reasonable accommodation’ nor does it associate a lack of reasonable accommodation with discrimination. Instead, it only refers to ‘job accommodation’, which differs from the concept of reasonable accommodation under the CRPD (Chou and Lai, Reference Chou and Lai2024).
The Act to Implement the CRPD in 2014 gave the Convention domestic legal status under Article 2 of the Act. No specific legal provisions regarding reasonable accommodation were adopted. Taiwan underwent two national CRPD reporting and international review processes. During the 2017 CRPD review, the Concluding Observations on Taiwan’s Initial Report (CRPD International Review Committee, 2017) highlighted the absence of reasonable accommodation in Taiwanese workplaces under Article 27: Work and Employment of the CRPD. In response, the Ministry of Health and Welfare pledged to collect and compile case studies on reasonable accommodation from 2019 to 2021 and to amend the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act to include provisions on reasonable accommodation. However, this commitment has not been fulfilled.
During the 2022 CRPD review, the International Review Committee noted that people with disabilities still face employment discrimination, and the lack of reasonable accommodation prevents people from receiving necessary support. The Committee recommended that Taiwan strengthen its reasonable accommodation framework, legally mandate employers to provide reasonable accommodation, and impose penalties for non-compliance to ensure equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The Committee urged the government to explicitly define the refusal to provide CRPD-compliant reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination and establish legal consequences for violations (CRPD International Review Committee, 2022).
In 2024, the Ministry of Health and Welfare proposed amendments to the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act, incorporating reasonable accommodation into the legal framework. The draft amendments require government agencies, educational institutions, businesses, corporations, and organisations to provide reasonable accommodation based on a person’s disability support needs, as long as doing so does not impose disproportionate or undue burdens. At the time of this study, the bill had yet to pass the third reading in the Legislative Yuan. The relationship between reasonable accommodation and discrimination remains legally uncertain, as Taiwan’s anti-discrimination law is still in the drafting stage (Chou, Reference Chou2025).
Taiwan reasonable accommodation guidance and support
Taiwan’s National Human Rights Commission (2023) and Ministry of Labor (2024a) published guidelines on reasonable accommodation. The absence of legal regulations means the guidelines are only general procedural recommendations and international case examples. Neither document clarifies how workers with disabilities can request reasonable accommodation, employers’ obligations, grievance mechanisms, or legal responsibilities. Consequently, guidelines alone have not been sufficient to improve workplace reasonable accommodation rights.
Implementing reasonable accommodation is the responsibility of the Workforce Development Agency, Ministry of Labor. Job accommodation was formally incorporated into Taiwan’s vocational rehabilitation services in 2008. The programme aims to facilitate the employment of people with disabilities by adjusting work processes and providing assistive devices. The Job Accommodation Program offers subsidies or incentives to employers to implement job accommodation for employees with disabilities. Both employers and employees with disabilities may apply for these subsidies, with the government covering the associated costs. Job accommodation refers to (Ministry of Labor, 2024b):
Measures taken to remove work-related barriers and enhance employees’ work performance, including improvements to equipment, adjustments to working conditions, modifications to the work environment, provision of assistive devices, and alterations to work methods.
However, Taiwan’s Job Accommodation Program differs from the concept as defined by the CRPD. The CRPD scope is broader, extending beyond workplace modifications to include adjustments in work schedules, provision of human support and accessible commuting assistance. The CRPD principle of reasonable accommodation is to impose a legal obligation on employers to accommodate employees with disabilities, whereas Taiwan’s Job Accommodation Program remains an incentive-based policy (Tsai et al., Reference Tsai2019; Human Rights Covenants Implementation and Monitoring Alliance, 2022).
Currently, the Job Accommodation Program primarily relies on financial incentives to encourage employers and employees with disabilities to apply for workplace adjustments. Employers who fail to implement job accommodation face no legal requirement or penalty. As a result, the programme’s effectiveness for workplace accessibility and inclusion is limited. This lack of legal enforceability is the reason the CRPD International Review Committee did not recognise Taiwan’s Job Accommodation Program as a form of reasonable accommodation (Chou and Lai, Reference Chou and Lai2024).
Methods
This study adopted a qualitative approach to explore how people with intellectual disabilities in Taiwan experience and navigate reasonable accommodation in a policy environment where adjustments are not mandated. The research aimed to understand how these workers confront discrimination and challenges at work and how employers and employment service providers respond to accommodation needs without a statutory obligation to do so.
Data collection and analysis
The study involved semi-structured interviews with thirty participants in three groups:
-
1. Ten people with intellectual disabilities employed in the open labour market and earning the statutory minimum wage
-
2. Ten employers or human resource professionals with experience employing workers with intellectual disabilities
-
3. Ten employment service providers engaged in vocational rehabilitation programmes across regions in Taiwan
Recruitment was facilitated through publicly funded vocational rehabilitation services operated by local governments. Participation was voluntary. Interviews in person were conducted from February to May 2024. The interview guide for people with intellectual disabilities was adapted into an easy-to-read format for accessibility. The instruments were pilot-tested and refined for clarity and relevance with two people from each participant group. Participants ranged in age from approximately 25 to 45 years old.
Interviews were 70 to 90 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted by the first author using (Braun and Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006) six-phase process. Codes were generated inductively from the data and iteratively refined into themes through repeated comparison across interviews. Alternative interpretations were considered and discussed during the coding process, and the thematic structure was reviewed with experienced practitioners to enhance the credibility and robustness of the analysis. Although no qualitative analysis software was used, two experienced employment service providers reviewed the coding framework and thematic structure to check the reliability of interpretation and potential researcher bias.
The analysis prioritised the perspective of people with disabilities, focusing on their workplace experiences in the absence of legally mandated reasonable accommodation and anti-discrimination laws. The data from employers and service providers were analysed to contextualise the experience of people with disabilities. The findings are presented by theme. Identifying names and characteristics were removed to protect privacy.
Ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at National Cheng Kung University in August 2023 (Approval No. NCKU HREC-E-112-235-2). Informed consent was secured from all participants prior to their involvement in the study.
Limitations
The focus of this study was limited to people with intellectual disabilities whose reasonable accommodation needs are typically centred on task-related reminders and flexible scheduling. Consequently, the findings may not generalise to people with other types of disabilities, such as physical or sensory impairments, whose accommodation requirements may involve assistive technologies or infrastructure modifications. Future research should examine how the lack of legal recognition for reasonable accommodation affects a broader range of disability support needs to more fully understand the implications of the current policy vacuum.
A limitation of this study is that participants were recruited through publicly funded vocational rehabilitation services. This may mean that the workplaces included in the sample were already relatively more open to providing accommodation. The findings may not fully capture experiences in less-supportive or more-restrictive work environments.
Findings
The themes about the experience of how people manage reasonable accommodation in the absence of legal requirements were unclear rights and limited self-advocacy; conditional accommodation practices; and barriers to long-term inclusion and career development.
Unclear rights and limited self-advocacy
Many of the employees with intellectual disabilities were unaware of their rights to reasonable accommodation, despite working in competitive employment settings. The lack of legal provisions requiring employers to provide reasonable adjustments meant these workers often did not realise they could advocate for themselves – and frequently tolerated inappropriate or uncomfortable conditions in silence.
Employees seldom initiated requests for accommodation. Instead, they either endured difficulties or relied on employment service providers to speak for them. For instance, a participant described an uncomfortable situation at work:
When I first worked in the dessert kitchen washing dishes, my hands became red and itchy from the detergent. But I didn’t tell my supervisor because I didn’t know if it was a real problem. Later, the employment service worker helped me transfer to the laundry department. Participant 3, hotel employee
Others mentioned not speaking up simply because no one asked:
When I first started cleaning restrooms, the floor was very slippery, and I nearly fell several times. But I didn’t say anything because my supervisor never asked. Participant 9, office cleaner
I don’t know how to tell colleagues I need help, so I usually try to handle things myself. Participant 8, retail warehouse
Some participants said they preferred using intermediaries rather than speaking directly to their supervisors:
If I have a problem, I usually ask the employment service teacher first because I’m afraid to talk directly to my boss. Participant 4, café cleaner
I prefer the employment service teacher to help communicate with the boss because they understand each other well. Participant 7, kitchen staff
These examples illustrate how the absence of legal obligations or procedures to request accommodation accentuated the employees’ lack of knowledge, confidence, and means to express their needs. The employment service providers noted how the vocational support system reinforced this dynamic by relying on their third-party mediation, rather than also promoting direct, rights-based self-advocacy.
Employment service providers were unanimous in their view that most of the employees with intellectual disabilities could not communicate their needs without help. Several providers emphasised the need for services to support these employees:
Most people with intellectual disabilities cannot express their needs independently and require assistance from employment service providers. Establishing formalised application systems could be beneficial. ESP 2, supervisor, employment service centre
In most cases, people with intellectual disabilities rely on employment service providers or family members to communicate their needs. Self-advocacy is rare. ESP 3, supervisor, employment service centre
The absence of a clear application process makes it difficult for people with disabilities to advocate for themselves. Many are unaware of their right to request reasonable adjustments. ESP 7, caseworker, employment service centre
Even experienced professionals, some with more than two decades of service, noted that the system encourages dependence rather than empowerment:
Support from employment service providers and natural workplace supporters during the initial two months is crucial for teaching self-advocacy. ESP 9, director, vocational service organisation
A few support providers noted that employees with lower support needs or longer work tenure sometimes spoke for themselves. Most providers said that more self-advocacy would only be likely when people were backed by legal mandates and institutional procedures.
In summary, the lack of enforceable rights around reasonable accommodation did more than create legal ambiguity. It also shaped people’s expectations and everyday behaviour. Employees often assumed they must endure discomfort quietly or rely on other people to speak for them. This reflects the absence of institutionalised rights and formal procedures to request accommodation within Taiwan’s current policy framework.
Conditional accommodation practices
Some employees with intellectual disabilities said they received support at work, but the accommodation was typically minimal, informal, and heavily conditional. Most employers tolerated accommodation only when they did not interfere with productivity, shift structures, or co-worker expectations. This accommodation included simplified tasks, verbal reminders, and casual peer assistance. Employers perceived these adjustments as low-cost, low-risk, and manageable within existing workflows.
The support that people received was often informal from co-workers. A participant who worked in a kitchen at a fast-food restaurant recalled struggling with a seemingly simple task. The support she received came not through formal channels but through the goodwill of a co-worker who stepped in to help:
I often measured the tea powder wrong and the drinks would turn out too watery. I thought I was just doing it badly, until a co-worker showed me how to do it better. Participant 7, kitchen staff
This pattern of informal, ad hoc assistance was echoed in other accounts. A participant employed as a delivery support worker described how her tasks were overwhelming from the start:
My tasks were too heavy at first, but no one changed anything. Eventually, one colleague started helping me, but only because they felt bad. Participant 5, delivery worker
Because co-worker assistance was voluntary and informal, employees with intellectual disabilities were sometimes also refused help. When they do not know how to communicate with colleagues, they were left without these informal workplace supports:
I don’t know how to tell colleagues I need help, so I usually try to handle things myself. Participant 8, retail warehouse
When there was a lot of trash to take out, and it was too heavy for me, I asked my colleagues for help. They were happy to assist me, or if they were busy, they politely explained they couldn’t help at the moment. Participant 10, administrative assistant
Among the ten employers interviewed, only one (Participant 4, a manager at a fast-food chain) developed a structured approach, drawing on their years of experience hiring employees with intellectual disabilities. This employer observed new hires during interviews and onboarding to prepare for potential adjustments. The other employers did not have formal processes for assessing workload or modifying responsibilities. This does not mean that they were unwilling to provide support or accommodation. In practice, support typically emerged only when someone in the workplace noticed an issue and chose to act – most often a coworker or an employment service provider following up after job placement, and less frequently the employee with intellectual disabilities themselves. This highlights a broader systemic issue: in the absence of legal frameworks and formal procedures, even employers who want to provide support often lack guidance on what process to follow, when to initiate adjustments or the principles to guide their role in offering accommodation.
Employers themselves acknowledged that their willingness to make accommodation was driven primarily by practical constraints and expectations from co-workers. A human resources manager at a mid-sized factory noted, ‘We’re okay with reminders or visual labels, but we can’t reduce tasks too much. Other employees might see it as unfair’. Another supervisor reflected a similar concern: ‘Sometimes their workload is too heavy, but if we reduce their tasks, other employees might complain. So we just try to help them adapt a little’.
This focus on operational balance and perceptions of fairness often overshadowed considerations of rights or inclusion. Without a formal policy or legal obligation, what counted as reasonable was filtered through a business lens. Employers were more likely to accept accommodation that appeared cost-neutral and minimally disruptive, which aligned with business-as-usual. When employees requested adjustments that involved additional staffing or costs, they were usually ignored:
I also mentioned to the team leader that we needed more staff for cleaning public areas, but the company hasn’t hired more cleaners, possibly due to cost considerations. Participant 1, hotel cleaner
Employment service providers further confirmed this experience. They explained that when they proposed adjustments, employers frequently watered down or dismissed the changes altogether if they feared the adjustments might introduce complexity or require structural changes. Employment service providers were frustrated at the need to manage employer expectations carefully:
Some employers agree to simple accommodation, but when it involves changing schedules or roles, they say it’s too disruptive or expensive. ESP 1, employment service provider, vocational rehabilitation centre
Employers think that if they put a few labels on machines, that counts as accommodation. But anything that costs money or affects workflow? Almost impossible. ESP 4, employment service provider, vocational rehabilitation centre
We have to be cautious about how we talk about adjustments. If we say too much, employers think we’re making things complicated. ESP 6 senior job coach, vocational rehabilitation programme
There’s no structure or standard. It really depends on the employer. And if they think it’s a hassle, the answer is usually no. ESP 3 supervisor, employment service centre
Employers’ discretionary and selective approach could be interpreted as reflecting the influence of Taiwan’s productivist policy environment, where inclusion was viewed as possible only if it did not compromise efficiency. In the absence of legal mandates or enforcement mechanisms, employers treated reasonable accommodation as a favour, not a right. As a result, employees’ access to support was highly variable – contingent not on their needs but on their employer’s interpretation of what was manageable. Some workers benefited from sympathetic managers, while others remained unsupported, silently adapting or internalising their struggles. This pattern reflects a broader policy environment in which employer discretion is prioritised over enforceable rights.
Barriers to long-term inclusion and career development
Initial employment was a milestone for many of the employees with intellectual disabilities. Long-term inclusion and career advancement often remained out of reach. Most participants found themselves trapped in repetitive tasks, with little opportunity to learn new skills, shift roles or build a sense of progression at work. Their jobs were often framed as placements rather than careers. Their positions would be maintained but not developed. A packaging assistant at a food production company said: ‘I’ve been here for three years, but I’m still doing the same thing. They never ask me to learn new tasks’. (Participant 6) The employer had not initiated any discussion of growth or change, despite her reliability. Her experience echoes many other participants, where career development was absent from their employment experience.
Even when initial accommodation was provided, expectations tended to shift over time, often making the job harder, not more sustainable. The initial support was not maintained. Instead, the burden of fitting in fell back on the employee, regardless of their capacity or needs:
At first, my supervisor said I could take more time. But then they asked me to be faster like the others. I tried, but I couldn’t do it. Participant 8, retail warehouse
Similarly, an employee in a logistics company said: ‘I just keep doing what they give me. I don’t ask questions’. (Participant 5) This statement reflects how many workers with intellectual disabilities remained passive to maintain their role. They adopted this approach not because they lacked ability, but because the workplace did not offer ways to participate in decision-making or skill development.
Employment service providers said this lack of progression was systemic. In their experience, employers viewed hiring a person with intellectual disabilities as a form of social responsibility or compliance with employment quotas, but not as a long-term investment in the worker. Several employers admitted as much. Their logic was to be risk-averse. Even when their employees demonstrated consistency, employers hesitated to offer new responsibilities, fearing disruption or performance issues:
They do their job well, but we don’t move them to other positions. It’s not discrimination – it’s just safer this way. Participant 2, human resource manager, logistics company
The goal is to keep them in the job, not to help them grow or change roles. Most employers don’t think beyond the current task. ESP 7, employment service provider, supported employment centre
Employment service providers described repeated instances in which they proposed job rotation, additional training, or progressive role design, but the employers turned them down. Such employer concerns reflected a narrowly defined view of what work is and who deserves opportunities to grow. One employment service provider added:
When we suggest letting them try a new task, employers often say, ‘It’s too much trouble’ or ‘What if they can’t do it? There’s no policy or funding for helping someone move up in a job. We can help them stay in a job, but not move forward. ESP 6, senior job coach, vocational rehabilitation programme
Without structured support for vertical mobility, even the most capable employees with intellectual disabilities faced a ceiling. The employment system maintained jobs but rarely supported advancement.
This stagnation reflects a deeper structural barrier; in Taiwan’s productivist welfare regime, the right to work was largely interpreted as the right to enter a job – not the right to grow within it. Inclusion was often framed in static terms, with limited recognition that meaningful work also involves recognition, challenge, and trajectory. As long as employers defined success purely by efficiency and output, the potential of workers with intellectual disabilities continued to be underutilised, and their long-term inclusion delayed by design. This stagnation reflects a structural limitation of the current system, where long-term policy frameworks for career development do not support inclusion.
Discussion – toward a developmentalist model?
The findings suggest that, despite policy discussions and emerging pressures such as labour shortages and proposed legal reforms, workplace practices in Taiwan remain largely shaped by productivist logics. What appears as movement toward developmentalism may be understood as partial and conditional adjustments rather than a systemic transformation.
These micro-level practices are closely linked to the macro-level policy framework, where the absence of legal mandates and enforcement mechanisms allows accommodation to remain discretionary and productivity-driven.
The research was about how people with intellectual disabilities in Taiwan experience reasonable accommodation in a policy environment where adjustments are not mandated. The purpose was to understand how these workers confront challenges at work and how employers and employment service providers respond to accommodation needs without a statutory obligation. The findings were that all parties were unclear about rights to reasonable accommodation, and employees rarely advocated for themselves to ask for adjustments. In the absence of a clear legal framework ensuring workplace adjustments, most employees with intellectual disabilities lacked confidence to request accommodation or were unable to articulate their needs. As a result, they relied on employment service providers or family members to communicate on their behalf. This reflects the institutional gap identified in Taiwan’s disability policy context, where CRPD principles have been incorporated into domestic law but have not yet been operationalised as enforceable rights (CRPD International Review Committee, 2017; 2022).
The accommodation practices seemed to be conditional on not disrupting the operational norms of the businesses. Employers generally did not consider long-term inclusion and career development as a requirement, beyond offering basic employment without progression. The impact of these findings was that accommodation in Taiwan was often superficial and situational. They were available only when they did not challenge the status quo logic of workplace productivity. This approach not only limited inclusion but also undermined the obligations of equal access and participation. As Holliday (Reference Holliday2000) and Gough (Reference Gough2017) have described in their analysis of East Asian productivist welfare regimes, social policies and workplace practices often prioritise economic efficiency over social protection, which helps explain why employers in Taiwan mainly adopt low-cost adjustments without a rights-based approach. Without stronger institutional guarantees, reasonable accommodation risked reduction to managerial discretion rather than a basic right.
From a CRPD perspective, reasonable accommodation is required unless it imposes a disproportionate or undue burden. The findings suggest that many of the adjustments requested by participants – such as task clarification, workflow simplification, visual prompts, and communication support – appear to be relatively low-cost and are unlikely to constitute an undue burden in financial terms. However, employers continued to resist requests for changes to work processes, task allocation, or scheduling. Irrespective of the low cost, these forms of accommodation challenge established workplace norms and managerial control over workflow and productivity. In this sense, the boundary of ‘undue burden’ in practice appears to be shaped by organisational norms and workplace dynamics.
This pattern raises questions in relation to the CRPD principle of equality with others, which requires that people with disabilities are able to participate in work on an equal basis. Equal participation is limited where adjustments that are reasonable in scope are not provided.
Employers’ understanding, implementation, and maintenance of reasonable accommodation were highly dependent on employment service providers. The main motivation for making adjustments was not legal compliance but rather the goal of enhancing and maintaining work efficiency. Employers generally accepted low-cost accommodation, such as visual aids (e.g. pictograms, workflow charts) and on-site human support (e.g. verbal reminders from coworkers or supervisors). However, they were more resistant to accommodation that interfered with business operations, such as schedule adjustments, shift modifications, or workflow changes. This pattern reflects the broader context of Taiwan’s productivist welfare regime, where, as Gough (Reference Gough2017) and Hudson and Kühner (Reference Hudson and Kühner2011) point out, social policies emphasise economic efficiency over social protection. Like the productivist welfare government, employers’ willingness to provide accommodation was shaped primarily by business considerations and market demands, rather than compliance with legal obligations for workplace inclusion.
Although most employers’ accommodation remained driven by productivity concerns, a small number – particularly in sectors facing labour shortages – demonstrated emerging interest in more proactive inclusive practices. Encouragingly, employers in the food and beverage sector were increasingly open to hiring people with intellectual disabilities to meet legal employment quotas and address Taiwan’s ongoing labour shortages. Some even engaged directly with employees with intellectual disabilities to explore mutually acceptable workplace adjustments. These positive trends suggest that Taiwan disability employment policy has the potential to transition from a productivist welfare approach to a more developmentalist welfare approach in response to labour market opportunities. As Kwon (Reference Kwon2005) and Nam (Reference Nam2020) argue, developmentalist regimes integrate social inclusion with economic development, and these findings show early signs of such integration in Taiwan’s context. Accelerating this trend would require policy change to require placing obligations on employers to offer reasonable accommodation and prohibit discrimination in the workplace (CRPD International Review Committee, 2022).
The findings indicate that Taiwanese businesses were influenced by both productivism and developmentalism. From a developmentalist perspective, businesses were more willing to employ people with disabilities and provide accommodation in industries experiencing labour shortages to meet market demand. From a productivist perspective, reasonable accommodation remained conditional on productivity considerations. Government policies also tended to allow employers to determine the extent of accommodation, rather than guaranteeing people with disabilities the right to request necessary adjustments. This duality reflects what Fleckenstein and Lee (Reference Fleckenstein and Lee2017) describe as East Asian welfare regimes under pressure to balance market competition with growing demands for social inclusion.
Developmentalism and productivism are both welfare regimes centred on economic growth, yet they differ in terms of the role of the state, social protection, employment policies, and long-term welfare development. Compared to productivism, developmentalism typically brings greater long-term benefits to the general population. In developmentalist regimes, governments take a more proactive role in social policy, not only focusing on economic growth but also investing in social protection to enhance welfare coverage, providing stronger support for vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities and low-income households (Kwon, Reference Kwon2005; Nam, Reference Nam2020).
In addition to economic development, developmentalist states also expand social protection to reduce market uncertainty and strengthen labour market regulations to ensure that workers’ rights are not undermined by market-driven forces (Kwon, Reference Kwon2005; Emiko, Reference Emiko2014). Regarding employment policies, developmentalist governments tend to actively create employment opportunities instead of relying solely on market forces to regulate employment. They also introduce labour laws to prevent companies from excessively relying on temporary employment contracts, ensuring long-term job security. Additionally, government subsidies encourage enterprises to provide stable employment and fair wages. Developmentalist states also favour mandatory employment policies to ensure stable job opportunities for people with disabilities and other marginalised groups (Hort and Kuhnle, Reference Hort and Kuhnle2000), while government incentives encourage businesses to provide reasonable accommodation and workplace support (Gough, Reference Gough2017).
Taiwan’s People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act has also recently incorporated reasonable accommodation requirements in its 2024 draft amendments, pending approval by the Legislative Yuan. This suggests that the role of the government may gradually shift toward imposing stronger regulatory responsibilities on employers regarding reasonable accommodation. While Taiwan remains constrained by the productivist framework, certain developments indicate a potential shift toward a more developmentalist welfare approach in specific contexts.
Conclusion
Overall, the findings of this study highlight that within a productivist regime, reasonable accommodation tends to be reduced to a tool for maintaining efficiency rather than a guaranteed right. This study suggests that Taiwan is gradually transitioning toward a developmentalist model, within constrained conditions. These uneven tendencies may, under specific institutional conditions, support such a shift in the future. This reflects the core logic of East Asian productivism as described by Holliday (Reference Holliday2000) and Gough (Reference Gough2017), where welfare and labour policies are subordinated to economic goals and employers’ obligations are minimised. The policy implication is that Taiwan cannot rely solely on voluntary or incentive-based measures; rather, it must institutionalise reasonable accommodation as part of anti-discrimination law and ensure enforcement mechanisms (CRPD International Review Committee, 2022).
This could include establishing a formal legal obligation for employers under labour law, creating accessible complaint and grievance mechanisms through local labour authorities, and clarifying enforcement responsibilities across relevant government agencies.
To move toward a more developmentalist model, the government would need to not only legally mandate reasonable accommodation and define the refusal to provide it as a form of discrimination, but also establish clear grievance and enforcement mechanisms, provide stable funding to support accommodation, and integrate these measures into broader employment and social protection policies (Kwon, Reference Kwon2005; Nam, Reference Nam2020). Such an approach would safeguard the employment opportunities and job stability of persons with disabilities, benefit employers facing labour shortages, and contribute to overall economic development. By shifting from voluntary and incentive-based schemes to binding legal obligations combined with supportive measures, Taiwan can gradually transform reasonable accommodation from an ad hoc managerial practice into a structural right, consistent with the principles of the CRPD and developmentalist welfare goals.
Author contributions
Yi-Chun Chou: Conceptualization-null, Data curation-null, Formal analysis-null, Funding acquisition-null, Investigation-null, Methodology-null, Project administration-null, Validation-null, Writing - original draft-null, Writing - review & editing-null. Karen R. Fisher: Conceptualization-null, Formal analysis-null, Writing - original draft-null, Writing - review & editing-null.
Open access
