This blog post is based on an article published in the Journal of Social Policy by Cunqiang Shi and Yuanyuan Qu.
The blog post is authored by Felix Shi.
Disability employment quotas are often presented as a pragmatic solution to a persistent social problem: how to ensure that disabled people are not excluded from the labour market when discrimination, stigma, and structural barriers remain deeply entrenched. Around the world, quota schemes have been justified as a corrective tool—an intervention that compels employers to act where goodwill alone has proven insufficient. Yet the effectiveness of such schemes depends not only on their legal design, but also on the institutional environments into which they are introduced.
Our recently published article in the Journal of Social Policy examines this tension through the case of China’s disability employment quota, focusing specifically on the public sector. Drawing on interviews with disabled public-sector workers, we ask a simple but underexplored question: what does a progressive inclusion policy look like when it encounters long-standing bureaucratic structures, medicalised ideas of employability, and deeply embedded workplace norms?
Why look at China—and why the public sector?
China introduced its disability employment quota in 1991, requiring employers to ensure that at least 1.5 per cent of their workforce consists of certified disabled workers. On paper, this places China among a large group of countries—France, Germany, Japan, and others—that have retained quota systems long after the UK abandoned its own in favour of anti-discrimination legislation.
What makes China particularly interesting is not simply the size of its quota scheme, but the institutional context in which it operates. The Chinese public sector is widely regarded as a desirable employer, offering job security, stable income, and social status. For disabled jobseekers, it can represent a rare refuge from the volatility and exclusion of the open labour market. At the same time, public employment in China remains shaped by institutional legacies of the planned economy, most notably the bianzhi system—a form of state-sanctioned establishment that governs who is entitled to secure, state-funded posts.
Existing research has largely assessed China’s quota scheme in terms of compliance rates, levy collection, or employer behaviour. Much less is known about how disabled workers themselves experience the scheme once they enter public organisations. Our study addresses this gap by centring their voices.
Policy ambition versus institutional friction
Using W. Richard Scott’s three-pillar framework of institutions—regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive—we analyse how the quota scheme is filtered through the structures and everyday practices of public employment.
At the regulative level, the quota appears to offer a clear legal route into work. Yet this promise is often undermined by mandatory pre-employment medical examinations tied to bianzhi posts. These assessments, justified as neutral checks of “fitness for duty”, frequently function as exclusionary gatekeeping mechanisms. Several interviewees described passing written exams and interviews, only to be blocked at the medical stage—often without a meaningful right of appeal. In these cases, the quota and the bianzhi system operate side by side rather than in harmony, generating contradictions that organisations resolve through ad hoc compromises.
One common workaround is the use of non-bianzhi contracts for disabled workers. While this allows public bodies to demonstrate formal compliance with the quota, it often results in disabled employees being concentrated in lower-paid, less secure roles, even when they perform similar work to their bianzhi colleagues. Inclusion, in other words, is achieved through stratification.
Norms, stigma, and the burden of proving worth
Beyond formal rules, the normative pillar of public employment plays a powerful role in shaping disabled workers’ experiences. Public-sector organisations in China strongly valorise meritocracy, competitiveness, and conformity. Within this moral economy, quota recruitment is often viewed with suspicion. Disabled employees may be perceived as having entered “through policy” rather than through merit, a distinction that can quietly undermine their legitimacy in the workplace.
Interviewees spoke of gossip, lowered expectations, and subtle forms of marginalisation. Some felt pressure to work harder than their peers, avoid requesting reasonable adjustments, or downplay their impairments in order to be seen as “normal”. These dynamics echo concerns raised in other national contexts: quota systems can open doors, but they may also expose workers to new forms of stigma if organisational cultures remain unchanged.
Informal norms matter as well. Career progression in the public sector is shaped not only by performance metrics, but also by guanxi—networks of social relationships and reciprocal obligation. Disabled workers who lack access to these networks, or who struggle with social participation due to impairment or past exclusion, can find themselves doubly disadvantaged.
The power of taken-for-granted assumptions
Perhaps the most deeply rooted barriers operate at the cultural-cognitive level. In China’s public employment system, disability is still predominantly understood through a medical lens. Eligibility for the quota depends on formal certification, and employability is implicitly linked to bodily “normality”. These assumptions are rarely stated outright; instead, they are embedded in routine practices, from physical examinations to decisions about who represents the organisation in public-facing roles.
Several participants described experiences of being hidden, sidelined, or treated as a potential “risk” to organisational image. Such practices reflect broader forms of lookism and ableism that are difficult to challenge precisely because they are taken for granted. In this context, exclusion does not require overt discrimination—it is normalised through everyday judgements about suitability and appearance.
What does this mean for policy?
Our findings do not suggest that disability quotas are inherently misguided. On the contrary, many participants recognised that without the quota, they might never have gained access to public-sector employment at all. What the study highlights is the limitation of policy instruments when they are introduced into institutional environments that have not been fundamentally reworked to support inclusion.
For policymakers, the implication is clear: compliance is not the same as equality. Legal targets can be met while substantive inequalities persist. Addressing this gap requires more than refining quota formulas or strengthening monitoring mechanisms. It calls for attention to institutional culture, professional norms, and the everyday practices through which policies are enacted.
China’s recent policy moves—such as encouraging public bodies to “lead by example” in employing disabled people—may signal a shift in this direction. Whether they can disrupt entrenched assumptions about merit, health, and public service remains an open question.
More broadly, the Chinese case speaks to international debates about disability employment policy. It reminds us that progressive laws do not operate in a vacuum. Their outcomes are shaped by history, institutions, and culture. For scholars and policymakers alike, listening to disabled workers’ lived experiences is essential if inclusion is to move beyond symbolic compliance towards genuine participation.
Reference
Shi, Cunqiang, and Yuanyuan Qu. 2026. “Policy Progression versus Institutional Obstacles: Disabled Employees’ Experiences of the Disability Quota Scheme in the Chinese Public Sector.” Journal of Social Policy: 1–19. doi: 10.1017/S0047279426101305.
About the Authors
Felix Shi is a Lecturer in Management at Bangor Business School, Bangor University, UK.
Yuanyuan Qu is Associate Professor in Ethnology and Sociology, Minzu University of China, Beijing, China.
Discover more from Social Policy Blog
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
