Ferri, Delia. (2015). Does accessible technology need an ‘entrepreneurial state’? The creation of an EU market of universally designed and assistive technology through state aid. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 2015 Vol. 29, Nos. 2–3, 137–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2015.1055660

Format: Peer-reviewed article

Type: Research — Non-experimental

Experience level of reader: Fundamental

Annotation: This paper summarizes “The Strategy” for disability advocacy (European Disability Strategy 2010-2020) which focuses on removing barriers to employment as well as delivering advanced assistive technologies. The strategy for fostering R&D is demand-side solutions increasing market need by imposing accessibility requirements. The author compares pre-Brexit British efforts to foster AT research and development with other European programs. The author discusses bias against market intervention, outcomes of “the entrepreneurial state”, and suggestions about prudent use of state support.

Setting(s) to which the reported activities/findings are relevant: Government, Community, University.

Knowledge user(s) to whom the piece of literature may be relevant: Policy Makers, Researchers, Advocates.

Knowledge user level addressed by the literature: Organization

This article uses the Commercial Devices and Services version of the NtK Model

• In publically-funded models patients/customers have no choice over which devices are prescribed and are dissatisfied with the options whereas free-market customers are overwhelmed by too many high and low-end options.
  Case study findings
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 2.2, 4.11
• Some AT is designed using false assumptions about users.
  Case study findings
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 2.2, 4.11
• Rules controlling state aid are intended to address concerns about economic advantage and so funds are routed through state entities with the intent of preserving the internal market.
  Case study findings
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 2.3, 3.4
• Service providers and product developers think of AT market as persons in need of assistance not potential customers.
  Case study findings
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 1.5, 4.11
• Focusing on market failure and taking a purely economic approach falls short of obligations.
  Case study findings
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 1.2, 4.9

• State aid can incentivize R&D as well as drive down prices.
  Case study findings
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 3.4, 7.10
• Rules regulating business activities may be defined with exceptions for “the greater good,” and market intervention can occur in instances of market failures.
  Case study findings
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 2.2, 3.4
• Evaluate rules regarding fund dispersal. Include obligations and obstacles as part of SWOT analysis.
  Case study findings
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 2.2, 4.9

Think of market as potential customers, not persons in need of assistance.
Case study findings
Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 1.5, 7.13