# _Discussion_

The results from Figures 4.1 and 4.2 and Appendix 4 are consistent with extensive and consistent evidence that adults with disabilities have lower educational attainment in LMICs, as recently reviewed in United Nations (2019). This association consistently found among adults may result from lower school attendance among children with disabilities (Filmer 2008; Mizunoya et al 2018). It could also be due to less education putting people at higher risk of getting a functional difficulty or being correlated with factors making people at risk of functional difficulty such as malnutrition, lack of access to health care, and risky working conditions. More research is needed to investigate the link between low educational attainment and functional difficulties, notably when information is available on age at onset (Mont 2020). The lack of a consistent and significant difference in terms of children out of school rates and education expenditures depending on the household’s functional difficulty status differs from results from a small but growing literature on the negative relationship between parental disability and children’s educational outcomes (e.g. Mont and Nguyen 2013). The data sets used in this study could be used in further research on parental disability and children’s school enrollment and outcomes.

# **Employment**

Several employment and work related indicators are presented in Table 4.2: the employment population ratio (EPR), the unemployment rate, the idle rate for youths 15 to 24, and several indicators related to the type of work. Disaggregation by sex, age groups and rural/urban areas are in Appendix B.

The EPR is lower among persons with functional difficulty in almost all countries in the three panels. In panel 1, it is significantly lower for adults with any difficulty compared to other adults in all countries/datasets except in Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. The disability gap in the EPR is the largest in Vietnam at 37 percentage points where the EPR stands at 80% and 43% respectively for persons with no difficulty and with any difficulty.

Moving to panel 2, the EPR is consistently significantly lower for adults with at least a lot of difficulty compared to adults with no or some difficulties. It is noteworthy that compared to panel 1, the disability gap in the EPR tends to be larger in panel 2 where the employment of persons with at least a lot of difficulty is compared to that of persons with no or some difficulty.

In panel 3, the EPR is consistently significantly lower for adults with at least a lot of difficulty compared to adults with no difficulty. In panel 3, comparing persons with no difficulty and persons with some difficulty, results are mixed: persons with some difficulty have significantly lower EPRs in six countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Rwanda, South Africa (GHS), Vietnam) and higher in three countries (South Africa (Census), Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu). Finally, in panel 3, in the six countries where persons with some difficulties and persons with at least a lot of difficulties have significantly lower EPRs, there is a gradient in the difference in employment population ratio with larger gaps for persons with at least a lot of difficulty compared to persons with some difficulty. Within countries, the disability gap in EPRs may vary between females and males, across age groups, and urban/ rural areas. Across countries, there is no regular pattern for sex and area (Appendices B1 and B2 respectively): for instance, in some countries it is higher in rural areas (e.g. Gambia) while in others it is larger in urban areas (e.g.

24