Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model

of Disability and Digital Government

Author(s) Malou Beck

Contact [email protected]

Affiliation(s) PhD student at Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, the Netherlands

vulnerability, disability, social model of disability, digital government, automated

Keywords government, digitalization, administrative law, stigmatisation, inequality, digital exclusion,
systemic ableism, dependency

Published Received: 18 Mar. 2024 Accepted: 8 Oct. 2024 Published: 12 Nov. 2024

Citation Malou Beck, Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government, Technology
and Regulation, 2024, 273-290 • https://doi.org/10.26116/techreg.2024.020 • ISSN: 2666-139X

Abstract
In recent years, critiques of the ‘vulnerability’ label ascribed to specific population
groups have gained momentum due to its stigmatising effects. With Martha Fineman at
their forefront, these voices contest that vulnerability is not limited to particular groups
but universal and inherent to being human. However, operationalizing this universal
conception of vulnerability poses challenges and risks, potentially leading to the inadequate
protection of groups disproportionately susceptible to harm. This paper discusses the
dilemma between universal and particular vulnerability paradigms, focusing on persons
with disabilities within the context of digital government. Particular vulnerabilities in this
context are mirrored in the digital disability divide, systemic ableism, and public service
dependencies. Drawing from legal feminist, socio-legal, and disability scholarship, this
paper suggests that a ‘ social model approach to vulnerability’ would reconcile vulnerability
perspectives and allow for a particular vulnerability approach in digital government without
perpetuating stigma. Inspired by the ‘social model of disability’, this vulnerability paradigm
emphasises that external factors, such as structural disadvantage and unequal power and
opportunity dynamics are the primary causes of vulnerability. This shifts the focus from
individual characteristics to systemic accountability.
274 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

1. Introduction
Since the 1990s, governments have steadily transitioned from a paper-based, analogue public administration
towards the emergence of digital government, characterised by the increasing digitization and automation of
public services.1 These advancements have significantly enhanced the efficiency of the public service provision,
promoted consistency in administrative decision-making, and decreased government expenditures.2 However,
the emergence of digital government has also given rise to challenges and inflicted vulnerabilities on citizens.
Such ‘administrative vulnerabilities’ often manifest in citizens’ inability to exercise their rights on equal terms
or an infringement of their fundamental rights. This bears the potential to amplify pre-existing socio-economic
inequalities and strain government-citizen relations.

One group that is often considered to be particularly vulnerable before digital government are persons with
disabilities, defined as “any person with an impairment of a physical, sensory, mental, or intellectual nature
who faces obstacles to participation on equal and equally effective terms with all others in all aspects of the
life of the community.”3 This definition suggests that disability can be present whether officially documented
or not and the impairment can be temporary or permanent.4 Reasons for the outlawing of persons with
disabilities as particularly vulnerable in the realm of digital government are, for instance, the excessive
prevalence of digital disconnection among the population group, higher government dependencies due to
low socio-economic status and poverty, and ableist system design of government services.5 Demonstrating
the vulnerability of persons with disabilities in the digital government context, an Australian survey found
that 86% of respondents advocated for more inclusive digital government services for individuals with
impairments.6 Goggin and Soldatic add, “there remains a long way to go before people with disabilities
are on equal terms with many others, and the list of changes needed is long.”7 Thus, individuals with
an impairment face the heightened risk of bearing disproportionate burdens within the realm of digital
governance to this day.

However, can we, with certainty, label an entire and extremely heterogeneous population group as particularly
vulnerable before digital government? Legal feminist and bioethics scholarship has cautioned against
that, as vulnerability label often has stigmatising effects due to associations with victimhood, weakness
or fragility.8 Martha Fineman is among the prominent scholars to advocate for a universal understanding
of vulnerability. She claims that vulnerability is a universal and ontological aspect of the human condition,

1 Sofia Ranchordás, ‘The Digitization of Government and Digital Exclusion: Setting the Scene’ in The Rule of Law in Cyberspace
(Springer 2022) 125-148; Ana Cristina Aguilar Viana, ‘Digital transformation in public administration: from e-Government
to digital government’ (2021) International Journal of Digital Law 29; Joe Tomlinson, ‘How digital administrative justice is
made’ in Justice in the Digital State (Policy Press 2019) 63-88; Jannick Schou and Anja Svejgaard Pors, ‘Digital by default? A
qualitative study of exclusion in digitised welfare’ (2019) 53 Social Policy & Administration 464.
2 Sofia Ranchordás and Luisa Scarcella, ‘Automated government for vulnerable citizens: intermediating rights’ (2021) 30 Wm
& Mary Bill Rts J 373; Christian Østergaard Madsen, Ida Lindgren and Ulf Melin, ‘The accidental caseworker–How digital self-
service influences citizens’ administrative burden’ (2022) 39 Government Information Quarterly 101653; James N. Danziger
and Kim Viborg Andersen, ‘The impacts of information technology on public administration: an analysis of empirical research
from the “golden age” of transformation’ (2002) 25 International Journal of Public Administration 591.
3 UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (adopted 13 December 2006, entered into force 3
May 2008) UNTS 2515 3, Article 1.
4 Katherine A. Macfarlane, ‘Disability without documentation’ (2021) 90 Fordham L Rev 59.
5 Stephen J. Macdonald and John Clayton, ‘Back to the future, disability and the digital divide’ in Disability and Technology
(Routledge 2017) 702-718; Gerard Goggin, Scott Hollier and Wayne Hawkins, ‘Internet accessibility and disability policy:
lessons for digital inclusion and equality from Australia’ (2017) 6 Internet Policy Review 1-18; Stefan Johansson, Jan Gulliksen
and Catharina Gustavsson, ‘Disability digital divide: the use of the internet, smartphones, computers and tablets among
people with disabilities in Sweden’ (2021) 20 Universal Access in the Information Society 105.
6 Infosys, The Digital Accessibility Journey: Exploring Priorities and Investments in AUS and NZ Organisations (2021) 15
https://www.infosys.com/australia/digital-accessibility-journey/digital-accessibility-journey.pdf accessed 26 June 2024.
7 Gerard Goggin and Karen Soldatić, ‘Automated decision-making, digital inclusion and intersectional disabilities’ (2022) 24
New Media & Society 384, 386.
8 Martha Albertson Fineman, ‘Vulnerability in law and bioethics’ (2019) 30 Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved
52; Alyson Cole, ‘All of us are vulnerable, but some are more vulnerable than others: The political ambiguity of vulnerability
studies, an ambivalent critique’ (2016) 17 Critical Horizons 260; Erinn Gilson, ‘Vulnerability, Ignorance, and Oppression’
(2020) 26 Hypatia 308; Gianclaudio Malgieri and Jędrzej Niklas, ‘Vulnerable data subjects’ (2020) 37 Computer Law & Security
Review 105415; Kate Brown, ‘Re-moralising ‘Vulnerability’’ (2012) 6 People Place and Policy Online 41.
275 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

making it inherent to all individuals regardless of their group affiliation.9 Building on conceptual vulnerability
frameworks, this paper highlights the dilemma of refraining from stigmatising vulnerability labels while
simultaneously protecting certain population groups and acknowledging their challenges in the context
of digital government. Consequently, through the theoretical lens of vulnerability, this paper explores the
research question: How can we meaningfully advance a conceptual understanding of the vulnerability of persons
with disabilities in digital government without perpetuating its stigmatising perspectives?

The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, it examines causes for the particular vulnerability of persons
with disabilities in the context of digital government, highlighting the digital disability divide, dependency
on government services, and ableist system design. This section sets the scope of how digital government
has given rise to particular vulnerabilities of disabled persons. Secondly, the paper discusses prevalent
vulnerability approaches in current scholarship and explores the dilemma of understanding persons with
disabilities as vulnerable before the government without stigmatising them as an ‘incompetent’ or ‘weak’
population group. Thirdly, the paper explores how the social model of disability can be a viable paradigm
to mitigate negative associations with vulnerability of persons with disabilities, as it redirects responsibility
onto societal and institutional entities that have given rise to long-standing structural disadvantage
and unjust opportunity structures. Finally, the conclusion underlines the potential of a ‘social model of
vulnerability’ approach to overcome the explored dilemma.

2. Setting the Scene: Particular Vulnerabilities of Persons with Disabilities in

the Realm of Digital Government
This section illustrates how the digitization and automation of government have given rise to particular
vulnerabilities of persons with disabilities. It explores three factors, namely ableist system design, the digital
disability divide, and dependency on government services that exemplify these vulnerabilities in the context
of digital government.

2.1 Systemic Ableism

To date, societal and institutional structures remain rooted in ableist frameworks, perpetuating the exclusion
of individuals who cannot independently navigate digital government. Essentially, “ableism embodies the
attitudes of specific social groups and structures that prioritise and elevate certain abilities (…) at the
expense of others.”10 The existence of ableist frameworks in society and governance highlights an underlying
intolerance for citizens that deviate from normative standards and reinforces unequal opportunity
structures.11 As early as 1996, the Commission of the European Communities acknowledged that “our
societies are, in many ways, organised for an ‘average’ citizen without any disability, and, therefore, a great
number of citizens are excluded from the rights and opportunities of the vast majority.”12

Ableist government structures are mirrored in the expectation that all citizens can effortlessly engage
with digital government and independently navigate digital public services. In the case of persons with
disabilities, this can, for instance, manifest in the ableist design choices of government websites, leading to
the exclusion and obstacles in accessing digital public services.13 Moreover, big data practices in the public
domain increasingly transform individuals into data subjects, overlooking “non-digital and non-digitizable
forms of information.”14 This gives rise to issues related to the representativeness of data, leaving out those

9 Martha Albertson Fineman, ‘Universality, vulnerability, and collective responsibility’ (2021) 16 Les ateliers de l’éthique 103.
10 Gregor Wolbring, ‘The politics of ableism’ (2008) 51 Development (Society for International Development) 252, 253.
11 Vassilis Charitsis and Tuukka Lehtiniemi, ‘Data ableism: Ability expectations and marginalisation in automated societies’
(2023) 24 Television & New Media 3, 14.
12 Commission of the European Communities, Communication of the Commission on Equality of Opportunity for People with
Disabilities, COM(96) 406 final (30 July 1996) 3.
13 Sora Park and Justine Humphry, ‘Exclusion by design: intersections of social, digital and data exclusion’ (2019) 22 Information,
Communication & Society 934.
14 Joanna Redden, ‘Democratic governance in an age of datafication: Lessons from mapping government discourses and
practices’ (2018) 5 Big Data & Society 2053951718809145, 8.
276 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

who fall outside the scope of standardised data sets, such as persons with disabilities.15 The datafication of
governments and algorithmic decision-making practices have led to forms of discrimination termed ‘data
ableism’ and ‘data disablism’, disproportionately impacting segments of the population that are unable
to meet data standards.16 Data ableism pertains to the design of technologies or datasets in algorithms
that favour specific abilities, thereby excluding individuals who deviate from those normative standards.17
Conversely, data disablism refers to the disabling and discriminatory practices employed within data-
driven systems, often mirroring long-established socio-political disadvantages.18 Critical data scholarship
argues that it is essential to recognize that data can also embody indifference, neglect, or ignorance.19
Incomplete data can lead to inherent biases, underlining that the categorization and classification in of
data norms in digital government do not benefit all citizens,20 often giving rise to vulnerabilities for persons
with disabilities. In sum, ableist design structures, whether in website design or in the form of data, risk
exacerbating the vulnerability of individuals with disabilities by creating accessibility barriers or failing to
account for differences in algorithmic datasets.

2.2 Digital Disability Divide

In the context of digital government, profound digital literacy of information and communication
technologies (ICTs) has become imperative for upholding one’s administrative rights, as today’s public
service infrastructure primarily takes place online. Scholarship widely argues that individuals with a
disability are disproportionately affected by digital disconnection and have always been part of the digital
divide discourse.21 Key drivers of the digital disability divide are barriers related to affordability, accessibility,
the design of online resources, confidence, financial constraints, and lack of knowledge and digital skills.22

Notably, efforts to combat digital disconnection for persons with disabilities were legally recognized in 2006
with the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which established
various rights related to the access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs).23 Similarly,
the European Accessibility Act of 2019 aims to enhance access of persons with disabilities to products
and services in the EU.24 However, while there is legally a strong emphasis on universal access to ICTs,
Robinson et al. argue that assuming universal access automatically improves the digital skills and literacies
of persons with disabilities is a misconception.25 Instead, “the complexities of digital inequalities occur on
many interrelated levels”, making accessibility only one of many components of digital exclusion.26

Simultaneously, as heterogeneous and diverse as the group of disabled individuals is their internet use.
Thus, generalised assumptions about the digital incompetence of disabled individuals can have stigmatising
and discouraging effects.27 Rather than universally characterising disabled persons as digitally incompetent,

15 Lina Dencik and others, ‘Data scores as governance: Investigating uses of citizen scoring in public services project report’
Project Report (Data Justice Lab, Cardiff University, 2018) 10.
16 Charitsis and Lehtiniemi (n 11) 5.
17 Ibid, 4.
18 Ibid, 4.
19 Shiloh Deitz, Amy Lobben and Arielle Alferez, ‘Squeaky wheels: Missing data, disability, and power in the smart city’ (2021) 8
Big Data & Society 20539517211047735, 1-16.
20 Ibid 1-16.
21 Goggin and Soldatić (n 7); Kristin Alfredsson Ågren, Anette Kjellberg and Helena Hemmingsson, ‘Digital participation?
Internet use among adolescents with and without intellectual disabilities: A comparative study’ (2020) 22 New Media &
Society 2128; Kerry Dobransky and Eszter Hargittai, ‘Unrealized potential: Exploring the digital disability divide’ (2016) 58
Poetics 18.
22 Macdonald and Clayton (n 5) 702-718.
23 UN General Assembly (n 3) Article 9 and 21; Article 9 draws attention to accessibility, laying out that new ICTs and systems
need to be made accessible for disabled persons and need to be designed and developed so that they can become accessible
at minimum costs. Article 21 specifies the right to access to information.
24 European Parliament and Council, Directive (EU) 2019/882 of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products
and services (European Accessibility Act) [2019] OJ L151/70.
25 Laura Robinson and others, ‘Digital inequalities 2.0: Legacy inequalities in the information age’ (2020) 25 First Monday 1.
26 Ibid, 2.
27 Florian Pethig, Julia Kroenung and Markus Noeltner, ‘A stigma power perspective on digital government service avoidance’
(2021) 38 Government Information Quarterly 101545; Mikaela Heikkilä, Hisayo Katsui and Maija Mustaniemi-Laakso, ‘Disability
and vulnerability: a human rights reading of the responsive state’ (2020) 24 The International Journal of Human Rights 1180;
Dobransky and Hargittai (n 21).
277 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

it is crucial to paint a nuanced picture of their use, consumption, and access to ICTs.28 Factors such as
gender, age, occupation, financial situation, class affiliation, accommodation, diagnosis, social and cultural
contexts, generation, and impairment play a crucial role in understanding the ICT use of disabled persons.29
Consequently, digital disability divides cannot be studied as one homogenous group but instead based on
subgroups, as barriers that disabled individuals encounter online strongly depend on their impairment.30
For instance, in Sweden, the most prevalent digitally underprivileged groups are blind individuals and those
with multiple disabilities.31

Crucially, ICTs can also pose a valuable opportunity for persons with a disability to fully and independently
participate in society.32 Thus, disability and the internet “is a story of both exclusion and possibility.”33
For instance, text-to-speech technology can benefit people with visual or speech impairments, offering
opportunities for connection with local services, education, or the labour market.34 While assistive
technologies are particularly advantageous with a single impairment, many disabled persons require
multiple and complex forms of assistance.35 This can be rather costly and often fails to adequately grasp and
respond to the diverse needs of persons with disabilities.36

It is essential to recognize that while technology can alleviate some barriers related to education,
employment, information, or social environments for persons with disabilities, the digital disability divide
continues to exist and exemplifies long-established disadvantages and social exclusion for persons with
disabilities.37 Thus, it remains a key factor causing the vulnerability of this population group in the context
of digital government.

2.3 Dependency on Government Services

The dependence of persons with disabilities on public social and welfare services can be a driving factor
for their vulnerability in digital government.38 If an individual heavily relies on social welfare provisions
and if these entitlements are withheld or if the individual encounters obstacles in accessing them through
digital government platforms, there is an elevated risk of harm. Further vulnerabilities then shape how this
dependency is perceived and determine available mitigation strategies.39

While users of welfare services are often already marginalised or excluded,40 digital government “isolates
those even further who have the most to gain.”41 The high representation of disabled persons in the public
service provision often comes down to the intersection of disability and poverty.42 This is highlighted in
Eurostat’s analysis, revealing that in 2020 roughly 29% of persons with disabilities in the European Union
were at risk of poverty.43 One driving factor of this is high unemployment rates, with only one in three

28 Dobransky and Hargittai (n 21).

29 Alan Roulstone, Disability and technology: An interdisciplinary and international approach (Springer 2016) 3.
30 Macdonald and Clayton (n 5); Johansson, Gulliksen and Gustavsson (n 5); Gerard Goggin, ‘Disability and digital inequalities:
Rethinking digital divides with disability theory’ in Theorising digital divides (Routledge 2017) 1.
31 Johansson, Gulliksen and Gustavsson (n 5) 106.
32 Goggin, ‘Disability and digital inequalities: Rethinking digital divides with disability theory’ (n 30); Macdonald and Clayton (n 5).
33 Dobransky and Hargittai (n 21); Deepti Samant Raja, ‘Bridging the disability divide through digital technologies’ (2016)
Background Paper for the World Development Report 7, 19.
34 Raja (n 33).
35 Ibid, 10.
36 Ibid, 10; Alison Adam and David Kreps, ‘Web Accessibility: A Digital Divide for Disabled People?’ in Social Inclusion: Societal
and Organisational Implications for Information Systems (Springer US 2016) 217-228.
37 Raja (n 33) 5.
38 Ibid, 5.
39 Susan Dodds, ‘Dependence, care, and vulnerability’ in Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy (1st edn,
Oxford University Press 2013) 183; Margaret Meek Lange, Wendy Rogers and Susan Dodds, ‘Vulnerability in research ethics: a
way forward’ (2013) 27 Bioethics 333, 336.
40 Schou and Pors (n 1) 468.
41 Sue Watling, ‘Digital exclusion: coming out from behind closed doors’ (2011) 26 Disability & Society 491.
42 Eurostat, People with Disability at Higher Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion (European Union 2021 https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20221214-2 accessed 26 June 2024.
43 Ibid.
278 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

persons with a disability having the opportunity to participate actively in the Dutch labour market in 2015.44
In some countries, unemployment rates for persons with disabilities even reach up to 80 or 90 percent.45
Crucially, active participation in the labour market is not only vital to be considered a full member in today’s
functionalist society, but also to overcome welfare service dependency.46 Thus, paid employment is central to
social inclusion and has been a major factor in continuous societal disadvantage and exclusion for persons
with disabilities.47 Next to structural labour market exclusion and poverty, social exclusion, inadequate
housing, or inadequate support and care, are key contributors to the disproportionate representation of
disabled persons in welfare support services.48 Moreover, while dependency of persons with disabilities is
often associated with reliance on care, the new technological reality requires all individuals to engage with
digital tools. This led to a new form of dependence on internet access, namely ‘cyber dependence’ to realise
basic civil rights.49

Furthermore, dependency structures in the setting of asymmetric power relations, as the case in
digital government, are common vulnerability drivers. While “few relationships are completely level in
power,”50citizen-government relations are characterised by strong power asymmetries. Governments
commonly hold a power monopoly as they can define, in many cases, individuals’ legal positions unilaterally
and exert public authority. The digitalization and automation of government services have further
exacerbated these asymmetries, partly due to inadequate redress mechanisms for citizens to challenge
wrongful decisions made by public authorities. This highlights a critical issue: although administrative law
has established mechanisms to address power imbalances, it was not designed with the digital realm in
mind. In sum, dependency on government services of persons with disabilities makes them a particularly
vulnerable group in the public digital domain due to asymmetric power relations and welfare dependencies
of persons with disabilities.

3. 
Dilemma: A particular or universal approach to the vulnerability of
disabled persons?
The three factors highlighted in the previous section exemplify how the digitization and automation of
governments have produced or exacerbated existing vulnerabilities for persons with disabilities. An obvious
conclusion would be the imposition of a particular vulnerability label on this population group in the context
of digital government. However, this section addresses the dilemma of how to account for the vulnerability
of disabled persons without stigmatising them or considering them as ‘incapable’ of meaningfully engaging
with digital government. It delves into the advantages and drawbacks of particular and universal vulnerability
approaches concerning persons with disabilities and thereby engages with relevant vulnerability scholarship.

3.1 The Dilemma

Individuals with disabilities have historically been marginalised and only gained recognition within the
realm of human rights law around 1975.51 Regrettably, in the past, they have been subject to outspoken
discrimination as they were considered to be a group with ‘undesirable’ traits, often mentioned in the same
context as the ‘poor’ or criminals.52 While society widely overcame these extreme sentiments, persons

44 Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, One in Three Disabled Hold Paid Jobs (CBS 2015) https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2015/05/
one-in-three-disabled-hold-paid-jobs accessed 26 June 2024.
45 Raja (n 33) 5.
46 Raja (n 33); Stephen Bunbury, ‘Unconscious bias and the medical model: How the social model may hold the key to
transformative thinking about disability discrimination’ (2019) 19 International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 26.
47 Bunbury (n 46) 32; Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer, ‘Disability, work, and welfare: Challenging the social exclusion of disabled
people’ (2005) 19 Work, Employment and Society 527, 541.
48 Lise Saugeres, ‘(Un) accommodating disabilities: housing, marginalisation and dependency in Australia’ (2011) 26 Journal of
Housing and the Built Environment 1.
49 Ryan Shandler and Daphna Canetti, ‘A reality of vulnerability and dependence: internet access as a human right’ (2019) 52
Israel Law Review 77, 98.
50 Jackie Leach Scully, ‘Disability and Vulnerability: On Bodies, Dependence, and Power’ in Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and
Feminist Philosophy (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2013) 204, 213.
51 Tom Shakespeare, ‘The social model of disability’ in The Disability Studies Reader (4nd edn, Routledge 2013) 197; Heikkilä,
Katsui and Mustaniemi-Laakso (n 27).
52 Lennard J. Davis, ‘Introduction: Normality, Power, and Culture’ in The Disability Studies Reader (4th edn, Routledge 2013) 6.
279 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

with disabilities still grapple with systemic disadvantages, often rooted in discriminatory societal and
institutional structures.53 As explored previously, the digitalization of public services has given rise to new
vulnerabilities of disabled persons, underlining the growing demand for governments to improve disability
rights and equality frameworks.54

Digital disability divides, ableist design structures or welfare dependencies of disabled persons lead to the
conclusion that persons with disabilities are particularly vulnerable before digital government. However,
as vulnerability is often associated with ‘blame’ or ‘victimhood’, such an approach holds a common
vulnerability impasse: How can we address the unique challenges faced by individuals with disabilities
without perpetuating stigmatisation through a group-based vulnerability label?

3.2 A Universal or Particular Vulnerability Approach?

Vulnerability, initially associated with natural disasters in the early 1980s, has evolved into a universally
recognized concept cutting across numerous disciplines.55 Consequently, vulnerability has taken shape as
a well-defined yet intricate and normative concept, shedding light on the fragile nature of human identity.
A prevailing perspective across various fields entails that vulnerability consists of an external element,
commonly a threat, and an internal element, typically the inability to defend oneself.56 Primarily drawing on
legal feminist perspectives, the following sheds light on different vulnerability approaches and their tensions
when seeking to label persons with disabilities as particularly vulnerable before the digital government.

The particular vulnerability approach identifies vulnerable individuals based on their group affiliation and
characteristics, assuming that vulnerability is limited to specific population groups. For instance, children,
migrants, disabled persons or elderly individuals are commonly considered ‘vulnerable population groups’.57
Such notions are still prevalent in legal contexts, especially in human rights legislation and case law.58 For
instance, the European Court of Human Rights creates a potentially problematic dichotomy between the
‘vulnerable’ and ‘invulnerable’ by applying the vulnerability label to specific population groups.59 Such
particular vulnerability perspectives have faced criticism for stereotyping and profiling entire population
groups, often associating vulnerability with negative perceptions such as weakness and victimhood.60
Despite that, it may evoke paternalistic policy responses due to its underestimation of the importance of
autonomy.61

Simultaneously, a particular approach to vulnerability can be meaningful for population groups as

it acknowledges issues they face and it can grant them specific resources to overcome barriers. Also in
the context of digital government, the vulnerability label can benefit persons with disabilities as it makes
them ‘deserving’ of special treatment. This is especially meaningful as the ‘normalisation’ of persons with

53 Macdonald and Clayton (n 5).

54 Goggin and Soldatić (n 7).
55 Daniel Joseph Hogan and Eduardo Marandola Jr, ‘Towards an interdisciplinary conceptualisation of vulnerability’ (2005)
11 Population, Space and Place 455; Florencia Luna, ‘Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: Layers not labels’ (2009) 2
International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 121-139; Malgieri and Niklas (n 8); Doris Schroeder and Eugenijus
Gefenas, ‘Vulnerability: too vague and too broad?’ (2009) 18 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 113.
56 Schroeder and Gefenas (n 55).
57 Malgieri and Niklas (n 8) 2.
58 Bunbury (n 46); Corina Heri, Responsive Human Rights: Vulnerability, Ill-treatment and the ECtHR (Hart Publishing 2021) 1-238.
59 Ibid, 207.
60 Ibid, 207; Heikkilä, Katsui and Mustaniemi-Laakso (n 27); Catriona Mackenzie, Wendy Rogers, and Susan Dodds,
‘Introduction: What is Vulnerability and Why Does It Matter for Moral Theory’ in Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and
Feminist Philosophy (Oxford University Press 2013) 1; Pethig, Kroenung and Noeltner (n 27); Martha Albertson Fineman, ‘The
vulnerable subject: anchoring equality in the human condition’ (2008) 20 Yale JL & Feminism 1.
61 Barbara Fawcett, ‘Vulnerability: questioning the certainties in social work and health’, (2009) International Journal of Social
Work 52, 473–84; Birgit Daniel, ‘Concepts of adversity, risk, vulnerability and resilience: a discussion in the context of the
“Child protection system”’ (2010) Social Policy and Society 9, 2, 231–41; Beverley Clough, ‘Disability and vulnerability:
Challenging the capacity/incapacity binary’ (2017) 16 Social Policy and Society 469; Nina A. Kohn, ‘Vulnerability theory and the
role of government’ (2014) 26 Yale JL & Feminism 1.
280 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

disabilities often does play in their favour either.62 Therefore, steering clear of specific vulnerability designations
for groups at higher risk can inadvertently normalise power imbalances in society, contributing to ongoing
social inequalities.63 This relates to the discourse surrounding equity, drawing attention to the fact that mere
equal treatment of individuals does not necessarily generate equal outcomes.64 Although state responsibilities
are universally applicable and owed equally to all individuals, specific and targeted measures are often essential
to guarantee “the accessibility, adaptability, affordability and availability of societal structures to all persons
with disabilities.”65 Hence, assigning a specific vulnerability label holds the potential to effectively safeguard
the needs of those who are most at risk of harm. 66

By contrast, the universal approach to vulnerability contends that vulnerability is an inherent aspect of the
human condition, transcending particular groups or individuals as it is applicable to all human beings.67 This
understanding has become dominant in contemporary vulnerability studies with Martha Fineman’s legal
feminist vulnerability theory at its forefront. Fineman defines vulnerability as “the unavoidable susceptibility
to change, both positive and negative, in our physical well being that we experience over the life course.”68
Such ontological understanding of vulnerability stems from the belief that it is a fundamental aspect of
being human that extends beyond particular groups and is an universally inherent trait.69 Fineman contends
that legal subjects are characterised by (inter)dependency as it an inherent vulnerability which requires a
strong state to build resilience and mitigate it.70 This opposes notions of the autonomous, independent,
liberal subject in today’s neoliberal state. Crucially, while rejecting the particular notion of vulnerability,
Fineman does not deny that there are differences between members of society, which can, for instance, be
pronounced in human embodiment and therefore be of a physical, mental or intellectual nature.71 However,
this universal vulnerability approach can be challenging to operationalize due to its utopian nature,
disregard for the limited resources of the state, and lack of emphasis on autonomy.

A universal approach to vulnerability can be meaningful for persons with disabilities in the context
of digital government as it moves away from the focus on narrow categorizations and the stigmatising
nature of vulnerability.72 Pethig et al. provide a valuable example of how labelling entire population groups
as vulnerable can be harmful and stigmatising.73 Their study reveals that categorising individuals with
disabilities as vulnerable in their interaction with technology can discourage them in their engagement with
digital government services.74 Stereotypes associating disabled individuals as “warm but incompetent” or
“computer illiterate” contribute to destructive perceptions and hinder their utilisation of tailored services.75
Additionally, labelling persons with a disability as vulnerable can trigger paternalistic policy responses and
question their autonomy and agency.76 Such an approach perpetuates a dichotomy between the ‘abled and
disabled’ and the ‘capable and incapable’77 which reinforces the idea that persons with disabilities deviate
from the norm.78 Disability scholarship has drawn attention to the issues of patronising and disempowering

62 Gerard Goggin and Christopher Newell, ‘The business of digital disability’ (2007) 23 The Information Society 159; Kate Brown,
‘Questioning the vulnerability zeitgeist: Care and control practices with ‘vulnerable young people’ (2014) 13 Social Policy and
Society 371.
63 Heikkilä, Katsui and Mustaniemi-Laakso (n 27) 1180.
64 Fineman, ‘The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition’ (n 60) 4.
65 Heikkilä, Katsui and Mustaniemi-Laakso (n 27) 1181.
66 Cole (n 8).
67 Fineman, ‘Vulnerability in law and bioethics’ (n 8); Heikkilä, Katsui and Mustaniemi-Laakso (n 27).
68 Fineman, ‘Vulnerability in law and bioethics’ (n 8) 57.
69 Fineman, ‘The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition’ (n 60) 1.
70 Martha Albertson Fineman, ‘The Vulnerable Subject and the Responsive State’ (2010) 60 Emory Law Journal 251, 269.
71 Martha Albertson Fineman, ‘Feminism, masculinities, and multiple identities’ (2012) 13 Nevada Law Journal 619, 638.
72 Clough (n 61) 469; Heikkilä, Katsui and Mustaniemi-Laakso (n 27).
73 Pethig, Kroenung and Noeltner (n 27).
74 Ibid, 2.
75 Ibid, 2.
76 Clough, (n 61) 474.
77 Ibid.
78 Davis (n 52) 1.
281 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

policy responses based on their vulnerability, further harming persons with disability.79 Fineman’s universal
vulnerability approach overcomes these shortcomings through the avoidance of labelling persons with
disabilities as a particularly vulnerable group.

Interestingly, both approaches to vulnerability carry the drawback of underestimating the importance of
autonomy of persons with disabilities and their ability to make self-determined and autonomous choices.
The particular approach bears the risk of paternalistic and coercive policy responses, ultimately undermining
autonomy. Simultaneously, a universal vulnerability approach can also give rise to paternalism due to its
strong emphasis on constant risk and a strong and responsive state.80 While it can be beneficial to focus
on compromising autonomy for broad policy goals, such as minimum income or adequate healthcare,
autonomy must be a key concern when choosing among particular policy interventions.81 Kohn stresses that
the fundamental rejection of autonomy can go as far as offsetting human dignity.82 Thus, autonomy remains
a key concern in particular and universal vulnerability contexts.

3.3 Heterogeneity
Labelling individuals with disabilities as particularly vulnerable before digital government presents another
challenge due to the inherent diversity, heterogeneity, and complexity within the disability spectrum. The
needs and issues of disabled persons vary depending on impairment, circumstances and characteristics.
For instance, a citizen with a hearing impairment encounters different barriers in digital government
than someone with a cognitive, psychological or age-related impairment. Furthermore, a comprehensive
understanding of the vulnerability of persons with disabilities requires the recognition of further attributes
and vulnerability layers. Two individuals may share the same medical impairment. Yet, one may be
significantly more vulnerable if burdened with additional layers, such as low socio-economic status, financial
difficulties, advanced age, or a lack of social support.

This concedes with Luna’s layered vulnerability approach, which argues that the accumulation and synergy
of different layers constitute vulnerability.83 Luna advocates for a nuanced, contextual comprehension of
vulnerability, presenting it as a multi-layered phenomenon rather than a fixed label that can simply be applied
to population groups or even individuals. These layers should not be perceived as rigid hierarchies but as
fluid and adaptable, because different social contexts and relational circumstances affect an individual’s
vulnerability differently. Therefore, the elusive, accumulative, complex, intersectional and multidimensional
nature of vulnerability urges for an understanding of the characteristics and circumstances of each
individual.84 Similarly, Ferri and Connor reject a one-dimensional approach when seeking to understand
discrimination of persons with disabilities.85 Instead, they claim that it is vital to explore how the convergence
of social class, race, and disability creates hurdles for students with impairments in the realm of education.86

79 Kate Brown, Kathryn Ecclestone and Nick Emmel, ‘The many faces of vulnerability’ (2017) 16 Social Policy and Society 497;
Andrea Hollomotz, ‘Beyond ‘vulnerability’: An ecological model approach to conceptualizing risk of sexual violence against
people with learning difficulties’ (2009) 39 British Journal of Social Work 99; Guy Wishart, ‘The sexual abuse of people with
learning difficulties: do we need a social model approach to vulnerability?’ (2003) 5 The Journal of Adult Protection 14.
80 Fineman, ‘The Vulnerable Subject and the Responsive State’ (n 70) 269.
81 Kohn (n 61) 16.
82 Ibid, 15.
83 Luna, ‘Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: Layers not labels’ (n 55); Florencia Luna, ‘Identifying and evaluating layers of
vulnerability–a way forward’ (2019) 19 Developing World Bioethics 86.
84 Scott Keay and Stuart Kirby, ‘Defining vulnerability: From the conceptual to the operational’ (2018) 12 Policing: A Journal
of Policy and Practice 428; Luna, ‘Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: Layers not labels’ (n 55); Luna, ‘Identifying and
evaluating layers of vulnerability–a way forward’ (n 83).
85 Beth Ferri and David Connor, ‘Talking (and not talking) about race, social class and dis/ability: Working margin to margin’
(2014) 17 Race Ethnicity and Education 471.
86 Ibid.
282 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

Furthermore, considering disability as an isolated phenomenon only affecting one specific population group
is strongly inaccurate.87 Bunbury claims that disability is an exceptional category within discrimination as
all individuals are at risk and even likely of becoming temporarily disabled at some point in their lives.88
This can come down to an impairment that emerges with a higher age or even a broken leg. Thus, all
humans are likely to be confronted with disability throughout their lifetime, either experiencing that on their
own bodies or in our social surroundings, underlining the heterogeneous and complex nature of disability.
Consequently, the imposition of a particular vulnerability label on disabled citizens as an isolated population
group is flawed and imprecise in its nature. Some impairments may only be temporary or situational, while
others are inherent.

4. The solution? A Social Model Approach to Vulnerability

The previous section pointed to the dilemma that while singling out individuals can perpetuate stigma
and cause harm, not acknowledging particular vulnerabilities can lead to inadequate protection and also
cause harm. This section offers a solution to this dilemma, proposing that the social model of disability
provides valuable guidance in advancing a particular vulnerability approach while overcoming the negative
and blame-related sentiments of vulnerability.

4.1 Models of Disability

Heretofore and outdated in current times, disability was understood through the moral model of disability,
which assumed, often in a spiritual or religious manner, that disability is a form of deficiency, inflicted
through sin.89 While such sentiments are no longer prevalent in contemporary society, the legacy of the moral
model highlights the discrimination and stigma faced by disabled individuals in the past, prompting us to
scrutinise whether remnants of these perspectives persist in current societal and institutional frameworks.
Today, scholarship primarily distinguishes between the medical and social model of disability.90

Firstly, the medical model of disability conveys the traditional western philosophical perspective that
disability stems from physical or mental impairments, viewing disability “as an individual’s unfortunate
state of functioning and being.”91 It places significant emphasis on the medical condition, presupposing
that impairments deviate from the norm and should be perceived as individual deficits. The primary goal
within this model is to minimise the effects of disability, with a focal point on diagnosis, treatment, and
mitigation. Thus, the medical model “regards disability as an impairment that needs to be treated, cured,
fixed, or rehabilitated.”92 If medical professionals fail to cure an impairment, the unchallenged consequence
is that the individual has a limited ability to participate in society.93

Secondly, the social model of disability advocates for the notion that disability emerges due to disabling
factors in society.94 Over decades, persons with disabilities have challenged the overly medicalized and
individualistic understanding of disability, advocating for an approach that takes into account its social
implications, cultural discourse, and environmental barriers.95 As a result, the social model of disability
emerged in the context of a social justice movement by UPIAS in the 1970s, claiming:

87 Bunbury (n 46).
88 Ibid.
89 Peter McTigue, ‘The challenge of HIV-social stigma or disability?’ (2010) Web Journal of Current Legal Issues 4 https://www.
bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/2010/issue5/mctigue5.html accessed 1 August 2024; Simo Vehmas, ‘Ethical Analysis of
the Concept of Disability’ (2004) 42(3) Mental Retardation 209.
90 Michael Oliver, Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice (2nd edn, Bloomsbury Publishing 2018);; Shakespeare (n 51).
91 Vehmas (n 89) 209.
92 Theresia Degener, ‘A New Human Rights Model of Disability’ in The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (Springer International Publishing 2017) 42.
93 Bunbury (n 46) 28.
94 Sara Goering, ‘Rethinking disability: the social model of disability and chronic disease’ (2015) 8 Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal
Medicine 134; Bunbury (n 46) 29.
95 Shakespeare (n 51) 214; Degener (n 92); Bunbury (n 46) 42; Oliver (n 90) 2.
283 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

“In our view, it is society which disables physically impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of our
impairments, by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society. Disabled
people are therefore an oppressed group in society” (1975).96

This quote shows how the disabling factor of a physical impairment is rooted in social exclusion and a lack
of opportunities rather than the inherent physical or mental limitation itself.97 The social model of disability
views impairment and disability separately. While impairment refers to a physical or mental condition,
disability stems from the societal and environmental response to it.98 Thus, “disability is linked to the loss of
opportunities caused by society’s failure to break down the barriers (physical and social).”99 Structural barriers
for persons with disabilities can range from individual intolerance to institutional discrimination and from
inaccessible public transport to excluding work places. Instead of focusing on medical care, the emphasis
of the social model of disability lies on dismantling existing power structures and structural barriers that
disadvantage individuals with impairments and hinder their full and equal participation in society.

While the social model of disability offers a meaningful framework for addressing the marginalisation and
discrimination faced by disabled individuals, it falls short in accounting for the heterogeneity of disability
and variations in the physical and mental conditions of people.100 Additionally, the model has faced criticism
for its oversimplified view of disability, as it overlooks the lived medical experiences of disabled persons,
including pain, individual restrictions, and the fear of mortality.101

Moreover, the human rights of persons with disabilities have been codified in the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which came into force in 2008. Also considered as a ‘human rights
model of disability’, the Convention adopts a remarkable approach by aligning itself with the social model of
disability.102 This perspective considers disability in the context of external elements, such as environmentally
and socially constructed barriers, and places particular emphasis on dignity, equality, accessibility, and
participation.103 Its preamble acknowledges “that disability is an evolving concept and that disability results
from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that
hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”104 Thus, the social
model of disability is a fundamental building block of the treaty.105

4.2 Shifting the focus: A ‘Social Model Approach of Vulnerability’

Inspired by the social model of disability, which argues that societal and environmental factors disable
persons with an impairment; this paper proposes a ‘social model of vulnerability approach’ in the context
of digital government, which asserts that disadvantageous power and opportunity structures and systemic
disadvantages are critical causes of vulnerability. This contends that external factors render individuals or
population groups vulnerable and not their attributes or features per se. A ‘social model of vulnerability
approach’, previously touched upon by Wishart and Clough,106 enables a deflection of responsibility for
vulnerability from the individual to external factors, such as the state, society and institutions.107 This makes
the individual a ‘passive’ actor to the vulnerability label. Such passivity does not mean that the vulnerable
individual should not actively participate in shaping policy choices and exert autonomy, but it means that
the focus on who is responsible for the occurred vulnerability is shifted. Thereby, it rejects a focus on the

96 Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, Fundamental Principles of Disability (UPIAS, 1975) 14.
97 Shakespeare (n 51) 215; Degener (n 92).
98 Degener (n 92), 42.
99 Bunbury (n 46), 30.
100 Heikkilä, Katsui and Mustaniemi-Laakso (n 27).
101 Lorella Terzi, ‘The social model of disability: A philosophical critique’ (2004) 21 Journal of applied philosophy 141.
102 Michael Perlin, ‘“The ladder of the law has no top and no bottom”: How therapeutic jurisprudence can give life to international
human rights’ (2014) 37 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 535, 538.
103 Ibid; UN General Assembly (n 3), Article 3.
104 UN General Assembly (n 3) Preamble.
105 Degener (n 92), .42.
106 Clough (n 61).
107 Ibid, 479; Wishart (n 79) 16, 25.
284 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

citizen’s characteristics as a negative or flawed contributor to the vulnerability.108 Such a ‘social model of
vulnerability approach’ offers a valuable solution to the paper’s central dilemma as it allows us to concede
with particular notions of vulnerability while overcoming its blame-related and stigmatising notions.

The external perspective of a ‘social model of vulnerability’ holds similar viewpoints to pathogenic
vulnerability, encompassing the notion that environmental or systemic issues put individuals at (situational)
risk of being harmed.109 Thus, pathogenic vulnerabilities result from “prejudice or abuse in interpersonal
relationships and from social domination, oppression, or political violence.”110 Similar to the social model
of disability, vulnerability in this context does not stem from individual traits deviating from societal norms
but rather from societal and institutional attitudes. Consequently, external entities bear responsibility for
addressing and lessening the vulnerabilities they generate.111 Interestingly, pathogenic vulnerability can
also arise “when a response intended to ameliorate vulnerability has the paradoxical effect of exacerbating
existing vulnerabilities or generating new ones.”112

Moreover, despite her advocacy for a universal vulnerability approach, Martha Fineman argues for such a
shift in responsibility of vulnerability, asserting that individuals should never be held responsible for their
vulnerability since disadvantage is caused by external factors.113 While Fineman claims that vulnerability
is inherent to the human condition, she argues that group differences persist due to externally imposed
unequal power and opportunity structures, rendering some individuals more susceptible to harm than
others.114 The receptivity of these risks of harm is linked to the fact that all individuals are (inter)dependent
subjects and inevitably impacted by societal structures.115 Other theories, such as Critical Race Theory116,
Social Justice Theory117, or Feminist Theory118 also argue that dismantling unequal power structures are
crucial to achieve social justice and gender equality.

Furthermore, a ‘social model approach of vulnerability’ aligns with perspectives of relational autonomy,
which contend that both the state and society have a responsibility to foster conditions wherein individuals
can make autonomous decisions.119 Relational autonomy posits that self-determination is developed and
exercised within social relationships, making it subject to societal structures and power dynamics.120 This
suggests that autonomy is fundamentally intertwined with social, cultural, and institutional frameworks,
thereby challenging conventional notions of autonomy as a solely individualistic endeavour.121 Particularly
persons with disabilities are often perceived as lacking autonomous decision-making abilities due to
support requirements and reliance on assistance from others.122 However, self-determination and autonomy
are vital for all individuals. It is therefore essential to provide an “interpersonal, social, and institutional
scaffolding” to exercise autonomy.123 In the case of persons with disabilities, other parties therefore play a
key role in making them independent and autonomous actors.124

108 Wishart (n 79).

109 Catriona Mackenzie, ‘The Importance of Relational Autonomy and Capabilities for an Ethics of Vulnerability’ in Vulnerability:
New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy (Oxford University Press 2013) 33, 39, 54; Dodds, ‘Dependence, care, and
vulnerability’ (n 39).
110 Mackenzie, ‘The importance of relational autonomy and capabilities for an ethics of vulnerability’ (n 109), 39.
111 Ibid, 40.
112 Mackenzie, Rogers and Dodds, ‘Introduction: What is vulnerability and why does it matter for moral theory’ (n 60) 9.
113 Fineman, ‘Feminism, masculinities, and multiple identities’ (n 71) 638.
114 Ibid.
115 Clough (n 61) 469; Fineman, ‘The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition’ (n 61); Martha Albertson
Fineman, ‘Equality and Difference - The Restrained State’ (2015) 66 Alabama Law Review 609.
116 Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, ‘Critical Race Theory: An Introduction’ (2017) Journal of Pan African Studies 408.
117 Clara Sabbagh and Manfred Schmitt (eds), Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research (1st edn, Springer 2016) 1-491.
118 Look into works by Judith Butler and Bell Hooks.
119 Mackenzie, ‘The importance of relational autonomy and capabilities for an ethics of vulnerability’ (n 109).
120 Laura Davy, ‘Between an ethic of care and an ethic of autonomy: Negotiating relational autonomy, disability, and dependency’
(2019) 24 Angelaki: Journal of Theoretical Humanities 101.
121 Mackenzie, ‘The importance of relational autonomy and capabilities for an ethics of vulnerability’ (n 109).
122 Davy (n 120) 101.
123 Mackenzie, ‘The importance of relational autonomy and capabilities for an ethics of vulnerability’ (n 109), 42.
124 Davy (n 120).
285 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

In sum, the social model of disability provides a meaningful framework to advance a ‘social model approach
of vulnerability’, which allows for an external perspective that focuses on how society and its institutions
render some population groups or individuals vulnerable. While this enables a particular vulnerability
approach, it does not necessarily reject the universal character of vulnerability. Instead, it advances an
understanding that some individuals are more susceptible to harm than others due to long standing
structural and systemic disadvantage. Such a macro-level perspective and deflection of responsibility for
vulnerability helps overcome negative and blame-related vulnerability connotations, ultimately allowing
ruling out specific population groups, such as persons with disabilities, as vulnerable.

4.3 Application of the ‘Social Model Approach of Vulnerability’ in Digital Government – Asking
the Right Questions
Revealing structural inequalities is challenging, and addressing them in a sustainable way can be even more
difficult. However, it is crucial not to shy away from these significant tasks, as they lie at the root of many
societal issues. Avoiding them only further perpetuates unequal power dynamics and opportunity structures.

In the context of digital government, a ‘social model of vulnerability’ paradigm cannot instantly solve
accessibility and engagement challenges. However, this is also not its intent. Instead, it aims to shift the
narrative by framing vulnerability not as an individual trait but as a result of external conditions. Instead
of focusing on ‘who’ is vulnerable before the government, the model rather asks ‘why’ specific population
groups are placed in vulnerable positions and ‘what’ underlying power and opportunity structures are that
give rise to those vulnerabilities. Revealing root causes of vulnerability in the context of digital government
by asking questions such as the ’why’ and ‘what’, allows for policy responses that are tailored to those
vulnerabilities of citizens before the government.

For example, consider a person with a mild intellectual disability who is unable to independently file
their tax returns. To answer the question, “Why is this person vulnerable in their engagement with the tax
authorities?” two factors come into play. First, the system’s complexity and unclear instructions make it
difficult for many citizens to navigate the online tax system independently. Thus, their vulnerability does not
stem from their cognitive impairment but rather from the complexity of the tax authority’s system design.
Second, the lack of recognition for mild intellectual disabilities has resulted in insufficient support services
for this group. Similarly, the question, “What underlying power and opportunity structures contribute to
the vulnerability of individuals with mild intellectual impairments?” can be answered by recognizing that
this population often receives inadequate attention.125 This example demonstrates how the proposed model
can function as a practical framework, despite its abstract nature, by highlighting how systemic issues and
overlooked needs contribute to vulnerabilities.

In section two, this paper outlined how systemic ableism, the digital disability divide, and government
dependencies are key contributors to the particular vulnerability of persons with disabilities before digital
government. When applying a ‘social model approach of vulnerability’ lens to these three factors, it becomes
evident that they are rooted in long-standing structural disadvantages of persons with disabilities. Thus,
vulnerability is not caused by attributes of persons with disabilities, but by failure of the government to
accommodate those. For instance, an underlying structural cause for government dependencies of persons with
disabilities is the close link of poverty and disability, often coming down to the failure to adequately include
them in the labour market.126 Moreover, systemic ableism is rooted in the fact that society is constructed
around an individual that conforms to ‘average’ citizen standards. This can give rise to vulnerability if those
normative ideas are encoded in data that is used in automated decision-making systems or manifest in
ableist system design, inhibiting the accessibility of public services. Again, this underlines the external
character of vulnerability as governments fail to respond to the unique needs and circumstances of persons
with disabilities. Interestingly, even when governments express a willingness to involve persons with

125 Mariska Oosterveld‐Vlug and others, ‘What difficulties do people with mild intellectual disabilities experience when seeking
medical help from their GP? A qualitative study’ (2021) 34 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 178; Sharon J
Krinsky‐McHale and Wayne Silverman, ‘Dementia and mild cognitive impairment in adults with intellectual disability: issues
of diagnosis’ (2013) 18 Developmental disabilities research reviews 31.
126 Raja (n 33); Bunbury (n 46).
286 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

disabilities in the co-design of artificially intelligent virtual assistants for digital government, the prevailing
culture and organisational structure of public administration can hinder its effective implementation.127 Van
Toorn demonstrates that a co-design approach for inclusive government in Australia failed due to “a lack
of institutionalised support and resistance to sharing power.”128 Engaging persons with disabilities as equal
partners remains a challenge for public authorities.129 Finally, the digital disability divide is closely linked to
challenges in accessibility, affordability, confidence, education and design.130 For instance, the affordability
of digital devices is often connected to the intersection of poverty and disability, which is frequently linked
to labour market exclusion or inadequate welfare support. Similarly, a lack of confidence in digital skills may
result from past negative experiences with inaccessible technology or from insufficiently tailored education
for individuals with impairments. As a result, the digital divide is deeply rooted in structural issues that
mirror the unequal power dynamics and opportunity gaps faced by people with disabilities.

In sum, the digital government needs to provide persons with disabilities with the tools and the
societal and institutional scaffolding to autonomously engage with public services. This includes the
implementation of user-friendly designs and the consideration of unique circumstances in automated and
non-automated decision-making processes. While the definition of ‘user-friendly’ varies depending on the
type of impairment and the specific needs of individuals, certain measures can benefit a broad spectrum
of citizens. For example, reintroducing more physical, in-person services alongside digital options, and
incorporating simple, clear language in public online platforms, would reduce barriers and thereby improve
accessibility for many. The perspective of relational autonomy is relevant here as it also shifts the focus from
merely safeguarding external threats to nurturing relationships that empower persons with disabilities.131
Importantly, structural disadvantage not only inflicts vulnerability externally but also impacts the internal
resilience of the individual to defend itself against any form of potential harm inflicted by, for instance,
the government. Given the diverse experiences and marginalisation faced by individuals with disabilities, a
holistic approach that addresses their social positioning and marginalisation is essential in determining the
extent to which vulnerability is experienced.132

5. Conclusion
This paper began by highlighting the issue that the digitalization and automation of governments have
introduced new administrative vulnerabilities for citizens which often manifest in citizen’s inability to
enforce their rights or an infringement of their administrative rights. The digital disability divide, ableist
system design, and welfare dependencies are prime examples of vulnerabilities of persons with disabilities
in the realm of today’s increasingly digitised public administration. While this would suggest that persons
with disabilities are a particularly vulnerable population group in the context of digital government, such
a vulnerability label can be problematic due to its stigmatising, harmful, and blame-related sentiments.133
This paper highlighted the dilemma that on the one hand certain population groups need to be adequately
protected and ruled out as vulnerable, such a particular vulnerability label can be harmful and stigmatising
on the other hand. Stemming from this impasse, this paper addressed the research question: How can we
meaningfully advance an understanding of the vulnerability of persons with disabilities in digital government
without perpetuating its stigmatising perspectives?

To navigate this dilemma, the paper contended that the social model of disability offers a meaningful
framework for understanding the vulnerability of persons with disabilities in the realm of digital government.
Relying on a ‘social model of vulnerability’ paradigm, it posits that vulnerability is an externally inflicted
phenomenon arising from structural disadvantage and unequal power and opportunity structures. This

127 Georgia van Toorn, ‘Inclusion interrupted: Lessons from the making of a digital assistant by and for people with disability’
(2024) 41 Government Information Quarterly 101900.
128 Ibid, 1.
129 Ibid, 8.
130 Macdonald and Clayton (n 5).
131 Janet Delgado, ‘Re-thinking relational autonomy: Challenging the triumph of autonomy through vulnerability’ (2019) 5
Bioethics Update 50.
132 Scully (n 50) 219.
133 Gilson (n 8).
287 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

perspective refrains from stigmatising individuals and instead focuses on societal disablement imposed
by the broader system. Thus, the focus is shifted away from individualised perceptions of vulnerability
towards a macro-level analysis of systemic injustices, inflicted by the state and society. Here, a ‘social model
of vulnerability’ approach renders the vulnerable individual a passive participant and underscores how
existing societal and institutional structures fail to accommodate difference, particularly in the context of
digital government.

While a ‘social model of vulnerability’ approach holds significant potential to reduce the stigma associated
with the term ‘vulnerability’ and acknowledge the disproportionate burdens faced by some members of
society, it falls short of directly addressing existing vulnerabilities. Nonetheless, the proposed model
presents two key benefits in the context of digital government. First, by highlighting that vulnerabilities are
caused by external factors rather than citizens’ inherent characteristics, it promotes a solution-oriented
perspective. Identifying the specific practices, biases, or societal structures that create vulnerabilities
enables targeted interventions to address these issues. Second, viewing vulnerability as externally imposed
helps combat the term’s associated stigma. It shifts the focus away from the individual and their perceived
shortcomings, directing attention instead to systemic flaws and structural inequalities. This external view
justifies the labelling of specific population groups as particularly vulnerable, as their vulnerabilities are
seen as entirely as stemming from external societal and systemic factors.

The current state of the art has acknowledged that vulnerability is externally inflicted; however, scholarly
contributions that focus on the social model of disability in relation to vulnerability remain scarce,
underlining the contribution of this paper. The focus on persons with disabilities and their vulnerability in
the context of digital government provides a valuable case study as there are distinguishable factors that
render the population group particularly vulnerable, such as the digital disability divide, systemic ableism,
and government dependencies. The application of a ‘social model to vulnerability’ framework reveals that all
three factors are the product of long-standing unequal power and opportunity structures and thus externally
inflicted. For instance, vulnerability arising from welfare dependencies is rooted in the labour market
exclusion of disabled persons and the high prevalence of poverty among the population group. Similarly, the
transition to a digital landscape has not eradicated, but rather exacerbated, ableist system designs in public
service provision. Finally, the digital disability divide persists, often underpinned by intersectional structural
disadvantages faced by persons with disabilities. As these causes are special to this population group, they
justify a particular vulnerability approach as opposed to its universal notions.

While this paper focuses on the vulnerability of persons with disabilities in the realm of digital government,
the ‘social model approach to vulnerability’ holds promise to reshape perceptions of vulnerability, away
from negative, individualistic associations to something that originates externally. Moreover, tackling the
vulnerability of citizens before the government regardless of group affiliation and advancing a meaningful
understanding of the concept will become increasingly relevant in the years to come as public administrations
around the world continue to digitise and automate their services. However, potential limitations are the
operationalization of vulnerability as an externally inflicted phenomenon through the social model as the
elimination of long-standing structural disadvantages can be challenging. Moving forward, further research
is needed to explore the application of the ‘social model approach to vulnerability’ across diverse population
groups in the context of digital government to test its wider applicability.
288 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

References
Adam A and Kreps D, Web Accessibility: A Digital Divide for Disabled People? (Springer 2006)
Albertson Fineman M, ‘Universality, Vulnerability, and Collective Responsibility’ (2021) 16 Les ateliers de l’éthique 103
Alfredsson Ågren K, Kjellberg A and Hemmingsson H, ‘Digital Participation? Internet Use among Adolescents with
and without Intellectual Disabilities: A Comparative Study’ (2020) 22 New Media & Society 2128
Assembly UG, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)
Barnes C and Mercer G, ‘Disability, Work, and Welfare: Challenging the Social Exclusion of Disabled People’ (2005)
19 Work, Employment and Society 527
Brown K, ‘Questioning the Vulnerability Zeitgeist: Care and Control Practices with “Vulnerable Young People”’
(2014) 13 Social Policy and Society 371
Brown K, ‘Re-moralising “Vulnerability”’ (2012) 6 People Place and Policy Online 41
Brown K, Ecclestone K and Emmel N, ‘The Many Faces of Vulnerability’ (2017) 16 Social Policy and Society 497
Bunbury S, ‘Unconscious Bias and the Medical Model: How the Social Model May Hold the Key to Transformative
Thinking about Disability Discrimination’ (2019) 19 International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 26
Charitsis V and Lehtiniemi T, ‘Data Ableism: Ability Expectations and Marginalisation in Automated Societies’
(2023) 24 Television & New Media 3
Clough B, ‘Disability and Vulnerability: Challenging the Capacity/Incapacity Binary’ (2017) 16 Social Policy and
Society 469
Cole A, ‘All of Us Are Vulnerable, but Some Are More Vulnerable Than Others: The Political Ambiguity of Vulnerability
Studies, an Ambivalent Critique’ (2016) 17 Critical Horizons 260
Communities CotE, Communication of the Commission on Equality of Opportunity for People with Disabilities (1996)
Danziger JN and Andersen KV, ‘The Impacts of Information Technology on Public Administration: An
Analysis of Empirical Research from the “Golden Age” of Transformation’ (2002) 25 International Journal of
Public Administration591
Davis LJ, ‘Introduction: Normality, Power, and Culture’ (2013) 4 The Disability Studies Reader 1
Davy L, ‘Between an Ethic of Care and an Ethic of Autonomy: Negotiating Relational Autonomy, Disability, and
Dependency’ (2019) 24 Angelaki 101
Degener T, ‘A New Human Rights Model of Disability’ (Springer 2017)
Degener T, ‘Disability in a Human Rights Context’ (2016) 5 Laws 35
Delgado R and Stefancic J, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, vol 87 (NYU Press 2023)
Deitz S, Lobben A and Alferez A, ‘Squeaky Wheels: Missing Data, Disability, and Power in the Smart City’ (2021) 8
Big Data & Society 20539517211047735
Dencik L and others, ‘Data Scores as Governance: Investigating Uses of Citizen Scoring in Public Services Project
Report’ (2018)
Dobransky K and Hargittai E, ‘Unrealized Potential: Exploring the Digital Disability Divide’ (2016) 58 Poetics 18
Dodds S, ‘Dependence, Care, and Vulnerability’ in Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy(Oxford
University Press 2014) 181
Eurostat, People with Disability at Higher Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion (European Union 2021)
Ferri BA and Connor DJ, ‘Talking (and not Talking) about Race, Social Class and Dis/ability: Working Margin to
Margin’ (2014) 17 Race Ethnicity and Education 471
Fineman MA, ‘Equality and Difference-The Restrained State’ (2014) 66 Ala L Rev 609
Fineman MA, ‘Feminism, Masculinities, and Multiple Identities’ (2012) 13 Nev LJ 619
Fineman MA, ‘The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition’ (2008) 20 Yale JL & Feminism 1
Fineman MA, ‘The Vulnerable Subject and the Responsive State’ (2010) 60 Emory Law Journal 251
Fineman MA, ‘Vulnerability in Law and Bioethics’ (2019) 30 Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 52
Gilson E, ‘Vulnerability, Ignorance, and Oppression’ (2020) 26 Hypatia 308
Goering S, ‘Rethinking Disability: The Social Model of Disability and Chronic Disease’ (2015) 8 Current Reviews in
Musculoskeletal Medicine 134
Goggin G, ‘Disability and Digital Inequalities: Rethinking Digital Divides with Disability Theory’ in Theorising Digital
Divides (Routledge 2017)
Goggin G and Hollier S and Hawkins W, ‘Internet Accessibility and Disability Policy: Lessons for Digital Inclusion
and Equality from Australia’ (2017) 6 Internet Policy Review
Goggin G and Newell C, ‘The Business of Digital Disability’ (2007) 23 The Information Society 159
289 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

Goggin G and Soldatić K, ‘Automated Decision-Making, Digital Inclusion and Intersectional Disabilities’ (2022) 24
New Media & Society 384
Heikkilä M, Katsui H and Mustaniemi-Laakso M, ‘Disability and Vulnerability: A Human Rights Reading of the
Responsive State’ (2020) 24 The International Journal of Human Rights 1180
Heri C, Responsive Human Rights: Vulnerability, Ill-Treatment and the ECtHR (Bloomsbury Academic 2021)
Hogan DJ and Marandola Jr E, ‘Towards an Interdisciplinary Conceptualisation of Vulnerability’ (2005) 11 Population,
Space and Place 455
Hollomotz A, ‘Beyond “Vulnerability”: An Ecological Model Approach to Conceptualizing Risk of Sexual Violence
against People with Learning Difficulties’ (2009) 39 British Journal of Social Work 99
Infosys, The Digital Accessibility Journey: Exploring Priorities and Investments in AUS and NZ Organisations (2021)
Johansson S, Gulliksen J and Gustavsson C, ‘Disability Digital Divide: The Use of the Internet, Smartphones,
Computers and Tablets among People with Disabilities in Sweden’ (2021) 20 Universal Access in the
Information Society105
Keay S and Kirby S, ‘Defining Vulnerability: From the Conceptual to the Operational’ (2018) 12 Policing: A Journal of
Policy and Practice 428
Kohn NA, ‘Vulnerability Theory and the Role of Government’ (2014) 26 Yale JL & Feminism 1
Krinsky‐McHale SJ and Silverman W, ‘Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in Adults with Intellectual
Disability: Issues of Diagnosis’ (2013) 18 Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 31
Lange MM, Rogers W and Dodds S, ‘Vulnerability in Research Ethics: A Way Forward’ (2013) 27 Bioethics 333
Luna F, ‘Elucidating the Concept of Vulnerability: Layers not Labels’ (2009) 2 IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist
Approaches to Bioethics 121
Luna F, ‘Identifying and Evaluating Layers of Vulnerability–A Way Forward’ (2019) 19 Developing World Bioethics 86
Macdonald SJ and Clayton J, ‘Back to the Future, Disability and the Digital Divide’ in Disability and
Technology(Routledge 2017)
Macfarlane KA, ‘Disability without Documentation’ (2021) 90 Fordham L Rev 59
Mackenzie C, ‘The Importance of Relational Autonomy and Capabilities for an Ethics of Vulnerability’ in Vulnerability:
New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy (Oxford University Press 2014) 33
Mackenzie C, Rogers W and Dodds S, ‘Introduction: What is Vulnerability and Why Does It Matter for Moral Theory’
in Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy (Oxford University Press 2014) 1
Madsen CØ, Lindgren I and Melin U, ‘The Accidental Caseworker–How Digital Self-Service Influences Citizens’
Administrative Burden’ (2022) 39 Government Information Quarterly 101653
Malgieri G and Niklas J, ‘Vulnerable Data Subjects’ (2020) 37 Computer Law & Security Review
McTigue P, ‘The Challenge of HIV-Social Stigma or Disability?’ (2010) Web Journal of Current Legal Issues https://
www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/2010/issue5/mctigue5.html accessed 1 August 2024
Oliver M, Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice (Bloomsbury Publishing 2018)
Oosterveld‐Vlug M and others, ‘What Difficulties Do People with Mild Intellectual Disabilities Experience When
Seeking Medical Help from Their GP? A Qualitative Study’ (2021) 34 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities 178
Park S and Humphrey J, ‘Exclusion by Design: Intersections of Social, Digital and Data Exclusion’ (2019) 22
Information, Communication & Society 934
Perlin ML, ‘“The Ladder of the Law Has No Top and No Bottom”: How Therapeutic Jurisprudence Can Give Life to
International Human Rights’ (2014) 37 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 535
Pethig F, Kroenung J and Noeltner M, ‘A Stigma Power Perspective on Digital Government Service Avoidance’ (2021)
38 Government Information Quarterly
Raja DS, ‘Bridging the Disability Divide through Digital Technologies’ (2016) Background Paper for the World
Development Report
Ranchordás S and Scarcella L, ‘Automated Government for Vulnerable Citizens: Intermediating Rights’ (2021) 30
Wm & Mary Bill Rts J 373
Ranchordás S, ‘The Digitization of Government and Digital Exclusion: Setting the Scene’ in The Rule of Law in
Cyberspace (Springer 2022)
Redden J, ‘Democratic Governance in an Age of Datafication: Lessons from Mapping Government Discourses and
Practices’ (2018) 5 Big Data & Society 2053951718809145
Robinson L and others, ‘Digital Inequalities 2.0: Legacy Inequalities in the Information Age’ (2020) 25 First Monday
Roulstone A, Disability and Technology: An Interdisciplinary and International Approach (Springer 2016)
290 Empowering Vulnerability: The Social Model of Disability and Digital Government TechReg 2024.001

Sabbagh C and Schmitt M, Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research (Springer 2016)
Saugeres L, ‘(Un) Accommodating Disabilities: Housing, Marginalisation and Dependency in Australia’ (2011) 26
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 1
Schou J and Pors AS, ‘Digital by Default? A Qualitative Study of Exclusion in Digitised Welfare’ (2019) 53 Social
Policy & Administration 464
Schroeder D and Gefenas E, ‘Vulnerability: Too Vague and Too Broad?’ (2009) 18 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare
Ethics 113
Scully JL, ‘Disability and Vulnerability: On Bodies, Dependence, and Power’ in Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and
Feminist Philosophy (Oxford University Press 2014) 204
Shakespeare T, ‘The Social Model of Disability’ in The Disability Studies Reader (4th edn, Routledge 2013) 197
Shandler R and Canetti D, ‘A Reality of Vulnerability and Dependence: Internet Access as a Human Right’ (2019) 52
Israel Law Review 77
Sheldon A, ‘Changing Technology’ in Disabling Barriers–Enabling Environments (SAGE 2004)
Statistiek CBvd, One in Three Disabled Hold Paid Jobs (CBS 2015)
Terzi L, ‘The Social Model of Disability: A Philosophical Critique’ (2004) 21 Journal of Applied Philosophy 141
Tideman M, Mineur T and Mallender O, ‘Policy and Practice for People with Intellectual Disability in Sweden’ (2015)
Tomlinson J, ‘How Digital Administrative Justice Is Made’ in Justice in the Digital State (Policy Press 2019)
Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, Fundamental Principles of Disability (1975)
Union EastCotE, European Accessibility Act (Directive 2019/882) (Official Journal of the European Union 2019)
Vehmas S, ‘Ethical Analysis of the Concept of Disability’ (2004) 42 Mental Retardation 209
Viana ACA, ‘Digital Transformation in Public Administration: From E-Government to Digital Government’ (2021)
International Journal of Digital Law 29
Watling S, ‘Digital Exclusion: Coming Out from Behind Closed Doors’ (2011) 26 Disability & Society 491
Wishart G, ‘The Sexual Abuse of People with Learning Difficulties: Do We Need a Social Model Approach to
Vulnerability?’ (2003) 5 The Journal of Adult Protection 14
Wolbring G, ‘The Politics of Ableism’ (2008) 51 Development 252

Copyright (c) 2024, Malou Beck.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-
Commercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.