The two were very rah-rah about this idea (perhaps because they make money off of it). They didn't mention the fact that the vast majority of small businesses (90 percent?) go under in the first year. The average small business involves tremendous amounts of work, paying their owners less than they would get working for someone else, but rewarding them with some independence from direct supervision. The microenterprises they talked about all took advantage of family, community, and government resources as much as possible. Two or more of the microentrepreneurs had "day jobs" to shore up their livelihoods.
I'm not totally opposed to this, especially since it's so hard for someone with disabilities to get a regular job and because government and charity agencies are so damned paternalistic. But there's a tremendous amount of ideology here. The idea ignores the fact that the helpers and lenders can be just as paternalistic as social workers. This idea's rise reflects the budget cuts suffered from most government and charity agencies and also the neo-liberal tone of our times....
I favor helping the disabled as much as possible with training and the like. It's something that can help not only with (largely illusory) goal of setting up microenterprises but also with getting a regular old job. The more general (and practical) the help, the more flexibility the person with disabilities will have. -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles