In the 1990s, both Australia and Taiwan were influenced by new public management (NPM) and subsequently reformed their public employment services. However, the reforms of the two countries have led to divergent results. This study assumes that the essential differences lay in the mobilization capacity of the disabled rights advocacy organizations and the disability employment benefits. Taiwan’s disability employment services (supported employment), though privatized, are limited to nonprofit organizations (NPOs), while for-profit organizations (POs) remain absent in this area. In Australia, the employment services (open employment services for people with disabilities) have been privatized, and for-profit organizations are encouraged to compete with one another to enhance the service quality and to reduce the costs. By providing job-search benefits for disabled people and implementing workfare policy, the Australian government reforms have resulted in the change of the relationship between the government and the citizens. In contrast, since the Taiwanese government never provided sufficient social welfare benefits for disabled people, they have to actively seek employment not after encouragement from the government, but as a result of their desperate need to earn a living. Despite the two countries’ differences, the force of neoliberalism, along with NPM, ostensibly continues to be a part of their employment policies for the socially underprivileged.