While many analysts and policy-makers see social exclusion and inclusion primarily as an issue of social policy and welfare, there are strong grounds for seeing social inclusion as a fundamental right. Being able to be integrated into society is a critical aspect of citizenship (broadly conceived) that must be available to everyone in a society. In fact, it should be seen among the most fundamental rights available to all, alongside similarly fundamental rights to food, shelter, education, and health care. Consequently, social inclusion is intrinsically valuable as one of the constituent elements of well-being as recognized, for example, by Sen’s capability concept. In addition, it is also the case that it is of great importance to other social goals such as social stability, cohesion, economic development, and general prosperity. Seeing it as a fundamental right that must be provided by society also suitably clarifies that it leaves open the freedom of individuals to choose not to be part of mainstream society for whatever reasons (as long as this does not negatively interfere on the rights of others to be included).
In Europe (particularly continental Europe), there has long been a concern about social inclusion that was seen as just as important (if not more important) to concerns about income poverty. Ever since the concept gained usage in France in the 1970s it has occupied an increasingly prominent space in European debates about rights, citizenship, and social policy. For example, the EU established an Observatory on Social Exclusion in the early 1990s and in the late 1990s/early 2000s, a process was begun to coordinate and monitor policies on furthering social inclusion. The Lisbon Summit in early 2000 affirmed the common aim for social inclusion and agreed on a process of open coordination of policies where countries develop their own policies but coordinate monitoring, sharing of experiences, and outcomes with other member states. At the Nice Summit in late 2000, member states agreed to implement two year National Action Plans on Social Inclusion including specific targets, policies, and indicators to measure progress. All countries actually submitted an Action Plan to the Commission, although the content and format differed quite widely among member states. Under the current Belgian Presidency, a high-level conference was convened to propose and agree on sets of indicators that would allow countries to monitor progress on their policies for social inclusion.
The focus on social inclusion is trying to move the debate beyond the mere focus on poverty and unemployment as the main social indicators. This broadening of focus is done with the understanding that poverty is too limiting and static a concept that fails to capture the dynamic and multi-faceted disadvantages suffered by individuals and groups in society. Moreover, there is recognition that the traditional responses to poverty are not adequately addressing the broader problems associated with long-term deprivation, unemployment, and social disadvantage and can, in some cases, even exacerbate them. Lastly, social inclusion has become an important concept in ‘third-way’ politics as a way to avoid the disincentives and traps associated with traditional anti-poverty programs and replace them with opportunities for inclusion and self-reliance.
The concern about social inclusion also refocuses attention on earlier stages in the life-cycle, particularly childhood and youth. While the fate of children and youth, including the extent to which they are and feel integrated into society, is of great intrinsic concern, the seeds for inclusion and exclusion as adults are generally found at this stage and thus policies for inclusion should concentrate their attention on this age group.
Education policies are increasingly shaped by concerns about the generating excellence among top performers to better compete in a globalizing world. While this is a valid concern, the focus on social inclusion as a right shifts the focus of educational policies towards their ability to further social inclusion and cohesion. This typically involves a much greater emphasis on average performance (rather than top performers) and on better serving the lower end of the educational distribution as they are the ones most likely to face social exclusion. This renewed attention on the those at the margins of the educational system is critical to promote social inclusion (and is probably also promising as a strategy to improve productivity and competitiveness as a society).
A similarly neglected policy concern brought out by a focus on social inclusion is the spatial dimension of exclusion and inclusion. The opportunities for inclusion, particularly among children and youth, are highly unequal across space. Advantages and disadvantages have a compounding effect. In particular, areas where children grow up in poor and disadvantages households are also often the areas where schools are of worse quality, opportunities for shopping, transport, and entertainment are poor, and where ‘social capital’ is weak. These compounding processes develop partially on their own but can be seriously compounded by government policies. For example, local funding for education, competition for the better students, great residential mobility in search of high-quality schools, and unregulated or even actively promoted housing market effects (e.g. gentrification) can strengthen these processes. Conversely, polices that focus on improving the worst schools through better funding, special support, and enforced mixing of backgrounds, and promoting a mixing of social groups through housing policies can help reduce them.
Targeting of resources and policies on those at greatest risk for social exclusion has great advantages including focusing scarce resources on the most needs and avoiding the capture of programs by the middle class and the wealthy. But while such policies might seem promising, particularly in combating poverty, they carry great risks for social inclusion. In particular, they can generate poverty traps as any improvement of the economic position of the poor is immediately penalized by reductions in targeted transfers. They can thus generate long-term dependency and foster social exclusion. There are other dangers as well, including the stigma effects of such targeting as well as undermining the public support for their continuation.
There are no easy solutions to this problem as is summarized in the concept of the so-called ‘Iron Triangle of Welfare’ which shows that of three important goals of social policy, namely the avoidance of poverty, conserving costs by keeping caseloads down, and providing incentives for people to escape poverty on their own, only two of the goals can be reached at the expense of the third.
When shifting attention to social inclusion rather than poverty alleviation, the pitfalls of targeting can be less severe as the support provided to inclusion are often less entrapping and stigmatizing.
While in some policy areas such as education, an emphasis on integrating everyone within the same school system has the merit of avoiding exclusion caused by separate (and often not equal) systems for those suffering from disadvantages, there are costs involved as well. In particular, this can generate the danger of exclusion with in the mainstream systems, particularly if there is not enough support provided that everyone can ‘make it’ in the mainstream systems. In some cases, specialized systems of support either within or outside of the mainstream system might be preferable but there are difficult trade-offs that have to be decided based on the particular circumstances.
A focus on social inclusion will help broaden the social policy agenda, particularly if the starting-point is a rights-based approach to social inclusion. It will necessitate a broader approach to social policy that range beyond the usual instruments to fight poverty and recognize the particular importance of education and spatial disparities. Also, it requires a more careful approach to targeting and specialized support to truly ensure that social inclusion is an opportunity available to all.
Stephan Klasen is a professor of economics at the University of Munich. His research focuses on issues of poverty, inequality, and social exclusion in industrialized as well as developing countries. He holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University and has since held positions at the World Bank and the University of Cambridge, England. He recently participated in an OECD project focusing on the linkages between education and childhood social exclusion.
[ Conference Page ][ CCSD Home Page ] [ The Laidlaw Foundation ]