Social exclusion and poverty
At its broadest level, social exclusion has been defined as "the process through which individuals or groups are wholly or partially excluded from the society in which they live" [European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1995. Quoted in de Haan and Maxwell 1998: 2]. Social exclusion is not coterminous with poverty (e.g. it is possible to be excluded without being poor), but seeks to provide a broader view of deprivation and disadvantage than poverty. More specifically, social exclusion can be viewed as an analytical concept which directs us to the way in which social structures can generate poverty, but which extends beyond explanations of social or material deprivation to include an analysis of the way in which social institutions function and develop [Gore and Figueiredo 1997: 41]. De Haan [1999] makes a strong case for the use of social exclusion, stressing that it focuses attention on central aspects of deprivation, is equally relevant to analysis and policies, and directs us to the fact that deprivation is a multidimensional phenomenon.
In comparison to other poverty debates, social exclusion can be strongly linked to notions of ‘relative poverty’, Amartya Sen’s work on ‘entitlements’ and the ‘vulnerability’ approach forwarded by Robert Chambers [de Haan 1998: 14-15]. There are also links to social and political capital, particularly in terms of working towards policies and programmes for challenging socially-related aspects of poverty. However, social exclusion is more firmly focused on deprivation than either of these concepts [op. cit.]. The World Bank [2000: 117] has adopted the discourse of social exclusion, explicitly recognising the importance of sociopolitical factors in causing poverty – including chronic poverty: "Discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnicity, race, religion, or social status can lead to social exclusion and lock people into long-term poverty traps".
Processes of exclusion can be linked to deprivation or impoverishment in a multi-dimensional and interactional fashion, rather than in a linear way. On the one hand, ‘the poor’ are likely be excluded from wider participation in society because of their relative material disadvantage in terms of income. However, exclusion may also cause deprivation: for example, technological advances in modes of production may mean that a ‘reserve pool of labour’ is no longer required, or, local people may be excluded from their means of livelihood when land is commercialised.
Social exclusion as a politicised concept
In economic terms, exclusion from labour markets, credit and other forms of ‘capital asset’ are the key processes. Socially, exclusion may take the form of discrimination along a number of dimensions – gender, ethnicity, age – which effectively reduces the opportunity for such groups to gain access to social services and limits their participation in the labour market. However, in terms of politics, the discourse of social exclusion has been criticised for being apolitical, in that it allows politicians and other officials to avoid discussing ‘poverty’, a somewhat harsher term [Gore and Figueredo 1997: 44]. Against this, it can be argued that it is arguably social exclusion’s incorporation of the political dimension that makes it distinctive. Social exclusion attempts to analyse the political nature of deprivation, in that it examines the links between people’s exclusion from political communities – i.e. a lack of citizenship status – and their levels of poverty. ‘Political’ aspects of exclusion include the denial of political rights such as political participation and the right to organise, and also of personal security, the rule of law, freedom of expression and equality of opportunity [Bhalla and Lapeyere 1997: 420]. More broadly, however, social exclusion is better understood not as a specifically political concept, but as an attempt to "ground the understanding of deprivation firmly in traditions of social science analyses" [de Hann 1999: 1].
Social exclusion has also been criticised for emphasising the residual rather than relational aspects of poverty, and thus detaching the study of poverty from a more political understanding of how power relations within society relate to and cause poverty. This is a valid criticism to the extent that a key argument implied by the concept of social exclusion is that exclusion has replaced exploitation as the main process by which people are impoverished, or "actively underdeveloped" [Byrne 1999: 44-59]. However, other research within the social exclusion paradigm stresses that exclusion is part and parcel of social relations [de Haan 1999], and needs to be analysed alongside the terms of incorporation (e.g. adverse incorporation, subordinate inclusion, domination). For Silver [1994: 543], "exclusion arises from the interplay of class, status and political power" in a way that benefits the included. An example of research that explores this approach would be a study of the Sans in Botswana, who have been conceptualised as being in ‘extreme’ long-term poverty as a result of being both excluded and structurally incorporated at a low level of socioeconomic reproduction [Good 1999].
Further criticisms of social exclusion include the following:
- In societies where deprivation and political exclusion are mass phenomena, there appears to little value in labelling the majority of the population as ‘excluded’
- Social exclusion is too broad a notion of deprivation and lacks specificity
- It is yet another ethnocentric approach to poverty and development, that has its intellectual and policy roots in European and more latterly, Anglo-American debates
Researching social exclusion I: its origins in social science
In the most significant effort to date to trace the intellectual and empirical origins of the social exclusion paradigm, Hilary Silver has delineated three different paradigms each based on a different notion of integration: solidarity, specialization and monopoly [Silver 1994].
- Solidarity: associated with French republicanism and the existence of a national collective consciousness that ties the individual to the larger society. Exclusion threatens social cohesion [Gough and Olofsson 1999], and ‘moral integration’ is required to overcome the problem.
- Specialization: exclusion that arises from the inadequate separation of social spheres, unenforced rights and market failures, and can be seen as ‘disafilliation’ and ‘disqualification’ [Silver 1994: 542-3, 555-561]. The state is required to invervene to ensure integration.
- Monopoly: "The monopoly creates a bond of common interest between otherwise unequal outsiders. The excluded are therefore simultaneously outsiders and dominated. Exclusion is combated through citizenship, and the extension of equal membership and full participation in the community to outsiders" [Silver 1994: 543]. Bill Jordan [1996] argues that exclusion arises because particular social groups monopolise the use of public resources.
Researching social exclusion II: Methodological approaches
Regional studies of social exclusion include sub-Saharan Africa [Gore 1994] and South Asia [de Haan 1995]. Country studies have been carried out on India [Nayak 1994, Appasamy et al 1996] and Tanzania [Kaijage. and Tibaijuka 1996], and also Brazil, Yemen and Peru [ILO 1996]. Three methodological approaches have so far been adopted in the coutrny case-studies, focussing on rights, groups, and institutions respectively [ILO 1996: 17].
Rights-focused studies have examined the factors or events which determine whether people are able to secure those rights which affect livelihoods. For instance, the study of social exclusion in India focuses explicitly on T.H. Marshall’s concept of ‘social’ rights, specifying the dimensions of health, education, housing and social security [Appasamy et al 1996: 2-3]. Bhalla and Lapeyre [1997] suggest that political dimension of social exclusion can be explored in terms of Marshall’s trilogy of citizenship rights (civil, political and socioeconomic).
Group-based investigations identify specific social categories and detail their relative deprivation [ILO 1996: 17]. This involves:
(i) examining the links between the group’s relative deprivation, the working of social institutions and personal attribute’s/social identity;
(ii) examining the relationships of these links to national development trajectories.
The institutional approach, seeks to draw links between: "the ability of certain categories of persons to participate in social life (and) the evolving nature of:
(i) the economic organization of production and exchange;
(ii) the political order which regulates the exercise of power, lays down standards and duties, and guarantees rights, and
(iii) culture – codes values and aspirations by means of which people communicate amongst themselves, interpret reality and direct practices, and which are transmitted through primary relationships, education, religion and the various means of communication" [ILO 1996: 19].
It is possible to merge approaches. For example, the group- and institution-based approaches can be pursued at the same time by examining the participation and interaction of a particular social group in and with a series of institutions.
Researching social exclusion III: key dimensions of exclusion
People might be excluded from:
- land and other natural resources (because of scarcity, landlessness and lack of legal entitlement)
- agricultural livelihood (due to lack of access to inputs or labour availability)
- formal and informal employment (relating to patterns of labour absorption, education and social identity)
- organisation and representation (due to patterns of political inclusion) [Gore 1994].
- social services (distance, usage costs)
- physical infrastructure (distance, usage costs)
- credit
- family and sociability
- housing
‘Women’, the ‘elderly’ and the ‘young’ might be considered to be particularly at risk from exclusion along some or all of these dimensions.
[Adapted from Silver 1994, Gore 1994].
Researching social exclusion IV: Methods
De Haan [1999 11-12] argues that social exclusion can be measured in quantitative terms, and the following approaches have so far been taken:
- Bhalla and Lapeyre [1997: 426] suggest using the UNDP’s political freedom index, which incorporates personal security, rule of law, freedom of expression, political participation and equality of opportunity, may serve as a proxy indicator for the political dimension of exclusion. Quantitative measures of participation and citizenship rights (voter registration, educational enrolment, land ownership) are sometimes available.
- The UNDP 1998 Human Development Report operationalised social exclusion as a key concept for its study of high-income countries, and examined levels of unemployment [UNDP 1998].
More generally, Silver [1998] suggests a number of approaches to monitoring social exclusion, and also see Room 1995, Lee and Murie 1999.