Introduction: The issue of poverty and social exclusion has been one of the thorny questions of development in the developed and the developing countries. Both stress the problem of “multiple deprivations,” including social problems. There are crucial links between poverty and social exclusion issues all across developed and developing countries. The Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, explored these connections and drew conclusions for use by policy makers. There were new approaches to deprivation, and to related issues such as food, health, child poverty and employment.
These approaches dealt with access to information, personal security, vulnerability and other related issues. The question of social exclusion related to poverty and poverty reduction is also addressed. The concept of “social exclusion” is not, however, merely a re-defining of poverty. It is perhaps taken as a “deeper” explanation of poverty. It may offer something entirely new.
David O’Brien and et al have created new opportunities for discourse on social exclusion in the developed countries that may offer new lessons for the developing countries. Conversely, there are insights from the developing countries that will enrich discussions in the developed countries. Moreover, there are common perspectives that link both the developed and the developing countries on the question of poverty. The intent of IDS in this linkage is to bring the social exclusion deliberation into the purview of policy makers and development specialists. It should be no surprise, therefore, that most of the questions are rooted in the developed countries, and that most of the issues were relevant to developing countries. These linkages are further highlighted through social studies.
Dimensions of social exclusion: There are factors that help in understanding social exclusion. The first is a perspective of poverty and social exclusion, dealing with its characteristics, causes, and policy frameworks. The second is related to insights on lack of basic services such as health, education, shelter, food, clothing, employment opportunities. Conceptually, the issue of social exclusion begins with, as Arjan de Haan put it, the competing definitions of poverty and social exclusion. He reviewed studies on social exclusion and poverty in the developed countries and sought parallels in the developing countries. The term social exclusion is defined broadly as a “rupture of social bonds.” He noted that the terms had been interpreted in more than one category. He identified these categories as the solidarity, specialization and monopoly paradigms. The specialization and solidarity paradigm was dominant in the US, where “exclusion” was tied closely to notions of discrimination. The monopoly paradigm was dominant in Western Europe, where exclusion was seen as the consequence of group monopoly formation where certain “groups excluded” other groups. De Haan
accepted this diversity of approaches since they reflected different national notions of social exclusion. He thought the concept could be useful nonetheless because it focused on process and because it was multi-dimensional in nature.
Whether social exclusion was different from poverty was a doubtful case. If poverty was defined narrowly in terms of only income or consumption outcomes, then social exclusion clearly provided a “wider” view. But much of the current debate on poverty, especially in developing countries, was concerned with wider concepts of “relative deprivation,” ill-being, vulnerability and incapability. As in the case of social exclusion, the current poverty debate stressed process and focused on the multi-faceted nature of deprivation. There was thus a considerable “overlap” and scope for social exclusion.
Maxwell was concerned with overlaps, this time between developed and developing countries. He argued that increasing attention to poverty and social exclusion in the developed countries opened the possibility of a dialogue between the two regions on certain questions. First, are there new comparisons about the characteristics, causes and remedies of poverty and social exclusion? Secondly, does the rapid increase in poverty and social exclusion in the developed world signal a “new” convergence between developed and developing countries? Lastly, are there theories that would expose connections between poverty and social exclusion in the developed and the developing regions?
There are positive answers to all these questions. It is easy to identify comparisons about poverty and social exclusion in programs designed to combat them. Employment programs, for example, are generally rejected in the developed countries but applauded in the developing countries. Developing countries are supporting flexible
and diverse livelihoods, which contrasted with “formal sector jobs” in the developed countries. Policy-makers in the developed world do not emphasize “labor-intensive” strategies as developing countries do in fighting high levels of unemployment.
Maxwell reviewed the evidence and found himself agreeing with the ideas that globalization in the world economy, could “account” for poverty in both developed and developing countries. There were thus good reasons for poverty specialists from the developed and the developing countries to work together to seek solutions to the problem of poverty.
Social exclusion in the developing countries: It is pointed out that social exclusion is a multi-dimensional “expression” of poverty in Africa. In Asia, however, poverty is viewed as a key “cause” of social exclusion. In Latin America, this causality is “reversed” and social exclusion is seen as a cause of poverty. But, the key aspects of deprivation, such as violence and personal insecurity, are key features of social exclusion.
In terms of policy, social exclusion presents a complexity of social disadvantages. Policy should have an institutional focus on the main areas of action to reduce these disadvantages. These actions are related to enforcement of rights and participation through civil society mechanisms.
There are issues about the extent of overlap between poverty and social exclusion. It is possible to be poor but not socially excluded. Or conversely, it is also possible to be socially excluded but not poor. There might be groups both “rich” and socially excluded. There would also be considerable overlap between poverty and social exclusion. Better policies may be designed and their impacts measured only by “agreeing” on the measurement of indicators of poverty.
This is not going to be easy, however. Income or consumption poverty is not an adequate indicator. Alternative indicators would have to be developed. These may be based on the “constraints” to the capabilities of individuals, such as access to health care or water or education. It is important to recognize local indicators contributing to social exclusion. There has been little experience on the usefulness or cost effectiveness of social exclusion indicators. A participatory process that would be more productive is to allow “communities” themselves to determine local social exclusion indicators. There is recognition of the crippling “ignorance” on the definition and measurement of social exclusion. Sometimes, it is “correlated” with bad housing, debt, poor quality neighborhoods and weakened social ties and social participation.
The discovery of social exclusion, as Mr. Evans noted, has led to the introduction of many new “targeted” programs. This has made the social welfare systems of developed countries similar to each other. At the same time, targeted programs are specifically directed to tackling social exclusion as well as poverty. This is
designed not just to help beneficiaries secure jobs, but also to help them integrate into the social security system. Probably the best known program may be the one in which a claimant received benefit in return for a “commitment” to undertake actions. These actions are training, literacy courses, health care, parental education, etc. In general, such programs have strong geographical focus, targeting and empowering local communities.
It is suggested that the social exclusion approach may widen the social assistance institutions “beyond” a simple focus on unemployment. It may offer the possibility of integrated responses that combined different levels of government. It would focus policy toward multi-sector programs.
Studies show that the “persistently” poor are more likely to be single parent families, long-term unemployed and single pensioners. However, benefits “alone” may not eliminate poverty. Helping people out of poverty on a long-term basis means increasing budget for the poor in different dimensions.
Participation and social exclusion: Studies focusing on participation indicated that it is an end in itself as a component of “social inclusion.” Gaventa pointed out that participation is a crucial means of elimination of exclusion. “Participatory” strategies fight racism, ethnicity, tribalism and other factors of social exclusion. He outlined how participation had featured in the design and implementation of poverty reduction programs.
The media is used to tackle both the apparent pauperization and the social disengagement of the poor by encouraging “maximum feasible participation” in the war on poverty. Focus is made on regional economic development programs, with more participation by the poor people without discrimination based on racial, ethnic, and tribal factors. Poor communities may be encouraged to develop new forms of partnership with local government and civil society. It is emphasized that participation of the poor in community development and social inclusion are key components of preventing social exclusion.
Lessons from participation : There are several lessons learnt from participation of the poor in community development. These are:
(i) Government cannot impose or replace successful participation, but government policy on participation may “encourage” and legitimize grass-roots activities;
(ii) Participation places greater emphasis on “capacity-building” through economic development programs;
(iii) Participation that challenges power hierarchies will inevitably cause political conflict, and it needs high-level “support” if it is to be sustained;
(iv) As “social” capital is strong, participation produces better results; (v) Government institutions need to be equipped to facilitate effective participation;
(vi) Monitoring and evaluation is important for sustaining social participation;
(viii) Participation on its own is not enough to eliminate poverty without government and community involvement.
Poverty and social exclusion in Africa : There are many different ways in which poor Africans are excluded from social and economic participation. The mechanisms of exclusion within African countries are similar. Zachmann noted that poverty and deprivation relate to the unequal distribution of assets, poor and unequal access to services, unemployment and low productivity, restricted access to markets and lack of capital and credit. Added to these factors are the persistent “exclusionary” African political systems which make the policy-making process very insular. With varying degrees, these characteristics contribute to the maintenance of Africa’s marginal position in the world economy.
A mechanical solution would confront each of these situations independently
of each other, which is inefficient. But, an appropriate “first response” must begin with macroeconomic growth and development policies that are supportive of poverty reduction and employment creation. The key principles of economic policy need to emphasize on equity, resource distribution, employment opportunities and productivity, increased income, higher demand for goods services, competitiveness and efficient trading. Experience has, however, demonstrated that this is not possible without commitment to real pro-poor structural change in Africa.
As Zachmann argues, there is no guarantee that the positive effects of good policies would reach the poorest groups. This demands increased commitment by African leaders to effectively target the poor as beneficiaries of development policies. Adequate economic policies required competent governance. Economic policy would be frustrated by weak government capacity, and by lack of “feed-back” on the effects of policy. Participation is a rapid and cost effective way of achieving feedback.
Globalization and social exclusion: Studies explored the economic roots of social exclusion, both for poor groups within countries and for groups of countries, as in the case of Africa. In his study Murray referred to the phenomenon of globalization, and to the scope of local responses to the adverse social consequences of globalization. Murray pointed out that the dominant feature of globalization is the process of “accumulation.” Attempts to preserve “national” economic space have been undermined by neo-liberalism. This has led to the depression of “social democracy,” in countries that have attempted to regulate “market forces” for furthering social objectives.
There are alternative escape routes, however. Murray cited two, the first being an attempt to develop local economies, by focusing on community-based economic development. The second focused on trade movement, which was trying directly to foster more “equitable” trade regimes. He concluded that key forms of autonomy and social inclusion be established at the level of
consumers, communities and production systems.
Conclusion: Developing countries have been weakened by both internal and external factors, the latter determining the former. They have to strongly defend themselves from economic and social domination by the external forces. They have to design policies that promote their integration for eliminating poverty and social exclusion. Such measures will restructure the unhealthy societies that are afflicted by economic, social and political inequality. The pre-condition for these measures is the existence of good governance.
The best policies and strategies would be discouraged by an incompetent government that excludes people from participating in the determination of their fate. Finally, there are perils and promises the test of which is the capacity of the society to fight social exclusion and advance social inclusion instead. Poor communities should fight for the creation of a government that represents their interests in programs of development and social inclusion. Thank you.
The Ethiopian Herald June 21, 2020
BY GETACHEW MINAS
