The concept of social exclusion is used in very different ways, as will be discussed in the following section. For some it is synonymous with poverty. Others emphasise inadequate social participation, lack of social integration and lack of power. While related to poverty, social exclusion is a quite distinct concept that is also linked to the important notion of social capital. Social capital can be defined as the networks of social relations that are characterised by norms of trust and reciprocity that facilitate cooperative behaviour (Stone, 2001) and build a cohesive society (Winter, 2000). Social disadvantage has been linked in a recent Australian study to lower levels of social trust and higher levels of crime (Cameron, 2005).
Concepts of poverty, deprivation and disadvantage have a long history. Some authors argue that the concept of social exclusion can be traced to Max Weber, a late 19th and 20th century German political economist and sociologist who saw exclusion as the attempt of one group to secure for itself a privileged position at the expense of some other group (Hills, Le Grand, & Piachaud, 2002).
However, the modern use of the term emerged in France to describe those who were excluded from the social insurance system (Lenoir, 1974). These were the disabled, lone parents and the uninsured unemployed. Such people, or les exclus, by virtue of their lack of opportunities, were excluded from a broad range of areas of social and economic participation (Saunders, Naidoo, & Griffiths, 2007). This was then expanded to include disaffected youth and isolated individuals, following growing social problems in housing estates on the outskirts of the large cities in France, and subsequently emphasised the importance of unemployment (Paugam, 1993). In part, the concept of social exclusion arose in France because of their emphasis on the importance to society of social cohesion.[1]
During the 1980s, interest in social exclusion spread throughout Europe; it was being increasingly adopted in official policy frameworks as exemplified by the establishment of the European Community Programme to Foster Economic and Social Integration of the Least Privileged Groups. This was followed in the early 1990s by the European Observatory on Policies to Combat Social Exclusion. Within the European Union (EU), addressing social exclusion is now a mainstream policy framework.
Social exclusion attracted attention in the United Kingdom (UK) during the 1980s and early 1990s. It became prominent following the election of the Blair Labour Government in 1997 and its establishment of the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU). Although the concept of social exclusion has gained relatively little traction in the United States (US), the debate there has referred to the underclass (e.g., Wilson, 1987), and there has been a longstanding interest in compensatory interventions for those who are at significant disadvantage, including members of minority groups (Hayes, 1991).[2]
In Australia, the interest in social inclusion or exclusion has been more recent than in Europe and the UK (Bradshaw, 2003), although clearly there has been a longstanding interest in assisting disadvantaged groups. Assistance was first provided mainly by charity networks and later through government programs. In 2000, the McClure report into welfare reform concluded that the goal should be to minimise social and economic exclusion. The report argued that the success of doing this should be measured by three outcomes: (a) a significant reduction in the incidence of jobless families and jobless households; (b) a significant reduction in the proportion of the working age population that needs to rely heavily on income support; and (c) stronger communities that generate more opportunities for social and economic participation. Although the report concluded that minimising social exclusion should be an explicit policy objective, it did not identify an explicit social inclusion policy agenda along the lines of that adopted in the UK or by the EU, nor did the government of the day adopt such a policy framework.
A significant development was the creation in 2002 of the Social Inclusion Initiative by the Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, who is also the South Australian Minister for Social Inclusion. The initiative emphasises the provision of opportunities for social and economic participation, especially by the most disadvantaged citizens of the state, and has been at the vanguard of Australian social inclusion policy and practice. As the responsible minister, the Premier provides specific references to the Social Inclusion Board, chaired by the Social Inclusion Commissioner, Monsignor David Cappo AO, who reports directly to the Premier. The Commissioner attends Cabinet and oversees the work of the Social Inclusion Unit within the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The unit has staff seconded from a range of departments. References include Aboriginal Health, Disability, Homelessness, Mental Health, School Retention, The Parks (a neighbourhood renewal project), Young Offenders, Drugs, International Youth Leadership, and Suicide Prevention. The approach of the South Australian initiative is evidence-based and seeks innovative mobilisation of government and non-government resources to address each of its references.
Other state and territory governments have and are adopting policies targeted at social inclusion. For example, in Victoria, the government framework for addressing disadvantage and creating opportunity is entitled A Fairer Victoria, and cross-government work is being undertaken in relation to Indigenous people, those with mental health problems (Mental Health Promotion Plan) and refugees (Victorian Multicultural Commission). There are also a number of place-based programs in Victoria, including Community Renewal, Neighbourhood Renewal and Community Building initiatives.
A number of social–inclusion focused policies are currently being trialled in Indigenous communities. In addition, several community organisations (including Anglicare, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Smith Family and Mission Australia, among others) have implemented social inclusion programs focused on social inclusion and, in some cases, have explicitly adopted a social inclusion framework.
At a national level, the government has adopted a social inclusion approach and has established the Australian Social Inclusion Board and a Social Inclusion Unit in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Many Commonwealth government programs broadly address social inclusion, including Communities for Children and the Council of Australian Government (COAG) trials in Indigenous communities.
At the 2020 Summit, one of the major themes agreed to by delegates was to make social inclusion a national priority and that a National Action Plan for Social Inclusion should be developed and implemented.
The remainder of this paper first provides a brief overview of the concept of social exclusion, how it is used and some of the issues surrounding its definition. It then examines some of the dimensions of social inclusion, before considering the characteristics and relationships of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion. The international experience of social inclusion policies is then sketched, with reference to the UK and the EU. Issues associated with identifying the socially excluded and measuring progress in addressing social exclusion are then discussed. The potential benefits, limitations and risks of a social inclusion agenda are discussed. Sections follow on locational disadvantage, jobless families, children at risk, child poverty, employment of people with a disability, and homelessness. The importance of relationships in protecting against social exclusion and promoting social inclusion is briefly discussed. Policy approaches are next discussed. The paper ends with a summary and brief consideration of directions for development of an Australian approach to social inclusion.
Source: Social inclusion: Origins, concepts and key themes (2008),
http://socialinclusion.gov.au
0 Comments