What is Social Exclusion? Explained

This blog's goals are to help students critically evaluate "social exclusion" as a new paradigm for comprehending social disparities and comprehend the role social policy plays in both causing and eradicating inequality, poverty, and social exclusion.

Content

1. Introduction
2. Understanding Social Exclusion
3. Poverty and Social Exclusion
4. Social exclusion and Social Protection

Introduction

The process of social exclusion is intricate and multifaceted. It involves the denial or lack of access to resources, rights, goods, and services, as well as the impossibility of engaging in the typical interpersonal interactions and activities that are available to the majority of members of a society, whether in the political, social, cultural, or economic spheres. It has an impact on both the equality and cohesiveness of society as a whole as well as the quality of life for each person. The phrase is also used in regard to a wide range of categories of excluded persons and sites of exclusion, as well as a large range of events and processes associated to poverty, deprivation, and suffering. In order to regard social exclusion as a crucial component of policy creation, this article will thus serve as a forum for debate of the idea of social exclusion.

Understanding Social Exclusion

Depending on the context and the individual's subjective experiences, the idea of social exclusion can be understood in a variety of ways. It covers a wide range of topics, including deprivation, inclusion, equity, and many more. However, one of its key benefits is the potential to highlight societal issues that do not correspond to the conventional definition of poverty. This concept's emphasis on the "cumulative disadvantage" reasoning that affects the most underprivileged portions of the population allows it to do this. When a number of variables come together to place people and places in a cycle of deprivation, social exclusion develops.

Estivill, exploring the transferability of the concept of social exclusion, offers a less individualized but more abstract definition: “Social exclusion may be understood as an accumulation of confluent processes with successive ruptures arising from the heart of the economy, politics and society, which gradually distances and places persons, groups, communities and territories in a position of inferiority in relation to centres of power, resources and prevailing values"

There are primarily three discourses that assign various inherent meanings to social exclusion, its causes, and the proper path of action.

1. RED or Redistributive Discourse: In this, the central problem is seen as the lack of resources amongst the poor, such as access to collectively provided services as well as lack of money. In this discourse, poverty remains at the core. 
2. Social Integration Discourse: The second discourse is mainly concerned with social integration, in which social exclusion has been primarily construed as labor market exclusion or lack of paid work, either at an individual or household level. 
3. Moral Underclass Discourse: This third discourse, MUD, focuses on the imputed behavioral or moral deficiencies of ‘problem’ groups.

Poverty and Social Exclusion

Since poverty is viewed as a policy issue, officials are required to take action to address it. The perception of poverty as an intolerable situation necessitates some sort of legislative reaction. Therefore, the discussion of poverty and the proof of it are not only intellectual issues. It goes far further than that since it directs and affects the formulation of policy. Insofar as they both pertain to exclusion from mainstream socially sanctioned forms of involvement or from minimum acceptable levels of living, there are a number of shared underlying variables that underlie the definition and assessment of both poverty and social exclusion. However, rather than being assumed, the normative judgments inherent in the social indicators used to quantify social exclusion and poverty need to be made explicit. For instance, a person who is socially excluded is considered to be someone who, in the presence of both of these characteristics, does not engage in significant social activities in the community in which they reside and who would prefer to engage in such activities (Burchardt et al., 2002b). Such an operational model has limitations since it avoids the choice problem for practical purposes. This is apparent since it only considers those who abstain from important social activities, regardless of their motivation. Consumption, or the ability to buy goods and services; production, or involvement in economically or socially valuable activities; political engagement, or participation in local or national decision-making; and social interaction, or integration with family, friends, and community are defined as the key activities in such a definition.

However, there is constant discussion and controversy regarding what precisely poverty is, how to define it, and how to quantify it. This is related to its function as a policy-motivating factor. The numerous ways that we define and quantify poverty, as well as the varied aspects of the issue that are then made clear, result in diverse requests for policy action as well as various types of policy response. As a result, how poverty is defined and measured and how policies are applied to it are strongly related. Poverty comes in a variety of forms that have been studied. For instance, absolute poverty is the belief that lacking basic necessities makes one poor, and is hence frequently referred to as subsistence poverty. However, in reality, what is necessary for survival changes depending on a person's subjective surroundings, such as where and when they are living.

On the other hand, relative poverty considers variations in the estimation of poverty levels through time and space.

Another new definition and measurement of poverty that links income to social security benefit levels emphasises the fact that despite overall increases in wealth and improved social security protection, a sizable portion of people still lack the resources required to achieve the basic standards of living in society. This theory holds that as overall living standards increase, so too does our understanding of what it means to be poor.

The concept of poverty then changes to reflect the society as a whole's average quality of living.

Only a tangential indicator of poverty is income. Their real level of living is defined by what they can actually afford with their wages. In addition to money, it is commonly known that people's health, housing, and employment situations also have an impact on living standards; however, these elements may be influenced by reasons other than current income levels. Instead of just referring to income poverty, this idea of deprivation effectively captured the issue of a low standard of life in contemporary society.

In the book "Excluding the Poor," the idea of exclusion from social activities is emphasised as a key component of the poverty problem. The idea of social exclusion has started to be associated with poverty as a larger understanding of this important social policy concern since it is not simply what we have, but what we do (or do not do) that may be a problem in society.

The idea of exclusion has further been developed asnon-participation in key social activities such as-

1. consumption – purchasing of goods and services 
2. production – participating in economically or socially valuable activity 
3. political engagement – involvement in local or national decision making 
4. social interaction – with family, friends andcommunities.

The feeling of exclusion has changed across time and space, and different people have experienced the phenomenon in different ways at different stages and locations in their lives. The nature of poverty and vulnerability for those who are most marginalised is complicated, multidimensional, and highly contextual. Additionally, it may also take the form of being denied rights and equality in several spheres of one's life.

Social exclusion and Social Protection

The idea of vulnerability can be interpreted as the result of risk exposure and the resilience (ability to withstand) of an individual, household, or community. People have varying capacity to handle the same danger, which is related to whether they endure chronic or temporary types of poverty and hardship. If social protection systems and policies are to effectively combat social exclusion and marginalisation, it is crucial that they address not only economic shortfalls but also the power imbalances and structural vulnerabilities that exist at all levels of society. 

For instance, transformational social protection can be crucial in supporting strategies for more inclusive programme governance and accountability as well as in advancing empowerment and citizen rights among socially marginalised groups. The inability to address the hazards that individuals experience in complex societies is reflected in social exclusion, which also introduces additional dangers, especially if the excluded isolate themselves from the larger community. Therefore, social policy is necessary to address exclusion-causing hazards (such as unemployment, a lack of skills, sickness, poor salaries, and old age) as well as to stop the emergence of new social issues. Therefore, addressing the underlying socio-political causes of poverty and vulnerability, such as discrimination and exclusion based on gender inequalities, ethnicity or refugee status, is necessary. Social protection, whether it is formally provided by the state or informally through community and family networks, is a potentially powerful means of tackling these causes.

Proponents of a social exclusion perspective see structural inequalities of opportunity and outcome as stemming from two sources-

1. Group-based disadvantages: Social hierarchies and relations that define certain groups as inferior to others on the basis of their identity are a key source of disadvantage, denying them full participation in the economic, social and political life of their society (Kabeer, 2010; Stewart, 2002). 
2. Lifelong discrimination: Chronic poverty results not only from having fewer assets to fall back on in times of crisis, but also from the cumulative impact of discrimination, risk, vulnerability and exclusion across an individual’s life cycle and between generations

Exclusionary pressures, structural disadvantage, and capability limits are three separate but linked characteristics of social exclusion. Even if each element alone has the potential to result in exclusion from social security programmes, their combination raises the risk of exclusion. Prejudices held by more powerful members of society are frequently the source of exclusionary forces, which frequently take the form of discriminatory practises like institutionalised biases against marginalised groups, institutional indifference to the needs of population-vulnerable groups (like people with disabilities), and cultural and social norms that undermine claims. These exclusionary pressures affect how policies are designed and how service providers operate at the local and national levels, which leads to uneven power relations at all levels of society. Additionally, the framework for developing national policies is impacted, which has certain negative effects. For structural disadvantages can manifest as inadequate infrastructure (like roads), weak communication systems (like no Internet access), a lack of public and private sector services (like banks), a higher likelihood of exposure to natural disasters (like floods), and lower levels of economic development (such as the absence of industries providing decent employment). These drawbacks are frequently a result of geography or the cost of building infrastructure in distant or physically difficult regions, which makes it less likely that governments would give it priority. Therefore, despite the fact that structural disadvantage may not result from discrimination, it might lead to social exclusion.

Physical impairments are not the only structural drawbacks. Another structural disadvantage may be the lack of discrimination-related legislation and effective enforcement. For instance, without equal opportunity laws, it may be significantly harder for certain groups to receive public services and jobs, such as women, persons with disabilities, and racial and ethnic minorities. Social protection programmes may be inherently biassed towards structural disadvantage. Inadequate funding for managing and administering such programmes makes it much harder for people to access them, and administrative capability within social protection programmes also differs between regions and localities, adding to access hurdles in certain places. Urban locations, for instance, are better equipped to deliver services, such as pay points, closer to prospective beneficiaries.

People who find it difficult to interact with the government and use public resources typically face higher degrees of social isolation. Limitations may stem from a variety of factors, such as a handicap, poor health, psychological health and self-confidence, exposure to domestic violence or abuse, taking care of others' children or elders, and educational attainment, reading, and numeracy skills. Being poor in and of itself is a capability constraint, and it intensifies other existing limits. People with low earnings, for instance, may have more time constraints since they may be working long hours and are less able to pay for transportation or taxes, making it more difficult for them to interact with public authorities and receive public services. Low incomes, on the other hand, find their capacity to address their constraints further weakened for individuals suffering additional intrinsic limits, such as a frail elderly person or a single mother with a small kid.

People may encounter several drawbacks. For instance, a female member of an ethnic minority who is disabled, lives in poverty, and is situated in a distant place may be disadvantaged in terms of exclusionary factors, structural disadvantage, and capability restrictions. Poverty is likely to make these several disadvantages worse.

It is crucial to remember that social security programmes with limited coverage are not the only ones that exclude people. With a pretty large coverage and reliable targeting strategies, people can even be excluded from universal schemes. For instance, in 2012, the Child Support Grant in South Africa covered almost 60% of children, but only 23.7% of those who were eligible (UNICEF and South African Social Security Agency [SASSA], 2013). Eligible persons are frequently left out of social protection programmes for a variety of intricate reasons, such as budgetary restrictions on coverage, difficulties in designing and implementing programmes, and varying levels of ability to enter programmes and overcome exclusionary criteria.

Exclusion also occurs at other times in a program's operating cycle, such as when transfers are paid and requirements are enforced, in addition to during selection and registration.

Social exclusion is a specific style of cognition that contributes in the formation of both social problems and the governmental solutions to them. According to this viewpoint, the idea of social exclusion aids specialists and decision-makers in making sense of the social environment and developing policies intended to address the social issues that seem to be relevant. Any policy paradigm, however, has certain intellectual "blind spots" since it prioritises some social issues while pushing others to the side of the policy agenda. The concept of social inclusion, which is connected to this principle, might be a useful tool for reforming programmes and policies. This is especially true when social exclusion is linked to important ideas like social citizenship and solidarity. Leading politicians and policymakers are also beginning to recognise that poverty and social exclusion are global issues rather than merely national ones, and they think that concerted worldwide action will be required to solve these issues.

Delivery systems must thus be especially sensitive to the difficulties and barriers experienced by weak and disadvantaged groups and take specific precautions to preserve these in order to be effective. In fact, a human rights-based approach to social protection necessitates that States pay particular attention to individuals who are a part of the most underprivileged and marginalised groups in society. This requires both ensuring nondiscriminatory treatment and taking proactive steps to ensure that persons who experience structural discrimination (such as racial or ethnic minorities or indigenous peoples) may exercise their legal rights. The goals of affirmative action and other proactive measures should be to reduce or eliminate the circumstances that lead to or sustain discrimination and to combat stigmas and biases.