Social Inclusion/Exclusion: Literature Review
The following is based on a review of recent literature.
Social inclusion/exclusion
Social inclusion is a compelling, complex, and contested concept (Novick 2003). There is a general agreement that inclusion is a good thing, and that exclusion is a bad thing because it damages social cohesion (Levitas 2003). Shookner (2002) describes social and economic inclusion as follows: "Social and economic inclusion provides a framework that includes all the determinants of health. International evidence has established that economic inequality is a powerful determinant of health. The wider the gap between the rich and the poor, the poorer the health status of the entire population. Adequate income, education, and a network of relationships enable people to participate as valued members of society." However, the concept of social inclusion raises many questions about its appropriate uses and meanings. Novick contends that appears to have self-evident meaning to its advocates can conceal layers of differing assumptions and agendas. While the idea of 'social inclusion' can be a legitimating concept of social policy (Levitas 2003) and holds out the promise of a more just set of relationships within society (Novick 2003), until we know what kind of inclusion is intended, and for whom, the promise of including everyone remains unclear. Likewise, Levitas argues that there is little clarity about the meaning of inclusion and exclusion. To some extent, according to Levitas, the unifying function of these terms depends on a lack of clarity.
Thus, it is important to recognise that representations of the social cannot be analysed in an absolute manner (Levitas 2003). Representations have to be understood in terms of the use of 'social inclusion' by specific groups pursuing projects in particular circumstances. In other words, social inclusion is a relative concept. This reminds us that the proper question about the idea of social inclusion is not what does it mean, but what do we mean by it - or rather what is meant by it, by whom.
According to Chanan (2000), definitions of social exclusion have largely focussed on how the individual person is left out. However, it is possible that entire groups may be excluded. For example, neighbourhoods may be excluded from the wealth of a city. Individual exclusion is compounded by membership in other levels of disadvantage requiring multi-dimensional and multi-levelled approaches. Chanan defines 'community activity' as the involvement of local citizens in government policy schemes such as job creation initiatives. It is also about how local citizens working together for the betterment of their local area creates social capital.
Chanan asserts that the foundation of social inclusion is getting a job and becoming involved in some form of local activity. Furthermore, a sense of community consciousness is required to inspire activity. Citizens must recognise that others share similar problems. Chanan also argues that governments must compensate local organisations for becoming involved in 'partnerships' and do more to increase local activity by strengthening existing organisations, assisting people who are trying to start new ones, and contributing to public awareness about the value of local activity. Thus, ideas of social inclusion/exclusion are seen as inter-related with levels of local activity and organisation.
Social Capital
Social inclusion/exclusion is related to the concept of social capital, wherein social capital includes activities like neighbourhood associations, sports clubs, and co-operatives. According to Chanan (2002), "Included people have maximum opportunity for local involvement but are not dependent on it." The Civic Practices Network defines social capital as a productive and positive resource: "social capital refers to those stocks of social trust, norms and networks that people can draw on to solve common problems." Correspondingly, the Civic Practices Network (2003) maintains that the denser the networks, the more likely the residents will co-operate for mutual benefit. Sampson (1999) discusses how social capital works at the local level. Sampson argues that social capital is not lodged in individuals but in the structure of social organisation. It follows that localities high in social capital are better able to realise common values and maintain effective social controls.
Gilles (1998) reviews more than 40 health promotion initiatives around the world to assess the impact and effectiveness of partnerships and alliances. She concludes that alliances do work in tackling both the broad determinants of health and well being in populations and promoting improved individual health behaviors. Gilles notes that successful initiatives "show a clear commitment to lay representation in agenda-setting, policy-making and implementation in national, regional, district, village and local community or neighborhood levels. Emphasis is on the sharing of power, responsibility and authority for change."
Kawachi (1997) reviews the case of Roseto, Pennsylvania in the 1950’s, which, despite similar rates of smoking, obesity and poor diets, had much lower rates of heart attacks. This has been attributed to the "close-knit relations" or high social capital of the residents. The particular factors noted by the researchers were egalitarianism and cohesiveness. Other findings have corroborated the Roseto case that having a large social network has strong health benefits even when controlling for weight, age, fitness, smoking, and so on. The findings suggest a significant relationship between trust between citizens (defined as the proportion of residents who believe 'most people cannot be trusted') and mortality rates.
Social Exclusion as a Transportation Issue
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition that transport problems can be a significant barrier to social inclusion. This was evident in the poverty scan of Elgin County (Fuller et al 2002) and resulted in a follow-up workshop completed in May 2003. Transportation has also been identified in the U.K. as being a noteworthy issue. The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) undertook a study to examine the links between transport and social exclusion in spring 2001. SEU (2002) highlights how poor transport contributes to social exclusion in two ways. First, it can stop people from participating in work, learning, health care, food shopping and other activities, such as volunteering and community participation. Second, people in deprived areas also suffer the worst effects of road traffic through pollution and pedestrian accidents. Poor transport has costs for people, businesses, and the state.
The SEU also outlined the costs of transportation inaction on, among others, individuals. Without appropriate methods of available transportation, individuals can be cut off from jobs, education and training. They may not be able to access cheap, fresh food; may only access health care in a crisis; are often unable to see friends and family or do other social activities; and may experience crime or fear of crime walking to, waiting for, and travelling on public transport. In extreme circumstances, people may be left isolated or even housebound.
As evidenced by discussions during the workshops completed in Elgin County, transportation-related forms of exclusion take on similar characteristics in rural areas - but are accentuated by greater distances and a lack of alternatives (e.g., public transportation, taxis).
Litman (2003) examines social exclusion as it relates to transport, how it is currently incorporated in Canadian transport planning, and the research needed to better address social exclusion. Inadequate transport in Canada sometimes contributes to social exclusion, particularly for people who live in an automobile-dependent locality and are physically disabled, low income or unable to own and drive a personal automobile. About 20% of Canadian households do not own an automobile, about 10% are low-income, and about 10% of the population has a disability that constrains mobility. Thus, while public policy is concerned with providing basic mobility to disadvantaged groups, further research is needed to better evaluate the problem and potential solutions.
Seniors as an Excluded Group
Chappell (2001) examines ageing in Canada and highlights several issues faced by seniors. Chappell pays particular attention to the role of seniors within a modern Western society. One issue relates to a tendency to value others for their productive roles and/or for their wealth. In this context seniors tend to be de-valued. Their exclusion from paid labour leaves them without any socially defined, contributing role within society. Their role, by default, is a role of exclusion.
As a Western capitalist society with an emphasis on autonomy and independence for the individual, myths persist that elderly persons are, by and large, frail, lonely and isolated, and put into long-term care institutions where possible. Contrary to these myths, empirical research during the last three decades demonstrates that seniors, despite gradually declining physical health, tend to cope, and are embedded within social networks, preferring ‘intimacy at a distance’ to living with family members.
The Improving the Quality of Life of Canadian Seniors Project was undertaken to learn about the effects of government policies on seniors’ quality of life. Senior participants in the project place a very important emphasis on issues such as transportation and getting their voices heard - citing that these issues were the main concern for seniors and their general well being (Raphael et al. 2000). In their report, Raphael et al. state that there is a clear sense that seniors do not see government policy makers as being sensitive to their concerns. The voices of seniros are not being listened to regardless of the issue considered (e.g., housing, health services, transportation). The frustration felt by participants in the project comes through in all aspects of the report.
Certain health determinants for seniors were identified in the report as being particularly relevant. These relevant determinants are income and social status, social support networks, physical and social environments, personal health practices and coping skills, and health services. Whether or not these determinants of health are of good quality is determined by government policy making.
Youth as an Excluded Group
According to Hanvey (2003), examining the concept of social inclusion as it relates to children and youth is relatively new in Canada, beginning over the last few years. Hanvey points out that social exclusion works through an inter-play of conditions or circumstances, such as poverty, unemployment, lone motherhood; attitudes or values, such as fear of differences, racism; and processes, such as segregation, silencing, and institutionalisation. The consequences are the same: a lack of recognition of acceptance, powerlessness; vulnerability; diminished life experiences; and limited life prospects.
Based on focus groups with youth, Hanvey’s research reveals that young people see social inclusion in the context of participating in and contributing to their locality. In addition, young people, in all age groups (12 to 24 years) describe inclusion as having a strong attachment to people, specifically to a group of friends. Furthermore, they seemed to understand the connection between attachment and vulnerability. Several stated that without a strong attachment to people, such as a group of friends, young people risk being excluded from their own social landscape. According to many youth, social exclusion invariably results in an increased vulnerability.
Phipps and Curtis (2001) look at social exclusion of children (6 to 13 years) in North America. They find that much of the literature takes an adult-focussed rather than a child-focussed perspective. However, some dimensions of exclusion seem relevant in either case (e.g. low-income or social isolation). The first major section of the paper provides a conceptual discussion of what it means for a child to be 'socially excluded' and how this might be measured.