Promoting Social Innovations for
Inclusion in the Western
Balkans: key challenges
Paul Stubbs
pstubbs@eizg.hr
The Presentation
1. On Coats of Paint and MUD
2. Social Exclusion in the Western Balkans
3. Promoting Social Inclusion I: state and
market
4. Promoting Social Inclusion II: the social
economy
5. Towards Social Innovations for Social
Inclusion
A ‘Coat of Paint’ Theory of Social
Exclusion
Following Paul Gilroy (1987) on racism:
• “A coat of paint theory” of social exclusion sees it as an
aberrant or surface feature of society, and therefore easily
removed.
• Seeing social exclusion as an integral part of the way
contemporary societies are structured, organised and
legitimated, offers a very different perspective.
• Exploring the institutionalised nature of social exclusion
requires understanding how it is embedded in social
relations.
• The challenge is, therefore, to deal with the complex and
diverse ways that diverse forms of social exclusion actually
work.
A ‘Moral Underclass Discourse’
Ruth Levitas (1990) expressed concern about the rise of a Moral
Underclass Discourse (MUD) at the expense of both a Social
Integrationist Discourse (SID) and, in particular, a
Redistributive Discourse (RED)
• Social exclusion is caused by the moral attitudes and cultural
practices of those who are excluded
• Responses to social exclusion may promote dependency and
reinforce a “cycle of poverty and deprivation”
• Programmes for those capable to work should be conditioned
in some way to ensure attitudinal and behavioural change
Western Balkans: Real GDP Growth 2008-2010 (%)
10
8
6
4
Croatia
Montenegro
2
Serbia
Bosnia
0
Macedonia
Kosovo
-2
Albania
-4
-6
-8
2008
2009
2010
6
Absolute poverty headcount at $5 per day
Croatia
2%
Bosnia
8%
Serbia
17%
Macedonia
37%
Montenegro
49%
Albania
60%
Kosovo
82%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
7
The Myth of High Social Spending
in % GDP for 2008
Government Revenue
Government Expenditure
Fiscal Balance
Expenditure by Economic Classification
Wage Bill
Social Transfers
Expenditure by Functional Classification
Health
Education
Social Protection
EU 27
44.6%
46.9%
-2.3%
EU 16
44.9%
46.8%
-1.9%
WB
39.3%
41.5%
-2.3%
10.3% 9.9% 9.3%
20.1% 21.6% 15.5%
6.9% 6.9% 5.6%
5.2% 4.8% 4.4%
18.2% 18.9% 13.0%
Source: O’Mahony RCC 2011, For EU data EUROSTAT and for WB data
IMF and EFPs/PEPs
A Varied Fiscal Envelope
in % GDP for 2008
Government Revenue
Government Expenditure
Fiscal Balance
Expenditure by Economic Classification
Wage Bill
Social Transfers
Expenditure by Functional Classification
Health
Education
Social Protection
EU 27
44.6%
46.9%
-2.3%
EU 16
44.9%
46.8%
-1.9%
WB
39.3%
41.5%
-2.3%
Albania
26.8%
32.3%
-5.5%
BiH
46.0%
49.5%
-3.5%
Croatia
39.8%
40.7%
-0.9%
FYRoM Montenegro Serbia
32.5% 48.6% 41.9%
33.4% 48.8% 44.5%
-2.6%
-0.3%
-0.9%
10.3% 9.9% 9.3% 6.1% 12.0% 9.8% 5.2%
20.1% 21.6% 15.5% 8.6% 15.4% 16.3% 18.9%
12.1%
15.9%
10.7%
17.9%
6.9% 6.9% 5.6% 2.5% 7.1% 5.6% 6.7%
5.2% 4.8% 4.4% 3.5% 5.5% 4.1% 4.8%
18.2% 18.9% 13.0% 7.9% 14.9% 13.5% 10.6%
5.8%
4.8%
14.6%
5.7%
3.8%
16.4%
Source: O’Mahony RCC 2011
Drivers of Social Exclusion
• Multiple shocks: War/conflicts; Structural transition;
Deindustrialisation; Erosion of social capital/solidarities;
‘Captured’ social policies; Economic and Financial Crisis
• Distortions caused by ‘locked in’ expenditures (tertiary
health care; residential care) and new (informal)
marketization
• Legacy of category-based (not needs-based) social
protection
• Stigma, discrimination and over-professionalised
approaches
• Political will – Fiscal space – Technical capacities
Groups ‘At Risk’ of Exclusion
• Multi-dimensionality and inter-sectionality of exclusion (n.b. research and
data gaps)
• ‘At risk’: (Long-term) Unemployed; Older people; Large families; Women;
Children; Youth; Low education levels; RDPs; Minorities (esp. Roma but
also national minorities and ‘small minorities’); People with Disabilities;
People with long-term health issues; Migrants/returnees/left behind
• Spatial dimension: Arc of exclusion; Rural – Urban; Zones of exclusion
• ‘New’ survival strategies eroding long-term capabilities?
Social Innovation:
the new ‘magic bullet’
“Social innovation is an important new field which should
be nurtured. It is about tapping into the ingenuity of
charities, associations and social entrepreneurs to find
new ways of meeting social needs which are not
adequately met by the market or the public sector. ...
As well as meeting social needs and tackling societal
challenges, social innovations empower people and
create new social relationships and models of
collaboration. They are thus innovative in themselves
and good for society’s capacity to innovate.”
Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative COM (2010) 546, October
Promoting Social Inclusion:
the state/public sector
• The role of the state: public goods – bloated bureaucracy –
clientelistic rent seeker?
• Post-Yu countries – Centres for Social Work
• Governance – poor horizontal and vertical co-ordination
• Regulation - over legalistic but with many gaps
• Human resources - limited skills to meet ‘new’ social risks
• Funding - low and inconsistent; little support for non-state
actors/providers
• Strategy – too many strategies; too little participation; no
real M&E; too influenced by international organisations
(nb JIM/JAP process)
Promoting Social Inclusion: the
market
• Few incentives for private, for-profit providers
(health, education, social services, ...)
• Some development of Corporate Social
Responsibility: move from philanthropy to
sustainable partnerships
• Growth of market ideas within the public
sector (new public management)
• Informal marketization / commodification of
public goods /privatization of public space
Promoting Social Innovation: NGOs
• Inverse care law – NGOs where they are needed
least
• Time-limited, donor-driven funding
• Service provision at the expense of advocacy and
empowerment?
• Projectisation and endless pilot projects
• ‘The new project class’ and ‘the rise of the metaNGO’
• Innovations are very rarely scaled up or rolled out
Promoting Social Innovation:
social entrepreneurship
• Lack of definition, understanding and legal
framework
• Donor-driven model with policy transfer (CEE > SEE)
• Implicit or explicit neo-liberal agenda
• SE from below – green, gender, informal
networks, etc
• New social energy – disability advocacy
coalitions
Towards Social Innovations for Soial
Inclusion I
• Inclusive labour markets (disability; age; gender) and
improved returns to education (life-long learning; skills;
transitioning e.g school to work)
• Holistic and integrated child and family policies (early
childhood interventions; universal child benefits; family
support services)
• Deinstitutionalisation and minimum basket of
community-based services
• Social pensions within ‘active ageing’ policies
• Anti-discrimination laws and practices
• Area-based approaches/Action zones
Towards Social Innovations for Soial
Inclusion II
• Support for ‘evidence-based’ policy making –
Strategic Goals; Benchmarks; Indicators; M&E;
Impact Assessment (including all stakeholders)
• Enhanced ‘social’ dimension of IPA
programming
• Regional cooperation (modelling OMC-JIM;
Peer review/peer learning; common concerns;
RCC as bridge to EU/global frameworks?)