The Social Inclusion Agenda in the
Western Balkans and Turkey: key
challenges
Dr. Paul Stubbs
Senior Research Fellow
The Institute of Economics, Zagreb
pstubbs@eizg.hr
Consultation Workshop, Torino 12.12.11
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.
• Bringing political agency back in addresses the relationship between social
exclusion and clientelistic 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
Social Inclusion Agendas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Residual <-> Comprehesive
Fragmented <-> Co-ordinated
Punitive <-> Empowering
Ad Hoc <-> Evidence-based
Clientelistic <-> Needs-based
Discriminatory <-> Anti-discriminatory
Marginal <-> Central (Growth, Employment,
Inclusion, ...)
Europe 2020
The best possibe strategy at the worst possible
moment?
Positive: key quantifiable targets; flagship
initiatives; net social progress; inclusive
growth
Negative: OMC as ‘business as usual’; return to
1980s anti-poverty agenda; IMF-EU metacritical partnerships; first wave of NRPs worse
than Lisbon II
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%
-0.9%
-0.3%
-2.6%
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
• Danger of Generalisations – only (some) men aged 30-45 not excluded?
• Spatial dimension: Arc of exclusion; Rural – Urban; Zones of exclusion
• ‘New’ survival strategies eroding long-term capabilities?
Emigration and Rural-Urban
Migration
• Inflexible (formal) labour markets
• Mis-match of skills and supply-demand at
local-national-regional levels
• Loss of highly skilled workforce
• Migration as deskilling and discrimination
• Those ‘left behind’ in rural and disadvantaged
areas
• Forced return and vicious not virtual circles
Local Capacities for Social
Inclusion
• National strategies rarely impact at local levels
• Social dimension marginalised in regional and
local development strategies
• New Regional Social Planning highly
technicised but lacks evidence-base
• Significant gaps in funding, staffing, capacity
• Employment and social assistance emphasised
over personal social services
Clientelism and Social Inclusion
Policies
• Benefits to groups in exchange for political support –
governance, citizenship and (re)distribution
• Southern Europe – South East Europe – Post-Communist (nb
also Corporatist Central Europe)
• Institutional particularism <-> Corruption
• Employment opportunities
• Ethnicised citizenship claims including Diaspora and crossborder claims-making
• War veterans as privileged group: passive benefits; positive
discrimination; vocal interest groups
• Pensioners and minority political parties – categorical or
particularistic interests
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 and
Employment Bureaux
• 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 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 Inclusion: 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 Inclusion:
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
VET for Social Inclusion
•
•
•
•
•
Empowering (guidance) or conditional (insertion)?
Linkages to labour force and skills planning
Evidence of impacts on long-term employability?
Cherry picking and creation of new middle class?
Short-term, project-based and reliant on
intermediaries
• Absence of research on social structure, social
mobility, transition from school to work
• Building on capacities and coping mechanisms
Towards A Renewed Social Inclusion
Agenda 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 A Renewed Social Inclusion
Agenda 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?)
• Case for repoliticisation and social investment