Poverty, Inequality and Social Inclusion · 2020. 11. 18. · Poverty, inequality and social...

Andrew MitchellRichard Shillington

W O R K I N G P A P E R S E R I E S

PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL INCLUSION

Poverty, Inequality and

Social Inclusion

D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 2

Andrew Mitchell is a program director with the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, currently on leave at the University of Toronto working on a Social Science and Humanities

Research Council (SSHRC) project titled "Social Assistance in the New Economy".

Richard Shillington is self-employed and conducts social policy research.


Andrew MitchellRichard Shillington


Social Inclusion

Copyright © 2002 The Laidlaw Foundation

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of theLaidlaw Foundation.

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Mitchell, Andrew, 1958Poverty, inequality and social inclusion / Andrew Mitchell and Richard Shillington.

(Perspectives on social inclusion working paper series)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-9730740-6-X

1. Equality. 2. Social integration. 3. Poverty. I. Shillington, E. Richard II. Laidlaw Foundation.III. Title. IV. Series.

HM821.M47 2002 305.5'6 C2002-902757-8

The Laidlaw Foundation365 Bloor Street East, Suite 2000 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W 3L4Tel.: (416) 964-3614 Fax: (416) 975-1428

PresidentPaul Zarnke

Executive DirectorNathan Gilbert

Editing and LayoutIs five Communications

This paper is part of the Laidlaw Foundation’s Working Paper Series, Perspectives on SocialInclusion. The full papers (in English only) and the summaries in French and English can be down-

loaded from the Laidlaw Foundation’s web site at www.laidlawfdn.org under Children’s Agenda/Working Paper Series on Social Inclusion or ordered from [email protected]: $11.00 full paper; $6.00 Summaries (Taxes do not apply and shipment included).


iii

Table of Contents

About the Laidlaw Foundation..................................................................v

Foreword..............................................................................................vii

Poverty, Inequality and Social Inclusion.......................................................1

Introduction..........................................................................................1

Poverty, Inequality, Capacity and Social Inclusion.......................................2

Exploring Social Inclusion and Exclusion....................................................6

Policy Implications: Promoting inclusion or preventing exclusion?................13

Welfare-to-what in North America?..........................................................20

Conclusions and implications for practice.................................................23

Endnotes.........................................................................................23

References.........................................................................................24


v

About the Laidlaw Foundation

The Laidlaw Foundation is a private, public-interest foundation that uses its human and financialresources in innovative ways to strengthen civic engagement and social cohesion. The Foundationuses its capital to better the environments and fulfill the capacities of children and youth, to enhancethe opportunities for human development and creativity and to sustain healthy communities andecosystems.

The Foundation supports a diverse portfolio of innovative and often unconventional projects in threeprogram areas: in the arts, in the environment and improving the life prospects for children, youthand families.

Working for social inclusion is a theme that underlies much of the Foundation’s activities. The keywords in the Foundation’s mission — human development, sustainable communities and ecosystems— imply that achievement will rely on the enhancement of capacity and capability. Not only is socialinclusion being developed as an emerging funding stream, it is an embedded Laidlaw Foundationvalue, both structurally and programmatically.

Nathan GilbertExecutive Director

For more information about the Laidlaw Foundation please contact us at:

The Laidlaw FoundationTel: 416 964-3614Fax: 416 975-1428Email: [email protected]


vii

Foreword:

The context for social inclus ion

The Laidlaw Foundation’sPerspective on Social Inclusion

Children have risen to the top of gov-ernment agendas at various times overthe past decade, only to fall again

whenever there is an economic downturn, abudget deficit, a federal-provincial relationscrisis or, most recently, a concern over terror-ism and national security. While there havebeen important achievements in public policyin the past 5 to 10 years, there has not been asustained government commitment to childrennor a significant improvement in the well-being of children and families. In fact, inmany areas, children and families have lostground and social exclusion is emerging as amajor issue in Canada. Examples abound andinclude these facts.

• the over-representation of racial minorityfamilies and children among those livingin poverty in large cities, and the denialof access to many services by immigrantand refugee families;

• the 43% increase in the number of chil-dren in poverty in Canada since 1989,the 130% increase in the number of chil-dren in homeless shelters in Toronto, aswell as the persistence of one of the high-est youth incarceration rates amongCommonwealth countries;

• the exclusion of children with disabilitiesfrom public policy frameworks (e.g. theNational Children’s Agenda), from defi-nitions of ‘healthy’ child developmentand, all too often, from community life.

These situations provide the context forthe Laidlaw Foundation’s interest in socialinclusion. The Foundation’s Children’s Agendaprogram first began exploring social inclusionin 2000 as a way to re-focus child and familypolicy by:

• re-framing the debate about poverty, vul-nerability and the well-being of childrenin order to highlight the social dimen-sions of poverty (i.e. the inability to par-ticipate fully in the community)

• linking poverty and economic vulnerabil-ity with other sources of exclusion suchas racism, disability, rejection of differ-ence and historic oppression

• finding common ground among thoseconcerned about the well-being of fami-lies with children to help generate greaterpublic and political will to act.

The Foundation commissioned a series ofworking papers to examine social inclusionfrom a number of perspectives. Although theauthors approach the topic from differentstarting points and emphasize different aspectsof exclusion and inclusion, there are importantcommon threads and conclusions. The work-ing papers draw attention to the new realitiesand new understandings that must be broughtto bear on the development of social policyand the creation of a just and healthy society.

Foreword: The Laidlaw Foundation's Perspective

viii

These are:

• Whether the source of exclusion is pover-ty, racism, fear of differences or lack ofpolitical clout, the consequences are thesame: a lack of recognition and accept-ance; powerlessness and ‘voicelessness’;economic vulnerability; and, diminishedlife experiences and limited life prospects.For society as a whole, the social exclusionof individuals and groups can become amajor threat to social cohesion and eco-nomic prosperity.

• A rights-based approach is inadequate toaddress the personal and systemic exclu-sions experienced by children and adults.People with disabilities are leading the wayin calling for approaches based on socialinclusion and valued recognition to deliverwhat human rights claims alone cannot.

• Diversity and difference, whether on thebasis of race, disability, religion, culture orgender, must be recognized and valued.

The ‘one size fits all approach’ is no longeracceptable and has never been effective inadvancing the well-being of children andfamilies.

• Public policy must be more closely linkedto the lived experiences of children andfamilies, both in terms of the actual pro-grams and in terms of the process forarriving at those policies and programs.This is one of the reasons for the growingfocus on cities and communities, as placeswhere inclusion and exclusion happen.

• Universal programs and policies that serveall children and families generally providea stronger foundation for improving well-being than residual, targeted or segregatedapproaches. The research and anecdotalevidence for this claim is mounting fromthe education, child development andpopulation health sectors.

Understanding social inclus ion

Social exclusion emerged as an importantpolicy concept in Europe in the 1980s inresponse to the growing social divides

that resulted from new labour market condi-tions and the inadequacy of existing social wel-fare provisions to meet the changing needs ofmore diverse populations. Social inclusion isnot, however, just a response to exclusion.

Although many of the working papers usesocial exclusion as the starting point for theirdiscussions, they share with us the view thatsocial inclusion has value on its own as both aprocess and a goal. Social inclusion is aboutmaking sure that all children and adults areable to participate as valued, respected and

contributing members of society. It is, there-fore, a normative (value based) concept - a wayof raising the bar and understanding where wewant to be and how to get there.

Social inclusion reflects a proactive,human development approach to social well-being that calls for more than the removal ofbarriers or risks. It requires investments andaction to bring about the conditions for inclu-sion, as the population health and internation-al human development movements have taughtus.

Recognizing the importance of differenceand diversity has become central to new under-


ix

standings of identity at both a national andcommunity level. Social inclusion goes onestep further: it calls for a validation and recog-nition of diversity as well as a recognition ofthe commonality of lived experiences and theshared aspirations among people, particularlyevident among families with children.

This strongly suggests that social inclu-sion extends beyond bringing the ‘outsiders’in, or notions of the periphery versus the cen-tre. It is about closing physical, social andeconomic distances separating people, ratherthan only about eliminating boundaries orbarriers between us and them.

The cornerstones of social inclus ion

The working papers process revealed thatsocial inclusion is a complex and chal-lenging concept that cannot be reduced

to only one dimension or meaning. The work-ing papers, together with several other initia-tives the Foundation sponsored as part of itsexploration of social inclusion , have helped usto identify five critical dimensions, or corner-stones, of social inclusion:

Valued recognition– Conferring recognitionand respect on individuals and groups. Thisincludes recognizing the differences in chil-dren’s development and, therefore, not equat-ing disability with pathology; supporting com-munity schools that are sensitive to culturaland gender differences; and extending thenotion to recognizing common worth throughuniversal programs such as health care.

Human development – Nurturing the talents,skills, capacities and choices of children andadults to live a life they value and to make acontribution both they and others find worth-while. Examples include: learning and devel-opmental opportunities for all children andadults; community child care and recreationprograms for children that are growth-promot-ing and challenging rather than merelycustodial.

Involvement and engagement – Having theright and the necessary support to make/beinvolved in decisions affecting oneself, familyand community, and to be engaged in commu-nity life. Examples include: youth engagementand control of services for youth; parentalinput into school curriculum or placementdecisions affecting their child; citizen engage-ment in municipal policy decisions; and politi-cal participation.

Proximity – Sharing physical and socialspaces to provide opportunities for interac-tions, if desired, and to reduce social distancesbetween people. This includes shared publicspaces such as parks and libraries; mixedincome neighbourhoods and housing; andintegrated schools and classrooms.

Material well being – Having the materialresources to allow children and their parents toparticipate fully in community life. Thisincludes being safely and securely housed andhaving an adequate income.

Foreword: The Laidlaw Foundation's Perspective

x

Next s teps: Bui lding inclus ive c i t ies and communit ies

AcknowledgementsWe wish to thank the following for their contribution and commitment to the working papers serieson social inclusion: the authors, without whom there would be no working papers; Karen Swift,Frank Stark, Nancy Matthews, Jennifer Keck, Daniel Drache and the forty external reviewers ofpapers, all of whom provided critical feedback and expert advice at various stages during the editorialprocess; the members of the Advisory Committee, Children’s Agenda Program, Nathan Gilbert,Executive Director, and the Board of Directors, Laidlaw Foundation for their support, interest andcritical comments; and Larisa Farafontova, Eva-Marie Dolhai, and Richard Wazana, for theirperseverance and skillful assistance at critical stages in the process.

Over the next three years, the Children’sAgenda program of the LaidlawFoundation will focus on Building

inclusive cities and communities. The impor-tance of cities and communities is becomingincreasingly recognized because the well-beingof children and families is closely tied to wherethey live, the quality of their neighbourhoodsand cities, and the ‘social commons’ where peo-ple interact and share experiences.

The Laidlaw Foundation’s vision of asocially inclusive society is grounded in aninternational movement that aims to advancethe well-being of people by improving thehealth of cities and communities. Realizingthis vision is a long-term project to ensure thatall members of society participate as equallyvalued and respected citizens. It is an agendabased on the premise that for our society to bejust, healthy and secure, it requires the inclu-sion of all.

Christa FreilerChildren’s Agenda Program CoordinatorLaidlaw Foundation

Paul ZarnkePresident and Former Chair, Children’s Agenda Advisory Committee Laidlaw Foundation

This series is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Jennifer Keck who died on June 12, 2002

after a long battle with cancer.

Jennifer was a key member of the editorial committee,an insightful and passionate reviewer of the working papers,

and an unwavering advocate forsocial justice and the social inclusion of all people.


Social Inclusion

Introduct ion


1

Poverty, Inequalityand Social Inclusion

Canada may set a limited social goal ofpoverty elimination that might narrow-ly imply providing sufficient funds to

meet basic needs. A broader social goal wouldbe ‘equality of opportunity’ which would betracked based on income inequality, or relativepoverty. Even more ambitious would be a poli-cy objective that advanced social inclusion.This goal has implications for citizen participa-tion, capacity and agency for citizens encour-aging the tools (economic, social, health, edu-cational and legal) which make autonomy pos-sible.

The opportunity provided by the con-cepts of exclusion and inclusion comes withsome risks. Social inclusion, like poverty, is acontested concept. The meanings of socialinclusion span the range from narrow labourmarket insertion policy; policies which havequestionable impact on broad notions of inclu-sion, to broader notions of capability and par-ticipation. However, it may be riskier still toignore a discourse that is encroaching on thesocial policy domain in North America, aftercoming to dominate discussions in Europe.

This paper explores the relationshipamong the related concepts of poverty,inequality and social exclusion/inclusion.Although there are similarities and overlapsamong them, and they are occasionally usedinterchangeably, they are distinct. Each has animpact on welfare and indeed, they are inter-dependent. Poverty reduction is necessary for

survival. Inequality affects self-esteem but alsoautonomy, freedom and social inclusion, whichare prerequisites for well-being. Our choice ofdefinition rests in part on the purposes forwhich we seek social inclusion – individualwell-being versus broader social cohesion as thefocus of our concerns.

This paper is based on a number of con-tentions that are key to an understanding ofsocial inclusion and exclusion and to theirapplication to public policies and practices:

1. Income sufficient first for basic needs,and second for decency is but a steppingstone to well-being. This is demonstratedby the notion of poverty as ‘capabilitydeprivation’, as developed by AmartyaSen (1992). His broader conception,focusing on capacity instead of poverty,has strong parallels with the notions ofexclusion/inclusion.1

Social inclusion encourages a focus oncapabilities broader than income.2

These can include limited access to basichealth and basic education. As well, theimpediments to capacity include thedenial of human rights (UN covenantsinclude basic income, shelter, health andeducation as a human right).

2. Social inclusion and exclusion are multi-dimensional since there are many differ-ent domains of potential deprivation thatcome into play singly or in combination

2

Poverty, Inequality and Social Inclusion

to create exclusion, and many differentways to promote inclusion. The conceptsof income poverty and inequality are cen-tral, but inclusion is broader than these,encompassing physical and economicdimensions, human assets, social assetsand political abilities.

3. Social and political actors and institutionscreate exclusion, and the focus on theseactors and processes is one of the advan-tages of examining social exclusion.Policy and practice can ameliorate orreinforce disadvantages emanating fromother sources, transforming original dis-advantage into exclusion. The recognitionof disadvantage, however defined, doesnot automatically lead to a strategy for itselimination.

4. Social inclusion provides a comprehensiveperspective that tests the limitations ofprevalent forms of anti-exclusion policy.In particular, social inclusion highlightsthe deficiencies of anti-exclusion policiesthat seek to promote inclusion solely by

integrating the marginalized throughlabour market attachment. Such limitedperspectives ignore gender and otherinequalities in the labour market, thevalue of caring responsibilities and thelimits to inclusion through work impliedby wage polarization and the flexibility ofthe labour market.

5. Social exclusion directs attention to theactors and processes that create exclusion,not just to the fact of exclusion, or to theconsequences of exclusion. It beginswith the thing we really care about –individual well being – and then asks whois affected, and how.

Opposing social exclusion and advancinginclusion are not necessarily synonymous. Theterm social inclusion carries policy tensionsthat social exclusion may not. The former sug-gests the existence of a marginalized group, inneed of rehabilitation to return to the main-stream. The latter suggests that it is societythat must adapt to ensure that all are included.

Society has an interest in monitoring thewell-being of its citizens. We employ avariety of indicators that capture our con-

ception of disadvantage and well-being for thispurpose. High on this list of indicators is ourinterest in knowing how many people are‘poor’. Such indicators can range from a nar-row focus on the income needed to meet phys-ical needs, to a broader indicator including theindividual’s position in relation to his or hercommunity.

This section reviews the contemporarydebate over the meaning of poverty in Canada.We argue that all concepts of poverty are

inescapably relative and that the choice ofmeasure is really a choice among policy objec-tives. Particularly when we take an intergener-ational perspective, it is difficult if not impossi-ble to distinguish between equality of opportu-nity and equality of outcome. The outcomesof one generation shape the opportunities ofthe next.

Poverty in Canada

Poverty is an intensely contested term inCanada. For some commentators poverty hasmeaning only in terms of the minimum neces-sary for physical survival – “the capacity to buy

Poverty, Inequal i ty, Capacity and Social Inclus ion


3

food and all the goods necessary for the fulfil-ment of basic physical needs” (Bourgignon: 2),although it can relate to something more thanmere subsistence. Others, followingTownsend, argue that poverty can only beunderstood as a relative concept, and thereforeclosely related to, if not synonymous with toomuch income inequality.

These varying approaches have yielded anassortment of definitions. In Canada, opera-tionalizing the idea of relative poverty has usu-ally meant drawing an income line that is somefraction of the average income in the society asa whole. At the other end of the spectrum, thestandard that comes closest to the absolutistideal of poverty as mere physical survival arethe poverty lines established by the FraserInstitute. In the view of the Fraser Institute,what we consider poverty should not be affect-ed by the living standards that exist in the restof society, or by changes in those living stan-dards. In between are a variety of hybrid defi-nitions incorporating elements of both.

Although space does not allow for a fullexploration of the concepts of absolute versusrelative poverty, it may at least be stated thatthe distinction between absolute and relativepoverty is perhaps more tenuous than is cur-rently acknowledged. There is accumulatingevidence that inequality itself has effects onoutcomes and basic capabilities such as healthand education, quite apart from the absolutelevel of income (Raphael: 2000).

Moreover, when children are the subjects,we are explicitly taking an intergenerationalperspective. Equality of opportunity is diffi-cult to disentangle from equality of outcomewhen an intergenerational perspective is taken,and the outcomes of one generation shape theopportunities of the next.

Poverty and policy objectives

The choice of poverty measure implies a choiceamong policy objectives. What is the outcomewe seek? To begin with what we should meas-ure before knowing what outcomes we areseeking is to put the cart before the horse.What is the public policy objective to whichpoverty statistics are addressed? Is it ‘sufficientresources to meet the physical needs forhealth’? Is it equality of opportunity or equalityof outcome?

It is worthwhile to consider the implica-tions, particularly regarding social inclusion, ofan absolute approach to poverty. In a scenarioin which the living standards of low-incomeCanadians remain constant, but are fallingbehind the norm, absolute rates of poverty willbe constant but relative rates will increase. Thepolicy implication is that the living standardsset for low-income Canadians need not berelated to the ‘norm’ – that of middle-incomefamilies – and in turn, that increasing societalwealth need not be shared with those who areworst-off. The prospect would be an ever-widening ‘social distance’ in society, even asour indicators of poverty signal that there is noissue requiring a policy response.

Thus, for those whose policy objective issimply to meet people’s basic physical needs, anabsolute measure of poverty will suffice. Forthose more interested in equality of opportuni-ty and the civic participation of otherwiseexcluded populations, income inequality willalso be of interest. The debate about socialinclusion further broadens our sphere of inter-est.

Sen’s critique – capabilities, functionings and well-being

Regardless of their other disagreements, virtual-ly all commentators have defined poverty as a

4


concept focused on income inadequacy. Amore fundamental re-thinking of the meaningof poverty is provided by Amartya Sen, whoargues that deprivation is not determined bywhat people possess, but by what it enablesthem to do. In other words, Sen distinguishesbetween the mere possession of certain goods,or the income that can command them andthat which is truly significant – individualcapabilities to meet social conventions, partici-pate in social activities and maintain self-respect. Sen’s capability approach concentrateson the tools and capacities available to peoplethat allow them to shape their own lives.

These capabilities include having theresources necessary to make one’s life some-thing one has reason to value. They go beyondincome to include health and the capacity andfreedom (economic and political) to influenceone’s environment. This, in turn, draws ourattention to the rights to those goods and thecommand families have over them, using vari-ous economic, political and social opportuni-ties (de Haan, 1998: 14-15).

Sen sees life as consisting of a set of inter-related 'functionings'. These ‘funtionings’ varyfrom such basic ones such as being adequatelynourished, being in good health and avoidingescapable morbidity and premature mortality,to more complex achievements such as beinghappy, having self-respect, taking part in thelife of the community, and so on. “The claimis that functionings are constitutive of a per-son's being, and an evaluation of well-beinghas to take the form of an assessment of theseconstituent elements" (Sen: 39).

‘Capabilities’ consist of sets of possiblefunctionings, and reflect a person’s freedom tolead one type of life or another. The ‘capabilityset’ reflects the person’s freedom to choosefrom possible livings (Sen: 40).

Sen argues that achieved functionings con-stitute a person’s well-being and that the capabili-ty to achieve functionings constitutes the person’sreal freedom – the real opportunities – to havewell-being. It is equal freedom in this sensethat Sen is arguing for – the equality of capa-bility to achieve valuable functionings thatmake up our lives. This freedom is good forinstrumental reasons (judging how good a ‘deal’an individual has), but also for intrinsic reasons– a society of freedom is also a good society.Choosing is itself a valuable part of living.

Sen therefore understands poverty as “…the failure of basic capabilities to reach certainminimally acceptable levels. The functioningsrelevant to this analysis can vary from elemen-tary physical ones such as being well-nour-ished, being adequately clothed and sheltered,avoiding preventable morbidity, etc., to morecomplex social achievements such as takingpart in the life of the community, being able toappear in public without shame, and so on”(Sen: 110).

The social exclusion consequences ofincome inequality can be mitigated withbroad-based basic health care and educationservices. Income, health and education inequal-ities are all basic since these are not only build-ing blocks for capacities for basic survival, butalso for capacities to live in good health andprovide for oneself and one’s family. Senargues that income is not irrelevant, but insuf-ficient to a proper understanding of depriva-tion: “If we want to identify poverty in termsof income, it cannot be adequate to look onlyat incomes… independently of the capabilityto function derivable from those incomes.Income adequacy to escape poverty varies withpersonal characteristics and circumstances”(Sen: 110-11).


5

Sen reminds us that “resources are impor-tant for freedom, and income is crucial foravoiding poverty. But if our concern is ulti-mately with freedom, we cannot – givenhuman diversity – treat resources as the samething as freedom. Similarly, if our concern iswith the failure of certain minimal capabilitiesbecause of a lack of economic means, we can-not identify poverty simply as low income, dis-sociated from the interpersonally-variable con-nection between income and capability”…“The idea of ‘income inadequacy’… goes wellbeyond that of ‘low income’ as such, since theformer is sensitive to the conversion of incomeinto capability in a way that the size of incomecannot be” (Sen: 112).

This notion of poverty is inescapably rel-ative. Relative poverty “arises any time anindividual cannot afford doing, or ‘function-ing’ in the words of Sen as ‘most’ people do inthe society he/she is living in” (Bourgignon:2). In a market-based society, income, andthe command over resources it provides, iscentral to key capabilities: “Relative depriva-tion in terms of income e.g. the inability tobuy certain commodities, can become absolutedeprivation in terms of capabilities. It canlead to the impossibility of certain social func-tions, for example appearing in public withoutshame (Sen, 1992:115, Abbey: 2).

This also provides a critique of the ideaof “equality of opportunity” which is particu-larly relevant for children. Because the out-comes of one generation shape the opportuni-ties of the next, it is meaningless to try to sep-arate equality of opportunity from substantiveequality of outcomes.

Sen’s work has been influential in shapingthe United Nations’ approach to poverty. Togauge human development, that is, realizedcapacities, the UN utilizes a set of indicatorsintended to assess foundation conditions, aswell as achieved functionings. The widely-quoted Human Development Index (HDI)includes four indicators: life expectancy, adultliteracy, gross enrolment ratio and per capitaincome – indicators that represent foundationconditions such as achieved standard of living,and achieved functionings in health and edu-cation. Since no single indicator, or evengroup of indicators can satisfactorily describenational achievements in human development,the UN also publishes a Human Poverty Indexfor developing and developed countries (HPI-1 and HPI-2), and a Gender DevelopmentIndex (GDI).

While the HDI measures average nation-al achievements in the various dimensions, theHuman Poverty Index looks at specific depri-vations in those categories, measuring theprobability of not surviving to age 60, theadult illiteracy rate, the incidence of povertyand the long-term unemployment rate. TheGender Development Index looks at the samedimension of well- being as the HDI, butfocuses on gender inequality by taking intoaccount the differential achievements betweenmen and women. A Gender EmpowermentMeasure further supplements this with meas-ures of gender differences in economic andpolitical opportunities.

As we shall argue in subsequent sections,relative deprivation in the sense of capabilitiesas defined by Sen is closely related to the con-cept of social exclusion.

6


Explor ing Social Inclus ion and Exclus ion

Multi-dimensionality

A common element in many of the definitionsof exclusion and inclusion is that they aremulti-dimensional. That is, there are manydifferent domains of potential deprivation thatcome into play singly or in combination to cre-ate exclusion. This is not entirely unique tothe social inclusion literature. Many authorshave pointed out that disadvantage and mar-ginalization can take place in a variety ofdomains apart from the economic (Jenson,2000, Chambers, 1983).

While an absence of economic resources may,to be sure, characterize a marginalizedgroup, lack of knowledge, political rightsand capacity, recognition and power are alsofactors of marginalization (Jenson, 2000: 1).

One example of an attempt to opera-tionalize the concept of exclusion is providedby de Haan (1998) who provides a frameworkof dimensions of inclusion and exclusion thatincludes the physical, economic, human capi-tal, social capital and political. An adaptedversion of de Haan’s framework is presented inTable 1 and has been modified in two ways: wefocused on Canada rather than on India, andsecondly we attempted to adapt it to focus onchildren. In some cases this involves changingthe focus of traditional indicators to make thechild the unit of analysis, in others it involvesthe development of new indicators and datasources. At this point it is important not to belimited by existing data.

The number of possible indicators isalmost unlimited. Good indicators should sat-isfy a range of criteria (Bradshaw: 20). Thesecriteria might include the following:

• The indicators should cover the differentdimensions of well-being;

• Indicators should focus on outcomes –the actual results of exclusion;

• Indicators should not be subject toadministrative manipulation. For exam-ple, the number of households receivingsocial assistance is certainly an indicatorof households seriously marginalized anddistanced from the mainstream, but sinceeligibility rules and administrative proce-dures can have as large an impact on thesize of the caseload as economic condi-tions or initiative in other policy areas, itis inadequate as an indicator;

• Data should be national, but also capturemajor distinctions relevant to theCanadian context – regional, urban/rural,age and immigration periods and racialdivisions;

• Indicators should be comparable cross-nationally;

• As we are concerned with exclusion andinclusion among children, indicatorsshould capture both current conditions ofexclusion, as well as factors that are futureand opportunity oriented – that affect therisk of exclusion in the future. Indicatorsshould also reflect major life-cycle transi-tions among children (Endean, 2001: 51).

The dimensions of exclusion

Table 1 on page 9 attempts to concretize thenotion of exclusion along the major dimen-sions of well-being for children. In it, exclu-sion can take place in a number of dimensions:physical, economic, human assets, social assets(these last two terms are used in preference to


7

the more commonly used ‘human capital’ and‘social capital’ which imply a reduction ofhuman life to economic purposes) and lastlypolitical.

Physical and economic dimensions arefoundation conditions for the inclusion of chil-dren. That is, they are necessary, if not suffi-cient conditions for maximizing the capabili-ties of children. Economic aspects include anindicator of inequality based on the argumentthat inequality itself matters in key areas ofwell-being and Sen’s argument that relativedeprivation in terms of incomes can lead toabsolute deprivation in capabilities. The physi-cal dimensions will include spatial aspects ofinclusion, such as the housing and transporta-tion infrastructure that are critical to bothsocial and physical distance among people.

Human assets consist of outcome indica-tors such as the health indicators, which arealso instrumental in enabling future capabili-ties. The education indicators are a mix ofoutcomes (attainment) and indicators of thequality of the environment in which we expectchildren to thrive.

Social assets also reflect individual charac-teristics (race and gender) which will play arole in shaping a child’s opportunities as wellas measures that reflect the degree of engage-ment with the rest of the community (oppor-tunities for participation in organized groups).

Political – Children are traditionallyexcluded from politics in the limited sense ofvoting. But this is only a limited understand-ing of political inclusion in any event. In thecase of children, political inclusion might beunderstood in a broader sense, where inclusionimplies “an opportunity to participate in thepublic decision-making procedure which cir-cumscribes his/her life chance” (Suzumara,1999, quoted in Freiler, 2001). This dimen-sion of inclusion reflects the value placed on

the capacity to choose as an element of well-being in Sen’s capability framework.

At least some definitions suggest thatexclusion implies multiple and overlappingsources of deprivation. Empirically, apart froma small and severely disadvantaged minority,most people do not appear to suffer from mul-tiple disadvantages (Phipps, 2000, Brandolini,2000). However, while many forms of depri-vation do not necessarily overlap, poverty andinequality are intimately linked with many, ifnot most dimensions of exclusion – health, dis-crimination, housing and neighbourhoods,political participation and voice.

The framework presented in Table 1makes clear that exclusion is not simply co-extensive with poverty, at least in the conven-tional sense of income and assets. (Atkinson,1998, Klasen, 1998). Atkinson, for example,has argued that poverty, unemployment andexclusion are related, but distinct concepts.They often coincide, but need not. “Peoplemay be poor without being socially excluded…People may be socially excluded without beingpoor” (Atkinson, 1998: 9). In the former case,in a society where poverty is widespread onewouldn’t necessarily be socially excluded.Similarly, if poverty is a temporary phenome-non it needn’t lead to exclusion. In this case,policy will have much to do with the risks ofshort-term poverty leading to exclusion. In thelatter case, people can be the victims of dis-crimination without necessarily being poor,although, again, the two often go together.

UN reports make it clear that the linkbetween affluence and human development isnot automatic. Income is important, but onlypart of what is required; a means, with humandevelopment the end (UNDP, 1997:14).Countries with comparable levels of incomeper capita can, and often do, have very differ-ent levels of human development – that is,very different achievements in converting

8


income into capabilities (UNDP, 2000: 148).Similarly, employment can increase capacityand autonomy, but may not if it is low-wage,contingent, incompatible with parenting orsaps employees of their self-respect. With thesethoughts in mind, one can examine govern-ment policies to assess whether they enhance orinhibit the capacity and autonomy of margin-alized Canadians.

However, at least in market-based soci-eties income and well-being are inextricablytied, as a means of acquiring the goods andservices which are necessary, as part of “thegood life”, and as a measure of status in and ofitself. “People may be excluded if they areunable to participate in the customary con-sumption activities of the society in which theylive” (Atkinson: 10).

Employment is an important source ofwell-being, quite apart from the income it gen-erates. Unemployment may lead to povertyand social exclusion, but importantly it neednot, depending on the duration of the experi-ence, the social security system, family arrange-ments and culture (Saraceno, 2001: 6). Therate of poverty among the unemployed variesdramatically from country to county (Saraceno,2001: 12). The increase in unemployment inEurope has not been accompanied by anincrease in poverty like that experienced byNorth Americans because of stronger incomeprotection. Similarly, labour market policy canseek high employment, and therefore high like-lihood of the unemployed being reabsorbed.This is a reflection of Klasen’s point that exclu-sion can be the result of direct sources of disad-vantage, but may also be the result of policyresponses to those original sources of disadvan-tage (Klasen: 9).

Atkinson (1998) points out that exclusionis necessarily relative, that people can only beexcluded in relation to something else.Atkinson also adds a dynamic, future-orientedelement to the analysis, arguing that people areexcluded not just because they are currentlywithout a job or income, but because they havefew prospects for the future.

To make a point that will be taken up ingreater detail later, low unemployment, likeadequate income, is probably a necessary, butnot a sufficient condition for inclusion.Although unemployment can lead to socialexclusion, employment is not a guarantee ofinclusion. Marginal forms of work and “flexi-bility” of the labour market are potential routesto exclusion through employment.


9

Table 1 – Operationalizing exclusion for children

Dimension Aspect Indicators

Physical

Economic

Human assets

Social assets

Political

Location

Infrastructure

Housing

Income

Labour market

Assets

Health

Education

Social background

Civic engagement

Psychological

Power

Participation

Agency

Citizenship

• Geographic isolation• Access to public parks (clean, safe)

• Access to public transit• Availability of public library

• Children in ‘core housing need’• Children in shelters or temporary accommodation• Tenure• Shelter costs

• Child and family poverty• Duration of poverty• Intra-family distribution of income• Gini index of income inequality

• Parental employment• Job quality• Youth unemployment

• Non-pension financial assets per family member

• Low birth weight• Infant mortality• Child mortality• Disability• Access to health services – coverage by supplementary health

care insurance

• Quality of school environment (including teaching resources,extracurricular activities)

• Educational attainment

• Gender• Race

• Opportunities for participation in organized sports and/or otherorganized activities

• Self-esteem• Teen suicide

• Formal legal rights• Procedural access

• Consultation versus power

• Effective political participation

• Immigrants, non-citizens

Adapted from de Haan (1998b: 15), Freiler (2001)

10


Process and agency

A second advantage of the concept of exclu-sion/inclusion is that it focuses on exclusionaryforces. Exclusion and inclusion are active termsand suggest that they are the result of process-es, and acts by identifiable institutions andindividual actors. That is, they directly addresswho and what is responsible for impoverish-ment and marginalization – the institutionsand individuals responsible for excluding orincluding. Although it is common in tradi-tional poverty analysis to go beyond simplypresenting the numbers of people who fallbelow a poverty threshold, to focus on thestructures and policies that have created thatdeprivation, a focus on inclusion makes thesecentral questions.

The concept goes beyond the descriptionof deprivation to focus on the social relationsand the processes and institutions that underlieit. This can represent a shift away from look-ing at deprivation in terms of individual attrib-utes, and towards a focus on mechanisms,institutions and actors that are responsible fordeprivation. That is, it explicitly makes possi-ble a discussion of power and inequality.

Social and political actors and institutionscreate exclusion, and the focus on these actorsand processes is one of the advantages of exam-ining social exclusion. Klasen and others havemade the point that government policy plays arole in exclusion. Policy can create exclusion,and it can reinforce disadvantages emanatingfrom other sources, transforming original dis-advantage into exclusion. Job loss or maritalbreakdown can create instability and result in a

loss of income and status. How policyresponds to these conditions can furtherentrench people in poverty and/or compoundthese disadvantages and misfortunes to createexclusion. As Saraceno (2001: 25) puts it: “…many rules concerning entitlement to socialand political rights act effectively to excludegroups who cannot fulfil the set requirements:e.g. time rules concerning residence, or defini-tions of what counts as work…”

Again adapting from de Haan (1998b),Table 2 attempts to operationalise the institu-tions and processes responsible for exclusion.Note that the examples are hypothetical onlyto illustrate how these ideas might be put intopractice. However, it is apparent from Table 2that the identification of institutions andactors, and the processes through which exclu-sion or inclusion occur are not fixed or prede-termined, but reflect the ideological preferencesand social, political context.


11Table 2: The institutions and processes of exclusion

Aspect Indicator Institutions/agents Processes

Location

Infrastructure

Housing

Income

Labour market

Assets

Health

Education

Socialbackground

CivicEngagement

Psychological

Agency

• Geographic isolation• Access to public parks and

spaces

• Access to public transit• Availability of public library

• Children in ‘core housing need’• Children in shelters or temporary

accommodation• Tenure• Shelter costs

• Child and family poverty• Duration of poverty• Gini index of income inequality• Intra-family distribution of

income

• Parental unemployment • Youth unemployment

• Wealth, home ownership

• Low birth weight• Infant mortality• Child mortality• Disability• Access to health services –

coverage by supplementaryhealth care insurance

• Educational attainment• Drop-out• Educational streaming• Integration of children with spe-

cial needs

• Gender• Race

• Participation – sports groups,clubs, other organized groups

• Self-esteem

• Economic, civic and personalautonomy

• Local government planners• Neighbourhood and ratepayer

associations

• Transportation planners/govern-ment officials

• Landlords• Politicians• Administrative restrictions; by-

laws, lease, restrictions associat-ed with social housing

• Labour market• Government authorities• Culture and custom• Men

• Labour market• Government authorities• Employers

• Public health system• Private/public health insurance

• Public educational system

• Systemic sexism and racism

• Community and school basedsports, volunteer and communitygroups

• Multitude of public and privateinstitutions

• Municipal zoning practices andplanning process.

• NIMBYism

• Local and senior governmentbudget processes

• Discrimination• Evasion of tenancy laws• Budget priority-setting process

• Macroeconomic policy• Income security policy• Local economic policy (i.e.

labour matching, training policy)• Gender discrimination

• Macroeconomic policy.• Local economic policy (i.e.

labour matching, training policy)• Discrimination

• Security against financialmishaps

• Access to needed health careservices, devices, drugs etc.

• Tuition, user fees for education,access to student loans andchild care

• Sexism and racism

• Capacity (including legal protec-tions, voting, economic andsocial autonomy)

12


The weakening of a strong primary tier ofincome support such as unemployment insur-ance, as has been the case in Canada repeatedlyin the 1990s, can mean that the unemployedare forced to rely more on their individualresources or social assistance as a means of sup-port. The former implies exhausting assetsintended for other purposes. The latter impliessubjecting oneself to the highly stigmatizingsocial assistance system in which recipientshave been demonized to the public as “depen-dants”, drug addicts or illiterates (Mitchell,2001). The stigma of social assistance is sogreat that the recipients frequently hide theirstatus from friends, neighbours, family andeven their own children. Typically benefits areso low that recipients are not merely impover-ished but precluded from participating inmany of the typical activities of the wider soci-ety. This can result in a profound social isola-tion that can prevent people from interactingwith the rest of the community, even in activi-ties that do not require money.

Also housing policies can create marginal-ized ghettos, or ensure economically andsocially diverse neighbourhoods – tackling thepotential for exclusion in the “location” and“housing” areas identified in Table 2. Lack ofa housing program – effectively rationinghousing according to market outcomes –means that for low-income families this origi-nal source of market disadvantage is com-pounded when they are forced into poorerhousing, concentrated in low-income neigh-bourhoods where they are physically andsocially distanced from other members of thecommunity. This result clearly exacerbateseconomic and social differences, underminingthe work that institutions such as public edu-cation can achieve in bridging social distance.There is evidence of this process of “economicspatial segregation” in major cities acrossCanada (Myles, Picot and Pyper, 2000).

In a similar fashion, policies in the fieldsof health, education and housing often accen-tuate social exclusion. For instance, whilehealth and education programs targeted atmarginalized populations do provide assistance,they also exaggerate the sense of separatenessexperienced by members of these populations.

With reference to Table 2, we can alsotalk about how policy is formed as an aspect ofcreating inclusion. The process of creatingpolicy has characteristics that can create exclu-sion or promote inclusion. Citizens can expe-rience a lack of ‘voice’ – the absence of exclud-ed individuals from policy debates that directlyaffect them. This exclusion and lack of effec-tive voice is not experienced similarly acrossthe population – low-income Canadians aremore profoundly excluded from policy debatesthat affect them than high-income Canadians,who have greater access to the political andpolicy process. This is a form of social exclu-sion – low-income Canadians are disenfran-chised to the extent that they have no effectiveimpact on the design of programs that are sig-nificant for their well-being.

Public officials under political directiondesign programs. That is, government pro-grams that support low-income Canadians aredesigned and administered by individuals whoare not low-income. The interests of the low-income beneficiaries are presented onlythrough benevolence. Politicians and publicofficials will respond to a perceived issue ofconcern, while recognizing that their politicalmasters can succeed without the support oflow-income Canadians. This leaves the wayopen for poor design, arbitrary exclusions andcontradictory and capricious regulations.

The professional scrutiny that protectsthe interests of the affluent is largely absent.There is little analysis or study of low-incomesupport programs. In contrast, consider thescrutiny that the income tax system is subject


13

to. A highly educated and well-endowed ana-lytical community – referred to as ‘Bay Street’– studies the legislation in detail, and canarticulate and promote the changes neededfrom their perspective. Using the press andpolitical connections, they can advocate forchanges to legislation to correct features thatdo not serve their clients’ interests.

Contrast this with programs such as wel-fare, subsidized housing and subsidized childcare. No organization analyzes the combinedeffect of the various programs that benefit low-income Canadians. So, there is little well-

informed and documented research of theimpact of the programs. There is no source ofinformation that low-income people can accesswhich will indicate how they can organizetheir finances to maximize their benefits. Thefinancial community that provides this servicefor middle- and high-income Canadians doesnot have the information or motivation to pro-vide this service for low-income Canadians.There is no political interest or broader socialinterest in improving program design for low-income Canadians.

Pol icy Impl icat ions: Promoting inclus ion or prevent ing exclus ion?

Perspectives on social inclusion and exclusion

Multi-dimensionality, the importance of actorsand processes and the centrality of inequalityare all important aspects of inclusion.However, this recognition does not take us veryfar in terms of policy.

According to Novick (2001), the centralquestion confronting an agenda of social inclu-sion is the same question confronting socialpolicy throughout its history: Should policyaddress failures in existing social and economicstructures that fail to create inclusive condi-tions for all citizens, or is it the task of policyto integrate the marginalized into fundamen-tally just and sound structures? The distinc-tion between the two is the difference betweencreating inclusion and preventing exclusion –that is, who is required to adjust.

The different answers to that questionillustrate the different ideological preferencesand perspectives on what constitutes exclusionand therefore form the backdrop to policiesintended to promote inclusion.

Perspectives on social inclusion reflect differingassumptions about its root causes, and there-fore its solutions. Silver (1994) and Levitas(1998) have attempted to identify distinguish-able threads among varying uses of the term.Both identify three distinct approaches tosocial exclusion, and both are clear that the dif-ferent uses of the term “are embedded in con-flicting social science paradigms and politicalideologies” (Silver, 1994: 6).

Silver labels her categories the solidarity,specialization and monopoly paradigms, whichcorrespond to the French, British and Nordictraditions respectively and are grounded in thedifferent political philosophies that haveshaped each tradition’s understanding of disad-vantage. In a similar way, Levitas labels her‘three discourses’ of exclusion: social integra-tionist, redistributionist and moral underclass.The three approaches differ in how they identi-fy the boundary between insiders and out-siders, and therefore how to achieve inclusion(Levitas: 7).

Under the social integration view of socialexclusion, which Levitas labels SID (for SocialIntegration Discourse), unemployment is seen as

14


the main cause of exclusion. Paid employmentis seen as a critical component of identity andself-esteem, and therefore necessarily the prin-cipal means of inclusion.

Typically, for those following thisapproach the principal concern is social cohesionbuilt on the norm of employment. The prob-lem of exclusion is seen in terms of its effect onthe wider society – exclusion undermines cohe-sion, and in doing so, imposes costs on society.

Indicators of success in fighting exclusionfrom this perspective would be an increase inthe participation rate, particularly among targetgroups such as youth, or long-term unem-ployed. Inclusion through work is notaddressed through employment, but instead isreduced to employability as the goal of policy.Reducing overall patterns of inequality is notthe goal of fighting exclusion, but rather, mere-ly to lift the excluded over the minimal thresh-old of inclusion through paid work. It is themarginalized whose exclusion is to beaddressed by incorporating them into existingnorms through employment.

The focus on the paid labour marketresults in ignoring the role and value of unpaidwork and caring responsibilities. It alsoobscures gender, race and other inequalities inthe labour market.

In the moral underclass (MUD) variant ofsocial exclusion, the focus is on the moral andbehavioural deficiencies of the excluded them-selves, which defines the boundary between theincluded and the excluded.

The central concern of this approach isthe avoidance of dependence, which is thoughtto be one of the side effects of income support.Income support is thought to destroy initiative,independence and self-respect. Work is amoral necessity to avoid dependence, and coer-cion in this regard is justified. Reducing the

number of people on unemployment insuranceand social assistance would be a key indicatorof success in fighting exclusion. However, asSaraceno (2001: 16) points out, the reasonwhy receipt of social assistance might lead toexclusion might have less to do with its cor-rupting influence than its programmatic stig-matizing design – social assistance may fosterexclusion because it is designed that way.

In the redistributionist or RED variant ofexclusion, the central concerns are poverty andinequality, and the impacts of exclusion on thelives of the excluded themselves.Unemployment is thought to be a prime causeof poverty, and the realization of equal oppor-tunity is recognized as resting on a degree ofsubstantive equality. In this variant there isgreater emphasis on the responsibility of thelarger society to create inclusive conditions.

Where jobs are available, compulsion isthought to be unnecessary, and possiblydestructive to self-esteem and a route to furtherexclusion, when they are not.

For RED therefore, a key indicator in thefight against exclusion would be the absoluteand relative living standards of the poor – theextent and depth of poverty and a measure ofincome inequality like the Gini index.

For SID and MUD, and also to a lesserextent RED, paid work is seen as a key elementin inclusion. The redistributionist variantwould add the caveat that the quality of thework is also important, and must reduce pover-ty. However, there is the possibility that inclu-sion in paid work may interfere with inclusionin other respects, due to long hours and theimpact on family life and an increase inwomen’s workload. The negatives of employ-ment – stress, lack of parenting time and theinability to participate in a child’s schooling –are not seen as contributing to exclusion. Thisillustrates how narrow policy responses to


15

exclusion are, as well as their failure to addresskey dimensions of exclusion. In our view,these failures prevent such policy from being asound basis for inclusion in anything otherthan the narrowest terms.

The limits to inclusion through work

Many writers have emphasized the centrality ofwork to social inclusion and the importance ofthe income, self-esteem, social links and inte-gration that are thought to occur throughemployment. The European Commission stat-ed that “employment is the key route to inte-gration and social inclusion; unemployment isthe major factor of exclusion, particularly long-term unemployment and the increasing con-centration of unemployment in householdswith no one in work” (Commission of theEuropean Communities, 2000: 6).

Of course, this is in no small way sociallyand policy-constructed. If employment createsinclusion, and non-work is socially unaccept-able, it is in part because we have constructedsocial and economic arrangements this way,and fashioned policy to reinforce these prefer-ences.

The moral crusade against dependence,which is the overriding concern of MUD, typi-cally manifests itself in a highly restrictiveapproach to income support benefits and eligi-bility. Programs that owe their inspirationmore to SID add to these strategies to quicklyintegrate people into the workforce throughlabour force attachment programs.

In brief, our contention is that the nar-row focus of such policy responses ignores keydimensions of inclusion and therefore cannotserve as a credible basis for inclusive policy.Moreover, policies that purport to promoteinclusion through work and employability arenot even very successful on these limitedterms. Poverty and inequality, not to mention

the many other facets of full inclusion must bekey components of a strategy of inclusion inorder to be faithful to a multi-dimensionalconception of inclusion.

The limits to inclusion through work areevident enough. In 1998, in the midst of arobust economic recovery when the officialrate of unemployment had fallen to 8.3 percent from over 11 per cent at the trough ofthe recession,3 the rate of poverty in Canadaremained close to the levels experienced in theworst part of the recession. In fact, for thefirst time since incomes and poverty have beenregularly reported in Canada, a recovery hasnot been accompanied by a significant declinein poverty (Figure 1).

It is a commonplace observation, but sig-nificant in this context, that work itself doesnot guarantee freedom from poverty. In1998, 18 per cent of two-parent families witha single earner were poor. Adding a secondearner reduced the risk of poverty to 3.7 percent. Among sole-support parents, 27.2 percent of those with earnings (three-quarters ofall such families) remained poor. Amongunattached individuals, 20.5 per cent of non-elderly male earners were poor in 1998, aswere 25.9 per cent of non-elderly female earn-ers (Statistics Canada 2000b).

In fact, in 1996, 5 per cent of familieswith a head who was a full-time, full-yearworker were still poor, as were 10.4 per centof unattached individuals who were full-time,full-year workers. Put yet another way, 19.6per cent of poor families were headed by afull-time, full-year worker, and 9.5 per cent ofpoor individuals also worked full-time, full-year (Statistics Canada, 1997).

16


Moreover, low-wage and precariousemployment is becoming an entrenched fea-ture of the economy. Not only is the incidenceof low-wage employment increasing, but it isalso becoming more difficult to move up and

out of bad jobs (Finnie, 1997). While there issignificant mobility upwards and out of pover-ty, those who leave poverty tend not to risevery far (Finnie, 2000). The number of fami-lies whose market income fell below $15,000

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

20%

18%

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

Pove

rty

Rate

Unem

ployment Rate

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

4%

5%

0%

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Figure 1: Unemployment rate versus poverty/Canada 1980-2000

Figure 2: Distribution by market income groups, all families and unattached individuals, Canada, 1980-1998

Poverty Rate

Unemployment Rate

< than &15,000$15,000-$24,000$25,000-$39,000$40,000-$59,000$60,000 +


17

annually has grown over the past two decades,while the number with middle-level incomeshas shrunk (Figure 2). A growing proportionof jobs are either part-time or contingent/tem-porary.

Of course there is another side to thepolarization of the labour market. The num-ber of people working long hours is increasingand there is evidence that this too can beharmful to health and linked to other forms ofexclusion, what Jackson and Scott (2001) havetermed “hyper-inclusion” in the labour market:

An increasing number of workers reportthey experience more fatigue, time pressure,speedup and inability to achieve a desiredbalance in their lives between paid workand their family, personal and civic time(Golden and Figart, 2000).

Discrimination will also limit the inclu-sion of many people through the labour mar-ket. Ornstein (2000) finds evidence of sub-stantial occupational segregation (to low-skill

jobs) and higher rates of part-time workamong racially identified groups in the City ofToronto. What are termed “ethnic economies”exist to some extent in cities with high levels ofimmigration, in which immigrant groups findemployment in certain segments and niches,but which can limit their access to the broaderlabour market. Mere inclusion in the labourmarket will do nothing to address the exclu-sionary forces of discrimination.

Policies to combat exclusion internationally

Space does not permit anything otherthan a few observations regarding policy agen-das implemented internationally to combatexclusion. However, a review of three signifi-cant strands of policy in Great Britain, Franceand North America highlights some of themajor points of departure for policy.

Great Britain

British usage of the term has its origins inliberal individualism, and is highly influenced

Table 3: Great Britain’s ‘New Deal’

Target group Programming

1. Aged 18 – 25 and unemployedmore than six months

2. Unemployed for two years ormore

3. Lone parents whose youngestchild is in the 2nd term of full-time schooling

4. Disabled in receipt of disabilityand incapacity benefits

• Subsidized job with an employer (£60 per week subsidy for sixmonths; also £750 per person training allowance);

• Full-time education and training;• Voluntary sector job;• Environmental Task Force.

• Wage subsidy of £75 pounds for six months

• Lone parents on income support will be ‘invited’ to a JobCentreto develop an action plan. Participation is voluntary.

• Participants are fast-tracked for Family Credit and child mainte-nance.

Source: Peck, 2001: 304-305.

18


by social policy developments imported fromthe United States, redefining citizenship interms of duties and obligations rather than theMarshallian notion of political, civil and socialrights (Abbey: 2).

The Social Exclusion Unit of the CabinetOffice has a wide-ranging research agenda on avariety of topics related to social exclusion,focused particularly on severely and multiply-deprived populations: truants, rough sleepers(homeless), poor neighbourhoods; teenagersnot in education employment or training; andpregnant teenagers. However, these are mostlyfor rhetorical show. The centrepiece is clearlyNew Labour’s ‘New Deal’ welfare-to-work pro-gram. It is the only one to date that has actu-ally been translated into policy with substantialbudgetary backing. Table 3 outlines the majorelements of the New Deal.

New Labour’s ‘New Deal’ has a clearemphasis on employability and promotinglabour market attachment, reducing the prob-lem of exclusion to exclusion from the paidlabour market, and then to individual attrib-utes and attitudes. “There will be no fifthoption – to stay at home on full benefit”according to the oft-repeated refrain of thechancellor, employing North American anti-welfare dependency rhetoric and redolent ofLevitas’s moral underclass discourse of exclu-sion.

No consideration is given to the qualityof employment, or to other aspects of exclu-sion that may in fact be exacerbated throughpromoting labour market attachment amongsome groups, such as lone parents, and atten-tion to barriers such as the need for additionaleducation and training and other supports islimited.

If SID and MUD-inspired anti-exclusionpolicies in fact reinforce exclusion by re-castingtheir subjects as somehow separate and differ-

ent from the rest of the ‘hard-working popula-tion’; defective, in skills or other personalattributes, even the financing of the New Dealprogram reinforces this exclusionary message.Money for the program came from a specialone-time tax on privatized utilities that com-municated the message that financing the NewDeal would not require a contribution fromother taxpayers, now or in the future (Peck,2001: 301).

France

In contrast to the narrowness of the New Dealthere is the breadth of policy that is wielded tocombat exclusion in France.4 The 1998 Loi deprévention et de lutte contre les exclusions of theJospin government contained policies in anumber of areas: employment and training, onboth the supply and demand side, income sup-port, housing and homelessness, health care,education, social services, citizenship and polit-ical rights, culture and citizenship. “Just asexclusion is conceived as having many eco-nomic and social dimensions, so the anti-exclusion law has a number of parts” (Silver,1998: 46).

The employment aspect of the Frenchlaw is especially noteworthy for going wellbeyond the narrow supply-side focus of Britishpolicy. It includes not just the expected supplyand matching policies, but also policies toenhance the demand side of the labour market,to promote equality in the labour market andpolicies for helping to balance family andwork.

In this breadth one can recognize anattempt to address both of Saraceno’s levels ofexclusion: the macro issues that create exclu-sion, as well as the micro experiences whichcreate a lack of belonging for individuals.


19

Table 4: Loi de prévention et de lutte contre les exclusions, Jospin Government, 1998

Employment and training

Hiring and other incentives for business

Third sector

Changes to social minima

Housing and homelessness policies(subsequently ruled unconstitutional)

Health

Education

Social services

Citizenship

Culture

• Capacity building for insertion of young and adult job seekersand prevention of long-term unemployment;

• Training policies;• Business programs;• Labour market regulation.

• For example, short-term exemptions from social charges to cre-ate business.

• Double number of entreprises d’insertion;• PLIE (pactes territoriaux pour l’emploi – local partnerships for

employment);• Bourses solidarité vacances, especially in public interest group-

ing of charitable and unemployment associations.

• Work incentives for RMI, ASS and API allowing a declining por-tion of part-time, minimum-wage earnings to be kept over thefirst year of employment;

• ASS, API benefits raised and indexed to prices;• Minimum income at RMI level guaranteed in other programs;• Program to allow over-indebted and bankrupt people to

extend re-payments and so earn income and keep homes;• Reduced gap between CES and social minima.

• Housing solidarity funds;• Tax on vacant property;• Protection from eviction;• Policy to encourage geographic and social mixing.

• Universalize coverage;• Regional access to hospitals and general medicine.

• Relaunch ZEP.

• Mobile emergency units to prevent family breakups and utilitycut-offs

• Help homeless to vote, to get legal assistance, a bank accountand national identification.

• Access to artistic and cultural practices; cultural establishmentscombat exclusion; mediator jobs.

Source: Silver, 1998: 48-48.

Aspect Policies

20


Welfare-to-what in North America?

Social inclusion, or exclusion as a focus ofpolicy, is still in its infancy in NorthAmerica so it is in some ways premature

to characterize it. While policy exists toaddress some dimensions of inclusion, othersare ignored, and none are part of a coordinatedinclusion agenda. Of course, Canada doesenjoy universal public health care and educa-tion. However, it has been noted above howthe benefits of one policy – public education –can be undermined by a failure to address theexclusion created by another policy – housing.In the absence of any comprehensive view ofinclusion it appears that policy in Canada isdrifting towards an understanding of exclusionand inclusion firmly rooted in the moralunderclass (MUD) and social integrationapproaches (SID)5. Federal and provincialhousing programs have been terminated orgutted, child benefits have been revamped toencourage paid work and social assistance pro-grams have become ever more fixated on pro-moting work, to the exclusion of protecting thewell-being of recipients.

If there is a policy direction that mostclearly reflects the underlying social exclusionphilosophy of SID and MUD it would have tobe the welfare-to-work programs that are epi-demic in North America, and have nowmigrated to Europe. Such programs are thevery manifestation of attempts to integrate theexcluded through employment. It is importantto understand, review and critique welfare-to-work programs from an inclusion perspectivebecause this is the policy mechanism throughwhich the promotion of inclusion throughwork is most likely to manifest itself inCanada.

Such programs are typically narrowlyfocused on immediate employability andinvolve only minimal investments in skills.

Their goal is rapid employment at low cost. Itis here that the limitations of promoting inclu-sion for disadvantaged groups through labourmarket attachment are most evident.

The outcomes of such programs are atbest modest, even by their own narrowemployment and earnings objectives, nevermind any broader standard such as thoseimplied by social inclusion. Jobs held by for-mer welfare recipients tend to be low-skilled,low-paid and unstable. Upward mobility islimited. Few provide any benefits.Unemployment and welfare recidivism arehigh. This has been shown to be the case insuch divergent jurisdictions as the UnitedStates (Friedlander and Burtless, 1995, Loprest,2001, Boushey and Gundersen, 2001),Ontario (Mitchell, 1998, Ontario, 1998),Alberta (Shillington, 1998; Elton, Sieppert,Azmier and Roach, 1997), New Brunswick andBritish Columbia (Card and Robbins, 1996)and Quebec (Reynolds, 1995).

Research in both Canada and the U.S.has shown that a large proportion of thoseleaving assistance experience critical hardships,even when employed after leaving welfare(Loprest, 2001, Boushey and Gundersen,2001, Elton, Sieppert, Azmier and Roach,1997). Large numbers of former recipientswho were working report critical hardships suchas going without food, being unable to payhousing or utility bills or losing their housingaltogether (Loprest, 2001). Large numbersalso report serious hardships such as worriesabout basic needs and inadequate supports andservices such as health care and child care(Boushey and Gundersen, 2001).

What is less well-documented is theimpact of welfare reform on dimensions ofchild and family well-being other than the nar-


21

rowly economic. There is, in policy circles, apresumption of the virtuous impact of parentalemployment for the family, regardless of itsquality, elevating paid work above all otherfunctions, if not completely ignoring any pos-sible valued role that a parent might play.However, there is a growing number of anec-dotal and journalistic accounts of the increasedstress of combining low-paid work and parent-ing as a result of welfare reform. The few stud-ies that included measures of child and familywell-being have found that, as with the eco-nomic outcomes, improvements in child andfamily well-being were mixed, with some indi-cators showing improvements on average, withothers showing negative or no change.6 Theoutcomes were also mixed in terms of relation-ships with children and friends (Knox et al.,2000, Bancroft and Currie, 1995: 14, Morrisand Michalopoulos, 2000).

What of the broader inclusive effects ofsuch policies? Clearly these limited invest-ments address few of the potential dimensionsof child well-being, or the processes of exclu-sion and inclusion outlined earlier, apart fromthat which flows from parental employment.

If concerns about social cohesion haveemerged in the wake of widespread economicdislocation, then one way of understandingsuch policies is as a partial attempt to restorecohesion, in a context where the traditionaltools of governments are being undermined orremoved. Such policies may allow the margin-alized at least some contact with the widersociety and the social norm of employment, ifintermittently and in the lower tier of thelabour market. From a policy maker’s perspec-tive this may prevent complete exclusion, withwider social consequences that may accompanya breakdown in social cohesion. If such poli-cies do not promote full inclusion they may atleast prevent total exclusion and the perceivedthreat to cohesion that may accompany it.

Policy agendas that focus simply oninclusion through the labour market andemployability fail to address issues of povertyand inequality that are necessary, if not suffi-cient, to promote social inclusion. They fail toaddress the quality of employment, and thepossible role that low-wage employment mayhave in reinforcing economic exclusion, not tomention the many other dimensions of possi-ble exclusion. Perhaps still worse, it is possible,if not indeed likely, that a policy-created low-wage labour supply will help to reshape thecontingent labour market, expanding the sup-ply of such jobs as employers readjust theiremployment to take advantage of the laboursupply (Peck, 1998).

Such policies may well reduce the num-bers on assistance, but in-work poverty andinequality may increase, as the social distancebetween social assistance recipients, the work-ing poor and the rest of society widens. Assuch one would have to conclude that theypromote one narrow and incomplete dimen-sion of inclusion while sacrificing many others.

22


Conclus ions and impl icat ions for pract iceThe concept of social inclusion, particu-

larly as described using Sen’s concept of capaci-ty, is a more complete model for tracking socialwell-being than simple income or employment.While these are important foundation condi-tions for family and child well-being, they areinsufficient mechanisms for full inclusion ontheir own. The difference being spoken of isthe difference between being a consumer andbeing a citizen. What is needed are policiesthat promote people’s capacities to act as citi-zens with equal freedom to conduct a life theyhave reason to value.

For those who wish to promote an agendaof inclusion this implies further changes infocus that are subtle, but important. It impliesa focus on capabilities and achieved outcomesrather than simply foundation conditions suchas income. This also implies that supportsshould provide not only the income necessaryto purchase necessities, but also should facili-tate employment (effective access to child care),education (including secondary and post-sec-ondary) and regulations that do not punisheconomic behaviour such as saving.

Second, as a frame for social policy thisconcept requires that we take a more holisticview of child and family well-being. This inturn requires that we recognize the interrela-tionship of various forms of exclusion.

Third, it suggests a greater priority begiven to looking at the potential, and limita-tions of local governments, for promotinginclusion. While senior levels of governmentcan have greater influence over foundation con-ditions, cities can do much to lessen otheraspects of social and physical distance amongpeople (Andrew, 2001). And citizens havegreat confidence in their ability to understandand respond to the social needs of communities

(Community Social Planning Council ofToronto, 2001).

Fourth, the focus on the actors andprocesses through which inclusion can be creat-ed suggests that we need to look beyond thecontent of policy, to also scrutinize the way inwhich policy is made. This would offer somecheck against poor design, arbitrary exclusions,contradictory and capricious regulations.

One subtle form of social exclusion comesfrom the political process. This leads to exclu-sion from policy development. As a conse-quence, income and social support programsare developed by upper- and middle-incomeprofessionals “on behalf of” lower-income pop-ulations. This not only undermines the effec-tiveness of the programs, but also underlinesthe social exclusion of vulnerable populationsas they are alienated from the development ofpolicies and programs that affect their lives.

The growing number of national govern-ments that identify social exclusion as a priorityproblem to be addressed, as well as a focus forpolicy provides an opportunity. Althoughthere is a wide difference in understanding ofwhat promoting inclusion might mean, it is nobroader than the different points of view onwhat it means to fight poverty. The challengeis to do this without losing the significance ofpoverty and inequality, violations of the foun-dation conditions necessary to pursue valuedlives.

However, if social inclusion doesn’t comeequipped with all of the answers, it mayencourage us to better ask the right questions,and provide an opportunity for additionalpoints of discussion and debate.


23

Endnotes1 Indeed, it appears that the major distinction Sen draws between the two concepts is based upon thedifference between ‘active’ versus ‘passive’ exclusion and the consequent policy implications (DasGupta, 1999: 2).

2 The concentration on income is understandable. It is clearly significant but it is also possible that ithas been given more weight simply because income is easier to measure than health, literacy, socialdevelopment and political engagement.

3 The unemployment rate has since fallen to around 7 per cent (Statistics Canada, 2000a).

4 One can admire the breadth of policy thinking, while remaining critical of the underlying socialintegrationist and cohesion objectives of the program.

5 See for example, Michael Hatfield’s presentation to the Laidlaw Foundation conference (Hatfield2001), in which the problem of exclusion is defined as persistent low income, then reduced toexclusion from paid work.

6 Impacts on family life were measured in terms of marriage rates, home ownership, quality ofhome environment, depression, domestic violence, child behaviour, self-perceived health, schoolperformance and school engagement. Slightly more than half of the indicators had positive changesthat were statistically significant, the others were either negative, or not significant. Marginal positiveimprovements on average suggest that many respondents would have experienced negative outcomes.

24


ReferencesAbbey, J.L.S. 1999. Inclusion, Justice and Poverty Reduction: Seminar Notes and Impressions. VillaBorsig Workshop Series, Inclusion, Justice and Poverty Reduction. www.dse.de/ef/poverty/abbey.htm.

Andrew, Caroline. 2001. What has space got to do with social inclusion? Presentation to the LaidlawFoundation/CCSD conference, Social inclusion: a new way of thinking? November 2001.

Atkinson, A.B. January 1998. Social Exclusion, Poverty and Unemployment. In Exclusion,Employment and Opportunity, CASEpaper number 4, edited by A.B. Atkinson, and John Hills.London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.

Baker-Collins, Stephanie. 2000. Poverty: Concepts Measures and Policy Responses. Unpublishedcomprehensive paper, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto.

Bancroft, Wendy, and Sheila Currie Vernon. 1995. The Struggle for Self-Sufficiency: Participants inthe Self-Sufficiency Project Talk About Work, Welfare and Their Futures. Vancouver: SocialDemonstration and Research Corporation.

Bourgignon, Francois. 1999. Absolute poverty, relative deprivation and social exclusion. Villa BorsigWorkshop Series, Inclusion, Justice and Poverty Reduction. www.dse.de/ef/poverty/bourgign.htm.

Boushey, Heather, and Bethney Gundersen. 2001. When Work Just Isn’t Enough: Measuring hardshipsfaced by families after moving from welfare to work. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Bradshaw, Jonathan. 2000. Wider Aspects of Poverty and Social Exclusion. In Indicators of Progress,A discussion of approaches to monitor the Government’s strategy to tackle poverty and social exclusion,CASEreport 13. London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.

Brandolini, Andrea, and Giovanni D’Allessio. 2000. Measuring Well-being in the functioning space.Paper prepared for the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, Cracow,Poland. www.econ.nyu.edu/dept/iariw.

Brock, Thomas, David Butler, and David Long. 1993. Unpaid Work Experience For WelfareRecipients: Findings and Lessons from MDRC Research. MDRC Working Papers, New York:Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Byrne, D.S. 1999. Social Exclusion. Issues in Society, Buckingham, U.K. Philadelphia: OpenUniversity Press.

Canadian Council on Social Development. 1999. The Progress of Canada’s Children Into theMillennium, 1999-2000. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development.

Cannan, Cressy. 1997. The Struggle Against Social Exclusion: Urban Social Development in France.IDS Bulletin 28, no. 2: 77-85.

Card, David, and Philip K. Robbins. 1996. Do financial incentives encourage welfare recipients towork? Initial 18-month findings from the Self-Sufficiency Project. Vancouver: Social ResearchDemonstration Corporation.


25

Chambers, Robert. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. New York: Longman Scientific& Technical.

Commission of European Communities. 2000. Building an Inclusive Europe. Communication fromthe Commission, Brussels.

Community Social Planning Council of Toronto. April 2001. Preserving our Civic Legacy. Toronto:Community Consultation on Social Development.

Das Gupta, Monica. 1999. Social Exclusion and Poverty: Preliminary thoughts for the WorldDevelopment Report 2001. Villa Borsig Workshop Series, Inclusion, Justice and Poverty Reduction.www.dse.de/ef/poverty/dasgupta.htm.

de Haan, Arjan. 1998. ‘Social Exclusion’: An Alternative Concept for the Study of Deprivation? InPoverty and Social Exclusion in North and South, edited by Arjan de Haan, and Simon Maxwell.Institute for Development Studies Bulletin 29, no. 1: 10-19.

———. 1998b. Social exclusion in policy and research: Operationalizing the concept. In Social exclu-sion: An ILO perspective, edited by Jose B. Figueiredo, and Arjan de Haan. Geneva: InternationalLabor Organization.

Duffy, K. 1995. Social Exclusion and Human Dignity in Europe.

Endean, Rebecca. 2001. Opportunity for All: Monitoring the Government’s Strategy to TacklePoverty and Social Exclusion. In Indicators of Progress, A discussion of approaches to monitor theGovernment’s strategy to tackle poverty and social exclusion, CASEreport 13. London: Centre forAnalysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.

Elton, David, Jackie Sieppert, Jason Azmier, and Robert Roach. 1997. Where Are They Now? Assessingthe Impact of Welfare Reform on former Recipients. Calgary: Canada West Foundation.

Evans, Martin. 1998. Behind the Rhetoric: The Institutional Basis of Social Exclusion and Poverty.In Poverty and Social Exclusion in North and South, edited by Arjan de Haan, and Simon Maxwell.Institute for Development Studies Bulletin 29, no. 1: 42-9.

Evans, Peter, with Suzanne Bronheim, John Bynner, Stephan Klasen, Phyllis Magrab, and StewartRansom. 2000. Social Exclusion and Children – Creating Identity Capital: Some Conceptual Issues andPractical Solutions. Geneva: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Figueiredo, Jose B., and Arjan de Haan, eds. 1998. Social exclusion: An ILO perspective. Geneva:International Labor Organization.

Finnie, Ross. 1997. The earnings mobility of Canadians, 1982-1992. Working Paper W-97-3Ea,Human Resources Development Canada, Applied Research Branch, Ottawa.

———. 2000. The Dynamics of Poverty in Canada: What We Know, What We Can Do.Toronto: TheC.D. Howe Institute.

Friedlander, Daniel, and Gary Burtless. 1995. Five years after: The long-term effects of welfare-to-workprograms. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

26


Freiler, Christa. 2000. Social inclusion as a focus of well being for children and families. Toronto:Laidlaw Foundation.

———. 2001. Toward a Vision of Social Inclusion for All Children. Toronto: Laidlaw Foundation.

Golden, Lonnie, and Deborah Figart. 2000. Doing something about long hours. Challenge 43, no. 6(November-December).

Hatfield, Michael. 2001. The Causes of Persistent Low Income: A Key Barrier to Social Inclusion.Presentation to the Laidlaw Foundation/CCSD conference, Social Inclusion: A New Way ofThinking?.

Hertzman, Clyde. 1995. Child Development and Long-term Outcomes: A Population Health Perspectiveand Summary of Successful Interventions. Toronto: Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.

Holden, Chris. 2000. Globalization, Social exclusion and Labour’s new work ethic. Critical SocialPolicy 19, no. 4: 529-38.

Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). 2000. High Risk Factors Behind Poverty andExclusion. Applied Research Bulletin 6, no. 1 (winter-spring).

Jackson, Andrew, and Katherine Scott. 2000. Labour Markets and the Social Inclusion/Exclusion ofChildren. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development.

Jenson, Jane. 1998. Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of Canadian Research, CPRN Study No. F|03.Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.

———. 2000. Backgrounder: Thinking About Marginalisation: What, Who and Why? Ottawa:Canadian Policy Research Networks.

Klasen, Stephan. 1998. Social Exclusion and Children in OECD Countries: Some Conceptual Issues.Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Knox, Virginia, Cynthia Miller, and Lisa A. Gennetian. 2000. Reforming Welfare and RewardingWork: A Summary of the Final Report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. New York:Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Le Grand, Julian. Social Exclusion in Britain Today. Unpublished speaking notes.

Levitas, Ruth. 1998. The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour. London: MacmillanPress.

Lipton, Michael. 1998. Selected notes of the concept of social exclusion. In Social exclusion: An ILOperspective, edited by Jose B. Figueiredo, and Arjan de Haan. Geneva: International LaborOrganization.

Loprest, Pamela. April 2001. How Are Families That Left Welfare Doing? A Comparison of Early andRecent Welfare Leavers, Series B, No. B-36. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Mitchell, Andrew. November 1998. Leaving Welfare for Work? Workfare Watch Bulletin #8.Toronto: The Community Social Planning Council and the Ontario Social Safety Network.www.welfarewatch.toronto.on.ca/wrkfrw/bul8.htm.


27

———. May 2001. Mandatory Drug and Literacy Testing, Workfare Watch Bulletin #12. Toronto:The Community Social Planning Council and the Ontario Social Safety Network. www.welfare-watch.toronto.on.ca/wrkfrw/PDF/Bulletin%2012.pdf

Morris, Pamela, and Charles Michalopoulos. June 2000. The Self-Sufficiency Project at 36 Months:Effects on Children of a Program that Increased Parental Employment and Income. Vancouver: SocialDemonstration Research Corporation.

Myles, John, Garnet Picot, and Wendy Pyper. 2000. Neighbourhood Inequality in Canadian Cities.Paper presented at the Canadian Economics Association meetings and CERF conference.

National Council of Welfare. Winter 1998-1999. A New Poverty Line: Yes, No or Maybe? Ottawa:National Council of Welfare.

———. 2000. Poverty Profile 1998. Ottawa: National Council of Welfare.

Navarro, Vincente. 2000. Development and Quality of Life: A Critique of Amartya Sen’sDevelopment and Freedom. International Journal of Health Services 40, no. 3: 661-74.

Novick, Marvyn. 1997. Prospects for Children: Life Chances & Civic Society. Discussion paper forthe Children at Risk Symposium, Laidlaw Foundation, Toronto. Revised, February 1999.

———. 2001. Social Inclusion: The Foundation of a National Policy Agenda. Presentation toLaidlaw/CCSD conference, A New Way of Thinking? Towards A Vision of Social Inclusion.

Offord, D. 1997. Bridging Development, Prevention and Policy. Toronto: Canadian Institute forAdvanced Research.

Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. 1998. Survey of Individuals Who Left SocialAssistance. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1997. Societal Cohesion and theGlobalising Economy. Paris: OECD.

Peck, Jamie. 1998. Help and Hassle: means, motive and method in local workfare strategies. Paperpresented at the conference, Model USA: social justice through growing employment?, FreiUniversität, Berlin.

———. 2001. Workfare States. New York: The Guilford Press.

Raphael, Dennis. 2000. Health Inequalities in Canada: Current Discourses and Implications forPublic Health Action. Critical Public Health 10: 193-216.

Rector, Robert. 1997. Wisconsin’s Welfare Miracle. Policy Review (March-April): 20-6.

Reynolds, Elizabeth B. 1995. Subsidized Employment Programs: The Quebec Experience. InWorkfare: Does It Work? Is It Fair?, edited by Adil Sayeed. Montreal: Institute for Research on PublicPolicy.

Riccio, James, Daniel Friedlander, and Stephen Freedmam. 1994. GAIN: Benefits, Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of a Welfare-to-work Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration ResearchCorporation.

28


Room, G. 1995. Beyond the Threshold: The Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion. Bristol:Polity Press.

Ross, David. Child Poverty in Canada: Recasting the Issue. Ottawa: Canadian Council on SocialDevelopment. http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/recastin.

Sarlo, Christopher. 1992. Poverty in Canada. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.

Sen, Amartya. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

———. 1999. Development as Freedom: New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Serageldin, Ishmail. 1999. Poverty and Inclusion: Reflections on a Social Agenda for the NewMillennium. Villa Borsig Workshop Series, Inclusion, Justice and Poverty Reduction.www.dse.de/ef/poverty/serageld.htm.

Shillington, E. Richard. 1998. Social Assistance and Paid Employment in Alberta, 1993 – 1996. Areport prepared for the Population Research Laboratory, Department of Sociology, University ofAlberta.

Silver, Hilary. 1994. Social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms. International LabourReview 133, no. 5-6: 531.

———. 1998. Policies to reinforce social cohesion in Europe. In Social exclusion: An ILO perspective,edited by Jose B. Figueiredo, and Arjan de Haan. Geneva: International Labor Organization.

Social Exclusion Unit, Prime Minister’s Office, United Kingdom. www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/seu/index.

Statistics Canada. 1997. Income Distributions by Size in Canada, 1996, Catalogue no. 13-207-XPB.Ottawa: Ministry of Industry.

———. 2000a. Labour Force Historical Review, 1999, Catalogue no. 71F0004XCB. Ottawa:Ministry of Industry.

———. 2000b. Income in Canada, 1998, Catalogue no. 75-202-XIE. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry.

Teague, Paul, and Robin Wilson. 1995. Towards an inclusive society. In Social Exclusion, SocialInclusion, Report No. 2. Belfast: Democratic Dialogue.

Townsend, Peter. 1979. Poverty in the United Kingdom. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

United Nations Development Program. 1997. Human Development Report 1997. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

———. 2000. Human Development Report 2000. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zaslow, M., et al. 1995. The Family Support Act and Children: Potential Pathways of Influence.Washington DC: Child Trends.

PUBLISHED IN 2002-2003

Clyde Hertzman — Leave No Child Behind! Social Exclusion and ChildDevelopment

Dow Marmur — Ethical Reflections on Social Inclusion

Andrew Jackson and Does Work Include Children? The Effects of the LabourKatherine Scott — Market on Family Income, Time, and Stress

Michael Bach — Social Inclusion as Solidarity: Re-thinking the ChildRights Agenda

Martha Friendly and Social inclusion for Canadian Children through Donna Lero — Early Childhood Education and Care

Meg Luxton — Feminist Perspectives on Social Inclusion andChildren’s Well-Being

Terry Wotherspoon — The Dynamics of Social Inclusion: Public Educationand Aboriginal People in Canada

Peter Donnelly andJay Coakley — The Role of Recreation in Promoting Social Inclusion

Andrew Mitchell and Richard Shillington — Poverty, Inequality, and Social Inclusion

Catherine Frazee — Thumbs Up! Inclusion, Rights and Equality asExperienced by Youth with Disabilities

Anver Saloojee — Social Inclusion, Anti-Racism and DemocraticCitizenship

Ratna Omidvar and Immigrant Settlement and Social Inclusion in CanadaTed Richmond —

PERSPECTIVES ONSOCIAL INCLUSION W O R K I N G

P A P E RS E R I E S

The full papers (in English only) and the summaries in French andEnglish can be downloaded from the Laidlaw Foundation’s

web site at www.laidlawfdn.org under Children’s Agenda/Working Paper Series on Social Inclusion

orordered from [email protected]

Price: $11.00 full paper; $6.00 Summaries(Taxes do not apply and shipment included).

Poverty, Inequality and Social Inclusion · 2020. 11. 18. · Poverty, inequality and social...

Documents

Transcript of Poverty, Inequality and Social Inclusion · 2020. 11. 18. · Poverty, inequality and social...