Promoting Social Innovations for Inclusion in the Western Balkans: key challenges

Paul Stubbspstubbs@eizg.hr

The Presentation

1. On Coats of Paint and MUD2. Social Exclusion in the Western Balkans3. Promoting Social Inclusion I: state and

market4. Promoting Social Inclusion II: the social

economy5. Towards Social Innovations for Social

Inclusion

A ‘Coat of Paint’ Theory of Social Exclusion

Following Paul Gilroy (1987) on racism:• “A coat of paint theory” of social exclusion sees it as an aberrant

or surface feature of society, and therefore easily removed.• Seeing social exclusion as an integral part of the way

contemporary societies are structured, organised and legitimated, offers a very different perspective.

• Exploring the institutionalised nature of social exclusion requires understanding how it is embedded in social relations.

• The challenge is, therefore, to deal with the complex and diverse ways that diverse forms of social exclusion actually work.

A ‘Moral Underclass Discourse’Ruth Levitas (1990) expressed concern about the rise of a Moral

Underclass Discourse (MUD) at the expense of both a Social Integrationist Discourse (SID) and, in particular, a Redistributive Discourse (RED)

• Social exclusion is caused by the moral attitudes and cultural practices of those who are excluded

• Responses to social exclusion may promote dependency and reinforce a “cycle of poverty and deprivation”

• Programmes for those capable to work should be conditioned in some way to ensure attitudinal and behavioural change

62008 2009 2010-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Western Balkans: Real GDP Growth 2008-2010 (%)

CroatiaMontenegroSerbiaBosniaMacedoniaKosovoAlbania

7

Kosovo

Albania

Montenegro

Macedonia

Serbia

Bosnia

Croatia

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

82%

60%

49%

37%

17%

8%

2%

Absolute poverty headcount at $5 per day

The Myth of High Social Spendingin % GDP for 2008 EU 27 EU 16 WB

Government Revenue 44.6% 44.9% 39.3%Government Expenditure 46.9% 46.8% 41.5%Fiscal Balance -2.3% -1.9% -2.3%Expenditure by Economic ClassificationWage Bill 10.3% 9.9% 9.3%Social Transfers 20.1% 21.6% 15.5%Expenditure by Functional ClassificationHealth 6.9% 6.9% 5.6%Education 5.2% 4.8% 4.4%Social Protection 18.2% 18.9% 13.0%

Source: O’Mahony RCC 2011, For EU data EUROSTAT and for WB data IMF and EFPs/PEPs

A Varied Fiscal Envelope

in % GDP for 2008 EU 27 EU 16 WB Albania BiH Croatia FYRoM Montenegro SerbiaGovernment Revenue 44.6% 44.9% 39.3% 26.8% 46.0% 39.8% 32.5% 48.6% 41.9%Government Expenditure 46.9% 46.8% 41.5% 32.3% 49.5% 40.7% 33.4% 48.8% 44.5%Fiscal Balance -2.3% -1.9% -2.3% -5.5% -3.5% -0.9% -0.9% -0.3% -2.6%Expenditure by Economic ClassificationWage Bill 10.3% 9.9% 9.3% 6.1% 12.0% 9.8% 5.2% 12.1% 10.7%Social Transfers 20.1% 21.6% 15.5% 8.6% 15.4% 16.3% 18.9% 15.9% 17.9%Expenditure by Functional ClassificationHealth 6.9% 6.9% 5.6% 2.5% 7.1% 5.6% 6.7% 5.8% 5.7%Education 5.2% 4.8% 4.4% 3.5% 5.5% 4.1% 4.8% 4.8% 3.8%Social Protection 18.2% 18.9% 13.0% 7.9% 14.9% 13.5% 10.6% 14.6% 16.4%

Source: O’Mahony RCC 2011

Drivers of Social Exclusion

• Multiple shocks: War/conflicts; Structural transition; Deindustrialisation; Erosion of social capital/solidarities; ‘Captured’ social policies; Economic and Financial Crisis

• Distortions caused by ‘locked in’ expenditures (tertiary health care; residential care) and new (informal) marketization

• Legacy of category-based (not needs-based) social protection • Stigma, discrimination and over-professionalised approaches• Political will – Fiscal space – Technical capacities

Groups ‘At Risk’ of Exclusion

• Multi-dimensionality and inter-sectionality of exclusion (n.b. research and

data gaps)

• ‘At risk’: (Long-term) Unemployed; Older people; Large families; Women;

Children; Youth; Low education levels; RDPs; Minorities (esp. Roma but

also national minorities and ‘small minorities’); People with Disabilities;

People with long-term health issues; Migrants/returnees/left behind

• Spatial dimension: Arc of exclusion; Rural – Urban; Zones of exclusion

• ‘New’ survival strategies eroding long-term capabilities?

Social Innovation: the new ‘magic bullet’

“Social innovation is an important new field which should be nurtured. It is about tapping into the ingenuity of charities, associations and social entrepreneurs to find new ways of meeting social needs which are not adequately met by the market or the public sector. ... As well as meeting social needs and tackling societal challenges, social innovations empower people and create new social relationships and models of collaboration. They are thus innovative in themselves and good for society’s capacity to innovate.”

Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative COM (2010) 546, October

Promoting Social Inclusion: the state/public sector

• The role of the state: public goods – bloated bureaucracy – clientelistic rent seeker?

• Post-Yu countries – Centres for Social Work• Governance – poor horizontal and vertical co-ordination• Regulation - over legalistic but with many gaps• Human resources - limited skills to meet ‘new’ social risks• Funding - low and inconsistent; little support for non-state

actors/providers • Strategy – too many strategies; too little participation; no

real M&E; too influenced by international organisations (nb JIM/JAP process)

Promoting Social Inclusion: the market

• Few incentives for private, for-profit providers (health, education, social services, ...)

• Some development of Corporate Social Responsibility: move from philanthropy to sustainable partnerships

• Growth of market ideas within the public sector (new public management)

• Informal marketization / commodification of public goods /privatization of public space

Promoting Social Innovation: NGOs

• Inverse care law – NGOs where they are needed least

• Time-limited, donor-driven funding• Service provision at the expense of advocacy and

empowerment?• Projectisation and endless pilot projects• ‘The new project class’ and ‘the rise of the meta-

NGO’• Innovations are very rarely scaled up or rolled out

Promoting Social Innovation: social entrepreneurship

• Lack of definition, understanding and legal framework

• Donor-driven model with policy transfer (CEE -> SEE)

• Implicit or explicit neo-liberal agenda• SE from below – green, gender, informal

networks, etc• New social energy – disability advocacy coalitions

Towards Social Innovations for Soial Inclusion I

• Inclusive labour markets (disability; age; gender) and improved returns to education (life-long learning; skills; transitioning e.g school to work)

• Holistic and integrated child and family policies (early childhood interventions; universal child benefits; family support services)

• Deinstitutionalisation and minimum basket of community-based services

• Social pensions within ‘active ageing’ policies• Anti-discrimination laws and practices• Area-based approaches/Action zones

Towards Social Innovations for Soial Inclusion II

• Support for ‘evidence-based’ policy making – Strategic Goals; Benchmarks; Indicators; M&E; Impact Assessment (including all stakeholders)

• Enhanced ‘social’ dimension of IPA programming

• Regional cooperation (modelling OMC-JIM; Peer review/peer learning; common concerns; RCC as bridge to EU/global frameworks?)