The Social Inclusion Agenda in the Western Balkans and Turkey: key

challenges

Dr. Paul StubbsSenior Research Fellow

The Institute of Economics, Zagrebpstubbs@eizg.hr

Consultation Workshop, Torino 12.12.11

A ‘Coat of Paint’ Theory of Social Exclusion

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

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

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

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

• Bringing political agency back in addresses the relationship between social exclusion and clientelistic social relations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Inclusion Agendas

• Residual <-> Comprehesive• Fragmented <-> Co-ordinated• Punitive <-> Empowering• Ad Hoc <-> Evidence-based• Clientelistic <-> Needs-based• Discriminatory <-> Anti-discriminatory• Marginal <-> Central (Growth, Employment,

Inclusion, ...)

Europe 2020The best possibe strategy at the worst possible

moment?Positive: key quantifiable targets; flagship

initiatives; net social progress; inclusive growth

Negative: OMC as ‘business as usual’; return to 1980s anti-poverty agenda; IMF-EU meta-critical partnerships; first wave of NRPs worse than Lisbon II

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

• Danger of Generalisations – only (some) men aged 30-45 not excluded?

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

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

Emigration and Rural-Urban Migration

• Inflexible (formal) labour markets • Mis-match of skills and supply-demand at

local-national-regional levels• Loss of highly skilled workforce• Migration as deskilling and discrimination• Those ‘left behind’ in rural and disadvantaged

areas• Forced return and vicious not virtual circles

Local Capacities for Social Inclusion

• National strategies rarely impact at local levels• Social dimension marginalised in regional and

local development strategies• New Regional Social Planning highly

technicised but lacks evidence-base• Significant gaps in funding, staffing, capacity• Employment and social assistance emphasised

over personal social services

Clientelism and Social Inclusion Policies

• Benefits to groups in exchange for political support – governance, citizenship and (re)distribution

• Southern Europe – South East Europe – Post-Communist (nb also Corporatist Central Europe)

• Institutional particularism <-> Corruption• Employment opportunities• Ethnicised citizenship claims including Diaspora and cross-

border claims-making• War veterans as privileged group: passive benefits; positive

discrimination; vocal interest groups• Pensioners and minority political parties – categorical or

particularistic interests

Promoting Social Inclusion: the state/public sector

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

• Post-Yu countries – Centres for Social Work and Employment Bureaux

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

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

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

Promoting Social Inclusion: the market

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

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

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

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

Promoting Social Inclusion: NGOs

• Inverse care law – NGOs where they are needed least

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

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

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

Promoting Social Inclusion: social entrepreneurship

• Lack of definition, understanding and legal framework

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

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

networks, etc• New social energy – disability advocacy coalitions

VET for Social Inclusion• Empowering (guidance) or conditional (insertion)?• Linkages to labour force and skills planning• Evidence of impacts on long-term employability?• Cherry picking and creation of new middle class?• Short-term, project-based and reliant on

intermediaries• Absence of research on social structure, social

mobility, transition from school to work• Building on capacities and coping mechanisms

Towards A Renewed Social Inclusion Agenda I

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

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

• Deinstitutionalisation and minimum basket of community-based services

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

Towards A Renewed Social Inclusion Agenda II

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

• Enhanced ‘social’ dimension of IPA programming

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

• Case for repoliticisation and social investment