The terms ‘social exclusion’ and ‘poverty’ are often used interchangeably to refer to a ‘state of deep deprivation’ of certain groups in society. These groups are characterised by ‘persistently low income and heavy reliance on social assistance’.
Today, most sociologists and other professionals who deal with this phenomenon would include lone parents, chiefly single mothers, older unattached individuals before they reach pensionable age, recent immigrants and persons with work-limiting disabilities. One must, however, add to this list children who live in poverty and whose prospects for healthy, productive lives are impaired.
The Minister for Social Solidarity, Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, has given a clear indication that this Administration has the right ideas about combating social exclusion when it launched LEAP. This consists of a comprehensive welfare programme that will see six social development centres provide an integral approach to combating social exclusion.
Notwithstanding its small size, Malta has a multitude of NGOs that address various aspects of social exclusion in society. Bringing these organisations to work together is a new approach to combat social exclusion effectively.
One important consideration is the inevitable tension between scientific and rhetorical uses of socially charged terms like ‘social exclusion’.
Social researchers insist that policymakers need to look beyond employment to understand that persistent poverty has root causes that go far deeper than the mere absence of income.
Policy consultant Maria Rauch says that the LEAP project will have three pillars that she outlined briefly. It would be interesting to know more about the strategic considerations that the ministry’s team is taking into account when defining its programme for action to combat social exclusion.
One important consideration to make, for instance, is that poverty and exclusion require sustained investment that target not just income and employment but also abilities, assets, attitudes and aspirations.
These latter issues are becoming increasingly important in the battle against social exclusion.
Different policies will be required to address different at-risk groups. The definition and implementation of these policies engage different levels of government, NGOs and other stakeholders. As a result, consultation, coordination and delivery of strategies will be different.
It is an unfortunate reality that poverty reinforces and reproduces itself, damaging individuals and families. The LEAP initiative promoters will do well to give due weight to early intervention as an essential policy response to social exclusion.
The authorities need to understand that neither the problems nor the remedies associated with social exclusion are simple. The experience of wealthy countries that tried to tackle social exclusion indicates that once focus moves beyond income to exclusion, complexity enters in the form of wider goals and scientific uncertainly regarding causes, effects and mediating variables.
Many social analysts fret because it is not clear that policymakers or social scientists fully understand the challenge of dealing with social exclusion. Policy and political ambition often run far ahead of research and coherent planning.
Some years ago, certain politicians in the UK wanted to shift responsibility for social support for the poor from the State to society in general. They coined the term ‘welfare society’ to mask this abdication from an important social role of the State. No matter how clever new social policies are, the State will continue to play a crucial role in alleviating deprivation and poverty.
Social exclusion represents an important loss of capability in its own right. The launching of the LEAP programme is a brave political initiative. The objectives need to be carefully defined to accommodate varying perspectives of what constitutes a good life.