Professional Documents
Culture Documents
htm
There are always two major problems with quantifying social phenomena,
definition and measurement. In an ideal world, definition precedes decisions
about measurement, or where direct measurement is impossible, choice of
proxy indicators. Part of the difficulty of finding indicators of social exclusion
is that there is no agreed definition either of the phenomenon itself or of its
main causes. In the remit of the SEU, social exclusion is described as 'a
shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a
combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low
incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family
breakdown' (SEU 1997). Other possible definitions are the 'inability to
participate effectively in economic, social, political and cultural life, alienation
1 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
and distance from the mainstream society' (Duffy 1995) or 'the dynamic
process of being shut out ... from any of the social, economic, political and
cultural systems which determine the social integration of a person in
society' (Walker and Walker 1997:8). Social exclusion is in all these versions
presented as a multi-faceted problem. It is related to poverty, especially
understandings of poverty which go beyond low income and address the
multiple dimensions of deprivation. But the nature of the relationship is not
clear. Poverty and social exclusion may be analytically separated, with
poverty being the 'lack of material resources, especially income, necessary to
participate in British society' (Walker and Walker: 8). But some definitions of
poverty include social exclusion understood as lack of participation in social
life. Overall poverty, as defined by the 1995 Copenhagen World Summit on
Social Development, involves:
Two related problems flow from these definitions. The first is the difficulty of
separating out, even analytically, social exclusion and multiple deprivation.
The second is that since both are necessarily multi-faceted, they require sets
of indicators, rather than single ones. Which indicators are chosen, and
which are seen as the most important, depends on views of both the nature
of social exclusion and its causal links to poverty, which frequently remain
implicit rather than explicit. To tease out the various meanings of social
exclusion which are embedded in current political debate, Levitas (1998)
develops a model which identifies three different approaches. Importantly,
this is a model, and although there are tensions and contradictions between
the approaches, they often coexist, however uncomfortably, in individual
documents. The model can be used to explore these contradictions, as Watt
and Jacobs (1999) have done with some of the output of the SEU. The
contrasting approaches have very different views of the causal relations
between poverty and exclusion, and different implications for key indicators.
2 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
families and groups can be said to be in poverty when ... their resources are
so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that
they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and
activities'. Although 'resources' here does not simply refer to cash incomes -
and importantly includes access to collectively-provided services - a central
element in the RED approach has been that since social exclusion results
from poverty, raising benefit levels to reduce poverty is crucial to reducing
exclusion.
3 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
The best advice the SEU could offer in response to an enquiry about
potential indicators was to direct me to a recent report from the New Policy
Institute (NPI), Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion: Labour's
Inheritance (Howarth et al. 1998). The NPI report (funded by the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation) is an impressive-looking document, with a lot of
glossy graphs and charts. It is intended to form the basis for a regular
official report on poverty and social exclusion, whether this is eventually
produced by the ONS or an independent agency. It is based on 46 main
indicators, organised in six chapters. The four central chapters divide the
population by age into children (aged under 16); young adults (aged 16-24);
adults (from 25 to 'normal retirement age'); and older people. The first
chapter addresses poverty and low income, the last 'communities' (Tables
1&2). Within the chapters there are indicators relating to various themes,
including health, education, and access to services as well as income. A
summary table at the start of the report sets out all 46 indicators; whether
they have improved or deteriorated over the past year, and since 1990; and
the numbers of people affected in the latest year for which figures are
available.
All of the indicators draw on existing, routinely collected data sets, although
4 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
the authors list a number of topics which are omitted from their battery of
indicators, because no regular and reliable data is available (Table 3). To
qualify for inclusion as an indicator in the NPI report, the relevant data must
be 'collected regularly and frequently' and 'must be reputable and generally
accepted as a valid measure of the phenomenon being counted'. This, say
the authors, 'creates a preference for official statistics' - although they note
that this is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of high quality data
(Howarth et al. 1998:13). Although the NPI does give a brief assessment of
the quality of each indicator, there is little information about the background
to the statistics. Readers of Radical Statistics will be well aware of the
limitations of many official statistics as valid measures of the phenomena
they purport to measure (Dorling and Simpson 1998, Irvine et al. 1979,
Levitas and Guy 1996). However, when a package of indicators is drawn
from multiple sources, as these necessarily are, criticism of individual
indicators may easily be deflected on the grounds that they are only a small
part of the overall picture. There may be an increased danger that the
conditions of their production will be forgotten or ignored.
The indicators can be seen to include many items which are clearly relevant
to RED, notably a battery of indicators of income poverty, as well as labour
market attachment. But there are assumptions buried in some of the
indicators, which may not be immediately obvious. 'Workless households' are
widely presumed to be a problem. Among non-pensioner workless
households, 21 per cent are headed by non-employed lone-parents. They
are a problem for RED because they are likely to be poor, and children
growing up in them are likely to be in poverty; for both SID and MUD they
represent a problem of a different kind, since for SID they are 'excluded' by
5 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
6 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
The mention of social exclusion in this list is a little odd, but suggests that
the key indicators are not, in fact, seen as indicators of social exclusion, even
though they may be important to holding the government to account. The
focus on 'harder' measures of poverty and inequality reflects a historical
concern with such issues in British social policy, but also 'genuine difficulties
in quantifying ... less tangible aspects of social exclusion' (Robinson and
Oppenheim 1998:26). The authors argue that 'it is as yet unclear how one
would define, measure and track social and political exclusion', and that
consideration needs to be given to developing such measures. The very brief
discussion of this suggests the possibility of using the British Household
Panel Survey (BHPS) to measure 'social capital' by looking at data on social
support networks, membership of civic organisations, and, for elderly people,
possession of a telephone. Notably, two of these are included in the NPI's 46
indicators. Data from the Family Expenditure Survey shows 300,000 older
people to be without a telephone. BHPS data cited in the NPI report shows
that of the nearly 17 million adults not in full-time work or study, 9 million or
54 per cent 'do not participate in social, political or community
organisations'. What this actually means is debatable, since the
non-participation rate for other adults was 45%, and some forms of
participation are work related. (The organisations listed are trade unions and
professional organisations, parents' associations, pensioner groups,
community and tenant groups, women's groups, religious groups, sports and
social groups, and political parties).
There are serious limitations in starting from existing sets of statistics which
have not been designed to measure social exclusion. Both the NPI and IPPR
reports recognise that existing indicators are inadequate and do not really
address the core question of what social exclusion is - and that new
indicators need to be developed. An alternative (or at least supplementary)
approach to working backwards from existing data sets is the extension of
the Breadline Britain methodology explicitly to cover social exclusion (Gordon
and Pantazis 1997, Bradshaw et al. 1998). This methodology seeks to
establish a consensual view of poverty, through questions which not only
explore the resources to which people (do not) have access, but also ask
whether they regard them as necessities. In fact, because Breadline Britain
was theoretically located in RED, and assumed that poverty results in
exclusion from participation in social relationships, the original survey
included questions about activities as well as consumption. It therefore
7 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
The new Breadline Britain schedule shifts some of the power to define what
kinds of participation are important from the political and social policy circuit
to the broader public arena. Robinson and Oppenheim (1998) mention the
need for indicators to be congruent with public concerns, and this is one of
the strengths of the consensual approach of Breadline Britain. For example,
people might now be asked if they thought all adults should be able to
engage in a list of activities, including holidays, family celebrations, and
occasional meals out - as well as whether they themselves are able to do
these things, and if not, whether they are prevented from doing them by
shortage of money, mobility problems or inflexible work commitments. It is
possible, through this approach, to uncover how many people are excluded
from aspects of sociality which are widely held to be, in currently unpopular
terminology, a right to which citizens are entitled. One should not overstate
the degree of 'democratisation' of the concept of social exclusion which can
be achieved by this methodology. The consensual approach is used only for
part of the questionnaire, and of course the categories offered to
respondents, even if validated in focus groups, remain 'informed' or directed
by the concerns of researchers. One should remember, too, that the
consensual method may in part simply recycle popular prejudices, which may
run counter to the prejudices of Ministers and policy wonks or may reflect
them.
At the time of writing it is not clear whether and how the updated Breadline
Britain survey will be carried out. If it proceeds, it will be the first large-scale
attempt to address social exclusion other than through existing indicators
developed for other purposes, and relate it to comparable data on income
poverty, multiple deprivation and employment data. It will by no means
solve all the problems of defining and measuring social exclusion. But it will
be a first step away from the ad hoc compilation of tracks from the dodgy
records of existing official statistics.
8 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
Prioritisation
All the reports discussed here involve a battery of indicators, although the
list proposed by the IPPR is somewhat shorter and more concentrated than
that of the NPI. A comprehensive assault on social exclusion might be
expected to produce an improvement on all indicators. There is, however, no
reason to suppose that all the factors measured covary It is entirely possible
that some will improve, some will deteriorate, some remain stable. In terms
both of policies for addressing inclusion, and indicators for monitoring it, the
priority given to different indicators, as well as the quality of the indicators
themselves, is crucial. Even if a broad-ranging set of indicators is published
including existing data sets on poverty, it is by no means clear that the
question of inadequate income and resources will have the highest priority
among these indicators, let alone that the adequacy of existing indicators in
this and other areas will be questioned.
The question of priorities is crucial. Davey Smith et al. (1998) point out that
the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health (Acheson 1998), which
was asked to make recommendations for policies which would reduce
inequalities in health, makes 39 recommendations (with subsets bringing the
total to 73). The recommendation to reduce poverty and inequality
(especially by increasing benefits to women of child-bearing age, expectant
mothers, young children and older people) has the same status 'as those
regarding reducing traffic speed or offering concessionary fares to
pensioners' (Davey Smith et al. 1998, p.1). The use of multiple (and
unranked and uncosted) success measures seems to be becoming a habit.
The March 1998 Green Paper New Ambitions for our Country: A New
Contract for Welfare, published before the departure of both Harriet Harman
and Frank Field from the Department of Social Security, also contained 32
criteria for judging the success of welfare reform - notably not including any
explicit mention of a reduction in poverty (DSS 1998). The danger, as is
pointed out in Our Healthier Nation, is that 'if everything is to be a priority
then nothing will be a priority' (DoH 1998:57).
9 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
The definition of social exclusion offered by the SEU is, as we have seen,
imprecise. The meaning attached to it is perhaps better understood through
the problems the Unit addresses. Its remit for 1998, besides the aborted
project of developing indicators, was clear: to reduce truancy and school
exclusions; to reduce rough sleeping; to develop 'integrated and sustainable
approaches to the problems of the worst housing estates, including crime,
drugs, unemployment, community breakdown, bad schools'; to consider
'preventive interventions with children and young people' and aspects of
exclusion disproportionately affecting ethnic minority groups; and to consider
ways of improving access to services for poor areas and poor individuals.
The indicators selected in New Ambitions for our Country reflect this agenda.
The principle that there should be specific action to tackle social exclusion
and help those in poverty produces three criteria: a reduction in the scale of
truancy and school exclusions; fewer people sleeping rough; and the
introduction of a better model for tackling effectively the linked problems of
the most deprived neighbourhoods (DSS 1998, p.84).
By the end of 1998, the SEU had issued three reports: Truancy and School
Exclusion in May (1998a); Rough Sleeping in July (1998b); Bringing Britain
Together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal in September
(1998c). A fourth report, on reducing teenage pregnancies, was overdue. A
consultation exercise took place in the autumn of 1998, but publication of
the report is pending. A further consultation exercise is in place on policies
for young people aged 16 to 19 who are in neither education nor training.
There are strong elements of MUD in these concerns. The focus on truancy
10 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
and school exclusions, especially given the overt linking of these to potential
and actual criminality, together with the issue of teenage pregnancy, calls up
the traditional demons of the 'dangerous classes': idle criminal young men
and sexually/ reproductively delinquent young women. The focus on 'rough
sleeping', rather than homelessness, may suggest a concern with social
order as much as deprivation. Bringing Britain Together is less obviously
focused on moral questions, although as Watt and Jacobs (1999) have
shown, these are nevertheless present. This report does have stronger
elements of RED, in making clear the necessity for the redirection of
resources to deal with multiple deprivation; and elements of RED are
present, too, in the earlier reports in so far as they propose better resourcing
of particular services such as pupil referral units.
Some of these issues are picked up in the NPI report, where those
'permanently excluded from school' and 'births to girls conceiving under age
16' are included. These are narrower than the concerns of the SEU, which
include truancy, and extend to pregnancy up to age 19, whether resulting in
abortion or birth. The crucial question, however, is what priority is to be
given to these indicators as representing 'social exclusion', by comparison
with, for example, poverty? Moreover, given some other pronouncements by
Ministers, there may be cause for concern over how 'social exclusion' is
understood. In January 1999, Jack Straw suggested that teenage mothers
should be encouraged to look on adoption as a positive option for their
children. Lone parenthood - particularly young single parenthood - is
typically seen as leading to social exclusion for both parent and child as a
consequence of poverty, and for young mothers because of their
detachment from education or training. Yet the suggested exclusion of such
young women from their social role, obligation and status as mothers, and
exclusion of children from their family of origin, is social exclusion of a
profound kind.
11 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
Conclusions
REFERENCES
Bradshaw, J. and Gordon D., Levitas R., Middleton S., Pantazis C., Payne S.,
and Townsend T. (1998), Perceptions of Poverty and Social Exclusion:
12 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
Department of Social Security (1998), New Ambitions for our Country: A New
Contract for Welfare, Cm 3805, London: The Stationery Office
Levitas, R. (1998), The Inclusive Society: Social Exclusion and New Labour ,
Basingstoke: Macmillan
13 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM
Radstats: ‘DEFINING AND MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: A... http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm
Social Exclusion Unit (1997), Social Exclusion Unit: Purpose, work priorities
and working methods, London: The Stationery Office
Social Exclusion Unit (1998a), Truancy and School Exclusion , London: The
Stationery Office
Ruth Levitas
Department of Sociology
Bristol University
12 Woodland Road
Bristol BS8
Tel: (0117) 928 9000 ext.7506 E-mail: soral@ssa.bris.ac.uk
14 of 14 1/30/2007 9:55 PM