Beyond social inclusion: towards a more equal society

, , and

International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy

ISSN: 0144-333X

Article publication date: 27 April 2010

1334

Citation

France, A., Harvey, J., Sutton, L. and Waring, A. (2010), "Beyond social inclusion: towards a more equal society", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 30 No. 3/4. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijssp.2010.03130caa.001

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2010, Emerald Group Publishing Limited


Beyond social inclusion: towards a more equal society

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Volume 30, Issue 3/4.

About the Guest Editors

Alan FranceDirector of the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University. His interests are in youth and the life course and how policy impacts on young people's pathways and the transitions into adulthood.

Janet HarveyAssistant Director of the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University. Her interests concern the organisation, management and policy initiatives around the delivery of health and social care services. She also has a particular interest in policy and service issues in the area of older people.

Liz SuttonResearch Associate at the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University. Her interests are in childhood inequality, social exclusion and the relationship between disadvantage, risk-taking and well-being.

Amanda WaringResearch Associate at the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University. Her interests include health, well-being, social inclusion, community and citizenship.

Introduction

The six papers in this Special Edition emerge from The Centre for Research in Social Policy's 25th Anniversary conference Beyond Social Inclusion: Towards a More Equal Society?, held at Loughborough University in January 2009. Over the past decade, in the UK and elsewhere, social inclusion has come to be viewed as the most apposite approach to reducing the burdens of disadvantage, marginalisation and poverty among individuals and communities (Hills and Stewart, 2009). Various policy initiatives have been launched under the banner of social inclusion. For example, in the current UK administration reducing child poverty has become synonymous with including the excluded. However, in tackling “exclusion” the question of economic and social inequality between different groups is not a focus of government policy and high levels of inequality in developed states remain (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). For example, reducing levels of poverty, will not, in itself achieve genuine social, economic and cultural equality. Inequalities within nations and between nation states will simply maintain the old divisions while global inequalities may create new threats and barriers to social participation and citizenship.

While social and economic polices aimed at social inclusion are arguably failing to address the gap between the rich and the poor, they may also be leading to greater social divisions. For example, Dorling et al. (2007) in their review of poverty and wealth in the UK identified that not only has the gap between rich and poor increased (back to levels last seen 40 years ago), but also there is a growing geographical segregation between rich and poor. While some of these changes emerge as a result of external market forces and globalisation (on labour markets), UK social and economic policies have contributed to these divisions (Hills, 2005).

The need to tackle inequalities is regarded as a core objective for many within policy[1] and academic circles (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009), and there is a growing body of evidence that shows unequal societies are bad for almost everyone. As Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) suggest, among rich countries the more unequal a society is the worse the outcome for its members in almost every quality of life indicator (see UNICEF, 2007). In some of the richest societies those at the bottom of the economic and social scale have shorter lives and suffer a greater number of social problems. For example, they will have higher levels of ill-health, obesity, mental illness and a lower standard of well-being. Inequality within societies not only impacts on the poor and disaffected, but also the rich in that social cohesion and security is undermined and threatened (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009).

Sociology and social policy

The papers in this collection bring together a sociological analysis of social policy. All the papers draw upon and use a range of sociological approaches of analysis to understand and theorise the relationship between social policy and inequality. As Townsend (1981) argued in the 1980s, sociology and social policy are interconnected and cannot (should not?) be separated. In any form of analysis of the social and economic policies that are aiming to bring about social change in society, the broader context of how these policies are formed, shaped and implemented needs to be understood if policies are to be effective (Townsend, 1981).

A core theme of these papers is the relationship between structure and agency which has underpinned much sociological debate over inequality (Giddens, 1991). What the papers in this collection show is that this nexus of “structure and agency” is played out through the relationship between the “state” and the individual, where policy is critical. As Lopez and Scott (2000) argue, the social action of individuals is embedded in complex relationships and interactions whereby individual action and experience is best understood in relation to social rules, values and expectations. By examining the practice of social policy it is, therefore, possible to not only get an understanding of the relationship between individuals and the state, but also to get a deeper understanding of how policy can contribute to shaping the relationship between “structure” and “agency”, as it is through social policy and the bureaucracy of its administration that government aims to impact upon and shape individual behaviour (Townsend, 1981).

In recent developments social policies across the globe have become more individualistic with a strong role for the market. In practical terms therefore, the relationship between the state and the individual is not straightforward and in some contexts this relationship is mediated through the market place whereby individuals and the state are portrayed as partners in the quest to improve social outcomes. Across these papers a number of examples emerge that demonstrate how the consequences of such approaches are not straightforward and can have an “unintended” impact on individual action.

Contributions of the papers

David Adamson's paper focuses on area-based regeneration policy aimed at challenging poverty and social exclusion. His paper concentrates on regeneration schemes recently rolled-out in the valleys of South Wales. In his analysis, he discovers that the “empowerment” of the local population, claimed by policy rhetoric, is not present, largely due to an “implementation gap” in the process of regeneration. In particular, Adamson recognises the well-documented tendency towards “institutionalised resistance” to be a barrier to community empowerment (Barnes et al., 2007, p. 31), whereby institutions of the state, in this case Local Authorities, resist conceding any meaningful amount of power to citizens in their locality, preferring to hold on to their discretionary power.

In attempts by government to address poverty, Noel Smith's paper focuses on the “bottom up”, “individualistic” approach adopted by the current UK Labour government in many policy areas, whereby disadvantage and inequality are narrowly viewed as a consequence of individual action. Associated with this, Smith considers the government's anti-poverty policy, in particular the policies aimed at eradicating child poverty, to be rooted in individualism. The government's stance, therefore, becomes one of helping families and individuals to improve their circumstances through employment or education, by providing people with essential skills and resources to compete in the labour market. However, it fails critically to consider the social and economic environment (for example, the nature and conditions of the labour market), which individuals encounter in their daily lives.

Echoing Smith's concern with the down-playing of social structural factors in the job market experience of individuals, Engels et al., make the point that “blaming schools” for their pupils' poor educational performance is rooted in similar dynamics. They examine the debate on “schools effectiveness” and align themselves with the notion that “schools effectiveness” is a useful and meaningful concept in so far that schools have the capacity to identify and pursue goals, and while they are not entirely “free agents” in a voluntarist sense, they are able to have a significant positive impact on their pupils. More specifically, Engels et al., stress the importance of the school possessing an ethos of inclusion as an important component of the educational success of its pupils.

The education system is also the subject of Stephen Ball's paper, which discusses essentially: “why it is that, as far as social equality is concerned, education policy is not working or is not working well”. Ball argues that the government's emphasis on education policy, stressing the need to “raise standards” is both misdirected and moreover, misleading, in that it serves to exacerbate the existing structural inequalities that impact upon children. In this way, differences generated in the wider familial and societal context are taken to be essential and fixed capabilities, which are valued and rewarded differentially as a consequence of the school culture. The external inequalities, themselves, are seen by Ball as being reinforced by middle class parents' differential access to resources including an increasing range of commercially provided educational services and “toys” and leads to ultimately different educational experiences that can enhance a child's formal education. The greater emphasis on raising educational standards is, therefore, seen by Ball as promoting ever greater competition to succeed in a performance-driven system, when all are not competing on an equal basis. His conclusion is that “the school is the wrong place to look and the wrong place to reform”. Unlike, Engels et al., he feels that the school can only exert a limited influence on educational attainment, and that the origin of this difference in educational outcomes is in social, political and economic factors outside the scope of formal education.

Finally, the volume encompasses two cross-national comparisons, both of which explore the relationship between particular nation states populations and if, and how, their characteristics affect social care services and welfare provision in those countries. The first is by Chen, which has as its focus the long-term care of increasingly ageing populations. Using Esping-Andersen's (1990) ideal-type framework of Liberal, Social Democratic and Conservative/Corporatist societies, she examines care of older people in England (Liberal), The Netherlands (Social Democratic) and Taiwan (Conservative/Corporatist) and concludes that all three countries are moving towards mixed welfare provision and essentially hybridised systems of care. In doing so, she considers the different traditions, interests and ideas about care within the countries concerned and examines the evolving and changing relationship between the state, the individual, the family and the market and their implications for social care provision in the individual country. The second cross-national paper, by Wim Oorschot, considers 13 Western industrialised countries and two time periods (1981 and 1999), to explore whether there is an association between social capital inequality and Welfare State characteristics. Social capital is seen as encompassing: social networks, trust and norms, and the social dimensions the paper takes into account are as follows: gender, age, income, employment status and educational level. Oorschot finds no positive and clear correlation between social capital inequality and the characteristics of the form of Welfare State embraced by the particular nation state.

More generally, it can be seen that the network of relations between state institutions and citizens involves unequal power relations. Yet, authors such as Adamson and Engels believe there is a potential for citizens to influence the state and therefore the question of power and influence comes to the fore. The lack of empowerment involved in engaging with the state process (in the form of regeneration schemes, in Adamson's example) result not simply through incorporation but, Adamson argues, it becomes a site for ongoing contest and struggle: a “contested terrain” (see Edwards, 1979). More widely, in the contributions of Adamson, Engels et al. and Smith, we see the wider reflection of the structure vs agency debate that has dominated social theory across the decades.

This theme of structure and agency is also taken up in the work of Stephen Ball, which again illustrates the close relationship between social policy, social theory and sociology, and the necessity for these to be applied in concert for the full picture to emerge. This involves thinking beyond the applied and analysing the policy initiative within a wider social and political economy framework. Ball's paper points specifically to the complex and dynamic interplay of structures and processes, crucially involving decisions, values, priorities, actions and interests of various parties deploying unevenly distributed capitals and resources. Ball points out that what he calls this “dynamic complexity” and its implications do not translate easily into a politically driven social policy, and may lead, therefore, to “policy naivety”, “policy failure” or “policy contradictions”. Over and above this, it might be argued that on occasion policy cynicism might result, where policies are adopted and discarded as a politically expedient gimmick to satisfy a perceived public need for some response. Examples of this include mooted on-the-spot fines for drunken anti-social behaviour and career advice for seven year olds.

The notion of the sources of disadvantage and poverty lying with the individual, which we see as a clear theme in four of the papers in our volume (Adamson, Smith, Engels et al. and Ball), and the commensurate avoidance and lack of acknowledgement of wider structural factors bearing upon the individual's ability to be effective and successful in society, resonate with the writings of Stephen Lukes (1974) on power. Lukes has emphasised the impact and power of non-decisions on eventual outcomes, that is to say, that it is a political decision to decide not to address certain questions or posit certain possible solutions. Non-decisions and non-acknowledgement of certain aspects of an issue, therefore, also represent an exercise of power. Lukes, therefore, points to the many ways in which “potential issues” (Lukes, 1974, p. 24) are kept out of politics (and by implication the policies that emanate from them), whether they relate to the impact of social forces and institutional practices or arising from the decisions of individuals. All too often, therefore, the “problem” of “the poor” or “the under-achieving child” are focussed upon, rather than the processes and structures which keep them in that position: namely, the disproportionate and unequal distribution of financial and associated socio-political resources across entire populations. Part of the role of this edition on inequality is, therefore, to redress this balance and to surface some of these issues to view and scrutiny.

Alan France, Janet Harvey, Liz Sutton and Amanda WaringDepartment of Social Sciences, Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

Note

1. In the UK context see Government Equalities Office (2009), A Fairer Future.

References

Barnes, M., Newman, J. and Sullivan, H.C. (2007), Power, Participation and Political Renewal: Case Studies in Public Participation, Policy Press, Bristol.

Dorling, D., Rigby, J., Wheeler, B., Dimitris, B., Bethan, T., Eldin, F., Gorden, D. and Lupton, R. (2007), Poverty, Wealth and Place in Britain 1968-2005, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Edwards, R. (1979), Contested Terrain, Heinemann, London.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Government Equalities Office (2009), The Equality Bill, HMSO, London.

Hills, J. (2005), Inequality and the State, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hills, J. and Stewart, K. (2009), A More Equal Society, Policy Press, Bristol.

Lopez, J. and Scott, J. (2000), Social Structures, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Lukes, S. (1974), Power: A Radical View, Macmillan, London.

Townsend, P. (1981), “Guerrillas, subordinates and passers-by: the relationship between sociologists and social policy”, Critical Social Policy, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 22-34.

UNICEF, Innocenti Research Centre (2007), Child Poverty in Perspective: Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Lives and Well-being of Children and Adolescents in the Economically Advanced Nations, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009), The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies almost Always Do Better, Allen Lane, London.

Related articles