The legal and political structure which we call ‘welfare state’ had one key feature the combination of averagely high standards of living and low level of inequality of income distribution. The average equal distribution of income was based on two pillars a) high rate of civil participation in the making of direct and ongoing decisions related to income distribution and b) generous legal regulation which impacted on income distribution. The development of the ‘welfare state’ to a large extent depended on the strong influence of the trade unions (civil society participation) and on the pressure created to develop a wide and generous legal framework. The legal framework determined a complex of interrelated and balanced obligations and rights of the individual. This legal framework formed the core of social and economic human rights.
In more recent times we are experiencing a big transformation which is undermining the ‘welfare state’ model. In many of the ‘richer’ countries there has been a decline in Trade Union membership and thus a loss in trade union bargaining power and as a result their influence on the current income distribution is also much weaker. At the same time the dominance of a ‘neo liberal development model’ has challenged and undermined the generous legal framework. As a result, and there is ample empirical evidence to show this, we are developing increasingly unequal societies.
This trend towards more unequal societies is a sign of a serious social and political illness, and the diagnosis is a distorted process of income distribution, partly as a result of a loss of civil participation. Such distorted income distribution does not reflect the popular “pareto optimum” for improvement of distribution: “improve the well-being of those in the worst situation, without worsening the well-being of those who are in the best situation”. Data show exactly the opposite trend– worsening for those who are in the worst situation, and improvement for those, who are in the best situation. As a result we witness a growing rate of social exclusion and more specifically exclusion from income distribution. This article argues that one of the ways of addressing this serious social and political illness is the development of a fuller understanding of social inclusion and the necessary leap forward in participation practices based on this fuller understanding.
The above introduction poses the question how to develop a mechanism to stop the destructive trends occurring in the processes of income distribution, poverty and social exclusion? In order to get to understand the outlines of such a mechanism, we will focus on the concept of social inclusion. Let us underline there is not only one concept of social inclusion. In the current concepts we can find the foundation of the current implemented policies (activation) which are failing to address the real problems but also the main component of the necessary new social mechanism for ensuring a more adequate distribution of income and living standards.
A limited understanding of social inclusion concentrates attention on the statistics of exclusion and on the people who themselves experiencing exclusion, while the mechanisms of exclusion remain ‘in the dark’. This results in the links between the social exclusion and social inclusion remaining blurred. This deficiency of the concept of social exclusion (transposed also in the understanding of inclusion) results in the reality that the political measures (actions) for social inclusion are directed towards actions which are marginally related to the mechanisms causing the exclusion and therefore do not contain the necessary actions to overcome the mechanisms of social exclusion.
We need to see social inclusion as been linked to two human rights officially recognized and adopted by the UN in the previous century – the right to development and the right to participate in development. From this point of view, if social exclusion is growing one conclusion that can be drawn is that we are witnessing an erosion and inefficiency in the human rights system. Thus we need to recognize that the ‘state’ is not able to realize one of its primary roles, to be a socially including (integration) mechanism, which is capable to subdue private groups’ interests. In other words we need to recognize that the democratic political institutions have become less efficient as components of a socially including mechanism. A key missing element is the absence of participation and in particular the participation of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion in the processes of decision making in particular in relation to the distribution of income and public resources.
To remedy this, the mechanisms of representative democracy which, when they are efficient, play a key role to mitigate social exclusion, needs to be enhanced by a new understanding of inclusion which addresses the mechanisms of exclusion and encompasses new forms of direct participation at the phase of decision making i.e. forms of direct, participatory democracy. This advance in participatory democracy will be key to bringing distribution of resources in contemporary communities back to more equal levels and thus ensuring a real mechanism for social inclusion. In addition the direct participation of people experiencing poverty has already proven its ability to reduce unintended negative side effects of policies.
For EAPN securing greater participation of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion has been one of our key goals. In recent years we have received particular support for advancing this goal through the EU Presidency, organising annually European meetings of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion with support from the European Commission. These European meetings have ensured that the direct experience of people living in poverty has been added to the calls for a more social Europe. The meetings have also acted as a catalyst for similar process within member states. However to reach a real participation that impacts on the distribution of wealth and incomes in our society we need a road map for the enhancement of participatory democracy.
The first component of the road map should aim at social inclusion through participation in key areas of decision making regarding the allocation of public resources and income. This component can be defined as a ‘bottom-up’ approach to income distribution. Models for such an approach already exist and we need to draw inspiration from these approaches and apply them at different levels in order to achieve a real social inclusion.
At micro level lessons can be learned from current practices of engaging people in the forming of the so called ‘reference budgets’. These ‘reference budgets’ can be broadly used in the area of social policy (to determine the amounts of social allowances, to measure poverty, to elaborate minimum social standards, etc.) thus indirectly the efficient participation in the forming of social policy can be ensured. Thee is room for big steps forward in the use of such approaches.
At organisational level we have examples of direct involvement of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion in decision making, for instance the engagement of homeless people (clients) in the management of the homeless centre or the organization of ‘self advocacy’ organizations of people experiencing poverty, exclusion and inequalities. Again there is huge potential for further development of such practices.
At middle level there are emerging practices of participation in the elaboration and the monitoring and the control of local governments’ budgets. Budget tracking and participatory budgeting are examples of such approaches. These approaches are even more developed outside of Europe and we need to learn from these practices.
At national (macro) level – through indirect participation in the elaboration of social policy (use of participatory budgets for forming of social standards) and through direct participation – by creation of new participatory mechanisms (procedures) for elaboration and discussion of national budgets, including open public debate needs to be further developed. At national level we also need participation in public debates on the reconstruction and the functioning of taxation systems.
Another important component of the “participatory” road map should aim at participation of the poor people and their organizations in other key development area(s): knowledge production including identification of risks (especially poverty generating risks) and elaboration of systems to neutralize them. This component for participation is strongly recommended by the risk researchers and some social scientists that hope to alleviate in this way the increasing deficiencies of traditional sciences, as well as of the expertise and consultancy based on the traditional social sciences. In this component there are also developed methodologies and experience for their implementation – such as Participatory poverty assessments (World Bank); the long tradition of Participatory research and Participatory action research; Social Impact Assessments, Rapid Assessments, the ideas of J. Wresinski founder of the ATD Forth World movement.
The incompleteness of the notion of social exclusion causes, in its turn, the incompleteness of the concept of social inclusion. For one thing, the adequate link between the concept of inclusion and that of participation is lacking. Resulting from that, the above mentioned areas of social exclusion (non-participation) are not identified. Thus they remain outside the scope of the policies for social inclusion (the policies do not focus on them). This helps to explain why the policies are so inefficient – they remedy the consequences and not the causes of the problem. Together with this social exclusion grows the violation of the right to develop and the right to participate in development. A fuller understanding of social inclusion and the necessary investment in participatory processes is a key way to reverse these negative trends in our societies.
Fintan Farrell is Director of the European Anti Poverty Network (EAPN) and Douhomir Minev its Bulgarian Executive Member.
|