Is social exclusion simply poverty by another name?

In answering the above question this essay will begin by defining and discussing the various types of poverty and social exclusion. Revealing the history of both the concepts. Throughout, it will indicate an understanding of sociological theories and the impact they have on social policy within society. In completing this essay I hope to conclude whether social exclusion is just another name for poverty.

The definition of poverty is riddled with much conflict, closely associated to that of both the causes and solutions. Key researchers have recognised the need for a universal definition. Townsend in the 1960s to ‘70s provided a definition, which has been widely used by others. He studied of poverty in Britain, opening his report with this definition that was crucial to his approach and the findings it publicised.

“Individuals, families and groups in the population cam be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary in the societies to which they belong.” (Townsend. 1979:31)

However arguments about the definition of poverty go back to the end of the nineteenth century. Booth and Rowntree conducted the initial work into the study of poverty. They concluded with the existence of two main types of poverty, ‘Absolute’ and ‘Relative’.

Absolute poverty is seen as the objective definition, based on the notion of subsistence. This is the minimum needed to sustain life. Living below subsistence is suffering absolute poverty, as one does not have enough to live on. Rowntree (1899) in Townsend (1979) refers to ‘Primary Poverty’ People do not generate enough money each week to afford a normal, healthy life style even if they act frugally, and ‘Secondary Poverty’ which is having enough funds to cover the basic essentials, but being less thrifty. With this definition we need to work out what this subsistence level is, what do people need to survive? Once this has been calculated, people need to be provided with the minimum and poverty would be removed. But this view is rather simplistic, who defines this level and how can it be universal? Therefore a criticism of absolute poverty is that it is based on an assumption that there is a minimum basic needs for all people, in all societies. Many people argue that there is no Absolute Poverty in Britain and that it only exists in third-world countries. But homeless people in Britain would disagree, they live in cardboard box communities, and are fed from ‘soup kitchens’, which is about as absolute as you can get.

As a result of the inflexibility of ‘absolute’ poverty, the concept of relative poverty was devised. Relative poverty is more subjective. Alcock (1997) states that it recognises that some level of judgement is involved in determining poverty levels. He goes on the say:

“ Judgement is required because a relative definition of poverty is based on a comparison between the standard of living of the poor and the standard of living of other members of society who are not poor, usually involving some measurement of the average standard of the whole of the society in which poverty is being studied.” ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Relative poverty therefore has an effect on those on or below the minimum level of income provided by the government in the form of social security, denying them the ability to maintain a substantial standard of living and to participate in everyday ordinary activities.

Absolute definitions as mentioned above, do develop an objective logic based on subsistence, but it doesn’t take into account that different people need different things in different places according to their circumstances. Although Rowntree referred to the differences between primary and secondary poverty, he still classed them as both poverty. He included ‘non-necessities’ such as tea in his subsistence measure. If this was still to be the case the twenty first century, and poverty levels change as society becomes more affluent, then it is not clear how the positions of the poor would be characterised from those who are simply less well-off in an unequal social order. This brings about the problems of were do we draw the line between the poor and the rest.

Alcock (1997) claims that the absolute definitions of poverty necessarily involve relative judgements to apply them to any part of society, and that relative definitions require some absolute core in order to set them apart from broader inequalities. Walker (1997) points out that it is increasing apparent that the concept of poverty provides an inadequate description of the circumstances of millions of people who do not receive an adequate share of Europe’s rising wealth. Unlike the concept poverty, which encourages the blaming of the poor, the term social exclusion emphasises society’s role in excluding certain people from full participation.

Social exclusion differs from poverty, a definition is provided by Oppenheim (1998):

“Social exclusion is the process of being detached from the organisations and communities of which the society is composed and from the rights and obligations that they embody” (Oppenheim, 1998:13)

It is additionally about the ‘processes’, which lead people to become excluded from society. The European Commission identified these as the production and distribution of social resources, such as the labour market, family and the state. The connection between poverty and social exclusion is not always obvious. Oppenheim (1998) observes that there are people who are on low incomes but are still socially included, for example students, but there are people who are not in poverty but are socially excluded, for example some ethnic minorities. Nevertheless it is the lack of material resources that is likely to lead to a person to become socially excluded.

The definition of social exclusion therefore is not easy to achieve, should it be defined narrowly or broadly? A narrow definition may centre on only those who experience persistent hardship, for that reason a wider classification would be needed if social policy were to be preventative of people consistently living in the bottom deciles of households below average income. Another concern would be that how much social exclusion is linked with dependency; explaining why some people are on benefits for long periods of time is down to whether it is embedded in economic explanations or cultural reasons linked to lifestyle.

A definition of social exclusion provided by Tony Blair states:

“A short hand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skill, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown.” (DSS publications, 1999)

It can be suggested that the root of social exclusion is poverty, and the deprivation that impoverishment causes. Some individuals or governments see social exclusion as a more appropriate term than poverty, because it hides the reality of poverty. It is a more ‘acceptable’ label. The process of social exclusion can be seen at each stage of development. Those who suffer deprivation in the early years often under achieve. They experience long term unemployment during adulthood, which may lead to poverty in old age, leading to social exclusion at a time when they need to be included the most.

Radio National on the 7th February 1999, interviewed Geoff Mulgan, adviser to Tony Blair and member of the government’s Social Exclusion Unit, on the issue of social exclusion. The interviewer Tom Morton remarked that social exclusion:

“is the trendy new term which has replaced poverty and deprivation” (Morton, 1999: 1)

Geoff Mulgan (1999) claimed that the term social exclusion is not new, and actually came from France where it was being used in the ‘70s an ‘80s and then become a general European term, displacing talking about poverty. He continues to say that due to the changes in the last twenty or thirty years there isn’t just increasing inequality or growing poverty, although that’s certainly happened, it’s also that a large minority of the population has become cut off from the mainstream, cut off from the jobs market, from education, housing and almost literally excluded, living in a separate way. Geoff Mulgan concludes that what governments are concerned with today is a new kind of poverty, that of social exclusion.

In conclusion the terms poverty and social exclusion, as summarised by Williams and Pillinger (1996) are that:

“Social exclusion is a consequent process; poverty is a state or condition, linked to both inequality and social exclusion.” (Williams and Pillinger, 1996:16)

It is clear from throughout this essay that social exclusion is a concept that is aimed to replace the term of poverty, but social exclusion is not a total substitute, as the expression is a consequent of poverty.

Bibliography

Alcock, P. (1997) (2nd ed) Understanding poverty, Hampshire: Macmillam Press.

DSS Publications. (1999)‘Opportunity for all – Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion.’ <.> [Accessed 11th March 2003]

Morton, T. (7th February 1999) ‘Social Exclusion’ on Radio National, <> [Accessed 11th March 2003]

Mulgan, G. on Morton, T. (7th February 1999) ‘Social Exclusion’ on Radio National, <> [Accessed 11th March 2003]

Oppenheim, C. (eds) (1998) A Inclusive Society, London: Institute for public policy research.

Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom, Middlesex: Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Walker, R. ‘Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe’, in Walker, A. and Walker, C. (eds) (1997) Britain Divided, London: CPAG.

Williams, F. with Pillinger, J. ‘New thinking on social policy research into inequality, social exclusion and poverty’ in Millar, J. and Bradshaw, J. (eds) (1996) Social welfare systems: towards a research agenda, Bath: Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy.