Social exclusion is a concept commonly used in development, particularly following the World Social Summit in Copenhagen in 1995. DFID has worked on social exclusion for some years at country level, and recently the concept has gained greater prominence at policy level. This report from the Overseas Development Institute reviews and synthesises experiences of working on social exclusion within DFID and other agencies.
Social exclusion provides a multidimensional and dynamic framework for aid policy and programming which focuses on both the causes and impact of social disadvantage. A social exclusion framework (SEF) can also help identify barriers to meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It may however be challenging to operationalise a SEF while working with partner governments in the context of Poverty Reduction Budget Support (PRBS) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs).
- ‘Social inclusion’ in mainstream society is not automatically the solution to social exclusion, due to the right to remain outside the mainstream and the possibility of adverse incorporation. ‘Social cohesion’ is a helpful concept, implying cooperation rather than conformity.
- As an operational framework, the SEF has particular currency within DFID in Latin America where it is associated with a rights-based approach (RBA). Asia Division has been instrumental in showing how it can be institutionalised.
- The Africa Division has been slower to engage with the SEF, perhaps due to growth or transforming aid modalities being prioritised, the absence of social movements of the excluded, or the domination of governments and elites.
- As an analytical framework, social exclusion has been usefully applied to poverty and inequality in middle-income countries (MICs) and to understand ethnic and violent conflict and minority issues worldwide.
Staff interviewed showed general support for DFID developing a position on social exclusion, and the following conclusions arose:
- It is critical to clarify the term’s use within DFID with a policy statement. This includes choosing between the terms ‘social exclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ and clarifying the relationship with RBA and work on poverty and inequality. Flexibility of approach across the regions should be maintained, but coherence is necessary.
- The proposed social exclusion work programme should be not just for the new Exclusion, Rights and Justice (ERJ) team, but corporate, involving other Policy Division teams and parts of DFID.
- Aid modalities such as PRBS are critical to consider in operationalising a SEF, and changes may be needed to DFID systems and procedures in order to create incentives for managers to take a SEF into account.
- An evidence-base is imperative, linked to the impact of social exclusion on the MDGs. DFID would need to be conscious of the costs involved if social exclusion is to be measured and monitored.
- The outputs of the work programme need to be targeted at country programmes. This could include: guidance notes, a programme of lesson learning across regions and sectors, ERJ team responsiveness to country programmes, and a clear division of labour.
