SOCIAL EXCLUSION: CONCEPT, APPLICATION, AND SCRUTINY Amartya Sen Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Lamont University Professor Emeritus, Harvard University Social Development Papers No. 1 Office of Environment and Social Development Asian Development Bank June 2000 i © Asian Development Bank All rights reserved Published June 2000 The analyses and assessments contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Asian Development Bank, or its Board of Directors or the governments they represent. ISBN 971-561-274-1 Publication Stock No. 120299 Published by the Asian Development Bank P.O. Box 789, 0980 Manila, Philippines ii CONTENTS Foreword v Acknowledgements vi 1. The Task of Evaluation and Assessment 1 2. Poverty, Capability Deprivation, and Social Exclusion 3 3. Relational Features in Capability Deprivation 6 4. The Language of Exclusion 9 5. Social Relations: Constitutive and Instrumental Importance 12 6. Active and Passive Exclusion 14 7. Persistent Unemployment and Exclusion: An Illustration 18 8. European Origin, Universal Importance, and Asian Use 23 9. Practical Reason in a Changing World 27 10. Policy Issue: Sharing of Social Opportunities 30 11. Policy Issue: Asian Crisis and Protective Security 35 12. Policy Issue: Democracy and Political Participation 38 13. Policy Issue: Diversity of Exclusions 40 14. Concluding Remarks 44 References 48 iii iv FOREWORD This paper is the first in a series of Social Development Papers, which are being issued to promote discussion of social development issues that influence development and poverty reduction. We are pleased that the inaugural paper in the series is an exposition by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen on an important and often overlooked dimension of poverty–social exclusion. It is generally recognized that poverty has both material and nonmaterial dimensions. Because of their obvious tangibility, many development practitioners find it easier to understand and address the material dimensions of poverty. The exclusion of the poor from participation in and access to opportunities and activities is a major nonmaterial dimension of poverty that also needs to be recognized and addressed. This paper helps us to understand social exclusion as both a cause and a consequence of poverty. I hope that the ideas conveyed in the paper will have a dual impact: first, that they will help development practitioners to obtain a better understanding and appreciation of the nonmaterial dimensions of poverty; and second, that they will stimulate discussion that will help development practitioners to respond effectively to this dimension of poverty reduction. Kazi F. Jalal Chief, Office of Environment and Social Development v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was originally prepared in 1998 for the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as Social Exclusion: A Critical Assessment of the Concept and Its Relevance, and revised in August 1999. For helpful discussions, including comments on the earlier version, I am most grateful to Tony (A. B.) Atkinson, Bhuvan Bhatnagar, Arjan de Haan, Rana Hasan, K.F. Jalal, Anita Kelles-Viitanen, Haidar A. Khan, Jean-Luc Maurer, Henry Neuberger, Gunilla Olsson, Timothy Smeeding, and Mohammad Yunus. I also profited from the discussions following three earlier presentations on this subject, respectively at (1) the ADB seminar on “Inclusion or Exclusion: Social Development Challenges for Asia and Europe” in Geneva, 27 April 1998; (2) the 50th Anniversary Conference of the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, in Cambridge (keynote address), 27 August 1998; and (3) ADB seminars on social exclusion, Manila, September 1998. Amartya Sen vi 1. The Task of Evaluation and Assessment The term “social exclusion” is of relatively recent origin. René Lenoir, writing about a quarter of a century ago, is given credit of authorship of the expression.1 The notion has, however, already made substantial inroads into the discussions and writings on poverty and deprivation. There is a large and rapidly growing literature on the subject.2 The concept of social exclusion is seen as covering a remarkably wide range of social and economic problems. Even in the practical context of identifying “the excluded” in France, René Lenoir, as Secrétaire d’Etat a l’Action Sociale of the French Government, spoke of the following as constituting the “excluded”—a tenth—of the French population: mentally and physically handicapped, suicidal people, aged invalids, abused children, substance abusers, delinquents, single parents, multi-problem households, marginal, asocial persons, and other social ‘misfits’.3 The literature that has followed Lenoir’s original initiative has vastly added to this already bulging list of the “socially excluded.” As Silver (1995) notes, the list of “a few of the things the literature says people may be excluded from” must include the following: a livelihood; secure, permanent employment; earnings; property, credit, or land; housing; minimal or prevailing consumption levels; education, skills, and cultural capital; the welfare state; citizenship and legal equality; democratic participation; public goods; the nation or the dominant race; family and sociability; humanity, respect, fulfilment and understanding.4 1 See Lenoir (1974). 2 For illuminating and insightful introductions to the literature (and also to the history, content, and implications of the idea of social exclusion), see Rodgers et al. (1995), Jordan (1996), de Haan (1997), Gore and Figueiredo (1997), Figueiredo and de Haan (1998), and de Haan and Maxwell (1998). 3 See Silver (1995), p. 63. See also Foucauld (1992). 4 Silver (1995), p. 60. See also Gore and Figueiredo (1997) and de Haan and Maxwell (1998). 1 SOCIAL EXCLUSION: CONCEPT, APPLICATION, AND SCRUTINY This is a veritable explosion of concern. The literature on social exclusion is, obviously, not for the abstemious. It has not been all smooth sailing, though. The impression of an indiscriminate listing of problems under the broad heading of “social exclusion” and of a lack of discipline in selection, combined with the energy and excitement with which the concept has been advocated for adoption by its energetic adherents, has had the effect of putting off some of the experts on poverty and deprivation. In Else Oyen’s (1997) unflattering portrayal of the research enterprise on social exclusion, new entrants in the field are seen as proceeding to “pick up the concept and are now running all over the place arranging seminars and conferences to find a researchable content in an umbrella concept for which there is limited theoretical underpinning” (p. 63). If the advocates have been vocal, so have been the critics. In this paper, I shall try to scrutinize the nature, relevance, and reach of the idea of social exclusion. I must also try to connect the notion to concepts that have been articulated earlier and to which the idea of social exclusion relates in a reasonably close way. We have to see what it has added and why the addition may well be important. I shall also critically examine the possibility of using this idea in contexts other than the French—and more generally European—conditions in which it has been originally championed.5 In terms of usefulness of the idea, we have to scrutinize and examine critically what new insight—if any—is provided by the approach of social exclusion. Does it contribute to our understanding of the nature of poverty? Does it help in identifying causes of poverty that may be otherwise neglected? Does it enrich thinking on policy and social action in alleviating poverty? How would our understanding of poverty be any different if we were to ignore the literature of social exclusion altogether? How would the policies chosen be any different? These critical issues are central to an appropriate evaluation and assessment of the idea of social exclusion. 5 This will obviously include Asia, since the paper is being written for use in the Asian Development Bank. 2 2. Poverty, Capability Deprivation, and Social Exclusion It is useful to begin with the recognition that the idea of social exclusion has conceptual connections with well-established notions in the literature on poverty and deprivation, and has antecedents that are far older than the specific history of the terminology might suggest. Indeed, I would argue that we can appreciate more fully the contribution made by the new literature on social exclusion by placing it in the broader context of the old—very aged—idea of poverty as capability deprivation. That connection with a very general approach will help us to appreciate the particular emphases and focal concerns that the specific idea of social exclusion helps to illuminate. So let us start far back—in the realm of concepts and ideas. First, consider the characterization of poverty as simply shortage of income, which is, of course, very ancient and still fairly common in the established literature on deprivation and destitution. This view, which is rather far removed from the relational notion of social exclusion, is not, however, entirely without merit, since income—properly defined—has an enormous influence on the kind of lives we can lead. The impoverishment of our lives results frequently from the inadequacy of income, and in this sense low income must be an important cause of poor living. And yet—as the last argument itself suggests—ultimately poverty must be seen in terms of poor living, rather than just as lowness of incomes (and “nothing else”). Income may be the most prominent means for a good life without deprivation, but it is not the only influence on the lives we can lead. If our paramount interest is in the lives that people can lead—the freedom they have to lead minimally decent lives—then it cannot but be a mistake to concentrate exclusively only on one or other of the means to such freedom. We must look at impoverished lives, and not just at depleted wallets. The idea of seeing poverty in terms of poor living is not— emphatically not—new. Indeed, the Aristotelian account of the richness of human life was explicitly linked to the necessity to “first ascertain the 3 SOCIAL EXCLUSION: CONCEPT, APPLICATION, AND SCRUTINY function of man,” followed by exploring “life in the sense of activity.” In this Aristotelian perspective, an impoverished life is one without the freedom to undertake important activities that a person has reason to choose.6 Poverty of living received systematic attention also in the early empirical works on the quality of life by such pioneering investigators as William Petty, Gregory King, Francois Quesnay, Antoine Lavoisier, Joseph Louis Lagrange, and others.7 Adam Smith too felt impelled to define “necessaries” in terms of their effects on the freedom to live nonimpoverished lives (such as “the ability to appear in public without shame”).8 Thus, the view of poverty as capability deprivation (that is, poverty seen as the lack of the capability to live a minimally decent life) has a far-reaching analytical history. As it happens, it has also been much explored in the contemporary literature.9 The capability perspective on poverty is inescapably multidimensional, since there are distinct capabilities and functionings that we have reason to value. I would suggest that it is useful to investigate the literature on “social exclusion” using this broadly Aristotelian approach. The connections are immediate. First, we have good reason to value not being excluded from social relations, and in this sense, social exclusion may be directly a part of capability poverty. Indeed, Adam Smith’s focus on the deprivation involved in not “being able to appear in public without shame” is a good example of a capability deprivation that takes the form of social exclusion. This relates to the importance of taking part in the life of the community, and ultimately to the Aristotelian understanding that the individual lives an inescapably “social” life. Smith’s general point that the inability to interact 6 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, section 7; in the translation of D. Ross (1980), p. 12-14. Martha Nussbaum (1988) has illuminatingly analyzed the reach and relevance of the Aristotelian approach. 7 On that literature, see Sen (1987). 8 Smith (1776), Vol. II, Book V, Chapter 2; in the edition by R.H. Campbell and A.S. Skinner (1976), p. 469- 471. 9 My own attempt at constructing a theory as well as an empirical framework for seeing poverty as capability deprivation can be found in Sen (1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1992a); see also Drèze and Sen (1989, 1995) and Nussbaum and Sen (1993). The literature on capability deprivation is now quite extensive and far-reaching; see particularly Griffin and Knight (1990), Hossain (1990), UNDP (1990, 1997), Doyal and Gough (1991), Crocker (1992), Anand and Ravallion (1993), Desai (1995). See also the symposia on the capability approach in Giornale degli Economistie Annali di Economia, 53 (1994), and in Notizie di Politeia, 1997 (special volume), and on related issues, in Journal of International Development, 9 (1997). 4