Human development is the goal to achieve; Social inclusion is the means to get there; while Social...

Human development is the goal to achieve; Social inclusion is the means to get there; while Social exclusion is the obstacle to be overcome to achieve the goal.

Jaroslav Kling, UNDP Bratislava Regional CentreSarajevo, May 26, 2011

Why this report?

Human development and social inclusion—complementary concepts that have evolved in parallel so far

Exploring the effects of transition from human development and social exclusion perspectives

Looking forward, ◦ define methodological framework and monitoring tools ◦ Set policy priorities based on evidence (data &regional experience)

Overall objectives

Understand the dynamics of social exclusion, inclusion and human development in the region since 1991

Provide tools for assessing levels and intensity of social exclusion, its causes and risks

Identify determinants of social exclusion in individual dimensions and how it can be addressed

Formulate realistic responses at central & local levels

To achieve all that, we Analyze patterns of exclusion

Define the chain of social exclusion: risks interacting with drivers and local characteristics to result in exclusion status

Develop an operational methodology for social exclusion measurement and monitoring at aggregated (national) and disaggregated (local) levels

Give policy recommendations to enhance social inclusion

Provide tools for rooting this methodology in local specifics facilitating area-based social inclusion interventions

Hence the structure of the report: Theory –the relationship between human

development and social inclusion

Overview – the region’s social inclusion status and the implications of the transition decades going in-depth into six countries surveyed

Methodology –quantifying social exclusion in three dimensions to go beyond national aggregates and generalization

Exclusion, not multi-dimensional poverty

Exclusion: accumulation of deprivations-Dynamic process

-Relative (but not subjective) -Dignity is about meeting expectations

6

Targeting different audiences

Specific groups attribute different weights to individual layers of analysis:

Central government policymakers, parliamentarians: theory-overview-

methods

Local governments, Civil Society Organizations: theory-overview-methods

Academia: theory-overview-methods

Development partners (EU, World Bank, rest of UN): theory-overview-methods

Policy-oriented think-tanks: theory-overview-methods

General public: theory-overview-methods

The report…

Integrates available data to describe social exclusion outcomes during transition

Provides qualitative information on what happened and how; and quantitative analysis tested in the six countries

Serves as information resource (aggregated data) and as methodological basis for identifying the dimensions of exclusion

The report’s quantitative underpinnings

Social Exclusion Survey in 6 countries of the region

Localities-specific data for “contextualization of the survey data”

Secondary data on all countries of the region

Development and other indicators relevant to social exclusion and inclusion

Quantifying social exclusion

Multidimensional Poverty ultidimensional Poverty Approach

Same UNDP/OPHI approach as used for Global HDR 2010 for poverty

‘Dual cutoff’ method:

within dimension: based on deprivation with respect to given dimension

across dimensions: overall threshold (number of deprivations) beyond which a person is considered socially excluded

Economic: Deprivation in ◦ incomes, basic needs, ◦ access to employment, financial services; ◦ material needs and lack of amenities; ◦ housing and ICT-related exclusion.

Social services: Access to and affordability of ◦ education and health services;◦ other public services, such as public utilities.

Participation in civic and social life: Deprivation in ◦ political, cultural and social participation;◦ political, cultural and social support networks.

Three dimensions of social Three dimensions of social exclusion (with 8 indicators exclusion (with 8 indicators each):each):

Tough measurement question:

How many How many deprivations does it take deprivations does it take to be excluded?to be excluded?

Threshold-number of deprivations, a matter of choice

Our survey: 9

13

Share of socially excluded and the social exclusion index

 Kazakhsta

n MoldovaFYR

Macedonia Serbia Tajikistan Ukraine

Magnitude of social exclusion at cut-off 9

(A) Social exclusion headcount 32% 40% 12% 19% 72% 20%(B) Average number of deprivations experienced by the socially excluded 10.5 11.0 10.8 10.8 11.1 10.4(C) Intensity - average number of deprivations experienced by the socially excluded as percentage of total (24) 44% 46% 45% 45% 46% 43%Multidimensional Exclusion Index (MEI) = (A) *(C) 14 18 5 8 33 9

Main findings: Individual characteristics and exclusion status

Overall results: Overall results:

Not surprising:qExclusion highly correlated with:

- Human Development Index:

- Unemployment- Low education

But,Also, highly correlated with transition ills:

◦Marginalization ◦Weak governance

As well as with the geography of economic restructuring

16

Social exclusion and age: children and elderly are most affected

Social exclusion of children, youth and elderly

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia

Serbia Tajiki s tan Ukra ine Six-countryaverage

Perc

enta

ge o

f soc

ially

exc

lude

d pe

ople

Chi ldren (0-14 years ) Youth (15-29 years )

Adults (30-64 years ) Elderly (>65 years )

Employment is crucial to avoid social exclusion

Social exclusion of the unemployed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia

Serbia Tajikis tan Ukraine

Perc

enta

ge o

f soc

ially

exc

lude

d pe

ople

Unemployed National average

Low education level raises social exclusion

Social exclusion of the poorly educated

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia

Serbia Tajikis tan Ukraine

Perc

enta

ge o

f soc

ially

exc

lude

d pe

ople

Low level of education National average

Certain groups are more excluded (Serbia Survey)

Headcount of social exclusion for Roma, IDPs and general population in Serbia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Deprivation cutoff value

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of p

eo

ple

co

nsi

de

red

'so

cia

lly e

xclu

de

d' f

or

ea

ch

cuto

ff va

lue

threshold

General population

Roma

IDPs

Higher Human Development Index Higher Human Development Index correlates closely with higher social correlates closely with higher social

inclusioninclusion

HDI versus the percentage of the population that is considered socially excluded

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Percentage of socially excluded people

HD

I (2

01

0)

Ukraine

FYR Macedonia

Serbia

Kazakhstan

Moldova

Tajikistan

Drivers of exclusion and their implications for exclusion status

Poor governance goes closely with exclusion

Social exclusion and government effectiveness

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00

Government effectiveness

Soc

ial e

xclu

sion

inde

x

Tajikistan

Moldova

Kazakhstan

UkraineSerbia

FYR Macedonia

23

Barriers to business exacerbate

social exclusionSocial exclusion and business environment

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Number of procedures to set up a business

So

cia

l e

xc

lus

ion

in

de

x

Tajikistan

Moldova

Kazakhstan

UkraineSerbiaFYR Macedonia

A better functioning labour market enhances social

inclusionSocial exclusion and institutions in the labour market

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Use of employment agency for job search

Soc

ial e

xclu

sion

inde

x

Tajikistan

Moldova

Kazakhstan

Ukraine Serbia

FYR Macedonia

Informal employment brings dubious benefits

Social exclusion and informality in the labour market

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Percentage of informal contracts

So

cia

l exc

lusu

ion

ind

ex

Tajikistan

Moldova

Kazakhstan

UkraineSerbia

FYR Macedonia

Less tolerant values enhance social

exclusionSocial exclusion and attitudes

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65

Share of people who think that children with disabilities should not go to mainstream schools

So

cia

l exc

lusi

on

ind

ex

Tajikistan

Moldova

KazakhstanUkraine

Serbia

FYR Macedonia

Tolerance of corruption heightens social

exclusionSocial exclusion index by dominating values (tolerance to

corruption) and type of settlement

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Villages Small towns Capital

Low acceptance ofunoffi cial payments forservices or for gettingbusiness done

High acceptance ofunoffi cial payments forservices or for gettingbusiness done

Specifics of local contextand its implications for social exclusion

Location matters greatly!

Social exclusion by type of settlement in which respondents live

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia

Serbia Tajikis tan Ukra ine Six-countryaverage

Perc

enta

ge o

f soc

ially

exc

lude

d pe

ople

Vi l lage Smal l town

Regional or economic centre Capita l

30

Social exclusion is particularly high in mono-company towns

Social exclusion index by employment opportunities and the way the current crisis affected local economy

27

11

20

7

16

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Single or two employers Multiple employers

Local economy declined No change Local economy grew

The quality of local infrastructure also affects

social exclusionQuality of local transportation infrastructure and social

exclusion index

11

19

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Good and excellent Poor Bad

Lasting effects of environmental disasters

in yet another area: social exclusionImpact of environmental disasters on social exclusion index

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Area affected by radiation, chemicalcontamination or environmental

degradation

Area that did not experience any majordisaster

Exclusion fromparticipation incivic and social lifeand networks

Exclusion fromsocial services

Economicexclusion

Towards an ‘individualized Towards an ‘individualized approach’ to social approach’ to social exclusion exclusion

Integrating individual risks, specifics of local context, and values.

In sum: both who you are and where you live matter

If you are young person, with low education, living in a village, or a town with a single company—you face a high risk of exclusion…

…and secondary education doesn’t help much in these conditions…

…while vibrant business environment makes a lot of difference

…economic centers offer more opportunities (even with low education)

…and much more if you are educated

++

++ + +

35

Conclusions q Transition to a market economy in the region left some

out in the cold. Reforms have not always helped to improve lives.

q It could be anyone! Everyone is at risk of being left out of society, not only marginalized groups.

q Income doesn’t tell the whole story ! To be part of society, you also need access to public services, and opportunities to participate in community life.

q Attitudes, local economy characteristics, policies matter

q No single policy can eliminate exclusion - Policies need to be comprehensive to break the social exclusion chain

36

Recommendations

Genuine, sustained commitment to social inclusion with clear targets

Preventive focus on individual vulnerabilities Clear focus on people’s capacities Addressing institutional drivers is crucial Match this with deliberate efforts to change mindsets

Seek for more information at:

http://europeandcis.undp.org/poverty/socialinclusion