Social inclusion. (Comments).

Ruth Levitas of the University of Bristol presents us with an interesting way of looking at questions of social inclusion, exclusion, and current social policy thinking in general. She spoke of her approach at the recent conference on Social Inclusion Research in Ottawa which is summarized in redistribution, social integration discourse, and moral underclass discourse.

The redistribution idea is that people are excluded from society because they do not have enough money. Now largely neglected, this approach once had an important role in Canadian thinking, as well as in Europe. It is the basis for our old age income security programs which played a remarkable role in the dramatic reduction of poverty among the aged. Our health care system is a form of redistribution. The Child Tax Credit plays a limited role in preventing the growth of child poverty but has not reduced it. The redistribution approach is currently largely out of favor and some policy thinkers are working hard at convincing government to eliminate such programs altogether.

The social integration approach addresses social inclusion and income redistribution issues by emphasizing the need to get people into jobs. It stresses training and other services that place, restore, and maintain people in the labour force. Child care services to parents who are in paid employment are examples. Child care has a highly valued place in the European Union. Quebec's nearly universal child care program is similar to the European model and is unique to North America.

In practice, the social integration approach too often deals with specific labour issues, and the desire to remove people from public assistance rolls as rapidly as possible. The jobs offered are of poor quality and at pay rates comparable with welfare.

The moral underclass approach is one that focuses on the behaviour of the excluded classes, that is, on problem groups such as the homeless, and "high risk" children and youths. This is sometimes called the "targeting" of problems. The emphasis on this approach alone produces an inadequate system of services, such as hostels and street workers. It also produces special child care services for the children of single mothers and others who are suspected of being inadequate parents. This approach has been dominant throughout the history of social policy and programs in the United States, to a lesser degree in Canada, and it now guides the plans of the New Labour government in Britain.

The paper that Ruth Levitas presented at the conference points out that these approaches picture a society of insiders and outsiders--and offers social policies that deal only with those on the margins. Inequality issues among the insiders are largely avoided. She claims a wider understanding of the exclusion-inclusion issue is needed--one that includes discrimination on the grounds of gender, ethnicity, disability, age, religion, sexuality, language, region, and class.

The Canadian Social Development Council which organized the Ottawa conference uses the rubric "social inclusion". In the UK, where Ruth Levitas hails from, "social exclusion" is the preferred term. As she states: "Whereas `social exclusion' represses the question of the kind of society into which people are to be included, the positive formulation of `social inclusion' at least potentially makes the nature of that society central. The idea of an inclusive society is potentially utopian in the sense that it forces onto the agenda the larger question of what kind of society we want to live in."

The Ottawa conference was overshadowed by the war in Iraq but it is not unrelated. The war, especially discussions on the future of Iraq, are pertinent social as well as political issues. In many parts of the world we are dealing with questions of inclusion and exclusion that become war and peace issues.

Canada is involved in social development problems in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world. The government funds international organizations, and Canadian agencies participate in social policy programs in many countries. Canadians staff many of these programs and work with local personnel in their creation and implementation.

As Ruth Levitas states: "`social policy' as traditionally conceived is too limited a vehicle for delivering social inclusion. ALL government policy has a bearing on this. So too has `policy' beyond the nation-state itself. The questions of this conference--`what do we know' and `where do we go' in the delivery of an inclusive society--take us into questions of global futures and demand a form of thinking that is more radical and more holistic than the conventional field of `social policy' permits."--L.K.