Družboslovne razprave, Vol . XI (1995), No .19-20, pp.119-136
UDK: 364 .2 :304:316.344 .7 :339.92(4)ES : 339.92(4)EU
Social Exclusion in Europe : Old Wine in New
Bottles?
PETER ABRAHAMSON*
In this article it is first demonstrated how the social sciences have taken the
term. social exclusion on board, without jettisoning the terms poverty, depri-
vation and marginalization . Then the definitions of social exclusion and
the policies to combat social exclusion, as they . are formulated by the institu-
tions ofthe European Union, are discussed. A number ofdifferent explana-
tions of the differences and the relationship between poverty and social
exclusion are also discussed with reference to recent political and social
scientific discourses . European social science has been speculating as to
why this name-change and change in the conceptualization of the disad-
vantaged segments of our populations has occurred, and a number of ex-
planations have been given. A few illustrations of the incidence and
distribution ofpoverty and social exclusion within the member states of the
European Union are also given, in order to point out the persistence and
increasing severity ofprocesses and situations ofdeprivation in (Western)
Europe. Finally, it is concluded that there exists a multitude ofreasons for
the promotion of the concept of social exclusion in the present situation of
late modernity; and it is argued that social exclusion . reflects new processes
and situations in what, in early modernity, was called poverty .
Keywords : poverty, social exclusion, European Union, welfare state, social
policy
the long-term or recurrently unemployed;
those employed in precarious and unskilled jobs,
especially older workers or those unprotected by labour regulations ;
the low paid and the poor ;
the landless;
the unskilled, the illiterate, and school drop-outs ;
the mentally and physically handicapped and disabled ;
addicts ;
delinquents, prison inmates, and persons with criminal records ;
single parents ;
battered or sexually abused children, those who grew up in problem households ;
young people, those lacking work experience or qualifications ;
child workers ;
women ;
foreigners, refugees, immigrants ;
racial, religious, and ethnic minorities ;
* Dr. Peter Abrahamson is a professor at Roskilde University, Department of Econom-
ics and Planning, PO . Box 260, DK-4000, Roskilde, Denmark ; e-mail: petera@ruc .dk
Peter Abrahamson
the disenfranchised;
beneficiaries of social assistance ;
those in need, but ineligible for social assistance ;
residents of rundown housing, disreputable neighbourhoods ;
those with consumption levels below subsistence (the hungry, the homeless, the
Fourth World) ;
those whose consumption, leisure or other practices (drug or alcohol abuse, de-
linquency, dress, speech, mannerism) are stigmatized or labelled as deviant ;
the downwardly mobile;
the socially isolated without friends or family .
(Studies on specific social categories in the research literature on social exclusion
compiled by Silver (1994: 548-9))
Introduction
As is apparent from the long list of social categories which have been researched
by social scientists under the heading of social exclusion, it is by no means a one-
dimensional concept. Hilary Silver (1994 : 536) correctly remarks that " . . . exclu-
sion appears to be a vague term loaded with numerous economic, social, political,
and cultural connotations and dimensions ." "The concept - if often conflated with
the new poverty and inequality, discrimination and the underclass - is also ex-
pressed in such terms as superfluity, irrelevance, marginality, foreignness, alter
ity, closure, disaffiliation, dispossession, deprivation, and destitution. This means
that exclusion must also be analyzed 'onomasiologically' defining the same con-
cept with reference to more than one term" (Silver, 1994: 539) . Nevertheless, it is
becoming more and more common for the term to be used within both political
and social scientific discourses .
On the other hand, poverty and social exclusion are, by no means, new phe-
nomena in Europe. The fact that some people have a hard time making ends meet
because they lack sufficient resources has always been with us . Nevertheless, the
post World War Two experiences of rapid economic growth, full employment and
a dramatic expansion of the welfare systems carried with them a promise of the
eradication of poverty, if not of social inequality. At the mid 1970s it could be said
that in Northern Europe poverty had been reduced to a residual phenomenon,
and it was expected only to be a question of time before the Southern part of
Europe would follow suit in this process of eradicating poverty as a widespread
and constant condition .
Unfortunately, this optimistic prospect has not come true . Mass unemploy-
ment and increasing inequality have been the course of development in Europe
over the last two decades ; a situation which has been magnified by the breakdown
of the state socialist economies in Eastern Europe, and the increased competition
on the world market from East Asian and American economies .
Simultaneously, we have witnessed a remarkable shift away from the term
poverty and towards the concept of social exclusion when situations and process-
es of deprivation have been discussed in Europe in recent years : "Thus, towards
the end of the 1980s a conceptual shift occurred from poverty to social exclu-
120
	
DR, VoJ .XI(t99511J-20
	 Social Exclusion in Europe : Old Wine in New Bottles?
sion . . ." (Bhala & Lapeyre, 1995 : 2). This paper tries to analyze whether we are
dealing with a new phenomenon or a new appearance .
First, it is demonstrated how the social sciences - increasingly - have taken the
term social exclusion on board, without jettisoning the terms of poverty, depriva-
tion and marginalization . Then the definitions of social exclusion and the policies
to combat social exclusion as they are formulated by the institutions of the Euro-
pean Union are discussed . A number of different explanations of the differences
and the relationship between poverty and social exclusion are thereafter discussed
with reference to recent political and social scientific discourses . European social
science has been speculating as to why this name-change and change in the con-
ceptualization of the disadvantaged segments of our populations has occurred,
and a number of explanations have been given . One is the political sensitivity of
poverty. In some countries poverty must be eradicated since a lot of resources are
spend on welfare systems. If poverty is identified it is as a critique of the existing
policy measures . Social exclusion, on the other hand, may be identified ; and though
it is most unfortunate, it can be dealt with . Another explanation emphasizes a
semantic differentiation of the same phenomenon and identifies social exclusion
as a francophone concept with roots in continental European social science, while
poverty is the Anglo-American concept for essentially the same processes and
situations. Still others see poverty as a condition or a situation, while social ex-
clusion emphasizes the processes ; i .e. it is a more dynamic concept . According to
this view poverty is strongly related to (long-term) unemployment ; and it has to
do with a lack of basic economic resources following on from the lack of paid
employment. On the other hand, social exclusion is the marginalization process
affiliated with the denial of access to societal institutions of integration .
Other explanations see social exclusion as the end result of extreme poverty ;
the socially excluded are the "down and out" segments of our (urban) population .
The final explanation we have traced locates the two concepts in different histor-
ical times: poverty is a modern phenomenon related to (early) industrialization,
while social exclusion is its postmodern or postindustrial equivalent . Here, both
poverty and social exclusion must be understood with reference to their oppo-
sites: wealth and integration . Poverty is an early modern condition for the major-
ity of people (the working class) brought on to them because of the exploitation by
the rich (the bourgeoisie) . Social exclusion is a postmodern condition for a minor-
ity of people who are marginalized from mainstream middle mass society. 1 This
last explanation is consistent with the new political emphasis on the development
of a so-called underclass . A few illustrations of the incidence and distribution of
poverty and social exclusion within the 15 member states of the European Union
are given in order to point to the persistence and increasing severity of processes
and situations of deprivation in (Western) Europe . Finally, it is concluded that
there exists a multitude of reasons for the promotion of the concept of social
exclusion in the present situation of late modernity, and it is argued that social
exclusion reflects new processes and situations of what, in early modernity, was
called poverty.
The aim of this paper is, however, not only to discuss the various meanings of
social exclusion, but also to try and explain its increased 'popularity' among so-
cial scientists and politicians .
DR, Vol.Xl(1995)19-20
	
121
Peter Ahrahamson
Recent Changes in Social Scientific Emphasis : An Overview
In table 1 below, the development in entries in the Social Sciences Citation Index
(SSCI) concerning the terms social exclusion, poverty, deprivation, marginaliza-
tion and underclass is given for the last ten years . From 1986 to 1993, there
appeared an average of 2 .6 articles on social exclusion in the Index . During 1994,
36 articles were published on social exclusion ; and during the first seven months
of 1995 another nine papers appeared under the heading of social exclusion . This
is an average of 25 entries for the last two years, a tenfold increase . In relation to
the approximately 500 papers published under the heading of poverty each year,
social exclusion is still a minor research area ; but although many more papers
have been published concerning poverty over the last couple of years, the increase
is only about twofold. Hence, interest in social exclusion has increased much more,
which also holds true when we compare the development of publications concern-
ing marginalization and deprivation .
i
Table 1. Number of entries in the Social Sciences Citation Index 1986 - 1995.
Year
	
Social Poverty Deprivation Marginalization Underclass
Exclusion
1986 2 209* 51* 9 8
1987 0 209* 51* 1 17
1988 1 209* 51* 1 28
1989 4 209* 51* 3 36
1990 6 209* 51* 3 19
1991 2 237 57 4 21
1992 5 256 78 7 22
1993 4 290 54 7 42
1994 36 469 224 25 62
1995** 15 577 231 34 74
Source: Social Sciences Citation Index on CD-ROM 1986-1995 (July) .
* Average yearly entries 1986 - 1990 .
** Extrapolated on the basis of the first seven months of this year .
Of course, not all the entries under the heading of social exclusion are what we
would expect to find. For instance, one of the two articles from 1986 is entitled :
"Social rejection, Exclusion, and Shunning Among the Gombe Chimpanzees"!
Though undoubtedly a very serious problem for these monkeys, it does not indi-
cate an increased usage of social exclusion within social science . Likewise, it is not
obvious that an article from 1994 entitled "About the Good Uses of Cow-Dung
and Women in Northern India" reflects a new interest in social exclusion, not to
mention the fact that the paralleling of women and cow-dung could be considered
offensive. Actually, a number of papers on women do not, necessarily, correspond
122 DR, Vol.XI(1995)19-20
Social Exclusion in Europe : Old Wine in New Bottles?
to our everyday common-sense understanding of social exclusion, such as "Indi-
rect modes of Aggression Among Women of Buenos Aires, Argentina," also from
1994; or an article, from that same year, which tells us that "Hostile behavior
During Marital Conflict Alters Pipuitary and Adrenalin Hormones ." So, we should
interpret the scoring within the SSCI with caution . Nevertheless, it is unques-
tionable that, generally, we can identify increased publication activity concerning
matters of social exclusion, poverty, deprivation, marginalization and the under-
class during the last ten years, and that this is especially true for the term social
exclusion .
Social Exclusion in the Context of the European Union
The promotion in Europe of the term social exclusion must be accredited to the
Commission of the European Communities (now Union) . Because of French dom-
inance of the sections of Directorate General V responsible for social policy, social
exclusion has become a common part of Commission vocabulary.
This does not, however, change the fact that there exists quite a lot of confu-
sion about the conceptualization, definition and operationalization of poverty and
social exclusion . Furthermore, the concept of poverty has to some extent been
substituted by the concept of social exclusion . It has, rightly, been argued that
poverty and social exclusion are being used interchangeably within the European
Union: "The European Union often uses the concepts of poverty and exclusion
interchangeably implying that the two concepts are the same" (Bhala & Lapeyre,
1995: 6). It is, thus, indicated that what was once called poverty is now being
called social exclusion, or that some people use the one concept while others use
the other, to discuss the same phenomenon . As a starting point we shall, very
briefly, clarify a few definitions as they have been presented by the European
Communities .
Both within the academic community and within the European Communities
there has been some consensus about the definition of poverty during the last
decade. Despite the fact that no official definition exists within the European
Communities, we can come close with the formulations given below. In theCouncil Decisionof 19 December 1984, we find the following phrase:
The poor shall be taken to mean persons, families and groups of persons, where
resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from
the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member States in which they live .
(Quoted from Ramprakash, 1994) .
This definition is parallel to the one given by British poverty researcher Peter
Townsend in his famous study of Poverty in United Kingdom (1979) . The two
important elements of the definition are the lack of various kinds of resources, on
the one hand, and the "normal" or the generally acceptable way of life on the
other (i .e . poverty is a negative deviation from a societal norm caused by insuffi-
cient resources) . The problems, however, arise when this definition is to be oper-
ationalized for the purpose of estimating the magnitude and incidence of poverty
in any given population .
Towards the end of the 1980s, the European Communities decided to initiate
a Medium Term. Action Programme to Foster the Economic and Social Integration
DR, Vol .Xl(1995)19-20
	
123
PeterAbrahamson
of the Least Privileged Groups, which in every day parlance became known as the
Poverty 3 Programme . (Commission, 1989a), This was the third action programme
initiated by the Commission in the fight against poverty. But the term poor had
been substituted by the term the least privileged, and this was also the point in
time when the EC institutions began to talk about social exclusion . In connection
with the Poverty 3 Programme, an Observatory on National Policies to Combat
Social Exclusion was established (Room, 1990), and from now on the term social
exclusionn is part of the official language of the European Communities . The same
year a Council resolution of 29 September 1989 about combating social exclusion
was accepted. Here we find the first definition of the phenomenon . It is
emphasized that social exclusion is not simply a matter of inadequate (re-
sources), and that combating exclusion also involves access by individuals and
families to decent living conditions by means of measures for social integra-
tion and integration into the labour market ;
accordingly request the Member States to implement or promote measures to
enable everyone to have access to :
•
	
education, by acquiring proficiency in basic skills,
• training,
• employment,
• housing,
• community services,
• medical care .
(Quoted in Robbins, 1993 .)
Based on these formulations the Observatory's first coordinator, Graham Room
(1990), coined the following definition of social exclusion :
(Individuals) . . . suffer social exclusion where a) they suffer generalized disad-
vantage in terms of education, training, employment, housing, financial re-
sources, etc . b) their chances of gaining access to the major social institutions
which distribute these life chances are substantially less than those of the rest
of the population ; c) these disadvantages persist over time .
Compared to the definition of poverty given five years earlier, one can say that
the common resources have been made more explicit with examples of social and
cultural institutions like education, health care etc . ; and mechanisms barring
people from the institutions which deliver these resources are emphasized . Final-
ly, a certain degree of persistence in the situation is expected . Yet from these
definitions social exclusion does not seem to encompass a qualitatively different
dynamic or situation than poverty .
It is, in other words, not very clear whether we are dealing with two different
phenomena, and if we are, what distinguishes them . But we can make it clear how
the European Commission interprets the differences by quoting a Communica-
tion. front the Commission . of 23 December 1992 :
The concept (of social exclusion) is a dynamic one . . . referring both to processp
es and consequent situations . . . More clearly than the concept of poverty, un-
derstood far too often as referring exclusively to income, it also states the
multidimensional nature of mechanisms whereby individuals and groups are
excluded from taking part in the social exchange, from the component practic-
es of rights of social integration and of identity . . More generally, by highlight-
ing the risks of cracks appearing in the social fabric, it suggests something
124 DR, Vol .X1(1995)19-20
Social Exclusion in Europe: Old Wine in New Bottles?
more than social inequality and carries with it the risk of a fragmented society .
(Commission, 1992 .)
In line with these formulations the former President of the Commission, Jacques
Delors (1993), has stated that : " . . . we will in future continue to distinguish be-
tween poverty and social exclusion", and, further, " . . . although exclusion includes
poverty, poverty does not cover exclusion ."
In those Member States where the concept of social exclusion has been imple-
mented (e.g . in Denmark), it has generally been taken to mean the poorest of the
poor, a sub-set of poverty; thus the magnitude of social exclusion is estimated to
be only a fraction of the number of poor people . On the contrary, as made very
explicit by Jacques Delors, social exclusion is defined much more broadly than
poverty in Commission parlance . Here, poverty is a sub-set of social exclusion .
It must be concluded that the concept of social exclusion is a new and contest-
ed one-within the European Union, too. With respect to this paper, the problem is
hence that the processes and situations discussed are not consequently and con-
sistently referring to social exclusion as defined in the European Union docu-
ments, and, furthermore, in most countries of the Union the concept of social
exclusion is, if used at all, a very new and loosely-defined concept . Finally, there
are hardly any quantitative estimates of the magnitude and incidence of social
exclusion in Europe . So when Jacques Delors made reference to the 55 million
Europeans claimed to be affected by social exclusion, the figure presented the
amount of people whose income was less than 50 per cent of the national average,
i .e. the income poor (Delors, 1993) .
Various Explanations for the Shift from Poverty to Social Exclusion
As indicated above, poverty and social exclusion are used interchangeably within
the EU; but we also saw that there is a tendency to substitute poverty with social
exclusion. A number of possible explanations are given in the following .
1st explanation: the political sensitivity of poverty
In some EU Member States poverty had become 'politically incorrect', and was
therefore substituted by social exclusion . Such a claim is, of course, hard to prove ;
it only circulates among various EU experts, diplomats, and civil servants as part
of their collective memory. There are no official documents stating this reason for
the shift in vocabulary. Yet it is hinted at in Graham Room's paper for an EU
conference on transnational research studies on social exclusion held in London
in 1994. There he wrote : "How far these shifts (from poverty to social exclusion,
p.a.) reflected any more than the hostility of some governments to the language
of poverty, and the enthusiasm of others to use the language of social exclusion is
a matter for debate" (Room, 1994 : 6) .
To a society boasting of being a 'welfare state', it is an embarrassment to be
confronted with the fact that a substantial part of the population is living in pov-
erty. The existence of poverty indicates the failure of welfare arrangements . By
redefining the phenomenon as social exclusion, it can be understood as a perhaps
serious, but nevertheless individual, problem, attributable to personal disposi-
tions or failures rather than to societal processes and dynamics .
DR, Vol .XI(1995)19-20
	
125
Peter Abrahamson
2nd explanation : a semantic differentiation of the same phenomenon
The very simplistic understanding of the conceptual changes presented above is
being challenged or supplemented by a much more substantial explanation which
refers to two different academic traditions . A number of writers inform us that
social exclusion is a concept originally phrased by French intellectuals, and that it
is strongly related to French social policy parlance . Thus Hilary Silver (1994 : 531-
2) " . . . traces the evolution of the term 'exclusion' over time, notably, but not
exclusively in France ;" and she states that "The coining of the term is generally
attributed to Rene Lenoir (1974), who was then Secretary of State for Social Ac-
tion in the (Gaullist) Chirac Government ." Furthermore, she writes :
Whereas poverty and inequality have become accepted concepts in social sci-
ence, it is more accurate to consider the term 'exclusion' as a 'keyword' in
Raymond Williams' sense, in French Republican discourse . It not only origi-
nated in France, but is deeply anchored in a particular interpretation of French
revolutionary history and republican thought . From this perspective, 'exclu-
sion' is conceived not simply as an economic or political phenomenon, but as a
deficiency of 'solidarity', a break in the social fabric . . . The concept of 'poverty'
which originated in the United Kingdom . . . (Silver, 1994 : 537) .
Graham Room (1994; 1995) also argues along this line when he talks about "the
very different theoretical paradigms which these two traditions for analyzing pov-
erty and social exclusion appear to involve" :
Research into poverty in its modern scientific form is primarily an Anglo-Sax-
on - more specifically a British - product of the 19th century. It is closely asso-
ciated with the liberal vision of society. . . In . contrast, notions of social exclusion
are part of a continental tradition of social analysis . . . Social exclusion is the
process of becoming detached from the moral order. . . (and) it is the Conserva-
tive vision of society. . . that inspires the continental concern with social exclu-
sion (Room, 1995 : 3-4) .
For Room, poverty is primarily concerned with issues of distribution in the form
of lack of disposable resources for households or individuals . On the contrary,
social exclusion is about relational issues, i .e . inadequate social participation, lack
of integration and lack of power .
It is clear that social exclusion is French and that poverty is Anglo-Saxon ; but
it is not so clear that they necessarily mean different things . The very influential
work of Peter Townsend (1979) mentioned earlier talks about deprivation when
analyzing poverty in the United Kingdom, and does so very much in the same
vein as French social science. Likewise, when Rene Lenoir, in the mid 1970s, esti-
mated that about ten per cent of the French population were socially excluded,
and when he mentioned the various categories to be included under this heading,
it was not distinguishable from what would elsewhere have been termed poverty
(Lenoir cited in Silver, 1994) .
3rd explanation: poverty is a condition ; social exclusion is a process
Poverty is strongly related to (long-term) unemployment . It has to do with a lack
of economic, social and cultural resources. On the other hand, social exclusion is
the marginalization process affiliated with the denial of access to societal institu-
tions of integration. This explanation was found to exist within a number of the
projects under the EU Poverty 3 Programme, as it has been summed up by da
126
	
DR, VoI.Xl(1995)19-20
Social Exclusion in Europe : Old Wine in New Bottles?
Costa et al. (1994) . "The projects which addressed directly the distinction be-
tween poverty and social exclusion understand the latter basically as a process and
poverty as an outcome . This approach may attach to poverty a static character . . ."
(da Costa, 1995 : 5) .
This is also the distinction made by Graham Room, as we saw above, which is
unsurprising given that Room was responsible for matters of research under the
Poverty 3 Programme during its first couple of years, as a member of the so-
called Central Unit running the programme . We must expect the people involved
in evaluating and developing this programme to seek distinctions from prior
terminology. Yet the fact that the logo for the programme clearly spelled Poverty 3
indicates the difficulties in separating the two concepts .
4th explanation: social exclusion is the end result of extreme poverty
The socially excluded are the 'down and out' segments of our (urban) population .
This explanation is often referred to by French sociologist Robert Castel . He de-
fines social exclusion as follows : "Social exclusion, including the modern form we
see, is thus a penalty which expresses a complete detachment from the productive
order and total socio-affective isolation" (Castel, 1990 : 3) . It is admittedly very
French in its formulation, but clearly defines a situation, an outcome . Here, the
socially excluded are the worst off, a sub-set of the poverty segment in the popu-
lation .
This is also one of a number of explanations mentioned by Alfredo Bruto da
Costa (1995: 3) and others, and often with reference to the work of Robert Castel
(1990) . In da Costa's interpretation
. . . problems of poverty and exclusion may be seen as a process that involves
various stages, that go from de-integration from work relations to de-integra-
tion from family ties and social relationships . Castel . . . refer(s) to this process
as 'social marginalization' and reserve the term 'social exclusion' to its ex-
treme phase. Poverty would be more closely related to a state of deprivation
and to some form of detachment from work relations, whereas social exclusion
would refer to a deeper (extreme) stage of the process of marginalization, im-
plying also the weakening or rupture of family ties and social relationships (as
exemplified by the homeless, the tramps, etc .) (da Costa, 1995 : 3 ; emphasis in
original) .
This kind of definition of the socially excluded is also the common one used within
Danish social policy and social science . In 1992, Torben Fridberg at the National
Institute of Social Research published a study entitled The Socially Excluded (De
socialt udstødte). Here, the socially excluded are defined as "those who more than
temporarily are both unable to provide for themselves in ways acceptable to soci-
ety or the individual, and who are unable to take care of themselves in ways
acceptable to society or the individual ." (Fridberg, 1992 : 10 ; translation p .a .) . The
group is comprised of individuals labelled as
•
	
street children,
• substance users (e.g. drug abusers),
• criminals,
• people living in shelters,
• mentally ill,
• people in personal crisis and victims of violence,
DR, Vol .Xl(1995)19-20 127
Peter Ahrahamson
•
	
groups among the early retired,
• groups among the long-term social assistance recipients,
• groups among refugees and immigrants . (Fridberg, 1992 : 9) .
They are characterized not only by a marginal relationship to the labour market,
but also by a marginal or non-existent integration into society in general . This is
also the case in a report evaluating the projects concerned with excluded and
vulnerable people under the so-called SUM programme (a social policy develop-
ment. programme) (Jeppesen, Boolsen and Nielsen, 1992) . Here, the excluded are
defined as
• the homeless who are in contact with shelters etc .,
• drug and alcohol abusers,
• mentally ill . (For more about Denmark see Abrahamson, 1994) .
The Danish case is not exceptional in the European context ; rather this is the
common way that polity understands contemporary social exclusion .
5th explanation: poverty is a modern phenomenon; social exclusion is its postmod-
ern. equivalent
Both poverty and social exclusion must be understood with reference to their
opposites: wealth and integration . Poverty is an early modern condition for the
majority of people (the working class) brought upon them because of the exploita-
tion by the rich (the bourgeoisie) . Social exclusion is a postmodern condition for a
minority of people who are marginalized from mainstream middle mass society .
When there is a change in the ways both social science and political systems
approach misery and disadvantage, at least one school of thought would look for
changes in the social structure for an explanation . Perhaps because of its formal
affiliation with state socialism, Marxistpinspired social science has not been so
very popular lately. Nevertheless, a Marxist-inspired analysis seems to be able to
deliver the most promising explanation of the emergence of the emphasis on the
conceptt of social exclusion in relation to contemporary processes and situations
of disadvantage and misery.
With the establishment of capitalist relations of production in Europe in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth century, deprivation among the working classes
became the norm . Compared to the lives of the bourgeoisie, working-class fami-
lies were deprived of even the most essential needs, such as sanitary installa-
tions, adequate schooling, health care, social security, etc ., and they were deprived
of these means exactly because of the class relationship . The bourgeoisie was able
to live a life of abundance and affluence because it was able to exploit the working
classes ; the rich were rich because the poor were poor . Poverty was, correctly,
viewed as an extreme form of inequality, but it was not a problem that only app
plied to a minority of the population . On the contrary, poverty was the 'normal'
way of life for working people . Of course, the lifestyle of the working classes ex-
cluded them from the life of the ruling classes, but the poor were not excluded
from 'mainstream' society ; they were mainstream society. Therefore, policies to
combat poverty were focused on the redistribution of material resources between
the opposing classes and not, generally, focused on integrating the poor into the
lifestyles of the bourgeoisie, the minority population .
In early modernity, the rich and the poor were interdependently related - we
cannot understand the one without the other (Procacci, 1993 ; de Swaan, 1988) .
128 DR, Vol .Xl(1995)19-20
Social Exclusion in Europe: Old Wine in New Bottles?
My thesis is that this is no longer the case . I shall not venture into the debate
over whether we are still living in a society guided by modern forms of rationality,
or whether we are experiencing a condition of postmodernity, a radically different
social order (for a balanced and sober discussion, see Harvey, 1989) . On the other
hand, we cannot remain ignorant to the profound changes in the social structure
that modern society has undergone in Europe during the course of this century .
Apart from the very contested term of postmodernity, sociology has labelled the
changes the coming of post-industrial society, the programmed society, the serv-
ice society, the information society, post-Fordist society, etc . Despite internal dif-
ferences, these various approaches agree that manufacturing of material products
by the assembly line in huge factories is not anymore, if it ever was, the most
common way that worker and capital meet . Most jobs are to be found outside
manufacture, in different kinds of service industries, and capital is invested more
and more in industries of communication. The capital market is completely inter-
nationalized, and the most common way of life is similar in all contemporary
'highly developed' societies all over the globe . It is based on wage work within
some service sector or another, bringing in a household income sufficient for main-
taining home ownership, high levels of education, social security, health care, and
a leisure life in the form of vacations and bought-in services resembling what the
bourgeoisie had at the turn of the century .
This middle mass society has become the new societal norm, which is not to
say that nobody is denied such a 'middle class' way of life . As the illustrations
given in the next section of this paper show, a considerable fraction of European
Union populations still experiences lack of material resources in relation to the
aspirations set by the middle mass norms. But they are a minority . 'Normal' peo-
ple do not fall poor thanks to the generalization of wage work and the systems
developed under the heading of the welfare state. Yet some people do not have the
ability, or the inclination, to join in this normal middle mass society; they become
socially excluded. If social exclusion means something other than poverty, it re-
fers to those who are left outside mainstream society, who are living a life radical-
ly different to 'normal' ways, those who are disconnected from the prevailing
social order; they are disintegrated . The poor were traditionally not disintegrat-
ed; they were living the lives of most people . Nowadays, the socially excluded
may, at best, form local 'cultures of disadvantage' ; they are creating the frag-
mented society, as the Commission has it, and as such they are potentially threat-
ening the prevailing social order. In that sense, today's socially excluded resemble
yesterday's poor. That is why our institutions of power maintain that they should
be integrated .
Empirical Illustration of the Extent and Distribution of
Disadvantage in Europe
Not so much because of its elaborateness or comprehensiveness but rather be-
cause of its availability, it has become customary to use household income or ex-
penditure as a proxy for resources, and then to define a level of income/expenditure
to be insufficient, e .g. 40, 50 or 60 per cent of the average or median national
income. The poor, then, are those households with less than, say, half the average
DR, Vol .Xl(1995)19-20
	
129
Peter Abrahamson
national income or expenditure. This has been termed an objective definition of
poverty, and has been used as an estimate for the extent of social exclusion as
well, e .g. when the Observatory indicates the magnitude and structure of disad-
vantage (Robbins, 1994) .
Needless to say, different rates of poverty are reached whether one uses in-
come or expenditure, whether one uses households or persons, and, of course,
whether one uses a 40, a 50 or a 60 per cent cut-off line . As an example, poverty in
the Netherlands in 1988, measured as persons with less than 40 per cent of the
average expenditure, was 1 .5 per cent, while 50 per cent gave 4 .8 per cent, and 60
per cent gave 11 .4 per cent of the people to live in poverty If, as an other example,
we compare the poverty rates calculated with respect to households and persons,
we see that 17.4 per cent of all Irish households had an expenditure below the
average in 1985, while the same was true for 19 .5 per cent of Irish people . Like-
wise, measured as less than 50 per cent of average expenditure, it indicates that
9.2 per cent of people in Luxembourg lived in poverty in 1987, while measured as
those with less than half the average income, it only gave a poverty rate of 5 .1 per
cent. In Finland the opposite results were reached. Here the 50 per cent income
poverty gave 2 .5 per cent, while the expenditure poverty gave 5 .0 per cent (Euro-
stat, 1990; Ramprakash, 1994 ; Ritakallio, 1994) .
A more elaborate way to try and estimate lack of sufficient resources among
households has been developed as the so-called consensual or subjective poverty
definition. Here, a representative sample of the population is being asked what
they consider to be the very lowest net monthly income that the household would
need in order to just make ends meet . This is an indirect way of reaching a re-
source threshold . Alternatively, people are first asked from a long list of items to
identify what they consider to be necessary, which people should be able to afford
and not have to do without. Second, they are asked which items they actually
have . By doing this, a deprivation index is constructed . This has been termed the
direct consensual poverty definition . Here, the poverty line will be, normatively,
set. a t a certain degree of deprivation ; e .g. households lacking adequate nutrition,
housing, health care etc . An exercise has been done by Eurostat to develop a
subjective or consensual poverty definition, and the results are that this method
yields higher values than the objective methods. E .g. the objective measure of 50
per cent average expenditure for households in Spain gives us 17 .5 per cent, while
the subjective calculation gives 21 .2 percent (Ramprakash, 1994) .
All this illustrates that the definition is crucial to the results . Furthermore,
there are enormous problems of data comparability and quality, which also make
it imperative to be very cautious when poverty rates are interpreted . Since the
only available data for all the European Union countries are the ones based on
average expenditure, and only for that reason, these are the estimates given in
the Table 2 .
130
	
DR., Vol.X1(1995)19-20
Social Exclusion in Europe : Old Wine in New Bottles?
Table 2. Poverty rates measured as households with <50 per cent average national
expenditure 1980 - 1989.
1980 1985 1989
Belgium 6.3 5.2 7 .5
Denmark 8.0 8.0 4*
Germany 10.3 9.2 10.8
Greece 20.5 17.4 20.8
Spain 20.3 17.4 17.5
France 18.0 14.8 14.9
Ireland 18.5 17.4 16.1
Italy 12.0 14.7 22.0
Netherlands 6.9 7.9 6.2
Portugal 31.4 31.7 26.5
United Kingdom 14.1 18.9 17.0
Luxembourg - - 9.2
Finland** 6.0 6.3 5.0
Sweden*** 5.0 7.0 9.0
Austria
	
- 18.1 13.1
Sources: Eurostat (1990) . Inequality and poverty in Europe (1980 - 1985) . Luxem-
bourg: Statistical Office of the European Communities . Rapid Reports Population and
social conditions No . 7 . ; Ramprakash, D (1994) . "Poverty in the countries of the Euro-
pean Union: A synthesis of Eurostat's statistical research on poverty ." Journal of Eu-
ropean Social Policy, vol . 4, no . 2 :117-128; European Commission (1994) . Employment
in Europe 1994 . Directorate General V Luxembourg Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities . ; Ritakallio, V-M (1994). Köyhyys suomessa 1981 - 1990 .
Tutkimus tulonsiirtojen vaikutuksista (Poverty in Finland 1981 - 1990: A study of
effects of income transfers) . Helsinki : STAKES : Tutkimuksia 39 ; Gustafsson, B (1994) .
"Assessing poverty: Some reflections on the literature ." Paper. Gothenburg. Depart-
ment of Social Work, University of Göteborg . ; Lutz, H., Wagner, M ., Wolf, W (1993) .
Von Ausgrenzung bedroht : Struktur and Umfang der materiellen Armutsgefardungen
österreichischen Wohlfahrstaat der achiger Jahre . Vienna : Bundesministerium fur
Arbeit and Soziales .
* These figures are derived from another study commissioned by Eurostat, applying
the same methodology. The Danish figure may be underestimated due to data prob-
lems .
** Yet another source ; but same methodology using persons as unit . Years are 1981,
1985 and 1990 .
*** These figures are not directly comparable since they measure persons with <50
income .
DR, Vol .XI(1995)19-20 131
PeterAbrahamson
In total around 15 per cent, or one in seven, of all households in the European
Union can be said to be poor, measured as those with less than half the average
national expenditure. This is equivalent to 55 million . The smaller countries of
Northern Europe, the Nordic countries and Benelux countries have the lowest
rates of poverty in Europe. Here, about 5 to 9 per cent of the population were
found to be living in poverty at the end of the 1980s . The German poverty rates
are slightly higher at a level of 9 to 12 per cent . In the United Kingdom, Ireland,
France and Spain poverty rates were around and slightly above the EU average of
15 to 17 per cent . In Greece, Italy and Portugal between 21 to 27 per cent of the
populations lived in poverty around 1989 .
The development during the 1980s has been ambiguous . If we are to trust the
data, poverty has decreased in Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal, Austria, the Neth-
erlands and in Finland, while it has been increasing in Sweden, the United King-
dom, Italy, Belgium and Germany . The dispersion of poverty among the member
states has been reduced during the last decade, since the tendency, very crudely,
has been a decrease for the countries with the highest rates of poverty, and an
increase for many of the countries with the lower rates . We do not have more
recent calculations of comparable poverty rates ; but, unfortunately, the national
data indicate, at best, a stable or, more often, a likely increase in poverty inci-
dence during the first half of the 1990s (Abrahamson & Hansen, 1995) .
When asked whether they are having problems making ends meet, even more
Europeans end up as poor by such a subjective definition ; close to 20 per cent
believes this to be the case (Ramprakash, 1994) . On the other hand, far fewer
people are considered to be socially excluded from their communities, as this con-
cept is understood in most of the member states ; maybe a factor of five less than
those suffering from insufficient or few resources . So perhaps only three per cent
of all Europeans are completely shut out from society, while perhaps up to 20 per
cent are having problems making ends meet (See also Ferrera, 1993) .
Another recently published survey conducted in 1993 looks specifically at pov-
erty and social exclusion (European Commission, 1995) . When asked directly, very
few people consider themselves to be "definitively" excluded from society, a total
across the EU of only 0 .8 per cent, with a variance from 0 .1 in Denmark to 1 .5 in
Greece; yet 12 .1 per cent consider themselves to be "excluded from society to
some extent", varying from 3 .5 in Denmark to 27 .3 per cent in East Germany.
These values are, to a large extent, due to a methodological problem of systematic
underprepresentation of poorer and socially-excluded people from the samples . So
we must expect the real figures to be higher . The respondents were also asked
whether "in their immediate entourage (families and friends) there are certain
individuals who are today facing a situation of poverty." The answers are given in
the Table 3 .
132
	
I)R, Vol.XI(1995)19-20
Social Exclusion in Europe : Old Wine in New Bottles?
Table 3 . Individuals expected to be facing poverty, 1993 in per cent .
Belgium 16.5
Denmark 5.9
Germany (West) 11.9
Germany (East) 13.6
Greece 36.2
Spain 14.4
France 26.6
Ireland 20.0
Italy 16.9
Luxembourg 11.5
Netherlands 7.8
Portugal 26.8
United Kingdom 16.9
EC 12 17.4
Source : European Commission (1995) . Eurobarometer Survey : The perception of pov-
erty and social exclusion in Europe . Brussels: DG V
To a large extent the perceived incidence of poverty follows the measured degree
of resource poverty, with the exception of the very high figures for Greece (more
than one in three) and the relatively modest rate of Spain, beneath the EC aver-
age .
The survey follows a similar survey conducted in 1989, thus making it possible
to compare some issues over time (Commission, 1989b) . The respondents were
asked whether they perceive that their society is being polarized, i.e. whether
"the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer" . Seventy per cent of
EU citizens believed this to be the case in 1989, while 80 per cent thought so in
1993. Hence the survey confirms the impression from the national reporting of
poverty, that it is on the increase during the 1990s in Europe .
Conclusion
Judged by the quantitative increase in scientific concern about issues of poverty,
and especially with social exclusion, we must gather that it is an increasing prob-
lem, however defined and measured . From reading through the titles of papers
published under the two headings of poverty and social exclusion in the Social
Sciences Citation Index, it is, furthermore, the impression that poverty is more
about structural, material and 'objective' phenomena, while social exclusion is
more about individual, subjective and psychological phenomena .
DR, Vol .X1(1995)19-20
	
133
Peter Abrahamson
Clearly, social exclusion was brought on to the European policy agenda by the
Commission of the European Communities and the Council from the end of the
1980s via their resolutions, communications, recommendations, green and white
papers, action programmes, etc . The EU formally distinguishes social exclusion
from poverty by relating the former more closely to the denial of social rights and
by defining social exclusion in broader cultural terms in contrast to the under-
standing of poverty as insufficient income . In reality, however, the use of social
exclusion and poverty is used interchangeably in EU circles .
The brief examination of various explanations of the differences between so-
cial exclusion and poverty and of why the former has gained currency against the
latter revealed that social exclusion is less controversial (i .e . more politically cor-
rect) than poverty ; that social exclusion is French and originates in a Republican
way of thinking, while poverty is English and stems from a Liberal tradition ; that
social exclusion is often associated with a process of marginalization from society,
while poverty often describes an outcome, a situation of too few resources ; that
social exclusion to many governments and people of Europe indicates the worst
off, the down and out, the most disadvantaged part of the population . Finally, it is
suggested that, to the extent that social exclusion is to mean something different
than poverty, it is a reflection of the changes in social structure toward post-
Fordism, postmodernism, post-industrial society, service or information society,
or whatever name sociology finds appropriate . Social exclusion is the postmodern
equivalent to early modern poverty ; and it can be conceptualized in a different
way.
Estimates of rates of poverty and social exclusion within the European Union
show a considerable dispersion, with the highest incidence in the West and the
South. Furthermore, survey data suggest that hardly anyone considers them-
selves to be socially excluded, and very few people think that such a phenomenon
is present .
It can, hence, he established that social exclusion, perhaps, is a more adequate
concept than poverty when discussing processes of marginalization in developed
post-industrial societies . At the same time, however, in the everyday life of polit-
ical and social scientific discourse, social exclusion and poverty, very often, refer
to the same processes and situations . So, in 'reality', social exclusion is very much
a case of old wine in new bottles .
Notes
1 . The term 'middle mass' is used to indicate that the included majority of the late or
post-modern society consists of more classes, namely : the vast majority of the work-
ing class (notably the salaried workers), large parts of the petty bourgeoisie and
some parts of the bourgeoisie .
2 . In general, because charity organizations and so-called friendly societies were try-
ing to teach members of the working classes to be 'gentlemen', to refrain from
excessive drinking, maintain high hygienic standards etc . It is probably not a coin-
cidence that traditional charitable organizations are currently being mobilized in
the fight against social exclusion . Now the time is ripe for trying to change the
behaviour of the disadvantaged in order to try and integrate them into the general
societal norms .
134
	
DR, Vol .Xl(1995)19-20
Social Exclusion in Europe: OldWine in New Bottles?
References
Abrahamson, P (1994), Integrating the Excluded : Policies Against Poverty and Exclu-
sion in Denmark, Bulletin ofthe European Region ofthe ICSW, Special Issue (Au-
gust), Rasmussen, H .C. & Pijl, M .A. (eds .), Some Reflections on Social Development
in Europe : A Contribution to the UN Social Summit
Abrahamson, P & Hansen, FK . (1995), Poverty in the European Union, European.
Parliament Report No.165.396, Luxembourg
Andersen, J., Chigot, C ., da Costa, A.B., Duffy, K ., Mancho, S. & Mernagh, M . (1994),
Contribution ofthe Poverty 3 Programme to the understanding ofpoverty, exclusion
and integration, paper contributed to the EU Conference, University of Bath, Bath,
June
Bhala, A . & Lapeyre, F (1995), Social Exclusion revisited : Towards an Analytical and
Operational Framework, paper presented at a conference From Social Exclusion to
Social Cohesion: Towards a Policy Agenda, held at Roskilde University under the
UN World Social Summit in Copenhagen, International Institute for Labour Stud-
ies, Geneva
Castel, R. (1990), Poverty, marginalisation and social exclusion in the Europe of the
90's, paper presented at the EC Conference on poverty, marginalisation and social
exclusion in the Europe of the 90's, Alghero, Italy, April 23-25
Commission of the European Communities (1989a), Medium Term Community Ac-
tion Programme to Foster the Economic and Social Integration of the Least Privi-
leged Groups, Bulletin of the European Communities. Suppl. 4189
Commission of the European Communities (1989b), Eurobarometer: The perception, of
poverty in Europe, DG V Brussels
Commission of the European Communities (1992), Towards a Europe of Solidarity :
Intensifying the fight against social exclusion, fostering integration, communica-
tion from the Commission of 23 December 1993, Brussels
Commission of the European Communities (1993), The future ofsocial policy: Options
for the Union. A Green Paper DG V Brussels
da Costa, A . (1995), On. the concepts of poverty and social exclusion, paper presented at
the Eighth Nordic Social Policy Seminar, Stockholm, Sweden, February 9-11
Delors, J. (1993), Giving a new dimension to the fight against exclusion, closing speech,
Copenhagen Conference, June 3-4, EEIG Animation, & Research, Lille
European Commission (1994), Employment in Europe 1994, Directorate General V
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
European Commission (1995), Eurobarometer Survey: The perception of poverty and
social exclusion. i n. Europe, DG V, Brussels
Eurostat (1990), Inequality and poverty in Europe (1980 - 1985), Rapid Reports on.
Population. and Social Conditions No.7, Statistical Office of the European Com-
munities, Luxembourg
Ferrera, M. (1993), EC Citizens and Social Protection, University of Pavia, Pavia
Fridberg, T. (1992), De socialt udstødte, National Institute of Social Research, Copen-
hagen
Goodall, J. (1986), Social Rejection, Exclusion, and Shunning Among the Gombe
Chimpanzes, Ethnology and ,Sociobiology, Vol . 7, No.3-4
Gustafsson, B . (1994), Assessing poverty: Some reflections on the literature, paper,
University of Göteborg, Department of Social Work, Göteborg
DR, Vol.Xl(1995)l9-20	 135
Peter Abrahamson
Harvey, D. (1989), The Condition of Postmodernity, Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Hines, N.J. & Fry, D.P (1994), Indirect Modes of Aggression Among Women of Buenos
. Aires, Argentina, Sex Roles I, Vol.30, No.3-4
Jeppesen, K . J ., Boolsen, M .W & Nielsen, H . (1992), Udst¢dte og sårbare (Excluded
and vulnerable), National Institute of Social Research, Copenhagen
Lutz, H., Wagner, M . & Wolf, W (1993), Von Ausgrenzung bedroht: Struktur and Umfang
der materiellen Armutsgefardungen österreichischen Wohlfahrstaat der achiger
Jahre,Bund sministerium für Arbeit and Soziales, Vienna
Malarkey, WB ., Kiecoltglaser, J.K ., Pearl, D . & Glaser, R. (1994), Hostile Behaviour
During Marital Conflict Alters Pituitary and Adrenalin Hormones, Psychosomatic
Medicine, Vol.56, No .1
Mathias, M.C. (1994), About the Good uses of Cow-Dung and Women in Northern
India, Homme, Vol.34, No.3
Procacci, G. (1993), Gouverner la misére, Edition du Seuil, Paris
Ramprakash, D. (1994), Poverty in the countries of the European Union : A synthesis
of Eurostat's statistical research on poverty, Journal of European Social Policy,
Vol.4, No.2
Ritakallio, VM . (1994), Köyhyys suornessa 1981 - 1990. Tutkimus tulonsiirtojen
vaikutuksista (Poverty in. Finland 1981-1 0: A s dy of effectsof ncome trans-
fers), STAKES: Tutkimuksia 39, Helsinki
Robbins, D. (1993), Social Europe . Towards a Europe of solidarity. Supplement 4/.93,
DG V, Brussels
Robbins, D . (1994 ), Observatory on national policies to combat social exclusion . Third
annual report, EEIG Animation & Research, Lille
Room, G. (1990), Observatory on national policies to combat social exclusion . Synthe-
sis report, University of Bath, Bath
Room, G. (1994 ), Poverty studies in the European union: Retrospect and prospect, pa-
per presented at the EU-Conference Understanding Social Exclusion : Lessons from
Transnational Research Studies, Policy Studies Institute, London, November 24-
25
Room, G. (1995 ), Poverty in Europe: Competing paradigms of analysis, Policy and
Politics, Vol.23, No .2
Silver, H (1994 ), Social exclusion and solidarity: Three paradigms, International La-
bour Review, Vol.133, No .5-6
Social Sciences Citation Index on CD-ROM 1986-1995 (July)
de Swaan, A. (1988), In. Care of the State, Polity Press, Cambridge
Townsend, P (1979), Poverty in the United Kingdom, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
136	DR , Vol .XI(1995)19-20