Družboslovne razprave, Vol . XI (1995), No .19-20, pp .137-150
UDK: 364 .2:364 .4:304:316 .344 .7
Social Exclusion in the Context of the European
Union's Third Poverty Programme
PATRICK COMMINS*
In this article the EU's Third Poverty Programme (1989-1994) is present-
ed. The programme was aimed to foster the social and economic integra-
tion of the least privileged groups by establishing experimental actions in
the member states. The focus on the 'least privileged groups' (instead of on,
the 'poor) enabled the researchers withinn the programme to consider the
problem ofdeprivation not only as a lack of material goods, but as an. exclu-
sion from the opportunities, benefits and rights commonly available in the
contemporary society .
The design of the programme had to reflect the delicate balances inherent
in the authority relationships between actors at local, national and Europe-
an level. The programme actions were based on key principles -
a multidim ensionaland integrated approach to combating social exclusion,
partnership models oforganisation, and the participation oftarget groups .
The intended outcomes were the stimulation ofpublic debate, policy devel-
opment and good practice in countering poverty and social exclusion . The
programme was successfully completed and it provided a number ofvalua-
ble lessons pertaining to the concepts, principles and implementation of anti-
exclusion policies and measures .
Keywords: social exclusion, poverty, EU Poverty Programme
Introduction
What eventually became known as the European Union (EU) 'Poverty 3 pro-
gramme' was initiated in 1989 under the official title of Mediurn-Term Communip
ty Action Programme to Foster the Social and Economic Integration of the Least
Privileged Groups . The programme ran for a five-year period (1989-1994), ex-
tending and expanding previous Community actions referred to as the first and
second European anti-poverty programmes (1975 to 1980 and 1985 to 1989) . The
change in the official title from 'anti-poverty' to 'integration' represented a sig-
nificant conceptual advance in that the problem of deprivation was no longer to
be seen simply as the lack of material goods but as exclusion from the opportuni-
ties, benefits and rights commonly available in contemporary society .
Policies and actions to deal with poverty and social exclusion in the EU are the
responsibility of the Member States and of their national, regional and local au-
thorities . The aim of the Poverty 3 programme, as with the earlier anti-poverty
* Patrick Commins is Head of the Rural Development Research Department, Teagasc,
Dublin . He was a part-time member of the Irish Research and Development Unit in
the Third EU Poverty Programme .
Patrick Commins
initiatives, was not to subsidise conventional local actions but to serve as a cata-
lyst for mainstream actions in Member States by creating a programme of inno-
vative and exemplary measures . Poverty 3 sought to stimulate experimental action
through local pilot projects, to formulate new models of local organisation and to
demonstrate the relevance of the lessons learned from mainline policies and ad-
ministrative practices . It aimed to identify good practice, to encourage policy de-
velopment and public debate on poverty, social exclusion and processes of social
integration .
Poverty 3 was based on a definite philosophy ; it had a novel terminology, a
number of key principles and a set of organisational and implementation struc-
tures designed to establish a programme which had coherence and synergy among
its actions at European, national and local levels .
This article describes the main features of the programme and draws out its
principal outcomes and lessons .
The Background to Poverty 3
In the late 1980s there was a realisation in the Community that the incidence of
poverty, measured in crude quantitative terms as those having less than 50 per
cent of disposable income per inhabitant, was on the increase in the Member
States . It was estimated that over the decade, the number of poor people had
increased from 40 million to approximately 55 million people - or to one-seventh
of the Community's population . Second, it was accepted that to measure poverty
in terms of revenue was inadequate or even misleading ; the great variety of eco-
nomic circumstances in the Community and the different types of welfare de-
signed to deal with them indicated a wide range of poverty conditions (Abou Sada,
1991: 11). Third, changes in the economic environment, dominated by industrial
restructuring, agricultural reforms and the demands of international competi-
tion, created a new dynamic for poverty in that they gave rise to new forms of
disadvantage and generated greater instabilities for certain categories of people,
especially in respect of their position in the labour market . Fourth, while the
European Community is essentially an economic union, it has, by common con-
sent, an important social dimension . Over time it has come to be accepted that
the Community has a wider social policy role, rather than being confined to the
social aspects of economic policies - the latter being exemplified in measures to
facilitate the free movement of workers across national boundaries (O'Cinnéide,
1992: 8) .
While there was high employment growth in the Community in the second
half of the 1980s, unemployment rates remained unacceptably high, being up to
10 per cent and over in a number of countries . For large proportions of the unem-
ployed, the time spent out of work exceeded one year. In the northern countries
the problem of long-term unemployment predominantly affects older age groups,
while in the south, long-term and youth unemployment are closely associated
(Commission of the European Communities, 1994 : 20) . In the 1980s youth unem-
ployment was an acute problem although the rate had reduced somewhat by the
end of the decade . One of the most significant long-term trends in the European
labour force has been the declining participation rates for men, especially for
138
	
DR, Vol.Xl(1995)19-20
Social Exclusion in t, lie Context of the European Union's Third Poverty Programme
those in the older age groups. On the other hand, there have been pronounced
rates of growth in the participation of women . Underlying these trends, however,
has been the casualisation of labour, with the expansion of temporary, part-time
and badly-paid types of employment . Women, in particular, have been adversely
by these trends .
In the 1980s change in the rural economy was marked by severe rationalisa-
tion in the agricultural sector, expressed in terms of capitalisation, high produc-
tivity, growing surpluses in production and a contraction of the labour force . Up
to 20 per cent of the Community's population (over 60 million people) live in rural
areas, and an estimated 25 million people inhabit the Community's upland and
mountain areas . With increasing restrictions on agricultural production and the
difficulties of attracting internationally-mobile capital investment to these re-
moter locations, the economic basis for securing a livelihood was obviously under
threat. As emigration left behind a population of older people and as lower popu-
lation thresholds increased the unit costs of providing public services, the quality
of life in many rural areas came under threat, a trend at variance with the Com-
munity's aspirations for economic and social cohesion .
The changing nature of poverty in the 1980s was also characterised by the
emergence of categories of people facing new problems of marginalisation . The
numbers of men over 55 years old in the labour force had fallen significantly since
1960 and the numbers of older people in the population had increased . Profes-
sional inactivity and living alone are factors which increase the chances of being
in poverty. Employment changes have coincided with an increasing number of
people living alone, and of one-parent families . In the 1980s the number of single-
parent families depending on welfare increased without interruption throughout
the EU Member States (Abou Sada, 1991 : 8-9) .
Other social categories of marginalised people include those with disabilities,
the homeless and migrants . Migrants, in particular, experience a multitude of
integration problems but it is difficult to generalise readily because of the diversi-
ty of migratory situations . Zeroulou (1992) states that almost every country in
Europe had recorded an upsurge in migration by the end of the 1980s, a some-
what paradoxical situation given the economic difficulties being encountered in
the host countries concerned . Zeroulou drew attention to the need to distinguish
between (i) population groups forming part of former immigration flows, (ii) peo-
ple born of immigrants, (iii) new flows, some of which may be resumptions of
traditional flows, and (iv) specific groups (refugees, asylum seekers, illegal immi-
grants). Poverty can be the mainspring of much immigration but immigrants risk
continuing poverty and exclusion to varying degrees depending on their origin,
duration of settlement, q ualifications, gender, admissibility and legal status, and
on the systems of social protection and measures for social integration in the host
country.
In the wider policy context, and specifically in regard to the extension of the
Community's role in influencing social policies, economic and social cohesion had
been among the aims of the Community since 1973 when its expansion to nine
Member States brought structural and regional imbalances into sharper focus . At
the same time the persistence of high levels of unemployment, and the experienc-
es of Community programmes for women, for young people, for people with disa-
bilities and for other disadvantaged groups continued to highlight social
DR, Vol.XI(1995)19-20
	
139
Patrick Commins
inequalities as being distinct from regional inequalities (O'Cinnéide, 1992 : 9) . A
formal resolution by the Council in 1989 (Council of the European Communities,
1989) noted that the process of social exclusion, resulting from structural chang-
es in society, was becoming a greater problem in the Member States . The resolu-
tion added that economic policies must be "accompanied by integration policies of
a specific, systematic and coherent nature" . The provisions of the Treaty of Rome
precluded the Community from establishing a permanent set of anti-exclusion
policies so the Council's resolution merely requested Member States to promote
or implement measures to combat exclusion among their own citizens . However,
the Council called on the Commission of the EU "to study, together with the
Member States, the measures they are taking to combat exclusion" . The Com-
mission appointed a network of consultants known as the Observatory on Na-
tional Policies to Combat Social Exclusion, to examine and report on the nature
and extent of social exclusion in Member States .
Additional emphasis on economic and social cohesion followed the passing of
the Single European Act of 1987 and the formation of the Internal Market. A
Commission paper on the Social Dimension of the Internal Market (Commission
of the European Communities, 1988) set out a number of priorities and proposals
for dealing with social exclusion . That paper gave particular impetus to the estab-
lishment of the Poverty 3 programme .
Basic Design and Strategy of Poverty 3
As a 'programme' rather than a 'fund', Poverty 3 was designed to involve the
active presence of the Community in partnership with Member States in contrib-
uting to the identification and validation of policies and actions capable of coun-
tering current forms of exclusion . The establishment of actions of an experimental
and exemplary nature, incorporating the commitment of institutional partners at
Community, national and local levels, called for a coherent and strategic approach
embodied in the concept of a programme rather than of an ad hoc fund .
The strategy adopted was to invest in 41 local projects throughout the Com
munity and to include all Member States. To select these, each national governp
ing body was invited by the Commission to propose a number of cases from which
the Commission would choose the required number of projects within the frame-
work of the programme . There were two categories of project : Model Actions and
Innovatory Initiatives. The Model Actions (of which there were 29) were based
primarily on disadvantaged geographical areas where a set of public and private
partners had agreed to a work programme to combat poverty in a coordinated
plan. The 12 Innovatory Initiatives were smaller in scale and concerned with cat-
egories of people encountering specific situations of poverty, some in severely
marginalised circumstances (e .g . mental or physical handicap, former prisoners,
nomads) . Most of the Initiatives were operated by private organisations and their
spheres of action tended to be at. the extremes of those situations usually covered
by traditional institutions . In fact, an objective of the Initiatives was to show how
such institutional gaps could be filled in the longer term .
The Community budget provision for the Poverty 3 programme was 55 million
ECU over its 5pyear term . Of this, 70 per cent was earmarked for the Model Acp
140
	
DR, Vol.Xl(1995)19p20
Social Exclusion in the Contextt ofthe European Union's Third Poverty Programme
tions and 4 per cent for the Innovatory Initiatives . Each Model Action received on
average an annual grant of between 250,000 to 300,000 ECU from the European
Community, or nearly 1.5 million ECU for the duration of the programme . The
annual Community contribution to the Innovatory Initiatives was in the order of
50,000 ECU, or nearly 250,000 ECU over the life-span of the programme . The
Community budget allocations represented 45 to 50 per cent of total project ex-
penses, so that the selection of projects depended on their capacity to arrange the
local co-financing of their activities . Studies, research and statistical analyses ac-
counted for 9 per cent of funding, with a further 16 per cent for programme ad-
ministration and management .
Given the programme's aims and operating principles (outlined in more detail
later) its animation and management strategy was based on a number of struc-
tures :
The Commission: General political and overall responsibility for the programme
rested with the EU Commission . The Commission was supported by a team of
international consultants which, in turn, made up the Central Unit .
Central Unit- Besides supplying the financial and administrative functions of the
programme, the Central Unit had responsibility for ensuring that the basic prin-
ciples underlying the programme (see below) were respected and that its various
activities proceeded in harmony. The Unit prepared and implemented strategies
for coordinating the actions of the various partners and monitored the use of
finances. It also coordinated and supported national Research and Development
Units .
Research and Development Units (RDUs' : At the national level the RDUs - pro-
fessionals working part-time with the programme - provided projects with techni-
cal assistance in planning, project development, self-evaluation, and
communications, as well as in liaison work with local, regional and national part-
ners, and with the Central Unit . RDUs publicised the programme, organised sem-
inars and ensured financial and administrative liaison between the projects and
the Central Unit .
Advisory Committee-. Regular contact between the Commission and the Member
States was maintained through an Advisory Committee composed of representa-
tives of the national authorities .
The Projects ; Model Action projects were managed by a steering group or com-
mittee representative of one or more local or regional authorities, or of public or
para-public organisations involved in such activities as training, housing or health,
together with representative(s) from non-governmental organisation(s) . Innova-
tory Initiatives were generally run by specific private organisations, or by subsid-
iaries of public institutions . All projects were expected to have professional
management and high standards of administration .
Besides launching the Poverty 3 programme the EU Commission took a number
of other steps to combat social exclusion . Reference has already been made to the
Observatory. Support was provided for a European Network of non-governmen-
tal organisations (the European Anti-Poverty Network) . Within the context of
the Community Structural Funds some initiatives (e .g . Horizon) were implemented
to help specific neighbourhoods having particular difficulties . The Commission
encouraged the participation of Poverty 3 projects in other Community prop
DR, Vol .Xl(1995)19-20
	
141
Patrick Commins
grammes so as to maximise the opportunities for synergy, especially with the
activities being supported by the European Social Fund .
Terminology and Concepts
Before going on to discuss the programme's principles and implementation proce-
dures, it is useful to draw more precise distinctions between poverty and social
exclusion and to note how changes in terminology revealed an underlying process
of conceptualisation in the Community's social actions .
While the terms 'the poor' and 'poverty' had been used in the first and second
anti-poverty programmes, the third programme focused on 'the least privileged',
which term was itself modified to become the 'socially excluded' (Georis et al .,
1994: 4). Nevertheless, the third programme was established and set into motion
on the understanding that it was a programme to combat poverty . While the
projects in Poverty 3 tended to use the terms 'poverty' and 'social exclusion' in-
distinguishably, sometimes synonymously, a clearer understanding of their differ-
ent meanings evolved during the programme (Andersen et al., 1994) . Poverty is
seen as a limited form of exclusion arising from a lack of resources, primarily
consumer resources, but there are forms of exclusion that may not result from a
lack of resources . Social exclusion includes poverty but has been extended in mean-
ing to include the lack of access to, or the denial of, a range of citizen rights . Social
exclusion is a broadening of the concept of poverty to encompass three notions :
comprehensiveness, process and structural connotations .
Comprehensiveness refers to the understanding of social exclusion as encom-
passing the connections between different aspects of deprivation and their cumu-
lative effects when these occur together . Exclusion from the labour market is one
of the most common forms of exclusion but people may be excluded from centres
of power and decision-making, from access to legal aid or to welfare benefits, or
from family and community systems that provide social networks of care, com-
panionship and moral support in times of difficulty.
Social exclusion contains notions of a process or of a set of mechanisms by
which people are shut out from the opportunities, benefits and rights normally
accessible by citizens of contemporary society. This shifts the emphasis from deal-
ing with the 'static' conditions of 'the poor' as a social category to the dynamic
processes by which people become excluded. These processes may be traceable to
a number of causes, including the ineffectiveness of policies or the perverse ef-
fects of policies .
Social exclusion is a structural phenomenon, a perspective which implies that
'integration' means social change . In other words, integration cannot be confined
to actions involving only the excluded; solutions to problems of exclusion lie in
social policies which society in general must see fit to design and implement .
Moreover, changes in the mechanisms of exclusion and the creation of mecha-
nisms of integration can only be fostered in the right direction with the active
participation of the excluded (Andersen et al ., 1994) .
142
	
DR, Vol.XI(1995)19-20
Social Exclusion in the Contextt of the European Union's Third Poverty Programme
Aims and Principles
The two most substantive aims of the Poverty 3 programme were :
(a) to contribute to the development of preventive measures to assist groups at
risk of becoming economically and socially less privileged, and of corrective meas-
ures to meet the needs of the poor
(b) to produce, from a multi-dimensional viewpoint, innovatory organisational
models for the integration of the economically and socially less privileged, involv-
ing all economic and social actors .
Projects were obliged to meet a number of requirements in conducting their
activities . These became, in effect, the 'programme principles' and the defining
elements in the organisational models being set up at the local level .
U
	
.. - . as . . . e,-u. -. :	• Social exclusion tends to be
related to a combination of contributing factors - low incomes, inadequate educa-
tion and training, poor quality accommodation, lack of political voice . Consequently,
the integration of least privileged groups - the excluded - requires multiple ac-
tions which are not a collection of partitioned interventions aimed at pre-defined
specific groups ('poor people') but a systematically-organised, interlinked and co-
ordinated plan of action designed to respond to the multi-dimensional nature of
the problem of exclusion .
Partnership : The identification of multi-dimensional and integrated plans of
action implies the participation of different partners, generally including both
public organisations and private associations, in a single project organisation .
Participation of Tar=t Groups : To be consistent with the philosophy of social
integration, projects were required to ensure that those who directly experience
exclusion took part in decision-making processes . This, in effect, is to challenge
the traditional way of viewing the least privileged as 'clients' or 'target groups',
and to consider them instead as active members of problem-solving networks .
Apart from the three 'core principles' above, a number of other requirements
were specified by the Commission :
• self-evaluation - projects were expected to devote a part of their budgets (about
5 per cent) to monitoring their own progress and systematically assessing their
performance, as essential elements to good project management
• visibility - because of the need to transfer learning and to influence public atti-
tudes in favour of actions to combat exclusion, projects were expected to publicise
their activities and give visibility to the programme
• transnationality - the transnational dimension was required for the 'European-
isation' of the programme, and for exchanging experiences, understandings and
lessons learnt. Transnationality implied inter-project visits, thematic exchanges
on specific issues and seminars to bring together a wide range of interested par-
ties (evaluators, partners, politicians, etc .) .
• . synergy - as already noted, projects were expected to collaborate with other
initiatives taken in favour of the excluded . However, this aspect was not empha-
sised until later stages in the programme (Georis et al ., 1994 : 6) .
It will be obvious from the foregoing discussion that the Poverty 3 programme
combined centrally-designed prescriptions for the various actors involved with
responsibilities for implementing the programme devolved to local structures .
This arrangement required continuous consultation and negotiation between ac-
tors at different levels - local, national and European .
DR, Vol .XI(1995)19-20 143
Patrick Commies
Project Actions
Space here does not permit a lengthy presentation of the activities of projects,
nor of the processes of organisation and implementation at the local level . It is
possible, however, to summarise the more important interventions in the pro-
gramme under a number of 'dimensions of integration' .
Activities focused on economic integration centred very much on vocational
training to facilitate access to income-earning opportunities . Even in countries
with well-developed systems of training there are apparently categories of people
who are left on the fringes and for whom training modules must be specially
designed to integrate them into working life. Other actions under this heading
included the identification and support of small-scale producers, strengthening
local enterprise (e .g. by improving credit facilities, technical assistance, market-
ing or human skills), and the valorisation of local resources (e.g. to develop appro-
priate forms of rural tourism) .
Social integration measures were mainly concerned with specific target groups
(young people, women, the elderly, schoolchildren), particularly with developing
their personal capacities and improving their access to services . Examples were
school support programmes, vocational guidance, literacy programmes, second-
chance education, language training for immigrants, health care and social serv-
ices for the elderly. It was common for projects to seek to influence the policies
and programmes of partners involved in social service delivery.
Combating exclusion must inevitably be concerned with environmental en-
hancement and many projects devoted attention to improving living accommoda-
tion (e.g . by the maintenance or upgrading of houses), and, to a lesser extent, to
improving the physical aspects of residential areas in disadvantaged parts of cit-
ies .
Local infrastructural improvement were mostly confined to establishing com-
munity facilities in disadvantaged areas, especially single-purpose or multipur-
pose resource centres, (e.g . for the elderly or as a base from which various other
project activities and services could be organised) .
Political integration, in the widest sense, was pursued through involving the
target groups in project decisions, researching the impacts of policy measures on
local populations, raising awareness about citizens' rights (e.g . among tenants),
information and publicity campaigns to highlight racism and the need for non-
discriminatory policies .
A surprising number of activities were concerned with cultural and communal
integration, as evidenced by the development of cultural and recreational oppor-
tunities (e.g . among migrants, young people and the elderly), and the establish-
ment and strengthening of social networks among such categories as young people
in mountain areas or 'street' children in cities .
Outcomes and Lessons
The EU Poverty 3 programme was unique in its nature and complex in its aims,
structures and operations . Its design had to reflect the delicate p and evolving p
balances inherent in the authority and decision-making relationships between
144
	
1R, Vo1 .Xl(1995)19-20
Social Exclusion in the Context ofthe European Union's Third Poverty Programme
local and national interests on the one hand and those of the Council of Ministers,
the European Parliament and the Commission on the other. This context called
for constant consultation and negotiation instead of a simple top-down process of
planning and implementation (Commins et al ., 1994 : 9). Its projects were located
in very differentiated settings in terms of socio-economic environments, social
welfare regimes, administrative systems and political cultures . Yet the scale of
funding for the programme was minuscule compared to the budgets available
under the EU's Structural Funds .
Nevertheless, the successful completion of Poverty 3 validated the basic phi-
losophy underlying the conceptualisation and design of the programme . It has
provided a number of valuable lessons regarding the concepts, principles and im-
plementation of anti-exclusion policies and actions .
The programme contributed substantially to the explication and refinement
of the meaning of social exclusion and to the insertion of this term in discussions
on social affairs in a number of Member States . The concept has taken on a wider
political meaning as a strategic focus for understanding the relationships between
disadvantaged citizens and administrations . The inclusion of a clause on the fight
against social exclusion in the Treaty of the European Union (the 'Maastricht
Treaty') is an expression of a renewed concern about the processes of poverty
reproduction and their consequences for regions, social groups, minorities and
individuals. At a more practical level, the programme broadened the social base of
concerned people and institutions which have been brought into discussion and
action to deal with specific obstacles to economic and social integration (Central
Unit, 1992: 8-9) .
The relevance of multi-dimensionality as an approach to fostering social and
economic integration at the local level was confirmed in the programme . Howevp
er, a number of difficulties with this idea were evident in the projects . The effec-
tive operationalisation of multi-dimensionality in a strategy of anti-exclusion
requires not only a good understanding of the notion of exclusion in the first
instance, but also a competent analysis of exclusionary mechanisms locally, and
of how exclusion, as it manifests itself locally, is related to more global processes .
Without this analysis, project actions can become confined to pre-defined target
groups - typically, readily defined 'poor people' - and result in a catalogue of di-
verse but uncoordinated actions . Even when multi-dimensionality is expressed as
the coordination of intersectoral actions in response to deprivation, it may still
neglect more basic issues of resource provision or citizens' rights . Related to this,
locally-designed actions organised on a territorial basis may, even unintentional-
ly, embrace only the local population and exclude nomadic or transient groups . It
also seems that increasing the capacity for local responses to foster economic and
social integration requires more flexibility from statutory or regulatory instru-
ments. In regard to particular project actions themselves, the programme demon-
strated the limitations of conventional employment strategies based on improving
technical skills and providing incentives to investment . The economic integration
of categories of deprived people also requires measures which seek to bring about
changes in attitudes and behaviour and not only on the part of 'target groups' but
among agencies involved at all levels of training and employment provision .
Given the structures of the EU, the principle of partnership is essential to its
effective functioning - for developing dialogue and ensuring consensus for new
DR, Vol .Xl(I995)19-20
	
145
Patrick Commins
policy directions . Poverty 3 strengthened the notion of partnership by putting it
into practice at the different levels of the programme, both in financial and insti-
tutional terms . At the European level, it furthered the expansion of networks,
associations and mechanisms essential to the creation of 'a social Europe' . At
project level, partnership was a novel idea in many contexts, especially where
project steering groups brought together government agencies and non-govern-
ment associations . Most of the Model Actions had an average of 10 partners (Becher
et al ., 1994 : 13) . This obviously represented a break from compartmentalised struc-
tures and a move towards new alliances and new support systems . Partnerships
also provided a basis for the wider transferability of understandings, ideas and
actions in favour of economic and social integration . However, in some situations
there was a scarcity of partners, or only public partners were available ; in many
cases economic partners were slow to emerge, while in the case of Greece there
was no legal framework to facilitate the creation of public/private entities .
The programme made an important contribution to modifying some simplistic
views about the application of the partnership principle in local project actions .
Partnership is much more than just establishing a legal structure in order to
involve a number of actors in a common endeavour. Project experiences revealed
the importance of considering partnering as a social process . This has several
implications. It means that the maturation of an effective partnership takes time,
progressing through a number of phases . It means having arrangements to modp
ify unequal resources of power among partners, to handle conflict, to secure both
the sustained personal commitments of individual members on project steering
groups and, equally, the institutional commitments of the agencies to which these
individuals belong. And partnerships at the local level must be replicated by sim-
ilar structures and processes at central or higher levels, especially where local
partners have limited power .
In Poverty 3 the principle of participation was intended as a means of empowp
erment by giving the excluded a voice in decisions affecting their lives, and by
balancing the technical input of various experts with the viewpoints of those exp
periencing exclusion . Participation took several forms in the programme, but prinp
cipally it. was put into effect through the involvement of deprived people in steering
groups, in subpcommittees or in specific initiatives. Participation of excluded
groups, however, presupposes that these groups are correctly identified ; but as
Georis and Simonin (1994: 13) note, defining underprivileged groups is compli-
cated by the acknowledgement that financial criteria alone are poor indicators of
problems of exclusion . This takes us back to a point already made : that effective
local antipexclusion strategies are dependent on an understanding of exclusion
(as distinct from poverty) and on a systematic analysis of exclusionary processes .
As far as the matter of achieving synergy between Poverty 3 and the actions
promoted by the Community's Structural Funds is concerned, the outcomes im-
proved over time but remained limited. The main reasons for this were (i) the
wide gulf between the internal workings of the Structural Fund and those of the
Poverty 3 programme, and (ii) erroneous interpretation of the prohibition of doup
ble-funding of activities from Community finances (Georis et al ., 1994) . In any
case, synergy will not occur without very systematic endeavours on the part of
the major actors concerned, backed up by political commitment and appropriate
systems of management and organisation .
146
	
DR, voi .X 1(1 995)19-20
Social Exclusion in the Context ofthe European Union's Third Poverty Programme
The transnationality of the programme was developed by the high level of
participation of project partners, staff and target groups in bilateral exchanges,
thematic exchanges and seminars . The thematic exchange dimension was best
exemplified by the rural projects, which organised a series of five meetings on the
challenge of fostering economic and social integration in the rural areas . The
diversity of local circumstances and limitations in language competency restrict-
ed the benefits gained from transnational meetings . The experiences also indicat-
ed that such meetings need careful advance planning and organisation to maximise
the benefits they offer .
To enhance the visibility of the programme and of its actions Poverty 3 had
both a publications policy and a communications strategy . At each level, several
products and documents were published and circulated . The communications strat-
egy sought to provide various interests with regular and relevant information,
but in particular to involve the media in various events organised within the pro-
gramme. Overall, the outcome has been the greater public awareness about pov-
erty and social exclusion, although countries vary in the extent to which there is
a receptive climate for innovation in social policy. Moreover, there was a particu-
lar problem in that the media were not initially very attracted by concepts like
multi-dimensionality, while programmes with medium- or longer-term aims were
not of interest to journalists whose editors need up-to-date news or accounts of
dramatic actions rather than of slower processes of intervention (Conroy, 1994 :
13). On the other hand, presenting an area as a so-called poverty or deprived area
runs the risk of having it stigmatised - to the detriment of efforts to put the area
on a path of positive development . Projects were also insufficient in number to
achieve a major impact on the popular consciousness .
In evaluating Poverty 3, self-evaluation was the principle adopted, both at the
project and programme levels . This emphasised the notion of continuous learning
from experience and the desirability of revising objectives, targets and strategies
at the different levels . Despite uneven results, it was felt that the value of the
approach had been proved, but a number of problems did emerge . There were
great variations among projects in understanding what self-evaluation meant, in
the commitment to implementing it, and in the personnel to carry it out (Com
mins et al., 1994). In many contexts there was little experience or culture of eval-
uation in social interventions. The linkages between project and programme
evaluation were problematic ; for instance, information derived from project self-
evaluation tended to be preserved inside the project and not readily shared for
programme evaluation (Conroy, 1994 : 15) .
If self-evaluation is to work from the point of view of providing adequate and
reliable data for programme evaluation, an important issue is the role and status
of the evaluator vis-a-vis the project committee and management, on the one
hand, and the rest of the programme on the other (Commins, 1994 : 20) . In Pover-
ty 3 the main deficits were in overall programme evaluation . This was to some
extent attributable to a lack of appreciation at the planning stage of the resources
required for this purpose .
It was important that Poverty 3 functioned cohesively across its different lev-
els as a pilot demonstration programme and not simply as a collection of projects
assisted by EU funding. The programme's design therefore required a complex
structure of . - . .'
	
' . *	• .. &- u - to deal with the political and strategic
DR, Vol .XI(1995)19-20 147
Patrick Commins
orientation, as well as with the operational and administrative dimensions . Gen-
erally, the programme proved adequate and workable in practice . Inevitably, sev-
eral difficulties had to be overcome, arising from (i) the structures of the
programme and the roles assigned to the various actors, (ii) the regulations of the
Community and its functioning procedures, and (iii) those difficulties resulting
from inadequacies in the operating teams themselves (Abou Sada et al ., 1994 :
11) . Some examples illustrate these points . The first contractual period of seven
months - the 'definition phase' - proved too short to give projects sufficient time
to become operational on a satisfactory basis . The phasing, standardised budget-
ing and project expenditure rules dictated by Community regulations did not al-
ways fit well with the momentum of action at the local level . Despite the concern
to decentralise responsibility, it became clear that a certain minimum number of
initiatives would have to be orchestrated at the central level in order to maintain
internal cohesion . At the local level, a number of projects faced difficulties in
securing co-funding, and inadequacies emerged in staff competencies . At a late
stage in the programme, special training was made available for project staff while
most other problems were dealt with by direct contact between projects and RDUs
(or the Central Unit), and by seminars or workshops .
Conclusion
The primary objective of the Poverty 3 programme was not to achieve the inte-
gration of the largest possible number of excluded people but to promote new
organisational models and preventive measures for combating exclusion . In this
respect, it had an impact commensurate with the scale of its resources . Its capac-
ity to mobilise relatively large numbers of agencies and people was one of its main
strengths during a time of discontent and even disenchantment with social afp
fairs (Conroy, 1994) .
It contributed significantly to the widening of the debate on social exclusion
and helped the Community to give a strong political signal that social exclusion is
on the policy agenda. While there is a consensus that all citizens should have a
guarantee of a basic level of resources, there is a growing realisation that social
policies will now have to take on the more ambitious objective of helping people
find a place in society - other than through conventional employment policies (see
Commission of the European Communities, 1993 : 21) .
The programme demonstrated the value of an integrated approach at the local
level based on multi-dimensional action, institutional partnerships and the par-
ticipation of those most directly affected . Some of the local projects will become
part of the continuing work of national or local administrations . In a large number
of cases, specific actions will be continued . Most of the Innovatory Initiatives will
continue to function within the non-governmental sector (Conroy, 1994 : 21) .
However, the ultimate impact of programmes such as Poverty 3 will not dep
pend entirely on the demonstrations of their efficacy. First, there are new or more
intensified challenges facing Europe : the ageing of the population, new trends in
immigration, changes in traditional family solidarity, new technologies, global
competition and the enlargement of the Community European social policy is
entering a critical phase (Commission of the European Communities, 1993 : 6) .
148
	
DR, Vol .XI(1995)19-20
Social Exclusion in the Context ofthe European Union's Third Poverty Programme
Second, Poverty 3 has been part of a more comprehensive search for new orienta-
tions in the social policies of the European Union. This search is reflected in
expanded structures for dialogue and for the development of consensus, in the
widening of the scope of Community instruments (such as the European Social
Fund), and particularly in the Social Agreement of the Treaty of European Un-
ion. But progress has not been without its difficulties, given the limited powers of
the Union, the need to adhere to the principle of subsidiarity, and the different
socio-political circumstances in European countries .
In this last respect, Member States differ in the way ideologies and policy
perspectives shape social budgets, systems of social protection and mechanisms
of social intervention . Nevertheless, as the 1993 Green Paper (Commission of the
European Communities, 1993 : 12) points out, the Community's fundamental ob-
jective remains constant: the advancement of economic and social progress as
two sides of the same coin and the search to ensure that the process of integra-
tion is clearly identified in the minds of the population as bringing incremental
improvement in social and living stan dards in its wake .
References
Abou Sada, G . (1991), Europe Against Poverty, Commission of the European Commu-
nities, Brussels
Abou Sada, G., Brewer, W and Swiergiel, C . (1994), Administration and Management,
Animation et Recherche (GEIE), Brussels
Andersen, J, Bruto da Costa, A ., Chigot, C., Duffy, K ., Mancho, S . and Mernagh, M .
(1994), Definitions of Poverty, Exclusion and Integration, Animation et Recherche
(GEIE), Brussels
Becher, U., Estivill, J., Papantoniou, A., and Zanier, L . (1994), Partnership and the
Fight Against Exclusion, Animation et Recherche (GEIE), Brussels
Central Unit, Poverty 3 Programme (1992), The Dynamics of the Programme at Half-
Way Stage, Animation et Recherche (GEIE), Brussels
Commins, E, O'Cinnéide, S ., Simonin, B . and Verzelen, W (1994), The Evaluation of a
Complex Programme, Animation et Recherche (GEIE), Brussels
Commission of the European Communities (1988), Social Dimension of the Internal
Market, SEC (88) 1148, Brussels
Commission of the European Communities (1993), European Social Policy, Options
for the Union, CEC, Brussels
Commission of the European Communities (1994), Employment in. Europe, CEC, Brus-
sels
Conroy, P (1994), Evaluation of the Achievements of Poverty 3 - Synthesis, Animation
et Recherche (GEIE), Brussels
Council of the European Communities (1989) ; Resolution of 29 September 1989 on
combating social exclusion 89/c 277/01, Official Journal of the European Commup
nities, No . C277/1, Brussels
Georis, P, Mernagh, M. and Mylonakis, D . (1994), Experiences in Cooperation between
Poverty 3 and Actions Orchestrated by the Community Structural Funds, Anima-
tion et Recherche (GEIE), Brussels
Georis, P and Simonin, B . (1994), The Multidimensional Approach as a Principle of
the Programme, Animation et Recherche (GEIE), Brussels
DR, Vol.xl(1995)19-20
	
149
Patrick Commins
O'Cinnéide, S . (1992), Evaluation in the Poverty 3 Programme, Animation et Recher-
che, (GEIE), Brussels
Zeroulou, Z. (1992), The new migratory flows in Europe and their effects on the proc-
ess of social integration and exclusion - summary, paper to Local Research Semi-
nar, Calais, 18-19 November 1992, Animation et Recherche (GEIE), Brussels
150
	
DR, VoL .xi(1995)19-20