Editorial.

Arthurson, Kathy

Social exclusion, along with its corollary social inclusion, has recently emerged as a key topic in Australian social policy. The term 'social exclusion' originates from Europe, where it was first used in France in the mid 1970s to refer to individuals who were unable to access welfare entitlements. In the UK after the 1997 election of a Labour Government, social exclusion was given centre stage in UK government social policy. A 'Social Exclusion Unit' was established with the specific mandate of coordinating government policies to address poverty and social exclusion. To date, however, despite drawing on social exclusion in social policy development, there is little analysis in Australia of its utility or the various meanings ascribed to the term. Pertinent questions to ask are whether utilising the term social exclusion adds to our understanding of poverty and inequality and, particularly in view of its European origins, if the term is relevant in the context of Australian social policy.

The papers in this special edition of the Australian Journal of Social Issues contribute to these and other related questions about social exclusion. Importantly, they articulate the advantages and disadvantages of adopting social exclusion in contemporary research and policy debates, ranging from housing, disability and place-based initiatives, to welfare reform. The first three papers are broadly concerned with exploring the ways in which the housing system is linked to social exclusion/inclusion and the policy implications of this relationship. The following two papers consider what social exclusion might add, in terms of developing place-based policies to address inequality, and to critiques of the contemporary welfare reform agenda.

In the opening paper, Alex Marsh explores the relationship between housing and social exclusion, theoretically and in practice, in British government policy. His analysis also has some important implications for Australian social policy. On the one hand, a positive aspect of social exclusion is that it has put the issue of how to address the problems of inequality firmly on the UK policy agenda. However, Marsh argues that imprecision in the use of social exclusion, at a theoretical and policy level, is a major issue. He shows how social exclusion is used indiscriminately to provide an account of a wide range of problems in the housing system and housing policy. Marsh argues that if social exclusion is to prove a useful tool for understanding poverty and inequality then we need to develop a more intricate account of the relationship between housing and social exclusion. In illustrating this point, he details four major areas in which there are ambiguities surrounding the links between social exclusion and housing. These are the roles that structure and agency play in the processes of exclusion; issues of recognising difference and diversity; conceptualising the role of subjectivity in social exclusion; and whether the spatial dimension of exclusion concerns the people themselves or the effects of residing in particular areas. Marsh concludes that if, in elucidating the concept, social exclusion is proven an inadequate tool for advancing understanding of disadvantage then it should be discarded.

Kathy Arthurson and Keith Jacobs consider the specific question of how useful the concept of social exclusion is for Australian housing policy. They undertake an extensive review of the burgeoning UK and European literature and refer to the available Australian literature, although there is very little of the latter. The authors make an important distinction between the utility of social exclusion as an academic concept to explain poverty and disadvantage and its political use to justify new forms of policy intervention, a distinction that is not always apparent in the literature. Arthurson and Jacobs find, like Marsh, that social exclusion is an imprecise concept and, as a framework for exploring issues of disadvantage, inequality and their relationship to housing, it provides little advantage over other widely used concepts, such as poverty. This imprecision also makes it difficult to target appropriate policy interventions to address inequality. They conclude that, in spite of the limitations of social exclusion as an analytical concept, because of its political utility it is likely to become an important component of an emerging Australian social housing policy agenda.

The third paper in the series examines the issue of deinstitutionalisation as a rehousing process and its potential for achieving social inclusion for people with intellectual disabilities. Lisa Bostock and Brendan Gleeson's study examines the housing futures of people with intellectual disabilities who will be deinstitutionalised in Australia in the decade from 2000 to 2010. The authors highlight key international debates that illustrate the ways in which housing processes can promote or contribute to social exclusion and social inclusion in developing their perspective of deinstitutionalisation as a rehousing process. Deinstitutionalisation is depicted as an important step whereby people with disabilities can, potentially, be provided with choice and control over where they live and with whom they live. Indeed, gaining control over these aspects of life is a critical step towards achieving social inclusion. Nevertheless, although housing plays an integral role in deinstitutionalisation, the authors argue that its importance is submerged in major academic and policy debates about community care in Australia. Housing agencies here provide a support role, rather than a strategic role, in developing community care policies. While issues of disability and housing often overlap for pragmatic reasons at an operational level, that is, in providing support to social housing clientele, the policies are disjointed and lack a coordinated framework at a strategic policy level. In view of these findings, Bostock and Gleeson conclude that in Australia the role of housing in community care needs to be more fully articulated in order to achieve social inclusion for people with disabilities.

In the next paper, Bill Randolph argues that social exclusion in the European context has been useful in leading to more integrated place-based government policy to address inequality. Conversely, the concept of place-based policy is only partially developed in Australia: 'place needs to be put firmly into policy'. His study explores existing government-funded initiatives that direct resources into disadvantaged communities in the south-western region of Sydney. What the study highlights is that the initiatives are currently fragmented and often not well coordinated, planned or integrated at the local level. Randolph argues that a better framework, in order to provide coherence and integration of programs at the neighbourhood level, is a locational focus, incorporating area-targeted and mainstream (general welfare and fiscal) policy interventions. He concludes that the key gaps that need to be addressed in Australia are: commonly agreed spatial targeting frameworks to identify which areas can best be addressed in terms of the complex nature of disadvantage; integration of land use and social planning; utilising local agencies to deliver neighbourhood regeneration programs; and providing longer term resources beyond the current annual public sector funding round approach.

The final paper examines key debates about social exclusion in relation to contemporary neoliberal welfare reform, drawing on the theoretical framework provided by the work of Titmuss and other social policy theorists. Sonia Martin, like other contributors to this special edition, draws attention to the contested nature of the concept of social exclusion. However, she argues that social exclusion has the potential to be utilised in constructive ways in contemporary debates about social welfare, if it is defined as a 'strong' version of social exclusion. By this, she means taking account of human agency and in particular individuals as capable actors. She shows that current defences of the welfare state by the left are problematic, in that they lean to structural factors rather than responding directly to the ideas about human agency that form the basis of conservative underclass accounts. Martin contends that this reluctance by the left to tackle conceptions of agency in critiques of conservative accounts of welfare reform has provided conservatives with an unnecessary advantage. She argues that the most pressing issue is to articulate an account that recognises the interdependence of agency and structure and represents the poor as active agents who make choices. Martin concludes that social exclusion can incorporate such an analysis, although she concedes that theoretical refinement by academics is unlikely to influence significantly the way government policies to address social exclusion are enacted.

The papers in this special edition of the Australian Journal of Social Issues make a significant contribution to the task of understanding the utility of social exclusion in the Australian social policy context. However, given that the concept is not immutable, it is still unclear what value the term might add both as a conceptual tool for understanding poverty and inequality, and in social policy debates.

Acknowledgements

Kate Leeson from the Hawke Institute at the University of South Australia provided invaluable assistance in undertaking the editing and proof reading of the articles, which make up this special edition of the Australian Journal of Social Issues.

Work on this special edition of the AJSI was undertaken while the guest editor was working as a research fellow on a jointly funded project between the Social Policy Research Group at the University of South Australia and Uniting Care Wesley Adelaide on 'Social Exclusion and Inequality'.