Social Inclusion and the `Get Heard' Process
| Date | 01 April 2008 |
| Author | Simon Pemberton |
| DOI | 10.1177/0952076707086251 |
| Published date | 01 April 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Social Inclusion and the
‘Get Heard’ Process
Implications for the Horizontal and Vertical Integration of
Governance and Policy in the UK
Simon Pemberton
University of Liverpool, UK
Abstract Since 1997, there has arguably been a ‘rediscovery’ of those most at risk of
poverty and social exclusion by New Labour. Within this context, it is
important to consider the European, national and sub-national policy frameworks
within which interventions are being developed. The European Union’s ‘Open
Method of Co-ordination’ is of relevance given its emphasis on making a
decisive impact on poverty and social exclusion by 2010 through stimulating
domestic policy processes in the form of National Action Plans on Inclusion
(NAPSI). It also attempts to provide a coordinating framework for member
states to exchange policy ideas and practices. As part of the development of the
2006–8 UK NAPSI, a Social Policy Task Force worked jointly with the
Department of Work and Pensions to take forward the ‘Get Heard’ process – a
mechanism to ensure that the views of those at the ‘grassroots’ could be fed
into the process of developing the plan. This article presents key findings from
one case study area (Merseyside). There is a subsequent consideration of the
degree to which either informal or more formalized arrangements are conducive
to securing enhanced horizontal and vertical integration in governance
frameworks, policy making and service delivery for those most marginalized.
Keywords ‘Get Heard’, horizontal and vertical integration, informal and formal
agreements, National Action Plans, ‘Open Method of Co-ordination’, social
inclusion policy
Introduction
The concept of social exclusion is now firmly entrenched in both British and
European government policy (Levitas, 2006). In a UK context, it can be traced to
DOI: 10.1177/0952076707086251
Simon Pemberton, Merseyside Social Inclusion Observatory, Department of Civic Design,
University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZQ, UK. [email: simon.pemberton@liv.ac.uk] 127
© Public Policy and Administration
SAGE Publications Ltd
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi
and Singapore
0952-0767
200804 23(2) 127–143
an earlier phase during the late 1980s and early 1990s within which many
European Union (EU) member states were hostile to talking about poverty at a
political level, leading to a shift in language towards ‘inclusion’ (Room, 1995). In
addition, the establishment of a European Observatory on Policies to Combat
Social Exclusion in the early 1990s added further support to attempts to achieve
policy coordination in the social exclusion field and highlighted the multidimen-
sional and dynamic nature of the concept, and the need for a European policy
response through individual member states (Armstrong, 2006).
Disentangling poverty and social exclusion is conceptually difficult (Levitas,
1996) and there are different national traditions in thinking about social exclusion
(Silver, 1995). Levitas’s (1998, 2005) identification of three discourses of
exclusion – RED (a redistributive discourse with a lack of resources being central
to exclusion), SID (a social integrationist discourse focused on a lack of labour
market participation and increasingly evidenced in Labour’s ‘Welfare to Work’
programmes) and MUD (a moral underclass discourse focused on moral deficien-
cies of ‘problem’ groups) is a helpful analytic device to work out what is meant by
social exclusion. In the UK, a combination of RED and SID approaches – with
an increasing emphasis on the latter – has been evident in terms of government
policy and through the work of the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU).1This was set up
following the election of the Labour government in 1997. It has defined social
exclusion as ‘what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combina-
tion of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor
housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown’ (Social
Exclusion Unit [SEU], 1997). However, such a definition does not identify the
causes of such problems, nor what are the most appropriate policy responses.
A more useful definition is provided by Burchardt et al. (2002: 30–2) who bring
together the focus by the SEU on small groups experiencing extreme problems, as
well as considering the broader detachment of individuals from the core activities
of society: ‘an individual is socially excluded if he or she does not participate in
key activities of the society in which he or she lives; is not participating for reasons
beyond their control; and he or she would like to participate’.
It is not surprising to find that various sets of indicators have been used to
measure ‘exclusion’ depending upon the ‘discourse’ adopted, as well as data
availability. In the UK – and following the Prime Ministers’ commitment to the
abolition of poverty over a 20-year period (Walker, 1999) – the Department of
Social Security (DSS) published Opportunity for All: Tackling Poverty and Social
Exclusion (DSS, 1999). This set out 40 indicators on which the annual assessment
of the government’s progress in tackling poverty and social exclusion would be
based. Such a report effectively metamorphosed into the UK’s National Action
Plan on Inclusion (NAPSI) with the launch of the EU’s ‘Open Method of Co-
ordination’ (OMC) on Social Inclusion in 2000.
The OMC process was introduced with the Nice European Council (EC)
summit in December 2000 as part of taking forward an agreement by EU member
Public Policy and Administration 23(2)
128
To continue reading
Request your trial