More Lessons—Now From Ireland

Thanks to the many who are writing to us and commenting on this site about the social inclusion paper. It’s very encouraging to have this public dialogue.

And now for a few words on whether the term “social inclusion” is the right phrase for the US, assuming (just for the moment) agreement that poverty is the wrong frame. (For much more on that important conversation, scroll down on our home page!)

I am quite partial to the concept of social inclusion, particularly as a framework for a national plan (aka goal or target). And while it certainly seems true that using other nations’ policy choices as a basis for policy enactment in this country doesn’t always work, it can be useful for policy actors and stakeholders to review these choices for promising practices and lessons learned in other places.

One OECD principal on these issues pointed me toward his favorite national plan– in Ireland. Reading the materials on the goal to reduce poverty there, it’s clear that – as in the UK – poverty means much more than “income poverty” in Irish culture and government policy.

People are living in poverty if their income and resources (material, cultural and social) are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living which is regarded as acceptable by Irish society generally. As a result of inadequate income and other resources people may be excluded and marginalised from participating in activities, which are considered the norm for other people in society.
….
Many words within poverty and social inclusion are used interchangeably. However, they do have different meanings, as defined below:
* Deprivation is defined as unmet basic human needs;
* Poverty is deprivation due to a lack of resources, both material and non-material, e.g. income, housing, health, education, knowledge and culture. It requires a threshold to measure it;
* Social exclusion is being unable to participate in society because of a lack of resources that are customarily available to the general population. It can refer to both individuals, and communities in a broader framework, with linked problems such as low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments and family problems;
* Inequality is a comparative or relative concept. It does not measure deprivation or poverty and does not require a threshold. It is possible for inequality to exist with or without poverty. Similarly, poverty can exist with or without inequality;
* Resources can be personal, within the family, or within the society.

Much as I too am enamored of the Irish concept, I am not wedded to the words “social inclusion” as a means to describe this framework for the U.S. On this point – let the conversation continue!

I’d like to hear from the academics who study framing and communications about whether it’s worth trying to infuse the term with meaning. And it would be great to hear much more about which frames and messages we might use to build support for the concept and the policy goals that would develop from it.

Full disclosure: My mother's family name is McNamee, my given name is Margaret, and my Irish relatives came from Counties Cork and Clare.

P.S. Notice that the Irish define deprivation as we define poverty in the US. Our poverty measure was designed to quantify unmet basic needs! The UK's framework is similar to Ireland's, and this is one reason I am concerned about the proposal to transfer the UK poverty goal to the US - the meanings are just so different. If I lived in the UK, I'd be happy about having a goal to reduce poverty as part of a social inclusion plan too. In our country - the meaning of poverty is limited - and limiting, due to public perception of the causes of poverty.