Social inclusion: what is it?

The mystery as to what “social inclusion” is supposed to be was brought home to me at a recent seminar in Sydney organised by the Inner and Eastern Sydney Migrant Interagency (IESMI). The program's title was Multiculturalism and social inclusion - Information and Strategy Forum on Cultural Diversity and Social Justice.

Key speakers were Senator Ursula Stephens and Professor Jock Collins from the University of Technology, Sydney. After the morning tea break senior administrators in the multicultural field presented interesting papers which included topics on ageing, disability, community services, education, training, health, housing, and settlement/refugees.

Senator Stephens provided an insight into the Rudd Government's thinking and planning on social inclusion. It certainly covered the welfare-oriented areas covered by the senior administrators in the field of multicultural affairs.

Nevertheless the message seemed to be that social inclusion covers far more than the multicultural agenda. There were about 130 delegates and several remarked, mostly in dismay, that multiculturalism as a key concept seemed to have been overtaken by social inclusion.

Significantly, the Senator invited delegates to contribute to the new social inclusion agenda and to engage in a conversation about it. The discourse really is still in its infancy and uncertainty surrounds it. Other delegates argued that multiculturalism had had its day. They claimed it was often viewed by Anglo Australians as a concession to ethnic migrants. Several preferred an emphasis on "cultural diversity" now as, perhaps, an integrated aspect of social inclusion. There certainly were also many who insisted on the maintenance and re-instatement of multiculturalism as key value of society.

The philosophy of "social inclusion" is approached by the ALP in a key document in 2007 as a remedy to "social exclusion" described as follows:

"Social exclusion" is the outcome of communities suffering from a range of problems such as unemployment, low incomes, poor housing, crime, poor health and disability and family breakdown. In combination, these problems can result in cycles of poverty, spanning generations and geographical regions. Social exclusion can happen as a result of problems that emerge during life, or it can start from birth. Being born into poverty or to parents with no jobs or low skills is a major influence on a child's life chances.

Labor believes that to be socially included, all Australians need to be able to play of full role in Australian life, in economic, social, psychological and political terms. To be socially included, all Australians must be given the opportunity to:

• secure a job;
• access services;
• connect with others in life through family, friends, work, personal interests and local community;
• deal with personal crisis such as ill health, bereavement or the loss of a job; and
• have their voice heard.

The "Principles" document, presented by the new Social Inclusion Board, also offers a strong social welfare orientation. In the main the victims of poverty and disadvantage in a capitalist society are the logical clients of such a social welfare orientation. There is no mention of multiculturalism or cultural diversity here. There is also no concern about the role of the employee in the workplace as an individual who may want to participate in the ownership of, and decision-making in, a business enterprise. Strangely this is still not seen as an important aspect of "social inclusion" in Australia even though Minister Julia Gillard has clearly alluded to that approach in her speech The Economics of Social Inclusion (PDF 43KB):

The concept of social inclusion in essence means replacing a welfarist approach to helping the underprivileged with one of investing in them and their communities to bring them into the mainstream market economy. It’s a modern and fresh approach that views everyone as a potential wealth creator and invests in their human capital.

Including everyone in the economic, wealth-creating life of the nation is today the best way for Labor to meet its twin goals of raising national prosperity and creating a fair and decent society. This is a recognized policy ambition of social democratic parties around the world today.

Fairer workplace laws that encourage enterprise bargaining and cooperation will help create a fairer and wealthier society, but on their own they are not enough. We need a new approach to social and economic policy too. And social inclusion is it.

However, the formal role of employees is still covered in the legal context of traditional adversarial IR relations. The recession creates casualties, for example, refusal or avoidance of payment by employers of employee entitlements when laid off (e.g. Clyde Apac, Woodville factory); and export of jobs to foreign countries, with much lower wage levels, are a growing threat to Australian employees (e.g. Pacific Brand). Employment lawyers and unions have to deal with many of those who lose their income and are socially excluded from their workplace, often because they have no ownership stake in these companies. Social welfare comes to the rescue, public and private, but can it be done differently?

In contrast, the Social Inclusion Agenda in the UK has embraced a much more elaborate concept in recent years. The Demos group in particular has promoted such an agenda. A leading light in this group, Professor Charles Leadbeater, has written extensively about the concept and presented several telling case studies. Interestingly, in May 2009 a visiting academic Geoff Mulgan, a "third way guru" assisting former PM Tony Blair, was engaged for three weeks consulting in the Department of the PM and the Cabinet. The adviser on social inclusion in Julia Gillard's office is Tom Bentley. He was also Blair's adviser on social inclusion and formerly Director of the UK labour think tank "Demos". Bentley is very familiar with what social inclusion means in the UK but much less so in the Australian setting. He appears to be an adviser now in the IR sector.

In the UK, social inclusion also means tackling “the poverty of aspiration”. It refers to the ownership of a home, a business, shares or savings, and so on. Employee share ownership in their workplaces naturally falls within this agenda because it offers one form of “ownership” that employees may aspire to.

Leadbeater is seen as an innovator; and a promoter of a new dimension of capitalism. He predicts a transformed landscape: a new “networked” capitalism in which the state plays a part but cannot pick winners. However, it is questionable that in the wake of the crash of economic rationalism it makes sense to use such a label at all. Is there any value at all in continuing that adversarial discourse? There is a search for new approaches but redefining capitalism or going even back to social democracy may not be the answer.

Nonetheless employee share ownership, employee voice and social enterprise for the delivery of public services, are all areas where government intervention and assistance can do much to encourage social inclusion. Such an extension of existing philosophy could have great advantages in terms of job retention, productivity, employee commitment and the relatively inexpensive delivery of not-for-profit public services. The current Senate Inquiry into employee share ownership should include consideration of the social inclusion agenda. That inquiry follows the publication of Minister Chris Bowen's extensive consultation paper on employee share ownership.

In the UK, new and highly successful dimensions of public service have also emerged in recent years. Employees in these new, not-for-profit, mainly service organisations have a large ownership stake AND a paid job! As social enterprises they are removed from the usual constraints of traditional public services as well as from the uncertainties which afflict many voluntary organisations. It is not just "having a job" that provides the social inclusion.

Furthermore, introducing broad-based employee share ownership plans also enhances the engagement of employees in a traditional private sector enterprise. This has proved to be particularly effective, when combined with the introduction of "employee voice". Such plans spread the ownership of business organisations thus potentially introducing a new socially inclusive culture. Again, this is much more than just having a job. It is the "more" that provides all the advantages of co-ownership and voice. They can also enhance the democratic ethos beyond periodic elections and the ballot box.

Contrary to some critics' views the downside risk involved in employee ownership can be excluded by clear legislation and properly designed schemes. As to the use of employee voice, it is increasingly obvious that European countries have been showing the way for the past 30 to 40 years. A culture change is needed in Australia. In a sense industrial relations has to be fast-forwarded. The "Rights to Work" campaign aimed to recover lost ground since 1996. The Fair Work legislation has partially achieved that but when it comes to real reforms social inclusion in workplace relations should be top of the agenda. This is one reason why the recent adverse Budget 2009 proposals in relation to employee share plans would have been a huge step backwards instead of forwards. The Senate Inquiry seems timely indeed.