UNESCO ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

FOR INCLUSIVE POLICY DESIGN:

OF WHY, WHAT AND HOW

 20 October 2015
Original: English

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INCLUSIVE POLICY DESIGN:

OF WHAT, WHY AND HOW

MOST WORKING DOCUMENT

This analytical framework is designed to support the implementation of the

2030 Agenda and, in particular, its inclusive social development pillar and the
associated policy agenda. It does so by framing the upstream policy thinking on
these maturing agendas and by supporting qualitative analysis and design of
inclusive policies of more inclusive, equity-weighed and SDG-oriented policies.

The document was developed within the UNESCO Management of Social

Transformations (MOST) programme and its Inclusive Policy Lab. In its current
version, the document is ready for transmission to national counterparts, where
it is to be employed for the revision and/or formulation of inclusive policy
instruments.
About the document

Purpose: The primary concern of the current document is conceptual delineation and operationalization, in policy
and programmatic terms, of the inclusive policy agenda.

Structure: This analytical framework is organized in three parts. The first part places inclusive social development
and the associated inclusive policy in the context of longstanding international commitments and the newly adopted
Global Goals. The second section grounds the aforementioned agendas in the analytical framework of the original
concepts of social exclusion and inclusion. The last section puts forward a set of quality- and process-related markers
of inclusive policies. Table 1 serves as a key to the entire document.

Audience: The framework is designed for the benefit of policy practitioners – a mixed audience comprising, amongst
others, policy and decision makers, knowledge and data producers, and rights-holder groups.

Practical use: Produced under the UNESCO Inclusive Policy Lab, this document is to serve as both the Lab’s analytical
framework and as a standalone tool. In the case of the latter, it attempts to frame the upstream policy thinking and
to support qualitative analysis and design of inclusive policies at the country-level. In the spirit of inclusion and co-
innovation – two primary concerns of the Lab – such processes are hoped to be collective and involve all of the
aforementioned stakeholders. This framework and its content are to be equally used for further “tool kitting”,
through the development of much needed capacity building and operational materials, the fields of inclusive social
development and inclusive policy. As the subject matter itself, this framework is meant to be an evolving tool,
adaptable to national and sectoral contexts and needs. Contextualization and customization, through consultations
with national stakeholders and ultimate users of the tool, is critical in this regard.

Acknowledgements: The document was authored by Iulia Sevciuc, Thomas Otter, and Eilean von Lautz-Cauzanet.

This work has benefited greatly from the input and contributions by expert staff from the UNESCO Communication
and Information Sector (Cedric Wachholz), Culture Sector (Melika Caucino Medici, Danielle Cliche, Anahit Minasyan),
Education Sector (Aaron Benavot, Adrien Boucher, Maki Hayashikawa, Julia Heiss, Alexander Leicht, Leila Loupis,
Florence Migeon, Francesc Pedró, David Post, Blanca Sandoval), Global Priority Africa (Jacques Plouin), Natural
Sciences Sector (Diana Malpede), Social and Human Sciences Sector (John Crowley, Badarch Dendev, Golda El-
Khoury, Amina Hamshari, Riel Miller, Euan Mackway-Jones, Pedro Monreal Gonzales, Kei Takahashi), the UNESCO
World Heritage Centre (Isabelle Anatole-Gabriel, Natasha Mano), and the UNESCO International Institute for
Education Policy (Mioko Saito).

The team would also like to thank peer reviewers from the Brown University (Hilary Silver), the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development - Development Centre (Alexandre Kolev), the United Nations Department
of Economic and Social Affairs (Lisa Ainbinder, Jonathan Perry, Marta Roig and Karoline Schmid), the University of
Oxford (Martin Seeleib-Kaiser), and the World Bank (Maitreyi Bordia Das) for their comments. Their expert advice
guides this and other products to be delivered under the Inclusive Policy Lab.
KEY MESSAGES

Longstanding yet unmet commitment: Striving for a world that is just, equitable and inclusive has
long been a need and a commitment of the international community. From the 1995 World Summit
for Social Development, to current international deliberations, this concern has only strengthened,
gradually taking centre stage of debates at all levels.

Core of the 2030 Agenda: Following extensive consultations and negotiations, inclusive social
development and the associated policy agenda emerged as the core of the recently adopted
Sustainable Development Goals. These concerns form the base of six Goals and their targets.

Pending tasks: Despite their strength at the discourse levels, inclusive social development and
inclusive policy are evolving agendas that remain largely under-analysed and non-operationalized in
policy and programmatic terms. These pending tasks became urgent with the adoption and the
looming implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Grounds for discussion: As a mutation of social exclusion and inclusion, inclusive social development
is to be grounded in the frameworks of the original concepts. The work on its operationalization
through the inclusive policy agenda is to follow the same trail.

Means and ends: Inclusive policy is concerned with adequate inclusion of all parties in the process
of policy design and delivery and, at the same time, with producing the outcome of inclusion. Put
simply, it is inclusive in means and ends. Both concerns count equally.

Portfolio of interventions: Inclusive policy is not a sectoral intervention. No standalone policy can
achieve inclusion. It is brought about through a system or a portfolio of policy interventions that
operate at once and in an integrated manner along the social, economic, political, civic and cultural
axes.

Transformative: This policy agenda is transformative in nature. It entails, as such, revision of the
current modes of policy analysis, design and delivery at all levels.

Markers and how to’s: From ample yet dispersed evidence coming from around the world, a set of
parameters of inclusive policy can be derived. These are, in essence, quality- and process-related
markers against which the inclusive character of a given policy or an entire portfolio of interventions
can be weighed. As inclusion itself, the markers are not sectoral. They are, rather, transversal and
applicable to multiple sectoral policies.

1
 1. On commitments and urgency

Striving for a world that is just, equitable and inclusive has long been a need and a commitment of
the international community. From the 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen,
where social integration was affirmed to be a part of key social development goals,1 to current
international deliberations, which place inclusive social development and equity at the heart of the
newly adopted Sustainable Development Goals, this concern has only strengthened, gradually taking
centre stage of debates at all levels.

The High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda warned that a risk
to be managed in articulating such a framework lies in focusing on the past instead of turning towards
future challenges, and underlines that the emphasis of the global agenda should be on issues with
the greatest impact, considered, among other major concerns, in terms of their benefits for
inclusion.2 The report to the UN Secretary-General concerned with taking stock of the main successes
and challenges associated with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and recommending
possible post-2015 goals, called for inclusive social development to become one of four key
dimensions of the new agenda.3 Perhaps even more boldly, this issue was articulated in the more
recent “A Million Voices: The World We Want” report.4 Collecting the perspectives of over a million
people around the globe on the 2030 Agenda, the document pointed out that throughout all
consultations, be they thematic or national, addressing exclusion and inequalities emerged as a
central issue. These documents and the negotiation process they fed into have recently culminated
in the adoption of the new development framework, which considers these concerns to be essential
and puts them at the core of six out of seventeen of the Sustainable Development Goals and their
associated targets.5

In addition to reaffirming general principles, the aforementioned documents point out, by thus
aligning their recommendations with the predominant expert opinion, the need for stronger
interventions at the policy level and integration of equity and inclusion as:

1 United Nations (1995), Report of the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen, Available at
<[Link]
2 United Nations (2013), A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable

Development , The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the post-2015 Development Agenda, Available at
<[Link]
3 United Nations Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda (2011), Realizing the Future We Want for All Report

to the Secretary-General, Available at <[Link]

4 United Nations Development Group (2013), A Million Voices: The World We Want, Available at

<[Link]
=inline&op=view>. See also United Nations (2014), The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and
Protecting the Planet, UN General Assembly, December 4, 2014, Available at
<[Link]
5 See Sustainable Development Goals, otherwise known as the Global Goals, number (4) inclusive education, (8) inclusive

economic growth, (9) inclusive and sustainable industrialization, (10) reduction of inequality within and among countries
(11) inclusive human settlements and (16) inclusive societies and institutions. Available at
<[Link]
2
 i) an overarching theme and a goal that cuts across all sector policies6 and deals
comprehensively with all axes along which exclusion operates;
ii) a lens through which any policy and programme can be designed and implemented;7
iii) an approach to investigating and addressing bottlenecks and loopholes in both the delivery
of services (supply-side) and adequate access or uptake (demand-side); and
iv) an objective of, and a step towards, integrated policy responses and policy coherence at the
global, regional, national and sub-national levels.

The deliberations at global, regional and national levels left little room for doubt that inclusive social
development and inclusive policy are up-and-coming areas of concern that form the core of
international development work. Many point out, however, that these are evolving concepts that,
although of concern to many at the conceptual level, remain largely non-operationalized in policy
and programmatic terms – a task that became urgent with the adoption of the Global Goals.

6 UNDESA (2009), Report for the Expert Group Meeting on Practical Strategies to Promote Social Integration: Lessons
Learned from Existing Policies and Practices, Available at
<[Link]
7 World Bank (2013), Inclusion Matters: The Foundation for Shared Prosperity (Advance Edition), Washington, DC: World

Bank.
3
 2. Unpacking social exclusion and inclusion

Increased popularity of the concept of exclusion comes with criticism of its indiscriminate use to
cover features and forms of deprivation that do not belong conceptually and/or practically to a
discussion on social exclusion.8 Calls have, therefore, been launched (and followed) for a better
conceptual and operational delineation of the limits of the term.9 This work has resulted in the
identification, though with varying emphasis, of the following common constituent elements in the
meanings attached to social exclusion:

i) Multidimensional: there is a general consensus amongst both academic and public policy actors
that the concept comprises social, civic, political, cultural and economic dimensions.10 A
different clustering of, in essence, the same dimensions is: social services, economic life, and
social networks and participation;11
ii) Dynamic: exclusion is not a static state experienced by the same groups and in the same manner
over time. Exclusionary processes happen in different ways, are experienced at different degrees
and with different intensity, and operate at different social levels;12
iii) Relational: there are two dimensions to this feature. The first refers to a rupture between
people and the society resulting in disadvantage and, most importantly, inability to enjoy shared
opportunities that are available to others.13 The second “points to exclusion as the product of
unequal social relationships characterised by differential power, i.e. the product of the way
societies are organized”;14
iv) Contextual: exclusion is often understood as the inability to participate and enjoy economic,
social and civic opportunities that are considered “normal” in a given society. Such shared
opportunities vary across countries and time being shaped by cultural, institutional and socio-
economic factors”;15
v) Multiple levels: definitions refer to different levels along which social exclusion/inclusion
operates, namely, micro (e.g., individual, household), meso (e.g., neighbourhoods), and macro
(i.e., nation state and global regions) levels;16

8 See Oyen, E. (1997), The Contradictory Concepts of Social Exclusion and Social Inclusion. In Gore, C. and Figueiredo, J.B.,
(ed.) Social Exclusion and Anti-Poverty Policy, Geneva: ILO; Murard, N. (2002). Guilty victims: social exclusion in
contemporary France. In Chamberlayne, P., Rustin, M., and Wengraf, T. (ed) Biography and social exclusion in Europe.
Experiences and life journeys. Bristol: Policy Press.
9 Sen, A. (2000), Social Exclusion: concept, application and scrutiny. Social Development papers 1. Asian Development Bank,

Available at <[Link]
10 See for example Estivill, J. (2003), Concepts and strategies for combating social exclusion: an overview. Geneva:

International Labour Organisation, Available at

<[Link] UNDESA (2009).
11 UNDP (2011). Beyond Transition: Towards Inclusive Societies, Regional Human Development Report, Bratislava: UNDP,

Available at <[Link]
12 WHO (2008). Social Exclusion Meaning, Measurement and Experience and Links to Health Inequalities: A Review of

Literature, WHO Social Exclusion Knowledge Network Background Paper 1, Available at

<[Link] pp. 11-21.
13 Sen (2000), note 9 above.
14 WHO (2008), p. 21, note 12 above.
15 Silver, H (2007), The Process of Social Exclusion: The Dynamics of an Evolving Concept. Chronic Poverty Research Centre,

Available at <[Link]
16 WHO (2008), p. 12, note 12 above.

4
vi) Group and individual approaches: the traditional group-based approach can be traced back to
the origin of the concept of social exclusion itself and to Lenoir,17 who identified both the
excluded groups (which in many cases might more helpfully be called categories) and the factors
that make them prone to exclusion. More recent studies, however, go beyond the group-based
or categorical approach, assuming that “each individual has a number of individual
characteristics that can put him or her at risk of social exclusion. These can be related to gender,
ethnicity, language, religion, age, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and disability, as well as
linked to status (income, health, employment, education, resources, opportunities and
assets)”;18
vii) Drivers: it is considered that individual vulnerabilities and risks alone do not necessarily result
in exclusion. “Whether social exclusion occurs depends on the interaction of risks with a set of
drivers that can be structural, behavioural, or policy-related.”19

Figure 1: The various composite elements of exclusion

Source: Compiled by the authors

In addition to defining the aforementioned features of the concept itself, efforts have been invested
into clarifying the relation between social exclusion and other associated but conceptually and
practically different terms, such as poverty and deprivation. Here again, researchers and
practitioners, especially those coming from the development field, who tend to deal with these
various concepts in very diverse contexts and jurisdictions, are warned against a loose and often
interchangeable utilization of the terms. As argued by many, while economic inequality and poverty
are outcomes, social exclusion is both a process and an outcome.20 To use Estivill’s analogy, the

17 Reference made to René Lenoir, former Secretary of State for Social Action of France, who is credited with popularizing
the concept in 1974.
18 UNDP (2011), p. 12, note 11 above.
19 Ibid, p. 19.
20 Estivill (2003), note 10 above; UNDP (2011), note 11 above; World Bank (2013), note 7 above.

5
“snapshot” that is poverty should not be confused with the “film” of exclusion.21 The latter gives a
more accurate idea of the process. Or, as put by the World Bank, “social exclusion may well be about
poverty, but it is often about more than poverty—and at certain times, it is not about poverty at all.
At still other times, it helps explain the root causes of poverty. Exclusion can intersect with poverty,
deriving from a set of multiple, interrelated disadvantages that result in both economic and social
deprivation. It is also key to explaining why some groups remain trapped in poverty, failing to benefit
fully from public investments in, say, education and health”.22

Aggregated, the aforementioned elements lead to an understanding of social exclusion as a process

of progressive social rupture the “practical influence of which is in forcefully emphasizing”23, inter
alia, the fact that such a phenomenon is multidimensional (i.e., comprising social, civic, political,
cultural and economic activities), dynamic (i.e., experienced to different degrees and with different
intensity by different individuals and social groups over time), and relational (i.e., being both the
result and the process of the rupture between individuals, groups and societies) at the same time.
Conversely, social inclusion is a multi-dimensional process geared towards the creation of conditions
and, if required, lowering of economic, social and cultural barriers24 for a “full and active participation
of every member of the society in all aspects of life”.25 Such a process pays due attention to how and
for whom terms and conditions are to be improved.26

Mindful of possible variations in the understanding of the social exclusion and inclusion continuums
across jurisdictions, this document adopts the aforementioned definitions as these are deemed both
to comprise the main elements of the concept and to be sensitive enough to different contexts.

21 Estivill (2003), p. 21, note 10 above.

22 World Bank (2013), p.52, note 7 above.
23 Sen (2000), p. 8, note 9 above.
24 UNDESA (2007), Creating an Inclusive Society: Practical Strategies to Promote Social Integration, Final Report of the Expert

Group Meeting, Paris, Available at <[Link] p.5.

25 UNDESA (2009), p. 5, note 6 above.
26 World Bank (2013), p.50, note 7 above.

6
 3. Understanding Inclusive Policy

Although a unified and widely accepted definition of inclusive policy has not yet been articulated,
a common understanding of what it stands for transpires from the previously summarized
discussions on the 2030 Agenda, the associated policy statements and analytical works by both
social science communities and practitioners in this field. Such understanding is, however, in need
of further conceptual and operational delineation to avoid its indiscriminate and “empty” use.27
This pending task is the primary concern of the current document.

A mutation of the terms of social exclusion and social inclusion, inclusive social development and
the associated policy agenda have to be adequately grounded in the theoretical framework of the
original concepts. This is achieved here by deconstructing exclusion and inclusion into their
constituent elements and by deriving, based on the above, the corresponding parameters of
inclusive policy (Table 1). Such parameters are, in essence, quality- and process-related markers of
inclusion against which the inclusive character of a given policy or a portfolio of interventions can
be considered. These markers are not intended for ranking policies or creating typologies. They are
also not contrasted here to decide which one has more weight and deserves a stronger emphasis.
This is to be determined, amongst other factors, by specific patterns of exclusion in various
jurisdictions, the desired inclusion outcomes, as well as institutional set-up and policy specificities.

Underlined throughout this document is the fact that inclusive policy is not a sectoral intervention.
No standalone policy or intervention can achieve inclusion. It is brought about through a portfolio
of policies and rightsized interventions coming from all necessary directions.28 Hence, the approach
and the markers put forward in this analytical framework are not sectoral; they are, rather,
transversal and applicable to multiple sectoral policies.

This work does not replicate existing (yet scarce) attempts to analyse and provide concrete
examples of inclusive policies. The basic questions addressed here are: What is the inclusive policy
agenda? What do inclusive policies have in common? What makes them inclusive? What can policy
practitioners do when they need to go outside of a standard toolbox/menu of inclusive policies and
design a sectoral intervention that has not been tested so far? What should policy practitioners
watch out for as pitfalls of exclusion and foster as points of inclusion in policy design and delivery?

The working definition employed throughout this document approaches inclusive policy as a
framework for public action that has the two-pronged goal of adequate inclusion of all concerned
parties in the process of policy design and delivery (inclusive in means) and, at the same time, of
producing the outcome of inclusion (inclusive in ends). Increased attention, in this regard, is paid
to the policy’s substantive provisions, the process of its design and delivery, and its format.

27 Such criticism was directed, and later addressed, towards the original concepts of exclusion and inclusion at the early
stages of their formation. See Oyen, E. (1997), note 8 above.
28 See UNDP (2011), note 11 above; World Bank (2013), note 7 above; Silver, H. (2012), “Framing Social Inclusion policies”,

Background paper draft, World Bank, Washington, DC.

7
TABLE 1: FROM SOCIAL INCLUSION TO INCLUSIVE POLICIES

Dimensions of Exclusion and Markers of Inclusive Policies Design Considerations

Inclusion
Multidimensional  System or portfolio of interventions
Transversal and overarching
 Supra-goal at the priority setting level
objective
 Allocation of resources based on needs
 Integrated and multidimensional
Continuum of interventions
continuums
 Coordinating mechanisms
 Trying, testing, improving approach
Public sector innovation  Inclusion of user communities
 New technologies in design and delivery
 Integrated approach to data
Integrated and policy-sensitive
 Equity-weighted data
evidence
 Timely data
Relational  Symptoms and structural causes
Equality of opportunities and  Efficient use of opportunities;
outcomes comparable outcomes
 Quick wins and long-term inclusive goals
Delivery of services (supply-side)  Public service network
and adequate access or uptake  Causes of low uptake
(demand-side)  Terms of inclusion
 Redirection of resources
 Group distribution of benefits
Distribution of public expenditure  Public awareness and value to society at-
large
 Role of international actors

Relation between the mainstream  Targeting all parties

and the excluded populations  Meaningful dialogue

Intersecting risks and drivers  Group conditions and individual

characteristics
Exclusion risks and their
 Differentiated yet shared risk
intersections
 Cumulative disadvantage
 Intra-group inequalities
 Structural, behavioural and policy-
related drivers
Removal of drivers of exclusion
 Bottlenecks and loopholes with
exclusionary potential
 Needs and preferences of intended
Tailored policy design and service
beneficiaries
delivery
 Not exclusive but fitted interventions
Analysis of differentiated and  Inter-sectoral spillovers of risks
distributional policy effects  Group- and category-specific corollaries
 Intensity, structure and persistence of
Weighted breadth and depth of exclusion
intervention  Types of risks and drivers
 Depth of coverage

8
Dynamic  Persistence of exclusion
Built-in duration  Panel or longitudinal data
 Historical and contextual analysis

 Non-linearity; unplanned results

Long-term and anticipatory
 Nascent and emerging areas of need
character
 Anticipatory policy making

 Early-stage interventions
Proactive and reactive functions  Reactive measure

Contextual and multi-layered

 Horizontal coordination
In-country coherence and  Policy coherence
coordination  Vertical coordination
 Capacity and institutional fit at all levels

 Soft law mechanisms

Regional and sub-regional
 Non-standardized instruments
coordination

Participatory
 Participation as a normative goal
 Participation throughout the policy circle
Procedural improvements
 Guaranteed and institutionalized
avenues

 Susceptibility to marginalization in
participatory processes
Transformative participation
 Levelling the field
 Capacity to engage

Source: Compiled by the authors

9
 3.1. Multi-dimensionality and related policy markers

Exclusion operates along social, civic, political, cultural and economic axes. These dimensions form
a self-reinforcing circle, serving, in essence, as triggers and/or transmission channels, with
precariousness and deprivation in one of them often resulting in marginalization in the rest. For
example, the circle could be set in train by exclusion from social services, such as education,
including life-long learning, and resulting unemployment and overall underperformance in the
economic dimension – a factor that could, in return, feed into further social service deprivation in
terms of health care and/or social protection, reduced participation in political and civic life, and
hampered involvement in cultural affairs.

Such multi-dimensionality and progressivity are arguably among the most relevant factors making
inclusion a valuable lens and approach to policy design that entails a shift in policy thinking and
practice towards:

(i) Considering inclusion as an explicit and overarching/transversal goal that cuts across sectoral
policies29

System or No standalone policy can succeed in fully and sustainably releasing the
portfolio of exclusion trap. The built-in multidimensionality of exclusion calls for
policy inclusive policies that are designed, unlike traditional anti-poverty
interventions agendas,30 to operate at once and in an integrated manner – much like a
system or a portfolio of interventions - along the social, civic, political,
cultural and economic axes. Removing “just one of these axes of deprivation
[…] will not unleash the grip of others”31.

Supra-goal at At a priority-setting level, this multi-dimensional take on inclusion entails

priority setting that, in essence, it be approached and operationalized as a supra-goal of
level governmental policies rather than a sporadic sectoral concern. As such,
progress made against all sectoral interventions is systematically and
systemically planned for and considered, amongst other major concerns,
against their contribution to inclusion. However, previous experiences warn

29 This is a
long-standing recommendation of the international expert community. See for example., UNDESA (2009), note
6 above.
30 Stewart, F. (2005), “Social exclusion and conflict: analysis and policy implications”, Report prepared for the UK

Department for International Development, London. Available at <[Link]

31 World Bank (2013), p.52, note 7 above.

10
 against an “on paper” integration of inclusion under other sectoral policies
and its gradual reduction to a residual area of concern.32

Allocation of Addressing the supra-goal of inclusion through policies does not necessarily
resources based require additional resource allocation. In many jurisdictions, considerable
on needs progress could be achieved within the existing fiscal envelope. Inclusion
should not be, however, perceived, as a “zero cost” add-on to existing
policies. Such an exercise requires a complex combination of political will,
institutional set-up and reallocation of resources focusing on actual needs
and effective joined-up planning, enforcement and impact monitoring.33

BOX 1. INCLUSION AS A SUPRA-GOAL AND A PORTFOLIO

In 2008, the European Commission adopted a Recommendation on the

active inclusion of people most excluded from the labour market. The
Recommendation promotes a comprehensive strategy based on the
integration of three policy pillars – adequate income support, inclusive
labour markets, and access to quality services – taking due account of
their joint impact on the social and economic inclusion of disadvantaged
people and their possible interrelationships. While the number of EU
member states to adopt this policy design remains small, countries such
as Netherlands and Denmark have embarked on major reforms in this
regard.34

More recent efforts of setting inclusion as an overarching goal come

from Malaysia, where the Government’s Eleventh Malaysia Plan (2016-
2020) identifies inclusion as one of the country’s six “strategic thrusts”.
In addition to making it a standalone priority, the document integrates
indicators of inclusion under the rest of its major areas of concern.35

(ii) Designing policy instruments through a social value chain lens

Integrated and To be successful, inclusive policies put in place integrated, multidimensional,

multi- multi-stakeholder and rightsized continuums36 of interventions that lead to
dimensional the delivery of the final “good” of welfare and social inclusion of individuals
continuums in a given society. Such mechanisms should be made sense of only as a

32 Frazer, H., and Marlier, E. (2012), Assessment of the implementation of the European Commission Recommendation
on active inclusion: A study of national policies, European Commission, Directorate General of Employment, Social
Affairs and Inclusion, Brussels.
33 UNDP (2011), p. 77, note 11 above.
34 See Frazer and Marlier (2012), note 32 above; Blommesteijn, M. (2013), Assessment of the implementation of the

European Commission Recommendation on Active Inclusion: A Study of National Policies: The Netherlands, European
Commission, Directorate General of Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Brussels.
35 Malaysian Government (2015), Eleventh Malaysia Plan 2016-2020: Anchoring Growth on People, Economic Planning

Unit, Prime Minister's Department, Kuala Lumpur.

36 Silver (2012), note 28 above.

11
 coherent whole. Special consideration should be given to interventions with
a chain reaction/knock-on effect on multiple axes of inclusion (i.e.,
economic, social, civic and cultural) and on the overall supra-goal of inclusion
(see sub-section 3.1. i.).37

Coordinating Such a lens also entails the existence of adequate coordinating mechanisms
mechanisms for for facilitating effective joined-up planning and oversight of inclusive
a given interventions across sectors (e.g., education, health, social protection,
continuum housing), levels (e.g., micro, referring to individuals and households, sub-
national, and national levels), providers (e.g., public, not-for-profit, private)
and time. What is at stake here is coordination and coherence to (a) provide
all-round package of services on the basis of best available knowledge; (b)
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the entire chain and each of its
provisions; and (c) expand the depth and breadth of benefits generated to
all actors who form the chain.

BOX 2: MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONTINUUMS OF CARE AND THEIR

COORDINATION

Cutting across sectors, governmental levels and time

For a better understanding of this idea, consider the example of the

Multidimensional Continuum for the Homeless in the US. This complex
continuum is put in place to assist “people living in shelters [to] move
into transitional housing, prepare for jobs, go through drug or alcohol
treatment, reunite with families, and ultimately, find a permanent
home, perhaps with long-term supportive services to help them stay
housed.”38 Cutting across sectors, time and levels, this continuum is
argued to be as multidimensional and transversal as the exclusion it
strives to combat. The coordination of programmes amongst nineteen
government departments and agencies, as well as non-profits and
private actors, lies with the US Interagency Council on Homelessness.
More specifically, the Council “[…] monitors, evaluates, and makes
recommendations to improve the effectiveness of federal activities and
programs for people experiencing homelessness; disseminates best
practices; and provides financial, professional and technical support to
state and local governments and public and private sector organizations
assisting the homeless.”39

37 UNESCO Internal Thematic Brief (2013), Inclusion: Beyond a Goal to a Supra-goal of the Post-2015 Development
Agenda.
38 Silver (2012), p. 21, note 28 above.
39 Ibid, p. 22.

12
 Cutting across time and levels

Put in place in various jurisdictions around the world, the

Multidimensional Continuum of Care for Reproductive, Maternal,
Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH) is another example in this regard.
The RMNCH includes integrated service delivery for mothers and
children that pays attention to two main dimensions: time (i.e., from pre-
pregnancy, including family planning services and empowerment of
adolescent girls, to delivery, the immediate postnatal period, and
childhood) and place or level of care (i.e., families and communities,
through outpatient services, clinics and other health facilities). Linking
interventions in the aforementioned ways is deemed to reduce costs,
increase uptake and promote related healthcare elements for both the
mother and the child.40

(iii) Encouraging and allowing for public sector innovation

Trying, testing The widespread resistance to clear, tested and agreed solutions – in other
and improving words, “wicked” character – of exclusionary dynamics informs the need for
approach a higher degree of policy innovation and an overall “trying, testing and
improving” approach to inclusive policy making and service delivery.
Innovation should be allowed for and stimulated at all levels. Such processes
should increasingly bank on the self-organization and co-innovation capacity
of policy communities, including public, private and third sectors.

Inclusion of end Of particular relevance are the involvement of, and the innovative ideas
users; New coming from, the intended beneficiary and actual user communities, as a
means of considerable share of innovations originate at that level (Figure 2).41 The
approaching potential of new technologies is to be fully explored in this regard.
user groups Stakeholder communities, especially the harder-to-reach user groups, can
sometimes be approached through internet and technology-based tools and
applications, thus supplying governments with complementary sources of
policy-relevant data and enabling evidence-based inclusive policies.

New New technologies equally hold the promise of more effective delivery and
technologies in improved uptake of services. An example is efforts to turn the rapidly
design and increasing number of people possessing mobile phones and improved
delivery network coverage into new mechanisms of m-health and e-health. Thus, the

40See <[Link]
41 According to UK NESTA (2011), “Innovation in Public Sector Organisations: a pilot survey for measuring innovation
across the public sector”, for the left column of Figure 3 and Gallup (2011), “Innobarometer 2010: analytical report.
Innovation in Public Administration”, survey commissioned by the European Commission”, for the right column of Figure
3, as cited in OECD (2014), An Exploratory Look at Public Sector Innovation in GCC Countries, p. 12, Available at
<[Link]
13
 “Mwana” project in Zambia, launched in 2010 with support from the Ministry
of Health and UNICEF, has reduced delays in transmitting results from HIV
test laboratories to health facilities via instant SMS message from 66 days to
33 on average in the country’s rural and underserved communities. In
addition to strengthening early infant diagnosis and improving the rate of
postnatal follow-up, Mwana proved successful in engaging with local health
workers and service users in the co-design of m-health information
services.42

Innovation in While relevant to many areas, the need to experiment and allow for a higher
maturing degree of public sector innovation is of particular importance in the rapidly
agendas growing but still maturing field of inclusive policy design and delivery.

Figure 2: Sources of innovative ideas in the public sector, United Kingdom (left), European Union
(right)

Source: OECD (2014), p. 12

(iv) Boosting the availability and usage of integrated and policy-sensitive evidence

Right modes, The case for evidence-based policy making has been exhaustively made by
kind and timing others and is not repeated in the current document. The points raised here
of data refer to the need for the right modes, kind and time of data collection,
compilation and usage.

Integrated Integrated, across place and time, data collection and compilation are of the
approach to essence in the context of inclusive policy and service delivery. Take the
data examples of the Multidimensional Continuum of Care for Reproductive,

42UN E-Government Survey 2014, pp. 58, 155 Available at <[Link]

Survey-2014>. See also <[Link]

14
 Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH) or the multidimensional
continuum for the homeless (Box 2). Such continuums are put in place for
populations with multidimensional needs and are delivered by different
actors throughout long stretches of time. Yet data on the performance of
such interventions, even if often available, is not collected and compiled in
a coherent manner. It is also often housed in different agencies that are not
necessarily concerned with facilitating an efficient data flow to, and usage
by, other bodies. In sub-section [Link], this document talks about the need
for coordinating mechanisms to address these issues. These are put in place
not for centralized policy and service delivery but for integrated collection
of data on the effectiveness of policy and service packages, as well as their
channels of delivery, allowing for the decision and policy making process to
be based on comprehensive and best available data.

Equity- Inclusive policy and service delivery equally require collection and use of
weighted data evidence sensitive to the needs of, and relevant for, the most deprived and
excluded; in other words, evidence that is equity-weighted and allows for
the detection and tracking of disparities.43 Considerable attention should
also be given to disaggregated data collection, including common and
agreed ex-ante and ex-post indicators on inclusion at all levels. Such
concerns are of particular relevance at the sub-national level where the data
gap is especially constraining.44

Data relevant Consideration is also to be given to data collection and processing systems
for early stage that reduce the gap between the onset of a possible crisis or an exclusion
action challenge and the availability of decision-relevant information that can help
protect, through the appropriate early-stage policy action, the most
deprived and excluded against further regressions (see also sub-section 3.4.i
and [Link]). In the pursuit of such a goal is the United Nations Global Pulse.
Through projects such as the SMS Survey on Emerging Risks Amongst
Vulnerable Populations and the Rapid Mobile Phone Survey on Economic
Conditions, the initiative collects real time data on economic conditions or
risks among vulnerable populations at local levels and expedites its
transmission and use, subsequently minimizing the delay in the necessary
policy responses.45

43 UNICEF (2012), Equity: the litmus test for human progress in the 21st century, Draft Think Piece, Available at
<[Link]
44 UNDP (2011), note 11 above.
45 See United Nations Global Pulse <[Link]

15
 BOX 3: READING BIG DATA FOR EARLY SIGNS

Social media and early indicators of unemployment

In one of its proof-of-concept projects, Global Pulse attempted to find

out whether social media can add depth to unemployment statistics. To
find an answer, the initiative “[collected] digital data (social media, blogs,
forums and news articles) related to unemployment; [performed]
sentiment analysis to categorize the mood of these online conversations,
and [correlated] volume of mood-related conversation to official
unemployment statistics.” The results of such work in Ireland showed
that “increased social media conversations about work-related anxiety
and confusion provided a three-month early warning indicator of an
unemployment spike.”46

Twitter data and perceptions of crisis

Similar results came from Indonesia, where a project by the same entity
revealed that “the number of tweets discussing the price of rice in
Indonesia closely matched the official inflation statistics, showing how
the volume and topics of Twitter conversations can reflect a population’s
concerns in close to real time.”47

46 United Nations Global Pulse (2013) Big Data for Development: A primer, Available at
<[Link] p. 5; See also
<[Link]
47 Ibid, p. 5.

16
 3.2 Relational character and its policy markers

Social exclusion is approached by many as first and foremost a relational phenomenon that
comprises both the result and the process of the rupture between individuals, groups and
societies.48 Since 2008, the WHO has used such a take on exclusion to inform the work of its
Commission on Social Determinants of Health and to develop the Social Exclusion Knowledge
Network (SEKN) – a policy analysis framework that aims at improving the understanding of the
relational dimension of exclusion and how it can be productively used for the design of inclusive
health policies. The framework treats exclusion as a social relationship of power and examines
exclusionary processes in four interrelated dimensions – social, economic, political and cultural –
as drivers of health inequalities. It proves useful by shedding light on how and why the excluded
populations have differential access to the resources required to protect and promote their health,
and by, subsequently, revealing ways to redress the situation.

In combination with the aforementioned take, exclusion can be understood not only as a position
of relative deprivation of the excluded as compared to the rest of the society but also as compared
to their own potential, were they not marginalized. Hence, as opposed to many traditional policy
instruments, inclusive interventions have the scope of improving the conditions of the excluded
individuals and groups not only in relation to “mainstream” society but also in relation to their
actual and potential capabilities.49 They do so by adequately addressing the issues of:

(i) Equality of opportunities and outcomes

Symptoms and Inclusive policies are those that are well placed to deal with both equality of
structural opportunities (or lack thereof) and persistent structural factors that affect
causes equality of outcomes. Repeated warnings have been launched, especially in
the context of deliberations on the post-2015 development agenda, that
dealing only with “the symptoms and manifestations of poverty or exclusion
(e.g. lack of income, education or health), rather than their structural causes
(e.g. discrimination, lack of access to resources, lack of representation)”50 is
not the way to go.

Efficient use of To achieve truly inclusive development, interventions must extend beyond
equal equality of opportunities since individuals with “deep disadvantages which
opportunities; have accumulated over time are unable to use opportunities with the same

48 Sen (2000), note 9 above; WHO (2008), note 12 above.

49 UNDP (2011), note 11 above.
50 UN Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, Addressing Inequalities: The Heart of the Post-2015 Agenda

and the Future We Want for All. Thematic think piece. Available at
<[Link]
17
 Comparable efficiency and outcomes”51. As evidence coming from various countries
outcomes show, no overt discrimination is needed for the children of long-term
privileged groups to do better in any competitive examinations as compared
to their peers coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. The same pattern
extends well into adulthood through differential access to networks, job
opportunities, knowledge etc.52

Quick wins and Not factoring in the aforementioned realities leads to narrow and
long-term discretionary policy measures focusing only on provision of services and
inclusive goals short-term amelioration of market and societal imperfections rather than
on the longer-term and deeper goal of inclusive development.

(ii) Deficits in delivery of services (supply-side) and adequate access or uptake (demand-side)

Public services The task of inclusive policies is both to provide a public services network
network and available, accessible and affordable by all, and to boost recourse to it. While
recourse to it the former is a well-entrenched part of conventional approaches and policy
instruments, the latter is as important and, in the context of long-term
exclusion, arguably more challenging.

Causes of low The fact that certain services and opportunities are available does not
uptake necessarily imply that those who have been excluded for a long time will
automatically accept and use them. The costs are often being blamed for
inhibiting uptake, but other factors are not to be ignored. Persistent
exclusion may lead those affected by it to mistrust mainstream society and
to forms of self-reliance which, as many warn, should not be by default
equated with self-segregation and self-exclusion.53 The excluded individuals
may be equally affected by the feeling of shame (whether felt or
anticipated), an internal sense of inadequacy and stigma associated with the
status of disadvantage and that of a welfare recipient.54 Both of the
aforementioned nuanced understandings deserve particular consideration
in the context of inclusive policy design and service delivery.

Terms of Addressing such patterns and bridging the gaps between provision and
inclusion uptake is a key long-term issue for inclusive interventions. However, the

51 Stewart (2005), p. 8, note 30 above; See also Ali, I., and Zhuang, J. (2007), Inclusive Growth toward a Prosperous Asia:
Policy Implications, ERD Working Paper No. 97, Economics and Research Department, Asian Development Bank, Manila.
52 See for example, Stewart (2005) note 30 above; Niçaise, I. (2010, September 28–29), A smart social inclusion policy for

the EU: The role of education and training, University of Leuven and NESSE, Presentation at the Belgian EU Presidency
conference Breaking the cycle of disadvantage- Social inclusion in and through education, Available at
<[Link]
<[Link]
53 Silver (2012), note 28 above.
54 Chase, E. and Walker, R. (2013), The Co-construction of shame in the context of poverty: Beyond a threat to the social

bond, Sociology 47: 4 739-754, Available at

<[Link]
18
 terms of inclusion must be seriously considered as any form of adverse
incorporation may trigger or lead to further self-exclusion and isolation.

BOX 4: BRIDGING DELIVERY AND UPTAKE THROUGH TRANSFER

PROGRAMMES

One of the mechanisms employed for overcoming the gap between

provision and uptake is conditional transfers. Imagine a poor family
with several school-aged children (there is a potential demand for
education), living right across the street from a public school, but not
enrolled. Put simply, there is no supply-side limitation (the school
exists, including teachers, textbooks etc.) and the (potential) demand
exists as well, but they are not coming together. Deprivation and
inability to cover the required out-of-pocket expenses or other existing
opportunity costs may be one of several reasons for this.55 Conditional
(and, in many cases, unconditional) transfer systems (payment of a
certain amount of money to the household under the condition of
school attendance) have frequently been used around the globe
throughout the last two decades to bridge these gaps.56

Concrete cases come from Mexico, where an increase in school

enrolment rates ranging from 3.5 to 5.8 percentage points for boys to
7.2 to 9.3 for girls is attributed to the Education, Health, and Nutrition
Program (Progresa); Nicaragua, where the average enrolment rate has
increased nearly 22 percentage points after the implementation of the
Social Protection Network programme; as well as Colombia, Ecuador and
Brazil, where increased enrolment rates have also been reported as
results of conditional transfer programmes. 57

55 Lewis, M. and Lockheed, M. (2007), Social exclusion: The emerging challenge in girls’ education, in Lewis, M. and
Lockheed (Ed.) Exclusion, Gender and Education - Case studies from the developing world, Center for Global
Development, Washington DC.
56 This happens under different forms and modalities of transfer programmes and with different success rates. While

these may be criticized on various parameters, their overall potential for bringing supply and demand sides together is
recognised among academics and policy makers.
57 For Nicaragua, Mexico and Colombia: Rawlings, B. L. and Rubio, M. G. (2005), Evaluating the Impact of Conditional Cash

Transfer Programs, World Bank Research Observer, 20 (1): 29-55. Available at

<[Link] For Ecuador: Schady, N. and Araujo, M.C. (2006), Cash
transfers, conditions, school enrollment, and child work: Evidence from a randomized Experiment in Ecuador. Impact
Evaluation Series 3, World Bank. Available at <[Link] For
Brazil: Glewwe, P. and Kassouf, L. A. (2012) The impact of the Bolsa Escola/Familia conditional cash transfer program on
enrollment, dropout rates and grade promotion in Brazil, Journal of Development Economics, 9(2), 505-517.
19
(iii) Distribution of public expenditure

Redirection of Concerns related to the nature and distribution of public expenditure are an
resources; essential part of inclusive agendas. These entail redirections of expenditures
Group and resources towards the excluded and exclusion-prone groups and
distribution of individuals. Such interventions require deep analysis of the implications of
benefits the changes in terms of group distribution of benefits.58 Examples of
concrete measures in this regard may include gender- and child-responsive
policy planning and budgeting. Participatory budgeting, especially at local
levels, is another mechanism that contributes to a more equitable
distribution of expenditures, provided that all groups participate on an equal
footing and have the capacity to get involved in such processes.59

Awareness To ensure public support, it may be advisable to raise general awareness,

raising; Value to including of the costs of exclusion for a given society, and make a case for
society as a spending on inclusion as a sound investment.60 Whereas the interrelated
whole social, economic, political and environmental costs of exclusion are easier
to detect at the individual and group level, they are also being paid by
societies at large. For instance, due to insufficient education and
participation in the labour market among Roma, the combined economic
losses of four countries in Europe (Serbia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and
Romania) amount annually to as much as 5.7 billion Euros, while the fiscal
losses are estimated at 2 billion Euros annually.61 Exclusion is also a fertile
ground for environmental degradation, insecurity and conflict, disease and
disenfranchisement. Although harder to estimate, these entail considerable
costs for societies and, if remain unchecked, undermine progress.

Possible role of The influence of the international community, through the distribution of
international aid expenditure, policy dialogues and mechanisms related to priority setting
actors (e.g., PRSPs and public expenditure reviews), is deemed to be important in
this regard and in need of further consideration.62

58 Stewart (2005), note 30 above.

59 Even if sometimes modest, distributional effects of participatory budgeting are associated with other important, in the
context of a discussion on inclusion, outcomes such as improved sense of belonging, trust and mobilization of the
concerned parties. See Silver (2012), note 28 above; Anwar, S. ed. (2007), Participatory Budgeting, World Bank, Available
at <[Link] Hernandes-Medina, E. (2010),
Social inclusion through participation: the case of the participatory budget in São Paulo, International Journal of Urban
and Reginal research, 34: 512-32.
60 UNDP (2011), pp. 88-89, note 11 above.
61 UNDP (2006), At Risk: Roma and the Displaced in Southeast Europe, Bratislava: UNDP, Available at

<[Link] see also de Laat, J. (2010), Roma

Inclusion: An Economic Opportunity for Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania and Serbia, Policy Note, Washington, DC:
World Bank.
62 See Piron, L., and Curran, Z. (2005), Public Policy Responses to Exclusion: Evidence from Brazil, South Africa and India.

overseas Development Institute, London; Stewart (2005), note 30 above.

20
(iii) Relation between mainstream population and the excluded

Targeting all Exclusion and inclusion imply, by definition, the existence of a “mainstream”
parties population and of individuals who are the “outsiders”/the excluded in a
given society. It is a two-party relation and inclusive interventions target
both. In the case of the mainstream population, the work to be done is
about reverting exclusionary patterns, disabling negative beliefs and
stereotypes, and triggering acceptance. Among the excluded, especially in
the case of the previously discussed subjects of long-term deprivation,
discrimination and historical handicap, the focus is on the ability and
willingness to gain access and to use opportunities, provided that this is
happening on a truly equal footing. Policies must, however, be mindful of
the fact that the “price” of acceptance and admission should not be
conformity or renouncing identities and practices. The ultimate goal of
inclusive policies lies in recognition, reconciliation and inclusion on
favourable terms.63

Meaningful Meaningful and sustainable dialogue amongst and between the

dialogue aforementioned populations is crucial in this regard. The inscription process
of cultural World Heritage has provided examples of recognition of identity
and culture, which then transformed into a richer and more fruitful cultural
dialogue. The inscription of sites on the World Heritage List, particularly
those that have a history of belonging to groups that have historically been
marginalized and excluded, enhances the sense of belonging and
contributes towards social inclusion and social cohesion by according their
narratives and stories both global and national recognition (e.g., legitimizing
the historical narratives of indigenous communities in New Zealand and
Australia).

63 Silver (2007); Hickey, S. and du Toit, A. (2006), Adverse-incorporation, social exclusion and chronic poverty. CPRC Theme

Paper. Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre, available at

<[Link]
21
 3.3 Intersections of risks and drivers, and related
policy markers

Having originated as a group-based concept,64 social exclusion was, until recently, concerned
primarily with identification and support (through social insurance) of excluded groups vulnerable
to uninsured risks and unable to participate in the basic political, economic, cultural and social
functioning of the society.65 Such exclusionary dynamics were viewed as being culturally defined,
economically driven and politically motivated.66

More recently, academics, public policy actors and development practitioners became aware that
even if a policy approach is frequently based on the idea of vulnerable or excluded groups of people,
the risks of exclusion intersect and are suffered at the individual level. The UNDP and EU, for
example, argue that group approaches “[…] can suffer from errors of exclusion and inclusion; they
are not always policy-relevant; and they may not reflect multiple inequalities or powerlessness.”
The authors conclude that “the use of an individual approach to social exclusion […] provides a
stronger evidentiary basis for discussing policy options for social inclusion”.67

Applied individually, both approaches may have their blind spots, yet a combination of the two is
both feasible and often required. Recognition that some groups are at a higher risk of exclusion
does not prevent the understanding that the status of the excluded often transcends a single-group
affiliation and lies at the intersection of multiple affiliations and identities.68 When it comes to
inclusive policy design and delivery, the aforementioned take requires a special emphasis on:

(i) Exclusion risks and their intersections

Group While being mindful of the group-specific conditions, inclusive policies

conditions and capture the fact that each individual has a number of individual
individual characteristics, or social exclusion risks, that can put him or her at risk of
characteristics exclusion.69 These can be linked to gender, age, ethnicity, language, religion,

64 Reference made to René Lenoir, former Secretary of State for Social Action of France, who is credited with popularizing
the concept in 1974.
65 Lenoir, R. (1974). Les Exclus: un Francais sur Dix. Paris: Le Seuil; Silver H. (1994) ‘Social exclusion and social solidarity:

Three paradigms’ International Institute for Labour Studies Discussion Paper No 69, ILO, Geneva.; Haan A. de (1998)
‘Social exclusion: An alternative concept for the study of deprivation?’, IDS Bulletin 29, pp. 10–19.
66 Barry, M. (1998) ‘Social exclusion and social work: an introduction” in Barry, M. And Hallett, C. (eds.) Social Exclusion

and Social Work, Dorset: Russell House Publishing.

67 UNDP and EU Fundamental Rights Agency (2013), Measuring Intersecting Inequalities Through the Social Exclusion

Index: A proposal for Europe and Central Asia, UNECE Seminar "The way forward in poverty measurement", December
2013, Geneva. Available at <[Link]
ece/ces/ge.15/2013/WP_22_UNDP_D_En.pdf>.
68 See for example, World Bank (2013), note 7 above; Lewis and Lockheed (2007), note 55 above.
69 See [Link] UNDP (2011),

note 11 above; World Bank (2013), note 7 above.

22
 health, and/or status and its markers such as income, employment,
education, place of residence etc., which may not be correlated in any
straightforward way. Taken one by one, these characteristics pose a certain
level of risks; the “overlap” of multiple characteristics, however, proves to
have a considerably more powerful impact. Concerned with how the
intersection of gender, ethnicity, age and income status has a significantly
more deleterious effects on education than the effects of ethnicity alone,
UNESCO points out that “[f]rom Guatemala and Peru to Cambodia and the
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, indigenous young adults are far more
likely than the non-indigenous to experience extreme education
deprivation, especially if they are poor and female. An indigenous person
aged 17 to 22 in Peru has two years less education than the national
average; poor indigenous girls are two years further still down the scale”
(Figure 3).70

Differentiated Understanding these dynamics has profound policy implications as it (a)

yet common entails a shift in policy thinking from perceiving exclusion as a problem faced
risk; cumulative by the traditionally marginalized and disadvantaged groups towards the
disadvantage; analysis of exclusion as a concern for each and every individual, as
within and everybody faces a certain level of risk; and (b) brings to daylight cumulative
intra-group disadvantage and, in addition to the traditional inter-group, the within-
inequalities group inequalities. “Averaging” such inequalities does not result in the
design of the right policy instruments.

Figure 3: Wealth and gender widen indigenous education disparities in Latin America

Source: UNESCO Global Monitoring Report 2010, p.149

70UNESCO (2010a), EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010: Reaching the Marginalized. Paris: UNESCO, p. 149. Available at
<[Link]
23
(ii) Detection and removal of institutionalized drivers of exclusion

Structural, The occurrence of exclusion depends on the interactions between risks and
behavioural a set of structural, behavioural and policy-related drivers.71 Structural
and policy- (institutionalized) drivers are those that operate through (public or private)
related drivers institutions that allocate resources and assign value, norms and regulatory
frameworks existing in a given jurisdiction.72 Values and behavioural drivers
are those relating to discriminatory attitudes and cultural practices. Among
their many individual-level impacts, this set of drivers regulates norms and
behaviours in society, having a concrete impact on political culture,
structures, institutions and policies.73 Last but not least, policies themselves
can drive exclusion by either intentionally or unintentionally perpetuating
the aforementioned barriers and/or failing to respond to the needs of the
excluded and exclusion-prone populations. An example that is deemed to
encompass a number of the aforementioned drivers of exclusion is the
legacy of institutionalized care in the post-socialist countries of Europe and
Central Asia which, in part due to its path dependency and persistent
attitudes, is thought to perpetuate the institutionalization of persons with
disabilities and other disadvantaged groups rather than exploring
alternative scenarios (e.g. integration in mainstream education, community-
based housing etc.) that may lead to a better integration in society and a
higher degree of independent living.74

Bottlenecks and In addition to actual institutionalized drivers of exclusion, inclusive

loopholes with interventions are tasked with detecting and neutralizing bottlenecks and
exclusionary loopholes in policy and regulatory frameworks that have the potential to
potential trickle down from the upstream level to national and sub-national
government planning, budgeting and programming, resulting in systemic
barriers that impact the welfare of the population and push those living on
the margins of our societies even closer to the edge.

(iii) Breadth and depth of an intervention

Type of risks Inclusive policies must be considered in terms of both their breadth and
and drivers; depth. The breadth of an intervention, in this case, refers to the type of
Degree of exclusion risks and drivers it covers. The depth, on the other hand, is about
coverage the degree to which the risks and drivers of both are addressed.

71 UNDP (2011), note 11 above.

72 Zeitlyn, S. (2004), Social Exclusion in Asia: Some Initial Ideas, Department for International Development, London. As
quoted in Stewart (2005), note 30 above.
73 UNDP (2011), note 11 above.
74 See for example, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2007) Changing minds, Policies and Lives: Improving Protection of

Children in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Gatekeeping Services for Vulnerable Children and Families.
Available at <[Link]
24
 Intensity, Such a “T” approach (Figure 4) implies, in essence, a shift from a traditional
structure, and mere headcount of the deprived towards a deeper consideration of the
persistence of intensity, structure, and persistence of exclusion and deprivation, allowing
exclusion for the design of all-round and appropriate provisions. A tool set to support
such policy analysis and design is the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI).
Adopted by a number of governments, including those of Mexico, Columbia,
Tunisia and Pakistan, the index identifies multiple deprivations at the
household and individual levels in the dimensions of health, education and
living standards – all relevant in the context of inclusive social development
and the associated policy agenda. By using micro data from household
surveys, the MPI classifies each person in a given household as poor or non-
poor depending on the number of Figure 4: The T-Approach
experienced deprivations. The results are of inclusive policy
then aggregated into a national measure.
←TYPE OF COVERED RISKS→
Such an exercise provides action-relevant
data both on how many people ←TYPE OF COVERED DRIVERS→

experience overlapping deprivations (i.e.,

← DEPTH OF COVERAGE
prevalence) and on how many
deprivations they face on average (i.e.,
intensity). The MPI methodology equally
helps to reveal the inter-connections

→
among deprivations in the three
75
dimensions mentioned above.
Source: Compiled by the authors

(iv) Differentiated and distributional effects of policies

Spillovers of Any policy intervention has the potential of having a differentiated impact –
risks; group and both positive and negative – on various categories and groups in a given
category- society. Take for example the distributional concerns and possible
specific regressive effects of policies and measures associated with environmental
corollaries transition. Although it is difficult to summarise in any detail proposals for
such a transition, higher carbon pricing is likely to be a part of it. In an
analysis of climate change and public policy in the UK, Gough argues that,
however achieved, carbon pricing will have serious social policy implications
by severely impacting disadvantaged households and those in lower income
brackets, putting on them a considerably higher burden of the cost as a
percentage of their income, and driving even further the country’s already
high fuel poverty. Yet, due to the heterogeneity of these households, which

75 See Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative and their work on multidimensional poverty.
<[Link] and <[Link]
UNDP Human Development Reports <[Link]
25
 may include people in poorly insulated housing, rural households
dependent on car transport, and single-person households, compensation
through social security system is problematic.76 In such complex contexts,
the role of truly inclusive interventions is to control for (a) inter-sectoral
spillovers of risks, and (b) when it comes to the exclusion populations,
account for possible group and category-specific negative corollaries.

(v) Tailoring interventions

Needs and Policies dealing with matters of exclusion and inclusion should be
preferences of increasingly tailored to take into consideration the needs and preferences
beneficiaries; of their intended beneficiaries. Tailored interventions are designed to
Not exclusive to increase access and uptake but, unlike targeted services, they are not
groups exclusive to certain groups and beneficiaries.77 They are, rather, concerned
with better fitting the existing mainstream services to their needs – for
example through inclusion of specific content and approaches in the
mainstream education system – and provision, where required, of
alternative services. An example of such tailoring comes from New Zealand,
where efforts are being made to customize policies to the needs of Māori
by making them more accessible, effective, and responsive. This has been
done through devolution and decentralization of service delivery to iwi and
Māori organisations; the participation of Māori themselves in service
delivery and governance; strengthened outreach and communication; and
incorporation of Māori culture, philosophy (kaupapa), and language into
policy design and delivery.78 Such a course of action has brought about
notable success. In the field of education, “[i]ncreased involvement of Māori
[…] – through school boards; community-based initiatives; and partnerships
with iwi and Māori organisations – has motivated demand for quality
education among Māori and raised participation levels, particularly in early
childhood and tertiary education. Māori leadership and ownership of
schools, starting with kōhanga reo, is a catalyst for parents’ interest in
lifelong learning.”79 Similarly, encouraging results were registered in the
health sector, where greater involvement of Māori in the formulation of
policies and delivery of service has increased awareness of critical health
risks and uptake of available provisions. Such a way of tailoring policies
simultaneously enhances the capacity, opportunities and dignity of the
population they are serving.80

76 Gough, I. (2011), Climate change and public policy futures. A report prepared for the British Academy. Available at
<[Link] p. 25.
77 World Bank (2013), note 7 above.
78 Ringold, D. (2005), Accounting for Diversity: Policy Design and Māori Development in Aotearoa New Zealand, report

prepared for Ian Axford Fellowship in Public Policy, New Zealand.

79 Ibid, pp. 66-68.
80 Ringold (2005) note 78 above; World Bank (2013), note 7 above.

26
Tailoring to Taking this argument further, policies can be tailored not only to ethnic
common group needs but also to other socio-economic groups, risks, (common)
patterns of intersections of such risks, and the resulting specific patterns of exclusion
exclusion and deprivation.

27
 3.4. Dynamic character and related policy makers

Exclusion is dynamic both as a process and as an outcome. Exclusion as a process denotes a series
of developments that push individuals towards the margins of a given society. These exclusionary
dynamics are highly time- and space-specific; they progress in different ways, are experienced at
different degrees and with different intensity, and operate at different social levels.81 As a status,
exclusion reflects the outcomes of that process. The fact that an individual has reached the
“ultimate end of such an imagined trajectory”82 does not mean that there can be no further
movement along the inclusion/exclusion continuum. Take the example of marginalization
associated with stigmatising conditions such as HIV/AIDS. Their exclusionary power differs highly
from place to place (e.g., between South Africa and the USA), between socio-economic and ethnic
groups, and across time (e.g., consider the status of HIV-positive people three decades ago and
today).83 This dynamic character informs the need for policy responses that:

(i) Build in duration

Persistence of Most of the issues inclusive policies deal with are well entrenched and
exclusion persistent in a given society. Sometimes, therefore, policies need to give
special consideration to those who have a historical disadvantage and/or
those who, throughout their life course, have experienced particularly
persistent forms of deprivation.

Panel or Rather than relying on readily available and often non-contextualized

longitudinal instruments, policies must persevere with questions related to the
data resistance of certain risks and drivers of exclusion, and gradually move away
from the simple tracking of aggregate cross-sectional indicators towards
(increasingly available and improved) “panel or longitudinal data sets [that]
are allowing more quasi-experimental, random assignment, before-after
assessments of policy”.84 Take the UK’s Sure Start. Set to tackle the cycle of
social exclusion and child poverty through improved childcare, early
education, health and family support, the programme utilises panel data
rather than aggregate cross-sectional data in order to track the progress of
the participating children. Doing so enables area-based comparisons of the

81 WHO (2008), pp. 11-21, note 12 above; Hickey, S. and du Toit, A. (2006), note 63 above.
82 Silver (2007), note 15 above.
83 WHO (2008), note 12 above.
84 Silver (2012), note 28 above.

28
 rates of progress of child development over the years, resulting in the
identification of disadvantaged areas and the services in need. 85

Historical and Interventions must be equally underpinned by deep historical and

contextual contextual analysis of the conditions.86 This is particularly true in cases of
analysis communities of such as previously discussed Māori in New Zealand (sub-
section 3.3.v) or Roma in Central and Eastern Europe (sub-section [Link]), as
inclusive policies with and for these groups cannot be developed unless the
analysis behind them captures specific trajectories of these exclusionary
processes and their outcomes.

(ii) Are long-term and forward-looking

Non-linearity; Moving from exclusion to inclusion, especially in the aforementioned cases

unplanned of well-established patterns of exclusion, requires long-term and multi-
results pronged interventions. Depending on the scope of such interventions, this
can be a non-linear process, with results unfolding over the long-term, in
some cases unplanned but nevertheless significant.87 Such results, although
susceptible to falling through the cracks of the current policy monitoring
and evaluation systems, deserve to be carefully considered.

Emerging In addition to deeply rooted patterns of exclusion, inclusive policies should

areas of need attempt to detect nascent/emerging areas of need rather than let them
mature and result in deep exclusion that are harder to address.88 Much
relies on rapid collection and processing systems that provide action-
relevant data as soon as possible after the onset of a new crisis, thus
flagging emerging challenges and helping to protect the most deprived and
excluded against further regressions (see also sub-section 3.1, iv).

Anticipatory In all of these scenarios, timing is of the essence. They require a long-term
policy; critical of view of the change and anticipatory policy-making that takes, however, full
its capacity account of limited capacity to predict trends and outcomes.

85 United Kingdom, Department for Education (2010), The quality of group childcare settings used by 3-4 year old children
in Sure Start Local Programme areas and the relationship with child outcomes, Available at
<[Link]
86 Hickey, S. and du Toit, A. (2006), note 63 above.
87 World Bank (2013), note 7 above.
88 Knowledge and data collection and processing systems should be designed to reduce the gap between the onset of a

possible crisis or an inclusion challenge and the availability of decision-relevant information that can help protect the
most deprived and excluded against further regressions (see also sub-section 3.1, iv).
29
(iii) Assume both proactive and reactive functions

Proactive and Many existing policies and systems are designed in such a way that they
reactive turn their attention to excluded individuals too late to prevent or minimize
their exclusion. For instance, young people with drug problems can readily
access treatment for drug abuse once they appear on the radar of the
specialized agencies, i.e. come to the attention of the criminal justice
system due to repeated offending.89 This happens despite the fact that
proactive and early-stage interventions are deemed to be more cost
effective, efficient and with longer-term results. Inclusive interventions
are mindful of such shortcomings and blind spots, and plan for both
proactive/preventive and reactive measures.90

Preventive An example of concrete action comes from Bangladesh, where the

targeting importance of targeting children in remote and rural areas in a proactive
manner has been understood. A situational analysis identified ten
different categories of exclusion-prone children. Based on these findings,
the country developed an Action Plan that runs in addition to the
traditional educational programs but seeks to enhance the inclusion of
such vulnerable populations.91

89 Barry, M. (2005), Youth Policy and Social Inclusion: Critical Debates with Young People, Abingdon: Routledge.
90 Ibid, p. 5.
91 UNESCO, (2010b), Implementing the Right to Education: A compendium of practical examples. Paris: UNESCO, 7., p. 72.

Available at <[Link]
30
 3.5. Levels, Context and related policy makers

Exclusionary processes operate at different levels, namely, micro (e.g., individual, household), meso
(e.g., neighbourhoods, communities), and macro (i.e., nation state and global regions).92 They can
originate at one of these levels and trickle up and down to the other(s) or, in the case of longer-
term exclusionary patterns, can be deeply rooted and “institutionalized” in core structures at all
stages. Girls’ education is a telling example in this regard. Developed and developing countries alike
have recognized its importance, as the worldwide surge in girls’ primary school enrolment over the
past two decades proves. 93 In some countries (mainly Latin America, Western Europe and oil
exporting Arab states), girls’ participation at the secondary level already exceeds that of boys. Yet
other countries lag behind on girls’ education, including both those that trail in educating all
children and those in which women have historically been marginalized. The interaction between
gender and culture, which means that “girls in excluded groups suffer not only as members of the
excluded group but also as girls”, is deemed to be one of the powerful factors behind the
phenomenon.94 Such an intersection of risks (see also sub-section 3.3.i) is not sporadic but systemic
and systematic. As with many other exclusionary processes, it is detectable at the levels of
households, schools, communities and societies at large. 95

This still frequent situation illustrates the nature of the “multi-layered” constraints on the use of
education services faced by girls in many parts of the world. Such grips are hard to loosen unless
inclusive interventions plan for:

(i) In-country coordination and coherence

Systemic pulls When it comes to cases such as the above, it is not nearly enough to
intervene and invest efforts only at one institutional level. Progress is
brought about through systemic and coordinated pulls in the direction of
inclusion.

Horizontal Meaningful coordination, in the case of inclusive policies, is bound to be

coordination both horizontal and vertical. Targeting central government ministries and
bodies, horizontal coordination creates spaces – otherwise rare in
sectoralized and fragmented systems – for exchange and integrated
definition of policies and their fiscal spaces.96 An example in this regard is

92 WHO (2008), p. 12, note 12 above.

93 Lewis and Lockheed (2007), note 55 above.
94 Ibid, pp. 2-7.
95 Ibid.
96 See Schwarzer, H.; Tessier, L.; Gammage, S. (org.), 2014, Coordination institutionnelle et socles de protection sociale.

Expériences en Amérique latine (Argentine, Brésil, Chili, Mexique, Uruguay), Geneva : ILO, Available at
<[Link]
31
 the Uruguayan Social Cabinet for Intersectoral Coordination. The Cabinet
is presided by the Ministry of Social Development and brings together the
Ministries of Economy and Finance, Education and Culture, Labour and
Social Security, Public Health, Tourism and Sport, and Housing, Land
Management and the Environment. The structure is tasked with creating
and institutionalizing inter-sectoral linkages amongst the aforementioned
important central-level bodies. Although to varying degrees under various
governments, the structure is deemed to be overall successful in setting
priorities for public social spending and in ensuring inter-sectoral
coordination and cooperation.97

Vertical Vertical coordination, on the other hand, is concerned with linking national
coordination and sub-national levels to guarantee joined-up and sustainable
implementation and management of inclusive policies.98 Traditionally
focusing on the work of governmental institutions, vertical mechanisms
may consider, if relevant in the context of a given jurisdiction, covering
non-governmental actors and service providers at both national and sub-
national levels. A case of such coordination is the previously discussed US
Interagency Council on Homelessness, which cuts across different levels
and coordinates the implementation of the multidimensional continuum
of care for the homeless amongst nineteen government departments and
agencies, as well as non-profits and private sector (see Box 1, p. 13).

Coherence, It is important to note that, although required, coordination is not an end

quality and goal in itself. It is, rather, a prerequisite for the design and provision of all-
efficiency round and sustainable policies and continuums of services, creation of
synergies, and reduction trade-offs.

(ii) Regional cooperation and coordination

“Soft law” Cooperation and coordination, especially through “soft law” mechanisms,
mechanisms across countries in a given region or sub-region are highly desirable in the
context of inclusive policy. Such coordination is thought to boost, amongst
others, information and policy harmonization, mutual learning, emulation
of best practices, and transparency to the public.99 The experience of EU
Member States through the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) has
been flagged as a good example in this regard. The OMC is an approach to
governance that relies on voluntary cooperation, a key element of which

97 Ibid, pp. 169-178.

98 See Ibid; Frazer, H. and Marlier, E. (2008), Building a stronger EU Social Inclusion Process: Analysis and
recommendations of the EU Network of independent national experts on social inclusion, Brussels: European
Commission.
99 Silver H. (2010), Understanding Social Inclusion and its Meaning for Australia, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 45(2),

183–211.
32
 is an agreed set of indicators – the Laeken indicators – employed for
monitoring of, and reporting on, the progress made by Member States
towards the EU’s common social inclusion objectives. Attempts to
replicate this practice beyond the EU have been deemed effective. Such is
the case of the Western Balkans, where “[…] the OMC has been
instrumental in facilitating an exchange of knowledge and experience
among countries. The OMC has focused attention on the importance of
sub-regional cooperation. Such cooperation is particularly effective when
buttressed by specific policies that are pursued systematically.”100

Non–prescriptive It is to be underlined that, as in the case of the OMC, coordination

and non- mechanisms should stay flexible enough as to allow for national
standardized differences. Given the contextuality of exclusion, instruments cannot be
instruments standardized, as those that might have worked in some jurisdictions may
not be applicable or effective in others.

100 UNDP (2011), p. 92, note 11 above.

33
 3.6. Participation and related policy markers

When it comes to inclusion, participation does not refer to the mere process of voting or
involvement in community affairs. It equally covers the broader “values about the nature of
authority, the role of individuals or groups (e.g., women) in public life, prevailing role models”,
public confidence in state institutions, and power relations.101 Intimately connected and often
considered together with the elements is sustained and meaningful civic engagement, which refers
to active citizenship.102

If considered in its entirety, participation is not a formality. Besides being a right and deserving to
be pursued on its own, participation is of particular relevance in the context of emerging and/or
forming agendas (e.g., inclusive social development, climate change adaptation), as it has direct
impact on the social acceptability, effectiveness, equity and legitimacy of these developments and
their outcomes.103

Translated into concrete policy markers, this dimension of social inclusion entails:

(i) Deep and meaningful procedural improvements of policy processes

Participation as a Inclusive policies need to take account of legitimate (and frequently

normative goal competing) interests of all potentially affected parties. Participatory or
open approaches to decision making and stakeholder engagement are,
therefore, a normative goal of such policy interventions.

Participation To be meaningful and to achieve real outcomes, however, participatory

throughout the processes should not be sporadic or, as it is often the case, be limited to
policy cycle the policy design stage. Participation, with a particular emphasis on the
excluded or exclusion-prone segments of the population, must be planned
for and delivered throughout the policy cycle – i.e., at all levels and stages
of priority setting, policy formulation, budgeting, implementation and,
importantly, provision of feedback on what works and what does not
perform at the expected level (see also sub-section 3.1. iv.). Thus, the fact
that education policy is designed in a participatory manner is not enough

101 UNDP (2011), p. 30. See also Sen (2000), note 9 above; Popay J., Escorel S., Hernandez M., Johnston H., Mathieson J.,
Rispel [Link] behalf of the WHO Social Exclusion Knowledge Network (2008) Understanding and Tackling Social Exclusion:
Final Report of the Social Exclusion Knowledge Network of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva:
World Health Organization.
102 Levitas (2006) “The concept and measurement of social exclusion” in Pantazis, C., Gordon, D. and Levitas, R. Poverty

and Social Exclusion in Britain, Bristol, Policy Press.

103 See for example, Adger, W.N. (2003). Social Capital, Collective Action and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic

Geography 79, 387–404. Available at <[Link]

34
 if participation (e.g., through school boards in the governance of the
system and its institutions) and ownership by all stakeholder groups are
not among the normative objectives against which the policy is assessed.

Guaranteed and Another central concern for inclusive policies is the presence or creation
institutionalized of necessary institutional and regulatory mechanisms for
avenues guaranteeing/institutionalizing participation rather than running it on a
discretionary basis.

BOX 5. PARTICIPATION THROUGHOUT AND BEYOND A SECTORAL

INTERVENTION

In 2012-2013, the Zambian National Youth Policy went through a

thorough process of revision. The two-year effort relied on a
participatory and inclusive approach. It engaged, as such, all concerned
stakeholders, placing a particular focus on participation of young people.
Two points make this a useful example in the content of the present
discussion. First, participation of young people was enabled at national
and provincial levels, and spanned from the design of the process to its
implementation and articulation of the final outcomes. Deliberate
efforts were also made to ensure the participation of both organized
youth, through the national Youth Development Council and a number
of youth associations, and non-organized young women and men. In the
case of the latter, the process planned for extensive consultations and
work with youth in their respective local communities and among their
peers. Second, the outcome of such work – i.e., the new National Policy
on Youth – is accompanied by a detailed Action Plan identifying key
actions and responsibilities of all stakeholders engaged in the process
and concerned by the implementation of the policy. Besides
incorporating youth participation in its core guiding principles, the effort
succeeded in mainstreaming it in a number of other sectoral policies
(e.g., education, employment, health et) that are of immediate concern
to young people.

(ii) Transformative participation

Susceptibility to Although important, the mere opportunity to participate may not be

marginalization in enough if power is unequal and if those sitting at the table do not have
participatory a comparable level of capacity – with its human, institutional and
processes financial aspects – to engage in policy processes. The excluded or the
exclusion-prone segments of the population are, by definition,
marginalized in this regard. Although to varying degrees, they generally
suffer from multiple deprivations and forms of discrimination; they are

35
 disfranchised or lack strong agency; and their individual and collective
knowledge and capacity to participate in contestation, advocacy,
negotiation, especially in complex and long-term policy matters, are
reduced. Their resources are all too often scarce, particularly as
compared to those of other better-established stakeholders. These
factors make them highly susceptible to being marginalized, despite
their participation, and to ultimately bearing the brunt of possible
trade-offs.

Levelling the field; Inclusive policies are sensitive to the aforementioned limitations and
Capacity to risks. They attempt, therefore, at levelling the field among otherwise
participate unequal participants104 and at developing the capacities of those
involved. By doing so, such processes become transformative in
nature.105 Take the example of participatory budgeting implemented
from 2001 to 2004 in Sao Paolo, Brazil. The exercise is a telling example
in two regards. First, by relying on an affirmative action methodology,
it was institutionally designed to encourage and sustain, throughout
the entire cycle, the participation of historically disadvantaged groups
or segments of the population: Afro-Brazilians, senior citizens, children
and adolescents, youth, the GLBT community, women, indigenous
groups, the homeless and people with disabilities. Second, in addition
to more traditional objectives of opening up “the political opportunity
structure of the city to poor residents and other excluded populations”
and of having redistributive effects, the exercise kept an eye on the
issue of capacity building amongst the participating groups. By doing
so, it succeeded at helping “participants expand the foundations of
their decisions (their interests and preferences), improve their
decision-making capabilities and gain a better understanding of the
way city government works and how to have an impact on it.”106

104 Hernandes-Medina, E. (2010, note 59 above.

105 White, S. (1996) 'Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation', Development in Practice, 6.1,
6–15. Available at <[Link]
106 Hernandes-Medina, E. (2010), note 59 above.

36