Poverty Is Not Sufficient Explanation For Social Exclusion

Culture Identity
Name
Institution
Poverty Is Not Sufficient Explanation For Social Exclusion
Social exclusion is the marginalization and isolation of some members of society from social activities and restriction of access to resources and social services (Peace, 2001). Social exclusion disadvantages vulnerable groups, such as the youth, the homeless, the disabled and the poor, and pushes them to the fringes of society where access to resources and social services is limited or lacking. The exclusion can be caused by lack of availability of social services, or lack of affordability. When services and resources are not available, such as absence of theaters, hospitals or electricity in some areas, the exclusion is termed as collective because it limits groups/communities’ access regardless individuals’ purchasing power. Social exclusion is termed as individual exclusion when it is caused by low purchasing power as some people are not able to afford certain services such as medical care, social luxuries such as eating out, going to the pub, or going to the theatre.
The statement that poverty is not sufficient explanation for social exclusion is true because while poverty is a major factor for social exclusion, there are other aspects of exclusion that are not influenced by individuals’ economic status. A good example is collective exclusion whereby groups of people are excluded from social services not because they can’t afford them, but because there unavailable.
Poverty is looked at as the explanation for social exclusion considering factors such as service exclusion. Lack of access to basic services such as utility services (electricity and tap water) is largely attributable to poverty since it limits people’s purchasing power. According to a 2000 survey in the UK, Gordon et al (2000), 6% of the population had experienced disconnections from utility services due to inability to pay, while 11% restricted their consumption because they were not bale to afford them . Disconnection from utility services and restricted consumption constitutes individuals social exclusion because its severity changes across social classes. Within the same neighborhood, for example, some families may have piped water while others don’t. Similarly, consumption levels can differ because some families cannot afford to use certain services freely. A good example is when one family uses cold showers to save electricity, while their neighbor can afford to use hot showers. With regards to water consumption, some families may have swimming pools, while others may not afford to pay for the more water than they need for household use. In such cases, some services which are readily affordable to a few people are regarded by some as a luxury they can do without.
Despite poverty being one of the causes of social exclusion, there is still a weak relationship between the two. Although poverty explains some of the social exclusion witnessed in some of the societies, it is not the only factor resulting in social exclusion. Considering the strong relationship between social assistance recipient and perceived economic hardship by individuals and social exclusion, poverty can be considered as the most appropriate indicator of economic issues, especially when the economic issues are expected to correspond with the social issues (Barry, 2008). This limits the relationship between social exclusion and income poverty, considering the defined poverty lines as well as the problematic form of the income indicators. It can also be argued that the other measures of material and economic hardship have slightly stronger impact on the social exclusion indicators than they do on income measure.
Social exclusion operationalization also brings out the difference between social exclusion and poverty. Some of the most problematic aspects of social exclusion indicators employed are that they are often independent of the opinion of individuals in relation to their personal situations. For example, it remains uncertain whether individuals in the society reporting to see their families or friends seldom actually consider themselves as being excluded. It is more likely that the more subjective indicators or the perceived cohesion indicators result in different outcomes in relation to the relationship between poverty and social exclusion.
Having less money does not always affect the likelihood of a person to see family and friends, but may negatively impact their other social contact forms such as having friends come over for dinner, going to watch a movie, going on holidays or taking part in other social activities which call for economic resources. Thus, considering other social exclusion indicators, there could be a stronger relationship between poverty and social exclusion. The counter argument in this context is that in some countries in Europe, citizens serving on low-income are the ones observed to be more likely compared to the rich to be unable to have family or friends over for a drink or meal at least once in every month or they are not in a position to afford to go to social activities that demand for more money like taking a holiday or vacation (Flotten, 2006).
There could be a close relationship between poverty and social exclusion if the effect of poverty on social exclusion was more persistent. It is evident that the economic constraints that are more durable are more likely to result in social isolation compared to the short-term problems. This means that the more persistent poverty is in a given society, the more the poor members of that society will differ from the society’s mainstream in living conditions and lifestyle and the more likely that such people will be socially excluded (Orr, 2005). This indicates that the relationship between poverty and social exclusion is a strong one when the situation remains constant for a long period of time without considering the other factors such as ti...