10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [28/12/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Social Exclusion
HILARY SILVER
Brown University, USA
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT
Social exclusion discourse originated in
France, as an alternative to the Anglo-Saxon
liberal emphasis on poverty. Nonetheless, the
two terms continue to be related, especially in
European Union policies. René Lenoir (1974)
is frequently credited with coining the term in
a social policy context, identifying les exclus
as unprotected special needs and deviant
populations. In the 1980s, disturbances in the
multiethnic French banlieue expanded usage
of the term. With rising structural unem-
ployment, French sociologists emphasized
the dynamics of social disaffiliation (Castel
1991) or social disqualification (Paugam
1991), creating a continuum of exclusion,
with intermediate steps of vulnerability or
precariousness. Under the presidency of
socialist François Mitterand, the term social
exclusion was institutionalized. The French
Commissariat Général du Plan (1992) offi-
cially defined exclusion as a rupture in the
social bond, a break in the social fabric, and
a deficiency in solidarity.
In the late 1980s, as the European Union
Poverty Programme, established in the 1970s,
was up for renewal, the French socialist pres-
ident of the EU Commission, Jacques Delors,
resurrected the idea in a new form, by intro-
ducing the rhetoric of exclusion. From then
on, the European “social dimension” loosely
coupled poverty and exclusion. The council
of ministers adopted a resolution to combat
social exclusion in 1989, a pledge included in
the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997. Helped along
The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies. Edited by Anthony Orum.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486
by international agencies, the term spread to
various countries, where it was adapted to
national contexts (Room 2010). For example,
Tony Blair’s New Labour government of
1997 established a “Social Exclusion Unit” to
target assistance especially on vulnerable low
income groups, in a country that had been
debating the “underclass.” As Giddens (1998:
104) defined it, “exclusion is not about grad-
uations of inequality, but about mechanisms
that act to detach groups of people from the
social mainstream.”
As the Lisbon Process combined eco-
nomic and social policies in a European
“social model,” the member states agreed
in 2001 to a set of common objectives
and 18 social indicators used to report on
progress in National Action Plans for Social
Inclusion (now National Social Reports).
These facilitated a voluntary, open method
of coordination among nationally distinct
social policies. Most of the indicators refer
to income and employment; a few are on
health and education, but they continue to
evolve. In 2005, Lisbon was relaunched, and
the EU combined the goal of social inclusion
with the reform of social protection. Having
still disappointing results by 2010, the Euro-
pean Year for Combating Poverty and Social
Exclusion, the EU instituted its Agenda 2020,
where social inclusion was one of its five
objectives. The European Platform against
Poverty and Social Exclusion set a headline
target of reducing the number of people in
or at risk of poverty and social exclusion by
20 million. Three key indicators benchmark
this goal: having a net income below 60
percent of the nationally equivalent median,
severe material deprivation (lacking four or
more essential goods and services), or living
in a household with no one in paid work.

2 SO CIAL EXCLUSION
The social objectives of Agenda 2020 are
securing access for all to the resources, rights,
and services needed for participation in
society, preventing and addressing exclusion
so people can enjoy a standard of well-being
that is considered normal in the society in
which they live, fighting all forms of dis-
crimination leading to exclusion, as well as
promoting labor market participation and
ensuring that everyone has a voice in deci-
sions that affect people’s lives. Some complain
that the new emphasis on inclusive growth,
social investment, and active inclusion nar-
rows EU social policy to the economic sphere
and supports neoliberal activation programs.
In practice, the social inclusion has narrowed
down to the realms of employment and
governance.
Just as Lisbon instituted European soft
law, the hard law of the Racial Directive of
2000 – “Implementing the Principle of Equal
Treatment between Persons Irrespective of
Racial or Ethnic Origin” – prohibited racial
discrimination. It covered the spheres of
employment (access to jobs, pay, condi-
tions, benefits), education, social security,
healthcare, and access to public goods and
services and provided rights of redress and
hard sanctions for discrimination. Mainly
national-level initiatives targeted antidiscrim-
ination measures to protect specific groups,
for example people with disabilities or with
a migrant background, ethnic minorities,
and the Roma. Over time, social inclusion
policy acquired a territorial dimension as
well. Social funds once devoted to promoting
social cohesion of isolated, declining, and
restructuring regions were also targeted on
small pilot projects in severely disadvantaged
urban areas.
In the late 1990s, international agencies
began adopting exclusion discourse. The
International Labour Organization con-
tribution to the UN World Summit for
Social Development at Copenhagen in 1995
10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [28/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
(Rodgers, Gore, and Figueiredo 1995), James
Wolfenson’s 1997 World Bank Address on
“The Challenge of Inclusion,” and Amartya
Sen’s (2000) influential essay on social exclu-
sion for the Asian Development Bank all
contributed to the global diffusion of the
idea. Since 2007, the OECD, WHO, the
United Nations Development Programme,
and other international agencies have pro-
duced reports emphasizing different aspects
of social exclusion. For example, in its flag-
ship report Inclusion Matters, the World Bank
defined social inclusion as “the process of
improving the ability, opportunity, and dig-
nity of people, disadvantaged on the basis of
their identity, to take part in society” (World
Bank 2013, 4). Social inclusion also figures
prominently in many of the 2015 Sustainable
Development Goals.
SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION
AS SOCIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS
There are a number of ways to conceive
of social exclusion from the disciplinary
perspective of sociology (Silver 1994). Soci-
ologists recognize the relational nature of
the idea, whether as an interpersonal process
of preventing interaction, as institutional
barriers to access and membership, or as a
condition of insufficient social integration,
cohesion, or solidarity. Beyond this, the
meaning of exclusion is contested and varies
by ideology.
The original paradigm of exclusion rested
upon French republican ideology that empha-
sized the lien social (social bond), general will,
or collective conscience. The Durkheimian
tradition in sociology, which sees society as
held together normatively and morally, is
central to this approach (Levitas 2000). In
contrast, liberal notions of social exclusion
use the language of discrimination. Starting
from individuals who makes exchanges with
one another out of personal interests and

sympathy, the liberal approach conceives
of society as a network of cross-cutting
networks and voluntary associations. Illegiti-
mate impediments to trade or restrictions on
individual opportunity are considered exclu-
sionary, protectionist, and discriminatory. A
third conception of social exclusion is asso-
ciated with Marxist and social democratic
thought, as elaborated in Weber’s theory
of social closure. Excluders reap benefits
or “rents” by limiting access to resources
of various kinds, whether this is framed
as exploitation or as opportunity hoard-
ing. Exclusion thus reflects and reproduces
inequality, which is overcome through equal
citizenship, democratic conflict resolution, or
social rights. Frank Parkin, Norbert Elias, and
Pierre Bourdieu are representative thinkers
with this orientation. Finally, organic con-
ceptions of social integration are strongly
influenced by religious thought, especially
Christian democracy and Catholic notions
of subsidiarity. In this view, integrated indi-
viduals are nested within an ever-widening
set of social circles, from the family and the
community to the nation and the church.
Each sphere has its own responsibilities and
dedicated functions that incorporate people
into larger social wholes.
Social exclusion is a sociological idea in
another sense. This is a multidimensional
phenomenon expressed in multiple spheres
of life, not just in the economy or in politics.
Exclusion in some fields does not necessarily
imply exclusion in others. Empirical evi-
dence bears this out. Economic indicators
of exclusion such as poverty or deprivation
are imperfectly correlated with social and
community integration indicators, at least in
many European countries (Pantazis, Gordon,
and Levitas 2006). Yet sometimes exclusions
can accumulate, giving rise to multiple dis-
advantages, “consolidated parameters” or
“categorical inequality” (Massey 2008), an
“underclass,” or “intersectionality.”
10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [28/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SO CIAL EXCLUSION 3
SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN URBAN
RESEARCH
Exclusion is a social means of controlling
access to spaces as well as to activities,
resources, and information. Space is a fric-
tion to be overcome and may impede social
contact. Thus society shapes space and
vice versa, although not in a deterministic
manner.
One of the earliest sociological observa-
tions is that social exclusion is manifested
spatially. Georg Simmel’s (1908) classic essays
on “The Stranger” and “The Social Bound-
ary” inspired the notion of “social distance,”
a spatial metaphor for “grades and degrees of
understanding and intimacy that character-
ize personal and social relations” (Park 1924,
339). The extent and persistence of a group’s
spatial segregation often convey its social
distance or marginality from the mainstream.
Yet, Simmel observed, people may be physi-
cally proximate, as in the metropolis, but not
socially close.
Furthermore, social exclusion need not
take spatial forms any more than intimate
interactions always transpire in the same
place. Given modern means of communi-
cation, communities may persist without
propinquity. Remoteness of rural regions or
islands may exclude people from services and
access to the core of the nation, but even geo-
graphical isolation need not cause residents
to feel socially and culturally isolated.
For the Chicago School of sociology, it is
natural ecological processes of competition
for space, rather than social exclusion, that
give rise to the metropolitan sociospatial
structure of concentric zones and natural
areas. While recognizing that neighborhoods
might defend themselves from invasion
by newcomers, the ecologists assumed an
open society that allowed assimilating ethnic
groups to follow the native middle classes out
of the central city. Robert Park (1924, 341)

4 SO CIAL EXCLUSION
argued that in a democracy there should be
no social distances between human beings,
quoting Walt Whitman’s lines addressed “to
a common prostitute”: “Not until the sun
excludes you will I exclude you.”
There is a cultural aspect to spatial arrange-
ments. Spatial boundaries are moral and
symbolic as well as physical. Many borders
are carefully policed to maintain security,
comfort, and social control within and to
prevent defilement or contamination by
outsiders. Consequently, encroachments or
transgressions of boundaries are a cause for
anxiety or thrill (Sibley 1995). Insofar as
social exclusion is a relational process, groups
or institutions may, explicitly or unintention-
ally, convey the message to “get out,” “stay
in,” or “keep out.”
Thus, three key mechanisms of spatial
exclusion are displacement, confinement,
and seclusion. First, exclusion through dis-
placement can happen through seemingly
impersonal market mechanisms, natu-
ral disasters, or symbolic architecture, as
well as through intentional demolitions,
military invasions, and threatening neigh-
bors. Second, confinement, enclosure, and
imprisonment are relational processes that
coercively exclude people from the larger
society by shutting them into bounded
spaces, thereby rupturing or preventing the
formation of social relations and giving rise
to what may be called “excluded places.” The
residential segregation of a social group is
both a cause and a consequence of social
exclusion, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.
Finally, the seclusion of the rich in “gated
communities” is as apt an exclusionary
metaphor as is Fortress Europe. Although
class or group clustering need not always be
an expression of social exclusion, less affluent
residents of “defended neighborhoods” (Sut-
tles 1972) may also close ranks against new
immigrants, racial minorities, the homeless,
or the developmentally disabled.
10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [28/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SOME CAVEATS
This analysis of spatial exclusion mech-
anisms, while resting on the dualism of
inside and outside, is not meant to imply
that the boundaries from which people are
excluded or exclude themselves are necessar-
ily essential, impermeable, or heavily policed.
Boundary work operates more to regulate
entry and exit, and the borders may blur
or even recede over time, moderating the
exclusivity of social groups.
One should not exaggerate the liberating
potential of public space. In practice it is
not truly public, and most of the time public
access and public goods are unequally shared.
Local parks and playgrounds, for example, are
often considered the “turf” – possessions of
the nearby residents, who patrol and defend
them from outsiders. Proximity and longevity
more than class usually determine who is a
local and who is an outsider.
A third reservation about this analysis con-
cerns the inordinate scholarly attention given
to excluded places. This creates a danger of
neglecting the socially excluded individuals
who do not live among people in a con-
dition similar to their own. A majority of
poor Americans, for example, do not live in
poor neighborhoods. Furthermore, there are
members of excluded groups who have been
both socioeconomically and spatially mobile,
such as those who live in minority suburbs.
Nor should one assume that all the residents
of excluded places are equally disadvantaged.
In the United States, for example, the poverty
rate threshold for designating neighborhoods
of “extreme poverty” is 40 percent, which
means that the other 60 percent are not poor.
Fourth, social exclusion has some upsides.
Spatial clustering may enable a group to
achieve a jurisdictional majority and to
elect its own representatives. Clustering in
enclaves makes it easier to identify and mobi-
lize communities of fate politically as well as

economically. Even if slums are miserable,
they are also places of enterprise, enabling
rural migrants to earn a living, support their
families, and invest in their homes. Being
on the outside may strengthen feelings of
collective identity. Spatial separation rein-
forces social exclusion, but can also be used
to contest it. Bottom-up organizations of
ordinary residents can sometimes be effective
in preventing slum demolition or relocation,
in winning improvements in infrastructure
or legal recognition as official residents,
and in claiming an equal “right to the city.”
Excluded neighborhoods may lack bridges
to the larger society, but their internal bonds
may be strong.
Finally, inclusion has its downsides too.
For example, gentrification is a form of
social class integration that is exclusionary
to the extent that it causes rents to rise to
the point of displacing existing residents,
businesses, and cultural institutions. Mixing
residents of different income levels may lead
to mutual avoidance. Social mixing policies
that press subsidized minorities to interact
with more privileged neighbors who look
down on them can produce a sense of “in-
corporated exclusion” (Chaskin and Joseph
2015), rather than the intended engage-
ment between equal citizens. There is local
pressure, even coercion for minorities to
conform. Evaluations of mixing policies have
found that low income residents with trans-
portable subsidies often leave low-poverty
areas and move back to more segregated,
disadvantaged areas where they have ties
and feel comfortable. Some minorities may
feel that diversity and mixing policies aim to
assimilate their group at the expense of their
culture and distinct identity. So resistance to
neighborhood integration may not always
have nefarious, self-interested, or bigoted
motivations.
Thus, diversifying or integrating places is
not always beneficial or desirable. Openness
10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [28/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SO CIAL EXCLUSION 5
can jeopardize group values and practices
and the feeling of being at home. Group
autonomy at least offers some control over
one’s associates and daily life – and even
self-governance. Assimilation often means
acculturation. Languages can become extinct.
Tribes can no longer maintain their practices.
Cultural rights and group self-determination
are increasingly recognized as universal.
Indeed, the terms of social inclusion may
put newcomers at a permanent disadvantage
in relation to existing members. “Adverse
incorporation” may coerce people into unde-
sired social relations that systematically
disadvantage them. It is a perverse expres-
sion of social inclusion that, in contexts of
local monopolies, may perpetuate poverty
(Hickey and du Toit 2007). Forced labor at
a starvation wage is not a true invitation to
participate. Paradoxically, recognizing and
assisting an excluded group in the name of
inclusion may simultaneously stigmatize,
label, or include them in ways they did not
choose. Even receiving social assistance or
housing subsidies, if stigmatized, can produce
exclusion. Inclusion may sound good – but
on whose terms?
Contrary to popular usage, social inclu-
sion is not the necessary obverse of social
exclusion. Prohibiting discrimination is
not the same thing as actively promoting
integration. Nor will inclusion or the social
diversification of an institution or neighbor-
hood necessarily produce social integration
and harmony. Greater contact between
groups may just as easily lead to conflict or
withdrawal.
SEE ALSO: Concentrated Poverty; Ghetto;
New Urban Poverty; Segregation/
Desegregation; Social Cohesion; Urban
Underclass
REFERENCES
Castel, Robert. 1991. “De l’indigence à l’exclusion:
La désaffiliation” [“From Poverty to Exclusion:

6 SO CIAL EXCLUSION
Disaffiliation”]. In Face à l’exclusion [Confronting
Exclusion], edited by Jacques Donzelot,
137–168. Paris: Esprit.
Chaskin, Robert, and Mark Joseph. 2015. Integrat-
ing the Inner City: The Promise and Perils of
Mixed-Income Public Housing Transformation.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Commissariat Général du Plan. 1992.
“L’Exclusion: Rupture du lien social” [“Ex-
clusion: Breach of the Social Tie”]. Problèmes
Économiques, 2(282): 1–4.
Giddens, Anthony. 1998. The Third Way and Its
Critics. Cambridge: Polity.
Hickey, Sam, and Andries du Toit. 2007. Adverse
Incorporation, Social Exclusion and Chronic
Poverty. Working Paper 81. Chronic Poverty
Research Centre, University of Manchester,
Manchester.
Lenoir, René. 1974. Les exclus: Un français sur dix.
[The Excluded: One French Person out of Ten].
Paris: Seuil.
Levitas, Ruth. 2000. “What Is Social Exclusion?” In
Breadline Europe: The Measurement of Poverty,
edited by David Gordon and Peter Townsend,
357–383. Bristol: Policy Press.
Massey, Douglas. 2008. Categorically Unequal: The
American Stratification System. New York, NY:
Russell Sage.
Pantazis, Christina, David Gordon, and Ruth Lev-
itas, eds. 2006. Poverty and Social Exclusion in
Britain: The Millennium Survey. Bristol: Policy
Press.
Park, Robert Ezra. 1924. “The Concept of Social
Distance as Applied to the Study of Racial Atti-
tudes and Racial Relations.” Journal of Applied
Sociology, 8: 339–344.
Paugam, Serge. 1991. La disqualification sociale:
Essai sur la nouvelle pauvreté [Social Disqulifi-
cation: Essay on the New Poverty]. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Rodgers, Gerry, Charles Gore, and Jose B.
Figueiredo. 1995. Social Exclusion: Rhetoric,
Reality, Responses. Geneva: International Insti-
tute for Labour Studies, International Labour
Organization.
10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0486 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [28/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Room, Graham. 2010. “The Path to Lisbon: The
European Anti-Poverty Programmes from the
1970s to the 1990s.” Kurswechsel, 3: 9–18.
Sen, Amartya. 2000. Social Exclusion: Concept,
Application, and Scrutiny. Manila: Asian Devel-
opment Bank.
Sibley, David. 1995. Geographies of Exclusion: Soci-
ety and Difference in the West. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Silver, Hilary. 1994. “Social Exclusion and Social
Solidarity: Three Paradigms.” International
Labour Review, 133: 531–578.
Simmel, Georg. 1908. “The Stranger” and “The
Social Boundary.” In Soziologie: Untersuchungen
über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung, 402–408.
Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Suttles, Gerald. 1972. The Social Construction of
Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
World Bank. 2013. Inclusion Matters: The Foun-
dation for Shared Prosperity. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
FURTHER READING
Elias, Norbert, and John L. Scotson. 1994. The
Established and the Outsiders, 2nd ed. London:
SAGE.
Gallie, Duncan, and Serge Paugam, eds. 2000.
Welfare Regimes and the Experience of Unem-
ployment in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Geddes, Mike. 2000. “Tackling Social Exclusion in
the European Union? The Limits to the New
Orthodoxy of Local Partnership.” International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 20:
782–800.
Webster, Christopher, Georg Glasze, and Klaus
Frantz. 2002. “Guest Editorial: The Global
Spread of Gated Communities.” Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design 29:
315–320.
Wilson, William Julius. 2013. “Combating Con-
centrated Poverty in Urban Neighborhoods.”
Journal of Applied Social Science, 7(2): 135–143.