SOCIAL EXCLUSION : CONCEPT AND DATA INDICATING EXCLUSION IN SLOVENIA
Martina Trbanc
SOCIAL EXCLUSION :
THE CONCEPT AND DATA INDICATING
EXCLUSION IN SLOVENIA
Abstract
The content of the article is divided into two parts . In the first, the
social exclusion concept is introduced, and different contexts of its use
and some difficulties with its operationalisation and empirical obser-
vation are discussed. In the second, the relevance of the approach for
Slovenia is argued for and data illustrating the current Slovenian
social situation is presented . The term social exclusion is used to
label the processes and situations of the exclusion of individuals and
groups from the opportunities, benefits and rights that are commonly
available in contemporary societies . One can actually talk of situa-
tions of social exclusion in its broad sense when there is an overlap-
ping of exclusions on different dimensions (civic, economic, social,
interpersonal) or in spheres within the dimensions . For the empirical
presentation of the situation in Slovenia, disadvantages and exclu-
sions were observed in six spheres of respondents' lives (education,
employment/work, consumption, housing, access to services in the
resident environment, and interpersonal integration). The emphasis
was on the cumulation and overlapping of disadvantages and exclu-
sions from different spheres and on the concentration of situations of
multiple disadvantage and exclusion in some population groups . It
was assumed that when individuals or groups suffer disadvantages
and exclusions in many different spheres at the same time, this indi-
cates that their economic and social participation is very low and that
they run a high risk of social exclusion if this has not happened
already. The picture of the concentration of situations of multiple dis-
advantage and exclusion, and consequentially the risk of social exclu-
sion (if not established social exclusion), in Slovenia is rather tradi-
tional. Groups that are more often at a higher risk of social exclusion
are older people, the poorly educated, people living in small places
(villages), people living alone or in extended families, farmers (peas-
ants), and the unemployed or people performing occasional jobs .
Keywords: social exclusion, disadvantages, resources, risk of social
exclusion, Slovenia
DR, VoI.XII(1996)22-23
	
99
Martina Trbanc	
INTRODUCTION
In the last decade the term social exclusion has gained a lot of attention
in Europe, not only in social science, but also in political discourse and in
the media. The term is generally used for labelling the processes and situ-
ations of the exclusion of individuals and groups from the opportunities,
benefits and rights (political, economic and social) that are commonly avail-
able and expected in contemporary Western societies. The discussion on
social exclusion in Europe coincides with warnings of possible social devel-
opment in the direction of increased social differentiation and the possibili-
ty of the "dualisation" of West-European societies, which would mean the
majority of people enjoying a good standard of living, having well-paid
jobs and being socially protected, and the minority of people, living at the
edge of society, excluded from most of the resources, benefits, rights and
protection . The notion of social exclusion is essentially connected to its
inverse - social inclusion or integration into society, achieved through par-
ticipation in economic, political and social systems, in important
resources and institutions .
It can be argued that the concept of social exclusion is a relative one
since the content and the scope of generally expected and available oppor-
tunities, benefits and guaranteed rights vary between societies . In this
sense, social exclusion is very much European concept - first, because of
its linkage to social policy issues, social rights issues, welfare provision,
access to resources etc ., and second, because of the relative similarity of
expectations and the scope of commonly available opportunities, benefits
and rights in contemporary West-European societies. Nevertheless, existing
attempts to use a social exclusion approach to explain social realities in the
very different countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia (Rodgers, Gore,
Figueired, eds, 1995) show that the concept is so broad that very different
social situations and backgrounds can be interpreted within it . Since the
social exclusion concept is closely tied to structural changes in societies, it
also seems appropriate for explaining social situations and changes in
European post-socialist countries .
The main purpose of this article is to call attention to the actuality of the
social exclusion concept in Slovenia and also to present data illustrating
the current Slovenian social situation . The main characteristics and the
definition of the concept will be presented and followed by data on the con-
centration of exclusions and disadvantages in certain population groups
that are at high risk of social exclusion if not socially excluded already .
THE SOCIAL EXCLUSION CONCEPT
DIFFERENT CONTEXTS
Even though the term social exclusion is a relatively new one, the basic
situation of the exclusion (excluding) of certain individuals and population
groups from goods, resources, institutions or power has been observed and
described in social sciences in different ways and within different contexts .
100
	
DR, Vol.XII(1996)22-23
SOCIAL EXCLUSION : CONCEPT AND DATA INDICATING EXCLUSION IN SLOVENIA
Hilary Silver (1994), who analysed the existing literature on exclusion in
Western Europe, pointed out that different understandings of exclusion are
based on different theoretical perspectives, political ideologies and national
discourses. She identified three paradigms of exclusion and named them
after their typical characteristics as the solidarity paradigm (rooted in
French Republican thought), the specialisation paradigm (based on Anglo-
American liberal thought) and the monopoly paradigm (based on social-
democratic thought)' .
The notion of social exclusion itself originally appeared in France . In the
1960s and 1970s it was used in political language and in the media for
labelling various categories of people that were considered social problems
but were (at that time) not included into the framework of the French social
insurance system2 (Silver, 1994) . Later, in the 1980s, the term became cen-
tral in the debates about the nature of so-called new poverty . In the French
context, social exclusion is understood as a process of social disintegration
in the sense of the progressive breaking of the relationships between indi-
viduals and society, which happens for different interrelated reasons but
mainly as a consequence of structural economic changes . The breaking of
different forms of solidarity (class solidarity, family, neighbourhood solidari-
ty, etc .) leads to social phenomena like homelessness, single parent fami-
lies, violent tensions, attacks on immigrants etc .
In the last decade the notion of social exclusion has spread from France
to other European countries . Its recent frequent use and popularity in
Western Europe is also connected to the fact that it has been used a lot,
since the end of the 1980s, by the European Commission . At European
Union level social exclusion is not understood in a French (solidarity) sense,
but more in the context of social policy, creation of measures for the inte-
gration of excluded groups and evaluation of existing policy measures
(whether they are adequate, whether they reach target groups, etc .)3. On
a more general level the notion of social exclusion is connected to citizens'
social rights and to so-called social citizenship (clearly related to T . H
. Mars hall's4 concept of citizenship with its three main components: civil rights,
political rights and social rights) . In this context social exclusion indicates
the denial (or non-realisation) of the social rights of citizens5 (Observatory,
1992:16) .
It should also be mentioned that in European Union documents the term
social exclusion often appears together with the term poverty . A distinction
between poverty and social exclusion is usually based on the dimensions
covered by each term - the term poverty mainly indicates material depriva-
tion (lack of financial resources), whereas social exclusion is a multi-
dimensional concept, covering not only material, but also social, political
and interpersonal dimensions (Commins, 1995, Berghman, 1994) . Of
course, this is only true as long as poverty is defined (and measured) in
the indirect way, that is in terms of income (instead of observing real living
conditions and consumption, only the main determinant - income - is
measured) . But if poverty is defined (and measured) directly (measuring dif-
ferent dimensions of living conditions and consumption), that is in terms of
relative deprivation, the distinction between poverty and social exclusion is
DR, Vol .XII(1996)22-23
	
101
Martina Trbanc
less clear .6 The other, more evident, distinction between the concepts of
poverty and social exclusion is in the issues that the concepts stress : while
poverty is more about distributional issues (distribution of financial and
other resources), social exclusion is more about relational ones (inadequate
social participation, lack of integration, lack of power) (Room, 1995) .
DEFINITION AND PROBLEMS OF OPERATIONALISATION AND
EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION
The fact that the notion of social exclusion is broad, multidimensional
and complex is often stated as its advantage, because it can cover and
explain different forms, dimensions and mechanisms of exclusion (Com-
mins, 1993, Berghman, 1994). On the other hand, the broadness and elas-
ticity of the approach create numerous problems in its operationalisation
and in empirical observation . That also seems to be the main reason why
there are no clear and tested indicators of social exclusion and why the
scope and the dynamics of social exclusion have only been speculated
about and not measured or estimated on a more solid basis .
An attempt to clarify the social exclusion approach was made within the
Observatory on National Policies to Combat Social Exclusion? . In the
Observatory report individuals were understood to suffer social exclusion
when: a) they suffered general disadvantage in terms of education, training,
employment, housing, financial resources, etc . ; b) their chances of gaining
access to the major social institutions which distribute these life chances
were substantially less that those of the rest of the population ; c) these dis-
advantages persisted over time (Observatory, 1992) . Taking this as a defini-
tion of social exclusion, three important elements can be identified : the sit-
uation of overlapping disadvantages ; poorer chances or barriers in access to
institutions, resources, etc . (mechanisms of excluding) ; duration of the situ-
ation. So, the social exclusion approach covers both the situations of exclu-
sion in different spheres and also the processes (mechanisms) of excluding .
As suggested by Irish researchers of the Observatory (Commins, 1993),
the dimensions of social exclusion are connected to the four systems of
integration into society: the democratic and legal systems (providing legal
and political integration) ; the economic system and the labour market (pro-
viding economic integration through work and earnings) ; the welfare system
(providing social integration by assuring access to social services and pro-
grammes guaranteed by the state) ; and the interpersonal system of family,
neighbourhood and friendship networks (providing interpersonal integra-
tion, moral support and safety) . These four integrative systems represent
the four dimensions of possible exclusion - civil, economic, social and inter-
personal (each of them covering different spheres in which individuals or
groups can be severely disadvantaged or excluded) .
Looking at the situations and the dynamics of social exclusion from the
empirical point of view, two sets of problems are evident .
First, a substantial question in the operationalisation of social exclusion
is where to draw the line; that is in how many spheres or dimensions do
individuals have to be severely disadvantaged or excluded for their situation
102
	
DR, Vol.XII(1996)22-23
SOCIAL EXCLUSION : CONCEPT AND DATA INDICATING EXCLUSION IN SLOVENIA
to be described as social exclusion? It seems that we can talk about the sit-
uations of social exclusion in its broad sense only when there is a cumula-
tion of exclusions on different dimensions or in spheres within these . But,
there are other open questions, such as : is it equally important in which
spheres (on which dimension) individuals are excluded or are some spheres
(like employment, education, housing, or maybe interpersonal integration)
more important for participation in society and integration than others?
Moreover, one also has to consider the mechanisms of redistribution and
compensation for different disadvantages. Two mechanisms especially seem
to be very important in the alleviation of situations of severe disadvantages
and exclusions : the state (social policy incorporating different measures
and programmes and a guaranteed social safety net) and family networks .
It is possible to assume that the role of both is important in preventing the
development of multidimensional social exclusion and marginalisation
from separate exclusions and disadvantages .
Second, there is the problem of finding appropriate data for the empirical
observation of social exclusion . For capturing its multi-dimensional
nature, data from different spheres of individuals' lives is needed . The
existing institutional and statistical data is apparently not sufficient, since
it offers only partial information on separate spheres (separately on unem-
ployment, housing, education, etc .), and from it we can only speculate
about what is happening to individuals that are excluded or severely dis-
advantaged in one sphere, in other spheres : can they compensate for
exclusion in one sphere or does it influence and reinforce disadvantages
and exclusions in other spheres? In addition, if we want to observe not only
the situations of exclusion, but also its dynamics (processes and their dura-
tion, transitions into and out of exclusion, mechanisms and barriers that
lead to social exclusion), the data covering different spheres of individuals'
lives has to be long-term (covering life events for a relatively long period of
time) . It seems that this kind of data can only be obtained by special sur-
veys .
SITUATIONS OF DISADVANTAGE AND EXCLUSION IN
SLOVENIA
THE CONTEXT
In the last decade Slovenia has been facing profound institutional and
legislative changes in political (democratisation, independent state), eco-
nomic (encouraging market mechanisms, competition, entrepreneurship,
privatisation) and social (changes in social policy and social transfers) sys-
tems. It can be assumed that these changes have affected the mechanisms
and the patterns of participation of people in different resources and insti-
tutions .
Most of the recent statistical data on the social situation in Slovenia (such
as data on unemployment, data on social assistance recipients, data on
applicants for social housing units, etc .), show that the scope of exclusion
DR, Vol .XII(1996)22-23
	
103
Martina Trbanc
from participation in the resources that are important for the welfare of
individuals and for their integration into society has increased in recent
years. Since the important resources (for example education, employment,
housing, social services like child care and health care, pension schemes,
etc.) are no longer only accessible through public (welfare) provision, but
are also, and in some cases (like employment) exclusively, available through
market mechanisms, they have become relatively more scarce for affected
individuals . It is not always clear how short or long-term the nature of
exclusion in different spheres is, but some trends (for example the prolong-
ing of the average duration of unemployment and the increasing proportion
of long-term unemployment) indicate that at least in some' spheres the
exclusion is becoming more long-term .
Regarding increased separate (partial) exclusions, it is very important if
individuals who are excluded in one sphere are capable of compensating for
these exclusions in some other way, otherwise exclusions in different
spheres start overlapping, cumulating and leading to social exclusion . In
this context it seems important to note that the role of social policy, as an
important mechanism of redistribution and compensation, is also changing
- from universal to more partial and targeted, from preventive to mainly
curative. With the exception of active labour market policy, the tendency in
social policy is in the direction of the state retaining the role of basic
provider of the social safety net, while a large part of social services and
public welfare are transferred to the market (private insurance schemes,
market services, pension schemes) and to the civil society (first of all to the
family, but also to voluntary and similar organisations) . It seems that
in Slovenia, family networks are playing an important role in compensat-
ing for economic and social disadvantages .
With the increased social differentiation in Slovenia, it is likely that there
will be not only increased exclusions in different spheres, but also the con-
centration of disadvantages and exclusions within more vulnerable popula-
tion groups . This also indicates the processes and situations of social exclu
sion or at least a high risk of it. If social p licy is at all concerned with pre-
venting social exclusion and marginalisation of certain population groups,
than the question of the dispersion or/and concentration of situations of
multiple disadvantages and exclusions and consequentially the dispersion
or/and concentration of risks of social exclusion in the population should
be the key question both for planning and targeting of different policies .
THE EMPIRICAL APPROACH
In the rest of the article empirical information on the situations of disad-
vantage and exclusion in Slovenia is presented . The emphasis is on the
scope of different partial (separate) exclusions and disadvantages, on their
cumulation, and on the concentration of situations of multiple disadvan-
tage and exclusion in certain population groups . We assume that if individ-
uals or groups suffer disadvantages and exclusions in many different
spheres simultaneously this indicates that their economic and social partic-
ipation is very low and that they run a high risk of social exclusion (if they
104
	
DR, Vol.XII(1996)22-23
SOCIAL EXCLUSION : CONCEPT AND DATA INDICATING EXCLUSION IN SLOVENIA
are not socially excluded already) . In this context the cumulation of disad-
vantages and separate exclusions is taken as an estimation of at least
potential social exclusion . For the time being, we only concentrate on the
static aspect of exclusion (situations), while the dynamic one (processes)
still waits for further empirical investigation8 .
The data used in the presentation is from the Quality of Life Survey and
was collected in May 19949 . The survey provides both a description of the
objective situations of respondents in different spheres (education, employ-
ment, housing, health, family situation, etc .) and respondents' subjective
evaluations of those situations and conditions . This way the Quality of Life
data-base represents a valuable source of information on the situations in
different spheres of respondents' lives . However, because of the nature of
the Quality of Life Survey, for most of the observed spheres we only have
data on disadvantages, while data on exclusions is available more rarely or
can only be inferred from disadvantage data .
The spheres of housing, services in resident environment, education, con-
sumption, employment (work) and interpersonal integration are included in
our presentation . Regarding the four dimensions of social exclusion men-
tioned earlier, the spheres we include in the analysis cover three of these :
economic, social and interpersonal, while for the fourth dimension (civic)
the Quality of Life Survey does not provide enough information .
For each of the observed spheres indicators of disadvantage or/and exclu-
sion are calculated . t o A detailed description of these indicators is present-
ed in the Appendix .
CUMULATION OF DISADVANTAGES AND EXCLUSIONS
The proportions of respondents that are disadvantaged or excluded in
each of the observed spheres are shown in Table 1 . Percentages of respon-
dents with problems are relatively high in all observed spheres, with the
exception of interpersonal isolation, although even here the level is not neg-
ligible . The most problematic spheres are education and housing - in each
of them nearly every second respondent has problems that can be consid-
ered serious .
Table 1 :
DISADVANTAGES AND EXCLUSIONS IN DIFFERENT SPHERES
respondents disadvantaged/excluded in each sphere
sphere	 absolute N .	% of all respondents	
housing disadvantage 744 43.1
low access to services in resident environment 489 27 .2
educational disadvantage 806 45 .1
consumption disadvantage 516 28.8
employment/work disadvantage/exclusion 486 27.8 #
interpersonal isolation
	
255 14.2
# % of respondents with employment/work disadvantage/exclusion among all (not just among the active ones)
DR, Vol .XII(1996)22-23 105
Martina Trbanc
To see how serious the overlapping of problems is, we observe the cumu-
lation of disadvantages and exclusions from different spheres . As is evident
from Table 2, only 17 .2 percent of respondents are not disadvantaged or
excluded in any of the observed spheres, which is a very small minority . A
little more than half the respondents (52 .3 percent) have problems in one or
two spheres . For these it can still be assumed that they are capable of
alleviating their problems either with the help of social policy measures, the
help of family or with more intense participation in other spheres . The situ-
ation of the 30 .6 percent of respondents with disadvantages and exclusions
in three or more observed spheres is more problematic . Especially for
those with problems in four or more spheres, one could say there is a high
risk of social exclusion - for respondents with disadvantages and exclusions
in five or all six observed spheres (3 .2 percent) possibly even that they are
already socially excluded .
Table 2 :
CUMULATION OF DISADVANTAGES AND EXCLUSIONS FROM DIFFERENT SPHERES
Number of spheres, respondent
	
absolute N of
is disadvantaged/excluded in	respondents	% of respondents	
0 281 17 .2
1 462 28 .3
2 392 24 .0
3 276 16 .9
4 172 10 .5
5 48 3.0
6 3 0 .2
N = 1634 # 100 .0
# In adding together the disadvantages and exclusions from different spheres, the problem of missing val-
ues becomes more apparent (adding up the disadvantages, the missing values are also cumulated) .It is
not possible to obtain information on cumulation of disadvantages and exclusions for 172 interviewed per-
sons (9.5% of those interviewed) . It has to be assumed that the missing values are distributed randomly
through the sample and not concentrated within a certain population group . The same also applies in
Table 3 .
For the 13 .7 percent of respondents with problems in four or more
spheres, we looked at the most frequent combinations of disadvantages . In
cases of four cumulated disadvantages or exclusions the most frequent
combination is : educational disadvantage, housing disadvantage, low
access to services in the resident environment and consumption disadvan-
tage (40 percent of respondents with problems in four spheres) . Also rela-
tively frequent is the combination of educational disadvantage, employ-
ment/work disadvantage, housing disadvantage and consumption disad-
vantage (13 .2 percent of respondents with problems in four spheres) .
Among the respondents that are disadvantaged or excluded in five spheres
(48 interviewed persons), 41 .7 percent have problems in all observed
I06 DR, Vol.XII(1996)22-23
SOCIAL EXCLUSION : CONCEPT AND DATA INDICATING EXCLUSION IN SLOVENIA
spheres except employment/work (it is highly probable that they are non-
active people), and 39 .8 percent have problems in all spheres except
interpersonal integration .
In table 3 the cumulation of disadvantages and exclusions is presented by
dimensions. The economic dimension includes the spheres of consumption
disadvantage and employment / work disadvantage . The social dimension
includes housing disadvantage, low access to services in the resident envi-
ronment and educational disadvantage. The interpersonal dimension is
represented by interpersonal isolation (or non-integration) itself . Respon-
dents were counted as having problems in a certain dimension if they were
disadvantaged or excluded in at least one of the relevant spheres .
Table 3 :
CUMULATION OF DISADVANTAGES AND EXCLUSIONS BY DIMENSIONS (ECONOMIC,
SOCIAL, INTERPERSONAL)
	 absolute N of respondents	% of respondents	
not disadvantaged/excluded
in any dimension
	
281 17.2
disadvantaged/excluded in one dimension :
economic 175 10.7
social 461 28.2
interpersonal 25 1.6
disadvantaged/excluded in two dimensions :
economic and social 496 30.4
social and interpersonal 79 4.8
economic and interpersonal 12 0.7
disadvantaged/excluded in three dimensions 105 6 .4
N =1634 100 .0
As calculated from Table 3, 40.5 percent of respondents are disadvan-
taged or excluded in one dimension, 35 .9 percent in two dimensions and
6.4 percent in all three of the observed dimensions . The most common coin-
cidence of exclusions is between the economic and social dimensions, while
combinations with the interpersonal dimension are much more rare . The
difficult situation of respondents with disadvantages and exclusions in all
three dimensions is evident, since they can hardly alleviate their problems
in any of the observed integrative systems (economic system and labour
market; welfare state and social policy ; family and friend networks) .
CONCENTRATION OF DISADVANTAGES AND EXCLUSIONS IN
CERTAIN GROUPS
Situations of cumulated disadvantages and exclusions can be distributed
rather dispersely in the population or can be concentrated in specific,
rather homogeneous population groups . To see where (in which population
groups) the disadvantages and exclusions are concentrated in Slovenia,
the group of respondents with four or more disadvantages and exclusions
was broken down by variables of gender, age, education, work (activity) sta-
tus, household structure, and size of their place of residence . The signifi-
DR, Vol.XII(1996)22-23 I07
Martina Trbanc
cance and the strength of the relationship between situations of multiple
disadvantage (that is, disadvantages and exclusions in four or more
spheres) and the above mentioned variables were tested .
Table 4 :
RESPONDENTS WITH DISADVANTAGES AND EXCLUSIONS IN FOUR OR MORE SPHERES BY
GENDER, AGE, EDUCATION, WORK (ACTIVITY) STATUS, HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE AND
SIZE OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE
disadvantaged/excluded in
four or more spheres
	
Cramer's
	 absolute number	%	coefficient	significance 1)
OF ALL RESPONDENTS	223	13.7
GENDER 0.031
male 99 12 .5
female	 124	14.6	
AGE (in years) 0.102 "`
18-24 25 11 .8
25 - 34 34 10 .1
35 - 44 36 11 .0
45 - 54 38 14 .1
55 - 64 37 16 .9
65-75	 53	20.0	
EDUCATION (school finished) 0.333 ""
primary school or less 183 26 .9
vocational school 33 8 .1
general sec . school 6 1 .5
more than sec. school	2	1 .1	
WORK (ACTIVITY) STATUS 0.246
employed 78 10 .0
self-employed and employers 2) 0 0 .0
farmers 3) 43 36 .4
occasional work for payment 4) . 8 21 .8
unemployed 26 24 .6
retired 49 12 .9
in school 2 2 .1
other non-active	17	23.3	
HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE 0.140 '**
living alone 20 18 .3
living with a partner 23 10 .0
single parent family 12 12 .5
two parents family 83 9 .9
extended family	61	21 .6	
SIZE OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE	0.354	"
less than 500 people 154 32 .0
500 to less than 2.000 people 28 9 .8
2 .000 to less than 10 .000 people 16 4 .9
10.000 to less than 50 .000 people 7 3 .5
50.000 people and more 14 4 .6
1) Statistical significance of the relationship : 0 .001 < P<_ 0 .01
2) Except farmers
p 0 .001
Th
Included are respondents who are retired (because of their age), but live on a farm and actively farm .
ey are counted together with farmers because the percentages of respondents with disad-
vantages in four or more spheres are nearly the same in both groups: among active farmers
36.3% and among retired farmers 36.5% .
4) Occasional work for payment refers to respondents that are not employed and do not have any other
formal work status, but perform occasional or seasonal work, mostly for direct payment . Also included are
family member workers (not employed, but helping in the family business or farm) .
108 DR, Vol.XII(1996)22-23
SOCIAL EXCLUSION: CONCEPT AND DATA INDICATING EXCLUSION IN SLOVENIA
Relationships between the situations of multiple disadvantages and the
tested variables are statistically significant for all variables except gender .
The strongest relationships are between multiple disadvantages and the
size of the respondent's place of residence and between multiple disadvan-
tages and the respondent's education .
Looking at the size of place of residence, a clear distinction between very
small places (less than 500 inhabitants) and other places is evident . Among
respondents living in places with less than 500 inhabitants, nearly one
third are in situations of multiple disadvantage and exclusion . This points
to the problem of spatial concentration of disadvantages and leads to the
conclusion that the risk of social exclusion is higher for people living in
small, relatively isolated and possibly under-developed places .
The strong relationship between multiple disadvantages and education
was expected, since education proved from the beginning to be the most
frequent sphere in which respondents generally were disadvantaged . There-
fore, more than one out of four respondents with only primary education or
less are in situations of multiple disadvantage and exclusion . The propor-
tion of respondents with multiple disadvantages and exclusions in groups
with higher levels of education are significantly smaller, which leads to the
conclusion that higher levels of education decrease the probability of being
in a situation of cumulated disadvantage and exclusion .
Work (activity) status also proved to be important in the explanation of
situations of multiple disadvantage . The share of respondents with four or
more disadvantages and exclusions is relatively high in the group of unem-
ployed (one quarter) as well as it is in the group of respondents performing
different occasional and unstable work for payment. By far the most
exposed to the situations of multiple disadvantage and exclusion is the
group of farmers (peasants), among whom 36 .4 percent are disadvantaged
or excluded in four or more spheres . It should be noted that elderly people,
living on farms, receiving pensions, but still farming and declaring them-
selves as farmers have been included in this group . Nevertheless, the high
figure indicates the generally low inclusion of farmers into society and
social life and also the fact that the relatively bad socio-economic situation
of farmers, already described by Ivan Svetlik (1986) using the Quality of
Live data for the year 1984, is continuing . On the other hand, the data
shows that among respondents that are self-employed or employers there
are no situations of multiple disadvantage and exclusion . The share of
respondents with situations of multiple disadvantage and exclusion is also
very low in the group of younger people who are still in education, and for
whom the support and compensation of family is obviously very strong .
Regarding age groups, the proportions of respondents in situations of
cumulated disadvantage and exclusion are highest for older respondents, in
the age groups from 55 to 64 years and from 65 to 75 years . Gender differ-
ences are not statistically significant, but the percentages for women are
slightly higher than for men . The household structure is significantly relat-
ed to situations of multiple disadvantage and exclusion . The highest pro-
portions of respondents with multiple disadvantages are among respon-
DR, Vol.XII(I996)22-23
	
109
Martina Trbanc
dents living in extended families or living alone . It is possible to speculate
that in both cases we are observing mostly aged respondents, single (and
therefore living alone) or living with the families of their children or other
relatives. The share of respondents with multiple disadvantages in a group
that was expected to be very vulnerable and at high risk of marginalisa-
tion, that is the group of one-parent families, is around the average of the
sample as a whole, but it is higher than in the group of two-parent families .
The fact that situations of multiple disadvantage and exclusion are more
often concentrated among older respondents, especially among those who
live alone or with the extended families, indicates that the family transfer of
help and compensation for different exclusions and disadvantages flows
mainly from older to younger generations and much less in the opposite
way .
On the basis of information from Table 4, one can speculate on a hypo-
thetical picture of a "typical" respondent that is disadvantaged or excluded
in four or more spheres and is therefore at high risk of social exclusion, if
not already socially excluded . This is an older, poorly educated person, liv-
ing in a small place (village), alone or in an extended family, either (and
most probably) living on a farm and farming or unemployed or performing
occasional jobs . So, the picture of risks for social exclusion in Slovenia
shows a relatively traditional image, with the risks concentrated in small,
spatially isolated places, among older people, the less educated, aged farm-
ers, the unemployed and persons performing different occasional jobs .
NOTES
1 . Within the French solidarity paradigm exclusion is understood to occur when the
social bond between the individual and society (the bond which constructs social sol-
idarity) breaks down (Silver, 1994 :541). This approach relies heavily on the ways in
which cultural and moral boundaries between groups socially construct dualistic cat-
egories (integrated, excluded) for ordering the world . It focuses attention on the
exclusion inherent in the solidarity of the nation, race, ethnicity, locality and other
cultural or primordial ties . The solution for exclusion is seen to be the insertion of
the excluded, thus reinforcing social cohesion .
Within the specialisation paradigm exclusion is considered to be a consequence of
specialisation : of social differentiation, economic division of labour and the separa-
tion of spheres (Silver, 1994 :542) . The specialisation approach is individualistic, even
though the reasons for exclusion are not based only on individualistic preferences,
but on the structures created by co-operating and competing individuals (market,
associations and the like) . Exclusion can result from an inadequate separation of
social spheres, from the application of rules inappropriate to a given sphere, or from
barriers between the spheres . Since social spheres exist separately, the same individ-
ual may not be excluded in every sphere . Within the specialisation paradigm the
solution for exclusion is seen in group and market competition and in the liberal
State's protection of individual rights .
The monopoly paradigm sees exclusion as a consequence of the formation of group
monopolies . Exclusion arises from the interplay of class, status and political power
and serves the interests of included (Silver, 1994 :543) . Social closure occurs when
institutions and cultural distinctions not only create boundaries that keep excluded
out against their will, but are also used to perpetuate inequality. Exclusion can be
combated through citizenship and the extension of equal membership and full partic-
ipation in the community to the outsiders .
I10
	
DR, Vol .XII(1996)22-23
SOCIAL EXCLUSION : CONCEPT AND DATA INDICATING EXCLUSION IN SLOVENIA
2. Groups such as the mentally and physically handicapped, aged invalids, abused
children, single parents, delinquents, marginal, asocial persons, etc .
3. In line with this understanding of social exclusion, national institutions for com-
bating social exclusion were established in some European Union countries, for
example in Denmark, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France and Belgium (Room et all .,
1992) . The problems these institutions focus on vary and express the main social
policy concerns of the respective countries: sometimes the emphasis is on migration
and refugees (e.g . Belgium, Germany), sometimes on long-term or extremely long-
term unemployment and exclusion from the labour market (e .g . Denmark, France,
the Netherlands) or on the problem of low income and working poor (Portugal) .
4. Marshall, T .H. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
5. Social rights are generally understood and referred to as the right to a certain
basic standard of living and the right to participate in the major social and occupa-
tional institutions of the society (Observatory, 1992) . How this is operationalised and
guaranteed depends, of course, on the laws and legal and welfare arrangements of
each state .
6. The British social scientist Townsend's often quoted definition of poverty is a
good example of how close poverty, defined as relative deprivation, is to the notion of
social exclusion . "Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to
be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain type of diet, participate in the
activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at
least widely encouraged, or approved, in the societies to which they belong . Their
resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual that
they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities ."
(Townsend, 1979 :31)
But the fact is that even when poverty is understood in a broader (sociological)
sense, it is still quite often measured in terms of income and income determined
poverty lines (this is not so much because income is the only indicator of poverty, but
more because income distribution data is usually accessible, relatively easy to calcu-
late and obvious in comparison) . So, the figures on poverty that appear in statistical
publications and documents of different international organisations (EUROSTAT,
OECD, World Bank etc .) are as a rule based on various calculations of income
poverty line . This way poverty figures in effect present mainly the material, financial
dimension of deprivation .
7. Observatory was established at the beginning of I990 by the Commission of the
European Communities, Directorate General V (Employment, Social Affairs and
Industrial Relations) and was coordinated by Graham Room . The aims of Observatory
were very ambitious, since it was intended to theoretically clarify the concept of
social exclusion (to clearly distinguish it from concepts of poverty, marginalisation,
etc .), to identify the appropriate (and well-tested) indicators for it, and to provide a
point of reference for the design and evaluation of policy measures to combat social
exclusion (Room, I99I :5) . In the actual work of Observatory, the theoretical content
of social exclusion was largely neglected . Clear indicators of social exclusion were
also not developed, mostly due to the lack of appropriate data reflecting more than
just one sphere of exclusion and suitable for comparison between countries .
Researchers used the existing institutional and statistical data in each member state
to describe the situations of generalised disadvantage and marginalisation in the
spheres of: income, taxation and social security; consumption and indebtedness ;
education; employment and vocational training; working conditions ; housing; health ;
social care services and neighbourhood support . The situations of groups that were
considered to be at high risk of social exclusion were also described . In the end, a lot
of attention was focused on policies to combat social exclusion : the existing policies
and measures against exclusion and their effects in each member state were
described, as were the agents behind these policies, and some more complex possible
measures were suggested .
DR, Vol .XII(I996)22-23
	
I1I
Martina Trbanc
8. It is clear that in order to understand the situations of social exclusion, it is very
important if not crucial to understand its dynamics (especially its duration and the
frequency of entries and exits) as well as barriers in the access to resources and
institutions . Undoubtedly, there is still a lot of research work to do in this direction .
9. The sample is representative for the resident population in Slovenia aged 18
years and over. According to the sampling plan, the sample size was 2517 people,
but due to different reasons of non-response, 1806 persons were actually inter-
viewed. The data presented here is weighted .
10. Indicators were calculated on the basis of arbitrary decisions, taking into
account both the experience of colleagues from the research team, specialising in
specific topics (housing, provision of services in the resident environment, consump-
tion, etc .), and the contentual rethinking from the social exclusion point of view (the
assumption that the observed disadvantages are connected to exclusion or low par-
ticipation in different resources) . Some of the indicators refer to the situations of
respondents themselves and some to the situations of the households in which
respondents live.
REFERENCES
Berghman, J . (1994), The Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion in
Europe: Two Paradoxes for Researchers, working paper for the Seminar on the Mea-
surement and Analysis of Social Exclusion, Bath, June 1994
Commins, P ., ed. (1993), Combating Exclusion in Ireland I990-I994, A Midway
Report, Dublin
Commins, P . (I995), Social Exclusion in the Context of the European Union's
Third Poverty Programme, Družboslovne razprave, Volume XI, Number 19-20, Ljubl-
jana, Slovene Sociological Association and Institute of Social Sciences, pp . 137-150
Dirven, H.-J . (1995), Social Exclusion and Poverty : The Dutch Experience,
Družboslovne razprave, Volume XI, Number 19-20, Ljubljana, Slovene Sociological
Association and Institute of Social Sciences, pp . 151-168
Erikson, R ., Tahlin, M . (1987), Coexistence of Welfare Problems ; in: Erikson, R .,
Aberg, R ., eds ., Welfare in Transition ; A Survey of Living Conditions in Sweden I968-
198I, Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp . 257-280
Marshall, T.H. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press
Observatory on national policies to combat social exclusion (1992), Second annual
report, Commission EC,Luxembourg
Observatory on National Policies to Combat Social Exclusion . The Netherlands
(Dutch Policies to Combat Social Exclusion : consolidated report 1990-1991) (1992),
Tilburg, Institute for Social Research
Rodgers, G ., Gore, C., Figueiredo, J .B. eds . (1995), Social Exclusion : Rhetoric,
Reality, Responses, Geneva, International Institute of Labour Studies, ILO
Room, G ., ed. (1991), National Policies to Combat Social Exclusion, First Annual
Report of the European Community Observatory, Commission of the EC, Direc-
torate general V
Room, G . (1995), Poverty in Europe : competing paradigms of analysis, Policy and
Politics, Vol . 23, No . 2, pp . I-1I
Silver, H . (1994), Social exclusion and social solidarity : Three paradigms, Interna-
tional Labour Review, Vol . 133, I994/5-6, pp . 53I-578
Svetlik, I . (1986), Ali je delo determinanta družbenoekonomskega položaja,
Družboslovne razprave, Number 4, Ljubljana, Institute of Sociology, pp . 5-25
Townsend, P . (1979), Poverty in the United Kingdom, Harmondsworth, Penguin
Vogel, J. (1991), Social Report for the Nordic Countries, Living Conditions and
Inequality in the late 1980's, Copenhagen, Statistical Reports of the Nordic Coun-
tries, Nordic Statistical Secretariat
112
	
DR, Vol .XII(1996)22-23
SOCIAL EXCLUSION : CONCEPT AND DATA INDICATING EXCLUSION IN SLOVENIA
APPENDIX
INDICATORS OF DISADVANTAGES AND EXCLUSIONS
1 . HOUSING
- Extremely inadequate housing status : the respondent does not have any control
over his/her housing unit (either rents a housing unit without a contract or lives
with relatives and is highly dissatisfied with the situation) - 4.3% of the respondents .
- Low-standard housing conditions : respondent lives in a unit that is charac-
terised by at least one of the following : it is extremely wet ; there is less than I5
square metres space per person ; there is no flushing toilet inside the unit ; there is no
shower or bath inside the unit - 4I .0% of the respondents live in a unit described by
at least one of the above .
Respondents are understood to be disadvantaged in the housing sphere if they are
disadvantaged in terms of either indicator .
2. ACCESS TO IMPORTANT SERVICES IN THE RESIDENT ENVIRON-
MENT
- An indicator of access to services in the resident environment was created using
respondents' answers to the question whether they have (in their resident environ-
ment) the following: a primary school; child care facilities ; a chemist's, medical care
unit, or hospital ; a post office or bank; a bus or railway stop (station) ; a public tele-
phone; a grocer's or market.
Respondents are understood to be disadvantaged in the access to important ser-
vices in the resident environment if they lack more than four of above seven .
3. EDUCATION
- Low educational attainment refers to respondents with less than primary school,
primary school, or one- to two-year (shortened) vocational school education, who also
had not taken part in any kind of further education (formal or informal, regardless of
the duration, work-related or otherwise) - 34.5% of the respondents .
- Functional literacy problems: respondents were asked about managing different
everyday situations including reading, writing and counting . Respondents having
problems with 3 or more of the 14 listed situations are counted as having problems
with functional literacy - 27.6% of the respondents.
Respondents are understood to be disadvantaged in the educational sphere if they
are either characterised by low educational attainment or have problems with func-
tional literacy .
4 . CONSUMPTION
- Financial deprivation : if the respondent at least sometimes does not have
enough money to buy food or to pay the basic living costs (electricity, gas, water, etc .)
- 19.6% of the respondents .
- Substandard possession of household appliances : if the household in which the
respondent is living lacks at least one of the following appliances : any kind of cooker
(electric or gas) ; refrigerator or freezer ; washing machine ; any kind of TV - 9.3% of the
respondents .
- Low economic resources : if the respondent (or the respondent's partner) is not
the owner of a housing unit, is not the owner of a car, did not spend even part of a
holiday away from home (in the year before the interview), and is not in the position
of being able to collect the sum of five average monthly earnings in one week in case
of urgent need - 6.3% of the respondents.
DR, Vol.XII(I996)22-23	 I13
Martina Trbanc
Respondents are understood to be disadvantaged in the sphere of consumption if
they are disadvantaged in the terms of at least one of the above .
5. EMPLOYMENT (WORK)
- Exclusion from employment : unemployment - 6.6 % of all respondents .
- For employed respondents : bad working conditions - if at least one of the follow-
ing aspects of bad working conditions applies (extreme physical effort at work ; con-
tinuous exposure to noise during work; performing repeating and monotonous
moves; performing work in an unnatural physical position ; frequent or continuous
exposure to gases, dust or smoke ; frequent or continuous exposure to vibration ; fre-
quent or continuous exposure to toxic material, acids or explosives) - 64.8% of the
employed respondents ; or if the respondent or any of his colleagues had been, in the
previous twelve months, on sick leave because of an occupational disease or an acci-
dent at work - 20.1% of the employed respondents .
Respondents are understood to be disadvantaged in the sphere of employment/
work if they are either excluded from employment or are employed but work in bad
working conditions .
6. INTERPERSONAL INTEGRATION
- An indicator of interpersonal support and help was constructed from respon-
dents' answers to the question whether they have a relative or a friend to whom they
can turn for (moral) support and help when they are ill, when they need company
(are lonely), or when they need someone to talk to about personal problems - I2.2%
of the respondents answered "no" for at least one of these three cases .
- An indicator of social contacts was constructed from respondents' answers to a
set of questions on contacts with relatives, friends and acquaintances - 3.2% of the
respondents have extremely weak social contacts .
Respondents are understood to be disadvantaged in the sphere of interpersonal
integration if either they can not get any (moral) support and help or they have
extremely weak social contacts .
114
	
DR, Vol .XII(1996)22-23