Bottlenecks and loopholes with exclusionary potential

Join

Step 1 Select a dimension of ex/inclusion Open

Selected: Intersecting risks and drivers

Some groups are at a higher risk of exclusion and inequality, but the status of excluded often transcends a single group affiliation and lies at the intersection of multiple identities.  Being a female – as a factor – may not automatically put someone at a high risk of exclusion from the labour market. But being a Roma woman from an under-served rural community in Central and Eastern Europe increases the risk dramatically.

 

The traditional group-based approach to ex/inclusion is primarily concerned with identification and support, through social insurance, of excluded groups vulnerable to uninsured risks. More recent approaches focus on individual risks, pointing out that the group-based lens may not provide strong evidentiary basis to weigh policy options in the case of multiple sources of exclusion.  Applied individually, both of these approaches may suffer from errors and blind spots. Yet a combination of the two – i.e., an approach of intersecting risks and drivers – is feasible and has a solid policy value.

 

Four inclusive policy markers are used to operationalize this dimension.

Step 2 Select an Inclusive Policy Marker Open

Selected: Removal of exclusion drivers

Drivers of exclusion – which may be entrenched in values, behaviours, institutions and/or policies themselves – help exclusion risks materialize. Two key considerations elaborate on what is to be tackled in this regard.

Step 3 Select a Policy Design Consideration

Selected: Bottlenecks and loopholes with exclusionary potential

Inclusive interventions are also tasked with detecting and neutralizing bottlenecks and loopholes in policy and regulatory frameworks that have the potential to drive exclusion. These may not have had a demonstrated negative impact yet; this nevertheless has the potential to trickle down from the upstream policy level to national and sub-national government planning, budgeting and programming. Take for example an outdated set of provisions in national education law that address disability in terms of “defectology”. Even though not explicitly preventing integration of children with disabilities in mainstream education, this does not clearly allow for and/or regulate it. Down the line, such loopholes have a strong potential to trickle down to lower policy and planning levels and to result in concrete and systemic barriers that will ultimately impact the welfare of the concerned beneficiaries, pushing those living on the margins of our societies even closer to the edge. 

 

Explore concrete policy examples on the map.

No policy example in this category yet
SUBMIT EXAMPLE

Join