Housing and the Social Exclusion Agenda in England

Introduction: The Rise of Social Exclusion Soon after its election in 1997 the current New Labour government in the UK (1) declared 'social exclusion' to be the principal social ill against which domestic policy was to be directed. Given the origins of the concept, this ascension to the heart of policy is striking. One of the reasons it initially gained currency in European policy circles was that its vagueness allowed anti-poverty policy to progress without using the word 'poverty', to which some member states objected (Room 1995). The UK government itself considers 'social exclusion' to be little more than a convenient shorthand for a constellation of social issues. The government's Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) offers the following 'definition': 'Social exclusion is a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown' (SEU n.d.). The definition is not exhaustive and the SEU has ranged widely in its activities. The advent of the social exclusion debate has once again got people talking seriously about how to address social problems and inequalities. For that alone it can be welcomed. Yet, question marks remain regarding the coherence of the concept and these cannot be ignored. As Marsh and Mullins comment: 'There is . a vagueness about the concept of social exclusion which many find disconcerting' (1998: 754). The issue is of more practical significance because, as Ratcliffe (2002: 34) observes, '[t]o talk in general, global terms about "exclusion" or "exclusionary processes" clearly risks theoretical imprecision and, more importantly, ill-formulated policy responses to serious problems'. The aim of this paper is to focus on one aspect of current debates. It explores the relationship between housing and social exclusion, both in theory and in contemporary policy in England. It develops the argument that, rather than simply being a risk, at the current stage of development imprecision at a theoretical and policy level is a very real issue. 'Combating Social Exclusion' as a Policy Goal If a commitment to the policy goal of 'combating social exclusion' is not to be an open-ended task of indeterminate magnitude it relies on having some idea of the size and nature of the problem of 'social exclusion'. Yet, vagueness in the way the concept has been used means that uncertainty exists at a fundamental level. For example, the term is used rather indiscriminately to refer both to processes and to states. Similarly there is no consensus over what people are being excluded from; rather there is a diversity of views--but frequently authors remain silent--regarding how we should understand 'not excluded'. Much academic analysis of social exclusion has been directed at exploring the differing interpretations and use of the concept, the extent to which it is used as a structural or behavioural explanation of disadvantage, and how it differs from or relates to other analytical or ideological frameworks. Levitas (1998) argues that it is possible to identify three distinct discourses of social exclusion: the redistributionist, moral underclass and social integrationist. These three discourses coexist or compete within policy statements and pronouncements across a range of policy areas, including urban and housing policy (see Watt & Jacobs 2000 for a detailed discussion of this point). Similarly, Ratcliffe (1999) argues that the term 'exclusion' has been used with a considerable lack of care in the academic literature. He identifies six different ways in which the term is used and argues that '[t]here is a general failure to formally recognize that these various states and processes of putative "exclusion" are very different things; the most common mode of presentation simply conflating (and therefore failing to distinguish between) some or all of them' (1999: 4). …