Exclusion, cohesion and health formal and informal political, economic, social and cultural institutions in society that are dynamic (1,4). This dynamic and relational approach directs the analyst to investigate not only the excluded but also those who exclude and the processes of exclu- sion (5). The approach furthermore acknowledges the importance of agency—relating to participation, a critical and longstanding concept in develop- ment discourse. The conceptualization of interplay between agency and structure rather than state suggests that institutions of power and authori- ty beyond the state influence position in society. This adaptation is essential for the social exclusion concept to have salience beyond the strong welfare states, such as those in northern Europe. Second, social exclusion is multidimensional, ac- knowledging that forces that exclude people from full participation in society can be social, cultural, political, and economic. Beall and Piron describe economic exclusion as “exclusion from labor mar- kets, employment, and enterprise opportunities and a wide range of livelihood strategies” (5); exclu- sion from social participation is described as “ex- clusion from access to infrastructure and services, social security and protection, public safety and so- cial cohesion.” Exclusion from political participa- tion includes “restricted access to organization, de- cision-making, and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.” The processes or dynamics of social exclusion are power-based, operating through so- cial relations and social, political, cultural and eco- nomic institutions (5). And third, social exclusion takes a longitudinal perspective, with an emphasis on transitions through the life course and intergen- erational processes (6). Is this representation of the essentials of the social exclusion concept transferable from its origins in northern Europe to countries with weak public welfare programmes? Previous scholarship on so- cial exclusion in developing countries provides promising results. For example, in her analysis of progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in Asian countries, Kabeer reviewed existing evidence and demonstrated the applica- bility and advantages of a social exclusion frame- work to better understand the social dimensions of poverty and the processes associated with inequali- ty (7). However, Kabeer failed to explicitly define social exclusion beyond a recognition of multiple and overlapping layers of deprivation. Likewise, Hobcraft notes that the concept of social exclusion is implicit in the MDGs, stating “while not gener- ally couched in social exclusion terms, the major Volume 27 | Number 4 | August 2009 Johnston HB shifts in UN development thinking over the past decade or so, and much in research on chronic poverty, do resonate with the social exclusion ap- proach as seen in the UK” (6). Elsewhere in the pa- per, Hobcraft writes: “The integrated treatment of multiple disadvantages—the ‘more than poverty’ element of social exclusion—is already a major element of the development agenda. The MDGs demonstrate a recognition that a whole package of areas of progress is required and that poverty, although of crucial importance, cannot be tackled in isolation” (6). Rahman and Razzaque showed that poverty-allevia- tion programmes in Bangladesh have long aimed at addressing the multiple disadvantages that face the poor (8). Programmes, such as microcredit, pro- mote social, cultural and economic capabilities to facilitate the disadvantaged to attain sustainable livelihoods (8). The modern strategy of microcredit emerged in the 1970s, almost simultaneously to the modern concept of social exclusion, though in very different contexts. Like the social exclusion analyti- cal framework, the microcredit strategy addresses multiple sources of deprivation and recognizes the agency of individuals to alter their position in socie- ty. Microcredit and other development strategies implemented in Bangladesh are very much in line with the concept of social exclusion presented in this paper. Thus, while the concept of social exclu- sion resonates in Bangladesh, one should question whether it has value over existing analytical frame- works as a tool for designing and critically analyz- ing social development efforts. Following this line of thinking, Saith maintains, “most features of the ‘social exclusion’ concept (attention to multiple dimensions, social relation- ships, assessing the poverty of individuals relative to others in society, and concern with the dynamics of poverty) are shared by concepts implemented in developing countries” (9). Concepts, such as ‘basic capabilities’, risk aversion, vulnerability, and sus- tainable livelihoods are in the discourse. Still, Saith suggests, “these existing frameworks could benefit by taking from social exclusion its emphasis on in- vestigating the processes that lead to poverty.” Saith argues that it would be “sufficient to incorporate an emphasis on looking at processes within re-ex- isting frameworks in developing countries, rather than re-doing poverty analyses under the rubric of ‘social exclusion” (9). While the multidimensionality of deprivation and the importance of individual agency are certainly 427