# **7. Conclusion and implications for development approaches**

While social exclusion is both a process and an outcome, this paper has focused on the former rather than the latter. We have characterized the process of social exclusion as one in which individuals are grouped based on certain characteristics, assigned negative attributes based on the grouping, and excluded from full participation in society based on those perceived attributes. As we show with the LiTS and WVS data, while exclusionary beliefs are widespread across space, the causes of and the nature of the beliefs are country-specific.

Many current approaches to social exclusion emphasize improving individuals’ and groups’ access to certain public services and enhancing their income-generating activities. Those approaches may usefully be complemented by efforts to address exclusionary processes. As we have argued, these processes are rooted in discriminatory values, attitudes, and behaviors that shape the social meanings and status assigned to various social groups and influence their opportunities and outcomes. Discriminatory norms-in particular norms that lead to a lack of voice and power--can be addressed directly or indirectly through changing the informal and formal institutions that are producing and perpetuating these norms.

We provide examples of development interventions that target discriminatory values, norms and institutions, typically by focusing on formal institutions such as laws, policies, and political systems. Yet, since many informal institutions contribute to social exclusion, they should be central to strategies for tackling social exclusion. For example, in cases where people’s religious beliefs lead them to hold intolerant attitudes toward particular groups or behaviors, development interventions could seek to engage with religious leaders.

Informal rules may largely endure changes in formal rules because informal institutions are culturally derived and can take far longer time to change than formal state institutions which can be established or dismantled as quickly as the bureaucracy is capable. Failure to consider the stickiness of informal institutions runs the risk of missing the most salient incentives and constraints to peoples’ behavior. Moreover, efforts to promote inclusion in public services inevitably encounter the problem of discriminatory “off-protocol” practices (such as treating clients from certain groups disrespectfully) by service delivery staff rooted in widely held social norms.

Using data covering the countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, we studied the responses to a simple hypothetical survey question about which specific groups respondents would not like to have as neighbors. We find that unwelcoming attitudes to other groups are surprisingly common across countries. Many groups, including immigrants, ethnic minorities, the poor, HIV+ individuals, and drug users, are viewed negatively. However, the specific groups facing exclusive attitudes differ markedly across countries, suggesting that each country will need to identify the particular set of values and attitudes in need of revision. Moreover, we find that unwelcoming attitudes can be grouped into three distinct sets of values, allowing us to propose a novel categorization of social exclusion attitudes: (1) intolerance for the poor and for different lifecycle stages; (2) intolerance toward stigmatized attributes and behaviors; and (3) intolerance to specific identity groups. Country-specific factors (history and 36