Responses to Social Exclusion in Macedonia

1
Responses to Social Exclusion in Macedonia

• Maja Gerovska Mitev, PhD
• Institute of Social Work and Social Policy
• Faculty of Philosophy
• University Ss. Cyril and Methodius University
• Skopje, Macedonia

2
Approaches toward social exclusion

• Relatively new concept, intertwined use with
  poverty
• Tradition in tackling inequality between
  different groups (for example state control over
  wage income differences), as well as
  marginalization (well dispersed network of
  education, health and social care facilities).
• No tradition in measurement and assessment of
  socially excluded population
• Poverty measurement officially started in 1996,
  first poverty document (NSPR) in 2001/2002

3
Changes in poverty profiles

• According to NSPR (2002) three main groups of
  poor traditionally poor (rural, agricultural
  households) newly impoverished households
  (household without employed members, households
  with employed member nor receiveing regular
  salaries), and chronically poor (elderly,
  disabled, institutionalized individuals,
  agricultural household with no permanent income).
• According to MDG Report (2005) most vulnerable
  groups include multi-member households,
  households with no employed members, households
  whose members have a low level of education, and
  households of elderly people.

4
Policy frameworks addressing social exclusion

• First policy document to tackle the problems of
  social exclusion dates from 2004 and defines four
  target groups (1) drug users and their families
  (2) street children/children on the street and
  their parents (3) victims of family violence and
  (4) homeless people. Actions opening of day care
  centres, more responsibilities to local
  municipalities
• Expanding the focus on socially excluded (pre-JIM
  activities, 2007) children, disabled, elderly,
  women, Roma, other ethnic communities. New
  approach Conditional Cash Transfers/CCT (in
  post-natal care and secondary education).
• Lessons learnt arbitrary approach (not based on
  prior analysis and indicators) can exclude
  certain vulnerable groups from social protection
  system careful use of CCT.

5
Mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation social
inclusion

• Lack of quantitative indicators
• Only few Laeken indicators officially calculated
• SILC planned from 2010
• General problems with monitoring and evaluation
  in the field of social inclusion data on
  unemployment (LFS) not adequately addressing
  undeclared work, poverty calculation not based on
  EU standards (competing paradigms for poverty
  measurement) not official calculation of the
  GINI index/coefficient due to problems of
  unregistered incomes, poverty calculation based
  on households not individuals, etc.

6
Poverty and social exclusion indicators
7
Available Laeken Indicators
8
Governance of social inclusion

• Lack of continual and effective inter-ministerial
  cooperation in the field of social exclusion
• Overlapping of competencies between the central
  level institutions and local level (or other
  private/ngo) initiatives
• Formal process of mutual coordination with CSO
• Lack of involvement of people experiencing
  poverty and vulnerable groups in discussing and
  drafting policy proposals

9
Key policy challenges 

• Creating jobs for (registered) long-term
  unemployed with no or incomplete primary
  education
• Ensuring adequate levels of social transfers
  (pensions, unemployment benefits, social
  assistance)
• Improving LFS measurement and introduction of
  harmonized international statistical standards
  for measurement of poverty and social exclusion.

10
Support from international actors

• Research on socially excluded categories
  (vulnerable ethnic groups, regional disparities,
  etc.)
• Supporting non-governmental actors (trade unions,
  CSO) capacity for activities aimed at social
  inclusion
• Promoting programmes that advocate empowerment of
  socially excluded individuals (especially among
  vulnerable population, such as women belonging to
  certain ethnic groups - Albanian, Turks people
  leaving in remote locations people with low
  educational attainment etc.