Daniel Schraad-Tischler in Christof Schiller, Social justice in the EU - Index report 2016, Social inclusion monitor Europe

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 53-54
Author(s):  
Tvrtko-Matija Šercar
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals Policy review: national action plans for combating poverty and social exclusion – from 1997 to the present

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-104
Author(s):  
Cynthia Martin
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Social Exclusion ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Structural Response ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
Social Progress ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Political Values ◽  
Policy Review ◽  
The Eu

Against an historic social deficit and deep seated inequalities, Ireland adopted its first National Anti-Poverty Strategy in 1997 which held out the prospect of a comprehensive, structural response to poverty and social exclusion. Subsequent plans followed, and this review overviews these developments, placing the Irish strategy within the context of the EU social inclusion strategy. Progress is evaluated by examining key reports emanating from the EU and anti-poverty networks, and methodological questions are raised about the way government measures progress. Analysis suggests that selective priority actions within a context that defers to economic interests are unlikely to resolve deep seated structural features of society that reproduce inequalities. In addition, austerity measures are likely to mean that social progress will stagnate, unless there is a sea change in culture, politics, economy and society based on political values that embody social justice.

The EU and social inclusion

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Marlier ◽  
A.B. Atkinson ◽  
Bea Cantillon ◽  
Brian Nolan
Keyword(s):  
Social Inclusion ◽  
The Eu

Disappointing poverty trends: is the social investment state to blame?

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 450-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Vandenbroucke ◽  
Koen Vleminckx
Keyword(s):  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Resource Competition ◽  
Social Investment ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Social ◽  
Working Age ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Post Industrial ◽  
Industrial Societies ◽  
The Eu

Should we explain the disappointing outcomes of the Open Method of Co-ordination on Inclusion by methodological weaknesses or by substantive contradictions in the ‘social investment’ paradigm? To clarify the underlying concepts, we first revisit the original ‘Lisbon inspiration’ and then relate it to the idea of the ‘new welfare state’, as proposed in the literature on new risks in post-industrial societies. We then discuss two explanations for disappointing poverty trends, suggested by critical accounts of the ‘social investment state’: ‘resource competition’ and a ‘re-commodification’. We do not find these explanations convincing per se and conclude that the jury is still out on the ‘social investment state’. However, policy-makers cannot ignore the failure of employment policies to reduce the proportion of children and working-age adults living in jobless households in the EU, and they should not deny the reality of a ‘trilemma of activation’. Finally, we identify policy conditions that may facilitate the complementarity of social investment and social inclusion.

Theorizing PB’s Effects on Individuals and Communities

2021 ◽  
pp. 51-80
Author(s):  
Brian Wampler ◽  
Stephanie McNulty ◽  
Michael Touchton
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Government Support ◽  
Theory Of Change ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
Meso Level ◽  
Original Theory

This chapter develops an original “theory of change” that connects PB programs to three community-level outcomes: the promotion of accountability, expansion of civil society, and improvements in well-being. To explain the variation in outcomes, this explanatory framework includes macro-level (political context, decentralization, economic conditions) and meso-level (government support, configuration of civil society, state capacity) factors that condition PB programs’ impacts. The discussion then moves beyond the macro and meso to drill down to “variation in program design.” The chapter identifies several rules (scale/level of adoption, presence of social justice rules, program emphasis on social inclusion, vote rules, and oversight process) that significantly influence the outcomes that PB programs produce. Thus, this chapter illuminates how variation in the macro, meso, and PB design rules condition and constrain the types of outcomes associated with PB. The chapter concludes by linking the theory of change to the PB Types (introduced in Chapter 1) to theorize how each PB program type is likely to be associated with distinct impacts.

scholarly journals Bioethics and Universal Vulnerability: Exploring the Ethics and Practices of Research Participation

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nola M Ries ◽  
Michael Thomson
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Research Participation ◽  
Institutional Support ◽  
Human Condition ◽  
Inclusive Design ◽  
Care And Support ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Scientific Value ◽  
Participation In Research

Abstract In this article, we advocate the adoption of universal vulnerability as a core value in bioethics. We argue that understanding vulnerability as the universal human condition—and rejecting the labelling of particular individuals or groups as vulnerable—would benefit bioethics and the research it governs. Bioethics first engaged with vulnerability in the context of participation in research and this continues to define how the value is typically understood. Thus, vulnerability is generally deployed to describe individuals (or populations), where real or perceived deficiencies limit the ability to function and to protect themselves from risks. Revisiting this initial context and the participation in research of people living with dementia, we note that the bioethical position of excluding the ‘vulnerable’ from research has led to major gaps in evidence and knowledge to inform care and support. Turning to universal vulnerability, we consider the research design and practices that the approach would mandate. We emphasise the importance of inclusive design and mechanisms of institutional support that enable participation. We argue that these positively impact on the scientific value of research and address social justice concerns around social inclusion. Our aim is to provoke a fundamental reassessment of how vulnerability is conceived of in bioethics.

The EU Social Inclusion Process and the key issues

2006 ◽  
pp. 17-54
Author(s):  
Eric Marlier ◽  
A.B. Atkinson ◽  
Bea Cantillon ◽  
Brian Nolan
Keyword(s):  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Inclusion Process ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Eu
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document