英语论文网

In the same volume, Jos Berghman identifies as helpful the breadth and dynamic nature of the notion of social exclusion, conceptualised as ‘the denial – or non-realisation – of citizenship rights’, following the European Observatory on Policies to Combat Social Exclusion (Berghman, 1995, p19).  The dynamic aspect of the concept encourages a shift of focus from outcomes to economic and political processes (Wilson, 1995; Byrne, 1999).  A more dynamic approach also opens up space for the agency of those excluded as political and social actors, rather than treating them simply as passive victims (Deacon and Mann, 1999).  

This conceptualisation of social exclusion is representative of what Ruth Levitas has dubbed RED, a redistributive, egalitarian discourse.  As she notes, ‘from the perspective of RED, political inclusion is an aspect of social inclusion’ (Levitas, 1998, p173).  However, such a discourse is less prominent in contemporary British and EU politics than those of SID (social integrationist), which focuses mainly on the labour market, and, to a lesser extent, MUD (moral ‘underclass’).  The growing demands to involve people in poverty in decision-making that affects their lives represents a challenge to a narrow conceptualisation of social exclusion, limited to labour market participation, and to a derogatory conceptualisation, which labels people in poverty as passive welfare ‘dependants’. 
Citizenship
Such demands draw, instead, implicitly on RED, which also represents an expansive discourse of citizenship, embracing civil, political, cultural and social rights.  Citizenship is, in part, about equality of status and respect (relevant also to recognition politics, see below).  The inclusion of people in poverty in poverty discussions has been described as ‘part of the broader issue of addressing the restricted citizenship of people who are poor’ (Beresford et al, 1999, p27).

In some strands of contemporary citizenship theory, drawing on both the (social) liberal and civic republican traditions, participation in decision-making is put forward as a citizenship right. Thomas Janoski, for instance, makes the case for ‘a right of participation’, suggesting that its addition to the panoply of rights ‘pushes citizenship rights into the center of more recent welfare state controversies and democratic struggles’ (1998, p50).  

The right to participation has also been promoted as a human and not just a citizenship right.  Carol Gould (1988) has argued for an extension of the human right of democratic participation to include the right of participation in social and economic decision-making.  Her argument is grounded in the agency of human beings and in the principle of freedom as self-development. 

In some cases, citizenship and human rights discourses are combined to make the case for the involvement of people in poverty in decisions that affect their lives.   In a consultation document the British Department for International Development (DfID) argues that human rights ‘provide a means of empowering all people to make decisions about their own lives rather than being the passive objects of choices made on their behalf’.  The document ‘sets out the 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。