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), andchronically poor (elderly, disabled, institutionalized individuals, agricultural household with no permanent income). • According to MDG Report (2005) most vulnerable groups include:multi-memberhouseholds, households with no employedmembers, households whose members havea low level of education, and households ofelderly 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.