Figure 6.16 Social exclusion is mostly transitory, particularly deep exclusion spent in social exclusion, 2006–2015 Source: Brotherhood of St Laurence and Melbourne Institute (2017). However, as noted in box 6.5, the subjective judgments involved in the selection of SEM components can affect measurement. This is also the case for the of exclusion, as duration certain components for example, having a longterm health condition or disability, or — having a child with a disability are (by definition) likely to be longlasting or permanent — conditions. If these components could not realistically be from someone’s life, ‘removed’ they would increase the likelihood of that person permanently scoring above the threshold for social exclusion, even if other aspects of their life (such as employment or social connections) improved significantly. The selection of components therefore, be a could, driver of some of the persistent exclusion observed in in figure 6.16. This it difficult to compare the prevalence or persistence of social exclusion directly to those of poverty especially given that the SEM itself includes a material resources — domain, and therefore overlaps with poverty analyses to an extent. (It also makes it difficult to link changes in the prevalence of social exclusion to particular events.) However, given the breadth of indicators encompassed by the SEM and the subjectivity — of some indicators, such as satisfaction with one’s neighbourhood’ or of ‘low ‘feeling being unsafe’ it is certainly possible for poverty (income, final consumption, and — financial) to be decreasing, as seen in figure 6.1, while social exclusion increases.
Figure 6.16 Social exclusion is mostly transitory, particularly deep exclusion spent in social exclusion, 2006–2015 Source: Brotherhood of St Laurence and Melbourne Institute (2017). However, as noted in box 6.5, the subjective judgments involved in the selection of SEM components can affect measurement. This is also the case for the duration of exclusion, as certain components — for example, having a longterm health condition or disability, or having a child with a disability — are (by definition) likely to be longlasting or permanent conditions. If these components could not realistically be ‘removed’ from someone’s life, they would increase the likelihood of that person permanently scoring above the threshold for social exclusion, even if other aspects of their life (such as employment or social connections) improved significantly. The selection of components could, therefore, be a driver of some of the persistent exclusion observed in in figure 6.16. This it difficult to compare the prevalence or persistence of social exclusion directly to those of poverty — especially given that the SEM itself includes a material resources domain, and therefore overlaps with poverty analyses to an extent. (It also makes it difficult to link changes in the prevalence of social exclusion to particular events.) However, given the breadth of indicators encompassed by the SEM — and the subjectivity of some indicators, such as ‘low satisfaction with one’s neighbourhood’ or ‘feeling of being unsafe’ — it is certainly possible for poverty (income, final consumption, and financial) to be decreasing, as seen in figure 6.1, while social exclusion increases.
rising-inequality.docx