Presentation given at EU Roundtable Conference in Århus – October 18, 2002

By Mr. Gunnar Tveiten, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Social Affairs, Norway

Introductory remarks

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen

Thank you for being invited to give a presentation in this workshop. I would like to start my presentation by drawing attention to what I believe would be some important factors that more often than not, to a large extent, defines and governs the situation and roles of both politicians and other policy makers like myself acting in the social field.

Firstly,

Policy makers on all levels of government must deal with many kinds of information and empirical evidence. The case has been, and still is, at least in Norway, that often will the constraints of time, lack of access to reliable data and resources, force us to rely on more fragmentary sources of information and data. We therefore have a huge job ahead us in terms of developing tools for estimating better the net effects of our policies, as well as being able to monitor the situation for individuals and groups in marginalized situations. The EU countries have through the development of a system of comparable social indicators made a considerable contribution and future investment that will pay off, not only in terms of access to reliable and updated data on income and living conditions. It will also pave the way for making transnational, comparative assessments that we so far have been unable to do on a regular basis.

Secondly,

The residual and interlinked nature of poverty and different social problems that we confront in rich and privileged countries like Norway might in some respects, appear more complex and interlinked, than in other less, well off countries. On the other hand, we must not forget the fact that we have a relatively small portion of the population living poverty and exclusion, should put us in a more favourable situation in terms of access to resources, mobilizing actors and our social partners to fight poverty and social exclusion. In relation to monitoring and designing evaluations that are tailored to our needs, we have take into account that we will need information that cut across various sectors, gender and generations. For example; this will often be the case of children living in poverty. Statistically, they will tend to live in single-parent households that have weak links to the labour market. The fact that children in these households might be excluded from other children in schools and leisure time cannot be separated from the income level of the household. The point is that the situation of poor children cannot be separated from lives of their parents. Therefore evaluations and monitoring systems must have a cross-generational, as well as a cross-sectional and a gender perspective.

And I would like to add a third point;

Compatibility is important in marriage. We often question the logic of marriages between people who appear incompatible. We should do the same for policies fighting poverty and social exclusion. We ought to focus more on the theories and assumptions that underlie the connection between policy and intended outcomes. Moreover, I feel that evaluations and monitoring of policies should focus more closely on the process of implementation of policies, not only on the outcomes. Such an approach will have to identify: Who are the relevant actors? What are the motivations and the beliefs of the front line workers who are delivering the services? Who are the end users of policies? What NGO’s are involved? What are their beliefs and motivations. What are their political resources. Such questions should also be raised in relation to the involvement of all social partners in the implementation and monitoring of measures. In that respect, I strongly believe that the open method of coordination could provide a big step forward in terms of closing the gap between policy making and the intended outcomes. Contrary to a top-down approach, involving all the relevant actors will increase the likelihood of a successful implementation.

The Norwegian Action Plan for Fighting Poverty and Social Exclusion

On October 4 the Norwegian Government presented Norways’ first action plan to fight poverty and social exclusion. As Norway’s Minister of Social Affairs pointed out in the plenary session yesterday, the plan is a recognition of the fact poverty exists even in Norway and has to be dealt with. The Norwegian Action Plan for Combatting Poverty rests on the three strategic pillars:

• Employment for those can work
• Better tailoring and targeting of services and schemes according to people’s needs
• Social inclusion

The time frame for our action plan is 2002 to 2006. The Government places crucial emphasis on continuous documentation and follow-up of the measures in the plan.

Definition

In order to provide a starting point for the evaluation and the monitoring of the measures in the Action plan, the Government has seen the need to clarify the concept and definition of poverty. Through involving a number of researchers in the preparation of the Action Plan the Government was given a clear and unaminous advice that the carving out of policies should be based on a definition, that should be as clear as possible. A simple definition will of course not cover poverty and social exclusion as a heterogenous phenomena. The definition must therefore be accompanied by a set of social indicators for measuring different and often inter-linked aspects of the poverty problem. Furthermore, when the low-income level is set based on the relative distribution of income in the population, this does not provide a direct answer regarding who has a sufficient income. It does not provide a direct answer who has a sufficient income to cover basic needs, such as food, housing and clothing. Particularly for those with high expenses due to illness, disability or high housing costs may have a situation where basic needs are not met. The Government have therefore started a work to determine a minimum national standard for necessary living costs.

Evaluation and the development of social indicators

As part of the implementation and following up of the Action Plan, the Government will through different measures keep a close eye on how the situation develops for the 90 000 people out of a population of 4,5 mill. living on an income lower than 50 per cent of the median income, as well as being able to monitor the situation for those in danger of falling beneath this level. The Government cooperate with Statistics Norway in developing a system of social indicators that will one of the main pillars in obtaining systematic and regular information regarding the living conditions of vulnerable groups. This system will be tailored in accordance with the indicators that is being developed by the EU-countries. Norway is not a member of the EU, this will of course add a necessary and very valuable comparative perspective to our National Action Plan. Statistics Norway are also taking part in cooperation through EUROSTAT and EU-Silc, which from 2003 will be the main source of data.

The Government will adopt a knowledge-based policy in order to prevent people from being excluded or fall into poverty. As a starting point for preparing this Action Plan the Government mobilized the Norwegian Research Community and NGO’s working in this field through brain-storming meetings to come up with ideas and suggestions for pro-active, anti-poverty strategies. These contributions from the researchers form an important basis for both the problem analysis and for the carving out of strategies to solve the problems.

Through the Norwegian Research Council’s Welfare programme funds have been allocated to strengthen research in this particular field over a period of 5 years from 2002 to 2008.

Inspired by Irelands system of poverty-proofing, the Government has also as part of the preparations of the Action Plan carried out whit is called a social audit or revision of the existing welfare services. The purpose of this audit has been to evaluate the extent to which different welfare schemes are reaching the intended target population and whether or not the service delivery is consistent with the initial intensions. It has been particularly important to identify shortcomings and bottlenecks that tend to lead people into poverty-traps.

The Government has decided that such an audit will be done on a more permanent basis as a tool to ensure that the various measures and schemes aiming at combating poverty works the way they are intended.

Participation in the Community Action Program

As of July this year Norway has joined the EU Community Action Programme. The participation in this programme will provide a strong support for Norways own Action Plan for Combatting Poverty. We will be able to share our best practices with our European colleagues and through exchange of knowledge and cooperation, allow for the development of shared social indicators and practices. Furthermore will research institutions, social partners and the NGO’s be able to connect to the different transnational networks operating on the European level.

Summing up

I started out this presentation by highlighting some of the constraints of access to information and knowledge that policy-makers have to face in the carving out and in the implementation of policies. In the end the development, implementation and monitoring of policies is a question of having the ability to pull the right pieces of information from various sources together that will help us choosing the right alternatives for our course of action. As we all know and probably have experienced information can be used for several purposes. This highlights the need for good qualitative and quantitative data that can guide our action. Moreover, monitoring studies and tailored evaluations are essential to understanding and interpreting the impact of our policies. This requires an evalutation strategy that is integrated into the overall anti-poverty strategy. Prior to earlier initiatives this Action Plan has laid down the cornerstones for a more knowledge-based approach, that will ensure that the measures in the plan, are not based merely on good intentions and hopes for a better future, but first and foremost on what proves to work in relation to preventing and helping people out of poverty.