1. Continuity and Change in the Generation(s) and Life-course of Social Exclusion John Hobcraft University of York

2. 2006 vs 1976 Birth cohorts –1946 from 30 to 60 –1958 from 18 to 48 –1970 from 6 to 36 Computing power Statistical packages Increased interdisciplinarity? Multiple deprivation to Social exclusion Real progress or more of same? Heavy reliance on NCDS and BCS (plus BHPS)

3. What is Social Exclusion? More than Poverty Multiple Disadvantage/ Deprivation Multiple Origins to Multiple Outcomes Dynamic Perspective Medium & Long-term focus Outcomes become antecedents or constraints Pervasive and specific antecedents

4. Intergenerational elements Limited parental characteristics –Income/ poverty; class; housing tenure; education; employment status; mothers malaise (BCS) –Partnership breakdown; parental interest, etc Missing factors –Cognitive & behavioural measures; measured genes or B-G design; personality traits (&CM); parenting styles

5. Intergenerational 2 What do we know? –Strong and fairly specific continuities in class, housing tenure, partnership breakdown, out-of-wedlock childbearing, malaise –Strong and more pervasive influences of poverty, education, parental interest –Strong links on behaviour and cognition, but little on whether specific or pervasive, though likely pervasive –Nature-Nurture? – mainly psychology

6. Continuity and Change Continuities across Life-Course –Pervasive antecedents –Specific antecedents Continuity and Change –Who stays disadvantaged? –Who is newly disadvantaged? Gendered Pathways to Social Exclusion

7. Childhood antecedents Much new research Broad range of pervasive childhood antecedents of many adult disadvantages –Poverty, school absences, test scores, parental interest, behaviour, family structure (incl care), health Some particularly strong specific influences –Aggression and anxiety to Malaise –Child health to Limiting long-standing illness

8. Gender & Cohort (58 & 70) Gendered pathways –Few differences in strength of childhood antecedents by gender –Yet to find greater legacy for males –Females show some exacerbated response especially for low maternal interest, aggression, social housing Cross-cohort differences –Again remarkably little robust evidence of differences in adult response to childhood disadvantages

9. Late adolescence & Early adult Very strong links to later disadvantage (58) Very similar links to disadvantages at ages 23 and 33! Pervasive links for qualifications, unemployment, NEET, homelessness Specific links –Left home friction to malaise and smoking

10. Gender and Early Parenthood Early parenthood per se: –No gender differences in odds ratios –But higher incidence for women Lone Motherhood shows consistent and large legacies

11. Continuities 23 to 33 StatusIncidence %Odds Ratio % Exit 23-33 % New At 33 2333 Soc. Class 4/519205.7 Social Housing14 9.5 Benefits14173.8 Low Income21242.7 Malaise10911.7

12. Continuities 23 to 33 StatusIncidence %Odds Ratio % Exit 23-33 % New At 33 2333 Soc. Class 4/519205.75254 Social Housing14 9.552 Benefits14173.86369 Low Income21242.76065 Malaise10911.76054

13. Continuity & change 23 to 33 Almost no childhood antecedents distinguish new entrants from those who remain disadvantaged. Stickiness of disadvantage 23-33 unexplained by antecedents –Unemployment 23-33: Same effect size for men and women on benefits, low income and housing (but higher incidence for men) –Divorce 23-33 Same strong effects for men & women for social housing and high malaise at 33 Very strong for women only on benefit receipt at 33 Strong both sexes on low income, but doubled for women

14. A Caution on Intergenerational Mobility (Bowles et al, US)

15. An NCDS example Fathers income at age 16 (ln) – badly measured Male cohort members income at 33 (ln) Simple regression gives elasticity of 0.298 Exclude two corner cells –Both <0.5 median –Both top band or decile Elasticity now 0.056! Stickiness of high advantage or high disadvantage for social class, income, etc may be important part of I-G immobility

16. Social Exclusion & Policy Consequences of SE perspective: –Dynamic –Multi-faceted –Long-term –Active Policies –Not deterministic –Recognition of influences of BOTH choice & structure But still some inheritance from Keith Joseph –SEUs Breaking the Cycle

17. Diagram showing Hills 4 Ps Prevention Promotion Propulsion Threshold or Event Protection

18. What of Legacies of Past? Differential Policies according to gender, antecedents and experiences: –Legacies from childhood (Differential Prevention) –Scarring from early experiences (Differential Prevention & Propulsion) –Vulnerability to return to disadvantage cf newly disadvantaged (Differential Prevention, Propulsion, and Promotion) –Gendered vulnerability (Differential prevention, Promotion & Propulsion)