ARTICLE IN PRESS

Transport Policy 16 (2009) 90–96

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy

0967-07

doi:10.1

� Corr

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

The usefulness of social exclusion to inform social policy in transport

Janet Stanley a,�, Dianne Vella-Brodrick b

a Janet Stanley Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australiab School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, Monash University, Caulfield 3145, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Social exclusion

Transport

Social policy

Social capital

Psychological measures

0X/$ - see front matter & 2009 Published by

016/j.tranpol.2009.02.003

esponding author. Tel.: +613 99020737; fax:

ail address: janet.stanley@msi.monash.edu.au

a b s t r a c t

This article examines a variety of conceptualisations and measurement approaches to social exclusion

and the usefulness of these to understanding social policy as it relates to transport. It argues that there

is a need to broaden the criteria to encompass all aspects of well-being, the broad outcome desired to

optimise a person’s mobility. Understanding of the importance of interpersonal interactions is not well

covered under the ambit of social exclusion, thus the need for measures around social capital and

community. Additionally, there is a need to include measures of psychological factors, to

comprehensively understand transport outcomes for people.

& 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Social policy in transport has traditionally centred on issues ofsafety and disability access, as well as access to jobs in the UnitedStates. The introduction of the concept of social inclusion hasbroadened this debate to issues of access to major social needsand inclusion. Issues around equity, particularly in relation toSen’s (1987) notion of capability, have not had a major impact inthe transport field. Social governance or process goals aroundintegrated transport planning have been of interest in the UnitedStates for about the last 40 years, although this interest has beenslow to expand to other countries. It could be concluded thatsocial goals in transport are insufficiently understood and poorlydefined (Stanley and Stanley, 2007).

There are a number of concepts currently in use in social policydescribing the social condition of an individual and communities.Many of these concepts are not clearly operationally defined, norfunctionally discrete. They include: poverty, social inclusion/exclusion, well-being, happiness, psychological well-being, eco-nomic utility, capability, community strength and social capital.These concepts have evolved from the perspective of differentdisciplines such as sociology, psychology and economics as well asvia the historical evolution of ideas.

This paper provides a broad overview of usefulness of theconcept of social exclusion to inform social policy in transport.The paper, coming from an Australian perspective, begins with ashort discussion of the concept of poverty. This is necessarybecause of the central importance of poverty to the field of socialpolicy and the significance of poverty as a major component of

Elsevier Ltd.

+613 99059348.

(J. Stanley).

social exclusion. The paper then examines a variety of conceptua-lisations and measurement approaches to social exclusion.However, it is argued that only looking at social exclusion is alimiting approach, there being a need to broaden the criteria beingexamined to encompass all aspects of well-being, the broadoutcome desired in forming social policy. This paper notes thatunderstanding of the importance of interpersonal interactions isnot well covered under the ambit of social exclusion, thus theneed for measures around social capital and community. It alsoraises the importance of considering personal state and subjectivemeasures of well-being to the achievement of social policyoutcomes, in that the provision of resources, such as transport,does not necessarily mean that a person will choose to use them.

2. Poverty

The concept of social exclusion has grown from work thatsought to understand poverty. Poverty can be either absolute orrelative. Absolute poverty refers to not having access to basicneeds, whereas relative poverty is seen as not having access to thesame resources as one’s peers. Poverty can also be transient orentrenched. Many people can withstand short periods of poverty,but adverse outcomes are more likely to be present where povertybecomes a longer term state, such as where there is disability inthe household (Ridge, 2002).

The measurement of poverty has a relatively long history in thefairly short evolution of the field of social policy. The extent ofpoverty is commonly viewed as the number of people withincome below a certain level. This level has, over time, beenrefined to account for factors such as the number of peopledependent on the income, and housing costs. The measurement ofpoverty is often credited with beginning with the work of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Stanley, D. Vella-Brodrick / Transport Policy 16 (2009) 90–96 91

Townsend who wrote about poverty in the 1970s and undertookthe first study of poverty in the UK in 1979. However, Australianwork by Henderson actually predates this, the first ‘poverty line’being established in Australia in 1973 (Unkles, 2008).

In Australia, poverty has been traditionally measured usingthis Henderson Poverty Line. This is an estimate of disposableincome required to support the basic needs of a family of twoadults and two dependant children. This measure is updatedquarterly (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and SocialResearch, 2007). The Henderson Poverty Line has become some-what dated as it was originally calculated in 1973 and has beenupdated by the application of an index based on changes in percapita Household Disposable Income. This estimate has becomedistorted by the changes in the nature of households, the changein the mix household expenses and the changes in relative pricesof goods.

Other measures of income poverty are also in current use.Commonly used in Australia is the half-average income line orhalf-median income line. The National Centre for Social andEconomic Modelling (NATSEM) uses 50% of the median equiv-alised household income (Tanton et al., 2007). In the UK and EU,60% of median equivalised income after direct taxes and benefitsis frequently deemed as the measurement point (Lister, 2004).While the different measures give different levels of poverty,using the measure of 50% of median Household DisposableIncome, an estimated 13.7% of Australians would have beenbelow the poverty line in 2005–2006 (Unkles, 2008).

However, measurement of poverty based on income has anumber of drawbacks, including in relation to transport. Forexample, the number of dependents will substantially impact onthe cost of travel and household expenditure, and the cost ofhousing is related to location and in turn to availability oftransport. Thus, little or no account is taken of needs, consump-tion, assets and other factors which impact on life quality, such aspersonal satisfaction. Subsequently measures have been intro-duced to address such issues. For example, one tool used in the UKasks for a self-rating measure about the adequacy of personalincome (subjective poverty), where a person compares theirpersonal income with what they rate to be an adequate income(Gordon et al., 2000). Recent work in Australia on Indicators ofDisadvantage has derived ratings on essential items or sociallyperceived necessities from the general community and frompeople who are disadvantaged (Saunders et al., 2007).

2.1. Social exclusion and social policy

The concept of social exclusion is considered to facilitate abroader understanding of the multiple dimensions of poverty.While poverty and social exclusion are closely entwined, socialexclusion has been described as the existence of barriers whichmake it difficult or impossible for people to participate fully insociety or obtain a decent standard of living (Social Exclusion Unit,2003). While income poverty is the most commonly cited cause ofsocial exclusion, other examples of barriers include disability, lackof educational opportunity, inadequate housing, ethnic minoritystatus, unemployment, age and lack of transport. Often theboundary between causes or drivers and outcomes of socialexclusion, is unclear (Bradshaw et al., 2004). The logic of the socialexclusion approach is that the way of ‘including’ people with thesedisadvantages is not only, or even necessarily, to give them moremoney but also to develop social policies which specificallyaddress their sources of disadvantage.

A precise definition of social exclusion has proved to be elusive(Saunders, 2003, p. 5). While there are some commonalities,different theorists encompass varying aspects and varying

emphases to what is viewed under the term of social exclusion.Indeed, it is common to link both poverty and social exclusion inthe one measure, as has been done with the Laeken Indicatorsused by the European Union and work done by the JosephRowntree Foundation in the UK (The Poverty Site, 2008; Palmeret al., 2005).

2.2. Early work from the social exclusion unit (SEU) UK

In 1997, the Blair government in the UK established the SocialExclusion Unit (SEU) as part of a policy campaign to combatsocial exclusion. The SEU has used a couple of definitions of socialexclusion. An early definition, noted above, related to theexistence of barriers to participating fully in society. There is alsothe idea that people need to experience multiple problems to besocially excluded. The SEU notes that it:

has always adopted a flexible and pragmatic definition of socialexclusion as ‘what can happen when people or areas sufferfrom a combination of linked and mutually reinforcingproblems’ (Bradshaw et al., 2004, p. 5).

This SEU definition of social exclusion is not really a statementof what happens and is therefore not technically a definition(Levitas, 2000). The variability of the meaning and the difficulty ofseparating social exclusion and multiple deprivations also doesnot facilitate easy measurement of social exclusion.

2.3. The social policy research unit, University of York

Work funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation claims to bethe first attempt to measure social exclusion empirically (Gordonet al., 2000). The following definition was used for measurementpurposes:

�

Impoverishment. � Non-participation in the labour market. � Lack of access to basic services. This included access to basic

services in the home such as power and water supplies, oroutside the home, such as transport, shopping facilities andfinancial services.

� Exclusion from a range of social relations. This is viewed as

J non-participation in common social activities;J social isolation;J a perceived lack of support in times of need;J lack of civic engagement.

� An inability to get ‘out and about’.

2.4. London School of Economics (LSE)

Researchers from the London School of Economics developed amore precise definition of social exclusion, stating that:

An individual is socially excluded if he or she does notparticipate to a reasonable degree over time in certainactivities of his or her society, and (a) this is for reasonsbeyond his or her control, and (b) he or she would like toparticipate (Burchardt, 2000, p. 388).

However, this definition also has limitations. For example, theterm ‘certain activities’ is ambiguous and there is a need todistinguish between reasonable and legitimate forms of exclusionand discriminatory forms of exclusion (Saunders, 2003). The LSEteam moved to improve measurement of social exclusion bydelineating four key activities or dimensions of social inclusion.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Stanley, D. Vella-Brodrick / Transport Policy 16 (2009) 90–9692

These are outlined below, together with broad indicators ofexclusion:

�

Consumption—where equivalized household net income isunder half mean income. � Production—the person is not employed, in education, train-

ing, or looking after family.

� Political engagement—the person did not vote in the general

election and is not a member of a campaigning organisation.

� Social interaction—in any one of five respects, the person lacks

someone who will offer support (listen, comfort, help in crisis,relax with, really appreciates you) (Burchardt et al., 2002).

The authors note some important issues in relation to thesemeasures. For example, as expenditure is not measured, onlyincome is used as a measure of consumption, and the reasons forexclusion (as noted above) are not considered in this definition. Inpractice, LSE researchers have found that each of these dimen-sions function independently and are best measured over time. Italso does not appear that there is an association between theextent of exclusion and the number of dimensions on which theperson is excluded. They note that exclusion should be describedin terms of a continuum, as there is no evidence in their empiricaltesting of an ‘underclass’ or a cohort of people excluded in allfour dimensions.

2.5. Further developments from the social exclusion unit (SEU, UK)

In 2004, the SEU reported on social exclusion from a domainperspective: income, employment, education, health, housing,transport, crime, social support/social capital and the impact ofthe neighbourhood (Bradshaw et al., 2004). The term, socialcapital, is introduced in the context of social exclusion. While the‘confusion’ around the meaning of social capital and its measure-ment, or its relationship to social exclusion is noted, the issue isnot progressed (p. 82). Although there continued to be acknowl-edgement that ‘the boundaries of the subject are still matters fordebate’, the SEU still viewed social exclusion of people orneighbourhoods in terms of linked and mutually reinforcingproblems (Bradshaw et al., 2004, p. 5). The researchers providedan overview of how people in Britain are faring in these domains,again exploring more the outcome of social exclusion, rather thanthe causes.

2.6. Social exclusion in Australia

The concept of social exclusion has been slow to be adopted inAustralia. While there has been discussion amongst someAustralian academics (for example Jones and Smyth, 1999), therehas been little integration of this concept into social policy on anysizeable scale. However, pockets of interest in social exclusionappear to be widening, particularly in association with othersocial policy changes, such as place-based policy. These includethe place-based initiatives of the Beattie government in Queens-land, which commenced in 1998, and the establishment of theSocial Exclusion Unit by the South Australian State Government in2002. The Department for Victorian Communities, established in2002 (now the Department of Planning and Community Devel-opment), while placing social policies more firmly on the stategovernment’s agenda, made reference to ‘addressing disadvan-tage’ and ‘fairness’, rather than social exclusion per se (VictorianGovernment, 2005). However, the philosophies behind the workof the Department for Victorian Communities appear to coversimilar ground to that subsumed in the concept of social exclusionin that it explores multiple disadvantages. More recently the new

Federal Labour Government has announced an intention toestablish a social exclusion unit within the Prime Minister’sDepartment.

2.7. The use of the concept of social exclusion in transport research

Transport was one of the early areas of interest of the SEU. Thepublication of a major report on transport and social exclusionproved to be a defining point for work in this area (SocialExclusion Unit, 2003). With the primary focus on issues ofaccessibility, the SEU’s transport study drew links between theexclusion of people who do not have access to a car and theirneeds for education, employment, access to health and otherservices, food shopping, as well as to sporting, leisure and culturalactivities. Barriers to accessibility were seen as centering around:

�

the availability and physical accessibility of transport; � the cost of transport; � services located in inaccessible places; � safety and security—fear of crime; � travel horizons—people on low incomes were found to be less

willing to travel to access work than those on higher incomes.

The SEU argued that to remove these barriers and reduce socialexclusion through transport improvements, there is a need tounderstand how people access key activities and link this withplanning to improve such accessibility (accessibility planning), aswell as undertaking key strategic policy initiatives, such as

�

reviewing the regulations governing provision of bus services(especially relevant to the UK context where de-regulation ofservice provision has taken place outside London); � integration of transport planning into planning for services

provision (e.g. education);

� a range of initiatives to make transport more accessible, such

as reducing cost and addressing the fear of crime associatedwith public transport;

� the formation of partnerships between transport providers,

local authorities and local service providers, such as educationand health, and work on transport solutions.

Following the work of the SEU, a few other studies haveexplored the association between social exclusion and transport.Hine and Mitchell (2003) cover much of the same ground as theSEU. They still largely define social exclusion in a transportcontext in terms of a loss of ability of people to connect withservices such as ‘‘health facilities, local job markets and leisureactivities’’ (2003, p. 6). They note that expressing accessibility inexclusion terms has the advantage of clarifying the multiplicity ofissues which result in transport disadvantage, such as poor socialplanning and policy at society and institutional levels. Theyrecommend a number of transport-related approaches to tacklingsocial exclusion, such as targeting of subsidies and concessionsand provision for public transport in new housing developments.Like the SEU, Hine and Mitchell propose coordination betweenpublic transport services and separately, coordination betweenvarious community transport operations.

A number of other studies have also come from the UK, largelytargeting accessibility around specific groups of people. Forexample, Cartmel and Furlong (2000) found rural youth are morelikely to experience social exclusion than urban youth, due to aninability to access basic activities such as health services,education and employment. The 2004 SEU review reinforced theimportance of transport to those at risk of social exclusion, andargued that the social costs of poor public transport are

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Stanley, D. Vella-Brodrick / Transport Policy 16 (2009) 90–96 93

overlooked (Bradshaw et al., 2004). The emphasis remained onaccessibility to ‘key’ services.

In short, accessibility has been an integrating framework formuch work in the UK on social exclusion/inclusion (e.g., Cass et al.,2005; Preston and Raje, 2007). There has been little attempt to gobeyond this, however, and establish why or how such accessimprovements might increase the well-being of those involved.Improved accessibility effectively becomes the outcome to beachieved, rather than relating this to specific social goals.

The language of social exclusion is rare in discourse from theUnited States and it is understood that the same conclusionapplies to Canada, although it is being increasingly used inCanada. Although not operating from a social exclusion theoreticalframework and language, however, it would appear that there is awidespread interest in mobility issues faced by particulartransport disadvantaged groups in North America (e.g. seniorsand people with a disability) (Burkhardt et al., 2003). As with theUK, the conversation is largely around the need for transportdisadvantaged people to access jobs, health care and recreation.Service coordination is a strong focus in US research, mainlywithin the community transport sector (paratransit) and, lessfrequently, between community transport and public transport(SAFETEA, 2005).

There has been little application of social exclusion conceptswithin the transport field in Australia, although social exclusion isbecoming a force in several non-transport policy areas (such asneighbourhood renewal, child welfare and community arts).However, transport disadvantage has been recognised in sometransport planning initiatives (as in the US). Research has beenundertaken on specific groups who are at risk of social exclusion.For example, Alsnith and Hensher (2003) and Harris (2005) haveresearched transport issues for seniors and Currie et al. (2005)have worked on accessibility to transport for youth in rural andregional Australia. The issue of social exclusion was specificallyaddressed in an Australian study, which explored the transportneeds of groups of people said to be at risk of social exclusion(Stanley and Stanley, 2004). An important exception has been theVictorian government’s extensive roll-out of new bus services,starting in 2006 and extending over a 5 year time span. This roll-out is for what is called ‘social transit’ rather than commuting towork, and while grounded in social exclusion theory, wasexplained in social equity terms, particularly, addressing dis-advantage (Victorian Government, 2005). Another exception hasbeen the growth of community transport. However, this has beenbased on more a ‘bottom-up’ recognition of the need for mobilityand to reduce the isolation experienced by certain groups ofpeople, rather than through a purposeful social policy directionwhich is theoretically linked to social exclusion.

2.8. Is social exclusion sufficient?

There are a number of problematic issues in relation to howsocial exclusion is viewed and the options for measurementespoused in the literature, which have implications for use of theconcept in the transport field. One example (and the moststraightforward), voting in the federal election (as espoused bythe LSE), is not a good indicator of social exclusion withinAustralia, as voting within Australia is compulsory. Politicalengagement as an indicator of social exclusion in general mayalso be aspirational, as anecdotal evidence suggests that someotherwise socially included Australians do not actively engage inpolitical activities.

Some forms of social exclusion tend to be overlooked, andparticularly not measured. For example, asylum seekers inAustralia are often excluded due to government policy rather

than personal inabilities, such as the denial of the right of somerefugees to seek employment. The experience of racism on publictransport is a driver in social exclusion as it had led to theavoidance of use of public transport, even where people had fewother travel options (Stanley and Stanley, 2004). Importantly, thewhole question of indicator thresholds requires a great deal ofwork. As noted earlier, the concept of social exclusion is alsosomewhat circular, with social exclusion viewed as both a cause ofa lack of personal opportunities and an outcome or a reason for alack of personal opportunities.

There is a need to ensure that the use of the term socialinclusion is not value-loaded towards a consumer-based societyand particular political or cultural paradigms. At present, as notedabove, the measurement of social inclusion is weighted towardseconomic factors. Research into happiness suggests that improve-ments in income mirror increases in happiness to a certain pointbeyond which on-going increases in wealth do not result incommensurate increases in happiness (Layard, 2005). Theassumptions behind social exclusion need to be closely examined.In addition, a person could be excluded from mainstream societybut not excluded from other value sets which may be present intheir community of place or interest. This form of inclusion couldbe based on alternative communities, village life in the UK,particularly in the more recent past, and in some less developedcountries today. Indeed, alternatives to economic rationalism arelikely to become increasingly important in responses to climatechange, where there is a need for a move to a low energy,sustainable way of living, which is likely to include less mediumand long distance travel. Therefore, it is important to consider theconcept of social exclusion from a broader framework, whichincludes transparent value assumptions and one that includeselements of life quality, interpersonal interactions and involve-ment with the local community and personal factors and opinionsabout well-being.

2.9. Well-being and social capital

Work by Stanley and Stanley (2007) suggests that the conceptof social exclusion may be too narrow in two important aspects.The discourse on social exclusion views the achievement of socialinclusion as the end-point goal of a policy process. The authorsargue that reducing social exclusion per se is not the ultimatepolicy goal, which should instead be couched in terms ofenhancing quality of life. There are a number of terms used forthis idea including happiness and well-being, and ‘humanflourishing’. Indeed McGregor and colleagues refer to humanflourishing as a social policy goal (Walker, 2007).

An important contribution to this has been made by theeconomist and philosopher, Sen (e.g. Sen, 1985, 1987). Sen hasargued there are basic human functioning needs and capabilities.A person’s well-being should be based on the capacity to do,which may be unequal between people. To achieve certain levelsof capability, it may be necessary to offer more to those with lessthan others in order to overcome the systematic disadvantagethey face. Although Sen argues against listing capabilities, he doesgive the examples of being able to ‘live long, escape avoidablemorbidity, be well nourished, be able to read, write andcommunicate, take part in literary and scientific pursuits’ (Sen,1984, p. 97, quoted in Clarke and Gough, 2005, p. 51). Clarke andGough (2005) also note that Sen talks about more complex socialfunctioning such as taking part in the life of the community andentertaining family and friends.

While social interaction is one of the four commonly usedmeasures of social exclusion, it tends to be viewed narrowly andspecifically. For example, the LSE measures social support only.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Improved transportaccessibility

Inclusion

Personality & other

psychological factors

Well-being

Broad socialpolicy goals

Social capital &connections

with thecommunity

Excluded person

Fig. 1. Relationship between social exclusion and other well-being dimensions.

Source: Stanley and Stanley (2007) Public transport and social policy goals, Road &

Transport Research, vol. 16, no. 1, March.

J. Stanley, D. Vella-Brodrick / Transport Policy 16 (2009) 90–9694

Although researchers from the University of York take a broaderview, their model overlooks family based interactions andwould benefit from a theoretical structure/perspective. Stanleyand Stanley (2007) suggest that social capital and connectionswith the community are two important components ofbeing included and well-being. Social capital is perceived asnetworks between people, which have norms of reciprocity andtrustworthiness (Putnam, 2000). The building of social capitalbinds networks of people who cooperate to resolve collectiveproblems, promote personal and business interactions andwidening awareness of others and flows of useful information(Putnam, 2000). Family networks, networks with communitymembers, and links with organisations and government struc-tures are all important for well-being. Interaction betweenpeople promotes a sense of belonging and strengthens commu-nities. This in turn builds capability and capacity in thecommunity, such as leadership skills, participation in communityorganisations, volunteering, a sense of safety and health (Vinson,2004).

The role of transport in facilitating social inclusion through thedevelopment of social capital, according to the SEU, may bethrough promoting accessibility to key services. For example, theprovision of public transport may facilitate direct access toemployment by providing a means to get to a job. Alternatively,however, transport may provide the means to enable people toform associations or relationships and engage with other peopleand groups, a common way of creating employment opportu-nities. The act of being on public transport, in itself, may directlyimprove social capital, as travel offers opportunities to engagewith other travellers and feel part of a community of people.

Little theoretical work has been undertaken on social capitaland transport, apart from some recognition that transport doesplay a role. Putnam (2000) has suggested there are negative linksbetween car dependence and the development of effective socialcapital. Axhausen (2005) notes the lack of empirical evidence ofcheap travel and therefore increased communications, on thestructure of social networks. Urry (undated) argues that to be afull, active and engaged member of society requires social capitalwithin localities and participation involves transportation andmobility.

Similarly, well-being has not been adequately examined instudies on transport. Given the strong association betweenhappiness and a range of desirable outcomes and qualities‘such as sociability, optimism, energy, originality and altruism’(Lyubomirsky et al., 2005, p. 846) the omission of well-being insuch studies is a major shortcoming. Mobility is not always aboutgetting from A to B, rather it is about integrating everyday life and‘normal’ activities (Cass et al., 2005). Social inclusion is clearlyabout being able to enjoy life, leisure and relationships. Theimportance of transport for well-being is confirmed in a SouthAfrican study, based in a rural village and an urban town (Clark,2002, quoted in Clarke and Gough, 2005). Transportation wasrated as being essential by 54.8% of participants. Items like jobs,access to clean water and sanitation, housing and shelter andfamily and friends were seen to be more important thantransportation. However, transportation was viewed to be moreimportant than having children, income and wealth, basicclothing and living a long time, and equal to free time/recreation,and political rights (voting, freedom of speech and association).

While not under-estimating the importance of being able toaccess critical services like education and health, it is theunstructured realm of friends, family leisure and social experi-ences that are also of great importance for inclusion. This findingwas confirmed in a small study that examined the use of new busservices in an outer Melbourne suburb (Bell et al., 2006). Whilepeople used these new services to access education and other

services, the major use of the new services was for social andleisure activities of an informal, unstructured nature.

This suggests that there are important elements, which shouldbe considered. There is a need for social governance goals: theability of people to determine their own goals of social inclusionand well-being, rather than these requirements being assumed, asis commonly the case where accessibility to services is viewed asthe required outcome. There needs to be opportunities for peopleto be able to choose and access alternatives and achieve theseoutcomes. This argument aligns with work being undertaken bytheorists like Nussbaum (2005) who seek to understand thecomponents of well-being. She argues that individuals shouldchoose what well-being is to them (within the limits of the legalsystem) and the government has to provide opportunities so thischoice can be made (Nussbaum, 2005). Sen (1987), as notedearlier, argues that a person’s well-being should be based onthe capacity to do, which may be unequal between people(Nussbaum, 2005). To achieve certain levels of capability, it maybe necessary to offer more to those who have less, in order toovercome the systematic disadvantage they face.

Thus, there is an argument that a minimum public transportservice needs to be provided by governments so people can usethese services to enhance their capabilities (Stanley et al., 2007).This is commonly the case in developed countries for theprovision of health and education services, and it should also beso for transport. This is a clear link with the concept of socialexclusion, where people may have reduced capabilities due tofactors such as low income, poor health and disability.

2.10. An extension to the social exclusion model

Thus, it is argued that social exclusion is not a sufficient conceptto encompass all social policy goals, which may be associated withtransport. The need for the inclusion of well-being, social capitaland community strengthening to describe social policy outcomesis described by Stanley and Stanley (2007), and shown in Fig. 1.Social inclusion is viewed as important as it leads to well-being.The establishment of social capital and connections with thecommunity are also important components of well-being.

Conceptualisations and measures of subjective well-being aregenerally well established, particularly within the discipline ofpsychology where Diener and colleagues have led the way.Subjective well-being is defined as having heightened positiveaffect and minimal negative affect, while also experiencing high

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Stanley, D. Vella-Brodrick / Transport Policy 16 (2009) 90–96 95

levels of life satisfaction. Generally, there is agreement that thereexists a strong positive relationship between good quality socialrelationships and well-being (Diener and Oishi, 2005; Myers,2000). If one adopts the premise that transport facilitates socialinteraction, then presumably it can also indirectly heighten well-being. Clearly there is a need to explore the relationship amongthese three variables: transport, social exclusion/inclusion andsubjective well-being.

An important study—MOBILATE—which examined mobilityin the aged, was undertaken across five European countries(Mollenkopf et al., 2005). The aim of the project was to understandhow outdoor mobility related to personal and environmentalfactors across different countries and in urban and rural settings.The work included little on social capital or community interac-tions, although did seek information on subjective well-being.

Research in Australia has recently commenced which seeks tounderstand the association between transport, social exclusion,well-being and disadvantage. The study uses a broad view ofsocial exclusion which, while using the LSE model of measure-ment of social exclusion, also uses measures of social capital andcommunity connectiveness, and psychological tests of subjectivewell-being: Satisfaction with Life (Diener et al., 1985), Positive andNegative Affect Schedule (Watson et al., 1988) and PsychologicalWell-being Scale (Ryff, 1989).

While the subjective perspective is important, such measuresdo not account for value-based social policy social justiceprinciples and Sen’s principle which espouses the need to resourcepeople so they achieve equal capacities. Although an individualmay be personally satisfied with their circumstances, if they havediminished capabilities, social justice dictates that they should beoffered the choice to be able to participate more fully in society.This position subsumes the value judgement that it is notsufficient to allow people to simply adjust or accommodate toadverse circumstances. Hence there is a need for measures ofcomparative positions as determined by measures of social capitaland community connectiveness. However, as with social exclusion,the measurement of social capital and connection with thecommunity raises problems of definition, measurement andthreshold points. This issue was reviewed recently by Currie andStanley (2008). Nevertheless, some progress in the conceptualisa-tion, measurement and application of these constructs to transportresearch is needed.

2.11. Personality and psychological functioning

The MOBILATE study also includes measures of personalpsychological functioning, a clear omission in much socialexclusion work generally, particularly as it relates to transport,and is likely to be a compounding factor in driving social exclusion.Psychological well-being, which includes factors such as autono-my, self-acceptance and purpose in life, and personality such aslevel of extroversion or locus of control, may impact circumstancesthat lead to the presence or absence of social exclusion, as well asthe desire and ability of a person to engage with others and societyin general. These factors may well be important mediators to theability of a person to take up mobility opportunities and thusenhance their own well-being. Therefore, the authors suggest thata broader perspective on social policy should also includemeasures of both personality and psychological health (Fig. 1) sothat this assertion can be empirically examined.

3. Conclusion

Social exclusion and its association with transport and mobilityis an issue with high relevance to understanding how to address

disadvantage. This paper has argued that while the concept ofsocial exclusion has been very valuable in directing social policy tothe transport field, as well as providing a frame of reference withwhich to build policy, it is now necessary to broaden the field.Indeed, the short-comings or narrowness of the concept of socialexclusion is likely to have lead to the failure to systematicallybuild and test theory around social exclusion. As currentlyunderstood and measured, the concept of social exclusion is notsufficient to encompass all social policy requirements in relationto transport, there being the need to use other theoreticalconcepts, especially in relation to well-being and communityconnectiveness. Knowledge around the interplay of these issues inorder to build efficient and effective mobility systems will notonly be enhanced by a clear understanding of well-being andrelationships, but also how psychological factors interplay withthese needs.

References

Alsnith, R., Hensher, D.A., 2003. The mobility and accessibility expectations ofseniors in an aging population. Transportation Research 454.

Axhausen, K., 2005. Social networks and travel: some hypotheses. In: Donaghy, K.,Poppelreuter, S., Rudnger, G. (Eds.), Social Dimensions of Sustainable Trans-port: Translantic Perspectives. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., UK, pp. 90–99.

Bell, Currie, G., Stanley, J., Fletcher, M., 2006. Buses in Outer Suburban Melbourne,Multi-modal Transport Solutions, July.

Bradshaw, J., Kemp, P., Baldwin, S., Rowe, A., 2004. The Drivers of Social Exclusion:A Review of the Literature for the Social Exclusion Unit in the Breaking theCycle Series. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.

Burchardt, T., 2000. Social exclusion: concepts and evidence. In: Gordon, D.,Townsend, P. (Eds.), Breadline Europe: The Measurement of Poverty. PolicyPress, Bristol, pp. 385–406.

Burkhardt, J.E., Koffman, D., Murray, G., 2003. Economic benefits of coordinatinghuman service transportation and transit services. Transit CooperativeResearch Program, Report 91, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Burchardt, T., LeGrand, J., Piachaud, D., 2002. Degrees of exclusion: developing adynamic, multidimensional measure. In: Hills, J., Le Grand, J., Piachaud, D.(Eds.), Understanding Social Exclusion. Oxford University Press, Oxford,pp. 30–43.

Cartmel, F., Furlong, A., 2000. Youth Unemployment in Rural Areas /http://www.jrf.org.ukS.

Cass, N., Shove, E., Urry, J., 2005. Social exclusion, mobility and access. SociologicalReview 53 (3), 539–555.

Clark, D., 2002. Visions of Development: A Study of Human Value. Edward Elgar,Cheltenham.

Clarke, D., Gough, I., 2005. Capabilities, needs and wellbeing: relating the universaland the local. In: Manderson, L. (Ed.), Rethinking Wellbeing. Griffin Press,South Australia, pp. 1–26.

Currie, G., Gammie, F., Waingold, C. Paterson, D., Vandersar, D., 2005. Rural andregional young people and transport: improving access to transport for youngpeople in rural and regional Australia. A Report to the National Youth AffairsResearch Scheme, January.

Currie, G., Stanley, G., 2008. Investigating links between social capital and publictransport. Transport Reviews 28 (4), 529–547.

Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffin, S., 1985. The satisfaction with lifescale. Journal of Personality Assessment 49, 71–75.

Diener, E., Oishi, S., 2005. The nonobvious social psychology of happiness.Psychological Inquiry 16, 162–167.

Gordon, D., et al., 2000. Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain. Joseph RowntreeFoundation, York.

Harris, A., 2005. Transport and mobility: challenges, innovations and improve-ment. Seminar at Department for Victorian Communities, Victoria, May 27,2005.

Hine, J., Mitchell, F., 2003. Transport Disadvantage and Social Exclusion:Exclusionary Mechanisms in Transport in Urban Scotland. Ashgate, Aldershot,UK.

Jones, A., Smyth, P., 1999. Social exclusion: a new framework for social policyanalysis? Paper Presented to the 26th AASW National Conference, 26–29September.

Layard, R., 2005. Happiness: Lessons From a New Science. Penguin, New York andLondon.

Levitas, R., 2000. What is social exclusion? In: Gordon, D., Townsend, P. (Eds.),Breadline Europe: The Measurement of Poverty. Policy Press, Bristol,pp. 357–383.

Lister, R., 2004. Poverty. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., Diener, E., 2005. The benefits of frequent positive affect:

does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin 131, 803–855.Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2007. Poverty Lines:

Australia June Quarter, /http://melbourneinstitute.com/labour/inequality/poverty/default.htmlS viewed January 2008.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Stanley, D. Vella-Brodrick / Transport Policy 16 (2009) 90–9696

Mollenkopf, H., Marcellini, F., Ruoppila, I., Szeman, Z., Tacken, M., 2005. EnhancingMobility in Later Life. IOS Press, Amsterdam.

Myers, D., 2000. The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. AmericanPsychologist 55, 56–57.

Nussbaum, M.C., 2005. Wellbeing, contracts and capabilities. In: Manderson, L.(Ed.), Rethinking Wellbeing. Griffin Press, South Australia, pp. 45–68.

Palmer, G., Carr, J., Kenway, P., 2005. Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion.Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UK.

Preston, J., Raje, F., 2007. Accessibility, mobility and transport-related socialexclusion. Journal of Transport Geography 15, 151–160.

Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of AmericanCommunity. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Ridge, T., 2002. Childhood Poverty and Social Exclusion: From a Child’s Perspective.The Policy Press, Bristol.

Ryff, C.D., 1989. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning ofpsychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57,1069–1081.

Saunders, P., 2003. Can social exclusion provide a new framework for measuringpoverty? Social Policy Research Centre Discussion Paper No. 127, October.

Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y., Griffiths, M., 2007. Towards new indicators of disadvan-tage: deprivation and social exclusion in Australia. Social Policy ResearchCentre, University of NSW, Sydney, November.

Sen, A., 1984. Resources, Value and Development. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Sen, A., 1985. Commodities and Capabilities. Elsevier Science Publishers, Oxford.Sen, A., 1987. The Standard of Living. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Social Exclusion Unit, 2003. Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport

and Social Exclusion, viewed November 2003, /http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/publications/reports/html/transportfinal/summaryS.

SAFETEA, 2005. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient TransportationEquity Act of 2003, viewed November 2005 /http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reauthorization/safetea_bill.htmS.

Stanley, J., Currie, G., Stanley, J., 2007. The way to go? In: Currie, G., Stanley, J.,Stanley, J. (Eds.), No Way To Go: Transport and Social Disadvantage inAustralian Communities. Monash University ePress, pp. 16.1–16.11.

Stanley, J., Stanley, J., 2004. Improving public transport to meet community needs:a Warrnambool case-study. Report for Bus Association Victoria and Warrnam-bool Bus Lines, Melbourne, October.

Stanley, J.R., Stanley, J.K., 2007. Public transport and social policy goals. Road &Transport Research 16 (1).

Tanton, R., Harding, A., McNamara, J., 2007. Urban and rural estimates of poverty.Paper Prepared for the State of Australian Cities Conference, Adelaide, 28–30November 2007, NATSEM.

Townsend, O., 1979. Poverty in the United Kingdom. Allen Lane and Penguin Books,UK.

The Poverty Site, 2008. European Union (Laeken) Indicators, /http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/eu.htmS Accessed January 2008.

Unkles, B., 2008. Carbon taxes and households in poverty: a brief analysis of thelikely initial impacts of an across the board rise in the cost of carbon. A Reportfor the Brotherhood of St. Laurence, Brotherhood of St. Laurence, Melbourne.

Urry, J., undated, Mobility and Proximity, Department of Sociology, LancasterUniversity /http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/mobilenetwork/downloads/urry1stpaper.docS Last accessed August 2006.

Victorian Government, 2005. A Fairer Victoria: Creating Opportunity andAddressing Disadvantage, Victorian Government.

Vinson, T., 2004. Community adversity and resilience: the distribution of socialdisadvantage in Victoria and New South Wales and the mediating role of socialcohesion. Jesuit Social Services, Melbourne.

Walker, D., 2007. Happy Talk. SocietyGuardian.co.uk, Tuesday July 3, Accessed July 2007./http://society.guardian.co.uk/futureforpublicservices/story/0,,2116754,00.htmlS.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A., 1988. Development and validation of briefmeasure of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 54, 1063–1070.