Socioeconomic Fragmentation and Exclusion in Greece under the Crisis

This chapter explores the effects of the Greek crisis on the level and structure of income inequality and poverty. Inequality rose during the crisis. The magnitude of the change varies across indices, and indices that are relatively more sensitive to changes close to the bottom of the income distribution record larger increases. The elderly improved their relative position, while there was substantial deterioration in the relative position of the enlarged group of the unemployed. The contribution of disparities between socio-economic groups to aggregate inequality rose, while the contribution of educational disparities declined. Poverty increased considerably, especially when “anchored” poverty lines are used. The contribution of households headed by pensioners to aggregate poverty declined sharply with a corresponding increase in the contribution of unemployed-headed households.

In this chapter, the authors present and analyze developments in employment and unemployment in Greece before and after the outbreak of the crisis. Multiple aspects of these dimensions are examined, making use of historical and comparative data. The authors demonstrate the overall deterioration of the Greek labour market during the crisis and identify a process of twin fragmentation taking place as a result: (a) a substantial and typically persistent divergence between the performance of the Greek labour market and that of the labour markets in the rest of the euro area and (b) a significant divergence in the fortunes of different population groups in the Greek labour force, which for the most part reinforces existing fragmentation lines.

In this chapter, the author contrasts patterns of fragmentation and exclusion in the Greek social policy legislation before and after the onset of the economic crisis. He shows that the Greek welfare state was ill prepared to fight poverty and social exclusion even before the crisis struck. After the start of the crisis, because of austerity measures, social policy was considered a secondary priority. The budget to fight poverty and social exclusion was drastically cut, while the state continued discriminating in favour of some interest groups (liberal professions, employees of state-owned enterprises) at the expense of other categories of the population. Eventually, there was a clear mismatch between the size and nature of the grave problems facing Greek society on the one hand and the resources and policies devoted to address these problems on the other hand.

In this chapter, the authors review the political discourses and documents on poverty and social exclusion before and after the outbreak of the crisis. Before 2010, there were only rare and generic references to such issues in political discourse. After the eruption of the crisis, references to these issues have increased significantly, while new terms, like ‘humanitarian crisis’, have entered the political vocabulary. However, both the increased references and the new terms employed have been typically used in the context of communication strategies aiming to increase political polarization and capitalize on the anger and frustration of suffering Greeks. All in all, the pre-crisis patterns of political discourse on issues of poverty and social exclusion do not seem to have changed substantially, in qualitative terms, during the crisis.

In this chapter, the authors describe and explain the attitudes and perceptions of elite groups on the issues of poverty and social exclusion. They use content analysis of material obtained in interviews with policy- and opinion-makers regarding poverty and social exclusion. Interviewees included politicians, technocrats, labour representatives and journalists. The authors show that among these elite groups, there are gross misperceptions of poverty and social inclusion. The two concepts are often conflated; elites understand only those social effects of the crisis which are familiar to their clientele or their own profession; and there is a glaring gap between the actual negative social effects produced by the crisis and the views which elites hold about such effects.

How is poverty discursively constituted, both as a category of thinking and as a label applied to particular social categories in times of austerity? How is it linked to social exclusion? Based on extensive fieldwork with representatives from 79 typical non-governmental organizations and informal initiatives of civil society in two Greek cities (Athens and Patras, in the periphery), this chapter explores the link between crisis, poverty and social exclusion. In their attempt to underline the marginalizing effects of austerity in Greece, civil society actors question previous assumptions about what constitutes poverty and exclusion in Greek society and offer important insights into the seemingly disparate practices and experiences among those classified as “poor” or “new excluded”.

Traditionally, in Greece, civil society is examined in a political or economic context. The originality of this chapter is that the reading frame proposed is inspired by managerial studies and is based on a model of positioning of the formal and informal civil society organizations according to types of proximity (geographic versus affinity) and governance/regulation arrangements. Based on a qualitative survey of 79 non-governmental organizations and informal groups of civil society, the chapter examines the real and self-perceived positioning of civil society in times of crisis regarding regulation and proximity strategies and maps civil society organizations on the basis of their activity sector (society and solidarity, health and social welfare, economy, education-culture-environment and multiple sectors) located in Athens and in the periphery (Patras).

In this chapter, the author claims that the rebirth of civil society in Greece may have occurred but that traditional patterns of fragmentation are still visible. His analysis is based on a collection of data from the press and secondary sources. He argues that before the crisis erupted, civic associations were frequently either permeated by political parties or monitored by and financially dependent on the state. With the exception of selected strong professional associations and public-sector unions, civil society was weak and fragmented. After the start of the crisis, unions and associations struggled to preserve the living standards of middle- and low-class Greeks but also to protect their own narrowly defined labour market and welfare niches. Informal social movements challenged government policies, while self-help groups and social solidarity networks provided social assistance and social services to the poor and the socially excluded. However, there emerged also other, often violent, movements which challenged institutions of parliamentary democracy, such as political parties and elected governments. Thus, civil society was strengthened but overall the record of its invigoration was mixed.

In this chapter, the author argues that since the onset of the crisis there have emerged multiple rifts in Greek society, not only at the level of socio-economic structure but also at the level of discourse. The concluding chapter’s major theme is a double mismatch. First, the social policies adopted to fight poverty and social exclusion did not correspond to the scale and gravity of social problems caused by the crisis. The welfare state continued, in a fragmented fashion, to cater to the needs of insiders of the Greek labour market at the expense and exclusion of the rest of society. Second, there was a mismatch between the extent and nature of crisis-produced social problems and their conceptualization and understanding by policymakers and opinion shapers. Such perceptions and discourses served to sustain and even reignite pre-existing fragmentations within Greek society. Curbing fragmentation and exclusion requires a minimum of consensus among elites, political parties and social partners.