This chapter explores the computational implementation and applications of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG). We discuss computational work which provides evidence that the RRG approach to grammar has a beneficial role to play in natural language processing (NLP) and delivers a credible and realistic linguistic model to underpin NLP applications. The computability of the model has been tested in diverse software applications. We characterize these and explain how RRG is used to underpin the linguistic component in the architecture of a number of software systems and applications. We conclude with a discussion of the contribution that RRG can provide to NLP. We discuss how the RRG model is translated into software, and some of the challenges involved. The chapter is a testimonial to how the RRG model of language can be successfully implemented in software.

The theory of common ground is an important analytical tool in linguistics and intercultural pragmatics. Common ground has applicability in the characterization of speech acts and allows for distinguishing, for example, between an assertive, which requires a dynamic common ground, and a declarative that depends more on appropriate contextual factors for a successful realization. The theory of common ground is intrinsically linked to how knowledge relates to language and how a discourse advances between interlocutors. As such, the creation and maintenance of common ground has consequences for our stance on knowledge and what we KNOW, BELIEVE, DESIRE, and our INTENTIONS for action. There are many kinds of knowledge and a relevant portion of these are framed within a discourse situation, with common ground. We discuss the interfaces and relationship between situation, context, common ground, and knowledge including cultural knowledge, drawing on the thinking of Malinowski and Firth, and others. The challenges addressed are: (a) how do we ground the notions of context and common ground and their contents, with the appropriate level of specificity? (b) how do we represent them in such a way to become operationally useful in linguistic analysis? and (c) how do we show how context and common ground contribute to utterance meaning?

At the March 2000 European Council in Lisbon, the EU committed to taking steps “to make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty”. At their 2005 Spring Summit in Brussels, EU leaders stressed that “it is essential to relaunch the Lisbon Strategy without delay and re-focus priorities on growth and employment”; they also reaffirmed that “social inclusion policy should be pursued by the Union and by Member States”. And one year later, in March 2006, they restated “the objective of the Partnership for growth and jobs that steps have to be taken to make a decisive impact on the reduction of poverty and social exclusion by 2010”. The Social Inclusion Process has a central role to play in this regard. This book has sought to provide an analysis of the challenges facing this Process and how it can be taken forward, in a context where the interdependence of the Union's economic, employment, social and environmental goals is to the fore. The importance of ensuring close links between the Social Protection and Social Inclusion Process and the revised Lisbon agenda on jobs and growth has been made clear, with active social policy expected to contribute in particular both to the reaffirmed social inclusion objectives and to economic and employment goals.

In this context, we have argued that the effectiveness of the Social Inclusion Process can be strengthened by improved policy analysis, monitoring and reporting on progress, and by ensuring that Member States’ National Action Plans on social inclusion (NAPs/inclusion) become more strategic, focused, and better mainstreamed into national policy making. This book has set out a range of concrete suggestions as to how to make progress in that direction. First, though, we began with a brief historical account of the development of EU cooperation in social policy since the Treaty of Rome and more particularly since the Lisbon European Council, which is necessary to understanding what has been achieved to date and the challenges currently facing the Social Inclusion Process.

EU cooperation in social policy

A great deal can be learned from the history of the development of EU cooperation in social policy: “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (Santayana, 1980).

• Chapter 1 sets the scene, and introduces the context and contents of the book.

• Chapter 2 provides a brief historical account of the development of EU cooperation in social policy from the Treaty of Rome to the re-focused Lisbon Strategy post-March 2005 and the adoption of new working arrangements and revised objectives for the Open Method of Coordination on social protection and social inclusion in March 2006, leading up to the proposed designation of 2010 as the “European Year of combating poverty and social exclusion”.

• Chapter 3 examines what can be learned about poverty and social exclusion from the rich body of evidence provided by the social indicators that have been commonly agreed at EU level, investigating the impact of Enlargement and the inter-relation between income and other dimensions of deprivation.

• Chapter 4 suggests how policy analysis in the Social Inclusion Process can be deepened, to help learn “what works”, using model families analysis and micro-simulation modelling to develop a “common analytical framework” to accompany the common indicators.

• Chapter 5 contributes to the dynamic process of developing the common social indicators, in the context of Enlargement, a new EU data source (EU-SILC) with a new income concept, a streamlined OMC on social protection and social inclusion, and new policy concerns. It emphasises the development of non-income-related indicators on deprivation, housing quality/adequacy and homelessness. It discusses the need to balance the development of indicators to cover several areas currently not adequately covered against the dilution that might ensue if there were to be a proliferation of indicators.

• Children mainstreaming, in the sense of viewing social inclusion from a child's perspective, is a theme linking Chapters 3, 4 and 5, and suggests new approaches to both analysis and indicators.

• Chapter 6 considers the challenge of advancing the Social Inclusion Process in the context of the re-focused Lisbon Strategy, and of embedding the Process in domestic policies and implementing a social inclusion mainstreaming through establishing a scheme of systematic (ex ante and ex post) policy assessments at EU, national and sub-national levels. It proposes the setting of targets, fundamentally restructured NAPs/inclusion, and working towards more “joined-up” Government, on the basis of committed administrative and political leadership, and parliamentary scrutiny.

Jutta Allmendinger

Director, Institute for Employment Research (IAB)

Munich, Germany

Wilfried Beirnaert

Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe (UNICE)

Brussels, Belgium

Jos Berghman

Professor, Catholic University of Leuven (KUL)

Leuven, Belgium

Daniela Bobeva

Bulgarian National Bank

Director, Department of International Relations and European Integration

Sofia, Bulgaria

Andrea Brandolini

Bank of Italy

Economic Research Department

Rome, Italy

Mireille Elbaum

Director, Directorate for Research, Studies, Evaluation and Statistics (DREES)

Paris, France

Robert Erikson

Professor, SOFI, Stockholm University

Stockholm, Sweden

Fintan Farrell

Director, European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN)

Brussels, Belgium

Gilda Farrell

Council of Europe

Head, “Social Cohesion Development Division”

Strasbourg, France

Zsuzsa Ferge

Professor, Eotvos University

Budapest, Hungary

Paolo Garonna

Professor of Political Economy at the University LUISS G. Carli of Rome and Chief Economist of Confindustria (Confederation of Italian Industrial Employers)

Rome, Italy

Michel Glaude

European Commission

Director for “Single Market, Employment and Social Statistics”, Eurostat

Luxembourg

John Hills

Professor, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE), London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)

London, UK

Dagmar Kutsar

Professor, Tartu University

Tartu, Estonia

Erika Kvapilová

National Programme Officer

United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), Regional Office for CEE

Bratislava, Slovak Republic

Edmundo Martinho

President, Institute of Social Security

Lisbon, Portugal

Tom Mulherin

Chair of the EU Social Protection Committee

Brussels (secretary: European Commission), Belgium

Józef Niemiec

Confederal Secretary, European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)

Brussels, Belgium

Heinz-Herbert Noll

Director of the “Social Indicators Department”, ZUMA

Mannheim, Germany

Mark Pearson

OECD

Head, “Social Policy” Division

Paris, France

Martin Potůček

Professor, Head of the “Centre for Social and Economic Strategies”, Charles University

Prague, Czech Republic

Odile Quintin

European Commission

Director General, Directorate-General “Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities”

Brussels, Belgium

Chiara Saraceno

Professor, University of Turin

Turin, Italy

Tomáš Sirovátka

Professor, School of Social Studies, Masaryk University

Brno, Czech Republic

David Stanton

Chairman, Indicators Sub-Group of the EU Social Protection Committee

Brussels (secretary, European Commission) Belgium

Irena Topińska

Associate Professor, University of Warsaw

Warsaw, Poland

István Tóth

Director, TÁRKI

Budapest, Hungary

Frank Vandenbroucke

Vice-Minister-President of the Flemish Government

Professor, Catholic University of Leuven (KUL)

Leuven, Belgium

Edmunds Vaskis

Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia

Deputy Director, “Department of Social Statistics”

Riga, Latvia

Jiří Večerník

Professor, Institute for Sociology

Prague, Czech Republic

The overarching objectives of the OMC for Social Protection and Social Inclusion are to promote:

A. social cohesion, equality between men and women and equal opportunities for all through adequate, accessible, financially sustainable, adaptable and efficient social protection systems and social inclusion policies;

B. effective and mutual interaction between the Lisbon objectives of greater economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and with the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy;

C. good governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy.

The following objectives apply to the different strands of work:

A decisive impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion by ensuring:

D. access for all to the resources, rights and services needed for participation in society, preventing and addressing exclusion, and fighting all forms of discrimination leading to exclusion;

E. the active social inclusion of all, both by promoting participation in the labour market and by fighting poverty and exclusion;

F. that social inclusion policies are well-coordinated and involve all levels of government and relevant actors, including people experiencing poverty, that they are efficient and effective and mainstreamed into all relevant public policies, including economic, budgetary, education and training policies and structural fund (notably ESF) programmes.

Adequate and sustainable pensions by ensuring:

G. adequate retirement incomes for all and access to pensions which allow people to maintain, to a reasonable degree, their living standard after retirement, in the spirit of solidarity and fairness between and within generations;

H. the financial sustainability of public and private pension schemes, bearing in mind pressures on public finances and the ageing of populations, and in the context of the three-pronged strategy for tackling the budgetary implications of ageing, notably by: supporting longer working lives and active ageing; by balancing contributions and benefits in an appropriate and socially fair manner; and by promoting the affordability and the security of funded and private schemes;

I. that pension systems are transparent, well adapted to the needs and aspirations of women and men and the requirements of modern societies, demographic ageing and structural change; that people receive the information they need to plan their retirement and that reforms are conducted on the basis of the broadest possible consensus.

The Council Resolution on “Combating social exclusion” (Council, 1989a) adopted in September 1989 emphasised that “combating social exclusion may be regarded as an important part of the social dimension of the internal market” and pointed to “the effectiveness of coordinated, coherent development policies based on active participation by local and national bodies and by the people involved”. It undertook “to continue and, as necessary, to step up the efforts undertaken in common as well as those made by each Member State, and to pool their knowledge and assessments of the phenomena of exclusion” and consequently called on the Commission “to study, together with the Member States, the measures they are taking to combat social exclusion” and “to report on the measures taken by the Member States and by the Community in the spheres covered by this Resolution”.

Council Recommendation 92/441/EEC of June 1992 (Council, 1992b) on “Common criteria concerning sufficient resources and social assistance in social protection systems” urged EU Member States to recognise the “basic right of a person to sufficient resources and social assistance to live in a manner compatible with human dignity as a part of a comprehensive and consistent drive to combat social exclusion”. Practical guidelines suggested to organise the implementation of this right included: “fixing the amount of resources considered sufficient to cover essential needs with regard to respect for human dignity, taking account of living standards and price levels in the Member State concerned, for different types and sizes of household”, “adjusting or supplementing amounts to meet specific needs” and “in order to fix the amounts, referring to appropriate indicators, such as, for example, statistical data on the average disposable income in the Member State, statistical data on household consumption, the legal minimum wage if this exists or the level of prices”.

The third text was adopted one month later, in July 1992: Council Recommendation 92/442/EEC on the “Convergence of social protection objectives and policies” (Council, 1992a). Because “comparable trends in most of the Member States may lead to common problems (in particular the ageing of the population, changing family situations, a persistently high level of unemployment and the spread of poverty and forms of poverty)”, the Council recommended that this “de facto convergence” should be further promoted by establishing what was termed a “convergence strategy” and which consists basically of the identification of “common objectives”.

Member States have so far made use of the commonly agreed indicators to quite varying degrees. While many countries did use indicators to provide a description of the state of affairs with regard to poverty and social exclusion, these descriptions were not, on the whole, integrated into the central part of the NAPs/inclusion, which deals with the strategic approach to combating poverty and social exclusion. One of the reasons for the limited framing of policies in relation to the common indicators in the NAPs/inclusion is that the social indicators have not to date been very fully exploited for analytical purposes. As pointed out in Chapter 1, the social indicators have not yet been used to “tell a story” about differences across Member States and about the relation between different dimensions of social exclusion, or about the impact of Enlargement.

The aim of this Chapter is to explore how much one can learn about these key questions just by restricting ourselves to the body of aggregate information now represented by the common indicators. It should be emphasised that we do not, in general, attempt to consider other sources of empirical evidence, be it aggregate information or individual micro-data. Nor do we attempt to provide an overall explanation of poverty and social exclusion. Clearly, a proper account and understanding of the complex phenomena at stake would require a differentiated examination of the causes of poverty and social exclusion, based on a detailed and multi-dimensional analysis of the underlying micro-data on households and individuals, and drawing on a variety of sources and the extensive research literature available for individual countries. Such a (very valuable) enterprise would be well beyond the scope of the present Chapter. Instead, by deliberately limiting our analysis to the published common indicators, our aim is to bring out how their potential can be more fully exploited – and also the limits to such an analysis of aggregate information. The expectation is of course not that countries would rely solely on these common indicators in monitoring, analysing and reporting on social inclusion; rather, it is that the national indicators they develop and use for these purposes, together with in-depth multi-dimensional analysis of the underlying micro-data, should be linked back to the common indicators as far as possible, in order to facilitate mutual learning.

Even though the founding fathers of the EU had expected social progress to evolve naturally from the economic progress generated by the Common Market, for many years the Single European Market and the European Monetary Union largely eclipsed the social dimension of the EU. It is only since March 2000, when EU Heads of State and Government adopted the Lisbon Strategy, that social policy has truly become a specific focus of attention for EU cooperation. In this Chapter, the main emphasis is on the Lisbon Strategy and the EU social processes that were launched in this context, and more particularly the Social Inclusion Process, but the Chapter begins in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome. We believe that it is important to understand the origins of EU cooperation in social policy, and the extent to which the current processes have roots in the past. Such a long-run historical perspective reduces the danger of being over-influenced by today's immediate political pressures.

The long road towards EU cooperation in social policy

In March 1957, when signing the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community, the then six EU Heads of State and Government resolved to ensure both the economic and the social progress of their countries by developing a Common Market, in the optimistic belief that the economic progress resulting from economic integration would automatically translate into social progress.

In the early days of the European Communities, social policy received little attention, and the Community institutions were provided with very limited powers in the social field. Social policy was, to a large extent, a means towards achieving other objectives. The restructuring of the coal and steel industries, through the European Coal and Steel Community, involved social measures in aid of training and to finance adjustment. There was concern with removing barriers to labour mobility and ensuring that differences in the costs of social protection did not prevent competition in the supply of goods. But in January 1974, the EU Council of Ministers (hereafter the Council) adopted its “Resolution concerning a social action programme” (Council, 1974). Since the adoption of this text, the Council has established various programmes to combat poverty and social exclusion.