Social exclusion and economic growth at the European Union: can social marketing and behavioral economics help us to overcome the problem?

SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH AT THE EUROPEAN UNION: CAN SOCIAL MARKETING AND BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS HELP US TO OVERCOME THE PROBLEM? MARCO ANTONIO CRUZ MORATO Departamento de Economía y Administración de Empresas, Universidad de Málaga, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Industrial de Málaga, C/ Doctor Ortiz Ramos s/n. (Campus de Teatinos) 29071. Málaga. ANTONIO GARCÍA LIZANA Departamento de Economía Aplicada (Política Económica), Universidad de Málaga, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, UMA, Calle Ejido 6, 29013, Málaga. JOSEFA GARCÍA MESTANZA Departamento de Economía y Administración de Empresas, Universidad de Málaga, Facultad de Turismo, Campus de Teatinos S/N 29071, Málaga. e-mail autor de contacto: [email protected] Abstract The problem of poverty and social exclusion is growing nowadays in the European Union context, according to Eurostat (2015 and 2016). And, in spite of the fact that Europe 2020 Strategy is apparently focused on that situation, the perspectives are not promising. What could be happening? In this paper we analyze this issue from a Macromarketing approach, including elements from Behavioral Economics (stigmatization process and stress coping theories, going further than the “homo economicus” traditional model) to reach a better understanding, and recommending a combined public-private response to overcome the problem, using the elements that Marketing provide us (such as Social Marketing, Macrosocial Marketing, Corporate Social Marketing and also traditional Commercial Marketing techniques, under a “fortune at the bottom of the pyramid” approach). Doing so, we do not only want to eradicate this sort of curse, but also to boost economic growth in an effective inclusive manner. Keywords: Economic growth, social exclusion, European Union, Social Marketing, Behavioral Economics. Thematic Area: Social Economy. 1. INTRODUCTION Poverty and social exclusion (PaSE from now on), represent an endemic evil of our world, despite the apparent efforts of governments, international organizations and increasingly also the private sector. According to Kotler, Roberto and Leisner (2006, p. 233). “Poverty has been humanity´s ever present curse […] We believe, however that world poverty can be more skillfully addressed […] by applying micromarketing techniques to macromarketing challenges”. And we must not forget that Macromarketing is focused on market problems and solutions to those problems that would improve the wellbeing of various stakeholders within the marketing system (Layton, 2007; Ferrell and Ferrell, 2008). “Macromarketers can play an important role in designing solutions that ameliorate the survival pressures faced by the poor and thereby alter the nature of trade-offs” (Viswanathan and others 2014, p. 23). There is no doubt that PaSE (according to authors such as Sen, 1998 and 2000; Robila, 2006; or Atkinson and Marlier, 2010; social exclusion includes a wide range of privation dimensions, encompassing economic poverty) is higher in the Third World, in absolute terms, according to their worst overall context. The attention of the related literature, in this sense, is greater in these areas (see, for instance, Hammond and others, 2007; Subrahmanyan and Gomez-Arias, 2008; Upadhyaya and others, 2014; or Gau and others, 2014), although there is also an increasing interest in developed economies (Ekström and Hjort, 2009; or Saatcioglu and Corus, 2014). However, despite the various efforts from many fields as we have been discussing, it seems that the situation is becoming even worse (increasing PaSE levels), beyond the obvious impact of current economic situation. That is the situation that is taking place in some developed areas, such as the European Union (see Eurostat, 2015 and 2016). What could be happening? Are we facing the problem from the right perspective? Our objective in this paper is addressing the European Union (EU) situation from a perspective of “academic activism”, offering academic-based solutions related to Social Marketing and Macromarketing analysis, including a Behavioral Economic component in that study. In Krisjanous (2014) we could go in depth into the relations between Social Marketing and Macromarketing, while authors such as Kotler and Lee (2009) propose Social Marketing as a way to solve the problem of poverty (although focusing on developing countries again, not PaSE levels existing in developed economies, as we will carry out). Furthermore, Lefebvre and Kotler (2012) or French (2013), among others, point to the need of integrating Behavioral Economics with Social Marketing interventions in a general way, an others have studied the impact of Behavioral Economics jointly with Marketing to address the problem of PaSE, but focused on the poor, and differently from how it will be implemented in the present study (Bertrand, Mullainathan, and Shafir, 2006). So that, based on the ideas of greatest personalities on the history of economic thought such as Keynes [1936], (1983), Myrdal (1971) or Sen (1999), (see MartínReyes, García-Lizana, and Fernández-Morales, 1995; or García-Lizana and PérezMoreno, 2003 and 2012, among others) in section 2, after analyzing the reasons to study this issue from a Marketing approach, it will be studied (theoretic and empirically) the limits to macroeconomic outcomes that high PaSE levels have into economic growth, focusing on EU case. According to that analysis, in section 3 we will deepen in how private sector interventions such as Social Marketing, Corporate Social Marketing, among the consideration of PaSE people as a market segment, are a solid alternative as a way to stop the problem (opposite traditional redistributive public policies, although applying them in a coordinated way, among other public interventions such as Macro-Social Marketing), focusing on that concepts from a Macromarketing approach. In section 4 it will be introduced Behavioral Economics (the need to integrate Psychology into the model would have been showed in previous sections), not only related to excluded people but also the rest of society. Thus, incorporating theories of coping with stress caused by the presence of social stigma and more realistic models of human behavior, away from perfectly rational and self-interested homo economicus of traditional economic theory (Simon, 1951; Katona, 1975; Miller and Major, 2000; or Compas and others, 2001), the analytical model of the situation will be completed. Furthermore, in section 5, based on previous recommendations, it will be briefly analyzed EU policies and possible application of these measures. In the final section we will discuss the conclusions and possible future implications of this study. 2. BACKGROUNDS 2.1. WHY STUDY POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION FROM A MARKETING APPROACH? It is not new the interest of Marketing (micro and macro level) into poverty, its impacts, determinants and possible solutions, as it have been mentioned before. Usual micro marketing techniques (segmenting, targeting and positioning; S-T-P process) should be considered as integral tools for poverty alleviation (Kotler, Roberto and Leisner, 2006). Without aiming to repeat well-known concepts such as poverty (see Sen, [1973], 1979; among others) or social exclusion (Chakravarty and D´Ambrosio, 2006; or Atkinson and Davoudi, 2000), there is no doubt that both concepts are measuring a situation of basic needs deprivation on part of the population. Thus, social exclusion adds to simply economic poverty other factors such as labor discrimination, worst health and educational conditions, etc. (as long as poverty would be considered part of social exclusion as well, see Sen, 1998 and 2000; Robila, 2006; or Atkinson and Marlier, 2010). And we must not forget that Marketing studies the target people needs. We could ask, then, are these people needs considered by market systems? To Ekström and Hjort (2009, p. 703): “poor consumers are often being neglected by marketers and are not identified as interesting customer “segments””. Why they are not considered an attractive market, only due to their fund and transaction capacities limitations? Or there could be other reasons to this discrimination of market systems, not only as potential productive factors, but also as possible consumers? Poverty and Marketing have been studied before, from a Macromarketing perspective, although focused on Subsistence Marketplaces (Subrahmanyan and Gomez-Arias, 2008; Gau and others, 2014 or Upadhyaya and others, 2014). To our knowledge, they are not so usual, however, Marketing studies of social exclusion phenomena (in the way it is carried out in this paper, although Kobayashi and others, 2013, deal partially this issue, in particular a Social Marketing intervention with deaf people). Not even in EU context and from a holistic perspective which incorporates psychological factors (Behavioral Economics) as it will be carried out in this paper (but we must remember the studies of Bertrand, Mullainathan and Shafir, 2006; Lefebvre and Kotler, 2012; or French, 2013; previously quoted). Anyway, there are not only reasons to address the PaSE problem from a macro perspective (fighting against PaSE benefits all the society, both in humanitarian or social and macroeconomic terms, as it will be shown later), there exists other reasons to deal with this issue from Marketing, according to what it have been said: - Poor and social excluded as a market segment (“fortune at the base of the pyramid approach”, see Prahalad and Hart, 2002; or Prahalad, 2004 studies, who considers the poor as a market segment in which it can be applied traditional Marketing techniques, it is not “selling things to the poor”, but more related to helping them getting out of that situation so that they would be able to buy the products that market systems provides). - Group with high consumption propensity (Keynes [1936], 1983), so it could be interesting to deal to private sector (as well as public sphere, if aggregate demand wanted to be pushed). - “[…] in order to understand the socio-cultural processes for inclusion and exclusion, there is a need to increase interdisciplinary work between consumer researchers and welfare researchers” (Ekström and Hjort, 2009, p. 707). - Marketing allows a micro approximation to the problem (being possible also to analyze their macro consequences), focused on the needs and psychological features of each individual (poor people and also the rest of the population), which could be essential to understand why the problem still persists (from a Behavioral Economics perspective, to overcome the traditional behavior models limitations, as it will be said), in order to tackle the problem in a solid way, according to what is has been said for Kotler and Lee (2009). 2.2. POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: THE CURRENT SITUATION. As it have been said, there is no doubt that PaSE situation in developing countries is much more serious (with more attention for researchers), but: does not it dangerous also the growing PaSE levels in developed economies? According to that, focused on the EU case (aim of this paper and one of its new elements for that field), in Eurostat (2015) some specific information is presented (the latest data do more than emphasize on the same conclusions, see Eurostat 2016). Without aiming to repeat what is said in Eurostat (2015) (deeper information can be found there), we could highlight that: “The number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion has increased in most Member States […] The serious impact of the economic crisis on Member States´ financial and labour markets was the most likely cause for the rise [of the people at risk of poverty or social exclusion] from 2009 onwards” (Eurostat 2015, p. 138). What is more, the current refugee crisis (see Trauner, 2016) could have also a probable impact in the future situation. However, it is well worth it to note the following Eurostat (2015) comments, which would help to empirically reinforce the theoretical model that it would be drawn later: - “People with low educational attainment are three times more likely to be at risk” Eurostat (2015, p. 144). - According to the study, there is a relationship between people at risk of poverty and income inequality. - And, very important to this study, regarding to the influence of PaSE as a limiting factor to economic growth, in Eurostat (2015, p. 136) it is said that: “[…] [inequality] can lead to long-term loss of economic productivity from whole groups of society and hamper inclusive and sustainable economic growth”. Thus, we could say that the persistence (and increase) of PaSE in the EU is a problem, not only since a humanitarian perspective, neither solely as part of inclusive growth (which means economic growth and PaSE reduction, regardless the influences between these two elements), but also due to its possible impacts on macroeconomic procedure, including economic growth levels. 2.3. THE INFLUENCE OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION INTO ECONOMIC GROWTH: THE EU CASE. Thus, based on the previous conclusions (Eurostat, 2015), we will study (theoretical an empirically) while not intended to be exhaustive, the relations between PaSE levels, as form of inequality, and economic growth (it has to be mentioned that economic growth has been previously studied from a Macromarketing perspective by authors such as Layton, 2009, although from a different point of view than it will be carried out in this paper). According to Martín Reyes, García Lizana and Fernández Morales (1995), or García Lizana and Pérez Moreno (2003 and 2012), among others, the relationship between these two phenomenon can be based on the ideas of greatest economists such as Keynes [1936] (1983) or Myrdal (1971). They both considered poverty as a form of inequality (see Spicker, 1993). As Kotler, Roberto and Leisner (2006, p. 234) said: “The macroeconomic approach to poverty analysis ends up pointing to inequality”. And, about this inequality, we would go further in the underlying related discrimination processes of people in PaSE conditions. It would also be mentioned Sen (1999), who paved the way to the need of reinforcing the analytical model from a Behavioral Economics approach. Against traditional theories of Kuznets (1955), according to whom there exists a functional relationship between income equality and economic growth in “U” shape (thus, in a first phase, economic growth should be preceded by a equality reduction, and only until a concrete level economic growth would encourage more equality), due to their theoretical and empirical inconsistencies (authors such as Deininger and Squire, 1998, or Fields 2001 proposed to reconsider this theory), it can be proposed the assumption that income equality boost economic growth (and inequality hinders it, see Galor and Zeira, 1993). An “L Hypothesis” model, instead of traditional “Kuznets U Hypothesis” (Martín Reyes, García Lizana and Fernández Morales, 1995; García Lizana and Pérez Moreno 2003 and 2012). This way, according to Keynes [1936] (1983), redistributive policies play an important role on economic growth, through an increase in consumption by transferring resources to poor people (because, to this author, consumption propensity is higher to that group, which helps economic growth by pushing the aggregate demand). It is not only important to consider the economic potential of this group of society to public authorities (aiming to boost economic performance), but also to private sector, as a way of reaching new markets, with growing interest. On the other hand, a poverty reduction affects in a positive way variables such as health, education or social cohesion, provoking at least a higher economic growth (Myrdal, 1971). This interpretation is still valid nowadays (Hall and Ludwig, 2009, for instance). What is more, other authors have agreed that inequality narrows economic growth, although focusing on how it hampers human capital generation, due to the lack of available funding for students (Chambers and Kraus, 2010, according to Galor and Moav, 2004). As it was said by Sen (1999), poverty means a privation of the full development of one person capabilities (and, also of its liberty), which implies an underutilization of productive resources and, so for, a restriction to economic growth. Furthermore, this author (Sen, 1990) also critics the restrictions that perfectly rational “homo economicus” impose into the model, forgetting external factors (historic, social a cultural), in a related way to Behavioral Economics principles that it would be presented in following sections. This interpretation will be important to explain the persistence of PaSE, and also to sustain their influence on economic growth, as well as base the need to appeal to Marketing in order to face the problem. So that, it could be thought that, if poverty is high in a society (and, thus, social exclusion, as long as it has been defined as a multidimensional phenomenon that measures the problem in a more complete manner, incorporating solely economic poverty and also other variables such as marginalization of the labor market, education, health, credit, social relations etc., see Cruz Morato, García Lizana and García Mestanza, 2017), consumption levels would be limited, as long as investment incentives (local markets perspectives would be really negative). Furthermore, a privation of health, worst education, social tensions, less equipment, etc. (a limitation in the full development of PaSE people capacities) would also affects negatively work productivity, hampering production levels, according to the ideas of Myrdal and Sen. There exists, then, a set of limitations that affects simultaneously aggregate demand and supply. In the end, several conditions have been created to block economic growth, as it was said by Eurostat (2015) (although not only in the long term, but also in the short one), especially if there exists external factors, as it seems to be happening nowadays. According to that, it can be found the research of Martín Reyes, García Lizana and Fernández Morales (1995), García Lizana and Pérez Moreno (2003) or Cruz Morato, García Lizana and García Mestanza (2017), who says that it is necessary to overcome a significant PaSE level in order to achieve a sustainable economic growth. This way, PaSE would affect economic growth, according to Myrdal or Sen, restricting productive capacity and incorporating into economic procedures a low number of people (so that the empowerment solution proposed by Sen, as it would be said). Especially if we have into account the psychological implications that discrimination/stigmatizacion situations suffered by excluded people could have into their participation (economic activities, labor market, etc.), so the way they face their social stigma could also have different consequences into production levels. This theoretical “L Hypothesis” between PaSE levels and economic growth have been verified empirically since the early 90´s in different geographical contexts (Martín Reyes, García Lizana and Fernández Morales, 1995), and have also been confirmed in EU countries by García Lizana and Cruz Morato (2010a and 2010b), and more recently by Cruz Morato, García Lizana and García Mestanza (2017). This way, it is proved that EU PaSE levels (as a way to measure inequality) have an impact on economic growth outcomes, so that high PaSE (using different indicators and at different times, and thus giving robustness to the result interpretations) represents a limitation to boost the inclusive economic growth pursued by EU. To deep into methodological questions, more information can be found on the quoted studies. To conclude, it is pointed out the need to: a) reduce PaSE levels to encourage economic growth (especially if social exclusion is considered as a multidimensional phenomenon and how every single component of that concept could impact into economic growth), and b) reinforce the PaSE people position to balance their limitations and so they can contribute to economic growth (what lead us to Behavioral Economics and Marketing as a way to face the problem). 3. MARKETING APPROACH TO FACE THE PROBLEM: A COMBINED PUBLIC-PRIVATE INTERVENTION. 3.1. CONTEXTUALIZATION According to previous sections, there is no doubt that fighting against PaSE has a special interest for Macromarketing. It has been proved, moreover, its potential macroeconomic impact (reducing its levels would encourage economic growth) and the current concerns from public organizations such as EU institutions in order to boost economic growth as well as the increasing interest from private sector (“fortune at base of the pyramid” perspective). Relating to this approach it is said that: “This market [people who are economically at the bottom of the pyramid] is traditionally considered the domain of governments, aid agencies, non-profits, NGOs and other do-gooders. Yet, as recent articles and books point out, this is a matter that merits attention even by for-profits” (Subrahmanyan and Gomez-Arias 2008, p. 402). In this section, we will focus on the set of possible actions that, together with traditional public redistribution policies, could be developed from private sphere (non-profits and business organizations), playing Marketing an important role (both in private and public interventions, as it will be discussed later). It would also be pointed out possible psychological limitations in order to develop these performances, which would strengthen what was said in previous section, and they will lead us to delve further in these issues in the following section (it must be remembered that planning Marketing actions should enable us to explore more deeply into psychological characteristics of human mind to develop a better understanding of the situations). But before proceeding our study, it is worth reminding very briefly what is Macromarketing. According to what has been mentioned, its aim is solving market problems improving the well-being of different stakeholders inside market system. It is focused on explaining marketing process and its relations with society (Bartels and Jenkins, 1977). In contrast to Micromarketing (process developed in one or more business units to obtain a private benefit), Macromarketing is the process developed in public and private organizations to benefits the society as a whole (not only individually). In Shapiro (2006) we can find the origins and theoretical foundations of it. From a Macromarketing perspective, we look for the creation of an environment that nurtures fair exchanges for all (Kotler, Roberto and Leisner, 2006). We must remember that, according to Viswanathan and others (2014), this kind of approach can help the poor to face their situation. 3.2. SOCIAL MARKETING, CORPORATE SOCIAL MARKETING AND MACROSOCIAL MARKETING. It should be pointed out what Kotler, Roberto and Leisner (2006) said that poverty reduction requires inducing behavior change through Social Marketing programs. In addition, “[…] social marketing techniques increase both social inclusion […] and social cohesion” (Kobayashi and others 2013, p.2). In this chapter it will be developed, schematically, the theoretical framework that supports all the micro and macro actions which may develop private companies and other organizations, as well as the Public Sector. Therefore, “Social marketing is the design, implementation, and control of programs calculated to influence the acceptability of social ideas and involving considerations of product planning, pricing, communication, distribution, and marketing research” (Kotler and Zaltman, 1971, p. 5). According to Andreasen (1995, p. 7) it could be defined as: “[…] the application of commercial marketing technologies to the analysis, planning, execution, and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behavior of target audiences in order to improve their personal welfare and that of their society”. Wiebe (1951-52) could be considered a Social Marketing precursor, he formulates “Why can´t you sell brotherhood and rational thinking like you sell soap?” (Wiebe, 1951-52, p. 679). In McMahon (2002) or Dann (2010) we can find more details about foundations and definitions of Social Marketing. On the other hand, Krisjanous (2014) focuses on relations between Social Marketing and Macromarketing, while authors such as Andreasen (2006) or French and Gordon (2015), among others, determines the main criticism of Social Marketing (for instance, the perception that it is manipulative and not “community based”). This way, Social Marketing aim is changing the target behavior to benefit general population or those who have a disadvantaged situation. In our case, the social issue would be the fight against PaSE, actions benefiting for the community and also for this particular group (improving their options to escape from this situation) and to raise awareness of the issue (about possible determinants, implications, etc.) on private companies and non-profit organizations in micro level to be prone to change the mentioned behaviors (also governments in macro level, as it will be said later). In Duhaime, McTavish and Ross (1985) we can deepen on how Social Marketing can improve the living conditions of this population, although focused in the Third World. In spite of the fact that it is not our primary objective to delimitate an exhaustive conceptualization, it would be necessary to highlight that Social Marketing must not be mistaken with the actions carried out by organizations whose final aim is to obtain a private profit (Corporate Social Marketing), which, according to Donovan (2011) or Hastings and Angus (2011) even where this contributes to the public good, then this is not Social Marketing. In this case, philanthropic actions only constitute a way to get the highest goal for companies: increasing sales and profits (Smith and Alcorn, 1991). Therefore, an incorrect application could have devastating consequences (if the purpose of the campaign seems unrelated to business core strategies, clients tend to suspect, and this situation may have an adverse impact on the image, see Andreasen, 2006). Kotler and Lee (2005) defines Corporate Social Marketing as a type of Corporate Social Initiatives (in relation with Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR), among others such as Corporate Cause Promotions, Cause-Related Marketing, Corporate Philanthropy, Community Volunteering and Socially Responsible Business Practices (a complete description of these can be found in that study; and, furthermore, Kotler and Lee 2009, adds a new one: developing and delivering affordable products for the large market “at the bottom of the pyramid”, related to previously mentioned “fortune at the bottom of the pyramid” approach). About other macro level public interventions, “Government is increasingly making use of macro-social marketing to action societal change. We propose that the use of macro-social marketing in conjunction with other interventions, such as regulation, legislation, taxation, community mobilization, research, funding, and education, is an effective systems approach that is actually positive social engineering” (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012, p. 37). According to these authors, public sector should act not only in different levels (state, local, etc.), but also they should work with communities, organizations and people themselves. Regarding the fight against PaSE, obviously it is also necessary to work with companies. Nevertheless, let us recall briefly that Macro Social Marketing is where upstream actors use Social Marketing within a systems approach to societal change (Domegan, 2008; Kennedy and Parsons, 2012). It is government leading macro levels of change, not individual change (Domegan, 2008). Acording to Kennedy and Parsons (2012, p. 40): “Macro-social marketing as part of a systems approach to social change, along with other interventions, is actually part of a positive social engineering intervention, and is commonly used by governments to shape the context of behavior changes in their societies”. Furthermore, French (2012 and 2013) outlines the need that policymakers take into account such proceedings in their development strategies. 3.3. HOW TO COMBINE THESE MEASURES? SOME REQUIREMENTS OF THE MODEL. According to our line of reasoning, it has been focused on a package of measures from Marketing field that, alongside traditional redistribution public policies and other public actions (for example, Macro Social Marketing campaigns), could be developed from private sphere to fight against PaSE problem, being they profit or non-profit organizations: the consideration of PaSE people as a market segment on which it can be applied traditional Marketing techniques, as well as Social Marketing measures (also Corporate Social Marketing, with the risks and limitations mentioned before). Both policy change and Social Marketing are needed for macro-level societal change (Hoek and Jones, 2011) and helps to improve Strategic Social Marketing processes (according to French and Gordon, 2015, social marketers, politicians and other stakeholders should build strategies that work with; it is not enough individual “voluntary” behavior, governments should enhance positive social behaviors). minorities and migrants”. In European Union (2011) it is also defended the need to relate inclusion policies with antidiscrimination policies. So it is taking into consideration the possible discrimination suffered by disadvantages groups, closer to our arguments (although embryonic in its considerations). What could be failing, then? Why, in spite of the EU previously mentioned interventions, European Commission prospects still being that to 2020 the people at risk of poverty would remain at about 100 million (see Eurostat, 2015)? Are the considerations exposed in this paper taken into account in the intervention program? According to previous research, this seems not to be happening. Apart from considering the reduction of PaSE as a consequence of economic growth (not as a way to boost it, at least in the short term), psychological effects of discrimination are not considered (neither other possible psychological implications, such as the motivations to generosity of part of the people, related to Behavioral Economics approach), and neither do Marketing tools (such as Social Marketing, among others), as it has been said in this paper. To reinforce the previous statements it could be quoted French (2012, p. 361), who talked about “The underutilisation and misinterpretation of marketing in government policy and strategy development” and how public sector should implement this kind of actions (it is also said the need to work in a collaborative manner with other agents such as charity and businesses community, although partnership is an issue already considered by European institutions, in European Union, 2011, it is highlighted the importance of promoting CSR actions in business), focusing on Social Marketing. It would not be odd thinking that EU could develop Social Marketing interventions against PaSE when EU itself and other economies such as USA, Canada, New Zealand or England are managing from a Social Marketing approach about public health, for instance (see Oliveira Santos, 2008; or European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 2014), regarding the previously mentioned by Kennedy and Parsons (2012) about the growing use of this kind of actions on the part of governments. Furthermore, Saatcioglu and Corus (2014) talk about the need that social policies take into consideration marginalization processes (which lead us to talk about its psychological consequences). Among the possible solutions to poverty exposed by Kotler, Roberto and Leisner (2006), in relation to our interpretation, it is talked about social protection, defined as the public and private actions in order to provide income or consumption transfers to the poor, protecting the vulnerable and enhancing the social status and rights of the marginalized population (Mpagi, 2002). Kotler, Roberto and Leisner (2006) also said that it is at local level where poverty market segments can be identified and Social Marketing techniques applied, to motivate poverty-escaping behavior. “Along with many other solutions – financial, legal, educativea good case can be made for the application of marketing S-T-P strategies to reduce the extent and pain of poverty” (Kotler, Roberto and Leisner, 2006 p. 238). 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS. The persistence of PaSE in the EU is something that, unfortunately, has become more than usual. Despite the apparent efforts that EU institutions (and also civil society and private sector) have been implementing, the situation is getting worse in the current context, as data shows (Eurostat, 2015). Being a topic previously studied from a Macromarketing approach, (although not in the EU and the way it has been done in this paper, to our knowledge), our aim has been to analyze the situation basing on Behavioral Economics, going further than traditional “homo economicus” behavioral models, completing the model with stress coping theories (stress provoked by the discrimination suffered for excluded people), among other behaviors related to generosity shown by part of the society. So that, it has been proposed a set of actions to develop both by public and private sector based on Marketing (along with traditional redistributive policies), such as Social Marketing, Macro Social Marketing, Corporate Social Marketing or common Marketing techniques (from a “fortune at the bottom of the pyramid” approach, considering the potential of excluded people as a market segment, being necessary previously the creation of transaction capacities on that people), as a way to push strongly the empowerment on this group, in order to tackle the social exclusion suffered. However, our analysis has not considered the problem only as a social concern, it has been showed (theoretical and empirically) that PaSE persistence in EU means also a limitation to economic growth (affecting aggregate demand and supply). Thus, if the inclusive economic growth apparently pursued by EU institutions would be really wanted to be pushed, PaSE has to be previously reduced in order to unblock growth possibilities. It is not ´making the cake bigger, and then distributing it´ as it has been usual in the applied policies. So EU policies (“Europe 2020: Europe´s growth strategy”) seems to be failing in that question (at least in the short term), and also lacks of Behavioral Economics elements as it has been done in this paper, as long as Marketing instruments, in order to eradicate the problem (Kennedy and Parsons, 2012). Nevertheless, it is well worth to remember that, among Social Marketing, there are other forms of changing behaviors to overcome the psychological restraints detected, such as legislation, education, persuasion or technology, according to Oliveira Santos (2012), although the holistic and integral vision of Social Marketing is thought to be more complete (see Andreasen, 2006). It is also necessary to take into consideration the possible risks of Social Marketing intervention perpetuating social stigma if actions are not correctly planned (Calderwood and Wellington, 2013; Gurrieri, Previte and Brace-Govan, 2013). On the other hand, as it has been said previously, Kotler, Roberto and Leisner (2006) exposed that it is at local level where poverty market segments can be identified and Social Marketing techniques applied, and, thus, a future research line could be to deepen into the operationalization, design, study and eventual application of Social Marketing programs on specific cases, in an experimental way (we should remember that the most common methodology to empirically verify research hypothesis from a Behavioral Economics approach is Experimental Economics, see Tisdell and Hartley, 2008), according also with the exposed need to go further into micro social experimentation before the development of macro transversal policies on that issue (European Union, 2011). Cada obra referenciada debe ser citada en el texto de la siguiente forma en función del número de autores de la misma: - Con uno o dos autores: incluir apellido/s y año de publicación, en una de estas dos modalidades, según lo requiera el contexto (Pérez, 1999; García y Moreno, 2008) o Pérez (1999), García y Moreno (2008). - Con tres o más autores: añadir “y otros” al apellido del primer autor junto con el año de publicación, en una de estas dos modalidades, según lo requiera el contexto (Pérez y otros, 1999) o Pérez y otros (1999). Los detalles de la obra completa deberán aparecer exclusivamente en el epígrafe Referencias y no en una nota a pie de página. Las referencias se mostrarán en fuente Arial, 9 puntos, justificada, conforme a los modelos que se acompañan. REFERENCES ANDREASEN, A. R. (1995): Marketing Social Change. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. ANDREASEN, A. R. (2006): Social Marketing in the 21st century. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. ATKINSON, R. AND DAVOUDI, S. (2000): The Concept of Social Exclusion in the European Union: Context, Development and Possibilities, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38 (3), 427-448. ATKINSON, A.B. AND MARLIER, E. (2010): Analysing and Measuring Social Inclusion in a Global Context. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations (UNDESA), New York. BAKER, S.M., GENTRY, J.W. AND RITTENBURG, T.L. (2005): Building Understanding of the Domain of Consumer Vulnerability, Journal of Macromarketing, 25 (2), 128-139. BANERJEE, A. V. AND DUFLO, E. (2008): Mandated Empowerment. Handing Antipoverty Policy Back to the Poor, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136, 333-341. BANERJEE, A. V., DUFLO, E., GLENNERSTER, R. AND KINNAN, C. (2015): The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7 (1), 22-53. BARTELS, R. AND JENKINS, R.L. (1977): Macromarketing, Journal of Marketing, 41 (4), 17-20. BERTRAND, M., MULLAINATHAN, S. AND SHAFIR, E. (2006): Behavioral Economics and Marketing in Aid of Decision Making among the Poor, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25 (1), 8-23. CALDERWOOD, K. A. AND WELLINGTON, W. J. (2013): Social Marketing Strategies for Stigmatized Target Populations: A Case Example for Problem Gamblers and Family Members of Problem Gamblers, The Qualitative Report, 18 (97), 1-19. CARVALHO, H.C AND MAZZON, J. A. (2013): Homo economicus and social marketing: questioning traditional models of behavior, Journal of Social Marketing, 3 (2), 162-175. CHAMBERS, D. AND KRAUSE, A. (2010): Is the relationship between inequality and growth affected by physical and human capital accumulation?, Journal of Economic Inequality, 8 (2), 153-172. CHAKRAVARTY, S. R. AND D´AMBROSIO, C. (2006): The measurement of social exclusion, Review of Income and Wealth, 52 (3), 377-398. COMPAS, B. E., CONNOR-SMITH, J.K. SALTZMAN, H., THOMSEN, A.H. AND WADSWORTH, M.E. (2001): Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress and potential in theory and research, Psychological Bulletin, 127 (1), 87-127. CORRIGAN, P.W. AND WATSON, A.C. (2002): The paradox of self stigma and mental illness, Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9 (1), 35-53. CROCKER, J., MAJOR, B. AND STEELE, C. (1998): Social stigma. In GILBERT, D.T., FISKE, S.T. AND LINDZEY, G. (ed.): Handbook of social psychology, 504-553. Boston: McGraw Hill. CRUZ MORATO, M. A. AND GARCÍA LIZANA, A. (2011): La Economía y la Psicología ante el problema de la inactividad de las personas con discapacidad. Revista de Fomento Social, 262 (66), 251-284. CRUZ MORATO, M. A., GARCÍA LIZANA, A. AND GARCÍA-MESTANZA, J. (2017): El impacto de la Exclusión Social sobre el Crecimiento Económico en la Unión Europea. Revista de Economía Mundial, 45, 43-64. DANN, S. (2010): Redefining social marketing with contemporary commercial marketing definitions. Journal of Business Research, 63, 147-153. DEININGER, K. AND SQUIRE, l. (1998): New ways of looking at old issues: inequality and growth. Journal of Development Economics, 57 (2), 259-287. DONOVAN, R. (2011): Social marketing´s mythunderstandings. Journal of Social Marketing, 1 (1), 8-16. DOMEGAN, C. (2008): Social Marketing: Implications for Contemporary Marketing Practices Classification Scheme. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 23 (2), 135-141. DUHAIME, C. P., MCTAVISH, R. AND ROSS, C.A. (1985): Social Marketing: An Approach to Third-World Development. Journal of Macromarketing, 5 (1), 3-13. EKSTRÖM, K. M. AND HJORT, T. (2009): Hidden consumers in marketing - the neglect of consumers with scarce resources in affluent societies. Journal of Marketing Management, 25 (7-8), 697-712. EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR DISEASE PREVENTION AND CONTROL (2014): Social Marketing guide for public health managers and practitioners. ECDC, Stockholm. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2010): Lisbon Strategy evaluation document. Comission Staff Working Document, SEC 2010, 114 final, European Commission, Brussels. EUROPEAN UNION (2011): The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion. A European framework for social and territorial cohesion. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. EUROSTAT (2015): Smarter, greener, more inclusive? Indicators to support the Europe 2020 strategy. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. EUROSTAT (2016): Income and living conditions. Main tables (accessed June 14, 2016) [available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/data/main-tables] FERRELL, O.C. AND FERRELL, L. (2008): A Macromarketing Ethics Framework: Stakeholder Orientation and Distributive Justice. Journal of Macromarketing, 28 (1), 24-32. FIELDS, G. S. (2001): Distribution and Development. A new look at the Developing World. The MIT Press, Cambridge. FRENCH, J. (2012): Business as Unusual: The Contributions of Social Marketing to Government Policymaking and Strategy Development. In HASTINGS, G., ANGUS, K. AND BRYANT, C. (ed.): The SAGE Handbook of Social Marketing, 359-374. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. FRENCH, J. (2013): Social Business, social behavior and social marketing: Three cornerstones of future social development. Social Business, 3 (4), 285-296. FRENCH, J. AND GORDON, R. (2015): Strategic Social Marketing. SAGE Publications, London. GALOR, O. AND ZEIRA, J. (1993): Income Distribution and Macroeconomics. Review of Economic Studies, 60 (1), 35-32. GALOR, O. AND MOAV, O. (2004): From physical to human capital accumulation: inequality and the process of development. The Review of Economic Studies, 71 (4), 1001-1026. GARCÍA LIZANA, A. AND CRUZ MORATO, M.A. (2010a): Tendencias en pobreza y exclusión en Europa. Documentación Social, 157, 75-93. GARCÍA LIZANA, A. AND CRUZ MORATO, M.A. (2010b): Pobreza, exclusión social y comportamiento económico en la Unión Europea, paper presented at the 2010 XXIV International Conference on Applied Economics ASEPELT, Alicante, Spain (June 16-19) Anales de Economía Aplicada 50-65. GARCÍA LIZANA, A. AND PÉREZ MORENO, S. (2003): Una relación específica entre distribución de la renta y crecimiento económico: “la Hipótesis L”. ESTADÍSTICA Interamerican Statistical Institute, 164-165, 153-180. GARCÍA LIZANA, A. AND PÉREZ MORENO, S. (2012): Consumption and income distribution: a proposal for a new Reading of Keynes´ thinking. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 19 (1), 45-65. GAU, R., RAMIREZ, E., BARUA, M.E. AND GONZALEZ, R. (2014): Community-Based Initiatives and Poverty Alleviation in Subsistence Marketplaces. Journal of Macromarketing, 34 (2), 160-170. GOFFMAN, E. (1963): Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Ciffs, NJ. GURRIERI, L., PREVITE, J. AND BRACE-GOVAN, J. (2013): Women´s Bodies as Sites of Control: Inadvertent Stigma and Exclusion in Social Marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 33 (2), 128-143. HALL, J. AND LUDWIG, U. (2009): Gunnar Myrdal and the persistence of Germany´s regional inequality. Journal of Economic Issues, 43 (2), 345-352. HAMMOND, A., KRAMER, W.J., TRAN, J. AND WALKER, C. (2007): The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy at the Base of The Pyramid. World Resources Institute / International Finance Corporation. HASTINGS, G. AND ANGUS, K. (2011): When is social marketing not social marketing?. Journal of Social Marketing, 1 (1), 45-53. HILL, R.P. (2001): Surviving in a material world: The lived experience of people in poverty. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN. HOEK, J. AND JONES, S.C. (2011): Regulation, public health and social marketing: a behavior change trinity. Journal of Social Marketing, 1 (1), 32-44. HOSSEINI, H. (2003): The arrival of behavioral economics: from Michigan, or the Carnegie School in the 1950s and the early 1960s?. Journal of Socio-Economics, 32 (4), 391-409. INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (1995): Conference on Hunger and Poverty: Empowerment of the Poor, Discussion Paper I; Brussels (accessed April 4, 2015), [available at http://www.ifad.org/events/past/hunger/empower.html] KATONA, G. (1975): Psychological Economics. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Inc, Amsterdam. KENNEDY, A.M. AND PARSONS, A. (2012): Macro-social marketing and social engineering: a systems approach. Journal of Social Marketing, 2 (1), 37-51. KEYNES, J. M. [1936], (1983): The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Macmillan y Cambridge U.P. Cambridge (R.U.). KIRCHGEORG, M. AND WINN, M.I (2006): Sustainability Marketing for the Poorest of the Poor. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 171-184. KOBAYASHI, Y., BOUDREAULT, P. HILL, K. SINSHEIMER, J.S. AND PALMER, C.G.S (2013): Using a social marketing framework to evaluate recruitment of a prospective study of genetic counseling and testing for the deaf community. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13 (145), 1-13. KOTLER, P. AND LEE, N. (2005): Corporate Social Responsibility. Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. Best practices from Hewlett-Packard, Ben & Jerry´s, and other leading companies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey. KOTLER, P. AND LEE, N. (2009): Up and Out of Poverty: The Social Marketing Solution. Wharton School Publishing (Pearson Education), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. KOTLER, P., ROBERTO, N. AND LEISNER, T. (2006): Alleviating Poverty: A Macro/Micro Marketing Perspective. Journal of Macromarketing, 26 (2), 233-239. KOTLER, P., AND ZALTMAN, G. (1971): Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change. Journal of Marketing, 35 (3), 8-12. KRISJANOUS, J. (2014): Examining the Historical Roots of Social Marketing Through the Lights in Darkest England Campaign. Journal of Macromarketing, 34 (4), 435-451. KUZNETS, S. (1955): Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review, 45 (1), 1-28. LAYTON, R. A. (2007): Marketing Systems-A Core Macromarketing Concept. Journal of Macromarketing, 27 (3), 227-242. LAYTON, R. A. (2009): On Economic Growth, Marketing Systems, and the Quality of Life. Journal of Macromarketing, 29 (4), 349-362. LEFEBVRE, R. C. AND KOTLER, P. (2012): Design Thinking, Demarketing and Behavioral Economics: Fostering Interdisciplinary Growth in Social Marketing. In HASTINGS, G. ANGUS, K. AND BRYANT, C. (ed.): The SAGE Handbook of Social Marketing, 80-94. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. MANDIBERG, J. M. AND WARNER, R. (2012): Business development and marketing within communities of social service clients. Journal of Business Research, 65 (12), 1736-1742. MARTÍN REYES, G., GARCÍA LIZANA, A. AND FERNÁNDEZ MORALES, A. (1995): Poverty and development: An Econometric Approach. Research on Economic Inequality, 6, 365377. MASLOW, A. H. (1943): A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370396. MCMAHON, L. (2002): The Impact of Social Marketing on Social Engineering in Economic Restructuring. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 9 (4), 75-84. MILLER, C. T. AND MAJOR, B. (2000): Coping with stigma and prejudice. In: HEATHERTON, T.F., KLECK, R.E., HEBL, M.R. AND HULL, J.G. (eds.): The social psychology of stigma, 243-272. New York: Guilford. MPAGI, J. (2002): Social protection in Uganda: A Study to inform the development of a framework for social protection in the context of the Poverty Eradication Action Plan. Phase 1 report, Social Protection Task Force, Uganda, October, 2002. (accessed July 8, 2005), [available at http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/pvty/pdffiles/UgandaCh1-2.pdf] MYRDAL, G. (1944): An American Dilemma. McGraw-Hill, New York. MYRDAL, G. (1971): The challenge of world poverty. Penguin, Hardmondsworth: NICHOLSON, M. AND XIAO, S.H. (2011): Consumer behavior analysis and social marketing practice. The Service Industries Journal, 31 (15), 2529-2542. OLIVEIRA SANTOS, C. (2008): Mapping National Social Marketing Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Canada, New Zealand, United States and England. paper presented at 2008 World Social Marketing Conference, Brighton, England (September 29-30), pp 1-20. OLIVEIRA SANTOS, C. (ed.) (2012): Melhorar a Vida. Um Guia de Marketing Social. Fund. CEBI, Hardmondsworth. PRAHALAD, C.K. (2004): The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River. PRAHALAD, C.K. AND HART, S.L. (2002): The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy+Business, 26, 1-14. ROBILA, . (2006): Economic Pressure and Social Exclusion in Europe. Social Science Journal, 43, 85-97. SAATCIOGLU, B. AND CORUS, C. (2014): Poverty and Intersectionality: A Multidimensional Look into the Lives of the Impoverished. Journal of Macromarketing, 34 (2), 122-132. SCHEID, T.L. (2005): Stigma as a barrier to employment: Mental disability and the Americans with Disabilities Act. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28 (6), 670-690. SEN, A. [1973] (1979): On Economic Inequality. Clarendon, London. SEN, A. (1990): Rational fools: a critique of behavioral foundations of economic theory. In MANSBRIDGE, J.J. (ed.): Beyond self-interest, 25-43. The University of Chicago Press. SEN, A. (1998): Social Exclusion and Economic Measurement, 25th General Conference of International Association for Research in Income and Wealth. Cambridge, UK. SEN, A. (1999): Development as freedom. Knopf, New York. SEN, A. (2000): Social Exclusion: Concept, Application, and Scrutiny. Social Development Papers Nº1, Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank. SHAPIRO, S. J. (2006): Macromarketing: origins, development, current status and possible future direction. European Business Review, 18 (4), 307-321. SHULTZ, C. J. II AND HOLBROOK, M.B. (2009): The Paradoxical Relationships Between Marketing and Vulnerability. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 28 (1), 124-127. SIMON, H. A. (1951): Models of Man. Wiley, New York. SMITH, S. M. AND ALCORN, D.S. (1991): Cause Marketing: A New Direction in the Marketing of Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Services Marketing, 5 (4), 21-37. SMITH, B. (2010): Behavioral economics and social marketing: New allies in the war on absent behaviour. Social Marketing Quarterly, 16, 137-141. SPICKER, P. (1993): Poverty and Social Security. Routledge, London. SUBRAHMANYAN, S. AND GOMEZ-ARIAS, J.T. (2008): Integrated approach to understanding consumer behavior at bottom of pyramid. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25 (7), 402-412. THALER, R. H. AND SUNSTEIN, C.R. (2008): Nudge. Penguin Books, London. TISDELL, C. AND HARTLEY, K. (2008): Microeconomic Policy. A new perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Cheltenham, UK. TRAUNER, F. (2016): Asylum policy: the EU´s ´crisis´ and the looming policy regime failure. Journal of European Integration, 38 (3), 311-325. UPADHYAYA, S., VANN, R.J., CAMACHO, S. BAKER, C.N., LEARY, R.B., MITTELSTAEDT, J.D. AND ROSA, J.A. (2014): Subsistence Consumer-Merchant Marketplace Deviance in Marketing Systems: Antecedents, Implications, and Recommendations. Journal of Macromarketing, 34 (2), 145-159. VAN RAAIJ, W.F. (1981): Economic Psychology. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1, pp. 124. VISWANATHAN, M., JUNG, K., VENUGOPAL, S. MINEFEE, I. AND JUNG, W. (2014): Subsistence and Sustainability: From Micro-Level Behavioral Insights to Macro-Level Implications on Consumption, Conservation, and the Environment. Journal of Macromarketing, 34 (1), 8-27. WALLACK, L. (2002): Public health, social change, and media advocacy. Social Marketing Quarterly, 8 (2), 25-31. WIEBE, G.D. (1951-52): Merchandising Commodities and Citizenship on Television. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, (winter), 679-691. YOUNG, S. AND CAISEY, V. (2010): Mind shift, mode shift: A lifestyle approach for reducing car ownership and use based on behavioral economics and social marketing. Perspectives in Public Health, 130, 136-142. YOUNG, S. AND CAISEY, V. (2015): Social Marketing and Behavioral Economics: Points of Contact?. In: STEWART, D.W. (ed.): The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing, Volume II, , 67-117. California: Praeger.