Post on 01-Feb-2016
description
La comparazione dei sistemi di welfare europei Prof. Maurizio Ferrera
Università degli Studi di Milano
Riprogettare il Welfare: uno sguardo al Mediterraneo
Fondazione Cariplo e Compagnia di San Paolo
venerdì 29 novembre, Milano
Outline
The way we were: the traditional “fordist” welfare state and its variants
The possible future: a new Social Investment (SI) state
Where are we now: summary data The role of SECOND WELFARE (“Second line allies”): a
focus on the third sector and on private foundations
2
The way we were: the «Fordist» welfare state
Common traits:1. Emphasis on social protection (compensatory logic)2. Ex post benefits for traditional risks/needs3. Large role for «passive» transfers during non employment (pensions, unemployment, disability, sickness, maternity, family dependants etc.)4. Residual safety nets (poverty)5. Target: households with various family members (female carers)6. Education & training: outside social protection
3
Variations in the «fordist» theme (regimes, models, families, clusters..)
1. Continental Europe: Bismarckian insurance schemes (BIS)
insider/outsider divide transfer heavy, lean on services male breadwinner model (MBM)
2. Anglo-Saxon Europe: Beveridgean “encompassing” schemes, weak
universalism Occupational/fiscal welfare for the middle classes Means-tested benefits for the poor (including
working poor) poverty cum exclusion
3. Nordic Europe: Strong universalism Service rich (including Active Labour Market
policies ) already a Social Investment element Dual earner model (DEM) female employment,
gender equality Strong but limited safety nets low poverty,
high inclusion
4. Southern Europe: BIS + national health services
insider/outsider divide Transfer (pension) heavy, very lean on social
services MBM + high familialism ( low “exclusion”) Weak/non existent safety nets ( very high
poverty)
5. Central/Eastern Europe:Transition from socialist collectivism (productivist welfare model) to mixed models (social insurance + residual safety nets, poor services, female earner/carer model) high poverty and exlusion
4. Southern Europe: BIS + national health services insider/outsider
divide Transfer (pension) heavy, very lean on social services MBM + high familialism ( low “exclusion”) Weak/non existent safety nets ( very high poverty)
5
Old Age benefits (1990)Benefits received at retirement as a % of average net earnings of manual workers in manufacturing (1990)
Country Contributory pension
____________Personal rate
Minimum Benefit____________
Personal rate
Belgium 73 47
Denmark 60 52
Germany 77 39
France 88 46
Ireland 42 35
Luxembourg 78 46
Netherlands 49 49
United Kingdom 44 31
EUR 12 75 36
Greece 107 8
Spain 97 32
Italy 89 19
Portugal 94 30
Social minima in EU countries (1992)
Old-age* Invalidity
Unemployed
Country ECU / month
% GDP per head
ECU/month % GDP per head
ECU/month % GDP per
head
Belgium 442.7 32 924,4 67 442.7 32
Denmark 599.7 34 967.4 55 699.7 40
Germany 506.7 29 506.7 29 506.7 29
France 447.5 30 447.5 30 322.1 22
Ireland 329.3 38 329.3 38 329.1 38
Luxembourg 607.8 36 863.9 51 607.8 36
Netherlands 553.3 41 552.3 41 552.3 41
United Kingdom
363.2 30 376.3 31 263.4 22
EUR 12 377.03 28.75 511.51 38.00 310.33 21.67
Greece 49.1 10 79.3 16 0 0
Spain § 272.8 28 272.8 28 0 0
Italy § 230.5 16 695 49 0 0
Portugal 122.8 21 122.8 21 0 0Notes:* A single person who has reached the age of retirement with no entitlement to contributory benefits and no other source of income A single person aged 40 with no entitlement to contributory benefits, no other source of income and who is unable to work A single person aged 40 with no entitlement to contributory benefits, no other source of income and who is available for work§ In Italy and Spain, there is no formal minimum level of income support, but in a number of regions, people can receive social assistance from regional and local authoritiesSource European Commission (1993)
Social protection expenditure (1995-2011)
8
0,02,04,06,08,0
10,012,014,016,018,020,022,024,026,028,030,032,0
EU-15
Greec
eSpa
inIta
ly
Portu
gal
% G
DP
1995
2011
Source: Eurostat
Nella slide precedente si può provare a inserire dentro gli istogrammi la quota pensioni?
9
The way we ought to be? The social investment state
Was introduced in the debate by Esping Andersen et al. (Why We Need a New Welfare State, 2001)
Became popular in the context of the Lisbon Strategy (2000-2010) ….
… with different meanings: orientation, paradigm, analytic concept/framework, a rethorical platform
Has been gradually endorsed by the EU, especially with the shift from the Lisbon to the Europe 2020 agenda
Is the object of a fully fledged «package» of measures proposed by the European Commission
10
The Social investment state: core traits
Emphasis on social promotion (enablement logic) Ex ante (early) prevention of risks and needs (ECEC) Large role for capacitating social services during the life cycle Robust safety nets and activation (inclusion) Individuals within households (dual earner/dual carer model) Support for reconciling paid work and family life Education (schooling, training, LLL) as integral part of welfare
sphere Encouragement of «social innovation»
Social Investment: what rationale?
More growth: human capital + labour market participation Better growth: knowledge based, quality jobs More cohesion: safety nets, inclusion policies, elderly care More equal opportunities: early child education and care,
work-life balance, capacitating services More social justice: containment of inter-generational
transmission of advantage/disadvantage, greater mobility chances
Ratesof return toHUmn capitlInvstment: the Heckman curve
13
Return to a dollar unit invested at different ages fromthe perspective of the beginning of life, assuming one dollar initilly invested at each age
Social Investment spending by function: the state of play in selected countries
TOTAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, 1995-2010 (% gdp)
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
7,00
8,00
Sweden
Franc
e
Portu
gal
EU27EU15
Germ
any
Spain
Italy
Greec
e
1995
2010
Source: Eurostat
Social Investment spending by function: the state of play in selected countries
TOTAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON FAMILY/CHILDREN, 1995-2010 (% gdp)
Source: Eurostat
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
Germ
any
Sweden
Franc
e
EU15EU27
Greec
eSpa
in
Portu
gal
Italy
1995
2010
Social Investment spending by function: the state of play in selected countries
TOTAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON FAMILY/CHILDREN, 2005-2010 (per-capita, pps)
Source: Eurostat
0,00100,00200,00300,00400,00500,00600,00700,00800,00900,00
1.000,00
Germ
any
Sweden
Franc
eEu1
5
EU27
Greec
eSpa
inIta
ly
Portu
gal
2005
2010
Social Investment spending by function: the state of play in selected countries
TOTAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON ALMP, 2005-2010 (% gdp)
Source: Eurostat
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
Franc
e
Sweden
Germ
any
Spain
EU27EU15
Portu
gal
Italy
Greec
e
2005
2010
Social Investment spending: the state of play in selected countries
TOTAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, ALMP and FAMILY/CHILDREN, 2010 (% gdp)
Source: Eurostat
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Greec
eIta
lySpa
in
Portu
gal
EU15EU27
Germ
any
Franc
e
Sweden
Gd
p%
Si possono mettere qui alcuni dati di outcome: %povertà (anche children),
NEETs, female employment, unemployed in receipt of benefits, posti in asili nido ecc.? Per dire che le lacune del welfare
pubblico hanno conseguenze sociali negative (anche % di figli che vivono a casa
dei gen)
19
Sothern European Social models: the challenges
Further recalibration of public social expenditure towards «social investment»
Budgetary constraints + increasing needs Need for a SECOND WELFARE, mobilizing additional
non public resources: household savings, private sector (e.g. company welfare), non profit sector
20
WHY «SECOND» WELFARE
- it comes after the historical develompent of FIRST welfare, i.e. state-centred and state-funded social protection during the long XX century
- it complements FIRST welfare: - integrates/supplements existing public schemes - adds new schemes/measures in uncovered areas of
need Stimulates social innovation Does NOT replace FIRST welfare
21
SECOND WELFARE
mix of innovative interventions mainly funded by non public resources
With a view to offering benefits and services new social needs and new categories of vulnerable people
Provided by a multiplicity of stakeholder Anchored to local contexts, but inserted in wider
networks (no «parochialism») Carefully monitored and evaluated
22
The protagonists of SECOND WELFARE
Private insurance
Mutual funds
Private companies
Trade Unions
Interest associations
Non profit Foundations
Charitable institutions
Non public
financers
Erogatori di prestazioni
non pubblici
Coordinamento/
regolazione/monitoraggio/valutazione
Users
Social enterprises
Cooperatives
Voluntary sector
Regions
Local governments
Mobilizing private savings
M. Ferrera – Università di Milano e Centro Einaudi 23
I welfare
IIwelfare
Before working age Working age Post working age
risks/needs risks/needs risks/needs
Universalism
Publ
ic fu
nds
Coordination
Sta
te
Early childhood,Education & Care
Education
Service mix Service mix Service mix
Social insurance & Health care
PensionI pillar
LTC
e.g. Company based welfare
PensionII pillar
PensionIII pillar
e.g. Work-life balance services
Private provision of services
The Third Sector in Italy
25
In 2011, the third sector in Italy:
- 300.000 organizations
- with a financial weight of about 67 billions euros (4,3% of gdp)
- 5,7 millions people involved,
of which 681.000 employees and 271.000 contract workers,
3,4% of the labour force
Paid employment in the «social economy» (% of total employment)
country % 2002-2010Austria 5.7 - 10.2Belgium 10.3 +65.4France 9.0 +16.8Germany 6.3 +21.0Netherlands 10.2 +10.9
UK 5.6 -4.6Ireland 5.3 -36.4
Denmark 7.2 +21.6Sweden 11.1 +146.6
Italy 9.7 +66.7Spain 6.7 +42.5
Portugal 5.0 +19.1Greece 2.3 +67.2
26
Italy: The role of foundations
27
In 2012, the FOB system:
- assets: 42 billions euros
- 965,8 millions euros spent on 22.000 interventions
32 Community Foundations
- of which 15 in Lombardy, with 22,5 millions spent in 2012 to support 2.300 social projects
Dati sulla distribuzione funzionale interventi fondazioni
28
Foundations and social innovation
Not only financial support but also… Catalysts of multi-actor partnerships Innovative solutions and governance mechanisms
29
SECOND WELFARE: The challenges
Inappropriate «nesting» between FIRST and SECOND welfare
Insufficient coordination: no «system», only isolated experiments
Territorial disparities and inequities Weak monitoring/evaluation Weak adhesion to the Social Investment approach
30
EU interest and activism on the fronts of social innovation/social economy/social
businesses A Southern European Network on Second Welfare
experiences?
2wel-South
31