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