La comparazione dei sistemi di welfare europei

1. La comparazione dei sistemi di welfare europei Prof. Maurizio Ferrera UniversitàdegliStudi di Milano Riprogettare il Welfare: uno sguardo al Mediterraneo Fondazione Cariplo e Compagnia di San Paolo venerdì 29 novembre, Milano

2. Outline • The way wewere: the traditional “fordist” welfare state and itsvariants • The possible future: a new Social Investment (SI) state • Where are wenow: summary data • The role of SECOND WELFARE (“Second line allies”): a focus on the thirdsector and on private foundations

3. The way wewere: the «Fordist» welfare state Common traits: 1. Emphasis on social protection (compensatorylogic) 2. Ex post benefits for traditionalrisks/needs 3. Large role for «passive» transfersduring non employment (pensions, unemployment, disability, sickness, maternity, family dependants etc.) 4. Residualsafetynets (poverty) 5. Target: households with various family members (femalecarers) 6. Education & training: outside social protection

4. Variations in the «fordist» theme (regimes, models, families, clusters..) 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 socialistcollectivism (productivist welfare model) to mixedmodels (social insurance + residualsafetynets, poorservices, femaleearner/carer model)  high poverty and exlusion 1. Continental Europe: • Bismarckianinsuranceschemes (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

5. 4. Southern Europe: • BIS + nationalhealthservices  insider/outsider divide • Transfer (pension) heavy, verylean on social services • MBM + high familialism ( low “exclusion”) • Weak/non existentsafetynets ( very high poverty)

6. Old Age benefits (1990) Benefits received at retirement as a % of average net earnings of manual workers in manufacturing (1990)

7. Social minima in EU countries (1992) Notes: * 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 authorities Source European Commission (1993)

8. Social protection expenditure (1995-2011) Source: Eurostat

9. Nella slide precedente si può provare a inserire dentro gli istogrammi la quota pensioni?

10. The way weought 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

11. 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»

12. 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

13. Ratesof return toHUmn capitlInvstment: the Heckman curve Return to a dollar unit invested at different ages fromthe perspective of the beginning of life, assuming one dollar initilly invested at each age

14. Social Investment spending by function: the state of play in selected countries TOTAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, 1995-2010 (% gdp) Source: Eurostat

15. Social Investment spending by function: the state of play in selected countries TOTAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON FAMILY/CHILDREN, 1995-2010 (% gdp) Source: Eurostat

16. 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

17. Social Investment spending by function: the state of play in selected countries TOTAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON ALMP, 2005-2010 (% gdp) Source: Eurostat

18. Social Investment spending: the state of play in selected countries TOTAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, ALMP and FAMILY/CHILDREN, 2010 (% gdp) Source: Eurostat

19. Si possono mettere qui alcuni dati di outcome: %povertà (anche children), NEETs, femaleemployment, 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)

20. SothernEuropean Social models: the challenges • Furtherrecalibration of public social expendituretowards «social investment» • Budgetaryconstraints + increasingneeds • Need for a SECOND WELFARE, mobilizingadditional non public resources: householdsavings, private sector (e.g. company welfare), non profit sector

21. WHY «SECOND» WELFARE • - itcomesafter the historicaldevelompent of FIRST welfare, i.e. state-centred and state-funded social protectionduring the long XX century • - itcomplements FIRST welfare: • - integrates/supplementsexisting public schemes • - adds new schemes/measures in uncoveredareas of need • Stimulates social innovation • Does NOT replace FIRST welfare

22. SECOND WELFARE • mix of innovative interventionsmainlyfunded by non public resources • With a view to offering benefits and services new social needs and new categories of vulnerablepeople • Provided by a multiplicity of stakeholder • Anchored to localcontexts, butinserted in wider networks (no «parochialism») • Carefullymonitored and evaluated

23. Private insurance Mutual funds Private companies TradeUnions Interestassociations Non profit Foundations Charitableinstitutions The protagonists of SECOND WELFARE Mobilizing private savings Non public financers • Users • Social enterprises • Cooperatives • Voluntarysector • Regions • Local governments Erogatori di prestazioni non pubblici Coordinamento/regolazione/monitoraggio/valutazione 23 M. Ferrera – Università di Milano e Centro Einaudi

24. Before working age Working age Post working age • risks/needs • risks/needs • risks/needs Universalism Early childhood, Education & Care Public funds I welfare Pension I pillar Social insurance & Health care LTC Education State Service mix Service mix Service mix Pension II pillar II welfare e.g. Work-life balance services e.g. Company based welfare Pension III pillar Private provision of services Coordination

25. The Third Sector in Italy • 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

26. Paidemployment in the «social economy» (% of totalemployment)

27. Italy: The role of foundations • 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

28. Dati sulla distribuzione funzionale interventi fondazioni

29. Foundations and social innovation • Notonlyfinancialsupportbutalso… • Catalysts of multi-actorpartnerships • Innovative solutions and governancemechanisms

30. SECOND WELFARE: The challenges • Inappropriate «nesting» between FIRST and SECOND welfare • Insufficientcoordination: no «system», onlyisolatedexperiments • Territorialdisparities and inequities • Weakmonitoring/evaluation • Weakadhesion to the Social Investmentapproach

31. EU interest and activism on the fronts of social innovation/social economy/social businesses • A Southern European Network on Second Welfare experiences? • 2wel-South