Devolution and Local Cohesion Policy: Bureaucratic Obstacles to Policy Integration in Italy

Abstract

This article analyses and compares the multi-dimensional co-ordination of employment and social policies at the Italian local level, especially focusing on the policy implementation stage. It departs from developing a theoretical framework to take into account the crucial variables that might potentially impact on the co-ordination of social cohesion policies. In particular, following a neo-institutionalist approach, great emphasis is placed on the legacy of the Weberian bureaucratic model, and its implied ‘specialisation ethos’. In addition, the effect of other contextual variables, such us social capital and the rate of unemployment, are considered.\ud \ud The empirical analysis confirms the crucial impact of the specialisation ethos in preventing inter-policy co-ordination from occurring at the Italian local level, and the relevance of other contextual variables in causing policy integration within services, rather than between services

Introduction: policy integration and institutional capacity: theoretical, conceptual and empirical challenges

“…Despite the research on these issues has been bourgeoning, we know little about the ideational drivers of and barriers to institutional configurations required for integrated policy designs. In this sense, government or party preferences and orientations (Trein et al, 2019), administrative cultures (Catalano et al, 2015), political will (Steurer, 2008) and organisational political learning capacity (Dunlop, 2015) are among the few factors that have been considered to be important. Lastly, little progress has been made in developing a comprehensive view of capacity-building for integrated designs, underestimating the importance of the micro foundations of this process and widely neglecting linkages between the macro-meso-micro levels (Trein et al, 2020).…”

“…Clearly defined and complementary roles and functions, dedicated management and coordination schemes are at the core of this dimension. The bulk of existing studies has focused on horizontal coordination within administrations (Catalano et al, 2015), being conceptualised under the umbrella of 'joined-up government' (Christensen, Fimreite, & Laegreid, 2014) and 'whole-ofgovernment' (Christensen & Laegreid, 2007). The formal aspects of this dimension have been widely scrutinised in the administrative capacity literature, whereas little knowledge exists on less commonly considered informal features, including, for example, administrative cultures, collaborative arrangements and routines (El-Taliawi & Van Der Wal, 2019).…”

“…Over the past decade, an integrated policy approach has been strongly advocated, since a normative call sprung asking for a better coherence of measures across sectors, improved consistency of policy instruments, and enhanced cooperation between all actors involved in the process of both policy formulation and implementation. It comes as no surprise that a bourgeoning amount of academic research has been dealing with the phenomenon of policy integration since the late 1990s, investigating its various forms (Howlett & Saguin, 2018), discussing conceptual and analytical challenges related to its study (Candel & Biesbroek, 2016) and raising normative and practical questions connected to the feasibility of integrated policy designs (Peters, 2018), including barriers to their implementation (Catalano, Graziano, & Bassoli, 2015).…”

Beyond Brexit: Reshaping policies for regional development in Europe

“…As Barca () noted, the effectiveness of an intervention under one policy in a particular place depends on other “sectoral” policy interventions being made in the same place; a place‐based approach therefore depends on the ability to integrate “bundles of goods and services” in line with specific territorial needs. This kind of territorial policy integration is, however, highly demanding and has proved administratively difficult to manage (Catalano, Graziano, & Bassoli, ; Schout & Jordan, ; Zaucha & Komornicki, ).…”

More is less: Partisan ideology, changes of government, and policy integration reforms in the UK

“…Against this background, policy capacity is an important intervening variable that helps explaining whether governments are able to pursue policy integration reforms. Specifically, a high policy capacity should facilitate policy integration reforms (Catalano, Graziano, & Bassoli, 2015;Rayner & Howlett, 2009a). Various dimensions of policy capacity are expected to affect policy integration (Domorenok, Graziano, & Polverari, 2020;Howlett & Saguin, 2018;Tosun & Lang, 2017).…”