Is every country fit for social investment? Italy as an adverse case

Abstract

The scientific debate on social investment (SI) is moving from an ideological and normative approach towards a more realistic one. Scholars are paying closer attention to the actual developments in social policy and to the contextual conditions and impacts of SI policies. Considering this, two main issues arise. First, that SI policies are politically feasible and likely to have positive impacts only if specific contextual conditions are met. Second, SI policies were supposed to have a positive impact on both inequalities and economic growth: a strong theoretical assumption that needs to be carefully tested. The Italian case will be used here to illustrate this new perspective and the consequences of the lack of contextual pre-conditions. For this reason, the article is divided into three parts. The first part will present our theoretical argument in the context of the most recent analytical accounts of SI policy in Europe. In particular we will argue that, given the lack of crucial structural preconditions, SI policies may have ambiguous and even unexpected negative impacts on both economic growth and equal opportunities. In the second and third parts, we will present empirical evidence of this ambiguity considering childcare and apprenticeship reforms in Italy. More specifically, based on empirical research carried out in Italy, we want to answer two questions: (1) Why is the Italian welfare state so 'unfriendly' to SI policies? What are the main factors explaining the limited room for SI policies? (2) When an SI approach is promoted in specific policy areas in Italy, what is its social and economic impact? Do these interventions achieve the positive results to be expected according to the SI approach? Finally, the last part synthesises the main arguments and aims to open a critical discussion on the structural pre-conditions of SI policies and the need for further analysis of the political economy contexts in which SI policy develops.

Social Policy Perspectives on Economic Inequality in Wealthy Countries

“…Other scholars find that macro‐level contextual conditions matter for social investment policy implementation. Kazepov and Ranci (), in a single case study of Italian social investment policy, identify three socio‐economic factors necessary for effective social investment policy, including: (i) an orientation of education and labor‐market systems toward high‐skilled employment; (ii) gender parity in households and the labor market; and (iii) labor‐market inclusiveness, especially of young people. They caution that social investment policy is unlikely to lead to economic growth and decreasing inequality in countries that do not meet these “contextual pre‐conditions” (Kazepov & Ranci, , p. 101).…”

Social Investment in welfare: a sub-national perspective

“…Through stocks, flows and buffers, Social Investment, according to its proponents, stops disadvantage from compounding in the lives of individuals and across generations (Esping-Anderson et al, 2002;Hemerijck, 2017). Critics counter that Social Investment policies may not impact positively on inequalities (Kazepov and Ranci, 2017) and may have flaws when it comes to the protection of vulnerable groups (Cantillon and Van Lancker, 2013). A separate but related strand of criticism concerns making social policy 'the "handmaiden" of economic policy' (Dobrowolsky and Lister, 2008: 132).…”

Innovation and Social Investment Programs in Europe

“…There are positive examples of success at achieving “collaborative advantage” (Huxham, ) through various kinds of joint working to achieve common Social Investment goals. The rationale is usually that the social challenges are too big and complex for one agency, and that users’ needs do not conform to professional and organizational boundaries.…”

“…There is a considerable body of academic literature around the notion of Social Investment as a new welfare paradigm, particularly in relation to advanced European welfare states. Often associated with the work of authors such as Esping-Anderson (1999), Giddens (1998) and Hemerijck (2013), Social Investment is increasingly moving from a theoretical and normative approach to empirical studies of changes in social policy and practice in European countries (Kazepov & Ranci, 2017). However, the extant empirical research is largely macro-comparative analysis of changes in national government expenditure.…”

“…However, the extant empirical research is largely macro-comparative analysis of changes in national government expenditure. Although some recent scholarly writing on Social Investment has highlighted the importance of local action, and of non-government actors (Ferrara, 2017;Sabel, Zeitlin & Quack, 2017), there are few empirical explorations of these issues (Kazepov & Ranci, 2017). Very little research looks at sub-national level examples of Social Investment.…”