Local welfare systems in Europe and the economic crisis

Abstract

The tendency towards the diffusion of more localised welfare provision is part of the wider post-industrial transformation and challenges the citizenship protection system that developed during the Fordist age. It is assumed that local welfare provision is more efficient and less expensive than centralised national welfare programmes. In this article we argue first that the process of transformation and localisation of welfare is driven by two different (sometimes opposing) forces: (1) the necessity to identify effective ways of responding to the need for social support which is increasingly individualised, fragmented and heterogeneous, and therefore to expand ‘active’ social policies; and (2) the necessity to keep under control (and more often reducing) national public spending. Second, we argue that a more integrated welfare system (involving the third sector, voluntary organisations and private providers) and one which is more locally differentiated poses a series of problems in terms of social and territorial inequalities. We then identify some conditions that can help to keep inequalities under control. In the conclusion we will see how the crisis is exacerbating these tendencies.

On the trail of local welfare innovations in rural Finland

“…The notes from the observations made during the visits were documented in a research diary. The overall picture was supplemented by statistical data describing the socioeconomic structures of the localities which, according to Andreotti and Mingione (2016), is one of the essential factors defining the substance of LWS. In addition to this, the researchers have constantly followed the news concerning the research localities in the local media during the project period in order to have an updated view on the developments and changes affecting them.…”

“…And importantly, as a dynamic configuration having emergent properties and transformational potential LWS also reshapes, continuously, the surrounding systems both at institutional and political levels and thus manifests the broader impact inherent to social innovation (see Andreotti & Mingione, 2016;TEPSIE, 2014).…”

Territorial cohesion under pressure? Welfare policy and planning responses in Austrian and Swedish Peripheries

“…Economic, social and territorial cohesion attempts promoted by the European Union and heavily funded through Cohesion and Regional Development Funds over several funding periods have been interrupted and reversed (Musil, ), although Cohesion Policy was seen as being fairly successful in pre‐crisis times (Pellegrini, Terribile, Tarola, Muccigrosso, & Busillo, ). Besides the 2009 economic crisis, austerity and a neoliberal turn in politics have presented challenges for the regional provision of services in the EU (Andreotti & Mingione, ; Hadjimichalis, ). Challenges in service provision are however not exclusively reserved for Mediterranean and Central‐Eastern EU members under financial pressure, although they have received a higher degree of attention in the strategic policy and scientific literature (Borges, Humer, & Smith, ; Dunford & Smith, ; Fassmann, Rauhut, Marques da Costa, & Humer, ; Heidenreich, ; Psycharis, Kallioras, & Pantazis, ), and they are at the core of a general restructuring of North‐West European welfare regimes.…”

Economic crisis, Cohesion Policy and the eroding image of the European Union at the regional level

“…Choudhry, Marelli, & Signorelli, ; Chzhen, ; Gorzelak, ; Lallement, ; Torres, ). Counter measures adopted by governments in response to the crisis led to a significant growth in public debt in the second phase of the recession (Crescenzi, Luca,& Milio, ), which necessitated the adoption of austerity measures, and this in turn directly impacted on the quality and availability of many public services (e.g., Andreotti & Mingione, ; Lopez‐Valcarcel& Barber, ).…”