Public Policy to Reduce Inequalities across Europe

Abstract

There is a broad consensus across European states and the EU that social and economic inequality is a problem that needs to be addressed. Yet inequality policy is notoriously complex and contested. This book approaches the issue from two linked perspectives. First, a focus on functional requirements highlights what policymakers think they need to deliver policy successfully, and the gap between their requirements and reality. We identify this gap in relation to the theory and practice of policy learning, and to multiple sectors, to show how it manifests in health, education, and gender equity policies. Second, a focus on territorial politics highlights how the problem is interpreted at different scales, subject to competing demands to take responsibility. This contestation and spread of responsibilities contributes to different policy approaches across spatial scales. We conclude that governments promote many separate equity initiatives, across territories and sectors, without knowing if they are complementary or contradictory. This outcome could reflect the fact that ambiguous policy problems and complex policymaking processes are beyond the full knowledge or control of governments. It could also be part of a strategy to make a rhetorically radical case while knowing that they will translate into safer policies. It allows them to replace debates on values, regarding whose definition of equity matters and which inequalities to tolerate, with more technical discussions of policy processes. Governments may be offering new perspectives on spatial justice or new ways to reduce political attention to inequalities.

Policy design for territorial equity in multi‐level and multi‐sectoral political systems: Comparing health and education strategies

“…Overall, these comparisons suggest that a rhetorical focus on collaborative policy‐making and equal access to public services is not a panacea for spatial justice and territorial cohesion policies: Both approaches warn against equating spatial justice with equal access to public services: a narrow focus on services ignores the wider social determinants of inequalities, taking attention from the role of redistribution in favour of measuring rather than reducing unequal outcomes. Each approach highlights different tensions in the balance between centralisation and decentralisation, but both conclude that MLG is not necessarily an effective vehicle for cohesive equity policies. Rather, there will always be unresolved debates regarding the scale at which such policies should be made: to centralise , to prioritise a sense of common purpose, directed from a single authority; or, to decentralise , to prioritise the legitimacy of multiple forms of governance, directed by local policy actors in collaboration with stakeholders and communities to make sense of policy aims (Cairney et al, 2022). Although a focus on equity and justice appears to offer hope for radical policy change, in practice these initiatives become incorporated within routine ways of doing things: HiAP became a vehicle for stakeholder participation, and education a vehicle for public service performance management, rather than a means to encourage distributive justice. Overall, relating sectoral equity initiatives to spatial justice agendas highlights inconsistent models of policy‐making and expectations for policy.…”

“…It may help produce a high‐level strategy, cut through ‘administrative silos’ (Carey and Crammond, 2015), generate support for new measures to institutionalise health equity procedures (such as the application of Health Impact Assessments to non‐health policies) and reduce implementation problems. Policy failure involves a drift from HiAP’s focus on state intervention to address the social determinants of population health, towards ‘neoliberalism’ and ‘lifestyle drift’ in which there is a preference for non‐state action and a return to focusing on individual choices (De Leeuw & Clavier, 2011: 237–40). In that context, there is high potential to relate HiAP to spatial justice policies. Examples include: ‘Healthy cities’, where local policy‐makers commit to intersectoral collaboration to improve population health The idea of a ‘postcode lottery’ in which population health and the availability and quality of healthcare varies spatially The motivation of national central governments to centralise policy‐making (to reduce a postcode lottery) or decentralise (to address territorial demands for autonomy and/or to tailor services to local populations) The (limited) impact of subnational government autonomy on health spending and outcomes (Cairney et al, 2022; Costa‐Font & Greer, 2012; De Leeuw & Simos, 2017) However, most HiAP research – in EU, country and subnational studies – focuses more narrowly on the contrast between high rhetorical commitment to policy change versus low follow‐through. Godziewski (2020a: 1307) notes that HiAP was embraced rhetorically during Finland’s EU presidency in 2006, and ‘is regularly referred to by the Commission, but has not yet been implemented as an overarching political vision’.…”

“…As with HiAP, there is high potential to connect education equity to spatial policy‐making, in relation to: Competing motives to decentralise responsibility to allow local governments and schools to tailor services to local contexts, and centralise performance management and national testing to improve standards and accountability. The ability of some regional or devolved governments to design and deliver their own education equity policies and seek distinctive outcomes (Cairney et al, 2022). However, most EU, country and regional studies focus on the alleged tendency for ‘neoliberal’ policies to dominate and undermine ‘social justice’ approaches, and for national performance management and accountability measures to undermine local variations.…”

Lessons from policy theories for the pursuit of equity in health, education and gender policy

“…We produced individual reviews in sequence, beginning with 25,000-word articles on health (Cairney et al, 2021b) and education . The equivalent publication of the gender review is not yet on Open Research Europe, but we have completed and documented steps 1-8 (St. Denny, 2022) and published preliminary findings elsewhere (Cairney et al, 2022a) The flexible research design and continuous production of comparable studies (which will include additional sectors, as well as crosscutting themes such as 'co-production') allows us to learn from the experience of each review while avoiding any tendency for one sector's approach or insights to dominate.…”

“…In these fields, we find that equity scholars combine advocacy and academic research, seeking lessons on how to secure transformational changes to domestic and global policy and policymaking. While there is no single definition of equity, or vision of transformative change, Cairney et al (2022a) identify two common elements in these (and other) fields. First, policy change would involve rejecting a 'neoliberal' paradigm that prioritises economic growth and emphasises low state intervention, market forces, and individual responsibility.…”