Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:45:42.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Understanding convergence and divergence: old and new cleavages in the politics of minimum income schemes in Italy and Poland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2020

Matteo Jessoula*
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
Julia Kubisa
Affiliation:
Institute of Sociology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Ilaria Madama
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
Marianna Zielenska
Affiliation:
Institute of Sociology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Italy and Poland present similarly weak minimum income protection models, yet this results from two different policy trajectories in the last 15 years: both countries actually introduced a minimum income scheme (MIS) between the late 1990s (Italy) and the early 2000s (Poland), but later developments were characterized by policy reversal in the Italian case vis-à-vis institutionalization in Poland. The paper therefore addresses two intertwined puzzles. First, in the light of very different background conditions, which factors help understand the convergent process towards the introduction of MIS? Second, what explains remarkable divergence in the subsequent phase? Challenging previous claims about the limited scope of political competition dynamics in the field of social assistance, due to generally narrow constituencies and limited political mobilization, we contend that political competition dynamics are key factors in order to make sense of both convergent and divergent trajectories in the two diverse phases.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Taylor & Francis

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beramendi, P., & Anderson, C. (Eds.). (2012). Left parties, poor voters, and electoral participation in advanced industrial societies. Comparative Political Studies, 45(6), 714746.Google Scholar
Bertoa, F. C. (2012). Party systems and cleavage structures revisited: A sociological explanation of party system institutionalization in East Central Europe. Party Politics, 14, 1–21.Google Scholar
Clegg, D. (2013). Adapting minimum income systems to new demands: Active inclusion in Europe. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Deniszuk, L., Kurowski, P., & Stryc, M. (2007). Progi minimalnej konsumpcji gospodarstw domowych. Warszawa: IPiSS.Google Scholar
Esping Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrera, M. (1993). Modelli di solidarietà. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Ferrera, M. (2000). Targeting welfare in a soft state: Italy's winding road to selectivity. In Gilbert, N. (Ed.), Targeting social benefits: International perspective and trends (pp. 157186). New Brunswick: Transactions.Google Scholar
Ferrera, M., Fargion, V., & Jessoula, M. (2012). Alle radici del welfare all'italiana. Venezia: Marsilio.Google Scholar
Flora, P., & Alber, J. (1981). Modernization, democratization, and the development of welfare states in Western Europe. In Flora, P. & Heidenheimer, A. J. (Eds.), The development of welfare states in Europe and America (pp. 3780). London: Transaction.Google Scholar
Golinowska, S. (2002). System pomocy społecznej. Główne problemy zmian i reform. In Leś, E. (Ed.), Pomoc społeczna. Od klientelizmu do partycypacji (pp. 1960). Warszawa: IPS UW.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. (2001). Welfare state retrenchment in Denmark and the Netherlands, 1982–1998: The role of party competition and party consensus. Comparative Political Studies, 34(9), 963985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, S., Szczerbiak, A., Houghton, T., & Fowler, B. (2008). Sticking together. Explaining comparative centre-right party success in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe. Party Politics, 14(4), 407434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausermann, S., Picot, G., & Geering, D. (2010, April 15–17). Rethinking party politics and the welfare state: Recent advances in the literature. Paper prepared for the 17th international conference of the Council for European Studies, Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
Hausner, J. (2007). Pętle rozwoju. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.Google Scholar
Inglot, T. (2008). Welfare states in East Central Europe 1919–2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessoula, M., & Alti, T. (2010). Italy: An uncompleted departure from Bismarck. In Palier, B. (Ed.), A long goodbye to Bismarck? The politics of welfare reform in continental Europe (pp. 157182). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Korpi, W. (1983). The democratic class struggle. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Kozek, W., Kubisa, J., & Zieleńska, M. (2013). The national arena of combating poverty. National report: Poland. Deliverable 5.4. 7 PR Combating Poverty in Europe: Re-organising Active Inclusion through Participatory and Integrated Modes of Multilevel Governance (COPE).Google Scholar
Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2008). West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madama, I. (2010). Le politiche di assistenza sociale. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Madama, I. (2013). Beyond continuity? Italian social assistance policies between institutional opportunities and agency. International Journal of Social Welfare, 22(1), 58–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00835.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manow, P., & van Kersbergen, K. (2009). Religion, class coalitions and welfare states. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ministerstwo Pracy i Polityki Społecznej. (2013). Założenia do projektu ustawy o pomocy społecznej – prezentacja. Presentation prepared for the meeting of the Joint Commission of Government and Self-government.Google Scholar
Ministry of Welfare. (2003). Libro bianco sul welfare. Rome: Ministero del Welfare.Google Scholar
Myles, J., & Quadagno, J. (2002). Political theory of the welfare state. Politics & Society, 76(4), 3457.Google Scholar
Naldini, M. (2002). The family in the Mediterranean welfare states. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Roguska, B. (2011). Elektoraty partyjne o istotnych kwestiach społeczno-politycznych. Komunikat. Warsaw: Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej CBOS.Google Scholar
Rokkan, S. (1970). Citizens, elections, parties. New York, NY: McKay.Google Scholar
Rueda, D. (2007). Social democracy inside out. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacchi, S., & Bastagli, F. (2005). Striving uphill but stopping halfway. In Ferrera, M. (Ed.), Welfare state reform in Southern Europe (pp. 84140). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Saraceno, C. (1994). The ambivalent familism of the Italian welfare state. Social Politics, I, 6082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceno, C. (2002). Social assistance dynamics in Europe: National and local poverty regime. Bristol: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and party systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szawiel, T. (2011). Konsolidacja demokracji w Polsce: poparcie dla demokracji, społeczeństwo obywatelskie i system partyjny. In Bucholc, M., Mandes, S., Szawiel, T., & Wawrzyniak, J. (Eds.), Polska po 20 latach wolności (pp. 5479). Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
Wóycicka, I. (2009). System dochodów minimalnych – Polska. Peer review on social protection and social inclusion and assessment in social inclusion. Warsaw: EAPN Polska.Google Scholar
Wóycicka, I. (2011). Czy zasiłki z pomocy społecznej skutecznie redukują ubóstwo dochodowe? InHryniewicka, A. (Ed.), Różne wymiary skuteczności pomocy społecznej (pp. 120134). Warsaw: Instytut Rozwoju Służb Społecznych.Google Scholar