Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:25:43.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decentralising the Active Welfare State: The Relevance of Intergovernmental Structures in Italy and Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2012

MARIELY LÓPEZ-SANTANA  and
ROSSELLA MOYER
MARIELY LÓPEZ-SANTANA
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Public and International Affairs, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, 3F4, Fairfax, Virginia, United States, 22030 email: [email protected]
ROSSELLA MOYER
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Public and International Affairs, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, 3F4, Fairfax, Virginia, United States, 22030 email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article contributes to the literatures on the governance of activation and the territorial structure of the welfare state by drawing attention to the institutional designs of active welfare states and the architectures of decentralisation, as well as to their manifestations and implications. With the end of capturing dissimilar intergovernmental models of activation, this paper develops a framework of ‘centre–regional’ relations, which we apply to the cases of Italy and Spain – two countries that have devolved active labour market policy powers to their regions but have organised power-sharing structures very differently. The findings suggest that when it comes to active welfare states, horizontal arrangements are linked to salient institutional variations across the territory. By contrast, hierarchical structures, which are characterised by a dominant role of central level governments, are linked to higher levels of cohesion. These findings are relevant as they expose the manifestations and implications of distinct decentralisation models on activation regimes, welfare states, as well as on welfare clients.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 769 - 788
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Agranoff, R. (2010), Local Governments and Their Intergovernmental Networks in Federalizing Spain, McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Altavilla, C. and Caroleo, F. E. (2006), ‘Evaluating the dynamic effects of active labour policies in Italy’, Labour, 20: 2, 349–82.Google Scholar
Arlotti, M. (2009), ‘La Finanza regionale e local: i cambiamenti e le evoluzioni di lungo e breve periodo’, in Kazepov, Y. (ed.), La Dimensione Territoriale delle Politiche Sociali in Italia, Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar
Bednar, J. (2011), ‘The political science of federalism’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7: 269–88.Google Scholar
Bifulco, L., Bricocoli, M. and Monteleone, R. (2008), ‘Activation and local welfare in italy: trends and issues’, Social Policy and Administration, 42: 2, 143–59.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2010),‘The political economy of active-labor market policy’, Politics and Society, 38: 4, 435–57.Google Scholar
Borghi, V. and van Berkel, R. (2007), ‘New modes of governance in Italy and the Netherlands: the case of activation policies’, Public Administration, 85: 1, 83–101.Google Scholar
Börzel, T. A. (2002), States and Regions in the European Union: Institutional Adaptation in Germany and Spain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bravo Torres, M. (2006), ‘Rescaling social welfare policies in Spain’, National report provided by the Team of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, http://www.euro.centre.org/rescalingDocuments/files/Spain.pdf.Google Scholar
Büchs, M and López-Santana, M. (2012), ‘Understanding de/centralization trends in activation: a framework for cross-national analysis’ (manuscript).Google Scholar
Carmel, E. and Papadopoulos, T. (2003), ‘The new governance of social security in Britain’, in Millar, J. (ed.), Understanding Social Security: Issues for Policy and Practice, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Eichhorst, W. and Konle-Seidl, R. (2008), Contingent Convergence: A Comparative Analysis of Activation Policies, Discussion Paper 3905, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), http://www.politiquessociales.net/IMG/pdf/dp3905.pdf.Google Scholar
Eurostat Regional Labour Market Disparities (2008), http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Regional_labour_market_disparities.Google Scholar
Ferrera, M. (2005), The Boundaries of Welfare. European Integration and the New Spatial Politics of Social Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falleti, T. G. (2005), ‘A sequential theory of decentralization: Latin American cases in comparative perspective’, American Political Science Review, 99: 3, 327–46.Google Scholar
Gallego, R., Gomà, R. and Subirats, J. (2005), ‘Spain: from state welfare to regional welfare?’, in McEwen, N. and Moreno, L. (eds.), The Territorial Politics of Welfare, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giguère, S. (2003), ‘Managing decentralisation and new forms of governance’, in Managing Decentralisation: A New Role for Labour Market Policy, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Giraudy, A. (2007), ‘The distributive politics of emergency employment programs in Argentina (1993–2002)’, Latin American Research Review, 42: 2, 33–55.Google Scholar
Greer, S. L. (2009), ‘How does decentralisation affect the welfare state? Territorial politics and the welfare state in the UK and US’, Journal of Social Policy, 39: 2, 181–201.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2009), ‘Does efficiency shape the territorial structure of government?’, Annual Review of Political Science, 12: 225–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISFOL (2007), Strumenti e strategie di attivazione nei sistemi locali per il lavoro. Monitoraggio 2000–2007, Volume II.Google Scholar
ISFOL (2008), Indagine campionaria sul funzionamento dei centri per l'impiego 2005–2006, Parte I.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, H. (2009), ‘From a beautiful swan to an ugly duckling – the renewal of Danish Activation Policy since 2003’, European Journal of Social Security, 11: 4, 337–68.Google Scholar
Jütting, J., Kauffmann, C., McDonnell, I., Osterrieder, H., Pinaud, N. and Wegner, L. (2004), ‘Decentralisation and poverty in developing countries: exploring the impact’, Working Paper 236, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/19/33648213.pdf.Google Scholar
Karjalainen, V. (2010), ‘Actors, scaling and governance in activation policy’, in Kazepov, Y. (ed.), Rescaling Social Policies: Towards Multilevel Governance in Europe, Vienna: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Kazepov, Y. (2010), Rescaling Social Policies: Towards Multilevel Governance in Europe, Vienna: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Keman, H. (2000), ‘Federalism and policy performance: a conceptual and empirical inquiry’, in Wachendorfer-Schmidt, U. (ed.), Federalism and Political Performance, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kovziridze, T. (2002), ‘Europeanization of federal institutional relationships: hierarchical and interdependent relationship structures in Belgium, Germany and Austria’, Regional and Federal Studies, 12: Fall, 128–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
León, S. (2010), ‘Who is responsible for what? Clarity of responsibilities on multilevel states: the case of Spain’, European Journal of Political Research, 50: 80–109.Google Scholar
López-Santana, M. (2009), ‘Having a say and acting: assessing the effectiveness of the European employment strategy as an intra-governmental coordinative instrument’, European Integration Online Papers, Special Issue 1: 13.Google Scholar
McCubbins, M. D. and Schwartz, T. (1984), ‘Congressional oversight overlooked: police patrols versus fire alarms’, American Journal of Political Science, 28: 1, 165–79.Google Scholar
McEwen, N. and Moreno, L. (2005), The Territorial Politics of Welfare, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moreno, L. (2001), The Federalization of Spain, Frank Cass Publishers.Google Scholar
Mosley, H. (2008), ‘Decentralisation and accountability in labour market policy’, paper presented at the Decentralisation and Co-ordination: The Twin Challenges of Labour Market Policy Conference, Venice, Italy, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/55/40917889.pdf.Google Scholar
Obinger, H., Leibfried, S. and Castles, F. G. (2005), Federalism and the Welfare State: New World and European Experiences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
OECD statistics, http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx.Google Scholar
Peterson, P. E. (1995), The Price of Federalism, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Pose, A. and Ezcurra, R. (2010), ‘Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis’, Journal of Economic Geography, 10: 5, 619–44.Google Scholar
Seabright, P. (1996), ‘Accountability and decentralisation in government: an incomplete contracts model’, European Economic Review, 40: 61–89.Google Scholar
Stoker, G. (1996), ‘Introduction: normative theories of local government and democracy’, in King, D. and Stoker, G. (eds.), Rethinking Local Democracy, London: Macmillan, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Treisman, D. (2007), The Architecture of Government: Rethinking Political Decentralization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trigilia, C. (1991), ‘The paradox of the region: economic regulation and the representation of interests’, Economy and Society, 20: 3, 306–27.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R. and Borghi, V. (2008), ‘Review article: the governance of activation’, Social Policy and Society, 7: 3, 393–402.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R. (2010), ‘The provision of income protection and activation services for the unemployed in “active” welfare states: an international comparison’, Journal of Social Policy, 39: 1, 17–34.Google Scholar
Weishaupt, T. J. (2010),‘A silent revolution? New management ideas and the reinvention of European public employment services’, Socio-Economic Review, 8: 3, 461–86.Google Scholar