1

This is the first edition of the Review Forum. It is taking place little more than a year after the birth of the «Social Policy Review», and honours the commitment we made when the journal was still in the planning stage to examine periodically the themes of the welfare state as an essential part of our activity. These regular meetings are intended both as a driving force of our «institutional» work, and as a way of verifying its usefulness - through the printed word, so to speak. l'm not going to use this introduction to dwell on what the Review has achieved so far. Instead I want to take two subjects that are prior both to the journal as such and to the two-day forum, referring in particular to the choices (and accidents) that have contributed to giving the Review the form you are familiar with, which is in no way limited to its origins in the union movement but unites various abilities, backgrounds and levels of experience; and then briefly illustrating the structure of this Forum 2005 - the two days of seminars and panels that is starting today.

I regard this first edition of the Forum on Italian welfare – Europe in spite of everything - as very important, like the «Social Policy Review». A year later we can feel satisfied – perhaps more for the attention it has drawn outside the trade union movement, which obviously makes us extremely happy, than inside. This Forum is further evidence of that. The success of the «Review» is certainly due to its editor, who has succeeded in interpreting the need we felt for a meeting-point between the trade unions an the intellectual world, between concrete action for change, where possible an knowledge and experience, a meeting-point that can make it easier for us to direct that concrete action in the future. This meeting-point can give the academic world – which responded to our invitation – a place for verifying the feasibility of some of our assumptions. The hundreds of meetings and bargaining session in which we are involved every year at every level can be a formidable laboratory for constructing social policies and protecting workers' rights in response to the challenges facing us.

Let us start the first session by thanking, of course, the guests we have here, who have agreed to discuss the opening theme with us. As we are talking about social policies, the first question for those of us who are wholeheartedly part of the European system can only be: is the European social model still valid? As you know there has even been a debate as to whether a European social model exists or not; some claim that as the histories of the European countries are very different, and as the welfare state has been created in Europe in very different ways, it is inappropriate to talk about a European social model and that it would be more correct to talk about national systems that need to be coordinated. My idea, however, is that a European social model exists and that, in spite of the different ways it has been created in different countries, there is certainly an essential characteristic of the European social system: the idea that growth has to be finalised to people’s prosperity, and so that there is a link between growth, redistribution of wealth and prosperity.

A larger debate over Europe should be developed in the next months in the run up to a special European Council to take place in October 2005. This is an initiative launched by the last European Council in June 2005 in order to reply to a general malaise, with its most evident expressions in the stalemates about the Constitutional Treaty and the Community budget. The current British Presidency proposed that a special focus of this debate should be put on the European social model. At the same time, the governments of the twenty-five Member States commit themselves to launch national reform programmes for a stronger implementation of the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, after its mid-term review concluded in the first semester of 2005. There are many possible connections between one process and the other. The debate about Europe can provide a more general background for these national programmes, whereas these ones should translate choices into concrete actions involving, not only the governments, but the other political institutions and the civil society.

My theme is the relation between European integration and the national welfare systems: more specifically it is the problematic relation between these two elements. European integration and the national welfare systems should be «friends» with each other, there should be a virtuous interconnection between them, and yet they are more and more often presented and seen as forces moving in contrasting directions, as «enemies». The French referendum, and to a lesser extent the Dutch one too, which rejected the constitutional Treaty in Spring 2005, are perhaps the most visible symptoms of this tension that has been increasing in recent years between the process of European integration (particularly market liberalisation) and the maintaining of the national systems of social security. But the negative results of these two referenda are only the tip of an iceberg, because the tension has been there for a long time. If we look at the results of the Eurobarometer surveys of the last five or even ten years, we can see some alarming signals.

L’analyse du rôle de la strategie «dite de Lisbonne» dans le domaine de l’emploi et de la protection sociale n’est pas facile, pour deux raisons: d’abord l’intervention européenne dans ce domaine ne prend pas la forme d’une politique «classique»: il faut donc trouver de nouveaux outils pour apprécier le changement introduit; ensuite, le sujet est hautement politisé et que les controverses sont nombreuses. On peut cependant mettre en avant deux types de constats, concernant la politique (politics), et concernant les politiques {policies). Concernant la première, il est frappant de voir combien la question de la protection sociale et de l’emploi a été importante dans les deux échecs des référendums en France et en Hollande, mais aussi l’est devenue plus généralement. Tout se passe comme si la question du rôle de l’Europe en matière sociale s’est nettement politisée dans les dernières années. Concernant les politiques, il faut considérer l’appréciation «radicale» que presentent les économistes mainstream: nous prendrons deux exemples de ces evaluations, qui minorent la See (strategie européenne de l’emploi) et les autres Moc (méthodes ouvertes de coordination).

The space available is very short, and so I shall limit myself to a few brief remarks and working hypotheses. Betty Leone introduced the session saying that there is a European social model. I agree with that, and think that what has been said so far confirms it. I’d say, however, that the question is often reproposed, if only in political and ideological terms. And if there is a European social model, is this compatible with the problems of globalization? The answer is not homogeneous, there’s a debate going on in Europe and one very strong political and ideological answer to that is that this social model is no longer compatible. And this is not obviously a merely theoretical answer: in Europe there are already two different models. There’s a traditional model – normally called continental – and a model that is developing in the countries that have recently entered - the eight eastern countries of the enlarged Eu – which we thought would be interested in imitating the German model, but who are actually choosing an American-style social model.

I make no pretence of providing a general overview today, but simply wish to offer a few opinions on some questions and contradictions that I think deserve attention, and that are, in any case, connected with the question of post-Fordism. There is a general conviction that the decline in the birth-rate is a great problem; l’m convinced that it is a sign of unease, but I don’t think that it is necessarily a serious problem in itself. Paradoxically, taking an extreme point of view, we could also claim that if there were 50 million of us in Italy instead of 6o we would all be more comfortable. How would we find an adequate labour force? We could let women work much more than is presently the case, we could work longer and we could open our gates to immigration. Obviously, these different measures require enormous reorganisation in industry, in the jobs market and in social organisation.

As the title of this session of the Forum indicates, we have been invited today to offer some considerations on the subject of «post-Fordism» and policies for ‘activating’ workers and citizens. Proposing this theme for debate means believing that activation policies are a new characteristic of the post-Fordist welfare system that is being delineated. In effect, the present system of welfare which for convenience we continue to call Fordist, has been rightly described as a prevalently compensatory system that pays out sums to workers ex-post for harm suffered, and so – from this point of view – is an eminently ‘passive’ system. Of course, in the Fordist phase, the worker is protected from the risks of life by the (relative) stability of his job, and above all by the system of social benefits against unemployment, misfortunes, illness and old age. But precautionary services or ones aimed at preparing people for jobs have always been a minor element of this system. The Italian job centres have been an extreme example for decades they have had a purely bureaucratic function, in which the worker was little more than a number.

In a recent essay (2005), Massimo Paci picks out the signs of change in «post-Fordism», referring to three fundamental social institutions: businesses, the family and the welfare system. Given its relevance for the theme we are asked to discuss in this seminar, I think our discussion would also benefit from some reference to this interesting work. First, one might observe that in each of the three areas cited there have been changes that are certainly significant, but not one-directional, and their future evolution is difficult to predict. Consequently, analysis of the signals of this new model of production and social regulation – if we can talk of a «model» in any real sense – takes place on a terrain that is complex and still little-known, not enough, at least, for one to feel confident in suggesting policy lines for governing its transformations and correcting its undesired effects.

First of all, l’d like to say that, quite apart from my reflections in this speech, l’m very sensitive to the challenge that the president of this session has thrown down in introducing the debate: I don’t regard these themes as extraneous to the subject of the reform of the welfare state so much as an appeal for a non-ideological and unfalsified reading of the transformations we are facing. Getting closer to the heart of the question, I want first of all to say that I feel the analysis of the importance of the crisis of the Fordist model has still not been solved in the debate in the political and trade union worlds. And yet there is no doubt that – whatever we can come up with in the way of safety nets, even in countries like Italy which has still not got beyond Taylorism in its criteria for labour organisation – the crisis of the Fordist labour and social model is determining more and more flexible ways of managing businesses and growing labour mobility both inside and outside the business world.

Once again the Budget drastically cuts resources for local bodies (Regions, Town Councils, Provinces), particularly for expenditure earmarked for social services of every kind. These cuts are complemented by the so-called family funds, which are really no more than one-off payments (see the bonus of 1.000 euros for babies) that look more like a pre-election handout than a genuine policy for the family. As it has been presented, the Budget confirms the serious choices made so far by the government in social policies. Together with the Cisl and the Uil, we have called for general mobilisation against the Budget for precisely these reasons. It is therefore particularly important to compare notes and reflect with the members of this panel – Costanza Ranci, Ota de Leonardis and Luis Moreno – on local welfare and, in particular, on questions such as: what characteristics can local welfare have today? How can the different institutional levels be integrated? What does it mean to design a modern welfare system starting from rights of citizenship?

In my talk I want to examine the various forms and trends of localisation processes in social policy in Italy, in an attempt to answer the following question or at least, to define it more clearly: how is politics changing in the processes where policies are planned and implemented? More precisely, l’d like to explore if, when and how these policies have significant effects of either impoverishing or reinvigorating democracy. In doing this I am taking up a subject raised by Barbier with reference to the European imperative of life-long learning and the implications of social policy in terms of learning and strengthening democracy. As it stands this question is rather general and needs clarifying. To do this I shall bear in mind the literature on the relation between politics and policies as well as studies of the transformation of «discursive» and «deliberative» democracy.

My talk centres on four points. First of all, by way of introduction, l’d like to try and set the subject of local welfare in a wider vision of the historical phase that characterises the Italian welfare system now: if we do not set the subject in its historical context, we risk giving the concept of «local welfare» a sense it no longer has, or ones that could easily be redefined in a period such as ours when the evolution of our welfare system is far from certain. Next, I shall try to clarify what are, for me, the essential characteristics that best define local welfare in the Italian context. I shall then illustrate the reasons for which local welfare is receiving so much attention today, to the point of being considered as a possible means of economic revival. Lastly, l’d like to draw from these considerations some useful indications for policies. I’d like to start with a heading taken from an excellent book by Ota De Leonardis in which she talked about «dreams and nightmares» in relation to a different welfare system.

The process of Europeanisation involves a convergence of resources and results. This is mainly due both to structural restrictions (e. g. economic harmonisation) and institutional input (e. g. the sentences of the European Court of Justice). I want here to offer some thoughts on two processes: (a) the adjustment of national systems of social security to operate at European level; and (b) the decentralisation of «safety net» policies to the level of intermediate government to foster territorial subsidiarity and democratic responsibility. The first section presents some preliminary concepts and premises for a general reflection on the so-called «European social model». The intermediary governments and the growing role of the Regions in the Eu are the focus of the second section. Decentralisation and the greater weight assumed by the Regions in defining policies closer to the perceptions of the people, like the construction of «safety nets», have often been linked to considerations of culture or identity. But the questions raised are also based on the demand for political innovation and more efficient organisation.

The basis of our discussion in this session is the need for closely-argued thinking: to develop our ideas about the activity and role of the public sector. Connecting the redistributory function and social justice means activating the network of protections, the system that guarantees the possibility for us to exercise and assert our rights in a system. And doing that, it meets the two terms liberty and democracy, which are founded together not as natural rights no matter the conditions in which they are exercised, but as rights to reify and embody in an individual and collective dimension. None of us thinks any longer that the collective is the annulment of individuality, just as no one believes the opposite any more, that individuate exists, but not society. The type of problem that we have today is that of thinking about how we can build a society in which the confines of the individual and respect for the articulation of the differences and needs of that individual combine in social action, but also how the social security system should make that individual strong enough to face risks and not fall back in the face of them.

The title of this last session, which concludes the Forum, puts together the very «heavy» terms: redistribution, social justice and welfare sustainability. There is a vast and important literature on these three subjects, both individually and in their connections, and it has attracted sociologists, economists - particularly economists – but also political philosophers and even, l'd say, anthropologists. I shall be making only marginal reference to this important and innovative body of literature, because l’d like to take up straightaway the extensive semantic and symbolic connotations of this language, of these words, to underline three aspects that this title lays before us, three basic aspects: the first is that if we want to argue about redistribution, social justice and welfare sustainability we are in any case assuming a framework of social justice, which is by no means either certain or banal. I think of Rawls, the greatest political philosopher of the last century.

I’d like to begin by noting that social justice and redistribution policies are burning issues, they always have been, and in the past, I’d say they were even more so. At the end of the fifteenth century in Florence, the «decima scalata» a graduate land tax, aroused the liveliest controversy; figures such as Guicciardini and others took part in the discussions; but a couple of centuries later, in France too no less a person than Turgeau, a friend of leading Enlightenment figures who had done much to protect and defend the Protestants, described progressive taxation as a «proposal whose authors deserve to be executed»; not bad, from someone who always encouraged tolerance (the people he executed would have included Montesquieu, who was in favour). After this premise, l’d like to look at our subject more closely. My starting point is the relation, which so far has always been very strong, between the quota of the Gdp that goes on welfare expenditure (social security as well as health) and income pro capite in the various countries; this relation holds not only for European countries, but also countries in the Oecd, and also many others.

For convenience, this short talk is organised in the form of observations on Laura Pennacchi's remarks. However, my referring to it will be in many respects purely practical, with the aim of discussing the three large possible guiding principles of social policies described in that talk, and examine their potential and what is critical in them both generally and in relation to Italy today. First of all, though, I must recall the basic consideration from which Laura Pennacchi’s talk began: the rejection of the cliché that there is a sort of epochal and apocalyptic crisis in the welfare system, a crisis that involves a sort of choice between the values of welfare and prospects of economic growth. Rather there seem to be a series of critical factors in important institutes of the welfare state, with trends that can create for welfare systems problems of intrinsic sustainability that are macroeconomic as much as financial. I shan’t be saying much about this preliminary claim because I agree with most of it.

After examining the main points of the new Irpef 2003 and the 2005 reform, the authors develop two different scenarios for possible reforms. First, by outlining types of proposals that in the frame of current settings would give rise to corrections and integrations to improve their result. The conclusions, however, outline reform scenarios no longer restricted by the framework that has emerged from the bill in expiry: maintenance of the redistribution function of Irpef, transparency of the tax structure through the coincidence of effective and legal marginal rates, expenses for dependants and other levies through fixed detractions, elements to overcome «incapienza» (the inability to benefit from detractions due to tax exemption for very low income earners).

The paper develops an analysis of policies to support families in Italy and abroad. At the domestic level, focus is placed on modifications that have been made in the last decade and on reform proposals of current legislation. At the comparative level, the choice fell on five countries, the Usa, Uk, Canada, Belgium and France, that have all resorted to in-work benefits. The main way to contrast poverty, exclusion and support families is through monetary benefits; thus there is increasing interest in social policies based on the principle of «making work pay» – for the capacity to promote employment and overcome critical aspects of the traditional welfare models – and broad consensus on tools to integrate tax payment, such as reimbursable tax credit. By analysing the Italian legislation framework, it emerges how policies adopted in the last decade to support families have left some unresolved problems, weakening the efficacy of the interventions. The reform proposals analysed rethink income support according to new interaction modalities between spending and taxation.

Istat, the National Statistics Institute has recently published the results of the first census on social interventions and services provided by Italian municipalities. The survey contributes to bridging the cognitive gap in this area of the welfare system. However, part of the indications provided gives documented confirmation of circumstances and situations already discussed or focused on by sector experts. Particularly significant is the contribution the inquiry results can provide for the analysis of issues which have not been systematically examined. This is the case, for example, of the substantial regional differentiation (or in some contexts local) of the social services system and the dynamics that they can have in relation to the advanced regionalisation of health systems.