Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:12:02.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Devolution and Local Cohesion Policy: Bureaucratic Obstacles to Policy Integration in Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2015

SERIDA L. CATALANO ,
PAOLO R. GRAZIANO  and
MATTEO BASSOLI
SERIDA L. CATALANO
Affiliation:
Department of Institutional Analysis and Public Management, Università Bocconi, Milan, Italy email: serida.catalano@unibocconi.it
PAOLO R. GRAZIANO
Affiliation:
Department of Institutional Analysis and Public Management, Università Bocconi, Milan, Italy
MATTEO BASSOLI
Affiliation:
School of law, eCampus Online University, Novedrate (CO), Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses and compares the multi-dimensional co-ordination of employment and social policies at the Italian local level, especially focusing on the policy implementation stage. It departs from developing a theoretical framework to take into account the crucial variables that might potentially impact on the co-ordination of social cohesion policies. In particular, following a neo-institutionalist approach, great emphasis is placed on the legacy of the Weberian bureaucratic model, and its implied ‘specialisation ethos’. In addition, the effect of other contextual variables, such us social capital and the rate of unemployment, are considered.

The empirical analysis confirms the crucial impact of the specialisation ethos in preventing inter-policy co-ordination from occurring at the Italian local level, and the relevance of other contextual variables in causing policy integration within services, rather than between services.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 747 - 768
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Barzeley, M. (2003), ‘Introduction: the process dynamics of public management policy making’, International Public Management Journal, 6: 3–11.Google Scholar
Bassoli, M. (2010), ‘Local governance arrangements and democratic outcomes (with some evidence from the Italian Case)’, Governance, 23: 3, 485–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bifulco, L. and Centemeri, L. (2008), ‘Governance and participation in local welfare: the case of the Italian Piani di Zona’, Social Policy and Administration, 42: 3, 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bifulco, L. and Vitale, T. (2006), ‘Contracting for welfare services in Italy’, Journal of Social Policy, 5: 3, 495–513.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capano, G. (2003), ‘Administrative traditions and policy change: when policy paradigms matter ‒ the case of Italian administrative reform during the 1990s’, Public Administration, 81: 4, 781–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartocci, R. (2007), Mappe del Tesoro. Atlante del capitalesociale in Italia, Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Champion, C. and Bonoli, G. (2011), ‘Institutional fragmentation and co-ordination initiatives in western European welfare states’, Journal of European Social Policy, 21: 4, 323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (1999), ‘New public management.design: resistance, or transformation’, Public Productivity and Management Review, 23: 2, 169–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (2011), ‘Complexity and hybrid public administration ‒ theoretical and empirical challenges’, Public Organization Review, 11: 4, 407–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.), (2005), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Genova, A. (2008), ‘Integrated services in activation policies in Finland and Italy: a critical appraisal’, Social Policy and Society, 7: 3, 379–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, K. and Hix, S. (eds.), (2000), Europeanised Politics? European Integration and National Political Systems, London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Graziano, P. (2007), ‘Adapting to the European employment strategy? Recent developments in Italian employment policy’, International Journal of Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 23: 4, 543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graziano, P. (2008), ‘The European Employment Strategy and National Welfare States: Italy and France Compared’, Les Cahiers Européens de Science Po, 2/2008.Google Scholar
Graziano, P. (2009), ‘Choosing welfare or losing social citizenship? Citizens’ free choice in recent Italian welfare state reforms’, Social Policy and Administration, 43: 6, 601–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graziano, P. (2011), ‘Europeanization and domestic employment policy change: conceptual and methodological background’, Governance, 24: 3, 581–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graziano, P. and Raué, A. (2011), ‘The governance of activation policies in Italy: from centralized and hierarchical to a multi-level open system model?’, in van Berkel, Riket al. (eds.), The Governance of Active Welfare States in Europe, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 110–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graziano, P. and Winkler, J. (2012), ‘Governance and implementation of activation policies: Czech Republic and Italy compared’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32: 5/6, 340–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gualmini, E. (1998), La politica del lavoro, Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Gualmini, E. (2008), ‘Restructuring Weberian bureaucracy: comparing managerial reforms in Europe and the United States’, Public Administration, 86: 1, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidenreich, M. and Graziano, P. R. (2014), ‘Lost in Activation? The governance of activation policies in Europe’, International Journal of Social Welfare, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISFOL(2008), Le procedure di accertamento dello stato di disoccupazione e di attivazione dei disoccupati nei Centri per l’impiego, Rome: ISFOL.Google Scholar
Kazepov, Y. (2008), ‘The subsidiarization of social policies: actors, processes and impacts’, European Societies, 10: 2, 247–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlmann, S. (2010), ‘New public management for the “classical continental European administration”: modernization at the local level in Germany, France and Italy’, Public Administration, 88: 4, 1116–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1984), ‘The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life’, American Political Science Review, 78: 3, 734–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Minas, R. (2009), ‘Activation in integrated services? Bridging social and employment services in European countries’, Working Paper, Institute for Future Studies, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Monticelli, L. and Catalano, S. L. (2014), ‘The impact of an integrated approach to social cohesion: Italian country analysis’, Localise WP7 Italian report, March 2014.Google Scholar
Ongaro, E. (2006), ‘The dynamics of devolution processes in legalistic countries: organizational change in the Italian public sector’, Public Administration, 84: 3, 737–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ongaro, E. (2009), Public Management Reform and Modernization: Trajectories of Administrative Change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ongaro, E. (2011), ‘The role of politics and institutions in the Italian administrative reform trajectory’, Public Administration, 89: 3, 738–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ongaro, E. and Valotti, G. (2008), ‘Public management reform in Italy: explaining the implementation gap’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21: 2, 174–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, G. B. and Pierre, J. (1998), ‘Governance without government? Rethinking public administration’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8: 2, 223–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, A. and Teune, H. (1970), The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
van Berkel, R. and Borghi, V. (2007), ‘New modes of governance in activation policies’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27: 7/8, 277–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R., de Graaf, W. and Sirovátka, T. (2011), The Governance of Active Welfare States in Europe, London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R. and Møller, I. H. (2002), Active Social Policies in the EU: Inclusion through Participation?, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation, Henderson, A.M. and Parsons, Talcott (trans.), Gloncoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar