意大利的新福利叙事:风险与假定的美德

IF 0.1 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
L. Cataldi, Valeria Cappellato
{"title":"意大利的新福利叙事:风险与假定的美德","authors":"L. Cataldi, Valeria Cappellato","doi":"10.3138/ttr.41.1.207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In Italy, for some years, a series of new terms, such as 'Civil Welfare', 'Community Welfare', 'Welfare Society', 'Generative Welfare', and 'Second Welfare', have appeared in public discourse. These labels have different origins and traditions. However, all of them are reform narratives promoting 'new' welfare-mix solutions to ensure the sustainability of the social protection system in the face of the permanent austerity (Pierson 1998, 2001) and the crisis of the public welfare. Moreover, all of them are presented as recalibration strategies betting on coordination, integration, networking, and synergy's capabilities of formal and informal components of the welfare system, reinforcing the role, not of the state, but of the other points of the so-called 'welfare diamond' (Ferrera, 2006): individuals and families, third sector, but also companies and market. The contribution aims to critically present the different narratives, highlighting their similarities and differences, and—above all—to discuss their implications. For this purpose, the promises to provide sustainable, flexible, and plural welfare solutions (Osborne, 2006), as well as the presumed advantages and the risks of what appears to be a strategy of delegation to the private sector, will be subject of careful evaluation.","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"41 1","pages":"207 - 250"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New Welfare Narratives in Italy: Risks and Supposed Virtues\",\"authors\":\"L. Cataldi, Valeria Cappellato\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/ttr.41.1.207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:In Italy, for some years, a series of new terms, such as 'Civil Welfare', 'Community Welfare', 'Welfare Society', 'Generative Welfare', and 'Second Welfare', have appeared in public discourse. These labels have different origins and traditions. However, all of them are reform narratives promoting 'new' welfare-mix solutions to ensure the sustainability of the social protection system in the face of the permanent austerity (Pierson 1998, 2001) and the crisis of the public welfare. Moreover, all of them are presented as recalibration strategies betting on coordination, integration, networking, and synergy's capabilities of formal and informal components of the welfare system, reinforcing the role, not of the state, but of the other points of the so-called 'welfare diamond' (Ferrera, 2006): individuals and families, third sector, but also companies and market. The contribution aims to critically present the different narratives, highlighting their similarities and differences, and—above all—to discuss their implications. For this purpose, the promises to provide sustainable, flexible, and plural welfare solutions (Osborne, 2006), as well as the presumed advantages and the risks of what appears to be a strategy of delegation to the private sector, will be subject of careful evaluation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41972,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tocqueville Review\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"207 - 250\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tocqueville Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.41.1.207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tocqueville Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.41.1.207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要:在意大利,多年来,公共话语中出现了一系列新术语,如“公民福利”、“社区福利”、《福利社会》、“世代福利”和“第二福利”。这些标签有不同的起源和传统。然而,所有这些都是改革叙事,促进“新的”福利组合解决方案,以确保社会保护系统在长期紧缩(Pierson 19982001)和公共福利危机面前的可持续性。此外,所有这些都被视为重新调整战略,押注于福利系统正式和非正式组成部分的协调、整合、网络和协同能力,加强所谓“福利钻石”(Ferrera,2006)的其他方面的作用,而不是国家的作用:个人和家庭、第三部门,还有公司和市场。这篇文章旨在批判性地呈现不同的叙事,强调它们的异同,最重要的是,讨论它们的含义。为此,将仔细评估提供可持续、灵活和多元福利解决方案的承诺(Osborne,2006),以及似乎是向私营部门授权的战略的假定优势和风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
New Welfare Narratives in Italy: Risks and Supposed Virtues
Abstract:In Italy, for some years, a series of new terms, such as 'Civil Welfare', 'Community Welfare', 'Welfare Society', 'Generative Welfare', and 'Second Welfare', have appeared in public discourse. These labels have different origins and traditions. However, all of them are reform narratives promoting 'new' welfare-mix solutions to ensure the sustainability of the social protection system in the face of the permanent austerity (Pierson 1998, 2001) and the crisis of the public welfare. Moreover, all of them are presented as recalibration strategies betting on coordination, integration, networking, and synergy's capabilities of formal and informal components of the welfare system, reinforcing the role, not of the state, but of the other points of the so-called 'welfare diamond' (Ferrera, 2006): individuals and families, third sector, but also companies and market. The contribution aims to critically present the different narratives, highlighting their similarities and differences, and—above all—to discuss their implications. For this purpose, the promises to provide sustainable, flexible, and plural welfare solutions (Osborne, 2006), as well as the presumed advantages and the risks of what appears to be a strategy of delegation to the private sector, will be subject of careful evaluation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tocqueville Review
Tocqueville Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信