Social Inclusion: Starting point for European comparison on desig youth unemployment policy

Social Inclusion: Starting point for European comparison on desig youth unemployment policy Sonia Pozzi, Gabriella Punziano

Abstract The paper shows how different models of welfare and policy, carried out by different European contexts, develop different policies of job inclusion for young people. The analysis of three projects of job and social inclusion - "Dote formazione - dote lavoro" in Lombardia, "Quadrifoglio II" in Campania and "Xenos" in Berlin - allows us to carry out a comparison intra-national and international. The goal is to understand whether and how the analyzed local policies have implemented the process of Europeanization, and if they have integrated the European guidelines in their welfare systems. The comparison of the projects showed two trends: convergence with EU policies -European welfare state- for the Berlin project, and a more or less clear difference -net-local welfare- for both the Italian projects. Particular attention was given to the actors - policy makers, public, private, third sector involved in the design, implementation and project-management. From these news, through the network analysis, taking into account the role of actors in decision-making, economic and emotional dimensions, it has come to a typology of the projects analyzed, revealing the propensity to different modes of integration. Introduction Every citizen should have the right to work and every state should guarantee it by supporting full social inclusion of individuals based flexicurity, mobility and knowledge. As far as the right of young people to work is concerned, several challenges emerge. Among young people unemployment and inactivity rates are increasing significantly: relative unemployment rates is 29,6 percent in Italy, while the Eurozone average is 21 percent (Istat, 2011), not to mention the NEET phenomenon and its extent. In this paper we focus on young people and social inclusion from the perspective of social rights and employment policy. Social inclusion is a major element of analysis for understanding different welfare models emerging at regional level. As a matter of fact, while regional policy concerning youth and social inclusion is consistent with the European direction, a number of differences can be found in its implementation at local level. In this work a comparison (both at domestic and at international level) is provided in order to identify a classification of the main trends concerning youth welfare and integration. The first part of the paper will briefly describe the main stages of the welfare state in Europe. It will deal with the different models found in the “four social Europes” and with the europeanization of social policy based on decentralization and subsidiarity. In the second paragraph we provide a brief description of the geographical context examined (Lombardia, Campania, Berlin), from the perspective of welfare models and youth policy. Three projects of social and labour market inclusion addressed to young unemployed and non-employed will be selected and analysed in order to assess their enforcement in the context examined. Two main comparison will be made, one concerning Campania (Naples) and Lombardia (Milan), and one concerning Milan and Berlin. Campania and Lombardia represent two different italian geographical areas which have also been governed by different political forces, with a major impact on the development of different models of welfare policy. Nevertheless, our decision is also based on the fact that between these regions unemployment rates are significantly different: 19,8% in 2010 in Lombardia, while 41,9% in Campania. In our comparison between Milan and Berlin we adopted a normative approach (Graziano, 2004), which can serve as an effective method for analyzing political phenomena concerning

young people. This paradigm will be used to compare two different contexts which had a leading role in the establishment of two different welfare models: European welfare and local welfare (Punziano, 2011). During our survey we interviewed five actors involved in each project (sponsoring bodies lenders, designers, operators and technicians working in the implementation and development of the projects we have examined). Different dimensions have been included in our interviews: context of the project (introduction, objectives, legislative and financial frameworks); analysis of project enforcement and impact, as based on the perception of actors involved: development, dynamics and objectives accomplished are taken into consideration; identification of network of actors involved in decision making and evaluation of prospective legislative inconsistencies found in the project; level of autonomy achieved (processes of institutionalization and impact on policy structures).

1. Europeanization of employment policy between decentralization and subsidiarity in the process of youth social and labour market inclusion European states are characterized by different welfare systems. According to Ferrera (1998) “four social Europes”, represented respectively by the Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Continental and Southern-European (or Mediterranean) models, can be identified, with respect to four main dimensions: access to social protection; financing mechanisms; benefits system; organizational features. European institutions pushed for welfare convergence and integration. In order to face growth without employment, strategies to support employability and the adoption of an employment friendly welfare approach have been introduced (Ferrera et al., 2003) since 1990s: the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment (1993) and the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) promoted flexible and equal labour markets, active labour market policies, flexicurity, occupational training, policies to fight poverty and social exclusion, with a specific emphasis on young people and future generations. The “Open Method of Coordination” (1997), launched a process of social policy Europeanization, introducing the «establishment of supranational rules and public policies to be incorporated into domestic policy according to the specific characteristics of national and regional contexts» (Graziano, 2004, 17). Europeanization, decentralization and subsidiarity are promoted jointly and with a soft law approach so that member states can either converge or diverge from European directions. Policy convergence promotes the development of a “European welfare”, while policy divergence creates a “local net welfare”, characterized by independence from EU policy. Divergence can easily occur when a number of jurisdictional gaps are found in the implementation of EU policy at domestic level and communitarian objectives can be achieved with alternative strategies. The relationship between public institutions and the private sector has a key role in social policy planning and provision and in establishing governance networks and welfare mix models. As a consequence, regions become the third level of the new European policy (Ferrera, 2008) and can establish «effective models of social planning and provision» (Ivi, 25) given their proximity to local needs and local social capital. The introduction of the Lisbon Strategy in 2000 highlighted the importance of labour market inclusion as a prerequisite for social inclusion. Social policy planning and realization, it is said, should involve every level of government and every social actor. Accordingly, the European Commission has promoted a European strategy to enforce the role of Regions, especially in the field of labour market and social inclusion (Ivi, 34). A shift is underway from passive to active social policy, «promoting and encouraging the empowerment of citizens» (Paci, 2004, 352) directed to the «social inclusion as participation in social life also through labour market inclusion» (Bifulco, 2005, 16). This is especially true if young people and the labour market are taken into consideration under the present circumstances.

Young people are being increasingly acknowledged by EU policy makers as a disadvantaged social category requiring specific active labour market policies based on training and apprenticeship. 2. Contexts and projects Decentralization in Italy has been first introduced as an effect of the Bassanini Law (Law n. 59, 15 March 1997), that explicitly promotes subsidiarity. The new Title V of the Constitution, in addition, gives new powers to regional governments in the fields of education, training and employment. As an effect, the concept of subsidiarity has been understood in different ways at regional level. Regione Lombardia explicitly adopted the principle of “horizontal subsidiarity” within its Statute. This principle drives the introduction and implementation of a welfare mix logic and service integration (based on the provision of voucher). The private and the third sector have a key role in producing and providing services. Regione Lombardia provide active policies, fostering individual choice and empowerment of the citizen (Ranci, 2001) and the shift from a welfare system to a workfare system (Violini, Cerlini, 2011), even if no proper attention is made on youth and employment policy. Conversely, in Campania the principle of subsidiarity has been mainly adopted in its vertical version, with a strong interconnection among different levels of government. In the Campanian Statuto no explicit reference is made to the concept of subsidiarity; on the other hand, the right to work is seen as a major issue, especially for young people. The Region declares (art.6, comma 4) its commitment to achieve and guarantee «decent working conditions» for young people. This element is clearly neglected by Regione Lombardia, where social policy follows a top-down model, despite the presence of third and private sector. European policy is mainly enforced in Italy according to local needs, given the jurisdictional gaps found in the implementation of the Open Method of Coordination and the principle of subsidiarity. Social policy is therefore mostly developed as net local welfare strongly differentiated. Objectives convergence does not correspond to the actual implementation of European directions of policy at local level. In Berlin activation and unemployment benefits (Hartz Laws) are mainly found, in a welfare mix model where public institutions as well as the private and the third sector are jointly involved in the managment of active policies. European policy is completely absorbed and no adaptation to local needs is experienced in order to enforce European directions in a comprehensive way and to achieve an effective legislative and operational convergence. The differences found both at domestic and at international level mainly emerge when the specific processes of construction and provision of a given policy is analysed (Punziano, 2011, 155). The project “Dote Formazione-Dote Lavoro” experienced in Lombardia is directed towards unemployed, non-employed and young job seekers. DG Istruzione Formazione e Lavoro of Regione Lombardia was involved together with 250 private and third sector partners. The project has been mainly financed through European resources and to a less degree through national resources. The project aims to achieve labour market inclusion and to promote interactions among different public and private actors. 35 percent of people involved in the project found a job and improve his/her technical and professional competences. The Campanian project “Quadrifoglio II”, aimed to promote social inclusion for young people living in high crime risk neighbourhoods of Naples. It was enforced by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, the Municipal government, Unione degli industriali di Napoli, Provincia di Napoli and Italia Lavoro S.p.a. and financed through European funds and circulating funds. Thanks to this project 70 young people had a “on the job” paid experience 20 percent of participants found a job.

The Xenos- Integration and Diversity project experienced in Berlin aimed to promote training activities for young immigrants in order to support their labour market inclusion. The project involved several actors (the Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affair, the Deparment Senate Department for Integration, Labour, and Social Affairs of Berlin and the association Barex E.v.) and was financed through national and local government resources. The project promoted the improvement of linguistic skills of young immigrants and the integration of 82 percent of in the local labour markets of the Marzahn-Hellersdorf area. The project “Dote Formazione-Dote Lavoro” is a typical example of active and social inclusion policy with a large number of different actors involved, multiple funding and empowerment of participants. Given the centralization of training and employment policies, Lombardia tends to approach to the guidelines of the European policies while considering local needs at the same time. Social inclusion strategies are implemented with a multilevel governance and network approach. The project Quadrifoglio II is a specific example of local net welfare, even if substantial differences are found between this project and the one experienced in Lombardia. While in the project Dote every actor involved had a role in the planning phase, the Campanian project only involved institutional actors. The project has an explicit focus on local problems, such as unemployment and social marginalization. In Campania public policy are carried out with strong resistance to European directions and a more explicit adaptation to local needs that, nevertheless, does not undermine the importance of common communitarian objectives. If we compare the Lombardian and the Berliner cases, we can note that the project “Xenos” is a typical example of European welfare, with a narrow network of social actors coordinated at institutional level, a deep integration between state institutions and third sector and strong bureaucratization in the provision of services. 3. Comparative network analysis and classification The specific research perspective used in this paragraph combines network analysis (analysis of configuration of social relations) and decision analysis model, with a large opening to comparative analysis. The concept of policy network, as an entirety of public and private actors with different kinds and amount of resources who act in a given domain of policy. Our analysis focuses on relations and interrelations, with two main forms: 1) network as a configuration of relationships among single and collective actors (Scott, 1991; Wasserman, Faust, 1998); 2) network as poles of attraction focusing on socially perceived problems, capable of attracting various qualified actors (Milward, Wamsley, 1984). From a formal point of view, the specific configuration of a given network is a key variable with its density, symmetry, presence of cliques, etc., regardless of the typology of actors involved. Our attention will be dedicated to the role played by different networks in the interactions among actors. Networks will be understood as networks can be understood as systems of horizontal and vertical relations, characterized by different typologies of exchange (economic resources, information, recognition) and changing structures. The identification of a given network as decision-making, as a consequence, is not the amount of links, but their quality, which is the quality of what is exchanged and the prospective extension of the network (Marin, Mayntz, 1991). Two main theoretical approaches exist concerning the study of policy network: issue network and policy community. The first ones are referred to loose-knit networks, where no clear distinction between insiders and their context exists, the arenas are crowded, participation in unstable, specific issues are discussed among different actors with no decisional power interact on a voluntary basis. No specific locus is identified for acting, interactions among participants are mainly aimed to cooperation and information. Policy communities are based on a common value system. In these communities the number of participants is low and stable, interactions are continuative and institutionalized. We also identified decision and autonomy features characterizing these processes. It is considered, in fact, the pattern of decisions that work, more specifically, with an object: the

decision, indicating the choice of a course of action discarding possible alternative courses of action. It is of little interest to analytically plan and empirically elusive, since it is formed in the process that structures the field and reduces the range of options available (Bobbio, 1996). Once we have assumed that the decision can be used as main analytical key to explain autonomy and the configurations among power relations, we can compare the projects identified in order to provide a classification. Comparative Network Analysis is used to identify the networks of policy actors involved at local level in the project described above. In these project an active participation of recipients is supported in order to achieve a full integration with the social and economic context The project “Dote Formazione-Dote Lavoro”, reveals that public policy in the city of Milan, where a net local welfare is found, is mainly based on dynamic, participatory and inclusive networks with multiple different realities and interests. It is seen that the a legislative convergence and policy adaptation to EU policy are the main characteristic of the Lombardian welfare system. As an effect, policy experimentation has a major role in the introduction of spaces of autonomy. A loose-knit network is organized with the aim to discuss and solve external and internal conflicts. The network structure is based on a core of primary relationships and their branches with secondary relationships. This structure indicates that decisions are taken and put into the network from the center of the network, which also serves as a center of power centralizing communication, information and resources flows. With such configuration, network actors have a wide range of opportunities to discuss and introduce non conventional actions in order to achieve local autonomy. Fig.1- Network for the project Dote Lavoro, Milan.

The situation of Naples provides a different context. Here chronic unemployment and youth emigration require social inclusion policies, mainly implemented in the framework of a net local welfare. Local implementation networks encompasses actors with strong political and lobbying inclinations whose configuration in the net is mainly vertical, while a dynamic local horizontal network of non institutional actors is missing. The funds used, in general, are not from different backgrounds and of discrete entities. As for the legislative dimension, it is either extremely binding or informal coordinative. A lobbyist, close-knit network emerges, mainly made of multiple links and with a strong presence of conflict relationships. The strategies emerged are deeply linked to the specific characteristics of the local context, to its combining interests, and to legislative gaps. Nevertheless, as compared to

Milan, the network of Naples is more narrow, with a restriction of inclusive opportunities and the utilization of relationships as resources to achieve desired objectives. While in Milan a strong dynamism puts a large amount of resources into the local networks, the main characteristics in Naples concerns the presence of powerful actors with a rich capital of resources that can be used to improve the network and to acquire new strategic and decisional spaces. Fig.2 - Network for project “Quadrifoglio II”, Naples.

Berlin is characterized by mechanisms directed to achieve legislative, institutional and communitarian convergence, towards a model of European welfare that has a specific focus on the local context. Even if no binding legislative approach is found, the national direction of policy is strictly structured to accomplish desired policy objectives. While the main features of Milan are dynamism, multiple actors and flexibility, Berlin shows burocratism and homologation, which create narrow (where wide operative and decisional power is given to third sector organizations), integrated and structured networks. Actors are strongly differentiated by their role, but they come from a single third sector association which has a deep knowledge of the local context. Third sector organizations are responsible for the enforcement of the project, unlike Milan and Naples. As an effect, a close-knit network emerges, with multiples and strong links whose configuration is intended to manage conflict with the help of mediators. Increases the multiplexity and decreases the numerosity, the dynamism and the openness of the network; nevertheless, this is used as an important resource for network stability. Accordingly, these network can be seen as policy community where a single value system is shared, in a way that the individual actor has limited opportunities to act in a unconventional way. Fig.3 - Netwrk for project “Xenos”, Berlin.

If we consider autonomy spaces, we find that the legislative gap, defined as a main dimension of this process (Graziano, 2004), is found in different degrees both in Naples and in Milan. Nevertheless, while in the Milanese context this gap generally engenders delays in the configuration of a proper European welfare, in the context of Naples this gap is mostly seen as an

opportunity to implement alternative strategies without undermining the achievement of communitarian objectives. In Berlin the idea of using a legislative gap to intentionally introduce divergence is completely neglected, because the main objective is the full convergence. The relationship between legislative gap and autonomy is supported by the presence of conflicting dynamics and mediators. Incidentally, in the two Italian cities the conflict is open and is only contained by different mediators. While this fragmentation produces micro-conflicts and creates multiple centers of power in Milan, where decisions are taken in a broad and horizontal way, in Naples it engenders the narrowing and closing of the network around the top position, generally recognized as a mediator. The decision making process opens and closes around this figure by losing the dynamism of the structure. In Germany the internal conflict is neglected or at least managed through the presence of mediator even in the absence of a conflict. Berlin reveals structured, bureaucratic and close projects, where no possibility of alternative pathway is conceivable. One center of power exists, and it is generally represented by individuals who manage economic and decisional mediation. In the three projects analyzed the legislative gap, the achievement of autonomy spaces emerge as important dimensions. A specific relevance concerns the configurations of relationships observed. They show that the actors involved in the relationships of a given network, with their roles and positions, have a major impact on specific and different types policy of implementation. If we take into consideration the typologies of network emerged in Naples and Berlin, we can see that they are similar in structure and strongly different from an operative point of view. This has a specific significance in the context of Berlin, where the presence of different actors' joint to the convergence process. Local policies are extremely adapted to the national framework, which, in turn, looks at the integration with a European welfare model. Conversely, Milan shows that the dynamism and the inclusion of local interests engender a net local welfare model of public policy, where communitarian integration is pursued with a strong emphasis on the role of subsidiarity and on the territorial dimension of social policy (Kazepov, 2009). To sum up, while the process of Europeanization of public and social policy is being accomplished in Berlin according to the European direction, the incorporation of European policy in Milan is clearly still a formal objective tackling the lack of federalism and a conflicting, localist decentralization. Conclusions: Implications for the welfare state and young people The projects analyzed reveal three different ways of dealing with social inclusion and youth in different geographical areas. Nevertheless, we can identify a number of specific traits in order to provide a classification of data collected. Youth policy and social inclusion policies for young people are deeply affected by the idea of social inclusion emerged among policy makers at local level. In Milan social inclusion is mainly associated to labour market inclusion, young people are used as a policy target to achieve employability objectives defined at European level. Particular attention is paid to the expansion of individual capabilities and vocational training. The outcomes achieved can be assessed in positive terms, even if the lack of specific measures emerges. This approach creates innovative policy making based on wide and inclusive network, high degree of autonomy and more attention to the labour inclusion rather than to the youth work issue. Conversely, social inclusion policies in Naples are designed according to young people needs, introducing policy measures that aim to provide young people with resources to deal with social issues in an autonomous way. The person is the key element of social inclusion policy. This approach produces an emerging typology of inclusion policy, that links the specific characteristics of the local context to social needs expressed by young people, narrow and centralized network, very high level of autonomy, attention first to youth inclusion and after to working inclusion In Berlin, where unemployment rates for young people are far below the European average, social inclusion policies are directed towards immigrants. Social inclusion serves as

a mechanism to achieve social integration. Labour market inclusion is the objective, while social inclusion is a means. The labour market is the core subject of the policy, while the individual has a marginal role. A convergent typology emerges, with legislative adaptation to the European policy, with narrow and bureaucratic networks very low degree of autonomy. Social inclusion is mostly seen as a feature of the system rather than as something concerning the individual or the context. Decision making in this context is seen as a process that can be easily standardized and rationalized. la decisione nel sociale come un processo che possa essere standardizzato e razionalizzato. Different pathways in conceiving and deciding in the context of social planning are strictly connected to the specific relevance given to each geographical area, as our cases demonstrate. Nevertheless, the typology presented here cannot be considered as a comprehensive classification and its elaboration is subject to corroboration and extension of terms and types. References Bifulco, L. (2005) „Come cambiano le politiche sociali europee‟, in Bifulco, L., (ed) Le politiche sociali. Temi e prospettive. Roma: Carocci. Bobbio, L. (1996) Voce Decisione (modelli di), in Capano, G., Giuliani, M., Dizionario di Politiche Pubbliche, Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica. Ferrera, M. (1998) Le trappole del welfare, Bologna: Il Mulino. Ferrera, M. (2008), „Dal welfare state alle welfare regions: la riconfigurazione spaziale della protezione sociale in Europa‟, La Rivista delle Politiche Sociali, n.3/2008: 17-49. Ferrera, M., Hemerijck, A., Rhodes, M. (2003), „Il futuro dell‟Europa sociale. Vincoli e prospettive‟, Assistenza Sociale, n.3-4 july-december: 53-81. Graziano, P. (2004) Europeizzazione e politiche pubbliche italiane, Bologna: Il Mulino. Istat (2011) La situazione del Paese nel 2010. Rapporto annuale, Roma: Istat. Kazepov, Y. (ed) (2009) La dimensione territoriale delle politiche sociali in Italia, Carocci, Roma. Marin, B., Mayntz, R. (1991) Policy networks: empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag. Milward, H., Wamsley, L. (1984) „Policy subsystems, networks and the tools of public management‟, in Eyestone, R. (ed.) (1984) Public policy Formation, Greenwich: JAI Press. Paci, M. (2004) „Le ragioni per un nuovo assetto del welfare in Europa‟, in La Rivista delle Politiche Sociali, n.1: 333-373. Punziano, G. (2011) Potere e conflitto: decidere il sociale tra Europa e contesti locali. Dall’europeizzazione alla riconsiderazione delle tipologie di welfare: metodi analitici per lo studio delle politiche sociali, PhD Dissertation in Sociology and Social Research, University of Naples, unpublished. Ranci, C. (ed.) (2001) Il mercato sociale dei servizi alle persone, Bologna: Il Mulino. Scott, J. (1991) Social network analysis. A handbook, London: Sage. Violini, L., Cerlini, S. (2011) „Il sistema della «Dote» in Lombardia: prime riflessioni su un‟esperienza in atto‟, Rivista del diritto della sicurezza sociale, XI (1): 43-57. Wasserman, S., Faust, K. (1998) Social Network Analysis. Methods and applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.