J. Hien, in New perspectives: interdisciplinary journal of Central & East European politics and international relations.- 25 (2017), H. 5  
P. Pansardi, in Journal of Political Power, Vol. 10, issue 3 available here
M. Ferrera, A. Pellegata, in Journal of European Public Policy, published online on 21 June 2018 ABSTRACT. The aim of this paper is to investigate citizen views on the free movement of workers within the European Union (EU). We are interested in how situational and relational factors affect labour market chauvinist attitudes. Drawing on the threat theory, we advance new hypotheses on the role of intertemporal relative deprivation in amplifying chauvinist inclinations. From the intergroup contact theory and transnational approaches, we borrow insights on the role played by cross-border experiences and inclusion in discursive and associational networks in containing chauvinism. The analysis uses the original ‘Reconciling Economic and Social Europe’ (REScEU) survey conducted in six EU countries (i.e., France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Sweden) in the fall of 2016. The article shows that – though rooted in class and status positions – chauvinist attitudes are clearly sensitive to contingent situations and lifeworld experiences. read it here
M. Matsaganis, Current History, Vol. 115, Issue 779, pp. 108-113 The article is available here.
A. Miglio, European Papers, 27 September 2016, pp. 1-12 ABSTRACT Regulation 2016/369 establishes an emergency support mechanism for the provision of humanitarian aid in response to natural or man-made disasters giving rise to severe wide-ranging humanitarian consequences within the European Union. Although its scope of application is much broader, the Regulation has been adopted as an emergency measure for the management of the ongoing refugee crisis. It is therefore promising to look at the newly established mechanism against the background of other measures adopted or proposed in response to the crisis. In this perspective, the Regulation appears to fit within an overall strategy whereby Union funding is used as an instrument of policy-making to bring about further centralization. Finally, the analysis of the mechanism, which is meant to provide support to Member States “in a spirit of solidarity”, suggests a few conclusions on the meaning of the principle of solidarity and its implications in the context of the refugee crisis. It is suggested that two very different visions of solidarity, an emergency-driven and a structural one, coexist and may interact with each other in two ways. the paper is avbailable here.
A. Miglio,, 21 September 2016 ABSTRACT Nelle settimane successive al referendum del 23 giugno 2016 sulla permanenza del Regno Unito nell’Unione europea ha preso avvio una vasta produzione dottrinale dedicata all’esame delle molte e intricate questioni giuridiche sollevate dall’esito della consultazione popolare. Ha tuttavia finora attratto scarsa attenzione, almeno in termini relativi, il quesito se la notifica dell’intenzione di uno Stato membro di recedere dall’Unione possa essere revocata: sia i commenti all’art. 50 TUE sia nel la maggior parte dei primi contributi successivi al referendum, ancorché con alcune eccezioni tale problema è stato infatti trattato soltanto marginalmente, quando non del tutto ignorato. Ciò appare tuttavia sorprendente. Per effetto dell’articolazione della procedura di recesso delineata dall’art. 50 TUE, determinare se la notifica produca effetti definitivi assume infatti una importanza cruciale sotto due profili: per un verso, l’incertezza su tale punto determina un forte disincentivo a notificare il recesso; per altro verso, la configurabilità della revoca è evidentemente suscettibile di incidere sull’esito finale del procedimento, comportando l’eventualità che, ritirando la notifica, lo Stato interessato possa ritornare sui propri passi e decidere di restare membro dell’Unione pur avendo invocato il diritto di recesso. The article is available here.
M. Ferrera, Journal of European Social Policy October 2016 26: 374-383 ABSTRACT Southern Europe and East Asia are two distinct groups of nations which share a number of striking family resemblances warranting a close investigation. Such resemblances form a relatively coherent set best captured through the concepts of familialism and familial welfare state. A cross-regional comparison of Italy, Japan, Spain and Korea leads to interesting results in both descriptive and explanatory terms, highlighting the role played by culture and religion as well as by the compressed modernization which characterized the four countries during the 20th century. The comparative exercise of this Special Issue offers a significant contribution to the wider field of welfare research. It reshuffles the cards of the traditional ‘world of welfare capitalism’ debate, shows the significance of region-level (as opposed to nation-level) variables and invites a specification of temporal arguments in institutional transformations. The article is available here.
M. Ferrera, In Biblioteca della Libertà. 214, settembre-dicembre 2015 ABSTRACT The intra-EU mobility of workers/persons  is becoming an increasingly contentious and polarizing issue and is occupying the center stage in the so-called  Brexit debate. Challenging the principle of free movement is no trivial matter. What is actually put in question are not only the foundational pillars of  the single market, but of the EU as such, understood as a single (would-be) polity. The aim of this paper is to offer an analytical framing of this challenge. Section 1 provides a brief historical reconstruction of welfare state building at the national level, highlighting the salience of boundaries and of the “bounding-bonding” nexus. It also discusses the impact of European integration on the intra-EU boundary configuration in the sphere of solidarity. Section 2 illustrates the state of play as regards mobility, summarizing the findings of empirical research on the economic and financial implications of free movement and of the social security coordination regime. Section 3 argues that – in addition to economic efficiency – the  principle/logic that underpins free movement is that of “hospitality”, rather than the more general principle of solidarity. The section then discusses some unintended practical implications that follow from the logic of hospitality and that lie at the basis of  the increasing contentiousness around free movement.  Section 4 discusses possible institutional remedies for containing political contention. The underlying assumption is that the preservation of free movement is key for the survival of the EU qua political association/community and that such preservation must be the object of an essentially political (and not merely functional) strategy on the side of EU authorities. The conclusion wraps up. The paper is available here.
M. Ferrera, in Journal of European Public Policy, published online on 19 September 2016. ABSTRACT Reorienting the welfare state towards social investment (SI) constitutes a complex and multidimensional challenge of policy recalibration and raises daunting political problems. The temporal mismatch between SI reforms and their returns requires a degree of ‘political patience’ on the side of both current voters and incumbent politicians which is not readily available in contemporary democracies. After reviewing recent debates about the policy and politics of the long term, the article analyzes the strategy pursued by the European Union (EU), with a view to assessing their degree of ‘conduciveness’ to SI recalibration. It is argued that the EU has indeed stimulated policy change at the national level, but that its potential as SI facilitator has been hamstrung by a number of weaknesses and shortcomings, especially on the discursive front. A more convinced and articulated endorsement of the social investment paradigm and a more focused attention to ‘capacity’ at the subnational and grass-root level should be the fronts to prioritize. The paper is available here.
M. Ferrera, in West European Politics, Vol. 37, issue 4, 2014, pp. 825-843.   ABSTRACT The article starts by identifying the main institutional components of the (elusive) concept of Social Europe: the ‘National Social Spaces’, i.e. the social protection systems of the member states; the ‘EU Social Citizenship Space’, i.e. the coordination regime that allows all EU nationals to access the social benefits of other member states when they exercise free movement; the ‘Regional Social Spaces’, i.e. sub-national and/or trans-regional social policies; and the ‘EU Social Policy’ proper. Based on such reconceptualisation, the article then revisits the main analytical insights and substantive findings of the volume’s contributions, focusing in particular on dynamics of ‘social re-bounding’ during the crisis, on national implementation processes, on the relevance of ‘fits’ and ‘misfits’ for social policy compliance and on issues of democratic control. In the conclusion, some suggestions for future research and for the EU’s social agenda are put forward.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Terms and Conditions

Twitter Feeds

This site uses cookies

for the operation of the platform and for statistics . Continue if you agree.

I understand