JOURNAL ARTICLES
M. Ferrera, in West European Politics, Vol. 37, no. 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. This article is available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402382.2014.919771
M. Ferrera, in Il Mulino, vol. 2, no. 15, 2015, pp. 383-391. ABSTRACT Peter Mair è stato uno dei più importanti politologi della mia generazione. La sua prematura scomparsa ha lasciato un grosso vuoto intellettuale fra gli studiosi di politica comparata e sistemi di partito, i campi d’indagine da lui prediletti. Nell’ultima fase della sua riflessione, Peter si era focalizzato sulla crisi della democrazia dei partiti e in particolare su una delle sue principali manifestazioni: la grande biforcazione fra responsiveness e responsibility . Col primo termine s’intende la capacità dei partiti di rispondere, reagire in modo simpatetico alle domande degli elettori, della pubblica opinione, dei gruppi di interesse. Con il secondo termine s’intende invece la capacità sia di rispettare il patto elettorale sia di risolvere i problemi collettivi (governare), tenendo conto anche delle  istanze di “collettivi”, dai mercati internazionali all’Unione europea, diversi da quello nazionale. Per Mair, nell’ultimo ventennio è diventato sempre più difficile conciliare queste due funzioni, con il risultato che alcuni partiti (cosiddetti mainstream, di centro-sinistra e di centro-destra) si sono “cartellizzati” e specializzati sul versante della responsabilità, spesso tramite governi di grande coalizione e comunque perdendo i legami con la società. Altri partiti (pensiamo ai partiti neo-populisti) si sono invece specializzati sul versante della responsiveness, intercettando e cavalcando gli orientamenti, spesso emotivi, dell’opinione pubblica e ignorando totalmente i vincoli della responsabilità.  Ciò che si perde in questa trasformazione è la presenza di un’opposizione capace di porsi come alternativa reale di governo:  elemento fondamentale per l’equilibrio e l’effettività della politica democratica. This article is available at https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.1402/79248
M. Ferrera, in Constellations, Vol. 21, no. 2, 2014, pp. 222–238. ABSTRACT The nation-based welfare state (NBWS) and the European Union (EU) are two precious legacies of the 20th century. Their mutual relationship is however fraught by unresolved tensions (and a potential “clash”), which the recent crisis has been markedly exacerbating. When, how and why did the original “elective affinity” between the WS and the EU spheres start to weaken? Is “reconciliation” possible and how? These questions lie at the centre of current academic and public debates. The WS serves essential economic, social and political functions. But the financing of its programmes strains public budgets and raises sustainability challenges, especially in the wake of growing demographic ageing. The EU (EMU in particular) is in its turn essential for growth, jobs and macro-economic stability, but tends to undermine the WS’s very institutional foundation: the sovereign right of the state to determine the boundaries, forms and extent of national solidarity, including tax and spending levels. The aim of this article is to cast new light on such issues by focusing on the “intellectual” logic which has guided WS-building, on the one hand, and EU-building, on the other, and by highlighting the responsibility of this logic in generating the clash. Drawing on Weber’s insights on the relationship between ideas, values and politics, I will try to reconnect these three elements for interpreting the current predicament and for putting forward some suggestions on how to overcome it. The article is organised as follows. The next section presents the topic and the approach. The second section illustrates the ideational logics which have guided, respectively, the development of the welfare state at the national level and the process of economic integration at the supranational level. Thethird and fourth sections will in turn summarize my diagnosis and outline an agenda for intellectual “work” on both the epistemic and axiological fronts, which I see as a prerequisite for responsible and effective political choices. The conclusion wraps up. This article is available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8675.12091
M. Ferrera, in Politiche Sociali, vol. 3, no. 3, 2014, pp. 329-352. ABSTRACT The article investigates the role played by ideational dynamics in generating the strains and tensions which have exploded during the crisis between economic integration and social protection. Drawing on the insights of Weberian theory, the article argues that a reconciliation between these two dimensions/spheres of the EU must confront two distinct intellectual challenges. First, the recognition that the EU (and EMU in particular) have irreversibly become complex adaptive systems with «emergent» properties,requiring centralized steering well beyond the current institutional status quo. Second, the search for normative principles for a correct framing of both the «democratic-ness» question and the «fairness» question in the EU. The latter is particularly important for solving the new conflict lines emerged during the crisis, i.e. between core and peripheral economies, on the one hand, and «old» vs. «new» Member States, on the other. This article is availble at https://air.unimi.it/handle/2434/270743#.XRPGQOhKiUk

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