1 Introduction: Health Systems, Decentralization, and Change -- 2 Explaining Health System Decentralization and Recentralization -- 3 Health System Decentralization and Recentralization in Italy -- 4 Health System Decentralization and Recentralization in Denmark -- 5 Conclusions: Ideas, Discourse, Institutions, and Change
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
AbstractThis article explores the relationship between policy narratives and the design of the Italian border management and external migration control regime in the last two decades. First, drawing from the theory of social construction and policy design and through a qualitative application of the Narrative Policy Framework, the article traces the evolution of narratives developed by key actors in government. Second, it investigates the design of the Italian externalization policy. Empirical material is drawn from government documents and decision-makers' parliamentary interventions, press conferences, speeches, newspaper interviews and op-eds. The evidence shows that the dominant narratives have remained constant over time. Humanitarian rhetoric has been mobilized to justify and legitimize the implementation of security measures through bilateral agreements signed with African countries. The implications of such a design are relevant in that it poses serious concerns in terms of respect for migrants' human rights. Overall, the article offers new insights into the empirical investigation of policy narratives and sheds light on the role of narratives in the social construction of migration policy design.
This report explores the development of the Italian reception regime between 2011 and 2018. The aim is to study the legal and policy framework, to map the institutions and actors involved in implementation, and to assess policy coherence with respect to international and EU standards. The report firstly traces the evolution of legal provisions and policies and describes in details the functioning of the multi-level system of reception, that is organized into the three main phases: first aid and assistance, first reception, and second reception. Secondly, the main issues at stake are reported, and the discrepancy between norms and practices – as well coordination problems between diverse actors at different levels of government – are scrutinized.
This report explores the development of the Italian reception regime between 2011 and 2018. The aim is to study the legal and policy framework, to map the institutions and actors involved in implementation, and to assess policy coherence with respect to international and EU standards. The report firstly traces the evolution of legal provisions and policies and describes in details the functioning of the multi-level system of reception, that is organized into the three main phases: first aid and assistance, first reception, and second reception. Secondly, the main issues at stake are reported, and the discrepancy between norms and practices – as well coordination problems between diverse actors at different levels of government – are scrutinized.
This report explores the border management and migration control regime in Italy, analysing the development of its legal and policy framework and the institutions and actors involved in implementation. In particular, the primary aim is to assess whether Italian border management and migration control measures have been preventing the legitimate cross-border flows of migrants seeking asylum. In formulating policy recommendations, the report concludes that Italy should reinforce the 'legal channels' for asylum seekers to access the Italian asylum system. Currently, such channels are in effect guaranteed by non-governmental actors only. Moreover, blocking the migratory flows in the countries of origin/transit – preventing migrants from seeking asylum – should not be seen as the primary goal of the overall border management policy. In this regard, the Italian externalization strategy has in fact been mainly focused on limiting cross-border flows of migrants and therefore the legitimate movement of individuals seeking asylum.
This report explores the border management and migration control regime in Italy, analysing the development of its legal and policy framework and the institutions and actors involved in implementation. In particular, the primary aim is to assess whether Italian border management and migration control measures have been preventing the legitimate cross-border flows of migrants seeking asylum. In formulating policy recommendations, the report concludes that Italy should reinforce the 'legal channels' for asylum seekers to access the Italian asylum system. Currently, such channels are in effect guaranteed by non-governmental actors only. Moreover, blocking the migratory flows in the countries of origin/transit – preventing migrants from seeking asylum – should not be seen as the primary goal of the overall border management policy. In this regard, the Italian externalization strategy has in fact been mainly focused on limiting cross-border flows of migrants and therefore the legitimate movement of individuals seeking asylum.
AbstractThis paper explores the dynamics of health system decentralization and recentralization in Italy, investigating why and how the territorial organization of the health system has changed over time. Drawing from discursive and historical institutionalism, the explanatory framework revolves around the role of ideational and institutional factors. The methods include process tracing and interpretive‐discourse analysis. Empirical material is drawn from documents and in‐depth interviews to experts and decision‐makers. Through the analysis of the reform trajectories in light of decentralization and recentralization processes, the paper shows that the territorial organization of the Italian health system has changed through a mechanism of gradual transformative change that I here call ideational and institutional bricolage, which involves the interplay between ideas, discourse, and institutions.
Building on the RESPOND national country reports, this report discusses the most relevant trends underlying legislative and policy measures implemented between 2011 and 2017 in Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iraq, Italy, Lebanon, Poland, Sweden,Turkey, and the United Kingdom, in the light of critical literature and scholarly debate. The aim is to provide a comparative legal and institutional analysis of migration governance across countries, highlighting trends and similarities, as well as differences and relevant inconsistencies in the response to mass migration. In doing so, the report offers analytical insights for evaluating the potential implications of the dynamics of migration management in the aforementioned countries. In all countries, the legal framework concerning migration and asylum/international protection is extremely complex and hypertrophic. In each country, legislation has been changing continuously and not necessarily coherently, frequently law makers resorting to decrees instead of proper statutes/acts of Parliament. The outcome is a stratified legal framework, that is extremely fragmented and difficult to be consistently interpreted and implemented. Therefore, the legal enforcement and guarantee of fundamental rights is jeopardized, and often it largely depends on the discretionary power of single offices and individuals. Against the fundamental axiom of legal certainty and predictability, the legal status of migrants and asylum applicants is more and more based on uncertainty.
This article analyses the potential implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for the infrastructure of social services in Italy and Spain. Drawing from the policy capacity framework and focusing on childcare and elderly care, we investigate how the National Recovery and Resilience Plans are likely to impact the core functions of the social investment approach. Through document analysis, the article shows that, whereas the infrastructure of the social service system remains characterised by a 'marble cake' type of institutional arrangement combining national and subnational responsibilities, attempts have been made by the central governments to steer the social investment policy capacity at the organisational and systemic levels. We argue that the pandemic represents a window of opportunity to rethink the overall system of intergovernmental relations in the field of social services.
Abstract Megaprojects are now as important as ever. As a response to the pandemic, the European Union has put forward the Next Generation EU policy, making available a 2021–2027 long-term budget of €1.8 trillion to fund projects with ecological and digital applications in the field of telecommunication, transportation, and energy infrastructures. Similarly, in the United States a $1.9 trillion Covid relief plan is on the way. Also, China has planned to expedite the rollout of 102 infrastructure megaprojects earmarked for the 2021–25 development plan. Despite their importance to policy-makers, megaprojects are often met with criticism and opposition by citizens, and often go off the rails—either with regard to budget or time, or both. This introductory article presents the aim and scope of the themed issue. It positions the problem areas beyond technical issues and connects them to the social and institutional environment within which megaprojects are planned and implemented. Moreover, the article makes the case for conceptualizing megaprojects as wicked policy fields. In doing so, we specify the three defining elements of megaprojects, namely, complexity, uncertainty, and conflict. The article argues that megaproject development cannot be seen as a rational, straightforward process. It is often a non-linear, conflictual process shaped by the collective action of different stakeholder groups (e.g., project managers, policy-makers, and citizens). Driven by divergent interests, sociotechnical imaginaries, as well as behavioral and discursive logics, groups of actors construct and mobilize narratives to influence final decision-making while interacting with the institutional context.
This report examines the emergence and evolution of conflicting elite discourses over Europeanisation in the context of increasing external migration in Italy. It investigates how major political actors have framed Europeanisation and constructed political claims to justify and legitimise policy decisions. Moreover, it assesses how these claims have circulated in the mass media.
This report examines the emergence and evolution of conflicting elite discourses over Europeanisation in the context of increasing external migration in Italy. It investigates how major political actors have framed Europeanisation and constructed political claims to justify and legitimise policy decisions. Moreover, it assesses how these claims have circulated in the mass media.
