Suchergebnisse

Izsledki pričujoče raziskave o stanju civilne družbe in indeks civilne družbe v Sloveniji so bili pripravljeni za mednarodno primerjavo med državami, v katerih poteka raziskava CIVICUS - Indeks civilne družbe po svetu. S to publikacijo želimo z izsledki raziskave podrobneje seznaniti zainteresirano javnost ter civilnodružbeni sektor in vse njegove deležnike v Sloveniji.

AbstractThe authors examine the development of the civil society sector in Slovenia and its role in the country's welfare system. They emphasise the 'boom' in the growth of civil society organisations, notably in the legal form of associations during the 1980s and 1990s. They argue that although civil society organisations rapidly proliferated at this time, they did not become more professionalised or financially stable. In the 1990s, a relationship of complementarity between the public/state and civil society sectors was established in Slovenia's welfare system, though civil society organisations exerted little influence on public policies directed towards the provision of social protection and other contributions to people's welfare.

Slovenia makes a compelling case for care policy analysis since it is marked by extreme dichotomy in care. Therefore, placing Slovenia on a continuum of care regimes ranging from defamilialised to familialised with respect to care is difficult, with care for children being highly defamilialised, and care for older people highly familialised. The country's childcare policies build on a historically well-developed system of public childcare provision and generous leave policies, together with a well-developed social protection system targeting families. These have been retained and, in some cases, were expanded, still following the 2009 economic crisis, certain austerity measures were introduced. On the other hand, care policies for older people started to develop later and after the initial growth they relatively stagnated (especially the social home-care system). A comprehensive long-term care system has yet to be developed and become a subject of ongoing political debates. Further, unlike in childcare, the increasing role of private actors can be observed in this sector. In the article, we discuss these care policy developments in Slovenia in terms of the role of relevant actors (state, family, private actors) with an emphasis on the views of people regarding care, based on data gathered within an innovative method of democratic forums. The article reveals that the dichotomy of care policies, as well as the differing recent trends in family policies for children and care for older people, is not present in people's attitudes and their preferences for the arrangement of such policies. ; Slovenija pruža dobre argumente za analizu politike skrbi jer je obilježava izrazita dihotomija u području skrbi. Stoga je teško smjestiti Sloveniju u kontinuum režima skrbi koji se proteže od defamilijaliziranog do familijaliziranog, gdje je skrb za djecu izrazito defamilijalizirana, a skrb za starije osobe izrazito familijalizirana. Mjere skrbi za djecu u zemlji oslanjaju se na povijesno dobro razvijeni sustav javne skrbi za djecu i izdašne politike o dopustu, zajedno s dobro razvijenim sustavom socijalne zaštite usmjerenom na obitelji. Te su mjere zadržane i, u nekim slučajevima, proširene, no uslijed ekonomske krize iz 2009. godine uvedene su određene mjere štednje. S druge strane, politike skrbi za starije osobe počele su se razvijati kasnije i nakon početnog rasta relativno su stagnirale (posebice sustav socijalne usluge pomoći u kući). Sveobuhvatni sustav dugoročne skrbi tek se treba razviti i postati tema kontinuiranih političkih debata. Nadalje, za razliku od skrbi za djecu, u ovom se sektoru može uočiti povećana uloga privatnih aktera. U radu raspravljamo o razvitku tih politika skrbi u Sloveniji u odnosu na ulogu relevantnih aktera (država, obitelj, privatni akteri), s naglaskom na stavove ljudi o skrbi na temelju podataka prikupljenih u sklopu inovativne metode demokratskih foruma. Rad ukazuje na to da dihotomija politika skrbi, kao i različiti noviji trendovi u obiteljskim politikama za djecu i u skrbi za starije osobe, nisu prisutni u stavovima ljudi i u njihovim preferencijama za uvođenje takvih politika.

Slovenia makes a compelling case for care policy analysis since it is marked by extreme dichotomy in care. Therefore, placing Slovenia on a continuum of care regimes ranging from defamilialised to familialised with respect to care is difficult, with care for children being highly defamilialised, and care for older people highly familialised. The country's childcare policies build on a historically well-developed system of public childcare provision and generous leave policies, together with a well-developed social protection system targeting families. These have been retained and, in some cases, were expanded, still following the 2009 economic crisis, certain austerity measures were introduced. On the other hand, care policies for older people started to develop later and after the initial growth they relatively stagnated (especially the social homecare system). A comprehensive long-term care system has yet to be developed and become a subject of ongoing political debates. Further, unlike in childcare, the increasing role of private actors can be observed in this sector. In the article, we discuss these care policy developments in Slovenia in terms of the role of relevant actors (state, family, private actors) with an emphasis on the views of people regarding care, based on data gathered within an innovative method of democratic forums. The article reveals that the dichotomy of care policies, as well as the differing recent trends in family policies for children and care for older people, is not present in people's attitudes and their preferences for the arrangement of such policies. Key words: care, social policy, Slovenia, older people, childcare, democratic forum, attitudes.

The focus of this article is on family policy reforms in four European countries – Austria, Finland, Portugal, and Slovenia – between 2008 and 2015. These years were marked by the 'Great Recession', and by the rise of the social-investment perspective. Social investment is an umbrella concept, though, and it is also somewhat ambiguous. This article distinguishes between different social-investment variants, which emerge from a focus on its interaction with alternative social-policy perspectives, namely social protection and austerity. We identify different variants along the degree of social-investment: from comprehensive, over crowding out, towards lean forms. While the empirical analysis highlights variation, it also shows how there is a specific crisis context, which may lead to 'crowding out' of other policy approaches and 'leaner' forms of social investment. This has led to strong cutbacks in family cash benefits, while public childcare and parental leaves have proved more resilient in the investigated countries. Those findings are revelatory in the current Covid-19 pandemic, where countries are entering a next, possibly larger economic crisis. Key words: family policy; crisis; social investment; austerity; case studies denoted as the end of the 'golden age' of the welfare state, putting a halt to its expansion in post-war prosperity. Faced with low growth rates and rising unemployment, the recipe chosen by many countries was to 'relieve' labour markets. Alongside such measures as early retirement schemes, family policy was a key part of the reform programme and recourse to parental leave

Abstract
Slovenia and Montenegro have a common past; however, they have also experienced diverse developments in the field of social policy over the last three decades. The social policy of the two countries is based on a Yugoslav welfare model, and yet the positions of the two countries were quite rather different even as part of Federal Yugoslavia, with Slovenia being one of the most developed territories within the federation, while Montenegro was one of the least developed. In this article, we will describe the position and main challenges of the transition of the two countries from 1990 in relation to the developments and changes in the core fields of social policy, such as the labour market and social assistance, family policy and old age policy. The emphasis will be on linking the diverse starting points, the process of transition and the direction of developments, within the framework of path dependent changes in the two welfare systems, as well as a discussion of the relevant structural pressures, such as the economic and social situation of the two countries and ways of coping with these pressures that were employed. In the conclusion, the changes within the individual fields of social policy will also be discussed in relation to the prevalent discourses of the neoliberal transformation of modern welfare states, along with the development of social investment perspectives within social policy as a whole.

Starenje stanovništva jedna je od najvećih strukturnih promjena koje trenutno utječu na razvoj svih europskih socijalnih država. Različite države se suočavaju s tim promjenama na različite načine. Kao odgovor na svjetsku gospodarsku krizu, mnoge su države reformirale svoje mirovinske sustave i način na koji odgovaraju na rastuće potrebe za skrbi. Te promjene znatno utječu na stavove ljudi o perspektivi socijalne države i na njihova očekivanja u budućnosti vezano uz buduću raspodjelu odgovornosti u pružanju skrbi za starije osobe. Temelj za analizu su podatci prikupljeni u poredbenom europskom projektu uz metodu korištenje demokratskih foruma. Stavove i očekivanja sudionika – kao i razloge i argumente koje su iznijeli – upotrijebili smo kako bismo rasvijetlili čimbenike koji će vjerojatno oblikovati buduće oblike skrbi za starije osobe i mjere mirovinske politike. Analizirali smo četiri države koje imaju različite socijalne režime – Norvešku, Sloveniju, Njemačku i Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo – i usredotočili se na podjelu odgovornosti između države, tržišta i obitelji, kao i na sličnosti i razlike u prioritetima i proizlazeće argumente iznesene u te četiri države. ; Population ageing is one of the biggest structural changes currently affecting the development of all European welfare states. Countries have tackled these changes in different ways. In reaction to the global economic crisis, many countries have reformed their old-age pension systems and how they address the rising care needs. These changes are bound to influence how citizens view the welfare state's prospects and what they expect from it in the future in relation to policies for the elderly. The paper explores citizens' attitudes and expectations with regard to the future division of responsibilities for the provision of welfare for the elderly. The basis for the analysis is data gathered in a comparative European project adopting coordinated democratic forums as a methodology. We use the participants' views and expectations – as well as the reasons and arguments they presented – to shed light on the factors likely to shape future elderly care and old-age pension policies. We analyse four countries – Norway, Slovenia, Germany and the UK – belonging to four different welfare regimes and focus on the division of responsibilities between the state, the market and the family and the differences and similarities in priorities and subsequent arguments put forward in the four countries.

The focus of this article is on family policy reforms in four European countries – Austria, Finland, Portugal, and Slovenia – between 2008 and 2015. These years were marked by the 'Great Recession', and by the rise of the social-investment perspective. Social investment is an umbrella concept, though, and it is also somewhat ambiguous. This article distinguishes between different social-investment variants, which emerge from a focus on its interaction with alternative social-policy perspectives, namely social protection and austerity. We identify different variants along the degree of social-investment: from comprehensive, over crowding out, towards lean forms. While the empirical analysis highlights variation, it also shows how there is a specific crisis context, which may lead to 'crowding out' of other policy approaches and 'leaner' forms of social investment. This has led to strong cutbacks in family cash benefits, while public childcare and parental leaves have proved more resilient in the investigated countries. Those findings are revelatory in the current Covid-19 pandemic, where countries are entering a next, possibly larger economic crisis. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Ovaj je rad usmjeren na reforme obiteljske politike u četiri europske zemlje – Austriji, Finskoj, Portugalu i Sloveniji – između 2008. i 2015. godine. Te su godine obilježile "velika recesija" i uspon perspektive socijalnog ulaganja. Međutim, socijalno ulaganje je opći pojam i pomalo je dvosmislen. Ovaj rad razlučuje između različitih varijanti socijalnog ulaganja koje proizlaze iz usredotočenosti na interakcije socijalnog ulaganja i alternativnih perspektiva socijalne politike, i to socijalne zaštite i štednje. U radu se identificiraju različite varijante u smislu stupnja socijalnog ulaganja: od sveobuhvatnog, preko istiskivanja do "skromnijih" oblika socijalnog ulaganja. To je dovelo do oštrih rezova u obiteljskim novčanim davanjima, dok su se područja javne skrbi i roditeljskog dopusta pokazala otpornijima u analiziranim zemljama. Ovi su zaključci indikativni u sadašnjoj pandemiji COVID-19, kada se zemlje suočavaju s novom, možda i većom gospodarskom krizom. ; The focus of this article is on family policy reforms in four European countries – Austria, Finland, Portugal, and Slovenia – between 2008 and 2015. These years were marked by the 'Great Recession', and by the rise of the social-investment perspective. Social investment is an umbrella concept, though, and it is also somewhat ambiguous. This article distinguishes between different social-investment variants, which emerge from a focus on its interaction with alternative social-policy perspectives, namely social protection and austerity. We identify different variants along the degree of social-investment: from comprehensive, over crowding out, towards lean forms. While the empirical analysis highlights variation, it also shows how there is a specific crisis context, which may lead to 'crowding out' of other policy approaches and 'leaner' forms of social investment. This has led to strong cutbacks in family cash benefits, while public childcare and parental leaves have proved more resilient in the investigated countries. Those findings are revelatory in the current Covid-19 pandemic, where countries are entering a next, possibly larger economic crisis.

Despite some national examinations of policy responses for young carers (YCs), this study provides a first comprehensive cross-national comparison of the different legislation, policy and service frameworks that exist to protect and support adolescent young carers (AYCs) in six European countries (Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom) and how these are enacted. Until now, research has focused on estimating numbers of AYCs and the impact of caring tasks. A preliminary examination of policy responses to YCs was followed by expert interviews. Case study analysis of 25 interviews and a cross-national synthesis were undertaken before incorporating feedback from former YCs. Different responses to YCs were found, ranging from protection and support in policy and legislation and a definition for YCs, to a total lack of recognition and support. Findings highlight the potential to extend existing legislation, policy and service frameworks to include AYCs, and the importance of recognising and raising awareness of YCs. Awareness should be raised at all levels of society for example with professionals in health, social and education sectors and the general public. A definition for YCs is needed, so AYCs can self-identify and AYCs should be recognised as an important target group for policy makers.