unemployment benefits minimum income family benefits (maternity and paternity leave, ALMP) parenting services long-term care disability service family benefits (maternity and paternity leave) parenting services ALPM disability service education and training family benefits (maternity affordable housing policies health care sick provisions Source: Own elaboration adopted from: DeDeken, 2014. Facilitators and limitations for/of implementation of “Social Investment” approaches Table 2 provides an overview of the facilitators for (and limitations of) social investment approaches. Table 2: Facilitators and limitations for/of implementation of social investments Factors Facilitators Limitations Legal Strategy “Europe 2020”, “Social Investment Package”; the “making work pay” paradigm (Aasen et al., 2015); “Social Investment” is understood in terms of “packages” of interdependent policy initiatives across various areas (Abrahamson, 2010); rights to mothers and fathers as carers and earners – financial support, flexibility, quality childcare, children’s rights to quality care and parental time, right to have democratic control and choice, human rights, civil rights, right to work, right to support and an enabling environment, right to have control over support, right to financial and practical support, right to work and care, right to social inclusion, right to improved health services, right to flexible working over the life course, right to collective organization, right to residency, right to social protection, right to family reunion, right to training, right to contracted/regularised work (eg. Bonoli, 2006; Bouget et al., 2015; Crouch, 2013) the empirical basis for the “making work pay” approach remains weak (Adema et al., 2011); there is an empirical evidence as well as references to the literature, showing that receipt, duration, and generosity of benefits have no clear-cut effect (Bonoli, 2007, 2009, 2012) Political social benefits serve to enable beneficiaries to keep investing in themselves and their families (Crouch, 2015) the dividing line between compensation and prevention is often not clear-cut (Heidenreich and Rice, 2015);
The solutions presented in scientific literature in the field of social investments mainly concern the areas accepted as the key paradigm of social investment, however, one can find examples of analyzes on all the distinguished policy areas. The chosen solutions from each policy area are shown in table 3. Table 3: The chosen examples of social investments in policy areas Policy area Example State References Early childhood education and care childcare services provided by the city for 3-6 years old children Italy Costa and Sabatinelli, 2015 Family benefits reforms in the field of family benefits in the face of economic crisis Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia Van Lancker and Ghysels, 2012 Parenting services new solutions to support an increase in the employment rate of parents (job retention, career progression and smoothing movement into and out of work) the United Kingdom Smith, 2008 Enabling parents, labour market participation through care provision for dependents and parental leave support for single parents to combine family and professional life the United Kingdom Millar, 2011; Millar and Ridge, 2013 Long-term care long-term care reform France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom Pavolini and Ranci, 2008 Maternal/paternal/parental leave schemes implementation of paternity leave Spain Escot et al., 2014 Unemployment benefits changes in unemployment benefits Germany Pollmann-Schult and Buchel 2005 Minimum income French guaranteed income program (RMI) France Terracol, 2009 Active labour market policies personalized activation policies for the long-term unemployed the United Kingdom Fuertes and McQuaid, 2015