Headline results from the project are as follows.
• Our analysis of welfare expenditure across Europe confirms to some extent the interpretation of a ‘quiet revolution’ in welfare reform, with a stable European welfare system proceeding in a slow but progressive way as characterized by Professor Hemerijck in his influential 2015 paper. However, we find no clear trends towards more Social Investment spending over recent years..
• Our analysis suggests that the public sector can influence social outcomes through appropriate Social Investment, in particular, to enhance labour market outcomes of the young. More generally, there is mixed evidence, depending on the region considered, that fiscal policies, such as public sector consumption and employment can influence social outcomes.
• Our economic analysis indicates clearly that the regional dimension matters in public Social Investment.
• Many reforms that might loosely be termed Social Investment were led entirely led by public sector actors, with limited social economy or private sector engagement. Our case studies illustrated the potential that the social economy brings to designing and delivering Social Investment. However, after the increasing support for the social economy before the crisis, our research suggests a stagnation or even decreasing role for the social economy in the policy fields and countries where we undertook research – this may be as a result of fiscal consolidation.
• Our case studies revealed few and quite limited examples of innovation in funding Social Investment programmes. Examples we identified include the use of outcomes-based commissioning models in the UK; a few examples of innovative ways of securing additional private financing for Social Investment programmes; and the use of cooperatives.
• Reliance on activism, volunteering, and unpaid efforts (e.g. in participation and co-production) is prominent in many case studies. In some cases, non-financial inputs (mainly unpaid work on the part of citizens) are essential to make Social Investment initiatives viable. This is particularly so where social economy partners are able to access local traditions of volunteering.
• Personalised, user-focused services were characteristic across all the case studies. There was a strong sense from providers and users alike that this should replace a one size fits all model that has failed in the past. Different models of personalisation were encountered, ranging from making services more responsive to individual needs to services that were co-created with service users
• Our policy analysis suggests that economic justifications for Social Investment reform appear to weigh more heavily than societal ones. However, our analysis also suggests that the real value of welfare state reforms is not simply economic. It is revealed in the ways in which it changes the lives of people and families – and transforms communities.
