Transcript Folie 1

11th LPR Network Seminar, Tallinn, 18-19 September 2014
Learning from Abroad?
Policy transfer – The cases of Germany and Austria
Dr. Sonja Blum,
Austrian Institute for Family Studies at the University of Vienna
Tel.: (+43) 01 4277 48910
Email: [email protected]
www.oif.ac.at
„Learning from abroad“ –
Analytical framework
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
2
www.oif.ac.at
Recently in Austria…

Symposium “Challenges of a modern, sustainable family policy”

Explicit aim to learn from Denmark on the way of making Austria “most
family-friendly country in Europe”

Jesper Zwisler announced to take idea of
Austrian FamilyApp “home to his minister”
 Zwisler: “We cannot ‘learn’ from each other,
we can only be inspired.”
Sophie Karmasin, Austrian family minister;
Jesper Zwisler, Permanent Secretary from
Denmark
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
3
www.oif.ac.at
On a more general level in European family policies…

Political focus on international comparison (“learning from abroad”)


Politicians, researchers, etc. engaged in spreading “best practices”


e.g. discussion on “efficiency” of family policies
Horizontal
e.g. “Partner months” in parental leave policies
Increased activity of the EU in the soft-law-area (OMC)

E.g. Barcelona childcare targets
Vertical
 What are the conditions for, and how to study such “learning from
abroad”?
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
4
www.oif.ac.at
Theoretical framework: Policy transfers
Policy transfer is a…

„…process in which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements,
institutions and ideas in one political setting (past or present) is used in the
development of“ these elements in another political setting
(Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000)
Theoretical framework focusing on:
 How? – Transfer mechanisms
 Who? – Actors
 What? – Objects
 Which results? – Output degrees
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
5
www.oif.ac.at
Mechanisms and outputs of policy transfers (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000)


Mechanisms

Continuum from “rational” lesson-drawing to coercion

Most of the time: “voluntary”, but with perceived necessity (e.g. due to
problem pressure, social norms, etc.)
Output degrees

Inspiration, i.e. impulse for a policy change

Combination, i.e. combining elements from different policies

Emulation, i.e. transfer of the ideas behind a policy

Copying, i.e. direct, complete transfer of a policy (very rare!)
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
6
www.oif.ac.at
The cases of Germany and Austria
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
7
www.oif.ac.at
Methods: Case selection and period of investigation (Blum 2014, 2012)

Period of investigation: 2000-2010

30 qualitative, semi-structured expert interviews; qualitative content analysis

Case selection: areas of parental leave and public childcare
= 8 reform cases
Parental leave
• Germany: Parental leave
reforms 2001, 2007
• Austria: Childcare benefit
reforms 2002, 2008, 2010
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
Public childcare
• Germany: Childcare
expansion (2005, 2008)
• Austria: Childcare
expansion (2008)
8
www.oif.ac.at
The parental benefit in Germany (2007)
1 January
1986
childcare benefit
•
•
At introduction: 10 months flat-rate benefit (DM 600)
1988: extension to 12 months, then successive
extension to 24 months
2001: Introduction of a second variant
• 24 months standard amount € 300
• 12 months budget amount € 450
(Erziehungsgeld)
•
Parental benefit
12 + 2 months
1 January
2007
ca. 67%
max.€ 1,800
Income replacement
•
•
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
Part-time employment up to 30 hours allowed for
parental benefit recipients; then 67% of the lost
income are paid up to an income ceiling of € 2,700
For formerly non-employed parents, there is a
minimum sum of € 300 (but abolished for social
assistance recipients in 2010)
9
www.oif.ac.at
The parental benefit in Germany (2007)

Role model of the Nordic countries (in particular: Sweden)

High exchange on the ministerial and parliamentary levels in the context of
the parental benefit reform
“We had an international exchange in the sense that, also in the years prior to the
introduction of the parental benefit, we always looked at what regulations exist abroad.
There were also trips of the ministry top level to Scandinavia and so on. (…) It is obvious
that you have to find your own regulation. But what we did, indeed, is to look at some
detailed regulations. For example, what are the eligibility criteria? How long are the
partner months in Sweden?” (Interview 19)
 Steering effect and high output degree (emulation)
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
10
www.oif.ac.at
1 January
2002
1 January
2008
30 + 6 months
ca. € 436
The income-dependent childcare benefit
(KBG) in Austria (2010)
20 + 4 months
ca. € 624
Flat-rate variants
15 + 3 months
ca. € 800
1 January
2010
(Additional earnings limit of € 16,200 annually – or
individualized additional earnings limit of 60% of the
income in the calendar year before birth of the child)
12 + 2 months
ca. € 1.000
12 + 2 months
ca. 80%
max.€ 2.000
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
Income-dependent variant
(Additional earnings limit of € 6,100)
11
www.oif.ac.at
Income-dependent childcare benefit (KBG) in Austria (2010)

“Spontaneous” policy transfer from Germany in the run-up to the elections

High exchange on the ministerial level
“The German family minister von der Leyen was even invited by the ÖVP
(Austrian People’s Party) in the run-up to the 2008 elections. She gave a speech
on the parental benefit, its implementation and effects – and then the ÖVP
jumped on the bandwagon. (Interview 5)
 Steering effect, output degree of ‘combination’
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
12
www.oif.ac.at
Summary: Role of policy transfers in the reform processes
Reform
Effects
Parental leave (2001)
TAG (2005)
Parental benefit
(2007)
KiföG (2008)
KBG (2002)
KBG (2008)
KBG (2010)
15a (2008)
Source
Object(s)
Output degree
Strongly
EU
intensifying
Weakly intensifying EU
steering
Sweden (+ EU)
policy
combination
ideas, policy
ideas, policy
inspiration
emulation
steering
EU
ideas, policy
emulation
none
none
steering
Strongly
intensifying
Germany(+ EU)
EU (+ Germany)
policy
ideas, policy
combination
inspiration
Source: Own table on the basis of the case studies
 Decisive explanatory factor for family policy reforms!
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
13
www.oif.ac.at
Conclusions: What is needed for policy transfers / learning
from abroad?
 Knowledge on and spreading of good practices
In practice, however, actual transfer contingent on much more than this, e.g.:
 Beneficial transfer conditions (e.g. here: similar institutional and cultural
background, geographical closeness, shared language and media)
 Support of national actors and chance to insert/push idea within concrete
policy processes (“windows of opportunity”)
 Adaptation to national situation and respective output degree (e.g.
inspiration, whereas direct copying very unlikely)
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
14
Thank you for your attention!
www.oif.ac.at
References
•
Blum, S. (2014): No need to reinvent the wheel: Family policy transfers in
Germany and Austria. Policy Studies, 35 (4), 357-76.
•
Blum, S. (2012): Familienpolitik als Reformprozess. Deutschland und
Österreich im Vergleich. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
•
Dolowitz, D.P. and Marsh, D. (2000): Learning from Abroad: The Role of
Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making. Governance, 13 (1), 5-24.
LPR Workshop Tallinn | 18-19 September 2014
16