Institutional fragmentation and coordination initiatives in western European welfare states

As a result of recent welfare state transformations, and most notably the reorientation of welfare states towards activation, the internal fragmentation of social security systems has emerged as a key policy problem in many western European countries. The types of response that have been adopted, however, vary substantially across countries, ranging from the encouragement of inter-agency collaboration to the outright merger of agencies. The purpose of this exploratory article is twofold. First, by proposing the concept of coordination initiatives, it tries to develop a better conceptualization of the cross-national diversity in responses to the fragmentation problem. Second, starting from existing theories of welfare state development and policy change, it presents first hypotheses accounting for the variation observed in coordination initiatives.

NanoImpactNet - Stakeholders' knowledge needs for research on the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials

NanoImpactNet (NIN) is a multidisciplinary European Commission funded network on the environmental, health and safety (EHS) impact of nanomaterials. The 24 founding scientific institutes are leading European research groups active in the fields of nanosafety, nanorisk assessment and nanotoxicology. This 4−year project is the new focal point for information exchange within the research community. Contact with other stakeholders is vital and their needs are being surveyed. NIN is communicating with 100s of stakeholders: businesses; internet platforms; industry associations; regulators; policy makers; national ministries; international agencies; standard−setting bodies and NGOs concerned by labour rights, EHS or animal welfare. To improve this communication, internet research, a questionnaire distributed via partners and targeted phone calls were used to identify stakeholders' interests and needs. Knowledge gaps and the necessity for further data mentioned by representatives of all stakeholder groups in the targeted phone calls concerned: potential toxic and safety hazards of nanomaterials throughout their lifecycles; fate and persistence of nanoparticles in humans, animals and the environment; risks associated to nanoparticle exposure; participation in the preparation of nomenclature, standards, methodologies, protocols and benchmarks; development of best practice guidelines; voluntary schemes on responsibility; databases of materials, research topics and themes. Findings show that stakeholders and NIN researchers share very similar knowledge needs, and that open communication and free movement of knowledge will benefit both researchers and industry. Consequently NIN will encourage stakeholders to be active members. These survey findings will be used to improve NIN's communication tools to further build on interdisciplinary relationships towards a healthy future with nanotechnology.

NanoImpactNet - building a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials

NanoImpactNet (NIN) is a multidisciplinary European Commission funded network on the environmental, health and safety (EHS) impact of nanomaterials. The 24 founding scientific institutes are leading European research groups active in the fields of nanosafety, nanorisk assessment and nanotoxicology. This 4-year project is the new focal point for information exchange within the research community. Contact with other stakeholders is vital and their needs are being surveyed. NIN is communicating with 100s of stakeholders: businesses; internet platforms; industry associations; regulators; policy makers; national ministries; international agencies; standard-setting bodies and NGOs concerned by labour rights, EHS or animal welfare. To improve this communication, internet research, a questionnaire distributed via partners and targeted phone calls were used to identify stakeholders' interests and needs. Knowledge gaps and the necessity for further data mentioned by representatives of all stakeholder groups in the targeted phone calls concerned: • the potential toxic and safety hazards of nanomaterials throughout their lifecycles; • the fate and persistence of nanoparticles in humans, animals and the environment; • the associated risks of nanoparticle exposure; • greater participation in: the preparation of nomenclature, standards, methodologies, protocols and benchmarks; • the development of best practice guidelines; • voluntary schemes on responsibility; • databases of materials, research topics and themes, but also of expertise. These findings suggested that stakeholders and NIN researchers share very similar knowledge needs, and that open communication and free movement of knowledge will benefit both researchers and industry. Subsequently a workshop was organised by NIN focused on building a sustainable multi-stakeholder dialogue. Specific questions were asked to different stakeholder groups to encourage discussions and open communication. 1. What information do stakeholders need from researchers and why? The discussions about this question confirmed the needs identified in the targeted phone calls. 2. How to communicate information? While it was agreed that reporting should be enhanced, commercial confidentiality and economic competition were identified as major obstacles. It was recognised that expertise was needed in the areas of commercial law and economics for a wellinformed treatment of this communication issue. 3. Can engineered nanomaterials be used safely? The idea that nanomaterials are probably safe because some of them have been produced 'for a long time', was questioned, since many materials in common use have been proved to be unsafe. The question of safety is also about whether the public has confidence. New legislation like REACH could help with this issue. Hazards do not materialise if exposure can be avoided or at least significantly reduced. Thus, there is a need for information on what can be regarded as acceptable levels of exposure. Finally, it was noted that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe material but only boundaries. At this moment we do not know where these boundaries lie. The matter of labelling of products containing nanomaterials was raised, as in the public mind safety and labelling are connected. This may need to be addressed since the issue of nanomaterials in food, drink and food packaging may be the first safety issue to attract public and media attention, and this may have an impact on 'nanotechnology as a whole. 4. Do we need more or other regulation? Any decision making process should accommodate the changing level of uncertainty. To address the uncertainties, adaptations of frameworks such as REACH may be indicated for nanomaterials. Regulation is often needed even if voluntary measures are welcome because it mitigates the effects of competition between industries. Data cannot be collected on voluntary bases for example. NIN will continue with an active stakeholder dialogue to further build on interdisciplinary relationships towards a healthy future with nanotechnology.

10

Research on individual social policy preferences has highlighted a number of socio-structural cleavages as determinants. Studies investigating public opinion on the various redistributive schemes that make up today's welfare states have shown the relevance of class-related factors such as income or education as key explanatory variables (Ferrera 1993; Taylor-Gooby 1995, 1998; and Svallfors 1997). More recent studies, however, have suggested that other factors are also likely to play a role. Among these, the most important are age, gender, and individual values (Armingeon 2006; Deitch 2004; and Roller 2000, 2002). The scenario that emerges from the existing literature is one of multiple intersecting cleavages, but it remains unclear as to what today is the relative weight and specific impact of each of these cleavages.

Federalism and Welfare to Work in Switzerland: The Development of Active Social Policies in a Fragmented Welfare State

This article is concerned with the impact that federal structures have on the development of welfare to work or activation policies. More precisely, it argues that the incentives and the risks associated with a division of responsibilities among different jurisdictions may constitute an obstacle to broad reforms that promote labor market participation of nonworking benefit recipients. This argument is illustrated with a case study discussing policy responses to a massive rise in caseloads among social assistance recipients in Switzerland. We conclude that the lack of a fundamental reform was the consequence of the incentives provided by the federal structure of the program. These incentives have both encouraged cost shifting among jurisdictions and discouraged involvement of federal level policy makers in a bigger reform.