The morphogenesis of disability policies and the personalisation of social services. A case study from Italy.

References

• ANED. (2009). ANED Country report on the implementation of policies supporting independent living for disabled people. Italy. Retrieved from www.disability-europe.net
   Google Scholar
• ANED. (2016). ANED country report on social protection and article 28. Italy. Retrieved from www.disability-europe.net
   Google Scholar
• Annesley C. (2007). Lisbon and social Europe: Towards a European “adult worker model” welfare system. Journal of European Social Policy, 17(4), 195–205. doi: 10.1177/0958928707078363
   Google Scholar
• Archer M. (1995). Realist social theory. The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arlotti, M. (2015). The role of regions and municipalities in the Italian multilevel governance of eldercare: recent trends in a context of increasing needs and budgetary constraints. Paper presented at ESPAnet Spain 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Beresford, P. (2014). Personalisation. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Böheim, R., & Leoni, T. (2016). Disability policies: Reform strategies in a comparative perspective. Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Carr, S. (2014). Personalisation, participation and policy construction: A critique of influences and understandings. In P. Beresford (Ed.), Personalisation. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Castel, R. (1995). Les metamorphoses de la question sociale : une chronique du salariat. Paris: Fayard.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, K. (2012). Towards a mixed economy of long-term care in Norway?. Critical Social Policy, 32(4), 577–596. doi: 10.1177/0261018311435028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, K., & Pilling, D. (2014). Policies of personalisation in Norway and England: On the impact of political context. Journal of Social Policy, 43(3), 479–496. doi: 10.1017/S0047279414000257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crosby, N., & Duffy, S. (2008). A whole life approach to personalisation. London, In Control.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy, S. (2005). Individual budgets: Transforming the allocation of resources for care. Journal of Integrated Care, 13(1), 8–16.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy, S. (2008). Smart commissioning. Retrieved from www.in-control.org.uk
   Google Scholar
• Duffy, S. (2010). The future of personalisation. Sheffield: The Centre for Social Reform.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrenberg, A. (2009). The weariness of the self. Montreal & Kingston: Diagnosing the History of Depression in the Contemporary Age, Mc-Gill-Queen’s University Press.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2013). Towards social investment for growth and cohesion – Including implementing the European Social Fund 2014-2020, COM(2013) 83 final, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, I. (2007). Increasing user choice or privatizing risk? The antinomies of personalization. British Journal of Social Work, 37(3), 387–403. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcm016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, I. (2012). Personalisation, social justice and social work: A reply to Simon Duffy. Journal of Social Work Practice, 26(1), 55–73. doi: 10.1080/02650533.2011.623771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrera, M. (1996). The southern model of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6, 17–37. doi: 10.1177/095892879600600102
   Google Scholar
• Finnish National Board of Education. (2010). Special education support. Retrtieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/education/special_educatioal_support
   Google Scholar
• Forder, J., Jones, K, Glendinning, C., Caiels, J., Welch, E., Baxter, K.,  … Dolan, P. (2012). Evaluation of the personal health budget pilot programme. Canterbury: PSSRU University of Kent.
   Google Scholar
• Glasby, J., Duffy, S., & Needham, C. (2011). Debate: A Beveridge report for the 21st century? The implications of self-directed support for future welfare reform. Policy and Politics, 39(4), 613–621. doi: 10.1332/147084411X581853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasby, J., & Littlechild, R. (2009). Direct payments and personal budgets. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (Eds.) (1998). Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hedström, P., & Ylikoski, P. (2010). Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 49–67. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemerijck, A. (2012). Changing welfare states. Oxford: Oxford U.P.
   Google Scholar
• Hemerijck, A. (ed.) (2017). The uses of social investment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• HM Government. (2007). Putting people first: A shared vision and commitment to the transformation of adult social care. Retrieved from webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk
   Google Scholar
• ISTAT. (2009). La disabilità in Italia. Il quadro della statistica ufficiale. Retrieved from www.istat.it
   Google Scholar
• ISTAT. (2015a). Social inclusion of people with functional limitations, impairments or severe chronic diseases. Retrieved from www.istat.it
   Google Scholar
• ISTAT. (2015b). Residential care facilities. Retrieved from www.istat.it
   Google Scholar
• Kazepov, Y. (Ed.) (2010). Rescaling social policies: Towards multilevel governance in Europe. Surrey: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. (2013). Il rischio dell’assicurazione contro i pericoli. Roma: Armando.
   Google Scholar
• Mladenov, T., Owens, J., & Cribb, A. (2015). Personalisation in disability services and healthcare: A critical comparative analysis. Critical Social Policy, 35(3), 307–326. doi: 10.1177/0261018315587071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Needham, C. (2011). Personalising public services. Understanding the personalisation narrative. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Needham, C., & Dickinson, H. (2017). “Any one of us could be among that number”: Comparing the policy narratives for individualized disability funding in Australia and England. Social Policy & Administration. doi: 10.1111/spol.12320
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Needham, C., & Glasby, J. (Eds.). (2014). Debates in personalisation. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Co-production, synergy and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087. doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T., e Verscheure, B. (Eds.). (2012). New public governance, Co-production and third sector services. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Power, A. (2014). Personalisation and austerity in the crosshairs: Government perspectives on the remaking of adult social care. Journal of Social Policy, 43(4), 829–846. doi: 10.1017/S0047279414000373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeve, J., & Cooper, L. (2016). Rethinking how we understand individual healthcare needs for people living with long-term conditions: A qualitative study. Health and Social Care in the Community, 24(1), 27–38. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosanvallon, P. (2000). The new social question. Rethinking the welfare. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sabel, C. (2012). Individualised service provision and the new welfare state: Are there lessons from Northern Europe for developing countries? In L. de Mello & M. A. Dutz (Eds.), Promoting inclusive growth, challenges and policies. OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sabel, C. (2013). Esperimenti di nuova democrazia tra globalizzazione e localizzazione. Roma: Armando.
   Google Scholar
• Sabel, C., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sabel, C., Zeitlin, J., & Quack, S. (2017). Capacitating services and the bottom-Up approach to social investment. In A. Hemerijck (Ed.), The uses of social investment (pp. 140–149). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Government. (2010). Self-directed support: A national strategy for Scotland: Consultation. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
   Google Scholar
• Series, L. (2014). Resource allocation system: Complex and counterproductive? In C. Needham & J. Glasby (Eds.), Debates in personalisation (pp. 37–43). Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Series, L., & Clemence, L. (2013). Putting the cart before the horse: Resource allocation systems and community care. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 35(2), 207–226. doi: 10.1080/09649069.2013.800288
   Google Scholar
• Siza, R. (2012). I fragile equilibri. Rapporto sulle politiche sociali in Sardegna. Cagliari: CUEC.
   Google Scholar
• Slasberg, C., & Beresford, P. (2015). Building on the original strengths of direct payments to create a better future for social care. Disability and Society, 30(3), 479–483. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2015.1007672
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slasberg, C., Beresford, P., & Schofield, P. (2012). How self directed support is failing to deliver personal budgets and personalisation. Research, 29(3), 161–177.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). New risks, new welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Valkenburg, B. (2007). Individualising activation services: Thrashing out an ambiguous concept. In R. van Berkel & B. Valkenburg (Eds.), Making it personal. Individualising activation services in the EU (pp. 25–43). Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Berkel, R., & Valkenburg, B. (2007). Making it personal. Individualising activation services in the EU. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ylikoski, P. (2016). Thinking with the Coleman Boat. The Institute for Analytical Sociology Working Paper Series, 1.
   Google Scholar