Do standard classifications still represent European welfare typologies? Novel evidence from studies on health and social care.

Due to the profound changes that have characterised welfare systems, the representativeness of standard welfare classifications such as Esping-Andersen's Three Worlds of Welfare (TWW) have been questioned. In response to concerns that welfare services do not share a common rationale across policy areas, new typologies focused on sub-areas of welfare provision have been introduced. Still, there is little evidence on whether such policy-specific typologies are (i) consistent with the standard TWW classifications; and (ii) consistent across policy areas. We reviewed 22 recent studies which identified welfare typologies in 12 European countries focusing on economically relevant areas such as healthcare and social care. We build novel indices of "welfare similarity" to measure the extent to which welfare systems have been grouped together in previous studies. Our findings are twofold: first, healthcare and social care policies are characterised by the coexistence and overlap of multiple regimes, i.e., a hybridisation of the original TWW taxonomy. Second, countries classifications are substantially different between healthcare and social care, which highlights the lack of coherence in welfare systems rationales across policy areas. Our findings suggest that comparative analyses of welfare systems should narrow their focus on policy-specific areas, which may prove more informative than general classifications of welfare states.

Professional identity in community care: The case of specialist physicians in outpatient services in Italy.

Due to changes in social and health needs, the reorganisation of health systems towards community and primary care requires the redefinition of different professional identities and practices. This paper focuses on the specialists in the system: the physicians who work in outpatient services (local health authorities, hospitals, and other institutions) not as dependents but under private contract. This doctor has to balance the professional culture (in terms of autonomy and indipendence of judgment) with the bureaucratic logic that rules the organisations for which he or she works. Our research objective was to identify the identity variables characterising the specialist doctor ("ideal profile") and analyse the extent to which these differed from the doctor's actual identity ("actual profile"). From a methodological perspective, 1) we used a consensus method approach to identify the variables that define the specialist's identity, and 2) using a national web survey, we checked the distance between such characteristics and these professionals' actual identities. Involving different experts in the field of primary care, we identified 27 identity variables that appear to be at the core of specialist expertise. We then asked a representative sample of specialists to indicate how important and feasible these variables were in their work contexts and identified four main factors characterising their identities. The results demonstrate that, among experts, there is a clear perception of the need to build an identity that is linked to integration and to adopt a heuristic approach through teamwork and networking. However, this differs considerably from the logic of the specialists working in outpatient services: What emerges is the perceived difficulty of operational translation due to organisational problems or, otherwise, the constitutive elements of professional identity.