Almost 2/3 of citizens believe that in the coming years there will be a reduction in the coverage currently in place by public welfare. Less than 1/3, on the other hand, considers that the present situation could continue. In a context of decreasing public coverage, the services deemed most important to safeguard are interventions linked to unemployment (33% of respondents), followed by those relating to health (22%). In the event of a decrease in income due to contingent causes, 29% would rely on public welfare while only one Italian out of ten would use a form of private welfare such as insurance. Finally, the Italians - aware of the changes that will take place in the system - indicate a very large favor for a welfare system that is organized around a mixed option of public and private.
They are the main data that emerge from one research conducted by SWG on the future of welfare in Italy in terms of health, unemployment interventions, services and pensions commissioned by the Genworth insurance group, specializing in the protection of living standards. The research was discussed during the meeting organized by Genworth on July 4 with the institutions, which focused on the importance of collaboration between the latter and the financial and insurance world, for the construction of a new welfare. The meeting, moderated by the Secretary General of Assofin Umberto Filotto, was attended by the President of the Forum ANIA-Consumatori Foundation Silvano Andriani, the Central Director of ABI Gianfranco Torriero and Giovanni Calabrò, Director of the DG for Consumer Protection at the AGCM .
“Italians confirm that they are aware of the need for a new welfare, based on greater collaboration between the public and private sectors” – said Valeria Picconi, General Manager of Genworth for Italy. “In this context there is a demand for a role for the private sector – including insurance – in complementing the support provided by welfare. But a clear "protection gap" also emerges given that only 9% of Italians have insurance to support them in critical moments. There is therefore an opportunity to help Italians increase their protection and to allow the banking and insurance world to make a contribution to the new welfare state. This would be easier if Italians were encouraged to take greater personal responsibility for their financial future, for example through the introduction of an incentive system, which includes possible stimuli of a fiscal nature as well”. “The need for welfare reorganization interventions, the economic crisis and social emergencies intertwine and allow a glimpse of the awareness of a large part of citizens that these issues must also be addressed with new solutions”, commented Maurizio Pessato, Vice President of SWG. “From this survey we have gathered a broad willingness to verify new ways of managing social security”.
As regards the intensity of the reduction of benefits and services, according to the interviewees, this will have a differentiated intensity. It can be estimated that, overall, the perception of public opinion is of a reduction of at least 1/4 on average of the current system. A broad base of public services and interventions, therefore, according to the citizens, will remain but there is the awareness that it will be necessary to integrate the current disbursements in a non-marginal way.
Almost half of citizens think that the reduction will not be drastic, reaching around 30%. This is mainly thought by people with a high level of education and in the 18-24 and 45-54 age groups. A third believes that the decrease will be in the order of between 30 and 50%, in particular people with middle school education and the young segments of the population (18-24 and 35-44). On the other hand, it is the forty-year-olds and citizens between 55 and 64 who think of a decrease of between 50 and 70%, while only 6% foresee an almost zero welfare.
In a context of a decrease in public coverage, a clear hierarchy emerges of the areas covered by the services and services that are considered more important to safeguard in order to live more peacefully and in safety. In first place (33% of the interviewees) emerges the theme of interventions linked to the loss of a job - layoffs. Option clearly linked to the long crisis and the underlying fear of joblessness. This is followed by the issue of health (22%) which involves all citizens to different extents and forms. The theme of education (16%) is also placed with a certain emphasis, the key to personal growth.
From these choices of priorities therefore emerge what are the crucial points for a future reorganization of the system. By further analyzing the aspects that influence the issue of security, the reaction to the reduction in income was verified for contingent reasons: almost 1/3 would turn to public welfare support, 1/4 could count on their savings, 1/5 would refer to the network of relationships, 1/10 would use their insurance, i.e. a form of private welfare. In the savings survey carried out in December by SWG for Genworth, it was estimated that 49% of households use savings to supplement reduced income due to the crisis. The current survey shows that a part of these families would further resort to savings while others could resort to external interventions such as welfare and insurance. It is confirmed that today, therefore, public welfare, and to a lesser extent private welfare, is an essential element of family stability. And that without this reality it would be difficult to cope with any emergency.
As anticipated, public opinion finally reacts to what it believes is taking shape and proposes lines of conduct: almost 2/3 would remain in a welfare system with public coverage, also with the consequence of an increase in taxation, around 1/4 would accept the option of a private system, 3/4 of citizens would be in favor of a mixed public-private system. Thus, two symmetrical aspects emerge. Faced with a clear choice, the majority tends to rely on tradition, while a minority part asks for a new type of management. Citizens, however, have signaled that changes will take place in the system and, thus, indicate a very large favor for a welfare system that is organized around a mixed public and private option.
