Italy and Germany have developed welfare systems, but with different characteristics and performance. In this article, we analyze the effectiveness of social services in the two countries, drawing on academic studies and comparative data . We will examine the main areas of intervention—care for minors, the elderly, and people with disabilities, income support, poverty alleviation, and social inclusion—evaluating indicators such as efficiency, accessibility, user coverage, quality of interventions, results achieved, as well as levels of public spending and social investment. Significant structural, cultural, and organizational differences between the Italian and German models will emerge.
Welfare models compared: spending and general approach
Traditionally, Germany embodies the conservative-corporatist welfare model , based on work-related public social insurance and the principle of subsidiarity, while Italy is often classified as a Mediterranean welfare state, characterized by fragmented patterns and a strong role for the family. Indeed, in continental systems influenced by the Catholic tradition (such as the German one), the state has historically supported families in providing care: for example, family policies favored motherhood, and services such as daycare were initially underdeveloped, with the public sector only stepping in when family care capacity was exhausted.
Italy shares some of these traits, but to a greater extent: its welfare system is highly segmented by category, with strong protections for insider workers (e.g., generous pensions) and gaps for outsiders, and is affected by lower social cohesion and institutional trust. According to political scientist Maurizio Ferrera, this Italian situation is attributable to a history of strong political and ideological polarization, low civic sense, and institutions that are weak in enforcing uniform rights.
Difference in spending on social services
In terms of social spending, the gap is marked. Italy has always invested a lower share of GDP than Germany and other EU partners. As early as 2006, total Italian social spending amounted to 26,4% of GDP, compared to over 31% in Germany. This gap persists: Italy devotes the majority of its spending to the pension system, while allocating much smaller resources to local social services. Specifically, Italian municipal budgets for social services (assistance to minors, the disabled, and the elderly) amount to just 0,7% of GDP, compared to a European average of 2,5% and approximately 2,8% in Germany.
This means that Germany invests almost four times as much, proportionately, in personal services. This higher German spending translates into a broader and more structured offering of social interventions, as we will see in the individual areas, while in Italy public services are more limited and often entrusted to local initiatives or the non-profit sector.
Child welfare and family policies
In the area of child and family policies, Germany has more extensive interventions and better results across several indicators than Italy. Child poverty offers a first comparison: in 2015, over 33% of children (0-16 years old) in Italy were at risk of relative poverty, compared to just 18,6% in Germany (a similar figure in France at 20,4%). This reflects the fact that the Italian system has long neglected universal measures to support family income. Italy only introduced a single universal child benefit in 2022; previously, support was fragmented (baby bonuses, tax deductions, temporary allowances) and had limited effectiveness.
In Germany, however, a relatively generous and continuous child benefit (Kindergeld) has existed for decades, as well as tax deductions and parenting support services, which has helped mitigate child poverty.
Early childhood services
Another crucial indicator is the availability of early childhood services , such as nurseries and preschools, which impact equal opportunities and work-life balance. In this regard, Italy is historically lagging behind: nursery school places cover only about 24-25% of children under 3, well below the European target of 33%. Germany, although also starting from low levels in the early 2000s, has invested heavily over the last twenty years in expanding early childhood education services (especially after the 2013 reform that guaranteed the right to nursery school for children aged one and up). As a result, Germany today achieves approximately 30% coverage for the 0-2 age group, spending in this sector more than double that of Italy in relation to GDP.
This difference in investment is also reflected in the female employment rate: in Italy, many mothers of young children struggle to stay in the labor market—a case in point are the 25 parents (almost all women) who left work in just one year due to the inability to reconcile childcare with family life. In Germany, thanks to greater access to childcare and more robust paid parental leave, female labor force participation is higher.
Child protection systems
In addition to educational services, systems for protecting children in need must be considered. Both countries have facilities for foster care, adoption, and foster care for children outside of their families. Germany boasts a more extensive network of social services dedicated to children (the Jugendamt , municipal youth offices, provide interventions ranging from educational support for vulnerable families to the protection of abused children). In Italy, child welfare interventions are often left to the initiative of individual municipalities and the third sector, with very heterogeneous levels of quality across the country.
For example, in some southern regions, the lack of social workers and reception facilities means that abused or abandoned minors receive less protection than in the north. Overall, therefore, the accessibility and quality of childcare services are generally higher in Germany, thanks to greater investment and more uniform standards, while in Italy there are local excellences but also grey areas where public childcare is insufficient.
Elderly Care and Long-Term Care
Demographic aging is a key challenge for both countries , but the responses of long-term care (LTC) systems—that is, the set of services and benefits for dependent older adults—differ significantly. Germany was a pioneer in Europe in implementing a comprehensive LTC system: as early as 1994, it introduced mandatory long-term care insurance ( Pflegeversicherung ), financed by social contributions, which guarantees those in need a mix of cash benefits and services.
This scheme has created a consolidated network of home and residential care for the elderly in Germany: recipients can choose between a cash benefit (often used to compensate a family member or private caregiver) or services provided by accredited providers (professional caregivers, retirement homes, day centers). Already in the 1990s, Germany—along with other continental countries such as France and Austria—secured the provision of long-term care by allocating dedicated resources and involving both the public and non-profit sectors in the provision.
Elderly care in Italy
Italy, by contrast, has long lacked a structured national LTC system. Italy's non-self-sufficient elderly depend largely on their families and the private caregiver market. The main public measure is the carer's allowance, a cash transfer (approximately €525 per month) provided by the state to those over 65 and those with severe disabilities, regardless of income, designed to contribute to care costs.
This benefit, introduced in the 80s, now covers over 2 million people and has become a cornerstone of the Italian model. It boasts the advantage of universality (it is provided to anyone with a certified serious disability), but it is not tied to the purchase of services and often fails to meet actual care needs. Indeed, with these funds, families in Italy tend to hire their own caregivers (often foreign workers) or act as informal caregivers. Public services, however, are sparse: integrated home care provided by local health authorities (ASL) and municipalities reaches a small portion of the elderly (in some regions, only 2-3%), places in residential nursing homes (RSA) are limited and vary greatly regionally, and—at least until now—there is no national framework for essential levels of care for those with disabilities.
Some comparative data on social services
These differences in approach are reflected in spending and coverage data. Italy and Germany apparently spend a similar share of GDP on long-term care, approximately 1,7% in both cases , but the composition of spending differs: in Italy, over two-thirds is cash transfers (attendance allowances and disability pensions), while Germany invests a significant portion in services provided. In other words, Germany uses long-term care funds to finance social and health workers, formal care facilities and programs, as well as family allowances, thus ensuring a structured care offering; Italy, on the other hand, distributes almost exclusively cash to families, leaving them with the burden of organizing care.
It's therefore not surprising that in Italy, the unmet demand for formal care is extremely high, while in Germany, there is a better balance between supply and demand. Comparative studies classify Italy (and other Southern European countries) as cases of "high demand, low supply" in the care system: many elderly people need help, but available public services are scarce, forcing them to turn to family or the market . Germany, on the other hand, falls into the group of continental countries with medium-high demand and medium-high supply, i.e., a more balanced care system that manages to cover a significant portion of needs thanks to public and insurance interventions.
German efficiency in social services
In terms of effects and outcomes, the German LTC model ensures greater equity in access : a non-self-sufficient elderly person has the right to support (in services or money) that is relatively uniform throughout Germany. In Italy, by contrast, assistance depends largely on the fortune of having a family able to care for the elderly person or on the personal resources to pay for private assistance. Those who are alone or poor are at greater risk of being left without assistance, although municipal social services or solidarity networks intervene (where available).
Italy has only recently taken steps to reform this sector: the PNRR includes the establishment of a National System for Non-Self-Sufficiency, and in 2023, Parliament debated an enabling law for LTC. However, the gap with Germany remains significant: Germany can count on 25 years of experience in LTC insurance and a consolidated ecosystem of non-profit organizations and social and healthcare facilities dedicated to the elderly, while Italy has yet to build much of the organizational capacity needed to effectively care for its growing elderly population.
Social services for people with disabilities
In terms of disability, Italy and Germany have approaches that reflect their respective welfare philosophies: Italy favors "widespread" social inclusion, integrating people with disabilities into mainstream settings (school, work, community) as much as possible, but often through informal or family-based means; Germany has a tradition of more structured specialized services, with a significant role played by dedicated organizations and insurance-based coordination.
A key area is the inclusion of students with disabilities in schools . Italy is recognized as one of the most advanced countries in inclusive education: since the 70s, it has abolished special classes, placing almost all students with disabilities in mainstream public school classes, supported by special education teachers. Today, 97% of students with disabilities in Italy are included in mainstream classes (meaning they spend at least 80% of their time with their peers without disabilities), the highest inclusion rate in Europe. Germany, despite having made progress in recent years, remains far behind on this front: only 52% of German students with disabilities attend mainstream schools full-time, while the rest continue to be enrolled in special schools or attend part of their time in special classes.
This gap indicates a significant cultural difference: the Italian model focuses on total integration, considering it a civil right (so much so that Italy was recognized by the UN in 2016 as a leading country in school inclusion), while in Germany inclusion is more gradual and modular, delegated to the individual Länder (some Länder have almost eliminated special schools, others maintain them for certain disabilities).
Entering the workplace
Different approaches are also evident in the field of employment for people with disabilities. Both countries adopt mandatory quota systems for companies (for example, in Italy, companies with more than 15 employees must hire a certain percentage of disabled workers; similarly, in Germany, there are quotas with compensatory contributions for those who do not meet them). In Germany, however, there is a vast network of sheltered workshops (Werkstätten) that employs hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities who cannot find a place in the traditional labor market.
This provides employment and day activities to many disabled people, but has also been criticized for confining them to environments separate from other workers. Italy has fewer similar institutions (there are type B social cooperatives that employ disadvantaged workers, and socio-occupational day centers run by the third sector, but on a smaller scale), focusing more on directly integrating disabled people into mainstream settings. Employment outcomes, however, are not entirely satisfactory in either country. According to a report by the European Disability Forum, just over half of working-age people with disabilities are employed in both Italy and Germany, compared to the overall employment average that is much higher in Germany than in Italy.
This means that the employment gap between people with disabilities and the rest of the population is significantly larger in Germany (over 30 percentage points) than in Italy (about 15 points)—a figure largely due, however, to the fact that Germany has very low overall unemployment. In absolute terms, people with disabilities have difficulty finding employment in both contexts.
Differences in rehabilitation services
Coverage of social, health, and rehabilitation services for people with disabilities also varies. Germany offers a broader range of services, often funded by the health system or long-term care insurance. For example, rehabilitation therapies, specialized home care, technological aids, and independent living support are provided by insurance schemes or local authorities with relatively uniform standards. In Italy, many of these services are left to families or volunteers: home care for severely disabled people is limited (unless they are covered by integrated home health care), day centers and residential communities for people with disabilities are insufficient and concentrated in the wealthier regions, and access to tools for independence (such as grants to remove architectural barriers, assistive technologies, etc.) varies greatly from place to place.
Italian legislation has made significant strides in terms of rights—for example, with the "Dopo di noi" law (2016) to promote independent living plans for disabled people after the death of their parents—but the practical implementation of these principles depends on local resources. In Germany, thanks to greater decentralized administrative capacity and dedicated funding, the implementation of programs for assisted living, accessible transportation, caregiver support, and other inclusion interventions is more systematic.
Differences in social services… in short
In summary, the quality of interventions for people with disabilities shows Italy excelling in school inclusion and providing broad formal protections (disability pensions, benefits, and the right to educational support), but with poor local services and a predominant reliance on family. Germany may provide less widespread inclusion in some areas (school, regular employment), but offers a better infrastructure of dedicated services and professional support for people with disabilities, although it too needs to improve integration into the open labor market. Both countries are committed to implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but they start from different traditions: Italy is more oriented towards "informal" community welfare, while Germany is more oriented towards "formalized" insurance-based welfare.
Income support and fight against unemployment
Unemployment income support and social safety net policies reveal a significant gap between Italy and Germany, both in terms of structure and effectiveness. Starting in the early 2000s, Germany implemented a radical reform of its system (the Hartz reforms under the Schröder government) to increase efficiency and employment activation. Specifically, in 2005, the Arbeitslosengeld II, known as Hartz IV , was introduced, consolidating general social assistance and benefits for the long-term unemployed into a single national minimum income measure.
Hartz IV (replaced in 2023 by the new Bürgergeld ) guarantees every citizen living in Germany without means a monthly allowance for subsistence (around €500 for singles in 2023) plus supplements for housing and other necessities, but is conditional on the active search for work and participation in training or socially beneficial programs. At the same time, there is an unemployment insurance benefit (Arbeitslosengeld I) for those who have worked and paid contributions, with a limited duration (12 months, extendable to 24 for older people).
This dual pillar ensures universal unemployment coverage in Germany: once the contributory benefit expires, an unemployed person can rely on Hartz IV/Bürgergeld benefits indefinitely, provided they continue to comply with the rules (service agreements with Job Centers , acceptance of suitable offers, etc.). The German approach is therefore that of an "active state," which on the one hand guarantees a minimum income and on the other encourages the recipient toward (re)inclusion in the workplace through active obligations and policies.
Income support in Italy
Italy, on the other hand, long had an incomplete and categorical safety net system. Until the 2010s, there was no universal minimum income measure: protection relied almost exclusively on insurance-based unemployment benefits (NASpI and, before that, ASPI, reserved for employed workers with sufficient contributions) and tools such as wage supplementation for workers in ailing companies. This left large segments of the population exposed: precarious workers, the long-term unemployed without qualifications, and the inactive and poor.
Only in 2018 was the first national minimum subsistence scheme, the Inclusion Income (ReI) , introduced , and in 2019 it was replaced and strengthened by the Citizenship Income (RdC). The RdC represented a turning point in Italian policies: for the first time, the State provided a monthly transfer—approximately €500 on average, plus any rent contributions—to all families below a certain income/wealth threshold, conditional on the availability of eligible members to work. Between 2019 and 2022, the RdC reached approximately 1,2 million poor households, partially reducing absolute poverty rates.
However, its effectiveness and operational management proved problematic compared to the German model : Italian employment centers were ill-equipped to manage active policies on such a large scale, and beneficiary activation was weak (less than a quarter of recipients received a job offer within a year, and checks on actual availability were lacking). The Italian government therefore initiated a review of the RdC in 2023, restricting its duration for people considered employable and introducing a new scheme (called "Guarantee for Inclusion") more focused on households with minors or disabilities, leaving the others to short-term training courses and occasional jobs. This ongoing reshuffling highlights the difficulties Italy faces in building a stable active minimum income system.
Quantitative results in Germany
In quantitative terms, Germany has achieved a clear success in reducing unemployment : from over 11% in the early 2000s, the German unemployment rate fell to around 4,3% in 2019 (before the pandemic), one of the lowest levels in Europe, while Italy still had a rate of 11,4% in the same year . This difference (three times higher unemployment in Italy) is due to multiple economic factors, but it also indicates that German social safety nets and active policies have acted as a catalyst for the reemployment of workers, while in Italy the social safety net has been less effective in reintegrating those who lose their jobs.
It should be noted that the German model, while effective in reducing unemployment, has also led to social challenges: Hartz IV has been accused of encouraging the growth of precarious, low-wage jobs (so-called mini-jobs ), and a heated debate has developed in Germany over excessively severe sanctions for the unemployed and the perceived underperformance of subsidies. This led to the 2023 reform of Bürgergeld (the German Civil Service Act), with a slight increase in the amount and a less punitive approach. In Italy, however, the challenge remains the opposite: expanding coverage (even today, many unemployed people, especially young people, do not receive either NASpI or RdC) and improving administrative capacity to provide guidance, training, and employment opportunities to those receiving public benefits.
Another distinctive element is the presence of a residual safety net for those experiencing economic hardship beyond unemployment . In Germany, the Sozialhilfe , a municipal social assistance program for indigent citizens with no other income, existed since the 60s , later incorporated into Hartz IV. This ensured that no one was left without means of subsistence, codifying a right to a minimum subsistence level. In Italy, however, historically, those who did not fall into protected categories could at most turn to Caritas, municipal social services, or unrelated regional subsidies (such as the "dignity income" in Puglia or other local projects). The lack of a national minimum income until 2019 made the fight against poverty much less effective, as we will see in the next section.
Fighting poverty and promoting social inclusion in social services
Measures to combat poverty and promote the social inclusion of marginalized groups are perhaps the area where the gap in effectiveness between the two countries is most evident. One summary indicator is the redistributive capacity of the welfare system: according to Eurostat, the impact of social transfers (excluding pensions) in reducing the relative poverty rate in Italy is about half that recorded in Germany, France, or the United Kingdom.
In percentage terms, this means that after public intervention, the share of the population at risk of poverty in Italy is reduced by just over 20%, while in Germany the reduction is in the order of 40-50%. This difference is enormous and reflects the extent to which German social policies are able to impact the conditions of the most vulnerable, while Italian ones, fragmented and less funded, leave large pockets of poverty unameliorated.
Absolute poverty in Italy
Absolute poverty in Italy has reached record levels in recent years (over 7-8% of families), due to the long economic crisis and only partial policy responses. The Citizen's Income introduced in 2019 helped contain a further deterioration during the pandemic, but it did not resolve the structural problem of poverty, especially in Southern Italy. In Germany, relative poverty is lower (the At -risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate is around 20% compared to 25% in Italy) and extreme poverty is less widespread, thanks in part to the historical presence of a mix of tools: unemployment benefits, Social Help/Bürgergeld, family allowances, housing supplements, and the active role of municipalities and large charities in supporting those on the margins.
Italian services are less efficient in reaching those in need: consider that, as mentioned above, municipal spending on social services is one-third of the EU average. This translates into fewer social workers in the field, fewer active inclusion projects, and less personalized support. For example, programs such as social housing for the homeless, support for people with addictions, and job grants for vulnerable individuals exist in Italy, but on a small scale and with significant local variations, while in Germany they are often integrated into local policies with dedicated state or federal funds.
Social inclusion in social services
An important aspect of social inclusion is the integration of migrants and refugees, groups that constitute a significant portion of disadvantaged populations in both countries. Here too, we find similarities of intent but differences in models. Both Italy and Germany have a multilevel reception system: asylum procedures are managed nationally (or federally), while reception and integration at the local level primarily involve local authorities and private social services. In Germany, refugees are distributed proportionally among the various Länder and then among the municipalities, according to the Königsteiner Schlüssel principle , and benefit from standardized programs such as state-funded linguistic and civic integration courses (Integrationskurse).
However, since it is federal Germany, there are significant regional differences in implementation: for example, in Stuttgart, asylum seekers could already attend 200 hours of German lessons even before obtaining status, while elsewhere the training offered is less. In Italy, however, the SPRAR/SAI system (Protection System for Asylum Seekers and Refugees) provides uniform standards throughout the country, with state funding: each local second-level reception project has the same service requirements (Italian language courses, career guidance, healthcare, cultural mediation), set by national legislation and funded by the National Asylum Fund.
Integration of multiple social groups
This means that in Italy, the integration opportunities for refugees are more homogeneous from north to south, at least on paper , while in Germany it may depend more on the policies of the state or city of residence. On the other hand, the economic absorption capacity appears higher in Germany, thanks to a more dynamic labor market and greater investment in resources: refugees in Germany have easier access to dual vocational courses and internships, and after a few years, many enter jobs, especially in manufacturing or service sectors. In Italy, migrants' job placement often occurs in low-skilled sectors (agriculture, construction, catering) and with precarious contracts, impacted by high general unemployment and sometimes unfavorable informal networks.
Social inclusion also includes the integration of other vulnerable groups, such as people with mental health problems, released prisoners, Roma and Sinti, etc. The Italian tradition in some of these areas is advanced (consider the 1978 Basaglia law that closed mental hospitals, focusing on the community reintegration of psychiatric patients), but dedicated resources remain limited, with a heavy reliance on non-profit and volunteer organizations. Germany generally ensures greater public intervention: for example, there are federal programs for adult education for unqualified people ( Weiterbildung ), active measures for young people who are NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training), and close collaboration with large welfare organizations (Caritas, Diakonie, Arbeiterwohlfahrt, etc.) that receive significant public funding to manage inclusion services.
Differences in the fight against poverty
In Italy, the Third Sector plays a crucial role in addressing social needs, but often in place of inadequate state intervention. For example, the fight against extreme poverty in many Italian cities relies on soup kitchens, shelters, and street units run by associations and parishes, with sporadic public funding; in Germany, these same activities are more integrated into a coordinated system co-financed by the welfare state.
Ultimately, Germany is performing better in combating poverty and promoting inclusion, thanks to a broader range of tools and higher per capita spending, while Italy is attempting to make up ground by adopting previously absent measures (minimum income, social intervention plans, etc.), but is starting from a situation where a large portion of the needy were not covered. Italy's "bad record" on these fronts has already been highlighted by several studies: for example, an INAPP report defines Italy as "the worst in Europe" in anti-poverty social protection, with an effectiveness halved compared to its European partners. Therefore, bridging this gap by strengthening services and transfers to make its welfare system more inclusive remains a priority for Italy.
Structural, cultural and organizational differences between the two countries
The divergences highlighted in the various areas are rooted in profound structural and cultural differences between Italy and Germany in terms of welfare organization. One element is the different institutional and territorial structure. Italy, despite being a unitary state, has decentralized the management of social services to local authorities (regions and especially municipalities) since Framework Law 328/2000.
However, this decentralization has not been accompanied by adequate central funding and coordination, resulting in significant territorial heterogeneity. Data show enormous differences in per capita social spending across Italy, ranging from €583 per capita invested in social services annually in the autonomous province of Bolzano to just €6 per capita in the province of Vibo Valentia. This means that in some areas of the South, a local public welfare system is virtually nonexistent, while in some areas of the North, a comprehensive network exists. This territorial inequality is linked to both economic factors (different income levels and local tax revenues) and administrative factors (local authorities' management capacity) and political factors (different priorities in regional agendas).
Federal welfare
In Germany, welfare is also decentralized due to federalism: the Länder have jurisdiction over various social sectors, and municipalities are direct providers of many services (from childcare to housing support). However, the presence of basic levels defined at the federal level and a robust financial equalization mechanism mean that regional differences are less pronounced than in Italy. For example, transfers from the Federal Government to municipalities for social policies (such as housing costs for subsidized recipients) help economically weaker regions ensure minimum standards. Furthermore, the tradition of municipal welfare is deeply rooted in Germany: German municipalities have always employed social workers, educators, and other professionals in greater numbers than Italian municipalities, and they cooperate closely with local welfare associations.
A second difference concerns the role of the family and the culture of private solidarity . Italy is often described as a society with a strong familialism: family networks act as a buffer against unemployment, old age, and child and grandparent care. This is partly an asset (the Italian family traditionally makes up for public shortcomings, providing intergenerational care and economic support), but it is also a limitation because, over time, it has justified a less developed welfare state. In Germany, although conservative aspects still exist (for example, the single breadwinner and stay-at-home mother model was encouraged until the early 2000s with the spitting tax system and limited nursery provision), there is nevertheless a greater expectation that the state and institutions will address social needs.
This also stems from a more trusting civic culture: in Germany, the payment of taxes and contributions in exchange for benefits is seen as a solid social pact , while in Italy, a historical distrust of public efficiency—fueled by instances of malpractice, corruption, and bureaucratic inefficiency—has led many to prefer individual strategies (private savings, support from relatives) rather than relying on the public system. Ferrera emphasizes how Italy's lack of social homogeneity and cohesion, combined with an uncertain "civicness," has weakened the authority of institutions and their ability to impose universalistic solutions. In Germany, by contrast, the authority of social institutions (such as mutual funds, pension funds, and large recognized charities) has historically been greater and has favored broader adherence to the system.
Involvement of the third sector in social services
Another organizational factor is the involvement of the third sector. In both countries, non-state actors—associations, foundations, churches, cooperatives—are pillars of social service provision, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. However, in Germany, these entities (known as Freie Wohlfahrtspflege ) are highly integrated and co-financed by the state: organizations such as Caritas, Diakonie, Arbeiterwohlfahrt, and Rotes Kreuz manage hospitals, retirement homes, daycare centers, and various services, receiving public funding and guaranteeing agreed-upon standards.
In Italy, the Third Sector is highly fragmented: alongside large national networks (e.g., Caritas Italiana, ARCI, social cooperatives affiliated with Legacoop or Confcooperative, the Community of Sant'Egidio, etc.), there are myriads of small local associations. The 2017 Third Sector Reform Law attempted to better organize this world, but in practice, public-private social collaboration varies from region to region. In some areas, the assignment of services to social cooperatives and NGOs is well-structured (through procurement, agreements, and co-design), while elsewhere a separation persists, with volunteers informally filling public gaps. Germany formalized this social partnership after World War II, while Italy is only recently attempting to systematize the many "energies" of volunteering.
A socially responsible state
In cultural terms, it can be summed up that Germany built its welfare system according to the idea of a socially responsible state , but in collaboration with intermediary actors (parties, unions, churches), pursuing a certain social discipline (the unemployed must take action, the citizen must contribute) in exchange for broad protections. Italy's development has been more uneven: phases of major reforms (think of the 60s and 70s with the establishment of the National Health Service, civil disability benefits, and the Workers' Statute) have been followed by periods of stagnation, and measures often remained on paper due to a lack of funding or political will.
Italy's political polarization, with alternating governments often short-lived, has made it difficult to pursue coherent social policies over the long term, unlike in Germany, where until the 2000s there was broad consensus on maintaining and adapting the Bismarckian-corporatist model. Furthermore, Italy has historically faced more stringent financial constraints (high public debt), which led to cuts or a lack of investment in social services, while Germany—especially after reunification, which absorbed the critical phase of the 90s—has been able to afford high social spending thanks in part to its more solid finances.
Reflecting on the differences in social services
The comparison reveals a clear picture: Germany offers more accessible, extensive, and effective social services than Italy, the result of greater investment and a more robust organization. This translates into a better ability to combat poverty, support families, the elderly, and the disabled, and more positive social outcomes (lower inequality, lower child poverty, and lower unemployment). Italy, for its part, suffers from historical shortcomings—a fragmented welfare system, imbalances in spending concentrated on pensions, and little integration between social, labor, and training policies—which reduce its overall efficiency. However, it should be recognized that in recent years, Italy has undertaken significant reforms (introduction of a minimum income, a national plan for long-term care, a universal single allowance, and the definition of LEPS (essential levels of social benefits) to approach European standards.
Bridging the gap with Germany will require strengthening social institutions, increasing spending on targeted services, and fostering a culture of greater trust and collaboration between citizens, local authorities, and the state. The two models, though different, can learn from each other: Italy can draw inspiration from German effectiveness and long-term planning, while Germany looks with interest to some Italian good practices, such as inclusive education and the involvement of supportive family networks. The shared goal remains to ensure a modern and inclusive welfare system capable of meeting the needs of a changing society, combating poverty and promoting the well-being of all citizens.
References
- Ferrera, M. (1993). Models of solidarity (the welfare state in Southern Europe) – Il Mulino.
- Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism – Princeton University Press.
- Boccacin, L. (1993). “The third sector in Germany and Italy: elements for a comparison”, in Sociology Studies, 31 (3), 269-282.
- Inapp (2021). INAPP Report 2021 – Chapter 7: The Role of Social Services in Integration and Poverty Eradication
- Ministry of Labor (2021). National Plan of Social Interventions and Services 2021-2023
- Eurispes (2006). Italy Report – “Social Policies in Italy and Comparison with European States”
- Openpolis (2022). "The inclusion of disabled people in the workplace is still a long way off."
- CPI Observatory – Catholic University (2023). Data on the school inclusion of students with disabilities
- Istat (2023). Report on Nursery Schools and Early Childhood Education Services
- Cnel (2022). Report "Territorial Social Services: A Provincial Analysis" (data on municipal spending)
- Second Welfare (2024). “Long-Term Care in Europe: A New Reformist Era”
- Blue Suitcase (2018). “Germany Rethinks Hartz IV: What's Wrong with the Poverty Relief Program”
- SIMN (2020). Comparing local integration experiences and best practices: the Italian and German reception models
- Inapp (2023). Anti-poverty measures in Italy: an evaluation and comparison at European level.. (Various data cited in the text).
