I would like to thank again the panel of the welcome address panel because we're really in time. So we stick so far we can stick to the program. The next session, the next panel is the opening panel labeled one stageStage Conversation, Lecture, and Discussion. We will begin. We have now one hour and 50 minutes for the first part of this on-stage conversation on transformative change in the fields of care and housing. We have four panelists. I will not go into a very lengthy introduction of our panelists. You can look that up in the program on the websites they have. I will just make a short introduction of the panelists. So Brigitte Auenbach is professor of sociology at the Institute of Sociology, Department of Social Theory and Social Analysis here at the JKU. So as I said, no detailed introduction, but I'll only mention that she has done extensive research on care in her career and in the last year, and very much from a Polanyian perspective. Andreas Novy is professor at the University of Economics of Business Institute of Multilevel Governance and Development, where he heads the Department for Cooperation and Cooperatives. Andreas Nobe has done intensive research on socio-ecological transformation, socio-economics, and urban and regional development. He's also president of the International Carpollini Society. I introduced the panelists in the line. They will talk later on. Flavia Martinelli, she's here, is professor at the Università Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria in Italy, where she currently teaches policies and strategies for territorial cohesion. She has worked on regional development processes, disparities and policies, with particular attention to the historically lagging south of Italy in a comparative perspective. And last, but certainly not least, I would like to refer to Cornelia Klinger. I'd like to introduce Cornelia Klinger. She's an applied professor of philosophy at the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen. She's worked on political philosophy, gender studies, aesthetics, and modernity. As the panel here is called an on-stage conversation, we will not have single presentations, but we decided to have a round of questions. So far we have decided to have two rounds, maybe there will be a third. And we'll start with Brigitte. And the first question is, what are the main changes and transformations in the contested fields of care and housing in Europe and how is this related to wider social crisis and changes in societies welfare systems and the quality of everyday life over the last years and decades so thank you very much we have to give very short comments and I try not to run out of time. So I start with some remarks to this first round and I will start with care and at housing later and you will see why I do it this way. First of all, concerning the care crisis, in principle, concerning the care crisis, there is nothing new. The capitalist economy is a structurally careless economy. This is my threefold argument. The accumulation and profit and market-driven economy abstracts from and neglects social and ecological care needs and tends to destroy social and ecological reproduction. Second, the capitalist economy influences, instrumentalizes and appropriates care work and care services provided by other sectors, like the welfare state or the family. Third, the capitalist economy valorizes care and care work by subordinating their provision to their profitability and makes care services exclusively accessible to those who can pay for them. To sum up, there is a fundamental contradiction between good or decent care for all and the principles of the capitalist economy. In this sense, care crises are inherent to capitalism. My next point is, however, in Europe, the contemporary care provision and care crises are strongly interwoven with some tendencies of the last five decades. The erosion of gendered intergenerational family care arrangements. Women are not available anymore for former care provision. The forced transnationalization, industrialization, we think, and artificial intelligence, robots, marketization and corporatization of care and care work, the respective economic and technological shift and the emergence of migration industries, the neoliberal formation and austerity-driven decline of the welfare state, and the rediscovery of community-based care provision. To sum up, we are witnessing transformative changes in all sectors of the care regime, the family, the state, private and third sector, sexual social networks and neighborhoods. And we are witnessing transformative changes of all forms of pet and un-pet and volunteer care work. This leads to shifting responsibilities in our society for care in terms of the sectoral division of care provision, what is organized in the family, by the state, by the private sector, by neighborhoods and so on. There are changes in the division of labor, who cares, who shall care, and the accessibility of care, who receives care and who is not able to receive care. This is combined with the next point, shifting responsibilities in terms of the sexual care provision. They are strongly interwoven with social inequalities in the trade unions and of care struggles in other organizations. The transnationalization of care provision and care work leads to new migration industries and poor conditions of migrant work to care drain from the poorer regions and parts of the population in Eastern Europe or in the Global South in favor of the care gain of the richer ones and to new care protests. To sum up, together with the transnationalization, marketization and communitarization of care provision, also the unequal division of labor and the unequal access to care provision are changing and contested. Drawing on historical institutionalism and neo-institutionalism, my thesis is that we are witnessing the erosion of former stable historical compromises in terms of sectoral responsibilities as well as social inequalities, of sexual responsibilities as well as social inequalities, and that the emergence of new hybrid and stratified modes of care provision and care arrangements can be observed. They are hybrid in terms of different institutional logics, like those of the market, state, community, family, religion, profession, corporation, which is one of the focus of our work in the DOC team. And they are stratified in terms of social inequalities, which are constitutive for and inherent to this order. Just to give a few examples, caring communities can be supported by the state, but nevertheless be exclusive in terms of class, exclusive, available and accessible for middle classes, by example. Migration industries serve the logics of the market and of the hiring families by recruiting the appropriate workforce in terms of gender, race, class, or religion, or other things more. From a Polanian perspective, and that's the theory I prefer at the moment, my interpretation of these transformative changes, My interpretation of these transformative changes, and this is my last point, is we are witnessing a double movement in the field of care and care work. A Polanian movement towards the commodification, in particular marketization, corporatization, industrialization of care on the one hand, and many Polanian counter-movements, in plural, of different shape on the other hand. The communitarization of care, caring communities, as well as the contestation of marketized and industrialized care provision by labor disputes or care protests are the most visible counter-movements of our times. Furthermore, according to Polanyi, counter-movements in the field of care, care protests, as well as the search for new modes of care provision, cover a wide range of cultural and political orientations. They can be democratic, and political orientations. They can be democratic, emancipatory, and progressive, but they also can be anti-democratic, authoritarian, and regressive, if we think about right-wing populism and the visions of care. My thesis is that the diverse, hybrid, and stratified modes of care provision and care arrangements of today are the results of the contested transformative changes of the past decades. Furthermore, my thesis is that under certain conditions, and we can discuss them, them, they can amount to a great transformation of the care regime as a part of and contributing to a new order of society. And that's the dimension I would like to discuss on this conference too. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much, Brigitte. I would now hand the floor to Andreas for the second, the perspective on the DOC team and the research that is done on contested care and housing. Andreas, the floor is yours. Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, thank you very much. In continuation, what Brigitte just presented, just for entering, because it has not been stated, I mean, care and housing for us, they are so intimately related because they are decisive elements of basic provisioning. They sustain society and economies and thinking them together, that was one of our key starting points when applying for this doc team will lead to insights that we don't have if we analyze it separately. And then, as Brigitte already showed, we have a strong debt to Karl Polanyi and use his framework for understand these relations of care and housing. And that's what I will do in the following minutes as well. I want to approach our topic by taking up and re-seeing Karl Polanyi's reflections on the conservative 1920s, 1930s, as similarities to contemporary 2020s are increasingly and alarmingly striking. Neoliberal globalization, dominant over the the last decades was a mode of regulation that promised improvements, a key term for Polanyi, due to globalization and marketization. It resulted in hyper-globalization and hyper-individualism that increased insecurity and threatened habitation, a second key term of Polanyi, defined as accustom ways of life. Emblematic are soaring housing costs, abolished rent regulation or the financialization of housing, as well as the inability to offer affordable and good health care. As a consequence, counter-movements, understood as societal dynamics, not as single actors, against the neoliberal and global form of improvement, have gained momentum. As in the first liberal globalization before 1929, one can observe two forms of counter-movement. one can observe two forms of counter-movement. First, those mainly opposing socioeconomic upheavals produced by neoliberalism. This is the classical social democratic counter-movement. Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain are examples, and both have, at least so far, it seems, failed. Second, there are sociocultural forms of counter-movement defending the traditional mode of living of welfare capitalism based on individualized mass consumption. The traditional form of living that became dominant in welfare capitalism is based on privatized forms of consumption and sufficient purchasing power, while the importance of life-sustaining social infrastructures of health, education, care, and several others are underestimated. These privatized inward-oriented forms of living are reinforced by the acceleration of apparently external crisis from the pandemic to war and climate. Increasing security is apparently best guaranteed by strengthening private autonomy, the safe haven of the home for housing and care. This counter-movement is increasingly controlled by a reactionary type of right-wing with frightening similarities of 20th century fascism. In countries like Austria, it can unfortunately build on conservative welfare regime with its familialistic traces as part of the accustomed way of life. While Polanyi assumed that the dialectics of movement and counter movement, marketization and protection as well as improvement at habitation coincide, the current conjunction is, in my understanding, pointing in a different direction. Today, given profound ecological and geopolitical transformations, defending habitation for many apparently progressive stands does not consist in strengthening collective answers. It is consumer choice that has become a habit. The market is perceived as a space of freedom and limiting consumer choice, therefore, as a threat to accustomed ways of living. Speed limit and the discussions about it is one of these examples. This is equally relevant for the appeal of home ownership as well as for preferences for home care. However, not only overcoming but even taming capitalism requires limiting the market, be it financialized real estate markets or marketized care. However, limiting the market, However, limiting the market, especially due to ecological imperatives, is perceived as disruptive and opposed as undermining habitation. The car, beef, traditional gender relations have become symbols for a culture war. Protecting the right to act on markets has become a crucial demand of this type of politics. This is an open contrast to research on good housing and good care that points to the necessity of collective answers to the housing, care, and ecological crisis, and that insists on the necessity to strengthen public common provisioning to satisfy these needs. I think that reflecting on this mismatch between, on the one hand, dominant individualized and privatizing strategies, and on the other hand, the need for collective and public agencies, agency is a decisive challenge for research that have to be integrated and that might be integrated by researching these two fields. Therefore, research on how socioeconomic and social cultural forms of counter-movement are entangled is urgently needed to explore alternatives to the currently successful deviation from socioeconomic concerns and struggles to a culture war. Thank you. Thank you very much Andreas and thank you very much again to Brigitte for introducing us to the background of this project, the background of the conference and also the PhD projects. And I would now hand over to Flavia Martinelli, who is also a supervisor on the advisory board of the DOC team. And she will open the debate to example of Italy and then similar topics. Thank you. Thank you very much Roland and first of all I'd like to thank once again both universities and my colleagues Brigitte and Andreas for inviting me here. I would like to stress again that this DOC team project is extremely important and interesting. It's right on target on two key foundational domains of human development in its different capitalist phases. They also intersect in many fundamental ways, and I will actually elaborate on this later. And it's right on target in mobilizing Polanyi's interpretive framework to unravel what, in my opinion, is the most important contribution of the project, the contradictions and complex movement and counter-movements and trends in habitation and improvement that are not clear-cut and are not black and white. And Brigitte mentioned it. I like the hybrid notion. In these two key reproductive arenas. So my contribution will be obviously on what is my disciplinary background, meaning urban and regional studies, meaning taking into account space. My argument is that space matters from at least two points of view that are actually relevant here. One is spatial differences, spatial inequalities, and in this I'm going to give my answer to the first question posed by Roland. And subsequently, I will argue that space matters in a very important intersection of housing and care, which is the strategy of aging in place. But we'll get to that. So, first point. To answer Roland, what is happening is clearly, we all know and read and study about, a severe worsening of inequalities, not only social, but spatial. And spatial inequalities are partly a reflection of social inequalities, but they also have a life of their own. Care and housing regimes are extremely differentiated across space. Different national, regional, and local structures, institutions, and trajectories over time, which determine, from the start, differences. But these differences are growing with the neoliberal movement. So, as Birgitte stresses, but also Andreas, with the retrenchment of the welfare state, although they did not elaborate on this precisely, but this is a concern of mine. With the retrenchment of the welfare state, there is emerging a complex geography of what Brigitte called hybrid arrangements and the shift in responsibility among the four main providers, the diamant, I think you used this term. I didn't invent it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I know, but you used it. Yeah, I know it's in the literature. Which has very different results in terms of access to both housing and care. And also there are a lot of contradictory counter-movements, and Andreas stressed this. So here I will simply repeat, at least in what concerns this first question, what's going on, my old refrain. I said it in our previous meeting a year and a half ago, but I'm still keen on it, that when you deal with not only with social, but also with spatial inequalities, the structure and the role of the state is very important. And I argue, and I keep arguing, that in the absence of some kind of central authority, be it national, I'm not advocating it, be it EU, I'm not necessarily advocating it, but in the absence of a central authority, you cannot have redistribution. Because if you leave the arrangements between the four providers to, you know, the community, the private sector, well, not to mention the private sector for profit, but to community and family, in the absence of some redistributing, overhanging authority, there is no way you can have redistribution and ensure what used to be this idea of the welfare state universal access. So this is my maybe not very fashionable position, but I think that in order to have some kind of redistribution from richer places and richer people to poorer places and poorer people, there must be some general agreement and some general central authority that enforces it or provides compensatory policies and mechanisms. That's about it for answering your first questions, Roland. Thank you very much, Fabio. So we can now continue with the final answer to the first question by Cornelia. The floor is yours. Thank you, Roland. And I stop thanking you because I have only a few minutes. So we've had a lot of thank yous so far. I want to put some disappointments to you. First of all, I'm not interested in care work or in housing or in... Oh, oh, oh, right, please. Put the water on your side. Thank you. I'm not at all interested in housing or care. Period. I'm interested in societal inequalities, in social political system failure. And this is how I come to your topic. And I totally agree with almost, I think, all of us here on the panel and with the team, that housing and care go together like horse and carriage, to quote an old song. It was about marriage. Love and marriage come together as horse and carriage. Okay, that was the first disappointment concerning my point of view, which brings me here. here often before, but I sometimes feel kind of stranger because I'm not a social scientist, I'm not a scientist, I'm not a researcher, I'm not looking for answers or solutions, but I try to provoke the questions. And this is what I'm doing here and I try to evoke the specters at the back of your work, of your fields of interest and of your, if I may say so, sugar coats on the global crisis. so sugar coats on the global crisis. The housing, the dark side of housing is homelessness, refugees, global refugees and sometimes, well actually I'm not a scientist and researcher researcher, but sometimes I look into statistics. And for this conference, I consulted a few statistics. And concerning the housing and the homelessness and the refugee crisis, I, well, the global trends, which is a UNHCR is giving for the year 2022. So this is not this year, not this year. It got worse this year. We all know that. year. We all know that. And for the, for 22 they gave the numbers, I'm not good at numbers so I have to look them up, 100.4 millions equals 1.8 billions of refugees, homelessness. This is the largest number ever in history. If we had, as long as statistics were taken, we have no such numbers before. And it was a 21% rise as compared to 21. So I stop here for housing, for the housing problem, and turn to the other for the care sector, the care sector, which we have to improve, to improve, to improve. And what we have in these numbers, we have so-called natural catastrophes, man-made, as we know, or at least some of them, many of them man-made on the one hand, and we have on the other hand, we have wars. We should consider wars as a cause for escapes from the war zones or from the natural habitats which become inhabitable. And the numbers given there on the wars, I took up not the war victims, I took up the expenditures, how much was spent on wars in 2022. I get even more awkward with the numbers at this point than with the refugees, because the world military expenditure, according to SIPRI, the Swedish Institute for Peace more than two trillion dollar in 2021. Two trillion dollar is beyond my scope of imagination and I looked it up in the internet. How much is one trillion? One trillion is one with 12 zeros to come after. So please try to imagine the expenditure on war. And please compare it. I cannot do it now because I do not have the time to do it and I'm not the capacity to have not the capacity to do it. Compare it to SOX. SOX is the social index for social expenditure, global social expenditure. Compare the the ciphers and you will be surprised. By the way, during the Covid crisis, I had a very naive and lucky idea. I thought, well, why don't the world's national states or empires stop spending on their military expenses during the crisis, during the health crisis, what would the world gain from this stoppage, from this savings from the military expenditure? the military expenditure. In short, the global situation brings us back to the lowest level. Emergency housing, huts, sheds, or kind of shelter under the bridges, or taking escape over the ocean. And on the other hand, which I find even more distressing, family care. Women, mothers caring for their children on their way to wherever, and men defending their communities or their country. Have I time? Okay. We are inclined, all of us are inclined I think, and we are induced to hope for progress. Though progress is a word of the past. It's not used anymore. We skip that because we know that there's not the same progress in various areas. There's technological, not only progress, but innovation and disruption. But on the other side, there are a few new ideas in societal progress, in emancipation from overcome and overdue domination. We try to believe at least in transformation and change, change, change is small coins, and for alternatives. And what we have found here on the panel already, the alternatives tend to go in different directions to the future, and at the same time, and increasingly so, because the future seems barred for the reasons I try to at least to indicate here, to the past. So, change and alternatives are going in different directions, and these different directions, the compromise, which we talked about, doesn't hold anymore. It goes in hybrid ways into different directions at the same time. And if you allow me one final remark, it may be the impact of technology and technological disruptive innovation in which all sides believe, though not sharing the targets, not sharing the objectives, but believing in technological solutions. There's a new name for it, solutionism. And this technology is not neutral to your aims and targets, but it's ambiguous, and it can be used by both sides. And here I come back to Andreas' fascism. and here I come back to Andreas, fascism. Fascism is, in my view, the use of technologies for regressive aims and targets. And, well, we should be cautious about technological solutions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Cornelia. We have now finished the first round of taking stock, of introducing you and us to the background of the conference, to the background of the DOC Team 114, and also to a link and it in wider topics and developments. And I would now ask the panelists for the second round, for the second question, because it's an on-stage conversation. So there will be a second round of answers now. And on the one hand, you can have the opportunity, of course, here to answer, to give immediate answers and remarks to the fellow discussants, if you like. But the general question would be to open the perspective and highlight where you see struggles and challenges, how do the counter-movements organize themselves, where do they aim at to these outlined developments? And in how far do you think are they able to challenge established hegemonies to bring about social and political developments and in how far do you think are they able to challenge established established hegemonies to bring about social and political alternatives. Brigitte I would ask you to start with your input. Yes thank you very much Roland. You want us to be optimistic a little bit more optimistic I think I want to answer the question and refer to the statements as well so I restart again with Polanian perspective because this is the common perspective of our doc team from a Polanian perspective I take up the pair of terms Andreas already mentioned, improvement and habitation, because it's very remarkable. In terms of improvement, care and housing provision, according to the logics of the market, can be of high quality for those who can afford to pay for them. Notwithstanding that even modes of luxury housing and care provision and services can be based on and combined with poor working conditions. So the luxury mode of being cared for or of having good housing conditions does not mean that there are not other people suffering from the conditions. In other words, in capitalist economies and societies, improvement of care and housing services and social inequalities in terms of accessibility of care and housing, the division of labor and precarious living conditions, homelessness, go hand in hand. Habitation, in a Polanian sense, is the opposite and can be related to the contested field of care and housing as the idea and the ideal to safeguard and sustain livelihood by decent or even good care and housing provision for all. In this sense, Fred Block coins the term habitation society, a society which is organized around the social and ecological needs and along the principles of a solidarity economy. I want to take up this point in my next step and look what is the parallel. Tendencies of commodification like financialization, marketization, corporatization in the second era of globalization cover the fields of care and housing in similar ways. However, that we today and in the next two days at our conference will talk about relations between care and housing, does not only represent and reflect the parallel Polanian movements in the fields. Bridging the gap between the topics care and housing in society as well as in science is from my perspective the result of an era of what Honneth calls historical experimentalism. The society itself makes this a topic for us. Counter-movements organized in a wide range of stakeholders in both fields give shape to new care and housing arrangements and thereby influence in the more or less long run the respective care and housing regimes. In this interpretation, the rediscovery of the historically strong Red Vienna. And the search for new relations between care and housing is the result of a multi-faceted research for habitation and sustainable modes of caring, housing, living, instead of the permanent blind improvement in the terms of Polanyi of neoliberal care and housing services. However, striving for counter-hegemony in the sense of Gramsci in such a historical counter-movement in the fields of care and housing and in particular with regard to democratic, emancipatory and progressive forces, and not the regressive one looking to the past, cannot be decoupled from the attempt to interrupt and to reverse the movement transforming care and housing into Polanian fictitious commodities and destroying both by their market and profit-driven commodification. So we have to reverse this movement of marketization, corporatization, financialization, and we have to interrupt it. Polanyi's vision of a free and just society, a kind of democratic or pluralist socialism, is related to the ideas of planning and regulation of the economy. In our fields of care and housing, this means a need-based economy, need-based in the sense inclusive for all of us around the globe, a need-based economy, the decentralization of the market exchange in favor of other economic principles. Flavia talked about the redistribution and the end of the commodity fiction, the idea everything could be sold like commodities. However, such a progressive idea of a need-based economy includes questions of equality and social justice in the relations of gender, race and class and in our fields, this means questions of decent or even good care and housing for all around the globe. On the level of everyday life, as well as the order of societies, as well as the international relations and regulations. And my last point is, are there any anchor points? And I can identify three. To develop a kind of counter hegemony in the fields of care and housing instead of creating niches for alternative modes of living or establishing community-based care and housing as the accepted flip side of the market capitalism. First, and on redistribution. And this also means redistribution of wealth. This also means redistribution from the rich regions around the globe to the poor regions around the globe and parts of population. around the globe to the poorer regions around the globe and parts of population. This includes reflections on inequalities in the relations of gender, race and class, and it reaches out to different stakeholders in the society. My second point is, there are in both fields core conflicts at the center of negotiations in care and housing arrangements. The contradiction between economic demands and ethical claims, between good care and good housing, poor working conditions, between lacking social investment in what is needed in favor of investment in technologies and such things like Cornelia already mentioned, these core conflicts as well as the concept of a need-based economy allows to build what I call strategic alliances. Because there are many actors in the fields and they are bridging gaps between the fields, like trade unions, churches, labor consumer protection, humans and migrants associations, and many more. And my last point is, and without any overbording expectations by the sustainable development goals, a globally accepted and established instrument and agenda is chaired by different stakeholders and it gives authority and legitimacy to a search for fundamental change, which often is discredited to be naive, middle-based, middle-class biased, or an intellectual bubble, and so on. And I think that we have to think about such a global perspective in the cases of housing as well as care and global inequalities. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Brigitte, for laying out some principles for these challenges to the hegemony that is currently driving the transformations. I would now ask Andreas, who also has a very long record of researching alternatives, for your input on the topic. Yeah, I will try to bridge arguments that we have made and relate them to one another, starting with my point that the problem that there is such a strong leaning towards the private while there is such a strong necessity to strengthen and reappropriate the public. And I really think that's a key issue to deal with. And I think two of the discussions or several points help us to contribute to a, I don't know whether solution, but ways forward. And I want to start with Flavia, who insisted that the state has to, that we need a central state. And I would totally agree that for talking about alternatives, we have to dedicate more reflections on the state. I totally agree that it's the central state or it's a central authority that's a precondition for redistribution. And that's why I really, and that's an argument that's often forgotten because there is a reluctance to accept large bureaucracy, large institutions. But on this planet and in this world, I think such central institution is necessary if we think about redistribution. On the other hand, there are very clear signals that this big and strong state is very dangerous. And we have, unfortunately, an increasingly form of political engineering that allows right-wing parties by democratic means to come to power, to become authoritarian, dictatorial, and don't leave power anymore. And that's from Modi, Putin, Erdogan, and probably Orban, a model that's really threatening. And that's why I think dwelling on the state is a key issue, indifferent from discussing issues of care and housing. But I think discussing issues of care and housing is crucial for avoiding that such political alternatives come to power. And I would really insist that the best way forward to avoid such authoritarian turns in politics is a different understanding of the economy and a different way of doing economy, which implies we have to rethink what the economy is, and a different way of doing economy, which implies we have to rethink what the economy is. Normally it's considered as something different from the social. I would argue, and that's why I think the concept of the foundational economy is so attractive, because that's the approach to say the economy is a much wider understanding than those defending market or capitalist institutions. It's, as Alexandra Strickner said in her introductory speech, it's the organizing of livelihood, very much in line with Karl Polanyi. And if that's what the economy is, then caring and housing are key activities of a good economy. And analytically, indeed, I think one of the key, really, really important things that we should take up if we are interested in care and housing is this understanding of the economy as differentiated in different zones. That's the idea of Fernand Braudel, an economic historian, and taken up by the foundational economy approach, which means that the way of doing economy in the care sector and the housing sector is profoundly different from doing economy in the car industry or in retailing, which then means that we have and that's what Brigitte described with the institutionalist approach that we are using, that we have to dwell on the different institutions and the settings these zones are organized. And then, and looking for alternatives, definitely given the ecological and other urgent challenges that we are facing and given that there are scarce resources, we have to reorder priorities which economic zones are decisive and which are foundational. And by putting the housing and the care sector at central stage, which means giving to financial support, valorizing people working in these two sectors, is a key economic strategy. It's not social affairs, it's not because we like people and we don't, we want that everybody is well. It's really an economic strategy, more important than what's very often called an economic strategy when you talk about innovation technology and all these apparently more economic sectors. So rethinking economy as a precondition for sustaining a democratic form of political organization. That would be the way forward. And I think we can make small contributions to this task in the research communities we are part of. Thank you very much. I would propose to continue in the same order as in the first round. So Flavia, I ask for your contribution on the topic on alternatives thank you yes there are a lot of very interesting progressive counter movements and experimentations from both the state and the community still referring to the diamond of providers, but very fragmented and very place dependent, again. So my second point is about the way space and care and housing are strongly interconnected in a very specific way, and I announced it. This is in what concerns the strategy of aging in place. A strategy that is very much liked by both governments, policymakers, and users. By policymakers, because it is supposedly less expensive than institutionalized retirement homes and stuff, and by users, because they really want to feel, you know, safe and autonomous in their own home. I recently completed a very interesting research, sorry for self-advertising, coordinated by Costanzo Ranchi from the Polytechnic of Milan. by Costanzo Ranci from the Polytechnic of Milan. We carried out interviews to older people, lone older people, aging at home in three different regions of Italy. And we also researched innovative solutions in Italy and in Europe about making this possible. The research, sorry I have to look at my notes, showed two things. First of all space matters in a very material way, meaning in terms of the built environment at three scales. The domestic environment, the home, inside. The building, meaning the relationship between the inside and the outside. And the neighborhood, the most immediate environment, walking distance. And what the research found out is that in Italy, which is a very specific country, built environment barriers exist all over because of the old built environment. So there are not significant differences in terms of regions, north-south divide, the usual north-south divide, but it depends on the age of the buildings, on when the cities developed, and so on. Elevators, for examples, depend very much on the age of buildings, on whether they were built recently or, we are talking about an old housing stock. Differences did exist between rural and urban context, because the rural context generally present more barriers. So no big differences. Where differences fully emerged along the usual north-south gradient is in what concerns home services that support, that necessarily support the aging in place of older people, people who age and want to age in their own home, but become progressively less autonomous with age. And here comes back from the window, as we say in Italy, spatial differences in care regimes, meaning that here we notice very important inequalities due to the care regimes in place that are highly differentiated. differentiated. And in Italy, you may not know, but the state has basically, the central state has basically given up since 2000 in terms of social policy. It's mostly regional now, and social policy is also dumped from the regional governments to the local governments. Therefore, the resources available and the care systems in place are extremely different. Obviously, very bad cannot really help. Actually, less differences than expected between North and South. The family, the enlarged family in Italy is over. family, the enlarged family in Italy is over. Many, many old people, if they have siblings or children, they are scattered all over, they have migrated, I mean, so the family, the family as a pillar of the Italian welfare state is gone in the north and in the south. So the family is not really an important determinant of the care regime. It is the public, the local government, and the resources it can mobilize, and the community, the third sector, that are the very important elements of differentiation. it can mobilize, and the community, the third sector, that are the very important elements of differentiation. And here, our research on innovative initiatives, they showed that the most effective of these home care arrangements Najbolj uspešnih je, ko imaš vzgovor o vodnih priročih, kjer imaš vzgovor o vodnih priročih. V oblasti, kot je Emilia Romagna, naša velika, izvršna oblast v Italiji, čeprav je tudi na pravih, ali tudi v oblasti, ki je lokalna. although shifting to the right also, but also local government. The most interesting care arrangements that enable aging at home are those in which there is a leadership by the local or regional government that can mobilize communities, what is left of families, and even the private sector, especially in what concerns the home environment, you know, digital equipment and stuff. So here we come back to my first consideration that the state cannot be excluded from the equation. And I'm glad that Andreas commented on this. Because communities, local governments, and the resources they can mobilize, even the social capital attached to the third sector, vary very much across space. In poor places, you have little resources, bad government, and sometimes also poor social capital. Therefore, something must be done to compensate. Therefore, something must be done to compensate. I don't know exactly what. And here I pick up on Andreas saying that we must think creatively about how the state can be brought back into the picture. And we should avoid, and this is a consideration I made also a year and a half ago, we should not let the nationalist populist counter movements appropriate this topic. I mean, it's like, you know, really giving them on a golden plate the topic. So we should react to this. Thank you. Thank you. So thank you very much. We had now the proposal concerning alliances and the rethinking of the place of the economy in society and finally a plea for a new understanding of the state as, for example, a redistributory force. I would now hand over the floor again to Cornelia for the final statement on the question of whether alternatives can be thought of or not. Well, first of all, let me encourage your project. You are looking for alternatives. And I find your project well designed flawless almost there always something to be added but I find it very convincing well having said that counter movements and, quests for alternatives are a constant addition to processes of modernization and modern society of industrial and urbanized society started in the 1800s in the West, there were counter-movements. Let me quote perhaps most well-known to you, or to me, Enlightenment and Romanticism. And these movements and counter-movements, they belong together. They go together. And they have to take, and I think this is important for the future, they have to take each other more into account than in the past. In the past, they were opposed. Today, you have to view them as concomitants. They come and go together, they change over time, and what is not done by the one is accomplished or is tried to be accomplished by the other. And the fate, at one point I was interested in writing the history of counter-movements or alternative movements over the last two centuries and more. I gave up on this project. It's too large. I'm too old. But if I may cut it short, I would say on the one hand, counter movements were refuted, rebutted, if not prohibited. Think of the last generation. Doesn't fit. Or if they were not prohibited, refuted, or subdued, their approaches were approved of and integrated into the system. This made the system live life, gave life to it and caused the flexibility of capitalism and the nation state of both of them. They took what the counter movements or alternative movements had to offer. My last example the Green Party's. And they also integrated the personnel, they integrated the people and this is how the system survived and changed over time, was transformed by counter-movements, which they did not pay any credit to them. It was taken for granted. The counter-movements were pushed aside and were renewed. By the way, with every technological big revolution of means. My example for the counter-movement and the fate of counter-movements is, if I may say so, I know that I will have quarrel with some of you, it is social democracy in the 20th century. have quarreled with some of you. It is social democracy in the 20th century. Social democracy diverging from the communist, the radical revolutionary way, thought of a possibility to cohabitate with capitalism and the nation state. And this, I agree and I concede, it brought many advantages to many people. But considered as a whole, it did not change the system and it will not. And this is the failure of social democracy by the end of the 20th century or continuing in the 21st. This is why there is a retour à Reims, and this is the deception of the working classes and other people, women, ethnicities, and so on. people, women, ethnicities, and so on. So, I have not so many good things to say about the history of counter-movements, and I only can assure you, in your way to pursue the path, you have to do it. You cannot do otherwise. But you should take into consideration the stakes and the obstacles. So, and critique, crisis and critique is what you need to add to your questions for the future of counter-movement. Thank you. So thank you very much, Cornelia. And I also have to say thank you to the podium as a whole. We're at the end of the first part of the onstage conversation. And I'm sure there are already many questions in the audience. But you still don't know everything yet. so you still need the input from the doc team and so I ask for a change on the panel now, on the podium so thank you very much to you and I ask the doc team to come to the podium and to present your work. applause