22 Jun 2018
J. Hien, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 57, no. 2, 2017, pp. 185-204. Also published online on 10 September 2017 ABSTRACT. There has been much talk about ordoliberalism recently. Scholars and the press identify it as the dominant economic instruction sheet for Germany's European crisis politics. However, by analyzing ordoliberalism only as an economic theory, the debate downplays that ordoliberalism is also an ethical theory, with strong roots in Protestant social thought. It is this rooting in Protestant social thought that makes Ordoliberalism incompatible with the socioeconomic ethics of most of the European crisis countries, whose ethics originate in Catholic and Orthodox social thought. This divergence is the source of a crisis of understanding between European nations and hinders a collective response to the Euro crisis. This article is available here
J. Hien, in New Perspectives: interdisciplinary journal of Central & East European politics and international relations, vol. 25, no.2, 2017, pp. 115-124 Johan Van derWalt’s article “When One Religious Extremism Unmasks Another” isthought provoking and unique. He argues that Northern creditor countries operateaccording to the logic of Protestant predestination theory when they engage withSouthern European debtor countries. This Protestant logic is embodied in ordoliberalism,a German socio-economic theory, which van derWalt identifies as themajorGerman political instruction sheet to the sovereign debt crisis. Ordoliberalism leadsto austerity, and austerity provides a fertile ground for a de-hermeneuticized formof Islam that sprawls in the suburbs of France and Belgium.In the following essay, I would like to make three points in response to van derWalt’s argument. The first one considers the connection between Protestantism andordoliberalism that is central to van derWalt’s argument.While van derWalt is right in his conclusion, he does not illuminate the conceptual mechanisms that make theconnection between Protestantism and ordoliberalism so powerful. I will describethese mechanisms. The second point is more critical: it scrutinizes the connectionbetween ordoliberalism, austerity and Islamic extremism that van der Walt draws,and raises the question of how Protestant ordoliberalism could dwell in Catholiccountries. I also provide a tentative explanation of the ascendance of ordoliberalismin Catholic environments. The third point elaborates on a consequence of van derWalt’s argument that the author overlooks: the crisis and the ordoliberal rhetoric ofthe German government in response to it have not only led to a de-hermeneuticizationof ordoliberalism and Islam but also left an imprint on other European culturalspheres. In southern Europe, the crisis has reinforced a Southern culturalsuperiority discourse amongst public intellectuals as a reply to the Northern Europeanmoralizing discourse. This article is available at https://perspectives.iir.cz/download/forum-on-when-one-religious-extremism-unmasks-another-by-johan-van-der-walt-2/#
22 Jun 2018
P. Pansardi, in Journal of Political Power, Vol. 10, no. 3, 2017, pp. 390-394. This article is available here
M. Ferrera, A. Pellegata, in Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 25, no. 10, 2018, pp. 1461-1480. Also published online on 21 June 2018 ABSTRACT. The aim of this paper is to investigate citizen views on the free movement of workers within the European Union (EU). We are interested in how situational and relational factors affect labour market chauvinist attitudes. Drawing on the threat theory, we advance new hypotheses on the role of intertemporal relative deprivation in amplifying chauvinist inclinations. From the intergroup contact theory and transnational approaches, we borrow insights on the role played by cross-border experiences and inclusion in discursive and associational networks in containing chauvinism. The analysis uses the original ‘Reconciling Economic and Social Europe’ (REScEU) survey conducted in six EU countries (i.e., France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Sweden) in the fall of 2016. The article shows that – though rooted in class and status positions – chauvinist attitudes are clearly sensitive to contingent situations and lifeworld experiences. This article is available here
The Regulation on the Provision of Emergency Support within the Union: Humanitarian Assistance and Financial Solidarity in the Refugee Crisis09 Oct 2016
A. Miglio, European Papers, vol. 1, no.3, 2016, pp. 1-12 ABSTRACT Regulation 2016/369 establishes an emergency support mechanism for the provision of humanitarian aid in response to natural or man-made disasters giving rise to severe wide-ranging humanitarian consequences within the European Union. Although its scope of application is much broader, the Regulation has been adopted as an emergency measure for the management of the ongoing refugee crisis. It is therefore promising to look at the newly established mechanism against the background of other measures adopted or proposed in response to the crisis. In this perspective, the Regulation appears to fit within an overall strategy whereby Union funding is used as an instrument of policy-making to bring about further centralization. Finally, the analysis of the mechanism, which is meant to provide support to Member States “in a spirit of solidarity”, suggests a few conclusions on the meaning of the principle of solidarity and its implications in the context of the refugee crisis. It is suggested that two very different visions of solidarity, an emergency-driven and a structural one, coexist and may interact with each other in two ways. This article is avbailable here.
Brexit e il dilemma del prigioniero: sulla revocabilità della notifica del recesso prevista dall’art. 50 TUE09 Nov 2016
A. Miglio, federalismi.it, 21 September 2016 ABSTRACT Nelle settimane successive al referendum del 23 giugno 2016 sulla permanenza del Regno Unito nell’Unione europea ha preso avvio una vasta produzione dottrinale dedicata all’esame delle molte e intricate questioni giuridiche sollevate dall’esito della consultazione popolare. Ha tuttavia finora attratto scarsa attenzione, almeno in termini relativi, il quesito se la notifica dell’intenzione di uno Stato membro di recedere dall’Unione possa essere revocata: sia i commenti all’art. 50 TUE sia nel la maggior parte dei primi contributi successivi al referendum, ancorché con alcune eccezioni tale problema è stato infatti trattato soltanto marginalmente, quando non del tutto ignorato. Ciò appare tuttavia sorprendente. Per effetto dell’articolazione della procedura di recesso delineata dall’art. 50 TUE, determinare se la notifica produca effetti definitivi assume infatti una importanza cruciale sotto due profili: per un verso, l’incertezza su tale punto determina un forte disincentivo a notificare il recesso; per altro verso, la configurabilità della revoca è evidentemente suscettibile di incidere sull’esito finale del procedimento, comportando l’eventualità che, ritirando la notifica, lo Stato interessato possa ritornare sui propri passi e decidere di restare membro dell’Unione pur avendo invocato il diritto di recesso. The article is available here.
24 Oct 2016
M. Ferrera, Journal of European Social Policy October 2016 26: 374-383 ABSTRACT Southern Europe and East Asia are two distinct groups of nations which share a number of striking family resemblances warranting a close investigation. Such resemblances form a relatively coherent set best captured through the concepts of familialism and familial welfare state. A cross-regional comparison of Italy, Japan, Spain and Korea leads to interesting results in both descriptive and explanatory terms, highlighting the role played by culture and religion as well as by the compressed modernization which characterized the four countries during the 20th century. The comparative exercise of this Special Issue offers a significant contribution to the wider field of welfare research. It reshuffles the cards of the traditional ‘world of welfare capitalism’ debate, shows the significance of region-level (as opposed to nation-level) variables and invites a specification of temporal arguments in institutional transformations. The article is available here.
M. Ferrera, In Biblioteca della Libertà. 214, settembre-dicembre 2015 ABSTRACT The intra-EU mobility of workers/persons is becoming an increasingly contentious and polarizing issue and is occupying the center stage in the so-called Brexit debate. Challenging the principle of free movement is no trivial matter. What is actually put in question are not only the foundational pillars of the single market, but of the EU as such, understood as a single (would-be) polity. The aim of this paper is to offer an analytical framing of this challenge. Section 1 provides a brief historical reconstruction of welfare state building at the national level, highlighting the salience of boundaries and of the “bounding-bonding” nexus. It also discusses the impact of European integration on the intra-EU boundary configuration in the sphere of solidarity. Section 2 illustrates the state of play as regards mobility, summarizing the findings of empirical research on the economic and financial implications of free movement and of the social security coordination regime. Section 3 argues that – in addition to economic efficiency – the principle/logic that underpins free movement is that of “hospitality”, rather than the more general principle of solidarity. The section then discusses some unintended practical implications that follow from the logic of hospitality and that lie at the basis of the increasing contentiousness around free movement. Section 4 discusses possible institutional remedies for containing political contention. The underlying assumption is that the preservation of free movement is key for the survival of the EU qua political association/community and that such preservation must be the object of an essentially political (and not merely functional) strategy on the side of EU authorities. The conclusion wraps up. The paper is available here.
M. Ferrera, in Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 24, no. 8, 2017, pp. 1233-1251. Also published online on 19 September 2016. ABSTRACT Reorienting the welfare state towards social investment (SI) constitutes a complex and multidimensional challenge of policy recalibration and raises daunting political problems. The temporal mismatch between SI reforms and their returns requires a degree of ‘political patience’ on the side of both current voters and incumbent politicians which is not readily available in contemporary democracies. After reviewing recent debates about the policy and politics of the long term, the article analyzes the strategy pursued by the European Union (EU), with a view to assessing their degree of ‘conduciveness’ to SI recalibration. It is argued that the EU has indeed stimulated policy change at the national level, but that its potential as SI facilitator has been hamstrung by a number of weaknesses and shortcomings, especially on the discursive front. A more convinced and articulated endorsement of the social investment paradigm and a more focused attention to ‘capacity’ at the subnational and grass-root level should be the fronts to prioritize. The paper is available here.