ABSTRACT - The nation-based welfare state (NBWS) and the European Union (EU) are two precious legacies of the XX century. Their mutual relationship is however fraught by unresolved tensions (and a potential “clash”), which the recent crisis has been markedly exacerbating. When, how and why did the original “elective affinity” between the WS and the EU spheres start to weaken? Is “reconciliation” possible and how? These questions lie at the centre of current academic and public debates. The WS serves essential economic, social and political functions. But the financing of its programmes strains public budgets and raises sustainability challenges, especially in the wake of growing demographic ageing. The EU (EMU in particular) is in its turn is essential for growth, jobs and macro-economic stability, but tends to undermine the WS’s very institutional foundation: the sovereign right of the state to determine the boundaries, forms and extent of national solidarity. The aim of this paper is to cast new light on such issues by focussing on the intellectual and political logics which have guided WS-building, on the one hand, and EU-building, on the other, and by highlighting the responsibility of these two logics in generating the clash. Drawing on Weber’s insights on the relationship between values, ideas, and politics, the building blocks of a new analytical framework will be briefly sketched, aimed at reconnecting these three elements in the explanation of the current predicament.
The paper is organised as follows. The next section presents the topic and summarizes the state of the art of the debate. I will then revisit some key Weberian concepts and theoretical propositions which promise to cast new light on the “clash” problem, moving beyond contemporary neo-institutional approaches. In the subsequent two sections, first the intellectual and then the political logics which have guided the development of the welfare state at the national level and the process of supranational economic integration will be illustrated, with brief historical surveys. The fourth section will offer a re-interpretation of the euro crisis in neo-Weberian terms and will hint at some possible ways out. The conclusion wraps up.
ABSTRACT - The European Union – and the Euro-zone in particular- is currently torn by a number of widening fault lines. What is at stake is not only economic and institutional performance, but the very stability / continuity of the Union as a political system. The first and most visible fault line concerns the functioning of EMU and opposes North and South, "core" and “peripheral”, "creditor" and "debtor" Member States. The second line runs from West to East and mainly concerns the free movement of persons, capital and services in the internal market. It pits countries with consolidated welfare and high taxes/contributions against countries with relatively limited welfare, low labor costs and low regulation. The third line is rooted in the institutional asymmetry of the EU system of government, programmatically tilted in favor of market-making and against market correcting policies. The fourth line is, finally, of a vertical nature: “Brussels” (supranational institutions) against national governments and their sovereignty in policy areas deemed crucial for democratic legitimation and social cohesion [...]
M. Ferrera, in West European Politics, Vol. 37, no. 4, 2014, pp. 825-843.
The article starts by identifying the main institutional components of the (elusive) concept of Social Europe: the ‘National Social Spaces’, i.e. the social protection systems of the member states; the ‘EU Social Citizenship Space’, i.e. the coordination regime that allows all EU nationals to access the social benefits of other member states when they exercise free movement; the ‘Regional Social Spaces’, i.e. sub-national and/or trans-regional social policies; and the ‘EU Social Policy’ proper. Based on such reconceptualisation, the article then revisits the main analytical insights and substantive findings of the volume’s contributions, focusing in particular on dynamics of ‘social re-bounding’ during the crisis, on national implementation processes, on the relevance of ‘fits’ and ‘misfits’ for social policy compliance and on issues of democratic control. In the conclusion, some suggestions for future research and for the EU’s social agenda are put forward.
This article is available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402382.2014.919771
In: W. van Oorschot, H. Peeters, C. Boos (eds), Invisible social security revisited: Essays in honour of Jos Berghman, Tielt, Belgium. Lannoo Publishers. pp. 145-160.
For at least two decades, European countries have been earnestly striving to reform their social models, tailored on increasingly surpassed economic and socio-demographic structures. This effort has been guided by a number of common principles, many of them developed by the European Union: sustainability and efficiency, flexicurity, inclusion, social protection as a "productive factor", new partnerships between private and public actors, social investment, social innovation. Almost all EU countries have had a hand in their pension systems in response to demographic challenges and problems of financial sustainability. Labour markets and policies were reformed and some progress has been made in terms of new policies and measures favoring women and children, frail and dependent elderly, the fight against poverty and exclusion [...]