Flashlight Europe No. 3, November 2014: European Social Policy? Prospects for the New EU Commission

Whilst the intricate set of national and genuine European competences is probably just as convoluted as it has always been, the expectations of EU citizens are nothing of the sort. This is especially true in the area of employment and social affairs. What they want from policymakers is social safety and risk protection. And whether these things are done on the European or national level is of little importance. We have studied the latest data on social justice in the EU in order to describe the most important tasks and challenges currently facing Marianne Thyssen, the new Social Affairs Commissioner.

Europäische Sozialpolitik? Von den Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der neuen EU-Kommission = Flashlight Europe No. 3, November 2014: European social policy? Prospects for the New EU Commission

No abstract.

EU Social Policy: Developments in the field and insights for the study of social policy. ACES Cases No. 2012.1

This paper focuses on the key features of EU social policy and the way it has been interpreted and seeks to identify new directions for study. EU social policy is considered along two main dimensions: its content and hallmark features and the main approaches to conceptualizing and theorizing it. Rather than the classic negative depiction of EU social policy, this piece suggests that it is more significant than usually allowed, not least because the empirical and theoretical lenses which have been applied to it were developed for other purposes. The implication is that developments in EU social policy are often overlooked, not least in how the EU has carved out a role for itself by constantly framing and reframing discourses relevant to social policy and social problems in an attempt to both influence how social actors at all levels of governance approach policy and secure their acceptance of its role in social policy. Therefore analyzing EU social policy outside of the traditional frames reveals interesting and significant developments especially around innovation in social policy and the attempt to legitimate the EU as a social policy actor.

Ideas and Policy: The European Union considers social policy futures. ACES Cases No. 2010.2

The European Union’s social policy perspectives have changed quite dramatically over the last several decades. Now EU’s social policy discourse often promises to “invest in people,” sometimes “to invest in children,” and always to pay particular attention to youth. This paper argues that the tools of historical institutionalism can lead to understanding the ideational roots of this social investment perspective so distant from the “European social model.” Coming out of social movements, and with collective identities shaped both by those movement roots and national experiences, activists have effectively focused their practices on altering the social representations of European social solidarity through their interest group interventions, their participation in policy forums, and their mobilization within civil society at the European and sub-European levels. They have been able to make common cause with several epistemic communities that themselves revamped their ideas in the face of new institutional constraints, in order to advance their interests in promoting particular directions for social policy. The paper documents that “ideas” are not a variable and discourse “sometimes important” but that the ideas carried by movements and in epistemic communities are integral to the very definition of their interests that they promote within and with institutions.

Beyond Cooperation and Competition: What Kind of Federalism for EU Social Policy? CES Germany & Europe Working Papers, No. 00.7, December 2000

The EU has become a loose kind ofsocial federation, a fact that has not been adequately taken into account due to the peculiarities ofthe Maastricht strategy for monetary integration. Yet, a new approach to the economic theory offederalism is required ifone wants to analyze the most pressing issues ofEU social policy. The social insurance view of redistribution and stabilization provides for such an approach. This view supports laboratory federalism in which it is the role ofthe EU Commission to contain systems competition in order to preserve "stability in diversity." The role ofthe EU level would be to promote horizontal and vertical learning processes and to make sure that stability concerns ofthe EU are taken seriously by member countries' governments. The minimum requirements framework for social policy that the EU Commission has adopted must be taken as a point of departure, even though it is a less than satisfactory approach from this point of view. Laboratory standardization, in contrast, would not set specific minimum requirements but meta-standards that protect systems functions and safeguard against systems failures.

Antitrust, Regulation and the Neutrality Trap: A plea for a smart, evidence-based internet policy. CEPS Special Report No. 104/April 2015

When they look at Internet policy, EU policymakers seem mesmerised, if not bewitched, by the word ‘neutrality’. Originally confined to the infrastructure layer, today the neutrality rhetoric is being expanded to multi-sided platforms such as search engines and more generally online intermediaries. Policies for search neutrality and platform neutrality are invoked to pursue a variety of policy objectives, encompassing competition, consumer protection, privacy and media pluralism. This paper analyses this emerging debate and comes to a number of conclusions. First, mandating net neutrality at the infrastructure layer might have some merit, but it certainly would not make the Internet neutral. Second, since most of the objectives initially associated with network neutrality cannot be realistically achieved by such a rule, the case for network neutrality legislation would have to stand on different grounds. Third, the fact that the Internet is not neutral is mostly a good thing for end users, who benefit from intermediaries that provide them with a selection of the over-abundant information available on the Web. Fourth, search neutrality and platform neutrality are fundamentally flawed principles that contradict the economics of the Internet. Fifth, neutrality is a very poor and ineffective recipe for media pluralism, and as such should not be invoked as the basis of future media policy. All these conclusions have important consequences for the debate on the future EU policy for the Digital Single Market.

Social Policy Reforms in the EU: A Cross-national Comparison. Social Inclusion Monitor Europe (SIM) – Reform Barometer. Pilot Study

European countries are losing momentum for social policy reforms: The results of the SIM Europe Index report on social justice, published in September 2014, suggested a growing social divide among the member states. Assessing six policy areas of social inclusion, the data revealed the deteriorating social situation since 2009 across the EU. The report stressed, in particular, the difficulties southern EU member states were having in coping with the effects of the financial and economic crisis. This second report, the SIM Europe Reform Barometer, takes up these results and delivers two tasks: to impartially assess the extent of problem awareness of governments, and to ask whether they have enacted concrete social policy initiatives to tackle these challenges and to counterbalance the growing divide. Southern European member states, especially, did not or have not been able to pursue reforms to limit their withering levels of a socially inclusive society. In almost all key dimensions of social inclusion, those member states most affected by the implications of the protracted economic and fiscal crisis in the EU have been least able to confine the ongoing ‘internal devaluation’ in terms of socially balanced governmental activity. By contrast, some northern member states have legislated acts which seem well-suited to at least stabilise or even increase their level of social inclusion.

How Social is European Integration? Bruges European Economic Policy (BEEP) Briefing 18/2007

The social dimension of the internal market or of the EU more generally has recently been under quite fundamental attack. Calls for 'Europe' to be 'more social' have been heard repeatedly. Witness the polarized debates about the services directive, the anxieties concerning several ECJ cases about what limitations of the free movement of workers (posted or not) are justified or the assertion of a 'neo-liberal agenda' in Brussels disregarding or eroding the social dimension. This BEEP Briefing paper takes an analytical approach to these issues and to the possible 'framing' involved. Such an analysis reveals a very different picture than the negative framing in such debates has it: there is nothing particular 'a-social' about the internal market or the EU at large. This overall conclusion is reached following five steps. First, several 'preliminaries' of the social dimension have to be kept in mind (including the two-tier regulatory & expenditure structure of what is too loosely called 'social Europe' ) and this is only too rarely done or at best in partial, hence misleading, ways. Second, the social acquis at EU and Member States' levels is spelled out, broken down into four aspects (social spending; labour market regulation; industrial relations; free movements & establishment). Assessing the EU acquis in the light of the two levels of powers shows clearly that it is the combination of the two levels which matters. Member States and e.g. labour unions do not want the EU level to become deeply involved ( with some exceptions) and the actual impact of free movement and establishment is throttled by far-reaching host-country control and the requirement of a 'high level of social protection' in the treaty. Third, six anxieties about the social dimension of the internal market are discussed and few arguments are found which are attributable to the EU or its weakening social dimension. Fourth, another six anxieties are discussed emerging from the socio-economic context of the social dimension of the EU at large. The analysis demonstrates that, even if these anxieties ought to be taken serious, the EU is hardly or not the culprit. Fifth, all this is complemented by a number of other facts or arguments strengthening the case that the EU social dimension is fine.