4. Perspectives on the Evolution of European Social Policy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

226. The health area is a first and crucial Europe-wide testing ground for the turf battlebetween national welfare states and the EU plus the market as represented byprivate insurance, producers etc.Liebfried (2005: 272-75) claims that these developments are testament to the emergenceof a unique multi-tiered system of social policy, with three distinctive characteristics.First there is a paucity of positive action given the limited capacity of the EU, the densityof existing national commitments and the desire of governments to preserve these.However member-states are also constrained by the EU’s legal rulings which constitutethe second important development. In adjudicating on matters of EU law, the ECJ cannothelp but take policy decisions. What may make matters difficult for member-statesrelates to the third pertinent development, namely that social policies have often beenseen as some sort of buffer or protection against the market, whereas the logic of EUsocial policy seems to be part of a process of market construction. The upshot of thesevarious developments is that some commentators have been prompted to ask to whatextent such developments represent a move from sovereign to semi-sovereign welfarestates (Ferrera, 2005, p. 119). The question is with what is the sovereignty of nationalsocial policy being shared. Whilst the obvious answer might be the EU, the fact thatthe agenda of the EU seems to be tied so closely to market-construction and economicmatters might lead some to suspect that national social policy is being suborned to aprocess of economic globalisation, facilitated by the EU.<strong>4.</strong>4 Globalisation and Social Policy in the EUWhat is globalisation and what are its implications for national social policy? Althoughit is a contested term, it is ‘perhaps most often used to denote profound transformationsto capitalism over the past several decades, including the opening up of non-capitalistcountries and markets to capitalist values, institutions, and social relations’ (Yeates2007). The last point is particularly important as globalization is thought to signify theimposition of an economic logic upon matters which would previously not have beenexposed to this logic. Two considerations in particular are important. These are the extentto which globalization triggers a ‘race to the bottom’, in which nation states continue toreduce welfare and regulatory costs in a competition with other states to attract foreigninvestors; and the extent to which comprehensive public provision is eschewed in favourof reliance on private provision, be it commercial, voluntary or informal, in meeting socialneeds (social dumping). Both entail a more minimalist role for the state in the provisionof public goods. These issues are assessed in the next section.
perspectives on the evolutionof european social policy 23<strong>4.</strong><strong>4.</strong>1 Trends in Social ExpenditureOverall, social expenditure statistics point to the maintenance of high levels ofsocial spending. 23 Since 1980, average public social expenditure across the EU15has increased from 19.5% to 2<strong>4.</strong>4% of GDP in 2005. In most EU15 countries thepercentage of expenditure to GDP in 2005 was well above 1980’s level. Ireland, onaccount of its exceptional growth rates, and the Netherlands, due to factors such asthe privatisation of sick-pay and a tightening of generosity and inflow to disabilitybenefits, are two exceptions (Taylor-Gooby, 2002, p. 599; Adema & Ladaique,2009, p. 22). 24Figure <strong>4.</strong>1 EU15 Public Social Expenditure as a percentage of GDP1980-2005 243530252015105019801985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Austria BelgiumDenmark Finland FranceGermanyGreece IrelandItaly LuxembourgNetherlandsSweden UKPortugal EU15Spain23 Statistics do not account for the taxation of welfare benefits in some high spending countries.24 http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SOCX_AGG.
Page 1: ackground paper4.
Page 4 and 5: Table of ContentsBackground Paper 4
Page 6 and 7: 64backgroundThe Provision paperof S
Page 8 and 9: expenditure but rather to a recalib
Page 10 and 11: 4.2.1 Toward a Soc
Page 12 and 13: in conjunction with the completion
Page 14 and 15: 4.2.2 The Lisbon S
Page 16 and 17: 10and social exclusion, as well as
Page 18 and 19: 12s Agreed common objectives at EU
Page 20 and 21: 14enforceable rights applicable to
Page 22 and 23: 164.3 Sovereignty
Page 24 and 25: 18assistance eligibility and reside
Page 26 and 27: 20it is subject to competition rule
Page 30 and 31: 24Across (Adema & Ladaique) countri
Page 32 and 33: 26from a reactive, corrective, comp
Page 34 and 35: 28Did this mean that measures that
Page 36 and 37: 30Figure 4.2 The E
Page 38 and 39: 32In portraying enlargement as prov
Page 40 and 41: 34Sabel and Gerstenberg (2010: 31)
Page 42 and 43: 36legal and social traditions. Of c
Page 44 and 45: 38process of liberalisation cannot
Page 46 and 47: 40ReferencesAdema, W. and Ladaique,

4. Perspectives on the Evolution of European Social Policy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?