1 / 15

SOCIAL DUMPING IN „NEW EUROPE”? LIMITS IN WEST-EAST TRANSFER OF WELFARE MODELS AFTER EE

SOCIAL DUMPING IN „NEW EUROPE”? LIMITS IN WEST-EAST TRANSFER OF WELFARE MODELS AFTER EE. by Pal TAMAS HAS, Budapest. STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER. Ideal-type visions of Social Europe Institutional frames of social policy integration in Europe Motives for welfare state reforms

hope-combs
Download Presentation

SOCIAL DUMPING IN „NEW EUROPE”? LIMITS IN WEST-EAST TRANSFER OF WELFARE MODELS AFTER EE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SOCIAL DUMPING IN „NEW EUROPE”?LIMITS IN WEST-EAST TRANSFER OF WELFARE MODELS AFTER EE by Pal TAMAS HAS, Budapest

  2. STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER • Ideal-type visions of Social Europe • Institutional frames of social policy integration in Europe • Motives for welfare state reforms • Capability deprivation as policy target • Reform frontlines • CEC dilemmas: hard-soft law enforcement + opposition through the backdoor

  3. IDEAL-TYPE VISIONS OF SOCIAL EUROPE • EURO-CORPORATIST IMAGES a. enlarged traditional welfare state philosophies b. uniform social standards c. „social dialogue” of labour + capital [social contract] UNIONs, NGOs • DECENTRALIZED CONCERTATION APPROACH a. coordinating national-level activity b. cross-country sensitivities CENTRAL EUROPEAN ELITES

  4. FRAMES FOR INTEGRATION: MOBILITIES- RIGIDITIES EU MEMBERSHIP NOW MORE BONUS FOR DEMOCRACY, THEN CREATION OF A UNIFIED ECONOMIC SPACE: Employed labour mobility YES Social assistance mobility NO Service provider”s mobility LIMITED Agricultural benefits- mainly NATION-BOUNDED

  5. SOCIAL POLICY INTEGRATION [SE- Social Europe] Until the late 90ies INTERNAL MARKET+MONETARY UNION highly visible SE- hardly visible Lisbon Summit- March 2000 more active social policy CEC EU images of the elites: basically pre-Lisbon vision

  6. MOTIVES FOR WELFARE STATE REFORMS a.approach: external competition pressure forces governments to welfare state reforms b.approach: domestic structural- population, deindustrialization, fiscal crises, weakening the family as safety net CEC reform histories: early 90ies- external late 90ies –external + internal early 2000s- more internal

  7. THEORETICAL PUZZLE Social policy integration – inclusion policies are better integrated, as others 1992- directive on Sufficient Measures in Social Assistance Systems 2001- OMC on social inclusion. Central element: ACTIVATION [re-integration into the labour market] Asymmetry in favour of negative integration [dismantling barriers] against positive integration [building new regulatory framework]

  8. THE RIGHT QUESTION CENTRAL ISSUE Not whether a particular arrangement is better for all than no cooperation at all, but whether the particular divisions to emerge are fair divisions given the alternative arrangements that are made. J.F.Nash: The Bargaining Problem. Econometrica, 18 [1950] THE RIGHT QUESTION: Are the empowered actors getting a fair share of the benefits of economic interrelations?

  9. CAPABILITY DEPRIVATION POVERTY = CAPABILITY DEPRIVATION [CD] –A.SEN [lack of capability to live a minimally decent life] Or [Adam Smith…]: not „being able to appear in public without shame” Social exclusion = a. part of CD b. a cause of different capability failures [relational failure]

  10. FAIRNESS IN THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL SPACE VISIONS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE • Grand universalism [classical utilitarism] • National particularisms • Plural affiliation [A.Sen] processing of multiply identities

  11. CAPITAL FLOW- SOCIAL EXPENDITURE GLOBAL IMPACTS Open-and-smaller welfare state [liberal] Open-and-therefore-big welfare state [left] Net capital outflow –growth of social expenditure NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE GROWING WELFARE STATES ARE DOMESTIC REGIME MOTIVATED

  12. REFORMS: MAJOR- MINOR FRONTLINES OMC ACTIVATION POLICIES, as social policy co-ordination: -fiscally marginal -not a major concern for the average voter REAL CONCERN: SOCIAL EXCLUSION in different national welfare capitalisms. BUT this is regime specific, internal reforms

  13. WELFARE CONVERGENCE 90ies: Progressive dismantling of ideal-types of welfare state [ESPING-ANDERSEN typology] Focus on SOCIAL SECURITY EXPENDITURE, rather on the QUALITY OF SOCIAL POLICY Monetary union leads to less reform of the labour market fdistribution of the costs to the others]

  14. THE „HARD” AND „SOFT” LAW DILEMMA OMC [European Employment Strategy] –informal sanctions, soft law Community Method- hard law Institutional debate: relative capacities of different modes to handle specific tasks Governance modes –policy options?? CEC- culturally hard law oriented [here the soft law is too informal]

  15. CEC OPPOSITION THROUGH THE BACKDOOR? Basic: effects of Europeanization on domestic systems of governance Degree of misfit between European rules and existing institutional +regulatory traditions is high Non-compliance with EU directives in the new and old member states ?? Related/unrelated to opposition and/or due to administrative shortcomings CEC policy philosophies: tactics in interest representation of the week and latecomer

More Related