Considerations on the impact of the EU enlargement towards Central and Eastern Europe on the European Social Model
| Author | Constantin Viorel Mihai |
| Pages | 515-531 |
Constantin Viorel Mihai. Ph.D. candidate, Faculty of History, University of Bucharest (e-mail: oi_medc@amposdru.mmssf.ro).
Page 515
In current debates about globalization politicians from the European Union and its Member States often refer to “The European Social Model” and argue about its competitiveness in relation to other models at global level. However, they do not offer a clear definition or an unambiguous signification. It id commonly agreed that it encompasses a certain combination of, among others, strong democratic institutions and processes, a highly productive economy, social dialogue, solidarity, equal opportunities for all, a high level of social protection, as well as education and health care for all.
In order to reach a better understanding of what the European Social Model is, it is only of very limited help to analyse social policies and social protection systems in the individual countries of Europe. This would only lead to a classification of welfare state systems and give more evidence of the differences than of what these countries have in common. Instead, we should look at what the European Union, the most ambitious European economic, political and social integration project, has to tell us on the subject.
Between Treaty of Rome and the Lisbon Agenda, the constant concern of the European Community for matters related to the social policy led to the creation of a „European Social Model”.
Page 516
The historical experiences of the Member States of the European Union are of course extremely different, however, despite the intra-European differences, reference is often made to the existence of a European Social Model, different from the American or the Japanese model.
From the outset, social policy was not in the limelight of the architects of the European Community, as their main objective was to ensure economic integration of the member states. An interest in social policy arose in the 1970s. In 1972 Willy Brandt, the chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, suggested at the Paris Summit that social policy should be treated in EU on a par with economic policy and that the ‘European Social Union’ should be created. The idea of social integration has become a recurrent theme. The development of the EU social policy went through several momentous stages. In 1989 a very important act known as the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers was adopted. It is not a legal document in a strict sense, but it symbolises the recognition of the fundamental social values by the European Community. Another milestone in the development of social policy was the Maastricht Summit which took place in 1992. The then adopted Social Policy Agreement created a legal framework for the European Social Model. It called for the strengthening of economic and social cohesion so as to promote overall harmonious development (Articles 2 and 130) in the European Union. The decisions reached during the Amsterdam Summit of 1997 led to a rapid development of the European social policy. The Amsterdam Treaty made reference to the fundamental social rights. The Treaty (new Articles 136 and 137) introduced major guidelines for the present European policy of combating social exclusion, unemployment and poor working conditions.
The European Social Policy guidelines are on the agenda of various UE social initiatives targeted at vulnerable groups, aiming at reducing the labour market exclusion and promoting employment. The EU concerns with poverty have been rising since the mid-1970s and have been closely related to the growth of poverty and social exclusion in the EU Member States. Since the 1970s the European Commission has introduced and funded a lot of social programmes more or less directly dealing with poverty1.
The references to the European Social Model are more and more frequent. Thus, the Lisbon Summit from March 2000 has stimulated an important debate on “Modernizing the European Social Model”, which was paradoxically dominated by the very liberal vision of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who recommended the followings: “The European social model, with its developed systems of social protection, must underpin the transformation to the knowledge economy”2.
Later on, the Nice Summit laid down the Social Agenda, which focused on this model, before drawing the following conclusion: The European social model, characterized in particular by systems that offer a high level of social protection, by the importance of the social dialogue and by services of general interest covering activities vital for social cohesion, is today based, beyond the diversity of the Member States' social systems, on a common core of values.”3
Page 517
According to the definition adopted by the Barcelona Summit in March 2002, the European social model is based on a good economic performance, a high level of social protection and on education and social dialogue”.
‘The magic triangle’ – growth, stability, and equality – the basis of the European Social Model and the conceptual core of the Lisbon Strategy, is a specific formula which takes into account the social, economic, political and cultural contexts in different regions of Europe. Over time, four social sub-models have been both theoretically and empirically defined: Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, Continental and Mediterranean.
Presently, the Community Social Policy is elaborated much faster than before 1992, in relation to the “new European Social Model”, adapted to the new elements of the European Union economy marked by globalization, the emergence of the information society and by the single currency introduction. This social model is build upon an objective inspired by the Scandinavian social democratic model which aims at using to the utmost the human potential and at involving the public authority, as well as the social partners in order to attain this objective.
The very existence of the European Social Model has given rise to countless debates and controversies and was often raised for discussion, as a result of the very different national systems of the Member States; thus, the liberal approach taken in consideration by some people, according to the example of the United Kingdom, followed by other people, attached undoubtedly less importance to the social policies and in particular diminished the role of the State in developing and carrying through those policies.
A 'model' is a notion often developed in order to explain what one is not, rather than what one is. In the case of the European Social Model, many consider the notion – now anchored in EU summit conclusions from Barcelona - as a way of saying that EU work and welfare policy is not the same as, for example, US policy in these fields.
Others consider the notion of the European Social Model as a political counterweight to the EU fiscal rules limiting excessive government deficits, commonly known as the 'Stability Pact'. This interpretation is particularly pertinent in the light of secular ageing of EU populations. This trend is beginning to increase economic dependency ratios (the number of non-workers to be supported by each worker) and thus put a strain on government spending, including on social spending.
However, when pushed to explain what the European Social Model is, the same people find it difficult to define it precisely. The truth is that the notion of 'model' is a political term as much as a technical term4. The way we design and deliver employment policies is very different in each Member State. Even if the EU issues guidelines for policy and sets targets (such as '70% of all 15-64 year-olds to have a job by 2010'), jobs are not created in Brussels. The way we design and deliver welfare, health and pensions is also very different from country to country. Even if the Commission formally reports to Member States analysing their reforms (and all are reforming) in order to encourage use of best practice. Pensions are not provided by fiat from Brussels. But, even if it escapes precise definition, the notion of 'model' is significant because it is 'anticipatory' or 'aspirational'. In other words, like the expressions 'European Union' or 'Common Foreign and Security Policy', the word 'model' hints at a progressive real convergence of views among Member States on the broad objectives they seek to achieve in employment and social policy.
These objectives were spelt out in very specific terms in the conclusions to the Lisbon summit of March 2000 and include full employment, growth to rival that of the United States and a system that allows no one to fall through the net by 2010.
Page 518
| Comparative data concerning the social chapter in EU and USA | EU-15 | USA |
| Employment rate (25-54) | 64 | 74 |
| Growth rate of the productivity of labour (1995-2000) | 1.4 | 2.0 |
| Ageing rate of the population | 35 | 25 |
| Social security contribution (% in GDP, 2001) | 27.5 | 14.2 |
Since Lisbon, we have also seen much convergence on the means to achieve the stated objectives. For example, Member States are now acting to reform the way pension systems work, in order to put a stop to fiscal incentives for workers to leave the labour market early.
Having regard to the objectives agreed upon at Lisbon, Romano Prodi admitted that “the major challenge of the tomorrow’s Europe is finding a solution to the problems concerning the need for compatible social security and industrial relations systems of the Member States, meeting at the same time the obligations that the international competitiveness impose to Europe” (Prodi, 2000). Therefore, the main challenge of the EU is to find solutions concerning the European social policies, in the context of the strong economic...
To continue reading
Request your trial