Search

While the poverty risks of non‐standard employment have been explored extensively, this study focuses on the role of activation‐oriented social policy in alleviating material deprivation for persons with non‐standard employment histories. Using EU‐SILC data, individuals over a four‐year period were analysed. I focused on substantial earners and distinguished between six non‐standard employment histories expected to benefit from activation measures. Multi‐level models revealed that compared to standard employment histories, all non‐standard employment histories had higher material deprivation risks but to substantially different extents. At the macro level, participation in activation measures, expenditures in formal childcare and minimum income protection reduced material deprivation. Participation in training can be interpreted as an equaliser, as the deprivation gap between standard and most non‐standard employment history types diminished. As expenditure‐ and participation‐based measures differed significantly, evaluating the success of activation strategies in reducing inequalities and alleviating poverty highly depends on the measurement of activation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Persisting high poverty and social exclusion rates remain a key challenge of European welfare states. The socio-economic consequences following the COVID-19 crisis are challenging the protection of social citizenship and social rights of the most vulnerable. We examine the role of the European Union (EU) in supporting the most vulnerable citizens by focusing on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD). Our key question is, if and in which ways the EU strengthens social citizenship and social rights through FEAD. We base our analysis on a document analysis of the Regulation, Member States' operational programmes and results of a survey with food aid organizations in Belgium, Lithuania and Portugal. Our findings suggest that FEAD represents a contradictory case of European action in the field of social citizenship and social rights. On the one hand, FEAD is a highly targeted social policy instrument. On the other hand, food aid, as the main provided instrument, is based on charity and not on social rights. Accompanying social inclusion measures could support beneficiaries in the take-up of social rights, but these measures lack clear rules for implementation and monitoring. We conclude that FEAD seems to contribute to the institutionalization of charitable food aid within national welfare systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD), the European Union (EU) acts as a 'material supporter' of national welfare states. Remarkably, the European Social Fund Plus, integrating ESF and FEAD, is presented as the main financial instrument to implement the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR). This raises the question of what these levers can do in terms of financial support, especially for Member States with greater social needs. By using the Social Scoreboard indicators that monitor the implementation of the EPSR, we analyse the size and distribution of ESF and FEAD according to Member States' economic capacity, social needs and efforts required to meet the European social goals. We find that the funds benefit relatively more the poorer Member States who also tend to have greater social needs. However, especially for ESF, there are significant deviations from this general pattern. Some countries consistently receive less funding than others with similar levels of social needs, and vice versa. Moreover, if, from the perspective of upward convergence, the budgets are expressed as a percentage of the efforts required to lift all income‐poor citizens to the EU‐wide at‐risk‐of‐poverty threshold, countries who need to make the greatest efforts receive less funding. These outcomes are partly driven by the funds' allocation rules, which give only little importance to the great social discrepancies between countries. This raises the question whether social needs should be taken more into account in the distribution of the funds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces this special issue of the International Journal of Disability and Social Justice focusing on Independent Living, understood both as a social movement and an analytic paradigm. The aim of the special issue is to mark the 50th anniversary of the first Centre for Independent Living, as well as the tenth occurrence of the Freedom Drive, a biennial advocacy event organised by the European Network on Independent Living (ENIL). We first explain the significance of these two initiatives, tracing their history and rationale in terms of disabled people's struggle for self-determination. We then discuss the meaning of Independent Living and associated definitional struggles. In the main part of the article, we explore the relations between Independent Living and the state, the market, and the family. This helps us to understand Independent Living as critique of professional power, self-sufficiency, and parental authority. The practical implications of these critiques are explored by looking at current struggles for deinstitutionalisation and personal assistance. We conclude by presenting the pillars of Independent Living and their consideration in the contributions to this special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies have shown positive impact of family policies on women's labour market participation over the last decades. How, then, does it influence the types of jobs women obtain when they (re-)enter the labour market? Using multi-level modelling, this study examines how different work–family balance policies (that is, leave policies, childcare services) shape gendered labour market patterns and whether or not it mitigates women's overrepresentation among the labour market Outsiders across Europe. I use European Working Conditions Survey 2015 data and cover 30 European countries. Specifically focusing on women's relative likelihood of being labour market Outsiders compared to men, I find that certain policies help women avoid being Outsiders, while the others may reinforce the existing gender inequality in the labour market. This resonates with the welfare state paradox and family policy trade-off literature that the policies that do not disrupt the gender norms may in turn maintain or enhance them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Luridica Montenegrina is the property of University of Donja Gorica, Faculty of Legal Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The European Semester (Semester) was implemented a decade ago. Ample research has addressed the Semester’s development, including some major changes in processes and content (Verdun & Zeitlin, 2018). The Covid-19 crisis seems to mark the next stage in the evolution of the Semester. It connects the Semester with the wider Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and links its country-specific recommendations to conditional financial support. Thus, the next stage of the Semester suggests a stronger and more deliberate interlinkage of different EU tools that jointly guide national socioeconomic policies. It should support both national public investment and reforms while focusing on meeting the EU priority of moving towards a climate-neutral, digitalized, and resilient Europe (De la Porte & Dagnis Jensen, 2021). This article addresses the question of what room the new-style Semester gives to the involvement of national-level actors, such as national parliaments. Therefore, it expands existing analytical frameworks in order to assess the RRF in connection to the Semester, focusing on the degree of obligation, enforcement, and centralisation. Jointly, this outlines the room the RRF gives to the participation of national actors in the Semester. The article concludes that although the national parliaments are not mentioned in the Regulation establishing the RRF, they could claim a role both in developing national plans for accessing financial support as well as in amending and approving reforms.

This article traces the development of the European social policy from its minimalist role provided for in the Treaties of Rome, through the neoliberal orientation, especially in the financial crisis of 2008, to the trend towards a socio-investment perspective in response to the crisis caused by the Kovid19 pandemic. Current EU social policy applies a new approach that emphasizes the need to invest in education and training and the provision of quality social services throughout the life course of people - from early childhood to old age. It relies on the mutual enrichment of national and supranational forms of social protection.

The launch of the European Pillar of Social Rights occurred at a phase of endogenous critical juncture for Social Europe. By analyzing the Pillar's formulation and adoption process, we investigate to what extent the European Commission used the involvement of civil society and policy responsiveness to foster change in the modes of governance and legitimize stronger intervention in the social sphere, by re‐launching the methods of coordination introduced in the 1990s. Methodologically, we rely on a content analysis of EU policy documents before and after the public consultations, a content analysis of over 60 position papers and on interviews with policy actors. We find that despite increased openness and responsiveness, the Pillar initiative did not allow to alter the predominance of 'soft law' routes and patterns of intergovernmentalism characterizing the governance of EU social policy, a result that further qualifies the conditions that lead (endogenous) critical junctures to generate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue brings together innovative theoretical perspectives and timely empirical research on trade unions' impact on the formation and implementation of social policy across Europe and on the European level. The starting point of this editorial and the baseline for the articles included in the issue is the assumption that trade unions remain an important factor in creating and maintaining social policies in the course of European integration. However, the integration process has fundamentally transformed the power constellation between state, capital and labour that once facilitated the post-war establishment of national welfare states in Europe. Since this new constellation impedes trade unions on both the national and transnational level, the emergence of a 'Social Europe' remains an unfulfilled promise. In this situation, our editorial focuses on the national impact on European social policy and the European impact on national social policy. This special issue then contributes to the literature in three relevant areas. International comparisons improve our understanding of national policy dynamics and help us in making sense of the institutional heterogeneity within the EU-27. Such comparisons can reach their theoretical potential when applied in explaining institutional dynamics within the multi-level political system of the EU. Last but not least, analyses in the field aim at identifying transnational effects stemming from mutual observation or bilateral initiatives, such as wage coordination or transnational organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European policy-making has focused on economic and budgetary policies in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and the austerity programmes that ensued. Recent years, particularly those under the Juncker Commission (2014- 2019), have seen new social issues appear on the European agenda and European social policy gaining momentum – at least on a rhetorical level. The "socialising" of the European Semester, the declaration of an "European Pillar of Social Rights" and a recalibration of the European Social Fund are key parts of this new social agenda. While this seems to be a promising reinvigoration of a Social Europe, the classic regulatory approach to social policy remains more or less in stalemate. This article asks whether we face a promising new governance mode with substantial policy implications or if these are merely symbolic actions designed to give Europe a more social face. In exploring this issue, the article evaluates the social policy-related country specific recommendations (CSRs) forSpain and Germany in the European Semesters. First, it asks whether the recommendations mirror the specific problem constellations and the new agenda of the ‘Social Pillar’. Second, it evaluates how far both member states integrate the CSRs into their domestic policies.

This article presents an original analysis of the social policy discourse at the European Union level by focusing on the language used by European Commission Presidents when addressing social issues. Through an empirical analysis based on a semi-supervised machine learning approach, we consider the entire corpus of speeches made by Barroso and Juncker from 2010 to 2018 and we classify all sentences according to three possible variants of social policy language: social-retrenchment, social-investment and rights-based language. We argue that the focus on these languages allows us to understand whether the 'fiscal consolidation discipline' narrative, which dominated in the aftermath of the Great Recession, has been challenged over the years by the recourse to alternative 'social policy images'. The results confirm a significant shift in the overall configuration of social policy discourse between Barroso and Juncker. This shift has been mainly characterized by an increase in the use of rights-based language and a decrease in the use of social-retrenchment language, which however has not been completely abandoned. Therefore, the recalibration of EC's speeches on social policy has not been abrupt but has instead been incremental. The article concludes by discussing preliminary interpretations of the observed trends and their potential implications in terms of 'discursive legacy' in the post-pandemic era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We are pleased to discuss our study on the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) and the redistributive effects of EHIC-related east–west patient and payment flows across regions and social classes. Our critics confirm our key finding: EHIC patient outflows from Eastern European (EE) to Western European (WE) countries result in a much higher relative burden for the budgets of EE states than outflows from WE to EE do for WE countries. Starting from what they see as the true mission of social security coordination, however, they also tell us that we should never have studied the redistributive impact of EHIC patient and payment flows in the first place. In this response, we therefore explicate the differences between our empirical sociological perspective and our critics' normative legal approach. This is important, especially when social facts contradict normative legal assumptions as in our case. The EU laws that govern EHIC patient and payment flows are indeed based on the free movement provisions of the EU's internal market project, but our empirical findings show that the promise of 'economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States' contained in Article 3.3 of the Treaty of the European Union is not realized in practice in the case of east–west EHIC payment flows and patient mobility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Semester (Semester) was implemented a decade ago. Ample research has addressed the Semester's development, including some major changes in processes and content (Verdun & Zeitlin, 2018). The Covid-19 crisis seems to mark the next stage in the evolution of the Semester. It connects the Semester with the wider Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and links its country-specific recommendations to conditional financial support. Thus, the next stage of the Semester suggests a stronger and more deliberate interlinkage of different EU tools that jointly guide national socioeconomic policies. It should support both national public investment and reforms while focusing on meeting the EU priority of moving towards a climate-neutral, digitalized, and resilient Europe (De la Porte & Dagnis Jensen, 2021). This article addresses the question of what room the new-style Semester gives to the involvement of national-level actors, such as national parliaments. Therefore, it expands existing analytical frameworks in order to assess the RRF in connection to the Semester, focusing on the degree of obligation, enforcement, and centralisation. Jointly, this outlines the room the RRF gives to the participation of national actors in the Semester. The article concludes that although the national parliaments are not mentioned in the Regulation establishing the RRF, they could claim a role both in developing national plans for accessing financial support as well as in amending and approving reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the early 1990s, the issue of an aging population has become one of the priority issues of the current Member States of the European Union. Historically, at least, individual concerns within each state have emerged long before we can discuss about a European policy in this direction. These concerns have naturally flowed from the evolution of European societies. The improvement of living conditions and scientific progress, especially in the medical field have led to the gradual prolongation of life expectancy. The average age of the European population has risen rapidly, while the fertility rate has fallen. The European demographic trend, visible since the 1990s, continued in the first decade of the 2000s, in parallel with unprecedented social and economic changes, which culminated in the economic crisis of a decade ago. During all this time, at the level of the European Union, but also at the level of the Member States, numerous measures and recommendations have been implemented to correct the negative effects of the aging population, promote active aging and increase the standard of living for this age group. In this study, we will analyze the most important statistical trends and policy adopted in this field at European level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social policy is often overlooked in public discourses over European integration despite that it is a significant instrument for raising its legitimacy. On the basis of systematic analysis of mass attitudes to European unification, measured in the 8th wave of European Social Survey (ESS), this paper shows that in the EC as a whole European tend to support the introduction of an all-European scheme for social assistance and to consider that more decisions taken on the supranational level will improve social security for all. At the level of the separate countries the citizens are divided in their preferences for a national or a supranational European social security system. On the individual level, the low-status groups are more inclined to support all-European social measures than the citizens at the higher ranks of the social hierarchy. The expansion of integration towards a more pro-active supranational social policy will secure the support precisely of the groups who today feel left behind in the European project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social policy as a subject of welfare state has been studied mostly from the point of citizenship rights. Yet, the regulations of social policies at the European Union (EU) level are increasing day by day, which makes it an important subject for the European studies. Therefore, it is necessary to seek an answer to the question of how social policies that have been perceived as main subject of national policies have become part of the European legislation. This research attempts to answer this question. The research benefits from the cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as an explanatory factor, following the elaboration of social policy and European integration relationship. Thus, a bridge between various welfare systems and a uniformed EU social policy is more likely to be built. The paper argues that as the selected cases, Viking and Laval indicate, the CJEU is an important actor that promotes the argument about social policies at the EU level. The cases are not offering only a solution to the pertinent problem but also supporting more consistent social policies in the member states of the EU thanks to its "spill- over" impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Against the backdrop of proposals to introduce a European unemployment insurance scheme, we study public support for such schemes by conducting a conjoint experiment on support for European unemployment insurance in 13 EU member states. We argue that European-level social policy initiatives and the underlying notions of solidarity cannot be reduced to a one-dimensional concept, but rather include various dimensions. Unemployment schemes vary in their generosity, the conditions for support, their impact on taxation, the extent to which they preclude permanent redistribution between countries, and the EU's role in their administration. Generosity, conditions and taxation are 'domestic' dimensions, since they mainly resonate with domestic policy debates; between-country redistribution and administration are 'cross-border' dimensions, referring to relationships between countries. We expect economic ideology to interact predominantly with domestic dimensions and EU support to interact predominantly with cross-border dimensions. Findings confirm these expectations, with the exception of between-country redistribution and country-level conditionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A degree of collective identity is often perceived to be a requirement for integration of core state powers, and even more so when redistributive measures are at stake. Existing research has shown that European identity is an important correlate of support for European social policy in general. This article explores the ways in which collective identities relate to the multidimensional nature of social policy at the European level. We explore in particular the features of European social policy that receive the most support from European publics, and how local, national and European identity moderates these preferences. We expect that people who have primarily sub‐national or national attachments are less supportive of generous schemes and schemes that involve greater cross‐country redistribution, and are more in favour of decentralized schemes administered by the member states than those with stronger European identities. We find support for these expectations in a conjoint survey experiment fielded in autumn 2018 in 13 EU member states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Públic is the property of Revista Catalana de Dret Public and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In September 2015, the European Commission launched a new political initiative ‐‐ the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) ‐‐ with the stated aim of strengthening the social acquis of the European Union and promoting upward social convergence across eurozone countries. In January 2017, the European Parliament voted in a resolution supporting the EPSR. This article examines the positioning of the parliamentary political groups to grasp the tensions that emerged during the debate. In so doing, it provides empirical evidence of the existence of a complex 'clash syndrome' in European social policies which results from the combination of vertical and horizontal forms of euroscepticism. The main argument is that the coexistence of multiple political tensions may hamper the development of a stronger Social Europe, but may also lead to the emergence of new political coalitions through the 'criss‐crossing' of different lines of conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper addresses the concept of flexicurity as an element of European policy on labour and the right to work. Some arguments pros and cons flexicurity and the political components of the concept, are proposed, specifically flexible and trustworthy contractual arrangements, lifelong learning strategies, active labour policies and modern social security systems, as pillars of European social policy. A synopsis of issues and considerations regarding the concept, methodological aspects of its treatment in theory, with implications in practice will also be presented. Without claiming the exhaustive coverage, the arguments on the application of the concept will be submitted to discuss. Finally, the possible influences of flexicurity on the labour market will be assessed as a basis for proactive employment policy and getting jobs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study on Raymond Rifflet, a Belgian proponent of socialism and European federalism and the Director-General and Deputy Director-General of the European Commission's Directorate-General of Social Affairs (DG V). Particular emphasis is given to his position on and initiatives in the development of a European social policy within the context of the development of the European Economic Community (CEE). Rifflet's demotion to Deputy Director-General in 1974 is also mentioned.

In this paper I hold that the European social policy is an incentive for the qualitative leap of the European Union towards a well-ordered society, characterized by an overlapping consensus. I will follow Rawls’ account of these concepts, as they have been put forward in his Theory of Justice and in his subsequent works. I hold that not only this is what should happen, but also that the actual trends deem this scenario plausible and viable (correspondingly, I hold that European Union’s becoming a well-ordered society is desirable and that its social policy is what deems the transition feasible).

Copyright of Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Discussion Papers is the property of Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Yearbook of European Integration / Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej is the property of Faculty of Political Science & Journalism, Adam Mickiewicz University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article’s aim is to assess the progress in social policy field made after the Bulgarian EU accession. Due to the European Social Policy's peculiarities, this change - to a great degree - depends on internal factors and especially on the abilities of the Member-States to formulate specific goals and handle tools that are relevant to their own problems and to obtain favorable results. Based on strategic documents analysis, as well as on a comparison of social indicators, the thesis that the European Social Policy does not alternate the accession market model of social policy, set in early post-communist transition, is argued. This model generates a growing inequality -- before as well as after the social transfers. In the same time, during the decade of Bulgaria’s EU membership a favorable trend of poverty reduction is observed. However, it cannot compensate the country's lagging behind the other Member-States in the social policy field. The needed stark progress ought to pass through a reformulation of the already adopted Social Policy model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to identify the key elements that define the new European health policy. We observed that the health policy actually appeared to be an enclave within the integration process. The development of health policy in the new Member States followed a common pattern. Therefore, the European health policy reflected a general desire on behalf of the members to have more clarity of the rules in this area, given the different interpretation of the rules by different Member States.The Lisbon Treaty does not bring substantive changes regarding the public health policy, therefore the Member States shall keep their competence in defining the organization and financing this domain. However, the EU2020 Strategy states that “Europe faces a moment of transformation”. Therefore, the “Europeanization” of health policy could lead to the positive developments that all EU citizens are expecting.

The Supplementary Pension Rights Directive, legislated in 2014, represents a leap from minimum co-ordination of social security rights to minimal harmonization, thereby facilitating the portability of occupational pensions across the EU. The Lisbon Treaty, which relaxed the voting requirements in the Council, accelerated its adoption. In the 'shadow of the vote', opponents (mainly continental CMEs) abandoned the defence of the status quo for less exacting legislation. The majority of Member States instead understood that consensus was necessary to appease the domestic concerns of countries like Germany and to strengthen their negotiating position vis-à-vis the Parliament. Despite the inevitable watering-down, the final law modifies domestic pension arrangements across the EU, thereby benefiting mobile workers. The implications are twofold. First, political economists should take into account the growing European influence on domestic pension policy-making. Second, the extension of QMV to sensitive areas of social policy will probably enhance overall harmonization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of International Social Research is the property of Journal of International Social Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)