The Transcendental Construction of the Social Dimension of the European Union: The Challenges of the EU Social Model During and After the Crisis

Author(s):  
Ainhoa Lasa López ◽  
Jone I. Elizondo Urrestarazu
2022 ◽  
pp. 134-154
Author(s):  
Vítor João Pereira Domingues Martinho

The social role of the farms is, especially, relevant in the rural areas where the socioeconomic problems are, often, more visible. In this perspective, this study aims to investigate the interrelationships of the labour input with other variables inside the farms and assess how the sector may create more employment in a sustainable way. For that, the labour input was, first, correlated with other farm variables and after analysed through factor analysis approaches and cross-section econometric methodologies, considering as basis the Cobb-Douglas and Verdoorn-Kaldor models. The main findings highlight relevant insights to improve the social dimension of the European Union farms. The labour input growth rate is positively influenced by the total output growth rates and negatively impacted by the total productivity growth. The effects from the investment and from the subsidies are residual or not significant.


2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Verdun

This article seeks to shed light on the development over the past decades of the concept of economic governance. It asks what is understood by economic governance and what role the social dimension has played. The article offers an analysis of the problems and possible issues confronting the EU as it seeks ways to address the sovereign debt crisis by embarking on deeper economic integration. The article concludes that from the early days there have been questions about the exact interaction between economic and monetary integration and thus between ‘economic’ and ‘monetary’ union. Despite Delors’ original inclination, few were willing to establish any linkage between EMU and social matters. The crises have again brought out the need to consider the two in tandem. Moreover, with the increased role in economic governance accorded to EU-level institutions, there is a need to rethink the EU democratic model.


2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 256-257
Author(s):  
William Walters

Social scientific interest in "social Europe" pales in compar- ison with the attention that has been directed toward the economic and political dimensions of the European Union (EU). This is perhaps hardly surprising; for much of its relatively short history, the system that is today the EU has been almost exclusively economic in its focus. Only since the 1980s has the project of European integration acquired a significant social dimension. Given this imbalance, Robert Geyer provides a welcome and timely addition to the litera- ture.


Author(s):  
Mary Daly

Social policy has a particular character and set of associated politics in the European Union (EU) context. There is a double contestation involved: the extent of the EU’s agency in the field and the type of social policy model pursued. The former is contested because social policy is typically and traditionally a matter of national competence and the latter because the social policy model is crucial to economic and market development. Hence, social policy has both functional and political significance, and EU engagement risks member states’ capacity to control the social fate of their citizens and the associated resources, authority, and power that come with this capacity. The political contestations are at their core territorially and/or social class based; the former crystalizes how wide and extensive the EU authority should be in social policy and the latter a left/right continuum in regard to how redistributive and socially interventionist EU social policy should be. Both are the subject of a complicated politics at EU level. First, there is a diverse set of agents involved, not just member states and the “political” EU institutions (Parliament and Council) but the Commission is also an important “interested” actor. This renders institutional politics and jockeying for power typical features of social policymaking in the EU. Second, one has to break down the monolith of the EU institutions and recognize that within and among them are actors or units that favor a more left or right position on social policy. Third, actors’ positions do not necessarily align on the two types of contestation (apart perhaps from the social nongovernmental organizations and to a lesser extent employers and business interests). Some actors who favor an extensive role for social policy in general are skeptical about the role of the EU in this regard (e.g., trade unions, some social democratic parties) while others (some sectors of the Commission) wish for a more expansive EU remit in social policy but also support a version of social policy pinned tightly to market and economic functions. In this kind of context, the strongest and most consistent political thrust is toward a type of EU social policy that is most clearly oriented to enabling the Union’s economic and market-related objectives. Given this and the institutional set-up, the default position in EU social policy is for a market-making social policy orientation on the one hand and a circumscribed role for the EU in social policy on the other.


Author(s):  
Shannon Dinan

The European Union has no unilateral legislative capacity in the area of social policy. However, the European Commission does play the role of guide by providing a discursive framework and targets for its 28 Member States to meet. Since the late 1990’s, the EU’s ideas on social policy have moved away from the traditional social protection model towards promoting social inclusion, labour activation and investing in children. These new policies represent the social investment perspective, which advocates preparing the population for a knowledge-based economy to increase economic growth and job creation and to break the intergenerational transmission of poverty. The EU began the gradual incorporation of the social investment perspective to its social dimension with the adoption of ten-year strategies. Since 2000, it has continued to set goals and benchmarks as well as offer a forum for Member States to coordinate their social initiatives. Drawing on a series of interviews conducted during a research experience in Brussels as well as official documents, this paper is a descriptive analysis of the recent modifications to the EU’s social dimension. It focuses on the changes created by the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Social Investment Package. By tracing the genesis and evolution of these initiatives, the author identifies four obstacles to social investment in the European Union's social dimension.   Full text available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v10i1.263


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document