Meagre Collective of Country-specific Social Models Arjan Lejour
description
Transcript of Meagre Collective of Country-specific Social Models Arjan Lejour
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Meagre Collective of
Country-specific Social Models
Arjan Lejour
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
European Social Policy
1957 Treaty of Rome► Closer cooperation
1974 Social Action Programme► Equal treatment of men and women, employment
laws, working conditions
1986 Single European Act: qualified majority 1989 Social Charter 1992 Treaty of Maastricht:
► Subsidiarity Principle
1997 Treaty of Amsterdam► Social Chapter ratified by all Member States► European Employment Strategy
2000 Lisbon Summit
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
European Social Model?
In a sense, there is a European Social Model:
1. Idea of solidarity is firmly embedded
2. Shared belief that Social cohesion can be a productive factor
3. Institutionalised dialogue between government and social partners
However, huge differences in welfare states in Europe
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
EU Social Acquis (see Pelkmans)
area EU Member States
Social spending None, some adaptation
(EGF, ESF)
transfers and insurance (25% of GDP)
Labour market regulation
-health and safety
- minimum rules
Mainly national, strong links with welfare state
Industrial relations
Social dialogue Mainly national
Free movement & establishment
much -restrictions mig.-host country cntrol
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
First conclusion
Primary role in social models is for MS► budget► regulation
So Europe is social by MS policies. What is the rationale for division is tasks
between MS and EU► use subsidiarity principle
What are the challenges and threats? Does this require shifts in tasks?
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
How to divide the tasks?
Treaty definition and shared competences The Subsidiarity Principle: Arguments pro Decentralised policy
► Diversity► Local preferences
Arguments pro Centralised policy► Scale Effects
– better insurance– lower costs implementation
► External effects– social dumping– migration
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Epsing – Anderson classification
Continental model(Lux, Fra, Be, Ger, aus)
-low efficiency- high equity
Nordic model(Fin, Swe, Den, Neth)
-high efficiency- high equity
Mediterranean model(Ita, Spa, Gre, Por)
-low efficiency- low equity
Anglo-Saxon model(UK, Ire)
-high efficiency- low equity
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Welfare States in Europe
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Trade-off? Employment Inequality
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
PortugalFinland
SwedenUnited Kingdom
50
3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5
Inequality
Em
plo
ymen
t
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Trade-off? Production-Inequality
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
FinlandSweden
United Kingdom
50
3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5
Inequality
GD
P p
er h
ou
r w
ork
ed
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Scale effects? NO
United Kingdom
Sweden
Finland
Portugal
Austria
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
France
Spain
Greece
Germany
Denmark
Belgium
15
20
25
30
35
3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7
Inequality
So
cia
l s
ec
uri
ty s
pe
nd
ing
(%
GD
P)
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Social dumping? NO
10
20
30
40
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Social-democratic The Netherlands Corporatist Liberal Mediterranean
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Second conclusion
No economies of scale No external effects (hardly) Yes diversity
Current division of tasks between MS and EU is largely OK
No reason to centralize at least.
Will this also be the case in future?
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Pressure on European welfare states
ageing
welfare state
wage inequality
heterogeneity mobility tax bases
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Three Rs of welfare states
Redistribution Risk and insurance
► vs moral hazard
Redistribution over life cycle
Ageing, wage inequality, heterogeneity and mobility tax bases affect them all ...
and differently in MS.
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
National challenges
Retreat or reform?► retreat: Anglo-Saxon► reform towards Scandinavian► depending on preferences
Or need for larger even welfare state to cover risk of external shocks (Rodrik story)?► more open countries have bigger governments
Ageing, wage inequality and heterogeneity threaten distribution/solidarity in each MS
but EU-solidarity is limited, mainly national solutions.
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Reforms
Redistribution: subsidies to increase female participation, individualized tax income system, subsidize employers for low-skilled labour.
Risk and insurance: ALMP, employment protection
redistribution life cycle: life-long learning, higher female participation, more flexible labour markets for elderly.
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Role of EU
Incentive structure like OECD Coordination and information and policy
exchange Dealing with tax competition if necessary! Dealing with labour mobility issues and
consequences of different social models► subsidies► one shop idea
Still mobility will be hampered by differences in social models, but this is a choice.
... immigration scheme to affect active/inactive ratio ... or let Turkey in!
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Final conclusions
EU role is limited, mainly some coordination and general rules.
Chunk is national in particular on budgetary items, social model are types rooted in national traditions.
But social models have to be reformed due ageing wage inequality, heterogeneity, mobile tax base.
These are mainly national challenges. Role of EU is supplementary.
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
as expressed a long time ago
ESM=MCCSM
Brussels,05-11-07
Literature
Pelkmans, 2007, How Social is European Integration?, BEEP paper.
CPB/SCP, 2003, Social Europe, European Outlook 1.
De Mooij and Tang, 2003, Four Futures of Europe, CPB.
De Mooij, 2006, Reinventing the Welfare State, CPB.
Sapir, 2005, Globalisation and the reform of European Social Models, Bruegel policy brief
CPB contribution in EFN, 2007.