Authors Iain Begg | Gabriel Glöckler | Anke Hassel ... - The Europaeum
Authors Iain Begg | Gabriel Glöckler | Anke Hassel ... - The Europaeum Authors Iain Begg | Gabriel Glöckler | Anke Hassel ... - The Europaeum
need to be constructed to create access to new ladders of opportunity at different stages of the life cycle. The potential risks of polarisation between “winners” and “losers” from economic change and globalisation need to be narrowed: a new focus is needed on better labour market transitions, particularly for the low skilled. Emerging social problems, such as the social exclusion of disadvantaged and child poverty, can only be tackled through sustained social investment. In particular there are clear policy areas where welfare and labour market systems within member states have not sufficiently adjusted to changing social conditions: n Insufficient early years investment in young mothers and babies to overcome embedded disadvantage. n Too many school leavers not in employment, education or training: new initiatives are needed to reduce early school leaving, make up the ground for young people whose schooling has let them down and lessen the risks of delinquency. n Inadequate routes of progression for the low skilled into apprenticeships, technician grade skills and high quality vocational training. n Better support for “dual earner” couples to combine bringing up their children well and sustaining their career. n Fuller integration of migrants into European societies through targeted action to overcome language and cultural barriers and raise levels of educational achievement and labour market participation. Member states have the main responsibility for the social policy changes that are necessary. But this does not preclude a framework of objectives, targets, incentives and mutual learning that could be set at EU level. An opportunity to strengthen EU social policy is offered by the forthcoming review of the EU Budget. EU Budget funds could be used to realise some key social objectives, including the possibility of some form of minimum income or anti-child poverty guarantee across the Union. The onus of any EU Budget reform should be on the expansion of common policies where the EU can genuinely make a difference beyond the remit of what national policy instruments can realistically achieve at national level alone in 24 After the crisis: A new socio-economic settlement for the EU
areas such as research and innovation; mobility within higher education; cross-border energy infrastructure necessary for energy security and low-carbon transition, alongside flagship social policy initiatives. One further possibility is that if the crisis is prolonged, demand may grow for a Europe-wide recovery plan based on investment in low-carbon transition, research and skills. This might be financed by the issuing of Europe- or Euro-wide bonds. A new EU political economy? At one level, the discourse on the future of Europe will take the shape of a reversion to a familiar pro- or anti-European debate. Lining up on one side are those who feel that in some way the EU offers a shield against the disruptive forces of global capitalism, potentially far wider and thicker than the diminished role that the nation state can now offer: the logic that persuaded the Irish to vote a second time in favour of the Lisbon Treaty and Iceland to apply for EU membership. Ranged against this position are the populists on both the right and left, who see European integration as part of the problem, not the solution. They will almost certainly see a stronger nation-state as a consequence of the crisis, whether in protecting jobs at home, controlling migrant labour, or supporting national businesses in trouble. In addition, there is the possibility that some of the newer member states may feel “let down” by the EU – if they are left to themselves and denied the possibility of early entry to the Euro. This could strengthen anti-EU feeling in some member states unless the EU acts with greater boldness and vision, though this remains highly uncertain. Among pro-Europeans, the lessons of the crisis may be interpreted quite differently. For ease of understanding these pro-European reactions can be placed into four distinct camps, which to an extent overlap. n First, “integrationist interventionists” will see the crisis as an opportunity and find support for their instincts in the argument, popular on the left, that the crisis brings back the case for a wide range of public intervention in the economy, not just a need for tighter financial regulation but Euro-Keynesianism and more interventionist industrial policies. n In contrast, “economic liberals” who regard the Single Market as a central EU achievement, will only be “market-conditional integrationists”. They will want to consider whether and how EU institutions need to be strengthened as an agency of liberalisation, both internally and in the wider world, in order to better defend, Chapter 1 – Roger Liddle 25
- Page 1 and 2: Authors Iain Begg | Gabriel Glöckl
- Page 4 and 5: Published in 2009 by Policy Network
- Page 6 and 7: 4 After the crisis: A new socio-eco
- Page 8 and 9: 6 After the crisis: A new socio-eco
- Page 10 and 11: Simona Milio is associate director
- Page 12 and 13: Chapter 10 Simona Milio ...........
- Page 14 and 15: Before the crash: the EU as a parti
- Page 16 and 17: liberalisation. The City of London
- Page 18 and 19: of the Financial Services Action Pl
- Page 20 and 21: confidence and world trade, to whic
- Page 22 and 23: following the ECJ’s controversial
- Page 24 and 25: signals are in place to promote a n
- Page 28 and 29: or indeed re-impose, what they rega
- Page 30 and 31: Markets with rules The overall conc
- Page 32 and 33: 30 After the crisis: A new socio-ec
- Page 34 and 35: Target financial stability The EMU
- Page 36 and 37: Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemb
- Page 38 and 39: mortgage banks and the insurance se
- Page 40 and 41: financial market rules. The ESFS au
- Page 42 and 43: prudential regulation - though only
- Page 44 and 45: initiatives vis-à-vis ratings agen
- Page 46 and 47: 44 After the crisis: A new socio-ec
- Page 48 and 49: Even if membership in a monetary un
- Page 50 and 51: emained relatively contained to spe
- Page 52 and 53: The second channel of functional sp
- Page 54 and 55: But even so, the depth and intensit
- Page 56 and 57: governance in the EU and the euro a
- Page 58 and 59: in the EU show, authorities at the
- Page 60 and 61: factors will remain prevalent and b
- Page 62 and 63: centralised decision-maker. Similar
- Page 64 and 65: 62 After the crisis: A new socio-ec
- Page 66 and 67: (GNI), the interests of the member
- Page 68 and 69: terms only very slowly and as a per
- Page 70 and 71: policy proposal asks itself what th
- Page 72 and 73: ensure that a ceiling is put on the
- Page 74 and 75: Reform of EU expenditure Spending 4
need to be constructed to create access to new ladders of opportunity at<br />
different stages of the life cycle. <strong>The</strong> potential risks of polarisation between<br />
“winners” and “losers” from economic change and globalisation need to<br />
be narrowed: a new focus is needed on better labour market transitions,<br />
particularly for the low skilled. Emerging social problems, such as the<br />
social exclusion of disadvantaged and child poverty, can only be tackled<br />
through sustained social investment.<br />
In particular there are clear policy areas where welfare and labour market<br />
systems within member states have not sufficiently adjusted to changing<br />
social conditions:<br />
n Insufficient early years investment in young mothers and babies to<br />
overcome embedded disadvantage.<br />
n Too many school leavers not in employment, education or training:<br />
new initiatives are needed to reduce early school leaving, make up<br />
the ground for young people whose schooling has let them down<br />
and lessen the risks of delinquency.<br />
n Inadequate routes of progression for the low skilled into<br />
apprenticeships, technician grade skills and high quality vocational<br />
training.<br />
n Better support for “dual earner” couples to combine bringing up<br />
their children well and sustaining their career.<br />
n Fuller integration of migrants into European societies through<br />
targeted action to overcome language and cultural barriers<br />
and raise levels of educational achievement and labour market<br />
participation.<br />
Member states have the main responsibility for the social policy changes<br />
that are necessary. But this does not preclude a framework of objectives,<br />
targets, incentives and mutual learning that could be set at EU level. An<br />
opportunity to strengthen EU social policy is offered by the forthcoming<br />
review of the EU Budget. EU Budget funds could be used to realise some<br />
key social objectives, including the possibility of some form of minimum<br />
income or anti-child poverty guarantee across the Union. <strong>The</strong> onus of any<br />
EU Budget reform should be on the expansion of common policies where<br />
the EU can genuinely make a difference beyond the remit of what national<br />
policy instruments can realistically achieve at national level alone in<br />
24<br />
After the crisis: A new socio-economic settlement for the EU
Change language