Othering the Pandemic: Scales of Exclusion and Solidarity (original) (raw)
Related papers
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2007
This contribution to a series on the 'state of the art' in various fields of political study has dual aims. On the one hand it invites its contributors to survey European Union Studies-and not, as the editors insist, of 'integration' or 'European Area' studiesas they are today, so as to help postgraduates and teachers worried by the expanding scope and complexity of the field. Save in one chapter it does not do this by statistical assessment of publications and structures devoted to the Union, rather it works by analysing the intellectual content of some of the field's specific political aspects. On the other hand, to justify the concern for 'advances', it looks more normatively for new contributions suggesting where the field might, or should, go. In practice, this attracts less attention than the first aim, although Warleigh makes a strong case for mixing theories, an idea echoed by other chapters. Half the chapters are devoted to specific theories presently used in EU studies, the traditional run through from functionalism to inter-governmentalism being wisely discarded. Of the rest most is given over to dimensions of EU activities such as enlargement, foreign policy, political economy and identity and the ways these might be theorized. Europeanization, being both a process and a possible research agenda, sits between the two. There are also chapters on historical and grand theoretical approaches together with a rounding off piece by Wessels. As is often the case, the contributors adopt a variety of strategies. Some, like Scully and Warleigh, keep helpfully close to what the editors wanted, setting out the theories, showing where they have been applied to the EU and considering future developments. Others concentrate more on the theories themselves, sometimes defensively so. Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier do a great job in creating a structure for theorizing enlargement-something which was virtually ignored not so long agowhile Laffan and Gillespie bring out the importance of identity questions. Overall, although Jupille argues that while it is coming back in, 'grand theory' is much less present than tactical insights, many of which will help academics in the field. Most of the contributors do well in unbundling, classifying and developing their topic. This makes it a very useful tool box for academic studies of the EU and will no doubt be cited in many PhD theses. And the lenses offered here may well affect the way future research is carried out. However, the book offers less the snapshot desired by the editors and more a kaleidoscopic view. The optimum mix, if it exists, is not easy to grasp. Researchers will have to make choices and decide which approach, or mixture, they wish to adopt. And, as the contributions often hint, these approaches can still be in conflict and are not as open as the editors might wish.
Transnational Solidarity? The European Working Class in the Eurozone Crisis'
in In L. Panitch and G. Albo (eds.) Transforming Classes Socialist Register 2015. Monthly Review Press. http://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/index
European labour movements are under severe pressure as a result of the global financial and Eurozone crises, which have been used by capital to attack unions and workers’ rights. In this essay, we will assess the response of European labour movements to this attack and discuss to what extent relations of transnational solidarity have been established in this process. Germany has been at the core of discussions about the Eurozone crisis. While peripheral EU member states have run into severe problems, the German economy appears as the clear winner, the example to follow due to its booming exports. As it is the largest national economy within the EU, what happens in Germany has also wider implications for the rest of the EU. Hence, we will specifically focus on the response by the German labour movement to the crisis. What has been more important for German unions, solidarity with workers elsewhere or solidarity with one’s own employer? The analysis of German unions will be complemented by brief discussions of struggles in Greece, Spain and Italy. Finally, in the conclusion we will reflect on the response by labour movements at the European level to establish whether unions have been able to go beyond their traditional national environment in the search for new strategies against the attack of capital.
2018
ETHOS project global aim is to explore, theoretically and empirically, the fault lines of justice and to formulate a theory of justice and fairness that combines theoretical, legal and empirical analysis. This deliverable focuses on the types of distributive claims, interests and capabilities of various groups of the population evoked in the political and economic debates at the EU and at the nation state level (D6.2). As the original project states, this goal was planned to be achieved through a study on the non-realization or limited realization of distributive justice claims experienced by the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in society. Based upon the challenges brought up by Castro Caldas (2017) and framed on D6.1, the core question that leaded this (D6.2) research was: how did the austerity discourses, translated into policies and laws in the context of the recent crises, affected EU and Turkey democracies and citizens’ rights? In order to understand the justice or injustice experienced by marginalized groups in society we opted to include grassroots movements and their non-institutionalized discourses. A central goal was to learn about their specific conditions and obstacles, but also to listen to their views about European policies and the European future in the context of redistributive justice. The main challenge of this deliverable was to unveil the voices of the vulnerable groups included in the study. Research and policies meant to be “about” people and groups frequently fail to include them, i.e., citizens’ real claims and experiences expressed in their own voices and discourses are frequently erased from the public sphere. This report brings together different and sometimes contradictory discourses: a) official discourses translated into national and international policies and law (hard law and soft law); b) citizens’ discourses about the consequences of EU and national policies and law on their lives, theirs claims and alternative proposals. The study covered research in five EU member states (Austria, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal and UK) and in Turkey. It has a national comparative dimension, for which we opted to give special attention to a common vulnerable group (young women). Research also focused on a second specific group that varied for each country according to a preliminary analysis of national reality (persons with disabilities, Roma people, younger and older people, women, migrants - including non-Western migrants -, and third-country nationals ). In a first moment, the work was based on desk research (bibliography review and legal, statistical and documental analysis). Following a broad picture of the European situation, in a second moment the research moved into an empirical approach with a smaller scale view (semi-structured interviews to key informants). As the analysis show, European welfare and employment regimes, as well as the European Social Model are experiencing a convergence towards neoliberalism and that is jeopardizing citizens’ rights and democracy. The consequences include devastating effects in employment, increased insecurity with loss of jobs, precariousness and in-work poverty, threats to human dignity. Despite a general policy trend, the intensity and effects of austerity vary between countries and social groups. In addition to the obvious economic and financial aspects of the austerity model, the post-crisis reaction resulted in a social model of naturalization of inequalities of an “austerity society”. Legitimacy by fear, prompted by predictions of catastrophic scenarios, asserts itself as a mechanism for converting the narrative of austerity into a dominant political-social model, assuring the absolute priority of the moral values of economic and labour neoliberalism (Ferreira, 2011). Although fear is many times paralyzing and leaves citizens vulnerable to populist discourses, the perception of injustice also led to public protests. A young and well-educated European generation that became adult to realize that the European promises of democracy, rights and opportunities were losing their meaning occupied the public space in order to get their voices heard. European institutions and their leaders claimed that austerity was the only possible path, but protesters were discussing something different. They were not looking for solutions for the crisis inside of the current model, they wanted to discuss a new model of democracy that is open to the voices of citizens and takes seriously the values inscribed in European treaties and national constitutions. The European project is, in its essence, a political project and not legal engineering, even though the legal institutions have played a crucial role in its development. Restoring the European project of citizenship, equality and solidarity cannot be achieved without the democratization of its political institutions. Europe’s problems are not temporary crises, nor are they ordinary issues. Rather, they are warning signs of a structural reality that, at this rate of degradation, can very well reach a peak in which the values of freedom, democracy, equality and rule of law - that are the cornerstones for the Treaty of Lisbon or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union -, lose their meaning, and Europe becomes a caricature of itself - discredited within its borders and abroad. If there is something that resistance and protest movements have shown during the crisis or even the copying mechanisms of social groups to overcome hardship or test alternative solutions is that the possibilities for the future are broader than the idea that austerity is the only way.
Industrial Relations Journal, 2008
What exactly is 'Europe'? That is, what exactly do the 30 or more countries located in Europe have in common? Can we identify a shared European culture or value system that binds them together, or is 'Europe' merely the term given to describe the western tip of the Eurasian land mass? These questions remain fundamentally important for everyone who seeks to advocate a European social model or who shares an interest in the future of the European Union (EU). In 2005, voters in France and the Netherlands unexpectedly rejected in referenda the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. Reference to Christian values-and even to the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights-had provoked major controversies during its drafting. These rumbled on into the signing of the amended text of the Reform Treaty in Lisbon in December 2007, which Member States are currently ratifying. Disagreement over such fundamental values implies that Europeans rather lack a set of core values to unite them. This book sets itself a bold objective, namely to analyse exactly what underpins the process of gradual European integration. The authors argue that, in the light of the referenda setbacks, 'the linkages between people and the élites must become more meaningful' and that 'the notions of democracy and true European plurality' must be made central to the integration process, instead of 'efficiency and tedious standardisation' (p. 1). They claim that their book differs from others in the field in combining four factors. It seeks to identify the historical determinants of integration; it applies a 'bottom-up' or citizen's perspective on support for integration; it adopts a comparative country-by-country approach; and it treats the EU as a political entity, very much like a state. The book is accordingly divided into three principal sections: the foundations of the EU itself; public support for EU institutions and policies; and an analysis of the obstacles that impede further progress towards integration. The dominant theme is why some countries and regions are so much more successful in building support for integration than others. The first section deals with the foundations of the EU, or its 'integration propensity'. The authors demonstrate that enlargement has not been an arbitrary process, but that it follows a certain pattern characterised by the nature of the states involved. The six original Member States were comparatively homogeneous: four city-belt states (Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) and the two states immediately to their west (France) and east (Germany), all with substantial Catholic populations. However, the first wave of enlargement brought in two western, Prot
The Janus faces of European policy
Transfer, 2014
The current Eurocrisis has demonstrated the ambiguity of 'European social policy', where, as the Greek case shows, the only place in European Union law where some form of 'solidarity' is supposed to exist, i.e. 'social policy', has no direct concern with it. The absence of solidarity at a time when it is most needed can be explained by persisting national diversity, and the incapacity of the system to generate political consensus, leading to the greatest outbreak of nationalistic political activity since the Second World War. Ré sumé La crise européenne actuelle a démontré l'ambiguïté de la « politique sociale européenne »: comme le montre le cas de la Grèce, elle n'a pas été directement impliquée, alors qu'elle constitue le seul lieu dans le droit de l'Union européenne où une certaine forme de solidarité est supposée exister. L'absence de solidarité au moment où elle est la plus nécessaire peut s'expliquer par la persistance des diversités nationales et l'incapacité du système à générer un consensus politique, ce qui a conduit à l'éruption la plus importante d'activisme politique nationaliste depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Zusammenfassung Durch die aktuelle Euro-Krise ist die Ambiguität der '' europäischen Sozialpolitik'' zutage getreten: Wie im Fall Griechenlands deutlich geworden ist, hat die Sozialpolitik keinen direkten Bezug zu Solidarität, obwohl dieser Politikbereich der einzige ist, in dem die EU-Rechtsvorschriften eine Form der Solidarität vorsehen. Mangelnde Solidarität in einer Zeit, in der sie ganz besonders gebraucht wird, ist darauf zurückzuführen, dass nach wie vor nationale Unterschiede bestehen und dass das System nicht in der Lage ist, einen politischen Konsens zu erzielen; dies hat zu nationalistischen politischen Aktivitäten in einem Ausmaß geführt, wie es seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg nicht mehr zu beobachten war.
Three ideas for a stronger Social Europe in a post-Covid 19 recovery
Three ideas for a stronger Social Europe in a post-Covid 19 recovery, 2022
As the world enters the digital and green revolution, the risk of social exclusion increases. The COVID-19 pandemic, which is still very active in many corners of Europe, is showing its social consequences. Understanding the risks, the European Union (EU) has approved an action plan: the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR). According to the European Commission, ‘the 20 principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights are the beacon guiding us towards a strong Social Europe and set the vision for our new “social rulebook”. They express principles and rights essential for fair and well-functioning labour markets and welfare systems in 21st century Europe’ (ESPR Action Plan 2021, 6). After the EPSR remained on stand-by for a few years, in March 2021 the Action Plan for the EPSR brought public attention back to it. The plan sets out a long list of actions: i) three headline targets for 2030; ii) a list of more detailed actions which the Commission will take; iii) other points where the member states are encouraged to intervene; as well as iv) a revision of the Social Scoreboard. Despite the optimism, and even though the EPSR Action Plan is an achievement in a long history for better social rights in the EU, many citizens feel at bay. The impact of the financial crisis of 2008 to 2012 and the fragilities of the system exposed by COVID-19 give many citizens a feeling of social stagnation, fuelling new versions of nationalism and illiberalism around the continent. Through its eclectic 20 principles, the EPSR is an opportunity to break silos and look at social development as the network of challenges that it truly is. Departing from the rather long history of European social rights, the implementation of the EPSR must follow a holistic approach, identifying synergies with discussions it already hints at in its 20 principles. In order to contribute to the identification of such synergies, this paper attempts to shed light on three transversal issues that national governments and the European Commission must bear in mind when implementing the EPSR: civil rights; labour relations; and gender equality. The analysis departs from the setting of the current model of welfare state in post-World War II Europe and it ends with the Porto Summit 2021, reflecting on the documents approved and what they can mean for a post-COVID-19 Social Europe. The first section offers a historical and theoretical analysis of the idea of ‘Social Europe’ in order to frame the discussion. Looking at the many steps and documents that brought Europe to this point, this section looks at the role left-wing parties have played in the evolution of the concept of Social Europe. This section demonstrates the philosophical legitimacy of the welfare state as well as the social pillar. The analysis is based on the idea that the different forces on the left should once again focus on the traditional split line of positive and negative freedom as those are precisely the politics of the left that dominated the times when it drove the direction of European policies. The second section explores the relation between social and civil rights. The growing number of mobile Europeans poses challenges regarding access to civil and social rights. The EU citizens studying or working temporarily in a country other than their home country see their rights limited, even though they are directly benefiting from the space created by the EU itself. Using access to voting rights as a case study, in this section we explore how the EPSR can be part of the solution. The EPSR is largely concerned with workers’ rights, which is a promising step forward for the European left. In the third section we will address the topic of labour relations, the conditions of workers in the current conditions of the European labour market, and the dominance of financial shareholders within companies. We will also deal with decent working and living conditions as the cornerstone for a strong social Europe. The third issue in our analysis, explored in the fourth section, is that of gender equality or equal pay for women and men for equal work. In particular, we look at the role of the main actors and interest groups contributing to the inclusion of ‘Gender Equality’ as a key EPSR principle. This part of our work points out the fact that ‘for those who live in the European Union, gender equality issues are still not perfectly resolved and women are still confronted with a degree of injustice, especially in the sphere of unequal pay for equal work. The final section places the discussion within the context of the current pandemic. During the spring of 2020, society witnessed many restrictive steps in the field of the economy, which led to a significant restriction on the economy. Various measures which produce a number of questions regarding the preservation of social rights even in times of pandemic are well known. In this section we emphasise the fact that the current epidemiological situation cannot be the reason for the rising inequalities and at the same time point out the need for better preparation for similar situations in the future. On the one hand, the EPSR must be at the heart of the EU’s recovery strategy; on the other hand, it must contribute to a swift transition through green and digital transformations. This segment concludes that the assumptions that the pandemic hit Europe in times of prosperity is erroneous, because, as the chapter shows, the ‘run-up’ of the economic crisis does not automatically calm with the economic growth. In fact, this means that the overall economic recovery may not have taken place in all EU countries, and thus the consequences of the pandemic risk being all the stronger. Hence, this section underlines how the synergies promoted by the EPSR lie at the heart of the solution. This paper was written between 2020 and 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. All work was done remotely and none of the authors ever met each other in person. The paper is grounded on desk research and is the reflection of the many events that took place during its writing. The release of the EPSR Action Plan, the Porto Declaration, and the Social Scoreboard were all important events that continuously led us to re-evaluate our arguments and proposals, pushing us to be more ambitious. The feedback of our academic mentor, Professor Matjaz Nahtigal, of our political mentor, Member of the European Parliament Alicia Homs, and of the FEPS YAN team, Anja Skrzypek, Angelika Striedinger, and Elena Gil, were fundamental for the achievement of this research. We are very thankful for their comments. With this paper we hope to contribute to the debate on Social Europe, most certainly the most important of this decade.
Dying for Europe, Internationale Politik (special edition), May-June, 2014, p. 32-39.
The recent Ukrainian revolution generally known as Euromaidan was the first and probably last popular uprising carried out under the flag of the European Union. For many Westerners, especially those increasingly skeptical of the EU, the mere fact that thousands of young Ukrainians took to the streets to defend an association agreement not promising any immediate gains may seem strange.