The European Integration Process as an EU-Wide Social Policy - Essay Example

The Necessity for the European Integration Process to Have an EU-Wide Social Policy Submitted by…………………………………………………….. Introduction At the onsetof the European integration process, representatives of the six founding nations (West Germany, Italy, Benelux and France) teamed together to ratify the EEC Treaty. Their main objective was to establish a common market accessible to all member states, a market devoid of discrimination. However, members were hesitant to delegate their sovereignty to the Community citing differences in social welfare systems coupled with their negative perception that the integration process was just an improvement of the social standards rather than being a product of the economic integration process itself (Kull, 2014). Following this reason, a restricted social and economic commitment was effected for both social and economic cohesion in the Rome Treaty. In light of the above fact, the relationship between member states and institutions charged with generating the social policy was constrained to the levels of only improving and protecting the rights of workers, and their quality of life, as the integration process went on. Dealing with social issues became remarkably complicated and diverse, especially in the workplace and employment fields as opposed to addressing demand for social activity (Cini, 2013). Currently EU social policy covers a wide range of social security provision that touches on free movement of migrant workers, employment legislations, equal treatment for women and men, health and safety at work, working conditions, public health programmes, poverty, disadvantaged groups and social inclusion, the elderly, employment for the disabled, social protection and young population, and vocational training for the unemployed (Pizzati & Funck, 2002). Even though there has been change in governance from ‘hierarchical to non-hierarchical mode of governance”, actors and stakeholders of the current regime must participate in problem solving and deliberation efforts which are anchored on formal and informal institutions established. They note that EU has a resilient social dimension in terms of its social laws and actions making it a reference when it comes to employment regulations. In this paper, they answer whether a social policy is relevant, beyond its mere objective of a conceptual umbrella, by examining the basic social policy configuration aspects: normative foundations and substantives boundaries. Development of EU Social Policy The social dimension of the EU historical perspective dates back to the 1957 Treaty of Rome and progresses to the recent developments. This policy was to serve in coordinating the member states in achieving the envisioned economic integration (Cini, 2013). Central to this developments was a deliberation as to whether the social policy should proceed beyond the establishment of the common market. In the 1980s, there was decreased fear for the social policy that was occasioned by the emerging market forces and the recurrent economic recession. In 1985 the White Paper introduced the concept of free movement of people that then played a core role in determining and shaping the future of EU and its agenda. Due to the intense pressure that was still building for a more regulatory social policy, in the mid-1980s, a clear commitment relating to community social dimension in employment, labor management and intensified dialogue, and consultation and cooperation on social protection was proposed (Wetherill, 2005). However, the state parties were still concerned with competencies of the transfer policy in the social field because of the diversity of national welfare provision types that existed between the state members. The harmonization of social policies together with the member states’ reluctance in delegating their influence to the multinational level was a difficult subject (Moller, 2008). Nonetheless, the ‘European social space’ idea was proposed to act as a complement to the achievement of a means of a fresh avenue for a stronger European social policy and an internal market. The idea of producing an upward standard of harmonization made the proposal receive massive political support across the state parties. The program highlighted the implication of social policy for the internal market and sought to invigorate the social dialogue among trade unions and employers. An act highlighting a Single European was later ratified in the context of market integration, neo-liberalist movements, and economic internalization at the national level (Cerami, 2005). This coincided with the coming on board new state parties namely; Portugal, Greece, and Spain which had a reasonably lower labor costs and lower per capita incomes compared to the other state members of the EU. This greatly improved the multiplicity of the Community social systems. The Commission further promoted SEA, with the main goal of improving the necessary provisions based on the political and economic reasons proposed above. This occasioned a new stimulus to the expansion of the social element with the deployment of remarkable changes to facilitate the social policy building process. Even though the idea was encouraging, the results were fairly still disappointing (Cini, 2013). Fundamental to these statutory provisions were the member states. A proportion of the member states were not comfortable losing their competitiveness while others feared lowering their standards, hence becoming uncompetitive. Even though SEA still appeared not acceptable for the improvement of EU social policy in relation to the statutory outcomes, under the aforementioned situations, the SEA was deemed a boost to the improvement of EU social policy as it not only instituted the concept widening process of social policy but also prolonged the content of social policy, considering the fresh initiatives to promote student interactions, language teaching, and improved vocational training and to institute safety and health norms (Kull, 2014). Single Market and Free Movement The 1957 Treaty of Rome removed all barriers that inhibited the free movement of people, goods and capital within the EU Common Market. This was the main goal of this treaty alongside the EU community cohesion. The process took ten years to be achieved with the first stage being the EU market construction and elimination of tariff barriers on industrial products (Bigo & Guild, 2005). Nonetheless, national policies barrier negatively impacted on the success of the project resulting into its massive delay. As a counter measure, the EU later proposed a creation of a level playing field whereby companies from the state parties were not to be placed at a competitive disadvantage in any way. This enabled the EU companies to remain competitive. In 1992, a single European market was created in the Single European Act of 1992. This act was based on the suggestions proposed by the Cockfield Report of March 1985. It was important because the legal and political developments following the ratification of the Treaty of Rome did not immediately create a momentum to establish a fully Common Market free of barriers (Moller, 2008). In the late 1992, most state parties reneged on the law and therefore resolved to remain slow in implementing and modifying their national laws to conform to the EU laws. These laws later completely transformed the internal market operations and removed numerous barriers. Examples of some of the legislations removed included: a) All intro capital regulations b) All Products controls c) All retrogressive technical rules d) In the insurance and banking sector, all licensing restrictions were also been eliminated. Incomplete “Single” Market This process was achieved by naming and shaming member states who were slowing down the transposition rates within the EU markets. Other member states also failed to respect the European rules and regulations averaging to approximately 53 violations for every member state (Bigo & Guild, 2005). The table below shows Italy and Spain leading with the amount of violations of EU single market law. Table 1: Single Market Score between 2004 and 2007 Source: Baere (2008).  Efforts to Construct the Single EU Market In 2004, the infamous Bolkestein Directive sought to remove barriers on the service provision by promoting what was termed as “country of origin principle”. The principle required service providers to be subjected to their home countries’ laws when providing cross-border services. This position did not sink well with the western European countries who feared their environmental, labor and other standards would be compromised (Wallace, 2014). In 2006, a slimmed down service directive replaced the country of origin principle. This new directive contributed to the free service provision as they state parties were then bound by their state regulations. In 2005, adjustments on the Financial Service Action Plan was adopted. In 2007, the Market in Financial Instrument Directive (MiFID) followed by a Single European Payment Area in 2010 which then served to speed up payment clearances. It was however noted that freeing the financial service sector still remained a priority for the EU particularly with the main state parties (Baere, 2008). EU Competition Policy The creation of EU was a critical component in the development of the Single EU Market and more so in establishing a free and fair movement of goods, capital and services. This was based on the fact that barriers to fair competition distorted the market operations. For so many years now the competitive policy has radically remained in tandem with the reinforced national policies. Most of these policies derive their strength from the Treaty of Rome ratified in 1957 and which also established the objective of preventing single market distortion (Wetherill, 2005). The treaty also set up anti-competitive rules and circumstances under which immunities would be allowed. The provisions provided for flexibility in the execution of competitive policy. Often sanctioning the commission to negotiate with companies and national governments in giving room for integration principles to decide, thus stated scenarios in which market distortion was allowed. Other Council laws also gave the Commission powers to administer competition rules that include consultation procedures, notification process, and investigative and imposing fine powers (Wallace, 2014). In 1960 and 1970s, many state parties hesitated at the deployment of EU competition rules that immensely contradicted the national industries policies. In 2005, the Commission embraced a State Aid Action Plan (SAAP). This was in line with the Lisbon strategy, which simplified and stated refocus aid rules on the innovation and growth promotion. More precisely, the Commission proposal demanded that state parties use their national government aids to encourage R&D and innovation in order to revitalize eco-efficiency or support less established regions. It sought to transform the state aid rules and make them less bureaucratic and more transparent (Cini, 2013). In 2007, the Commission instituted a consultation on streamlined regulations for block exemptions. Under these regulations on block exemptions, no earlier warning of state aid to the Commission was required. EU Social Policy and Institutional Design Intergovernmental Dimensions- this denotes member states that are in control of the EU decision-making process. Social policy as an intergovernmental bargain tool unlocked the initial traps for social policy in the seventies. It led to consensus building and development of regional and social policies that enhanced political legitimacy between member states’ citizens (Kull, 2014). A fair thinking was generated after the enactment of the EU employment and social legislation in Brussels, resulting in very many employment directives that linked with the ensuing sex equality at work, social developments and mass redundancies. Integration policy Integration involves the assimilation to a pre-existing, unified social order which has a homogeneous culture and set of values. It is perceived that integration has a one way process of placing the onus for change solely on migrants. It is expected of them to undergo a unilateral process of change, specifically in the public sphere, for them to fit into a given order. For instance, Germany women of Turkish origin are often expected to work without headscarves when they are serving their customers, for it is assumed that customers could be alienated by such changes to staff uniforms (Gerhards, 2001). Besides that, there are no monolithic culture or social order to assimilate by considering the fact that the democratic societies have many different lifestyle, values and institutional processes that constantly change with time (Christin & Hug, 2002). There is this view that integration is one way process that can be replaced with terms like inclusion and participation (Kohill, 2000). The term integration, within this context, would indicate that it is a normative concept. The normative dimension of integration often remains concealed due to the substantial difference embodied by the minorities to the private realm as they are failing to identify the public realm as marked by the specific interests, practices and perspectives, which tend to be appropriate for one set of people than others. The integration consists of complex and multilayered practices like the economy, social and culture within our society. However this cannot be promoted by any designated outcome or any specific path. Besides that, integration involves completely different modes of intersection with the receiving society. Some forms of legislation can contribute to integration where the legislation part of is more relevant for the integration of the second generation. Employment policy Accessing employment, income and getting opportunities for upward mobility affects the type and location of housing that one would have. Which might later impact on the quality of education thus determine the particular school that was accessed then? An active employment policy can be of huge help to the government thus helping them promote inclusion and labor market intervention that are common in all EU members (Bartolini, 2000). EU evolving legal anti-discrimination framework can prove more significant on integrating ethnic minorities and migrants into the labor market. The directive of employment was particularly made to promote equal treatment both at work and training institution with regards to the associated benefits. However, for the policy to be implemented effectively by the state member to this ban against discrimination in employment, might be a crucial thing to ethnic integration minorities into the labor market. The role of EU in this area is to support and complement the activities of national authorities. They also have certain types of health and social security cover taken to the countries where they go to seek work. On the other hand they are limitations based on the considerations of public security, public policy and employment in the public sector (Wessels, 2007). The labor law in EU covers the working conditions including the working time and also the information and the consultation of workers that includes the event of collective redundancies and the undertaking of transfers. Lack of employment has led to the economic and financial crisis that has a profound impact on the society. The risk poverty and social exclusion has increased. The population is ageing, meaning that it is clear that the longer life expectancy is a sign of progress though it has an impact on workforce thus the cost needs to be accommodated for it to come with it. It is essential to guarantee that the Europeans can awesomely participate in the society. Preparing them for contemporary working life will be a major social concern and crucial for the productivity and ability to compete globally. Cohesion policy At the verge of social cohesion policy is social interaction, which is plays a major role in the integration process. Through the cohesion policies, a favorable atmosphere – where people feel as being part of a specific social space – is created (Vobruba, 2003). This can be one the major reasons as to why racism is huge obstacles to the cohesion effort. This is because they produce the context of isolation, hostility and insecurity. The effects could also appear when the overt racism is replaced by the indirect discrimination that declares the ethnic minorities and migrants as a marginalized group in the society. However this concept of integration suggests that an emphasis on the stability and unity that seems to involve a normative apparition of social cohesion. On the other hand social cohesion does not require communities to merge into a homogenous entity populated; on the contrary, cohesion is achieved in pluralist society through interactions. Policies for shared societies; their contribution to well-being and economic performance The well-being of the society is brought out stronger by the shared society work, which is impossible without inclusion (Munch, 2001,). Shared society generates the economy and other dividends for the government. The nexus between shared societies and the well-being which creates the virtuous cycle is evident at the personal level, with a clear picture on the nature of the interaction between the two. Consequently virtuous cycle achievement requires the government and the dominant sectors of the society to recognize the desire of people to belong and fulfill their ambitions even if they look different from other sectors of the society. This helps in motivating and to integrate into the rest of the society so as to keep their identity and strengthen their personal sense of ease and well-being. When aspirations are blocked the individual and the whole society feels neglected and that they do not belong more so with the negative consequences of the social, political and economic (Kohill & Novak, 2007). Some might be apathetic with low morale and a sense of purpose as a result of the vicious cycle which comes about as the absence of a shared society. Actually others withdraw into the community that makes them feel accepted and comfortable, thus detached themselves from the rest of the society. A shared society needs leadership and good vision, leaders can show by actions and policies their willingness to respect and interact with those with different background and commitment to fair and equal treatment to all. The interaction nature between the leaders and the community is critical in managing issues of the society diversity (Shove, 2000). The most efficient means of establishing the shared society is through a partnership between the state, the political leaders and others. The best way to handle social diversity with the countries opting for the goal of assimilation is to make attempts that inspire and make those from various backgrounds to perceive themselves as the mainstream in the community. Conclusion As depicted by this article, a new social welfare system was built at the EU level between 1958 and 1992. Further analysis suggests that EU has not very much initiated institutional capacity to salvage national social systems. Its areas of competence are sparsely noted in the education and health sector, fiscal distribution, pensions, social benefits and in matters relating to employment specifically in industrial action and pay. It’s therefore evidenced that building a Social Europe that can effectively substitute national social systems is complex and still far from being a reality (Wetherill, 2005). Also, those assessing and comparing EU social policy with unrealistic benchmarks are being too negative. EU has had an impact on different labor regimes in contested and fragmented ways, but cannot be dismissed. The EU social policy has stimulated unprecedented heights of extra-national forms of social mobilization and policy collaboration (Baere, 2008). The EU policy has brought forward a new benchmark for social and employment policies and legal requirement. Member states have now instituted a process to converge policy goals for the labor market as a result of EU to EU learning. The close bond that exists between the member states and economic citizens has reduced without much shift towards EU employment federalization in the EU regimes. The utilitarian design of EU integration process has also enabled EU social policy to streamline the European trade relations in many diverse ways (Pizzati & Funck, 2002). One which entails nurturing an EU-wide informative structure, which at glance recognizes diversity across the state parties, one which promotes the belief that the variation of capitalism in Europe is a characteristic to the one prevalent in either Japan or the United States. Bibliography Alvarez, R. 2002. ‘Attitudes toward the European Union. The Role of Social Class, Social Stratification, and Political Orientation’. International Journal of Sociology. Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 58-76. Bach, M. 2003. ‘The Europeanization of Cleavages and the Emergence of a European Social Space’. Journal of European Social Policy Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 50-54. Bache, I., Bulmer, S., George, S., & Parker, O. 2014. Politics in the European Union. Baere, G. D. 2008. Constitutional principles of EU external relations. Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press. Bartolini, S. 2000. ‘Old and New Peripheries in the European Process of Territorial Expansion’ (Florence: EUI), Working Paper 2000/53. Best, E., Christiansen, T., & Settembri, P. 2008. The institutions of the enlarged European Union: continuity and change. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar. Bigo, D., & Guild, E. 2005. Controlling frontiers: free movement into and within Europe. Aldershot, Hants, England, Ashgate. Bomberg, E. E., Peterson, J., & Stubb, A. C.-G. 2008. The European Union: how does it work? Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cerami, A. 2005. Social policy in Central and Eastern Europe the emergence of a new European welfare regime. Berlin, Lit. Cini, M. 2013. European Union politics. Oxford University Press. Christin, T. & Hug, S. 2002. ‘Referendums and Citizen Support for European Integration’. Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 586-617. Deacon, B., & Stubbs, P. 2007. Social policy and international interventions in South East Europe. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar.  Gerhards, J. 2001. ‘Missing a European Public Sphere’. In Kohli, M. and Novak, M. (eds.) Will Europe Work? Integration, Employment and the Social Order (London und New York: Routledge), pp. 146-158. Geyer, R. R. 2013. Exploring European Social Policy. New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons. Geyer, R., Lehmann, K., & Mackintosh, A. 2005. Integrating UK and European social policy: the complexity of Europeanization. Abingdon, Radcliffe. Kohli, M. 2000. ‘The Battlegrounds of European Identity’. European Societies. Vol. 2, pp. 113-137. Kohli, M. & Novak, M. 2001. ‘Introduction: Will Europe Work?’. In Kohli, M. and Novak, M. (eds.) Will Europe Work? Integration, Employment and the Social Order. London und New York: Routledge, pp. 1-16. Kull, M. 2014. European integration and rural development: actors, institutions and power. Leibfried, S. 1995. European social policy: between fragmentation and integration. Washington, D.C., Brookings Inst. Miller, R. A., & Zumbansen, P. 2004. Annual of German & European law. Volume 1 (2003) Volume 1 (2003). New York, Berghahn. Møller, J. Ø. 2008. European integration: sharing of experiences. Singapore, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Münch, R. 2001. ‘Article: Integration: Social’. In Smelser, N.J. and Baltes, P. B. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences Vol. 11 (Amsterdam: Elsevier), pp. 7591-7596. Pizzati, L., & Funck, B. 2002. Labor, employment, and social policies in the EU enlargement process: changing perspectives and policy options. Washington, D.C., World Bank. Rosamond, B. 2000. Theories of European Integration. Palgrave: Houndmills. Swaak, C. R. A. 1999. European community law and the automobile industry. Leiden, Univ. Shore, C. 2000. Building Europe. The Cultural Politics of European Integration. (London and New York: Routledge). Threlfall, M. 2003. ‘European social integration: harmonization, convergence and single social areas’. European Journal of Social Policy Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 121-139. Van Vooren, B., Blockmans, S., & Wouters, J. 2013. The EUs role in global governance: the legal dimension. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Vobruba, G. 2003. ‘The enlargement crisis of the European Union: Limits of the Dialectics of Integration and Expansion’. Journal of European Social Policy Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 50-54. Wallace, H. 2014. Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford [u.a.], Oxford Univ. Press. Weatherill, S. 2005. EU Consumer Law and Policy. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Pub. Wessels, W. 2007. ‘An Ever Closer Fusion. A Dynamic Macropolitical View on Integration Processes’. Journal of Common Market Studies Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 267-299. Read More