European and National Social Policy

This chapter portrays the development of social policy managed by the European Union, focuses on principles of steering in the EU’s social policy, and explores the distribution of power between national social political action in the member states and European social policy since 1957. The data show that the EU has been able to gain influence through regulatory social policies and soft governance instruments. As pertaining to social services, social expenditure, and redistributive concepts, however, the EU only plays a marginal role. The predominance of national social policy and the limited role of European social policy have been largely due to socio-economic diversity of the EU’s member state, heterogeneous welfare states, institutional obstacles of policymaking in the EU, and powerful national constraints.

Measuring returns on social investment beyond here-and-now redistribution: A commentary on Parolin and Van Lancker’s response article

Social policy research is truly interdisciplinary with academics from very different theoretical perspectives working together in fervent open-mindedness towards diverse methodological approaches. The exploration of social investment (SI) welfare provision is a clear example of this spirit of interdisciplinary engagement, having stirred up critical scholarly reception and debate over the past decade. On the one hand, some colleagues underscore the potential of SI policies to improve life chances. On the other hand, some researchers voice concerns about perverse unintended consequences of SI. The most worrying scholarly critique of SI is the conjecture that SI policies reinforce rather than alleviate inequality and poverty, because of the operation of so-called Matthew effects (MEs). Parolin and Van Lancker’s commentary on our article ‘The social investment litmus test: family formation, employment and poverty’ falls within the purview of the ME critique, with some extension to other shortcomings discussed in the literature. These criticisms certainly deserve engagement, and we are grateful to the editorial board of the Journal of European Social Policy for inviting us to do so fully. In our commentary, we commence with the multidimensionality of 21st-century welfare state provision. Subsequently, we turn to the welfare state’s carrying capacity, which we maintain needs to be taken into consideration for leveraging positive feedback mechanisms between the micro and the macro level of welfare provision. By so doing, we elaborate on the implications of our research approach for understanding MEs, with insights as to how they are exacerbated or mitigated through policy (in-)complementarities. We then discuss the importance of considering synergies between policies for an improved understanding of SI returns and possible source(s) of MEs. Finally, we turn to the misconception that capacitating SI policies and compensatory consumption-smoothing and poverty alleviation are somehow in competition with each other, and discuss the normative orientation underlying SI welfare provision.

Balance-Sheet of European Social Policy

Specific competence of the European Union in the field of social security and social protection has been quite limited, as the Member States consider these two items as core subjects of national policies and appeal earnestly to subsidiarity principle to avoid European regulation. Influence of the E.U. has nevertheless been gradually and considerably increasing through the implementation of the Community rules on the internal market and competition. European social model is the so called “social market economy”, which means, in short, an economy ruled by a market whose transparency and fairness are guaranteed and controlled by the public powers. There is the will, at European level, to be able to achieve high economic and productivity growth, necessary to fuel recovery from crisis damages, while at the same time minimising so-called social failures, such as unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. The European Union addresses these areas as a matter of common concern and has a role in facilitating the exchange of information, data, best practices and research. The balance of European policies is in overall terms rather positive from the social point of view.

European Social Policy Embraces Solidarity in a Crisis

Governments in Europe responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by expanding their welfare systems to protect health, jobs, and incomes. The varied initiatives embody the principle of solidarity and demonstrate how welfare programs serve as a form of collective insurance against risk. But the twin health and economic crises also exposed gaps in coverage for many, including migrants and gig economy workers. Fiscal austerity, enforced by the European Union, has long constrained efforts to close those gaps.

Towards a Structural Embeddedness of Space in the Framework of the Social Exclusion of Older People

Combating social exclusion of older adults is a key objective of European social policy. But from the beginning of the debate, social exclusion has mainly been interpreted as arising from economic circumstances. Doubts have been raised as to whether this narrow focus contributes to solving the problems identified. In particular, spatial aspects come to the fore, highlighting the fact that exclusion always happens in a specific place. However, spatial exclusion is often reduced to a territorial concept of ‘where’ the exclusion takes place. – but it is simplistic to state that everything happens in a space. The aim of this chapter is twofold. First, it presents a theoretical model, developed during and through the ROSEnet COST Action. The model integrates dimensions of age, space and exclusion in one perspective – the ASE Triangle. Second, this chapter explores the potential of the ASE Triangle to enhance our understanding of two specific European case studies of older people’s exclusion, in Greater Dublin – Ireland, and Nicosia – Cyprus. By ‘upgrading space’ as a theory-led idea we contribute to and challenge existing (human) gerontological theory of space. Similar to the exploration of a relational vision of space, our model does not only consider “experience” of space exclusion, but offers the possibility to simultaneously encompass it in societal processes.