Latest developments in Social Europe: Promising steps in need for future monitoring

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 ECONOMICS Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies Pub Date : 2023-10-04 DOI:10.1111/jcms.13556
Beatrice Carella
{"title":"Latest developments in Social Europe: Promising steps in need for future monitoring","authors":"Beatrice Carella","doi":"10.1111/jcms.13556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>After 2 years of dealing with the social consequences of the pandemic, European citizens and policy-makers entered 2022 with glimpses of hope regarding the prospects for economic, labour market and social recovery. Despite cross-country and within-country variation, the real output in the European Union (EU) had returned to its 2019 level by 2021. By spring of the same year, the average EU unemployment rate had reached January 2019 levels. Then, less than 2 months into the New Year, the Russian invasion of Ukraine brought war on the EU borders, altering previous patterns of recovery and established policy agendas. At the social level, the most relevant implication experienced by European citizens was the deepening of the inflationary trends that had started manifesting in 2021, which turned into a cost-of-living crisis over the course of 2022. While the actual impact of this further shock will be assessed fully in the coming years, the insecurity and precariousness that characterized the most vulnerable social groups revealed once again the existing gaps within welfare states and social protection systems from the local level to the supranational level.</p><p>Similarly to what happened after the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, the responses by national policy-makers were swift and largely in the form of compensatory measures. The EU contributed to the financial effort by allowing member states to redirect recovery funds to finance emergency social protection schemes at the national level through the Temporary Crisis Framework enacted in March 2022. The other two main axes of intervention by EU institutions involved the European Central Bank's maneuvers to mitigate inflation, by starting to raise interest rates in July 2022 for the first time since 2011, and the granting of temporary protection to people fleeing Ukraine. The latter was among the first decisions undertaken at the EU level in response to the war, which gave refugees access to key rights, including entitlement to welfare benefits.</p><p>Concurrently to the immediate reactions to the war and cost-of-living crisis, the EU social policy agenda maintained the path of expansion and strengthening initiated in the previous years. Significant policy milestones were reached in 2022, whose potential benefits resonated even more in the midst of an inflationary context, as it was the case, notably, of the Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages. However, the recent social policy developments need to be analysed as part of a broader process of re-orientation of the European social dimension, undoubtedly characterized in recent years by significant new impetus. While the latest advancements have been encouraging, the full extent of this new period of expansion will need to be monitored closely and evaluated over the coming years. The article proceeds as follows. The first section illustrates the main aspects of the social consequences of inflation during 2022. The second section analyses the evolution of the EU social dimension between the adoption of the European Pillar of Social Rights and 2021. The following section zooms in on the policy advancements of 2022. Finally, the last section discusses the developments addressed throughout the article and their implications for Social Europe.</p><p>After a prolonged period of ‘great moderation’ in which European inflation had remained at modest levels, complying with the European Central Bank's (ECB) 2% target almost uninterruptedly for a decade (Theodoropoulou <span>2023</span>), in 2022, EU countries had to deal with the implications of a new inflationary wave. Signals had started already in 2021, when consumer prices began to rise as a result, first, of the ‘lockdown’ measures introduced to contain the Covid-19 pandemic, and second, to the lifting of restrictions and the phase of recovery that followed. Between 2021 and 2022, the global consumer price index more than doubled, jumping from 3.7% to 9.2% (Stoevska <span>2022</span>), while it more than tripled in the EU (Eurostat <span>2023a</span>). This was due to a combination of demand and supply factors: on the one hand, the disruptions in global supply chains resulted from Covid-related restrictions caused supply shortages of important commodities, such as semi-conductors, and raised production costs; on the other hand, social distancing and travel restrictions changed consumption patterns, increasing the relative demand for goods while reducing that for services (which rapidly grew again after the end of the health restrictions), altering the production planning of manufactured and intermediate goods. Concurrently, the growing consumption connected to the ‘return to normality’ that followed the end of the most acute phase of the pandemic generated a higher demand for energy and a lower gas supply in Europe in the second half of 2021 (Theodoropoulou <span>2023</span>). This spiral continued into 2022, and by the end of the first quarter of the year, inflation had reached record highs in most of the largest world economies, driven especially by energy and food prices, while underlying inflation (i.e., excluding food and energy), connected to changing demand patterns and supply shortages, also continued (Barrett <span>2022</span>; OECD <span>2022</span>). These trends were then exacerbated in the weeks that followed the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, which triggered a further shock to the global economy and especially in energy and food markets, via its impact on global oil prices and the supply of natural gas. The European region and Euro area countries (EA) were particularly affected due to their dependence on imports for energy, fertilizers and certain food commodities (such as wheat) of which Russia and Ukraine were key exporters (Arce et al. <span>2023</span>; Bodnár and Schuler <span>2022</span>). Shortages in the supply of the latter items contributed to further increases in the main drivers of inflation across Europe for the rest of 2022. Figure 1 shows the average inflationary trends for the European Union, the Euro area and the United States between the end of 2019 and the end of 2022. As it can be seen in the graph, within the EU and EA, annual inflation peaked in October 2022 at 11.5% and 10.6%, respectively (Eurostat <span>2022</span>). Rates continued to slow down in 2023, and at the time of writing, the EA annual inflation is expected to be 5.3% in July 2023 (Eurostat <span>2023b</span>).</p><p>At the social level, high inflation has an impact on real wages and weighs especially on lower-income households. From experiencing an inflationary wave, in 2022 the European region entered a phase of cost-of-living crisis, as individuals and households started reporting growing difficulties to make ends meet. While nominal compensation per employee had increased at rates close to those of prices in 2021, the acceleration of the former during 2022 was not enough to offset the loss of purchasing power for wage earners in all but a few EU member states, causing a ‘historic drop’ in real compensation (Müller et al. <span>2023</span>). This is well illustrated in Figure 2, which shows the evolution of real compensation, namely, compensation's purchasing power, over the past two decades. Inflation generally has a regressive effect, having a stronger impact on lower income groups, but this was especially true in the case of the recent crisis. As highlighted in the previous paragraphs, the general price surge was driven mostly by those of energy and food, as depicted in Figure 3. The latter items typically constitute the largest part of total expenses in low-income households, making them relatively more exposed to inflationary waves than upper income groups. Important differences in the level of inflation, and consequently in its social impact, were registered across EU countries. In October 2022 (when EU and EA averages reached their peak), year-on-year inflation rates ranged between 22.5% in Estonia and 7.1% in France (Eurostat <span>2022</span>). Especially after the beginning of the war in Ukraine, cross-country variability depended mostly on member states' exposure to different energy sources, the relative weight of energy-intensive sectors in their economy and their dependence on global supply chains (Müller et al. <span>2023</span>). The combination of within-country and cross-country variability thus created significant inequality in the depth of the cost-of-living crisis within European societies.</p><p>Inflation also entails a variety of second-order social consequences, which contribute to worsen the effects of the cost-of-living crisis. The heightened costs of energy generate a growing incidence of energy poverty: as reported by an online survey conducted by Eurofound (<span>2022</span>), 53% of respondents claimed to be struggling in making ends meet (an 8-point increase from 2021), 28% of which found themselves in arrears with their utility bills. Once again, the situation varies greatly between countries: the percentage of people declaring to be behind in paying their bills ranged from 7% in Denmark and Sweden to half of the respondents in Greece. The study also highlights the differential impact of the cost-of-living crisis across social groups including the gendered consequences, with women being reportedly at a greater risk of energy poverty than men. Being unable to keep the home adequately heated and ventilated may then be the source of health issues, such as respiratory diseases connected to mould and damp environments, which tend to affect especially children and people with existing medical conditions. Another health consequence of inflation, especially for low-income households, is food insecurity, namely, being unable to maintain a sufficient and nutritious diet and turning to relatively low-cost food, or skipping meals entirely (The Lancet <span>2023</span>). The breadth of the cost-of-living crisis, in its multifaceted dimensions, is perhaps best expressed by the outcomes of the Autumn 2022 Eurobarometer survey released in January 2023. Results showed that in every EU member state, the main worry, shared across all sociodemographic, educational and professional groups, was the increasing cost of living for more than 70% of respondents, with peaks in the Southern European region (in Greece concerning 100% of respondents, in Cyprus 99%, in Italy and Portugal 98%); the second main worry, for an average of 82% of respondents across Europe, was the threat of poverty and social exclusion (European Parliament <span>2023</span>). To fully understand the ways in which this social crisis was tackled at the national and supranational levels, the following section reviews the latest developments of the European social dimension.</p><p>Recently, it has become common to find optimistic interpretations, in the academic literature, of the current evolution of the European social dimension. This is mostly related to the period of legislative and regulative developments in the area of social policy that observers started witnessing since 2018. With the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the measures undertaken at the supranational level further reinforced the idea that we might have entered a new phase of expansion for Social Europe and for EU solidarity at large. The beginning of this new period is generally traced back to the adoption of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR, or the Pillar) in November 2017, which marked a departure from previous policy patterns in the EU social dimension. With its 20 principles in the areas of ‘equal opportunities and access to the labour market’, ‘fair working conditions’ and ‘social protection and inclusion’ (European Commission <span>2017</span>), the first notable novelties of the Pillar lay in its comprehensive scope (addressing all fields of social policy, including areas in which the EU does not have direct competence), and in its rights-based approach (Hendrickx <span>2018</span>; Sabato and Corti <span>2018</span>). First assessments of the capacity of the EPSR to trigger substantial changes in EU social policy were generally positive although cautious, due to the lack of binding mechanisms attached to its implementation (Garben <span>2018</span>; Hacker <span>2019</span>; Rasnača <span>2017</span>).</p><p>With hindsight, the policy advancements that occurred in the years that followed, and the continuous references by EU institutions to the EPSR as a source of guidance, led scholars to interpret with more confidence the adoption of the Pillar as a turning point for Social Europe (De la Porte and Madama <span>2022</span>; Huguenot-Noël and Corti <span>2023</span>; Keune and Pochet <span>2023</span>). These developments spanned across the areas of social protection and strengthening of working rights and included the adoption, in sequence, of the Posting of Workers Directive (Dir. 2018/957); the Directive on transparent and predictable working conditions in the EU (Dir. 2019/1152); the Directive on work-life balance for parents and carers (Dir. 2019/1158); the Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed (2019/C 387/01); the 2020 Youth Employment Support Package\n1; the EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2021–2027 published in June 2021; and the European Platform for Combatting Homelessness launched in November 2021. Other legislative initiatives currently in the pipeline include a Directive on improving working conditions in the platform economy, for which the European Commission produced a proposal in December 2021. Beside the Posting of Workers Directive, these developments occurred all under the present European Commission led by Ursula von der Leyen, appointed in 2019. However, as highlighted in the literature, the policy innovations introduced by the current Commission appear in strong continuity with the seeds planted during the previous cycle, the Commission led by Jean-Claude Juncker (<span>2014</span>–2019). Juncker introduced the idea for a European Pillar of Social Rights in his State of the Union address of 2015, and throughout his mandate, he advocated for a changed approach to social policy at the EU level (Juncker <span>2014</span>; Juncker et al. <span>2015</span>; Vesan et al. <span>2021</span>). Taking on her role as President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen fully endorsed the agenda set by her predecessor in the realm of social policy (European Commission <span>2019</span>). Two years into her Presidency (and one into the pandemic), with most of the announced policy initiatives already adopted, the Commission introduced an Action Plan to contribute to the realization of the EPSR principles (European Commission <span>2021</span>), which set new social policy targets to be reached by 2030 at the EU level.\n2 As highlighted by Kilpatrick (<span>2023</span>), referring to these developments as the ‘Pillar period’ should not be intended to establish a chain of causality between the Pillar and the following initiatives, or the latter as its direct implementation, because the document per se, as we discussed above, did not entail any binding actions and could therefore have been marginalized over the years. Instead, the EPSR ‘has become an important reference point for Social Europe developments […] The Pillar should be seen as an unfolding process, defining a Social Europe period, as much as it is a source.’ (Kilpatrick <span>2023</span>, p. 3).</p><p>Parallel to these initiatives, EU institutions have taken measures since 2020 to address the socioeconomic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, with important implications for the supranational involvement in the social policy sphere and for the direction of European integration as a whole. One of the first policy interventions adopted after the outbreak of the coronavirus crisis was in the field of employment, an area that was severely impacted during the health emergency: following the proposal advanced by the Commission on 2 April 2020, on 19 May, the Council released Regulation 2020/672 that introduced a new instrument for temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE). The programme was aimed at supporting short-time work schemes at the national level to help protect employees and the self-employed against the loss of work, by providing member states with financial assistance backed by the issuance of EU bonds (‘social bonds’). The earmarking of these funds to financing national short-time work schemes, or similar measures, is the only conditionality attached to the provision of funding. As noted by Laulom (<span>2023</span>), while SURE was designed as a temporary instrument and it has not entailed the harmonization of short-time working mechanisms, its adoption was grounded ‘in a spirit of solidarity’, as stated in Article 122(1) TFEU, mentioned as legal basis for the programme. Together with the introduction, in July 2020, of the NextGenerationEU package (NGEU) and the related Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), such developments certainly appeared to represent a deepening of intra-European solidaristic linkages (Ferrera et al. <span>2021</span>). The measures that followed the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the beginning of the war, which caused devastating humanitarian consequences and, indirectly, a new shock to European societies, have remained on the paths taken in the previous years.</p><p>At the policy-making level, 2022 was characterized first and foremost by the responses to the war. Among these, the measures taken by national and supranational executives also involved the social sphere. EU member states introduced policies to support refugees from Ukraine and ensure their access to welfare services and emergency policies aimed at mitigating the impact of the war on EU citizens and workers. Most of these were temporary, ad hoc measures in the form of one-off, lump sum payments, or tax cuts and credits, directed at contrasting in the short term the effects of the cost-of-living crisis, especially the rising cost of energy bills, and approximately two thirds of them were not targeted at any specific social group (Eurofound <span>2022</span>). Among the first policy responses by EU institutions, on 2 March 2022, the European Commission proposed to activate the Temporary Protection Directive, on which the European Council unanimously agreed 2 days later. The Directive, introduced in 2001 for circumstances of exceptional mass influxes of displaced persons, reduces pressure on national asylum systems, by allowing beneficiaries to move freely on EU territory and choose the country where they want to benefit from the temporary protection rights. The Directive (2001/55/EC, Art. 13(2)) ensures that persons enjoying temporary protection will ‘receive necessary assistance in terms of social welfare and means of subsistence, if they do not have sufficient resources, as well as for medical care’. The implications in terms of protection of social rights represent a further sign of solidarity, in stark contrast with the positions maintained over the course of the 2015–16 migration crisis (Fabbrini <span>2023</span>). EU institutions also intervened substantially within the economic sphere. On 23 March, the Commission adopted the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework, later amended several times, to support EU countries in granting state aid to companies affected by Russia's aggression against Ukraine. In July 2022, the European Central Bank started raising interest rates to counter the inflationary wave (the latest increases, at the time of writing, occurred on 2 August 2023). Towards the end of 2022, on 9 November, the Commission released a Communication on ‘orientations for a reform of the EU economic governance framework’ (European Commission <span>2022</span>), on which the Council adopted related Conclusions on 14 March 2023. The documents set the stage for future reform of EU macroeconomic procedures regarding debt sustainability, fiscal planning and policy surveillance.</p><p>In the area of social policy, the most significant achievement of 2022 was the reaching of an agreement between Council and European Parliament and then the final adoption of the Directive on adequate minimum wages in the European Union (Dir. 2022/2041). The document establishes two reference values for assessing the adequacy of statutory minimum wages (60% of the gross median wage and 50% of the gross average wage), which, without imposing a uniform minimum wage level, will represent ‘a strong normative benchmark for setting minimum wages at national level’ (Müller et al. <span>2023</span>, p. 84). Moreover, the Directive introduces various provisions aimed at strengthening the role of trade unions, by granting them the prerogative for collective bargaining and defining 80% as the minimum coverage level for collective bargaining, below which member states need to develop action plans in cooperation with social partners to increase it. Other significant policy advancements included the launch of a new European Care Strategy in September 2022, with proposals for two new Recommendations on early child education and care and on access to affordable and high-quality long-term care, and in the first part of 2023, the adoption of a Recommendation on adequate minimum income in January 2023 (2023/C 41/01) and a Directive on strengthening the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women (Dir. 2023/970). While developments in the area of social policy were not directly a consequence of the new social crisis experienced in Europe during 2022, they go in the direction of strengthening social protection and labour rights, which altogether should increase the capacity of EU member states to cope with social emergencies in the future.</p><p>The interventions undertaken over the past year point to an ongoing activism on the side of EU institutions in the area of social policy-making. Alongside the emergency measures established in response to the socioeconomic consequences of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the deepening of the cost-of-living crisis, the EU has also maintained the course of social reforms it had established in the previous years. The adoption of the Adequate Minimum Wage Directive, the Recommendation on adequate minimum income, the Directive strengthening gender equality in the labour market and the new initiatives in the realm of care show continuity with the other policies introduced by the von der Leyen Commission and with the principles enshrined in the European Pillar of Social Rights of 2017. Keune and Pochet (<span>2023</span>) highlighted three main dimensions of innovation in the policies adopted between the Juncker Commission and early 2023, namely, increasing protections at the labour market margins (viz., the measures regarding posted workers, platform workers, minimum wages and transparent working conditions), the strengthening of the industrial relations system, and the financing of Social Europe (most notably through SURE and RRF). Regarding their policy content, Huguenot-Noël and Corti (<span>2023</span>) argued that recent initiatives brought the EU social dimension in the direction of more universalizing and capacitating functions. Moreover, the authors claimed that the measures adopted to mitigate the social and employment consequences of the pandemic, albeit not establishing directly new entitlements for citizens, turned the EU into a ‘co-guarantor’ of social citizenship. Similarly, Miró et al. (<span>2023</span>, p. 2) considered that, with the new supranational redistributive instruments adopted over the past decade, ‘the EU stepped up to act as a provider of social protection’.</p><p>The new wave of social crisis triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic, first, and the Russian aggression against Ukraine, then, is however far from over. The expansionary measures taken at the national and supranational levels in response to these shocks were mostly temporary in nature. While the EU has defined policy targets and financing instruments in the context of the green and digital transitions, therefore adopting a more long-term view in its policy objectives, the direction of the upcoming reform of the economic governance framework will need to be fully compatible with such objectives. The European Trade Union Confederation has recently warned against the risk of a new wave of austerity as soon as the rules limiting national budget deficits to 3% of GDP and public debt to 60% of GDP will come into force again in 2024 (ETUC <span>2023</span>). The extent to which social objectives have effectively acquired a more prominent role among EU policy priorities will be able to be assessed only when the phase of emergency is over.</p>","PeriodicalId":51369,"journal":{"name":"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies","volume":"61 S1","pages":"125-135"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jcms.13556","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcms.13556","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

After 2 years of dealing with the social consequences of the pandemic, European citizens and policy-makers entered 2022 with glimpses of hope regarding the prospects for economic, labour market and social recovery. Despite cross-country and within-country variation, the real output in the European Union (EU) had returned to its 2019 level by 2021. By spring of the same year, the average EU unemployment rate had reached January 2019 levels. Then, less than 2 months into the New Year, the Russian invasion of Ukraine brought war on the EU borders, altering previous patterns of recovery and established policy agendas. At the social level, the most relevant implication experienced by European citizens was the deepening of the inflationary trends that had started manifesting in 2021, which turned into a cost-of-living crisis over the course of 2022. While the actual impact of this further shock will be assessed fully in the coming years, the insecurity and precariousness that characterized the most vulnerable social groups revealed once again the existing gaps within welfare states and social protection systems from the local level to the supranational level.

Similarly to what happened after the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, the responses by national policy-makers were swift and largely in the form of compensatory measures. The EU contributed to the financial effort by allowing member states to redirect recovery funds to finance emergency social protection schemes at the national level through the Temporary Crisis Framework enacted in March 2022. The other two main axes of intervention by EU institutions involved the European Central Bank's maneuvers to mitigate inflation, by starting to raise interest rates in July 2022 for the first time since 2011, and the granting of temporary protection to people fleeing Ukraine. The latter was among the first decisions undertaken at the EU level in response to the war, which gave refugees access to key rights, including entitlement to welfare benefits.

Concurrently to the immediate reactions to the war and cost-of-living crisis, the EU social policy agenda maintained the path of expansion and strengthening initiated in the previous years. Significant policy milestones were reached in 2022, whose potential benefits resonated even more in the midst of an inflationary context, as it was the case, notably, of the Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages. However, the recent social policy developments need to be analysed as part of a broader process of re-orientation of the European social dimension, undoubtedly characterized in recent years by significant new impetus. While the latest advancements have been encouraging, the full extent of this new period of expansion will need to be monitored closely and evaluated over the coming years. The article proceeds as follows. The first section illustrates the main aspects of the social consequences of inflation during 2022. The second section analyses the evolution of the EU social dimension between the adoption of the European Pillar of Social Rights and 2021. The following section zooms in on the policy advancements of 2022. Finally, the last section discusses the developments addressed throughout the article and their implications for Social Europe.

After a prolonged period of ‘great moderation’ in which European inflation had remained at modest levels, complying with the European Central Bank's (ECB) 2% target almost uninterruptedly for a decade (Theodoropoulou 2023), in 2022, EU countries had to deal with the implications of a new inflationary wave. Signals had started already in 2021, when consumer prices began to rise as a result, first, of the ‘lockdown’ measures introduced to contain the Covid-19 pandemic, and second, to the lifting of restrictions and the phase of recovery that followed. Between 2021 and 2022, the global consumer price index more than doubled, jumping from 3.7% to 9.2% (Stoevska 2022), while it more than tripled in the EU (Eurostat 2023a). This was due to a combination of demand and supply factors: on the one hand, the disruptions in global supply chains resulted from Covid-related restrictions caused supply shortages of important commodities, such as semi-conductors, and raised production costs; on the other hand, social distancing and travel restrictions changed consumption patterns, increasing the relative demand for goods while reducing that for services (which rapidly grew again after the end of the health restrictions), altering the production planning of manufactured and intermediate goods. Concurrently, the growing consumption connected to the ‘return to normality’ that followed the end of the most acute phase of the pandemic generated a higher demand for energy and a lower gas supply in Europe in the second half of 2021 (Theodoropoulou 2023). This spiral continued into 2022, and by the end of the first quarter of the year, inflation had reached record highs in most of the largest world economies, driven especially by energy and food prices, while underlying inflation (i.e., excluding food and energy), connected to changing demand patterns and supply shortages, also continued (Barrett 2022; OECD 2022). These trends were then exacerbated in the weeks that followed the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, which triggered a further shock to the global economy and especially in energy and food markets, via its impact on global oil prices and the supply of natural gas. The European region and Euro area countries (EA) were particularly affected due to their dependence on imports for energy, fertilizers and certain food commodities (such as wheat) of which Russia and Ukraine were key exporters (Arce et al. 2023; Bodnár and Schuler 2022). Shortages in the supply of the latter items contributed to further increases in the main drivers of inflation across Europe for the rest of 2022. Figure 1 shows the average inflationary trends for the European Union, the Euro area and the United States between the end of 2019 and the end of 2022. As it can be seen in the graph, within the EU and EA, annual inflation peaked in October 2022 at 11.5% and 10.6%, respectively (Eurostat 2022). Rates continued to slow down in 2023, and at the time of writing, the EA annual inflation is expected to be 5.3% in July 2023 (Eurostat 2023b).

At the social level, high inflation has an impact on real wages and weighs especially on lower-income households. From experiencing an inflationary wave, in 2022 the European region entered a phase of cost-of-living crisis, as individuals and households started reporting growing difficulties to make ends meet. While nominal compensation per employee had increased at rates close to those of prices in 2021, the acceleration of the former during 2022 was not enough to offset the loss of purchasing power for wage earners in all but a few EU member states, causing a ‘historic drop’ in real compensation (Müller et al. 2023). This is well illustrated in Figure 2, which shows the evolution of real compensation, namely, compensation's purchasing power, over the past two decades. Inflation generally has a regressive effect, having a stronger impact on lower income groups, but this was especially true in the case of the recent crisis. As highlighted in the previous paragraphs, the general price surge was driven mostly by those of energy and food, as depicted in Figure 3. The latter items typically constitute the largest part of total expenses in low-income households, making them relatively more exposed to inflationary waves than upper income groups. Important differences in the level of inflation, and consequently in its social impact, were registered across EU countries. In October 2022 (when EU and EA averages reached their peak), year-on-year inflation rates ranged between 22.5% in Estonia and 7.1% in France (Eurostat 2022). Especially after the beginning of the war in Ukraine, cross-country variability depended mostly on member states' exposure to different energy sources, the relative weight of energy-intensive sectors in their economy and their dependence on global supply chains (Müller et al. 2023). The combination of within-country and cross-country variability thus created significant inequality in the depth of the cost-of-living crisis within European societies.

Inflation also entails a variety of second-order social consequences, which contribute to worsen the effects of the cost-of-living crisis. The heightened costs of energy generate a growing incidence of energy poverty: as reported by an online survey conducted by Eurofound (2022), 53% of respondents claimed to be struggling in making ends meet (an 8-point increase from 2021), 28% of which found themselves in arrears with their utility bills. Once again, the situation varies greatly between countries: the percentage of people declaring to be behind in paying their bills ranged from 7% in Denmark and Sweden to half of the respondents in Greece. The study also highlights the differential impact of the cost-of-living crisis across social groups including the gendered consequences, with women being reportedly at a greater risk of energy poverty than men. Being unable to keep the home adequately heated and ventilated may then be the source of health issues, such as respiratory diseases connected to mould and damp environments, which tend to affect especially children and people with existing medical conditions. Another health consequence of inflation, especially for low-income households, is food insecurity, namely, being unable to maintain a sufficient and nutritious diet and turning to relatively low-cost food, or skipping meals entirely (The Lancet 2023). The breadth of the cost-of-living crisis, in its multifaceted dimensions, is perhaps best expressed by the outcomes of the Autumn 2022 Eurobarometer survey released in January 2023. Results showed that in every EU member state, the main worry, shared across all sociodemographic, educational and professional groups, was the increasing cost of living for more than 70% of respondents, with peaks in the Southern European region (in Greece concerning 100% of respondents, in Cyprus 99%, in Italy and Portugal 98%); the second main worry, for an average of 82% of respondents across Europe, was the threat of poverty and social exclusion (European Parliament 2023). To fully understand the ways in which this social crisis was tackled at the national and supranational levels, the following section reviews the latest developments of the European social dimension.

Recently, it has become common to find optimistic interpretations, in the academic literature, of the current evolution of the European social dimension. This is mostly related to the period of legislative and regulative developments in the area of social policy that observers started witnessing since 2018. With the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the measures undertaken at the supranational level further reinforced the idea that we might have entered a new phase of expansion for Social Europe and for EU solidarity at large. The beginning of this new period is generally traced back to the adoption of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR, or the Pillar) in November 2017, which marked a departure from previous policy patterns in the EU social dimension. With its 20 principles in the areas of ‘equal opportunities and access to the labour market’, ‘fair working conditions’ and ‘social protection and inclusion’ (European Commission 2017), the first notable novelties of the Pillar lay in its comprehensive scope (addressing all fields of social policy, including areas in which the EU does not have direct competence), and in its rights-based approach (Hendrickx 2018; Sabato and Corti 2018). First assessments of the capacity of the EPSR to trigger substantial changes in EU social policy were generally positive although cautious, due to the lack of binding mechanisms attached to its implementation (Garben 2018; Hacker 2019; Rasnača 2017).

With hindsight, the policy advancements that occurred in the years that followed, and the continuous references by EU institutions to the EPSR as a source of guidance, led scholars to interpret with more confidence the adoption of the Pillar as a turning point for Social Europe (De la Porte and Madama 2022; Huguenot-Noël and Corti 2023; Keune and Pochet 2023). These developments spanned across the areas of social protection and strengthening of working rights and included the adoption, in sequence, of the Posting of Workers Directive (Dir. 2018/957); the Directive on transparent and predictable working conditions in the EU (Dir. 2019/1152); the Directive on work-life balance for parents and carers (Dir. 2019/1158); the Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed (2019/C 387/01); the 2020 Youth Employment Support Package 1; the EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2021–2027 published in June 2021; and the European Platform for Combatting Homelessness launched in November 2021. Other legislative initiatives currently in the pipeline include a Directive on improving working conditions in the platform economy, for which the European Commission produced a proposal in December 2021. Beside the Posting of Workers Directive, these developments occurred all under the present European Commission led by Ursula von der Leyen, appointed in 2019. However, as highlighted in the literature, the policy innovations introduced by the current Commission appear in strong continuity with the seeds planted during the previous cycle, the Commission led by Jean-Claude Juncker (2014–2019). Juncker introduced the idea for a European Pillar of Social Rights in his State of the Union address of 2015, and throughout his mandate, he advocated for a changed approach to social policy at the EU level (Juncker 2014; Juncker et al. 2015; Vesan et al. 2021). Taking on her role as President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen fully endorsed the agenda set by her predecessor in the realm of social policy (European Commission 2019). Two years into her Presidency (and one into the pandemic), with most of the announced policy initiatives already adopted, the Commission introduced an Action Plan to contribute to the realization of the EPSR principles (European Commission 2021), which set new social policy targets to be reached by 2030 at the EU level. 2 As highlighted by Kilpatrick (2023), referring to these developments as the ‘Pillar period’ should not be intended to establish a chain of causality between the Pillar and the following initiatives, or the latter as its direct implementation, because the document per se, as we discussed above, did not entail any binding actions and could therefore have been marginalized over the years. Instead, the EPSR ‘has become an important reference point for Social Europe developments […] The Pillar should be seen as an unfolding process, defining a Social Europe period, as much as it is a source.’ (Kilpatrick 2023, p. 3).

Parallel to these initiatives, EU institutions have taken measures since 2020 to address the socioeconomic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, with important implications for the supranational involvement in the social policy sphere and for the direction of European integration as a whole. One of the first policy interventions adopted after the outbreak of the coronavirus crisis was in the field of employment, an area that was severely impacted during the health emergency: following the proposal advanced by the Commission on 2 April 2020, on 19 May, the Council released Regulation 2020/672 that introduced a new instrument for temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE). The programme was aimed at supporting short-time work schemes at the national level to help protect employees and the self-employed against the loss of work, by providing member states with financial assistance backed by the issuance of EU bonds (‘social bonds’). The earmarking of these funds to financing national short-time work schemes, or similar measures, is the only conditionality attached to the provision of funding. As noted by Laulom (2023), while SURE was designed as a temporary instrument and it has not entailed the harmonization of short-time working mechanisms, its adoption was grounded ‘in a spirit of solidarity’, as stated in Article 122(1) TFEU, mentioned as legal basis for the programme. Together with the introduction, in July 2020, of the NextGenerationEU package (NGEU) and the related Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), such developments certainly appeared to represent a deepening of intra-European solidaristic linkages (Ferrera et al. 2021). The measures that followed the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the beginning of the war, which caused devastating humanitarian consequences and, indirectly, a new shock to European societies, have remained on the paths taken in the previous years.

At the policy-making level, 2022 was characterized first and foremost by the responses to the war. Among these, the measures taken by national and supranational executives also involved the social sphere. EU member states introduced policies to support refugees from Ukraine and ensure their access to welfare services and emergency policies aimed at mitigating the impact of the war on EU citizens and workers. Most of these were temporary, ad hoc measures in the form of one-off, lump sum payments, or tax cuts and credits, directed at contrasting in the short term the effects of the cost-of-living crisis, especially the rising cost of energy bills, and approximately two thirds of them were not targeted at any specific social group (Eurofound 2022). Among the first policy responses by EU institutions, on 2 March 2022, the European Commission proposed to activate the Temporary Protection Directive, on which the European Council unanimously agreed 2 days later. The Directive, introduced in 2001 for circumstances of exceptional mass influxes of displaced persons, reduces pressure on national asylum systems, by allowing beneficiaries to move freely on EU territory and choose the country where they want to benefit from the temporary protection rights. The Directive (2001/55/EC, Art. 13(2)) ensures that persons enjoying temporary protection will ‘receive necessary assistance in terms of social welfare and means of subsistence, if they do not have sufficient resources, as well as for medical care’. The implications in terms of protection of social rights represent a further sign of solidarity, in stark contrast with the positions maintained over the course of the 2015–16 migration crisis (Fabbrini 2023). EU institutions also intervened substantially within the economic sphere. On 23 March, the Commission adopted the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework, later amended several times, to support EU countries in granting state aid to companies affected by Russia's aggression against Ukraine. In July 2022, the European Central Bank started raising interest rates to counter the inflationary wave (the latest increases, at the time of writing, occurred on 2 August 2023). Towards the end of 2022, on 9 November, the Commission released a Communication on ‘orientations for a reform of the EU economic governance framework’ (European Commission 2022), on which the Council adopted related Conclusions on 14 March 2023. The documents set the stage for future reform of EU macroeconomic procedures regarding debt sustainability, fiscal planning and policy surveillance.

In the area of social policy, the most significant achievement of 2022 was the reaching of an agreement between Council and European Parliament and then the final adoption of the Directive on adequate minimum wages in the European Union (Dir. 2022/2041). The document establishes two reference values for assessing the adequacy of statutory minimum wages (60% of the gross median wage and 50% of the gross average wage), which, without imposing a uniform minimum wage level, will represent ‘a strong normative benchmark for setting minimum wages at national level’ (Müller et al. 2023, p. 84). Moreover, the Directive introduces various provisions aimed at strengthening the role of trade unions, by granting them the prerogative for collective bargaining and defining 80% as the minimum coverage level for collective bargaining, below which member states need to develop action plans in cooperation with social partners to increase it. Other significant policy advancements included the launch of a new European Care Strategy in September 2022, with proposals for two new Recommendations on early child education and care and on access to affordable and high-quality long-term care, and in the first part of 2023, the adoption of a Recommendation on adequate minimum income in January 2023 (2023/C 41/01) and a Directive on strengthening the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women (Dir. 2023/970). While developments in the area of social policy were not directly a consequence of the new social crisis experienced in Europe during 2022, they go in the direction of strengthening social protection and labour rights, which altogether should increase the capacity of EU member states to cope with social emergencies in the future.

The interventions undertaken over the past year point to an ongoing activism on the side of EU institutions in the area of social policy-making. Alongside the emergency measures established in response to the socioeconomic consequences of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the deepening of the cost-of-living crisis, the EU has also maintained the course of social reforms it had established in the previous years. The adoption of the Adequate Minimum Wage Directive, the Recommendation on adequate minimum income, the Directive strengthening gender equality in the labour market and the new initiatives in the realm of care show continuity with the other policies introduced by the von der Leyen Commission and with the principles enshrined in the European Pillar of Social Rights of 2017. Keune and Pochet (2023) highlighted three main dimensions of innovation in the policies adopted between the Juncker Commission and early 2023, namely, increasing protections at the labour market margins (viz., the measures regarding posted workers, platform workers, minimum wages and transparent working conditions), the strengthening of the industrial relations system, and the financing of Social Europe (most notably through SURE and RRF). Regarding their policy content, Huguenot-Noël and Corti (2023) argued that recent initiatives brought the EU social dimension in the direction of more universalizing and capacitating functions. Moreover, the authors claimed that the measures adopted to mitigate the social and employment consequences of the pandemic, albeit not establishing directly new entitlements for citizens, turned the EU into a ‘co-guarantor’ of social citizenship. Similarly, Miró et al. (2023, p. 2) considered that, with the new supranational redistributive instruments adopted over the past decade, ‘the EU stepped up to act as a provider of social protection’.

The new wave of social crisis triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic, first, and the Russian aggression against Ukraine, then, is however far from over. The expansionary measures taken at the national and supranational levels in response to these shocks were mostly temporary in nature. While the EU has defined policy targets and financing instruments in the context of the green and digital transitions, therefore adopting a more long-term view in its policy objectives, the direction of the upcoming reform of the economic governance framework will need to be fully compatible with such objectives. The European Trade Union Confederation has recently warned against the risk of a new wave of austerity as soon as the rules limiting national budget deficits to 3% of GDP and public debt to 60% of GDP will come into force again in 2024 (ETUC 2023). The extent to which social objectives have effectively acquired a more prominent role among EU policy priorities will be able to be assessed only when the phase of emergency is over.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会欧洲的最新发展:未来需要监测的有希望的步骤
在应对大流行病的社会后果两年之后,欧洲公民和决策者带着对经济、劳动力市场和社会复苏前景的一线希望进入2022年。尽管存在跨国和国内差异,但到2021年,欧盟的实际产出已恢复到2019年的水平。到同年春季,欧盟的平均失业率已达到2019年1月的水平。然后,在新年开始不到两个月的时候,俄罗斯入侵乌克兰在欧盟边境引发了战争,改变了之前的复苏模式和既定的政策议程。在社会层面,欧洲公民经历的最相关的影响是2021年开始显现的通货膨胀趋势的深化,并在2022年演变为生活成本危机。虽然这种进一步冲击的实际影响将在今后几年得到充分评估,但最脆弱的社会群体所特有的不安全和不稳定再次揭示了福利国家和社会保护制度从地方一级到超国家一级的现有差距。与冠状病毒大流行爆发后的情况类似,国家决策者的反应迅速,而且主要是采取补偿性措施。欧盟通过2022年3月颁布的《临时危机框架》,允许成员国将恢复资金转用于资助国家一级的紧急社会保护计划,从而为财政努力作出了贡献。欧盟机构干预的另外两个主要方面包括欧洲央行(European Central Bank)为缓解通胀而采取的措施,即从2022年7月开始自2011年以来首次加息,以及向逃离乌克兰的人提供临时保护。后者是欧盟层面为应对战争而做出的首批决定之一,该决定使难民能够获得关键权利,包括获得福利的权利。在对战争和生活费用危机作出直接反应的同时,欧盟的社会政策议程保持了前几年开始的扩大和加强的道路。2022年实现了重大的政策里程碑,在通胀背景下,其潜在好处更能引起共鸣,尤其是《关于适当最低工资的指令》。但是,最近的社会政策发展需要作为重新确定欧洲社会层面的更广泛进程的一部分加以分析,这一进程近年来无疑具有重要的新动力。虽然最近的进展令人鼓舞,但需要在今后几年密切监测和评价这一新的扩大时期的全面程度。文章的内容如下。第一部分阐述了2022年通货膨胀的主要社会后果。第二部分分析了欧盟社会层面在通过欧洲社会权利支柱和2021年之间的演变。下一节将聚焦2022年的政策进展。最后,最后一部分讨论了整篇文章的发展及其对社会欧洲的影响。在经历了长时间的“大缓和”(great moderation)之后,欧洲的通胀一直保持在适度水平,几乎连续十年(Theodoropoulou 2023)不间断地遵守欧洲央行(ECB) 2%的目标,到2022年,欧盟国家不得不应对新一波通胀浪潮的影响。2021年已经开始出现信号,当时消费者价格开始上涨,首先是为遏制Covid-19大流行而采取的“封锁”措施,其次是取消限制和随后的复苏阶段。2021年至2022年期间,全球消费者价格指数翻了一番多,从3.7%跃升至9.2% (Stoevska 2022),而欧盟的消费者价格指数增长了两倍多(Eurostat 2023a)。这是供需因素共同作用的结果:一方面,新冠肺炎疫情相关限制导致全球供应链中断,导致半导体等重要商品供应短缺,生产成本上升;另一方面,社会距离和旅行限制改变了消费模式,增加了对商品的相对需求,同时减少了对服务的需求(在卫生限制结束后,服务需求再次迅速增长),改变了制成品和中间产品的生产计划。与此同时,在疫情最严重阶段结束后,与“恢复正常”相关的消费不断增长,导致2021年下半年欧洲对能源的需求增加,天然气供应减少(Theodoropoulou 2023)。 这种螺旋式上升一直持续到2022年,到今年第一季度末,世界上大多数最大的经济体的通货膨胀率都达到了历史新高,尤其是在能源和食品价格的推动下,而与需求模式变化和供应短缺相关的潜在通货膨胀(即不包括食品和能源)也在继续(Barrett 2022;经合组织2022)。在俄罗斯于2022年2月24日入侵乌克兰之后的几周内,这些趋势进一步加剧,俄罗斯入侵乌克兰对全球经济,特别是能源和食品市场造成了进一步的冲击,影响了全球石油价格和天然气供应。欧洲地区和欧元区国家(EA)受到的影响尤其严重,因为它们依赖进口能源、化肥和某些粮食商品(如小麦),其中俄罗斯和乌克兰是主要出口国(Arce et al. 2023;Bodnár和Schuler 2022)。后一种物品的供应短缺导致了2022年剩余时间内欧洲通胀的主要驱动因素进一步增加。图1显示了2019年底至2022年底期间欧盟、欧元区和美国的平均通胀趋势。如图所示,在欧盟和欧洲经济区内,年通货膨胀率在2022年10月分别达到11.5%和10.6%的峰值(Eurostat 2022)。2023年利率继续放缓,在撰写本文时,预计2023年7月欧洲经委会年度通货膨胀率为5.3% (Eurostat 2023b)。在社会层面,高通胀对实际工资产生了影响,对低收入家庭的影响尤其大。在经历了通胀浪潮之后,欧洲地区在2022年进入了生活成本危机阶段,个人和家庭开始报告越来越难以维持收支平衡。虽然人均名义薪酬在2021年以接近物价的速度增长,但前者在2022年的加速不足以抵消除少数欧盟成员国外所有工薪阶层购买力的损失,导致实际薪酬的“历史性下降”(m<s:1> ller et al. 2023)。图2很好地说明了这一点,它显示了过去二十年中实际薪酬的演变,即薪酬的购买力。通货膨胀通常具有倒退效应,对低收入群体的影响更大,但在最近的危机中尤其如此。正如前几段所强调的那样,总体价格上涨主要是由能源和食品价格上涨推动的,如图3所示。后一项通常构成低收入家庭总开支的最大部分,使他们比高收入群体相对更容易受到通货膨胀浪潮的影响。欧盟各国在通货膨胀水平及其社会影响方面存在重大差异。2022年10月(欧盟和欧洲平均水平达到峰值),爱沙尼亚的年通胀率在22.5%和法国的7.1%之间(Eurostat 2022)。特别是在乌克兰战争开始后,跨国变化主要取决于成员国对不同能源的暴露程度、能源密集型行业在其经济中的相对权重以及对全球供应链的依赖程度(m<e:1>勒等人,2023)。因此,国家内部和国家之间的差异在欧洲社会生活费用危机的深度上造成了严重的不平等。通货膨胀还带来各种各样的二级社会后果,使生活费用危机的影响更加恶化。能源成本的上升导致能源贫困的发生率越来越高:根据Eurofound(2022年)进行的一项在线调查,53%的受访者声称难以维持收支平衡(比2021年增加了8个百分点),其中28%的受访者发现自己拖欠水电费。同样,不同国家之间的情况差异很大:声称拖欠账单的人的比例从丹麦和瑞典的7%到希腊的一半不等。该研究还强调了生活成本危机对不同社会群体的不同影响,包括性别后果,据报道,女性比男性面临更大的能源贫困风险。因此,无法使家庭保持适当的供暖和通风可能是健康问题的根源,例如与霉菌和潮湿环境有关的呼吸系统疾病,这些疾病往往特别影响儿童和已有医疗条件的人。通货膨胀的另一个健康后果,特别是对低收入家庭来说,是粮食不安全,即无法维持足够和有营养的饮食,转而食用相对低成本的食物,或完全不吃饭(The Lancet 2023)。 这种螺旋式上升一直持续到2022年,到今年第一季度末,世界上大多数最大的经济体的通货膨胀率都达到了历史新高,尤其是在能源和食品价格的推动下,而与需求模式变化和供应短缺相关的潜在通货膨胀(即不包括食品和能源)也在继续(Barrett 2022;经合组织2022)。在俄罗斯于2022年2月24日入侵乌克兰之后的几周内,这些趋势进一步加剧,俄罗斯入侵乌克兰对全球经济,特别是能源和食品市场造成了进一步的冲击,影响了全球石油价格和天然气供应。欧洲地区和欧元区国家(EA)受到的影响尤其严重,因为它们依赖进口能源、化肥和某些粮食商品(如小麦),其中俄罗斯和乌克兰是主要出口国(Arce et al. 2023;Bodnár和Schuler 2022)。后一种物品的供应短缺导致了2022年剩余时间内欧洲通胀的主要驱动因素进一步增加。图1显示了2019年底至2022年底期间欧盟、欧元区和美国的平均通胀趋势。如图所示,在欧盟和欧洲经济区内,年通货膨胀率在2022年10月分别达到11.5%和10.6%的峰值(Eurostat 2022)。2023年利率继续放缓,在撰写本文时,预计2023年7月欧洲经委会年度通货膨胀率为5.3% (Eurostat 2023b)。资料来源:Contouris等人(2023)。在社会层面,高通胀对实际工资产生了影响,对低收入家庭的影响尤其大。在经历了通胀浪潮之后,欧洲地区在2022年进入了生活成本危机阶段,个人和家庭开始报告越来越难以维持收支平衡。虽然人均名义薪酬在2021年以接近物价的速度增长,但前者在2022年的加速不足以抵消除少数欧盟成员国外所有工薪阶层购买力的损失,导致实际薪酬的“历史性下降”(m<s:1> ller et al. 2023)。图2很好地说明了这一点,它显示了过去二十年中实际薪酬的演变,即薪酬的购买力。通货膨胀通常具有倒退效应,对低收入群体的影响更大,但在最近的危机中尤其如此。正如前几段所强调的那样,总体价格上涨主要是由能源和食品价格上涨推动的,如图3所示。后一项通常构成低收入家庭总开支的最大部分,使他们比高收入群体相对更容易受到通货膨胀浪潮的影响。欧盟各国在通货膨胀水平及其社会影响方面存在重大差异。2022年10月(欧盟和欧洲平均水平达到峰值),爱沙尼亚的年通胀率在22.5%和法国的7.1%之间(Eurostat 2022)。特别是在乌克兰战争开始后,跨国变化主要取决于成员国对不同能源的暴露程度、能源密集型行业在其经济中的相对权重以及对全球供应链的依赖程度(m<e:1>勒等人,2023)。因此,国家内部和国家之间的差异在欧洲社会生活费用危机的深度上造成了严重的不平等。资料来源:Contouris等人(2023)。资料来源:Contouris等人(2023)。通货膨胀还带来各种各样的二级社会后果,使生活费用危机的影响更加恶化。能源成本的上升导致能源贫困的发生率越来越高:根据Eurofound(2022年)进行的一项在线调查,53%的受访者声称难以维持收支平衡(比2021年增加了8个百分点),其中28%的受访者发现自己拖欠水电费。同样,不同国家之间的情况差异很大:声称拖欠账单的人的比例从丹麦和瑞典的7%到希腊的一半不等。该研究还强调了生活成本危机对不同社会群体的不同影响,包括性别后果,据报道,女性比男性面临更大的能源贫困风险。因此,无法使家庭保持适当的供暖和通风可能是健康问题的根源,例如与霉菌和潮湿环境有关的呼吸系统疾病,这些疾病往往特别影响儿童和已有医疗条件的人。通货膨胀的另一个健康后果,特别是对低收入家庭来说,是粮食不安全,即无法维持足够和有营养的饮食,转而食用相对低成本的食物,或完全不吃饭(The Lancet 2023)。 2023年1月发布的2022年秋季欧洲晴雨表(Eurobarometer)调查结果,或许最能体现生活成本危机的广度。结果显示,在每个欧盟成员国中,所有社会人口、教育和专业群体的主要担忧是70%以上的受访者的生活成本不断上涨,在南欧地区达到顶峰(希腊为100%的受访者,塞浦路斯为99%,意大利和葡萄牙为98%);欧洲平均82%的受访者担心的第二个主要问题是贫困和社会排斥的威胁(欧洲议会2023年)。为了充分了解在国家和超国家一级处理这一社会危机的方式,下面一节将审查欧洲社会方面的最新发展。最近,在学术文献中发现对欧洲社会维度当前演变的乐观解释已经变得很普遍。这主要与观察人士自2018年以来开始目睹的社会政策领域立法和监管发展时期有关。随着Covid-19大流行的爆发,在超国家层面采取的措施进一步加强了我们可能已经进入社会欧洲和整个欧盟团结扩张的新阶段的想法。这一新时期的开始通常可以追溯到2017年11月通过的欧洲社会权利支柱(EPSR,或支柱),这标志着欧盟社会层面以往的政策模式有所不同。该支柱在“平等机会和进入劳动力市场”、“公平工作条件”和“社会保护和包容”等领域提出了20项原则(欧盟委员会2017年),其第一个显著的创新之处在于其全面的范围(涉及社会政策的所有领域,包括欧盟没有直接能力的领域),以及基于权利的方法(Hendrickx 2018;Sabato and Corti 2018)。对EPSR触发欧盟社会政策重大变化的能力的首次评估总体上是积极的,尽管谨慎,因为缺乏与实施相关的约束机制(Garben 2018;黑客2019;Rasnač2017)。事后看来,随后几年发生的政策进步,以及欧盟机构不断引用EPSR作为指导来源,使学者们更有信心地将支柱的采用解释为社会欧洲的转折点(De la Porte和Madama 2022;Huguenot-Noël和Corti 2023;Keune and Pochet 2023)。这些发展跨越了社会保护和加强工作权利的领域,包括依次通过了《工人指令》(第2018/957号);关于欧盟透明和可预测工作条件的指令(第2019/1152号);关于父母和照顾者平衡工作与生活的指令(第2019/1158号);关于工人和自营职业者获得社会保护的建议(2019/C 387/01);2020年青年就业支持一揽子计划1;2021年6月发布的《欧盟2021 - 2027年工作健康与安全战略框架》;以及2021年11月启动的《欧洲打击无家可归问题平台》。目前正在酝酿的其他立法举措包括一项关于改善平台经济工作条件的指令,欧盟委员会于2021年12月为此提出了一项提案。除了《工人指令》的发布,这些发展都是在2019年任命的乌苏拉·冯·德莱恩领导的现任欧盟委员会下发生的。然而,正如文献所强调的那样,当前委员会引入的政策创新似乎与上一个周期(由让-克洛德·容克(2014-2019)领导的委员会)播下的种子具有很强的连续性。容克在2015年的国情咨文中提出了欧洲社会权利支柱的想法,在他的任期内,他主张在欧盟层面改变社会政策的方法(容克2014;Juncker et al. 2015;Vesan et al. 2021)。作为欧盟委员会主席,乌苏拉·冯德莱恩完全赞同其前任在社会政策领域制定的议程(欧盟委员会2019年)。在她担任主席两年后(疫情爆发后一年),在宣布的大多数政策举措都已通过的情况下,委员会出台了一项行动计划,以促进实现《欧洲社会责任和社会责任原则》(欧洲委员会2021年),该计划设定了到2030年在欧盟层面实现的新的社会政策目标。 2正如Kilpatrick(2023)所强调的那样,将这些发展称为“支柱时期”不应该意在建立支柱与以下倡议之间的因果关系链,或者后者作为其直接实施,因为正如我们上面讨论的那样,文件本身不需要任何具有约束力的行动,因此多年来可能被边缘化。相反,EPSR“已成为社会欧洲发展的重要参考点[…]该支柱应被视为一个展开过程,定义社会欧洲时期,就像它是一个来源一样。(Kilpatrick 2023,第3页)。与这些举措并行,欧盟机构自2020年以来采取了措施,以应对Covid-19大流行的社会经济后果,这对超国家参与社会政策领域和整个欧洲一体化的方向产生了重要影响。冠状病毒危机爆发后采取的首批政策干预措施之一是在就业领域,该领域在卫生紧急情况期间受到严重影响:根据委员会2020年4月2日提出的建议,理事会于5月19日发布了第2020/672号条例,引入了一项新的临时支持工具,以减轻紧急情况下的失业风险(SURE)。该方案旨在支持国家一级的短期工作计划,通过向成员国提供以发行欧盟债券(“社会债券”)为后盾的财政援助,帮助保护雇员和自营职业者免受失业的影响。这些资金指定用于资助国家短期工作计划或类似措施,是提供资金的唯一附带条件。正如Laulom(2023)所指出的,虽然SURE是作为临时工具设计的,它不需要协调短期工作机制,但它的采用是基于“团结精神”,正如TFEU第122(1)条所述,这是该计划的法律基础。再加上2020年7月推出的下一代欧盟一揽子计划(NGEU)和相关的恢复和弹性基金(RRF),这些发展显然代表了欧洲内部团结联系的深化(Ferrera et al. 2021)。俄罗斯入侵乌克兰和战争开始后所采取的措施,造成了毁灭性的人道主义后果,并间接地给欧洲社会带来了新的冲击,但这些措施仍然走在前几年所走的道路上。在决策层面,2022年的首要特点是对战争的反应。其中,国家和超国家行政机关采取的措施也涉及社会领域。欧盟成员国出台了支持乌克兰难民并确保他们获得福利服务的政策,并出台了旨在减轻战争对欧盟公民和工人影响的紧急政策。其中大多数都是临时的、特别的措施,以一次性、一次性付款或减税和信贷的形式,目的是在短期内对比生活成本危机的影响,特别是能源账单成本的上涨,其中大约三分之二不针对任何特定的社会群体(Eurofound 2022)。在欧盟机构的首批政策回应中,欧盟委员会于2022年3月2日提议启动临时保护指令,两天后欧洲理事会一致同意。该指令于2001年针对特别大规模流离失所者流入的情况推出,通过允许受益人在欧盟领土上自由行动并选择他们希望从临时保护权中受益的国家,减轻了国家庇护制度的压力。该指令(2001/55/EC,第13(2)条)确保享有临时保护的人"如果没有足够的资源,将在社会福利和生活手段以及医疗方面获得必要的援助"。在保护社会权利方面的影响是团结的进一步标志,与2015-16年移民危机期间所保持的立场形成鲜明对比(Fabbrini 2023)。欧盟机构也在经济领域进行了大量干预。3月23日,欧盟委员会通过了《临时危机与过渡框架》(Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework),该框架后来经过多次修订,以支持欧盟国家向受俄罗斯侵略乌克兰影响的公司提供国家援助。2022年7月,欧洲央行开始提高利率以应对通胀浪潮(在撰写本文时,最近一次加息发生在2023年8月2日)。临近2022年底,即11月9日,欧盟委员会发布了一份关于“欧盟经济治理框架改革方向”的通讯(欧盟委员会2022),理事会于2023年3月14日通过了相关结论。 这些文件为欧盟未来在债务可持续性、财政规划和政策监督方面的宏观经济程序改革奠定了基础。在社会政策领域,2022年最重要的成就是理事会和欧洲议会之间达成了一项协议,然后最终通过了关于欧盟适当最低工资的指令(第2022/2041号指令)。该文件为评估法定最低工资的充分性建立了两个参考值(工资总额中位数的60%和平均工资总额的50%),这两个参考值在不强制规定统一的最低工资水平的情况下,将代表“在国家层面设定最低工资的强有力的规范性基准”(m<s:1> ller等人,2023,第84页)。此外,该指令还引入了旨在加强工会作用的各项规定,给予工会进行集体谈判的特权,并将80%定义为集体谈判的最低覆盖水平,低于这一水平,成员国需要与社会伙伴合作制定行动计划,以提高这一水平。其他重要的政策进展包括,于2022年9月启动了一项新的欧洲护理战略,提出了两项关于早期儿童教育和护理以及获得负担得起的高质量长期护理的新建议。2023年1月通过了关于适当最低收入的建议(2023/C 41/01)和关于加强适用男女同工同酬或同工同酬原则的指令(第2023/970号)。虽然社会政策领域的发展并不是欧洲在2022年经历的新社会危机的直接后果,但它们朝着加强社会保护和劳工权利的方向发展,这将共同提高欧盟成员国应对未来社会紧急情况的能力。过去一年采取的干预措施表明,欧盟机构在社会政策制定领域正在采取积极行动。除了为应对俄罗斯入侵乌克兰的社会经济后果和生活费用危机的加深而制定的紧急措施外,欧盟还维持了其前几年确立的社会改革进程。《适足最低工资指令》、《关于适足最低收入的建议》、《加强劳动力市场性别平等指令》以及护理领域的新举措的通过,与冯德莱恩委员会推出的其他政策以及2017年《欧洲社会权利支柱》所载原则保持了连续性。Keune和Pochet(2023)强调了容克委员会和2023年初之间采取的政策创新的三个主要方面,即增加对劳动力市场边缘的保护(即关于岗位工人、平台工人、最低工资和透明工作条件的措施),加强劳资关系体系,以及社会欧洲的融资(最明显的是通过SURE和RRF)。关于政策内容,Huguenot-Noël和Corti(2023)认为,最近的举措使欧盟的社会维度朝着更普遍和更有能力的方向发展。此外,提交人声称,为减轻该流行病的社会和就业后果而采取的措施,尽管没有直接为公民确立新的权利,但使欧盟成为社会公民身份的"共同担保人"。同样,Miró等人(2023,第2页)认为,随着过去十年采用的新的超国家再分配工具,“欧盟加强了作为社会保护提供者的作用”。新冠肺炎疫情和俄罗斯侵略乌克兰引发的新一轮社会危机远未结束。在国家和超国家一级为应对这些冲击而采取的扩张性措施大多是临时性的。虽然欧盟已经在绿色和数字化转型的背景下确定了政策目标和融资工具,因此在政策目标上采取了更长远的观点,但即将进行的经济治理框架改革的方向需要与这些目标完全一致。欧洲工会联盟(ETUC 2023)最近警告说,一旦将国家预算赤字限制在GDP的3%以内、公共债务限制在GDP的60%以内的规定于2024年再次生效,就会有新一轮紧缩的风险。只有在紧急阶段结束后,才能评估社会目标在欧盟政策优先事项中有效发挥更突出作用的程度。 这些文件为欧盟未来在债务可持续性、财政规划和政策监督方面的宏观经济程序改革奠定了基础。在社会政策领域,2022年最重要的成就是理事会和欧洲议会之间达成了一项协议,然后最终通过了关于欧盟适当最低工资的指令(第2022/2041号指令)。该文件为评估法定最低工资的充分性建立了两个参考值(工资总额中位数的60%和平均工资总额的50%),这两个参考值在不强制规定统一的最低工资水平的情况下,将代表“在国家层面设定最低工资的强有力的规范性基准”(m<s:1> ller等人,2023,第84页)。此外,该指令还引入了旨在加强工会作用的各项规定,给予工会进行集体谈判的特权,并将80%定义为集体谈判的最低覆盖水平,低于这一水平,成员国需要与社会伙伴合作制定行动计划,以提高这一水平。其他重要的政策进展包括,于2022年9月启动了一项新的欧洲护理战略,提出了两项关于早期儿童教育和护理以及获得负担得起的高质量长期护理的新建议。2023年1月通过了关于适当最低收入的建议(2023/C 41/01)和关于加强适用男女同工同酬或同工同酬原则的指令(第2023/970号)。虽然社会政策领域的发展并不是欧洲在2022年经历的新社会危机的直接后果,但它们朝着加强社会保护和劳工权利的方向发展,这将共同提高欧盟成员国应对未来社会紧急情况的能力。过去一年采取的干预措施表明,欧盟机构在社会政策制定领域正在采取积极行动。除了为应对俄罗斯入侵乌克兰的社会经济后果和生活费用危机的加深而制定的紧急措施外,欧盟还维持了其前几年确立的社会改革进程。《适足最低工资指令》、《关于适足最低收入的建议》、《加强劳动力市场性别平等指令》以及护理领域的新举措的通过,与冯德莱恩委员会推出的其他政策以及2017年《欧洲社会权利支柱》所载原则保持了连续性。Keune和Pochet(2023)强调了容克委员会和2023年初之间采取的政策创新的三个主要方面,即增加对劳动力市场边缘的保护(即关于岗位工人、平台工人、最低工资和透明工作条件的措施),加强劳资关系体系,以及社会欧洲的融资(最明显的是通过SURE和RRF)。关于政策内容,Huguenot-Noël和Corti(2023)认为,最近的举措使欧盟的社会维度朝着更普遍和更有能力的方向发展。此外,提交人声称,为减轻该流行病的社会和就业后果而采取的措施,尽管没有直接为公民确立新的权利,但使欧盟成为社会公民身份的"共同担保人"。同样,Miró等人(2023,第2页)认为,随着过去十年采用的新的超国家再分配工具,“欧盟加强了作为社会保护提供者的作用”。新冠肺炎疫情和俄罗斯侵略乌克兰引发的新一轮社会危机远未结束。在国家和超国家一级为应对这些冲击而采取的扩张性措施大多是临时性的。虽然欧盟已经在绿色和数字化转型的背景下确定了政策目标和融资工具,因此在政策目标上采取了更长远的观点,但即将进行的经济治理框架改革的方向需要与这些目标完全一致。欧洲工会联盟(ETUC 2023)最近警告说,一旦将国家预算赤字限制在GDP的3%以内、公共债务限制在GDP的60%以内的规定于2024年再次生效,就会有新一轮紧缩的风险。只有在紧急阶段结束后,才能评估社会目标在欧盟政策优先事项中有效发挥更突出作用的程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
137
期刊最新文献
Contested but Resilient: Accounting for the Endurance of the European Union's Foreign Policy European Union Normative Positions, Resilience and Contestation: A Perceptual Approach Two Norms Collide: EU Policy on Fragile and Conflict‐Affected Countries Decentring European Union Foreign Policy: Addressing Colonial Dynamics in EU‐Algeria Relations Everything Everywhere All at Once? Introducing a Field‐Theoretic Model for Party Politics in the European Union
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1