欧洲就业政策举措中工会的机遇与陷阱

G. Meardi, Luigi Burroni, M. Keune, A. Bellini, M. Galetto, A. Mori, N. Payton, Gemma Scalise
{"title":"欧洲就业政策举措中工会的机遇与陷阱","authors":"G. Meardi, Luigi Burroni, M. Keune, A. Bellini, M. Galetto, A. Mori, N. Payton, Gemma Scalise","doi":"10.1515/zsr-2021-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract After some promise in the 1990s, European unions have grown increasingly disillusioned with regard to the results of EU social policy and EU social dialogue. The paper analyses the extent and reasons of this disillusion by looking at the impact on social dialogue of the Active Inclusion Recommendation launched by the European Commission at the outset of the economic crisis in 2008. The Recommendation led to a tripartite framework agreement at the EU level in 2010 (the only such agreement in a decade), which was then to be implemented at national and regional levels. With a multilevel governance approach, the paper looks at the extent to which social dialogue on Active Inclusion at the EU level, in six EU countries (France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) and six regions (Rhône-Alpes, Lombardy, Lower Silesia, Catalonia, West Sweden and Greater Manchester) within those countries was somehow revitalised. The analysis, looking at both top-down and bottom-up processes and based on documentary analysis and interviews, shows that the initiative displays ambiguities similar to those of typical composite EU principles, such as famously the case of ‘flexicurity’. The multilevel governance of the EU, including the interaction between ‘soft’ employment policies and evolving ‘hard’ Eurogovernance tools, and with poor horizontal and vertical coordination, resulted in multiple distortions of the principle and, over time, to frustration. Unions’ engagement varies by level, country and region, reflecting both traditional national approaches and the local perception of ‘active inclusion’ as an opportunity. Although trade unions were more welcoming of ‘active inclusion’ than they had been for flexicurity, similar related threats and opportunities led to modest achievements and a gradual fading of the idea at the European and national levels, with some more opportunities however at the regional level. The paper concludes that, if trade unions want to engage with the idea of a European Social Model and with Eurogovernance, they could develop stronger networks among regional organisations.","PeriodicalId":83585,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Sozialreform","volume":"67 1","pages":"306 - 332"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Opportunities and Traps for Trade Unions in European Employment Policy Initiatives\",\"authors\":\"G. Meardi, Luigi Burroni, M. Keune, A. Bellini, M. Galetto, A. Mori, N. Payton, Gemma Scalise\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/zsr-2021-0011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract After some promise in the 1990s, European unions have grown increasingly disillusioned with regard to the results of EU social policy and EU social dialogue. The paper analyses the extent and reasons of this disillusion by looking at the impact on social dialogue of the Active Inclusion Recommendation launched by the European Commission at the outset of the economic crisis in 2008. The Recommendation led to a tripartite framework agreement at the EU level in 2010 (the only such agreement in a decade), which was then to be implemented at national and regional levels. With a multilevel governance approach, the paper looks at the extent to which social dialogue on Active Inclusion at the EU level, in six EU countries (France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) and six regions (Rhône-Alpes, Lombardy, Lower Silesia, Catalonia, West Sweden and Greater Manchester) within those countries was somehow revitalised. The analysis, looking at both top-down and bottom-up processes and based on documentary analysis and interviews, shows that the initiative displays ambiguities similar to those of typical composite EU principles, such as famously the case of ‘flexicurity’. The multilevel governance of the EU, including the interaction between ‘soft’ employment policies and evolving ‘hard’ Eurogovernance tools, and with poor horizontal and vertical coordination, resulted in multiple distortions of the principle and, over time, to frustration. Unions’ engagement varies by level, country and region, reflecting both traditional national approaches and the local perception of ‘active inclusion’ as an opportunity. Although trade unions were more welcoming of ‘active inclusion’ than they had been for flexicurity, similar related threats and opportunities led to modest achievements and a gradual fading of the idea at the European and national levels, with some more opportunities however at the regional level. The paper concludes that, if trade unions want to engage with the idea of a European Social Model and with Eurogovernance, they could develop stronger networks among regional organisations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift fur Sozialreform\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"306 - 332\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift fur Sozialreform\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/zsr-2021-0011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Sozialreform","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zsr-2021-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要经过20世纪90年代的一些承诺,欧盟对欧盟社会政策和欧盟社会对话的结果越来越失望。本文通过考察欧盟委员会在2008年经济危机开始时提出的“积极包容建议”对社会对话的影响,分析了这种幻灭的程度和原因。该建议于2010年促成了欧盟层面的三方框架协议(这是十年来唯一的一项此类协议),随后将在国家和区域层面实施。本文采用多层次治理方法,考察了六个欧盟国家(法国、意大利、波兰、西班牙、瑞典和英国)和六个地区(罗纳-阿尔卑斯、伦巴第、下西里西亚、加泰罗尼亚、西瑞典和大曼彻斯特)在欧盟层面上关于积极包容的社会对话在多大程度上得到了振兴。该分析着眼于自上而下和自下而上的过程,并基于文献分析和采访,表明该倡议显示出与典型的欧盟复合原则类似的模糊性,例如著名的“灵活安全”。欧盟的多层次治理,包括“软”就业政策和不断发展的“硬”欧洲治理工具之间的互动,以及糟糕的横向和纵向协调,导致了原则的多重扭曲,并随着时间的推移而受挫。工会的参与程度因级别、国家和地区而异,既反映了传统的国家方法,也反映了当地对“积极包容”这一机会的看法。尽管工会比灵活保障更欢迎“积极包容”,但类似的相关威胁和机会导致了欧洲和国家层面的适度成就和这一想法的逐渐消退,但在区域层面有更多的机会。该论文的结论是,如果工会想参与欧洲社会模式和欧洲治理的理念,他们可以在区域组织之间发展更强大的网络。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Opportunities and Traps for Trade Unions in European Employment Policy Initiatives
Abstract After some promise in the 1990s, European unions have grown increasingly disillusioned with regard to the results of EU social policy and EU social dialogue. The paper analyses the extent and reasons of this disillusion by looking at the impact on social dialogue of the Active Inclusion Recommendation launched by the European Commission at the outset of the economic crisis in 2008. The Recommendation led to a tripartite framework agreement at the EU level in 2010 (the only such agreement in a decade), which was then to be implemented at national and regional levels. With a multilevel governance approach, the paper looks at the extent to which social dialogue on Active Inclusion at the EU level, in six EU countries (France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) and six regions (Rhône-Alpes, Lombardy, Lower Silesia, Catalonia, West Sweden and Greater Manchester) within those countries was somehow revitalised. The analysis, looking at both top-down and bottom-up processes and based on documentary analysis and interviews, shows that the initiative displays ambiguities similar to those of typical composite EU principles, such as famously the case of ‘flexicurity’. The multilevel governance of the EU, including the interaction between ‘soft’ employment policies and evolving ‘hard’ Eurogovernance tools, and with poor horizontal and vertical coordination, resulted in multiple distortions of the principle and, over time, to frustration. Unions’ engagement varies by level, country and region, reflecting both traditional national approaches and the local perception of ‘active inclusion’ as an opportunity. Although trade unions were more welcoming of ‘active inclusion’ than they had been for flexicurity, similar related threats and opportunities led to modest achievements and a gradual fading of the idea at the European and national levels, with some more opportunities however at the regional level. The paper concludes that, if trade unions want to engage with the idea of a European Social Model and with Eurogovernance, they could develop stronger networks among regional organisations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Eine Analyse zukünftiger Alterseinkommen im Lichte des Drei-Schichten-Modells: Zum Status quo der Altersvorsorge heutiger Generationen Neue Wege zu sozialen Rechten? Digitale Märkte für Rechtsdienstleistungen in Deutschland Interaktion im Schatten der Hierarchie: Zwang und Zusammenarbeit in Jobcentern Umverteilung im deutschen Wohlfahrtsstaat: Familie zwischen gewährten und eingeforderten Ressourcen News Coverage of Mental Health in Children During the COVID-19 Pandemic – An Analysis of the German Press Landscape
×
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