Abstract
There are two main reasons why we are devoting a chapter to the ‘European socio-economic model’. Firstly, Europe cannot develop its civilian power into a classic military one because it consists of Welfare States that spend about twice what the US does on social security (29.9 per cent of GDP in 2001 compared to 14.2 per cent). This structural level of welfare spending prohibits the type of military expenditure feasible in the US (4 per cent of GDP compared with 2 per cent of European states1). Secondly, this topic is not only extremely relevant to the internal cohesion and quality of democracy within the EU, but is also central to the distinctive identity of the EU within the context of globalization. The EU presents an interesting case study of the tension between, on the one hand, the drive to speed up neoliberal deregulation and, on the other, the attempt to relaunch old and new forms of way of life and common belonging. These are linked to specific interests and social demands, all intent on introducing some kind of regional ‘re-regulation’. Drawing on our 1999 article, Jürgen Habermas synthesized three dimensions of this key question: the deep historical roots of welfare Europe, its ‘constitutional’ dimension and its potential impact on EU identity within the context of globalization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
J. Habermas, ‘Why Europe Needs a Constitution’, New Left Review, 11, September—October 2001, pp. 5–26. Habermas refers to the article by M. Teld and P. Magnette, ‘Justice and Solidarity’, in F. Cerrutti and E. Rudolph (eds), A Soul for Europe: on the Political and Cultural Identity of Europeans, vol. 1, Peeters, Leuven, 2001, pp. 73–89. Habermas’s article was previously published in Zeit der Uebergaenge, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 2001.
I. Clark, Globalization and Fragmentation: International Relations in the Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997
J.N. Rosenau, ‘Governance in the Twenty First Century’, Global Governance, 1, 1995, pp. 13–43
see also C. Crouch and W. Streeck, Political Economy of Modem Capitalism. Mapping Convergence and Diversity, Sage, London, 1997
A. Prakash and J.A. Hart (eds), Globalization and Governance, Routledge, London-New York, 1999.
See A. Laurent, Histoire de l’individualisme, PUF, Paris, 1993
P. Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, Random House, New York, 1987
A. Toynbee, Civilization on Trial, Oxford University Press, New York, 1948.
D. Sassoon, One Hundred Years of Socialism: the West European Left in the Twentieth Century, Tauris, London, 1996.
Telò and Magnette, ‘Justice and Solidarity’, op. cit., p. 76. See also R. Zoll, Was ist Solidaritaet heute?, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 2000 and S. Sternm, Solidarity in Europe, Cambridge University Press (forthcoming). S. Sterne rightly emphasizes the distinctions within each tradition, in particular in the socialist one, between the social democratic notion of ‘solidarity’ and the ‘liberal’ concept of ‘justice’.
For the significance of this transformation of the modern state, see G. Ritter, Der Sozialstaat: Entstehung und Entwicklung in internationalen Vergleich, Oldenbourg, Munich, 1991.
P. Rosanvallon, La question syndicale, Calmann-Levy, Paris, 1988.
P.C. Schmitter, ‘Still the Century of Corporatism?’, Review of Politics, 36, 1974 and ‘Interest Intermediation and Regime Governability in W. Europe and N. America’
in S. Berger (ed.), Organizing Interests in Westem Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.
The catholic idea of looking for a third way between socialism and liberal-ism between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was expressed among others by H. Pesch, L. Bourgeois, Ch. Gide and A. Fanfani and initially entailed many ambiguities regarding democracy. J.F. Durand, L’Europe de la Démocratie Chrétienne, Complexe, Brussels, 1995
J.M. Mayeur, Des parties catholiques à la Démocratie chrétienne, Colin, Paris, 1980
M.P. Fogarty, Christian Democracy in Western Europe, 1820–1953, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1957
E. Poulat, Eglise contre bourgeoisie. Introduction au devenir du catholicisme actuel, Costerman, Tournai, 1994
W. Becker and R. Morsey (eds), Christliche Demokratie in Europa, Bohlau, Cologne, 1988.
J.M. Keynes, The End of ‘Laissez-faire’, London, 1926
R. Skidelsky, Keynes, Oxford University Press, 1996.
R. Titmuss, Essays on the Welfare State, Allen & Unwin, London, 1958.
See the vast comparative literature on the European Welfare States, for example P. Flora and A. Heindenmeyer (eds), The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NY, 1981
J.H. Goldthorpe (ed.), Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984
P. Baldwin, The Politics of Social Solidarity. Class Bases ofthe European Welfare States, 1875–1975, Cambridge University Press, 1990. As the critical debate: H.L. Wilenski, The Problems and Prospects of the Welfare State’, in Industrial Society and the Welfare State, Macmillan, New York, pp. 5–52
N. Luhmann, Politische Theorie im Wohlfahrtstaat, Olzog Verlag, Munich, 1981.
G. Lehmbruch and P.C. Schmitter (eds), Patterns of Corporatist Policy-Making, Sage, London, 1982.
M. Albert, Capitalisme contre capitalisme, Seuil, Paris, 1991.
On this point, see M. Telò, Le New Deal européen, Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1989.
G. Esping-Andersen, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990; id. (ed.), Welfare States in Transition. National Adaptations in Global Economics, Sage, London, 1998.
W. Beck, L. van den Maesen and A. Walkers (eds), The Social Quality of Europe, Kluwer, Amsterdam, 1997.
R. Skidelsky (ed.), Thatcherism, Blackwell, Oxford, 1988.
J.P. Fitoussi and P. Rosanvallon, Le nouvel age des inégalités, Seuil, Paris, 1996.
N. Luhmann, Politische Theorie im Wohlfahrtstaat, Olzog, Munich, 1981
J. Waddington and R. Hoffmann, Trade Unions in Europe, ETUI, Brussels, 2000.
The end of the ‘regulatory state’ was looming. The regulatory state was reclassified as a break between two periods dominated by economic liberal-ism, preceding and following the ‘great transformation’, as the historian K. Polany (The Great Transformation, Rinehart, New York, 1944) termed the birth of the Keynesian state and the end of the self-regulated market under British hegemony.
M. Regini (ed.), The Future ofLabour Movements, Sage, London, 1992.
European Commission, Employment in Europe, Luxembourg, 1997
and M. Olson, ‘Varieties of Eurosclerosis. The Rise and Decline of Nations since 1982’, IUE J.Monnet Chain Papers, Florence, 1995.
P. Cerny, ‘Paradoxes of the Competition State’, European Journal of Political Research, 3, 1997, pp. 100–20
H. Wilke, Supervision Staat, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1997
S. Unseld (ed.), Politik ohne Projeckt?, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1993 (in particular, J. Esser, ‘Die Suche nach dem Primat der Politik’, pp. 409–30)
R Voigt (ed.), Des Staates neuer Kleider, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 1998
and F.W. Scharpf, The Problem-Solving Capacity of Multi-level Governance, Schumann Centre, EUI, Florence, 1997.
G. Falkner, EU Social Policy in the ‘90s, Routledge, London, 1998
H. Wallace and A. Young, Participation in the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997.
See the articles by G. Therborn (Europe, Scandinavia del mondo’), M. Albert (‘Il capitalismo europeo nel quadro della mondializzazione: convergence e dif-ferenze’), A.S. Milward (L’impossibile fuga dalla storia’), R. Bellamy (Una Repubblica europea?’) and others in M. Telò (ed.), Quale idea d’Europa per il XXI secolo?, special edition of Europa/Europe, 5, Rome, 1999
See also G. Therborn, ‘Europe in the 21st Century: the World’s Scandinavia?’, in P. Gowan and P. Anderson (eds), The Question of Europe, Verso, London, 1999, pp. 357–84.
Many authors have written on this topic. See E. Matzer, Der Wohlfahrstaat von Morgen, Campus, Vienna, 1982
A. Touraine, Comment Sortir du libéralisme?, Fayard, Paris, 1999;
A. Giddens, The Third Way, Polity Press, London, 1998
T. Meyer, Die Transformation der Sozialdemokratie, Dietz Verlag, Bonn, 1998
R.A. Dahl, Dilemmas ofPluralist Democracy: Autonomy vs. Control, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1982.
J. Hoffman (ed.), The Solidarity Dilemma: Globalization, Europeanization, and Trade Unions, ETUI, Brussels, 2002.
The Portuguese Presidency recruited various experts in the fields. Their find-ings are published in M.J. Rodrigues (ed.), The New Knowledge Economy in Europe. A Strategy for International Competitiveness and Social Cohesion, Elgar, Northampton, 2002 (articles by R. Boyer, G. Esping-Andersen, M. Telò, A. Lundvall, L. Soete, R. Lindley and M. Castells).
See F.W. Scharpf and V. Schmidt (eds), Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, vol. I, From Vulnerability to Competitiveness, vol. II, Diverse Responses to Common Challenges, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000; M. Ferrera, A. Hemerijck and M. Rhodes, The Future ofSocial Europe, Oeiras, Celta, 2001; V.A. Schmidt, The Futures of European Capitalism, Oxford University Press, 2002
and W. Streeck, Neo-Voluntarism: a New European Social Policy Regime?, in G. Marks, F.W. Scharpf, P.C. Schmitter and W. Streeck (eds), Governance in the EU, Sage, London, 1996, pp. 64–93.
European Commission, Growth, Competitiveness, Employment White Book, in EC Bulletin, supplement 6, 1993.
P. Pochet and C. De la Porte, Building Social Europe through the Open Method of Co-ordination, P. Lang, Brussels, 2000
J. Goetschy, ‘The European Employment Strategy’, ECSA Review, 13, 3, 2001
J. Goetschy and P. Pochet, ‘Regards croisés sur la stratégie européenne de l’emploi’, in P. Magnette and E. Remade (eds), Le nouveau modèle européen, Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 2000, vol. II, pp. 79–97. D. Hodson and I. Maher, ‘The Open Method as a Mode of Governance: the Case of Soft Economic Policy Co-ordination’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39, 4, pp. 719–46
A. Larsson, ‘The Social Agenda from Lisbon to Barcelona. Achievements and Expectations’, paper, J. Delors Centre, Lisbon, 31 January 2002
F.W. Scharpf, The European Social Model: Coping with the Challenge ofDiversity, EUI, Florence, March 2002; M. Telò, ‘Strengths and Limits of the OMC’, in Weiler, Begg and Peterson (eds), Integration in an Expanding European Union, op. cit.
L. Magnusson, P. Pochet and J. Zeitln, The OMC in Action, P. Lang, Brussels, 2004; and the special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy, edited by S. Borras and B. Grere, ‘The OMC in the EU’, vol. II, 2004.
On the question of European multilevel governance, see F.W. Scharpf, The Problem-Solving Capacity of Multilevel Governance, IUE, Florence, 1997
G. Majone (ed.), Regulating Europe, Routledge, London, 1998; Marks, Scharpf, Schmitter and Streeck (eds), Governance in the EU, op. cit. and in particular P.C. Schmitter, ‘Imaging the Future of European Polity’, pp. 121–49.
Also, B. Kohler-Koch (ed.), Regieren in Enterentzen Raume, Westdeutscher Verlag, Onladen, 1998.
‘Le Conseil européen s’est autoproclamé gouvernement économique’, declared Jacques Delors, after Lisbon in March 2000. ‘By strengthening its political role balancing that of the European Central Bank, the European Council has given its response to the problem of EU leadership’ stressed the Swedish Prime Minister, Göran Persson (European Bulletin, 23–25 March 2000). The European Council has proclaimed: ‘l’Etat c’est moi’ indeed. This exceptional role of the European Council recalls the positive observation made by Jean Monnet at its birth, in 1974, when it was intended as a ‘provisional govemment’ (see J. Monnet, Mémoires, Fayard, Paris, 1976, pp. 591–2). On the Council of Ministers and the European Council
see J.P. Jaquet and D. Simon, ‘The Constitutional and Juridical Role of the European Council’, in J.M. Hoscheit and W. Wessels (eds), The European Council 1974–1986: Evaluation and Prospects, IEAP, Maastricht, 1988
J. Cloos, G. Reinsech, D. Vignes and J. Wyland, Le traité de Maastricht, genèse, analyse et commentaires, Bruylant, Brussels, 1993
F. Hayes-Renshaw and H. Wallace, The Council of Ministers, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1997;
M. Telò, ‘The Council of the EU: the Decision-Making after Nice’, in P. Zervakis and P. Cullen (eds), The Post-Nice Process: Towards a European Constitution?, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2002.
See the Synthesis Report, Communication from the Commission to the Spring European Council in Barcelona. The Lisbon Strategy. Making Change Happen, Brussels, 15 January 2002.
M.J. Rodrigues, European Policies for a Knowledge Economy, E1gar, Cheltenham, 2003
B. Van Pottelsberghe, ‘Les politiques de science et de technologie et l’objectif de Lisbonne’, Reflets et Perspectives de la Vie Économique, 2004, pp. 69–86
M. Telò, ‘Préface’ to M.J. Rodrigues (ed.), Vers une société européenne de la connaissance, Editions de l’ULB, Brussels, 2004, pp. vii–xvii.
R. King (ed.), The University in the Global Age, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
J. Lembke, ‘The Politics of Galileo’, Pittsburgh University European Policy Paper, no. 7, 2001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2006 Mario Telò
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Telò, M. (2006). The Heart of European Integration: the Socio-economic Model between Convergence and National Diversities. In: Europe: a Civilian Power?. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230514034_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230514034_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-51798-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-51403-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)