At the current moment EU stands for around 6 percent of the world’s
population, 20 percent of the world’s economy and, as the former Swedish
minister of foreign affairs Carl Bildt once tweeted, EU stands for around 50 percent
of the world’s welfare. Rhetorically it sounds positive and astonishing however
in reality the 6 percent of world’s population is still not covered or included
by the 50 percent of world’s welfare. Welfare politics are still national
issues and a significant socio-political integration process at the European
level has not taken place despite the visions of Treaty of Rome in 1957 of economic
and social integration going hand in hand. If the EU is supposed to stand for
around half of the world’s welfare resources then there is need for a real and
effective welfare policy at the European level.
At pace with the social, economic and political crisis in EU during the
recent years, the new developments have taken place, which are reminding of the
old dark periods from the 30’s. Austerity measures, massive social unrest and
high numbers of unemployment. There is also growing support across the Union
for parties which are categorized as nationalistic, anti-democratic or racist.
The intolerance is also spreading between EU-citizens where UK is one primary
example regarding the immigration debate which is highly infected by myths
rather than being based on facts. Many of the current discussions are about how
to prevent the EU citizens from other states access to welfare benefits and ”our
own resources”.
At time of crisis it should be important to be reminded that the aim of the
welfare states is after all, not only to produce the welfare, but also to shape
a solidarity between the citizens, the society and the state. Since the EU is
the world biggest economy it also means that the citizens are economically depending
on each other. After all, ”our own resources” are also depending both on how
economy is performing oat the global level and within the single market. When
young people in Greece, Spain and Italy but also in Sweden, UK and France are unemployed
it also turns to be an European issue and not only a national one.
For the reasons mentioned above it is a high time for the economic and
social integration to complete each other in order to deal more effective with
the current social challenges in the Union. Current crisis have resulted in
worsening of the quality of life, which can be illustrated by the story about
the ”lost generation” – the young EU-citizens who are unemployed, in education
or labour training. Union cannot afford to have large numbers of, not only of the
unemployed young people, but also the unemployed of other ages. There are enormous
needs for investments in the human capital in order to create opportunities for
the new tax payers who can be more attractive in the labour market. For example
Spain and Portugal have higher percentage of citizens who only have primary
school education compared to the wealthier member states as Germany and Sweden.
There is also another important reason for having more active social policy
at the European level that can exist side by side with the national social policies.
More citizens could be connected to Brussels which would make the EU more
countable for its citizens. It could improve the situation regarding so called ”democratic
deficit” and provide more political competition at the European level. Also there should not be any contradictions between
higher social spending and economic growth in EU in general since historically
seen several member states have managed that, like for example Sweden, Denmark
and Finland.
As previously mentioned, a European welfare policy would not mean that
member states would lose their own welfare policy. Instead, the EU would be
able to provide welfare as extra support where it could be needed, especially
in the case if the issues cannot be solved at the national level. In case of
the UK or Netherlands where the governments are complaining about the “social
tourism” and the strains of welfare because of higher numbers of migrating EU-citizens,
the Union could act by having its own welfare funds in order to provide support
to the national governments.
The formation of the EU with its roots in beginning of the 50’s has
after all been based on creating a prosperity and fighting against a poverty
and not fighting against the poor or neglecting the needed convergence between
the member states. By having its own social policy Commission, Council and the
European Parliament could be engaged in achieving the following:
1) Increasing the labour force mobility by providing salary
benefits. Migration within the Union is important in order to have more tax
payers and educational development. In USA the percentage of the labour mobility
between the states is around 10 percent comparing to the 3-4 percent in the EU.
One challenge lies in how to increase the labour mobility from member states
where quality of life is higher to the member state where it is lower. Latvia
for example is one of the fastest growing economies in EU but still struggles
to attract more high-skilled labour. The salary benefit for mobile work force could
be provided by the Commission and be based on 50 percent of the respective member
states medium wage during 6, 9,12 months depending on the type of work.
2) There are needs for investing in the human capital in
order to shape more attractive individuals for the labour market but also to
increase the social convergence between the member states. The so called ”youth
guarantee” program is a good start but the EU could be able to provide more to
the national governments in order to deal with poverty reduction through the competence
developing actions. High amounts of EU-citizens in the working-age are with
only primary education or with lack of knowledge in foreign languages is not appropriate either for the needs of the single market
or the knowledge-based economies within and outside the Europe.
3) At present, the problem of beggary leads to many
discussions and arouse strong feelings. Also it is a problem that is hard to solve on the national level since prohibiting
the poverty means prohibiting the problem but not solving it. People who are desperate
in order to satisfy the basic needs as housing, food and water do not care of a
prohibition at the first place. The EU has,
during the latest years, provided funds for actions targeting improving the quality of life for Roma
minorities to some member states as for example to Romania. However, in many
cases such actions have been obstructed because of the unwillingness of local
or national politicians. Standing up for the rights of the Roma population in Romania
can result in losing the popular support from voters. In practice it means that
taking actions that are necessary for the basic human and citizen rights is regarded
as a political suicide since many voters are influenced by a strong anti-cyganism.
For those reasons the Commission should be able to provide the necessary funds directly
to NGO:s, local activists or voluntary organizations which are working with
helping the Romas if the national governments are not able or not willing to perform
their responsibility.
When the social crisis occur and the quality of life becomes worse it
usually leads to people having negative experiences which can affect the future
decision-making process and trust in the state institutions. In EU many
citizens already have that kind of negative experience. Since these experiences are not only based on
decisions taken on national level it also means that the solutions for citizens
welfare and quality of life in the future should be provided at the European
level. The lessons-learned from the time of crisis should result in form of the
efficient social-policy and welfare solidarity across EU.
