Mobilising social rights in EU economic governance: a pragmatic challenge to neoliberal Europe

Abstract

A 'constitutional asymmetry' exists at the heart of contemporary EU socioeconomic governance, privileging the economic at the expense of the social. Prevailing academic responses suggest, on the one hand, the need for radical constitutional reforms aimed at redressing this asymmetry and, on the other hand, piecemeal reforms reliant on current soft and non-binding modes of governance for the championing of social concerns. Offering a pragmatic middle way between these positions, we identify the potential within the extant constitutional settlement to pursue a rebalancing in favour of the social. In particular, we highlight the Commission's preexisting legal and rhetorical commitment to social rights, arguing that it might draw on the standards established by the Council of Europe's European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) and incorporate these into its economic governance mechanism, the European Semester. Such a step would usefully repoliticise socioeconomic governance in the short-term and promote radical reform in the long term.

The Eurozone’s Evolving Fiscal Ecosystem: Mitigating Fiscal Discipline by Governing Through Off-Balance-Sheet Fiscal Agencies

“…These developments seem to stand in sharp contrast to the 'neoliberal' rules of fiscal governance that have been described as dominating Eurozone policies beforehand (Parker andPye 2018, Ojala 2020). Indeed, the post-crisis scholarship on the fiscal arm of the state has underlined the reinforcement of these rules via austerity measures that have acted like a straitjacket on the fiscal capacities of many states (Blyth 2013, Matthijs and McNamara 2015, Stockhammer 2016, Perez and Matsaganis 2018, Crespy 2020.…”

Shaping the prospects for adequate pensions: the effect of policy guidelines under the European Semester

“…For instance, in the aftermath of the sovereign debt crisis, member states were 'compelled' to reduce pension adequacy (i.e. direct cuts of pension benefits from public schemes, tighter conditions for full retirement, recommending abolishment of early retirement) in order to pursue fiscal consolidation (see Guardiancich and Natali 2017;Parker and Pye 2018). Nevertheless, one should note that the EU also recommends reforms in the labour market, life-long learning, and old-age employment to name but a few.…”

El Pilar Europeo de Derechos Sociales: un análisis desde las coordenadas del constitucionalismo de mercado europeo

“…Fundamentalmente, porque el grueso de la propuesta no afecta al nudo gordiano del diseño de la integración social europea, como es la prevalencia de la dimensión económica. No se cuestiona en el documento que la apuesta europea por una austeridad competitiva, a través de la panoplia instrumental de la GEE mejorada, ha generado unas profundas divergencias sociales de carácter estructural que no han tenido respuesta desde la instancia europea ante la ausencia de un gobierno de la economía (Hyman, 2015: 97-121;Natali et al, 2015: 13-29;Parker y Pye, 2017). Precisamente, ha sido la crisis del constitucionalismo de mercado y la respuesta coordinada supranacional e intergubernamental de buscar su consolidación y fortalecimiento la que ha generado la consideración de la Europa social como una expresión estéril, y la que ha fomentado la consideración de las cuestiones sociales como demandas que solo competen a los Gobiernos nacionales y regionales.…”