How expensive is a healthy diet in Europe? Using Linear Programming as a standardised method for calculating European Food Reference Budgets.

In this article, we examine the evolution of minimum income programmes in the Western Balkans (comprising Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia). During socialism, Yugoslavia developed a rudimentary minimum income protection programme, while Albania did not have one. As countries moved towards a market economy, socialism's legacy remained relevant, but especially since 2000, governments have taken more direct responsibility for the minimum income schemes—typically under the influence of the World Bank. The attention was paid to strict targeting accuracy rather than to adequacy or sufficient coverage of the lowest deciles. In essence, neither socialist nor neoliberal policymakers ever recognised anything but the poverty relief function of the minimum income. Both ideologies were hostile, or at best indifferent, to increasing the adequacy and generosity of minimum income programmes, perceiving them as impediments and distractions that slowed socialist and neoliberal transformations. Despite some reform initiatives supported by the World Bank and, more recently, the European Union, the generosity and adequacy of minimum income programmes remain low, and coverage keeps declining. There have been very few efforts to develop inclusion function of the minimum income, while the activation aspect has achieved very little, sometimes degrading into punitive programmes of unpaid community work. In this dismal picture, the European Pillar of Social Rights action framework could serve as a guide for a long overdue third phase in the Western Balkans' minimum income policy evolution.

The manuscript provides the scientific society and experts involved in pain relief and patient empowerment with a good practice focused on low back pain (LBP). Such best practice is particularly relevant today, taking into account the important advancements in the fight against pain and the new context of the European Pillar of Social Rights. In particular, key principle N.17 on the “Inclusion of people with disabilities” declares that “People with disabilities have the right to income support that ensures living in dignity, services that enable them to participate in the labor market and in society, and a work environment adapted to their needs” [1]. In continuity with its long-term policy on the fight against pain, the Italian NGO Cittadinanzattiva APS [2], through its EU branch Active Citizenship Network [3] (ACN), has become an official Ambassador for the EU Social Pillar, following the invitation by the EU Commission-DG EMPL in 2020, in order to contribute to better implement the European Pillar of Social Rights for people suffering from chronic pain. This article has been written with the hope that the collection and dissemination of good practices against chronic pain, which ACN has been carried out across Europe for years, as well as the online publication of good practices by experts and committed operators, could be valued in the contest of the European Pillar of Social Rights and contribute to transfer the recent achievement on chronic pain from the European political agenda to the European culture as fast as possible.

The right to adequate minimum income protection is one of the key principles included in the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR). The EPSR takes a right-based and normative approach, aiming specifically at fulfilling people’s essential needs, not only by guaranteeing sufficiently high income levels, but also by promoting labour market inclusion and access to affordable goods and services of good quality. This paper takes the EPSR as a starting point to propose a needs-based indicator that assesses the adequacy of minimum income protection including these three dimensions in a comprehensive way. We argue that Reference Budgets (RBs), priced baskets of goods and services that represent an adequate living standard, are well-suited to construct such an indicator. To illustrate this empirically, we use RBs for adequate social participation in Belgium which have been constructed for the first time in 2008 and have been regularly updated since then. Through a combination of hypothetical household simulations of essential out-of-pocket costs and designated tax-benefits for families living on different minimum income schemes, we are able to assess the adequacy of minimum income protection for a range of household types over the period 2008–2017. The paper shows that, the proposed indicator is a useful policy tool for both ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of the adequacy of social policy measures in light of the social protection and inclusion rights included in the Pillar.

The article explores new concepts and practical programs of the European Union in the field of realization and maintenance of social rights in the process of building a single social space and improving the social life of the population.The main stages of the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights are analyzed in order to structure the mechanisms of changes in the social policy of the European Union. The article provides statistics on the first results of the implementation of the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights since its announcement in 2017 and analyzes the first changes in the social policy of the European Union. The article is considers under the features of the Directive proposed by the European Commission on transparent and predictable working conditions, which is a novelty in the field of security and protection of social rights of workers who work on non-standard and new formats of work in the conditions of development of modern market-economic relations. The characteristic features of the activities of the European Labor Authority are considered, the purpose of which is to provide comprehensive protection and guarantee of social justice of the citizens of the European Union. The article examines the official budget planning program of the European Social Fund Plus, the main financial body of the European Union, whose activities are aimed at ensuring the implementation and support of the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights in order to balance economic inequality between countries and equal and comprehensive protection of social rights. The analysis of the level of social rights in the countries of the European Union is carried out in order to clarify the overall picture and assess the state of social development of European countries.Based on the data analyzed, the problems that the European Union is facing today in the process of implementing new social policy mechanisms are highlighted. On the basis of the analyzed data on the transformation of the social policy of the European Union, the necessity of further theoretical in-depth study of the social policy of the states with more developed economic and social sphere is emphasized in order to introduce effective mechanisms for ensuring social human rights in Ukraine.

This article reconstructs the role of European Commission President’s political entrepreneurship in the further socialisation of the European Semester. Firstly, it analyses the context in which Juncker promoted the European Pillar of Social Rights. Secondly, it presents how such an initiative was mainstreamed into the Semester. Finally, by distinguishing among social retrenchment, social investment and social protection prescriptions, it analyses whether the post-2015 development of the Semester was consistent with Juncker’s political effort. We find clear evidence of entrepreneurial activities in the strategic recourse to Presidency’s Cabinet and the Secretary General and in the introduction of a new Social Scoreboard. Furthermore, we show that such socialisation process is congruent to the expected impact of European Pillar of Social Rights, which indeed contributes to strengthen an already ongoing incremental trend. Our analysis contributes to better qualify the socialisation process by highlighting its characteristics and the role of politics. These findings are particularly important to understand whether the Social Pillar left a legacy to the current Commission’s social agenda and to the EU responses to the Covid-19 pandemic, and whether these changes open a new window of opportunity to further reform the Semester.

Background: Many people in the UK are not following healthy eating guidelines and consume fewer fruit, vegetables and oily fish and more saturated fat, nonmilk extrinsic sugars and salt than recommended (SACN, 2008). The relatively high cost of certain foods compatible with healthy eating and the lower price of others has been suggested as one of many barriers to achieving nutritional goals (Withall et al., 2009). Findings from published studies indicate that foods compatible with health eating are relatively more expensive but these studies were undertaken more than 10 years ago (Mooney, 1990; Cade et al., 1999). The aim of this study was to compare the current costs of a basket of food compatible with healthy eating guidelines (CHE) and a ‘standard’ basket of food in two locations differing in socioeconomic status (SES). Methods: The cost of food in four shopping baskets was determined by collecting the cheapest prices for 500 g equivalent of food from supermarkets in two locations. Two of the baskets were designed to replicate those used in a similar study by Mooney (1990), [A] containing CHE food and [B] containing standard food. The foods were updated through a defined process to reflect current intake and changes in dietary guidelines since 1990 with basket [C] containing current CHE food and basket [D] current standard food. Data were collected in an affluent location and a deprived location, 14 miles apart in the south of England. Locations were identified by SES using data from the Association of Public Health Observatories (2010). The difference between the cost of the CHE basket and standard food basket was examined using a one-tailed sign test (A versus B and C versus D) and the difference between the cost of each basket in the two different areas was examined using a paired t-test (A versus A, B versus B, C versus C, D versus D). Results: The cost of the CHE baskets was significantly more expensive than the standard baskets for both the original and current foods in both locations (Table 1). The difference between the cost of baskets from the two locations was small (range: −2 to +91 pence) and was not significantly different. Table 1. Comparison of a healthy eating guidelines compatible basket of food with a standard basket Location CHE baskets (£) Standard baskets (£) Cost difference P (£) (%) Affluent A 13.92 B 10.17 +3.75 +26.9 % 0.003 C 19.67 D 12.46 +7.21 +36.7 % 0.011 Deprived A 13.74 B 09.31 +4.43 +32.2 % 0.003 C 18.76 D 12.48 +6.28 +33.5 % 0.029 Discussion: The finding that CHE food is more expensive is comparable with the results from studies by Mooney (1990) and Cade et al. (1999) indicating little change in the relative cost of food, despite developments in eating patterns and dietary guidelines over the last 10–20 years. Although the location had no detectable impact on the cost, it is likely that the higher price of CHE food may deter people with lower incomes from purchasing them and thus may be a barrier to meeting current guidelines. This has implications for the approaches taken by healthcare professionals working to promote adherence to dietary guidelines. The limitations of the study include the hypothetical nature of pricing baskets of food, although this was used because it is a more practical method of collecting data than assessing individual or household food expenditure. Further studies using these methodologies are required to identify how higher prices impact on purchasing and consumption. Conclusions: The cost of a basket of CHE food continues to be more expensive than the cost of a comparable standard food basket but is not influenced by SES of location of purchase.

Social and labour policies have a significant relevance for the European Union’s (EU) economic agenda. First, it is generally assumed that lifting labour law rigidities helps firms to increase their competitiveness on the market. Labour market flexibility is indeed deemed to create a favourable environment for business and to support the employment rate. Second, the convergence of different national labour law systems is important to foster the expansion of European single market and to reduce the competitive advantage of companies situated in countries where labour costs are lower. It is in consideration of the EU social and labour policies’ economic rationale that the author approaches the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR). This contribution places the origins of the Pillar in the EU economic agenda that followed the 2008 financial crisis and that was designed to resume European economic growth and productivity. As stated in the 2015 Five Presidents Report, the re-launch of EU economy depended on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) which, in turn, needed greater focus on employment and on social performance. The author argues that the Pillar constitutes the bridge between the EU strategy for a deeper EMU and social and labour policies. This then raises the question on whether a social agenda rooted in an economic strategy is adequate to fulfil the Union’s objective to advance social progress and improve living and working conditions. The contribution illustrates that the policy documents that preceded the proclamation of the EPSR, the EPSR’s structure and content, and its implementation tools reflect the economic embedding. The accent is placed on labour market flexibility and inclusivity, job creation and entrepreneurship more than on promoting the upward convergence of labour and social standards.The author argues that the Pillar is ontologically linked to the deepening of economic integration and that it does not provide, per se, sufficient instruments to effectively promote social fairness. However, it is noted that much depends on how strong are the ties that link the Pillar with the economic agenda. If the EU institutions, and the Commission in primis, manage to de-contextualise the Pillar from its market deepening embedding, that could emancipate future social and labour policies from the overarching economic rationale.

The problem of the economically dependent self-employed has been highlighted in various reports at the beginning of the 21st century and remains relevant today. Dealing with this issue seems particularly appropriate due to the growing number of the economically dependent self-employed, the development of cross-border services, and the variety of approaches taken by different countries in this area. In this regard, the social protection of the economically dependent self-employed is an issue that concerns the European Union as a whole. The article focuses primarily on the challenge of adapting the social security systems of the economically dependent self-employed or, in general, the challenges deriving from the legal recognition of economically dependent self-employed work in the social security system. The first question that the author endeavours to answer is the definition of an economically dependent self-employed person. This is definitely a challenging task, especially due to the unclear boundaries between the concepts of a dependent self employed-person, an economically dependent self-employed person, and a bogus self-employed person. The concepts are intertwined, and their use in the literature is different. In addition, the second question is what level and extent of legal protection should be afforded to an economically dependent person. Economic dependence can be the basis for limited labour protection, (a greater scope of) social security rights, or both. Countries have addressed the issue of economically dependent self-employed people differently. Some derive from the assumption that persons who work mostly for one client (which means that they are economically dependent on them) are, in fact, employees. Others have created a special legal category in which the person receives special treatment in the social security system vis-à-vis other self-employed persons. In the final part, the article focuses on the economically dependent self-employed in the light of international and European legal acts. Thus, the author’s attention is focused on the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) and documents further developing the principles established by the EPSR. In terms of the response at EU level, more attention should be given to the specifics of dependent self-employment. When adapting social security systems to the new forms of work we should keep in mind, therefore, that self-employment covers a broad spectrum of social and economic situations, and that some of these (including the dependent self-employed) should be approached in a different way.

The aim of the present paper is to provide a basis for an in-depth discussion of the European Commission’s initiative for a ‘European Pillar of Social Rights’ by briefly examining its context. The content of the Commission’s Communication is reviewed and followed by a more detailed analysis of the rights listed in the Annex of the Communication.

This working paper examines the European Pillar of Social Rights' practical use in the context of European ‘soft’ governance. It studies how the EPSR has been deployed in the 2018 European Semester and suggests some areas for reform in order to enhance its role in coordinating social policy.

An assessment of the ‘European Pillar of Social Rights’ by reference to its constitutional significance – Potential to significantly improve the social output of the EU by addressing the displacement of the Social Policy Title of previous years – Incapacity to redress the constitutional imbalance between ‘the market’ and ‘the social’ in the EU legal order – Continuing displacement of the (national and European) legislator in the internal market and economic governance

While minimum income protection (MIP) is central on a European level, as demonstrated by the European Pillar of Social Rights, national policies display huge variations, reflecting different domestic guidelines and political and socio‐economic dynamics. The literature has shown that the adequacy of MIPs and their role in social protection systems varies significantly, not only between countries but also over time. However, as most studies adopt large-<em>N</em> comparative perspectives, it is not possible to identify whether policy changes affect the programs’ generosity or how. This article bridges this gap by taking Portugal as a specific case study and examining the degree of generosity of its MIP—the Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI), later renamed Social Insertion Income (SII). GMI/SII has outlasted other schemes and is unique within the Southern European welfare regime, partly because, since it started, it has undergone several transformations, which have impacted its ability to provide adequate coverage. The article applies a hypothetical simulation approach to assess the impact of policy change on the generosity of GMI/SII over time. The results demonstrate that alterations introduced over time have had negative effects on different aspects of the adequacy of GMI/SII—and to varying degrees.

According to Principle 14 of the European Pillar of Social Rights, everyone should have the right to adequate minimum income benefits that ensure a life in dignity. Reference budgets have been proposed to monitor this principle. Reference budgets are priced baskets of goods and services that represent a given living standard. At the moment, no common methodology for constructing reference budgets exists; instead, different methods are used to construct them. This study sought to compare the approaches and results of two Finnish reference budgets: one created by the Centre for Consumer Society Research (CCSR), and the second by the ImPRovE project. The purpose of the article is to respond to a gap in existing literature around how different methods for constructing reference budgets impact their outcomes. The two reference budgets offer a strong basis for comparison because they both sought to capture the same living standard in the same context for similar household types (single woman, single man, heterosexual couple, and heterosexual couple with two children), while using different approaches. The results suggest that the two reference budgets arrive at different estimates of what is needed for social participation. Ultimately, we found that the most significant differences between the budgets were housing and mobility costs for the couple with two children due to differences in information bases, selection criteria, evaluators, and pricing. The study makes a significant contribution to the literature because it is one of the first to explore how different approaches to constructing reference budgets affect their outcomes. The results suggest that clear criteria for constructing reference budgets are needed to monitor Principle 14 of the European Pillar of Social Rights.

Reaching the three targets of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) Action Plan is the litmus test for effective EPSR implementation. While the EPSR puts forward a prima facie balance between employment, equal opportunities and social protection, two important questions arise: a) whether and to what extent the resources available at EU level are sufficiently balanced across the different dimensions of the EPSR; and b) which implications this may have for achieving the 2030 poverty target. Analysing the three domains of the EPSR, its Action Plan and the wider EU legal framework of the principles contained in the EPSR, the paper argues that abundant EU resources are available for the areas of equality and employment, but fewer for social inclusion. The empirical evidence on poverty trends over the past decades, however, points to important successes in terms of employment and (gender) equality, but not with respect to social inclusion: a significant increase in employment and defeminisation of poverty have been accompanied by greater precarity for low-skilled men and women. Particularly striking is the rise in the risk of poverty among jobless households, linked with the weakening of the poverty reduction capacity of social protection for this group. Meeting the European social inclusion targets will thus require policies that duly focus on strengthening the framework for social inclusion and social protection.

The present paper examines two important and up-to-date topics in labour law. First, the analysis focuses on the general aspects and the significance of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), which is the most recent legal source - except for a couple of directives and regulations based on the EPSR itself - in the social policy of the European Union. It contains several fundamental labour and social rights and one of its main aims is to promote and to strengthen these rights and values throughout the Members States. At the same time, the EPSR is already having an impact on national labour and social law systems in the EU because of some new pieces of labour law-focused legislation. One of these new laws is the Directive (EU) 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council (20 June 2019) on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union that contains very important new norms regarding both the possible broad concept of the "employment relationship" and the workers' fundamental rights. Second, the paper focuses on some relevant questions of the Hungarian labour law as a case study, analysing the possible - and already visible - impact of the EPSR and the aforementioned new directive. The paper tries to answer some questions based on the paper's hypotheses centered on the possible change in the Hungarian regulation and legal interpretation taking into account the EPSR and the already cited directive. The analysis is based on the relevant regulations and laws, and the outcomes of the research focus both on some general remarks regarding the EPSR and the Directive (EU) 2019/1152 joint with the conclusions that can be drawn paying attention specifically to the Hungarian labour law system with special attention to the workers' fundamental rights.