The EU's Socio-Economic Model(s) and the Crisi(e)s Any Perspectives?

Abstract

This paper criticises the assumption that maintaining the EU Socio-Economic Model(s) has become difficult only with the three crises that rattled the world and the € area from 2008. It concedes, however, that tensions between the political priorities underlying the EU internal market, Economic and Monetary Union and the competitiveness agenda of EU socio-economic governance on the one hand and the values of social inclusion and social justice proclaimed as all-encompassing by the EU Treaties have become more apparent. While there is no philosopher's stone on how to alleviate these tensions, the paper identifies four key issues that need to be addressed: (1) the institutional asymmetry of the EU's economic and monetary union (EMU), stemming from unifying the currency and maintaining national prerogatives in economic policies, (2) substantive tensions between the EU's so called economic constitution and its normative commitment to social justice, (3) the question whether and how socio-economic policy can be delivered at EU levels in the absence of legislative competences and (4) the future of the EU and its socio-economic model as a global load star. The paper initially develops the notion socio-economic model in three dimensions: as a heuristic tool identifying a common core of the national socio-economic models, as programmatic notion and finally as an (incomplete) normative commitment. Having concluded that the EU is normatively committed to reconcile economic and social aspects of its models, it proceeds to identify cleavages in the EU governance modes available. It questions one of the assumptions underlying the hypothesis of the asymmetry of European integration: the assumption that negative integration, by enforcing Treaty Law through the Court of Justice is more successful than positive integration, especially if the latter has to rely on mere policy coordination instead of legislation. It can be shown that the combination of all three modes of governance, which is available in EU economic policy at times, is the most efficient. This even holds true if - as in economic policy - legislative harmonisation is replaced by executive coercion for a certain set of national policies. The paper does not offer a solution as to how EU level socio-economic policy efficiency can be achieved in the absence of consensus and competence, though. It merely concludes that the way forward lies in combining deeper integration with respect for diversity of the EU's regions, and the establishment of transnational solidarity.