In contemporary European welfare states, little attention is being paid to the ‘hidden welfare state’ of social tax expenditures (STEs) for private pensions. This lack of attention is surprising since the growing use of private pensions, like that of statutory pensions, has important implications for the public budget. The reason is that private pensions tend to benefit from reliefs in income taxes and social security contributions, which leads to government revenue losses. That we have little understanding of the size and social distribution of these STEs for private pensions is partially due to limitations of existing data. The available data typically overlook preferential social security contributions and/or do not cover all three phases (i.e. contributions, returns on investments and pension withdrawals) of private pension saving. To highlight the importance of conducting new empirical research on STEs, we examine Belgian second pillar pensions for employees (i.e. voluntary occupational pensions for employees) using newly available administrative data. This case study clearly demonstrates that more accurate measurements of STEs for private pensions are needed, not only to reveal these ‘hidden welfare states’, but also to improve cross-country comparisons of private pension expenditures and to properly include private pension expenditures in discussions on the financial sustainability of pensions.

This case law report (January–June 2025) discusses two cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and three collective complaints brought before the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR). The first ECtHR case ( Selimi and Krasnići v. Serbia ) concerned the suspension of pensions originally paid by the Serbian Pension and Disability Insurance Fund in Kosovo, as well as the excessive length of review proceedings. The Court found violations of both Article 6 ECHR and Article 1 First Protocol to the ECHR (Protocol no. 1). The second ECtHR case, Al and Demirci v. Turkey , concerned the depreciation of pension bonuses caused by hyperinflation. Although the applicants were entitled to the bonuses under domestic law, the absence of indexation reduced their value by more than 99%. The Court concluded that this rendered the right to property under Article 1 Protocol no. 1 illusory, thereby imposing an excessive burden on the applicants. The ECSR cases highlight structural challenges in the areas of housing and energy poverty. In FEANTSA v. the Czech Republic , the Committee examined the situation of vulnerable families, many of whom were Roma, who were living in hostels under precarious tenancy agreements. The Committee found violations of Article 16 ESC, both alone and in conjunction with the non-discrimination clause in Article E ESC. In FEANTSA, DCI, MEDEL, CCOO and International Movement ATD Fourth World v. Spain , the Committee reviewed the ongoing power outages in Cañada Real, Madrid's largest informal settlement. The Committee found multiple violations of the ESC, including Articles 11, 16, 23, 30 and 31. Finally, in FEANTSA v. Belgium , the Committee examined the Flemish housing policy in light of the ESC. The ECSR identified shortcomings in relation to affordable and adequate housing, homelessness and the allocation of social housing. It concluded that the Flemish policy disproportionately disadvantaged vulnerable groups, in breach of Article 16 ESC when read alone and in conjunction with Article E.

This work offers a new theoretical contribution that advances our understanding of the take-up of social rights. According to standard theoretical models, the decision of clients whether to collect the social benefits to which they are entitled is influenced by the policy design and administrative levels. Our argument is that the clients are not only affected by, but also have potential influence on policy design and the extent of the administrative burden, which may have positive consequences on the degree of take-up. Both policymakers and administrators may consider the political reaction of ‘clients’ to the chosen policy and bureaucratic process, suggesting that the relationship between the ‘clients’ and policy design and administrative levels is bi-directional rather than uni-directional, as assumed in conventional theoretical frameworks. Incorporating this notion of influential ‘clients’ may help explain the wide variation in take-up across social programs, countries and over time. An analysis of responses provided by senior managers in 75 municipalities in Israel reveals that the administration is indeed directly and indirectly affected by the perceived power of clients. The potential appeal of clients to local politicians shapes the degree of administrative burden related to residential property tax discounts. In most municipalities, the administration tends to promote the take-up of property tax benefits despite the expected loss of tax revenues. This is manifested in various forms, such as active assistance, initiatives to reduce administrative barriers such as online submission of applications, expanding the variety of sources of information on property tax discounts, and utilizing administrative data to automatically extend discounts. This theoretical insight also contributes to the literature on administrative burden, which also treats the client as a powerless actor, and to the literature on policy feedback, which often predicts that contact with bureaucracy may suppress political participation.

This paper examines the implications of circular migration within the EU for access to social rights, using live-in care workers commuting between Austria and Eastern Europe as a case study. While mobile workers are formally covered by EU social security coordination, the existing regulations fall short of addressing the specific challenges posed by circular migration. The paper explores how legal frameworks in Austria – particularly the Home Care Act and the care allowance system – promote circular migration. It then examines how such migration patterns complicate access to social rights. Circular migrants do not fit neatly into the existing allocation criteria for unemployment benefits within EU coordination, such as the distinction made between workers who return home and those who remain in the employer state. For live-in care workers, termination of employment results in a loss of residence in Austria, they are not integrated into their home labour market, and depend on agencies to seek cross-border jobs. These specific vulnerabilities are not addressed in the existing coordination rules. With regard to pension entitlement, the paper focuses on the ‘Ausgleichszulage’, a non-contributory benefit for low-income retirees, which is restricted to Austrian residents. Although permitted under EU law, this residency requirement effectively excludes circular migrants, who typically retire in their country of origin. 1

This paper contributes to old and new academic debates concerning European citizenship, and aims to overcome the dichotomy between social citizenship, on the one hand, and market citizenship, on the other. We make the case that European citizenship has been socio-economic by nature, since the emergence of transnational rights was consubstantial with economic freedom and market-building, long before the introduction of EU citizenship status in the Treaty of Maastricht. More specifically, the paper argues that EU socio-economic citizenship is shaped by a functional rationale which has been instrumental in overcoming the profound political divisions over the governance of social rights from the EU level. European elites have consistently presented the gradual unification of a pan-European labour market as a necessary response to the economic imperatives stemming from globalisation, demographic change, digitalisation, increased migration, or climate change. This has implied intertwined recommodifying and decommodifying effects. Three empirical investigations help us to flesh out this claim. First, we revisit the 1990s and consider how the emergence of ‘Social Europe’ happened simultaneously with the push for supply-side policy through the flexicurity and activation paradigms. Then, we look at the ‘Skills’ agenda, which has been a cornerstone of the envisaged pan-European labour market from the 2000 onwards, allowing for versatile adaptation to changing market needs over time. Finally, we examine the European Pillar of Social Rights, as an attempt to address some failures of an ever more integrated pan-European labour market. All this, inevitably, perpetuates the relative disconnection of EU socio-economic citizenship from political participation and belonging, thereby limiting legitimising and polity-building effects.

The harsh treatment of carers by the UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is the focus of this article. By prioritising fraud detection rather than beneficiary well-being, the administration of the Carer's Allowance (CA) payment, or more specifically the overpayments saga, has to date caused considerable social harm. Our analysis of it shows striking similarities with the Australian Centrelink's automated debt raising and recovery system, the Online Compliance Intervention (Robodebt). In this article, we take a first step in delineating core attributes of structural violence, to explore if they are present in the CA overpayments saga. The findings show that what has been unfolding manifests as a form of structural violence, belying any reductive framing of it as a digital welfare scandal, an isolated case of maladministration, a bureaucratic over-reach or a faulty algorithm in need of correction. The findings make us reckon with how welfare states can become imbued with a violence, rooted in their culture and systems, that serves the prevailing political, social and economic order. It is anticipated that by elucidating key attributes of structural violence, what is overwhelmingly an explanatory theoretical concept may have greater relevance and usefulness for future empirical study in the welfare and social security fields.