European Social Market Economy Research Articles

Competitiveness of Social Entrepreneurship in Latvia

Social entrepreneurship is an important component of the European social market economy that is based on the principles of solidarity and responsibility and the priorities regarding the individual and social goals; it promotes social responsibility and social inclusion. However, in practice, social enterprises face various problems that negatively affect their competitiveness. The present research has set an aim to examine the competitiveness of social entrepreneurship in Latvia. To achieve the aim, a case study was carried out to identify the factors affecting the competitiveness of social entrepreneurship and its competitive advantages and disadvantages in comparison with conventional enterprises. The research found that the key competitive advantages of social entrepreneurship were the story told by social enterprises and their employee motivation, while the negative effects regarding competitiveness were as follows: the lack of government support for social entrepreneurship, insufficient information in society about social entrepreneurship and the social value created by it, as well as various other factors in the internal environment of an enterprise.

Fundamental Rights and Democratic Sovereignty in the EU: The Role of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU) in Regulating the European Social Market Economy

Abstract The EU, in its present configuration, has often been accused of a persistent and deep structural bias in favour of economic integration to the detriment of the democratic and social values of its Member States. In response to that accusation, can the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU) come to the rescue and be mobilized, ultimately before a judicially-activist Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), as a vehicle of social justice, in an effort to correct bias and to counter-balance the expansive economic liberties of the European single market? Exploring this question is a timely topic given a clearly discernable new constitutional turn in the jurisprudence of the CJEU’s Grand Chamber, especially now under the current presidency of Koen Lenaerts. The ‘Lenaerts-Court’, as this article will argue, has embarked on a new EU fundamental-rights jurisprudence, visibly aimed at strengthening the dignitarian-social dimension of EU integration and at adding flesh to the bones of the commitment to a European social market economy in Article 3(3) of the Treaty of European Union (TEU). Yet proposals in support of greater reliance on the substantive, but open-textured, provisions of the CFREU, in the pursuit of a ‘fair balance’ between the EU’s economic and dignitarian-social dimensions, immediately run into democratic-minded concerns about sovereignty passing from the Member States to the courts, and ultimately to the CJEU itself. The persistent worry is that democratic sovereignty over constitutionally sensitive—but morally and politically divisive—choices is being turned into a ‘sovereignty of law’—in ways that not only risk foreclosure of democratic debate over yet unsettled key societal matters but gives up democratic legitimation as a central element of modern constitutionalism (‘over-constitutionalisation’, Dieter Grimm). Thus, the CJEU is being simultaneously criticized for its alleged economic bias and for its efforts to overcome that bias. In an effort to address—and disarm—this democratic-minded concern, this article argues that judicial emphasis on the CFREU’s dignitarian-social values need not per se lead to the consequence of over-constitutionalisation. Rather, this article proposes to look at the Grand Chamber’s new fundamental-rights jurisprudence in the single-market context as creating a framework for plural and inclusive democratic deliberation on key societal choices and values. To that end, the article proposes a new reading of the Grand Chamber’s jurisprudence on the efficacy of fundamental rights in the economic sphere and, in particular, on the horizontal direct effect of CFREU rights.

Equality of Opportunity in a European Social Market Economy*

AbstractThis article investigates what role the ideal of equality of opportunity should play in a European social market economy (ESME). After defining ‘social market economy’ and sketching different conceptions of equality of opportunity, it is argued that a social market economy must implement a substantive version of equality of opportunity. Subsequent sections assess how such a robust version needs adaptation in light of the EU's special nature: first, it assesses the merits of a direct transnational application of interpersonal substantive equality. Second, it considers what the ideal requires in a ESME understood along internationalist lines: even on this account, labour mobility creates tensions between EU citizens' claims to equal prospective chances in a fair cross‐border competition against each state's prerogative of providing the highest level of education to its residents. The concluding section offers some suggestions how we might alleviate this tension between domestic equality of opportunity and national autonomy.

Rethinking Competition Law within the European Economic Constitution

AbstractIn light of re‐conceptualizing a European social market economy, this contribution considers competition law's position in the European economic constitution. The economic constitution captures the economic foundation of European integration as based on the market mechanism. The contribution asks whether the change towards a ‘more economic approach’ to competition law implies an alienation of competition law from societal challenges. The contribution considers whether this interpretation, with competition law being such an integral part of the European economic constitution, should change in light of the constitutional goal of a European social market economy. To do so, the article sketches the fundamental place of competition law in the European economic constitution and shows how its interpretation has become more economics‐based. It highlights some of the problematic aspects of this change and analyzes these findings from the perspective of an economic constitution serving a social market economy.

Rethinking the European Social Market Economy: Introduction to the Special Issue

AbstractThis contribution offers an introduction to the Special Issue ‘Rethinking the European Social Market Economy’. It places the Special Issue against the background of the debate on free markets versus social protection in the European Union and the inclusion of the notion of ‘social market economy’ in the Treaty on European Union. It sketches the meaning and development of the social market economy concept, and introduces the key questions underlying this Special Issue and the contributions included in it.

Four Models of Protecting Citizenship and Social Rights in Europe: Conclusions to the Special Issue ‘Rethinking the European Social Market Economy’

AbstractThis article offers a synthesis of and conclusion to the contributions included in the Special Issue ‘Rethinking the European Social Market Economy’. Based on different understandings of citizenship in the European Union and the roles of the EU and its member states in providing social protection arrangements, it develops a typology of four models of the EU's role in social protection. It then discusses the contributions to this Special Issue in light of this typology and draws a number of overarching conclusions.

The Role of Government and Markets in the Strategy “Europe 2020” of the European Union: A Robust Political Economy Analysis

Abstract The EU’s current ten year strategy “Europe 2020” aims to set out a vision of a European social market economy for the 21st century that will promote economic growth with social and ecological attributes. This article analyzes the roles ascribed to the government and the market and the extent this role allocation is suitable to enhance growth of the European Union’s member states. Based on a robust political economy framework it is argued that this new economic policy concept is in essence a technocratic approach and a form of selective interventionism. As such it suffers from three major shortcomings: (1) it underestimates the difficulties of gathering and analyzing the relevant information necessary for steering the economy in the desired direction, (2) it encourages rent-seeking rather than productive entrepreneurship, and (3) it may cause a subtle transformation of the societal order through the diminution of individual liberties. It is contended that while an interventionist policy approach meets the preferences of large parts of the population, not the least in Germany, it is unlikely to boost economic growth and employment in the EU.

A Comprehensive Social Progress Protocol is Needed More Than Ever

A social progress protocol has been suggested and demanded as a way of strengthening the protection of fundamental social rights in the EU Treaties. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Viking and Laval cases provided the impetus for this suggestion. The financial and economic crisis has increased the need for discussion, clarification and development of fundamental values, principles and rules of EU social policy. In light of the crisis, a social protocol should be designed in a comprehensive way. It should reinforce the position of human rights and it should define the model of the European social market economy. A high level of social protection should be stipulated. The draft of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) is an adequate starting point, however, in light of the recent economic and social development a more comprehensive protocol is necessary. Given the different national traditions of social policy, a social protocol needs broad legal and political discussion in order to build the necessary consensus.

“Europa 2020”, nuovo governo economico e ri-regolamentazione finanziaria:incentivi o vincoli alla crescita?(“Europe 2010”, a new economic governance and financial re-regulation: incentives or constraints to growth?)

Despite the launch of a new strategy for growth in Europe (the Europe 2020 strategy) and the ongoing efforts to design a new international financial architecture, prospects for an economic recovery of Europe remain dim. Public deficits and debts will have to be reduced at a faster pace, with contractionary effects unless a strong recovery of private expenditure will materialize. Financial re-regulation is projected to further depress the economy by imposing higher capital ratios, lower leverage, a late (though welcome) discipline of liquidity. The compound effect of the two policy trends pose a serious threat on the social sustainability of the European social market economy. JEL: H6, F3, O52

Eco-social market economy as an European innovation

The paper presents fundamental ideas of European social market economy that are to be applied to formulate the “European Model of Agriculture”. In connection with the needs of further development of the Common Agricultural Policy, food strategy and regional policy, some challenges to the modern and perspective strategy of agriculture and food production in the EU are formulated. A new European challenge to strengthen the principle of solidarity, sustainability, multi-functionality and subsidiarity is an appreciable point of departure to solve the problems in Czech agriculture.

The Concept of Equal Opportunity

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Concept of Equal OpportunityPeter WestenPeter Westen Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 95, Number 4Jul., 1985 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/292687 Views: 122Total views on this site Citations: 28Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1985 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Heidi T. Katz, Emmanuel O. Acquah The role of schools in providing educational opportunity: An integrative review, Review of Education 9, no.33 (Nov 2021).https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3307Ivo Wallimann-Helmer Chancengleichheit, (Aug 2021): 225–231.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05798-3_28Bahar BERBEROĞLU Yükseköğretimde Fırsat Eşitliği, Nizamiye Medreseleri, Maarif Mektepleri Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi 3, no.11 (Jul 2019): 36–51.https://doi.org/10.46762/mamulebd.571573Maiju Paananen, Katja Repo, Petteri Eerola, Maarit Alasuutari Unravelling conceptualizations of (in)equality in early childhood education and care system, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 5, no.11 (Jun 2018): 54–64.https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2018.1485423Ralph Premdas Affirmative Action: Its Nature and Dynamics, (Feb 2019): 1–13.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0242-8_141-1Ralph Premdas Affirmative Action: Its Nature and Dynamics, (Jul 2019): 1501–1513.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2898-5_141Juri Viehoff Equality of Opportunity in a European Social Market Economy*, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 57, no.11 (Jan 2019): 28–43.https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12815Leah N. Gordon If Opportunity Is Not Enough: Coleman and His Critics in the Era of Equality of Results, History of Education Quarterly 57, no.44 (Nov 2017): 601–615.https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2017.35Antonio Abatemarco Doing Rawls Justice: Evidence from the PSID, Economics 10, no.11 (Nov 2016).https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2016-33Kirsten Meyer Why should we demand equality of educational opportunity?, Theory and Research in Education 14, no.33 (Nov 2016): 333–347.https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878516676709Hugh Lazenby What is equality of opportunity in education?, Theory and Research in Education 14, no.11 (Jan 2016): 65–76.https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515619788Johannes Drerup The Politics of the Level Playing Field. Equality of Opportunity and Educational Justice, (Mar 2016): 115–136.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27389-1_8Nicola Riva Equal Chances and Equal Options: Two Conceptions of Equality of Opportunity, Ratio Juris 28, no.22 (May 2015): 293–306.https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12083Larry S. Temkin Equality of Opportunity, (Feb 2013).https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee267Paul Lambert, Robert M. Blackburn What is social inequality?, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 28, no.7/87/8 (Jul 2008): 250–259.https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330810890664Sylvie Loriaux Global equality of opportunity: a proposal, Journal of International Relations and Development 11, no.11 (Mar 2008): 1–28.https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800145ALEXANDER BROWN Equality of Opportunity for Education: One-off or Lifelong?, Journal of Philosophy of Education 40, no.11 (Feb 2006): 63–84.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2006.00500.xAndrew Mason Equality of Opportunity and Differences in Social Circumstances, The Philosophical Quarterly 54, no.216216 (Jul 2004): 368–388.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0031-8094.2004.00358.xLesley A. Jacobs Pursuing Equal Opportunities, 17 (Jun 2012).https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616556Daniel H. Krymkowski Measuring opportunity*, The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 25, no.33 (Sep 2001): 275–284.https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990254Maureen Woodd Human resource specialists ‐ guardians of ethical conduct?, Journal of European Industrial Training 21, no.33 (Apr 1997): 110–116.https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599710161810Patrick Maclagan Ethical Thinking in Organizations Implications for Management Education, Management Learning 26, no.22 (Aug 2016): 159–177.https://doi.org/10.1177/135050769502600202Paul T. Menzel Some Ethical Costs of Rationing, Law, Medicine and Health Care 20, no.1-21-2 (Jan 2021): 57–66.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.1992.tb01173.xRobert W. Moore, Irene E. Jacobsohn Sex Discrimination and Culture, Equal Opportunities International 8, no.44 (Apr 1989): 20–26.https://doi.org/10.1108/eb010513Tom Mullen Affirmative Action, (Jan 1988): 244–266.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19353-0_12Alan H. Goldman The Justification of Equal Opportunity, Social Philosophy and Policy 5, no.11 (Jan 2009): 88–103.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500001266James W. Nickel Equal Opportunity in a Pluralistic Society, Social Philosophy and Policy 5, no.11 (Jan 2009): 104–119.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500001278 Literatur, ().https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110250978.207