The European Pillar of Social Rights

Download presentation


The European Pillar of Social Rights Consistence risks and delivery Frank Vandenbroucke University Amsterdam Universidad Carlos III de Madrid 8 November 2019 signals a new paradigm • functional necessities EMU: – EES: supply-side flexibility New insight: labour market institutions that support stability EMU as an insurance union: vaccination metaphor Why are stabilization instruments centralized in monetary unions? Risk sharing (pooling) Externalities national public good (vaccination) Vaccination: compulsory (minimum requirements) subsidized (re-insurance) Minimum requirements for effective stabilisation capacity: sufficiently generous unemployment benefits notably the short-term; sufficient coverage rates benefit schemes; no segmentation leaves part force poorly insured; proliferation employment relations not integrated into social insurance; activation unemployed individuals; budgetary buffers times so automatic stabilisers can do their work bad These principles become fortiori imperative if Eurozone would be equipped with re-insurance systems: institutional moral hazard common standards resilient welfare states (flexibility/stability) Cluster policy adequate capacity MS: insured against unemployment; systems individuals Labour deliver on wage coordination (effective collective bargaining) A shared conception  Convergence some key features Traditional view: aspiration: simultaneous pursuit economic progress cohesion both within countries (development states) between (upward convergence across EU) integration human capital through investment policies Upward inequality EU should stimulate Member States to develop packages pursue upward internal (‘dual use’ packages) quality is condition long-term Reducing background inequalities families children investing child care education contribute EU-wide “Rising income has significant impact growth large because it reduces poorer segments poorest 40% population precise invest skills ” (OECD In Together … 2015) single after enlargement: reconciling openness domestic requires more elaborate framework ‘balancing act’ possible: ‘fair mobility’: Openness mobility must exert downward pressure level minimum protection wages security entitlements assistance) Mobility create real opportunity Access benefits: general principle non-discrimination exception: posting workers which needed reform Transparency regimes Overlapping priorities fair bargaining ECEC better perspectives households weak attachment markets / incentives low-skilled labour…) transparency predictability How Rights? Credible roadmap combining… legislation Policy benchmarking Funding (tangible MS) → ‘action plan’ promised by Ursula von der Leyen Mainstreaming fiscal surveillance Semester Completing union (automatic stabilizers e g systems) Clear (cf EuVisions forum debate www euvisions eu) Need clear perspective: Union systemic functions (e corporate taxation …) guide substantive development via objectives leaving ways means basis operational definition ‘the model’ cooperate explicit purpose pursuing pan-European based reciprocity Are citizens ready share risk unemployment? survey experiment (13 19 500 citizens) Fixed points all packages: disbursement MS triggered increases MS; used subsidize systems; (minimum) floor generosity levels participating Moving parts: (3); conditions w r t training (2); between-country redistribution (3) => 324 Taxation or administration job search effort dimension Mean Support Package (O=strongly so1newhat ijl ool neutral; 1= son1ewhat strongly faveur) C’D 0 2 4 6 -() •• C/ l 1 i ; “‘d gr ‘¾ ‘1<1> _/ ) OQ (‘D j “‘-“‘ y’6 & $> {J Figure 14: Predicted Vote Sample Packages Pooled countries) T 00 bJ) Q ·_p bJ)O i: Intemally consistent u c—- MOST POPULAR: LEAST LOW FLOOR: HIGH FLOOR BUT WITH 70% last NO REDIST : DOMEST IN&BTWN Must train /educate No t:rain/educate las Redist rich-to-poor redist train/educate costs 5% taxes Some btwn cnt:Iy Nationa achn Eurnpean ach1ün Natio nal achnin 1% rich accept offer effmt National achni n o1f3fer Conclusions risk- (EURS) Fundamental opposition EURS confined relatively small segment Citizens sensitive design Generous carry majorities each our sample even package require additional from poor eventual tax burden (if there burden) necessary rally most larger implementation decentralized associated exercises community lot question how tolerant scheme regard structural seems less important when they express preferences than policymakers This say such debates important; but other issues seem weight citizens’ judgment 14 Resources 1) ‘Special Issue’ http://www eu/ 2) Barnard De Baere (eds Crisis Cambridge: Cambridge Press September 2017 https://doi org/10 1017/9781108235174 (Introductory chapter Open frankvandenbroucke uva nl item 263) 3) Burgoon Kuhn Nicoli Sacchi van Duin Hegewald Sharing When Unemployment Hits: Design Influences Citizen For 2018 AISSR Report (December) http://aissr nl/news 4) insurance: what really think Notre Europe Jacques Delors Institute Brief ‘Europe all’ 13 February 2013 http://institutdelors eu/publications/european-unemployment-insurance-what-citizens- really-think/?lang=en 5) Rinaldi challenge covergence