Browse by title

This chapter analyses the future of national systems of social insurance in the EU. In Europe, social insurance remains a national responsibility, but the EU’s power to promote the internal market and to develop the social rights connected to EU citizenship challenges the autonomy of the member states. The chapter explains and analyses the tensions that arise in this area when different interests contend. Legal developments in this field raise the question of how the member states’ social security systems should be organized in the future, in conjunction with an expansive body of EU law. The author concludes that the models developed for the future should aim to bridge the gaps in social well-being which currently characterize the EU, without altogether eroding the differences between the welfare models of the different member states. In an increasingly globalized world, the EU’s future lies in community and not in national particularity.

This chapter analyses how the tension between fiscal discipline and responsiveness to popular demands contributes to widening the prosperity gap in Europe. On the one hand, the author argues, the countries most affected by the Great Recession still have a pressing need to strengthen their budget balances and to reduce their debt levels. If they fail to improve fiscal discipline, they will remain vulnerable to economic crises in the future. On the other hand, austerity is often met by public resistance. The political consequences of going against the voters’ preferences can be dramatic and pave the way for populist parties. Thus, governments should not only increase their budgetary safety margins during upturns in the business cycle, but also take measures to increase public support for fiscal discipline. This will reduce the tension they experience between fiscal responsibility and electoral responsiveness.

This chapter looks at how the prosperity gap between the member states is affected by the free movement of workers within the EU. One key purpose of free movement is to even out economic imbalances between the member states. The author’s analysis shows that labour mobility within the Union is too limited to make any significant contribution to economic equalization between the member states. However, mobility still has positive effects in terms of the income gain it implies for the migrants themselves and by helping to reduce labour shortages in specific sectors in specific countries. Contrary to common belief, moreover, migrants contribute somewhat more to the public purse than they cost. The author concludes that the Union and its member states should strive to uphold the free movement of labour, although it has never been as questioned as it is today.