Browse by title
Claude Ménard and Mary M. Shirley
When New Institutional Economics (NIE) first appeared on the scholarly scene in the early 1970s, it was a transformative movement. NIE aimed to radically alter orthodox economics by showing that institutions are multidimensional and matter in significant ways that can be statistically measured and systematically modeled. In the decades since, thousands of articles and books have pursued this premise and NIE has evolved from an upstart movement to a major influence on researchers in economics, political science, law, management, and sociology. What made New Institutional Economics a radical idea was that it abandoned: [. . .]the standard neoclassical assumptions that individuals have perfect information and unbounded rationality and that transactions are costless and instantaneous. NIE assumes instead that individuals have incomplete information and limited mental capacity and because of this they face uncertainty about unforeseen events and outcomes and incur transaction costs to acquire information. To reduce risk and transaction costs humans create institutions, writing and enforcing constitutions, laws, contracts and regulations – so-called formal institutions – and structuring and inculcating norms of conduct, beliefs and habits of thought and behavior – or informal institutions. (Menard and Shirley, 2005, p. 1)
Edited by Claude Ménard and Mary M. Shirley
Ulf Bernitz, Moa Mårtensson, Lars Oxelheim and Thomas Persson
The introductory chapter provides an overview of the great social challenge that the EU currently faces. The editors raise the question of what can be done to bridge the prosperity gap in Europe. First, they briefly describe the background: the social dimension of European cooperation and its historical development. Second, they identify the new social challenges that the Union faces in the wake of the Great Recession, the ongoing refugee crisis, and the Brexit referendum. Third, an analytical point of departure for examining these challenges is presented, consisting of an interdisciplinary approach that pinpoints a number of overarching problems and possibilities associated with the social dimension of European integration. Fourth and finally, the book’s chapters are introduced, and their key policy recommendations are summarized. The chapter concludes with the argument that much of the EU’s future relevance and ability to stay together depends on its capacity to counteract the prosperity gap and reverse the negative trend that emerged during the crisis.
The Social Challenge Ahead
Edited by Ulf Bernitz, Moa Mårtensson, Lars Oxelheim and Thomas Persson
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.