In connection with its EU presidency role in the first half of this year, thus being responsible for the EU in regard of the preparation of the follow-up of the Copenhagen summit the German Federal Government showed its special interest in the question of social services. One moment had been the expert meeting in Frankfurt end of last year .

Starting from there and linked with some other engagements in this area a follow up expert meeting was held from the 9^th to the 11^th of September 99. Besides the link to the UN activities there are other debates fuelling these activities, not least the requirement and promises to set up an observatory on social services in the European Union.

And indeed, the debate in Frankfurt again showed what had been outlined on several occasions, not least in Aachen where there had been a special emphasis on the role of the NGOs : There is a diversity of political and organisational patterns ruling the public and namely social services in the member states of the EU. Various actors are concerned with distinct tasks on different levels. Furthermore, despite the variety the common issue of a policy of retrenchment is a challenge for all actors involved.

We all know that no easy solution can be found. This is especially true as the ‘clients’ (and their advocates) are more and more aware that the traditional pattern of the Western welfare state is linked to a de-activation of the concerned people. Nolens volens centralised structures result in a character of benefits, services and any welfare performances as a ‘gift’, as expression of mercy or the like. (Of course, this is an unintended effect of the system; moreover it contradicts the initial intention of the system.) Thus, solutions have to be found in the triangle of

• Increasing demand,
• Decreasing means and
• Growing awareness of a rights based approach by those who demand the services.

Basically, what is needed is not simply a review of social services rather than a review of citizenship and the social contract.

Seen on this background it is more than questionable if the recent debate in Frankfurt largely was concerned with the question of re-marketisation and thus re-commodification and re-privatisation as way out. It seems that we find meanwhile a kind of long British tradition – reaching from Thatcherite politics over Major’s approach via Citizen’s Charters to Blair’s third way. Anyway, the meeting showed as well, that besides some support for this approach other participants did not agree by any means. Even if the traditional welfare system cannot cope anymore with current challenges the way cannot be one which leads back to previous patterns of private solutions. Neither ‘re-politics’ (re-commodification, re-privatisation) nor ‘post-politics’ (post-modernism, post-traditional liberalism) can provide any sound and sustainable solution. Presupposed that sustainable means something different than the OECD stated in connection with the early depate on [new] public management: ‘Governments in Member Countries are still committed to promoting policies that achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and that contribute to economic and social well-being.’ (OECD: Governance in Transition. Public management Reforms in OECD Countries. Conclusions of the Public management Committee. Paris: OECD: 1995: 5)

Recent updates of our newsletter gave information on the Association for Voluntary Action Research in Ireland (AVARI)  and documented the call for papers for the ISTR-conference to be held in Dublin next year. Recently, AVARI made another major step forward in regard of developing the position of voluntary organisations and research on these entities in Ireland: the organisation launched the AVARI Research Monograph Series and here we present the nine titles which are published yet.

Even if clearly employed by a Irish perspective the titles are surely of interest for readers from other countries alike.

It is (more or less) easy to speak of the economic orientation of the process of European Integration and it makes not many problems to elaborate its weaknesses as such. However, it should be taken with more seriousness to analyse the basic features. Even the economic orientation is differentiated and it is necessary to grasp the whole picture both to make out the potentials for building a Social Europe in a wider sense and to elaborate a critical approach to the limitations of the official politics. One occasion is the Swedish presidency in the year 2001 a major conference is planed, aiming at the analysis of the challenges of working life.

Announcing this I quote from a letter received by the organisers: ‘Sweden prepares to assume the chairmanship of the EU in 2001 and will in connection to this arrange a conference on the theme of work life on January, 22-25 that year. Prior to this event, a committee is organising more than 50 international scientific workshops where different issues of working life will be discussed. The outcome of these workshops will serve as working basis for the above mentioned conference. More information at http://www.niwl.se/wl2000/.’

The close look at the single workshops give a valuable insight in regard of the challenges and the future politics – challenges where social work is forgotten again and those as well where it can play a major role in the working life.

It is somewhat amazing for those who are looking from outside on integration matters because two contradictions reveal again and again:

On the one hand it seems that a Social Europe is, if anything at all, just a dream of many and a case for promoting an economically driven project, complementing the factual evils of economic deregulation, flexibilisation etc. by the pretended good practices of a social model. On the other hand, however, we find again and again real approaches, real initiatives to bring the idea of a social Europe on the way respectively to push it forwards – finally the starting shot had been fired already a long time ago and the field is crowded by many participants – competition, relay race, and marathon race are just different pictures we can see on the same field.

Now, this is the one contradiction. The other is, and of course we all know it, the contradiction between the economic and the social competencies. Nevertheless, I frequently stressed the fact that even the economic competencies are not as far reaching as they are assumed in mainstream debates and, similarly, the social competencies are developed further than in many cases acknowledged – at least we have to be clear in the differentiation between policies and politics. But even if we put the question of competencies straight there is an annex to this picture: On the one hand the "EU-jurisdiction" and the "EU-executive" alike are never tired to make us believe that the economically driven social model is the best or even the only cure. On the other hand, it is well recognised that just this, that the current pathway of integration is inevitably associated with burdens for the citizens of Europe.

One and probably the main explanation of this is the specific institutional mechanism not so much between Council and Commission but – lying behind that – between national and supranational politics. Images like the one of subsidiarity, processes of global action, multidimensionality, sustainability and the likes are more a chimera than leading principles of real policy-making. Thus, social analysis and social action alike are always caught in a kind of dilemma: the "knowledge" of or the hope for a "grand plan" and the necessity to comply with the incremental steps of (political) every days life and its (political) shortcomings (and of course with every days life challenges, developments and problems in general – life is more than politics, indeed).

In fact, the Commission’s ongoing efforts to pose "The Social" at the centre stage of the agenda is not just an expression of the struggle between different institutions and, as well, it is even more than the reasoning about "strategies". Instead, it is the development of the supposedly already existing European social model. Thus, the incremental character of the process is already part of the "grand plan" and – in my view – a strong argument for functional explanations.

Two more or less recent documents, namely the background document Towards a Europe for All – How should the Community support Member States? (it was the fundamental document for the conference in Brussels earlier this year – see for information on the conference: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/soc-prot/soc-incl/news/socinclusion_en.htm) and the Commission’s Communication A Concerted Strategy for Modernising Social Protection (COM 99/347; 14.7.99 http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/soc-prot/social/com99-347/com99-347_en.pdf) mark the current state of the art.

Point of departure is the assumption that ‘"modernising" social protection means to make best use of its potential as a productive factor.’ (Strategy: 7) The necessity and opportunity arises from especially three major changes in the institutional system of the EU, i.e. the completion of the single Market, the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam and finally the preparations of enlargement.

But this marks only the framework, in which social policy – despite the question of its definition and the setting into practice – goes a step further in gaining some stronghold. The actual point is a substantial argument, which reads as follows: ‘The climate of monetary stability which EMU has created has established a good basis on which Member States can address the key challenge of making social protection systems sustainable and reliable. It has done so primarily by boosting the Union’s capacity to generate the economic and jobs growth necessary for sustainability.’ (8)

It follows the emphasis of the already reached level, nevertheless still increasing process of structural change, re-allocation of resources and ‘of course, the benefits and the costs of economic restructuring are distributed unequally between economic actors.’ (8) – It is known too well that this is true in regard of individual aspects, in regard of social groups and as well in regard of the development of regional disparities. Hand in hand with this, however, goes the increase of inter-dependence. And this is the focus and the nearly a turn of the current argument. Even coming from the economic flank the Commission assumes that meanwhile the development has reached a stage where it is not possible to conceal anymore the real character of the EU. If christened as federation, association of states or whatever does not change the fundamental aspect that it is a complex structure. And as such we meanwhile have to acknowledge the presence of all elements of a "state" and these elements exist in their own right. In other words, the Commission leaves no doubt that social policy is an area which cannot be cheated for two reasons: the unequal distribution of the results and effects of the process of integration and, second, the economic inter-dependence. In short: social responsibility has to be taken over as result of the process of integration itself! Of course, on a different analytical level the various possible forms of "state" matter. Here, however, it is sufficient to point on some success of the ‘Delorist project’ which is described as ‘the transition from market-building to state-building’ (Bornchschier, Volker/Ziltener, Patrick: The revitalization of Western Europe and the politics of the "social dimension"; in: European Societies. Fusion or Fission?; Boje, Thomas P./van Steenbergen, Bart/Walby, Sylvia [Eds.]; London/New York: Routledge, 19999: 33 ff.; here: 41) The authors describe the underlying assumption of Delors with the words ‘In the course of the integration process, elements of state-building would emerge, that is, the transfer of national sovereignty to the EC, whose weight would thereby become greater.’ (ibid.) My proposition, then, is that the question is not if the EU is a "state" with "full competencies" rather than in which way the competencies are interpreted and distributed. Which kind of "state" is it and is it structured in a "appropriate" way? Putting the question in this way, thus changing the perspective of many strands in the debate is not just of theoretical interest but makes it possible to get clearer hold of the stage and the actors.

Thus far I tried to provide a sketch of a complex picture employed with the broad framework of politics and the respective processes of societal structuration. It is interesting how frankly the Commission meanwhile claims the responsibility for a wider and even more or less integrated approach to politics on the EU level while on the analytical level there is still only a very vague assessment of the already currently reached level of integration.

Even if several shortcoming of the current level of integration remain, indeed, at least the Commission proceeds from a high level of integration (a recent test case might be the First European Community Framework Programme in Support of Culture (2000 – 2004). Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision Establishing a Single Financing and Programming Instrument for Cultural Cooperation (Culture 2000 Programme) (COM 98-266 final. 98/0169 COD. Brussels: 6.5.1998: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/culture/program-2000_en.html, not yet adopted by the Council – this is to be expected early the next year). In particular, the Amsterdam Treaty is seen as a cornerstone for the new setting. As far as it can be seen yet the new Commission will not be anxious to change this view in any substantial way nor even will it scratch at the surface of the given pattern.

Anyway, in general the main actor is still defined in a rather strict, yet still not legally defined accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. And, looking at the actors now we are confronted with a somewhat tricky constellation, which is characterised by three features:

• Firstly as mentioned: the principle of subsidiarity as basic mechanism,
• Secondly the supposed far-reaching range of integration, and
• Thirdly the confession that for all the EU efforts there remains a serious step to be taken in developing citizenship, here meant as consciousness of being a European citizen.

The first two points have to be taken as complimentary as the underlined ever increasing interdependence factually means that in tendency the role of the member states is being reduced on taking responsibility as executive, leaving the actual policy making at the EU level.

As Richard Münch pointed at the recent gathering of European Sociologists (http://www.qub.ac.uk/esa/index.html) out in Amsterdam the situation in regard of the third point is actually not as bleak as it sometimes seems to be even if the price to be paid is high. As he states the meaning of the traditional model of social integration and solidarity diminishes but the identification with the EU is fairly high not measured just by answering the question if one feels as being whatever national citizen or European citizen. Besides this identification can be seen in the orientation on European issues and the support for EU and EU wide activities. In the abstract of his presentation we read: The active society of citizens could become a vision of global modernity. Thus we are confronted with an increasing liberalisation, a general loosening of solidarity and social integration and at the same time a shift to new patterns of social integration on a level beyond national borders (see in this connection as well Richard Münch: Globale Dynamik, lokale Lebenswelten. Der schwierige Weg in die Weltgesellschaft. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1998).

Nevertheless this is a more or less general picture, which does not include the view on those being excluded or, to put it milder, not being included. And it is just this section of the population, which is issued in the presentation of the background document Towards a Europe for All – How should the Community support Member States. Not least the new emphasis on solidarity in the Amsterdam Treaty is taken as point of departure. Interestingly, the economic exclusion is not just seen as a social problem in a limited socio-economic sense, even if this factor is not faded out. Furthermore, economic exclusion, even if actually taking place on the national level, is seen as European matter and interpreted in conjunction with social and societal integration in general; there is rarely another explanation for the statement: ‘The way to overcome exclusion is through participation, through engaging and involving people. It is essential to involve every part of society in tackling this growing alienation within the Union.’ (2) This goes hand in hand with underlining the responsibility of the EU. ‘The Member States of the European union all have their own means of ensuring that solidarity. But as more and more progress has been made in European economic integration, more stress has been put on accompanying this economic progress with social progress at European level.’ (1 f.)

First of all, we then get an overview of the existing activities in regard of inclusion, namely

• the completion of the single market and the EMU as securing a sound economic basis for further development in economic and social term. The Commission understands social development in part as immediate complement of the economic progress; in part it is, however, depending on the economic development insofar there the means for social measures are produced;
• the European Employment Strategy;
• the Structural Funds;
• after these supposed major mechanisms we find further indicators as research programmes, orientation on action for sustainability, youth and education initiatives and others.

It is not necessary to go into detail in regard of these issues, neither will I here – again – debate in particular the Commission’s tightrope walk between employment policy and social policy. In question in regard of the document here in review is the question of EUropean responsibility for action. The paper mentions in particular:

• ‘Stimulating integrated policy approaches and action’ (5 f.)
• ‘Promotion of partnership and solidarity across society’ (6)
• ‘Involvement of all relevant actors and the participation of excluded people as real stakeholders’ (7)

Even if mainly concerned with labour market integration/participation the interesting aspect is the confirmation of the strategy, which I still would like to call politics passing the nation state – others prefer to term it a multi-level process – strongly connected with the partnership approach. A further element is the planned ‘better co-ordination of social exclusion issues at European level [which] would benefit from bringing together all the relevant Commission services to look at what contribution is made to combating social exclusion by the full range of Community policies.’ (9)

Thus, even if a multi-level process, even if concerned with the inclusion of NGOs and local respectively regional agencies as actors it is a deep concern that at the end of the day the approach is shaped as lead by a top-down strategy.

It is what can be brought in parallel with the traditional leftist critique of social policy – even if bringing about real improvements for social security and the whole life situation the fundamental structuration is oriented along the lines of legitimising the pattern of male breadwinner welfare states. Changes are only thus far brought on the way as they serve the interest of fostering employment and economic wealth in the society instead of the society. With reservation and in this sense we can quote Walter Lorenz (Social Work and Cultural Politics. The paradox of German Social Pedagogy in: Welfare and Culture in Europe. Towards a New Paradigm in Social Policy. Eds.: Prue Chamberlayne/Andrew Cooper/Richard Freeman/Michael Rustin; Jessica Publishers, Ldn.; 1999), who states – referring to Flora: ‘"The welfare state may be seen as ‘completion’ of the nation state, to the extent that individual social rights become an essential element of citizenship as the main basis of political legitimacy" (Flora, 1986: p.xv). It substantiated the idea of belonging to a nation decisively by giving individuals a material stake in the state. … While the welfare state secured a high degree of integration (at the price of conformity and uniformity with assumed national standards, …), it depended also on a high degree of differentiation between nation states externally.’ (27)

And it is this pattern of engaging in constructing European Citizenship which is currently shaping the debate. Strategies on governance are questions of construing rather than simply questions of formalisation and institutionalisation given rights. And the underlying policy approach even in regard of new public management in the social area is blatant. In the words ofd the OECD it reads as following: ‘Governments in Member countries are still committed to promoting policies that achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and that contribiute to economic and social well-being’. (Governance in Transition. Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries. Conclusions of the Public Management Committee. Paris: OECD, 1995: 5) – the unbroken belief or even faith in the invisible hand of the free market in which some of today’s disciples go even further than Adam Smith.

European industrial relations have been discussed for years both within the trade unions and externally. Some of the closely associated and sometimes extremely complex legal problems that have arisen are discussed by six renowned legal experts in the just published ETUI report A legal framework for European industrial relations.

Contents:

Freedom of association and fundamental trade union rights by Brian Bercusson

European Works Councils as an institution of European employee co-determination: overview of existing agreements, typical features of national transposition provisions, outstanding legal questions and demands for amendments to EWC Directive 94/45/EC by Thomas Blanke

The European social dialogue - some legal issues by Antoine Jacobs and Antonio Ojeda-Aviles

The right for freedom to transnational industrial action in the European Union by Niklas Bruun and Bruno Veneziani

A legal framework for European industrial relations ETUI, Brussels, 1999. 98 pages. ISBN 2-930143-44-4. Price 600 BEF (14,87 EUR)