Periodic Reporting for period 3 - EUSOCIALCIT (The Future of European Social Citizenship)
Periodo di rendicontazione: 2022-08-01 al 2024-01-31
The EUSocialCit project speaks directly to the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR). Since its proclamation in 2017, the EPSR has become the backdrop for EU initiatives in the area of employment and social affairs, and the Commission’s instrument to deliver on its fundamental social objectives in the Communication on ‘A strong Social Europe for just transitions’.
Ultimately, building a more socially just Europe requires the development of a notion of what European social rights and European citizenship means. Also, with upward convergence of social rights in Europe being an explicit policy objective, it is necessary to address the enormous social differences between the EU member states as well. The EUSocialCit project provides scientific analysis in support of this challenge through five objectives:
1) Synthesize the debate on the rationale for stronger EU social citizenship and develop a novel, resource-based, multilevel concept of social rights
2) Understand the current state of social rights and their relationship to social outcomes and gaps in their functioning.
3) Diagnose the shortcomings of the existing institutional structure that generates undesirable outcomes in terms of empowerment, fair working conditions, social inclusion and gender equality.
4) Understand the social and political demand for change among citizens, their attitudes and preferences, and the constraints and opportunities these demands, attitudes and preferences create for advancing the EU social agenda.
5) Develop alternative policy scenarios to strengthen social rights an EU social citizenship, in particular to support the implementation of the EPSR.
Ultimately, building a more socially just Europe requires the development of a notion of what European social rights and European citizenship means. Also, with upward convergence of social rights in Europe being an explicit policy objective, it is necessary to address the enormous social differences between the EU member states as well. The EUSocialCit project provides scientific analysis in support of this challenge through five objectives:
1) Synthesize the debate on the rationale for stronger EU social citizenship and develop a novel, resource-based, multilevel concept of social rights
2) Understand the current state of social rights and their relationship to social outcomes and gaps in their functioning.
3) Diagnose the shortcomings of the existing institutional structure that generates undesirable outcomes in terms of empowerment, fair working conditions, social inclusion and gender equality.
4) Understand the social and political demand for change among citizens, their attitudes and preferences, and the constraints and opportunities these demands, attitudes and preferences create for advancing the EU social agenda.
5) Develop alternative policy scenarios to strengthen social rights an EU social citizenship, in particular to support the implementation of the EPSR.
1) Development of a new conceptualization of social rights and EU social citizenship and it empirical testing.
2) An empirical analysis of social investment policies, labour market policies and social protection policies as well as their effects.
3) An analysis of public opinion on Social Europe
4) A large number of report, articles, blogs and other publications, as well as conferences, seminars, summer schools and other events.
2) An empirical analysis of social investment policies, labour market policies and social protection policies as well as their effects.
3) An analysis of public opinion on Social Europe
4) A large number of report, articles, blogs and other publications, as well as conferences, seminars, summer schools and other events.
A first contribution is a new conceptualization of social rights and EU social citizenship. Social rights are conceptualized as bundles of three types of power resources that enable the right holder to concretely assert his/her right: normative, enforcement and instrumental power resources.
Where the first two types of power resources are traditionally seen as the two main elements of (social) rights, our conception includes also instrumental power resources, i.e. resources which facilitate effective access to benefits. Such resources are meant to assist individuals in overcoming obstacles that can prevent a right‐holder from accessing rights. They may include quality information and awareness raising, user‐friendly application procedures, practical help in filling out forms and engaging in direct contacts with pertinent administrations, guidance, counselling, mentoring, etc.
This conception of social rights first of all draws the attention to the actual access to social rights, a major problem across the EU. Instrumental resources can play a decisive role in improving access to social rights at four critical junctures: awareness about social rights and social benefits, claim making, acquisition of the benefit and problem solving. They are pivotal in shaping the outcomes of social rights in terms of, for example, poverty, employment or work-life balance.
Another advantage of this conception of social rights is that it helps us to picture and understand how, within the EU’s multi‐ level governance structure, social rights increasingly have multiple institutional anchors, with some resources developed at the EU level and others at the national or local levels, and some provided by social partners and other intermediary associations. This has led to the emergence of a new marble cake pattern of social rights’ production.
A second contribution concerns the lack of balance in the implementation of the EPSR. Of the 20 principles proclaimed in the EPSR, four refer to equal opportunities and access to the labour market, six refer to fair working conditions and 10 refer to social protection and inclusion. However, the accent in the implementation of the EPSR has been on the first two areas, where most new measures have been taken. Much less attention has been given to measures related to social protection and inclusion and in particular housing has been neglected.
The EPSR’s Action Plan has as one of its major goals to lift 15 million people out at risk of poverty or social exclusion. It is very unlikely that this goal will be reached as long as social protection and inclusion are not given proper attention.
A third contribution concerns public opinion. On the one hand, EuSocialCit shows that few EU citizens are aware of the social role played by the EU and of the EU social rights and social policies that exist. However, on the other hand, the abstract notion of Social Europe enjoys high levels of public support across the EU, albeit with substantial differences concerning what Social Europe should be about (e.g. harmonizing standards or promoting cross-border mobility) and who should enjoy benefits (all citizens or only those that have worked and contributed to society). Also, there is more support for EU level social investment policies or minimum income policies than for EU unemployment policy and preferences differ between socio-economic groups. Finally, there is quite some skepticism concerning the further development of Social Europe.
Fourthly, empirically, we produced new and innovative analyses on work-life balance, social investment, housing, the causal chains linking resources to outputs and to outcomes, the risk of social vulnerability at the old-age from a life-course perspective.
Where the first two types of power resources are traditionally seen as the two main elements of (social) rights, our conception includes also instrumental power resources, i.e. resources which facilitate effective access to benefits. Such resources are meant to assist individuals in overcoming obstacles that can prevent a right‐holder from accessing rights. They may include quality information and awareness raising, user‐friendly application procedures, practical help in filling out forms and engaging in direct contacts with pertinent administrations, guidance, counselling, mentoring, etc.
This conception of social rights first of all draws the attention to the actual access to social rights, a major problem across the EU. Instrumental resources can play a decisive role in improving access to social rights at four critical junctures: awareness about social rights and social benefits, claim making, acquisition of the benefit and problem solving. They are pivotal in shaping the outcomes of social rights in terms of, for example, poverty, employment or work-life balance.
Another advantage of this conception of social rights is that it helps us to picture and understand how, within the EU’s multi‐ level governance structure, social rights increasingly have multiple institutional anchors, with some resources developed at the EU level and others at the national or local levels, and some provided by social partners and other intermediary associations. This has led to the emergence of a new marble cake pattern of social rights’ production.
A second contribution concerns the lack of balance in the implementation of the EPSR. Of the 20 principles proclaimed in the EPSR, four refer to equal opportunities and access to the labour market, six refer to fair working conditions and 10 refer to social protection and inclusion. However, the accent in the implementation of the EPSR has been on the first two areas, where most new measures have been taken. Much less attention has been given to measures related to social protection and inclusion and in particular housing has been neglected.
The EPSR’s Action Plan has as one of its major goals to lift 15 million people out at risk of poverty or social exclusion. It is very unlikely that this goal will be reached as long as social protection and inclusion are not given proper attention.
A third contribution concerns public opinion. On the one hand, EuSocialCit shows that few EU citizens are aware of the social role played by the EU and of the EU social rights and social policies that exist. However, on the other hand, the abstract notion of Social Europe enjoys high levels of public support across the EU, albeit with substantial differences concerning what Social Europe should be about (e.g. harmonizing standards or promoting cross-border mobility) and who should enjoy benefits (all citizens or only those that have worked and contributed to society). Also, there is more support for EU level social investment policies or minimum income policies than for EU unemployment policy and preferences differ between socio-economic groups. Finally, there is quite some skepticism concerning the further development of Social Europe.
Fourthly, empirically, we produced new and innovative analyses on work-life balance, social investment, housing, the causal chains linking resources to outputs and to outcomes, the risk of social vulnerability at the old-age from a life-course perspective.