Download presentation
2020-01-27_Presentation_Vandenbroucke_Cologne

Conditionality reciprocity and deservingness in multilevel social policy: Evidence from a conjoint experiment on public support for European unemployment risk-sharing (*) EURS Frank Vandenbroucke Workshop ‘Measuring Solidarity’ 27-28 January 2020 Cologne Paper by Sharon Baute Francesco Nicoli www frankvandenbroucke uva nl A survey EU reinsurance: making people think… 13 Member States 19 641 respondents 2018 • Fixed points of all the policy packages: – disbursement MS is triggered significant increases that MS; used to subsidize national systems; common (minimum) floor generosity benefit levels participating countries Moving parts: (3); conditions w r t training education (2); between-country redistribution (3) => 324 packages taxation or administration job search effort dimension IPSOS Screen shot (repeated 3 times): Strongly favour Somewhat Neither nor against H1: Everything else equal higher generates stronger (generosity hypothesis) H2: stricter individual conditionality (conditionality H3: when package more generous positive effect (interaction 4 Perception unemployed (cf CARIN van Oorschot): Need : perceived standard living respondent’s country Control agreement with statement “Most do not try find job” Identity “How important you well-being following groups people? People other countries” 5 H4: impact less if consider as undeserving basis their need (H4a) control (H4b) identity (H4c) H5: (H5a) (H5b) (H5c) 6 Impact interaction (Table 1) The role attitudes 2) Average Marginal Component Effects (AMCEs) attributes (Figure B) H1 H2 at different 3) 10 D U left-right ideology relative income position I) hypothesis): Left-right also (both conditionality); 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% unconditional conditional Majority threshold

Download presentation
2019-12-11_Guest_lecture_Abraham_Vandenbroucke

The social dimension of European economic and monetary integration Puzzles paradoxes perspectives Frank Vandenbroucke Guest lecture in: Economics Integration – Prof Abraham 11 December 2019 the project according to founding fathers: a belief in convergence • would support simultaneous pursuit progress cohesion both within countries (through gradual development welfare states) between upward across Union) Initial division labour: development: supranational policy coordination security rights & anti-discrimination: national sovereignty (in theory) machine worked… more or less… until 2004/2008 US 1 4 EU27 3 2 0 9 8 7 6 5 Median income states (US ‘representative state’ = 1) EU Member States (EU MS’ A tragic dilemma enlarged heterogeneous EU)? Minimum wages what governments can do: net disposable couple with children one minimum-wage earner 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 LU IE AT FI UK DE FR NL DK BE IT SI EL CZ ES SK EE PL HU LT PT LV RO BG Net Gross wage Source: CSB/MIPI 2004-06 60 2012 50 40 30 20 10 Very high work intensity High Medium Low low Work household Bron: Eurostat SILC 2005-2007; 2013 Reconciling openness domestic Access benefits: general principle non- discrimination exception: posting workers Transparency coverage minimum regimes Division Design flaws De Grauwe Monetary Union 12th ed p 77 Macro-economic stabilisation: smoothing shocks: vs EMU 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% US: – federal tax-and-benefit system state-based unemployment insurance framework extensions Saving taxes transfers Factor capital depreciation Total smoothed 0% -10% 1979-1998 1999-2010 Furceri Zdzienicka Euro Area Crisis… IMF Working Paper Why are stabilization instruments centralized unions? Risk pooling when shocks asymmetric Even not without mechanisms including fiscal stabilizers union is fragile (via disruption government bond markets) Fiscal via re-insurance systems? Unemployment benefits stabilization: requirements for effectiveness: sufficiently generous notably short-term; sufficient rates benefit schemes; no labour market segmentation that leaves part force poorly insured; proliferation employment relations integrated into insurance; effective activation unemployed individuals; These principles become fortiori imperative if Eurozone be equipped systems: institutional moral hazard shared conception flexibility Labour institutions deliver on (effective collective bargaining) Cluster an adequate stabilisation capacity MS: insured against unemployment; systems individuals  Convergence some key features Pillar Social Rights Gothenburg Summit 17 November 2017 systemic level their functions (e g fair corporate taxation …) guide substantive standards objectives leaving ways means basis operational definition ‘the model’ cooperate explicit purpose pursuing pan-European based reciprocity union: puzzles Boone Marc; Deneckere Gita Tollebeek Jo (eds ) End Postwar Future Europe Essays Ian Buruma Verhandelingen van de KVAB voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten Nieuwe reeks 31 Uitgeverij Peeters Open at www frankvandenbroucke uva nl edition Oxford: Oxford University Press 2018 Zdziencicka Crisis: Need Supranational Sharing Mechanism ? 13/198 Reduction Moral Hazard: Vaccination Metaphor Intereconomics Vol 52 May/June Number pp 154-159 Rights: from promise delivery Introduction ‘European (ESU) public forum debate’ EuroVisions http://www euvisions eu/ Barnard Baere after Crisis Cambridge: Cambridge September https://doi org/10 1017/9781108235174 Introductory chapter item 263 Structural versus competition: limits diversity policies Economic ECFIN discussion paper 065 Commission Directorate-General Financial Affairs Brussels July http://ssrn com/abstract=3008621 All publications:

Download presentation
2020-02-10_Solidariteit_-in_Europa_Les_21ste_eeuw_Vandenbroucke

Solidariteit in Europa: wetenschappelijk inzicht en politiek meningsverschil Lessen voor de 21ste eeuw KULeuven 10 februari 2020 Frank Vandenbroucke Universiteit van Amsterdam www frankvandenbroucke uva nl ? De EU herverzekert nationale werkloosheidsverzekeringen lidstaten: goed of slecht idee? • Pro: – Onderlinge verzekering is economisch noodzakelijk een muntunie moet ook sociaal gelaat tonen (waardeoordeel) Contra: Landen moeten zelf orde op zaken stellen: ‘transferunie’ => moral hazard komt best niet tussen gevoelige domeinen nationaal beleid = middelen met elkaar delen om mensen die door ongunstige omstandigheden benadeeld zijn te ondersteunen; ondersteuning laat toe het nadeel dat deze lijden geheel gedeeltelijk compenseren Samenleving neemt collectieve verantwoordelijkheid Verzekering: toekomstige risico’s Zuivere verzekering: gelijke risicoprofielen iedereen wint Herverdeling: geen maar eigenschappen Voorbeeld: progressieve belastingen inkomen Bij spreekt verstand bij herverdeling hart (?) Markten falen asymmetrische informatie: verplichte algemene aansluiting dus laag ziekterisico hoog kan noodzakelijke voorwaarde werkende ziekteverzekering Mix cement Gevoeligheid  obsessie ‘Verantwoordelijkheid’ altijd passende criterium kinderen grote kwetsbaarheid Moral minimaal onvermijdelijk Bron: Grauwe (2012) p 129 (eigen bewerking) Welvaartsstaten muntunie: evoluerend (2018) Figuur 4 9 86 7 8 Werkloosheidsuitkeringen efficiënte stabilisator Externaliteit (cf vaccinatie): inzake werkloosheid helpt men zichzelf buren Zinvolle arbeidsmarktflexibiliteit goede werkloosheidsverzekering sporen samen: veerkracht dankzij bescherming & aanpassingsvermogen Stroomlijnen beperken  Een combinatie economische (‘functionele’) argumenten waardeoordelen Is er draagvlak dergelijke solidariteit EU? Peiling 19 500 Europeanen 13 landen; uitgangspunten: 1) lidstaat ontvangt Europese steun wanneer ze geconfronteerd wordt aanzienlijke stijging 2) gebruikt werkloosheidsuitkeringen subsidiëren 3) gemeenschappelijk minimumniveau (een bodem) alle lidstaten Varianten: Generositeit (3 varianten) Vorming opleiding werklozen (2 Herverdeling landen 4) Belastingen 5) Uitvoering 6) Inspanningen werk zoeken 324 formules Gemiddelde zien krijgen 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 90% 80% 70% Steun haalbare respondenten (13 landen) Voorstanders verhouding tot voor- tegenstanders (‘neutralen’ meegeteld) hele groep Formule 1 2 3 Laag minimum (40% laatste loon) bijkomende Hoog (70% omhoog 0 5% binnen land (alleen rijkere inwoners betalen extra belasting) (belasting alleen rijken) Alle ontwerpen: onderwijs aanbieden uitvoering baan aanvaarden verliezen uitkering Belgische Fundamentele oppositie tegen risicodeling beperkt klein segment bevolking concrete modaliteiten belangrijk: onze geven over algemeen voorkeur aan meer genereus vereisen deelnemende onderwijs- opleidingskansen leiden belastingverhoging voorwaarden koppelen werkloosheidsuitkering Genereuze kunnen vinden meerderheid we onderzochten zelfs indien voorstel zou verhoging In sommige eventuele belasting (indien zijn) gepaard gaan rijke naar armere opdat voldoende verwerven meeste groter gedecentraliseerd wordt: opteert herverzekering uitkeringsstelsels ondersteunt budgettaire transfers Discussie beleidsmakers bezig houdt vraag hoeveel ruimte mag structurele lijkt minder belangrijk Voorwaarden zoals hoe activering uitkeringen gekoppeld worden leggen gewicht schaal publiek forDmeulkeossdtipervijosovrwaanaprdoelnakriospapteiele:n‘eaann-edne’wiservkaloaokshineitdesrueitsksearinntge r dan ‘of-of’ GeWneireeumzeefnosremnulleasakturnendeennsteeruennv inkdriejgn tbeij eenenwmaeaeiredrerahaenidriendaellelijlkaendsetnandidepwuenotendne rzochten heMrvearadre:lin‘fgravamnirnijgke’ ennaalraanrgmee-rteeirnmwoijnneprseorpsdpaetchteietfvoziojrnstbeel vlaolndgoreinjkd e P The Economics Monetary Union 9th Edition Oxford: Oxford University Press 12th F (2017) Risk Reduction Sharing and Hazard: A Vaccination Metaphor Intereconomics Vol 52 May/June Number pp 154-159 C Barnard G Baere (eds ) European Social After the Crisis Cambridge: Cambridge B Burgoon Th Kuhn Nicoli S Sacchi D der Duin Hegewald When Unemployment Hits: How Policy Design Influences Citizen Support For (EURS) AISSR Report (December) Vandevelde Het geweld geld Op zoek ziel economie Leuven: LannooCampus hoofdstuk 5 Ch Luigjes (2016) Institutional multi-tiered regulation unemployment social assistance benefits activation summary eight country case studies Brussel: Centre for Studies

Download fulltext
2020-01-23_Presentation_Vandenbroucke_EURS_Berlin

Risk Sharing When Unemployment Hits: How Policy Design Influences Citizen Support For European (EURS) BMAS (Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs) Berlin 23 1 2020 Frank Vandenbroucke University Amsterdam Introduction • Brian Burgoon Theresa Kuhn Francesco Nicoli Stefano Sacchi David van der Duin Sven Hegewald 2018 AISSR Report (December) Zusammenfassung: Grenzüberschreitende Solidarität Bei Beschäftigungskrisen: Wie Politikgestaltung Die Öffentliche Zustimmung Hinsichtlich Der Risikoteilung Erhöhter Arbeitslosigkeit Unter Den Bürgern Europas Beeinflusst  Why conduct a survey on public support for cross-border risk sharing? Our methodology: experiment with ‘conjoint analysis’ A experiment: making people think… Fixed points all the policy packages: – disbursement EU MS is triggered by significant increases in unemployment that MS; used to subsidize national systems; common (minimum) floor generosity benefit levels participating countries Moving parts: (3); conditions w r t training education (2); between-country redistribution (3) => 324 packages Taxation or administration job search effort dimension IPSOS Screen shot: Strongly favour Somewhat Neither nor against 60% Mean seen respondents 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 90% 80% 70% selected 13 member states % expressing ‘neutrals’ excluded neutrals included Package 2 3 4 Low (40% last wage) no tax increase High (70% laatste loon) taxes 0 5% income everyone (70%) within country (extra only rich) between All must provide adequate unemployed accept loose their benefit; implementation Germany France Conclusions Fundamental opposition EURS confined small segment population Citizens are sensitive design Generous can carry majorities each our sample even if generous package would require additional taxation In some domestic from rich poor eventual burden (if there be burden) necessary rally sufficient most larger decentralized associated social investment policies: conditionality key garner debate exercises community lot i e question how tolerant scheme should regard structural seems less important citizens when they express preferences than policymakers This not say such debates important; but other issues as activation requirements seem more weight citizens’ judgment More references Luigjes Fischer & The US Insurance Scheme: Model EU? Intereconomics Volume 54 September/October 2019 Number 5 pp 314-318 Pillar Rights: promise delivery in: Maurizio Ferrera (ed ) Towards Union Rights Roadmap fully-fledged Forum Torino Centro di Ricerca Documentazione Luigi Einaudi 2-11 new Commission convince alive kicking 169-176 self-critical flashback EU’s anti-poverty Bea Cantillon Tim Goedemé John Hills Decent incomes Improving policies Europe Oxford: Oxford Press 9-17 Barnard De Baere (eds after Crisis Cambridge: Cambridge September 2017 Reduction Moral Hazard: Vaccination Metaphor Vol 52 May/June 154-159 On (Re-)Insurance: Beblavy Lenaerts K Feasibility Added Value Benefit Scheme CEPS 10 February + Section notably footnotes 11 12 Appendix AMCE per country: examples (1) (2) Figure 14: Predicted Vote Sample Packages Pooled (13 countries) T 00 bJ) Q ·_p bJ)O i: j Intemally consistent u c—- – MOST POPULAR: LEAST LOW FLOOR: HIGH FLOOR BUT WITH wage NO REDIST : DOMEST IN&BTWN Must train /educate No t:rain/educate las Redist rich-to-poor redist train/educate costs Some btwn cnt:Iy Nationa l achn Eurnpean ach1ün Natio nal achnin 1% offer effmt National achni n

Download presentation
2019-07-12_EU_Social_Policies_Summer_school_KULeuven

The EU and social policy Frank Vandenbroucke University of Amsterdam Summer School KULeuven 12 July 2019 Inequality in Europe the USA compared US 1 4 EU27 3 2 0 9 8 7 6 5 Median income states (US ‘representative state’ = 1) Member States (EU MS’ European distribution: a moving scale Romania Denmark Top quintile 25% =>36% 123% =>125% 23% => 35% 132% =>132% 21% =>33% 139% =>136% 17% 28% 144% diversity welfare Input: expenditure on protection gross % GDP (2016) 35 30 25 20 15 10 FR FI DK AT BE SE IT NL GE GR UK PT ES SI LU CR PL CY HU CZ SK BG EE MT IE LT LV RO old age & survivors Sickness/Health Care Unemployment Disability Family/children Housing Social Inclusion n e c Other adm costs Output: two-dimensional map 24 22 18 16 14 44 49 54 59 64 69 Employment Rates 2016 (population 15-74) states: poverty Poverty risk threshold: “national” conception (SILC 2017) 000 AROP total population SILC 2017 threshold PPP performance dimension project according to founding fathers: belief convergence • integration would support simultaneous pursuit economic progress cohesion both within countries (through gradual development states) between upward across Union) Initial division labour: – development: supranational coordination security rights anti-discrimination: national sovereignty (in theory) machine worked… more or less… until 2004/2008 A tragic dilemma enlarged heterogeneous EU? Monthly minimum wages: disparity but East-West 500 2004 Reconciling openness domestic cohesion: political challenge Openness mobility must not exert downward pressure level (minimum wages entitlements assistance) Access benefits: general principle non-discrimination exception: posting workers We do see ‘benefit tourism’ Posting needed reform Transparency coverage wage regimes Minimum what governments can do: net disposable couple with children one minimum-wage earner 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 DE EL Net Gross Source: CSB/MIPI risks < 60 by work intensity household 70 50 40 Very high High Medium Low low Work 2004-06 Bron: Eurostat 2005-2007; year T refers observation T-1 except for Increasing inequality poverty: diagnosis lessons There is no one-size-fits-all explanation hence silver bullet tackle increasing inequalities need set complementary strategies instruments that improve employment perspectives households weak attachment labour market Improving our human capital requires child-centred investment strategy addresses opportunities should promote policies (Vandenbroucke Rinaldi) Division EU)? Design flaws EMU as an insurance union: vaccination metaphor Why are stabilization centralized monetary unions? Risk sharing (pooling) Externalities public good (vaccination) Vaccination: compulsory requirements) subsidized (re-insurance) requirements effective stabilisation capacity: sufficiently generous unemployment benefits notably short-term; sufficient rates benefit schemes; segmentation leaves part force poorly insured; proliferation relations integrated into insurance; activation unemployed individuals; budgetary buffers times so automatic stabilisers their bad These principles become fortiori imperative if Eurozone be equipped re-insurance systems: institutional moral hazard EMU: needs common standards resilient shared flexibility Labour institutions deliver (effective collective bargaining) Cluster adequate capacity MS: insured against unemployment; systems individuals  Convergence some key features Pillar Rights Gothenburg Summit 17 November How Rights? Clear priorities Credible roadmap combining… legislation Policy benchmarking Funding (tangible MS) Mainstreaming fiscal surveillance Semester Completing union Union systemic functions (e g fair corporate taxation …) guide substantive via objectives leaving ways means basis operational definition ‘the model’ cooperate explicit purpose pursuing pan-European based reciprocity Resources (1) Addressing Global Inequality: Is Part Equation? in: Diamond (ed) Crisis Globalization: Democracy Capitalism Twenty-First Century I B Tauris London New York pp 235-258 (download www frankvandenbroucke uva nl) 2) puzzles paradoxes Boone Marc; Deneckere Gita Tollebeek Jo (eds ) End Postwar Future - Essays Ian Buruma Verhandelingen van de KVAB voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten Nieuwe reeks 31 Uitgeverij Peeters 2017; download nl 3) Rinaldi In: Vision Consortium ): Redesigning Ways forward Gütersloh http://www vision-europe-summit eu/ (2) 4) cross-border Sticking may yield better practical results everybody Tribune Notre Institut Jacques Delors June 5) Barnard De Baere after Cambridge: Cambridge Press September https://doi org/10 1017/9781108235174 (Introductory chapter Open item 263) 6) Commission Recommendation COM(2017) 2600 final 7) Rights: from promise delivery –Introduction ‘European (ESU) forum debate’ EuroVisions December 2018 + other contributions this debate: euvisions frankvandenbroucke_uva

Download presentation
2019-07-03_Summer-course_CoE

Domestic social cohesion and cross-border mobility: a tragic dilemma? Summer Course College of Europe 3 July 2019 Frank Vandenbroucke University Amsterdam www frankvandenbroucke uva nl • Historical perspective Mobility migration: facts on labour mobility Intra-EU principles policies EU integration the national welfare states The European Pillar Social Rights dimension project according to founding fathers: belief in convergence would support simultaneous pursuit economic progress both within countries (through gradual development states) between upward across Union) Initial division labour: – development: supranational coordination security rights & anti-discrimination: sovereignty (in theory) machine worked… more or less… until 2004/2008 Source: Lefebvre Pestieau A dilemma enlarged heterogeneous EU? US 1 4 EU27 2 0 9 8 7 6 5 Median income (US ‘representative state’ = 1) Member States (EU MS’ Romania Denmark Top quintile 32% 133% 30% 140% 28% 145% 23% 152% 500 000 BG RO LV LT SK EE PL HU CZ PT SI ES MT GR UK IE BE FR NL LU GE CR 2004 PPP We must distinguish: internal external debate framed ‘rights’ ‘consequences’: fairness terms consequences for sending receiving economically active non-active short-term long-term impacts individual as whole migration 90 80 70 60 50 40 EU28 30 20 10 Native-born EU-15 EU-10 EU-3 TCN Netherlands Italy Belgium How can we justify free movement? 2) non-discriminatory access benefits those who move? 3) difference citizens application (1) (2) sense ‘earned’ citizenship? movement non-discrimination (for workers)? citizenship ↄ formal equality employment opportunities An integrated market services needs ‘posting’ ‘free workers’ be fair Non-discrimination justifies sustains principle that do not tolerate competition different systems one territory I argue two complementary logics apply legitimately with regard if they are applied conjointly: Economically have right take up borders basis ‘earn’ all State where work including protection against involuntary inactivity (unemployment illness) citizen cannot simply rely any his (or her) choice: nationality determines which is first foremost responsible Under carefully delineated conditions another he has no bond allowed say citizen’s create an ‘unreasonable burden’ its state (these substantiate absence real link host was exercised solely order benefit from state’s assistance) In contrast it ‘unreasonable’ provide adequate whatever causes their vulnerability dependence Fair rights) ‘balancing act’ implies coherent regulatory agenda: Enforcement Posting exception ‘normal rule’ Transparency coverage minimum wage Industrial relations trade union action (Viking Laval) Directive measures facilitate exercise conferred workers context freedom (Directive 2014/54) Seasonal Workers’ (2014/36) Intra-Corporate Transferees (2014/66) Professional Qualifications (2013/55) Posting: (2014); Revision (2018) Labour Authority “posted worker” employee sent by employer carry out service temporary contract intra-group posting hiring through agency example provider may win country send employees there contract) Posted mobile remain only temporarily integrate go seek employed entitled equal treatment nationals working other tax ) Even though posted still company subject law set core force rates pay; maximum periods rest periods; paid annual leave; agencies; health safety hygiene at work; men women However does whenever applicable worker accordance rules favourable than result 2014 adopted aim strengthen practical addressing issues related fraud circumvention inspections monitoring joint liability subcontracting chains exchange information June 2018 revision Workers adopted; main changes: mandatory elements remuneration (instead “minimum pay”); accommodation allowances reimbursement expenses during assignment; postings (longer 12 18 months) extended transposed into laws 2020 Road transport: ‘Lex Specialis’ Council position: December EP April 2019: Clear drivers’ pay times Three-day limit cabotage operations Fewer but better controls roadside checks Adopted 13 2019; tasks: improving employers obligations cases coordination; supporting member enforcement relevant Union facilitating concerted inspections; cooperation tackling undeclared assisting authorities resolving disputes; without prejudice competences Administrative Commission Coordination Security Systems ELA will enhance violations exploitation able report them cooperate concerned It also carrying-out tackle irregularities These place either request agree ELA’s suggestion Follow-up taken level requires Fairness consequences): long- term common interest ‘brain overflow’ rather waste’ Valorisation human capital hindered segmented markets intergenerational inadequate education training institutions Minimum wages what governments do: net disposable couple children minimum-wage earner 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 AT FI DE DK IT EL Net Gross CSB/MIPI household Very high intensity High Medium Low low Work 2004-06 2016 Bron: Eurostat SILC 2005-2007; 2017 year T refers observation T-1 except Division policy EU)? Design flaws Why stabilization instruments centralized monetary unions? Risk sharing (pooling) Externalities public good (vaccination) Vaccination: compulsory (minimum requirements) subsidized (re-insurance) requirements effective stabilisation capacity: sufficiently generous unemployment notably short-term; sufficient schemes; segmentation leaves part poorly insured; proliferation insurance; activation unemployed individuals; budgetary buffers so automatic stabilisers bad become fortiori imperative Eurozone equipped re-insurance insurance systems: institutional moral hazard shared conception flexibility deliver (effective collective bargaining) Cluster capacity MS: insured unemployment; individuals  Convergence some key features Gothenburg Summit 17 November priorities Credible roadmap combining… legislation Policy benchmarking Funding (tangible MS) Mainstreaming fiscal surveillance Semester Completing EMU systemic functions (e g corporate taxation …) guide substantive via general standards objectives leaving ways means operational definition ‘the model’ explicit purpose pursuing pan-European based reciprocity Resources: see Outline References presentation Addressing Global Inequality: Is Part Equation? in: Diamond (ed) Crisis Globalization: Democracy Capitalism Inequality Twenty-First Century B Tauris London New York pp 235-258 (download nl) L’État-Providence en Performance et dumping Cepremap Éditions Rue d’Ulm 2012 ESDE ‘Mobility EU: Opportunities challenges’ Chapter II Employment Developments 2015 4) union: puzzles paradoxes perspectives Boone Marc; Deneckere Gita Tollebeek Jo (eds End Postwar Future – Essays Ian Buruma Verhandelingen van de KVAB voor Wetenschappen Kunsten Nieuwe reeks 31 Uitgeverij Peeters 2017; download 5) Rinaldi inequalities challenge In: Vision Consortium ): Redesigning Ways forward Gütersloh (http://www vision-europe-summit eu/) 6) Sticking yield results everybody Tribune Notre Institut Jacques Delors 7) Barnard De Baere after Cambridge: Cambridge Press September https://doi org/10 1017/9781108235174 (Introductory chapter Open Access item 263) 8) Recommendation COM(2017) 2600 final 9) Rights: promise delivery –Introduction ‘European (ESU) forum debate’ EuroVisions + contributions this debate: http://www euvisions eu/ frankvandenbroucke_uva

Download presentation
Table_Ronde_SEDS_Assemblée_Nationale_19.6.2019

Table-ronde sur le socle européen des droits sociaux Commission affaires européennes Assemblée Nationale Intervention de Frank Vandenbroucke Université d’Amsterdam Le (SEDS) Pourrait marquer un tournant dans développement la dimension sociale du projet Mais présente aussi risque: proclamation solennelle SEDS doit être traduite en mesures concrètes sous peine d’amplifier frustration à l’égard Il faut une feuille route avec priorités bien définies 3 domaines clés: – Promouvoir convergence ascendante les normes et performances sociales Garantir mobilité équitable citoyens Investir capital humain utiliser tous instruments dont dispose l’UE: législation coordination politiques l’emploi (Semestre européen) soutien financier (rôle Fonds d’autres financiers) Convergence Une nécessité pour bon fonctionnement l’union monétaire: flexibilité + stabilité assurance chômage suffisamment généreuse taux couverture adéquats ; pas segmentation marché travail notamment limitant prolifération relations qui ne sont intégrées systèmes protection activation effective chômeurs; … salaires négociation collective coordonnée unique Mobilité Autorité européenne Salaires minimum Perspective: ‘Union Sociale européenne’ analyse claire rôle que jouer l’UE domaine Union ≠ État-providence soutiendrait États-providence nationaux au niveau systémique certaines leurs fonctions clés (stabilité via mécanismes réassurance limites concurrence fiscale …) orienterait substantiel définissant objectifs généraux tandis qu’elle laisserait aux Etats membres responsabilité mise œuvre politique s’appuyant définition opérationnelle ‘Modèle social européen’ Réassurance européen: public formules sélectionnées cohérentes France 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Formule 1 2 4 Part répondants favorables sans compter neutres comptant toutes réponses SEUIL BAS ÉLEVÉ & AUCUNE REDISTRIBUTION 5 NATIONALE 6 ET ENTRE PAYS Références Fernandes « Europe : slogan réalité » in Thierry Chopin Michel Foucher (dir ) Rapport Schuman l’Europe L’état l’Union 2018 Lignes repères The European Pillar of Social Rights: from promise to delivery –Introduction the ‘European (ESU) forum debate’ EuroVisions December Nicoli ce qu’en pensent vraiment Notre Institut Jacques Delors Décryptage ‘Europe tous’ 13 février 2019 Barnard De Baere (eds A after Crisis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press September 2017 Politique union puzzles paradoxes perspectives Revue Belge Sécurité 58 (1/2016) pp 7-38 Ragot Civiliser Capitalisme Crise libéralisme retour Fayard www frankvandenbroucke uva nl

Download presentation
2019-06-17_Den_Haag_Europese_burger

Wat beweegt de Europese burger? Een onderzoek naar het draagvlak voor sociaaleconomische solidariteit Collegereeks Europa ProDemos Frank Vandenbroucke Universiteit van Amsterdam Den Haag, 17 juni 2019 • De founding fathers geloofden in opwaartse convergentie – Economisch beleid: Europees Sociaal nationaal Coördinatie sociale zekerheidsrechten: non-discriminatie Deze optimistische hypothese klopt niet meer sinds midden jaren 2000: groeiende ongelijkheid binnen en tussen lidstaten Oorzaken? tragisch dilemma? Verlies aan beleidsvermogen: een muntunie zonder schokdempers EMU: stabiliteit, soevereiniteit Muntunies organiseren risicospreiding, met oog op stabiliteit: EMU als ‘verzekeringsunie’: ‘schokfonds’ om landen moeilijkheden tijdelijk te helpen? Herverzekering nationale werkloosheidsverzekering? Paradox: VSA consolideren zwakke solidariteitsmechanismen staten federale niveau; EU lukt er sterke ondersteunen niveau. Vertrouwen instellingen Wantrouwen t.a.v. huidige politieke leiders Is lidmaatschap goede zaak Peiling bij 19.500 Europeanen 13 landen; uitgangspunten: 1) lidstaat ontvangt steun wanneer ze geconfronteerd wordt aanzienlijke stijging werkloosheid. 2) gebruikt werkloosheidsuitkeringen subsidiëren. 3) gemeenschappelijk minimumniveau (een bodem) alle lidstaten. Varianten: Generositeit (3 varianten) Vorming opleiding werklozen (2 Herverdeling 4) Belastingen 5) Uitvoering 6) Inspanningen werk zoeken 324 formules 60% Gemiddelde die mensen zien krijgen 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 90% 80% 70% Formule 1 2 3 4 Voorstanders verhouding tot voor- tegenstanders (‘neutralen’ meegeteld) hele groep Laag minimum (40% laatste loon), geen bijkomende belastingen Hoog (70% omhoog 0,5% inkomen iedereen minimum, herverdeling land (alleen rijkere inwoners betalen extra belasting) (belasting alleen rijken) Alle ontwerpen: moeten onderwijs aanbieden, uitvoering door zelf, passende baan aanvaarden of verliezen uitkering Fundamentele oppositie tegen risicodeling is beperkt klein segment bevolking. concrete modaliteiten zijn belangrijk: onze respondenten geven over algemeen voorkeur genereus zijn, vereisen dat deelnemende onderwijs- opleidingskansen aanbieden werklozen, leiden belastingverhoging, voorwaarden koppelen werkloosheidsuitkering. Genereuze kunnen vinden meerderheid we onderzochten, zelfs indien voorstel zou verhoging belastingen. In sommige moet eventuele belasting (indien zijn) gepaard gaan rijke armere opdat voldoende verwerven. meeste groter gedecentraliseerd wordt: men opteert best herverzekering uitkeringsstelsels ondersteunt budgettaire transfers. Discussie beleidsmakers bezig houdt, nl. vraag hoeveel ruimte mag structurele middelen landen, lijkt minder belangrijk. Andere kwesties zoals hoe opleiding, activering uitkeringen gekoppeld worden leggen gewicht schaal grote publiek. Vandenbroucke, Burgoon, Kuhn, Nicoli, Sacchi, der Duin & Hegewald, Grensoverschrijdende werkloosheid stijgt: invloed alternatieve beleidsontwerpen houding burgers ten aanzien europese inzake , AISSR Policy Report 1, 11.12.2018. http://aissr.uva.nl/content/news/2018/12/eurs.html?origin=%2ByxIdW4bRwCjN8rZP%2BdJdA Er solidariteit, S&D Jg. 76 Nr. Februari 2019, pp. 34-42. https://www.wbs.nl/publicaties/er-draagvlak-voor-europese-solidariteit beleid muntunie: puzzels, paradoxen perspectieven, Belgisch Tijdschrift Sociale Zekerheid, 58 (1/2016), 5-35. https://www.frankvandenbroucke.be/sociaal-beleid-in-een-muntunie-puzzels-paradoxen-en- perspectieven-3/ Coene, Armoedebestrijding Unie, in: Raeymaeckers, Hubeau, Goedemé, Remmen Van Haarlem (red.) Armoede uitsluiting, Jaarboek 2018, Leuven/Den Haag: Acco, 75-104. https://www.uantwerpen.be/images/uantwerpen/container34686/files/Jaarboek%20Armoede %20en%20Sociale%20Uitsluiting%202018_binnenwerk_WEB_16-11-2018.pdf www.frankvandenbroucke.uva.nl