The European social model: its social and political values

Francine Mestrum

The ‘European social model’ has been a highly discussed topic for a couple of years. The most urgent question we should try to answer concerns the existence of such a ‘model’. Is it reality or is it a mystifying discourse? It goes without saying that the Western European countries have systems of social protection that no other countries have ever developed, neither rich countries like the United States, nor the poor developing countries. However, listening to the European discourse on the Lisbon process and the ‘modernisation’ of social protection, combined to national practices of restricting social rights and allowances, one can rightly fear that all references to this ‘social model’ are nothing else than an attempt to dismantle social security.

I want to argue that in spite of all differences between western European countries, and despite a progressive dismantling of social rights, a ‘European social model’ exists and deserves to be upheld. All reforms that are currently under way should respect its principles if one wants them to be accepted by workers, retired, sick and young people. Some reforms are indeed necessary because of the huge societal and economic changes of the past decades. Hence, we have to look at the major characteristics of this ‘social model’ in order to decide on the direction to be taken in the future.

Social security was introduced at the end of the 19th century. It was the result of a class conflict, the resistance to the impoverishment of workers in the emerging manufacturing industries. But it was also a result of an understanding of employers that a stabilised working force could be helpful, and of the consciousness of states that it was in their interest to have a healthy population, able to work and to go to war. This social security slowly developed and became a ‘welfare state’ after the Second World War, thanks to the actions of the growing trade unions.

In spite of all the differences between the principles of Bismarck and Beveridge, and in spite of all the ‘mixed systems’, I want to argue that all western European welfare states are based on three major common characteristics.

Social citizenship: according to T.H. Marshall, social citizenship completes civil and political citizenship. Its major principle is equality. In the 20th century and contrary to earlier times, inequality was not seen anymore as a normal fact of life that one should accept. The equality of social citizenship is not synonymous with equal incomes, but it considers all human beings as being equal before the law and for political, economic and social rights. This thinking on equality has inspired all texts on human rights, including the treaty on social, economic and cultural rights.

Protection against the market: the equality of citizenship requires a protection against the vicissitudes of markets. Those who lose their job or who have low incomes need access to allowances and to public services. Markets should not decide on whether human beings are allowed to survive or not. This protection against the market does not exclude markets to function, but it excludes human beings to be their victims.

Decommodification of certain goods: if human beings need access to basic goods and services in order to have a decent social life, certain goods cannot be left to the market. Once again, this does not exclude markets to function, but it makes it impossible for human beings to be deprived of education or health services because of their economic situation. This decommodification makes economic inequalities politically inoperative. It is not one’s income level that decides on the access to basic services or to political rights, but the rights of citizenship.

These three principles underpin all welfare states in Western Europe. They are different from the United States system, which is based on needs. They are different from the social systems of the former Soviet bloc, which were based on the elimination of the market. Western Europe’s systems combine economic and social development in a positive interaction. This was also its success, for workers as well as for employers who were only too happy to see the purchasing power of the working population improve. It is also this model that was introduced – in a limited way – in the context of the development project for poor countries.

Today, this social model is questioned. Reforms are needed. In the third world, the ‘Washington consensus’ has been completed with a ‘poverty reduction strategy’, incompatible with the existing social protection. Aid now has to go to the ‘poorest’, abandoning all ideas of universality and equality. In rich countries, society and the economy have changed considerably. The ‘breadwinner’s model’ of one wage earner per family is no longer valid. Women have entered the labour market and youngsters accept all kinds of jobs. Here, in a similar way as in the third world, the informal economy is growing. Retirement age has lowered whereas people live longer. Moreover, the opening of borders (‘globalisation’) has put workers and countries in competition with other workers and other countries. Technological changes, new needs and a more individual approach all point to the necessity of reforming our ‘social models’. Even if the social protection of Western Europe remains important, more and more people are exposed to a serious risk of poverty. A dual society is slowly emerging. Combined to the phenomenon of wealthy people who no longer need the protection of citizenship – the ‘globalised’ rich –, these developments make reforms inevitable. However, what we need is very different from what is proposed in the context of the ‘Lisbon agenda’. Purely liberalising the labour market and progressively shifting towards an equality of opportunity that makes poverty coterminous with discrimination, cannot offer the same security to people. We need a new kind of social protection, a model that can be exported to the third world and goes beyond the ‘risk management’ that the World Bank is now proposing. All reforms will have to respect the three abovementioned principles.

To give a couple of examples that are far from being complete, one could think of reforms in the following way:
* a new European social charter, in line with the International Treaty on economic, social and cultural rights and with the Social Charter of the Council of Europe
* minimum wages in the European Union, according to the GNI of each member state
* a structural solidarity between the member states of the EU with criteria for social convergence
* full employment policies with a major role for social economy, also at macro-economic level
* an integration of the informal economy within the formal economy, in order to avoid fraud and ‘working poor’
* a European social inspection
* a debate on the division of labour, at national, European and global level; it is absurd to ask for a higher employment rate when there are no jobs available. Distributing the socially necessary labour will lead to a generalized reduction of working time
* a debate on a system of global public goods, socially as well as ecologically
* reforms that are in line with ILO’s ‘economic security’

All reforms will have to be based on the need for material and non material redistribution. With material redistribution, I refer to incomes, in order to avoid that certain people concentrate all wealth with the aim of having more power. Non material redistribution refers to an ecologically sustainable development which is necessary for the South and the North, for the rich and the poor, for today’s and for future generations. This is necessary in order to survive.

A social protection based on citizenship, universality and decommodification will need a just tax system, at a national, a European and a global level. At national and European level, this supposes the creation of an asset register and a capital gains tax. At the global level, we cannot be happy with the recently introduced air ticket tax, but we continue to demand a Tobin tax on currency transactions as well as ecological taxes.

It will be clear that this European social model will not be saved without strong social movements. Trade unions will have to play a major role. Social movements are not conservative; on the contrary, they are open to reforms and changes as long as they can strengthen people’s protection. All movements will have to strengthen their alliances in order to stop the neoliberal reforms.

Finally, we should not forget the importance of social protection for what is its only alternative, namely a police or military protection.

All societies need some kind of protection. We have learned from Karl Polanyi that the market destroys societies and that, logically, they try to defend themselves. When they are faced with social insecurity or insecurity as such, people only have two possibilities to choose from: a social protection that can give them hope for the future, or a police or military protection, that can further polarise society. It is a choice between a hobbesian society, with a war of all against all, or a lockean society where the collective capital of the welfare state offers security and creates a new dynamics. In the past twenty years, we have seen, globally, that social protection is being dismantled and that wars, conflicts and violence are emerging. This is the context from which the extreme right is reaping profit. This is the choice all societies are faced with.

And that is why I think that we should defend our social values, which are also political values.

Francine Mestrum can be contacted at mestrum@skynet.be