In March 2010, the European Commission published the responses to its public consultation about a new ‘Europe 2020’ strategy as a successor to the 2000–2010 Lisbon Strategy. Among the 1,500 submissions were many critical statements by social non-governmental organisations, trade unions and centre-left parties arguing that the Commission’s draft plan did not develop the EU’s social dimension appropriately and repeated many mistakes of its predecessor strategy.
The public consultation on the new Europe 2020 strategy was launched on 24 November 2009 and was officially closed on 15 January 2010. The European Commission received about 1,500 statements from Member States, social partners, other stakeholders, citizens and from a number of non-EU stakeholders and countries. On 4 March 2010, the European Commission published an overview (131Kb PDF) of these responses.
Main criticisms of Europe 2020 strategy
A considerable number of the responses, mainly from social non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions and centre-left parties, complained about an insufficient elaboration of the new strategy’s social dimension. Social NGOs and trade unions acknowledge the emphasis that the Commission’s plan puts on ‘social Europe’ and objectives such as social inclusion, combating poverty, gender equality and job quality. However, they argue that the actions proposed by the Commission are inappropriate to fulfil these objectives. The French member of the European Parliament (MEP), Pervenche Berès, Head of the European Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, in an interview with the news service EurActiv even states that the plan pays ‘nothing more than minimal lip service to the fight against poverty and social exclusion’.
Overemphasis on short-term exit strategy
A common criticism concerns the proposed ‘exit strategy’ for the current economic crisis. Instead of using the crisis as an opportunity to readjust shortcomings that have led to the predicament, it is argued that the Commission’s proposal overemphasises short-term economic recovery at the expense of long-term objectives such as welfare, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. According to the responses of trade unions and NGOs, the exit strategy should draw real lessons from the economic crisis and address the causes of the crash – that is, the unregulated financial markets, social inequalities, growing divergences within the EU and global imbalances.
Economy as a means to an end rather than an end in itself
The Social Platform, a network of 42 social NGOs, concludes that the actions outlined in the Commission’s proposal are not appropriate to contribute to social cohesion, to tackle unemployment and to foster social inclusion. In its response (92Kb PDF), the Social Platform puts forward proposals on how to ensure that ‘social, economic and environmental objectives go hand in hand’:
1. Go beyond a short-term exit strategy: transform the EU economic strategy to serve people and planet.
2. Go beyond jobs as the only social answer: put your commitment to fight poverty into practice and propose a European strategy to reinforce social protection, and guarantee access to services and minimum income for all.
3. Go beyond flexibility and self-employment: propose a European Employment Strategy that genuinely contributes to more quality jobs for all.
4. Go beyond a vision of people as mere consumers: make participation, citizenship and fundamental rights matter.
The Social Platform sees the main defect of the Commission’s proposal in the priority of growth and competitiveness while ‘employment, social cohesion, education or even ecological solutions are thought as tools to promote the competitiveness of Europe in the world’. On the contrary, economy should be ‘a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.’ In a similar way, the social inclusion strategy is criticised as being ‘only addressed through the narrow prism of employment’, excluding, from the start, people who do not access employment – for example, persons with severe disabilities or retired people. The Social Platform is also concerned about the overemphasis on self-employment that puts responsibility on people themselves to cope with the economic crisis and unemployment. An emphasis on self-employment should be balanced by an adequate minimum income, access to quality services, and access to lifelong learning and social protection systems for self-employed people.
Clearer targets for gender equality
In its response (509Kb PDF), the European Women’s Lobby (EWL) complained that the consultation period was too tight and it called for a ‘reflection period’ throughout the first quarter of 2010 in order to ensure that the right lessons are drawn from the current crisis and from the shortcomings of the Lisbon Strategy. EWL contends that the draft agenda contains no adequate measures to address the ‘persistent gender pay gap, glass ceilings in corporations, high levels of part-time work and insufficient care options for children and other dependants’.
To tackle these issues, clear targets have to be put at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy. Such goals could include a firm commitment to close the gender pay gap by 2020, to introduce a target of 40% women on the boards of enterprises, or for the development of the care sector. In general, EWL recommends ensuring a coherent strategy across all policy areas and a strong institutional link between commitments at European and national level. It calls for ‘a better monitoring system and systematic gender impact assessment in all policies, targets, benchmarks and measures of the future Europe 2020 Strategy’.
Need for a paradigm shift
A commentary (633Kb PDF) by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) starts with a critical assessment of the Lisbon Strategy having achieved ‘relatively few of the numerous bold objectives for 2010’. According to ETUC, this was due to a shift from the original balance between economic, environmental and social dimensions to an ‘exaggerated focus on deregulation and labour market flexibility’. However, once the economic crisis hit, it was ‘the welfare state and public services which have acted as automatic stabilisers’ – in other words, exactly those elements that have been ‘seen as old fashioned and as an obstacle in the way of Europe’s economic potential’ before the economic crisis. ETUC further contends that the Commission’s proposal ‘does not spell out sharply enough’ how the consequences of the current crises – such as high unemployment, high taxation and low public spending (as debts have to be repaid) – will shape the coming years.
In order to tackle these problems, ETUC insists that a paradigm shift is necessary: from deregulation and competition between Member States to ‘a stronger and enlarged European social acquis’, more solidarity between Member States, an intensified economic governance at European level, as well as common European and more ambitious approaches to financial regulation.
With regard to the social dimension of the Europe 2020 strategy, ETUC argues for a ‘fair’ labour market, including stable and protected job contracts, good wages with equal pay for equal work and robust unemployment benefits. Particular attention should be paid to closing the gender gaps in pay, in jobs and in career opportunities. To tackle unemployment, ETUC calls for a shift in active labour market policies from the supply side to the demand side of the labour market, focusing on investment in new jobs.
Clear objectives required to put Europe back on track
BusinessEurope’s contribution (3.2Mb PDF) to the public consultation focuses on the economic aspects of the new Europe 2020 strategy. With regard to the social dimension, BusinessEurope sees flexicurity as the key for a sustainable strategy to create more and better jobs. Combining the flexibility that employers need to meet changing demand with security for workers requires ‘flexible contractual arrangements, employment-friendly social protection systems, activation measures and lifelong learning’. Another focus is set on the education and skills necessary to meet the challenges of the knowledge society and demographical change.
While BusinessEurope’s point of view as an employer organisation differs from the views of trade unions and social NGOs, it shares some key convictions. These include the belief that the primary way to avoid the problems encountered by the preceding Lisbon Strategy is ‘to set a limited number of realistic and measurable objectives to be achieved over the next five years’.
Further developments
The European Council discussed the EU’s new strategy for jobs and growth at its meeting on 25–26 March 2010. The conclusions concede that with regard to improving education and promoting social inclusion, further work is needed on appropriate indicators and precise targets. The Council will revert to these issues at its June 2010 meeting. The European social partners took part in a debate regarding the exit from the crisis and the Europe 2020 strategy at the Tripartite Social Summit on 25 March 2010. They called for a ‘smart combination of short-term and long-term measures’ and asked to be fully involved in the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy.
Stefan Lücking, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg