Out of ideas? “Social Europe” and the stagnation of EU integration

Written by Dominic Afscharian

Across the globe, liberal values are giving way to authoritarian nationalism. This is especially apparent in Europe, where, in just a decade or so, the spirit of the times has turned from deepening and widening an ever closer union to a defensive struggle for survival of the European project. In explaining this development, many look to Eurosceptics and those openly hostile to the EU. What is striking, however, is that the vast majority of EU countries are governed by self-proclaimed champions of European unity – and yet, federalist integration seems to have reached a stalemate.

In “Ideas of Social Europe”, I take a closer look at this puzzle in the realm of social policy. Here, the issue at hand is particularly striking: for decades, politicians across party lines have been promising a “more social” Europe. Still, there is widespread disappointment in the status quo. Counterintuitively, I argue that in this policy field, it is not only Eurosceptics who prevent further integration, but also pro-Europeans who fail to inspire clear visions for a different future.

The power of ideas

Political change requires ideas. They are the fuel of progress, mobilise the masses, inspire political movements, and are a necessary condition for change. However, in the war of ideas over Europe’s social future, pro-Europeans have retreated to defending the status quo. This offering is no match against the very clear, tangible, and disruptive proposal of nationalism.

To underpin this argument, I examine what key actors actually mean when they promise a “social Europe”. Analysing the ideas dominating the European Parliament and Commission, I identify a “common core” of ideas. These are widely shared across party lines and institutions and effectively constitute a lowest common denominator of what “social Europe” should be.

This decontested realm of politics closely resembles the status quo. In a nutshell, it sees the EU merely as a supporter of national welfare states which should invest in human capital. This, in turn, should yield economic benefits. While this may sound agreeable to many, it is certainly no thrilling narrative of a better future that responds to the needs of those discontent with what the EU has to offer today. Perhaps most importantly, it makes it impossible for reforms to emerge that could eventually allow the EU to offer social protection directly to its citizens. The long past idea of a “social Europe” as an alternative vision to market integration that could realise socialist and social democratic ideas at a pan-European scale is long gone.

This is not to say that there is no political disagreement over the meaning of social Europe whatsoever. However, the issues that parties compete over cannot be addressed at the EU level without institutional reforms – and these very reforms are crowded out by the common core of ideas of social Europe. Hence, political actors compete over issues they ultimately have very little control over.

The salesman’s dilemma

Both the European Commission and the parties in the European Parliament seem to be aware of the issue. Hence, they engage in what can best be described as “wrapping paper politics”: they try to compensate what their proposals lack in substance through grand rhetoric, packaging technical and piecemeal reforms with exuberant labels. In the short run, this strategy buffers against public discontent. However, in the medium and long term, it runs the risk of ramping up disappointment and disillusionment with the European project.

Pro-Europeans thus face a “salesman’s dilemma”: on the one hand, they aim to convince the public that their reforms are meaningful and satisfy critiques of the status quo; on the other hand, they must avoid overselling minor policy change. Treading this tightrope for a sustained period of time is near impossible within the limited confines of the common core of social Europe.

Towards meaningful change

There is, of course, a way out of this dilemma: challenging the ideas that have been institutionalised in EU-level discourse. By tracing and analysing nearly half a century of debates over the idea of a European unemployment insurance, “Ideas of Social Europe” demonstrates how individual academics, politicians, and think tanks were able to push for disruptive change despite rigid institutional hurdles and strong opposition. These actors slowly and carefully made the idea of a European unemployment insurance palatable in various policy venues, transforming said venues into collective actors that would amplify ideas otherwise destined for failure. The analysis thus shows how a few dedicated individuals can achieve meaningful change in an otherwise institutionally rigid system of policymaking.

The findings I present in “Ideas of Social Europe” have important implications for the research of European and federalist integration. It is crucial to critically investigate what pro-Europeans actually mean when they claim to champion the European project. Majority support for pro-European frames does not necessarily imply support for further integration – and may even have the opposite consequence. If initially disruptive ideas like a “social Europe” become mainstreamed at the cost of being substantively diluted, self-proclaimed champions of the European project may endanger an ever closer union.

Importantly, however, the current ideational weakness of social Europe is merely a snapshot in time. If a lack of disruptive ideas can stall European integration, much may be achieved by carrying ambitious visions of a better future into the European political discourse. Hence, if pro-Europeans dare thinking beyond the ideational heirlooms of their forefathers, even a few dedicated individuals may be able to reignite the spark of the European project.