A much greater step towards a common European social policy was taken when the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers (commonly known as the Social Charter) was agreed upon. This was adopted in 1989 by only 11 of the 12 member states. The UK was not willing to give up more of its sovereignty (it did eventually sign up to the charter in 1997 after the rise to power of the socialist Labour Party). This charter primarily reflected the European view of society, the role of labour and the rights of the citizen. The Social charter, however, had no binding force and first had to be translated into concrete proposals by the European Commission. On the basis of these proposals the Commission was eventually able to pass a number of important directives aimed at improving health and safety at work, setting a minimum level protection in all member states. Later measures also dealt with improved social protection for migrant workers, the mutual recognition of qualifications and equal treatment for men and women at work.
Before the Social Charter, the European Commission had been aware of the important role that trade unions and employers associations could play in advancing social progress. Therefore, it strongly encouraged dialogue between these two groups at European level from 1985. Accordingly the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the Union of Industrial and Employers confederations (UNICE) and the European Centre of Public Enterprises (CEEP) have all taken part in work on vocational training, new technologies, labour market adjustment problems and European collective pay agreements.
In the negotiations leading up to the Treaty on European Union, the need to deepen and broaden European social policy was once again very important. Many attempts were made to incorporate a clear, unequivocal and comprehensive legal basis for a common social policy into the Maastricht Treat on European Union (1992) but the UK, still at that time reluctant in many aspects of the EU, particularly social aspects refused. Because of this the other 11 member states decided to press ahead alone with a separate agreement on social policy. They could however, make use of the Community institutions for this after the UK gave its express agreement in a joint protocol to the EU treaty allowing its 11 partners to pursue a European social policy further within the framework of European institutions, procedures and mechanisms. The UK did not participate in voting on social matters but it didn’t have to apply them in the UK if it didn’t want to.
One aspect of social policy which the EU has not been able to develop a common policy for is the welfare state. this is something that all member states have been extremely reluctant to transfer to the European level. The national welfare states in Europe are in some ways very different from each other. Esping-Andersen has defined and distinguished three different types of welfare system in Europe and Stephan Leibfried developed a fourth type applicable to the Latin Mediterranean countries. The three welfare states as defined by Esping-Andersen are the liberal welfare state, the social democratic welfare state, and the corporatist or conservative welfare state. The liberal welfare state which is most applicable to Britain involves low, means-tested state benefits which gives citizens high incentives to seek employment as well as making them more prepared to take up low paid work. Levels of taxes are lower and there is more demand for services. This leads to high employment and a high level of female participation in the labour market. It also produces a big low wage sector. The social democratic welfare state (the Scandinavian countries fall into this category), has a high level of state intervention and very low unemployment. Many women work in the public sector and there are high taxes, with high redistribution. This results in low income differentials. The final type of welfare state described by Esping-Andersen is the corporatist or conservative welfare state which is similar to those adopted in Germany, Austria and France. This welfare system gives higher unemployment benefits, higher pensions and has conservative tax laws. There are comparatively low employment rates in general and in female employment rates in particular. The fourth category of welfare state developed by Leibfried involves a very small and limited welfare state (like those of Spain, Portugal and Greece) which although it appears should push citizens into the labour market, has in fact led to low participation rates. However these countries are modernising their welfare states.
From the descriptions of the various categories of welfare state, it appears that the national welfare state has a very important impact on European societies and because many different types exist, the current European societies are very far from being integrated. European social policy will never be able to integrate European societies to a noticeable extent unless the EU is given the power to create a common European welfare state, something that looks extremely unlikely to occur in the near future. The current European social policies, whilst indeed protecting the European citizen and giving him (or her) many rights which are necessary, do very little to integrate the different societies of Europe. The establishment of free movement within the EU has also had very little effect with very few citizens exercising that right. At this current stage in European Integration, it appears that the national welfare state is the key social mechanism in the various European countries. It is also something which will remain national as the passing over of the welfare state to European level would involve a major loss of sovereignty for the EU states and that is something which will be difficult to achieve, especially with countries such as the United Kingdom and Denmark.
In conclusion, European social policy has always had too few powers in order to have a significant effect on the integration of European societies. The limited nature of European social policy has found it extremely difficult to rival the national welfare state. It has undoubtedly produced important improvements in the safety, conditions and rights of the EU worker but unless it is allowed to formulate a common welfare state, its powers are simply too limited to achieve further integration of European societies.
Bibliography
Europa Homepage. World Wide Web <http://www.europe.eu.int>
European Commission UK page. World Wide Web <http://www.cec.org.uk>
Burchardt, Klaus Dieter. (1995) European Union. Brussels: European Documentation
McCormick, John. (1999). Understanding the European Union. London: Macmillan Press.
Sykes, Rob; Alcock, Pete (eds.) (1998): Developments in European social policy. Convergence and Diversity. Bristol: The Policy Press
McCormick (1999): Understanding the European Union
Esping-Andersen, Gosta (1990): The three worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity Press: Oxford
Leibfried, Stephan (2000: A European Welfare State? In: Pierson, Christopher; Castles, Francis G (eds.): The Welfare state Reader. Polity Press: Cambridge: 190-206
