European Model and the Nodes of Dual Transition

The Letta report published last April, in the chapter significantly titled 'a single market for all', states that, despite the successes of the single market, there has been a growing perception that these successes have only benefited a few, individuals and businesses, able to take advantage of them, and have not reached all citizens as Europe's promises of 'shared prosperity' were intended (p. 90). The report adds that failure to respond to this perception could erode the public support of citizens that is vital for Europe. The concreteness of this risk is evidenced by the rise of Eurosceptic or anti-European movements and political and economic nationalisms. These movements can use the argument that the European Union, due to its institutional and political limitations, has done little to promote the welfare of its citizens, so that they must each turn to their own state. This is also how economic and political nationalism is nurtured.

Now the two digital and ecological transitions, which are disrupting our economic and social systems, exacerbate the risk of nationalistic reactions. That is why common responses are urgently needed for the people and companies, who are most affected by these upheavals, the 'losers' of the transitions. So far, the resources made available by the Union have mainly been directed to the investments needed to finance these transitions; and it is not certain that they will be enough, according to the estimates in circulation. Even for the economic-financial aspects, therefore, stronger common commitments are needed than in the past. But it is equally necessary to strengthen the social dimension of the single market, removing it from the marginality that has characterised it so far.

The programme of the re-elected president Von der Leyen seems to be aware of the problem, when she proposes to fully implement the European social pillar, with measures such as a fair minimum wage for all workers (which is not guaranteed by the current weak directive), a European unemployment benefit scheme, better measures against poverty especially for young people. However, it is not enough to strengthen the existing measures. The two transitions are causing massive dislocations of financial and labour resources between sectors affected by the new digital and green economy and innovative sectors that will benefit from it. This disruption of traditional sectors is encountering strong resistance from affected groups, companies and trade unions, which are already holding back the progress of the green deal. To overcome this resistance and give substance to the promise that the transition will be just, we will need not only innovative industrial policy choices capable of reconverting and entire sectors of our economy, but also welfare policies in favour of the groups and areas most affected that make the transition sustainable for all. It is a matter of equipping ourselves to support the reconversion of millions of workers into new professions by accompanying it with adequate economic support for the sectors and companies that benefit from the two transitions. An endeavour of this magnitude cannot be implemented with existing training and social institutions, nor can it be achieved solely through the initiatives of individual states. It requires European initiatives that complement, if not replace, national policies. In some thematic areas, mentioned in the Letta report, there are already common institutions that must be strengthened, i.e. endowed with the necessary resources and powers to operate at the European level: for example, the European labour authority, the European Employment Security Agency (European Osha), the European training foundation and Cedefop, the social economy institutions that were launched by the Von der Leyen Commission to promote the sustainable development of territories in collaboration with social forces and local public authorities.

New tasks are called for in the vast area of social security; firstly with a better coordination of national systems, secondly with the implementation of institutions tested during the Covid, such as the Sure, and the common public health initiatives. The strengthening of European institutions on specific objectives such as those mentioned is a feasible way forward even without treaty changes. If well targeted, it can lead to results that are appreciated by citizens. Moreover, the success of such initiatives is an incentive not only to consolidate them but also to expand them to other areas of a possible common European welfare. A condition for the advancement of these common social institutions is that they are supported, both by the authorities of the Union, Commission and Parliament, which will have here a test of their reforming credibility, and by the participation of civil society organisations, trade unions and business associations in the first place. Participation and social dialogue are foundational instruments of the European social model, which distinguishes it from other national and continental systems. Their importance is more decisive than ever now that this model is being put to the test by major global challenges.