Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis paper explores how 'social market economy' became a quasi‐constitutional principle of the EU, highlighting the crucial role played in this process by the European Parliament. Based on multiple archival sources, we show that social market economy came to function as a limited repertoire: While it was advocated for various reasons by different actors, increasingly including social‐democrats, it nevertheless also solidified certain ways of conceiving the EU and its economic model. So doing, this article not only illuminates the role of the EP in the definition of a constitutionalized economic model for the EU; it also challenges the view of Europeanization as the progressive convergence around national preexisting models. Finally, two paradoxes emerge from the analysis: while supporters of the discourse of social market economy aimed at promoting the European social dimension and at addressing the EU democratic deficit, the adoption of this principle may have actually contributed to the subordination of both the 'social' and the 'political' to the 'economic'.

Das in den letzten 20 Jahren auf politischer ebenso wie auf wissenschaftlicher Ebene viel diskutierte Konzept der Sozialinvestitionen sieht eine (normative) Neuausrichtung des Wohlfahrtsstaats mit dem Ziel einer Modernisierung vor, die neben die Schutzfunktion von Sozialleistungen die Aktivierung des produktiven Potenzials der Menschen stellt. Obgleich es verschiedene Versionen gibt, lässt sich ein gemeinsamer Kern bestimmen: das Ziel umfassender Erwerbsbeteiligung und die Förderung des Humankapitals. Diese Ausrichtung an ökonomischen Zielen hat substanzielle Kritik auf den Plan gerufen, die auf Schwächen in der normativen Neuausrichtung hinweist. Um die normative Basis zu stärken, braucht es – so argumentiert dieser Beitrag – erstens eine andere Begründung der Sozialinvestitionen (jenseits der ökonomischen Vorteile), zweitens ein anderes Menschenbild (jenseits von Humankapital) und drittens einen anderen Ansatz für wohlfahrtsstaatliche Reformen (einen demokratischen statt technokratischen Ansatz). Capability-Ansatz und Menschenrechte haben das Potenzial, das Konzept bezüglich aller drei Aspekte zu einer solideren normativen Grundlage für wohlfahrtsstaatliche Reformen weiterzuentwickeln.

In this article we explore the potential of the capability approach as a normative basis for eco-social policies. While the capability approach is often interpreted as a productivist or maximalist perspective, assuming the desirability of economic growth, we suggest another understanding, which explicitly problematises the suitability of economic growth and productive employment as means for enhancing capabilities. We argue that the capability approach allows rejecting the identification of social progress with economic growth and that it calls for democratically debating the meaning of wellbeing and quality of life. We analyse the implications of this conceptualisation for the design of welfare states.

In this article we explore the potential of the capability approach as a normative basis for eco-social policies. While the capability approach is often interpreted as a productivist or maximalist perspective, assuming the desirability of economic growth, we suggest another understanding, which explicitly problematises the suitability of economic growth and productive employment as means for enhancing capabilities. We argue that the capability approach allows rejecting the identification of social progress with economic growth and that it calls for democratically debating the meaning of wellbeing and quality of life. We analyse the implications of this conceptualisation for the design of welfare states.

We revise Atkinson's concept of a 'participation income' (PI), repositioning it as a form of green conditional basic income that is anchored in a capabilities-oriented eco-social policy framework. This framework combines the capability approach with an 'ethics of care' to re-shape the focus of social policy on individuals' capability to 'take care of the world', thus shifting the emphasis from economic production to social reproduction and environmental reparation. In developing this proposal, we seek to address key questions about the feasibility of implementing PI schemes: including their administrative complexity and the criticism that a PI constitutes either an arbitrary and confusing, or invasive and stigmatising, form of basic income. To address these concerns, we argue for an enabling approach to incentivising participation whereby participation pathways are co-created with citizens on the basis of opportunities they recognise as meaningful rather than enforced through strict monitoring and sanctions.

The aim of this article is to lay down the foundations of a critical sociology of democracy and participation. Based on Amartya Sen's capability approach, we identify four major pitfalls of classical theories on justice and deliberative democracy: 1) an excessive emphasis on the procedural dimension of democracy at the expense of its substantial value; 2) an ideal of deliberation that does not sufficiently account for the inequalities that characterize actual participative practices; 3) an ideal approach to rationality which is inconsistent with the plurality of reasons to value and arguments that can be observed in social reality; and 4) a focus on official or institutionalized forms of deliberation that does not pay due attention to the many forms and dynamics of participation. We contend that, by contrast, Sen's epistemology may be fruitful for the development of a critical sociology of democracy and suggest an agenda for empirical research on participation and deliberative practices.

The aim of this article is to lay down the foundations of a critical sociology of democracy and participation. Based on Amartya Sen's capability approach, we identify four major pitfalls of classical theories on justice and deliberative democracy: 1) an excessive emphasis on the procedural dimension of democracy at the expense of its substantial value; 2) an ideal of deliberation that does not sufficiently account for the inequalities that characterize actual participative practices; 3) an ideal approach to rationality which is inconsistent with the plurality of reasons to value and arguments that can be observed in social reality; and 4) a focus on official or institutionalized forms of deliberation that does not pay due attention to the many forms and dynamics of participation. We contend that, by contrast, Sen's epistemology may be fruitful for the development of a critical sociology of democracy and suggest an agenda for empirical research on participation and deliberative practices.

The ongoing social crises and moral conflicts evident in global social policy debates are addressed in this timely volume. Leading interdisciplinary scholars focus on the 'social' of social policy, which is increasingly conceived in a globalised form, as new international agreements and global goals engender social struggles. They tackle pressing 'social questions', many of which have been exacerbated by COVID-19, including growing inequality, changing world population, ageing societies, migration and intersectional disadvantage. This ground-breaking volume critically engages with contested conceptions of the social which are increasingly deployed by international institutions and policy makers. Focusing on social sustainability, social cohesion, social justice, social wellbeing and social progress this text is even more crucial as policy makers look to accelerate socially sustainable solutions to the world's biggest challenges

Wie ist es um das Soziale Europa bestellt? Im Fokus dieses Bandes stehen Versuche, Europa als sozialen Raum zu vermessen. Die Beiträge fragen danach, wie Wissen über Europa entsteht und zwischen den Akteuren zirkuliert, wie transnationale Netzwerke Forderungen formulieren und sozialpolitische Programme verwirklicht werden. Es geht also um die Entstehung europäischer Politikprozesse und deren Umsetzung in konkrete Handlungskategorien - auch jenseits modellhafter Begriffe wie Mehrebenenpolitik.