{"title":"通过收入再分配和保险实现团结:欧盟是支持、指导、担保人还是提供者?","authors":"Frank Vandenbroucke","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3530876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Income redistribution and insurance are core functions of welfare states. What role should the EU play in this domain? I examine the purchase of normative theorizing on social justice on this question, building on the contrast between three models of EU involvement: the EU as Support, which implies the sharing of resources through intergovernmental transfers; the EU as Provider, which implies EU cross-border transfers towards individual citizens; the EU as Guide or Guarantor, which implies that the EU formulates normative policy ideals. \n \nI review different normative accounts of justice for the EU (Ronzoni, Viehoff, Sangiovanni, Van Parijs), and how they bear on the choice between these models of EU involvement in welfare state solidarity. These accounts evolve between two extreme positions. On the one hand, an account based on supranational justice as ‘background justice for nation states’ implies that the EU should be a mere instrument in the hands of its member states. The opposite extreme position is that EU should be a laboratory for international distributive justice, whereby national welfare states are demoted to the toolbox of instruments. I argue that an account of justice for the EU must search for a middle ground, whereby neither the national welfare states nor the EU are demoted to mere instruments. \n \nI conclude that the EU should support the member states’ welfare states in some of their key functions, on the basis of common social standards and in pursuit of upward convergence. Such a ‘Social Union’ would be a Support, Guide and Guarantor, both in the realm of insurance and redistribution. Through the establishment of interstate insurance, it would be a true ‘insurance union’, but, from the point of view of individual citizens, it would not become a direct Provider of insurance. It would engage in interstate redistribution, but not in interpersonal cross-border redistribution.","PeriodicalId":196905,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Solidarity through Redistribution and Insurance of Incomes: The EU As Support, Guide, Guarantor or Provider?\",\"authors\":\"Frank Vandenbroucke\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3530876\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Income redistribution and insurance are core functions of welfare states. What role should the EU play in this domain? I examine the purchase of normative theorizing on social justice on this question, building on the contrast between three models of EU involvement: the EU as Support, which implies the sharing of resources through intergovernmental transfers; the EU as Provider, which implies EU cross-border transfers towards individual citizens; the EU as Guide or Guarantor, which implies that the EU formulates normative policy ideals. \\n \\nI review different normative accounts of justice for the EU (Ronzoni, Viehoff, Sangiovanni, Van Parijs), and how they bear on the choice between these models of EU involvement in welfare state solidarity. These accounts evolve between two extreme positions. On the one hand, an account based on supranational justice as ‘background justice for nation states’ implies that the EU should be a mere instrument in the hands of its member states. The opposite extreme position is that EU should be a laboratory for international distributive justice, whereby national welfare states are demoted to the toolbox of instruments. I argue that an account of justice for the EU must search for a middle ground, whereby neither the national welfare states nor the EU are demoted to mere instruments. \\n \\nI conclude that the EU should support the member states’ welfare states in some of their key functions, on the basis of common social standards and in pursuit of upward convergence. Such a ‘Social Union’ would be a Support, Guide and Guarantor, both in the realm of insurance and redistribution. Through the establishment of interstate insurance, it would be a true ‘insurance union’, but, from the point of view of individual citizens, it would not become a direct Provider of insurance. It would engage in interstate redistribution, but not in interpersonal cross-border redistribution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":196905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3530876\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3530876","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
摘要
收入再分配和保险是福利国家的核心功能。欧盟在这一领域应该扮演什么角色?在欧盟参与的三种模式的对比基础上,我考察了关于这个问题的社会正义的规范性理论的购买:欧盟作为支持,这意味着通过政府间转移共享资源;欧盟作为提供者,这意味着欧盟向公民个人进行跨境转移;欧盟作为指南或担保人,这意味着欧盟制定规范性的政策理想。我回顾了欧盟正义的不同规范解释(Ronzoni, Viehoff, Sangiovanni, Van Parijs),以及它们如何影响欧盟参与福利国家团结的这些模式之间的选择。这些说法在两种极端立场之间演变。一方面,基于超国家正义作为“民族国家的背景正义”的解释意味着欧盟应该仅仅是其成员国手中的工具。相反的极端立场是,欧盟应该成为国际分配正义的实验室,国家福利国家应该被降格为工具工具箱。我认为,对欧盟正义的解释必须寻找一个中间立场,在这个中间立场上,国家福利国家和欧盟都不会被贬为纯粹的工具。我的结论是,欧盟应该在共同社会标准和追求向上趋同的基础上,支持成员国福利国家的一些关键职能。这样一个“社会联盟”将在保险和再分配领域起到支持、指导和保证的作用。通过建立州际保险,它将成为一个真正的“保险联盟”,但从公民个人的角度来看,它不会成为一个直接的保险提供者。它会参与州际再分配,但不会参与人际间的跨境再分配。
Solidarity through Redistribution and Insurance of Incomes: The EU As Support, Guide, Guarantor or Provider?
Income redistribution and insurance are core functions of welfare states. What role should the EU play in this domain? I examine the purchase of normative theorizing on social justice on this question, building on the contrast between three models of EU involvement: the EU as Support, which implies the sharing of resources through intergovernmental transfers; the EU as Provider, which implies EU cross-border transfers towards individual citizens; the EU as Guide or Guarantor, which implies that the EU formulates normative policy ideals.
I review different normative accounts of justice for the EU (Ronzoni, Viehoff, Sangiovanni, Van Parijs), and how they bear on the choice between these models of EU involvement in welfare state solidarity. These accounts evolve between two extreme positions. On the one hand, an account based on supranational justice as ‘background justice for nation states’ implies that the EU should be a mere instrument in the hands of its member states. The opposite extreme position is that EU should be a laboratory for international distributive justice, whereby national welfare states are demoted to the toolbox of instruments. I argue that an account of justice for the EU must search for a middle ground, whereby neither the national welfare states nor the EU are demoted to mere instruments.
I conclude that the EU should support the member states’ welfare states in some of their key functions, on the basis of common social standards and in pursuit of upward convergence. Such a ‘Social Union’ would be a Support, Guide and Guarantor, both in the realm of insurance and redistribution. Through the establishment of interstate insurance, it would be a true ‘insurance union’, but, from the point of view of individual citizens, it would not become a direct Provider of insurance. It would engage in interstate redistribution, but not in interpersonal cross-border redistribution.