绘制欧洲绿色协议的社会维度

IF 1.5 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Katharina Zimmermann, Vincent Gengnagel
{"title":"绘制欧洲绿色协议的社会维度","authors":"Katharina Zimmermann, Vincent Gengnagel","doi":"10.1177/13882627231208698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Green Deal calls for various economic reforms that will deeply disrupt the social order of European societies. As the European Commission makes very clear in its communications on the EGD, societal support for the profound changes that will inevitably accompany a ‘green transition’ hinges on social inclusion of stakeholders and social groups. This article aims to identify the social policy instruments proposed by the EGD to address the social implications of its ‘green transition’, and to explore how they relate to societal expectations. Analytically, it distinguishes between protective (redistributive) and productive (economy-oriented) social policy and argues that democratic social inclusion – which the European Commission strives to achieve – requires protective social policy. Empirically, the paper analyzes a) the socio-political instruments set out in the EGD and b) public statements made by a range of European-level actors who participated in the debates on the EGD. Our findings show that productive social policy prevails in the EGD's proposed instruments and in stakeholders’ demands, but that there are also vague indications of a more nuanced concept of social inclusion that acknowledges social conflict.","PeriodicalId":44670,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Security","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mapping the social dimension of the European Green Deal\",\"authors\":\"Katharina Zimmermann, Vincent Gengnagel\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13882627231208698\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The European Green Deal calls for various economic reforms that will deeply disrupt the social order of European societies. As the European Commission makes very clear in its communications on the EGD, societal support for the profound changes that will inevitably accompany a ‘green transition’ hinges on social inclusion of stakeholders and social groups. This article aims to identify the social policy instruments proposed by the EGD to address the social implications of its ‘green transition’, and to explore how they relate to societal expectations. Analytically, it distinguishes between protective (redistributive) and productive (economy-oriented) social policy and argues that democratic social inclusion – which the European Commission strives to achieve – requires protective social policy. Empirically, the paper analyzes a) the socio-political instruments set out in the EGD and b) public statements made by a range of European-level actors who participated in the debates on the EGD. Our findings show that productive social policy prevails in the EGD's proposed instruments and in stakeholders’ demands, but that there are also vague indications of a more nuanced concept of social inclusion that acknowledges social conflict.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44670,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Social Security\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Social Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627231208698\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627231208698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《欧洲绿色协议》要求进行各种经济改革,这将严重扰乱欧洲社会的社会秩序。正如欧盟委员会在其关于EGD的沟通中明确指出的那样,社会对伴随“绿色转型”而来的深刻变革的支持取决于利益相关者和社会团体的社会包容。本文旨在确定环境保护署提出的社会政策工具,以解决其“绿色转型”的社会影响,并探讨它们如何与社会期望联系起来。分析上,它区分了保护性(再分配)和生产性(以经济为导向)社会政策,并认为欧盟委员会努力实现的民主社会包容需要保护性社会政策。从经验上看,本文分析了a)《可持续发展战略》中规定的社会政治工具和b)参与《可持续发展战略》辩论的一系列欧洲层面行动者的公开声明。我们的研究结果表明,在EGD提出的工具和利益相关者的要求中,富有成效的社会政策占主导地位,但也有模糊的迹象表明,一个更微妙的社会包容概念承认社会冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mapping the social dimension of the European Green Deal
The European Green Deal calls for various economic reforms that will deeply disrupt the social order of European societies. As the European Commission makes very clear in its communications on the EGD, societal support for the profound changes that will inevitably accompany a ‘green transition’ hinges on social inclusion of stakeholders and social groups. This article aims to identify the social policy instruments proposed by the EGD to address the social implications of its ‘green transition’, and to explore how they relate to societal expectations. Analytically, it distinguishes between protective (redistributive) and productive (economy-oriented) social policy and argues that democratic social inclusion – which the European Commission strives to achieve – requires protective social policy. Empirically, the paper analyzes a) the socio-political instruments set out in the EGD and b) public statements made by a range of European-level actors who participated in the debates on the EGD. Our findings show that productive social policy prevails in the EGD's proposed instruments and in stakeholders’ demands, but that there are also vague indications of a more nuanced concept of social inclusion that acknowledges social conflict.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Social Security
European Journal of Social Security PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
28
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信