未知:作为欧洲社会风险保险的经验UBI试验

IF 1.5 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Dominic Afscharian, Viktoriia Muliavka, Marius S. Ostrowski, L. Siegel
{"title":"未知:作为欧洲社会风险保险的经验UBI试验","authors":"Dominic Afscharian, Viktoriia Muliavka, Marius S. Ostrowski, L. Siegel","doi":"10.1177/13882627221118103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we conduct a case study of EU-level debates on universal basic income (UBI) trials, as part of which we examine core contributions in the Conference on the Future of Europe, the election manifestos produced by European party groups, as well as European Parliament debates since 2009. The results indicate that parties and politicians are far more hesitant than citizens to demand UBI, while also relying proportionally more on proposing trials rather than policies. Interpreting the results, we develop a conceptual framework designed to better understand how political decisionmakers at the EU level can deal with the uncertainties involved in European social policymaking. We argue that these actors face legal, political, and suitability risks when proposing policies that would integrate the EU’s social dimension. Unlike in national settings, the potential to pursue various strategies of risk reduction is limited at the EU level. However, we argue that empirical trials of social policies are particularly well-suited to insuring politicians at the EU level against risks. This insurance function is based not only on the scope of empirical trials to reduce uncertainties about policy outcomes, but also on the fact that they are inherently non-binding. By simply proposing empirical trials, actors can influence agendas, benefit from public demands, or reduce public pressure without having to take on the risks associated with implementing a fully-fledged policy proposal. We conclude that empirical trials can be understood as buffers against risks that might be used strategically by politicians, and which have the potential to break stalemates in the future development of a “Social Europe”.","PeriodicalId":44670,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Security","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Into the unknown: Empirical UBI trials as social Europe’s risk insurance\",\"authors\":\"Dominic Afscharian, Viktoriia Muliavka, Marius S. Ostrowski, L. Siegel\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13882627221118103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, we conduct a case study of EU-level debates on universal basic income (UBI) trials, as part of which we examine core contributions in the Conference on the Future of Europe, the election manifestos produced by European party groups, as well as European Parliament debates since 2009. The results indicate that parties and politicians are far more hesitant than citizens to demand UBI, while also relying proportionally more on proposing trials rather than policies. Interpreting the results, we develop a conceptual framework designed to better understand how political decisionmakers at the EU level can deal with the uncertainties involved in European social policymaking. We argue that these actors face legal, political, and suitability risks when proposing policies that would integrate the EU’s social dimension. Unlike in national settings, the potential to pursue various strategies of risk reduction is limited at the EU level. However, we argue that empirical trials of social policies are particularly well-suited to insuring politicians at the EU level against risks. This insurance function is based not only on the scope of empirical trials to reduce uncertainties about policy outcomes, but also on the fact that they are inherently non-binding. By simply proposing empirical trials, actors can influence agendas, benefit from public demands, or reduce public pressure without having to take on the risks associated with implementing a fully-fledged policy proposal. We conclude that empirical trials can be understood as buffers against risks that might be used strategically by politicians, and which have the potential to break stalemates in the future development of a “Social Europe”.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44670,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Social Security\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"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/10.1177/13882627221118103\",\"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/10.1177/13882627221118103","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

在这篇文章中,我们对欧盟层面关于全民基本收入(UBI)试验的辩论进行了案例研究,作为其中的一部分,我们审查了欧洲未来会议的核心贡献、欧洲政党团体制定的选举宣言,以及自2009年以来的欧洲议会辩论。结果表明,政党和政客在要求UBI方面远比公民更犹豫,同时在比例上也更依赖于提出审判而非政策。在解释结果时,我们制定了一个概念框架,旨在更好地了解欧盟层面的政治决策者如何应对欧洲社会决策中的不确定性。我们认为,在提出整合欧盟社会层面的政策时,这些行为者面临法律、政治和适用性风险。与国家环境不同,在欧盟层面推行各种降低风险战略的潜力有限。然而,我们认为,社会政策的实证试验特别适合为欧盟层面的政治家提供风险保险。这种保险功能不仅基于减少保单结果不确定性的实证试验范围,而且基于它们本质上不具有约束力的事实。通过简单地提出实证试验,行为者可以影响议程,从公众需求中受益,或减轻公众压力,而不必承担实施成熟政策提案的相关风险。我们得出的结论是,经验试验可以被理解为对风险的缓冲,政治家可能会战略性地使用这些风险,并且有可能打破“社会欧洲”未来发展中的僵局。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Into the unknown: Empirical UBI trials as social Europe’s risk insurance
In this article, we conduct a case study of EU-level debates on universal basic income (UBI) trials, as part of which we examine core contributions in the Conference on the Future of Europe, the election manifestos produced by European party groups, as well as European Parliament debates since 2009. The results indicate that parties and politicians are far more hesitant than citizens to demand UBI, while also relying proportionally more on proposing trials rather than policies. Interpreting the results, we develop a conceptual framework designed to better understand how political decisionmakers at the EU level can deal with the uncertainties involved in European social policymaking. We argue that these actors face legal, political, and suitability risks when proposing policies that would integrate the EU’s social dimension. Unlike in national settings, the potential to pursue various strategies of risk reduction is limited at the EU level. However, we argue that empirical trials of social policies are particularly well-suited to insuring politicians at the EU level against risks. This insurance function is based not only on the scope of empirical trials to reduce uncertainties about policy outcomes, but also on the fact that they are inherently non-binding. By simply proposing empirical trials, actors can influence agendas, benefit from public demands, or reduce public pressure without having to take on the risks associated with implementing a fully-fledged policy proposal. We conclude that empirical trials can be understood as buffers against risks that might be used strategically by politicians, and which have the potential to break stalemates in the future development of a “Social Europe”.
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