This
volume is both theoretically innovative as well as empirically insightful.
Theoretically, unlike other neo-functionalist and intergovernmentalist
literature on European integration, Erne et al not only focus on the form of
integration, they are also able to assess its contents. While they attest that
the New Economic Governance regime resembles the corporate governance
mechanisms of TNCs (P.319), their main focus is on assessing whether EU
policy-making has had a commodifying or a decommodifying effect. In other
words, have more and more policy areas been submitted to the pressures of the
‘free market’ or have they been removed from competition?
Moreover,
unlike much of the comparative political economy literature, Erne et al
overcome the pitfalls of methodological nationalism, in which different
national political economies are treated as completely separate, unrelated
policy areas, which can be compared with each other. The volume’s focus on two
policy areas – employment relations and public services – and three services
sectors – transport services, water services and healthcare – facilitates comparative
analyses beyond nation states.
Empirically,
the book’s key insight is that European integration since the 2008 GFC has been
dominated by an overarching commodifying script. There are some decommodifying
prescriptions, this is correct, but they are either weak and/or also focused on
commodification and/or geared towards a balance within the overall European
political economy. Where present, decommodifying prescriptions have been
clearly subordinated to an overarching commodifying framework.
These
findings are important for two reasons. First, there have been some arguments
about an apparent shift of the EU towards a more Social Europe (e.g. Zeitlin and Vanhercke 2018). Erne et al’s
enormous amount of empirical evidence makes clear that this is rather wishful
thinking. Second, these findings provide crucial lessons for labour politics.
It is clearly much more difficult to mobilise against country-specific NEG
prescriptions, even if they are part of an overall commodifying script, than
against draft EU Directives. Hence, labour movements should focus their energies
on the fight for decommodifying EU laws, not on ‘socialising’ the NEG regime
(PP.351-2).
Additionally,
the authors have established a transnational European socio-economic protest
database as part of their research (see also Erne and Nowak 2025) as well as
covered the post-pandemic EU policy-making regime. Interestingly, re the latter
post – Covid19 period, ‘the European Commission reoriented its employment
relations policy in a decommodifying policy direction’ (P.327). Does this
finally confirm a shift towards a Social Europe? Not so, the authors point out.
The overarching commodifying script has remained in place. ‘All pleas by
European unions and social NGOs to the European Commission, Parliament, and
Council to include a minimum target for social expenditure in the [Recovery and
Resilience Facility] Regulation failed’ (P.318).
And
yet, why should we be surprised about this lack of decommodification even after
the crisis of the pandemic? Since the mid-1980s the EU has pursued a course of
neo-liberal restructuring. The 2008 GFC has reinforced this direction and the
Covid-19 pandemic did not result in a change in direction either. The main
research result of the volume should not come as a surprise. What is missing
here, and this is my first point of criticism, is a theory of the EU form of
state. The predominantly liberal pluralist, institutionalist understanding of
policy-making pursued in this volume overlooks the structural selectivity of
the EU institutional set-up, which privileges employers and corporations over
trade unions and NGOs. There is no level playing field. Interest groups of
capital enjoy much more direct access to key institutions and EU
decision-makers than labour movements.
This
shortcoming is further compounded by a missing understanding of the
implications for the balance of structural power resulting from European
integration. EMU has not only intensified horizontal market pressures, as Erne
et al correctly point out. It has also significantly strengthened
(transnational) capital’s structural power at the expense of labour. Taken
together, the structural selectivity of the EU form of state privileging
capital and capital’s strengthened structural power was always likely to ensure
a continuation of the overall neo-liberal and thus commodifying course.
The
reasons for why Erne et al overlook these dimensions indicate a more
fundamental shortcoming in my view. They take the capitalist social relations
of production as given, as an ahistorical starting-point of analysis. As the
key capitalist structuring conditions are overlooked as a result, the focus on
struggle will inevitably remain within the overall capitalist setting. Here and
there, the authors recognise the fundamental, underlying capitalist dynamics.
For example, they acknowledge the ‘reflection of a general propensity within
capitalist systems to open up new areas for capitalist accumulation’ (P.266).
However, they do not follow through with the implications of this insight.
Finally,
the volume suffers from what Atzeni (2021:
1350) calls trade union fetishism. With the
slight exception of the healthcare sector (P.259), trade unions are seen as the
main agents of resistance and, therefore, the main focus of analysis. Social movements
are mentioned now and again as part of wider alliances, but they are never
identified as key actors driving contestation. Nevertheless, contestation of policy-making in
the EU and beyond includes a whole range of different organisational
expressions of labour movements in addition to and beyond trade unions. For
example, in the current campaign against the EU – Mercosur ‘free’ trade
agreement, trade unions are at best marginal players, next to social movements
and environmental organisations (see STOP
EU-Mercosur coalition). It is this broad coalition which has
been successful at blocking the ratification of the agreement to date, pointing
out not only the disastrous economic but also patriarchal and racist dimensions
of the treaty.
Nevertheless, these points of criticisms should not distract from
the major achievements of the volume. A must read for everyone
interested in the political economy direction of the EU. I most strongly
recommend this volume!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome!