Skip to main content
  • 299 Accesses

Abstract

Some researchers think that EU social policy is hardly developed, they criticise the absence of a social policy and respective entitlements comparable to those in national environments and posit that EU market regulation undermines domestic social regulation (Offe 1998; Scharpf 1999). Decreased competences of national welfare states should be met with increased competences at EU-level (Kowalsky 1999; Schmid 2002). Besides socio-economic and judicial reasons given for a stronger integration, there are quite a few who also introduce political and legitimacy-related arguments. Along these lines, questions of effectiveness and legitimacy are interrelated and can only be solved together, while the acceptance of the EU can only be secured through a “social EU”. Differences exist, however, about the preconditions to be met in order to develop a stronger EU social policy (Offe and Preuß 2006; Scharpf 2007).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. For an overview of the different intergovernmentalist branches of European integration theory see Schimmelfennig 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  2. For an overview of the different kinds of institutionalism in European integration theory, see Pollack 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For a review of the literature and in particular the German case, see Lessenich 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  4. For an overview over the different generations of Europeanisation literature, see Bache 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Later, Börzel acknowledged the doubled-side nature of the process, with member states first transferring competencies to the EU which then in turn influence on their own policies and practices (Börzel 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  6. For others it is part of the problem, as participation in European elections has traditionally been low and not about European issues and as the proportions of the MEPs do not correspond to the size of the European nations. From this perspective there are structural limitations to the scale of representative democracy (Dahl 1999a).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2008). State of the art. In: Soft Governance in Hard Politics. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91810-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics