Comparing Mobilizations Against Three Social Reforms in the 2000s in Belgium

  • Jean FanielEmail author


This chapter aims to explain the differences in the intensity of the mobilizations generated by three social policy reforms implemented in Belgium in the 2000s: minimum subsistence income, greater controls over the unemployed, and early retirement reforms. The author analyzes the various social groups concerned by the reforms, the allies these groups could mobilize, as well as trade unions’ stance on the reforms. He points to the crucial role the trade unions played in the dynamics of mobilization.

The Belgian federal government introduced three major social reforms in the first decade of the 2000s. In 2001, changes were made to the eligibility criteria for minimum subsistence income in the case of people without access to social security. A few civil society organizations attempted in vain to challenge these reforms. In 2004, reforms sought to bring about greater levels of public authorities’ control on the unemployed. Several organizations and a number of trade unions mobilized against the measures. In 2005, the system of early retirement was overhauled with a view to increasing the employment rate of people over the age of 55. The trade union movement strongly opposed this initiative, and it organized two 1-day general strikes over a 3-week period. The government held its ground but referred the issue to a social partnership forum that was to determine how the reforms would be put in place. Since 2005, a major political debate has emerged over the reform of the retirement system and, since 2008, the trade union movement has been engaged in a new wave of opposition to the 2004 reforms of the unemployment scheme.

The aim of this chapter is to compare the three mobilizations and to raise two series of questions. First, how is it possible to explain that the early retirement reforms led to a greater level of mobilization than the reform restructuring the unemployment scheme and even more so than proposals to reorganize the minimum subsistence income? Do the changes in the social, economic, or political contexts between 2001 and 2005 explain such differences? Can the differences be explained by reference to the ways Belgian public opinion perceived the three issues? Are the differences due to the capacity of the three social groups targeted by the reforms to initiate collective action? Second, how is it possible to explain the emergence of a new wave of protest actions starting in 2008 in opposition to the 2004 reform of the unemployment scheme? Were the protest actions a result of the economic crisis facing Europe that same year?

The chapter is divided into three sections. The first part describes the main features of the reforms and the mobilizations that ensued. The second part deals with the importance of identifying the key actors involved and their “influential allies.” This section also considers the role of Belgian trade unions and their relationship with a range of civil society organizations. The third part of the chapter offers a few tentative answers to the questions raised above. In the conclusion, it is indicated how this case study is relevant for comparative research on collective action.


Trade Union Early Retirement Unemployment Insurance Union Leader Union Section 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bellal, S., Berns, T., Cantelli, F., & Faniel, J. (Eds.). (2003). Syndicats et société civile: Des liens à (re)découvrir. Brussels: Labor.Google Scholar
  2. Chabanet, D., & Faniel, J. (2011). The mobilization of the unemployed: A recurrent but relatively invisible phenomenon. In M. Reiss & M. Perry (Eds.), Unemployment and protest: New perspectives on two centuries of contention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1985). Strategy and identity: New theoretical paradigms and contemporary social movements. Social Research, 52(4), 663–716.Google Scholar
  4. Faniel, J. (2005). Réactions syndicales et associatives face au ‘contrôle de la disponibilité des chômeurs’. L’année sociale, 2004, 133–148.Google Scholar
  5. Faniel, J. (2006a). Les relations entre syndicats et associations en Belgique: Le cas de la réforme du minimex. Recherches Sociologiques et Anthropologiques, 37(1), 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faniel, J. (2006b). L’organisation des chômeurs dans les syndicats. Courrier Hebdomadaire du CRISP, 1929–1930, 5–76.Google Scholar
  7. Faniel, J. (2009). Belgian trade unions, the unemployed and the growth of unemployment. In M. Giugni (Ed.), The politics of unemployment in Europe. Policy responses and collective action. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Faniel, J. (2010a). Belgium: Unemployment insurance caught between pressure from Europe, regional controversy and fall-out from the crisis. In F. Lefresne (Ed.), Unemployment benefit systems in Europe and North America: Reforms and crisis. Brussels: IRES-ETUI.Google Scholar
  9. Faniel, J. (2010b). Caractéristiques et spécificités des syndicats belges. In É. Arcq, M. Capron, É. Léonard, & P. Reman (Eds.), Dynamiques de la concertation sociale. Brussels: CRISP.Google Scholar
  10. Faniel, J. (2012). Inside or outside trade unions? The mobilization of the unemployed in Belgium. In D. Chabanet & J. Faniel (Eds.), The mobilization of the unemployed in Europe. From acquiescence to protest? New York/Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Hyman, R. (1971). Marxism and the sociology of trade unionism. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hyman, R. (1975). Industrial relations: A Marxist introduction. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Hyman, R. (2001). Understanding European trade unionism: Between market, class and society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Matagne, G. (2001). De l’‘État social actif’ à la politique belge de l’emploi. Courrier Hebdomadaire du CRISP, 1737–1738, 5–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mills, C. W. (1948). The new men of power: America’s labor leaders. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.Google Scholar
  16. Moulaert, T. (2006). Le Pacte de solidarité entre les générations. Courrier Hebdomadaire du CRISP, 1906–1907, 5–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ness, I. (1998). Trade unions and the betrayal of the unemployed: Labor conflicts during the 1990s. New York/London: Garland.Google Scholar
  18. Offe, C., & Wiesenthal, H. (1985). Two logics of collective action. In C. Offe (Ed.), Disorganized capitalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Pakulski, J. (1993). Mass social movements and social class. International Sociology, 8(2), 131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Richards, A. (2000). Trade unionism and the unemployed in the European Union. La Lettre de la Maison française d’Oxford, 12, 153–181.Google Scholar
  21. Slomp, H. (1996). Between bargaining and politics. An introduction to European labor relations. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  22. Snow, D., Rochford, B., Worden, S., & Benford, R. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilizations and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tarrow, S. (1998 [1994]). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tartakowsky, D., & Tétard, F. (Eds.). (2006). Syndicats et associations en France. Concurrence ou complémentarité? Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
  25. Valenzuela, S. (1992). Labour movements and political systems: Some variations. In M. Regini (Ed.), The future of labour movements. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Vandaele, K. (2006). A report from the homeland of the Ghent system: The relationship between unemployment and trade union membership in Belgium. Transfer, 12(4), 647–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de recherche et d’information socio-politiques (CRISP)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations