Investigation of the European Union Solidarity Fund

Dossier / Travail de Séminaire , 2012 , 22 Pages , Note: 1.3

Politique - Sujet: Union européenne

The aim of this essay is it to move beyond pure evaluations of the EUSF’s efficiency and viability and to target its social dimension. The argument elaborated here is that natural hazard insurance mechanisms on the European level effectively complement national ones and that this cannot be fully explained with rational behaviour. The EUSF might be a test case for inter-European solidarity transfer payments irrespective of rational cost-benefit calculations, though it seems to share most attributes with the EU Cohesion and Regional Policy.

For decades, European unification has been illustrated ordinarily as a mere economic integration process that lacks a complementary political dimension, let alone a social one. Even more in times of the current sovereign debt crisis that continuingly bears the potential to threaten both the stability and competitiveness of a series of market economies, the European Union (EU) is expected to succeed or fail with its common Eurozone currency, the Euro. It’s the economy, stupid!, one might say.

Yet, while national governments and European policy-makers incessantly discuss about adequate ways of political steering of shattered European financial regulations, the EU has over the years installed institutions and mechanisms that shall strengthen and deepen the European project, but have only reluctantly gained academic and public attention. Much has been already written about the EU regional policy and structural funding through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) as attempts to improve social cohesion within Europe.

Another institutionalised form of intra-European solidarity, in contrast, remains overall a blind spot in academic literature although its name is a clear avowal to European solidarity: the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF). It will be addressed here and tested a long a variety of variables to evaluate whether we can speak of a Europeanisation of solidarity mechanisms within the Community. The following subquestions will be raised: Which calculus does the European Union Solidarity Fund follow? Is it purely rationally or rather normatively motivated? Can the EUSF be considered an institution of inter-European solidarity? And if yes, who demonstrates solidarity with whom?

1

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

1 Introduction

2 Natural Disaster Management & European Solidarity

3 Ever closer Social Union? Towards a Framework for Analysis

3.1 Socialising Europe: The Concept of Solidarity

3.2 Europeanising the `Social': A Theoretical Framework

4 The European Union Solidarity Fund: Facts and Figures

4.1 Roots, Development and Objectives

4.2 Reform Efforts and Future Prospects

4.3 Budget and Performance

5 The European Union Solidarity Fund assessed

5.1 Motive

5.2 Steering & Modus Operandi

5.3 Institutionalisation

6 Conclusion

7 References

---

2

1 Introduction

For decades, European unification has been illustrated ordinarily as a mere economic

integration process that lacks a complementary political dimension, let alone a social

one. Even more in times of the current sovereign debt crisis that continuingly bears

the potential to threaten both the stability and competitiveness of a series of market

economies, the European Union (EU) is expected to succeed or fail with its common

Eurozone currency, the Euro. It's the economy, stupid!, one might say.

Yet, while national governments and European policy-makers incessantly discuss

about adequate ways of political steering of shattered European financial regulations,

the EU has over the years installed institutions and mechanisms that shall strengthen

and deepen the European project, but have only reluctantly gained academic and

public attention. Much has been already written about the EU regional policy and

structural funding through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the

European Social Fund (ESF) as attempts to improve social cohesion within Europe

(Hooghe 1996; Baun and Marek 2008). Another institutionalised form of intra-

European solidarity, in contrast, remains overall a blind spot in academic literature

although its name is a clear avowal to European solidarity: the European Union

Solidarity Fund (EUSF). It will be addressed here and tested a long a variety of

variables to evaluate whether we can speak of a Europeanisation of solidarity

mechanisms within the Community. The following subquestions will be raised:

Which calculus does the European Union Solidarity Fund follow? Is it purely

rationally or rather normatively motivated? Can the EUSF be considered an institution

of inter-European solidarity? And if yes, who demonstrates solidarity with whom?

The aim of this essay is it to move beyond pure evaluations of the EUSF's efficiency

and viability (Hochrainer 2009b; Mechler et al. 2010; Åhman and Nilsson 2009) and

to target its social dimension. The argument elaborated here is that natural hazard

insurance mechanisms on the European level effectively complement national ones

and that this cannot be fully explained with rational behaviour. The EUSF might be a

test case for inter-European solidarity transfer payments irrespective of rational cost-

benefit calculations, though it seems to share most attributes with the EU Cohesion

and Regional Policy.

The first section will briefly explain why solidarity between EU member states is an

important issue to look at and sets the stage for subsequent evaluations. The second

---

3

part outlines a theoretical framework fusing the inherently vague concept of solidarity

with insights from Europeanisation research. The motive behind the Fund, its steering

mechanism and modus operandi as well as its institutionalisation will then serve as

benchmarks for a comprehensive assessment of the EUSF. The paper concludes with

a short summary of empirical findings.

2 Natural Disaster Management & European Solidarity

Over the years, the European Union has become a club of meanwhile 27 Member

States and is about to expand even further. Having said that, the EU's capacity for

widening is called into question without prior deepening of the political, economic

and particularly the social dimension (Bach et al. 2006). With the enlargement wave

of 2004 ­ and further accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 ­ the heterogeneity

of economic performances, the distribution of wealth, diverging social policies and

labour standards, inclusion and exclusion in all spheres of society, minority rights,

excessive migration movements and so on are real challenges and the European

project may have reached its limit to cope with and efficiently respond to them.

Solidarity and justice are key issues here.

Compared to these contingencies, where EU politics seems to be trapped in a

deadlock, European responses to hazardous weather events have been considerably

far advanced. This is necessary given that the total number of natural disasters in

Europe has risen dramatically over the last forty years or so (CRED 2008).

Particularly floods have more regularly endangered more and more regions all over

Europe as Table 1 demonstrates.

---

4

Table 1: Development of Natural Disasters in Europe, 1970 ­ 2007

Source: CRED 2008 (cited in Hochrainer 2009)

As a consequence, joint action based on solidarity is nothing but purposive given that

the very nature of floods, storms and other natural catastrophes does not recognise

state borders and hence requires coordination and joint strategic action on the

supranational level. In fact, there is also evidence that with the EUSF EU Member

States have transferred natural hazard insurance systems from the national to the

European level. First, because general and all-encompassing public insurances against

damages caused by extreme weather events do not exist in all EU Member States

(Schwarze and Wagner 2009) or have been passed to the private sector (Aakre et al.

2010; Bouwer et al. 2007). As will be described further below, the EUSF specifically

compensate non-insurable damages. Second, the EUSF is hence a complementary tool

to national insurance mechanisms and helps EU Member States to better respond to

economic losses in the aftermath of natural disasters. If we speak about solidarity in

this regard, it is about spatial justice of geographically predetermined societies.

Notably with reference to those Community members that are ill-equipped against

natural hazards, one might expect stronger financial aid for reconstruction:

`Particularly for the transition countries of central and eastern Europe, floods pose a

significant risk to economic development and can be devastating to the usually

---

5

uninsured victims and to governments that are ill prepared to provide flood relief and

recovery' (Linnerooth-Bayer and Amendola 2003, p.537).

The EUSF' recovery program would hence be fully in line with Article 222 of the

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that has been adopted with

the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. It contains a solidarity clause that reads as follows: `The

Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member

State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster'

(TFEU 2008). In the following, their performance will be under critical investigation.

3 Ever closer Social Union? Towards a Framework for Analysis

The aim of this essay is it to identify and assess, whether the EUSF is an adequate

mechanism to speak of advancing inter-European solidarity. Although the

intensification of European social inequality is long-since subject for debate in both

European integration research and social policy, `theoretical bases for dealing with

the emergence of supranational patterns of social solidarity [...] are extremely weak'

(Heidenreich 2006, p.3; cf. Radtke 2009, p.118). It is hence proposed here to merge

the analytical concept of solidarity with the theoretical framework of Europeanisation.

This way, it is possible to evaluate whether solidarity has made the necessary step out

of the national context and towards the European level.

3.1 Socialising Europe: The Concept of Solidarity

Finding a commonly accepted definition of solidarity is no easy endeavour. The term

is as nebulous as it is ambiguous. As a minimal consensus, writes Mau, solidarity

means `an interrelationship between individuals or social groups that is characterised

by special ties and mutual commitments' (Mau 2005, p.247). Such peculiar bonds

develop, exist and may again decline on various levels of interaction ranging from the

individual level including families, circles of friends or peer groups to the societal

level, meaning e.g. solidarity within social classes, up to the state level as part of

bilateral or multilateral relations. While some scholars construe solidarity exclusively

as a reciprocal concept that features first and foremost mutual cooperation (cf.

Schieder 2009, p.18-19), others have stressed that solidarity can be indeed

monodirectional and generous (Offe 2004). Solidarity seen from this angle requires a

sense of community, not necessarily balanced or reciprocal treatment. Actors within

---

6

this community may share similar values or are bound together through a common

history of political, socioeconomic or cultural relations that create a kind of empathy

or shared destiny.

Solidarity may vary depending on the level and intensity of each interrelationship. On

the interstate level, indeed, solidarity to help and assist other countries that are least

developed or suffer from serious catastrophes is far from routine. Global competition

and extending markets, so a general conviction, result in shrinking solidarity (Berger

2004). A globalised economy and transnational markets do, on the other side, lead to

entangled states that share both upswings and economic slumps. From this can be

reasoned that interstate solidarity would be highest under conditions of solid

economic, political or cultural interdependence that facilitates some kind of shared or

co-responsibility between partnering countries. The more states are interconnected

through trade, diplomatic relations, cultural exchange or even common institutions for

joint governance as it is the case in the European Union for instance, the more deeply

routed would solidarity for each other be. After decades of `nationalisation of

solidarity practices' (Wagner and Zimmermann 2003, p.254) as a consequence of the

rise of the nation state that found its expression, for instance, in public unemployment

insurances or the social security's solidarity principle, regional integration movements

do not necessarily replace, but have the potential to complement domestic solidarity

commitments.

Mau (2008, pp.10-14) differentiates five types of European solidarity that will be the

point of reference here: self-seeking solidarity (`Eigennutzsolidarität'), solidarity

based on affinity (`Verbundenheitssolidarität'), solidarity as a citizen

(`Bürgersolidarität'), collective solidarity (`Bewegungssolidarität') and empathetic

solidarity (`Mitgefühlssolidarität'). Table 2 below summarises the five modes and

will serve as an analytical orientation for further evaluation of the EUSF.

• Université: Humboldt-University of Berlin
• Note: 1.3
• Auteur: Ron Böhler (Auteur)
• Année de publication: 2012
• Pages: 22
• N° de catalogue: V376559
• ISBN (ebook): 9783668537811
• ISBN (Livre): 9783668537828
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: investigation, european, union, solidarity, fund