Via Harry Hatchet, this piece by Libertarian Samizdata’s Andy Duncan on the new European Union (EU) requirement that all businesses with more than 50 employees have work councils. Duncan (and Perry de Havilland in comments) see this as a step on the path to compulsory workers’ Soviets, and the subjugation of employers to their paid employees. Compare this however, with the Socialist Worker Party’s rather different take on the EU. The SWP claims that the EU is all about creating a “bosses’ Europe,” which allows “market forces to let rip.”
Now clearly, both can’t be correct. Either the EU is a worker’s paradise in the making or it’s a playground for global capital. So who’s right? In one sense, of course, neither; they’re both exaggerating for effect. But the Socialist Worker crowd are probably closer to the truth than the British libertarians. Like it, or like it not, the European Union’s driving force is market creation.
Wolfgang Streeck provides a good account of the reasons why, in this paper on industrial relations in the EU (readers be warned: Streeck has a distracting fondness for italics). As he says, major changes within the European Union require the consensus of all fifteen member states, especially when they touch upon sensitive issues such as workers’ rights and the organization of companies. It’s rather difficult for all fifteen to reach agreement on any but the most anodyne proposals in these areas (the workers’ councils in the Directive are rather limp by comparison with their German equivalents). In contrast, member states do usually agree that market integration is a good thing; they’re more likely to reach consensus quickly on measures that promote liberalization. Thus, proposals for works councils and the like get trapped in the legislative pipeline for decades, and finally emerge (if they do emerge) as pale and stunted things, blinking in the sunlight. Proposals to liberalize markets, in contrast, are usually (though not always) easier for member states to reach agreement on; they come out of the process as altogether beefier creatures. The bosses don’t have much to be worried about.
Let’s not dive head first off the slippery slope here. There’s quite a difference between being pro-union and being pro-Communist. In Poland, at least, the labor unions were the greatest anti-Communist force in the country in the 1980s — and with good reason.
And this directive is not even “pro-Union” in the sense of supporting the union position. It is merely pro-Union in the lesser sense of supporting the existence of a union.
I don’t know where Samizdata jumps from “Union will exist” to “Unions will be more powerful than management.”
Pension reform in France shows that slowly, slowly, Unions are losing power in Europe, not gaining them.
We need to discuss the EU’s obsessions with pervasive mandatory regulation without getting sidetracked into subsidiary debates about whether or not the EU is collectively intent upon becoming increasingly like the old Soviet command economy. Such hysterical comparisons are apt to divert attention from real and important issues, such as the causes of the persistently high unemployment rates in the major Eurozone economies and the historically miserable rates of net new job generation compared with America.
In the EU’s enthusiasm for adding to employment rights it tends to get overlooked that these rights impose additional real costs on businesses which have to be recovered through higher prices or through impacting profits and wage settlements, as well as having consequences for attracting inward investment. It also tends to get overlooked that businesses, especially small businesses, are apt to take counter-vailing actions to minimise the costs of complying with the regulations - like avoiding growing beyond 50 employees when onerous new regulations start to apply and in hiring practices. The fundamental question, as always, is whether the benefits of the regulations are sufficient to compensate for both the intended additional costs and unintended consequences.
Henry seems to be saying that the liberalising proposals are more likely to succeed as they’re equivalent to the lowest common denominator of member states. But there is another point/tangent at play here; i.e. what sort of proposals get on the EU legislative agenda in the first place.
Looking at the (draft) Directives and other proposals I’ve spent the last couple of years working on doing advocacy for business organisations, (and admittedly that viewpoint comes with its own prejudices) it seems to me that to get onto the agenda in the first place, a proposal will more often be ratcheting up government intervention in a given millieu.
The argument goes like this; ‘in X country, we have a higher level of protection on Y issue. For the internal market to function, we need an equivalent measure of protection throughout the EU. Therefore here is Z Directive to increase regulation in all EU member states.’ I see this over and over again in my issue area alone; the data protection Directive, aspects of the e-signatures directive, the ill-starred e-confidence initiative, and so on. Of course, there are two factors here. Firstly, there seems to be a driving imperative amongst ‘high regulation’ countries to share the love as it were. Secondly, it probably helps that it is institutional heavyweight Germany that is most often making these proposals.
Of course the punchline is that we then get a Directive intended to harmonise things and further the internal market, but that ends up making things more confused than ever! Each country goes off and implements the Directive in its own way. The Germans goldplate it. The UK leaves it to the market/common law decisions to decide. The Italians transpose a draconian version and never enforce it. The Irish worry that it will scare off US FDI and have to be hauled up in front of the ECJ before they get around to it at all. And at the end of it all, we’re back to square one with the high regulation states fuming that the low regulation ones aren’t playing by the rules, the low regulation states spitting while they impose measures they never wanted, the EU institutional wheels spinning in the air, and the citizens, businesses etc. hopelessly confused and wondering what it was all about in the first place. The only winners are the lawyers.
BTW I wouldn’t be so sanguine about pro-employer policies prevailing. Just check out the successful land grab DG Employment has made in getting the all clear to introduce a new data protection directive for the employment context. Nothing much online yet, green paper expected in September.
To Maria’s splendid thoughts, I’d only add that the potential regulations for allowing a company to incorporate across the EU with incorporation in a single country (it’s called “Europa AG” here in Germany) - a classic item on the business wish-list - are now well into their second decade of discussion. The overall trend may be market integration, but significant items spend many years in pre-publication Purgatory. Then add Maria’s points on implementation.
It’s a very slow bicycle.
Maria’s description of the EU road to regulation is broadly accurate from my own more limited experience at the front line too. The historic roots of this dirigiste course go back to Colbert and Mercantilism, and to Napoleon and the Continental System, not to Marx or Lenin or some other stream of socialist ideology.
The credit for first introducing state pensions goes back to Bismarck, first Chancellor of the German empire, whose political inclinations were anything but socialist. It is precisely because the deeply embedded traditions of dirigisme in Europe have origins in what are usually considered rightist or conservative ideologies that what is called the European Social Model has proved so resilient to pressures for market liberalisation reforms.
There is much accumulating and persuasive evidence for this interpretation. Von Stackleberg in the 1930s, one of the early pioneers of the theory of oligopoly, came to regard the authoritarian fascist state as the preferred way for resolving the unstable outcomes of competition between oligopolies. Leaping forward some decades, we have this: “For example, take a peek at a 1993 interview given to the Financial Times by Edouard Balladur, prime minister of France and now the favorite to succeed Mitterrand in this spring’s presidential election. ‘What is the market?’ asked Balladur. ‘It is the law of the jungle. And what is civilization? It is the struggle against nature.’” - quoting John Andrews at: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/culture.html
Note, though, that unlike America, most of Europe’s population (especially its working age population) is expected to shrink over the next several decades.
Knowing that, it seems rational to focus on bettering the lot of the workers that exist, rather than fuel job growth for future workers who demographically won’t exist.
There is unemployment now, but in the long term the problem may more likely be too few workers.
Pathos - Do you mean Europe is being driven by short-termism when that is the very charge levelled by radical critics of the Anglo-Saxon values and ways said to characterise American capitalism?
We are not all libertarians at Samizdata.net and we are not called Libertarian Samizdata but Samizdata.net.
Huh? The idea of the EU being a “bosses’ Europe” that the Socialist Workers Party foresee is quite correct actually, though that would also include those eminently corruptible Labour Union Bosses… which is of course the antithesis of a market Europe. The modern social democratic state loves bosses for exactly the same reason fascist states love bosses. Bosses can be favoured with regulatory barriers to new market entrants, they can be co-opted and convinced to run their businesses in accordance with National Objectives.
Adding workers councils just adds another burden to medium sized businesses that can simply be dealt with by big business by throwing patronage and money at in ways smaller business cannot match.
The EU is an ‘established players protection society’. Were you under the impression the CAP was about creating new markets? Were you under the impression ‘workers councils’ are about making market decision making more rational? Market creation? Don’t make me laugh.
Perry
I agree on one point - nobody in their right minds would say that the CAP is about creating new markets - it’s a thinly disguised version of farmer’s dole. But if you look at the day to day business of the Commission - the day to day regulations, directives etc - it is all about market creation. Likewise the European Court of Justice - which has had a strongly pro-market bias in its rulings. I recommend that you read some of the lefties who get upset at the ways in which the EU undermines national forms of social democracy. They’ve got some quite good empirical evidence to support their views. There’s a reason why The Economist is broadly pro-Europe. I recommend in particular the work of Streeck, Philippe Schmitter, and Colin Crouch.
Henry - The Economist is broadly pro-European, as I am, because it supports the causes of trade liberalisation and reducing impediments to market flexibility.
Sadly, the EU’s record on those counts is not good - “While Western Europe reported no net new jobs from 1973 to 1994, the US generated 38 million net new jobs.” [Lester Thurow: The Future of Capitalism (1996), citing the Economic Report of the US President, 1995] Despite that, we have: “. . in March 1996 . . the Belgium Finance Minister said baldly that monetary union was about ‘preventing the encroachment of Anglo-Saxon values’ in Europe.” [Bernard Connolly: The Rotten Heart of Europe (1996)]
The CAP is not some minor aberration to be dismissed as just farmers’ dole. The cost of CAP takes up almost half the entire EU budget. The unending flow of Directives which add to business costs are hardly “market creating”. Nor are many of the “anti-dumping” duties applied to EU imports more in response to pressures from internal vested interests than any well-founded trade case. Nor was the bananas trade scam, which went to the WTO a few years back, where most of the financial benefits went to European traders awarded import licenses.
Would that the EU did more to create a European Single Market when financial and professional services are still subject to national trade barriers. Instead, in today’s news, we have calls for a European finance minister with more pressure for a “multilateral” tax policy - meaning tax harmonisation by another means - and for an even “tougher” Stability and Growth Pact in the Eurozone to rein back the burgeoning budget deficits of the major Eurozone economies. Not much subsidiarity with all that.
What Europe needs is rather less of the yawning gap between the virtuous rhetoric and the stark realities. A good start would be the EU’s accounting system. The UK’s National Audit Office has just reported to Parliament on The European Court of Auditors for 2001. It says, “the Court drew similar conclusions to previous years and for the EIGHTH year in succession qualified its opinion on the reliability of the Community’s accounts.” - from: http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/02-03/0203701.pdf
Back to basics, anyone?
“Note, though, that unlike America, most of Europe’s population (especially its working age population) is expected to shrink over the next several decades.”
This seems to be the point, all the rest more or less follows from this. Anyone interested in an interesting theory could follow this link:
http://www.framtidsstudier.se/aktuellt/SSHApaper001.pdf
Institutional decision making operates in a context more-or-less well defined by other parameters like technology, demographics and communication systems.
For the latest on the scale of fraud in the EU Commission, see: http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=12040
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review