Documentation from the "Mobility Without Borders" seminar
The seminar in Brussels on March 15th was arranged by the Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research (FSF), the Swedish Agency for Econimic and Regional Growth (NUTEK) and the Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies (ITPS).
• Opening remarks:
Sven-Olof Pettersson, Ambassdor of the Swedish Representation to the EU
“Structural change and globalization will happen – regardless of our opinion – the question is how do we handle this in a positive way? The EU faces a lot of challenges in this aspect and one of its main roles in this will be; how do we contribute to make people feel positive about these changes? How do we prepare people for these changes? Mobility and security in the
common market are two key ingredients in this – hence the popular term “flexicurity”.
• Lars Oxelheim, Professor Lund University, Chairman of the Swedish Networks for European Studies (Three networks, economic, political science and legal matters)
The rigidity of the labour market seems to be a hindrance of the progress of the Lisbon strategy. In order to look further into these issues, the book project “ A European Labour Market Without Borders” was launched. The executive summary of the book is linked here.
• ”The Freedom of Movement of Services and the Right to Strike”.
Ronnie Eklund, Professor Stockholm University
In 2004, Swedish trade unions launched action on a Latvian building contractor after a conflict on collective agreements for the Latvian workers. The key question was; “Is the Swedish law is in compliance with EU law?” According to Ronnie Eklund it is.
Swedish labour unions can set aside foreign collective agreement in order to benefit their own collective agreements. Protection of workers seems to be a stronghold.
Is the right to strike a fundamental right or a human right? International labour standard conventions are protected in public international law. The right to strike protected in several member states by constitutions – hence the right to strike is acknowledged by the EU.
The member states cannot set aside these rights vis-à-vis each other – that might interfere with the freedom of movement of labour.
There are strong arguments in concluding the right to strike should not be set aside in the light of the freedom of movement of services and labour.
Social history plays and important part in this. Even if you open up the borders to free labour movement you will still have other factors at play.
• ”Migration, European Intregration and the Populist Right – an Explosive Combination?”
Anders Widfeldt, PhD and Lecturer in Politics at the University of Aberdeen
The populist right has gone through three phases since WWII. The first two phases are not very important for today’s discussion, but the third phase and the emergence of a fourth phase is more interesting.
In the third phase the dominant theme was immigration. Le Pen and Front National in France as well as FPÖ in Austria are examples of this. These parties were still not legitimate among other parties.
In phase four, a number of countries the groups have been more legitimized and recognized. The emphasis has shifted to the welfare system, but not for immigrants – “social chauvinism”. The point – populist right has become more influential and legitimate than in the first three phases. However, there has not been any universal breakthrough for right wing populist parties.
How come the right-wing parties have made this progress?
Centre-right parties need support in order to hold off the left parties which are strengthened by green parties. The outcome of this is a more polarized party system.
The increasing popularity of the populist right parties is not a single-issue thesis, but the anti-immigration factor is most important. However, something else strikes a chord with the populist right voters as well. What is this “x” factor? Three suggestions:
Pavement issues (“-If we get your vote, we will fix traffic lights”, etc.)
Immigrant crime
Immigrant integration into the labour market (or rather the lack of integration)
The populist right menace to European integration:
Will take nationalist stands on matters where there is a perceived threat to the “own people”
Will exploit and whip up popular discontent with the EU
Will use its populist rhetoric to discredit EU positive parties and the EU itself
Will polarise the EU debate, possibly drowning balanced EU criticism
The populist right may ultimately slow down the European integration process
Conclusion; The populist right will not go away, it will evolve and take different shapes.
If EU integration process is to continue, the populist right needs to be checked. Successful integration and labour market policies are crucial In fact, probably more crucial than mere accommodation of the populist right and its demands, or marginalisation of populist right parties and their support.
• ”European Year of Workers´ Mobility 2006”.
Jimmy Jamar, EU Commisson, Deputy Head of Unit, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Mobility is increasingly evident in several strategy documents within the EU. Initiatives have been taken in order to facilitate and stimulate this (job mobility for example, access to jobs).
The proportion of EU citizens working in another EU-state is lower than 2%. This is contradictory in terms of the effort to stimulate mobility. 40% have not changed jobs over the last 10 years – in the U.S. there is much higher dynamism in the labour market.
Mobility vs. job protection. According to a recent EU barometer survey the following conclusion was drawn; work is mobile but the workers are not.
What are the obstacles?
Legal and administrative obstacles
Job applications (translation of grades, etc.)
Practical obstacles (moving)
Language skills (60% in the survey mentioned this)
Spouse employment
General social and cultural obstacles
In looking at this, one has not issued the question of return (to origin country). Mobility is not useful if you cannot integrate in the labour market once you return.
“How do you integrate mobility into a career perspective?”
16-17 million people are unemployed in the EU.
2-3 million jobs are not filled because of lack of mobility.
Does mobility bring us jobs? According to the EU survey;
59% of the people involved in mobility activities found jobs.
35% found jobs in their own country.
What do we want – the facilitating of mobility or the promotion of mobility?
Facilitating: To remove obstacles, increase accessibility, etc.
Promoting: Creating a culture of mobility
What must be done:
Information on the impact of mobility – up to date information
Mobility must be a system – leaving and arrival
Address the issue of return
Mobility must be integrated
Attitudes in general – an obstacle.
Legal side – instruments; EURES-portal provides a unique information portal.
• ”Globalization and the Reform of European Social Models”.
André Sapir, Professor of Economics, ECARES, Université Loire de Bruxelles Senior Fellow
Globalization, first phase with a lot of trade a lot of mobility – now, not that much mobility but a lot of transfer of capital and trade. The role of developing countries is strengthened.
For example; China and India, played a small role in the first phase of the globalization (closed economies). In the last 40 years, they have become actors in the world economy. Our idea of the division of labour has been turned around. Markets have arisen that were before hidden, etc. Very much driven by technological change. Doubled the supply of labour, by the changes of policies.
Is the EU social model being threatened by this progress? Is there a EU social model? (depends of your perspective). From Beijing it may seem so, but comparisons within EU will show differences. Is there one, 25 or 4 models?? Social history plays a part.
Sapir; How do we cope, adapt and take advantage of the changes brought on by globalization?
Sapir divides the European social models into 4 groups.
Performance of these models are key;
Efficiency – how much employment do the models generate?
Equity – risk of falling into powerty.
Protection - of jobs or of individuals?
Conclusion; there is a need of reform of those models who are not efficient.
• Comments by Christoph Vondenhoff, Director CESI-European Academy
Free movement of persons is key for CESI, mobility of the workforce as well – these areas are of priority to the CESI;
Mobility and language learning – a negative factor, diversity of languages is important.
Mobility and training of young people – training in foreign countries, transfer of grants, etc.
Mobility of qualification – key factor
Researcher mobility – necessary for the EU in order to stay compeptitive.
Public sector mobility – large number of employees in this sector, therefore important, multi-national administrations may be efficient for certain tasks.
Conclusion - mobility must be encouraged and a EU-framework must be set up to handle this very important issue.
