*** MICHEL DEVOLUY, GILBERT KOENIG (Editors): L'Europe économique et sociale. Singularités, doutes et perspectives. Presses universitaires de Strasbourg (Palais universitaire, 9 place de l'Université, BP 90020, F-67084 Strasbourg cedex. Tel: (33-3) 68856821 - fax: 68856820 - Email: info@pu-strasbourg.com - Internet: http://www.pu-strabourg.com ). 2011, 320 pp, €24. ISBN 978-2-86820-476-9.
This is a book that will certainly get some people's teeth gnashing. It will definitely irritate the German Chancellor and the higher ranks at the Berlaymont, as well as a significant number of European political leaders from all the different parties. This is because the distinguished economists who wrote this book do not hold any punches when it comes to describing the exact nature of the economic and social system that has imposed itself by stealth in the European context. This system is the reason for the concerns and helplessness, as well as the anger currently expressed by many citizens, especially in Greece, at the way the European Union is functioning. These concerns, helplessness and anger are justified to a certain extent by the writers' meticulous and critical analysis of the system, which is firstly scrutinised in light of its irregularities, as well as its strengths and weaknesses and ultimately, its possible future developments.
Three authors firstly describe the deep roots and gradual development of European construction since its launch, to the period of monetary integration. Professor Michel Dévoluy (similarly to the majority of the other contributors, also teaches at the University of Strasbourg) asks the reader to go back to the, “sources of the polysemy of the European model”, three major ambivalent features that characterise the system. The first explains that apart from the time when the first Community existed, “Europe is indeed much more one of its states than a federal construction”, with the increasing role of the European Council used to promote, “the primacy of the intergovernmental approach”. Even a shift to Economic and Monetary Union can be understood in terms of national interests given that for France, “national pride preferred subjection to a supranational central bank rather than to the Bundesbank”. This enabled the Germans to put their national interests to the fore by, “imposing their culture of a monetary policy” subject to their own resolutely subjective values. The second glaring example of ambivalence can be located in the fact that with the single market and currency, Europe abandoned any vague attempt towards achieving an interventionist economic policy and subsequently merged it fully with neoliberal values or more precisely, those of a German neoliberal school of thought. This explains that economic Europe, since the Single Act, has represented, “the dominance of the Hayek school of thought rather than that of Keynes” and the, “decisive role of free and unbridled competition” through the radicalisation of market integration (consequently, a negative integration, which scraps barriers between markets but not at all the positive integration that puts in place common policies). It also does this through an Economic and Monetary Union whose foundations have made it impossible to, “carry out an active budgetary policy at a euro zone level” and categorically refuses any role for social and fiscal convergence between the economies of member states. Subsequently, this has created a form of inevitable social withdrawal in Europe. The third and final area of this reigning ambivalence is denounced by Professor Dévoluy, who locates it in the preferred mode of management advocated for too long by the elite, to the detriment of the people and which has resulted in their disenchantment with a Europe that instead of providing protection, “has participated in making the social fabric more fragile and has contributed to the deterioration of the welfare state”. These are clearly serious accusations and the other authors' contributions that follow are no less harsh. René Kahn subsequently shows that contrary to the hopes of Europe's founding fathers, the economy has not formed the bedrock of political integration and, on the contrary, has, “instrumentalised policy”. Whose fault is all this? “Liberal economic construction”, which would like policy to be either massively discredited or its role reduced or ignored to the extent that today, “the European model of integration based on economic foundations does not allow for the political autonomy of European society in the socio-economic choices of the way in which it is organised”.
Serious charges, not doubt about it! Obviously, other diametrically opposed views will not be long in coming with regard to the crisis currently affecting the Eurozone and some of its member states. The economy as we are now quite aware, is still not exactly a science. Nonetheless, nothing should suggest that the economists who contributed to this book are in anyway more stupid then those that have been “guiding” European leaders for the last thirty years. It also has to be said that the analysis they provide is serious and meticulous and continually critical in the second part of the book where they dissect the characteristics, ambiguities and performance of the economic and social system. The third part of the book includes a contribution by two authors who look at two possible future trajectories: one on the basis of the current texts and current draft reforms and the other, which re-appropriates the perspectives of the initial European project in the context of contemporary challenges. This appears undeniably more promising, given that in this contribution, Michel Dévoluy makes an appeal for future federal planning in Europe that melds industrial policy and major projects with an appropriately valued agriculture system (which includes collective control of seeds by the public domain), a regulated financial system, social contract (which includes the setting up of genuine European political parties and public services), a real budget (with European taxes) and finally, “economic government” that realises that the future of EMU has to be of a federal variety!
Michel Theys
*** GORDON BAJNAI, THOMAS FISCHER, STEPHANIE HARE, SARAH HOFFMANN, KALYPSO NICOLAÏDIS, VANESSA ROSSI, JURI VIEHOFF, ANDREW WATT: Solidarity: For Sale? The Social Dimension of the New European Economic Governance. Bertelsmann Stiftung (256 Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße, P. O. Box 103, D-33311 Gütersloh. Tel: (49-5241) 81-0 - fax: 81-81999 - Internet: http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.org ). "Europe in Dialogue" series. 2012, No. 1, 151 pp.
Is solidarity in the European Union for sale? This powerful title of the book hits exactly the right note with regard to the current situation Europeans are currently having to endure. The book contains eleven different contributions that examine the social dimensions to possible solutions for finding a way out of this crisis. These writers do not attempt to create any illusions and Thomas Fischer and Sarah Hoffmann hammer home the fact that, “there is growing concern that the burgeoning debt crisis in Europe will develop into a massive social crisis” and that, “there is a worrying lack of solidarity among member states and their citizenries”. The appropriateness of the different concepts of solidarity are also scrutinised by the political scientists Kalypso Nicolaïdis and Juri Viehoff, while Andrew Watt, a researcher at the European Trade Union Institute adds another layer to the pessimistic outlook and argues that the mistaken perception of, “limits to cross-national solidarity' threaten to destroy monetary union and perhaps lastingly damage the whole idea of a Europe based on cohesion and solidarity”. Former Hungarian Prime Minister, Gordon Bajnai defends the point of view that the only way of finding a crisis exit strategy is to go further down the road of integration. The other contributions also contain potential solutions to this crisis.
(PBo)
*** Confrontations Europe (227 bld. Saint-Germain, F-75007 Paris. Tel: (33-1) 43173283 - fax: 45561886 - Email: confrontations@wanadoo.fr - Internet: http://www.confrontations.org ). January-March 2012,
No. 97, 48 pp, €7.
It is completely understandable that this first edition of Confrontations Europe this year is largely dominated by the crisis that threatens to sweep away the euro zone. In his editorial, Claude Fischer explains that this crisis is both economic and financial but also “cultural” insofar as the different states, “are unable to unite their societies, which distrust each other and are being tempted by a nationalistic turning in on themselves”. The president of the association founded by Philippe Herzog, considers that nothing positive can be expected if the different nations, “with their rich histories and cultures” are unable to meet the huge and unavoidable challenges together and “invent a plurinational democracy, recreate hope by shaping society, organising a crisis exit strategy and by mobilising all citizens and actors in solidarity together to tackle the markets”. This analysis is fully adhered to by Philippe Herzog who asserts that, “if governments are unable to establish genuine cooperation and solidarity together for stability and growth, EMU will disintegrate. The different nations must pool their efforts and subsequently agree to share their sovereignty!” Given that he considers the reference to the United States of Europe as being historically dated, this former MEP affirms that the time has now come for political unity in the euro zone based on, “a rapprochement of nations, their economic models and cultures” and an ambitious pact for, “budgetary and banking discipline but also for the labour market, financial regulation, taxation and industrial policy, which should also be subjects in which cooperation should be developed”. Carole Ulmer confirms that they have to make the shift from “punitive governance” to “active governance” underpinned by an embryonic European Treasury. Obviously, but won't the euro zone be riven apart before such progress can be made? Judging by the evidence, the subject is no longer a taboo and the economist, Christian Saint-Etienne proposes that in order to avoid this scenario, nine countries from the Eurozone “which belonged to the same political sphere at different times of their history” (the countries from the former mark zone, as well as France, Italy, Spain and Portugal) leave in order to set up a federal Eurozone based on the following commitments: the creation of minimum taxation and social norms between them, “for example, to make a commitment to not lower corporation tax and saving tax rates to below 20%” and, in particular, “to put in place a specific budget in the same which is quickly raised to 3% of the zone's GDP to fund infrastructure, R&D and the creation of a fabric of federal universities”. We can clearly see that there is no dearth of ideas in this issue of Confrontations Europe. The main feature in this publication focuses on European banks in crisis and appeals, “for a proactive European solidarity pact”.
(MT)
*** MICHAEL FAURE, JAN SMITS (Editors): Does Law Matter? On Law and Economic Growth. Intersentia (31 Groenstraat, B-2640 Mortsel. Tel: (32-3) 6801550 - fax: 6587121 - Email: mail@intersentia.be - Internet: http://www.intersentia.com ). "Ius Commune Europaeum" series, No.100. 2011, 416 pp, €80, £76, $112. ISBN 978-94-000-0217-3.
This excellent book was specially commissioned and has become the hundredth volume to be published in the Ius Commune Europaeum. In a multidisciplinary and scientific approach, it examines an issue that has become crucial in academic circles: to what extent can differences in economic development be explained by differing laws and institutions in different countries? According to supporters of the “legal origins” thesis, these differences in economic performance are to a large extent dependent on whether a country belongs to the civil law or common-law family. Other schools of thought interpret this view of things differently but with equal determination. The three different parties and fifteen contributions that make up this book examine all the different aspects of this debate and provide an integrated approach that combines economic aspects, comparative law and empirical observations.
(PBo)
*** MICHEL DEVOLUY: L'euro est-il un échec ? La Documentation Française (29 quai Voltaire, F-75344 Paris Cedex 07. Tel: (33-1) 40157010 - Internet: http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr ). « Réflexe Europe / Débats » series. 2012, 201 pp, €9. ISBN 978-2-11-008886-9.
Has the European Union really benefited from the advantages it expected from the single currency in the European economic area? What conditions should be met if this demanding enterprise is to be successful and have any of them been made yet? What are the concrete political, theoretical and technical choices that need to be made? Why have some of them being met and others not? Are they still relevant in the current period? Should the fragility of the euro in this crisis period be interpreted as “congenital”? Should the major changes operated over recent months (the pact for the euro, the European Stability Mechanism, governance package and the inter-governmental treaty imposing a new budgetary pact) be interpreted as a welcome reorientation in Economic and Monetary Union? Or should it simply be seen as a “change in continuity without constituting any real federalist direction” being adopted? These are the questions that Michel Dévoluy, a senior lecturer at the University of Strasbourg, seeks to tackle. He also currently occupies the Jean Monnet Chair European economy and attempts to provide a number of answers in this erudite and extremely lucid publication, which would be extremely useful too to those who are not the experts in this particular field. In his contribution he points out that the single currency has always had to fight for its life and has been criticised on several different fronts such as: on the question of national sovereignty, which is still judged sacrosanct in some countries; the question of methodology, “the current difficulties in the euro zone” illustrate that functionalism is now at an end and, finally, although monetary and budgetary orthodoxy is based on an order of economic liberalism and neoliberal economic policies, Europe lacks economic efficiency and we are now paying the price for this in these times of major recession. Unsurprisingly (see the opening remarks in this edition of the European Library), Professor Dévoluy argues that if we are to prevent the single currency collapsing we need to set up some sort of federalised planning in the euro zone. He believes that this would help create a stable basis to a euro zone that would act in the interests of European citizens by developing a governmental method based on federalist and Keynesian theory. The author admits, however, that these ideas will certainly be greeted with a certain amount of circumspection and are currently unlikely to reach consensus but they do translate his conviction that Europe's future can no longer be determined in any half-hearted way or by vagaries such as what way in the wind happens to be blowing at a specific and given moment in time. It is difficult to disagree with him for reaching this conclusion.
(MT)