News

Last Wednesday the European Commission published the long awaited Social Investment Package (SIP).

The concept of social investment is much welcomed! First because it goes against the prejudice that it is an oxymoron – which we know it is not! The Commission states that “social policies have lasting impacts by offering economic and social returns over time”.

Second, it is also welcomed because we have been calling for it for the last two years. Witnessing the devastating social consequences of austerity measures, we have been proposing to secure a strong social pillar in the EU economic priorities. We know that social policies should also be a key driver of EU policies.

This is not only because we think that it is better for the economy or because we like to show that initial IMF recommendations were wrong and led to dramatic cuts in public spending. It is based on our members warning that the impacts on the ground are detrimental to people. Statistics now recognise that there are about 4 million more people in poverty in 2012 than in 2010.

So yes I support the concept of social investment to ensure adequacy as well as sustainability of social protection systems and social services, and their contribution to stabilising the economy. Several of our members welcome the specific recommendations addressing child poverty, homelessness, healthcare and active inclusion. These recommendations should be supported not only as an exit strategy to the crisis but also as an improvement of EU and national policies.

Then you wonder. If the concept is so welcomed, why only take a sip and not drink the whole bottle? Because I have some reservations and concerns on essential concepts included in the package. For one the focus on activating people for the economy and the labour market rather than investment in people and the rights to a dignified life.

Here is what could be a new oxymoron: “conditional universalism”. The Commission seems to be aware of the tension between these two words when it writes that “both universalism and selectivity need to be used in an intelligent way”. We believe in universalism but it is mentioned only twice in the main communication addressing social policies while conditionality is mentioned eight times and “targeted”, 18 times (targeted population, groups, policies). When the Commission asks what is needed? The answer is “simple, targeted and conditional social investment”. We believe in universalism.

I have to say that that this sip is tasting a bit bitter.

We are ready to support the concept of social investment – but we are also ready to discuss all the concepts included in the document with our members and the institutions to make it work for the people…. Let me rephrase it: for all people.

Let’s engage!

Pierre Baussand – Director