The issue of the social dimension of the European integration process is not new, as the study suggests. However, it has been experiencing a political revival for some time now, which has not been noticed outside professional circles for a long time. This is due to the social imbalances and disparities that have emerged during the rapid succession of economic crises over the last 15 years. The neoclassical economic paradigm and its market-based understanding of the welfare state are too entrenched. The gap between market-creating and market-correcting integration is too deep and the approaches to social policy coordination that have been introduced since the mid-1990s are too weak
This is where the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) is primarily located. Its 20 principles were announced in 2017 by the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission as possible goals for the creation of an inclusive social union. This component is legally non-binding, does not lead to any changes in competences between the supranational level and the national level, and only contains a table of social indicators as an aid to its implementation - aspects that make it look primarily like a rhetorical attempt to return attention to the social element.
Since the launch of the EPSR six years ago, the Commission has not missed an opportunity to refer to these principles in the regulatory, distributional and coordination social policies of the European Union (EU). On the other hand, most Member States have been cautious about the new document. In the National Reform Programmes (NRPs) they sent to Brussels, governments regularly talked about how welcome the EPSR was. But very few of them used the Social Scoreboard indicators to better identify and analyse social deficits and problems in their countries. The EPSR could thus only serve as a vague guide in its first three years of existence.
This changed in 2020, when the EU took several decisive steps in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and its socio-economic consequences. It lifted budget constraints and suspended the Stability and Growth Pact, before creating a European instrument to support short-term work: the Support for Unemployment Risk Reduction in Emergencies (SURE). In addition, a new generation of EU reform and investment packages was launched: €750 billion of EU-wide crisis and structural aid, co-financed, needs-based and largely based on financial non-repayable transfers. Finally, in the social field, the EPSR Action Plan was presented at the EU Social Summit in Porto in 2021. It contains three mandatory quantitative targets: increasing employment rates, increasing participation in vocational training and combating poverty and social exclusion.
Given this innovative approach to crisis management, the question arises whether the new financially supported instruments provide the previously missing complement to the EPSR. Beyond mere rhetorical references, can the EPSR now fulfil its supposed potential to improve social conditions? Can we also expect an acceleration of social progress in the context of the fight against the pandemic and the new generation EU package - beyond the explicit investment and reform objectives of the two green and digital transformations? Will the management of Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs) in the European Semester lead to a better balance between economic and social objectives? And is the EPSR and its accompanying social scoreboard now more visible in each country's welfare state?
The German institute writes that in order to ensure that the social dimension of the integration process is not only symbolically but also in reality neglected for a long time, the EPSR must be constantly used by member states and its implementation must be carefully monitored. After Porto, a path with three quantitative objectives was chosen; this should be followed by other social indicators, particularly in the area of fair working conditions. The underlying principle will remain unclear until there is a national (parliamentary) debate on how one's own country stands up in European social comparison. A procedure on social imbalances should be introduced to stimulate such discussions. This will make Member States' social investment and reform plans for the next generation of the EU, which are still preliminary and in some places insufficiently consistent, more binding and better adapted to the social gaps and challenges identified.
However, according to the authors of the study.
English 
Czech