The European Social Model: an exercise in deconstructionMaria Jepsen, ETUI and Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Amparo Serrano Pascual*, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

Article

Journal of European Social Policy 0958-9287; Vol 15(3): 231–245; 054087 Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications, London,Thousand Oaks and New Delhi, DOI: 10.1177/0958928705054087

Summary One of the fastest growing Euro-pean catchwords at the present time – the‘European Social Model’ (ESM) – is used todescribe the European experience of simultane-ously promoting sustainable economic growthand social cohesion. The use of the concept ofESM in academic and political debate ischaracterized by two main and interconnectedfeatures: on the one hand, the usually taken-for-granted assumption of the reality of theconcept (the reality called ‘Europe’ becomes anaturally occurring phenomenon); on the otherhand, the highly ambiguous and polysemicnature of this concept. A clear definition ofwhat constitutes its essence seems to be lackingin most documents on the subject, while areview of some of the most important of thesedocuments reveals that, insofar as definitionsare to be found, they do not necessarily con-verge. This article aims to discuss the conceptof the ESM. It analyses and deconstructs theconcept in order to identify the main under-standings and the various dimensions of themodel. It classifies and discusses the ways inwhich the ESM is most frequently construedand proposes a new approach to understand-ing this polysemy. We argue that the differentdimensions of the concept can be seen asrhetorical resources intended to legitimize thepolitically constructed and identity-buildingproject of the EU institutions.

Key words deconstruction, EU legitimacy,European Social Model

Résumé ???

* Author to whom correspondence should be sent: Amparo Serrano Pascual, Researcher Ramón y Cajal,Facultad de CC. Políticas y Sociología, Departamento de Psicología Social, Universidad Complutense deMadrid, Campus de Somosaguas, 28223 Madrid, España. [email: amparoserrano@telefonica.net]

One of the fastest growing European catch-words at the present time – the ‘EuropeanSocial Model’ (ESM) – is used to describe theEuropean experience of simultaneously pro-moting sustainable economic growth andsocial cohesion. This concept, current in bothacademic and political discourse, is used toadvance thinking about a third way of achiev-ing a society, as opposed to both the neo-liberalpath taken by the USA, which leads to socialdisintegration, and the more recently discred-ited path of social-regulated markets, whichentails economic inefficiency.

This article aims to deconstruct the conceptof a European Social Model by identifying thevarious meanings accruing to it in academicand political debate and analysing the mainassumptions underlying its use. By means of asocial-constructivist approach to the debate onthe europeanization of the ‘social question’, weseek to analyse how speakers, in their use ofrhetorical concepts, are not merely sayingthings, but actually doing things (Wetherelland Potter, 1988). We would like to elucidatehow speakers debate, and reach consensusabout, what ‘goes without saying’. These arethe things which come to be regarded as mattersof common sense (Billig, 1987) and, hence, asself-evident. The concept of ESM is often takenfor granted in this way, in a manner implyingthat all further discussion is superfluous.

The aim of this analysis is not solely to showthe need for a discussion of its underlyingassumptions; it is also to discuss the politicalstatus of the concept which, in our view, isassociated with the process of constructingsupranational regulation and seeking to legit-imize the European institutions. Insofar as lan-guage shapes reality, the significance of theconcept could be interpreted as one manifesta-tion of a political struggle to push certain itemsonto the political agenda.

We think it is important to draw attention tothe ways in which models and identities arereified by researchers and policymakers. In anendeavour to call into question such an essen-tialist approach, we favour a conception ofESM as a political project. As demonstrated by

Abélès (2002), Europe, regarded as a homoge-neous entity, is a process (project) rather than aproduct and it does not, as such, lend itself toreification. We believe that the EU institutionsplay a key role in this process of politicalconstruction.

The European Social Model is in fact aloosely defined normative1 concept and, assuch, is used with differing meanings in accor-dance with rather ambiguous definitions. Aclear definition of what constitutes its essenceseems to be lacking in most documents on thesubject, while a review of the most importantof these documents reveals, furthermore, that,insofar as definitions are to be found, they donot necessarily converge. The polysemy sur-rounding the concept might well be found toreflect a lack of scientific precision in relationto its use in the debate on the evaluation of EUpolicies and on the effectiveness of suprana-tional regulation as a means of challenging thetrends towards globalization and europeaniza-tion of the economy. But the polysemy associ-ated with the concept may also be understoodin rhetorical terms, as a means of moving fromone ‘interpretative repertoire’2 (Wetherell andPotter, 1988) to another, for any one of avariety of purposes (e.g. to legitimize a policyproposal, to construct a sense of belonging, toturn supranational regulation into a need, etc.).

Moreover, this concept is based, to a verylarge extent, on a host of assumptions, most ofwhich have not been empirically established,and the discussion is frequently built up with-out any serious examination of the main toolsused to construct it. However, in spite of thevariable ways in which the concept is used and/or constructed, the definitions do share somecommon assumptions, and these require dis-cussion in order to avoid the predominantlynormative character which characterizes thisdebate. The first such assumption relates to theimplicit reference to a dichotomy between theAmerican and the European economy, onthe one hand, and a distinction between twochronological phases of economic develop-ment on the other hand. One important featureis the concept’s symbolic reliance on the

232 Jepsen & Pascual

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

American model, to which it implicitly orexplicitly refers, while at the same time clearlyassuming its own superiority. Implicitly, manyauthors and/or policymakers take the USA as a(negative) reference pole – or ‘counterexample’– from which Europe is to be distinguished.These rhetorical contrasting poles – the USAversus the EU and past versus future – set theboundaries within which differences are con-structed (Abélès, 2002) and trap research usingthis concept within a fixed analytical frame-work. It is our belief that these implicit refer-ences and assumptions constitute a snare, inthat they serve to inhibit further thinking onthe subject.

A second common assumption relates to theinterlinked nature of the economic and societaldimensions. Economic success and maintainingthe social quality of Europe are presented asinterrelated goals (see for instance Vobruba,2001). The key question in this discussion iswhat type of conditions, within the analyticalframework of societal change, are conducive toboth economic success and the social improve-ment of living conditions. The arguments andclaims underlying this discussion are indeedhighly controversial, relating as they do tofundamental aspects such as: the extent towhich Europe actually does share ‘common’foundational features (Robbins. 1990); whether‘knowledge’ is more important in the knowl-edge-based society (KBS) than in any othersociety; the lack of empirical evidence support-ing the assertion of a real increase in globaltrade (Petit, 1999; Hay, 2002); the problematicdescription of globalization as a non-negotiableexternal economic reality (Hay, 2002); thequestioning of the much-touted correlationbetween the use of new ICTs and increased pro-ductivity (Petit and Kragen, 1999); whether the‘new’ economy promoted by the KBS really isall that new (Wolf, 1999; Evans, 2000; Visco,2000;); the extent to which these economicprocesses really do involve an increase in work-related qualifications; the real impact of theseprocesses on organizational changes (Brödner,2000); the need for a radical change in labour-market institutions (Manning, 1998) and so on.

Our purpose is not to discuss these assump-tions here but simply to point out how impor-tant it is to avoid taking these things forgranted. How is it to be explained that, despitethe controversial underlying conceptual assum-ptions and the multiple meanings of the ESMconcept, this notion has acquired such hege-mony in the debate about intervention para-digms? We wish to discuss the ‘invention’ – bySalais et al. (1986) – of this concept in theframework of the building and institutionaliza-tion of supranational entities.

This article aims to discuss the concept of aEuropean Social Model as it is understood inthe academic literature as well as in the dis-course of the EU institutions. As has beenstressed by several authors (Alonso, 1999;Boltanski and Chiapello, 1999; Muntigl et al.,2000; Crespo Suárez and Serrano Pascual,2005, etc.), political discourse and research areintertwined. This is particularly the case withthe EU institutions. On the one hand, politicalproposals from the Commision are supportedby research for purposes of legitimation. Thistechnocratic exercise (‘expertocracy’: Weis andWodak, 1998) may be explained by the lack ofclear legitimacy of supranational regulation,and by the need to make (controversial) politi-cal arguments pass for (objective) scientificconclusions. The goal of this technocratic exer-cise is to resort to epistemic communities inorder to appear politically and ethically neutral(Boltanski and Chiapello, 1999). As Darmonunderlines, ‘recourse to expert opinion tends infact to overshadow the highly political natureof the decisions being made’ (Darmon, 2001:97). On the other hand, the EU institutions, inparticular the EU Commission, play a key rolein the circulation and dissemination of theconcept and, therefore, in framing the termsof the debates on employment policies atEuropean level. They play an important per-suasive role in providing concepts which struc-ture the current political and scientific debates.Furthermore, their discourse is presented asbeing based on conclusions emanating fromscientific debates, which are in reality politicaloptions.

The European Social Model 233

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

This paper will analyse and deconstruct theconcept in order to identify the main under-standings and the various dimensions of themodel. The second section summarizes, classi-fies and discusses the ways in which the ESM ismost frequently construed and proposes analternative approach to understanding this pol-ysemy. The third section examines the concep-tion of the ESM as a political project andargues that it is a key factor in legitimizing theEuropean institutions. The conclusions can befound in the final section.

Main conceptualizations of the ESM

Jacques Delors was one of the first to popular-ize the term ‘European Social Model’ in themid-1980s by designating it as an alternative tothe American form of pure-market capitalism.The basic idea of the ESM is that economic andsocial progress must go hand in hand; eco-nomic growth, in other words, is to be com-bined with social cohesion. However, afternearly 20 years of discussion of the ESM inboth academic and political circles, the termremains, in the face of analytical scrutiny,sorely imprecise.

One of the first definitions of the ESMappears in the ‘White Paper on Social Policy’(European Commission, 1994). There it isdefined as a set of common values, namely thecommitment to democracy, personal freedom,social dialogue, equal opportunities for all,adequate social security and solidarity towardsthe weaker individuals in society.

In the literature on the European SocialModel more generally, the term is used in manydifferent contexts and many different defini-tions can, accordingly, be identified. Thesedefinitions can be grouped into the three cate-gories listed below (based on those developedin Hay et al., 1999). The categories are notmutually exclusive; hence a definition givenunder one heading may well also be applicableunder another.

In the first cluster of definitions the ESM isconsidered as the model that incorporates

certain common features (institutions, values,etc.) that are inherent in the status quo of theEuropean Union member states and are per-ceived as enabling a distinctive mode of regula-tion as well as a distinctive competition regime.

The second cluster of definitions establishesthe ESM as being enshrined in a variety of dif-ferent national models, some of which are putforward as good examples; the ESM thusbecomes an ideal model in the Weberian sense.

The third way of identifying the ESM is as aEuropean project and a tool for modernization/adaptation to changing economic conditions aswell as an instrument for cohesiveness. Underthis cluster of definitions, the ESM is an emerg-ing transnational phenomenon.

The ESM as an entity (common institutions, values or forms of regulation)

The most commonly encountered definition isthat which refers to the common featuresshared by the European Union member states.Under this heading, definitions range fromquite vague to rather detailed and they tend, byand large, to suggest a normative approach.The ESM is often referred to as enshrining‘common views and principles on differentsocial issues and their importance within theEC construction’ (Vaughan-Whitehead, 2003:4; Servais, 2001). It is described as a specificcommon European aim geared to the achieve-ment of full employment, adequate social pro-tection, and equality. Another way of definingit is via the institutions of the welfare state andin terms of a capacity for political regulation ofthe market economy. Vaughan-Whitehead(2003) proposes a lengthy enumeration ofcomponents constituting the ESM. Thesefactors encompass labour law on workers’rights, employment, equal opportunities, anti-discrimination, and so forth. He stresses thatthe ESM is not only a set of EuropeanCommunity and member-state regulations butalso a range of practices aimed at promotingvoluntaristic and comprehensive social policy

234 Jepsen & Pascual

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

in the European Union. Scharpf (2002), fol-lowing a similar line of reasoning, sees the‘identity marks’ of the ESM as generouswelfare-state transfers and services togetherwith a social regulation of the economy: ‘. . .countries and interest groups that had come torely on social regulation of the economy andgenerous welfare state transfers and servicesare now expecting the European Union toprotect the “European Social Model” . . .’(Scharpf, 2002: 649).

These translate into the provision of socialassistance to the needy, universal provision ofeducation (primary and secondary) and healthcare, a complex nexus of social insurance andsocial services, as well as an elaborate systemof industrial relations. In Hay et al. (1999) theESM is defined as a group of welfare regimescharacterized by extensive social protection,fully comprehensive and legally sanctionedlabour-market institutions, as well as the reso-lution of social conflict by consensual anddemocratic means. Statistically speaking, theremight seem to be a grouping of identicalwelfare states in Europe; this is, however, asdemonstrated by Esping-Andersen (1990), nomore than a statistical artefact, and this authorargues that European welfare capitalismencompasses different worlds of welfare state.This is a position also followed by the support-ers of path-dependency theory.

The ESM as an ideal model

In the second strand of literature, specificnational models are identified. The UK,Sweden and Germany are put forward as para-digm cases and certain countries are pin-pointed as showing the way towards an ESMthat successfully combines economic efficiencywith social justice. Esping-Andersen (1999)endorses this approach. Ferrera et al. (2001)describe – and implicitly define – the key fea-tures of the model as being extensive basicsocial-security protection for all citizens, a highdegree of interest organization and coordi-nated bargaining, and a more equal wage and

income distribution than in most other parts ofthe world. ‘The basket of requisite policies forsustaining the European social model and en-suring an equitable trade-off between growthand social justice ought also to include, notonly a minimum guarantee and health protec-tion guarantee, but also a universal humancapital guarantee, providing access to high-quality education and training’ (Ferrera et al.,2001: 18).

They argue that these features are institu-tionalized to various degrees in the EuropeanUnion and that the UK and Ireland are definiteoutliers. The Netherlands, Denmark andAustria are put forward by these authors asgood examples of how generous welfarepolicy can accommodate economic progress.Ebbinghaus (1999) identifies four groups ofwelfare state which together form what he callsthe ‘European social landscape’. He defines amodel as a: ‘specific combination of institu-tions and social practices that govern market–society relations in a particular nation-specificcombination’ (Ebbinghaus 1999: 3). This clas-sification is based on the type of governance ofmarket macro-economic policy, labour-marketpolicy and social policy. Ebbinghaus arguesthat Europe is far from possessing any singlebest institutional design; rather, unity, in com-bination with diversity, is its hallmark.

The ESM as a European project

The last way of understanding the ESM isfound in the literature dealing with it as aEuropean project, and there is a considerabledegree of overlap with the two former strands.The authors all agree that the ESM is adynamic and evolving model which is affectedby both national and European forces andprocesses. However, rather than emphasizingthe similarities between national systems, thefocus here is on the development of a distinc-tive transnational model. Vaughan-Whitehead(2003) may be seen as a proponent of thistrend, which is also endorsed by Wilding(1997), when he points out that for one single

The European Social Model 235

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

country to conduct its own individual socialpolicy can no longer be regarded as viable:

. . . there is no doubt that the construction ofthe European Union and the willingness ofEU member states to develop coordination,cooperation, interdependence, and alsocommon rules on social policies, have helpedto maintain EU member states’ commitmentto social policy and have constrained ‘free-riding’ or ‘social dumping’ in the social area.(Vaughan-Whitehead, 2003: 5)

Hence, in the light of enlargement and theincorporation of the former state-socialistregimes into the process of European politicaland economic integration, the ESM takeson the role of assuring a certain degree ofcohesion.

Black (2002) seeks to demonstrate that thecore of the ESM lies in industrial relations andlabour-market standards and policies. Itsessence, in his view, is a multi-level system ofregulation stemming from national as well asEuropean systems of regulation/deregulationand taking as its basis the common Europeanvalues and rights set out and formally agreed inthe charter of Fundamental Social Rights. Heargues that Europe has made a considerableimpact on cross-national convergence withinthe ESM. Lönnroth (2002) also states that thecharter of fundamental human rights codifiesthe key principles of the ESM and therebyestablishes the challenges that are to be met bythe ESM in the future. ‘. . . there are somevalues, which we Europeans share, and whichmake our life different from what you find else-where in the world. These values cover thequest for economic prosperity which should belinked with democracy and participation,search for consensus, solidarity with weakestmembers, equal opportunities for all, respectfor human and labour rights, and the convic-tion that earning one’s living through work isthe basis upon which social welfare should bebuilt.’ Lönnroth (2002: 3)

In the Hellenic report (Ametsis et al., 2003)the ESM is described as a set of social values,

principles and methods which, in essence, maybe reduced to three basic and universal princi-ples: the recognition of social justice as a policytarget; the acceptance of the productive role ofsocial policy and its contribution to economicefficiency; and, finally, the development of ahigh level of bargaining between the socialpartners. The authors argue that the ESMhas not attained a normative definition at theEuropean level and that the definition ofthe future ESM will depend on reactions to thechanges currently affecting the economic,social and demographic structures of the EU.

Most of the authors/policymakers who usethe concept of ESM as a European project takethe current situation to be a turning pointbetween different models of advanced capital-ism. The process of globalization produces avariety of common pressures which, in turn,expose the different parts of the world (includ-ing the USA and Europe) to the same impera-tives of competitiveness and internal economicintegration. In the face of technological, eco-nomic and social change, which are presentedas inevitably and obviously ‘given’, the ‘need’for social and institutional modernization(structural reform, more training for new tech-nologies, etc.) is considered equally obvious:

Such modernisation is becoming urgent inthe light of the European population, withconsequences in terms of financing socialprotection systems and responding to theneeds of an older population in terms ofworking conditions, health or quality of life.(European Commission, 2003b: 5).

This modernization appears, accordingly, asthe ‘natural’ response to economic change andglobalization. Many authors and policymakersat the European level use the term ‘knowledge-based society’ to illustrate the essence of thesechanges. Underlying this term are the notionsthat, due to a variety of causes, the conditionsof the European production model havechanged and that the ESM is geared to theframing of a response to the new economic/societal challenges. This ‘naturalization’ of the

236 Jepsen & Pascual

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

process makes it appear as written into theorder of things, beyond the sphere of humanvolition (Serrano Pascual and Crespo Suárez,2002). The term ‘knowledge society’ comes todesignate mainly the technical management ofchange, while also leaving room for politicalchoices; and the expression ‘social model’ isintended to indicate the European approach tocoping with the challenges deriving from theprocess of social change.

But what is behind this process of change?Why does the predominant social modelappear to be challenged? A first set of reasonsrelates to the strengthening of the economicunion, in conjunction with the process of EUenlargement (see Kittel, 2002 for a summary ofthe issues raised in this connection). In thewake of Economic and Monetary Union(EMU), a significant asymmetry betweenmarket efficiency (economic policies have beeneuropeanized) and policies promoting socialprotection (these remain at national level) hascome into being, the most telling example ofthis asymmetry being the manner in which theEuropean employment strategy is intended as acounterweight to the European Economic andMonetary Union. Furthermore, economic inte-gration has reduced the capacity of memberstates to use traditional national economicpolicy instruments (exchange rates, deficitspending, monetary policy, increasing labourcosts) for the achievement of self-definedsocial-policy goals (Scharpf, 2002). Thebalance of power between fiscal and monetaryauthorities has shifted (Begg, 2002: 6). Last butnot least, there is the risk of wage and socialdumping (Jacobsson and Schmid, 2002; Kittel,2002). The ability of firms to move productionfrom one location to another might beexpected to create downward pressure on thetaxes, wages and social-security system. Theseare some of the reasons why authors argue thatthere is a risk of downward adjustment ofsocial standards and of an attack on collectivebargaining and labour-market regulation(Ferrera et al., 2000; Kittel, 2002), and hence aneed for a further reinforcement of the socialdimension of European integration.

A second type of reason is based more ondemographic and societal changes, instances ofwhich include the increasing participation ofwomen in the labour market, the ageing of thepopulation, changing patterns of consumption,and the transformation of institutions such asthe family. The population ageing will havesubstantial effects, not only on pension spend-ing but also on health and especially long-termcare spending. Dependency ratios will rise inall developed countries, and this effect iscompounded by the life expectancy gains atadvanced ages. These demographic changeswill have three main effects: first, there will bea larger population at a very advanced age whowill probably require both substantial healthcare and long-term care; second, the currentthree-generational model (children, parents,grandparents) will become a four-generationalmodel (children, parents, grandparents andgreat-grandparents); third, there will be adecline in the share of the population agedbetween 15 and 64, thereby raising questionsas to the financing of the expenditures linkedto the ageing population (OECD, 1999). Theentry of women to the labour market and thechange of family composition is challengingthe traditional male-breadwinner model andcreates complex interactions with the existingsocial-protection systems as well as newdemands for some types of social support (e.g.child care, parental leave), and impacts onfertility rates and hence on the future work-force (Sarfati and Bonoli, 2002).

Finally, the third set of reasons (socio-economic) relate to the assumption thatEuropean economies are more internationallyexposed and that, together with an increasinguse of ICTs, this has changed the conditions ofthe European production model. In contrast tothe principle of stability, on which industrial-ized societies were traditionally based, thebasic characteristic of the currently emergingmodel is constant change and instability. In thepast, in order to achieve the requisite stability,it was necessary to eliminate uncertainty bymeans of strict labour regulation, removal ofrisks and control of future events. Economic

The European Social Model 237

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

and social stability was a key requirement forthis model of production. In contrast with thispast situation, it is currently considered impos-sible to regulate events before they happen andrisk is seen as inevitable. This makes it ‘neces-sary’ to promote flexibility, so that people areable to accommodate uncertainty and adapt torapid changes in production demands. Underthis production model, the ability to cope withunforeseen and sudden changes is presented asa prerequisite for economic success; and thismodel of labour regulation is accompanied bythe emergence of a model of social-welfare reg-ulation which sees insecurity as inevitable.According to this ideal model, rather than pro-tecting against risk, the Welfare State shouldconcentrate on promoting the management ofrisk (in the form of workfare, i.e. providing theinstruments – employability – required by theindividual in order to facilitate his or her man-agement of the situation and the capacity of thelabour market to adapt), thereby consolidatingthe laws of the market. The market punishesanyone who fails to adapt to its absolute lawsof technological development and competitive-ness. The individual is seen as being responsi-ble for managing the risks (e.g. job loss) thatare represented as an inevitable fact of life.Against this background, citizenship is held tobe, rather than a right, something which theindividual is required to earn. As such, citizen-ship is described in fundamentally individ-ualistic rather than social terms, as beingdetermined by personal behaviour, i.e. byindividual choices and attitudes.

Taken together, these reasons and circum-stances justify, in the view of EU institutions,the need to transform the model upon whichsolidarity has been built in our society. Itis seen to be important to strengthen thesupranational dimension of solidarity. In thisframework, which is also regarded as self-legitimating, the European institutions, havebeen discussing what they call ‘the Europeansocial model’.

The ESM as a political project

In the light of the arguments discussed above,to the three clusters of definitions already iden-tified we would like to add a fourth, namely,the ESM as a political project. This newapproach involves regarding the ESM as a con-cept whereby, via the definition of a distinctpolicy, a common European solution may beprovided to problems that are politically con-structed as common to a varying degree. Thisdefinition builds on the third set of reasons forhaving a common European social dimension,namely the change in our production model. Itpromotes the idea of a productive social policyas a way forward for the social models inEurope and feeds into ideas such as flexicurity,activation, partnership, etc. as discussed above.Such a concept implies attuning social policy tothe need to enhance the individual’s capacity tosurvive in the economy, rather than using it asa means of seeking to correct market forces.Instead of being a ‘market-correcting’ factor,social policy becomes, in the European dis-course, an instrument for optimizing theadjustment of social-protection systems tomarket forces. This positive-sounding catch-word is thus used to promote, in some coun-tries, a quite new departure in the design ofsocial policy. This way of defining ESM over-laps with the third way, insofar as it is aEuropean project. However, as we will arguebelow, far from being an exogenous factor, it isvery much a political project aimed at buildinga European identity, not so much via commoninstitutions and values as via – precisely – thecommon social-policy solutions themselves.

To sum up, the four clusters of definitionscan be reduced to two main schools of thoughtwithin the discussion of an ESM. Under thefirst definition, the ESM is understood as a his-torical acquis (Kittel, 2002) – mainly charac-terized by specific institutions (redistributivesocial protection, coordinated interest organi-zations and resolution of social conflicts byconsensual means), values (socialization ofrisk, social equity, etc.) and by their results(wider social-security coverage, more equal

238 Jepsen & Pascual

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

wage and income distribution) – which is beingchallenged or threatened, and to some extentalready eroded, by the changes mentionedearlier. In the second school of thought, by con-trast, the ESM is regarded as a way to deal withthese challenges. We believe the first approachto be rather debatable, particularly because it isquestionable to what extent the ESM evenexists, given the wide variety of welfare-statesystems encountered in Europe (see forinstance Esping-Andersen, 1990), and to whatextent these different approaches are a ques-tion of degree (for instance ‘more or less’ egal-itarian wage distribution) rather than aquestion of different principles (ideological andnormative assumptions and core elementswhich explain the build-up of a specific socialmodel). Only within the second school ofthought is it possible to speak of genuinelydifferent ‘models’. Nevertheless, the twoapproaches are frequently presented as com-plementary (the need for reform of the ESM –understood in the second sense – in order topreserve it – in the first sense).

Key ideas driven by the concept of ESMas a political project

Rather than understanding the ESM as anentity or fact, it could be regarded as a politicalconstruction in the framework of a demand forlegitimacy generated by the EU project per se.In this sense, we believe the concept is insepa-rable from the institutionalization of the EU asa supranational style of governance. Whatunderlies this discussion is the aim of restoringthe political legitimacy of the European institu-tion after a period of crisis. To some extent, theproliferation of research dealing with the ESMin itself serves this process of constructing aEuropean political project. In this framework,we believe that the concept is, rather thansomething external waiting to be discovered, apolitical project, and therefore, a social andpolitical construct put in place by the academicand political discussion of how to deal withcurrent socio-economic challenges. One illus-

tration of this is the way in which, the exerciseof compressing the peculiarities of an economicand social region into a few features (Vobruba,2001) can be seen – in view of the diversitycharacterizing the underlying conceptions ofthe ESM – as a means of furthering the goal ofconstructing a European identity.3

This discourse coincides with a process ofconstructing a European identity and, in par-ticular, a process of searching for the valueswhereby such an identity can be given sub-stance and shape. The European institutionsput it as follows:

The Union must shape these changes in amanner consistent with its values andconcepts of society and also with a viewto the forthcoming enlargement. (EuropeanCouncil, 2000: 1, our emphasis)

Social policies are not simply an outcome ofgood economic performance and policies butare at the same time an input and a frame-work. In this context, the modernisation ofthe social model means developing andadapting it to take account of the rapidlychanging economy and society, and to ensurethe positive mutually supportive role of eco-nomic and social policies. (EuropeanCommission, 2001: 5)

The modernisation of the social modelmeans developing and adapting it to takeaccount of the rapidly changing economyand society, and to ensure the positive mutu-ally supportive role of economic and socialpolicies. (European Commission, 2001: 5)

In the course of this search it is taken forgranted that the European social and economicmodel is ill adapted to the new economic andsocial conditions. The rules of the industrialmodel appear inappropriate under the condi-tions of the new economy. This society thusrequires, according to the argument, new stan-dards, new competences (technical, method-ological and moral) from the worker, and alsonew structures to regulate the institutions of

The European Social Model 239

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

labour (procedural and flexible rather thansubstantive).

Therefore, the concept of ESM needs to beunderstood rather as a political project bymeans of which the European institutions areseeking to increase their legitimacy. As pointedout by Lord, this is particularly important inthe wake of the crisis of legitimacy suffered bythe EU in recent years. This author mentionsthe three components of legitimacy in demo-cratic societies identified by Beetham (1991):the performance of institutions; conformitywith democratic values; and political identity(Beetham cited by Lord, 2000: 3). The legiti-macy of the EU institutions, which has beenbuilt up, in the main, on its performance in pre-vious phases, needs to be taken further and torespond to yet another two dimensions of legit-imacy, namely democracy and identity. Thefirst aspect, democracy, lies beyond the scopeof this article. We focus on the second aspect,namely identity, and argue that, in order toenhance legitimacy based on identity for-mation, the identification/attribution of keyvalues plays a crucial role. We can construe theconcept of ESM as a way to identify these corevalues through which a European identitymight be constructed. The argument we wouldlike to advance is that this constructed identityis based less on common values than on asharing of problems and intervention solutions(policy paradigms). This explains that thenature of European integration lies in theproduction of common notions and concepts(Abélès, 2002), despite the different institu-tional settings and political values acrossEurope. In this political production the EUinstitutions play a crucial role. As some surveysshow (Barbier, 2001; Palier, 2001; SerranoPascual, 2003; Jacobsson, 2004), the EU insti-tutions are playing a crucial role in providingcognitive frames and conceptual paradigms inthe case of the European Employment Strategy.A certain vocabulary (employability, partner-ship, activation, gender mainstreaming, etc.)has spread into the national political dis-courses. This adaptation of the ‘language’proposed by the EU institutions has had an

important impact on the construction of theterms of the problem of unemployment and/orpoverty, influencing the main lines along whichthe debate has been conducted and the way inwhich the problem is described. Europeaninstitutions play an important role in deter-mining the direction of the debate (socializingrole), intervening in the terminological con-structions employed to designate the problemof exclusion from the labour market, and inproposing common frames of reference.

A relevant example here is the activationmodel. Despite the popularity of this modeland the broad consensus to implement thisintervention paradigm in different Europeancountries, the values invoked to justify themodel and the concrete policies inspired by itvary a great deal from country to country(Barbier, 2004; Serrano Pascual, 2004). There-fore, the same recipe will be translated intodifferent modes of preparation which willenumerate different values among their ingre-dients. Another example of this process ofcreating a common identity is the productionof European statistics (Eurostat) or promotionof comparative projects by the EU institutions,which seeks to reduce the complexity ofEuropean models into a small number of indi-cators, thereby creating ‘common’ problems.The European Council refer to some of these‘common’ problems as follows:

The ageing society calls for clear strategiesfor ensuring the adequacy of pension systemsas well as of heath care systems, while atthe same time maintaining sustainability ofpublic finances and inter-generational soli-darity. (European Council, 2001: 21)

The European Union is confronted with aquantum shift from globalisation and the chal-lenges of a new knowledge-driven economy.These changes are affecting every aspect ofpeople’s lives and require a radical transforma-tion of the European economy. (EuropeanCouncil, 2000: 21, our emphasis)

This might induce a feeling of belonging tothe same community and might foster the con-struction of a common identity. Although this

240 Jepsen & Pascual

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

European model might not be based oncommon values (because of the disparitiesbetween the national social models that under-pin the European model), this process canencourage European countries to sharecommon problems – by which they are ‘threat-ened’ – and to produce similar key recipes tofight against these (socially constructed)common problems. The binding tie in this situ-ation is not so much values or cultures (as inthe case of national models) but rather acommon identity, which results in sharing theproblems and the solutions (policy paradigmsand cognitive filters through which the debatetakes place). In this way, the ESM discussionand the tools associated with the concept ofESM are contributing to the construction ofcommon challenges for Europe and to thebuilding of a consensus as to how these are tobe faced and tackled.

In this framework, there are two main issuesshaping the discussion of what the role ofpublic action or/and institutional remediesshould be. First, there is the question of whattools can most appropriately be used. Second,there is the cluster of issues relating to thevarious alternative approaches to regulation.Regarding the first question, the main mecha-nisms seem to be flexibility and activation,which – translated into EU discourse – read,flexicurity (see Transfer, 2004) and employabil-ity. Both mechanisms stem from the convictionthat, despite subordination to economic con-straints, there is a need for an innovative andproactive adaptation to a new capitalist model.The main idea behind both concepts is that sol-idarity has been institutionalized in such a waythat it diminishes people’s willingness to adapttheir behaviour to economic requirements(Lindbeck, 2001). Accordingly, there is a needto shift from passive support towards activa-tion, and to replace the old political frames forthe socialization of people’s motives and moralswith a view to persuading them to participate inthe modernization process:

The system of financial incentives is one ofthe main determinants of participation in the

labour market . . . The balance betweenincome from work . . . against income inunemployment or inactivity determines thedecision to enter and to remain on the labourmarket. (European Commission, 2003a: 11)

The role of the institutions, in this context,should become to provide the instruments(employability, flexicurity) that will allow indi-viduals to find ways of adapting to changingeconomic and social conditions:

. . . the modernisation of labour markets andlabour mobility need to be encouraged toallow greater adaptability to change bybreaking down existing barriers. (EuropeanCouncil, 2001: 16)

People are Europe’s main asset and shouldbe the focal point of the Union’s policies.Investing in people and developing an activeand dynamic WS will be crucial to Europe.(European Council, 2000: 7)

. . . making the right offer to the right personat the right time. Such an approach wouldrely upon an early identification of the needsof each jobseeker and the design, at an earlystage, of a personalised action plan, with aview to a sustainable integration in the labourmarket. (European Commission, 2003a: 11)

As for the second question, many authorssupport the claim that substantive and stan-dardized rules are ill suited to the new con-ditions of production. They argue, ratherthan for substantive rules, in favour of post-regulatory tools (i.e. those that are general, moreaccepting of diversity, incomplete and open-ended clauses; Sisson and Marginson, 2001),and new forms of enforcement based on volun-tary and flexible participation of the actors con-cerned (e.g. persuasion) in order to deal with thevariety and dynamic complexity of post-modernsocieties: ‘To replace politics with persuasion:social development is seen less as a question ofinstitutionalized preconditions and politicalframes, but as a question of people’s motives,goodwill and morals’ (Vobruba, 2001: 263).

The European Social Model 241

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

Although Vobruba is referring here to theAmerican mode of promoting flexibility, weconsider that this is the main characteristic ofthe regulatory model proposed by the EU insti-tutions (for a detailed discussion, see CrespoSuárez and Serrano Pascual, 2005).

Examples of the new popularity of thistype of approach are the Open Method ofCoordination (OMC), which constitutes theregulatory model for the coordination ofemployment policies, social inclusion and pen-sions by the EU institutions, and the discussionon ‘soft regulation’ and flexible frameworksrather than ‘compulsory rigid systems’ as man-ifestations of the europeanization of industrialrelations (Sisson and Marginson, 2001). ThisOMC is aimed at the harmonization of ideas,visions and norms of action, rather than ofinstitutions and legislation, in order to definegoals which can converge towards a commonpolitical vision (Palier, 2001). In this politicalvision, policy changes are legitimized by refer-ence to uncontrollable processes of global-ization and its discursive transformation intochallenges (Fairclough, 2000; Crespo Suárezand Serrano Pascual, 2004). Muntigl et al.(2000) show how, in the face of the new eco-nomic constraints, the discourse about global-ization rhetorically bypasses the national stateand emphasizes the supranational nature of thechallenges – presented in a deterministic mode– making the supranational level appear as theappropriate and ‘normal’ level for respondingto these current threats.

In this framework, the different meaningsidentified in the second section (above) can beunderstood as belonging to different interpre-tative repertoires. In the light of this polysemy,the different meanings of the concept are madeto appear equally valid, particular political phi-losophy perspectives being labelled in relationto differing needs. For instance, in order toshow the evidence of common threats andto legitimize the need for common projects(fourth understanding of the concept), the EUinstitutions will appeal to the essentialistunderstanding of the concept (‘the EU sharescommon values and common institutions’ –

first and second understanding/interpretativerepertoire of the concept). From this under-standing of the concept, it is concluded thatcommon results (equality, social fairness, etc.)are to be produced. Using this concept of ESMas a common denominator, EU discourse canthus move from a concept of ESM as a politi-cal project (sharing policy tools) towardsarguing the need for common results. And yetthe same policy tool may be used to quite dif-ferent effect in different countries dependingon institutional setting and specific culturalvalues (e.g. the example of activation: SerranoPascual, 2004).

Another example of this use of discourse isthe way in which words are transformed tounderline the ‘made-in-Europe’ approach tothe treatment of issues. In order to emphasizethat this European way of handling situationsis a long way away from the US approach,concepts such as workfare are reprocessed andrelabelled as activation, flexibility as flexi-curity, globalization as the knowledge-basedsociety, and corporate governance as socialcorporate responsibility. But the challengestemming from this ‘conceptual metamor-phosis’ is to ascertain to what extent changingconcepts also transform the reality/philosophybehind the concept, particularly in countrieswhere, in comparison with the market, socialand political institutions are weak. In actualfact, the creation of such concepts establishesequivalences that serve to conceal the differ-ences between countries.

The polysemy may also result from the EU’srather peculiar position, insofar as it needs tofind ways of reconciling the differing politicalphilosophies which hold sway in the differentcountries of Europe. The style of governanceexercised by the EU institutions of necessitybears the hallmark of a form of ‘regulationamid diversity’, and this diversity is alsoreflected in the meanings underlying or attrib-uted to the concepts. The vagueness of theconcepts used by the EU institutions mightaccordingly be due, in some measure, to theregulatory needs and rather fragile position ofthese actors, whose need is to articulate their

242 Jepsen & Pascual

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

goal of institutionalizing and creating a supra-national identity, while respecting, at the sametime, the member states’ claims to nationalsovereignty. This might go some way towardsexplaining the tendency of the EU institutionsto offer political concepts with an excessivelyopen meaning, thereby allowing nationalactors to infuse them with a specific meaning inaccordance with national traditions.

Conclusion

The concept of ESM has been understood as aparticular set of institutions (powerful welfarestate, intervening social partners, etc.); as aparticular set of values with reference to whichthese institutions are built up, for instance,temporary postponement of individual inter-ests in order to achieve collective gains(Vobruba, 2001) or a commitment to mini-mum guaranteed resources (Begg, 2002); as aparticular way to deal with common problems(policy paradigms and legitimately rhetoric);but also in terms of the outcomes of these insti-tutions and values (levels of poverty andinequality, individual/collective empowerment,economic performance, decommodification ofsociety) (Vobruba, 2001).

We have discussed two interconnected fea-tures which characterize the use of the conceptof ESM in academic and political debate: onthe one hand, the usually taken-for-grantedassumption behind the concept; on the otherhand, the highly ambiguous and polysemicnature of this concept. In doing so, we haveidentified three main ways in which the con-cept is being used in the scientific and academicdebate (ESM as an entity, as an ideal type, as aEuropean project and instrument for cohe-sion). To these we have added a fourth way ofunderstanding the ESM, namely as a means oflegitimizing the European institutions.

We argue that the polysemic nature of theconcept ESM results not only from the lack ofdiscussion devoted to the concept but alsofrom a political construction of a self-styledEuropean social-policy identity by the EU insti-

tutions. In opposition to the idea of ESM as afact, we set up the concept of ESM as a politi-cally constructed project. We have emphasizedhow this concept could be understood as a wayof legitimizing the notion of a European socialpolicy and how it feeds into concepts such asactivation and flexicurity. However, it is, as wedemonstrate, far from being an exogenousfactor but, on the contrary, very much a politi-cal project aimed at fostering a European iden-tity. This constructed identity is based less oncommon values than on a sharing of problemsand intervention solutions (policy paradigms).

These observations underline the need toidentify and empirically verify the mainassumptions on which the debate is founded, inorder to avoid deterministic explanations ofcurrently changing paths of social policymaking. Accordingly, in order to avoid asituation in which reference to the concept‘European Social Model’ can be used/instru-mentalized to help convey just about anypolicy proposition, be it economic or social,and to present as ‘natural’ what are, in fact,political options, a critical analytical reflectionis required.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank three anony-mous referees for their valuable comments, andKathleen Llawarne for her help in formulatingthis article.

Notes

1 By our use of the term ‘normative’ we wish tounderline the gap between conventional wisdomand empirical evidence.

2 Wetherell and Potter define interpretative reper-toires as ‘the building blocks speakers use forconstructing versions of actions, cognitive pro-cesses and other phenomena’ (1988: 172).

3 We do not wish to discuss here to what extent weare moving towards a process of convergence ordivergence in the way different European coun-tries are dealing with common pressures (for agood discussion of the theoretical and analyticalpositions behind these two opposed positions, seeHay, 2002), but rather how this presumption thatthere is something in common is an inherent com-ponent of the political construction of the EU.

The European Social Model 243

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

References

Abélès, M. (2002) ‘Political Anthropology ofEuropean Institutions: Tensions and Stereotypes’,in K. Liebhart, E. Menasse and H. Steinert (eds)Fremdbilder- Feindbilder- Zerrbilder: ZurWahrnehmung und diskursivern Konstruktion desFremden. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag.

Alonso, L. E. (1999) Trabajo y ciudadanía. Madrid:Editorial Trotta.

Ametsis, G., Berghans, J., Hemerijk, A.,Sakellaropoulos, T., Stergiou, A. and Stecvens, Y.(2003) ‘Connecting welfare diversity within theEuropean Social Model’, Background report forthe International Conference of the HellenicPresidency of the European Union on theModernisation of the European Social Model(May), Loannina, Greece.

Barbier, J. C. (2001) ‘Europe social: l’emploid’abord’, Quatre Pages, No. 44 (Mar.). Paris:Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi.

Barbier, J. C. (2004) ‘Activation Policies: aComparative Perspective’, in A. Serrano Pascual(ed.) Are Activation Policies Converging inEurope? Brussels: ETUI.

Beetham, D. (1991) The Legitimacy of Power.Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Begg, I. (2002) ‘EMU and Employment SocialModels in the EMU: Convergence? Co-existence?The Role of Economic and Social Actors’,Working paper 42/02, ESRC ‘One Europe orSeveral’ programme.

Billig, M. (1987) Arguing and Thinking. ARhetorical Approach to Social Psychology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Black, B. (2002) ‘What is European in the EuropeanSocial Model?’, mimeo. Belfast: Queen’sUniversity.

Boltanski, L. and Chiapello, E. (1999) Le nouvelesprit du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard.

Brödner, P. (2000) ‘El futuro del trabajo en unaeconomía basada en el conocimiento’, inEconomía y trabajo en la sociedad delconocimiento. Barcelona: Fundación CIREM.

Crespo Suárez, E. and Serrano Pascual, A. (2004)‘The EU’s Concept of Activation for YoungPeople: Towards a New Social Contract?’, in A.Serrano Pascual (ed.) Are Activation PoliciesConverging in Europe? Brussels: ETUI.

Crespo Suárez, E. and Serrano Pascual, A. (2005)‘Paradox around the European Discourse ofActivation’, Tijdschrift voor Arbeid andParticipatie 26 (2–3): 111–35.

Darmon, I. (2001) ‘Civil Dialogue, Governance andthe Role of the Social Economy in Civil Society’, inA. Serrano (ed.) Enhancing Youth Employabilitythrough Social and Civil Partnership. Brussels:ETUI.

Ebbinghaus, B. (1999) ‘Does a European SocialModel Exist and Can it Survive’, in G, Huemer,M. Mesch, and F. Traxler (eds) The Role ofEmployer Associations and Labour Unions in theEU. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds ofWelfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1999) Social Foundations ofPostindustrial Economies. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

European Commission (1994) ‘White Paper –European Social Policy: a Way Forward for theUnion’. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publi-cations of the EC.

European Commission (2001) ‘Communicationfrom the Commission to the Council, theEuropean Parliament, the Economic and SocialCommittee and the Committee of the Regions.Employment and Social Policies: a Framework forInvesting in Quality’, COM(2001)313 final.Luxembourg: EUR-OP.

European Commission (2003a) ‘Communicationfrom the Commission to the Council, theEuropean Parliament, the Economic and SocialCommittee and the Committee of the Regions.The Future of the EES. A Strategy for FullEmployment and Better Jobs for All’, COM(2203)6 final. Brussels: EUR-OP/

European Commission (2003b) ‘Communicationfrom the Commission to the Council, theEuropean Parliament, the European Economicand Social Committee and the Committee of theRegions. Improving Quality in Work: a Review ofRecent Progress’, COM (2003) 728 final.Luxembourg: EUR-OP.

European Council (2000) ‘Presidency Conclusions.Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March2000’. Brussels: European Council.

European Council (2001) ‘Presidency Conclusions,Stockholm European Council 23 and 24 March’.Brussels: European Council.

Evans, J. (2000) ‘Workers in the New Economy’,OECD Economic Studies, 31, 2000/2, 66–8.

Fairclough, N (2000) New Labour, New Language?London: Routledge.

Ferrera, M., Hemerijck, A. and Rhodes, M. (2000)The Future of Social Europe. Lisbon: CeltaEditora.

Ferrera, M., Hemerijck, A. and Rhodes, M. (2001)‘The Future of the European “Social Model” inthe Global Economy’, Journal of ComparativeAnalysis: Research and Practice 3: 163–90.

Hay, C. (2002) ‘Common Trajectories, VariablePaces, Divergent Outcomes? Models of EuropeanCapitalism under Conditions of ComplexEconomic Interdependence’, paper presented atthe Biannual Conference of Europeanists (Mar.),Chicago.

244 Jepsen & Pascual

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)

Hay, C., Watson, M. and Wincott, D. (1999)‘Globalisation, European Integration and thePersistence of European Social Models’, Workingpaper 3/99, POLSIS, University of Birmingham,UK.

Jacobsson, K. (2004) ‘A European Politics forEmployability: the Political Discourse onEmployability of the EU and the OECD’, in C.Garsten and K. Jacobsson (eds) Learning to beEmployable. New Agendas on Work, Respon-sibility and Learning in a Globalising World.Hampshire: Palgrave.

Jacobsson, K. and Schmid, H. (2002) ‘RealIntegration or just Formal Adaptation? On theImplementation of the National Action Plans forEmployment’, in C. de la Porte and P. Pochet (eds)A New Approach to Building Social Europe: theOpen Method of Coordination. Brussels: PIEPeter Lang.

Kittel, B. (2002) ‘EMU, EU Enlargement and theEuropean Social Model; Trend, Challenges andQuestions’, MPIFG Working Paper 02/1[http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/pu/workpap/wp02–1.html].

Lindbeck, A. (2001) ‘Improving the Performance ofthe European Social Model – the Welfare Stateover the Life Cycle’, IUI Working paper 587.Stockholm: The Research Institute of IndustrialEconomics.

Lord, C. (2000) ‘Legitimacy, Democracy and theEU: When Abstract Questions Become PracticalPolicy Problems’, Policy Paper 03/00 [http://www.one-europe.ac.uk/cgi-bin/esrc/world/db.cgi/publications.htm].

Lönnroth, J. (2002) ‘The European Social Model ofthe Future’, speech at the EU Conference organ-ized by the Ecumenial EU – Office of Sweden(Nov.), Brussels.

Manning, A. (1998) ‘The Third Way?’, Centrepiece 3(2): 16–18.

Muntigl, P., Weiss, G. and Wodak, R. (2000)European Union Discourses on Unemployment.Amsterdam: John Benjamins PublishingCompany.

OECD (1999) A Caring World. Paris: OECD.Palier, B. (2001) ‘Europeanising Welfare States: from

the Failure of Legislative and InstitutionalHarmonisation of the Systems to the Cognitiveand Normative Harmonisation of the Reforms’,paper presented at the conference Ideas, Discourseand European Integration (May), Center forEuropean Studies, Harvard University.

Petit, J. P. and Kragen, E. (1999) ‘Une décennie decroissance qui n’est si exceptionnelle’, Problèmeséconomiques, 2642: 7–11.

Petit, P. (1999) ‘Décoder la nouvelle économie’,Problèmes économiques 2642: 1–6.

Robbins, K. (1990) ‘National Identity and History:Past, Present and Future’, History 75: 369–87.

Salais, R., Baverez, N. and Reynaud, B. (1986)L’invention du chômage. Historie et transforma-tion d’une catégorie en France des années 1890aux années 1980. Paris: Presses Universitaires deFrance.

Sarfati, H. and Bonoli G. (eds) (2002) LabourMarket and Social Protection Reforms in Inter-national Perspectives. Parallel or convergingTracks? Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Scharpf, F. W. (2002) ‘The European Social Model:Coping with the Challenges of ?????????

Serrano Pascual, A. (2003) ‘A contribution to evalu-ation of the EES’, in E. Gabaglio and R. Hoffmann(eds) European Trade Union Yearbook. Brussels:ETUI.

Serrano Pascual, A. (ed.) (2004) Are ActivationPolicies Converging in Europe? Brussels: ETUI.

Serrano Pascual, A. and Crespo Suárez, E. (2002) ‘Eldiscurso de las instituciones europeas sobre lasociedad del conocimiento’, Revista Española deInvestigaciones Sociológicas 97: 189–211.

Servais, J. M. (2001) ‘Quelques réflexions sur unmodèle social européen’ Relations industrielles/Industrial relations 56 (4): 701–19.

Sisson, K. and Marginson, P. (2001) ‘“SoftRegulation”. Travesty of the Real Thing or NewDimension’, Working paper 32 (01): 37.[http://www.one-europe.ac.uk/cgi-bin/esrc/world/db.cgi/publications.htm]

Transfer (2004) ‘Flexicurity – Conceptual Issues andPolitical Implementation in Europe’, Transfer2004/2. Brussels: ETUI.

Vaughan-Whitehead, D. (2003) EU Enlargementversus Social Europe? The Uncertain Future of theEuropean Social Mode. Cheltenham: EdwardElgar.

Visco, I. (2000) ‘The New Economy: Fact or Fiction?’,OECD Economic Studies 31, 2000/2: 6–10.

Vobruba, G. (2001) ‘Coping with Drastic SocialChange: Europe and the US in Comparison’, inW. Beck, L. J. G. van der Maesen, F. Thoméseand A. Walker (eds) Social Quality: a Vision forEurope. The Hague, London, Boston: KluwerLaw International.

Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1988) ‘Discourse Analysisand Interpretative Repertoires’, in C. Antaki (ed.)Analysing Everyday Explanation. A Casebook ofMethods. London: Sage Publications.

Wilding, P. (1997) ‘Globalisation, Regionalisationand Social Policy’, Social Policy and Adminis-tration 31 (4): 410–28.

Wolf, M. (1999) ‘Une “nouvelle économie” pas sinouvelle’, Problèmes économiques 2642: 15–17.

The European Social Model 245

Journal of European Social Policy 2005 15 (3)