Social Europe Journal Vol. 4 No. 2

Volume 4 • Issue 2Winter/Spring 2009www.social-europe.eu

Social EuropeJournal

Contributions byGeorge AkerlofRobert ShillerSteven HillWill StrawMatt BrowneHenning MeyerMartin SchulzJon CruddasAndrea NahlesAndrej StuchlikChristian KellermannClaudette Abela Baldacchino

What lessons can Europe learnfrom Barack Obama’s victory?

EurObama

Social Europe Journal • Volume 4 • Issue 2 • Winter/Spring 2009

Editorial Board

Giuliano Amato Former Italian Prime Minister

Stephen Barber The Global Policy Institute

Karl Duffek Director Renner Institute

Stephen Haseler Chief Editor, The Global Policy Institute

Klaus Mehrens The Global Policy Institute

Henning Meyer Managing Editor, The Global Policy Institute

Poul Nyrup Rasmussen Former Danish Prime Minister

Angelica Schwall-Dueren Vice Chair SPD Bundestag Group

Dimitris Tsarouhas Bilkent University Ankara

Giuseppe Vacca President Gramsci Foundation

Editorial Team

Jeannette Ladzik Assistant Editor

Ben Eldridge Design & Layout

Social Europe Journal is publishedby the Global Policy Institute atLondon Metropolitan University

In cooperation with / supported by:


Editorial

Jeannette LadzikAssistant EditorSocial Europe Journal

BARACK OBAMA’Svictory in the UnitedStates has intrigued the

political world. In difficult eco-nomic times and against thebackdrop of political disillu-sionment with the Bush admin-istration, he managed to captureand mobilise the American elec-torate in new ways. Many voterstook part in an election for thefirst time and Obama’s support-ers formed a movement thePresident can now build on.

It is therefore unsurprisingthat European parties are tryinghard to emulate Obama’s suc-cess. Yet the public discussionmisses analytical depth inEurope. In this issue, we takethe debate onto a new level.Experts from Washington thinktanks as well as Europe analysethe Obama experience and sug-gest what European partiescould learn, paying attention tothe different politics on bothsides of the Atlantic.

In the second part, we focuson the upcoming European par-liamentary elections and relatedissues, in particular SocialEurope. PES Group chairmanMartin Schulz puts forward hispolicies for a more socialEuropean Union and ChristianKellermann and Andrej Stuchlikexamine the EU’s social policycompetencies and describe howa new mix of national and

European welfare measurescould be achieved.

This issue also contains twovery special articles. First, NobelPrize Winner George A. Akerlofand Yale Professor Robert J.Shiller in their contributionreassert the necessity of anactive government role in man-aging animal spirits – a termJohn Maynard Keynes intro-duced to explain non-rationalbehavior in the economy.

The second special articleis a statement by SPD Vice-Chairwoman Andrea Nahlesand British MP Jon Cruddas onthe challenges European socialdemocracy faces today. Tenyears after Tony Blair andGerhard Schröder publishedtheir joint declaration for aEuropean ‘Third Way’, theNahles-Cruddas paper is aninvitation to debate the futureof European social democracy. Itcan be discussed on the dedicat-ed website www.goodsociety.eu.

Last but not least, we haveupdated the design and thewebsite of Social EuropeJournal. We hope you like thechanges and find our new inter-net platform useful. Our articlescan now also be debated onwww.social-europe.eu, so pleasemake your views heard!


Contents

Animal SpiritsGeorge Akerlof and Robert Shiller

World Wide Webbed: The Obama Campaign’s masterfulUse of the InternetSteven Hill

Strategy and Organising – Lessons from the Obama CampaignWill Straw and Matt Browne

Where now for European Political Parties?Henning Meyer

European Parliamentary Elections 2009 –Time for a new DirectionMartin Schulz

Building the Good Society: The Project of the Democratic LeftJon Cruddas and Andrea Nahles

Europe on the Way to a Social Union?Christian Kellermann and Andrej Stuchlík

My Case for EuropeClaudette Abela Baldacchino

59

162023

283742

TO UNDERSTAND HOWeconomies work and howwe can manage them and

prosper, we must pay attentionto the thought patterns that ani-mate people’s ideas and feel-ings, their animal spirits. Wewill never really understandimportant economic eventsunless we confront the fact thattheir causes are largely mentalin nature.

It is unfortunate that mosteconomists and business writersapparently do not seem toappreciate this and thus oftenfall back on the most torturedand artificial interpretations ofeconomic events. They assumethat variations in individualfeelings, impressions, and pas-sions do not matter in the aggre-gate and that economic eventsare driven by inscrutable tech-nical factors or erratic govern-ment action. In fact, as we shalldiscover in this book, the ori-gins of these events are quitefamiliar and are found in ourown everyday thinking.

We started work on this bookin the spring of 2003. In theintervening years the worldeconomy has moved in direc-tions that can be understoodonly in terms of animal spirits. Ithas taken a rollercoaster ride.First there was the ascent. Andthen, about a year ago, the fallbegan. But oddly, unlike a trip at

a normal amusement park, itwas not until the economy beganto fall that the passengersrealised that they had embarkedon a wild ride. And, abetted bythis obliviousness, the manage-ment of this amusement parkpaid no heed to setting limits onhow high the passengers shouldgo. Nor did it provide for safetyequipment to limit the speed, orthe extent, of the subsequent fall.

What had people been think-ing? Why did they not noticeuntil real events – the collapseof banks, the loss of jobs, mort-gage foreclosures – were alreadyupon us? There is a simpleanswer. The public, the govern-ment, and most economists hadbeen reassured by an economictheory that said that we weresage. It was all OK. Nothingdangerous could happen. Butthat theory was deficient. It hadignored the importance of ideasin the conduct of the economy.It had ignored the role of animalspirits. And it had also ignoredthe fact that people could beunaware of having boarded arollercoaster.

Traditional economics teachesthe benefits of free markets.This belief has taken hold notjust in the bastions of capital-ism, such as the United Statesand Great Britain, but through-out the world, even in countrieswith more established socialist

Animal Spirits

George Akerlof (right)The Daniel E. Koshland Sr.Distinguished Professor of Economicsat the University of California, Berkeley.He was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prizein economics

Robert Shiller (left)The bestselling author of IrrationalExuberance and The SubprimeSolution. He is the Arthur M. OkunProfessor of Economics at YaleUniversity

This article is an exclusiveexcerpt (edited from preface) fromthe authors’ new book: AnimalSpirits. How Human PsychologyDrives the Economy, and Why ItMatters for Global Capitalism,published by Princeton UniversityPress (ISBN 978-0-691-14233-3)

5 Social Europe Journal Winter/Spring 2009

governed by rational actors,who ‘as if by an invisible hand’will engage in any transactionthat is to their mutual economicbenefit, as the classicistsbelieved. Keynes appreciatedthat most economic activityresults from rational economicmotivations – but also thatmuch economic activity is gov-erned by animal spirits. Peoplehave noneconomic motives.And they are not always ration-al in pursuit of their economicinterests. In Keynes’ view theseanimal spirits are the maincause for why the economyfluctuates as it does. They arealso the main cause of involun-tary unemployment.

To understand the economythen is to comprehend how it isdriven by the animal spirits.Just as Adam Smith’s invisiblehand is the keynote of classicaleconomics, Keynes’ animal spir-its are the keynote to a differentview of the economy – a viewthat explains the underlyinginstabilities of capitalism.

Keynes’ claim about how ani-mal spirits drive the economybrings us to the role of govern-ment. His view of the govern-ment’s role in the economy wasvery much like what we are toldin the parenting advice books.On the one hand, they warn usnot to be too authoritarian. Thechildren will be superficiallyobedient, but when they becometeenagers they will rebel. On theother hand, these books tell usnot to be too permissive. In thiscase they have not been taughtto set proper limits for them-selves. The advice books thentell us that appropriate childrearing involves a middle roadbetween these two extremes. Theproper role of the parent is to setthe limits so that the child does

they are engaged in a temporarysearch for a job or because theyinsist on pay that is unreasonablyhigh – greater than what they addto production. Such unemploy-ment is voluntary.

We do believe, like most of ourcolleagues, that Adam Smith wasbasically right regarding why somany people are employed. Weare also willing to believe, withsome qualifications, that he wasessentially correct about the eco-nomic advantages of capitalism.But we think that his theory failsto describe why there is so muchvariation in the economy. It doesnot explain why the economytakes rollercoaster rides. And thetakeaway message from AdamSmith – that there is little, or no,need for government interven-tion – is also unwarranted.

The thought experiment ofAdam Smith correctly takes intoaccount the fact that peoplerationally pursue their econom-ic interests. Of course they do.But this thought experimentfails to take into account theextent to which people are alsoguided by noneconomic motiva-tions. And it fails to take intoaccount the extent to whichthey are irrational or misguided.It ignores the animal spirits.

In contrast, John MaynardKeynes emphasised the impor-tance of animal spirits. In hisview the economy is not just

traditions, such as China, India,and Russia. According to tradi-tional economics, free marketcapitalism will be essentiallyperfect and stable. There is lit-tle, if any, need for governmentinterference. On the contrary,the only risk of major depres-sion today, or in the future,comes from government inter-vention.

This line of reasoning goesback to Adam Smith. The basisfor the idea that the economy isessentially stable lies in a thoughtexperiment which asks: What dofree, perfect markets imply? Theanswer: If people rationally pur-sue their own economic interestsin such markets, they willexhaust all mutually beneficialopportunities to produce goodsand exchange with one another.Such exhaustion of opportunitiesfor mutually beneficial traderesults in full employment.Workers who are reasonable intheir wage demands – those whowill accept a wage that is lessthan what they add to production– will be employed. Why? If sucha worker were unemployed, amutually beneficial trade couldbe arranged. An employer couldhire this worker at the wage sherequires and still have somespare output for a larger profit.Of course some workers will beunemployed. But they will beunable to find work only because


‘Keynes appreciated that most eco-nomic activity results from rationaleconomic motivations – but also thatmuch economic activity is governedby animal spirits’

The watered-down version ofThe General Theory gainedalmost universal acceptance inthe 1950s and 1960s. Yet thisreduced version of Keynesianeconomics was also vulnerable toattack. During the 1970s a newgeneration of economists arose.In their critique, called the NewClassical Economics, they sawthat the few animal spirits thatremained in Keynesian thoughtwere too insignificant to haveany importance in the economy.They argued that the originalKeynesian theory had not beenwatered down enough. In theirview, now the centrepiece ofmodern macroeconomics, econo-mists should not consider animalspirits at all. So, not without a lit-tle irony, the old pre-Keynesianclassical economics, withoutinvoluntary unemployment, wasrehabilitated. The animal spiritshad been relegated to the dustbinof intellectual history.

This New Classical view ofhow the economy behaves waspassed from the economists tothe think tankers, policy elites,and public intellectuals, andfinally to the mass media. Itbecame a political mantra: ‘I ama believer in free markets.’ Thebelief that government shouldnot interfere with people inpursuit of their own self-inter-est has influenced nationalpolicies around the globe. InEngland it took the form of

began soon after its first publi-cation and then was intensifiedin the 1960s and 1970s.

Following the publication ofThe General Theory, Keynes’ fol-lowers rooted out almost all ofthe animal spirits – the noneco-nomic motives and irrationalbehaviours – that lay at theheart of his explanation for theGreat Depression. They left justenough animal spirits to yield aLeast-Common-Denominatortheory that minimised the intel-lectual distance between TheGeneral Theory and the stan-dard classical economics of theday. In this standard economictheory there are no animal spir-its. People act only for economicmotives, and they act onlyrationally.

Keynes’ followers adoptedthis ‘banality’ (as it has beendescribed by Hyman Minsky)for two good reasons. The firstwas that the Depression wasstill raging, and they wished tomake converts as rapidly as pos-sible to his message about therole of fiscal policy. They wouldmake the maximum number ofconverts by coming as close aspossible to the existing theory.And such minimal deviationwas useful for another reason. Itenabled the economists of thetime to understand the new the-ory in terms of the old.

But this short-term solutionhas had long-term consequences.

not overindulge her animal spir-its. But those limits should alsoallow the child the independ-ence to learn and to be creative.The role of the parent is to createa happy home, which gives thechild freedom but also protectshim from his animal spirits.

This happy home correspondsexactly to Keynes’ position (andalso our own) regarding theproper role of government.Capitalist societies, as correctlyseen by the old economics, canbe tremendously creative.Government should interfere aslittle as possible with that cre-ativity. On the other hand, left totheir own devices, capitalisteconomies will pursue excess, ascurrent times bear witness.There will be manias. Themanias will be followed by pan-ics. There will be joblessness.People will consume too muchand save too little. Minoritieswill be mistreated and will suf-fer. House prices, stock prices,and even the price of oil willboom and then bust. The properrole of the government, like theproper role of the advice-bookparent, is to set the stage. Thestage should give full rein to thecreativity of capitalism. But itshould also countervail theexcesses that occur because ofour animal spirits.

Speaking of excesses, the cur-rent economic crisis has beenastutely explained by George W.Bush: ‘Wall Street got drunk.’But an explanation of why WallStreet got drunk, why our gov-ernment set the preconditionsthat allowed it to get drunk andthen sat idly by while itoverindulged, must come from atheory of the economy and ofhow it operates. It comes fromthe steady emasculation ofKeynes’ General Theory – which

‘The belief that governmentshould not interfere with peoplein pursuit of their own self-interesthas influenced national policiesaround the globe’


fields; why others financedthose purchases; why the DowJones average peaked above14,000 and a little more than ayear later fell below 7,500; whythe US unemployment rate hasrisen by 2.5 percentage pointsin the past twenty-four months,with the end of this rise not yetin sight; why Bear Stearns, oneof the world’s leading invest-ment banks, was only (and bare-ly) saved by a Federal Reservebailout, and why later in theyear Lehman Brothers collapsedoutright; why a large fraction ofthe world’s banks are under-funded; and why, as we write,some of them are still totteringon the brink, even after abailout, and may yet be the nextto go. And we know not what isyet to come.

Depression has been eroded. Itis therefore necessary for us torenew our understanding ofhow capitalist economies – inwhich people have not onlyrational economic motives butalso all kinds of animal spirits –really work.

The idea that economiccrises, like the current financialand housing crisis, are mainlycaused by changing thoughtpatterns goes against standardeconomic thinking. But the cur-rent crisis bears witness to therole of such changes in think-ing. It was causes precisely byour changing confidence, temp-tations, envy, resentment, andillusions – and especially bychanging stories about thenature of the economy.

These intangibles were thereason why people paid smallfortunes for houses in corn-

Thatcherism. In America it tookthe form of Reaganism. Andfrom these two Anglo-Saxoncountries it has spread.

This permissive-parent viewof the role of governmentreplaced the Keynesian happyhome. Now, three decades afterthe elections of MargaretThatcher and Ronald Reagan, wesee the troubles it can spawn. Nolimits were set to the excesses ofWall Street. It got wildly drunk.And now the world must facethe consequences.

It has been a long time sincewe discovered how it was possi-ble for a government to offsetthe rational and irrationalshocks that occur to capitalisteconomies. But as Keynes’ lega-cy and the role of governmenthave been challenged, the sys-tem of safeguards developedfrom the experience of the Great


!!""##$$%%&&'' ))''**%%++""&&**,,##'' --..%%##""//00 11%% 2,*%2 3/ 44''**55%% 66,,%%''%%""0 7"#8%99#" #8 7#:,*,;90 <',=%"9,*/ #8>&?3!"+0 &'2 --..##??&&99 @@,,%%AA0 7"#8%99#" #8 )'*%"'&*,#'&: B%:&*,#'90<',=%"9,*/ #8 C,"?,'+.&?

DD%%EE %%22,,**,,##''

l -.% #':/ !$F*#F2&*% #=%"=,%E #8 *.% ?&5#" &$$"#&;.%9 *# !"#$%&' ,'*%+"&*,#'0$"#=,2,'+ 9*!2%'*9 E,*. &;;%99 *# *.% ?#9* ;!""%'* 2%3&*%9G

l H&"%8!::/ %2,*%2 ;#'*",3!*,#'9 8"#? ,'*%"'&*,#'&: %I$%"*90 $"#=,2,'+ 9*!2%'*9 E,*.&!*.#",*&*,=% &'2 &;;%99,3:% ;#'*%'*G

l H#=%"9 *.% 2%=%:#$?%'*90 &;.,%=%?%'*90 &'2 $"#3:%?9 #8 %&;. &$$"#&;. &'2 2,9;!99%9'#* #':/ .,9*#",;&:0 3!* &:9# ;!""%'*0 &'2 %?%"+,'+ ,99!%9 E,*.,' *.% 9!35%;*G

for more details, or to order an inspection copy, visit:www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/politics

JJ##99**%%"" ##'' << KK&&EE00 11%%DD,,++%%:: JJ##99**%%""0 L%&' M#''%* 7"#8%99#" #8 !"#$%&' K&E &'2 @%$!*/ N,;%FH.&';%::#"0<',=%"9,*/ #8 C!;O,'+.&?P N,9,*,'+ 7"#8%99#" #8 !"#$%&' K&E0 !"#$& )'9*,*!*0Q&&"3"R;O%'l J!::/ !$2&*%2 *# ,';:!2% *.% :&*%9* 2%=%:#$?%'*9 &'2 ,?$:,;&*,#'9 #8 *.% K,93#' -"%&*/&'2 ,*9 "&*,8,;&*,#' $"#;%99G

l J%&*!"%9 ,'*%+"&*%2 2,9;!99,#' #8 *.% 8#!" 8"%%2#?9 %I$:&,','+ *.% ,'*%"$:&/ 3%*E%%' *.%?Gl '+&+,'+ &'2 *.#!+.*F$"#=#O,'+ ,'*"#2!;*,#' *# < :&E 8#" !'2%"+"&2!&*% 9*!2%'*90 E,*.,'9,+.*8!: &!*.#" ;#??%'*&"/ &'2 ,'*%"&;*,=% #':,'% "%9#!";%9G

DD%%EE %%22,,**,,##''

www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/law

1Integrated learning solutions from Oxford

JUST AS PRESIDENT BarackObama has shaken up thestatus quo in his first 100

days in office, his campaignoverturned old formulas abouthow to win the presidency. TheObama campaign did not focusonly on battleground states, butinstead charged into states thatpreviously had been solidlyRepublican turf. With a historiceconomic collapse unfoldingduring the final months of theelection, a crucial number ofswing voters voted, not neces-sarily for Obama, but againstthe Republicans and the Bushadministration, and in theprocess transformed the ‘Red vs.Blue’ political map. In the post-World War II period, Americanvoters have tended to throw outthe incumbent party every eightyears, so at this stage, no politi-cal analyst can say if this trans-formation will prove to be deepand wide or is merely a tempo-rary changing of the guard. Butno question Team Obama has,to some extent, rewritten thecampaign playbook, and futurecampaigns will be measuredagainst this trendsetter.

One of the winning campaignstrategies masterfully deployedby the Obama campaign was itsuse of the internet. More thanany other previous campaign,the Obama campaign showedthe tremendous mobilising and

fundraising potential of a com-prehensive internet strategy.Some are saying that Obama’suse of this still relatively newmedium will change Americanpolitics the way John F.Kennedy’s use of television did.But it remains to be seen if aless charismatic candidate with-out a wind of change blowingthrough an electorate buffetedby economic crisis can replicateObama’s success.

Nevertheless, what theObama campaign accomplishedusing the internet was stunning-ly impressive. Despite theUnited States lagging in broad-band access compared toEurope or Japan, both in termsof the number of people withfast, affordable broadbandaccess and the speed of the con-nections1, the Obama campaignused the internet to organise hissupporters in a way that in thepast would have required anarmy of volunteers and paidorganisers on the ground. Thisnot only helped him in theNovember election against theRepublican nominee JohnMcCain, but was probably thedecisive factor in hisDemocratic primary contestagainst Hillary Clinton. Both theClinton and McCain campaignsused the internet to reach vot-ers, but Obama mastered themedium early and exploited it

World Wide Webbed:The Obama Campaign’smasterful Use of the Internet

Steven HillDirector of the Political ReformProgram at the New AmericaFoundation, a Washington DCbased policy institute, and authorof 10 Steps to Repair AmericanDemocracy (www.10Steps.net).His book Europe’s Promise willbe published in August 2009


than any previous campaign,they took advantage of the still-developing interactive Web 2.0tools and their social network-ing capabilities, deploying themas a vehicle for generatingexcitement among a vast onlinecommunity.When he officiallydeclared his candidacy inFebruary 2007, his campaignlaunched MyBarackObama.com,a social networking site inwhich 2 million profiles and35,000 volunteer groups eventu-ally were created, and 200,000off-line events planned. Laterthat spring, the campaign tookover a grassroots Obama fanpage on MySpace with 160,000followers. It created Obama pro-files on a dozen social net-works, from BlackPlanet toAsianAve. On Facebook, Obamafan groups eventually grew to3.2 million supporters.4 Thoseare staggering numbers, anextraordinary level of engage-ment, especially among theyouth.

On MyBarackObama.com,Obamaniacs could create theirown blogs around platformissues, send policy recommen-dations directly to the cam-paign, set up their own minifundraising site, organise anevent, even use a phonebankwidget to get call lists andscripts to tele-canvass fromhome. All the campaigns alsoused something called ‘onlinebehavioural targeting’, butObama’s team was more effec-tive. When a prospective voternavigated to one of the candi-date’s sites, a ‘cookie’ or internettag, was placed in that user’sweb browser. That cookie couldidentify the types of sites theuser visited afterward, helpinginform which political ads wereserved up to the user. Before,

Veteran campaign strategistJoe Trippi, who ran the HowardDean campaign for President in2004, says, ‘the tools [for elec-tions] changed between 2004and 2008. Barack Obama wonevery single caucus state thatmatters, and he did it becauseof those tools, because he wasable to move thousands of peo-ple to organize.’2

With a charismatic leader outfront, the Obama campaignespecially was able to connectwith young people, roughly 18to 29 years old, the cohortknown as the millennials, whowill outnumber the babyboomers by 2010. Young peoplewere attracted to him by hisearly opposition to the war inIraq, as well as his personal‘audacity of hope’ story, allow-ing him to mobilise their energyand passion. Says Chris Hughes,the Obama campaign’s directorof online organising, ‘the com-munity that elected Obamaraised more money, held moreevents, made more phone calls,shared more videos, and offeredmore policy suggestions thanany in history. It also deliveredmore votes.’3

The Obama campaigncentrally involved the internetfrom the very beginning.BarackObama.com featured con-stant updates, videos, photos,ringtones, widgets, and eventsto give supporters a reason tocome back to the site. More

brilliantly. Indeed, it is not anexaggeration to say that withoutthe internet, Barack Obamawould not have won theDemocratic primary, and wouldnot have been elected President.

The Big Mo: InternetMobilisation and SocialNetworkingIn the primary season, both thefundraising and the mobilisingpotential of the internet provid-ed key advantages for Obama.His campaign started fromscratch early in 2007 with fewresources and little name recog-nition, but the internet helpedhim connect to his core support-ers in cost-effective ways. Manyof his campaign’s early effortswere low-overhead strategiesthat utilised free resources. Hisnimble use of the internethelped him overcome the hugeinitial lead of Hillary Clinton inboth fundraising and perceivedviability. He was able to getmore local volunteers on theground in key states earlier thanthe Clinton campaign, whichwas especially important insmaller states and caucus states.And his early success soon gen-erated a wave of small-size cam-paign contributions which even-tually gave him a crucial advan-tage in campaign organisationand advertising over the Clintoncampaign, which also raised alarge sum of money but mainlyfrom large donors.


‘The Obama campaign centrallyinvolved the internet from thevery beginning’

The internet also let peoplerepeatedly listen to the candi-dates’ own words in the face ofattacks. Instead of being at themercy of Fox News and its spinzone, Obama could react nearlyinstantaneously and have moreimpact on the public discourse.There was no better example ofthis than the controversy overObama’s friendship with theReverend Jeremiah White.While Obama’s opponentsfound ways to make sure thatReverend Wright’s incendiarywords kept surfacing, peoplecould watch and re-watch Mr.Obama’s speech on race. Theycould forward links to their ownfriends and associates.Eventually nearly 7 million peo-ple watched Obama’s 37-minutespeech on YouTube, and themainstream media reported onit in part because it becamesuch an internet sensation.

‘[The Obama campaign]leapfrogged the mainstreammedia by producing contentthat they knew would get dis-tributed for them once it wasuploaded’, says AriannaHuffington, creator and publish-er of HuffingtonPost.com.

There has also been a seachange in fact-checking, withcitizens using the internet tofind past speeches that prove apolitician wrong and then usingthe web to alert their fellow citi-zens. The John McCain cam-paign, for example, originallysaid that Governor Sarah Palinopposed the so-called bridge tonowhere in Alaska. Says Ms.Huffington, ‘online there was anabsolutely obsessive campaignto prove that wrong’, whichthey quickly did, causing theMcCain campaign to backtrack,making them look foolish. ‘In2004, trust me, they would have

Making Your Own MediaMachineThe Obama campaign also mas-terfully used the World WideWeb and its emerging videocapabilities for promoting itsown message, for rebutting criti-cisms, and for circumventingthe monopoly of the mainstreammedia in defining candidates.The first inkling of the ability ofthe web to grab attention for theObama campaign was revealedrather innocuously in June 2007when an independently-devel-oped YouTube video of ‘I got acrush on Obama’ was posted bya buxomly clad Obama Girl,eventually garnering 12 millionviews. It was a huge sensationthat drew attention to his cam-paign early on.

That was just the first exam-ple of the Obama campaign aswell as his millions of support-ers taking advantage of YouTubefor free advertising and messagebroadcasting. The ‘Yes We Can’mashup by the Black Eyed Peas’will.i.am, starring a handful ofhis famous friends, cost thecampaign nothing and became aviral hit.6 The Obama cam-paign’s own YouTube channelturned out 1800 videos by elec-tion day, reaping 110 millionviews.7 Joe Trippi argues thatthose videos were more effec-tive than television ads becauseviewers chose to watch them orreceived them from a friendinstead of having their televi-sion shows interrupted.

‘The campaign’s official stuffthey created for YouTube waswatched for 14.5 million hours’Mr. Trippi said. ‘To buy 14.5million hours on broadcast TVis $47 million.’8 Yet the Obamacampaign paid next to nothingfor that widespread exposure onthe web.

candidates had to rely onstereotyping large swaths of vot-ers and making TV spots to suit.But in the 2008 election theywere able to literally formulatean ad campaign for each indi-vidual voter. Obama’s campaignwas smart about segmenting itssupporters, crafting differentmethods of communication foreach group. With younger vot-ers, for instance, they made useof text messaging; for older vot-ers, they sent short, conciseemails. With an email or a textevery few days, people werekept abreast of the latest newsand talking points without thecostly expenses of TV ads ordirect mailings.

Andrew Rasiej, founder ofthe Personal Democracy Forum,a website that explores howtechnology is changing politicssays, ‘if you think about thefact that they have cell phonenumbers, emails, blog com-ments, donations andMyBarackObama profiles andso forth, they have multiplelevels of data about their sup-porters. Let us say they thentake that data and mash it withvoter files, for example. Theyfind someone who visitsBarackObama.com every day,has given them $10 a monthfor the last few months, hasoffered their mobile phonenumber, has voted inDemocratic primaries for thelast 12 years. That is probablysomeone who would be willingto volunteer for them.’ And outgoes an email and text messageto each individual about volun-teering, with specific locationsnear their home or work. Withonline campaigning, Raseijsays, ‘you can see where youget traction, and then reinvest,based on data.’5


Bush-Cheney e-campaign direc-tor in 2004, says that theRepublicans were able tomobilise their supportersthrough a combination of emaillists and internet ‘data mining’.They identified potentialRepublican supporters in everyprecinct around the country,using technology which pre-dicts voter preferences on thebasis of commercial data on carownership, magazine subscrip-tions, and the like. And thenthey sent their campaign volun-teers detailed instructions onwho to visit, including localmaps of the area and walkingroutes, and issues that eachpotential voter was likely to bemost concerned about.13

The Obama campaign clearlylearned from these previousefforts, and then took them to anewer, more sophisticated level.A short four years later in 2008,the internet tools already hadmorphed, as have the strategiesthey allow. As the internet toolscontinue to develop, so will thecampaigns. Deploying all themany tactics used in his insur-gent campaign, Barack Obamawon the Democratic Party cau-cus in Iowa on January 3, andthen beat Hillary Clinton in 13of 22 states on Super Tuesday,

from mid-October to electionday on November 4, he raised$104 million. Online donationstotalled $500 million, twelvetimes as much as John Kerryraised through online fundrais-ing in 2004. But unlike previousbig fundraising candidates, mostof his money came from smalldonors, the vast bulk of that inincrements of $100 or less.12

Obama’s fundraising capabili-ties gave him a massive leadover John McCain in the moneyrace to carry his campaign mes-sage to voters.

The use of the internet inpolitical campaigns has grownexponentially in a short periodof time. The Obama campaignwas not the first to use theinternet, and many of the tech-niques and tools it deployed,such as Web 2.0, are still rela-tively new. Howard Dean’s 2004campaign was groundbreakingin its use of the internet to raisesmall amounts of money fromhundreds of thousands of peo-ple, and Mr Dean was the firstDemocratic presidential candi-date to use the internet tomobilise his supporters throughhis Blog for America.Republican strategists and oper-atives also have not ignored theinternet. Michael Turk, the

gone on repeating it, becausethe echo chamber [of the main-stream media] would not havebeen as facile’, says Ms.Huffington.9

HuffingtonPost’s ‘Off the Bus’team of 10,000 citizen journal-ists caught candidates sayingthings that embarrassed themlater, even Obama when hemade his ‘guns and religion’remark at a private fundraiser.When Obama disappointed hissupporters with a Senate vote inJuly 2008 on a wiretapping andsurveillance law, many support-ers led a revolt onMyBarackObama.com, prompt-ing the candidate to write a longblog post explaining his posi-tion. Obama also assignedstaffers to monitor and respondto comments posted on thecampaign’s website. After a sortof cyber-catharsis of complaints,the controversy died down.10

With the internet, critics andcitizen journalists are every-where. Now, says Ms.Huffington, ‘there is no off-the-record fund-raiser’. Adds Mr.Trippi, ‘this medium demandsauthenticity, and television forthe most part demanded fake.Authenticity is something politi-cians have not been used to.’11

Internet Fundraising and SmallMoney DonorsTeam Obama’s use of the inter-net also allowed him to becomea fundraising juggernaut. Heraised more money than any USpresidential candidate in histo-ry, a mind-numbing $750 mil-lion. In a single day followingvice presidential candidateSarah Palin’s speech at theRepublican convention, analarmed Democratic base donat-ed an eye-popping $10 millionto the Obama campaign. Just


‘Team Obama’s use of the internet alsoallowed him to become a fundraisingjuggernaut. He raised more moneythan any US presidential candidatein history, a mind-numbing $750million’

important, donations and votes.By using interactive Web 2.0tools, Mr. Obama’s campaignchanged the way politicians canmobilise supporters, raisemoney, advertise to voters,defend against attacks and com-municate with constituents.

President Obama: The FirstInternet President?Since winning the election,Team Obama has continued toutilise the many internet toolsand resources that helped gethim elected. The Obama admin-istration is applying them to theearliest stages of governing andshaping policy, as well as tomaintaining its connections toits supporters.

Even before taking office, thenewly-elected Obama adminis-tration began drawing on inter-net tools to lay the groundwork

emails and texts exhorting sup-porters to vote with friends, par-ticipate in phone drives, andvolunteer at campaign eventsnear the supporter’s home. Theyeven offered a contest in whichlast-minute donors could beselected to attend Obama’s elec-tion-night party. And on elec-tion day itself, every battle-ground state voter signed up forObama alerts received at leastthree text messages.

With its internet-based cam-paign strategy, Team Obamatransformed his early fledglingcampaign into a steamroller thatrolled up one of the mostimpressive presidential victoriesin decades. Barack Obama’scampaign was successful at con-verting online geek activisminto real-world organising,including political rallies,videos on YouTube, and most

February 5, 2008. Over the nextmonth, with his legions ofmobilised supporters, he rackedup win after win in Democraticprimary states, putting togethera lead that was insurmountablewhen Clinton finally won a fewimportant primaries, especiallyin Ohio, later in the primaryseason.

On August 23, Obamaannounced the selection of hisrunning mate Joe Biden via textmessage, then he took thatmomentum and rolled it intothe presidential election againstRepublican nominee JohnMcCain. By election day, morethan 1 million people weresigned up for the campaignstext messaging programme, eachreceiving 5 to 20 targeted mes-sages per month. The final daysbefore November 4 saw theObama campaign sending daily


New from Palgrave Macmillan

For more information please visit:

www.palgrave.com/politics

sation to which everyone isinvited.

Some are saying that Obamaepitomises a new way of think-ing called ‘adaptive leadership’– while a boss puts forward aspecific plan to be implementedand everyone is expected to fol-low, an adaptive leader workswith constituents to devise aplan together. He gets people todo things on their own, throughinspiration, respect, and trust.Obama has tapped into thisvein by inviting voters in withhis ‘Yes We Can’ slogan. ‘Changewill not come if we wait forsome other person’, he said onSuper Tuesday, ‘or if we wait forsome other time... We are thehope of the future.’

Beyond all the hype about themessenger, the message or theirmethods, what is clear is thatthe ongoing development ofinternet tools is having atremendous impact on politicalcampaigns. In a sense, the inter-net has become a ‘steroid’ ofpolitics – a candidate does notdare not use it, and use it well,because if your opponent is ableto marshal its potential, youwill be up against a mobilised,well-financed army. No doubtcandidates in future electionswill be using internet tools thathave not yet even been devel-oped. And when the right can-didate with the right messagecomes along, tapping into thoseinternet tools will allow thatcampaign to become a powerfulpolitical force.

one and through these tools[like Twitter and text messaging]be able to share information ina rapid way and have ideasshared from below.’16

‘This is the beginning of thereinvention of what the presi-dency in the 21st century couldbe’, said Simon Rosenberg, pres-ident of the Washington DCbased think tank NDN. ‘Thiswill reinvent the relationship ofthe President to the Americanpeople in a way we probablyhave not seen since FDR’s useof radio in the 1930s.’17

While Barack Obama has gen-erated much excitement aboutthe future of a wired democracy,some are wondering whetherhis success can be replicated, orif this was a once in a genera-tion phenomena. The success ofthe Obama campaign was driv-en in part by the collision oftwo unique phenomena: first,the charisma of the candidatehimself with a message thatappealed especially to youngpeople, and second, a technolo-gy that young people have mas-tered more than anyone else.The millennials are more wiredinto the new media and onlinesocial networks than any otherdemographic, and Obamatapped into that youthful senseof hope and optimism.

‘Barack Obama is three thingsyou want in a brand’, says KeithReinhard of DDB Worldwide, aglobal advertising agency. ‘New,different, and attractive. That isas good as it gets.’18

Or perhaps the Obama storyis partly about the success of anew form of ‘leadership’.Obama, through his inclusivewebsite and his lofty rhetoric,reinforced the notion that every-one is included and that hismovement is actually a conver-

for an attempt to restructure theUS health care system. Theylaunched a new website,Change.gov, and in December2008 Obama’s point person onhealth care launched an effort tocreate political momentum in aconference call with 1,000 invit-ed supporters culled from10,000 who had expressed inter-est in health issues. First theyposted a simple 63-second videoon Change.gov, posing the ques-tion, ‘what worries you mostabout the health care system inour country?’ That triggered3,700 responses, including per-sonal tales of medical hardship.The subsequent cyber-conversa-tion was interactive, allowingindividuals to reply to oneanother and rate responses withthumbs up or down. The Obamatechnology gurus then built a‘word cloud’ showing the 100most frequently used words inthe responses.14

That was the first attempt bythe Obama team to harness itsvast and sophisticated grass-roots network to shape publicpolicy. Some see this as a poten-tially new force in Americanpolitics. ‘When Congress refusesto go with his agenda, it’s notgoing to be just the President’they oppose, says Mr. Trippi. Itwill be the President and hishuge virtual network of citizens.

‘Just like Kennedy brought inthe television presidency, Ithink we are about to see thefirst wired, connected, net-worked presidency’, says Mr.Trippi.15

Reed Hundt, former chairmanof the Federal CommunicationsCommission and Obama tech-nology advisor, says that theforthcoming administration willhave a commitment ‘to have ourentire democracy include every-


14 Connolly, Ceci (2008), ‘ObamaPolicymakers Turn to CampaignTools’, Washington Post,December 4, p.A01,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/03/AR2008120303829.html.

15 Miller, Claire Cain (2008), ‘HowObama’s Internet CampaignChanged Politics’, New YorkTimes, Bits Blog, November 7,http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics.

16 Dannen, Chris (2008), ‘HowObama Won It with the Web’,Fast Company, November 4,www.fastcompany.com/articles/2008/11/how-obama-won-it-with-the-web.html.

17 Connolly, Ceci (2008), ‘ObamaPolicymakers Turn to CampaignTools’, Washington Post,December 4, p.A01,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/03/AR2008120303829.html.

18 McGirt, Ellen (2008), ‘The BrandCalled Obama’, Fast Company,March 19,www.fastcompany.com/magazine/124/the-brand-called-obama.html.

March 19, www.fastcompany.com/magazine/124/the-brand-called-obama.html.

7 ‘The World’s Most InnovativeCompanies’, Fast Company,March 2009, p.56.



10 Connolly, Ceci (2008), ‘ObamaPolicymakers Turn to CampaignTools’, Washington Post,December 4, p. A01,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/03/AR2008120303829.html.



13 Schifferes, Steve (2008),‘Internet key to Obama victories’,BBC News, June 12,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7412045.stm.

Endnotes

1 Strategic government invest-ment has played a key role inEurope and Japan catching upwith and finally surpassing theUnited States in internet accessand high-speed broadband avail-ability. As recently as 2001, thepercentage of the German popu-lation with high-speed accesswas only half that in the US, andin France less than a quarter. Bythe end of 2006, both countrieshad far surpassed the US, andAmerica was ranked 21st in digi-tal opportunity, just behindEstonia. Across Europe, highspeed connections are lessexpensive and lightning fastcompared to those in the US,with French broadband connec-tions more than 30 times fasterfor a fifth of the price.

2 Miller, Claire Cain (2008),‘HowObama’s Internet CampaignChanged Politics’, New YorkTimes, Bits Blog, November 7,http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics.



5 Dannen, Chris (2008), ‘HowObama Won It with the Web’,Fast Company, November 4,www.fastcompany.com/articles/2008/11/how-obama-won-it-with-the-web.html.

6 McGirt, Ellen (2008), ‘The BrandCalled Obama’, Fast Company,


SUN TZU WROTE that, ‘strategywithout tactics is the slowestroute to victory. Tactics without

strategy is the noise before defeat.’Obama and his campaign internalisedthis maxim. They combined a politicalstrategy that focussed on a singular nar-rative and open organisational structurewith modern tools to maximisefundraising and voter mobilisation. Thecritical difference between their cam-paign and that of either Hillary Clintonor John McCain is that while perfectingthe use of these new tools – particularlyonline – they stuck ruthlessly to theirstrategy and instilled a level of trust intheir supporters which is rarely seen inpolitics. Progressive parties around theworld need to understand which les-sons apply to them, but be wary ofadopting the technology without a cor-responding message or degree of trust.

Cast your mind back to a chillyFebruary morning in Springfield,Illinois over two years ago whenBarack Obama announced his candida-cy for President of the United States:

‘[I] know that the ways ofWashington must change … Let us bethe generation that ensures our nation'sworkers are sharing in our prosperity… that ends poverty in America … thatfinally tackles our health care crisis …that finally frees America from thetyranny of oil … This campaign mustbe the occasion, the vehicle, of yourhopes, and your dreams.’

Compare this with his acceptancespeech 633 days later:

‘Change has come to America… For

even as we celebrate tonight, we knowthe challenges that tomorrow willbring are the greatest of our lifetime –two wars, a planet in peril, the worstfinancial crisis in a century … There isnew energy to harness and new jobs tobe created; new schools to build andthreats to meet and alliances to repair… And what we have already achievedgives us hope for what we can andmust achieve tomorrow.’

As Paul Begala described it at arecent conference organised by theCenter for American Progress, ‘Obama’sannouncement speech had great fideli-ty with his acceptance speech.’1 This israre in modern politics where the trialsand tribulations of 24 hour media anda near two-year campaign conspire topush candidates off course. Instead,Obama stuck unyieldingly to his mes-sage, staying steady rather thanresponding to every external attack.

The electoral strategy had a similarstability. To win the primary, Obamahad to knock the ‘inevitable’ candidacyof Hillary Clinton off course by win-ning Iowa and then ensure that thecontest did not end in early Februaryon Super Tuesday. As a result, theObama campaign spent the majority ofits time and money before that firstcaucus in the Hawkeye State whileClinton focussed on the bigger statessuch as New York, California andFlorida (which ended up forfeiting itsright to take part in the primary elec-tion in any case).

Alongside these unwavering aspects,the campaign’s success was driven by

Strategy and Organising –Lessons from the ObamaCampaign


Will StrawAssociate Director forEconomic Growth atthe Center forAmerican Progress inWashington DC. Healso served as a sen-ior policy advisor onregulatory reform forHer Majesty's Treasuryin the UK

Matt BrowneVisiting Fellow at theCenter for AmericanProgress inWashington DC and aformer Director of theinternational think tankPolicy Network

the level of trust bestowed upon itssupporters. Even before Illinois’ JuniorSenator had announced his candidacy,his campaign had set a course toensure that the organisational tone andstyle matched the campaign message.In the words of David Plouffe: ‘Weensured that volunteers were as closeto the campaign as the campaign man-agement.’2

‘Respect. Empower. Include’ was themantra of the campaign and the threewords could be found on colourfulhandmade posters decorating the wallsof every Obama regional office in thecountry. In the words of volunteersKarin Christiansen and Marcus Robertsthese core values meant that, ‘at a min-imum [the campaign] helped mitigatethe usual tensions and frictions ofcampaign life while at best they

inspired volunteers to do that extracanvass round, ask friends and familiesto join them, and even make thosesmall donations that funded the cam-paign juggernaut.’3 Ensuring that thetreatment of volunteers was steadfastin its commitment to these principleswas the part of the strategy that didmost to create the biggest ‘get out thevote’ operation of all time. The organi-sational principles behind the sloganare set out in Box 1.

Obama’s tactics were essentially ofold fashioned variety – grassroots mobil-isation, canvassing, and saturationadvertising – but driven by an extreme-ly modern set of tools. It is critical forprogressives to understand where theuse of the internet fitted into the list ofcontributing factors to Obama’s victory.As Paul Tewes, the mastermind of theinsurgency in Iowa described it, ‘mes-sage and organization won the cam-paign; technology served it.’4

That said technology played a moredecisive role in improving the efficien-cy of the campaign operation than hadarguably been the case in any previouselection cycle. For example, Obamaraised $687 million with nearly three-quarters raised online from 4 millionpeople; 13 million people signed up toreceive regular emails; and countlessneighbourhood events and campaignoperations were organised through thesocial networking tool,MyBarackObama.com. In essence,because the candidate and his messagewere so strong, the campaign was ableto capture the unprecedented enthusi-asm of his supporters and garner themto donate that extra dollar and knockon that extra door.

Progressive parties must understandthat Obama's success and the level ofenthusiasm that were generated will behard to replicate. Some may think thatthe task is to adopt the best ideas,practices and technologies used in theUS and bolt them on to how party poli-tics and campaigning is currently car-ried out. But believing that this is a


Box 1: Obama’s Organizational Principles

1. Horizontal not vertical. Everyone in the campaign at everylevel should have ability to make decisions, offer input.

2. All politics is local. On the ground knowl-edge/relationships/politics usually trumps HQ theory.

3. Accountability breeds discipline. Set goals, educate organi-zation on why, ask for feedback – then hold it accountable.

4. It takes a big army to build/service a massive army. A mas-sive volunteer organization requires a big paid organization.

5. If you build it they will come. People need a place to gath-er/come together. Offices everywhere allows communityeverywhere.

6. Keep turf clear, keep relationships clear. Do not confuse thevolunteer organization with multiple relationships to the paidorganization.

7. Let volunteers have a say in their own campaign. While cer-tain tasks will be asked of everyone, people are not robots.

8. Organize as teams/as community. Working together isempowering and uplifting.

9. They join because of the candidate, they stay because of thestaff. Volunteers should be respected, empowered andincluded.

10. What lives online must first live offline. Technology shouldserve the organization, not the other way around.

11. Always, Always, Always… Ask people’s opinions, listen totheir thoughts/needs, say THANK YOU.

Source: NewPartners Inc.

purely technocratic challenge would beto fail. Parties must instead understandthat to emulate Obama they need thatvictorious mix of trust and technology.New tactics and techniques are notenough if you do not combine themwith a deep-seated shift in the natureof the campaign. What set Obama’scandidacy apart from that of eitherMcCain or Clinton was that the har-monics were right: the pitch of ‘hope’and ‘change’ was consistent with thetone of using modern online tools.

In line with this, a new book, TheChange We Need: What Britain CanLearn From Obama’s Victory, publishedin Britain by the Fabian Society arguesthat, ‘the facilitation of a new move-ment politics by the Labour Partyshould go deeper: it should changemore fundamentally not just how theParty competes for election but alsohow it is organised and how it mobilis-es support. Thus, while Obama’s elec-tion provides opportunities for Labour,

it also poses a huge challenge to whichthe party must respond.’5 The book setsout five principles that the Labour Partymust adopt including removing all bar-riers to participation and enablingchannels for debate and dissent.

Although the historical, cultural andinstitutional issues facing other pro-gressive parties around the world willbe different, and each unique organisa-tion will have to think carefully abouthow it adapts, many of the necessaryreforms will be similar. But letting goso that supporters can self-organise oropening up policy discussions to thepublic is anathema to many progres-sive parties who have struggled to keeptheir structures from being over run byleft wing extremists. Permanent partystructures will therefore resist some ofthese changes.

But the risk of inaction is greaterstill. Obama opened a Pandora’s Box ofpolitical participation. As anEconomist poll showed, people around


Current thinking oninternational politics

and business

Available from McGraw-Hill

9780071549035 HBSpin-Free Economics:A No-Nonsense,Non-Partisan Guide toToday’s Global EconomicDebates BEHRAVESH£15.99 22.99¤

9781422147627 HBIndia’s GlobalPowerhouses: How TheyAre Taking On the WorldKUMAR£18.99 23.99¤

9781422126097 HBFree Market Madness:Why Human Nature Is AtOdds with Economics -and Why It MattersUBEL£16.99 19.99¤

9780071628440 HBThe Cost of Capitalism:Understanding MarketMayhem and StabilizingOur Economic FutureBARBERA£19.99 23.99¤

9781422117354 HBGreater Good: How GoodMarketing Makes forBetter DemocracyQUELCH£24.99 28.99¤

9780071632843 HBWhy Iceland?: How theWorld’s Smallest CountryBecame the Meltdown’sBiggest CasualtyJÓNSSON£16.99 18.99¤

9781422179710 HBA Sense of UrgencyKOTTER£14.99 17.99¤

9781605092898 PBAgenda for a NewEconomy: From PhantomWealth to Real WealthKORTEN£11.99 12.99¤

To order, please visit www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk| For corporate and bulk sales, please email us at [email protected]

the world cheered on Obama by a fac-tor of more than five to one.6 Theworld watched when he stood on theeast steps of the Capitol to make hisinaugural address. But this vicariousexcitement will now be hard to sup-press as the global citizenry demandssimilar electoral campaigns in theirown countries. In a world where peo-ple have the ability to comment at anytime anywhere on anything from thenews to their latest book purchase,political parties will be ignored if theydo not develop this kind of environ-ment for their supporters.

National elections are not warfarebut Sun Tzu’s maxim is still relevant.Political parties around the world can-not decouple Obama’s strategy fromhis tactics. While modern technologycannot and should not be ignored, ifthe message and organisation do notcomplement the network potential ofthe internet, political parties will fail tofollow Obama’s success. And in chang-ing the way we run our campaigns, wecan learn from a pacifist too. AsGhandi said, ‘we need to be the changewe wish to see in the world.’

Endnotes

1 Remarks by Paul Begala at Center forAmerican Progress conference, March 9,2009.

2 Remarks by David Plouffe at Center forAmerican Progress conference, March 9,2009.

3 Christiansen, Karin, Marcus Roberts(2009), ‘Respect, Empower, Include: thenew model army’, in: Anstead, Nick, WillStraw (ed.), The Change We Need: WhatBritain Can Learn From Obama’s Victory,Fabian Society, London.

4 Remarks by Paul Tewes at Center forAmerican Progress conference, March10, 2009.

5 Anstead, Nick, Will Straw (ed) (2009),The Change We Need: What Britain CanLearn From Obama’s Victory, FabianSociety, London.

6 See http://www.economist.com/vote2008/?mode=leadershipboard


‘Progressive parties mustunderstand that Obama’s successand the level of enthusiasm thatwere generated will be hard toreplicate’

POLITICAL PARTIES PERFORMimportant roles in European soci-eties. Parties are institutions in

which citizens with similar politicalviews organise, develop political pro-grammes and actively participate in thepolitical process. They are vital fordemocracy because parties offer themost clear-cut political choices that areput to the electorate. Parties are alsorecruitment organisations, throughwhich parliamentarians and membersof government are sourced. Eventhough the latter functions are impor-tant, the general effectiveness of partiesis closely linked to the first characteris-tic: their societal embeddedness – themain channel between a party and citi-zens. And in this respect, political par-ties have been declining dramatically.

The demise of political parties is nota new phenomenon. Since at least the1980s, parties in all establishedEuropean democracies have sufferedmassive membership losses to the

point where they only retain a verylimited capacity to engage citizens. Thesocietal anchor of political parties isseriously threatened. Vernon Bogdanorwrote in 2006 that ‘the story of the riseand fall of the mass political party isone of the great unwritten books of ourtime’. So why do I pick this rather oldproblem up again in 2009? Not becauseI want to write the obituary of the masspolitical party but because we can nowsee where the development of politicalparties might lead us. This potentialnew future became apparent duringthe US Presidential campaign.

Additionally to his remarkablepersonal qualities, Barack Obama –during the Democratic primaries, thePresidential campaign and now even assitting President – has been extremelysuccessful in using new communica-tion technologies to connect directlywith citizens. Through the use of socialnetworking tools, online video messag-ing and almost real time updates onwhat was happening on the campaigntrail – and by making many of thesetools available to his supporters too –he was able to create a community thatwas not only prepared to vote for himbut willing to organise and campaignon the local level. He was able to cre-ate a political movement he can nowbuild upon.

The construction of this movementwas above all possible because newcommunication techniques offered away of being actively involved in thecampaign for change. But if you lookbehind the technical tools you notice

Where now for EuropeanPolitical Parties?

‘Barack Obama’s campaign wasable to recreate old – rather thancreate new – characteristics thattraditional European parties,especially left-of-centre parties,have lost over the years: a senseof community and belonging’


Henning MeyerHead of the EuropeanProgramme at theGlobal Policy Institute(London MetropolitanUniversity) andManaging Editor ofSocial Europe Journal

that Barack Obama’s campaign wasable to recreate old – rather than createnew – characteristics that traditionalEuropean parties, especially left-of-cen-tre parties, have lost over the years: asense of community and belonging.

Let us take the oldest social demo-cratic party in the world as an exam-ple: the German SPD. When the partywas founded in 1863, its backbone waseducational leagues founded to educateworkers. The cultural and communityaspect was therefore not just a by-prod-uct but very much the founding princi-ple of the party. Being a social democ-rat was not a question of membershipin an organisation but rather a way oflife. The identity of the party was rein-forced by the large variety of socialdemocratic newspapers and publica-tions that contributed to this distinctculture. The cultural underpinnings ofpolitical parties were also evident else-where and it seems that it has beenespecially this attribute, that used toprovide the closest link to society, thathas declined most dramatically inrecent decades.

It was argued that because of socialand ideological changes in societies inthe second half of the twentieth centu-ry, mass parties – rather homogenousconstructs – developed into catch-allparties that attempted to integrate thediversifying political views and socialbackgrounds of citizens under theumbrella of the same party. Today,many parties look like what politicalscientists call ‘professional-electoralparties’. Such parties are organisationsthat have a highly centralised leader-ship and are focussed on winningvotes and offices. They have largelyabandoned the cultural heritage of tra-ditional political parties. ‘Professional-electoral party’ is also the closest typol-ogy for US political parties, which arepractically committees to fight elec-tions without much activity betweenballots. They are very candidate cen-tred and lack organisational leadership.

So what is new that could show the

way political parties could go fromhere? What has changed during theObama campaign? In a nutshell,Barack Obama has managed to recreatethe community aspects of old massparties and integrate them into a pro-fessional-electoral party. In the contem-porary context, however, culture doesnot mean a certain way of living butrather being part of a community basedon a charismatic political leader, newpolitical ideas and a desire for grass-roots activism. The creation of thisnew culture in the Obama campaignhas only been possible by the use ofnew media. So after it has transformedthe economy and the way we commu-nicate with each other, is the informa-tion, communication and technology(ICT) revolution now fundamentallychanging the political process too? Ithink there are strong arguments infavour of this and Barack Obama’s suc-cess is evidence.

What does this mean for Europeanparties? The socio-economic circum-stances and ideological believes of citi-zens have indeed changed dramaticallysince the foundation of early Europeanparties, political activism has howevernot disappeared. The success of single-issue movements such as Greenpeace,Amnesty International and theGlobalisation critics of Attac clearlyshows the enduring desire for politicalactivism. Some of these movementshave even grown into political partiesin their own right, for instance theGerman Greens or – with a rather dif-ferent political agenda – the UKIndependence Party (UKIP).

So the first ingredient – desire forpolitical activism – is still there. Buthow can it be used? European partieshave tried for decades to open theirstructures to social movements and touse societal activism for their partypurposes. They have all been largelyunsuccessful so far because theirstrategies were unclear and their ownstructures often too rigid. Waking up tothe potential of new technologies and


the experience of the Obama campaignhowever makes it a necessity to tryagain – and to try harder. After all, theonly alternative seems to be furtherdecline. Initial steps to use new tech-nologies have been taken but moreneeds to be done. Europe in general isclearly behind the US in terms of inter-net integration in everyday life includ-ing politics. But this can also be anopportunity for the party that comesup first with a successful mix of tech-nologies for the European context.

The second ingredient is politicalideas that can capture and motivatepeople. The current economic crisishas opened a window of opportunityfor a new politics. There is a vacuumof ideas since the promise of prosperityfacilitated by unfettered markets col-lapsed with the international bankingsector. This void has not been filledyet. In Barack Obama’s case the simplepromise for change was enough to cre-ate his movement. This was howeveronly possible in the narrow window ofopportunity at the beginning of theeconomic crisis and in the specificcontext of US politics. If his movementis to become sustainable he needs tobring in new positive ideas. PresidentObama has understood this and haskept the close link to his followerseven after assuming office. The way inwhich he encouraged living room dis-cussions about his economic stimuluspackage across the US was a remark-able move and combined the desire foractivism with political content. The

sense of belonging and potential foractivism created by a ‘I received anemail from the President’ momentshould not be underestimated.

The last ingredient in the mix ischarismatic leadership. Early attemptsof online campaigning in Europe haveshown that it is very difficult to buildmass participation in a political onlinecampaign if there is not an appealingpolitical figure at the top. Parties assuch seem to be rather inappropriatevehicles for such campaigns.Identification becomes much easier ifpeople are involved. So if the Europeanpolitical culture develops in the direc-tion set out in the United States, it islikely that politics becomes more per-sonalised and centred around politicalideas represented by certain politicians.

Political parties have been decliningfor decades without finding a way tostop their downfall. The ICT revolutionis here to stay and has already trans-formed many areas of our lives. TheObama campaign in the US has brokennew ground and is certainly an impor-tant example to watch. But the ques-tion is how these developments can beworked into European party politics. Asimple ‘copy and paste’ will not work.But the revitalisation of political cul-ture and activism using new technolo-gies is the most promising opportunityon offer to change the fate of politicalparties. Given the alternative, it is cer-tainly worth trying.


‘Early attempts of online cam-paigning in Europe have shownthat it is very difficult to buildmass participation in a politicalonline campaign if there is notan appealing political figure atthe top’

EUROPE HAS BEEN a fascinatingidea of peace, stability and socialjustice. After decades of unstable

balance of power systems, disastrousconflicts and two World Wars, a newera in Europe’s history began when theEuropean Coal and Steel Community(ECSC) was established. The idea ‘tocreate peace through integration’became a reality. Following decades ofwar, battlefields and deep wounds, thepeace project ‘Europe’ arose.Overcoming the fear of war and open-ing borders between Europe’s nationstates was the dream of millions of peo-ple, which came true. Through the vol-untary transfer of sovereignty fromnation states to a supranational institu-tion, an integration process startedwhich over the years has evolved fur-ther and further. From the 1950Schuman Plan – the beginning of theintegration process – to the 1958 Treatyof Rome, which laid the foundationstone of the single market, and eventu-ally to the single currency, the ‘mone-tary non-aggression community’reached a degree of integration, which,if one pauses for a moment, is amazing.

The number of member states hasexpanded from the six founding states– France, Germany, Italy, Belgium,Luxembourg and the Netherlands – tocurrently 27 member states. Core prin-ciples like peace, freedom, democracy,prosperity and social developmentwere extended to Spain, Portugal andGreece after the fall of their dictator-ships; later, after the end of the ColdWar, these principles were also adopt-ed by the former Warsaw Pact states.The eastern enlargement of the EUeventually ended the artificial divisionof Europe through the ‘Iron Curtain’. Awar between the EU member states isunthinkable today.

For decades, Europe was a projectwidely supported and accepted.Europe’s citizens wanted Europebecause it brought peace, economicprosperity and social progress. Theyare still in favour of European integra-tion but they have started setting con-ditions for further support of theEuropean integration project. Theseconditions must be incorporated intothe political process. Europe’s successstory had always been that the econo-my and social security are two sides ofthe same coin – until the 1990s whenthe neoliberal spirit began dominatingthe EU Commission and national gov-ernments. Since then the motto hasbeen ‘deregulation’. Instead of socialstability, strategies for deregulation andprofit increase have governed theimplementation of the single market.Conservatives and neoliberals claimthat social and environmental regula-

European ParliamentaryElections 2009 – Timefor a new Direction

‘Instead of social stability,strategies for deregulation andprofit increase have governedthe implementation of thesingle market’


Martin SchulzLeader of the PESGroup in theEuropean Parliamentand the top candidateof the German SPDfor the European par-liamentary elections inJune.

tions prevent growth and lead to lowerwages; longer working hours and thelack of workforce participation in com-pany decision-making, on the otherhand, foster growth and higher wages.But employment and trade unionrights are not cost factors. They arevital to our economic success as theycontribute to motivating employees,improving the quality of jobs, promot-ing social harmony and fostering work-force participation in company deci-sion-making. Economic growth doesnot mean anything if it benefits onlysome. The EU’s social divisions have tobe overcome in the coming decades.

Europe is governed by centre-rightgovernments and it is badly governed.19 out of 27 heads of governments arefrom the centre-right and send conser-vative and neoliberal commissioners toBrussels. Whilst the economies of theEU member states have been har-monised, the welfare states haveremained national. Now the balancebetween capital and labour is threat-ened. As a consequence social inequali-ties grow – on the one hand profits rise,on the other hand real wages fall. In theview of many people, instead of help-ing people coping with the risks andchallenges of globalisation the EU hasturned into a henchman for the glob-alised economy. Europe’s citizens right-ly demand that the EU should not onlyconsider the interests of the economybut strengthen social rights and fosteractive employment. We – the Europeansocial democrats – therefore focus on aSocial Europe and putting people first.

For a Social EuropeWe want to create a European econom-ic model that puts people and not themarket in the centre of attention. Thesingle market is the precondition forgrowth and employment. Economicgrowth, however, can never be an endin itself but must contribute to pros-perity for everyone. We want to amendthe Economic and Monetary Union(EMU) by an equally important social

union in order to include political andsocial rights in the European SingleMarket. The different national tradi-tions of the European social modelshould be respected; at the same time,however, binding regulations and mini-mum standards should be established:We propose a European social progresspact with joint European goals andstandards for social and educationexpenditures based on the economicability of the member states.Furthermore, every EU legislationshould be assessed according to itssocial consequence for the citizens inEurope. With the proposal of aEuropean pact against wage dumpingwe want to achieve that decent mini-mum wages are guaranteed in everymember state. We campaign for theinclusion of a social progress clause inEU legislation. Also, we want a reviewof the ‘Posting of Workers Directive’. InEurope the principle of ’same wagesand labour conditions for the sameemployment in the same place’ musthold true. The rights of employees, inparticular the rights of European workscouncils, must be strengthened inorder to guarantee employees’ partici-pation in economic decision-makingprocesses. A new EuropeanCommission will only be politicallysupported by European social democ-rats if it obligates itself to take intoaccount social impact assessmentswhen developing European legislation.The EU will regain the trust of its citi-zens and create enthusiasm for theEuropean project if it reveals again itssocial side.

For Employment and EcologicalProgressWe need a joint European policy forgrowth and employment now that peo-ple in Europe have to face a financialcrisis with unprecedented challenges,such as a rise in unemployment, anincrease in the cost of food and fuel, adecline in people’s purchasing powerand growing risks of poverty.


The European Single Market and theEconomic and Monetary Union are thebases to preserve our competiveness inthe globalised economy. Yet, the pres-sure of the global market on our socialstandards grows. Besides worldwidetrade with capital and goods, there isnow global competition between servic-es and labour. In order to prevent aruinous competition between EU mem-ber states, we demand a better coordina-tion of economic and financial policies:For example, we propose a common cor-porate tax rate and the taxation ofEurope wide acting capital companies.

We will need to give priority toemployment in Europe. For this reasonwe suggest a European future plan foremployment in order to scrutinise allEuropean programmes whether theysecure and create jobs in the long run.A tightened economic and financialcoordination on EU level, especially inthe Eurozone, can create millions ofnew jobs. If well-directed investmentstake place, about 10 million jobs couldbe created by 2020, particularly in theenvironmental and energy sector.Europe could rise to become theworld’s leading innovator.

For a new European and InternationalArchitecture of the Financial MarketA blind faith in the invisible hand ofthe market has led us straight into thegravest economic and financial crisissince 1929. Even conservative andneoliberal politicians, hitherto support-ers of deregulation, realise that themarket can sometimes be the problemand politics the solution. The ideology

of a free and unleashed capitalism hasfailed in the current crisis. Now, con-servatives and neoliberals start toadopt concepts that have been repre-sented by social democrats for a longtime. The European social democratshave called for more transparency,stricter control and refined regulationsof international financial markets foryears. We hold fast to these demands:We want a new European and interna-tional financial architecture with pre-cise political ‘traffic rules’. These rulesmust cover all financial actors. First,regulatory authorities over banks andthe financial market must be strength-ened, and the International MonetaryFund (IMF) must be empowered tobecome a central controlling and coor-dinating authority. Second, we willneed stricter orders and transparencyrules for risk management and theequity reserves of banks. Destructiveshort-selling must be banned and taxhavens must be closed. Conservativesand neoliberals are using a left jargonin the current crisis, but in fact theyare very likely to prevent structuralchanges. The European social democ-rats fight for true reforms and a newglobal architecture of the financialmarkets to prevent any repetition ofthe current crisis.

For a strong Europe as a Power forPeaceEurope, as the largest economy andlabour market in the world, is a globalplayer. The EU, with its enormous eco-nomic power, can make a difference inthe world if it performs united andspeaks with a single voice. We want tostrengthen Europe’s identity as a globalpower for peace. The EU shall be amodel for supporting peace as well assustainable social and economic devel-opment. Through involvement of bigpowers, such as the US, Russia, China,and India, Europe could initiate a newera of multilateral cooperation andrelaxation. A strong European policyfor disarmament and arms control


‘Conservatives and neoliberalsare using a left jargon in thecurrent crisis, but in fact theyare very likely to preventstructural changes’

must be one of our priorities. We aimto develop the European Security andDefence Policy (ESDP) and in particu-lar strengthen its civilian component.Our long-term goal is to establish aEuropean army, whose missions mustbe legitimised by parliament. Theinner-European peace project hasproved its worth. Now it is time to addan external dimension.

For a Fair and Social GlobalisationAs we live in an age where nationstates and societies work together moreclosely and inter-linked, many coun-tries face obstacles in their ability toact. Especially the financial crisis andclimate change reveal that we are liv-ing in a time of global responsibilityand shared vulnerability. The basis of aglobalised world is the interdepend-ence of economies and societies. Stateboundaries have become permeable forpeople, ideas and money. On the onehand, many positive effects result fromthat. On the other, permeable bound-aries give way to threats like interna-tional terrorism, the spread of weaponsof mass destruction and regional con-flicts which may also affect Europe.The major question is now how totackle the darker sides of globalisation.No country will be able to solve globalproblems on its own. The EuropeanUnion will be a necessary instrumentto cope with the global challenges ofthe 21st century. The EU consists of 27member states with almost 500 millioninhabitants. Its economic power repre-sents one quarter of world trade andeconomic performance, and it is theworld’s biggest single market. The EUis an important actor on the interna-tional stage and can enforce commoninterests much better than nation statescould do on their own. In the realm ofclimate change, the reorganisation ofinternational financial markets, thefight against poverty or against interna-tional terrorism, the EU can and mustact according to the motto ‘united weare strong’. We want Europe to cam-

paign for reforms of the central inter-national institutions, especially theUnited Nations, the IMF and the WorldBank, in order to strengthen their legit-imacy and capacity to act. The EU canbe actively involved in globalisationprocesses. It is a huge chance but alsoa huge responsibility for the EU. As ananswer to globalisation, we want astrong, economically successful andsocial Europe.

Europe Strong and SocialThe European Parliament elections onJune 7th will decide which directionEurope is going to take. What kind ofEurope do we want? A Europe of freecapital interests or of social welfare?Conservatives and liberals want aEurope which puts free market andcompetition above all, even above peo-ple and the environment. In times ofeconomic and financial crises we wit-ness every day that radical market ide-ologies have failed. In the new century,we will need a Europe which combinessocial justice, environmental policyand economic success. We need aEurope which is not ruled by the short-term logic of financial markets but by along-term social and democratic logic.

If the EU were to reveal her socialside, people, in particular the younggeneration, would become enthusiasticabout European projects again.Although young Europeans favour theEuropean Union and almost two-thirdsof them support the EU membership oftheir respective country, the participa-tion of this group in European elec-tions is the lowest compared to otherage groups. The EU seems too fardetached from daily life and seems tohave no understanding for their sor-rows and needs. A priority for socialdemocrats will be to create opportuni-ties for young Europeans to participatein political processes and to seekexchange with them. Today’s 75 mil-lion 15 to 25-year-old Europeans willlive in the future Europe and create theEuropean future. Via internet and new


social networks, which are excitingand hitherto unknown forms of engage-ment for voters, a true interactivity andexchange with young voters in particu-lar can take place. More and more peo-ple use YouTube, watch the podcasts ofthe PES parliamentary group, readblogs and news in forums or addsocial democratic delegates to theirfriends on Facebook.

In order to initiate a new Europeandirection and to give the EU a moresocial future we will need to hold aparliamentary majority on the nationaland European level. We must achieveto get across what we stand for inEurope, and what others stand for.People like to connect manifestos topersonalities. That is why parties focuson candidates in the election cam-paign. In light of the economic andfinancial crisis, Europe’s value hasbecome more visible. People sense thatmany conflicts and problems cannot besolved by nation states alone and thatEurope is able to solve these problems.

We now have the chance to providesocial justice, fair work conditions,wages and consumer protection. Wemust implement new rules for globalfinancial markets, which tame capital-ism. Our ambition is to turn this elec-tion into a signal for a strong and SocialEurope of the future – and that meansto shift Europe in a left direction.


‘People sense that many conflictsand problems cannot be solvedby nation states alone and thatEurope is able to solve theseproblems’

Europe at a Turning PointEurope is at a turning point.Our banks are not working,businesses are collapsing andunemployment is increasing.The economic wreckage of mar-ket failure is spreading acrossthe continent.

But this is not just a crisis ofcapitalism. It is also a failure ofdemocracy and society to regu-late and manage the power ofthe market. At this moment ofcrisis we reject the attempt toturn back to the business asusual of unsustainable growth,inequality and anxiety econom-ics. But we recognise too thatthere is no golden age of socialdemocracy to go back to either.

The future is uncertain andfull of threats; before us lie thedangers of climate change, theend of oil and growing social dis-location. But it is also a momentfull of opportunities and prom-ise: to revitalise our commonpurpose and fulfill the Europeandream of freedom and equalityfor all. To face these threats andrealise this promise demands anew political approach.

On the tenth anniversary ofthe Blair–Schroeder declarationof a European Third Way, theDemocratic Left offers an alter-native project: the good society.

This politics of the good soci-ety is about democracy, commu-nity and pluralism. It is demo-

cratic because only the free par-ticipation of each individualcan guarantee true freedom andprogress. It is collective becauseit is grounded in the recognitionof our interdependency andcommon interest. And it is plu-ralist because it knows thatfrom a diversity of politicalinstitutions, forms of economicactivity and individual culturalidentities, society can derive theenergy and inventiveness to cre-ate a better world. To achieve agood society based on these val-ues we are committed to:

• restoring the primacy of pol-itics and rejecting the subor-dination of political to eco-nomic interests;

• remaking the relationshipbetween the individual andthe state in a democraticpartnership;

• creating a democratic statethat is accountable andmore transparent, strength-ening our institutions ofdemocracy at all levelsincluding the economy;

• enlarging and defendingindividual civil liberties;

• reasserting the interests ofthe common good, such aseducation, health and wel-fare, over the market;

• redistributing the risk,wealth and power associat-ed with class, race and gen-

Building the Good Society:The Project of theDemocratic Left

Jon CruddasMP for Dagenham (East London)


Andrea NahlesVice-President of the SocialDemocratic Party of Germany (SPD)and spokesperson for labour andsocial affairs of the SPD group inthe Bundestag

tional change. In the 2005 elec-tion both parties had millionsfewer votes than in 1997 and1998 and both have lost out inlocal and regional elections.Substantial numbers of tradi-tional working-class supportershave lost faith in New Labourand the SPD as the historicaladvocates of their interests.Many abstain from voting whilean increasing minority identifywith other parties who wouldclaim to represent their inter-ests, such as the leftist ‘DieLinke’ in Germany, and – ofgreater concern – the fascistBNP in Britain. The institutionsand cultures of the workingclass that sustained Labour andthe SPD through the 20th centu-ry have either disappeared orlost their social vitality.

The Third Way and the NeueMitte models of social democra-cy uncritically embraced thenew globalised capitalism. Indoing so they underestimatedthe destructive potential ofunder-regulated markets. Theymisunderstood the structuralchanges taking place inEuropean societies. Theybelieved that a class-based socie-ty had given way to a more indi-vidualised, meritocratic culture.But the new capitalism has notcreated a classless society. Undermarket-led globalisation the eco-nomic boom created unprece-dented levels of affluence butThird Way politics were not ableto prevent it from dividing soci-eties. After a decade of socialdemocratic government, classinequality remains the definingstructure of society. Success ineducation and life chances ingeneral continue to depend onfamily background.

The era of neo-liberalism wasalways going to end in self-

Learning from ExperienceIn June 1999, Tony Blair andGerhard Schroeder, the PrimeMinister of Britain and theChancellor of Germany, pub-lished a joint declaration ofEuropean social democracy.Their statement brought togeth-er the ideas of the British ThirdWay and the German NeueMitte. They claimed that thisnew model of social democracyhad found widespread accept-ance: ‘Social democrats are ingovernment in almost all thecountries of the union.’ Todaythe reverse is true. Socialdemocrats are out of govern-ment in almost all the countriesof the union.

The historic stage of socialdemocracy associated with theThird Way and the Neue Mittewas a response to the long peri-od of right wing dominance thathad taken hold following theeconomic crisis of the 1970s. Anew historic stage of capitalismhad emerged, destroying thepost-war welfare consensus andestablishing a new consensusaround neo-liberal values and afree market economy.

The electoral successes of theThird Way and Neue Mitte weretempered by compromises andlimitations. Neither New Labournor the SPD were able to buildlasting coalitions for transforma-

der to create a more equalsociety;

• recognising and respectingdifferences of race, religionand culture;

• putting the needs of peopleand the planet before profit.

The foundation of the goodsociety is an ecologically sus-tainable and equitable economicdevelopment for the good of all.There are no short cuts orready-made blueprints. Instead,based on these values and aspi-rations, we will take each steptogether and in this way we willmake our world a better place tolive in. As Willy Brandt said:‘What we need is the synthesisof practical thinking and ideal-istic striving.’

Working in our own nationalarenas we can achieve a greatdeal, but we need to recognisethat capital has gone globalwhile democracy has remainedlargely stuck at nation statelevel. This statement bringssocial democrats from Germanyand Britain together and indoing so makes each stronger.The next stage is to use thisexploratory text to build a pan-European network of socialdemocrats who, like us, don’twant to turn back to the pastbut are looking ahead to buildthe good society.


‘The foundation of the good societyis an ecologically sustainable andequitable economic development forthe good of all. There are no shortcuts or ready-made blueprints’

control over their lives.Autonomy is not licence; it car-ries with it the obligations andconstraints of living with others.It requires that each citizen hasthe resources – money, time,relationships and politicalrecognition – to make a goodlife for themselves. This meansthe right to decent work, educa-tion and social security. Themarket cannot distribute free-dom fairly and so a wider politi-cal community must be createdin order to decide the just distri-bution of resources. Individualautonomy is the product of apolitical community. Democracyand its renewal is central to thepolitics of the good society.

The guiding principle of thegood society is justice, the ethi-cal core of which is equality.Each individual is irreplaceableand of equal worth. In the goodsociety each is afforded equalrespect, security and chancesin life, regardless of back-ground. Discrimination basedon class, racism, homophobiaand prejudice against women isoutlawed and rigorously con-tested in culture, educationand the workplace.

Framing all these values isecological sustainability. Thegood society is part of the plan-et and attuned to its ecology. Itdevelops ways of flourishingwithin the constraints imposedon it.

A fair and sustainable economyAt the centre of the good societyis the individual as productiveagent. Only by reorganising thesystem of production can wecreate a society of freedom andequality. The neo-liberal con-sensus did not deliver the indi-vidual freedom it promised. Itcreated a winner takes all cul-

equal individuals in multicultur-al societies, and as citizens ofEurope. We must build politicalinstitutions that create a sense ofbelonging in a just society, andwe must reach out to the rest ofhumanity by creating democrat-ic forms of global governance.

The ideal of a better, fairerand more open world resonatesamong millions of people whoare searching for new ways tolive together. It is a hopeexpressed in global and localsocial movements, countlesssingle-issue campaigns, commu-nity actions, pressure groupsand a multitude of informalindividual engagements withpolitical, charitable and socialissues. The task of theDemocratic Left is to developthe idea of a shared commongood through argument, collec-tive political action and cam-paigning among the people.

The good society is about sol-idarity and social justice.Solidarity creates trust, whichin turn provides the foundationof individual freedom. Freedomgrows out of feelings of safety, asense of belonging, and theexperience of esteem andrespect. These are the funda-mental preconditions for thegood society. We seek a life ofself-invention and self-fulfill-ment. This desire for self-fulfill-ment involves the right ofeveryone to achieve their ownunique way of being human.But it is not the selfishness ofmarket capitalism, because todispute this right in others is tofail to live within its own terms.Solidarity expresses our interde-pendency. In a globalised worldsolidarity has no boundaries.

The notion of autonomy iscentral to a future in which peo-ple have the greatest possible

destruction. Now the economiccrash has created a turningpoint. We have a choice: we cango back to how things werebefore – the unsustainablegrowth, the individualised andconsumerised world of freemarkets, high levels of inequali-ty and anxiety, and the failureto confront the danger of cli-mate change. Or we can definea new vision of progress basedon justice, sustainability andsecurity in which there is a bal-ance in our lives between pro-ducing and consuming, and abalance between work and ourlives as individuals and mem-bers of society. There is an alter-native, and it must be construct-ed at a European level.

The Good SocietyOur values of freedom, equality,solidarity and sustainabilitypromise a better world free ofpoverty, exploitation and fear.We have a vision of the goodsociety and a more egalitarianeconomy, which will create asecure, green and fair future.But to achieve it capitalismmust now become accountableto democracy; and democracywill need to be renewed anddeepened so that it is fit for thetask. A good society cannot bebuilt from the top down, butcan only come from a move-ment made by and for the peo-ple. Creating the good societywill be the greatest challenge ofour time and it will shape thelives of generations to come.

Our valuesA new model of social democ-racy begins with our values.On these we can build thegood society.

In this new global age wemust live together as free and


must start working togetherrather than continuing the raceto the bottom. We need interna-tional and European regulationof financial markets.Transnational corporations mustbe made subject to democraticoversight through the introduc-tion of global economic democ-racy with defined rights ofinformation, consultation andcodetermination of workers’representatives. Private ratingsagencies, which have a hugeinfluence on economic perform-ance, need reform and supervi-sion by public authority. Theliberalisation and globalisationof capital has redistributedwealth from poor economies tothe rich and increased systemicrisk of worldwide economic col-lapse. Capital controls, the clos-ing down of tax havens and thetaxation of global financialtransactions are needed to aideconomic development and pro-tect vulnerable economies.

A new industrial policy needsto map out the future prioritiesand needs of Europe and itsnational economies.Manufacturing is in decline as ashare of GDP. Industrial employ-ment is falling and wages havebeen stagnating. Domesticdemand has been falling and insome countries the gap wasfilled by cheap mortgage-backedcredit. That short cut option to

have to be established andstronger incentives fashionedfor a more sustainable economy.

The market state and its agen-cies need to be transformed intoa civic state that is democra-tised and made more responsiveto individual citizens and smallbusinesses. We need to balancea strong centre with effectivepower at local level for econom-ic and social development. Theadvocacy roles of civil societyorganisations and the tradeunions need to be strengthened.

The primacy of politics overthe financial markets has to berestored. In the banking sector aplurality of more customerfocused business models must beestablished, which include com-mercial banks, mutuals, regionaland community banks and creditsocieties, all operating on a vari-ety of scales. We have to makesure that the banking sector isrestructured and that it developstransparent and accountableforms of corporate governance. Anew regulatory and supervisoryframework will define the roleand practice of banking and thesystem of executive remunera-tion. Only government with itsdemocratic authority, globalalliances and tax revenues canachieve the necessary level ofreconstruction.

The economic crisis requiresnew global alliances; countries

ture of capitalism that has dam-aged society and so also theindividual. It failed to createfree, self-regulating markets.

We need to develop a newkind of economy rooted in thevalues and institutions of thegood society. It will be one char-acterised by a variety of differ-ent economic structures andforms of ownership. It willmake sure that workers codeter-mine economic decisions oftheir companies. From this eco-nomic pluralism we can ensurethere is no going back to theglobally unbalanced economicgrowth that led to the crisis.

We need ecologically sustain-able development that meetshuman needs equitably andimproves the quality of life ofall. Climate change, peak oiland the need for energy andfood security demand large-scale economic transformations.The time has come to start todiscuss and then implement anew model of prosperity, whichcan be globalised but withoutleading to ecological disaster.Quality growth, meaningfulwork and technological progresscan lead to more wealth and abetter quality of life, but mar-kets alone cannot achieve thesegoals. The future will demand amore active state engaging withlong-term economic planningand development to build a sus-tainable economy.

The reform of the economycan begin with government tak-ing services of general interest –utilities, transport, post, banksand public services – back intopublic ownership or placedunder public control, where thisis the most accountable, equi-table and economically sustain-able way of guaranteeing theseservices. New rules for markets


‘The market state and its agenciesneed to be transformed into a civicstate that is democratised and mademore responsive to individual citi-zens and small businesses’

locally and where wealth creat-ed remains within local com-munities.

Good work and social securityWe must work for a socialEurope in which people comebefore profits and where societyasserts its interests over those ofthe market. This meanseconomies that prioritise fullemployment, fair levels of pay,and labour market rights thatguarantee good conditions andprotect workers against discrim-ination and exploitation. Itstands for social insuranceagainst sickness, unemploy-ment, poverty and disability,and for good value pensions inold age. Economic democracy iscentral to the social Europeproject. A social Europe mustextend beyond work to decenthousing, high quality energyand transportation networks,good quality health care servic-es, egalitarian education sys-tems, and skills training thatprepares individuals for a goodlife as well as good work. Thisagenda is a competitive asset ina globalised economy, not anobstacle to economic success.

We need a mix of cash bene-fits and social infrastructure tolift people out of poverty and tohelp stimulate demand. The taxsystem must contribute to amore equitable distribution ofincome and wealth. Low wageearners should not pay taxes.Those at the top must start pay-ing their fair share and legisla-tion must tighten tax loopholesand tax avoidance schemes.

Welfare policies that providepreventive approaches areimportant and should bestrengthened, but they must notbe used to disguise cuts in ben-efits. Fixation on personal

replace carbon-intensive power-plants and nuclear. To ensureaffordable warmth the energymarkets and prices must be reg-ulated and the energy compa-nies brought to account.

The knowledge economymatters and we must focus oninvestment in innovation andthe generation of high valueadded products. But knowledgeand culture related economicactivity must be extendedbeyond the limits of its currentprivileged zones and its demandsshould not be prioritised overthe rest of the economy.

The market is failing to deliv-er high quality research anddevelopment. Organisation andproduct transforming andenhancing innovation requiresubstantial initial governmentfunding and a strong venturecapital market aligned to it.Success needs buoyant,assertive and confident institu-tional cultures of risk taking.Such conditions do not current-ly exist in higher education.Instead, universities driven bycommercial imperatives andperformance indicators areneglecting the convivial cul-tures in which innovation hap-pens and ideas and communica-tion flow. The higher educationsystem must be decoupled fromthe market and from commer-cial imperatives and treated as apublic good.

The full potential of the serv-ices sector has to be developed,especially in the fields of educa-tion and training, and in health,care and social services.

We need a new system ofagriculture, both local andglobal. Investment should bemade in sustainable organicfood system where food is pro-duced, prepared and consumed

economic growth is now closed.Core structures of industry haveto be maintained and mod-ernised, because they secureemployment and provide a basisfor the services sector.

We have depended on theglobal economic imbalancebetween the huge trade surplus-es of some economies and thedeficits of others. This is unsus-tainable and we have to rethinkhow regionally in Europe andglobally we can have more bal-anced trade relationships.

Economic policy must ensurea diversity of business modelsand forms of economic owner-ship. We do not want to substi-tute monopoly capitalism forstate monopoly. But we wantmarkets to be regulated for thecommon good and the greatestpossible degree of economicpluralism. Government on dif-ferent levels including localstates should be encouraged toraise funds on the capital mar-kets, issue mortgages and raisefunding from bonds for theirown infrastructure projects.

New green markets and arenewable technologies industryneed developing, both for a car-bon neutral economy and forenergy security. In the short tomedium term the most effectivesolution to fight climate changeis to establish a global carbonmarket based on a cap and tradesystem. In the meantime energyefficiency should be at the heartof the response to the economiccrisis, as it is the quickest andfastest route to take for both jobcreation and emissions control.A Green Strategy needs to bedeveloped and coordinated bygovernments across Europe.Advances and price reductionsin large-scale renewable tech-nologies have potential to


where large numbers are pes-simistic about our future. Thisis because for thirty years ourdemocracies have offered onlyone vision of society: that gov-erned by markets and profit.The economic crisis is a crisisof democracy but it also pro-vides the opportunity to revi-talise politics.

Despite the disillusionmentwith political parties, there areextraordinary levels of political,cultural and communityactivism in our societies.Politics has become more indi-vidualised and ethical, and root-ed in a diversity of beliefs andlifestyles. The old collectivestyles and political monocul-tures are being rejected bysome. These developments arestimulating a search for newkinds of democratic politicalstructures and cultures that arereconnecting institutions ofpolitical power with socialmovements and political con-stituencies. Community empow-erment and campaigns aroundsocial justice and sustainabilityare becoming more vigorous.

Power must begin at the bot-tom and be delegated upward.We cannot create the collectiveagents of social change; peoplecan only empower themselves.But we can strengthen democra-cy and so create the conditionsfor their emergence and ourcapacity to build alliances withthem. With real power and poli-cy making influence they candevelop the ethos of democracy.

We need a new culture offreedom of information andmore open access to the media.Networks and databases facili-tated by the web are of growingimportance in campaigning,bringing political power toaccount and mobilising popular

fewer rights. Growth in employ-ment has been in both low skill,low wage jobs in poor condi-tions and high skill, high wagejobs, but sometimes also in dif-ficult contractual and workingconditions. The growing use oftemporary and agency workersis spreading these conditions toother parts of the economy.Regulation can end low pay, lowskill and casualised labour.Strong trade unions are the bestdefence against exploitation.Work and quality of life can beimproved by introducing a liv-ing wage. But we must ensurethat conditions of employmentare compatible with caringresponsibilities. The skills agen-da should be extended but alsodemocratised and radicalised sothat it can provide the meansnot only to ‘good work’ but alsoto a good life.

A new politics of democracyThe institutions which have inthe past given people access topolitical ideas and activity, suchas trade unions, churches andpolitical parties, face the chal-lenge of steep membershipdecline. Many people are disaf-fected with representativedemocracy. They have lost con-fidence in politicians and politi-cal parties. We live in societies

responsibility can create anxietyand social insecurity among themost vulnerable people in socie-ty, especially in a recession.People need help to lead digni-fied lives free from poverty andsocial exclusion. Social benefitsare a right of citizenship andshould help people managechanges and vulnerable situa-tions over the whole life-course.

Pensions are about the totaleconomic system and they willplay a key role in social invest-ment strategies and wealthredistribution. The longevityrevolution and the failure offinancial markets to guaranteedecent returns on personal pen-sion plans make social insur-ance an economic priority. Inthe last decade, the replacementof defined benefit schemes withdefined contribution schemeshas created a fundamental shiftof wealth in favour of the rich.They have transferred risk fromthe state and business to theindividual. This trend must bereversed in favour of publicpay-as-you-go systems for boththe private and public sectors.

Labour market policies facethe challenge of flexibility. Thegrowth in short-term contracts,agency work, sub-contractingand use of the ‘self-employed’have often left workers with


‘For thirty years our democracieshave offered only one vision of soci-ety: that governed by markets andprofit. The economic crisis is a crisisof democracy but it also provides theopportunity to revitalise politics’

ter for the EU as a whole than itis for any one country.

We need to introduceEuropean-wide reforms infinancial and economic gover-nance. The regulation of finan-cial market actors in Europe isnot sufficient. A Europeansupervisory institution canenforce adequate capitalrequirements, increase trans-parency in financial marketactors’ investment behaviourand facilitate efficient informa-tion exchange between nationalsupervisory authorities.European financial marketsmust become a source of stabili-ty and development in a pro-duction-orientated Europeaneconomy. The emphasis onachieving shareholder valuehinders capital investments infixed assets, and thereby growthand employment.

To this end we need to reformthe European Central Bank andthe European Monetary Union.This will improve the prospectsof Britain applying to join theEuro. The mandate for theEuropean Central Bank needs tobe broadened in the form of alaw which the Council andParliament can also amend. Aswell as price stability the man-date should permit other socialobjectives where necessary.These objectives would includethe prevention and reduction ofunemployment, the stability ofthe financial system, support forother EU economic policies andmonetary cooperation with out-side powers.

The EU’s central budgetneeds to be significantlyincreased and it must be able toredistribute considerably moreresources than at present.Alongside this reform, theCommission must have the

freely and fully as they can insustainable and just societies iswithin our grasp. But it will takea leap of imagination and power-ful ambition to make it happen.

A Politics for a better EuropeA politics for a Social EuropeEurope needs a ‘Post LisbonStrategy’ that is based on theconcept of ‘social productivity’.Social productivity is aboutsocial growth: increasing thesocial value and quality ofwork, accounting for the envi-ronmental and social costs ofmarkets, and developing sus-tainable patterns of consump-tion. The wellbeing of citizensand general quality of life mustbe improved beyond simplenumerical and monetary values.Wealth needs to be redistributedin a more equal manner.Effective regulatory standardsneed to be introduced to guar-antee good, affordable and com-prehensive public services, fairwages, good working condi-tions, free education for all anda human approach to immigra-tion and global solidarity.

The financial economyOur strategy for a social Europemust begin by tackling the eco-nomic crisis. By working togeth-er we will set the foundationsfor a Europe of greater coopera-tion, fairness and social justice.Member states are pursuingtheir own separate policiesoften at the expense of their EUpartners. There is an urgentneed for a coordinated Europe-wide fiscal stimulus. The multi-plier on coordinated fiscalexpansion is much greater thanfor any one country. In a coordi-nated response the tradeoffbetween increased debt andeffective stimulus is much bet-

opinion. Political parties remainan essential part of our democra-cies. They provide institutionalcontinuity while networks areoften transient. There is much tobe gained by synergies betweenthe two. For this to happen, par-ties will need to allow their owncultures and organisations to beopened up and democratised inthe process.

We must, in the words ofWilly Brandt, ‘dare more democ-racy’. We need to strengthen ourdemocratic cultures by introduc-ing electoral reform where it isneeded and by increasing oppor-tunities for active participationand deliberative decision-mak-ing processes also inside ourparties. This is a preconditionfor strong Social Democratic andLabour parties in Europe. Thetime of top-down communica-tion is over. The same is true fortechnocratic governments thattell people about necessitiesrather than persuade with rea-sons. People do not believe inspin-doctors anymore.

The main task in the yearsahead will be to create and con-solidate political trust in publiclife. Trust is the basis of allpolitical and social action. It isbest created by bringing peopletogether to agree common aimsand decisions, not by excludingthem. It is achieved by initiatingand engaging in open debatenot by seeking to avoid it.

In the process of democraticrenewal, nation states can andmust do more, alone and togeth-er. But it is the political commu-nity of Europe that must be usedif the economic crisis is to be aturning point for a new futureand not a return to the failedpolitics of the past. TheEuropean ideal of a continent ofsecure citizens who all live as


some form of carbon capturetechnology attached.

Balancing the grid at an EU-wide level will reduce the needfor coal and improve energysecurity by reducing reliance onforeign oil and gas. It will makesignificant cuts in carbon emis-sions and in the long run bringdown fuel bills too. The currentbilateral schemes that are beingnegotiated need to be extendedacross Europe.

Global social justiceA social Europe must work forglobal trade justice. The EU isstill pursuing an aggressive freetrade agenda. It is currentlynegotiating EconomicPartnership Agreements withAfrican, Caribbean and Pacificcountries which pose a seriousrisk to the development of thecountries involved. The EU’slatest ‘Global Europe’ tradestrategy is trying to force dozensmore countries into even moreextreme free trade agreementsfor the benefit of big business.We need a full-scale review ofEU trade policy and a new strat-egy that puts the rights of poorand marginalised people at itscentre. Trade policy needs to bemade more democratic andaccountable, and include muchgreater sharing of informationand real participation by civilsociety.

companies to individual incomeand consumption. This isregressive and unjust and thereneeds to be a harmonisation ofcorporate tax policy to safe-guard the financial basis ofnational social security systems.In the medium term, theEuropean Union (EU) shouldhave its own financialresources, based on a Europeancorporate tax and a Europeanfinancial transactions tax.Offshore tax havens should beoutlawed and corporate profitstaxed in the countries wherethey are earned.

Energy security and sustainabilityEurope must become the mostecologically sustainable econo-my in the world. If the US isstarting a competition tobecome the ‘greenest economyin the world’, Europe must takepart in this race because allhumankind will win. We needEurope-wide green standards forpower stations that adopt aseries of successively toughertargets for emissions standards,which will drive the introduc-tion of carbon capture and stor-age. An efficiency target forelectricity generation, which issimilar to that proposed for carsin the EU, would make it diffi-cult for a government to allowthe construction of new coal-fired power stations without

right, when supported byCouncil and Parliament, torun deficits.

The Stability and Growth Pactshould be replaced by an agree-ment on the coordination ofmember state budgetary poli-cies. Coordination and centrali-sation are to some extent alter-natives here; the greater andmore reliable the coordination,the smaller the central budgetcould be – but between themthe two measures must makepossible some control overaggregate tax and spendingpolicies in the EU.

Employment and social securityDifferent national paths consti-tute a source of strength in theEU. To achieve a Social Europedoes not mean enforcing a sin-gle system on all nations, butagreeing a set of welfare out-comes. A European minimumwage, corresponding to thenational average income, wouldhelp limit the increasing wagedifferentials in Europe and pre-vent ‘social dumping’. To pushforward its implementation willrequire an organisation similarto Britain’s Low PayCommission with a remit forcampaigning and working close-ly with the trade unions.

The series of European Courtrulings – the Laval, Viking andRueffert cases – have deregulat-ed labour markets by changingthe terms of the 1996 Posting ofWorkers Directive. This nowneeds reform to restore collec-tive bargaining, workers’ rightsto strike, and establish equalityfor posted and migrant workersacross Europe.

Europe needs fair policies ontaxation. Current tax competi-tion in Europe is leading to ashifting of the tax burden from


‘Europe needs fair policies ontaxation. Current tax competitionin Europe is leading to a shifting ofthe tax burden from companies toindividual income and consumption’

to be developed by societyitself, through debate andaction. We therefore invite civilsociety, social movements, tradeunions and members of our par-ties and those in all otherEuropean nations to discuss andfurther develop the ideas set outin this paper. Our invitation todebate extends to everyone whowant a more socially just, sus-tainable and democratic Europe.

This is just the beginning.

To discuss this article visitwww.goodsociety.eu

European democracyTo strengthen the Europeandemocracy in the economy weshould use the potential ofintroducing supervisory boardsthrough European PublicCompanies (SEs) for stakehold-ers to co-determine control overthe management board.

The EU needs to build aEuropean-wide civic culture,which will engage in voting,sustain its democratic institu-tions and subject them to scruti-ny. The EU needs to trigger pub-lic debate before taking itsmajor decisions. To respond topopular opinion the EuropeanParliament, which is directlyelected by the people, needs toget the right to initiate legisla-tion and to elect theCommission President.

Invitation to DebateThis paper lays out the princi-ples of the good society. But theproject of the good society has


Independent Thinking from Polity

THE POLITICS OF CLIMATE CHANGEANTHONY GIDDENS

‘A landmark study in the struggle to contain climate change, the greatestchallenge of our era. I urge everyone to read it.’Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States of America

Political action and intervention, on local, national and internationallevels, is going to have a decisive effect on whether or not we can limitglobal warming, as well as how we adapt to that already occurring. At themoment, however, Anthony Giddens argues controversially, we do not havea systematic politics of climate change. Giddens introduces a range ofnew concepts and proposals to fill in the gap, and examines in depth theconnections between climate change and energy security.

This book is likely to become a classic in the field. It will be of appeal toeveryone concerned about how we can cope with what amounts to a crisisfor our civilisation.

THE EUROPEANCommission’s ‘RenewedSocial Agenda’, pub-

lished at the beginning of July2008, bears the auspicious sub-title ‘Opportunities, Access andSolidarity in 21st CenturyEurope’. The Agenda outlines aframework for European socialpolicy in the areas of employ-ment and social affairs, educa-tion and youth, health care andthe information society.

However, since social policyremains the responsibility ofthe member states, theCommission avoids defining itspolicy proposals as such. At thesame time, the EU sees itself inan ‘ideal position’ to pursuesocial policies in reaction tosocio-economic change result-ing from technological develop-ment and globalisation.Contemporary social policyshould be ‘cross-cutting andmultidimensional’, both con-ceptually and with regard toimplementation.

In the Commission’s view,finding the right mixture ofEuropean and national decision-making is the key to a fair andefficient social policy for thetwenty-first century. Thus, theCommission rightly poses thequestion of whether there mightbe scope for cross-sectoralmeasures at EU level andwhether the instruments avail-able to the EU ‘to support andsupplement the member statesshould be reviewed’. This ques-tion delves deep into the EU’scurrent structure and touchesupon its relationship with themember states. This explainsthe number of critical and dis-missive reactions to the SocialAgenda. While some believethat the Agenda does not go farenough, others criticise it forgratuitously increasing the roleof the EU. No doubt, the EU’ssocial dimension will continueto be the subject of much politi-cal infighting.

What is EU Social Policy?In EU member states, social pol-icy is intended to benefit thedisadvantaged, equalisingchances in life and living stan-dards within society. Thisincludes conferring an equalstart in life through educationpolicy, but also equalising thesafety nets for the main risks oflife, such as illness and unem-

Europe on the Wayto a Social Union?

Andrej StuchlíkResearch associate at the Universityof Administrative Sciences in Speyer

Christian KellermannProject manager for Europeaneconomic and social policies at theFriedrich Ebert Foundation in Berlin

‘In the Commission’s view, findingthe right mixture of European andnational decision-making is the keyto a fair and efficient social policyfor the twenty-first century’37 Social Europe Journal Winter/Spring 2009

not binding but merely serveas benchmarks for nationalgovernments.2 However, sincethere is no penalty mecha-nisms the Open Method ofCoordination (OMC) is prima-rily used in policy areas inwhich the EU has little or nopower.

One Union – Many WelfareModelsEuropean welfarism in terms ofEuropeanisation of social policyis dependent on the commoninterest of member states inceding powers to the EU. Thereare three factors at play:

1. the degree of homogeneityof the member states (and inparticular their respectiveliving standards)

2. the rivalry between themember state and EU levelswith respect to optimumproblem-solving ability

3. the policy area in question

Homogeneity (1) matters, interms of distribution, Europeanintegration affects memberstates very differently, depend-ing on their welfare regime.With regard to their economicmakeup and welfare systems,recent EU members fromCentral and Eastern Europeseem to have only augmentedthe already heterogeneous EUmix. This complicates attemptsto reach a common interest infurther integration. In addition,transformational processes inthe last twenty years or so havecreated a large ‘have-not’ popu-lation segment in the new mem-ber states. Although the institu-tional aspects of accession arealmost complete, the ‘socialconsolidation’ phase in thesecountries still lags far behind.

often trigger different effects inthe member states. Hence,social policy at European level –particularly where it aims atharmonisation – is a highlycomplex political process whichmakes obtaining a majority(both in national parliamentsand in the European Parliament)a lot more difficult. The level ofcomplexity increases in linewith the level of integrationdesired; ‘integration’ refers tothe Europeanisation of nationalcompetencies; that is, to the del-egation of these competencies toBrussels. European social policytakes shape at three levels:

1. at the substantive level,European social policy emu-lates the social policy ofmember states: nationalsocial security systems pro-vide substantive benefits,such as unemployment ben-efits, for those in need.

2. at the regulatory level, theinternal market requires reg-ulation of European mini-mum standards, for exam-ple, in labour law and thecoordination of social sys-tems (e.g. the portability ofpublic pension rights).These measures create aframework designed to pre-vent dumping and exclu-sion. They do not, however,result in redistribution.European legislation aims tobalance adverse socialeffects of the four freedoms1,particularly in the area ofworker mobility.

3. European social policy alsoconcerns coordination in thearea of ‘soft law’. Soft lawsets common objectives formember states – for example,concerning vocational train-ing. However, these aims are

ployment. On the other hand,social policy is also a potentialgrowth factor for the nationaleconomy. Still, the scope ofmarket intervention varies.

Then there is a second prob-lem: in the member states thepolitical aims of market creationand market regulation are gener-ally on an equal footing in legalterms. ‘Market creation’ or ‘mar-ket enabling’ refers to the activi-ties of private actors in the mar-ket, which should be protectedby the state. ‘Market regulation’,in contrast, implies regulatoryintervention in markets, whichof course has to be justified. It isthis relationship that clearly dis-tinguishes member states fromthe EU. At the EU level, empha-sis on the internal market andits competition principles isclosely linked to the Union’slimited social powers. Althoughthe Community’s competence insocial policy has increased, par-ticularly since the Maastrichtand Amsterdam Treaties, theparallelism of European respon-sibility and European Court ofJustice (ECJ) rulings – for exam-ple protection in the workplace– and national powers (forexample, minimum wages)makes it difficult to reach com-promises in the European multi-level governance system.

Third, international conditionsand national starting points dif-fer: ageing societies, varioustypes of welfare state financingat national level – tax-based vs.contribution-based – and theincreasing tax competition in theUnion, as well as the detrimentaleffects of globalisation.

Against the backdrop of dif-fering national traditions andinstitutions, forays in the areaof social policy under the ban-ner of European integration


3. the Social Dialogue4. the Open Method of

Coordination (OMC)5. the Civil Society Dialogue

In the context of individual pol-icy areas these instruments areassigned to three levels of socialpolicy: substantive, regulatoryand process-oriented (‘soft law’).

a) Substantive Social PolicyDirect substantive payments tothose in need – for example,income support or housing bene-fit – require social security sys-tems financed on a contribu-tion/funded or pay-as-you-gobasis. The level of redistributionvaries considerably acrossEurope. Social benefits financedthrough taxation usually have astronger redistributive effectthan those financed directly byindividual contributions. AtEuropean level the resources ofthe European Social Fund (ESF)can be assigned to this categoryof classic social policy redistrib-ution, of the kind characteristicof nation states. The purpose ofthe ESF is the labour marketreintegration of workers in themember states. In keeping withthe existing Community compe-tencies as regards the social poli-cy underpinning of internal mar-ket freedoms the emphasis is onwork and employment. Thisincludes the financial instru-ment PROGRESS (CommunityProgramme for Employment andSocial Solidarity) and the onlyrecently established EuropeanGlobalisation Fund (EGF).

b) Regulatory Social Policy andthe role of the ECJEU legislationIn contrast to redistributivesocial policy, the regulatorylevel is limited to rule-making.

possible delegation andEuropeanisation: The more dif-ficult it is considered to be tomanage a particular policy areaonly at national level and thestronger the expectations con-cerning a putative ‘Europeancontribution’, the greater theincentive to delegate powers tothe EU. Whereas monetary poli-cy offers clear cut benefits ofharmonisation due to externaleffects in a customs union, thecase for unifying social policiesis far less clear. What makesnational welfare institutionseven more resilient toEuropeanisation is the fact thatthese institutions were consid-ered to represent the very back-bone of nation states therebycreating large constituencies.

Levels of European SocialPolicyThe EU’s contribution to socialpolicy is oriented towards thethree great sets of objectives andcross-sectional tasks it has setfor itself:

1. economic growth (as well asmore and better jobs)

2. high level of social protection3. equality of opportunity for all

In order to perform these tasksthe EU has five main instru-ments:

1. the European Social Fund2. social policy legislation

together with ECJ rulings

As heterogeneous as thegroup of new member statesmight otherwise be, incomeconvergence with the EU-15 isthe principal membership aimof them all. In this connectionproposals concerning social har-monisation are immediatelysuspected of aiming first andforemost to protect the interestsof the old member states, withtheir presumably higher stan-dards. At the same time, howev-er, many recent EU memberstates fear the gradual (and sortof unchecked) expansion of EUcompetencies beyond the aimsand scope of the EU treaties.

The rivalry (2) over authorityhas its main roots in a funda-mental asymmetry between theeconomic regimes of the EU andof the member states: while inthe latter the policy aims of ‘mar-ket creation’ and ‘market regula-tion’ are on an equal footing thisis not the case at EU level.Instead, the EU imposes botheconomic and legal fetters onnational welfare states. WhenEuropean regulation clasheswith national law the EuropeanCourt of Justice tends to decidein favour of internal market leg-islation. Additionally, indirectintegration pressure on Europeanwelfare states ultimately resultsfrom monetary and fiscal policy:for example, the Maastricht crite-ria imposed financial restrictionson welfare states.

At last, different policy areas(3) offer different restrictions to


‘When European regulation clasheswith national law the European Courtof Justice tends to decide in favourof internal market legislation’

between the social partners. Inthe area of employment theactive participation of the socialpartners is at the centre of theEuropean Employment Strategyand Integrated Guidelines. Asubstantial point of criticism ofthe Social Dialogue is the imbal-ance between the social part-ners due to the employers’ defacto veto right.

c) ‘Soft Law’Coordinated social policy isoften designated ‘soft law’ in EUjargon, ordinarily understood incontrast to ‘hard’ legislation (ofthe Acquis Communautaire).This encompasses theCommunity’s numerous socialpolicy activities that lie outsidedirect treaty-based competen-cies. At European level theOMC is the central element forpolicy coordination. In essenceit is a settlement procedure fornational policies and not abinding instrument: there is noformal transfer of powers. In theforeground is the coordinationof policy objectives rather thansocial policy convergence.Certainly the OMC and thisform of extension of EU socialpolicy activities are attended bynumerous difficulties. In termsof content, a discursive revalua-tion of EU social policy is tak-ing place, but the focus is most-ly on social policy that pro-motes competition andenhances market creation.

European Employment Strategy(EES)The idea of the EES is that com-parison between national labourmarket reforms should bringadded value to the EU throughthe adoption of employment pol-icy guidelines and so of policyobjectives. The EES was trans-

the Courts’ interpretations havefrom time to time also led to anextension of ‘citizens’ rights’, atleast to some extent. Hence, thepotential conflict betweennational and EU law meansamong other things an exten-sion of the basic freedoms,eventually against the will ofthe member states.

Recently, three ECJ judgmentswere particularly perceived torun counter national welfareautonomy: the cases ‘VikingLine’ (right to strike vs. freedomof establishment), ‘Laval’ (rightto strike vs. freedom to provideservices), ‘Rüffert’ (collectivebargaining law vs. freedom toprovide services) as well as‘Luxembourg’ (worker protec-tion vs. freedom to provide serv-ices). As with the former case,the interpretation of competi-tion law with reference to pub-lic services and the (national)definition of ‘public policy’ is afurther point of conflict, withthe ECJ possibly favouring mar-ket enabling readings overshielding national welfarearrangements.

The Social DialogueThe Social Dialogue has some-thing of a special place inEuropean social policy. It is laiddown in the treaties and therole of the social partners iswidely recognised. At the sametime, the Social Dialogue pro-vides for little in the way ofsubstantive guidelines, butserves as a consultation forumfor debate and as a procedurallevel between autonomoussocial partners. But it is notrestricted to non-bindingexchanges of views. Such agree-ments can be achieved eitherwith the help of the Council orcompletely autonomously

No substantial financialresources are required for thispurpose and consequently suchmeasures can be pushedthrough far more easily in theEuropean power structure. It istrue that this aspect ofEuropean social policy isstrongly under the influence ofthe European Court of Justiceand its rulings often lead to anextension of EU powers. In thearea of regulatory social policyEuropean law sets minimumsocial standards and basic rightsat European level, and so cre-ates uniform framework condi-tions for the internal market.The treaties contain legal provi-sions in the areas of equal treat-ment of men and women inemployment and work, anti-dis-crimination, free movement oflabour, health and safety in theworkplace, labour law andworking conditions, as well asinformation and consultation ofworkers.

The two most important regu-lations in European law, andhence the supporting pillars ofEU social policy powers, arethose on freedom of movementand on migrant workers. Theirinfluence extends to many otherpolicy areas. EU regulationstops short at harmonisation,which is explicitly ruled out.Instead, minimum requirementsare possible which may notinfringe the systems of memberstates in terms of their basicprinciples. In this way thedemarcation between the mem-ber states and the EU leads tosometimes intense conflicts.

The Role of the European Courtof JusticeAlthough the market orientationof social policy has been exten-sively interpreted by the ECJ,


social embedding of the marketin the European Union. To thatextent the level of Europeangovernance entails a potentialadded value for the Europeansocial dimension.

European social policy existsin a number of areas; neverthe-less, Europe is often regarded asa purely economic communitysuspected of being a Trojanhorse for neoliberal globalisationprocesses. To that extent theEU’s social agenda is a first stepin the right direction; however, agreat deal more thought must begiven to a genuine reorganisa-tion of the European socialdimension, in order to be able tocounter effectively the difficul-ties and dilemmas of integrationprocesses and therefore also thedoubts of Europeans.

Endnotes

1 Free movement of goods, serv-ices, people and capital.

2 National standards are comparedmainly by means of the OpenMethod of Coordination (OMC).The OMC was launched in 2000to coordinate EU employment pol-icy as introduced in the Treaty ofAmsterdam. It is a coordinationinstrument for areas stretchingoutside EU competence. Oncecommon aims – and commonindicators – are drawn up, actionplans are produced in the memberstates which, in turn, are assessedin the Council at theCommission's behest. Aside fromimproving comparability of individ-ual policies in the EU, the aim is toidentify ‘best practices’ and there-by instigate knowledge transfersfor possible political reform, or‘political learning’ respectively.

2. adequate and sustainablepensions

3. accessible, high quality andsustainable health and long-term care

Value Added Europe – Steps onthe Way to a Social UnionCompeting positions to furtherdelegate social policy to the EUare shaped by institutional anddistribution policy effects ofEuropean integration: theseeffects are determined by thedifferent welfare state modelsand a country’s respective posi-tion as net contributor or netrecipient of substantive socialpolicy in the EU and EU fundsin general.

There is no prospect of a gen-uine European communitybased on solidarity with adeveloped substantive Europeansocial policy and, at the sametime, a commitment to redistrib-ution. But enhancement of thesocial dimension in Europedoes not necessarily have totake place through Europe.Protecting and increasing thescope of national social policyis one way of bringing aboutmore equity and efficiency inthe EU. The formation ofEurope’s social dimensionthrough the harmonisation ofnational social policy institu-tions is ruled out by the treatiesin principle. But rather the dif-ferent national paths constitutea source of strength in the EU.Not harmonisation as such, butthe homogenisation of welfareoutcomes must therefore be thegoal of European social policy.All three levels of social policypresented here can contribute tothis in their own way. However,this is conditional upon consti-tutional and discursive parityfor both the promotion and the

posed into the so-called‘Integrated Guidelines forGrowth and Jobs’ and given anextended reference period ofthree years. In this way the longseparate coordination processeson labour market policy, micro-economic and structural reformsand macroeconomic measureswere transposed to ‘NationalReform Programmes’ on therevised Lisbon Strategy and scru-tinised in annual implementa-tion reports. The IntegratedGuidelines comprise only threecategories: macroeconomic,microeconomic and employmentpolicy guidelines. The EuropeanCommission’s ‘Communicationon Flexicurity’ has been a criti-cised attempt to render a num-ber of elements originating inDanish labour market policyapplicable to other memberstates and the EU as a whole.

Social Protection and SocialInclusionOther policy areas have beenadded alongside employmentpolicy: social inclusion (2000),pensions (2001) and health (andlong-term care) (2001).Subsequent to the LisbonStrategy the EU commenced an‘Action Programme on SocialInclusion’. After the streamlin-ing of economic policy coordina-tion and harmonisation with therevised Lisbon Strategy in 2005the ‘OMC for Social Protectionand Social Inclusion’ (‘SocialOMC’) was also tightened up.The so-called joint report ‘SocialProtection and Social Inclusion’encompasses the policy areas ofsocial inclusion, pensions,health and long-term care withthree policy objectives:

1. elimination of poverty andsocial exclusion


MALTA IS QUITE UNIQUE.Although we have our fairshare of problems as any-

where else in Europe, few would doubtthat, particularly in view of our smallsize, Malta offers experiences not easi-ly replicated in other larger countries.

At the same time, however, we mustnot allow this trait to stand in our wayof maximising our potential withinEurope. As a country, indeed as a peo-ple, we must learn not to have any fearto stand up and make our voices heard.It is on the basis of this that I am cam-paigning for ‘a stronger voice in Europe’.

When the people of Malta opted forEuropean Union membership they didso in the belief that through member-ship, Malta could transform itself fromthe mediocrity of the past to a morevibrant and stronger European player.During the past five years, we havestarted to learn the ropes and get a realtaste of the good and the bad ofEuropean Union membership. Therecan be no doubt that there is still a lotof hard work ahead of us.

It is with this in mind that I amembarking upon this new challenge inmy political life. Having for the past

four years represented Malta in theCommittee of the Regions of theEuropean Union (CoR), I have come tolearn that the best results are achievedthrough networking and coalitionbuilding with other politicians fromthe other member states. In my work asa member of the CoR's Commission ofEconomic and Social Affairs, and rap-porteur on gender equality and non-discrimination, I have seen what canbe done at European level to improvethe situation of women and men in allEU member states. This experience,particularly given the current econom-ic crisis that has engulfed us all, hastaught me that it is in our collectivebest interest to cooperate with oneanother and strive as much as possibleto seek common solutions to the prob-lems facing us all.

Together with my colleagues in theLabour Party (Malta PL), I am contest-ing this election on the basis of theplatform set by the Party of EuropeanSocialists (PES) under the banner‘People First’. It is a platform for whichI am fully supportive. I believe that ineverything we do we need to put peo-ple’s interests first. It is also because ofthis that I believe that it is wrong tocut the close link that exists betweenthe economic and the social spheres.

I am of the view that the economy isthere for the service of people, and notpeople for the service of the economy.The current international economic cri-sis is putting paid to all those philoso-phies which glorified the false god of afree market. If we truly want the best

My Case for Europe


Claudette AbelaBaldacchinoMember of thePES Group in theCommittee of theRegions, Candidateof the Maltese LabourParty for the Europeanelections

‘I believe that it is wrong tocut the close link that existsbetween the economic andthe social spheres’

interest of the people, we need to doeverything we can to stop those who,for their often hidden interests, want totake our societies back to a time whenthe law of the jungle determined whomoved forward and who was leftbehind, to a time, allow me to say, ofCharles Dickens and the poor houses.

If we want to steer away from such agloomy scenario we need to fullyembrace the concept of a SocialEurope, a Europe in which it is people– not money – that matter. Indeed, Ibelieve that a new Social Europe isrequired to tackle the vast inequalitiesthat currently exist by focusing upongreater European cooperation towardsimproving the lives of people inEurope by working for the eliminationof social divides, for the creation ofmore and better jobs, and for a just andfair treatment of all people, irrespectiveof their financial clout or lack thereof,sex or sexual orientation, race, colour,or creed.

We should all aspire to a strongervoice in Europe. We must ensure agreater degree of transparency andaccountability because every decision,from the big policy plans to the small-est of regulations, affects our livesdirectly. This means that all levels ofgovernance, from the local to theEuropean, must work in synergy andcommunicate with citizens at grass-roots level.

We need to ensure that the issuesthat are truly on the people’s mind arebeing addressed by the European insti-tutions. Such issues as better jobs,

health care, education and childcare, aclean and safe environment withinwhich to raise our children, consumerprotection as well as peace and stabili-ty in the EU and globally need to beput at the top of the European politicalagenda. We need to have a clear politi-cal vision and translate it into feasibleprojects which will make a direct posi-tive impact upon people’s lives.

My pledge is that if elected, throughmy work within the EuropeanParliament, in tandem with the repre-sentatives forming part of the EuropeanSocialist family, I will strive to ensurethat these issues are brought to the foreand that adequate measures are takento address them.

It is my belief that if we truly believein a Social Europe for all, the statusquo is no longer acceptable. Forinstance, we need to strive to ensurethat any European worker employed inanother member state is employed inaccordance with the same rights andconditions as those pertaining to thelocal employees. Only in this way canthere be a truly competitive marketeliminating any possibility of abuse.Only in this way can local workershave the peace of mind that their jobswill not be undermined on the basis ofcheaper labour coming from abroad,whilst at the same time ensuring thatany ‘foreign’ worker is not exploited ortreated less favourably than the locals.

My commitment is clear. It is onebased on the premise that in every-thing I do, I pledge to put the peoplefirst. It is a philosophy which is basedon the understanding that politics is aservice to the people, who ultimatelyare the true owners of any democraticsociety.


‘We need to fully embrace theconcept of a Social Europe, aEurope in which it is people –not money – that matter’


Endnotes

All the views expressed in the articles of this issue are thoseof the authors and do not necessarily represent the views ofSocial Europe Journal.

All rights reservedSocial Europe Journal© 2009

Documents

Social Europe Journal Vol. 4 No. 2