Free movement of workers under challenge: the indexation of family benefits

Abstract

This paper traces the political debate about the export and the indexation of family benefits in the European Union (EU). We ask why such a technical legal issue has become salient in several EU member states. Explanations building on financial and political justifications prove to be insufficient. Rather, we argue, indexation has to be understood in the broader context of the contestation and constitutionalization of the free movement of workers. Free movement and equal treatment of workers have become contested with Eastern enlargement, but their legal framework is largely removed from political adjustments as it is constitutionalized in the Treaties and progressively interpreted by the Court of Justice (CJEU). At least symbolically, indexation promises to address these economic and legal challenges and serves as an "outlet" for member state governments. We illustrate our argument with empirical evidence from the debates preceding the Brexit referendum and the Austrian reform of family benefits.

Free movement and access to social security in the EU: The challenge of exporting unemployment benefits

“…Against this background, the access to social security in the EU has become contentious among policymakers within the last 15 years and fears of welfare migration have spread (Roos, 2019). The reasons for this are several EU enlargements that increased EU migration – predominantly from east to west – fuelled by large differences in wages and social security benefit levels (Blauberger et al, 2020: 932). Most EU movers are of working age and contribute more to their host countries than they consume in terms of public benefits (Dustmann and Frattini, 2014; Martinsen and Pons Rotger, 2017).…”

“…For instance, while the ECJ and German courts tried to open non-contributory social assistance schemes for EU citizens, the German legislators refused this vehemently (Martinsen and Werner, 2019: 644). Further, during the revision of the coordination of social security, policymakers in Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands supported a call to index child benefits (Blauberger et al, 2020). Nonetheless, public debates on the access to social security have not taken place in all Western European Member States to the same extent.…”

“…During the reform debates, the political leadership in several Member States of Western Europe, especially in the UK, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria voiced calls for more restricted access of EU movers to national welfare benefits (Ruhs and Palme, 2018). For example, the indexation of family benefits entered national political debates (Blauberger et al, 2020). This raises the research question as to why these Member States have taken these positions towards EU worker access to social security, as well as the question whether there are structural problems of the reform causing these positions to be taken.…”

Sozialpolitik

“…Die unmittelbaren Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten der Europäischen Union in der Sozialpolitik sind zwar auf wenige Bereiche beschränkt, jedoch garantiert die EU ihren Bürger*innen in Österreich diskriminierungsfreien Zugang zum österreichischen Sozialsystem. Aus diesem Grund kommt in strittigen Fällen auch dem Europäischen Gerichtshof Gewicht als sozialpolitisch relevanter Akteur zu (Blauberger et al 2020).…”

“…Höchstgerichte als Vetospieler: Da besonders wohlfahrtschauvinistische Elemente in der Sozialgesetzgebung schnell an verfassungs-und europarechtliche Grenzen stoßen, werden Höchstgerichte (EuGH, VfGH) zu relevanten sozialpolitischen Akteuren, die den rechtspolitischen Spielraum für die Gesetzgeber auf Bundes-und Landesebene beschränken (Blauberger et al 2020). Der Impetus für die Vereinheitlichung der (bis dahin länderspezifisch geregelten) Sozialhilfe zur Bedarfsorientierten Mindestsicherung (BMS) im Jahr 2010 kann in der Oppositionsphase der SPÖ während der Regierungen Schüssel I und II ( 2000 Die ÖVP blieb trotz ihrer Zustimmung stets kritisch gegenüber der BMS -zunächst, weil sie mangelnde Arbeitsanreize und Missbrauch befürchtete (ÖVP 2013, 36).…”