Should poverty win in Europe?

By Nighat Urpani

The president of the European Commission, Josè Manuel Barroso, told a gathering of civil society representatives in late September that the European Union needed to do more to tackle social issues such as poverty. On the other hand, while calling for more European action to deal with the regions' poor, Mr Barroso ruled out any move on taxation. "It is impossible to harmonise this. We are not a federal state," he said. However, one would think there is no doubt that the European welfare state touches almost every aspect of its economy and society.
So far, the general perception is that Europe has managed to avoid the shamefully unjust American system.
After all, the welfare state basically exists to provide insurance to citizens buffeted by the changing economy. As such, if the small size of European economies and their openness to external bigger shocks made them more volatile, we would expect a larger welfare state to cushion the poor from these shocks. Alas, the evidence does not support this view. At present, 79 million people in the EU live in poverty despite the fact that they inhabit the richest economic area in the world.
The question of who receives most from the EU Budget has continually stirred big debate between net donors and net recipients and upcoming discussions on funding for the EU's next financial period 2014-2020 are unlikely to pass off smoothly. Germany and other higher-tax member states complain, however, that low-tax countries, such as Ireland. undermine their ability to support expensive social welfare programmes.
Let us not overlook the fact that the redistribution of income through taxes, transfers and other means is a policy measure and, therefore, is a result of the politico-economic process. The role of institutions in economic redistribution is flexible and, ultimately, reflect the deeper forces.
Before Brussels' army thinks of moving towards an American welfare system, some factors must be kept in mind when thinking in terms of Europe. The United States is a country of immigrants. It stands to reason that those who left their countries of origin in search of fortune to escape poverty were the most risk-taking of the lot.
American history also confirms the role that racial divisions played in limiting the welfare state. It makes us aware that the advent of minorities, such as the new immigration flows into Europe, could potentially make entrepreneurial politicians encourage hatred in order to gain support.
It might be a foolish step not to see the difference between European and US politics without recognising the strong contrasts in beliefs between the two areas.
Different perceptions about the poor can also lead to a different type of tolerance of inequality. Europeans may be more offended by inequality because they perceive it as intrinsically unfair. Americans, on the other hand, may be more tolerant because they see inequality as a fair result of individual effort.
One cannot deny the fact that some right-wing politicians have worked hard to instil the idea of the poor as being morally incompetent and irresponsible layabouts. As such, American beliefs about the poor should be seen as the result, not the cause, of successful American anti-redistribution politics.
Educational institutions played their role too. The right-wing ideology continues to dominate schools through a system of local funding. Public schools have been a local affair, where "prominent" citizens have been able to ensure that the curriculum does not directly attack their interests or counter their views.
In the 1960s, the US government mounted a well-publicised War On Poverty. However, no such programmes or measures have ever commanded enough resources, facilities and public support to have a widespread impact. But, since 1981, there has not been even any War On Poverty; it is as if victory had been declared when, in fact, there was no such conquest. Indeed, as President Ronald Reagan is said to have remarked: "We declared war on poverty, and poverty won."
It remains to be seen which direction the majority of the Brussels-based army of people in the EU, seeking to gain greater prominence for their own agendas, is moving to. They are keenly aware that the next few months represent an important policy-shaping window with regard to the direction the EU will follow in the next few years. Would this army be mobilised to fight poverty in Europe? Would it nullify the belief that it is not only about moral weakness and laziness? Would it be able to see clearly why there is a sense of hopelessness in the lives of the poor and why some are so privileged? Or would it also choose to declare the "victory of poverty"?
At best, one can hope there will be consensus with regard to some sympathy for the downtrodden when the member states approve a new work programme for the Commission at a spring summit next year. The Commission is also set to launch a consultation period for a future European economic strategy that will take over from the much-maligned Lisbon Agenda that expires in 2010.
The European Greens are very much concerned about poverty in the EU. Indeed, the Greens are deeply worried about the present EU's lack of democratic transparency, its bureaucracy and the dominance of neo-liberal economic policies that are causing more inequality. This is resulting in strong scepticism towards the EU.
The way the globalisation process is organised has led to fear among citizens that social "certainties" are evaporating.
The European Greens are for a European social model and believe that the most sustainable choice in this regard is one that ties social justice with ecological justice. Here, EU member states should opt for measures that increase social protection and confront discrimination, while reducing their ecological footprint as a precondition for a just and sustainable development of other parts of the world as well.
The Greens' vision of a Green New Deal opts for such policies, where socio-economic inequality can be tackled through policies that generate green jobs and provide social justice in the process.

The author is spokesman on social protection of Alternattiva Demokratika - the Green party.