Paul Schoukens

Social Security in the BRIC Countries Brazil, Russia, India and China

On the basis of an extensive literature study on the challenges and perspectives of social security in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC), the authors of this article have been able to determine a set of 20 common challenges to the BRIC countries. The challenges focused on are the lack of social security paradigm, the coverage of all the (working) population, demography, changing family patterns and internal migration, interaction between economic development and social security, the diversity of economic and social realities within one country, the lack of transparency of the social security system, poverty alleviation and basic needs, the lack of solidarity and interaction between social assistance and social insurance, the weak interconnection between social security actors, the place of private actors in social security, pensions and other income replacement, the access to a qualitative health care and care, inflation and the validity of commitments for the future, identification and information technology–related issues, globalization and worldwide competition and the need for a sustainable financial and economic basis. On the basis of an analysis of each of these challenges, the article aims to give an insight into where the BRIC countries stand today and what their future plans are both on a governmental level and on a nongovernmental level.

The Rules Within Regulation 883/2004 for Determining the Applicable Legislation

This article will outline the changes brought about by Regulation 883/2004 to the rules for determining which EU Member States social security legislation is applicable to individuals under a variety of cross-border situations (Title II of regulation). We will first describe the current rules for determining the competent State. Next, we will give an overview of the new rules. In a third section, we will discuss whether the new regulation really simplifies and modernises the rules for determining the legislation applicable. We will do so by analysing some situations that were considered problematic under the old regulation. The main question will be whether Regulation 883/2004 brings the expected improvements. Finally, we will give some concluding remarks.

Illegal Labour Migrants and Access to Social Protection

This article looks at the possibilities and limitations of providing illegal labour migrants with access to social protection benefits. First of all we define the main components of the group of persons we are interested in as: ‘non-nationals who are working in a country without being allowed to stay in the country and/or without being allowed to work in the country’. We do not discuss all possible categories of illegal migrants. We then develop the discussion around three issues. We look first of all at the major international social security instruments to see what they tell us about illegal labour migrants. We then examine some national approaches, which provide illustrations of access to social protection in three fields: access to health care, social assistance and (work-related) social protection. Finally, we develop some general ideas on these matters and try to come up with some possible approaches. One of the outcomes of the article is that, in the quest for guaranteeing proper access to social protection, it is sometimes helpful (e.g. for social insurances) to compare the situation of the illegal labour migrant with that of nationals working in the ‘informal economy’. The eventual protection that is guaranteed will depend heavily upon the category to which the (illegal labour) migrant belongs. Hence, more effort should go into a further classification of illegal (labour) migrants and into the development of their corresponding social rights.

How the European Union keeps the social welfare debate on track: a lawyer's view of the EU instruments aimed at combating social exclusion

The article provides a legal perspective on the current debate on combating social exclusion at the EU level. In the first place, it attempts to provide a legal definition of the concept of social exclusion. It then investigates whether there have been any dramatic changes in the competencies of the EU to act in the field of social exclusion since the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force. The open method of coordination, the Treaty of Nice and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are all assessed regarding their potential for combating social exclusion.

The changing concept of work : When does typical work become atypical

In most countries, a standard (or core) model of employment relationship (i.e. full-time work under an open-ended employment contract) typically receives the greatest labour and social security protection, with divergent work arrangements receiving less protection in correlation to the magnitude of the differences between the former and the latter. However, recent developments concerning non-standard forms of work may question this dynamic. In this article, we examine the nature and current evolution of the standard employment relationship, then analyse how other forms of work deviate from this standard. In order to do so, we draw on the conclusions of the numerous studies recently published by scholars and international organisations in the wake of the growing public debate on the ‘new world of work’. Afterwards, we analyse the situation of non-standard workers under certain social security systems, in order to determine how those systems have approached the divergent character of these forms of work. This leads us to identify the main challenges that social security systems experience when faced with non-standard forms of work. The article concludes by addressing the need to adapt the basic principles of social security to the atypical features of non-standard work.

Social protection of non-removable rejected asylum-seekers in the EU: a legal assessment

Asylum-seekers whose application for international protection in the European Union (EU) is rejected receive a return decision. However, the enforcement of this decision may be temporarily impossible due to legal or practical barriers, or policy choices. An assessment of the provisions in the Returns Directive offering social protection to non-removable rejected asylum-seekers shows that only limited standards of protection are guaranteed. Consequently, the EU Member States are left plenty of room to manoeuvre. This article raises the question of what social protection this particular group is legally entitled to in a sample of 17 EU Member States. For the purpose of this article, ‘social protection’ is defined as access to the labour market, health care and social benefits. This study finds that Member States’ approaches differ markedly with respect to each of these three issues. Furthermore, it questions the added value of the current legal framework at the level of the EU. Finally, some suggestions for improving the level of social protection of non-removable rejected asylum seekers are put forward.

Fighting Social Exclusion under EU Horizon 2020. Enhancing the Legal Enforceability of the Social Inclusion Recommendations

In this article, we take a closer look at EU policy to promote social inclusion in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy. Concretely the legal consequences of the incorporation of social inclusion in the employment guidelines will be addressed. Since the employment guidelines are now connected in a structural way to the economic guidelines, we take a closer look at the monitoring procedures that accompany the implementation of these economic guidelines. Furthermore we test the potential legal consequences of the integrated approach by unravelling (the formulation of) the social inclusion-related Country Specific Recommendations. A first legal consequence relates to the question of the extent to which the harder sanctioning tools, which have been developed for controlling the EUs economic recommendations, can be similarly applied to the guidelines relating to social inclusion (such as the application of EU fines in cases when recommendations are not followed up by states). In our opinion there is a spill-over effect only in relation to social inclusion recommendations that have sufficient economic or budgetary relevance (‘social inclusion recommendations of the negative kind’, supporting economic or budgetary goals). In other words, social inclusion recommendations that support only social objectives do not enjoy the stronger legal effects of the integrated monitoring approach. From analysis of the concrete Country Specific Recommendations we demonstrate that the incorporation of social inclusion into the employment guidelines has two additional consequences. On the one hand, social inclusion recommendations are nowadays formulated mainly in terms of employment objectives. On the other hand, the link with social inclusion also has implications for recommendations in the field of employment and economy that should not be to the detriment of social inclusion. In this way the horizontal clause of art. 9 TFEU seems to extend to non-legislative measures, such as the guidelines developed in socio-economic monitoring processes.

The EU social pillar: An answer to the challenge of the social protection of platform workers?

With atypical work gaining popularity, platform work seems to combine all the elements which, by deviating significantly from the standard employment relationship, challenge social security systems. After an overview of the features of the standard employment relationship and the different ways in which non-standard forms of work diverge from them, the article focuses on the nature of platform work. It then analyses how platform work is regulated in five European social security systems (i.e. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium), and how this regulation may fare when analysed under the lens of the recent European Commission’s proposal for a Council Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed. The article concludes by highlighting the need for further adaptation of social security systems to the specific features of platform work, and by noting the risks of a regulatory approach towards this new form of work being dominated by the exclusion of low-paid work from the scope of labour-related social insurance schemes.

The EU Constitution: What Went Wrong for ‘Social Protection’?

In October 2004, the ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’ was signed by European leaders. This new EU Treaty, was supposed, after its ratification by the 25 EU Member States, to consolidate and replace all the disparate European Treaties that have accumulated over the years. Some people argued that this new European treaty was a major step forward in the construction of a social Europe. However, after two member states rejected the new Treaty, the future of the new Constitution is unclear. In this article, the authors investigate the extent to which the European Constitution introduced new competencies in the field of social protection. Were European competencies in the field of social protection enhanced? Or were they restricted? In order to give answer these questions, existing EC/EU treaties are compared with the EU Constitution, specifically with regard to those competence grounds that are directly or indirectly relevant for the enactment of social security measures. In order to underpin this comparison, the authors analyse the preparatory activities for the EU Constitution that took place in the European Convention on the Future of Europe.