The US and the EU as alternative models
Dr. George Voskopoulos
June 24, 2005
The two rejections of the Constitutional Treaty by France and the Netherlands caused turbulence in Europe and the course to European integration. At the same time it gave us the opportunity to focus on a number of issues that differentiate Europeans from Americans.
The French and the Dutch voted no because they demand more state involvement and regulation in a number of sectors such as employment and employment terms, under-employment and social security. At the same time, with this popular uprising they sent a message that neo-liberalism is not welcome by most Europeans who wish for the state to operate on a social basis. Many Americans might think this is the best and fastest way to financial collapse.
The issue sets a distinctive difference between the American and European view of governing or “doing business”. For instance subsidies to farmers in the form and vol-ume provided in Europe would be unimaginable in the US. Forty two percent of the EU’s budget goes to agricultural subsidies something that would probably be unacceptable in the US.
The current debate in Europe focuses on how to avoid applying the “American model” supported by the British. The reason for demonizing such practices has to do with the traditional platform on which the European social and economic microcosms (member states) have been operating for a long time.
Proponents of structural changes in the EU’s operational framework point to the US suggesting, not without credit, that the American economy is advancing at a much faster speed than the European semi-stagnated economies. Seen from the outside, the European model may look unproductive and destined to fail.
However, the real challenge to European economies does not come from the US but China. The American model constitutes an ideological alternative to the European but jobs in Europe are lost because of low labor cost in Asia. Under this spectrum, com-petitiveness is what European economies lack and what American economy disposes.
The debate in Europe is whether adapting to the needs of global economy and under-mine the social dimension on which the European socio-economic and political sys-tems have been founded or go on with a model that makes Europe more socially at-tractive but less competitive.
The French and the Dutch voted no because they demand more state involvement and regulation in a number of sectors such as employment and employment terms, under-employment and social security. At the same time, with this popular uprising they sent a message that neo-liberalism is not welcome by most Europeans who wish for the state to operate on a social basis. Many Americans might think this is the best and fastest way to financial collapse.
The issue sets a distinctive difference between the American and European view of governing or “doing business”. For instance subsidies to farmers in the form and vol-ume provided in Europe would be unimaginable in the US. Forty two percent of the EU’s budget goes to agricultural subsidies something that would probably be unacceptable in the US.
The current debate in Europe focuses on how to avoid applying the “American model” supported by the British. The reason for demonizing such practices has to do with the traditional platform on which the European social and economic microcosms (member states) have been operating for a long time.
Proponents of structural changes in the EU’s operational framework point to the US suggesting, not without credit, that the American economy is advancing at a much faster speed than the European semi-stagnated economies. Seen from the outside, the European model may look unproductive and destined to fail.
However, the real challenge to European economies does not come from the US but China. The American model constitutes an ideological alternative to the European but jobs in Europe are lost because of low labor cost in Asia. Under this spectrum, com-petitiveness is what European economies lack and what American economy disposes.
The debate in Europe is whether adapting to the needs of global economy and under-mine the social dimension on which the European socio-economic and political sys-tems have been founded or go on with a model that makes Europe more socially at-tractive but less competitive.
Print
Email
