Inequality and Economic Prosperity: What Accounts for Social Justice and Inclusive Growth? Bertelsmann Stiftung Impulse #2015/03

There is much debate nowadays on the massive problem of rising social and economic inequalities. Many studies criticize the disturbingly unequal distribution of income and wealth – within nations and across countries. Such rising inequality often not only contradicts fundamental principles of social justice, as it undermines the idea of equal opportunity, but can also have negative effects on growth. Both dimensions – social inequality and growth – are interrelated. Only when this relationship is taken seriously is it possible to give meaning to the notion of “inclusive growth” and to attach a clear political agenda to it. Otherwise the concept remains empirically intangible and politically irrelevant. This paper will therefore first discuss the concept of inclusive growth by outlining the potential positive-sum-relationship between greater social inclusiveness and economic prosperity. It is important to see that reducing inequalities can be conducive to growth. The paper then looks at what governments could do to reduce inequalities in several key area

Social Justice in the OECD – How Do the Member States Compare? Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators 2011

A cross-national comparison of social justice in the OECD shows considerable variation in the extent to which this principle is developed in these market-based democracies. According to the methodology applied in this study, Iceland and Norway are the most socially just countries.1 Turkey, which ranks among the bottom five in each of the six targeted dimensions, is the OECD’s least socially just country. The findings of the cross-national study can be summarized as follows: The north European states comprise a league of their own. Leading by far on the Justice Index, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland achieve particularly good results in the dimensions of “access to education,” “social cohesion” and “intergenerational justice.” Yet even in Scandinavia, there are some areas in want of action. Despite its overall strong showing, Sweden, for example, struggles with a rate of youth unemployment three times as high as the general unemployment rate. Most central and northwestern European states rank in the upper midrange, although the Netherlands (6), Switzerland (7) and France (10) rank higher than Germany (14). The east-central European OECD members Hungary (17), Poland (20) and Slovakia (24) rank in the lower midrange together with their southern European neighbors. The high-ranking outlier here is the Czech Republic (11) due to its very low poverty levels in cross-national comparison. All southern European countries lie considerably below the OECD average, with Turkey and Greece in the bottom group of the ranking. In both these countries, fair access to education and intergenerational justice (i.e., equity in burden-sharing across generations) are particularly underdeveloped. Canada (9) is the top performer among the non-European OECD states. Its high ranking can be attributed to strong results in the areas of education, labor market justice and social cohesion. Australia (21), despite its relatively inclusive labor market, is struggling with larger problems in poverty prevention and educational justice, and is therefore lagging behind in terms of creating a sound framework for social justice. Japan (22) and South Korea (25), where income poverty is relatively spread, fail to rank above the bottom third of the Justice Index. Japan also receives particularly low marks for intergenerational justice

Policy Performance and Governance Capacities in the OECD and EU. Sustainable Governance Indicators 2018. Bertelsmann Studies

This year marks the release of the third edition of the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI). The highly developed industrial nations continue to face enormous challenges, due not only to aftereffects of the global economic and financial crisis and the associated labor-market and sociopolitical upheavals. In other areas too, these nations look forward to a future rife with complex problems. Aging and shrinking populations, environmental and climatic changes, and social, cultural and technological shifts are placing democracies under massive pressure to adapt. As early as the first edition of the SGI, it was evident that despite often-similar reform pressures, political systems’ approaches and track records show significant variance. And in times of advancing globalization, the need for effective governance driven by capable leadership remains important. The previous SGI editions have also underscored the fact that this steering capability depends critically on the ability to combine short-term responsiveness with long-term resolve in policymaking

Social Justice in the EU – Index Report 2016 Social Inclusion Monitor Europe

1. Social justice in the EU – participation opportunities have improved in the majority of EU member states, but are still a long way behind precrisis levels Social justice has improved slightly in the majority of EU member states compared with last year’s Social Justice Index (SJI 2015). It appears that, after years of decline, the majority of countries reached their lowest point between 2012 and 2014. Whether the improvement is a genuine, stable turnaround or just a slight temporary easing will only become apparent in future reports. At least the downward trend observed since 2008 in terms of equal participation opportunities has halted in the majority of member states. However, even seven years after the global economic crisis first hit, participation opportunities in the vast majority of EU states – with a few exceptions – are still noticeably worse than before the crisis. Only five of the 28 EU countries – the Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg, the UK, and Poland – are showing moderate improvements in terms of participation opportunities, compared with the situation before the economic and financial crisis

Social Justice in the EU – Index Report 2015 Social Inclusion Monitor Europe

1. Social (in)justice in the EU – The low point seems to have been reached, but no comprehensive turnaround is evident In the majority of EU countries, the extent of social justice relative to last year’s edition of the Social Justice Index (SJI 2014) has at least avoided further deterioration. It appears that for the majority of countries, after several years of decline, the lowest point was reached between 2012 and 2014. This is in large part due to slight labor market improvements visible in the majority of countries after 2013. Nevertheless, a genuine and comprehensive turnaround in terms of social justice is not underway. To be sure, a certain stabilization with regard to economic affairs is evident in many countries, at least on the basis of some indicators. This is true even of crisis-battered European countries like Spain, Portugal and Ireland. However, only future SJI editions will show whether social justice in Europe can sustainably stabilize and improve again. Social conditions and participation opportunities for people in most EU countries remain considerably worse than in the pre-crisis period. In no less than 11 countries, among them Spain and Portugal, things have deteriorated once again compared to last year’s survey

Social Justice in the EU – Index Report 2017 Social Inclusion Monitor Europe. Bertelsmann Stiftung Social Inclusion Monitor Europe 2017

1. Europe is recovering not only economically, but also in the domain of social justice After years of downward movement, an upward trend in the domain of social justice is evident in the broad majority of EU member states. Although far from all member states have regained their pre-crisis levels, the most recent EU Social Justice Index data give cause for hope that the worst is over not just in economic terms, but also from a social perspective. At the top of this year’s Social Justice Index are the northern European states of Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Rounding out the top group are the Czech Republic, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Austria and Germany, while Greece, despite again posting slight gains this year, remains clearly in last place

Policy Performance and Governance Capacities in the OECD and EU. Sustainable Governance Indicators 2014. Bertelsmann Studies

This year marks the release of the third edition of the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI). The highly developed industrial nations continue to face enormous challenges, due not only to aftereffects of the global economic and financial crisis and the associated labor-market and sociopolitical upheavals. In other areas too, these nations look forward to a future rife with complex problems. Aging and shrinking populations, environmental and climatic changes, and social, cultural and technological shifts are placing democracies under massive pressure to adapt. As early as the first edition of the SGI, it was evident that despite often-similar reform pressures, political systems’ approaches and track records show significant variance. And in times of advancing globalization, the need for effective governance driven by capable leadership remains important. The previous SGI editions have also underscored the fact that this steering capability depends critically on the ability to combine short-term responsiveness with long-term resolve in policymaking

Liberal-rechtsstaatliche Normen und das EU-Politikfeld Innere Sicherheit

Die vorliegende Studie untersucht die Entwicklung liberal-rechtsstaatlicher Leitvorstellungen im EU-Politikfeld Innere Sicherheit. Die in den letzten Jahren verstärkt diskutierte Frage nach dem Stellenwert liberal-rechtsstaatlicher Normen im Zusammenhang mit dem Ziel einer wirksamen Gewährleistung Innerer Sicherheit ist längst keine rein nationalstaatliche Problematik mehr. Vielmehr muss man auch die Ebene der Europäischen Union mit in den Blick nehmen, in der sich innerhalb der letzten drei Jahrzehnte ein durchaus eigenständiges Politikfeld Innere Sicherheit entwickelt hat. Viele Untersuchungen zum �Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts� (RFSR) betonen dabei, dass der Fokus der Union in diesem Bereich allzu sehr auf das Ziel der �Sicherheit der Bürger� (vgl. Art. 29 EUV) ausgerichtet ist. Aus einer wissenschaftlichen Perspektive werden sowohl auf einer diskursiven als auch auf einer politikpraktischen Ebene starke Versicherheitlichungsprozesse konstatiert, die sich negativ auf die Dimension von Grundrechten und bürgerlichen Freiheiten auswirken. Diese Einschätzungen kontrastieren jedoch in gewisser Weise mit dem ebenfalls grundlegenden Bild der Union als einer betont freiheitlich-rechtsstaatlichen Gemeinschaft. Demokratie, Freiheit, Achtung der Menschenrechte und Rechtstaatlichkeit sind Kernprinzipien des �Gemeinschaftsethos� der Europäischen Union, wie es sich klar etwa in Art. 6 EUV ausdrückt. Angesichts der bereits recht intensiven Diskussion über Sicherheitsdiskurse im Rahmen des RFSR ist ein wesentliches Ziel der Arbeit somit, gerade auch die mögliche Konstruktion eines eigenständigen liberal-rechtsstaatlichen Leitbildes im EU-Politikfeld Innere Sicherheit stärker in den Blick zu nehmen. Inwiefern hat sich im Bereich Innere Sicherheit womöglich im Laufe der Zeit eine solche liberal-rechtsstaatliche Dimension entwickelt? Wie hängt dies unter Umständen mit der Entwicklung eines sicherheits- und performanzorientierten Leitbildes zusammen? Bei diesen Fragen wird von einer auf den ersten Blick kontraintuitiven Orientierungsthese ausgegangen. Während man angesichts des grundsätzlichen, häufig mehr polemisch als theoretisch fundiert diskutierten Spannungsfelds von Freiheit und Sicherheit annehmen könnte, dass bei einer sich verstärkenden Sicherheits- und Performanzorientierung liberal-rechtsstaatliche Leitvorstellungen eher marginalisiert werden, erscheint auch eine andere Perspektive denkbar: So wird in der vorliegenden Arbeit untersucht, ob nicht gerade auch ein verstärkter Fokus auf das Ziel einer möglichst effizienten und effektiven Sicherheitsgewährleistung gleichzeitig zu einer Aufwertung liberal-rechtsstaatlicher Leitvorstellungen führen kann. Ein solches Muster ließe sich dann gewissermaßen als eine liberal-rechtsstaatliche Sensibilisierung bezeichnen. Nicht zuletzt stellt sich hier die Frage, ob das Verhältnis von Sicherheit, Effizienz und Effektivität einerseits und liberal-rechtsstaatlichen Normen andererseits im Laufe der Zeit nicht auch vermehrt als mögliches Positivsummenverhältnis betrachtet wird. Die Untersuchungsperspektive ist diachron ausgerichtet. Der Untersuchungszeitraum reicht von den Anfängen der Kooperation im Bereich der Inneren Sicherheit Mitte der 70er Jahre bis in die Gegenwart, wobei die Unterzeichnung des Vertrags von Lissabon Ende 2007 � abgesehen von einigen Ausblicken � den Endpunkt der eigentlichen Analyse markiert. Im ersten Teil der empirischen Analyse werden die wesentlichen Etappen der Leitbildentwicklung innerhalb der offiziellen Selbstdarstellung und Rhetorik der Europäischen Union herausgearbeitet. Im zweiten Teil der empirischen Analyse wird dann vor dem Hintergrund der zuvor herausgearbeiteten langfristigen Argumentationsstrukturen eine vertiefende Untersuchung anhand zweier Fallstudien zur Etablierung liberal-rechtsstaatlicher Normen im EU-Politikfeld Innere Sicherheit vorgenommen. Die erste Fallstudie bezieht sich auf die Diskussion um einen einheitlichen Datenschutzstandard im Bereich der polizeilichen und strafjustiziellen Zusammenarbeit. Die zweite Fallstudie betrachtet die Frage von Verfahrensrechten von Verdächtigen und Angeklagten im Strafprozess und die entsprechende Problematik solcher liberal-rechtsstaatlicher Schutzstandards mit Blick auf den Europäischen Haftbefehl. Die empirische Analyse zeigt dabei, dass die Herausbildung eines liberal-rechtsstaatlichen Leitbildes den theoretischen Annahmen der Arbeit entsprechend immer im direkten Zusammenhang mit der Entwicklung sicherheits- und performanzorientierter Argumentationsstrukturen beurteilt werden muss. Die These einer liberal-rechtsstaatlichen Sensibilisierung bestätigt sich in mehreren Kontexten

Green and fair economy – a holistic concept for a sustainable economy. Policy Brief #2013/02

Solution approaches based purely on economics do not lead to optimal success – at least, not in the medium to long term. Rather, a sustainable economy requires an equal consideration of the ecological and social dimensions. The green economy concept, or, better said, the green and fair economy concept, is in principle suitable for, if not avoiding an economic and financial crisis as experienced in the last five years, at least moderating its negative effects. The important thing here is to integrate the design of the concept as much as possible at the political, economic and individual level