Author Archive

Closing of the Symposium

Written by Johannes Erhard | November 10, 2011 | 0 Comments | Theme: Dahrendorf Symposium

The three “founding fathers” of the Dahrendorf Symposium, Damian Chalmers, LSE, Helmut Anheier, Hertie School, and Bernhard Lorentz, Stiftung Mercator have just closed the symposium!

Chalmers underlined that Dahrendorf would have enjoyed especially the uncomfortable questions raised by the conference.

Anheier announced that the LSE, the Hertie School and the Sciences Po would set up a series of workshops to test some of the main visionary ideas raised during the symposium and keep the momentum alive. He explicitly mentioned the vision of a more democratic Europe proposed by the German federal Minister Norbert Röttgen in his keynote speech.

Lorentz concluded that the British-German partnership and the whole Dahrendorf symposium have successfully paid tribute to Lord Dahrendorf.

Thank you for having followed the blog!

A thought by Werner Hoyer

Written by Johannes Erhard | November 10, 2011 | 0 Comments | Theme: Dahrendorf Symposium

“Why “change” the debate on Europe? For the first time in the history of the EU we have a real debate on Europe…”

(Werner Hoyer, Minister of State in the German Federal Foreign Office)

 

Sir Colin Budd: The US, China and the EU

Written by Johannes Erhard | November 10, 2011 | 0 Comments | Theme: Global Europe

Commenting on the Panel on “Global Europe”, Sir Colin BUDD from the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on Business Appointments expressed a less pessimistic view on the future of the role of Europe in the world.

While he agreed with Michael Cox’ point that Europe became somewhat less important for the US after the end of the cold war, he disagreed with the fact that Europe will become less important for the US as China is becoming politically and economically more important. First, he said the ties between the US and Europe and the other countries are no zero-sum game. Second, having been a close and faithful ally of the US for some time, Europe will remain very important for the US. Third and economically, the amount of goods traded between the US and Europe is still bigger than the amount of goods traded between the US and China/India together. Politically, the US and Europe still share moral bounds, common traditions and a sense of common purpose (other than the US and China).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Helmut K. Anheier on the creation of a European social space

Written by Johannes Erhard | November 10, 2011 | 0 Comments | Theme: Europe as a social space

How to create a European social space?

Helmut K. Anheier, the dean of the Hertie School, looked back at European societies in the 1950s when the legacy of violent conflict still lingered on and one of the greatest challenges for the founding fathers of the European Union was to appease the citizens and generate a civil European society by building up understanding, trust and acceptance of each other as equal.

This social engeneering endeavour was stated by a series of smaller programmes rather than by a master plan, but under the one premise: only when there were more opportunities for European encounters of citizens across borders, the cultural obstacles of the past could be overcome and the gradual building up of an European identity could be enabled. Thus, numerous initiatives of towns and citizens to get together were started and (foreign) language education in schools was increased.

If we look back now and judge whether the attempt in social engineering has worked, the answer is partly yes, but there are some interesting patterns to be observed:

While there is a certain limited level in European society we could call “the Europeans” and is dominated by confident, well-educated and well networked professionals, cutting across countries, there is also a large share of citizens that is less educated or from the “new precariat”, holds blue-collar jobs, hardly travels and has little international contacts. The latter group tends to identify least with Europe and tends to abstain from European elections or vote against Europe. This euro-scepticism is strongest among male, little educated blue-collar workers.

Having this simple, but disturbing observation in mind, Anheier in his conference paper sheds light on the challenge of bringing European citizens together (especially those from a less educated background) and looks at the current status of several European initiatives to bring European citizens together:

Looking at town twinning programmes he finds that the number of town twinnings has stagnated. Looking at the ERASMUS exchange programme, he finds that while currently 200.000 students participate in the exchange programme per year, students from lower education backgrounds are not only significantly less likely to go to university but also significantly less likely to participate in the ERASMUS exchange. There is hence a double disadvantage. Also vocational exchange programmes, were you would probably expect less of a class bias show similar patterns with people from less educated backgrounds being less likely to take part in exchange programmes.

The various mechanisms for creating and consolidating Europe’s social space seem less relevant today than in the 1950-70s because they are either less attractive to upcoming generations, are taken for granted , limited with regards to the kind of population groups they factually address, or tend to “preach to the converted”. The programmes failed, and continue to fail, to reach the less educated, blue-collar workers and the lower-middle class as well as the “new precariat”.

His conclusion from that is that social engineering in the context of constructing a European society has to be rethought and modified. For example, town winnings between two disadvantaged neighbourhoods (like the one of Berlin Neukölln and Paris Boulogne-Billancourt) rather than between towns and cities as a whole can overcome the social class bias quite successfully. Providing incentives for students from less well-off backgrounds to participate in exchange programmes at school or university is a second important point. Also the role of new social media, especially in following up town twinning exchanges can play a crucial role of establishing contact between citizens across European countries. Anheier also underlines that exchange between European citizens does not always need to be initiated by governments or the European Union: Also the corporate world and civil society actors could contribute with their own initiatives to get people across Europe together and re-energize the creation of a European social space.



Voting, paying and dying. Three elements for the creation of an European nation state.

Written by Johannes Erhard | November 9, 2011 | 2 Comments | Theme: Europe as a political economy

Some interesting thoughts of José A. Tavares, Universida de Nova de Lisboa:

According to Tavares, the creation of an European nation state only works when the three factors “voting”, “paying” and “dying” are fulfilled…

1) “Voting”: Elections and campaigns are democracies “emotional” element, to attach people to policies. Not working on European level. In case of voting for a new treaty, all Europeans should vote simultaneously.

2) “Paying”: No representation without taxation. European taxed needed to pay for European services. Many citizens will become European citizens once they pay European taxes.

3) “Dying”: Europe needs a common defense, defending Europe and defending democracy in the margins of Europe.

Keynote Speech Röttgen

Written by Johannes Erhard | November 9, 2011 | 0 Comments | Theme: A future for Europe?, Dahrendorf Symposium

Minister Röttgen makes a strong point for the urgent necessity to seize the moment of crisis for a more general discussion of the further evolution of Europe:

In order to do so, however, he says it is important to recognize that the current crisis is not a Greek crisis or a sovereign debt crisis but above all a European crisis.

Although the European bailout mechanism has reached an incredible dimension, it does not at all solve the current problems at their root. A continuation along this current trend would on the long term be disastrous both politically and democratically as it would deprive states of their very basis of legitimacy.

Hence, there is an urgent need to look at what’s behind the current banking and sovereign debt crisis. The markets have brutally revealed Europe’s weaknesses and posed the question of Europe’s ability to act jointly.

However, this leads directly to the question of Europe’s willingness to show assertiveness in times of globalization, as globalization requires solutions that can only be found beyond the nation state. Europe’s ability to act jointly must be assured in all major policy fields that are dominated by globalization:

1. Economic and currency policy

2. Defense and foreign policy

3. Climate and biodiversity policy

All three fields pose substantive global challenges that go far beyond the nation states ability of solving them. Only if Europe manages to speak with one voice, we have the possibility to be designers of a new global order. Hence, for Europe this is a question of being or not being…

There are abundant examples of the disagreement of the European states, as for example the voting over Palestina’s access to the Unesco or the role of Europe at the climate negotiations in Kopenhagen in 2009. If Europe remains discordant, the 21st century will certainly not be a century of the West.

A new arrangement of the sovereignty of the nation states, on the one hand, and Europe, on the other hand, is necessary to be distinguished by policy field and according to the question if the policy field is one of the core fields of globalization or not. A new political order in Europe requires a sovereignty shared by European institutions and nation states. However, the fear of nation states of losing sovereignty has been very dominant, despite the fact that they are not losing much materially as the overall power of nation states is already limited.

As possible future steps in the right direction, Röttgen underlines the necessity of a new and more harmonized European financial market governance and the completion of the introduction of the euro by establishing common rules of procedure, and a true economic and fiscal union.

In the end, he says it comes down to the question if the European countries’ power and willingness for collaboration or rather the fear of loss dominate. As a technocratic, discordant and democratically not legitimized construct Europe has no future.

As one central themes for the debate on Europe he underlines the question of how to heal the democratic deficit of the European policy making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment on Panel I by Fritz W. Scharpf

Written by Johannes Erhard | November 9, 2011 | 0 Comments | Theme: Conflict in Europe

Fritz W. Scharpf just looked at issues the papers seem to have in common.

He underlines that almost all papers take on a historical perspective, looking at the evolution of conflict, conflict-resolution in Western history. They share the view of the golden age of the nation-state where legal, political and social institutions managed the inclusion of all social classes and political processes were regulated by national majority vote which was guaranteed by constitutional law.

This framework then came under challenge trough the increasing transnational interdependence which was on the one hand required by international or even global challenges like global warming but on the other hand also through artificially created interdependence created by EU integration, the EU single market and mobility of firms and individual beyond national borders. These dependencies, however, create new conflicts which need to be managed.

However, the interdependence of the national and the supra-national level also complicate the resolution of these conflicts both on the national and on the supra-national level. On the EU level, the challenge is to resolve highly conflict-loaded and salient issues through the intergovernmental process.

One point, Scharpf pointed out was with regard to the European parliament, where he discovered a direct conflict between the papers of Dr. Dani and Prof. Hix: Whereas Dani underlines that majoritarian decision-making in Europe is not really possible as there is a lack of an integrated and legitimated European community (citizens) and national dominance stands in the way. Hix’ empirical analysis of the voting behaviour in the European Parliament, however shows that the EP is reaching the point where it can handle conflicts in a majoritarian way.

 

 

 

Introduction by Damian Chalmers

Written by Johannes Erhard | November 9, 2011 | 0 Comments | Theme: Damian Chalmers

Damian Chalmers, Head of the European Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) just shared his view on the title of the conference:

He remembered his pleasant personal experience with Dahrendorf at the LSE and recalled Dahrendorf’s use of “jazz music” as a metaphor for Europe. Why jazz? One reason is that it is difficult to define the boundaries of jazz music just like it is difficult to define the boundaries of Europe…

Chalmers underlined, amongst others, that the structure and the topics of the symposium reflected themes that were particularly important for Dahrendorf, like for example the productive potential of crises and conflicts, questions arising around social mobility (relations between groups, status and identity), questions arising around the traditional relationship between capital and labour (e.g. What does social policy mean in the heterogeneous and fluid setting of Europe?) and Europe as a political economy. Dahrendorf concern for central and eastern European countries is also reflected in the program.

 

 

Opening of the Dahrendorf Symposium

Written by Johannes Erhard | November 9, 2011 | 0 Comments | Theme: Dahrendorf Symposium

Lady Christiane Dahrendorf and Bernhard Lorentz, President of the Mercator Foundation have just formally opened the conference!

Lady Christiane Dahrendorf said she was honoured to be present at this occasion two and a half years after the death of Ralf Dahrendorf and was very much looking forward to a lively debate.

Bernhard Lorentz underlined the symposium’s aim of honoring the legacy of Lord Dahrendorf, and stimulate public discourse on Europe in a very “Dahrendorfian” way.

The introduction to the symposium was accompanied by the young Chinese pianist Xiao Xiao Zhu’s interpretation of the anthem of Europe.