Social Policy is central to the process of European integration.
(Padraig Flynn, member of the European Commission, CEC, 1996a, p. 5)
Ebenezer Howard, in his seminal work Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform (1898), recognised very clearly the links between town design, regional spatial planning and social policy in his concept for the ‘Social City’ (Hall, 1992; Ward, 1994). His work generated worldwide interest, and his ideas influenced the development of planning thought in many other European Union (EU) member-states besides the UK. Now, one hundred years later, the question to be explored here is whether this fundamental link between social policy and what is now to be termed ‘spatial planning’, is on its way back to the UK, in ways that may not be readily recognised by British town planners, through the policies and programmes of the EU.
Scope a nd structure
The central purpose of this chapter is to discuss how far the social planning agenda in the UK, as defined and discussed earlier, is shaped or framed by the EU context and EU initiatives and programmes. The starting point is the key phrase ‘economic and social cohesion’. This is found in the first of the objectives of the Union as set out in Article 2 of the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam:
The Union shall set itself the following objectives:
• to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment and to achieve balanced and sustainable development, in particular through the creation of an area without internal frontiers, through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty [continues]
House of Commons, (1997a, p. 113); emphasis added.
Social cohesion and social town planning
Richard Williams
Article 2 expresses the fundamental goals of the EU. The words in italic indicate amendments added in the Amsterdam Treaty to the form of words adopted in the Maastricht Treaty. The phrase ‘economic and social cohesion’ occurs in many EU contexts, as does its counterpart ‘social exclusion’. This chapter aims to offer an answer to the questions of what is the meaning of the word ‘social’ within this phrase, and how might this impact on town planning and contribute to the practice of social town planning.
Chapter 1 refers to the various spatial scales at which social town planning can be considered. The starting point for this present chapter is the largest spatial scale of jurisdiction affecting local and regional authorities, namely the EU. Although this jurisdiction does not extend explicitly to town planning law, it is intended to show that the EU does have relevance at the more local spatial scales at which social town planning initiatives are normally to be expected, namely those of the city and its neighbourhoods.
The social dimension of the EU generates its share of rhetoric, as the quotation from Commissioner Padraig Flynn illustrates. He is the Commissioner responsible for employment and social affairs, and for relations with the Economic and Social Committee. The underlying paradigm, a product of the social democratic consensus that has been a feature of the formative years of the EU, is the need to balance economic development with social programmes, in the spirit of social partnership. The aim is summed up in the key phrase from Article 2 which is repeated frequently in statements of policy objectives: ‘economic and social cohesion’.
The rhetoric of European integration, and the thought-processes that lie behind the generation of tangible policies and programmes of actions from grand words and rhetorical concepts, are often a mystery to the pragmatic British mentality. The consequence is that there is a tendency to takes one’s eye off the ball: one may then be taken by surprise when a new policy is presented by the EU Council of Ministers for approval, or one may fail to recognise a programme for what it is and risk missing opportunities that it may offer.
This chapter has, therefore, the twin tasks of, first, setting out the scope and range of the social programmes and social cohesion policies of the EU, and their legal basis and, second, relating this to the activities of local planning authorities and to EU intervention in the field of spatial planning. It thus becomes possible to review the social agenda of the EU and examine how far this influences, or is to any extent implemented by, the spatial planning agenda.
The following structure is adopted. The first section discusses the place of social policy within the EU as a whole, and within the treaties. Within this section, the issue of terminology is specifically addressed, since in this field, as in many others, understanding can be impeded if the assumption is made that EU usage of English words always carries the same senses as UK usage. This section is followed by a systematic review of the main components of EU social policy that are of interest in the context of social town planning, concentrating on the structural funds, the single market, cohesion policy and the social chapter. Both their overall
rationale and place in the EU, and the specific ways in which they interact with social town planning at the local and regional scales, are reviewed. The spatial policy framework is then outlined, together with its links with urban policy, and its relationship with the social sector and its contribution to meeting social town planning objectives are assessed. Finally, the concluding section looks at some of the issues that are to be faced in the next few years, particularly in the context of enlargement, reviews of funding programmes and the advent of monetary union (EMU).
One further preliminary point of clarification needs to be made. For convenience, terminology used to refer to European institutions is that established in the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty) and in current usage at the time of writing, even when referring to earlier actions. The term EU is used for convenience throughout, since this is the term used in daily reference to the jurisdiction under consideration. This term has only been applicable since 1993, when the Treaty on European Union entered into force, and strictly speaking refers to the Union of three pillars established by that treaty, namely (1) the European Communities (the European Community, Euratom and the European Coal and Steel Community), (2) the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and (3) cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs.
The social agenda under consideration here falls primarily within the first pillar, for which the EU has greatest independence of jurisdiction, and is seen as being an essential feature of the European Community (the word ‘Economic’ was taken out of its original title by the Treaty on European Union). Social issues may be expected to feature within the second and third, for which action is still largely intergovernmental, but as yet they do so only in the context of migration and the security consequences of the Schengen Agreement. The EU’s institutional and decision-making structures as they relate to spatial planning are explained in R.H. Williams (1996), while Nugent (1991) provides a more detailed overall explanation.
The place of social policy in the EU
The first question to be asked is, why should an economic community concern itself with social matters? The key to understanding this connection lies in appreciating the sense attached to the word ‘social’ in the context of the social democratic consensus of the authors of the Treaty of Rome (1957). The word is used in the sense of ‘social partners’, i.e. the partnership between the two sides of the wealth-creation process: capital and labour, or entrepreneur and workforce. The underlying doctrine is that a true partnership is essential if the goals of economic prosperity, social cohesion and an improving quality of life for all citizens are to be achieved. In this sense, therefore, social policy is an employment policy not a welfare policy. This is why the the UK minister who attends the Social Affairs Council of Ministers is the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, or a junior minister responsible for employment.
As originally conceived, social measures are those which support the two sides of the partnership and their different needs, so that they are able to continue in partnership rather
than in conflict with each other. In the years since the original treaty, the scope and reach of EU social policy has been extended in response to the changing political agenda and in association with other EU policies and programmes. Not least of these, in the context of social town planning, are those initiatives directed at different social groups within urban communities.
Terminology
The use of the English language to express non-British concepts in EU policy-making has been termed ‘Euroenglish’ (R.H. Williams, 1996, pp. 55–62). The distinct sense attaching to
‘social’, explained above, may be considered an example of this. Given the overall focus on social town planning, other terminological issues need to be discussed in respect of the rest of this expression.
The term ‘town planning’, and its legislative equivalent ‘town and country planning’, are well understood as generic terms in the British context. However, they connote a distinctly British concept of the scope and purpose of planning, which is seen by many in other EU member states as being very narrowly focused on urban land-use issues, controls and physical design. It translates as urbanisme, Städtebau, etc. ‘Spatial planning’ is the generic term that has come into use in the EU context, and increasingly now in the domestic context as well. It is a more all-embracing term for policy-making in respect of all spatial scales, from local urban and rural planning to the regional, national and supranational scales. It is the Euroenglish translation of aménagement du territoire (which in French usage has a more economic emphasis), Raumplanung or ruimtelijke ordening (which can be physical, or can be spatial coordination of policy sectors, including social).
In a sense, it follows from the above that this chapter should be about social spatial planning. However, this sounds like an oxymoron, so it is proposed to use the term ‘spatial planning’ in the context of EU spatial policy and planning initiatives, and the term ‘social town planning’ specifically to turn the focus of attention to the overall theme of the book.
European social policy
The main strands of EU social policy that are relevant in respect of the theme of social town planning and its EU context are discussed thematically. It must be recognised that the elements of EU social policy that are of significance to the theme of social town planning, however broadly defined, form only a small part of the whole body of social policy. It is helpful, therefore, to set out a brief chronology of its overall development before looking specifically at the elements of greatest interest, so that it is possible to see how the parts fit the whole.
Reports are published by the Commission (CEC, 1996a, 1997a), and fuller discussion of EU social policy as a whole may be found in George (1991) and Moxon-Browne (1993).
Chronology of European social policy
Social policy dates back to the foundation of the EEC in 1958. The Treaty of Rome, in Articles 117–27, contained the first references to a European social policy and created the legal basis for the European Social Fund (ESF), which came into being in 1960. The policy was directed at issues of free movement of workers and assistance for migrant workers. The scope of the ESF was periodically reviewed and extended. Reforms extending the scope of the ESF which came into effect in the early 1980s led to a convergence between the possibilities offered by the ESF and the range of measures being adopted as part of local authority urban economic development initiatives at that time. Growing awareness of the ESF on the part of British local planning authorities thus led to the utilisation of the ESF to support many local economic development initiatives.
The ESF then operated separately from the other structural funds, but in 1988 regulations were adopted for the coordination of the three structural funds, i.e. the ESF, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the guidance element of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) fund (R.H. Williams, 1996, pp. 82–3). From 1989, they have operated in respect of the same set of objectives. Some of the objectives are defined in spatial terms, others in social terms (see Box 9.1). Nevertheless, the structural funds remain the responsibilities of different Directorates-General of the Commission: for the ESF, DG V, the Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs Funds; and for the ERDF, DG XVI, the Regional Policy and Cohesion Funds.
Meanwhile, the Single European Act of 1987 extended the scope of qualified majority voting in the social sphere and created a competence over the working environment and health and safety of workers. It also laid the foundations for the single market programme, leading to completion of the Single European Market (SEM) and extension of the four freedoms – free movement of capital, labour, goods and services – by the end of 1992.
The 1990s have seen the implementation of the Cohesion Fund, a facility introduced in the Maastricht Treaty to promote the economic and social cohesion of the EU as a whole by providing substantial financial assistance for infrastructure and environmental improvement in the poorest member-states. Funding is available to those member-states whose GDP (gross domestic product) per capita is below 90 per cent of the EU average. Currently, this applies to Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, where it has supported quite substantial investment. The Maastricht Treaty also included the Social Chapter, discussed below.
Alongside the social agenda, the 1990s have also seen the emergence of the spatial agenda.
Spatial policy has acquired a much higher profile, and is coming to the attention of town planners operating at the local and regional levels in a variety of ways. There are many aspects of the spatial policy agenda (see R.H. Williams, 1996, 1997, 1998). One that is of particular importance here because of the link it represents with the social agenda is that of the EU urban policy agenda. There were hopes that the Maastricht summit would agree to
add an urban competence to the treaties, but this did not occur. Likewise, there was strong pressure on the Amsterdam summit in 1997 to the same end. Although the Treaty of Amsterdam does not create an explicit urban competence, the overall EU urban agenda now has some momentum, as the Urban Forum is intended to demonstrate.
Following the Amsterdam summit, the EU’s social agenda and all associated policies will be influenced by the next major steps towards European integration, namely the single currency and enlargement. An initial set of proposals concerning enlargement and the future of the structural funds was published in 1997 under the title Agenda 2000 (CEC, 1997b).
Meanwhile, eleven member-states – all, apart from Denmark, Greece, Sweden and the UK – have signalled their intention to join the single currency in the first wave. Issues of employment and structural funding will be affected, but exactly in what ways and to what extent are still matters of speculation.
Structural and cohesion funds
Although the theme of this chapter suggests that, of the structural funds, the ESF is the one that should be given most attention, many specific initiatives of particular significance to social town planning at the local scale fall within the framework of the ERDF, and the agricultural fund is also of significance in respect of rural planning.
Since their coordination in 1989, the structural funds have been disbursed in response to a set of overall objectives to which all specific operations must relate. Five objectives were set (in effect six, as the fifth had two parts). These were revised in 1994, and a sixth objective was created for low-density arctic areas as part of the 1995 enlargement negotiations (R.H.
Williams, 1996, pp. 90, 120–4). The six objectives applicable for the period 1994–9 as set out in Box 9.1.
Box 9.1 The objectives of the structural funds 1994–9
Objective 1: economic adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind Objective 2: economic conversion of declining industrial areas
Objective 3: combating long-term unemployment and facilitating the interaction into working life of young people and of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market Objective 4: facilitating the adaptation of workers to industrial changes and to changes in production systems
Objective 5a: adjustment of production and marketing structures for agricultural and fisheries products
Objective 5b: economic diversification of rural areas
Objective 6: economic adjustment of regions with outstandingly low population density
Objectives 1, 2, 5b and 6 are explicitly spatial, in the sense that their territorial application is precisely defined. It matters greatly to the local planning authorities concerned whether or not they fall within an objective area. Several of the specific measures of a social town planning nature are available only within these areas. Objectives 3 and 4 are so-called horizontal measures, applying throughout the EU. These have essentially social objectives. The ESF funds these and also contributes to activities under the spatial objectives. Objective 4 funding was not taken up by the UK under the Conservative government for ideological reasons, however, so the UK share of the structural funds was less than it might have been during this period. After the 1997 change of government, the Commission agreed a programme for objective 4 in the UK, with a budget of 224 million ecu, for the period 1997–9.
Within each region or member-state (depending on complexity and scale), a programme of activities and priorities for expenditure is agreed between the Commission and the member- state responsible. This may be in two parts, a Community Support Framework and a set of Operational Programmes, or in the more recent or more straightforward cases, a Single Programming Document. The latter is the usual arrangement in the UK, with one for each region.
The present basis for disbursing the structural funds runs until the end of 1999. Negotiation is under way for the next phase, 2000–6, based on the Agenda 2000 discussion document (CEC, 1997b). This proposes a simplified structure with three broad objectives (see Box 9.2). Extensive negotiation will take place, possibly extending into 2000, before agreement is achieved. This will take place with an eye fixed on the likely extent and impact of the next enlargement. Agenda 2000 is as much concerned with enlargement as with the structural funds because the two issues are closely linked. Structural funding arrangements for new member-states from central and eastern Europe will inevitably mean a reduction in the funding available for conventional projects in regions that have hitherto relied extensively on the funds, not least many parts of the UK. An additional factor, not addressed explicitly in Agenda 2000, is the advent of EMU and the role that the structural funds may play in compensating the economically weak regions of participating member-states.
Box 9.2 Objectives proposed in Agenda 2000
Objective 1: economic adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind Objective 2: economic and social restructuring of regions suffering from structural problems Objective 3: development of human resources
NB: definitions and wording are subject to revision.