By Roland Kulke, TRANSFORM! Europe
Democratic planning of the economy is a must. I quote here an article by Hartmut Elsenhans that he wrote a few years ago for transform europe: “The aim of this text is to provide answers, addressing which social, economic and political institutions should the left use, and which political and social-transnational coalitions should it forge, to achieve its goal of a social Europe.” So what about organisations and regimes in the EU that, imperfect as they may be, can help us get closer to this goal?
This article discusses the term “anticipation,” which has become increasingly common in Brussels in recent months, especially in trade union circles. The term can be read as planning in the sense of socio-ecological transformation.
Here are some examples:
The “Consultative Commission on Industrial Change,” known by its French acronym CCMI (Commission consultative des mutations industrielles), has existed at the EU level for decades. “The CCMI is the oldest EU institution that deals exclusively with future industrial development.” Its members include members of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and delegates from sectorial organisations. The Commission issues opinions on the effects of industrial change in the coal and steel industries, as well as in the automotive and healthcare sectors, among others. This Commission, therefore, has no decision-making power but can stimulate discussions and has detailed knowledge of economic developments. So, it is an exciting institution.
In 2011, Alstom and the European Metalworkers’ Federation adopted a declaration on the “Anticipation of Change”. This is primarily about ” […] to anticipate market developments and the impact of these changes on employment and competencies […], particularly with regard to forward-looking management of jobs and training.” Trade union agreements have, therefore, been in place for a long time, through which trade unions attempt to intervene in economic change in a planned manner. This means that trade unions, as they rightly say of themselves, have known for 150 years what it means to anticipate and adapt to change and to shape reality in the interests of the working class.
In January 2013, Spanish Socialist MEP Alejandro Cercas was probably the first to propose EU legislation on “anticipation and management of reconstruction.” On closer inspection, the proposal at the time is far from adequate for today’s climate catastrophe and the rise of the authoritarian right. Since 2013, however, the discussion has evolved.
When the Fit for 55 Package was adopted in April 2024, trade unions called for a legal framework to “anticipate change.” Judith Kirton-Darling and Isabelle Barthès (both Deputy General Secretaries of industriAll Europe at the time) rightly stated: “Europe’s Green Deal is a deliberate political intervention in market forces… The invisible hand of the market will not deliver the necessary climate ambition.”
In June 2024, the European Trade Union Confederation adopted the declaration “A Just Transition policy framework and Directive to anticipate and manage change.” This directive would be a framework program to make climate change and the digital economy sustainable and worker-friendly. It would also involve a Just Transition Directive covering all sectors, a “permanent EU investment instrument” with strict conditionalisation of public aid, and a revision of the Public Procurement Directive. The directive should ensure that: “existing social dialogue structures […] are involved in monitoring EUGD [EU Green Deal] policies and implementing and monitoring transition pathways for industrial ecosystems.” Furthermore, the ETUC demands: “A permanent coordination mechanism to link the Fit for 55 Package to the Semester Process and the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) should also be created with an emphasis on social dialogue.”
The European Semester, whose rules were renewed in 2024, also provides an interesting basis for planning. Article (3) of Regulation 2024/1263 states: “The European Semester 1. In order to ensure closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of the economic and social performance of the Member States, […]”. Recital 8 then explicitly mentions the European Pillar of Social Rights: “the Commission assesses risks to upward social convergence in Member States and monitors progress on the implementation of the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights on the basis of the Social Scoreboard and of the principles of the Social Convergence Framework.”
Recently, there was a public event in Brussels organised by universities, social NGOs, and trade unions. There was a lot of talk about “anticipation.” When I asked about ecological planning (“planification écologique”), a Commission official replied that although the Commission would not use the term ecological planning, he claimed that the “Fit for 55 package” would provide a basis for it. The package is one of the central foundations of the Green Deal. It deals with EU CO2 emissions trading; the Climate Social Fund to support citizens because of the exploding energy costs in buildings and road transport from 2027 (existing, but terribly underfunded); the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM); Member State emission reduction targets (transport, agriculture, buildings…); regulation on CO₂ standards for cars; renewable energy; energy efficiency (local jobs!); energy taxation.
I found this statement by the official, who was clearly delighted with his response, illuminating and original. I had never before seen the Green Deal and its inadequate legislation as a basis for a practical approach to democratic economic planning.