The idea of “European solidarity” is not only present in the parliamentary debates but even in EU treaties such as the Treaty of Lisbon. Article 2 of this treaty considers “solidarity” as one of EU’s values other treaties reference “mutual solidarity” as being closely linked to the sharing of responsibilities (for instance article 24 of the Treaty on European Union for external and security policies).
Solidarity is a vague and ambiguous term, especially when discussing the Economic and Monetary Union. These two conceptions of solidarity present in EU treaties highlight the two ways we can conceive solidarity in a group. This dichotomy is expressed in Durkheim’s distinction between “organic” and “mechanic” solidarity.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The “mechanic” solidarity would be what holds traditional societies together. Those societies are small and usually homogeneous, hence people hold common values. Solidarity is thus based on a shared identity and is more emotional (members of this society will usually help another member because “he is one of us”).
Nowadays, most modern societies would be held together by “organic” solidarity. All members of society have different experiences and different values, however, for the society to function effectively, members rely on one another. In this case, solidarity is not based on emotionally driven interest, but rather interdependence, solidarity is not altruism but rather a rational act of self-interest.
In the European Union, solidarity is mainly “organic”. European countries are conscious that they are mutually responsible for the preservation of a common project and the existence of self-interest can be more or less easy to recognise.
However, within the european solidarity we can once again distinguish two other kinds of “organic” solidarity. What André Gerrtis calls “direct reciprocity”, which would be an insurance-type scheme. An example of this would be the Lisbon Treaty’s “solidarity clause”, which stipulates that members states “shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a member state is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster” (art. 222 TFEU). This schemes EU countries commit themselves to help each other in face of a risk that is equally spread among themselves. Today’s provider could be tomorrow's beneficiary.
The second type of solidarity is the one inspiring the EU cohesion policy. Solidarity is driven by the conviction that helping a weaker EU country, will ultimately benefit the richer EU country. Richer economies would thus help weaker one in exchange for their engagement to the process of economic integration, which would benefit in the long run richer countries.
This second type of solidarity, “enlightened self-interest” solidarity as called by Gerrits, is conceived as temporary, that is why the EU cohesion policy is maintained, it is not seen as a permanent transfer of wealth but rather as an instrument to help poor countries to converge towards richer countries.
This distinction might seem irrelevant when it comes to the Eurobond debate, however, until now, all efforts have been driven by the enlightened self-interest solidarity, where triple A debt countries helping weaker EU countries. In the next years, this might change, as the gap between stronger and weaker economies is reducing. Furthermore, the financial crisis and more recently the COVID-19 outbreak have shown of vulnerable are all EMU countries to financial markets and their limited capacity to stabilise their economies. This reopens the debate over changing the EMU into an insurance-type scheme, perhaps with a common sovereign bond?
Stuck on your essay?
