The main open question relates to the distribution function, on top of the already existing
programs of regional development, which however should continue to be in force. A particu-
lar emphasis must indeed be devoted to the recurrent proposal of making EU declared aims of
social protection really effective, whereas up to now they merely consisted of high-sounding
statements of rights.29 New pressures to change may arrive by the incoming European Consti-
tution, which most likely will adopt the Tobin’s principle of “Specific Egalitarianism” as en-
dorsed by the Nice 2000 “Charter of European Union’s fundamental rights”.30
The reason (Atkinson 1992) to put in operation social protection programs also at EU
level is twofold. Member Countries’ programs suffer from a severe weakness which is made
evident by the about seventy millions of people (18 per cent of the total) at risk of poverty
poor who still live in the core Europe. Social benefits reduce the risk but to very different de-
grees, ranging from only about ten per cent (Greece and Italy) to more than 70 per cent
(Finland), 31 per cent being the European average (Eurostat 2002). Further and connected,
differences in GDP level and in budget conditions may discriminate one country from the
other as to their ability to cope with social protection needs. The proposal of a “European
safety net” targeted to specific countries’ lines of poverty might overcome the otherwise not
easily solvable dilemma between countries’ or individuals’ targeted plans (still Atkinson
1992).31 Such a proposal should be strongly welcomed in order to implement our suggestion
of tax shift from social contributions to consumption tax, particularly VAT. This means that
29 During the 1970s and 1980s EC’s Acts basically took up the 1945 UN “Charter of human rights.” In 1989 the
”Charter of fundamental social rights” was adopted by the Community (although with the United Kingdom dis-
senting). Its aims were confirmed by the Social protocol annexed to the Maastricht Treaty (United Kingdom still
dissenting). The central idea was to extend social protection to wider cohorts of beneficiaries and specifically
target it to fight against poverty. A Social fund was effectively adopted but it was always made up of not more
than some dozens of ECU/euro millions and mainly devoted to improve workers’ mobility.
30 Specific guarantees are stated regarding the right to: free mandatory education (art. 14); satisfactory, regular
employment (art.15); getting high protection of health (art.35); being admitted to social protection and services,
“in case of motherhood, sickness, labor accidents, dependency and old age, besides that in case of loosing the
job, according to Union’s and national laws” (italics our).
31 Countries’ plans should be preferred if inequality is rooted amongst countries’, individuals’ plans otherwise.
Available data show a mixed picture not easy to be disentangled. We saw that at the early 1990s Gini on gross
incomes ranged from about 25 per cent of Germany to about 41 per cent of the United Kingdom. Per capita in-
come at PPPs in 2000 is relative close to an average of something more than 100 (mean figure for EU and US)
albeit if with some outliers. But the poor Med Countries (Spain, Portugal and Greece) have an average figure of
about near 80 (computations of Cnossen 2002). Number and distance of diverging countries will obviously dra-
matically increase with the arrival of current EU applicants. GDP per head at PPPs ranges from 24 (Bulgaria) to
82 (Cyprus), 100 being the EU level and about 45 the candidate countries weighted average figure (Eurostat
2002).
19