ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that since the outset of European integration, two ‘advocacy coalitions’ (cf. Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993) oppose each other with a view to social policy harmonisation. Each coalition consists of actors from various EC and national institutions as well as from private organisations at either level (mainly pressure groups). While persons have changed over time (notably the representatives of national governments), the positions as such were only adapted to the changing circumstances. The ‘pro-regulation’ camp argues that increased market integration should go hand in hand with common social regulation in order to prevent distortions of competition. This line of argument was first applied to the Common Market, then to the Internal Market, and is now used with regard to European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The opposing advocacy coalition continues to hold that social costs (in the widest sense) constitute just another element of market competition which should not be tampered with at the supranational level. In recent years, the principle of subsidiarity is usually being mentioned in this context by the ‘con-regulation’ advocates (cf. Art. 3b ECT).
