Every political community is expected to aim at ensuring a life in dignity to those who live on its territory. Yet, while the protection of human dignity doubtlessly forms part of core human rights, it is not as clear whether political communities also have an obligation to provide their residents with a minimum subsistence level, how this level should be defined and whether individuals have a subjective right to receive the necessary means of sustenance.
This is the case despite the fact that some states started to recognise their responsibility for protecting the poor early on. Poor Law in England was introduced at the beginning of the 17th century and looks back on a long history even if it underwent a major reform in 1834. The General Law Code for the Prussian States (Allgemeines Landrecht für die preußischen Staaten) of 1794, based on the spirit of the Enlightenment, stated: “The state is responsible for providing food and maintenance to those citizens who are unable to support themselves or who are unable to obtain such support from other persons required to do so under the pertinent laws.” (part II, title 19, § 1). This provision, however, did not prescribe certain forms of protection, and certainly not the introduction of specific services or benefits. How to protect the poor remained an open question at the beginning of the formation of modern states, and it was one that was “of particular concern and torment to modern societies”, as Hegel noted (Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, 1821, § 244). In particular land and family played an important role in guaranteeing individuals their livelihood, and it is therefore not surprising that social assistance schemes started to become widespread only after the end of the Second World War. The German Federal Administrative Court hinted in one of its earliest decisions in 1954 (V C 78.54) at human dignity and obliged the state to create an appropriate legal basis for any rights to social assistance.
Since then, one can observe different developments at national level with regard to social assistance. While activation and workfare aspects had always been part of assistance schemes, they gained in importance especially in the last decades of the 20th century under the assumption of an employment-based society in which the full social participation of citizens is to be achieved through their integration into the labour market. The workfare model quickly became widespread and very influential in almost all countries. As a consequence, it was not the conditionality for benefits as such that changed, mainly the general obligation to work and to sustain oneself as far as possible, but rather the role of governments that should actively support labour market integration. One might hint at another general trend, at least in Europe, at the beginning of the 21st century, namely the universalisation of social assistance. In this vein, the southern European states started to introduce general schemes, partly entirely new ones (Greece), partly replacing regional (Spain) or rudimentary existing schemes (Italy). Another remarkable, although (still) singular, development was the introduction of a Universal Credit in the UK in 2013 as a new scheme that aims at integrating social assistance and social support, facilitates coordination between different benefits and might also help against stigmatisation of applicants. This approach, however, did not become a blueprint for other countries. Therefore, securing a minimum subsistence level, in practice in most countries, still encompasses a patchwork of different benefits, such as family benefits, housing supports, disability and old age pensions etc.
That there are gaps in social protection of a minimum subsistence and that this protection is not always effective is visible in the statistics of Eurostat on “persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion”, which recently showed that one in five people in the EU are still at risk of poverty or social exclusion. This became even more visible as a result of recent crises: The already long-lasting effects of the economic and financial crisis were compounded by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and rising energy and living costs due to the consequences of the war in Ukraine. This perception of actual deficits also attracted the attention of the European Union, which started to put more emphasis on real life conditions for guaranteeing free movement in an internal market. The aim of the Union to establish a minimum catalogue of social rights is clearly visible in no. 14 of the European Pillar of Social Rights (“Everyone lacking sufficient resources has the right to adequate minimum income benefits ensuring a life in dignity at all stages of life, and effective access to enabling goods and services”), even if this is combined with an activation approach (“For those who can work, minimum income benefits should be combined with incentives to (re)integrate into the labour market”). As an instrument of implementation, the European Commission drafted a proposal for a Council Recommendation on adequate minimum income in September 2022 which was finally adopted in January 2023 by the Council. It aims at offering clear guidance to Member States on how to ensure that their minimum income schemes are effective in fighting poverty and how to promote active inclusion in society and the labour market.
Against this background, it is not surprising that the idea of a minimum income attracted research over the past years, in particular from social scientists and economists on the effectiveness of social protection, but also from a human rights perspective. What is lacking, though, are insights into the concrete construction of the protection of a minimum subsistence through social law and the normative positions that are mirrored in the statutes and statutory instruments. We will fill this gap by way of a comparative study that concentrates on two aspects: first, the interplay between different social benefit systems with the function of guaranteeing a minimum subsistence or income; second, the normative background of those systems and the obligation of the state to protect individuals living on its territory by guaranteeing a minimum subsistence level and, thus, a dignified life. As this is a normative approach, we leave out the practical problems of implementation. And we concentrate on cash benefits in order to make the project manageable. It is expected to cover eleven European states with different geographic and social policy backgrounds (Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom), but also Latin America (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico) and Asia (Japan and South Korea).
The planned outcome of the project is an edited volume which shall be published in the course of 2024.