Social Cohesion: European Case Studies – Accessible Version

RESEARCH PAPER No.36 May 2026

Colette Bennett
Carla O’Brien

This Report provides cross-case study comparative analysis of twelve European case studies
provided to us by Secretariats of seven European National Economic and Social Councils
(NESCs). Because NESCs operate in diverse institutional, political, and socio-economic
environments, case studies provide a systematic way to examine how specific processes
and structures generate social cohesion in other European countries. This approach captures
real world mechanisms, highlights institutional learning, and facilitates some cross-national
comparison.
The analysis in this paper seeks to identify structural patterns, divergences, and causal
mechanisms that provide some explanation as to how social cohesion may be supported.
The case studies are not evaluations of the measures concerned per se nor are they in any sense
representative of social cohesion measures, rather they have been provided by European NESC
Secretariats to illustrate policy interventions that support Social Cohesion using the three lenses
of Trust and Legitimacy, the Left Behind, and Intergenerational Fairness.

In October 2025, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) hosted a webinar for
European NESCs at which the Irish Secretariat explained the purpose of the project and the
case study approach. Following the webinar, a case study template (see Appendix 1), developed
for the purpose of consistency by the Irish NESC, was circulated to the European NESCs, with
offers of online and telephone support, if required.
The case studies were then analysed to determine common patterns across the various
NESCs and specific cases received; any differences in approaches, and the rationale for
such differences; the causal mechanisms underpinning the case studies, and the theoretical
implications for social cohesion policy development.
The Irish NESC is extremely grateful to our colleagues in the EESC and European NESCs who
gave of their time to host and attend the webinar, with particular thanks to those who provided
case studies. These are:

Concelho Económico E Social, Portugal

Conseil central de l’Économie and Conseil national du Travail, Brussels

Conseil économique, social et environnemental, France

CES, Economic and Social Council of Romania

Consejo Económico y Social de España

Economic and Social Council of Bulgaria

Economic and Social Council of Greece

The full case studies are set out in Appendix 2. For clarity and consistency, we refer to each
body as a “NESC”, notwithstanding variations in their official titles.

2. Social Cohesion Through Three Lenses

The case studies provided consider social cohesion through one or more of three lenses:
the Left Behind (seven case studies from Romania, Spain, Bulgaria, Greece, and France),
Intergenerational Fairness (two case studies from Portugal and Bulgaria), and Trust / Legitimacy
(three case studies from Belgium, France, and Bulgaria).

2.1 The Left Behind

The seven case studies provided by the NESCs covered a wide range of social policy areas,
with a mix of government-led policies and strategies, legislation, EU frameworks, and NESC-led
analysis of issues.
In Romania, initiatives were drive by both a Government Ministry and the NESC (the National
Housing Strategy and Housing Opinion) and shaped by EU Cohesion Policy priorities translated
into national programming by a Government Ministry (Cohesion Policy), showing both domestic
and EU-driven starting points. Spain’s left-behind initiatives were driven by Government
Ministries, with central government launching both a major income protection reform (Minimum
Basic Income) and a multi-year inclusion strategy (Strategic Framework for Citizenship and
Inclusion against Racism and Xenophobia, 2023-2027).
The case studies provided by the Bulgarian NESC included a series of initiatives from the NESC
itself in research and analysis of social policy issues, as well as Government initiatives on energy
reform and income and territorial inequalities. The case study provided by the Greek NESC, also
included multiple initiatives, to address sustainable housing.
Finally, the case study provided by France contained explicit references to research and analysis
conducted by the French NESC across a range of social policy areas.

Housing was a key area of concern in three of the seven case studies provided, with the
Romanian and Greek NESCs providing case studies that explicitly centred housing policies,
and Bulgaria including reference to housing energy poverty in its analysis of poverty and social
exclusion. The Romanian National Housing Strategy and Housing Opinion aimed to support the
provision of inclusive, affordable housing, that aligns with the green transition, strengthened
administrative capacity. While the initiatives referred to in the case study of the Greek NESC
involved opening access to homes by reducing incentives for investors to engage in short-term
lettings, restricting short-term lettings in areas of historical interest, restricting ‘golden’ visas for
high-net worth investors to gain residence, upgrading energy efficiency in homes, and analysis
on housing need.
Income poverty was explicitly referenced in two case studies: the introduction of a Minimum
Basic Income in Spain, and the integrated analyses of in-work poverty, educational inequality,
energy poverty, and social inclusion provided by the Bulgarian ESC.
Deficits in public services were referenced in the case studies provided by the Bulgarian
NESC (in the analysis of what was required to address issues of working poverty, educational
inequality, energy poverty, and social exclusion), Romanian NESC (as part of the two Programs
introduced – the Inclusion and Social Dignity Program and the Sustainable Development
Program), and French NESC (in respect of the effectiveness of social rights and the analysis of
the funding model for social services).
Discrimination was the focus of the Spanish NESC case study on the Strategic Framework for
Citizenship and Inclusion against Racism and Xenophobia (2023-2027), and in the work of the
French NESC on tackling hate speech.

All seven case studies address inequality, but through different entry points, at an institutional
and territorial level.
Both the case studies of the Spanish NESC (the introduction of a Minimum Basic Income), and
the Bulgarian NESC (in the in-work poverty analysis), consider inequality from the perspective
of income. The multi-faceted case studies of the French and Bulgarian NESCs seek to address
inequalities in education, health, income and service provision. Spain’s Strategic Framework
for Citizenship and Inclusion against Racism and Xenophobia (2023-2027) seeks to address
discrimination and exclusion through an anti-racism and xenophobia framework. A focus
on addressing territorial inequality is evident in Romania’s Cohesion Policy, and the specific
objectives of the Inclusion and Social Dignity Program and the Sustainable Development
Program, and in the restrictions to the “golden visas” in the Greek housing measures. While
inequalities in the provision and affordability of housing were central to the Romanian NESC
case study on the National Housing Strategy.

The initiatives outlined sought to support social cohesion in various ways across a number of
cross-cutting thematic areas.
The Romanian NESC case study on the National Housing Strategy and Housing Opinion, the
Spanish NESC case study on the introduction of a Minimum Basic Income, the Bulgarian NESC
case study on integrated analyses, and the Greek NESC case study on sustainable housing
policies all involve the protection or support of material wellbeing and basic needs, focusing
on the alleviation of poverty, provision of income security, housing adequacy and affordability,
energy poverty or basic living conditions.
Both Spanish case studies (Minimum Basic Income and the Strategic Framework for Citizenship
and Inclusion against Racism and Xenophobia (2023-2027)), the Bulgarian integrated analyses,
the Romanian Cohesion Policy, and the French research and analyses all engage with issues of
access to services or rights, and basic infrastructure by improving access to public services,
rights, supports, community infrastructure, or safety nets.
Both Spanish case studies and the Bulgarian analyses also seek to support equality, inclusion
and non-discrimination by reducing structural inequalities; affording equal opportunities across
regions, genders, or population groups; and actively supporting anti-racism or discrimination
initiatives. In addition, the Bulgarian NESC case study also sought to increase the visibility of
exclusion and systemic framing by making left-behind groups visible; framing exclusion as
cumulative and systemic rather than an individual failure.
Trust, legitimacy and institutional responsiveness were key areas of social cohesion identified
in the case studies of the Romanian NESC on the National Housing Strategy and Housing
Opinion, the Spanish NESC on Minimum Basic Income, the Bulgarian NESC with its integrated
analyses, and the Spanish NESC case study on the Strategic Framework for Citizenship and
Inclusion against Racism and Xenophobia (2023-2027), engaging with issues of perceived
fairness, trust in public institutions, policy effectiveness, and institutional capacity or
responsiveness.

Across the case studies provided, reported outcomes are mixed and often early-stage. Several
initiatives are still in development or implementation, so outcomes are not yet available (e.g.,
Romania’s National Housing Strategy and Greece’s Sustainable Housing), while others show
progress indicators rather than final results (Romania’s Cohesion Policy notes positive signs in
programmes being approved for funding). Where measurable delivery is reported, the strongest
concrete impact is Spain’s Minimum Basic Income, which had reached 785,722 households
and 2.4 million beneficiaries, helping people rise above the severe poverty threshold. Some
initiatives are generating outcomes in the form of evidence and policy architecture, e.g.
Bulgaria’s integrated analyses are an incremental process of recommendations, and Spain’s
Strategic Framework for Citizenship and Inclusion against Racism and Xenophobia (2023-2027)
cites among its added value as building a robust, shared, evidence-based diagnosis of migration
trends.

Given the stage of many of the initiatives, the lessons reported are largely about
implementation, rather than final results.
A consistent message is that designing a support measure is not enough, coverage and
delivery capacity also matter. Spain’s Minimum Basic Income highlights persistent coverage
gaps (over half of eligible households are not receiving it) alongside administrative and
legal barriers. Bulgaria’s integrated poverty analyses stress that employment alone does not
guarantee inclusion, that education inequality drives long‑term exclusion, and that energy
poverty is a core, dignity-related dimension of deprivation, reinforcing the need for integrated,
cross-policy responses to cumulative disadvantage. The Spanish NESC’s case study on the
Strategic Framework for Citizenship and Inclusion against Racism and Xenophobia (2023-2027)
emphasises that sustained progress depends on strong multi-level governance, embedding
inclusion across all social policies, better administrative coordination and efficiency, adequate
resourcing, and inclusive digitalisation, with civil society playing a complementary role, especially
through strategic investment in migrant children and youth.
Overall, learning from these case studies converges on a consistent theme that the experience
of being “left-behind” is multi-dimensional, and effective responses require joined-up policy,
operational capacity, and governance alignment, rather than standalone measures.

Overall, the “Left Behind” case studies underline that supporting social cohesion requires more
than standalone programmes, it depends on sustained institutional capability, coordination
across policy domains and delivery systems that can reach those most at risk. While the entry
points vary, from housing, income support and access to services, to anti-discrimination and
territorial development, the common social cohesion mechanism is strengthening material
security and basic rights in ways that are experienced as fair, accessible and responsive.
Reported effects are, so far, mixed as the interventions are often at an early stage, but
the strongest lessons converge on implementation: simplifying access, closing coverage
gaps, adequately resourcing front-line delivery, and aligning multi-level governance so that
interventions reduce cumulative disadvantage rather than creating new gaps between places,
groups, and generations.

2.2 Intergenerational Fairness

The two case studies on Intergenerational Fairness deal primarily with long-term demographic
change. The case study provided by the Portuguese NESC was a cross-border initiative
under the Interreg Spain-Portugal 2021-2027 Programme, while the case study provided by
the Bulgarian NESC was initiated by national constitutional institutions such as the National
Assembly (working poverty and inequality analyses), and the President of the Republic
(education inequalities).

Both case studies sought to address the challenges from changing demographics within
the countries concerned. In Portugal, the New Longevity Societies programme seeks to
reframe longer lives as a strategic social and economic asset, rather than solely a demographic
challenge, while the Bulgarian case study seeks to address intergenerational imbalances arising
from “rapid population ageing” through pension system sustainability.

The objectives of both case studies converge around a shared agenda of future‑proofing social
contracts in the face of demographic change through evidence-led, long-term policymaking.
The primary goal of the case study provided by the Portuguese NESC emphasises building
robust multidisciplinary analysis of ageing societies (health, economic and social impacts),
measuring whether longer lives translate into healthy, autonomous years, and making visible
the distributional inequalities that shape life chances in later life (notably by gender, income,
education and territory). While the case study provided by the Bulgarian NESC seeks to
support Intergenerational Fairness through fiscal sustainability, protecting the adequacy of
pensions and welfare systems while avoiding disproportionate burdens on younger and future
generations, restoring balance between contributions and rights, and resisting short-term
measures with long-lasting costs.

Both case studies link to social cohesion by reframing the challenges of demographic
ageing not as a problem, but as an integral part of safeguarding intergenerational fairness
and recognising that longer lives must be matched with investment in fiscal safeguards and
equitable distribution. This is not just an issue of older people and pension entitlements, but of
solidarity across the generations.
The case study provided by the Bulgarian NESC seeks to ensure that younger people today can
be confident that their contributions will translate into future social rights and recognise that
regional inequalities undermine cohesion not only between social groups but can erode trust
between generations and weaken the social contract underpinning democratic societies. This
life course approach is also taken in the Portuguese case study which underlines that “longer
lives must be matched by sustained investments in health, care and functional ability to
ensure fairness between generations and the long-term sustainability of welfare systems”.
This case study also links to the Left Behind by specifically highlighting disparities in provision
for women, low-income groups, individuals with lower educational attainment and residents of
disadvantaged regions.

The outcomes from both case studies seek to turn data on demographic change into
actionable, legitimacy-building evidence for long term policy. In both cases, the work supports
a clear and substantive base for policy making, the Portuguese case study produces substantive
analytical outputs on the economic contribution of older populations and the gap between life
expectancy and healthy life years, while the Bulgarian case study produces a “comprehensive
diagnosis of intergenerational risks” embedded in the links between demographic change and
pension systems.
A second outcome from both case studies is the importance of moving to future oriented
system sustainability: the findings from the Portuguese case study feed into debates on the
care economy and the adequacy of care systems in ageing societies, while the Bulgarian case
study identifies short-term policy choices with long-term costs (e.g., indexation, contribution
rates, ad hoc measures) and proposes reforms to restore fairness and solidarity.
Both case studies seek to strengthen the social contract through institutional uptake and
visibility – the outputs of the Portuguese case study are feeding into institutional opinions
and public debate, while the Bulgarian case study increases transparency and confidence
by clarifying pension rights, improving alignment across policy areas, and reframing regional
demographic decline as an intergenerational justice issue.

Both case studies centre demographic change in the context of systemic transformation
and intergenerational fairness. The Portuguese case study highlights the simultaneous
interconnection between economies, health systems, care arrangements and social relations,
while both foreground the need for investment to keep pace with increased life expectancy or
risk deepening inequalities and undermining social cohesion.
Finally, the Portuguese case study proposes integrating economic, health and care perspectives,
and embedding them within social dialogue institutions, to deliver evidence-based and
sustainable policy and action.

The Intergenerational Fairness case studies highlight that demographic ageing requires long-term, evidence-led policy rather than short-term adjustments. Social cohesion is strengthened
when institutions make intergenerational trade-offs transparent and credible, combining fiscal
sustainability with sustained investment in health, care and functional ability so that longer lives
translate into healthier, more autonomous years. A consistent lesson is that fairness depends
on recognising life-course and territorial inequalities, especially those affecting women, low-income groups and disadvantaged regions, and embedding these insights in social dialogue
and policy coordination so that solidarity between generations is maintained.

2.3 Trust / Legitimacy

The three case studies which come under the lens of Trust / Legitimacy all deal with some form
of social dialogue or citizen engagement processes. In Belgium and France, this engagement
was initiated through national legislative instrument – legislation (Belgium) and constitutional
change (France), while the Bulgarian NESC cited European Accession legislation and NESC
initiative as being the driving forces behind its social dialogue and transparency initiatives.

Each of the three initiatives aimed to increase participation in democratic processes. In Belgium
and Bulgaria, this took the form of institutionalised civic participation and representative social
dialogue, while the citizens’ engagement initiatives in France directly involved citizens who were
randomly selected to participate. The initiatives were available to the specific target groups
(that is, organised civil society or citizens), leading the French NESC (who also engages in
organised civil society dialogue and representation) to reflect on the need to “overcome
the divide between organised civil society, represented by members appointed by their
organisations to sit on a dedicated constitutional institution, and civil society represented by
citizens chosen at random”.

The objectives of the three initiatives were broadly similar. The Belgian NESC cited economic
and social objectives linked to the provision of “a predictable and stable framework for
collective labour relations, ensure inclusive socio-economic governance through structured
participation, and prevent social conflicts before they escalate”. In France, the objective
was to engage citizens more directly in the development of policies, and indirectly to the
development of the research programme of the French NESC. While the promotion and
protection of governance, democracy, and public trust in strategic reforms were key objectives
in the development of the Bulgarian social dialogue and transparency initiative.

Each of the three initiatives seeks to promote trust in democratic processes and deliver
greater equality: the Belgian and Bulgarian processes through organised civil society, and the
French initiative through direct engagement with citizens. The Belgian initiative also sought
to prevent social conflicts before they escalate and to embed intergenerational justice. The
Bulgarian initiative was also forward-looking, with its emphasis on building resilience against
disinformation. While the French initiative connected citizens to the decision-making process.

The outcomes of the three initiatives reflected to some degree their legislative underpinnings.
The longstanding Belgian initiative aims to embed long-term social stability, have low levels
of social conflict, and to strengthen the legitimacy of socio-economic decisions. It supports
resilience in times of crisis and connections to national priorities. The French initiative
introduced direct citizen engagement in parallel to its previously established organisational
civil society processes. While the Bulgarian initiative seeks to build a coherent framework for
institutionalised civic participation in crisis management, build opposition to legislation that may
undermine legitimacy, reinforce constitutional safeguards, and improve transparency and trust.

When asked what learning outcomes may have been achieved through the implementation of
these initiatives, the Belgian NESC referred to trust created by stable institutions by enhancing
predictability and continuity; how a shared diagnosis of an issue is a powerful lever of legitimacy;
and while it is a demanding process, it strengthens legitimacy and promotes inclusion.
The Bulgarian NESC highlighted how process matters, not just outcomes. How civil space is
essential for democratic trust and how transparency and communication are governance tools.
It also referred to strengthening resilience in times of crisis, and the building of long-term
legitimacy through institutionalised participation.
The French NESC referred to the divide between citizen engagement and organised civil
society and posed the question of how that gap might be bridged.

The Trust / Legitimacy case studies show that social cohesion is strengthened when
participation is made credible through clear mandates, transparent processes and sustained
institutional capacity. Whether delivered through long-standing social dialogue arrangements
or newer forms of citizen deliberation, these initiatives build trust by improving the fairness,
predictability and openness of decision-making, while also enhancing resilience in times of
crisis and against disinformation. A shared lesson is that future progress depends not only
on outcomes, but on bridging participation models, connecting organised civil society and
randomly selected citizens, so that legitimacy is broadened and inclusion is deepened.

3. Conclusion

This report has used twelve European case studies, provided by seven Economic and Social
Councils (NESCs), to identify how different policy instruments and governance processes can
support social cohesion through three lenses: the Left Behind, Intergenerational Fairness, and
Trust / Legitimacy.
Across these varied contexts, a consistent finding is that social cohesion is built as much
through the credibility of institutions and the experience of fairness as through the
substantive policy content. Measures that improve material security, expand effective access
to rights and services, and reduce cumulative disadvantage can strengthen belonging and
reduce fracture, but only when they are delivered in ways that are transparent, understandable,
accessible, and dependable for those most affected.
Taken together, the case studies point to three cross-cutting implications.

First, addressing “left-behindness” requires joined-up policy and delivery capacity that
matches the multi-dimensional nature of exclusion, with particular attention to territorial
inequalities and non-take-up.

Second, intergenerational fairness depends on long-term, evidence-led choices that make
trade-offs explicit and invest in health, care and system sustainability, so that solidarity
between generations remains credible.

Third, trust and legitimacy are strengthened when participation is institutionalised,
transparent, wide and inclusive, and when pathways exist to connect organised civil society
with deliberative citizen engagement.

While the case studies are illustrative rather than evaluative, they provide a practical map of the
mechanisms – policy design, implementation capability and participatory governance – through
which NESCs and Governments can reinforce social cohesion, and they demonstrate the value
of continued review and feedback loops as initiatives mature and create greater evidence of
outcomes.

APPENDIX 1: TEMPLATE

Case Study Template

Ireland will hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the second half of 2026. During this time, the Irish National Economic and Social Council
(NESC) will host the Annual Meeting of the European Economic and Social Committee as part of the official Presidential programme. The theme of this event is Social
Cohesion, mirroring a theme of NESC’s work in its 2025/26 Work Programme.
The NESC Secretariat is currently working on a Council Paper and series of dialogue events on the theme of Social Cohesion. What is meant by ‘social cohesion’
can often depend on the academic discipline studying it. It has been found to be a determinant of population mental health, well-being, broadly related to social
protection, services, schooling, pensions, and healthcare, and a general sense of increased living standards, and ‘a basis for stable democracy’ with both social
cohesion and democracy forming complementary parts of public decision-making, active citizenship, and resulting in both rights and responsibilities.
Greater social cohesion mitigates economic disparities and can have a greater positive impact on quality of life than income, provided ones necessities are provided
for. If social cohesion is defined to include the well-being of citizens, and democracy is the guarantee of fundamental rights and the support of active citizenship, then
each is interdependent on the other.
There are many examples of fractures in social cohesion today – inequalities, anti-outsider sentiment (e.g. migrants, LGBTQI+, indigenous ethnicities), nativism,
reduced horizontal and vertical trust, the urban/rural divide, the intergenerational divide, and increased conspiracy theory belief to name but a few. These have a
damaging impact on society as a whole, felt most acutely at a local level.
The NESC Council Paper focuses on three wide-ranging strands of social cohesion – Legitimacy / Trust, The Left Behind, and Intergenerational Fairness. While this
research is iterative and will evolve over time, a broad outline of what each strand may entail is as follows:

Legitimacy is a component of social cohesion. It is based on vertical trust and trustworthiness, and an understanding that the voices of citizens are heard as valuable in
a democratic society. A lack of trust in Governments and institutions can lead to feelings of disenfranchisement among citizens, and result in greater polarisation and
populism. For citizens to trust, Governments and institutions must prove to be trustworthy. Decisions must be demonstrably made on the basis of sound evidence,
with transparency in the decision-making process itself. Mis- and disinformation, and its rapid dissemination on social media, can undermine this evidential basis and
erode trust, thereby fracturing social cohesion and contributing to polarisation.

There are many ways in which people and places can be left behind. Economic hardship, poverty and deprivation can hinder an individual’s capacity to participate in
a standard of living experienced by society in general, leaving them isolated and socially excluded. Rural depopulation, particularly of young people, can leave towns
and villages without vital services and supports for their remaining inhabitants. Traditionally marginalised groups – indigenous populations, low-income migrants,
lone parents, and people with disabilities – continue to experience social exclusion and often do not enjoy the full benefits of a country’s economic prosperity, while
bearing a disproportionate amount of hardship during an economic downturn. People living in disadvantaged or underpopulated areas are often without adequate
access to the services they need. This ‘left behindness’ may act as a driver of fractures in social cohesion between communities or when integrating new communities.

In the context of social cohesion, it’s important to think in terms of the long-term sustainability of positive interventions. Intergenerational fairness must take account
of three groups – older people, young people, and those who are not yet born. Generational divides often concentrate on the narrative of the generation of young
people who are worse off than their parents, lack of housing affordability, work precarity and youth mental health, but neglect the treatment of older people in society,
the prevalence of loneliness, poverty, frailty, and neglect. What we owe to future generations goes beyond climate change, biodiversity loss, and economic and
democratic uncertainty, to a sense of values, justice and belonging. A lack of a just ecological and climate transition and social safety nets contribute to fractures in
social cohesion.

NESC would like to gather a series of case studies on best practice in social cohesion from our European peers. Ideally linked to one of the three strands, or the
creation of space for meaningful dialogue. The below template is provided to support our European NESC colleagues in the development of these case studies. We
intend to use these case studies not only as part of the Irish NESC Council Paper, but also for the development of an event during Civil Society Week in March 2026.
To this end, we would be very grateful to receive completed case studies by Friday, 6th February 2026.

Country
Region / Country
Name of Initiative
Description of Initiative: Please provide a description of the initiative – the capability it aimed to promote or deficit it aimed to address, the
target groups, the anticipated outcomes, whether it was place-based, target-group based or national.
Objective(s) of Initiative: What were the stated objectives of the initiative?
How do these objectives further social cohesion?: To what aspect of social cohesion do these objectives relate?

APPENDIX 2: CASE STUDIES

The Left Behind

The Romanian National Housing Strategy 2022-2050 and Housing Opinion

Housing is a key determinant of social inclusion, with a direct impact on health, education,
labour market participation, and community life. Severe housing deprivation disproportionately
affects vulnerable groups (low-income individuals, large families, people with disabilities, the
elderly, and young people).
Romania is among the EU countries with the highest levels of severe housing deprivation. 9.6%
of the population lives in conditions of severe housing deprivation (overcrowding combined
with a lack of essential amenities – bathroom, adequate roof, natural light). Romania is surpassed
in this regard by Latvia, where the percentage is 11.5%. However, the trend is downward: from
19.8% (2015) to 14.2% (2020) and 9.6% (2023–2024), indicating a positive impact of certain
public policies and investments (Eurostat, various years).
Data from Eurobarometer (2025) on urban challenges indicates that 51% of respondents (urban
dwellers) identified the lack of affordable housing as an urgent problem, while the urban housing
sector faces insufficient supply, uneven quality, and pressure on prices.
Housing inadequacies not only affect material well-being, but also perceptions of the fairness
of the system, the effectiveness of public policies, and the ability of institutions to respond to
citizens’ needs.
The National Housing Strategy 2022-2050, initiated by the Ministry of Development Public
Works, and Administration, has four main pillars and, therefore, four areas of action: inclusive
housing, affordable housing, green transition, and strengthening administrative capacity. The
1990s witnessed a phenomenon of migration from urban to rural areas due to massive industrial
and economic transformations, with people no longer able to support themselves in urban
environments. Currently, however, jobs in small towns and rural areas are insufficient to provide
a decent standard of living, with the result that people are moving to large cities or leaving
the country. Thus, we have several types of problems specific to different social categories:
houses without utility connections in rural areas, overcrowding in urban apartments, and urban
overcrowding in large cities.
The ESC study “Housing in Romania”, initially proposed by civil society organisations, analyses a
number of problematic issues related to housing in Romania and recommends that policymakers
adopt ten key indicators relevant at the national level regarding quality housing. The study
covers the following aspects: major improvements that should be made to the national data
collection system on the housing of marginalised individuals and families; the introduction of
obligations and sanctions at the county and local authority level in the field of social housing;
the sustainability and energy efficiency of residential buildings, etc.
The National Housing Strategy 2022-2050 aligns its objectives with those of the UN2030
Agenda, namely to secure affordable housing, energy rehabilitation, and sustainable
development. The ESC opinion sought to draw the attention of decision-makers to the
importance of adopting such changes, taking into account the quality of housing, access to
quality housing for vulnerable groups, sustainable urban planning, and the energy efficiency of
buildings.

Minimum Basic Income in Spain

The Minimum Basic Income (MBI), introduced in 2020, is a social protection benefit within the
Spanish Social Security system designed to act as the final safety net. It provides a minimum,
uniform level of protection to individuals or households whose income falls below the annual
non-contributory pension, distributed in twelve monthly instalments. The guaranteed amounts
are updated annually according to household type.
The MBI aligns Spain with most European countries by introducing a benefit comparable to
existing minimum income schemes, aiming to standardise social protection nationwide, reduce
poverty, and prevent social exclusion.
The MBI includes a Child Support Supplement (Complemento de Ayuda para la Infancia –
CAPI) for households with children. It also incorporates automatic administrative channels and
coordination with the State Tax Administration Agency and municipal population registers to
enhance efficiency and reduce administrative burdens.
The MBI is national, with specific measures targeting low-income households, single-parent
families, and women in vulnerable situations.
The initiative has been analysed extensively in publications and reports by the Spanish
Economic and Social Council (CES), including the Annual Reports on the Socio-economic and
labour situation of Spain 2023 and 2024, enabling assessment of its implementation, evolution,
and impact.
Proposed and implemented by the Government of Spain, at the initiative of the Ministry of
Inclusion, Social Security and Migrations. The MBI emerged from longstanding concerns
regarding fragmented regional minimum income schemes, low coverage compared to EU
averages, and socio-economic inequalities. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the need for a
comprehensive social safety net.
In May 2020, during the COVID-19 crisis, the Government enacted Royal Decree-Law 20/2020
(29 May), establishing the MBI as an emergency social protection measure. This was later
formalised as a permanent benefit through Law 19/2021, consolidating its role within Spain’s
social protection system.
The objectives of the MBI are to:

Prevent poverty and social exclusion among individuals or households lacking sufficient
resources to cover basic needs.

Promote social and labour inclusion. The law frames the MBI as more than a financial
transfer; it is a tool to facilitate the transition from social exclusion to full social and
economic participation, supporting access to employment and social integration.

Address structural weaknesses in Spain’s income guarantee system.

Ensure territorial equality. Prior to the MBI, regional schemes varied widely in access,
coverage, and benefit amounts, creating territorial disparities. The MBI establishes a
minimum uniform level of protection across Spain.

Align national policy with EU guidance. Law 19/2021 explicitly references the European Pillar
of Social Rights (Principle 14), affirming the right to an adequate minimum income to ensure
a dignified life, combined with incentives for labour market participation.

These objectives promote social cohesion by reducing poverty and social exclusion, ensuring
equal opportunities across regions and genders, supporting households with children, and
helping prevent the intergenerational transmission of poverty. By providing a predictable and
uniform safety net, the MBI strengthens trust in public institutions and fosters a more inclusive
and equitable society.
Since it was launched, the MBI has reached 785,722 households and 2.4 million beneficiaries
as of November 2025, with an average monthly benefit of €470 per household and €155 per
individual. Approximately one million children and adolescents live in households receiving the
MBI. Around 70% of beneficiaries receive the Child Support Supplement, with 37% receiving
only this supplement, reflecting households whose income exceeds the basic MBI threshold but
remains below the CAPI threshold (set at 300% of the guaranteed MBI). The level of support
provided by the MBI has allowed beneficiaries to rise above the severe poverty threshold, a
benchmark that previous regional schemes generally failed to achieve. Overall, more than 3.3
million individuals have been covered since the program began, including 1.4 million children and
adolescents.
Despite these achievements, coverage challenges persist. According to AIReF, 73% of
households eligible for the CAPI and 56% of households eligible for the basic MBI do not receive
it, with key barriers including limited access to information, complex administrative language,
and fear of repayment. Administrative and legal challenges remain significant: roughly 10%
of applications generate prior claims, and litigation increased by 50% in 2024. Repayment
procedures for undue payments also face substantial delays, averaging ten monthly instalments.
The Economic and Social Council of Spain highlight some key outcomes of the MBI, including:

While the MBI is a milestone in Spain’s social protection system, further reinforcement and
long-term complementary policies are necessary to correct structural gender biases,
improve administrative efficiency, and reduce uncertainty for vulnerable households.

Minimum income benefits require both national and territorial coordination and
administrative simplification.

Coverage of vulnerable households depends on guidance, counselling, and technological
tools.

Feminisation of poverty is a structural issue requiring complementary policies.

Automation and use of administrative data can reduce non-take-up, shorten processing
times, and prevent undue repayments.

Employment incentives linked to the MBI must be clear, visible, and aligned with taxation.

Transition from fragmented regional schemes to a national uniform system can improve
efficiency but must avoid coverage gaps.

AIReF evaluations indicate that after nearly five years, coverage remains below 50%, with
an average processing time of 141 days in 2023. AI can enhance efficiency, accuracy, and
identification of social exclusion risks.

In 2025, new management tools were implemented, including the State System for the
Management of Social Services Information (SEGISS) and the State Information System for
Social Services (SIESS), enabling improved planning, resource allocation, and statistical
analysis by social services professionals.

Combatting Structural Social and Economic Exclusion in Bulgaria

The Economic and Social Council of Bulgaria collectively examines persistent forms of social
and economic exclusion in Bulgarian society, focusing on groups and communities that remain
systematically “left behind”, despite macroeconomic growth and rising employment. Through
this work, ESC Bulgaria identifies several overlapping dimensions of exclusion:

in-work poverty, where employment fails to secure a dignified standard of living;

educational inequality, limiting access to quality jobs and lifelong learning;

energy poverty, restricting access to basic energy services;

income and territorial inequalities, reinforcing cumulative disadvantage.

Rather than treating these phenomena separately, ESC Bulgaria’s analyses demonstrate that
“left-behindness” is structural and multidimensional, produced by the interaction of labour
market segmentation, unequal access to education, insufficient income protection and weak
territorial convergence.
The work is national in scope, but explicitly highlights place-based and group-specific patterns
of exclusion, affecting workers, children, low-educated adults, elderly persons, people with
disabilities and households in energy poverty.
The initiative was initiated through formal requests by national constitutional institutions,
including the National Assembly (working poverty and inequality analyses), and the President of
the Republic (education inequalities). Additionally, the opinion on energy poverty was developed
on ESC Bulgaria’s own initiative, reflecting emerging social risks linked to energy market reforms.
Ad hoc and standing committees were also established, involving experts and representatives
from employers’ organisations, trade unions, civil society representatives, supported by external
experts and official statistical data (NSI, EU-SILC, EU-LFS). All acts were debated and adopted
in plenary sessions, ensuring consensus-based conclusions.
The objectives of this work are to identify and quantify the groups left behind by current
economic and social models, including working poor households, energy-poor households and
individuals excluded from quality education and training; to demonstrate that employment,
as currently structured, does not guarantee social inclusion; to challenge the assumption that
labour market participation alone prevents poverty; to expose the role of educational inequality
in reproducing labour market and income disadvantage, particularly for children and young
people from vulnerable backgrounds; to assess the cumulative effects of income inequality,
energy poverty and weak social services on living standards and dignity; and to formulate
integrated policy recommendations aimed at reducing exclusion through income, education,
energy and social policy reforms.
These objectives further social cohesion by making visible groups that are economically
active yet socially excluded, particularly the working poor; highlighting how unequal access
to education translates into long-term labour market exclusion and low-income trajectories;
demonstrating that energy poverty deprives households of basic living conditions, undermining
health, dignity and participation in society; showing that inequalities accumulate across life
domains, reinforcing feelings of marginalisation and injustice; and framing exclusion as a
systemic governance challenge, rather than an individual failure.
ESC Bulgaria explicitly warns that the persistence of such exclusion undermines horizontal
cohesion between social groups and vertical trust in institutions, increasing the risk of social
fragmentation. Other outcomes included the clear identification of the working poor as
a structurally entrenched group, with rising in-work poverty despite employment growth;
evidence that educational inequalities strongly predict labour market exclusion, low wages
and vulnerability to poverty; quantification of energy poverty affecting nearly one-third of the
population, with Bulgaria ranking among the most affected EU countries; demonstration that
income inequality remains high and persistent, with limited corrective impact from existing
policies; and a coherent set of policy recommendations calling for integrated, cross-sectoral
action.
The key lessons for ESC Bulgaria in conducting this work are:

Employment without adequate income does not ensure inclusion – work can coexist with
poverty when wages, job quality and social protection are insufficient.

Education is a decisive factor in preventing long-term exclusion – unequal educational
outcomes lock individuals into low-quality employment and poverty cycles.

Energy poverty is a core dimension of social exclusion – lack of access to affordable energy
undermines basic living standards and social participation.

Left-behindness is cumulative and multidimensional – income, education, energy and
territorial inequalities reinforce one another.

Integrated policy responses are essential – fragmented sectoral policies cannot address
structurally embedded exclusion.

Cohesion Policy in Romania

Under the Cohesion Policy 2021-2027, Romania is implementing eight national programs, two of
which – the Inclusion and Social Dignity Program and Sustainable Development Program – relate
directly to the issues identified in this paper.
The Inclusion and Social Dignity Program (ISDP), with a total budget of €4.15 billion, includes
funding for integrated community centres; the development of social services in rural areas;
support for vulnerable groups, with an integrated approach (housing, health, education,
employment), amounting to approximately €800 million.
This program, initiated by the Ministry of European Investments and Projects, was based on an
analysis of Romania’s social situation – high levels of poverty, social exclusion, school dropout,
and limited access to social services for vulnerable groups. This analysis was then correlated
with the European Commission’s country-specific recommendations and with national and
European statistical data. The program was designed in line with the Cohesion Policy 2021–
2027, the European Pillar of Social Rights, and the objectives of the European Social Fund
Plus (the main funding instrument of the ISDP). The ISDP was approved by the European
Commission in 2022, becoming an official programming document for the period 2021–2027.
The objectives of the ISDP include:

Increasing access to social services: Developing social services at the local level, especially
in rural areas, to support vulnerable populations.

Improving service quality: Increasing the capacity and quality of social services for
vulnerable groups through adequate infrastructure and specialized personnel.

Community-led local development: Integrated multisectoral approach (education, health,
employment) for disadvantaged subregional areas.

Strengthening administrative capacity: Improving the capacity of local authorities to identify
needs and implement inclusion strategies.

The Sustainable Development Program (SDP), with a total budget of €5.25 billion, supports
investments in water and sanitation infrastructure; energy efficiency; improving living
conditions, including in disadvantaged communities.
The Romanian authorities also initiated the SDP in line with the objectives of the European
Green Deal, the European strategy on reducing pollution, and the UN’s Sustainable Development
Goals (Agenda 2030). In November 2022, the European Commission officially approved the
Sustainable Development Program 2021-2027, with a total allocation of approximately €5.2
billion for Romania.
The objectives of the SDP include:

Development of water and wastewater infrastructure and transition to a circular economy.

Environmental protection through biodiversity conservation, air quality assurance, and
remediation of contaminated sites.

Promotion of climate change adaptation and risk management.

Promotion of energy efficiency, smart energy systems and networks, and reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions.

These projects are still ongoing so it is therefore not possible to measure their impact, however
by June 2025, 91 projects were being financed through the ISDP, projects that included
investments in local infrastructure and equipment (in terms of education, sports, culture,
counselling) for community support centres for children in vulnerable communities, community
services to prevent children from being separated from their families. This would be the first
nationwide initiative to bring together infrastructure and social services for children at risk
of poverty, social exclusion, or dropping out of school. The existing data only shows that
the programs have advanced in the selection and contracting process, and the projects are
beginning to be approved for funding and signed with the beneficiaries. We know the expected
outcomes: reducing material deprivation and supporting children at risk of poverty; integrated
social services for rural communities without access to them; support for older people and
people with disabilities. One of the priorities within this Program is “Protecting the right to
social dignity”, which includes providing social housing for vulnerable people, with a focus on
people from informal settlements. However, this is still at the call for applications stage, and no
projects have yet been approved or funded here. Through this call, local authorities are invited
to submit projects that include: construction and/or financing of social housing, regulation
and improvement of the housing situation of people in informal settlements, social integration
measures through housing. This is the first call clearly focused on social housing within ISDP,
specifically for: vulnerable people, people living in informal settlements, supporting local
authorities in inclusive housing policies. The budget for this priority is 293 million euros.
In terms of the SDP, although the quality of housing itself is not the main objective of the
Program, there are already approved and funded projects that are expected to have indirect
effects on housing through the modernization and expansion of water and sewerage
infrastructure, so that homes have access to essential services and pollution is reduced in urban
and rural areas, improving the health and quality of the environment for residents. For example,
such projects are ongoing in two counties of Romania, Ilfov and Galați, connecting thousands
of homes to drinking water and sewerage systems. These investments improve the quality of
housing: less water loss, reduced risk of urban flooding, and proper sanitation. The program
includes projects dedicated to energy efficiency, particularly in public buildings. However, there
are no direct calls for the renovation of private homes (thermal insulation, more efficient heating
systems).

Sustainable Housing in Greece

Housing is a major social problem in Greece, accounting for almost 35% of households and
young people’s income. To support sustainable and affordable housing, the Greek government
has put in place a series of laws and regulations.
Law 5073/2023, introduced major changes regarding the taxation of Airbnb rentals. These
regulations also imposed restrictions on the duration of short-term leases, introduced a
new levy, and established stricter penalties for property owners who fail to comply. It was
further stipulated that owners of short-term rental properties are subject to differentiated tax
treatment depending on the number of properties they own.
Short-term lettings were also the subject of Law 5162/2024 (“Measures to strengthen income,
tax incentives for innovation and business transformations, and other provisions”), which
introduced a ban on short-term rentals for properties located within the historical centre of
Athens. The application of this provision is foreseen for other heavily burdened areas of the
country, as significant tax disincentives were introduced.
Restrictions were also introduced on so-called “Golden Visas”, which provide a permanent
residence permit to investors from third-country nations who meet certain conditions. The new
regulations provided for higher minimum investment thresholds in real estate, as well as other
specific regulations concerning investments.
Making housing affordable, also relates to energy affordability. In addition to the financing
actions provided through the Recovery and Resilience Facility for housing policy, which vary
across Member States, the European Union’s emphasis on energy efficiency has in recent years
been translated into multiple interventions aimed at the upgrading of buildings, dwellings, and
related infrastructure, based on specific criteria and targeted at particular groups (whether
defined by age, income, or geographical location). The main objective of these programmes
has been the reduction of the energy footprint, in line with the standards set by the European
RePowerEU initiative for reducing dependence on fossil fuels and on energy imports from third
countries (in response to the war in Ukraine).
The most important and most recent energy efficiency programmes targeting households are
outlined below.
The programme “Exoikonomo – Renovate for Youth”, with a total budget of €300 million. The
“Exoikonomo” component provides incentives for energy-saving interventions in the residential
building sector, while the “Renovate” component provides incentives for aesthetic, functional
renovation and upgrading of dwellings, as complementary to energy efficiency interventions.
During 2025, two special energy upgrading programmes for residential buildings have been
launched, targeting households, with particular emphasis on the most energy-vulnerable regions
of Central Macedonia and Epirus.
The creation of a new programme entitled “Upgrade My Home”, with the main objective of
improving the energy performance of older dwellings. The programme provides for the granting
of loans of up to €25,000 at zero interest, with a total budget of €400 million, of which €300
million is financed through the loan component of the Recovery and Resilience Facility and
€100 million through commercial banks.
More specifically for households, two new programmes were announced by the Ministry
of Environment and Energy, aiming at energy savings and the energy upgrading of building
infrastructure and equipment.
The projects, with a total budget of €910 million, are implemented under the action
“Energy efficiency and promotion of renewable energy sources for self-consumption” of
the National Recovery and Resilience Plan “Greece 2.0”, financed by the European Union –
NextGenerationEU.
Under the “Exoikonomo 2025” programme, the objective is to improve the energy class of
households—through an upgrade of at least three energy categories—so as to achieve primary
energy savings of more than 30% for each beneficiary residential building.
In 2026, Minister of Social Cohesion and Family announced the introduction of 6 new public
housing policies:

A large-scale scheme for the renovation of vacant dwellings – Subsidy of up to 90% of the
cost, with a maximum amount of €36,000.

Reimbursement of two months’ rent for approximately 50,000 public servants working
outside major urban centres.

Upgrading of municipal and state-owned properties for the housing of public employees,
financed through Regional Programmes, mainly in mountainous and island areas.

New restrictions on short-term rentals (Airbnb), including in the centre of Thessaloniki, in
order for properties to return to the long-term rental market.

Tax incentives for the construction or conversion of properties that are leased exclusively on
a long-term basis for at least 10 years, with a maximum rent ceiling.

Fast-track conversion of inactive or former industrial properties, in order to rapidly increase
the housing stock within the urban fabric.

The Economic and Social Council of Greece outlined a framework of proposals in seven key
areas of economic and social policy, aimed at addressing current housing needs in a sustainable
and socially inclusive way:

Establishment of an Institution for Social Housing

Utilisation of Vacant Properties

Quality Controls / Structural Capacity / Building Upgrading

Investments in New Housing / Renovations

Regulatory Framework for Short-Term Rentals and Golden Visa

Property Taxation alignments

Private Sector Housing Finance / Management of Non-Performing Loans

While it is very soon to evaluate the extent and effectiveness of the Bills since it is only one year
after the implementation, real estate prices and housing rents are still increasing (gradually at a
decreasing rate) and other factors also affect the affordability of households (inflation, increase
in construction costs etc).
The Greek ESC claims no direct link between the opinions of ESC Greece and the legislation
procedures – social dialogue is a political procedure with various dimensions- it is obvious that
many of the implemented actions that have been adopted, are originated back to the ESC
proposals. Some of them have been technically parameterized, others have been adopted as
such (for instance the proposal for social housing organization and golden VISA constraints).

Citizenship and Inclusion Against Racism in Spain

The Strategic Framework for Citizenship and Inclusion against Racism and Xenophobia
(2023–2027) is Spain’s main national policy instrument for addressing social exclusion, racism,
xenophobia, and the structural inequalities affecting migrants and people of migrant origin.
It serves as the state-level roadmap for promoting social integration and preventing racism
and xenophobia, which constitute one of the four core pillars of Spanish immigration and
foreigner policy. While immigration is often perceived as the second most important problem
in Spain, it has in fact been a key driver of demographic and economic growth in recent years.
The framework builds upon and unifies previous national strategies, including the II Plan of
Citizenship and Integration (2011–2014) and the comprehensive strategy against racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia, and related forms of intolerance.
The initiative aims to promote equal access to social rights, public services, and civic
participation, while strengthening social coexistence in an increasingly diverse society. It
targets the general population through an intercultural approach, while also identifying specific
groups at higher risk of being left behind. These include migrant women, asylum seekers and
beneficiaries of international protection, unaccompanied minors, people of Latin American,
African, Asian, and Roma origin, as well as individuals experiencing discrimination based on their
religious beliefs or practices.
The framework is structured around six policy areas: victim support and redress, legal and
regulatory action, reception, active inclusion policies, coexistence, and prevention of racism and
xenophobia. These are implemented through twenty-three lines of action, each associated with
specific tactical objectives and proposals for action at the national, regional, and local levels,
highlighting the multi-level dimension of the policy.
One of the framework’s main added values is the development of a robust, participatory, and
consensus-based diagnosis of recent migration trends in Spain. This assessment, carried out
with the participation of key experts and organizations, identifies the strengths and weaknesses
of existing policies and sets the priorities and areas for action. To support implementation, the
framework establishes a dedicated monitoring and evaluation system, including a follow-up
committee, a panel of indicators to measure progress, annual reporting, mid-term and final
evaluations, thematic studies, and recognition of good practices.
Overall, the MECIRX 2023–2027 provides a comprehensive, evidence-based, and participatory
foundation to guide coordinated action across all levels of government, ensuring that social
inclusion, anti-discrimination, and intercultural coexistence policies are coherent, targeted, and
capable of addressing the needs of Spain’s increasingly diverse population.
Promoted by the Government of Spain, specifically by the Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security
and Migration through the Secretariat of State for Migration, the MECIRX was developed in
response to recognized structural gaps in the network of immigration offices, with contributions
from regional and local administrations, social partners and civil society organisations, and
responds to commitments arising from EU and international human rights and anti-racism
instruments.
The objectives of the MECIRX are:

Promote full social, economic and civic inclusion of migrants and people of migrant origin.

Prevent social exclusion, segregation and discrimination.

Strengthen coexistence, intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding.

Reduce administrative delays in immigration and nationality procedures.

Ensure that by 2027 all autonomous communities and at least 40% of municipalities have
integration and/or anti-racism and anti-xenophobia action plans in place.

These objectives contribute to social cohesion by reducing structural inequalities between
population groups, improving access to rights and public services, and strengthening trust
between institutions and citizens. By addressing discrimination and administrative barriers, the
initiative seeks to prevent marginalisation and foster a shared sense of belonging within the
Spanish society.
The objectives relate primarily to inclusion, equality of opportunity, social justice, and
coexistence in diversity. They also support institutional trust and civic participation, which are
key dimensions of long-term social cohesion.
As the framework is still under implementation, outcomes remain preliminary.
According to monitoring evidence, including the First Monitoring Report (February 2025) and
assessments by the Economic and Social Council of Spain, the main added value of the MECIRX
2023–2027 has been the development of a robust, shared and evidence-based diagnosis
of recent migration trends in Spain. This diagnosis was built through a participatory process
involving key experts and organisations and provides a clear assessment of the strengths and
weaknesses of existing migration, inclusion and anti-discrimination policies, as well as of the
priority objectives and areas for action.
At the same time, monitoring evidence points to improved coordination at national level and
the establishment of indicators and evaluation tools. However, significant challenges persist.
Structural inequalities in education, employment, housing and access to basic public services
remain widespread, and implementation has been uneven across territories. Engagement by
autonomous communities and local authorities—central actors in citizenship and integration
policies-has been limited, constraining the framework’s operational impact.
Administrative fragmentation, insufficient coordination between immigration authorities, digital
barriers and continued delays in immigration and residence procedures further constrain its
effectiveness, despite targeted reinforcement measures.
The Economic and Social Council of Spain conducted an in-depth study of migration in
Spain, Report 01/2025: The Migratory Reality in Spain. Priorities for Public Policy, including an
analysis of the implementation of MECIRX 2023–2027. Based on this study and broader policy
experience, several key lessons can be drawn:

Strong multi-level governance is essential: National migration and inclusion strategies
require sustained political commitment, adequate funding, and operational capacity at
regional and local levels to avoid territorial inequalities.

Inclusion must be embedded across social policies: Anti-discrimination measures are
effective only when combined with equal access to housing, employment, education,
healthcare, and social services.

Administrative coordination and efficiency matter: Better coordination between immigration
authorities, common administrative standards, simplified procedures, and faster, more
homogeneous response times are crucial to ensure access to rights and meet labour market
needs.

A broad institutional consensus is needed: As highlighted by the Economic and Social
Council of Spain, progress towards a State Pact on migration and inclusion could strengthen
cooperation, coordination, and institutional loyalty among public administrations, political
and social actors, and the media, supporting a balanced, comprehensive, and nationally
adapted migration policy within the European framework.

Adequate resources and forward-looking planning are critical: Social policies and public
resource allocation must incorporate demographic change and evolving needs linked to
migration to prevent perceptions of unfairness and protect social cohesion.

Digitalisation must be inclusive: Technological modernisation should reduce administrative
burdens without creating new barriers linked to the digital divide or territorial disparities.

Shared responsibility strengthens outcomes: Durable integration policies require broad
institutional consensus, active involvement of regional and local authorities, and a
complementary but well-supported role for civil society.

The role of civil society must be complementary and supported: The third sector plays an
important role in implementation and outreach, but structural organisational and funding
constraints limit its effectiveness, and public administrations must retain primary
responsibility for guaranteeing rights and policy coherence.

Investing in migrant children and youth is strategic: Their social inclusion is central to longterm social cohesion and must be addressed through coordinated, cross-sectoral policies.

Promoting a shared vision is essential: According to the Economic and Social Council of Spain,
it is necessary to promote a balanced and realistic shared vision that recognises and normalises
immigration as a structural feature of our societies and highlights the value of coexistence in
a diversity of origins. This requires addressing its challenges through dialogue and consensus-building, which are essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of social integration and
coexistence policies.

Civil Society Research and Recommendations to Support Marginalised Communities in France

In its opinions, the ESEC has worked on and issued concrete recommendations that directly
affect the lives of organisations, the methods of financing public policies and the indicators
used to steer them in order to address social divisions, particularly in the most disadvantaged
neighbourhoods. Examples of these recommendations were provided as follows:

In its opinion on social rights: access and effectiveness (2024), the ESEC emphasises the
effectiveness of social rights, which guarantee human dignity, social inclusion and the
exercise of citizenship, and which are a major challenge for democracy and social cohesion.
Guaranteeing access to these rights depends largely on the mediation work of social
workers and all professions that come into contact with beneficiaries. This is why it is
imperative to remedy the crisis in social work, care, youth work and education, which is
resulting in a loss of attractiveness in these sectors. In its opinion on social cohesion
professions (2022), the ESEC analysed the reasons for the decline in interest in these
professions, which are nevertheless chosen for their meaning and usefulness. In addition to
low pay, the deterioration in working conditions and excessive administrative burdens have
emerged as major obstacles. The ESEC recommends strengthening management dialogue
with professionals and user representatives, and reducing reporting tasks in favour of
service activities. The crisis in vocations in the care sector is particularly worrying for people
at risk of mental health problems, which became a major national cause in France in 2025-2026. The opinion Mental Health And Well-Being Of Children And Young People: A Societal Challenge (2025) recommends, in particular, a massive training and recruitment plan for
child psychiatrists in order to meet growing demand, especially in the most vulnerable areas.

The opinion Supporting autonomy: needs and funding (2024) emphasises that demographic
change will result in a sharp increase in the number of people losing their autonomy, leaving
certain social groups without the resources to meet the funding needs identified in an
ageing society where poverty has increased. It identified possible financing scenarios,
recommending that stable resources be provided to cover the benefits provided under a
new branch of social security (after illness, accidents at work and occupational diseases, old
age and family).

The opinion Success at school, success for schools (2024) made a series of
recommendations to reduce inequalities, whose multifaceted and cumulative nature
explains a feeling that social and territorial divisions are worsening. Among these
recommendations, for example, the implementation of a multi-year plan to establish genuine
social diversity between and within schools, with the aim of reducing the social position
index gaps calculated by the Ministry of National Education by 30%.

The opinion ‘From the trivialisation of verbal violence to hate speech aimed to combat new
factors that undermine social cohesion. Understanding the issue to take more effective
action to restore social cohesion’ (2025) focused on combating the spread of verbal abuse
and hate speech in a society where social media has given rise to a new form of (cyber)
bullying. In addition to strengthening support for parenting to accompany and inform
parents in their educational roles, as well as training policies for actors in a position to act
and prevent such violence, the ESEC recommended the creation of an independent body
dedicated to combating online hate, under the aegis of Arcom, the independent French
administrative authority responsible for regulating audiovisual and digital communication.

Finally, the ESEC highlighted the profound transformation of the model for financing
associations over the last two decades, marked by the rise of competitive logic, the
commodification of activities and the imposition of profitability requirements to the
detriment of freedom of action for associations, under the influence of European
competition rules in particular. Associations offer citizens spaces for engagement, meeting
and action in the public interest. Thus, after addressing the issue of volunteering, a factor
of social cohesion and active citizenship (opinion on Volunteering, social cohesion and
citizenship, 2022), The opinion Strengthening the funding of associations: a democratic
emergency (2024) recommends rebuilding a European framework that is favourable to non-profit organisations, recognising non-profit association activities as being in the general
interest in the European sense. Finally, it should be noted that many of these activities are
carried out in the field of culture, which cannot continue to be considered solely as a
commodity: it is the foundation of societies and their cohesion.

Intergenerational Fairness

New Longevity Societies in Portugal

The New Longevity Societies initiative is a multiannual, cross-border project developed under
the Interreg Spain-Portugal (POCTEP) 2021-2027 Programme in response to one of the
most profound transformations affecting the Iberian Peninsula: population ageing. Rising life
expectancy, persistently low fertility rates and growing territorial imbalances are reshaping
societies on both sides of the border, creating new opportunities while also exposing structural
risks related to inequality, dependency and social fragmentation.
The initiative is implemented within the institutional framework of the Interreg Spain-Portugal
(POCTEP) 2021-2027 Programme, with the participation of the Economic and Social Council
of Portugal (CES), the Fundación General de la Universidad de Salamanca (FGUSAL) and
the Polytechnic Institute of Bragança (IPB). Within the Portuguese component, the CES
plays a central role by commissioning academic studies through public procurement and
integrating their findings into social dialogue processes, including specialised committees and
plenary deliberations. Scientific coordination is ensured by an independent academic expert,
guaranteeing methodological robustness and coherence across the different analytical strands.
Rather than treating longevity solely as a demographic challenge, the project seeks to reframe
longer lives as a strategic social and economic asset. Coordinated through a partnership
between Spanish and Portuguese academic and institutional actors, the initiative aims to build
a robust, evidence-based understanding of how ageing populations affect economies, health
systems, care arrangements and social cohesion. At the same time, it addresses the conditions
under which increased longevity can translate into healthier, more autonomous and socially
inclusive life years.
At the core of the project are three complementary analytical pillars, developed through
academic studies commissioned by the Portuguese Economic and Social Council (CES). The
first pillar focuses on the longevity economy, analysing the contribution of the population aged
50 and over to consumption, GDP, employment, labour income and public finances. This analysis
challenges dominant narratives that portray ageing primarily as a fiscal burden, demonstrating
instead the central role older age groups play in economic value creation.
The second pillar examines the relationship between life expectancy and healthy life years.
While people are living longer, the studies reveal a persistent gap between years lived and years
lived in good health. Particular attention is paid to inequalities by gender, socioeconomic status
and territory, using both conventional and multidimensional health indicators. This approach
highlights how physical, mental, cognitive and social health jointly shape ageing outcomes.
The third pillar, currently under development, explores the care economy. It analyses the
organisation, sustainability and future challenges of care systems in ageing societies, including
the balance between formal and informal care, workforce availability, and the adequacy of
social infrastructure. Together, these three strands provide an integrated evidence base on the
systemic nature of longevity and its implications for social cohesion.
The objectives of the initiative are closely aligned with this holistic approach. The project seeks
to generate robust, multidisciplinary evidence on the social, economic and health implications
of population ageing; to assess whether longer lives are being converted into healthy and
autonomous years; to quantify the economic contribution of older populations; and to identify
structural inequalities related to gender, income, education and territory. By doing so, it aims to
inform public policies on ageing, health, care and social protection at both national and cross-border levels, while supporting strategic dialogue among policymakers, social partners and civil society.
In terms of social cohesion, the New Longevity Societies project contributes most directly
through the lenses of intergenerational fairness and the prevention of exclusion. From an
intergenerational perspective, it underlines that longer lives must be matched by sustained
investments in health, care and functional ability to ensure fairness between generations and
the long-term sustainability of welfare systems. The project promotes a life-course approach,
recognising that inequalities accumulated earlier in life strongly influence outcomes in older age.
From the perspective of those at risk of being left behind, the studies reveal significant
disparities within ageing populations. Women, low-income groups, individuals with lower
educational attainment and residents of less advantaged regions are disproportionately affected
by poorer health outcomes and reduced autonomy in later life. By identifying modifiable
determinants such as physical inactivity, income insecurity, unequal access to care and gaps in
care provision, the project supports more inclusive, preventive and territorially sensitive policy
responses.
To date, the project has already delivered two major analytical outputs and is advancing a
third. The findings demonstrate the substantial economic contribution of the population
aged 50 and over, identify a pronounced gap between life expectancy and healthy life years –
particularly affecting women and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups – and confirm the
multidimensional nature of healthy ageing. Ongoing work on the care economy is expected
to further inform debates on the sustainability and adequacy of care systems in long-lived
societies. These results are feeding directly into institutional opinions, public debates and
dissemination activities foreseen under the project.
Several key lessons emerge from the initiative. Longevity must be understood as a systemic
transformation affecting economies, health systems, care arrangements and social relations
simultaneously. Increased life expectancy without corresponding investments in health and
care risks deepening inequalities and undermining social cohesion. Gender and socioeconomic
disparities accumulated over the life course play a decisive role in shaping outcomes in older
age.
Finally, integrating economic, health and care perspectives – and embedding them within
social dialogue institutions – is essential for translating academic evidence into inclusive policy
debates and sustainable public action in emerging longevity societies.

Integrated Analysis of Demographic Change and Pension System Sustainability as a Foundation for Intergenerational Fairness in Bulgaria

Between 2022-2024, the Economic and Social Council of Bulgaria (ESC Bulgaria) has
conducted work focusing on the long-term sustainability of the pension system and
the demographic foundations of social policy. This work seeks to address structural
intergenerational imbalance arising from rapid population ageing, sustained population decline,
shrinking cohorts of working-age contributors, increasing dependency ratios, and growing
pressure on solidarity-based social systems.
ESC Bulgaria’s analyses frame these developments not as isolated sectoral problems, but
as systemic risks to intergenerational fairness, understood as the equitable distribution of
rights, responsibilities, and life chances between older generations, the current working-age
population, and future generations.
The work, which was initiated through formal requests from national constitutional institutions,
including the National Assembly (for the pension system analysis), and the President of the
Republic (for the demographic and regional development analyses). ESC Bulgaria established
Ad hoc Committees, bringing together experts and representatives of employers, workers
and trade unions, and civil society. These committees conducted in-depth analytical work,
combining official statistical data, long-term demographic projections, socio-economic analysis,
and comparative European perspectives. The analyses were debated and adopted through
plenary sessions of ESC Bulgaria, ensuring consensus-oriented conclusions. It is national in
scope, evidence-based, and rooted in demographic, economic and social data, while explicitly
recognising strong territorial disparities in demographic ageing, labour market participation and
access to services.
The objectives of the work were to safeguard the long-term adequacy and financial
sustainability of the pension system without transferring disproportionate burdens to younger
and future generations; restore balance between contributions and rights across generations,
reinforcing the fairness of the solidarity principle in public pension schemes; mitigate the
negative social and fiscal effects of demographic ageing and depopulation, particularly in
regions experiencing demographic exhaustion; promote long-term, predictable and socially
legitimate policy solutions, avoiding short-term decisions with long-lasting intergenerational
consequences; and integrate demographic considerations across social, labour market,
education and regional policies, recognising their cumulative impact on future generations.
These objectives further social cohesion by seeking to prevent intergenerational conflict by
addressing the growing mismatch between the number of contributors and beneficiaries
in social systems; reinforcing solidarity across age groups, ensuring that today’s younger
generations retain confidence that their contributions will translate into future social rights; and
promoting social sustainability, recognising that persistent demographic decline and regional
inequalities undermine cohesion not only between social groups. ESC Bulgaria explicitly warns
that failure to address demographic ageing and pension sustainability risks eroding trust
between generations, weakening the social contract underpinning democratic societies.
All of this work resulted in a comprehensive diagnosis of intergenerational risks embedded
in Bulgaria’s current demographic and pension trajectories; clear identification of policy
decisions with short-term horizons but long-term intergenerational costs, particularly in
pension indexation, contribution rates and ad hoc compensatory measures; a coherent set of
recommendations aimed at restoring intergenerational balance, including strengthening the
contributory principle, improving financial literacy and transparency of pension rights, better
synchronisation between labour market, education and social policies, and adopting long-term
demographic governance approaches; and increased visibility of regional demographic decline
as an intergenerational justice issue, not merely a territorial one.
The key learnings for ESC Bulgaria are:

Intergenerational fairness is inseparable from demographic governance – ESC Bulgaria
demonstrates that social cohesion across generations cannot be achieved without explicit,
long-term demographic strategies.

Short-term social compensation can undermine long-term fairness – policy measures aimed
at immediate relief may shift disproportionate costs onto younger and future generations if
not carefully designed.

Pension systems are intergenerational contracts – their legitimacy depends on a credible
balance between solidarity and individual contribution over time.

Territorial and intergenerational inequalities reinforce each other – regions experiencing
demographic decline today face compounded risks for future generations. Evidence-based
social dialogue is essential for intergenerational cohesion – broad societal consensus is
necessary to sustain reforms whose benefits accrue over decades.

Trust and Legitimacy

Consultation and Social Dialogue in Belgium

Belgium’s system of consultation and social dialogue is built on a deeply institutionalised and
structured framework that has evolved over decades into one of the country’s core pillars of
social cohesion. Known as the Belgian model of consultation and social dialogue, this system
is organised around three complementary and interconnected levels: the interprofessional, the
sectoral, and the company level.
At the interprofessional level, the Central Economic Council (CCE) and the National Labour
Council (CNT) provide a national forum where employers’ organisations and trade unions jointly
analyse economic developments and negotiate overarching social and labour frameworks. This
level sets the strategic direction for socio-economic governance, grounding decision-making
in shared analyses and long-term perspectives. The sectoral level, through joint committees
and specialised advisory bodies, translates these general frameworks into rules adapted to
the realities of specific industries. Finally, at company level, works councils, committees for
prevention and protection at work, and trade union delegations ensure direct participation by
workers in matters affecting their daily working conditions.
Together, these three levels form a permanent, organised and inclusive mechanism that
allows social partners to participate meaningfully in the development of economic and social
policies. Far beyond the regulation of labour relations, the system promotes mutual trust, a
culture of compromise and strong institutional stability. It applies across the entire country
and covers all employers and workers, making it the primary framework for wage formation,
working conditions, work organisation, occupational health and well-being, training rights, career
transitions, and the prevention of social conflict.
The legal backbone of this model is the Act of 5 December 1968 on collective agreements and
joint committees. This legislation guarantees the representativeness of social partners, gives
collective agreements binding force, and allows for their mandatory extension across sectors. By
doing so, it ensures that negotiated outcomes are applied consistently throughout the economy
and that social dialogue produces concrete, enforceable results.
The objectives of the Belgian model are both economic and social. It seeks to provide a
predictable and stable framework for collective labour relations, ensure inclusive socio-economic governance through structured participation, and prevent social conflicts before they
escalate. By relying on the economic analyses produced by the CCE, the model guides wage
formation in a way that balances fairness with economic sustainability. It also addresses long-term challenges such as intergenerational justice, pensions, lifelong learning and sustainable
working conditions, while strengthening trust between public institutions, employers and
workers through a coherent, multi-level negotiation architecture.
These objectives contribute directly to social cohesion. First, the model strengthens legitimacy
and trust by fostering transparency and predictability. Decisions at the interprofessional level are
based on shared economic diagnoses, which helps limit tensions and reinforces confidence in
outcomes. Agreements adopted by the CNT are traditionally unanimous, further enhancing their
legitimacy and acceptance across society.
Second, the system ensures that no groups are left behind. Sectoral and company-level
consultation mechanisms provide comprehensive protection even in more vulnerable
sectors, guaranteeing minimum working conditions, access to training and development, and
opportunities for direct participation at workplace level. By reducing disparities between sectors
and companies, the model helps prevent socio-professional exclusion.
Third, intergenerational justice is embedded in the system. Interprofessional agreements
address structural issues that affect multiple generations, including the sustainability of pension
systems, work-life balance through thematic leave, continuing education, career transitions, and
working conditions that allow people to remain active throughout their working lives.
The outcomes of this approach are widely recognised as positive. Belgium has enjoyed long-term social stability and relatively low levels of social conflict, alongside very broad collective
agreement coverage that includes virtually all workers. The economic analyses of the CCE have
strengthened the legitimacy of socio-economic decisions, while company-level bodies such
as works councils and prevention committees have reinforced trust on the ground. The model
has also shown a high degree of resilience in times of crisis, including during the COVID-19
pandemic and periods of high inflation, enabling coordinated and balanced responses. Its ability
to connect national priorities with sectoral and local realities enhances both the relevance and
effectiveness of decisions.
Several key lessons emerge from this experience. Stable institutions create trust by enhancing
predictability and continuity, as illustrated by the long-standing roles of the CCE and the CNT.
Shared diagnosis is a powerful lever of legitimacy: common analytical tools, such as the CCE’s
Technical Report guiding wage standard negotiations, provide a neutral basis for compromise. A
multi-level approach promotes inclusion by allowing adaptation to sector-specific realities while
preserving national coherence and minimum protections. Although demanding, consensus-based decision-making strengthens cohesion by ensuring lasting commitment from all parties.
A robust legal framework is essential to guarantee enforceability and uniform implementation.
Finally, dialogue must be continuous rather than occasional: it is the permanence of
consultation, analysis and negotiation that builds enduring trust and underpins stable and
legitimate socio-economic governance in Belgium.

Citizen Engagement in France

The 2021 constitutional reform gives the French ESEC public consultation tasks that
systematise the use of citizen participation tools. It has organised two citizens’ conventions, the
first on end-of-life care (2023) and the second on children’s time (2025) and was involved in the
one on climate (2020). It also involves citizens in its deliberations when seeking their opinions.
During the 2021-2026 term of office, 60,000 citizens took part in the institution’s work.
The Citizens’ Convention on Children’s Time, which concluded on 23 November 2025, put the
issue of school timetables back on the political agenda, along with other time devoted to rest,
leisure and family. Over a period of six months, during seven working sessions, 133 citizens
selected at random, representing the diversity of French society, identified solutions to better
organise children’s time according to their biological needs. One of the cross-cutting issues
that was considered was that of social inequalities, which are likely to increase without a diverse
and rich range of educational activities designed within the framework of a public service. The
subject of children’s access to social networks was also addressed. The citizens drew up a
report containing 20 proposals for public decision-makers, supplemented by a report written by
20 young people aged 12 to 17, selected at random on a voluntary basis and brought together
during two dedicated sessions.
The Citizens’ Convention on End-of-Life Care is another example of success. It brought
together 184 randomly selected citizens who responded to the question posed by the Prime
Minister: “Is the end-of-life care framework appropriate for the different situations encountered,
or should it be modified?” Many of the measures recommended by the Citizens’ Convention
were included in a draft bill: the creation of end-of-life care homes; conditional assistance in
dying for terminally ill patients; the inclusion in the bill of advance directives and the role of the
trusted person; and the establishment of training programmes for healthcare professionals. The
French Parliament will resume discussions in April 2026 to adopt the law on this subject.
These citizens’ conventions have fuelled extensive exchanges with ESEC members, who have
simultaneously issued opinions on each of these topics: End of life: should the law be changed?
(2023) and Meeting children’s basic needs and guaranteeing their rights in all aspects of their
daily lives (2025).
The French ESEC is thus experimenting with new ways of consulting civil society, enhanced
by the contribution of citizen deliberations. The challenge is to overcome the divide between
organised civil society, represented by members appointed by their organisations to sit on a
dedicated constitutional institution, and civil society represented by citizens chosen at random.

Social Dialogue and Transparency in Bulgaria

The Economic and Social Council of Bulgaria have adopted as series of measures to promote
transparency and institutionalise social dialogue which aim to build trust between citizens,
civil society and public institutions in the context of political polarisation, crisis governance
and major strategic reforms. They focus on legitimacy as a process, emphasising meaningful
participation of organised civil society in decision-making, transparency and predictability of
public policies, open communication to counter disinformation, and protection of democratic
freedoms as prerequisites for public trust. This focus seeks to address three interconnected
legitimacy challenges:
i. Crisis governance, where ad hoc institutional responses risk excluding civic actors;
ii. Democratic backsliding risks, exemplified by legislative initiatives restricting civil society;
iii. Low public trust in strategic reforms, particularly Bulgaria’s accession to the Euro Area.
The initiative was initiated through a combination of ESC Bulgaria’s own-initiative analyses and
resolutions, covering areas such as civil society interaction, the Foreign Agents Act, and Euro
Area accession, alongside requests from national institutions, including the National Assembly
and the Council of Ministers, as well as mandated communication responsibilities related to
Euro Area accession. Ad hoc and standing committees were established and supported by
external experts and evidence-based research, bringing together employers’ organisations, trade
unions, and civil society organisations. All acts were adopted through plenary sessions, ensuring
consensus-oriented positions.
These dialogue and transparency processes contribute to social cohesion by reinforcing vertical
trust between citizens and institutions through inclusive, consultative policymaking; reducing
polarisation by ensuring that diverse social interests are represented and heard; protecting
civic space, which underpins citizens’ confidence in democratic systems; enhancing procedural
fairness by demonstrating that decisions are negotiated rather than imposed; and building
resilience against disinformation, which erodes trust and social cohesion. In this context, ESC
Bulgaria explicitly identifies trust, openness, and dialogue as essential prerequisites for effective
crisis response and long-term democratic stability.
They resulted in the development of a coherent framework for institutionalised civic
participation in crisis management, clear normative opposition to legislation undermining
democratic legitimacy, reinforcing constitutional safeguard, a unified social partner position
supporting Euro Area accession, enhancing policy credibility, expanded public communication
tools (digital platforms, podcasts, interactive services) improving transparency and accessibility,
and increased recognition of organised civil society as a trust-building intermediary between
institutions and citizens.
The key learnings for the Bulgarian ESC are:

Legitimacy depends on process, not only outcomes – inclusive decision-making enhances
acceptance even in contested reforms.

Civic space is essential for democratic trust – restrictive legislation undermines legitimacy
and social cohesion.

Transparency and communication are governance tools – proactive information reduces
uncertainty and misinformation.

Social dialogue strengthens crisis resilience – trust-based cooperation improves response
effectiveness.

Institutionalised participation builds long-term legitimacy – stable mechanisms outperform
ad hoc consultations.