What happens when social investment stops being a common policy?

In other articles, we have already explained what the “Europe of people” is and why the European Social Fund (ESF) is one of the main tools to make it possible—so that we understand that the conversation before us goes far beyond a budgetary decision.

If you haven’t read them yet, you can check The Europe for People? and The European Social Fund: What it is and why it matters

And the question is no longer only about how much money will be allocated to social policies. The issue now is: what happens when social investment stops being a common European policy and increasingly depends on national priorities?

While the European Union negotiates the new Multiannual Financial Framework 2028–2035, the first drafts propose a deep restructuring of the funds, with a greater concentration of resources and more flexible management through large national and regional plans.

On paper, the main goal is to simplify processes and improve efficiency. But in practice, several specialized social organizations have already expressed growing concern that this simplification could end up weakening one of the elements that distinguishes the European project: its social dimension.

What if social policy loses its own dedicated space?

Until now, the European Social Fund has made it possible to define shared rules, common objectives, social priorities, and minimum investment requirements in social inclusion and the fight against poverty—acting as a common guarantee for equal opportunities. This model ensured that certain rights did not depend exclusively on the political or economic situation of each country.

However, if social policies become part of broader and less specific budgetary instruments (such as National and Regional Partnership Plans), an obvious risk emerges: that they will compete with other priorities and be considered less relevant, and therefore less protected.

And this is not just an administrative issue. When common frameworks disappear, common guarantees can disappear as well.

The same old problem: A Europe moving at different speeds

One of the structural principles on which Europe has historically been built is economic, social, and territorial cohesion, which—in practice—means reducing inequalities between people and regions to ensure more equitable access to opportunities and rights.

In this sense, decentralizing the governance of social funds could generate greater differences between Member States, since the very definition of social policies could be shaped by national economic contexts, political shifts, or electoral cycles. All of this would significantly weaken shared protection frameworks.

This risk, in the current context—where more than 93 million people in Europe are at risk of poverty or social exclusion—is raising concern among social organizations and specialized actors. Because situations of vulnerability do not disappear when political priorities change, and—as numerous studies show—poverty and persistent inequalities have cumulative effects on employment, health, education, and social participation.

Moreover, the costs of allowing these inequalities to become entrenched are often higher than the investments needed to prevent them.

One of the tools that helps measure the real impact of social programs is the Integrated Social Value (ISV), which quantifies in economic terms the value generated by interventions beyond the initial investment. At Acción contra el Hambre, we use this model to evaluate our programs, and the results show that investing in prevention has a multiplier effect: in 2024, for every euro received, our initiatives generated €3.77 in social and economic return, 9.3 times more than in 2016.

What role do specialized social organizations play?

Another concern is the role of specialized organizations, since the current ESF management model has allowed social entities, public administrations, economic actors, and the European Commission to work together to implement programs tailored to people’s needs.

In Spain in particular—where legislation allows social organizations to manage calls for proposals—reducing their role could mean a diminished capacity to reach those who need support the most. Proximity is hard to replace.

In the case of Acción contra el Hambre, our work with the ESF has allowed us to support more than 50,000 people in Spain through employment, entrepreneurship, and food security programs aimed at young people, long-term unemployed individuals, women, people over 50, and families in vulnerable situations.

Because specialized organizations work precisely where standard interventions are not enough. Because guarantees of opportunities and rights must be part of shared frameworks. Because dedicated funding is essential. And because the moment to defend social policies in Europe for the coming decade is now.

It is our turn to answer the question: “What kind of Europe do we want to build?”