Overcoming the subsidiarity reflex? Sweden, the Netherlands and the making of social Europe

Since the launch of the European Pillar of Social Rights in 2017, the EU has witnessed a marked revival in social policy-making. Existing research highlights the role of institutional entrepreneurs and advocacy coalitions, but tends to overlook the dynamics within Member States themselves. This paper examines how and why support for EU social policy has evolved among two long-standing sceptics: Sweden and the Netherlands. In the 2000s and early 2010s, both exhibited a strong ‘subsidiarity reflex’ aimed at shielding domestic welfare and labour-market institutions, yet their trajectories have diverged significantly in recent years. Sweden has remained defensive and increasingly politicised in its stance, whereas the Netherlands has shifted toward a more constructive and strategically engaged approach. Drawing on interviews with ministers, officials and social partner organisations, complemented by government documents, parliamentary records and secondary sources, we trace how national positions have developed across key EU social initiatives. We argue that neither institutional misfit nor politics alone can explain these divergent patterns. Instead, differences in administrative coordination – shaping opportunities for bureaucratic learning, strategic recalibration and cognitive reframing – are crucial for understanding how Member States navigate the expanding EU social agenda. The analysis shows that preferences for ‘social Europe’ are more contingent and adaptable than accounts focused on structural interests or party politics suggest. By opening the black box of national EU coordination processes, the paper advances debates on the drivers of social integration and demonstrates how internal administrative dynamics condition the capacity of governments to engage with, resist or reinterpret EU-level social policy initiatives.