In the mid-1990s, welfare states in Europe were under acute strain. Unemployment had risen dramatically (Trubek/Mosher 2001, 6) and in 1997, 18 per cent of the population of the European Union (EU) lived in a household below the relative income poverty threshold (Armstrong 2010, 1). Although social policies were traditionally tasks of the nation-states, an increasing “Europeanization” of “social exclusion” and the inability of the member states to act in an increasing multi-level governance context led to the need for actions on a European level (Armstrong 2010, 2).
The start was made with the “European Employment Strategy” (EES) (Trubek/Mosher 2001, 6), which became, due to its success, (Trubek/Trubek 2005, 349-351) the forerunner of the “Open Method of Coordination” (OMC) (Sabel/Zeitlin 2008, 289). The OMC, like the EES, is an Instrument of governance in the EU, which is based on voluntary cooperation and rests on soft law mechanism (Borrás/Jacobsson 2004, 189). Armstrong describes the function of the OMC in his Book about European policy coordination as follows: “The function of the OMC is not to make policy itself but rather to provide a framework within which states are encouraged to identify policy problems and to seek solutions either within their own domestic systems or by learning from the experience of others” (Armstrong 2010, 9). The reason for this soft law solution was the lack of political support for further transfers of legal competencies to the EU in social areas (Borrás/Jacobsson 2004, 190). But precisely because of this soft law nature, many critics accuse that the OMC is ineffective and even dangerous for further European integration (Trubek/Trubek 2005, 344, 351, 355).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Open Method of Coordination
3. The Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination
4. Policy Recommendations
Objectives & Core Themes
This paper examines the effectiveness of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) as an instrument for European social governance. It critically evaluates whether the OMC functions as a genuine tool for policy improvement or if its voluntary "soft law" nature renders it largely symbolic and ineffective in addressing socioeconomic challenges.
- History and emergence of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC).
- Evaluation of the principles and "soft law" mechanisms of the OMC.
- Comparison of "hard law" vs. "soft law" approaches in EU integration.
- Critical review of OMC performance based on NGO and scholarly assessments.
- Institutional and procedural recommendations to enhance OMC functionality.
Excerpt from the Book
The Open Method of Coordination
The OMC has two forerunners, the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPG) introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 (Sabel/Zeitlin 2008, 289) and the more immediate EES, which was formalized in the 1997 Amsterdam treaty (Art. 128 EC) (Armstrong 2010, 33). Due to its success in reforming the labor market in the EU on the one hand (Trubek/Trubek 2005, 349-351) and its methodology, which allows member states to keep their legislative competence in this policy domain, on the other (Armstrong 2010, 33), the principles of the EES were transferred to the OMC later. In 2000, after an Extraordinary European Council meeting in Lisbon, the heads of states admitted a new strategic goal that included a better coordination of national economic policies and that the OMC should become the driving motor (Armstrong 2010, 29 | Borrás/Jacobsson 2004, 187). The main difference between the EES and the OMC is that the first one is a treaty based process, while the OMC process has emerged through institutional practices (Armstrong 2010, 34).
But there are also three deeper reasons that are accountable for the establishment of the OMC: Firstly, strong economic disfunctionalities due to a globalized economy and increased worldwide competition (Borrás/Jacobsson 2004, 186). Secondly, the political consideration to build up a social dimension in the EU, which became possible with these new open methods (Borrás/Jacobsson 2004, 186). And thirdly, a strong crisis in EU legitimacy in the 1990s, where the OMC has been seen as a tool to introduce more democratic ways in decision-making (Borrás/Jacobsson 2004, 186-187).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the historical context of European welfare strain and introduces the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) as a soft law governance response to socio-economic challenges.
2. The Open Method of Coordination: This section explains the origins of the OMC, its relationship to the European Employment Strategy, and the theoretical classification of the method as experimentalist governance.
3. The Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination: This chapter provides a critical analysis of the OMC, incorporating viewpoints from scholars and NGOs to assess its impact and functional limitations.
4. Policy Recommendations: This chapter proposes specific institutional and procedural reforms to address the identified weaknesses of the OMC, such as the need for hard targets and improved benchmarking.
Keywords
Open Method of Coordination, OMC, European Union, Social Governance, Soft Law, European Employment Strategy, Policy Coordination, Socio-economic, Benchmarking, Experimentalist Governance, Institutionalization, European Integration, Welfare State, Accountability, Labor Market.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper primarily investigates the effectiveness of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) as a tool for governing social policy within the European Union.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The themes include the emergence of soft law in the EU, the distinction between hard and soft governance, the evaluation of policy implementation, and proposals for institutional reform.
What is the main research question?
The research asks: "In how far is the OMC an effective tool for European social governance?" and seeks to determine if it is a functional instrument or merely a "paper tiger."
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author conducts a comparative literature review and synthesizes qualitative evaluations from academic sources and NGO reports to assess the OMC's impact.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The body covers the historical development of the OMC, its theoretical underpinnings, a critical performance evaluation based on existing surveys, and concrete suggestions for reform.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include OMC, Soft Law, European Social Governance, Benchmarking, Experimentalist Governance, and European Integration.
How does the OMC differ from traditional EU law?
Unlike hard law, the OMC relies on voluntary cooperation, mutual learning, and benchmarking rather than binding instructions or formal sanctions.
Why is there criticism regarding the OMC's accountability?
Critics argue that the OMC is a narrow, technocratic process that lacks transparency, leading to a "democracy deficit" and a dilution of political accountability.
What recommendations are made to improve the OMC?
The author suggests greater institutionalization, the introduction of "hard targets," better benchmarking, and the creation of an public-facing Scoreboard for monitoring performance.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Adam Balogh (Autor:in), 2013, EU Socio-Economic Governance, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/209227
