How to Improve Social Policy
Coordination in the EU
Jonathan Zeitlin
EU Center of Excellence
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1
Plan of the talk
• I. Towards a new post-Lisbon architecture for EU
policy coordination
– A. The new Lisbon cycle, 2008-2011:
a flawed compromise
– B. A new governance architecture for the post-Lisbon
era
• II. Strengthening the OMC
– A. Joined-up thematic strategies
– B. Enhancing mutual learning, participation,
& EU financial support
2
I.A. The new cycle of the Lisbon Strategy,
2008-2011: a flawed compromise
• The relaunched Lisbon Strategy, 2005-2008:
a new architecture for EU policy coordination
– Focus on growth and jobs
– Integration of economic and employment guidelines
– Bilateral dialogue between Commission and MS on
National Reform Programmes, based on national
priorities and stakeholder partnerships
– ‘Mutually reinforcing dynamic’ between IGs/NRPs and
streamlined OMC on Social Protection/Inclusion,
based on ‘feeding in/feeding out’
3
Lisbon II in action:
limitations of the new architecture
• Erosion of employment policy coordination
– Reduced visibility of EES at EU and national levels
– Increased unevenness in national reporting and
reduction of EU-level monitoring capacity
• Limited effectiveness of mutually reinforcing
dynamic between IGs/NRPs and OMC/SPSI
– Few NRPs include social cohesion objectives
– Little reference to OMC/SPSI in NRPs
– Little evidence of ‘feeding out’ to social objectives,
e.g. through systematic assessment of effects of
economic/employment policies on social outcomes
4
Enhancing national ownership and
civil society participation?
• A key objective of Lisbon II
• Most independent assessments agree that 2005 NRP
process did not realize these goals
• Big push from Commission for increased national
ownership in 2006-2007 NRP implementation process
– Creation of new consultative/coordination bodies, upgrading of
Lisbon coordinators, wider involvement of national parliaments,
social partners, local/regional authorities
• But still little involvement of civil society actors
(e.g. social NGOs) and low public visibility in most MS
– Confirmed by Euréval Evaluation of the Integrated Guideline
Package for Growth and Jobs (2008): ‘overall visibility…to the
wider public remains very low’
5
Strengthening Lisbon’s
social dimension
• 2007 Spring European Council resolved that
‘common social objectives of MS should be
better taken into account in the Lisbon Agenda’
• Year-long public debate about how to do this
under German and Portuguese Presidencies
• Two countervailing positions
– Incorporate common social objectives into IGs/NRPs
and link OMC/SPSI more closely to Lisbon Strategy
– Maintain stability of the IGs and focus on better
implementation of national reforms
6
The new cycle of Integrated
Guidelines 2008-2011
• No change to the existing set of Guidelines
• Social dimension of Lisbon strengthened by
revision of accompanying explanatory text
– IGs designed to contribute to social cohesion
objectives as well as growth and jobs
– Need for strengthened interaction with OMC/SPSI
– MS should ensure that economic, employment, &
social developments are mutually reinforcing through
broad stakeholder partnerships/systematic follow-up
– MS encouraged to monitor social impact of reforms
7
A flawed compromise
• Disconnect between old guidelines and new explanatory
text will not improve European citizens’ understanding of
EU policies nor enhance ownership by national actors
• Not conducive to joined-up governance and stakeholder
participation needed for innovative social reforms
• Remains to be seen how commitment to promote greater
synergy between IGs/NRPs & OMC/SPSI will be
followed up and monitored
– E.g. through guidance to MS on preparation of NRPs and
development of indicators for ‘feeding in/feeding out’
• Leaves the EU with multiple, overlapping, potentially
inconsistent ‘mega strategies’
– Sustainable Development, Lisbon, OMCs
8
B. A new governance architecture
for the post-Lisbon era
• EU needs a new overarching strategy for
the post-Lisbon era based on four equal,
mutually reinforcing pillars
– Economic growth
– Full employment
– Social cohesion
– Environmental sustainability
9
A cockpit, not a Christmas tree
• Each pillar should have its own objectives,
guidelines, targets, indicators, national
strategies, peer review, and evaluation process
• Incorporating these common sectoral objectives
and indicators into the EU’s overarching strategy
is not like adding ornaments to a Christmas tree,
but rather like equipping a cockpit with the full
set of instruments needed to avoid flying blind
10
Reconceiving the IGs and NRPs
• In order to avoid overload, IGs and NRPs should
be reconceived as twin apexes of a synthetic
policy coordination process built up from
sectoral OMCs for each pillar
– Sites where conflicting priorities can be reconciled,
not unified/centralized replacements for sectoral
coordination processes themselves
– Each sectoral policy coordination process should
explicitly incorporate indicators for monitoring mutual
interactions between them (feeding in/feeding out)
11
Maximizing opportunities
for mutual learning
• To maximize opportunities for mutual learning,
MS should report consistently on progress
towards each objective/guideline, using common
European indicators as far as possible
– Common indicators should be outcome-oriented,
responsive to policy interventions, subject to clear/
accepted normative interpretation, timely, & revisable
– Indicators should be sufficiently comparable and
disaggregable to serve as diagnostic tools for
improvement/self-correction by national/local actors,
rather than as soft sanctions/shaming devices to
ensure MS compliance with European targets
– Limitations of existing Lisbon Assessment Framework
12
II. Strengthening the OMC
• Architectural reconstruction of EU policy
coordination must now await the next cycle of
Integrated Guidelines beginning in 2011
• But the EU can meanwhile improve social policy
coordination and prepare the ground for deeper
reforms under the new Social Agenda through
ongoing proposals to strengthen the OMC via
– Joined-up thematic strategies
– Enhancing mutual learning, stakeholder participation,
& EU financial support
13
Joined-up thematic strategies
• One promising approach to strengthening both
the OMC and the mutually reinforcing dynamic
between the EU’s social, economic, and
employment objectives is the development of
joined-up strategies on key cross-cutting themes
–
–
–
–
–
Flexicurity
Active inclusion
Child poverty & well-being/investing in youth
Active ageing
Gender equality/reconciling work & family
14
Deepening horizontal
and vertical policy coordination
• Adoption of common European principles
– Responding to shared challenges and values
– Respecting diversity of national institutions and starting points
• Ensure horizontal policy coherence and maximize
cross-sectoral synergies without creating new processes
• Intensive follow-up, monitoring, and evaluation
–
–
–
–
Development of joint indicators and assessment frameworks
Thematic peer reviews and comparison of good/bad practices
Full involvement of all relevant actors
Network of local observatories (active inclusion)
• Possible use of EU recommendations
(common and/or country-specific)
15
Enhancing mutual learning
• Build on ongoing developments within SPC & EMCO
– Focus peer review/mutual surveillance on key
themes, fostering more open policy debate
– More context and process-oriented approach to peer
review of both good and bad practices
– Stronger analytical framework for understanding
relationship between policies and outcomes
– More extensive use of independent experts
– Better linkages between EU and national debates
through improved dissemination, wider stakeholder
participation, and development of transnational
‘learning networks’
16
Expanding stakeholder
participation
• Open up OMC processes to active participation
by civil society and sub-national actors
– Revive/reinvigorate NAPs for employment & inclusion
– Promote local and regional action plans
– Mainstream OMC processes into national
policymaking and evaluate the results
– Develop indicators of participatory governance
• Timely involvement in all phases of the policy cycle
(agenda setting, policy formulation, monitoring, evaluation)
• Two-way dialogue rather than one-way consultation
• Benchmark national performance & compare practices
17
Reinforcing linkages to
EU financial support
• Empirical research on OMC processes in
employment and social inclusion shows that
their national influence is greatly reinforced by
linkages to EU financial support
• Structural and cohesion funds should be
explicitly targeted towards the EU’s social as
well as economic & employment objectives,
with stronger monitoring/evaluation of MS
spending plans and performance
• Use PROGRESS to support mutual learning,
innovative projects, & transnational networks
18