Open Method of Coordination Essay Example for Free

Open Method of Coordination Essay 1. Introduction: This paper aims to offer an assessment of OMC performance in relation to its goals and methods. A determination therefore will be made on whether OMC goals are met and what obstacles have been met in attaining said goals. In order to attain this purpose, we will define the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), find its goals and reasons why it was introduced into EU policymaking, followed by a brief overview in academic literature. Secondly, we will analyse the concept of social inclusion/exclusion (according to Atkinson). Thirdly, we will analyse whether OMC’s social inclusion made any improvement since Lisbon through the National Actions Plans and any other possible base. 2. Analysis and discussion 2.1 Define the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) its goals and reasons why it was introduced into EU policymaking.   What is OMC’s overview in academic literature? Summit at Lisbon in March 2000 Hughes, K. (2001) said that at the DOT.COM Summit at Lisbon in March 2000, the EU set itself the strategic goal of creating full employment in a competitive and inclusive knowledge-based economy. The author stated that to reach this goal, EU prime ministers announced the adoption of a new open method of co-ordination, which is based on benchmarking and spreading best practice. Such method the author said is really intended to help member-states converge towards common objectives in areas such as employment, economic reform and social cohesion. The objective of full employment (Grubel, 1977) will always be an objective of every right-thinking state for the fulfilment of which guaranties peace and security among citizens. The four stages of OMC as described by Hughes, K. (2001) includes the following: First, EU ministers agree on policy goals in the area concerned.   Second, member-states translate these guidelines into national and regional policies, with specific targets.   Third, the ministers agree on benchmarks and indicators, to measure and compare best practice within the EU and worldwide.   Finally, through evaluation and monitoring, member-states performances are assessed relative to each other and to their declared goals. Hughes, K. (2001) also posited that advocates of this soft (i.e. not law-based) approach argue that it enables member-states to co-operate closely, yet recognizes their diversity and avoids forced harmonization. The author also opined that the approach allows co-coordinated action in areas where it would be politically difficult, or even impossible, to move forward through a common policy or legal framework.   In addition, the author said that it allows for a concerted EU approach while leaving legal competence and authority with the individual member-states.   Thus, Hughes, K. (2001) concluded that progress can be made through open co-ordination where otherwise there would be none. To balance the claim of OMC, Hughes, K. (2001) noted the fear of the critics, who believe that open co-ordination is at best a talking-shop and at worst a weapon aimed at the traditional Community method of European integration. Thus the author said: â€Å"They view the new approach as a Trojan horse for more inter-governmental decision-making. Whether they are right will become apparent as the targets of the Lisbon summit are met or not over the next few years. The more difficult question is whether it is indeed another tool for integration, or rather a move towards increased, and perhaps less effective, inter-governmentalism.† To produce a set of common but not legally-binding, objectives for tackling poverty and exclusion would seem to be an useless exercise since everything would be based on voluntary decision of the members since whatever may be agreed upon are not legally binding. But this was what happened at Lisbon where the EU leaders suggested that open co-ordination should apply to areas such as social exclusion, enterprise and e-Europe, where most or all powers remain with the member-states. Hence, Hughes, K. (2001) noted that the member-states will produce national action plans for reaching these objectives, on which the Commission will then comment. OMC therefore seems to be a unique way of solving problems among members where the absence of legally binding rules will not hinder the members to act on what is beneficial to them. The members states must really have to rest on the strength of the political pledge to the development, on its professed worth and efficacy, and on peer pressure and public support. The European Economic Integration It would be incomplete to look at OMC if none is mentioned about European economic integration. Wikipedia (2006) acknowledged the fact that thee OMC was first applied in EU employment policy, as defined in the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997, although it was not called by this name at the time. It stated that OMC was officially named, defined and endorsed at the Lisbon Council for the realm of social policy and since then, Wikepedia (2006) said the approach has been applied in the European employment strategy, social inclusion, pensions, immigration, education and culture and asylum. Tsoukalis, L. (1997) in describing the process of European economic integration said: â€Å"It concentrates mainly, although not exclusively, on the more recent phase which started around the mid-1980s and which has been characterized by a continuous expansion of the European agenda, the strengthening of intra-European economic ties, the transfer of new powers to common institutions, as well as the geographical extension of what we may call the European economic system.   †¦.   The process of integration has always been characterized by fits and starts, by bursts of activity which have often been followed by crisis and relative inaction. In the early 1990s, the economic and political climate changed once again, the deterioration of the macroeconomic environment being accompanied by successive crises in the exchange markets and growing scepticism about the future of European integration. Unemployment rates reached dangerous heights, while economic growth receded. And the armies of unemployed began to seriously threaten Europes welfare systems. Yet the process of integration did not stop; far from it. And the plan for EMU has remained on the table with a treaty seal on it. The remaining years until 1999 are therefore most likely to be dominated by preparations for the historic rendezvous with the single currency, a rendezvous which, if it does take place as scheduled, some countries at least are bound to miss.† Tsoukalis, L. (1997) also said that during the same period, the EU has gone through two more rounds of enlargement, with the accession of five new members (without counting the accession of the Eastern Là ¤nder following Germanys unification). Mentioned by the author was also the fact EU has also gone through two major treaty revisions, linked to the internal market program and EMU respectively, while a third one is under negotiation as of 1997 then. The author argues that those developments show hardly any signs of withering away. On the other hand, the same author said that there is the allegedly unstoppable trend of economic globalization which, according to so many experts and laymen, leaves little room for public regulation and effective intervention, citing as examples Ohmae (1990), Hirst and Thompson (1996) and Boyer and Drache (1996). The author also posited that European integration has indeed evolved within the context of growing international economic interdependence, a term still often used instead of globalization by the less exuberant representatives of the economics profession. 2.3 Analysis of the concept of social inclusion/exclusion (according to Atkinson). OMC could not be discussed in isolation with social inclusion/exclusion, hence out understanding of the OMC necessitates us to look more on the concepts of social inclusion (Planning Portal, 2006) and social exclusion (Kerrycdb, n.d.). Atkinson, et. al. (2002) described the concept of social inclusion and exclusion as follows: â€Å"I know there is some scepticism about the open method of coordination given its character of soft law. Yet I am convinced that an effective open method of coordination in the field of social inclusion can play a crucial political role at this stage in European politics. It will create a common understanding of our core social values that goes beyond solemn declarations at the level of heads of state and government, and so should enable us to define in a more precise way the substance of the European Social Model. It has, then, the potential to be a powerful driver.† (Emphasis supplied). The optimism of the authors (Richardson, 1994) is readily evident.   In certain circumstances, a law may have power to demand compliance (Hutter, 1997) but one could hardly limit human freedom to choose (Hill, 1993) and decide for the themselves. On discussing Principles of Indicator Construction in relation to social inclusion/exclusion Atkinson, et. al. (2002) said:   â€Å"†¦ it is an important feature of this process that the policies to achieve social inclusion are the responsibility of member states, under the subsidiary principle. Social inclusion is to be promoted through the method of open coordination, as described above. Member states are to agree on the objectives of policy, but they will be free to choose the methods by which these objectives are realized. One member state may achieve low poverty rates by active labour market policy; another may place greater reliance on social transfers. In one member state transfers may be provided by the state, in another transfers may be private. In one member state training may be associated with apprenticeships; in another, it may be part of the school system. This we have taken to mean that, for the present purpose, the social performance indicators should in principle be concerned with outputs rather than inputs. The aim is to measure social outcomes, not the means by which they are achieved. †¦.† Readily evident is the fact that indicators social inclusion/exclusion be seen in outputs and inputs that Atkinson, et. al. (2002) went further saying: â€Å"While we regard total spending on education, for example, as a measure of the resources being put into education, and hence would prefer a measure of educational attainment, we recognize that the availability of teachers may be an index of educational opportunities. If our concerns are forward-looking, then we may take into account the possibility that one can benefit from a service in the future. Confidence in the future can be improved by the existence of services; they have an option value that is a form of current output. A sense of exclusion may be generated by the absence of educational or health facilities. A person may be over school age but still feel that the absence of a secondary school in his or her town is a factor in social exclusion.† (Emphasis supplied) On discussing Social Indicators from a Member State Perspective, Atkinson, and et. al. (2002) said: â€Å"For a valuable review of both European and national initiatives, predating the National Action Plans on Social Inclusion, readers are referred to Vranken et al. (2001).† The same authors also made comparison of the conceptual frame-works adopted in different countries, the databases employed, and the indicators used. After which they consolidated national reports on poverty and social exclusion that have been formed by official and academic researchers. Further, the same authors said: â€Å"Member states differ in the degree to which they have set explicit targets for combating social exclusion. In some cases there are strategies aimed at promoting social inclusion that already include explicit targets and indicators against which to measure the effectiveness of policy. Some countries, such as Ireland, have set a national objective for the reduction of financial poverty; others have adopted a set of progress indicators by which performance is to be evaluated; and still others monitor the trends in poverty and social exclusion in a less structured manner and without pre-commitment to identified targets.† Based on said premises the author opined that the amount of space allocated to each country varies. He was quick however to mention that in each case, however, a National Action Plan on Social Inclusion (NAPincl) was submitted to the Commission in June 2001 and that the NAPincls were requested to state the progress aimed for by national policies and to list the indicators used to assess progress, and the European Union is to move from that base towards commonly agreed and defined indicators.   (Paraphrasing made) 2.3 Did the OMC social inclusion made any improvement since Lisbon like through National Actions Plans? Although there are several members stated which have adopted jointly the OMC as strategy, what is cited in answer to the question is that one involving U.K. OMC social inclusion made any improvement since Lisbon on different occasions based in the following: a. On National Actions Plans European Commission, Employment Social Affairs, Social Inclusion (2006) on Implementation and update reports on 2003-2005 National Action Plans on Social Inclusion said: â€Å"The second UK NAP (2003-05) maintains the process of developing a broad and comprehensive strategy. Facilitating access to employment for those capable of working is at the centre of the strategic approach and has been helped by continued good economic and employment growth. The strategy also envisages the provision of good income support and high quality social services to those who cannot access work. Among the groups identified as requiring special support are: lone parents; the long-term unemployed; older people; those with few or no qualifications; ethnic minority communities; sick or disabled people; and residents of deprived neighbourhoods. The strategy involves commitment to a number of targets, supported by national indicators, most notably the aim of eradicating child poverty by 2020.†Ã‚   The Commission also noted that an important measure to help meet this target has been the provision of high-quality, integrated early-years education and health, family support and childcare services in the most disadvantaged areas. Hence, the Commission believes that these services will now be extended to cover all areas of England over the next ten years and it’s thus noted that the European Social Fund has a key role in support of the National Action Plan to help people develop their employability and skills, with a particular focus on unemployed and socially excluded people. b. On how open a member state to the process Armstrong, K. (2005) in concluding the paper â€Å"Implementing The Lisbon Strategy: â€Å"Policy Co-Ordination Through ‘Open’ Methods: How Open Is The United Kingdom To The OMC Process On Social Inclusion?† stated among other things, that his study has found examples of domestic adaptation to the OMC process on inclusion. He cited that these examples relate in particular to the mobilisation of anti-poverty networks and the willingness of central government civil servants to develop new working relationships with such networks. He thus mentioned that DWP and NGOs have joined forces to develop a participation tool-kit for the next round of NAPincls is an indication of a desire to break out of traditional bureaucratic routines and at least gives the appearance of a commitment to the NAPincls. The author further said that attitudes towards the NAPincls from the devolved administrations is more ambivalent, although the idea that the EU process might serve as a model for recasting the Northern Ireland anti-poverty strategy suggests a stronger adaptation dynamic at work here. Nevertheless, the author admitted the difficulty, that it is that it is hard to escape the conclusion that notwithstanding the elaboration of new processes, the UK NAPincl remains primarily a report and not a plan. He thus noted that to be sure, it has filled a gap between the central and devolved government social exclusion and anti-poverty reports and acts as an overview of the UK as a whole. The author also noted that the lack of synchronisation between the EU co-ordination processes and the domestic cycle of budget-planning and target-setting results in a reinforcement of the domestic arena as the key driver of social inclusion objectives, indicators and targets. This he believes undercuts the ability of the UK NAPincl to do more than report on what has already been agreed. (Paraphrasing made) Armstrong, K. (2005) also said that the research reported here also highlights two different political visions of the future of OMC. Particularly he noted the evidence of domestic adaptation – particularly at the level of central government – points to the importance of altering domestic mind-sets and routines in order to buttress commitments to political change. The alternative vision, however, the author observed is that is one that looks to EU institutions – in particular the European Council – to deliver high-level messages and to steer the Member States in the desired direction. He thus argued that it may not be a matter of choosing which vision to follow but the evidence of the Lisbon Strategy to date has been that there remains a gap between the big statements of political intention and delivery within the Member States. Thus he recommended that more needs to be done to uncover the domestic mechanisms of adaptation in order to explain the success or failures of the commitments made at Lisbon. (Paraphrasing made) Conclusion: There is evidence for a European to make a statement such as: â€Å"We are we a step closer to European Social Model and is the OMC the right approach.† OMC social inclusion made any improvement since Lisbon on the basis of the following: Although there is no legal compulsion to do things in OMC, there is evidence to say that voluntary actions do accomplish great things. Even in the absence of compelling force on the basis of legislation, people have goods reasons of accomplishing their political and economic purposes. The implementation of the OMC in the United Kingdom is one of the best proofs. Although more concrete proofs are still necessary to really declare that OMC will lead the members states to success, positive developments in the early implementation bears much goods results to further build upon. The power of humanity is not only manifested in having law to force them to move but also making them more willing effort to do things when they believe that right decisions just make many great things, and OMC is the one of these.