The Career of the Open Method of Coordination: Lessons from a ‘Soft’ EU Instrument

Abstract

This article examines the career of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) as a policy instrument. Looking at the European Employment Strategy and the Lisbon Agenda, it shows that more has been accomplished than is often realised. It argues that the OMC's apparent fragility reflects an intrinsic tension, termed here the ‘soft-law dilemma’: it must ensure a constant supply of items to feed the EU agenda, whilst at the same time guaranteeing a level of institutional stability sufficient to allow effective policy delivery. To maintain both legitimacy and effectiveness, the OMC has learned to navigate between the extremes of all-out policy activism and bureaucratisation. As a result, the OMC has become an established form of socio-economic governance at EU level. A decade later, EU actors have the resources to take action in areas long associated with national sovereignty, thereby widening the scope and potential for a politicisation of the EU.

Acknowledgements

The opinions are the author's alone and do not reflect the views of his employers. The author should like to express his gratitude to the officials and researchers with whom he has discussed the topics addressed in this article over many years. He should also like to thank the guest editors for their comments.

Notes

1. See Cini and Rhodes (2007) for an overview. See also the ‘OMC bibliography’ at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. On the significance of the OMC as part of wider experimentation in EU governance, see Zeitlin and Sabel (2007). For the re-consideration of the function of the OMC within the EU system as a form of ‘deliberative transnationalism’, see Jacobsson and Vifell (2007). The importance of concepts, languages and terminology in the operation of the OMC is explored by Barbier (2005); the study of the political and organisational motives of actors by Kröger (2009), Ravaud (2007) and Tholoniat (2000); the OMC's institutional infrastructure, notably in terms of data and statistics by Glaude (2008) and Salais and Villeneuve (2005); and the recourse to temporal devices by Tholoniat (2009). For a more detailed review of the Lisbon Agenda, see Armstrong et al. (2008), Begg (2008), ETUi (2009), Rodrigues (2009), Zeitlan (2008), European Commission (2005, 2008).

2. In addition to the social field, OMC-type processes emerged, although in slightly adapted formats, in other domains pertaining to the Lisbon Agenda: enterprise policy (European Charter for small enterprises, enterprise scoreboard); innovation policy (innovation scoreboard); research (3% GDP spending target); information society (eEurope action plans); youth (Youth Pact); environment (Environmental Technologies Action Plan), etc. See e.g. Gornitza (2005).

3. On the EES as a new form of governance at EU level, see Barbier (2004); Heidenreich and Bishop (2008); Hönekopp (2005); Mosher and Trubek (2003); Nedergaard (2005, 2006); Raveaud (2007); Fischer and Tholoniat (2006); Trubek and Trubek (2005); Zeitlin (2007); Zeitlin and Pochet (2005). For its impact at national level, see Ashiagbod (2005); Bredgaard and Larsen (2005); De la Rosa (2005); Huber (2006); Jacobsson and Vifell (2007); Mailand (2006); Palmer and Edwards (2004); Palpant (2006); Tholoniat (2000); Zeitlin (2007); Zeitlin and Pochet (2005).

4. The ambitious new goals were to be achieved ‘by improving the existing processes, introducing a new open method of coordination at all levels, coupled with a stronger guiding and coordinating role for the European Council to ensure a more coherent strategic direction and effective monitoring of progress’.

5. If asked to quote the ‘three pillars’ of the Lisbon Strategy, a number of well-informed EU actors may still refer to the ‘triangle’” between the economic, employment and social dimensions of Lisbon 1, while others will mention the ‘macro-’, ‘micro-economic’ and ‘employment’ pillars of Lisbon 2.

6. The Commission is legally required to present employment guidelines and seek the opinion of the Parliament every year, although since 2005 there has been a political commitment to keep the guidelines stable in the medium run.