Building national ownership of the European Semester: the role of European Semester officers

Abstract

The European Semester of socio-economic policy coordination has been criticised for poor capacity to induce national ownership of reforms. Reacting to these pressures, the European Commission intensified bilateral and multilateral efforts to increase the legitimacy of the Semester. European Semester officers (ESOs) were sent to Commission's representations in Member States to reinforce policy dialogue. This paper spells out to what extent and how ESOs contribute to national ownership and throughput legitimacy of the European Semester in Member States. The findings suggest that ESOs are an important domestic link in fostering throughput legitimacy of the European semester by way of establishing dialogue with domestic actors and justifying the reasoning behind Commission's initiatives. Conversely, they succeed less in transmitting stakeholders' policy concerns and suggestions to the Commission. ESOs' domestic engagement could, nonetheless, serve as an entry point for Commission's future efforts in building domestic ownership and hence reducing blame-shifting practices.

How to Produce and Measure Throughput Legitimacy? Lessons from a Systematic Literature Review

“…For purposes of inclusiveness and accountability, stakeholders should be granted a seat at the table and the opportunity to present their arguments (which in turn may influence the result of the process; Geeraert, 2014). Stakeholders and decisionmakers should have equal capacities in the process (Munta, 2020), especially in the negotiation phase (Geeraert, 2014). For decision-makers to be accountable, they should consider stakeholders' concerns and inputs (Geeraert, 2014;Iusmen & Boswell, 2017;Munta, 2020).…”

“…Stakeholders and decisionmakers should have equal capacities in the process (Munta, 2020), especially in the negotiation phase (Geeraert, 2014). For decision-makers to be accountable, they should consider stakeholders' concerns and inputs (Geeraert, 2014;Iusmen & Boswell, 2017;Munta, 2020). Decision-makers should also explain and justify the result of the process to make it transparent (Geeraert, 2014;van Meerkerk et al, 2015).…”

“…The information that is used should be explained and justified by the decision-makers (Poelzer, 2019). Stakeholders' informational input should be taken into consideration by decision-makers (Munta, 2020), and, beyond this, information used should be coproduced by decision-makers and stakeholders (Curry, 2016;Munta, 2020).…”

“…Most scholars do not explore all dimensions of throughput legitimacy. Iusmen and Boswell (2017), Matti et al (2017) and Munta (2020) mainly concentrate on the quality of participation. Strebel et al's (2019) primary focus is on transparency; Curry (2016) concentrates on openness and transparency; Poelzer (2019) on transparency, accountability and responsiveness; Geeraert (2014) on inclusiveness and openness to civil society, transparency and accountability, and efficacy; and van on inclusiveness and openness transparency and due deliberation.…”

“…At the national and subnational levels, such activities include roundtables with stakeholders, citizen juries and assemblies, referenda and polls, public hearings and presentations, idea competitions (Hartmann & Spit, 2016), monitoring processes (Eckerd et al, 2019), and policy forums (Fischer & Schläpfer, 2017; e.g., food policy councils [Behringer & Feindt, 2019]). At the supranational level, activities that contribute to the production of throughput legitimacy are mostly part of pre-existing IOs' arrangements (Corbett et al, 2018;Curry, 2016;Geeraert, 2014;Munta, 2020).…”