Commission entrepreneurship and EU employment policy – The fate of a former darling

Abstract

An ongoing disagreement between researchers of EU decision-making processes is about who primarily drives the development – the Commission or the member states. The present article addresses this issue within the context of EU employment policy, a cornerstone in Social Europe. Research has often pointed to a gradually weakening and subordination of these policies to economic policies. However, recent in-depth studies have found a progressive ‘socialization’ taking place in the European Semester. In this article, it is argued that Commission entrepreneurship has been relatively successful and that the Commission stands out as the most important actor in a partial comeback of EU employment policy, which has taken place since the 2010s.

The Juncker Commission as a Politicising Bricoleur and the Renewed Momentum in Social Europe

“…First, legislative agreements and the harmonization of certain aspects of EU employment and social policy are restricted to a small number of policy areas, which impose significant limits on what can be achieved (Ter Haar and Copeland, 2010). Second, the economic and political differences between the Member States, including divergences in employment and social policy regimes, make for political infighting and deadlock (Mailand, 2021, p. 250). Third, Member States have been reluctant to transfer more competence to the EU level and political compromises often represent the ‘lowest common denominator’ (Scharpf, 2006; Seikel, 2016) or deadlock.…”

“…Internally, there was a believe that should it do so, negotiations could become difficult and potentially break down. Meanwhile, the Commission was determined to set its own agenda and not seen to be taking instruction from a group of Member States (Mailand, 2021, p. 258). To further mobilize support the Commission strategically used its consultation process to engage with as many actors as possible from outside the EU institutions.…”

The management of the Eurozone in crisis times: Actors, institutions and the case of bailout packages

“…The EU Commission, the third member of the Troika, also supported policies that allocated the burdens of adjustment on debtor countries (Hyman, 2015; Mailand, 2020; Marginson, 2015). The role of the European Union in the liberalization of labour markets was substantially strengthened with the implementation of a new economic governance regime designed to update the Stability and Growth pact in the new context of the economic crisis (Marginson, 2015; Schmidt, 2016).…”

Poverty and social exclusion in the EU: third-order priorities, hybrid governance and the future potential of the field

“…This article examines the EU’s attempts to tackle the number of those who are at risk of poverty or social exclusion both historically and during its most recent spike of activity, which aims to reduce the number by at least 15 million by 2030 as part of the Commission’s 2021 Action Plan for the Implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR). It thereby speaks to the literature on the governance of the European social dimension (Copeland, 2020; Crespy and Menz, 2015; Graziano and Hartlapp, 2019; Mailand, 2021; Vesan et al, 2021), as well as the literature specific to the field (Aranguiz, 2022; Armstrong, 2010; Copeland and Daly, 2012; Jessoula and Madama, 2018; Shahini et al, 2022). The approach takes inspiration from two analytical dimensions found within the literature to analyse historically the policy area and the extent to which the EU is likely to meet its ambitious target.…”