Open method of co-ordination fordemoi-cracy? Standards and purposes

Abstract

Under which conditions does the open method of co-ordination match the standards for demoi-cracy? To answer this question, we need some explicit standards about demoi-cracy. In fact, open co-ordination serves three different but interrelated purposes in European Union policy: to facilitate convergence; to support learning processes; and to encourage exploration of policy innovation. By intersecting standards and purposes, we find open co-ordination is neither inherently 'good' nor 'bad' for demoi-cracy, as it depends on how it has been put into practice. Therefore, we qualify the answer considering the empirical evidence on how normative principles hit the road of implementation. In the final part of this paper, we look into the demoi-cratic effects of the Eurozone's economic and financial crisis on our findings.

The Elusive Legitimacy of EU Soft Law: An Analysis of Consultation and Participation in the Process of Adopting COVID-19 Soft Law in the EU

“…65 Reviewing various studies, Borras and Radaelli reached the conclusion that the "demoi-cratic quality of the OMC hinges on the demoi-cratic quality of domestic institutions". 66 On the basis of this literature, we searched our dataset to identify traces of consultations between the Commission and various other bodies, namely:…”

Beyond the neoliberal paradigm? Images of Social Europe in open method of coordination employment peer reviews

“…Beck and Grande (, p. 241) call this process “cosmopolitan integration”. It is marked by the reconciliation of differences in social policy practices and transformative cooperation (in which MS and their interests undergo change or “Europeanization”), through cross‐national dialog, sharing of administrative cultures and languages, subsidiarity (including the “co‐existence of multiple demoi ” (Borrás, Radaelli, & Borra, : 130), normative reflection, mutual learning, Europeanization for governmental actors, and experimentation that the OMC facilitates in all its cosmopolitan openness to alternatives (cf., Barbier, ; de la Porte & Pochet, ). In this image, Social Europe is arranged to ensure maximum mobility across Europe and the world and to find human rights‐informed ways of coping with social issues, particularly mobility of labor and migration (and hence resist the temptation of “Fortress Europe”, the major rival of “cosmopolitan Europe”) (Morris, ; Schlenker, ).…”

Why strong moral cosmopolitanism requires a world-state

“…Third, if the EU was to actively promote and enforce certain ambitious principles of justice, such as those proposed by strong moral cosmopolitans, the given policy arenas (such as fiscal, social, or immigration policy) would have to be moved to the group of EU's exclusive competence – otherwise it is hard to see how binding yet costly or otherwise demanding decisions pushing for what has been termed ‘positive integration’ could be carried through against resistance; the often discussed open method of coordination has mixed results depending on the policy area, countries in question, and many other variables – besides not being particularly open (Borrás and Radaelli 2010). Even in the EU, it took a ‘long period of time’ among constitutional and democratic states to establish a robust system of human rights protection (Mayerfeld 2011, 237ff.…”