The politics of poverty in the European Union: how states respond to the open method of coordination on social inclusion

Abstract

This article assesses the responses of EU–15 member states to the poverty reduction objectives of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) on social inclusion between 2001 and 2006. As a flexible mechanism of information sharing between governments, the OMC could not produce strong convergence. A thorough analysis of the OMC documents indeed points to the enduring power of national institutions and partisan politics, for the three dimensions of social inclusion identified by the EU (rights, labour market policies, and participation). There was however some learning and adaptation around emerging policy ideas like activation and the participation of people experiencing poverty.

The similarity of European pension systems in terms of OMC objectives: A cross‐country study

“…Nevertheless, OMC comparisons are based on quantitative indicators and, at least theoretically, different means (models of pension systems) might lead to similar results. However, our study delivers quite the opposite conclusion; and with regard to OMC performance, supports the view of researchers such as, for example, Citi and Rhodes (), Natali (), Borras and Radaelli (), Copeland and Haar (), and Larocque and Noël () that the OMC has significant limitations in bringing about the convergence of national policies. Although generally speaking the studied countries have made progress in poverty reduction and in labor market participation among people aged 55–64, which are very important aspects of the OMC, the improvement is not as significant as expected.…”

“…The member states' responses to the OMC seem to be driven by the type of welfare state and prevailing domestic politics which are associated with it. Despite common goals and mutual learning, countries pursued their own trajectories based on national institutions and available resources (Larocque & Noël, ).…”

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

“…While the original six MS all had welfare states and similar welfare levels, social policy was originally mainly confined to the level of the MS. With the enlargement of the EU, disparities between levels of social spending and welfare—differences between North‐South and West‐East—became an issue of EU concern, to the point that the EU sought to provide policy guidance based on common EU social goals (mainly in the realm of employment strategy). With the Lisbon Treaty (2000), the OMC was established, and arranged by the European Commission, to reconcile national social protection with economic integration through exchange of ideas about reforms (de la Porte & Pochet, ; Larocque & Noël, ). The OMC is meant to foster dialog, coordination and mutual learning between MS and social NGOs on various social policy and reform issues, via tools such as objective setting, benchmarking, joint reporting, monitoring, and peer review (Armstrong, ; Curry, ).…”

“…The Maastricht Treaty (1992) and the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) institute a social dialog that includes various social NGOs for the promotion of social rights (Daly, ). In this original image of Social Europe, social policy is discussed in terms of legal entitlements and commitment to reducing unemployment and making work pay (Larocque & Noël, ). Social reforms—deemed necessary in the belief that welfare states had become overburdened by their own aggrandizement and public indebtedness—are organized around the language of “activation of labor force” or “maximizing employment” for the sake of safeguarding social rights in the context of financial deficits.…”

“…Most scholars identify the Lisbon agenda and Europe 2020 as neoliberal constructs and attacks on, or de‐prioritization of, the social dimension. And in this context, the OMC has been more favorable to welfare state retrenchment than to high employment levels and social protection (Larocque & Noël, ), while social policy and social reforms are narrated in the impoverished language, words, metaphors, methods, techniques, valuations, indexes, and benchmarks of the financial world. There is a general sense of disappointment, resentment even, attached to the hegemony of this image of Europe because in the neoliberal image all European values (democracy, freedom, rule of law, justice, human rights) are sacrificed to promote global competiveness and weaken labor to the point that social policy and alternative social forms (such as the basic income or alternative forms of solidarity) evaporate from the image of Social Europe.…”