The question of EU legitimacy in the Social OMC peer review process

Abstract

The peer review process in the Social Open Method of Coordination (Social OMC) is a non-binding policy tool that aims to foster dialogue, coordination and mutual learning between European Union (EU) member states on various social policy issues. However, this focus on the coordinating and facilitating functions of the Social OMC underplays the effects of its policy instruments on EU legitimacy. As an actordriven tool, the process can serve a legitimating function by opening up the policy process to discussion and debate involving different state and non-state actors, thus bolstering EU-level governance processes in general, and aiming to improve practices in social policy more specifically. Given the actor-driven nature of the process, analysis of the effectiveness of the peer reviews as a legitimating tool must take into account not only the underlying structures driving the process but also the relationships between actors that determine how the process works in practice and how it works over multiple political levels.This article utilizes a multi-level governance (MLG) framework to examine the configuration of AbstractThis article examines the interplay between relational and structural factors in establishing the legitimacy of social governance processes at the European Union (EU) level, specifically the peer review process in the Social Open Method of Coordination (OMC). Through a multi-level governance lens, the article uses network analysis to evaluate the roles of different actors within the Social OMC governance structure and links that with the ideas of input and throughput legitimacy. The findings suggest that the peer reviews have limited capacity in improving input or throughput legitimacy. Input legitimacy has improved somewhat to include non-traditional actors, but the governance structures in place do not provide a clear role for these new actors and it remains a mostly government-driven process. While the Social OMC does open up new avenues for transparency, information sharing and improving procedural throughputs, the process does not have a clear vision in how to translate this transparency into significant increases in legitimacy.

Unlock Local Forces and Improve Legitimacy: A Decision Making Scheme in the European Union Towards Environmental Change

“…As underlined by Schwenker and Clark (), “Europe's culture of consensus” is an advantage when working towards European progress, and the “democratic audit” proposed by Lord () can be boosted through this methodological approach. Furthermore, the European social‐network modeling proposed in this paper can strongly empower Europe's sustainability, while the Social OMC (Curry, ) and its dysfunctionality, which creates a disjuncture between transparency and legitimacy, can be eliminated. Moreover, Law Activation Strategies (LAS) as forms of policy enhancement (Schweizer, ) can be strengthened through the suggested framework.…”

“…This can be an explanation of a "social gap" in local level in renewable energy resources exploitation (Bell, Gray, Haggett, & Swaffield, 2013). Undoubtedly, the lack of legitimacy and democratic deficit pertain to the overall EU democratic deficit (Bellamy, 2010;Curry, 2016;Eriksen & Fossum, 2002;Lord, 2004;Moravcsik, 2002;Murdoch, 2015;Schmidt, 2004Schmidt, , 2013Schmitter, 2000). Moreover, the perspective of a constitution in the EU (Haack, 2006;Hobe, 2006) did not go through.…”

A genealogy of EU discourses and practices of deliberative governance: Beyond states and markets?

“…Grande the OMC offers one way 'out of the dead end of the Community Method' What can be said in these ostensibly deliberative forums is linked, of course, to who is able to partake in them. It is notable in this respect that in practice, inclusion via the OMC does not equate with deliberative governance in the inclusive way in which it is conceptualised by the FSU; peer-review processes may seem to include an array of actors, but power is very much in the hands of member state governments (Curry 2016). Indeed, the OMC can be regarded not so much as marking a deliberative and reflexive shift away from a restrictive community method, but as the reflection of the broader turn towards what has been termed a 'new' intergovernmentalism (Bickerton et al 2015), itself a consequence of the limits of the community method as driver of integration in certain areas and a diminution of the role of the commission, at least in terms of ex ante policy initiation.…”

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

“…A recent evaluation of peer reviews indicates that they are seen as the most valued and significant aspect of all the activities organized under the MLP (ECORYS, ) and they are increasingly used by the European Commission to disseminate best practices and achieve greater convergence towards the main EU goals (Lelie & Vanhercke, ). Curry () has recently pointed at this promising but under‐researched area in his study of social inclusion policies. In this article, we seek to fill the gap by analyzing the peer reviews in the employment policies, the oldest and most important policy field within the OMC process (see also Casey & Gold, ).…”

“…The coding was done by two coders in order to improve the coder‐related validity. We analyzed the documents with respect to the substance of employment guidelines and best practices: we did not focus on other important elements of the peer reviews, such as inclusiveness of participatory actors (such as Curry, ) or the effectiveness or impact of policy transfer (such as Casey & Gold, ).…”