In recent years, the notion of ‘subsidiarity’ has gained prominence in European discourse on the sharing of competences among different levels in the multi-level political system of the European Union. This article addresses the question whether the ‘Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC)’ is a suitable instrument for implementing the principle of subsidiarity and, at the same time, for promoting policy convergence in the European Union. In the first part of the article, the general concept of subsidiarity is reviewed in light of its role in the European context. In the next part, the evolution of the ‘Open Method of Co-ordination’, its general characteristics and its application to various policy fields are examined. Based on this analysis, a critical evaluation is undertaken in the final part of the article concerning the potential policy outcomes of the OMC from a longer term perspective. This analysis is carried out from an institutionalist perspective, focussing on the consequences that the OMC is likely to have on the mindsets and behaviour of political actors. This before leads to the conclusion that the OMC can help to create a normative commitment to coordinating national policies with respect to commonly agreed goals while leaving the competences of policy-making mainly with the Member States. In this way, the OMC respects subsidiarity and national diversity, but at the same time contributes to achieving greater convergence of economic and social policies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BehningU. (2003), Die ‘neue Methode der offenen Koordinierung’: Versuche der integrationstheoretischen Klassifizierung einer neuen Form des sozialpolitischen Regierens in der Europäischen Union, (ZeS – Working Paper 12/2003). Bremen.
2.
BerghmanJ.OkmaK.G.H. (2002), ‘The Method of Open Co-ordination: Open procedures or closed circuit? Social policy making between science and politics’, European Journal of Social Security, 4(4), pp. 331–341.
3.
Commission of the European Communities (2000), Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme of Community action to encourage co-operation between Member States to combat social exclusion, COM/2000/0368 final. Brussels.
4.
Commission of the European Communities (2001a), Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee – Supporting national strategies for safe and sustainable pensions through an integrated approach, COM/2001/0362 final. Brussels.
5.
Commission of the European Communities (2001b), Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The future of health care and care for the elderly: Guaranteeing accessibility, quality and financial viability, COM/2001/0723 final. Brussels.
6.
Commission of the European Communities (2001c), European Governance: A White Paper., COM/2001/428 final. Brussels.
7.
Council of the European Union (1997), ‘The 1998 Employment Guidelines Council Resolution of 15 December 1997’, Official JournalC 030, 28/01/1998, pp. 0001–0005.
8.
Council of the European Union (1999), ‘Council Resolution of 22 February 1999 on the 1999 Employment Guidelines’, Official JournalC 069, 12/03/1999 pp. 0002–0008.
9.
Council of the European Union (2000a), ‘Council Decision of 13 March 2000 on Guidelines for Member States' employment policies for the year 2000’, Official JournalL 072, 21/03/2000, pp. 0015–0020.
10.
Council of the European Union (2000b). Objectives in the fight against poverty and social exclusion, SOC 470, Brussels, 30 November 2000.
11.
Council of the European Union (2001a), ‘Council Decision of 19 January 2001 on Guidelines for Member States' employment policies for the year 2001’, Official Journal, L 022, 24/01/2001 pp. 0018–0026.
12.
Council of the European Union (2001b), Joint Report on Social Inclusion, SOC 538. Brussels.
13.
Council of the European Union (2002a), ‘Council Decision of 18 February 2002 on Guidelines for Member States' employment policies for the year 2002’, Official Journal, L 060, 01/03/2002 pp. 0060–0069.
14.
Council of the European Union (2002b), Initial Report on health care and care for the elderly, SOC 82. 25 February 2002, Brussels.
15.
Council of the European Union (2002c), Fight against poverty and social exclusion: Common objectives for the second round of National Action Plans, SOC 508. 25 November 2002, Brussels.
16.
Council of the European Union (2003), ‘Council Decision of 22 July 2003 on Guidelines for Member States' employment policies for the year 2003’, Official Journal, L 197, 05/08/2003 pp. 0013–0021.
17.
Council of the European Union (2004), Joint Report by the Commission and the Council on social inclusion, SOC 115. Brussels, 5 March 2004.
18.
De la PorteC. (2001), ‘The soft open method of co-ordination in social protection’ in GabaglioE.HoffmannR. (eds.), European Trade Union Yearbook 2001, Brussels: ETUI, pp. 339–363.
19.
European Council (2000a), Lisbon European Council, 23 and 24 March 2000, Presidency Conclusions.
20.
European Council (2000b), Nice European Council, 7 8 and 9 December 2000, Presidency Conclusions.
21.
European Council (2001a), Stockholm European Council, 23 and 24 March 2001, Presidency Conclusions.
22.
European Council (2001b), Göteborg European Council, 15 and 16 June 2001, Presidency Conclusions.
23.
European Council (2001c), Läken European Council, 14 and 15 December 2001, Presidency Conclusions.
24.
FerreraM. (2002), ‘The European Social Model and the Open Method of Co-ordination’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Sociale Zekerheid, 44(3), pp. 469–472.
25.
GiubboniS. (2004), ‘Social Rights under the European Constitution: Comparing Ideal-Typical Models of European Federalism’ Paper prepared for the EISS Conference ‘Federalism and Subsidiarity in Social Security’, Rome.
26.
HemerijckA. (2002a), ‘The Self-Transformation of the European Social Model(s)’ in: Esping-AndersenG. (2002), Why We Need a New Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 173–213.
27.
HemerijckA. (2002b), ‘Defining Social Europe through Open Co-ordination’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Sociale Zekerheid, 44(3), pp. 451–467.
28.
MajoneG. (1996), ‘Redistributive und sozialregulative Politik’ in JachtenfuchsM.Kohler-KochB. (eds.), Europäische Integration, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, pp. 225–247.
29.
PalierB. (2004), ‘The Europeanisation of Welfare Reforms’. Paper presented to the COST A 15 Conference 'Reforming Social Protection Systems in Europe: Co-ordination and Diversity’. Nantes.
30.
SakellaropoulosT. (2004), ‘The Open Method of Co-ordination: A Sound Instrument for the Modernisation of the European Social Model’ in SakellaropoulosT.BerghmanJ. (eds.), Connecting Welfare Diversity within the European Social Model, Antwerp: Intersentia, pp. 55–92.
31.
ScharpfF. W. (1985), ‘Die Politikverflechtungs-Falle: Europäische Integration und deutscher Föderalismus im Vergleich’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 26(4), pp. 323–356.
32.
ScharpfF. W. (ed.) (1994), Optionen des Föderalismus in Deutschland und Europa, Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.
33.
ScharpfF. W. (2002a), ‘The European Social Model: Coping with the Challenges of Diversity’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4), pp. 645–670.
34.
ScharpfF. W. (2002b), ‘Regieren im europäischen Mehrebenensystem – Ansätze zu einer Theorie’, Leviathan, Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaften, 30(10), pp. 65–92.
35.
SchmidG. (2004), ‘Lernen durch “weiches” Recht’, WZB-Mitteilungen, 104, pp. 11–16.
36.
SchmidG.KullS. (2004), Die Europäische Beschäftigungsstrategie – Anmerkungen zur ‘“Methode der offenen Koordinierung”. (WZB Working Paper SP I 2004-103). Berlin.
37.
SchulteB. (2002), ‘The new European “Buzzword”: “Open Method of Co-ordination’”, European Journal of Social Security, 4(4), pp. 343–356.
38.
VandenbrouckeF. (2002) ‘Open Co-ordination on Pensions and the Future of the European Social Model’Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Sociale Zekerheid, 44(3), pp. 533–543.
39.
ZukowskiM. (2004), ‘Subsidiarity in Old-Age Security in the Enlarged European Union’. Paper prepared for the EISS Conference ‘Federalism and Subsidiarity in Social Security’, Rome.
