This article answers the question of which EU-level characteristics of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) are most likely to result in pressure on national governments to reconsider their policies as a result of OMC-related parliamentary activities and media coverage. On the basis of interviews with European Commission officials and an analysis of parliamentary debates in committee meetings and newspaper coverage on six OMCs in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in the period 1996–2009, three characteristics are selected and their empirical relevance assessed. The findings indicate that, when an OMC is adopted in a policy field without any other type of EU-level activity already present, or does not include indicators/benchmarks or peer learning activities, the OMC will not increase the pressure on a national government.
AuelKBenzA (2005) The politics of adaptation: The Europeanisation of national parliamentary systems. Journal of Legislative Studies11(3): 372–393.
2.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD(1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BenzA (2007) Accountable multilevel governance by the Open Method of Coordination?European Law Journal14(4): 505–522.
4.
BoomgaardenHVliegenthartRDe VreeseCH (2010) News on the move: Exogenous events and news coverage of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy17(4): 506–526.
5.
BorrásSEjrnæsA (2011) The legitimacy of new modes of governance in the EU: Studying national stakeholders’ support. European Union Politics12(1): 107–126.
6.
BörzelT (2010) European governance: Negotiation and competition in the shadow of hierarchy. Journal of Common Market Studies48(2): 191–219.
7.
BuchsM (2008) How legitimate is the open method of co-ordination. Journal of Common Market Studies46(4): 765–786.
8.
Council of the European Union (2000) Presidency Conclusions Lisbon European Council 23–24 March. Brussels.
9.
De RuiterR (2010) EU soft law and the functioning of representative democracy: The use of methods of open coordination by Dutch and British parliamentarians. Journal of European Public Policy17(6): 874–890.
10.
De VriesC (2009) The impact of EU referenda on national electoral politics: The Dutch case. West European Politics32: 142–171.
11.
DuinaFOliverMJ (2005) National parliaments in the European Union: Are there any benefits to integration?European Law Journal11(2): 173–195.
12.
DuinaFRaunioT (2007) The open method of co-ordination and national parliaments: Further marginalization or new opportunities?Journal of European Public Policy14(4): 489–506.
13.
HallinDCManciniP(2000) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Hartlapp M (2009) Learning about policy learning. Reflections on the European Employment Strategy. European Integration online Papers (EIoP) 13(1). Available at: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2009-007a.htm (accessed 16 August 2012).
15.
HatzopoulosV (2007) Why the Open Method of Coordination is bad for you: A letter to the EU. European Law Journal12(3): 259–292.
16.
HeidenreichMZeitlinJ(2009) Changing European Employment and Welfare Regimes: The Influence of the Open Method of Coordination on National Reforms, London: Routledge.
17.
HéritierALehmkuhlD (2011) New modes of governance and democratic accountability. Government and Opposition4(1): 126–144.
18.
JägerTOppermanKHöseA (2009) The saliency of foreign affairs issues in the German Bundestag. Parliamentary Affairs62(3): 418–437.
19.
KingdonJW(1995) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, New York: Longman.
20.
Kröger S (2009) The Open Method of Coordination: Underconceptualisation, overdeterminiation, de-politicisation and beyond. European Integration online Papers (EIoP) 13(1). Available at: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2009-005a.htm (accessed 16 August 2012).
21.
LivingstonK (2003) What is the future for national policy making in education in the context of an enlarged European Union?Policy Futures in Education1(3): 586–600.
22.
López-SantanaM (2006) The domestic implications of European soft law: Framing and transmitting change in employment policy. Journal of European Public Policy13(4): 481–499.
23.
Martens K and Balzer C (2004) Comparing governance of international organisations – the EU, the OECD and educational policy. Paper presented to the ECPR Joint Sessions, Workshop 1, Uppsala, Sweden.
24.
MeyerCO (2005) The Europeanisation of media discourse: A study of quality press coverage of economic policy co-ordination since Amsterdam. Journal of Common Market Studies43(1): 121–148.
25.
PapadopoulosY (2010) Accountability and multi-level governance: More accountability, less democracy?West European Politics33(5): 1030–1049.
26.
RaunioT (2005) Holding governments accountable in European affairs: Explaining cross-national variation. Journal of Legislative Studies11(3–4): 319–342.
27.
RaunioT (2006) Does OMC really benefit national parliaments?European Law Journal12(1): 130–131.
28.
RaunioT (2009) National parliaments and European integration: What we know and agenda for future research. Journal of Legislative Studies15(4): 317–334.
29.
RiffeDLacySFicoFG(2005) Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
RoggebandCMVliegenthartR (2007) Divergent framing: The public debate on migration in the Dutch parliament and media, 1995–2004. West European Politics30(3): 524–548.
31.
SemetkoHADe VreeseCHPeterJ (2000) Europeanised politics – Europeanised media? The impact of European integration on political communication. West European Politics23(4): 121–140.
32.
SmismansS (2008) New modes of governance and the participatory myth. West European Politics31(5): 874–895.
33.
TholoniatL (2010) The career of the Open Method of Coordination: Lessons from a ‘soft’ EU instrument. West European Politics33(1): 93–117.
34.
TrenzH-J (2004) Media coverage on European governance: Exploring the European public sphere in national quality newspapers. European Journal of Communication19(3): 291–319.
35.
TsakatikaM (2007) A parliamentary dimension for EU soft governance. Journal of European Integration29(5): 549–564.
36.
Van NoijeL (2010) The European paradox: A communication deficit as long as European integration steals the headlines. European Journal of Communication25(3): 259–272.
37.
WealeA (2011) New modes of governance, political accountability and public reason. Government and Opposition46(1): 58–80.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
