The new method of ' Open Co-ordination ': A useful innovation for EU governance ?

Résumé du document

Asking the question whether the new open-method of co-ordination (OMC) is a useful innovation for EU governance, equals to asking whether today, new modes of EU governance are needed or not. If we take into account the definition of the governance from the Commission, and that we stick to the rules and processes, two basic modes of governance can be considered in the EU: the Community Method and Intergovernmentalism. The OMC is actually the third new mode of governance, created in 1997 at the Luxembourg Summit, but really codified at the Lisbon Summit in 2000. The appearance of this new method is the result of two assessments which will be explained in detail in this report.

Extraits

[...] This is because the Open Method of Co-ordination is supposed to commit the states in the longterm, not regarding their political orientation. Another innovation is the coordination of economic goals and social goals, which has been so far difficult if not impossible at the Community level. The OMC had then the opportunity of being developed and extended to other areas such as the struggle against exclusion (Nice 2000), social protection (Stockholm 2001), environment (Göteborg 2001), the notion of social inclusion (from 2001 to 2003) and pensions (2003). [...]

[...] This last supposition would definitely pave the way for a better governance. The OMC could be a first way of involving states-owned areas in the EU-level, so that any day it would be eventually easier for harmonisation to take place. The absence of hegemonic player in the OMC process participates to the confidence of member states which are more or less reluctant at the idea of delegating more. So the OMC provides with elements of improvement of EU governance, like the new public management, the concept of mutual-learning or the new role for the member states outside the classical EU institutions representing them. [...]

[...] Secondly, there is a more recent phenomenon of gradual erosion of the member states' powers, because of the extension of EU competences. But this is also a feeling in many member states and often used as an excuse by the politicians that more and more decisions are made by Brussels and there are concerns for a growing centralisation of decision-making process. The enlargement and its governance challenges are finally another element that justifies the research of new types of governance. [...]

[...] One must not forget that this economic cooperation has been the backbone of the European integration process. But why and how did the notions of cooperation and coordination develop so much especially from the 1990's ? The EMU followed a specific path set up in the Maastricht Treaty, and was then imitated by the OMC : guidelines and timetables, criteria, and the functioning (the Ecofin as the institution setting goals and indicators). In the mid-1990's, most of the member states had left or centre oriented governments, and so there was new concern for the social issues in Europe. [...]

[...] legislation-based decision, as opposed to coordination was not an option for these issues. Governments are considered as having the “ownership” of them, just as taxation policy or education. The OMC was the solution for this dilemma and allowed the social issues to be coordinated at last with economic ones, and reconciled with the fashionable notion of competitiveness in Europe. These were the special ideas of Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, and the Summit of Lisbon was then its codification. [...]