Docstoc

dada

Document Sample
dada Powered By Docstoc
					              PLAN

- THE LISBON STRATEGY (aims,
  assessments, reforms)

- THE META FEATURES OF SOCIAL
  EUROPE (12 points)

- TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE LS LIE IN
  CONTINUITY WITH THOSE FEATURES
  OR INAUGURATE NEW ROUTES ?
OBJECTIVES OF THE LISBON STRATEGY

- A catch up strategy vis-à-vis the USA and Japan
  (growth, employment, NT, structural labour and product
  market reforms);
- To provide the EU with a new growth dynamics based on
  the ‘KBS’ (R&D, education/LLL);
- To finalize the implementation of the internal market;
- To instaure a better balance between EU eco integration
  and EU social integration (cf. various OMCs);
- To introduce a new mode of governance for conflictual
  issues and issues which are not EU competence.
   LISBON STRATEGY REFORM IN 2005


- Severe criticism in the assessment of the KOK Report:
overloaded program, insufficient coordination, diverging
priorities, lack of Member State political will, explain bad
performances (as to growth, employment, R&D, structural
reforms)
- EU context different in 2004 from 2000: 11/9/2001, eco
stagnation (+oil crisis), new competitors (China, India), GSP crisis,
effects of EU enlargement, weak franco-german engine,
EU divide on the war in Irak, and more recently on the
Constitutional Treaty and the EU Budget.
 2005 LISBON STRATEGY REFORM
- Re-appropriation of the LS by Member States :
  single National action plan only & designate a
  Mr(s) Lisbon;
- To involve more national Parliaments and social
  Partners at national level;
- To simplify the number of objectives around clear and
  coherent: macro, R&D, micro and employment;
- The streamlining of temporalities (previously done):
  BEPGs and EES; of the various social OMCs;
- Better policy coordination at EU (with GSP, state aids,
  EU budget, industrial pol) and at national level (between
  Ministries & policies)
       KEY ASSESSMENTS
- Larger MS (France, Germany, Italy) have
  more difficulties with the LS than smaller
  countries;
- Nordic countries are meetings many of its
  objectives already;
- The New member states makes efforts to
  try comply with LISBONNE 2;
- Economic assessments more severe than
  political science assessments.
 12 meta-features of Social Europe
- SOCIAL EUROPE (SE) HAS DEVELOPED AFTER ECO
  INTEGRATION
- SOCIAL EUROPE REMAINS ‘FRAGMENTARY’ AND
  BUILD ON AN AD HOC BASIS
- SOCIAL EUROPE REFLECTS THE FACT THAT THE
  EU IS A ‘DYNAMIC’ AND EVOLVING PROJECT
- INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS PREVAIL OVER SOCIAL
  ACTORS
- SOCIAL EUROPE REFLECTS THE SPECIFICITY OF
  THE EU as a political regime: ‘un gouvernement mixte’,
  shared competences, subsidiarity.
                 (suite)
- MS RELUCTANCY TO COMPETENCE
  TRANSFER (beyond Left/right policy divide)
- SOCIAL EUROPE HAS BEEN BUILD ON
  ALREADY WELL ROOTED INDUSTRIAL
  RELATIONS AND SOCIAL PROTECTION
  SYSTEMS
- SOCIAL EUROPE IN AN EU WHERE ECO AND
  SOCIAL ACTORS ARE BOTH COMPETING
  AND COOPERATING
          (suite) (strengths)
- THE CUMULATIVENESS OF THE ACQUIS
  COMMUNAUTAIRE (geographically and over
  time)
- THE GROWING DIVERSIFICATION OF
  REGULATORY MODES (legislative, contractual,
  OMC)
- THE WIDENING OF AGENDA AND
  COMPETENCES IN TREATY REFORMS
- THE INCREASING ROLE FOR CITIZENS
  Continuity elements of the LS
- Hierarchy of policies (the social after the eco)
  (increased)
- The prevalence of institutional actors over social
  actors (increased)
- The dynamic character of the EU (+
  globalisation) (enlargement process limits)
- A system of shared competences and
  subsidiarity (settled)
- Build on nat variety of capitalisms and social
  systems (settled)
           (suite: continuities)


- Plurality of regulatory modes (in competition or
  complementarities ?) (not settled)

- EU MS at the same time in competition and in
  collaboration (settled)
 DISCONTINUITIES WITH THE LS
- More coherent project and extended agenda on social /
  employment aspects over time (cf. Delors 1994 white
  paper)
- National social/employment priorities on EU agenda
  (less reluctancy)
- Extended agenda but not translated in corresponding
  Treaty reforms (difficulties for the legislative process but
  also the OMC)
- The plurality of regulatory modes: a new route with
  OMCs dominating/ or complementarity between
  legislative, contractual and OMC methods ?
     CONCLUSIONS: 5 ambiguities of the LS
- Ambiguity 1: hierarchy of policies versus a rebalancing
  process ?
- Ambiguity 2: diversification of regulatory modes to
  increase efficiency of results versus disqualification of
  hard law?
- Ambiguity 3: extended EU social/employment agenda
  versus flexibilization paradigma
- Ambiguity 4: EU dynamics (with EU enlargement) versus
  tensions between different social systems to a higher
  degree than previously
- Ambiguity 5: OMC processes aimed at increasing
  legitimacy (deliberative democracy theses) versus the
  discrepancy between eco matters (essentially hard law)
  and social/employment (essentially soft law) as to
  regulatory tools has never been so obvious.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:9/4/2012
language:Latin
pages:12