VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 12 POSTED ON: 9/4/2012
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.
Pages to are hidden for
"dada"Please download to view full document