Public Services Benchmarking under Localism & Federalism Sharing International Experiences London, 22nd – 23rd February 2012 Benchmarking Social Europe through the Open Method of Coordination Bart Vanhercke European Social Observatory (OSE) & University of Leuven (CESO)
Outline 1. Overview of EU Social Policy Instruments ( snapshot ) 2. The Benchmarking Process within the Social OMC (attempt to demystify learning tools) 3. Europe 2020 and the Social OMC ( opportunities and pitfalls ) 4. Conclusions
1. The EU’s Toolbox in Social Policy • Classic European Law – directives and regulations • European Social Dialogue – interprofessional and sectoral level • Structural Funds – particulary the European Social Fund (ESF) • Open Method of Coordination (OMC)
Drawing on forthcoming OSE Working paper with Peter Lelie
The Open Method of Coordination • The OMC is a new regulatory instrument, introduced by Lisbon Council in 2000 • It is a mechanism for coordinating domestic policies in areas for which the EU has no formal competencies, and further serves monitoring and supplementing EU legislative instruments • Policy coordination through OMC in 10 policy areas Social OMC : Social Protection and Social Inclusion, Pensions, Health and Long term care
The Open Method of Coordination Purpose: • ‘means of spreading best practice and achieving greater convergence towards the main EU goals’ by fixing guidelines , establishing quantitative and qualitative indicators and benchmarks , national and regional targets and periodic monitoring , evaluation and peer review ’ Organised as mutual learning processes
The OMC Cycle
2. Benchmarking within the OMC The toolbox : a) Common Objectives b) Key issues c) Common indicators d) Non-governmental expert and EU (civil society) stakeholder networks e) Peer reviews and OMC ‘projects’ f) Joint reports and Commission ‘recommendations’
a) Common Objectives European Commission (EC) and Member States (MS) agree on: • Overarching objectives (e.g. social cohesion, gender equality, good governance )… … and on Objectives for each of the 3 strands of Social OMC : Social inclusion, pensions, health/long term care b) Key issues concern: how to bring about the identified objectives
c) Developing Common Indicators • ‘No Data, no Progress’ (OSI, 2010) • Indicators form the basis for the Benchmarking exercise and enable for measuring policy challenges, success and failures Indicators developed by Indicators Subgroup (ISG) of the Social Protection Committee (SPC), EC and MS participate
Common Indicators – Key Trends • Multidimensional set of indicators increases acceptability for the MS (bad performance on one indicator can be counterbalanced with good performance on others) • Accession of New MS challenged indicators and required adaptations (e.g. poverty now measured in relative and absolute dimension) • Development of input and output statistics facilitates analysing links between policies, instruments and outcomes (SPC’s Indicators Sub -Group) • Use of quantified objectives increases political commitment. Tool for developing targets introduced by EC.
Example: Child Poverty • Child poverty report by the SPC-ISG task force has been a key development regarding the use of common indicators (SPC, 2008). Not only the ranking of Member States regarding poverty outcomes , but also main causal factors were examined. • Countries are equally assessed according to relative performance on three main factors influencing child poverty risks (children living in jobless households, children living in households at risk of "in-work poverty" and the impact of social transfers on the risk of child poverty) • Indicators have been used to group countries according to their common challenges
d) Participants in the Social OMC • Member States • European Commission • Non-governmental Experts networks – As independent arbiter (provided by EC) – Assessment of MS reports • Civil Society Stakeholder networks – On national and EU level – Consulting and benchmarking
e) Peer Reviews “In depth” PR (SPC) “PROGRESS Programme ” PR Social Protection Committee Host Country (one Host & Agenda (Bureau & Secretariat) participating MS) setting Participants All MS (SPC delegates) & EC, 7-8 MS & EC usually no stakeholders (non)governmental experts, stakeholder & network expert Number of Usually more than 60 people Usually between 30 to 40 Participants people About 1 each year 8-10 annually (Good Practice Frequency (full & thematic reporting) PR/ Policy Problem PR) Format Plenary sessions, Working Plenary sessions, (Working groups groups), Site visits No or minimal formal reporting Extensive reporting on website Reporting Follow up Feeds directly into JRSPSI Weaker/indirect link to JRSPSI Assessment EC, Expert & Stakeholder Monitoring/evaluation data by networks Host, EU & local stakeholders
f) Drawing Conclusions in JR • JR bring together lessons learned as a result of mutual learning benchmarking activities – Draft prepared by EC – Finalised with MS & EU Stakeholder Networks • ‘Key Messages’ communicated to Spring European Council • EC formulates key ‘challenges’ for individual MS in JR ( Improving monitoring remains strongest challenge )
f) Drawing Conclusions in JR • Austria : “While the presented objectives are by themselves very important, they are in major parts not made more concrete by target setting and rolling out a financial perspective to underpin the process” (CEC, 2004). • Spain: “ Co-ordination and co-operation between the different administrative levels will be required to define a minimum standard of measures in order to tackle the inclusion issue in a more homogenous way throughout the national territory” (CEC, 2002).
f) Drawing Conclusions in JR • The Czech Republic was asked to “To ensure that reforms (e.g. privatization of funds) are properly thought through on the basis of past experience and the experience of other countries” (CEC, 2009b). • Germany was called upon “To ensure that the impact of the Hartz IV legislation as of 1.1.2005 does not lead more people into poverty.
Assessing the Social OMC • Effectiveness of OMC under debate • Necessity to distinguish between two dimensions: ‘Adequacy’ (institutional setup) – absence of legislative & executive decisions – lack of transparency – OMC reports in competition with domestic processes ‘Impact’ (effects of the OMC on the ground) – enhanced commitment – OMC mechanisms may develop into legal instruments – impact strongly varies between MS
3. Europe 2020 and the Social OMC • Too early to assess whether architecture of Europe 2020 presents ‘a new start’ for Europe (details of implementation yet unclear) • But: Blueprint on main features of future Social OMC – Three strands of the Social OMC covered – Adequacy, financial sustainability and modernisation of social protection systems; – Essential tool to support the Social Affairs ministers in monitoring and assessing the entire social dimension of the Europe 2020 Strategy
‘Social OMC in Europe 2020’ Questions & Pitfalls • Common Objectives: existing set possibly strengthened through ‘minor technical update’ (significance not clear yet) • National Reporting: succinct annual reporting on SPSI Risk: minimalistic interpretations of MS’ reporting obligations • Indicators : working with indicators continued in all three strands Risk : MS ‘ draw too selectively ’ on commonly agreed indicators in reporting
‘Social OMC in Europe 2020’ Questions & Pitfalls • Joint Reports: replaced by occasional thematic JR & ‘Annual Report of the SPC’ as new vehicle to monitor and assess Europe 2020 social dimension Risk: abolishment of regular JR raises concerns about possible downgrading of the social assessment • Peer Reviews : reconfirmed as essential learning tools but should be more closely linked to policy reforms challenge: improving visibility and accessibility • Stakeholder involvement : remains important objective Risk: further deterioration of participation as consequence of lighter reporting
4. Conclusions Benchmarking within the OMC is a six-step strategy: a) Agreeing on the framework: Common Objectives b) Selecting key issues in multidimensional policy domain c) Building knowledge base: defining issues and developing common indicators for quantitative benchmarking d) Supporting the process through non-governmental expert and EU (civil society) stakeholder networks e) Engaging in the benchmarking process : peer reviews and OMC ‘projects’ f) Drawing conclusions: joint reports and Commission ‘ recommendations ’
4. Conclusions • Despite presumed institutional weakness, the Social OMC has impact on domestic and EU policies through leverage and policy learning • Dynamic learning tools (refined ‘in depth’ PR, multidimensional indicator set) • Diversified benchmarking tools (SPC PR, PROGRESS PR)
Conclusions • Tools have ‘more bite’ (pressure on MS to work with targets, JRSPSI, ‘hard politics of soft law’) • OMC benchmarking more open by involving experts & stakeholders on EU and national level • Increasing hybridity of EU instruments
Recommend
More recommend
