Benchmarking in Federal Systems: Australian and International Experiences Joint Roundtable of the Forum of Federations and the Productivity Commission Melbourne, 19-21 October 2010 Benchmarking Social Protection and Social Inclusion Policies through the European OMC: Panacea, Failure, or ‘Good Enough’ governance? Presentation by Bart Vanhercke, European Social Observatory (OSE) and K.U.Leuven (CESO)
Outline of the talk 1. Introduction: scope & limitations 2. The Open Method of Coordination (OMC) : what is that (defining the elephant)? 3. Benchmarking within the OMC: how does it work? 4. Is OMC benchmarking delivering the goods (failure, panacea, ‘good enough’)? 5. [From Lisbon to ‘Europe 2020’: what is to be done (forward looking)]
Introduction: scope and limitations • ‘Politics of benchmarking’ – rather than technical aspects: see Marlier et al. (2007); Room (2005); Atkinson et al. (2002) • EU-level ( general ), with some examples from a small federal state, Belgium: – illustrate how OMC benchmarking ‘(mis)fits’ with federal architecture • Social Protection and Social Inclusion (« Social ») OMC – 3 strands: ‘Social Inclusion’, ‘Pensions’ and ‘Health Care & Long-term Care’
Important: « The » OMC does not exist MS let “1000 flowers bloom” (+) Inflation of OMC’s since Lisbon European Council 2000 – BEPG, EES, education (established) – Organ transplantation, influenza, immigration, smoking, EU development policy, family policy, disability policy, Latin America (recently proposed, more or less seriously) – VERY different benchmarking “tools” in the OMC toolboxes • Different ‘effects’/’usage’ as a consequence
2. The Open Method of Coordination: what is that? � No ‘formal’ definition (!)
Technically speaking OMC is… A cyclical process where mutually agreed Objectives (political priorities) are defined, after which peer review (discussion among equals) takes place on the basis of National Action Plans (reports). Soft ‘Recommendations’ (Commission/Council) and comparable and commonly agreed indicators (and targets) enable to assess progress towards the Objectives
From a certain distance … the elephant looks like this
Member States EU (EC, Council) Social OMC: process cycle (3y) Launching (2000) Common Objectives Supported by PROGRESS Joint Report NSR (learning ) Peer Reviews Indicators Targets Social Partners & Civil Society
In essence: Cyclical process of reporting and evaluation of policies, which should should facilitate “policy learning” between the (27) Member States, and thereby improve policies � Mostly for ‘sensitive’ issues for which EU has no legislative competencies (‘subsidiarity’)
3. Benchmarking within the OMC: how does it work? • Member States and the EU (Commission, Council) engage in « bottom-up collegial benchmarking », through: – Common Objectives – Indicators – Targets – Peer Reviews – Joint Reports (‘Country Fiches’) • EC: facilitator; MS ‘call the tune’; stakeholders ‘sneak in’; EP is mute
3. Benchmarking within the Social OMC: how does it work ( Common Objectives ) • Example (SI): – “MS’ policies should have a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion by ensuring that social inclusion policies are well-coordinated and involve all levels of government and relevant actors, including people experiencing poverty, that they are efficient and effective and mainstreamed into all relevant public policies[…] � In other words: focus on outcomes (eradication of poverty) and on process (coordination, involving a variety of actors, mainstreaming) � Objectives often quite general and ambiguous (struggle about ideas and views on ‘social Europe’)
3. Benchmarking within the OMC: how does it work ( Indicators ) • Member States agree (unanimously!) on « harmonised » indicators (commonly defined) • ‘Portfolio’ of (primary and secondary) indicators for SI, PEN and HC policies + ‘overarching’ + ‘context’ indicators
Eg. ‘Laeken’ indicators on poverty and social exclusion • “Key model of Social Indicators” (2004 Discussion Paper Dpt of the Premier and Cabinet) • Cover several aspects of social exclusion, e.g. financial poverty, employment, health and education (multidimensional) • Outcome indicators (indiv & households) • Eg. “Early school-leavers ” % of the total population aged 18-24 who have at most lower secondary education and not in further education or training
Other indicators Social OMC –At-risk-of-poverty-rate (60%)! –Healthy life expectancy –Aggregate replacement ratio (pensions) –In-work poverty risk –Regional disparities (empl.) –Others are being developed
How are the indicators used? • The key is: prudence (subsidiarity, once again) • 2001: first and last attempt by EC to propose a genuine ‘ranking’ of Member States (SI) – nearly killed the OMC before it started – ‘top down’ or ‘independent’ monitoring does not work in EU context, at least not publicly (see also Kok Report in 2005)! • Still, league tables are published: shows MS performance on indicators – eg At-risk-of poverty rate in the EU (%), children and total population
3. Benchmarking within the OMC: how does it work ( Targets ) - Increasing (and successful) pressure from European Council and Commission on MS to set national national targets in their national reports (‘benchmarking benchmarking’) – Eg. ‘Naming’ in Joint Report - GER-GR-ESP- LIT: “SI strategy lacks clear quantified targets”
3. Benchmarking within the OMC: how does it work ( Targets ) • Some EU EU targets – Barcelona European Council (2002) childcare childcare target: •provide childcare by 2010 to at least 90% of children between 3 years old and the mandatory school age, and at least 33% of children under 3 years of age – Europe 2020 (June 2010) ‘headline targets’ •poverty poverty : lift at least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty and exclusion •education education: reduce school drop-out rates to less than 10% […]
3. Benchmarking within the OMC: how does it work ( Peer Reviews ) • Two ways of organising the « laboratory federalism » – « Formal Peer Review », based on National reports (NAP/NSR…): •Issues vast, time short, content ‘agreed upon between MS’ •Value added? Pressure?
3. Benchmarking within the OMC: how does it work ( Peer Reviews ) – Progress Peer Reviews » (some 6O so far): smaller groups of MS + ‘independent’ experts and ‘civil society’ discuss ‘good practices’ in – Social Inclusion: e.g.. rough sleepers , England 2004 – Pensions: e.g. public information on pension systems , Poland 2008 – HC and Care (after hesitation!): e.g. quality long- term care in residential facilities , Germany 2010 – Contextualized benchmarking – (some) genuine pressure (among peers , not public!)
3. Benchmarking within the OMC: how does it work ( Joint Reports ) • EC refrains from ‘tough’ comments on individual MS’ performance. And yet they bite (irritate/embarrass) • Some examples: – “Member States confuse monitoring monitoring of the implementation of actions with the evaluation evaluation of their impact and effectiveness” (‘benchmarking benchmarking’) – “MS Stop using indicators when outlining new commitments” (B, GER, FR, IT, LUX)
3. Benchmarking within the OMC: how does it work ( Joint Reports ) • IT: “Coordination between national and sub- national interventions should be strengthened… establishing the levels of assistance that are deemed essential nation- wide” ( swallow ) • NL: “The gender dimension of poverty and social exclusion is lacking” ( swallow twice )
not as “soft” Evaluation by Commission as some had hoped •Social Protection Committee: Commission was labeled an “agent on the run” (POL, UK)
4. Is OMC benchmarking delivering the goods ( does any of this matter )? • It does matter, at least in terms agenda- setting and improving governance • But in terms of outcomes (reducing child poverty, waiting times in hospitals or early retirement): we basically don’t know!
Then what do we know? • Common Objectives created push for the Institutionalisation of NGO involvement NGO involvement in Social Inclusion policies – Belgium from ‘teacher’ to ‘pupil’: participation model (‘people experiencing poverty’) looked especially well on paper , less so in practice • From “window dressing” to adaptational pressure (irrispective of ‘fit’)
Boomerang effect • Example where “uploading” of national priorities (to EU) bounces back to domestic policy setting – OMC works like a “pendulum” (EU-MS) – Reciprocal influence, not one-way impact!
Recommend
More recommend
