Reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination in Social Protection and Social Inclusion

Reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination in Social Protection and Social Inclusion

The 'Open Method of Coordination' is the way in which the European Commission has tried to give substance to the social aspect of the Lisbon Strategy. The Lisbon Strategy is well-known as the EU's plan for achieving higher employment rates and economic growth. It also includes a commitment to social cohesion, to be achieved by means of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). Under the Social OMC, Member States commit to a set of common social objectives, indicators by which progress can be measured, and to evaluating their progress towards these objectives.

Each Member State publishes a National Action Plan (NAP), setting out how it will make progress to the common objectives; the current UK NAP can be accessed at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2006/nap In principle, the social partners are supposed to take part in this evaluation at both the national and EU levels.

The theory underlying this approach is that its transparency will encourage progress, as Member States failing to make adequate progress will be embarrassed by negative comments by their peers and the social partners. The OMC also forms a framework within which Member States can learn from each other and become more aware of developments and challenges that are common across Europe.

The TUC's experience has been that unions have only been involved as a part of a range of NGOs invited to advise the DWP. Employers and employers' organisations are also invited to take part, but rarely bother. Their behaviour is understandable: although the DWP now devotes more resources to working with other organisations to draft and monitor the NAP (the Department was openly contemptuous of the whole process when it was first agreed) it remains difficult to discover any substantial impacts on the Government's policies. The UK Government continues to give the impression that it believes the main contribution this country can make is to provide a positive role model for the rest of the EU.

The Commission has published Reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, a communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. In the communication, the Commission admits that 'delivery on common objectives - fighting poverty and social exclusion, ensuring pension adequacy and sustainability, ensuring equitable access to health and long-term care - remains a challenge ... more can and should be done.' There is also a strong emphasis on integrating the social and economic dimensions of the Lisbon Strategy.

The Communication proposes a number of ways in which the Social OMC can be strengthened:

- Linking the objectives to quantifiable targets wherever possible. National targets could be evaluated on the basis of 'differentiation along pathways' - instead of measuring all Member States by the same criteria, linked groups of Member States with similar problems could work together and be evaluated together;

- Issuing Recommendations on common principles, which would have a little bit more authority with member States' governments;

- Taking the social objectives into account when developing other policies. It is intended that this will mainstream social objectives, and new policy proposals will have to include a social impact assessment;

- Expanding the Commission's ability to collect and evaluate the data needed to evaluate Member States' progress;

- Issuing guidelines for Member States on involving regional and local authorities;

- Trying harder to 'make information related to the achievements of the Social OMC widely accessible, comprehensible and useful.'

These are positive proposals, but they cannot address what the TUC has observed as the key factor determining the effectiveness of the Social OMC in the UK: the extent to which the UK Government is willing to let its policies on social protection and social inclusion be influenced by comments from stakeholders outside Government. These policies can be influenced, but through advanced lobbying, which is rarely best taken forward through discussions on the NAP Inclusion.