Suchergebnisse

In the framework of "Europe 2020", European Union Member States are subject to a new system of economic monitoring and governance known as the European Semester. This paper seeks to analyse the way in which national health systems are being influenced by EU institutions through the European Semester. A content analysis of the Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 was carried out. This confirmed an increasing trend for health systems to feature in CSRs which tend to be framed in the discourse on sustainability of public finances rather than that of social inclusion with a predominant focus on the policy objective of sustainability. The likelihood of obtaining a health CSRs was tested against a series of financial health system performance indicators and general government finance indicators. The odds ratio of obtaining a health CSR increased slightly with the increase in level of general Government debt, with an OR 1.02 (CI: 1.01, 1.03; p = 0.007) and decreased with an increased public health expenditure/total health expenditure ratio, with an OR 0.89 (CI: 0.84,0.96; p = 0.001). The European Semester process is a relatively new process that is influencing health systems in the European Union. The effect of this process on health systems merits further attention. Health stakeholders should seek to engage more closely with this process which if steered appropriately could also present opportunities for health system reform.

Abstract
All governments in Poland formed after the introduction of the European Semester were coalitional ones. All these governments contained junior coalition partners representing all party families. Irrespective of their affiliation, all these junior parties adopted policies that appeared to comply with the European Semester. Hence, junior coalition parties might be recognised as very diligent European students, even if two out of three represented quite extreme views and were undeniably more Eurosceptic than their respective senior partners. However, it can be argued that their strategy was mixed: even if these two more Eurosceptic parties might be regarded as being so in their rhetoric, they accepted all recommendations from the European Semester, except for the farmers' insurance privileges reduction. The salience of their approach to this latter issue was seen even after a few years in government, making these parties clearly different from their senior coalition partners.

The European Semester is a challenge for national parliaments but also an opportunity to reform domestic oversight institutions. Drawing on data from all member states, this study examines the conditions under which national parliaments use this opportunity. Is Euro area membership a prerequisite for parliamentary adaptation to the European Semester and, if so, which further combinations of conditions account for variation among Euro area countries? The analysis suggests that membership in or close ties with the Euro area and institutional strength constitute necessary conditions for parliamentary adaptation. Combined with other factors—in particular, public debt exceeding the Maastricht criteria—these conditions explain reform in many cases. National parliamentary adaptation to the European Semester thus follows existing institutional divisions constituted by differentiated integration in the Euro area and uneven national parliamentary strength.

The European Semester is a challenge for national parliaments but also an opportunity to reform domestic oversight institutions. Drawing on data from all member states, this study examines the conditions under which national parliaments use this opportunity. Is Euro area membership a prerequisite for parliamentary adaptation to the European Semester and, if so, which further combinations of conditions account for variation among Euro area countries? The analysis suggests that membership in or close ties with the Euro area and institutional strength constitute necessary conditions for parliamentary adaptation. Combined with other factors—in particular, public debt exceeding the Maastricht criteria—these conditions explain reform in many cases. National parliamentary adaptation to the European Semester thus follows existing institutional divisions constituted by differentiated integration in the Euro area and uneven national parliamentary strength.

Many scholars have debated the role of social policy in the new economic governance after the financial crisis and the sovereign debt crisis. While some researchers argue that social policy continues to be subordinated in favour of the economic imperative, others observe a partial but progressive socialisation, both in terms of EU policy outputs (i.e. more focus on social policies) and the governance procedure (i.e. more participation of social actors). This article contributes to this debate by providing a national perspective. Specifically, it investigates whether procedural socialisation at the national level leads to output socialisation at the EU level. Based on two case studies from Denmark during the European Semester, this article finds that despite their active participation, social partners have had no noticeable influence on the Commission's Country Reports or Country-Specific Recommendations. The results indicate that procedural socialisation may not easily translate into output socialisation. The article argues for more nuanced insights into the socialisation debate.

This paper examines the extent to which Visegrad countries take into account country-specific recommendations received within the framework of the European Semester, and the level of implementation experienced in the region as compared to that in the European Union. Based on a database created by using assessments of the European Commission's annual country reports, we discuss not only the national-level implementation of recommendations within a term of one year, but also their long-term implementation. According to the annual assessments, the four Visegrad countries all belong to the second half of the field for the EU as a whole, with slightly below 'some progress' achieved in implementing recommendations. However, the impact of EU recommendations on the public policy decisions of Member States is much greater in the longer term than annual assessments can show. Important proof of this statement is that, over a multi-annual period, the Orbán government took measures addressing nearly two-thirds of EU recommendations, which were assessed as at least 'some progress' by the European Commission. In overall terms, this study demonstrates that European integration can make an impact on Member States not only through hard, binding instruments and exclusive powers, but also in a softer way, through public policy coordination.

AbstractHow and why did the European Semester end up as the main institutional vehicle of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)? To what extent did this new set‐up change the power balance among key actors (for example, financial and economic actors versus social affairs actors)? Drawing on historical institutionalism and based on 28 semi‐structured interviews and document analysis, our assessment suggests that while social actors were initially side‐lined and national executives strengthened, over time the pendulum is swinging back. The usual actors are strategically using the institutional structures of the revised Semester as a vehicle to 'have a say' in the RRF. Having more carrots and sticks suggests further strengthening the pivotal role of the European Commission. Yet having the option of submitting national plans gives member states options too. The EU institutional response to the Covid‐19 pandemic built on, and further cemented, the EU's socio‐economic governance architecture.

The European Semester, the foundation of postcrisis economic governance in the European Union (EU), has become the locus of struggle between the economic and social goals of the EU. The persistent hierarchy of social and economic goals and subsuming of social policies to market-making logic have been at the centre of scholarly and political discussions about the Semester since its inception. This article examines how the European Parliament (EP), the EU's representative institution, engages with the social/economic relationship within the technocratic and expert-led Semester and what political and ideological alternatives the EP proposes. We ask where and what are the key conflicts within the EP regarding the social dimension of economic governance and how they affect policy outcomes. By discursively exploring the EP reports on the European Semester for the 2014-19 term and analysing the conflicts between political groups and between the EP committees, the article argues that the EP takes an ambiguous and contradictory position on the relationship between economic and social governance and does not provide a real alternative to the status quo.

AbstractCountry‐specific recommendations (CSRs) were introduced by the Stability and Growth Pact and offered guidance to countries in fiscal policies. Coordination was very limited and unsystematic in terms of policies and obligations. In the aftermath of the euro area financial crisis, the European Union reinforces the pre‐existing policy cycle with the European Semester. Why do countries implement CSRs? Are there explanatory differences in their implementation before and after the introduction of the European Semester? We argue that the study of the entire history of the CSRs provides a unique chance to unravel opposite causal mechanisms. Employing an original dataset, we show that, in the first period, electoral proximity reduces implementation. We find also that, if a country is in (out of) the euro area, it is more (less) inclined to adhere to the CSRs as inflation increases. In the European Semester, instead, inflationary pressure and higher costs of enforcement increase implementation.