Suchergebnisse

This article displays the importance of career guidance in Europe and beyond. The authors provide insight into the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), where mutual peer learning and development is of high importance. This paper highlights some of the elements of OMC in career guidance, discussing the terms "benchmarking", "peer learning" and "qualitative goals". Evidently, the OMC is seen as an instrument of governance, albeit a "soft" one in relation to career guidance. The article points out the advantages of this soft steering model, e.g. mutual peer learning. However, it also talks about the criticism this particular approach earns, as being just another tool for policy convergence in areas that are outside democratic political control. The authors further discuss the focus of OMC to develop common frameworks for quality assurance across Europe. These frameworks put perspective on career management skills in developing quality assurance approaches and on establishing national career guidance coordination. Policies and practices, however, aren't interchangeable across national borders to create convergence, as structures, policies, resources, and cultures differ. There is plenty to be learnt from each other, and plenty of silos to be broken down. Practically, the vehicle for applying the OMC approach has been the European Lifelong Guidance Policy Network (ELGPN). (DIPF/Orig.) ; Der vorliegende Beitrag zeigt die Bedeutung der Bildungs- und Berufsberatung innerhalb und außerhalb Europas auf. Die Autoren gewähren Einblick in die Offene Methode der Koordinierung (OMK), bei der das gegenseitige Lernen von KollegInnen (Peer Learning) und ihre Entwicklung einen hohen Stellenwert einnehmen. Im Beitrag werden einige Elemente der OMK in Hinblick auf die Bildungs- und Berufsberatung beleuchtet und näher auf die Begriffe "Benchmarking", "Peer Learning" und "qualitative Ziele" eingegangen. Die OMK gilt offensichtlich als Steuerungsinstrument – wenn auch als ein "sanftes" in Zusammenhang mit der Bildungs- und Berufsberatung. Der Beitrag zeigt die Vorteile dieses sanften Steuerungsinstruments auf, wie z.B. das gegenseitige Peer Learning, beschäftigt sich jedoch auch mit der Kritik an diesem besonderen Ansatz: So handle es sich nur um ein weiteres Instrument der Konvergenzpolitik in Bereichen, die sich außerhalb der demokratischen politischen Kontrolle befinden. Die Autoren beschäftigen sich außerdem mit der Schwerpunktlegung der OMK auf die Entwicklung von gemeinsamen Rahmenbedingungen zur Qualitätssicherung innerhalb Europas. Diese Rahmenbedingungen legen das Hauptaugenmerk auf Kompetenzen zur Laufbahngestaltung und zwar durch die Entwicklung von Qualitätssicherungsansätzen und die Einführung einer nationalen Koordinierung der Bildungs- und Berufsberatung. Die Strategien und Praktiken lassen sich zum Zweck der Annäherung jedoch nicht einfach über Ländergrenzen hinweg austauschen, da es sich um unterschiedliche Strukturen, Richtlinien, Ressourcen und Kulturen handelt. Es gibt viel voneinander zu lernen und viele Barrieren müssen abgebaut werden. In der Praxis steht das European Lifelong Guidance Policy Network (ELGPN) als treibende Kraft hinter der Anwendung der OMK. (DIPF/Orig.)

This article answers the question of which EU-level characteristics of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) are most likely to result in pressure on national governments to reconsider their policies as a result of OMC-related parliamentary activities and media coverage. On the basis of interviews with European Commission officials and an analysis of parliamentary debates in committee meetings and newspaper coverage on six OMCs in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in the period 1996-2009, three characteristics are selected and their empirical relevance assessed. The findings indicate that, when an OMC is adopted in a policy field without any other type of EU-level activity already present, or does not include indicators/benchmarks or peer learning activities, the OMC will not increase the pressure on a national government. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]

Abstract
The article focuses on the use of the open method of coordination (OMC) in the field of culture. Its aim is to explore the adequacy of the cultural OMC in achieving its specific goals. The article examines the configuration and functioning of the cultural OMC through two distinct cycles (2008−10 and 2011−14), investigating the capacity of the process to structure Member States' cultural cooperation, to foster exchanges of best practice and to feed national and European Union (EU) cultural policies through the formulation of policy recommendations. The analysis draws on desk research and interviews carried out with the European institutions, Member States' cultural authorities and OMC participants in the cultural field. The article demonstrates that overall the cultural OMC is well-equipped to fulfil its mission and suggests that targeted changes to its format and operation could further strengthen its potential to do so.

This article answers the question of which EU-level characteristics of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) are most likely to result in pressure on national governments to reconsider their policies as a result of OMC-related parliamentary activities and media coverage. On the basis of interviews with European Commission officials and an analysis of parliamentary debates in committee meetings and newspaper coverage on six OMCs in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in the period 1996–2009, three characteristics are selected and their empirical relevance assessed. The findings indicate that, when an OMC is adopted in a policy field without any other type of EU-level activity already present, or does not include indicators/benchmarks or peer learning activities, the OMC will not increase the pressure on a national government.

One of the most radical assertions made by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann was that of late modern society's lack of self-control (Luhmann, 1990). Indeed, from the perspective of systems theory governing modern society is at once expected and impossible. The history of the political system must be understood as a series of attempts to achieve a task that cannot be achieved: that of actually governing or controlling modern society. The constitutional Nation State and the separation between legislative, executive and judicial powers has been the most conventional modern attempt by the political system to control society. In late modernity, the political system added yet another attempt to control modernity's own lack of control: that of "governance" instruments, sometimes alluded to under the terms "governing without government" (Rhodes, 1996). Several authors have linked this type of ambiguity to the "Governance Turn" (Armstrong, 2016; Kjaer, 2010), the "Comparative Turn" (Grek, 2009, 2010) or the "Knowledge Turn" (Fenwick et al., 2014; Freeman & Mangez, 2013; Normand & Derouet, 2016). The main topic of interest of this paper is the involvement of the European Union in the sector of education through the Open Method of Coordination. The attempt of the EU to govern education is fostered and legitimised by the observation of society's future as full of risks and uncertainties exceeding by far national territories – unemployment, terrorism, transformation of the labour market, etc. These observations, apparent in the "Lisbon Dramaturgy" (Laffan & Shaw, 2005), far from acting as an obstacle to the European involvement in education, operate instead as resources legitimating further political action at EU level. This involvement, however, does not take the conventional form of government. Instead, at a transnational level, the political system partly takes the form of governance processes, such as the OMC. The OMC is often defined by its informality (Alexiadou, 2007, 2014; Kjaer, 2010; Trubek & Trubek, 2005; Wallace et al., 2006) compared to traditional political mechanisms such as the Ordinary-Legislative-Procedure. Attempts to characterise these informal mechanisms range from the "lack of pre-given sets of rules" (Hajer, 2006) to "a greater inclusion of non-governmental actors in policy processes" (Peters, 2007). Inspired by but not limiting ourselves to these definitions, we intend to complete the analysis of informal governance mechanisms with the example of the Education and Training 2020 Working Groups, constitutive of the OMC in education. Informality, we suggest, is by no means a lack of form but rather a redefinition of political processes in a context of relative lack of formal power. Informal governance redefines the ways politics attempt to steer society, not by the deliberation, voting and implementation of legislative rules, but rather by facilitating learning processes, sharing of best practices and the tentative construction of shared cognitive frameworks at European level. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to provide a description and an analysis of the ET2020 Working Groups as novel ways through which the political system attempts to govern education. Research questions - How do the WG attempt to reach a consensus through the production of a coherent output, given the diversity of backgrounds and expectations among the WG members? - What is the influence of their initial mandate in the production of their output? How do the WG achieve to fulfil their two-fold mission, on one side to complete the objectives pre-defined by the mandates, and on the other side to foster the feeling of agreement and ownership of the WG members towards the output?

One of the most radical assertions made by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann was that of late modern society's lack of self-control (Luhmann, 1990). Indeed, from the perspective of systems theory governing modern society is at once expected and impossible. The history of the political system must be understood as a series of attempts to achieve a task that cannot be achieved: that of actually governing or controlling modern society. The constitutional Nation State and the separation between legislative, executive and judicial powers has been the most conventional modern attempt by the political system to control society. In late modernity, the political system added yet another attempt to control modernity's own lack of control: that of "governance" instruments, sometimes alluded to under the terms "governing without government" (Rhodes, 1996). Several authors have linked this type of ambiguity to the "Governance Turn" (Armstrong, 2016; Kjaer, 2010), the "Comparative Turn" (Grek, 2009, 2010) or the "Knowledge Turn" (Fenwick et al., 2014; Freeman & Mangez, 2013; Normand & Derouet, 2016). The main topic of interest of this paper is the involvement of the European Union in the sector of education through the Open Method of Coordination. The attempt of the EU to govern education is fostered and legitimised by the observation of society's future as full of risks and uncertainties exceeding by far national territories – unemployment, terrorism, transformation of the labour market, etc. These observations, apparent in the "Lisbon Dramaturgy" (Laffan & Shaw, 2005), far from acting as an obstacle to the European involvement in education, operate instead as resources legitimating further political action at EU level. This involvement, however, does not take the conventional form of government. Instead, at a transnational level, the political system partly takes the form of governance processes, such as the OMC. The OMC is often defined by its informality (Alexiadou, 2007, 2014; Kjaer, 2010; Trubek & Trubek, 2005; Wallace et al., 2006) compared to traditional political mechanisms such as the Ordinary-Legislative-Procedure. Attempts to characterise these informal mechanisms range from the "lack of pre-given sets of rules" (Hajer, 2006) to "a greater inclusion of non-governmental actors in policy processes" (Peters, 2007). Inspired by but not limiting ourselves to these definitions, we intend to complete the analysis of informal governance mechanisms with the example of the Education and Training 2020 Working Groups, constitutive of the OMC in education. Informality, we suggest, is by no means a lack of form but rather a redefinition of political processes in a context of relative lack of formal power. Informal governance redefines the ways politics attempt to steer society, not by the deliberation, voting and implementation of legislative rules, but rather by facilitating learning processes, sharing of best practices and the tentative construction of shared cognitive frameworks at European level. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to provide a description and an analysis of the ET2020 Working Groups as novel ways through which the political system attempts to govern education. Research questions - How do the WG attempt to reach a consensus through the production of a coherent output, given the diversity of backgrounds and expectations among the WG members? - What is the influence of their initial mandate in the production of their output? How do the WG achieve to fulfil their two-fold mission, on one side to complete the objectives pre-defined by the mandates, and on the other side to foster the feeling of agreement and ownership of the WG members towards the output?

Since its last Congress in Helsinki, the ETUC has witnessed the appearance of a new regulatory mode, the open method of coordination (OMC), the most notable use of which has been in the European Employment Strategy (EES). This article successively explains the reasons for creating the EES, gives an account of its strength as an OMC tool but also of the contentious issues behind it, and describes its achievements and shortcomings on the basis of the evaluation after five years by the European Commission. The article concludes by reflecting upon the future development of the EES and the challenges for EU social partners, in particular the ETUC.

Launched in 2008, the open method of coordination (OMC) in the policy area of culture in the European Union has been used to structure cultural cooperation between Member States, to promote the exchange of best practices and feed national and EU policies by making recommendations to national and European policy-makers. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the cultural OMC has delivered on its objectives. Has the process been successful in structuring cooperation between Member States? Has it had an influence on Member States' cultural policies and if yes, in what way(s)? Has it informed cultural activity in the EU, affecting the measures taken at EU level? Based on a broad range of EU policy documents, cultural OMC outputs and interviews held with the European institutions, Member States' cultural authorities and OMC participants in the cultural field, this article presents an empirical analysis of the effects of the cultural OMC through two distinct cycles (2008-2010 and 2011-2014). The analysis seeks to deepen the understanding of policy coordination in culture – a policy area that is essentially reserved for Member States due to their sensitivities in this field.

Based on the findings of a large-scale, comparative research project, this book systematically assesses the institutional design and national influence of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) on Social Inclusion and Social Protection, at the European Union (EU) level and in ten EU Member States. Besides offering novel empirical and theoretical insights into the operation and impact of the OMC, the book presents an up-to-date perspective on the future of social policy coordination within the Europe 2020 Strategy. The book is required reading for anyone concerned with understanding the contribution of new forms of governance to the past and future development of Social Europe.