To prevent a shift of competences? Developing the open method of coordination: Education, research and development, social inclusion and e-Europe

Defence date: 1 October 2007Examining board: Prof. Virginie Guiraudon (EUI) ; Prof. Anton Hemerijck (WRR/Erasmus University Rotterdam) ; Prof. Adrienne Héritier (EUI)(Supervisor) ; Prof. Claudio Radaelli (University of Exeter)First made available online 2 June 2015.This thesis addresses the questions of why national governments choose the OMC and, especially, which factors explain the degree of development of its infrastructure (i.e. the presence of guidelines, indicators, benchmarks, National Action Plans, and peer review). The positive correlation between the development of the infrastructure of an OMC on an issue, and the saliency of this issue in the eyes of the public is taken as a starting point for answering these questions. It is claimed that national governments opt for an OMC with a highly developed infrastructure when they have an incentive to act on an issue on the European level, and at the same time fear a shift of competences because of the saliency of this issue. This conflict is reinforced when the particular issue forms part of the electoral profile of a political party in government and there is public support for more EU involvement with regard to this issue. The stronger the reluctance of member states to act on the European level, the more member states see a necessity to erect a barrier against a shift of competences, and the more the infrastructure of the OMC will be developed in order to prevent a shift to a less intergovernmental governance mode. In this way, the degree of development of the OMC is expected to be positively linked with the capacity of the OMC to function as a barrier against a shift of competences. For assessing these claims, four policy fields on which the Lisbon Council decided to adopt an OMC are selected: education, research and development, social inclusion, and the e-Europe initiative