Kodėl neveiksmingas Europos Sąjungos atvirasis koordinavimo metodas: silpnas iš prigimties ar dėl netinkamo taikymo Lietuvoje?

LTŠiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamas atvirasis koordinavimo metodas kaip Europos Sąjungos valdymo metodas. Pirmiausia pristatomas pats metodas, svarbiausi jo bruožai ir taikymo Europos Sąjungoje motyvai. Paskui aptariamas atvirojo koordinavimo metodo analizės pagrindas, kurį sudaro ES ir nacionalinio lygio veiksniai (nepriklausomi kintamieji), atvirojo koordinavimo metodo įtakos mechanizmai bei viešosios politikos ir institucinė kaita (priklausomi kintamieji). Šis analizės pagrindas naudojamas atvirojo koordinavimo metodo taikymo Lietuvoje tyrimo rezultatams struktūrinti ir apibendrinti. Straipsnyje pateikiami atvirojo koordinavimo metodo taikymo Lietuvoje rezultatai ir nagrinėjamos jo ateities tendencijos. Bendra straipsnio išvada yra ta, kad atvirasis koordinavimo metodas Lietuvoje neveikia dėl silpnų jo įtakos mechanizmų. Be to, nors pats atvirasis koordinavimo metodas pagal apibrėžimą priskiriamas prie „minkštųjų“ valdymo formų ir vien todėl gali turėti menkesnę įtaką nei teisiškai įpareigojančios Bendrijos metodo priemonės, Lietuvoje jo veiksmingumą dar silpnina netinkamas taikymas. Tai sunkina reikalingų reformų įgyvendinimą Lietuvoje ir mažina jos indėlį į bendrą Europos Sąjungos ūkio augimą ir užimtumą. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Atviras koordinavimo metodas; Open method of co-ordination; EU; Europos Sąjunga (European Union).

ENThe Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) is a method of the European Union (EU) governance applied in the areas of EU public policy, where EU institutions have no exclusive or shared competences with the EU member states, but seek certain jointly agreed aims and priorities of the EU. The OMC was named and defined for the first time in the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council as a new method for achieving strategic aims of the EU. Many OMC processes were integrated into the revised Lisbon strategy in 2005. All OMC processes could be divided into two groups: the competitiveness-based processes (macroeconomic policy, research and development, information society, enterprises, better regulation, etc.) and the welfare-based processes (employment, social inclusion, education and training, health care, etc.) The implementation of the EU Lisbon strategy in Lithuania and the application of the OMC’s measures in the other areas of public policy allow for a comprehensive assessment of the OMC’s effectiveness in Lithuania three years following its accession to the EU. This article aims at assessing the use of the OMC in Lithuania: what is the effectiveness of the OMC, does the implementation remain the “Achilles heel” of the Lisbon strategy? This research contributes to one direction of the OMC research, analysing the importance of the OMC at the national level. The emergence of “soft” forms of governance (including the OMC) is associated with the dissatisfaction with the slow Community method and attempts to harmonise some public policy areas remaining within the competence of the EU member states (social policy, health, education, etc.). Compared to other forms of EU governance, the OMC is characterised by the low level of obligation and the high level of discretion by the EU member states. Despite the OMC’s orientation to results, it involves a rather wide and intensive process.The OMC is analysed on the basis of an analytical framework, linking factors of EU and national level (independent variables), influence mechanisms of the OMC as well as public policy and institutional change (dependent variables). Overall, the mechanisms of the OMC’s influence are weak (in particular compared with the influence of the EU before accession) and their effectiveness is relatively small in Lithuania. Although some civil servants are involved in learning at the EU level, its results are poorly transferred to the national level. Also, peer pressure is small: the European Commission itself gave up its “naming and shaming” strategy, while Lithuania seeks to influence recommendations of the EU institutions. It is sometimes sought to use the leverage effect in Lithuania, but it is not effective. For instance, the previous recommendation of the European Commission concerning territorial mobility of labour was not addressed in Lithuania. Therefore, the OMC’s results (or their absence) depend primarily on the influence of important national factors (the initial conditions of the economy or public policy, veto points and facilitating institutions, political priorities). Political support of the EU Lisbon strategy and other EU strategies, which are implemented under the OMC, is limited, and administrative capacities of responsible institutions are weak (in analytical and co-ordination terms).Although the involvement of partners was useful in designing the national reform programme, there is evidence that interest groups had a negative effect on the implementation of some reforms in the areas of higher education and labour market. A more successful implementation of the EU strategies in Lithuania under to the OMC requires stronger political support for reforms (including a more active role of the Government Chancellery), stronger capacities of supporting institutions (in particular in analytical terms), better co-ordination in thematic areas and a more effective partnership. However, it is unlikely that these changes would occur in Lithuania very soon. Also, at the EU level there is an increasing gap in implementing the revised EU Lisbon strategy: smaller and more advanced countries (such as Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Estonia) are performing better compared to larger and less advanced countries (such as Poland). However, regardless limited and uneven results of the OMC, it is unlikely to be abandoned, “muddling through” is likely to continue in the future. [From the publication]

• Politikos mokslai / Political sciences
• Vadyba / Management