Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transformation of the roles of social partners through EU governance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Asia Europe Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The EC/EU institution-building has changed the preferences, interests and ideas of the social partners, and thus attracted them into the “European social policy community”. Under the “Community method”, the traditional mode of EU governance, the social partners developed social dialogues, participated in the Tripartite Conferences and provided consultations for legislation. Along with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, the social partners at the EU level have gained the right to participate directly into the legislating procedure recurring to social partnership. Under the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), the new mode of EU governance, the social partners, together with the civil society, are playing pivotal roles in the formulation, implementation, and overseeing EU policies. This paper intends to make a detailed analysis of the different roles played by the social partners under the three types of decision-making mechanisms, that is, the normal legislating procedure, the social partnership procedure and the OMC, thus trying to illustrate some of the characteristics of EU governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Beate Kohler-Koch & Berthold Rittberger, “The ‘Governance Turn’ in EU Studies”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 2006: 44, issue s1, pp. 27–49.

  2. Daniela Obradovic, “The Impact of the Social Dialogue Procedure on the Powers of European Institutions”, in Hugh Compston & Justin Greenwood (eds.), Social Partnership in the European Union, Palgrave, 2001, pp. 196–197.

  3. The other side of the social dialogue which this paper doesn’t deal with is the social dialogue at the level of companies. To see the official website of the EU: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_dialogue/company_en.htm (Aug. 15 2007).

  4. In 1999 the Union Europeenne de L’Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises joined the social dialogues at the EU level as a formal social partner.

  5. Tina Weber, “The European Sectoral Social Dialogue”, in Hugh Compston & Justin Greenwood (eds.), op. cit., pp. 129–153.

  6. Dewen Tian, European Social Policy and European Integration (Chinese), Social Sciences Academic Press (China), 2004, pp. 45–46.

  7. Beate Kohler-Koch and Berthold Rittberger, op. cit., pp.31–35.

  8. The EESC shall “consist of representatives of the various economic and social components of organized civil society” (Art. 257 of the Treaty establishing the European Community). There are three groups with similar scale: employers, employees and “representatives of various interests”.

  9. Hugh Compston & Justin Greenwood, “Social Partnership in the European Union”, in Hugh Compston & Justin Greenwood (eds.), op. cit., pp.161–162.

  10. Daniela Obradovic, op. cit., pp. 90–97.

  11. Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC, OJ L145, 1996, pp. 4–9. This directive provides that men and women workers are granted an individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth or adoption of a child to enable them to take care of that child, for at least three months. At the end of parental leave, workers shall have the right to return to the same job or, if that is not possible, to an equivalent or similar job consistent with their employment contract or employment relationship. As one of the important means to coordinate family and working relations, this directive is used to promote the equal opportunity and equal treatment between men and women and to encourage men to undertake the same family responsibilities. However, it only provides several minimum criteria, while the forms and conditions for parental leave will be determined by the member states and social partners after consolations.

  12. Gerda Falkner et al. (2002), MPIFG Working Paper: “Transforming Social Policy in Europe? The EC’s Parental Leave Directive and Misfit in the 15 Member States”, in http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/pu/workpap/wp02-11/wp02-11.html.

  13. “The Open Method of Coordination” first emerged in the conclusion of the 2000 Lisbon European Council as an official term. However, similar procedures had already been used to harmonize the economic and financial policies of the member states when the Maastricht Treaty began the process to set up the European Monetary Union. Later on at the Luxembourg, Cardiff and Cologne summits tests were made on some proposals in the employment area with similar principles and methods, which were included in the articles on employment in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Finally after the consultations at the Council meeting combined with practices, this method is used as a new mode of EU governance at the Lisbon European Council and extended to other areas of European social policy.

  14. On benchmarking and EU governance, to see Hong Zhou, “Social Benchmarking and its Theoretical Impact on EU Social Integration”(Chinese), Journal of Demographical Sciences, 2003 (2), Beijing, China, pp. 10–16; and Caroline de la Porte, Philippe Pochet & Graham Room, “Social Benchmarking and EU Governance”, in Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 11, No. 4, November 2001, pp. 291–307.

  15. James Arrowsmith, Keith Sisson & Paul Marginson, “What can ‘benchmarking’ offer the open method of co-ordination?”, in Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 11, No. 2, April 2004, pp. 311–312. The “logic of appropriateness” is based on rules, norms and identification. The pursuit of the actors of objectives is identification but not interests, connected with the choice of rules but not with the rational expectations of individuals. The logic of appropriateness is also action logic of individuals. It believes that the actions of political actors are coherent with rules and practice, which are, constructed by the society, well-known and widely-acknowledged. About the “logic of appropriateness”, to see James G. March & Johan P. Olsen, “The Logic of Appropriateness”, ARENA Working Papers WP 04/09, http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp04_9.pdf; Yuan Zhengqing, “Communication Action Theory and International Politics: A German Perspective on IR Studies”, in World Economy and Politics, vol. 9, 2006, pp. 29–35.

  16. Related contents on the European Employment Strategy can be found on the official website of the EU: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_strategy/index_en.htm

  17. European Trade Union Confederation, Contribution of Trade Union Organisations to the Evaluation of the Actions Conducted and their Impact in Terms of the European Employment Strategy, May, 2005, pp. 9–31.

References

  • Compston H, Greenwood J (2001) Social partnership in the European union. Palgrave, Hampshire

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Porte C, Pochet P, Room G (2001) Social benchmarking, policy-making and the instruments of new governance. J Eur Soc Pol 11(4):291–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkner G, et al (2002) Transforming social policy in Europe? The EC’s parental leave directive and misfit in the 15 member states, MPIfG Working Paper, 02/11. http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de

  • Falkner G, Treib O, Hartlapp M, Leiber S (2005) Complying with Europe: EU harmonisation and soft law in the member states. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Geyer RR (2000) Exploring European social policy. Polity, Cambrige

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood J, Aspinwall M (1998) Collective action in the European union. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hantrais L (2000) Social policy in the European Union, 2nd edn. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe L, Marks G (2001) Multi-level governance and European integration. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Imig D, Tarrow S (2001) Contentious Europeans: protest and politics in an emerging policy. Rowman & Littleffield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Jachtenfuchs M, Kohler-Koch B (2003) Europaeische integration. Leske + Budrich, Opladen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler-Koch B, Eising R (1999) The transformation of governance in the European union. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler-Koch B, Rittberger B (2006) The ‘Governance Turn’ in EU Studies. J Common Mark Stud 44(issue 1):27–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler-Koch B, Conzelmann T, Knodt M (2004) European integration—European governance. Publishing House of Social Sciences, China (Chinese version)

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibfried S, Pierson P (1995) European social policy: between fragmentation and integration. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks G, Scharpf FW, Schmitter PG, Streeck W (1996) Governance in the European Union. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (1999) Governing in Europe: effective and democratic? Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (2001) What have we learned? Problem-solving capacity of the multilevel European policy, MPIfG Working Paper 01/4. http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de

  • Tian D (2004) European social policy and European integration. Social Science. Academic, China (Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Threlfall M (2003) European social integration: harmonization, convergence, and single social area. J Eur Soc Pol 13(2):121–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng C (2006) Die Rolle der Europaeischen Kommission und Sozialpartner im sozialpolitischen Integrationsprozess-Eine neo-institutionalistische Analyse des sozialen Dialogs, Nomos Universitaetsschriften, Politik, Band 141

  • Zhou H (2003) Social benchmarking and its theoretical impact on EU social integration (Chinese). Journal of Demographical Sciences 2003 (2), Beijing, pp 10–16

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of European Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Jianguomennei Dajie 5, Beijing, 100732, China

    Xiepu Yang

Authors
  1. Xiepu Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiepu Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yang, X. Transformation of the roles of social partners through EU governance. Asia Europe J 6, 441–453 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-008-0198-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-008-0198-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation