Good governance in the Slovenian employment and education policy fields: myth or reality?

• Author: Lajh, Damjan
• Position: Report

Introduction

Civil society has become a fashionable concept in political science, closely associated with democracy and representation (Almond and Verba, 1965; Putnam, 2002). Its significance has increased remarkably after the fall of communist systems in Central and Eastern Europe. As Communist Europe lacked an independent civil society for almost half of a century, a major focus in the 1990s was "to build civil society" as a key precondition for a successful transition to a market economy. The Civil Society Index (CSI) research found that this "weakness" was caused by a limited degree of citizen participation and the lack of financial resources available to civil society organisations. Moreover, the CSI noted that the political and cultural environment in post-communist countries has been affected by institutional deficiencies (i.e. the weak rule of law, widespread corruption and low institutional effectiveness) and limited social capital. This also hampered the strengthening of civil society. In general, civil society organisations in post-communist countries adhere to universally accepted values, but often failed to promote them. Furthermore, their impact on policymaking and their capacity to meet societal needs have been limited.

Nowadays, the importance of civil society (71) is widely acknowledged in promoting new modes of governance within the European Union (EU). NGOs can play a vital role in reducing the EU's democratic deficit and can contribute to greater respect for the principles of good governance. New modes of governance are especially relevant for post-socialist new EU member states, as they often lack the adequate mechanisms of accountability and the institutional forums for open and transparent interaction between the government and civil society (Copsey and Haughton, 2009). In this regard, the EU supports the establishment of a sustainable cooperation between civil society organisations and the state (e.g. government, bureaucracy). In the case of policy fields where the harmonisation of the legislation is not (or not entirely) "EU-prescribed", as it is the case for employment and education, the chief hope for increasing the role of civil society has been placed on the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). The OMC as a new mode of European governance holds considerable potential to change and improve policies in individual EU member states. Besides changing the policy content in order to achieve EU common goals, a great emphasis has been put on its potential to improve the openness of the policymaking processes in member states. As the OMC has been formally introduction more than ten years ago, it is time to evaluate whether these expectations were met. Hence, the main research question of this article is: what is the potential of the OMC in promoting the participation of civil society in the process of policy-making, in the fields of employment and education in Slovenia? We will address this question in two steps. Firstly, by developing a research model which takes into consideration the theoretical presumptions of new (soft) modes of governance and Europeanization processes. Secondly, by conducting two case studies, one from each policy field: active ageing in the framework of employment policy and lifelong learning (with special emphasis on adult education) in the framework of education policy.

The article analyses the Slovenian legislation and other official documents as well as EU official documents governing employment and education policies together with other data concerning Slovenia's EU cooperation in these fields. -The authors have also conducted interviews with relevant officials in Slovenia during the period from 2008 to 2011. The information obtained via semi-structured interviews provided an additional insight into the investigated process and were used to clarify certain aspects which we not covered by official documents.

Theoretical argument and research model

The process of European integration has increasingly been shaped by the recent activities of the groups and lobbyists representing societal interests such as consumers, environmentalists, women's groups, and others (Wallace, 2010: 86-87). This means that not only EU institutions, but also national member-state institutions which bear the principal responsibility for introducing policy changes to ensure a high degree of civil society participation. Recently, this point of view has been embedded within the so-called new modes of governance. New modes of governance and policy innovations are in general operationalized through the selection of new policy instruments. It may be that new policy instruments are sought when other mechanisms of coordination or governance have failed (Kassim and Le Galles, 2010: 7). Scott and Trubek (2002) define new mode of governance in a broad manner as "any major departure from the classical Community method". Meanwhile, Treib, Bahr and Falkner (2007) argue that the classification of modes of governance as "old" or "new" is of little analytical value.

The White Paper on European Governance, published in 2001, is of crucial importance in defining the role of civil society within the framework of the new modes of governance. In this document, the European Commission assigned to civil society "a key function in the implementation of good governance by openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence". Building on these principles, the aim of the White Paper is to structure the EU's relationship with civil society, to enhance dialogue and contribute to the openness of organised civil society. According to the principles of good governance, civil society should play an important role in voicing the concerns of citizens and delivering services that meet the people's needs. In this respect, it allows citizens to become more actively involved in achieving the EU's objectives and offers them a structured channel for feedback, criticism and protest.

There are two key strains of argument that explain the increased involvement of civil society actors in the processes of OMC can be encountered in the documents of EU institutions and in contemporary academic debates. The first argument refers to the role of civil society in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of European governance and policymaking (e.g. de la Porte, 2007). In this respect, non-governmental groups and organisations are seen as working nearer to the grass-roots level, being equipped with specific knowledge and expertise, having efficient and problem solving techniques, and acting as stakeholders in their respective policy areas. All in all, civil society representatives are assumed to fill in the multiple gaps of multi-level policymaking, where powers and responsibilities are dispersed and coordinated action is difficult to achieve. The second argument refers to the role of civil society in overcoming the EU's democratic deficit (e.g. Armstrong, 2006). Representative democracy alone is not able to provide the necessary democratic legitimacy for the European polity. Therefore, through their participation in both decision-making and policy implementation, civil society representatives may provide legitimacy to European governance. Scholars conceptualise and theorise these phenomena as alternative forms of democracy, that is to say, as associative and deliberative democracy (Radaelli, 2003; de la Porte and Nanz, 2004; Armstrong, 2006).

Some critics (e.g. Smismans, 2006) warn that, although there are some signs of civil society involvement in the OMC--albeit strongly dependent on policy area and national circumstances (de la Porte and Pochet, 2005; Armstrong, 2006), the dominant picture remains one of a narrow, opaque and technocratic decision-making system. This process involves high domestic civil servants and EU officials in a closed policy network, rather than a broad transparent process of public deliberation and decision-making that is open to the participation of all those with a stake in the outcome (Jacobsson and Viffel, 2002; Smismans, 2004; Zeitlin, 2005). Therefore it is hard to argue that "new modes of governance" are characterised by their democratic and participatory nature. A greater degree of horizontal and hierarchical governance does not automatically lead to a greater degree of participatory governance in normative democratic terms (Smismans, 2006).

Considering the above mentioned principles of good governance in relation to the OMC definition, the first two principles--openness and participation--are the most relevant for evaluating the role of Slovenian civil society in employment and education policy-making. The principle of openness states that the OMC must be designed in such a way as to enable citizens to have an equal control over public policies which concern them directly (Friderich, 2006: 373). This implies that the EU should make the rules and politics more accessible to EU citizens in terms of language and the availability of the information (de la Porte, 2007). The term openness in also connected with the question: "How open is the OMC to various actors?" The analysis of the White Paper reveals that this question concerns the second principle--participation. Participation would improve democracy because a wider citizen participating in the decision-making process would improve the quality of regulation and its subsequent implementation. In other words, the new form of governance by involving more actors and interests should lead to better decision-making and better implementation (de la Porte and Pochet, 2003: 2). The model of stakeholder participation has clearly been perceived as a positive feature of the OMC and as 'one dimension of the whole issue of accountability, democratisation and legitimacy of the new mode of governance' (Radaelli, 2003: 59). Additionally, input legitimacy employed in the OMC literature assumes that political interests are ideally directed into...