Peer review of labour market programmes in the European Union: what can countries really learn from one another?

Abstract

Abstract This article analyses attempts to promote the diffusion of labour market programmes across the member states of the EU. Under a peer review procedure, member states are encouraged to host visits from other countries to review policy approaches and policy measures whose success they wish to publicize. The article examines the extent to which reviewers feel that they have learnt and whether they consider any aspects of the programmes they have examined to be transferable. Whilst there is evidence at EU level of policy convergence through the adoption of certain labour market targets, there is little evidence either of systematic learning or of significant efforts at emulation. Some explanations for failure on the first count might be found in more general impediments to organizational learning. Some explanations for failures on the second count might be found in perceptions of major cultural and institutional differences between countries. Proposals are made for improvement of the peer review procedure, but reservations remain about whether it does not remain about it being a relatively exclusive process. This paper stems from research carried out under a grant (L216252008 – National Action Plans: policy transfer and social learning in the EU) from the ESRC as part of its 'Future of Governance' programme (http://www.futuregovernance.ac.uk). A preliminary version of the paper was presented by Michael Gold to the BUIRA annual conference in July 2003. A subsequent version was presented by Bernard Casey at seminars on 'policy learning' organized by the ESRC, and held at the HIS in Vienna and the CEU in Budapest in December 2003. School of Management, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham TW20 0EX, UK. Tel: 01784 443402. Fax: 01784 439854. email: m.gold@rhul.ac.uk Keywords: Active labour market policyEuropean Employment Strategyorganizational learningpeer reviewpolicy convergencepolicy learningpolicy transfer Notes This paper stems from research carried out under a grant (L216252008 – National Action Plans: policy transfer and social learning in the EU) from the ESRC as part of its 'Future of Governance' programme (http://www.futuregovernance.ac.uk). A preliminary version of the paper was presented by Michael Gold to the BUIRA annual conference in July 2003. A subsequent version was presented by Bernard Casey at seminars on 'policy learning' organized by the ESRC, and held at the HIS in Vienna and the CEU in Budapest in December 2003. School of Management, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham TW20 0EX, UK. Tel: 01784 443402. Fax: 01784 439854. email: m.gold@rhul.ac.uk School of Management, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham TW20 0EX, UK. Tel: 01784 443402. Fax: 01784 439854. email: m.gold@rhul.ac.uk For the five years, 1998–2002 inclusive, the guidelines were arranged under four standard 'pillars': employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. These pillars were further subdivided so that, in 2002, there were eighteen 'vertical' guidelines. In addition, there were six overarching, or 'horizontal' guidelines (see, for example, CEC Citation2002a). The procedure was somewhat simplified in late 2002 so that now there are ten major guidelines – sometimes referred to as 'the ten commandments' and three 'overarching' guidelines (see CEC Citation2003b). Such amendments, and additions, were an annual occurrence in the past. The 'guidelines' set down in 2003 are intended to be less detailed and to be held more or less constant over any three-year period. The only OMC-like process that does involve sanctions is the Stability and Growth Pact that imposes fiscal deficit targets on Eurozone members. Given the events of late 2003, it is questionable whether even these are enforceable. Not included amongst the total of reviewers are two non-EU countries – Bulgaria and Norway. The former, a candidate country, visited two reviews, the latter, one. Most of the interviews were carried out in the spring and summer of 2003, a few in late 2002 and a few in autumn 2003. Subsequently, this ceased to be the case. Ministries were reorganized so that one became responsible for work and pensions and another for education and skills. The evaluation (Evaluation Citation2001) reports (p. 2) that 'dissemination of the outputs of peer reviews by peer and host country participants following each peer review is taking place, including to key political actors. Colleagues and important actors in Ministries, public employment services, social partners, regional authorities and other interested policy makers are receiving some of the documents, either the whole report or the Executive Summary.' However, this finding is questionable, given the low number of responses and the problems of self-selection of respondents – those who had favourable experiences were more likely to respond at all, and, if they did respond, to respond favourably.