People have become more critical of EU policy and often seem to prefer local policy solutions in response to globalisation problems. How do you experience EU policy? Does it help? And if not, how can we change this? In this course, we learn how the European Union prepares and decides on policy, and how policy is transferred to member states and implemented by various authorities, including regional and local governments. We discuss the challenges of the European multi-level governance structure. We also focus on the main causes of policy failure or success. On this journey, we focus on actual policy and present the views of various experts: how easy is it to establish yourself in another EU-country? How do governments make sure that the air you breathe is clean? And who is responsible? You will be able to do research together in your own local setting. Research on implementation in which you can make comparisons between different countries or areas. If you live outside the EU, this is not a problem. We have developed assignments in such a way that you can do research in your area and compare your findings with others. This MOOC has been rated as one of the best MOOCs of 2017 and is currently in the Top 50 MOOCs of All Time of Class Central So, are you curious? Please join: 'EU policy and implementation: making Europe work'. Watch our trailer video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3nSN9R3VR4
How can we improve labor mobility policy?
Loading...
Del curso dictado por Universiteit Leiden
EU policy and implementation: making Europe work!
59 calificaciones
De la lección
Redesigning EU policymaking
Having experienced the European policy process from European lawmaking to regional and perhaps local implementation, the last week reflects on ways to improve EU policymaking. How can EU policy, but also the policy process be redesigned? What is currently discussed in Brussels? And what are the options? The students will first be introduced to the Better Regulation Agenda of the European Commission, which also aims to improve policymaking. Three different directions of change are discussed in the lectures: (a) the ambition to close the European policy cycle by connecting ex-post evaluations with consultations and impact assessments as tools to prepare for new legislation; (b) introducing more experimentation to obtain better results, and (c) focusing on decentralization as a way of bringing back policymaking power to member states, regional governments or even local government.
Conoce a los instructores
Bernard SteunenbergProfessor of Public Administration
Faculty Governance and Global Affairs
How can the residents' policy be improved?
What are the weaknesses which should be addressed?
>> I think that's the residents' directive could be improved in a number of ways.
The first one would be to change the form of the legal
instruments that's been chosen for this policy.
As you know, a directive Is not directly applicable.
It is supposed to be given effect in the national legal system, by the member
state, through the adoption of legislation and other legally binding measures.
And, this process of transposition and implementation,
which has lead to problems in practice.
If the residence directive could be recast into a regulation,
of course that becomes a directly applicable instrument.
It no longer needs to be the subject of an implementing law or
regulations at the national level.
And the regulation has the same effect as a national law and
a regulation of course that comes into conflict.
With a national law because it's under the principal of supremacy of European law.
The regulation is supposed to take precedence over any conflicting
provisions or national law.
So recasting the residence directive into a residence regulation.
Would in my mind enable citizens to make more effective
use of the rights of free movements in the EU.
So that's one way of changing, making a change to
the residence directive to enhance its effectiveness.
Another way of course would be to look at the enforcements,
the commission is asked as guardian of the treaty with
the monitoring of the application of European law.
And one of the things the commission does,
is to look at how the resonance directive has been implemented by the member states.
But unfortunately, the commission has very limited resources
at it's disposal to engage in these monitoring efforts.
So if we consider that there are 28 member states and
roughly 14 million people make use of their free movements rights.
And when we know that there are only 12 policy officials in
Director General for Justice Unit D3, which is responsible for
monitoring the application of the Residence Directive.
We can ask the question, legitimate question, where the 12 policy
officials is a significantly sufficient resource to be able to effectively
monitor the application of the resident's directive in 28 member states.
So I think that's one way of enhancing, also the weight of the directive
operates, is to ensure that the commissions resources
are adequate to be able to engage in effective monitoring and
enforcement of the residence rules.
>> Do we need to change the organization of the policymaking process,
at European level,
in order to address some of the weaknesses you explained about residence directive?
>> I think that there are a number of things that could be done.
Particularly in terms of the expert group.
Which the commission has established.
The commission established an expert group that brings together member states and
the commission as observers.
We're into a forum that provides the ability for the member states
to discuss problems that have arisen with the implementation of the directive.
Now the problem Is that this decision making,
this expert group, is not open to outside observers.
And there are some delays in the ability
to get the decisions which are made by the expert group published.
So at the moment the last decision that has been published by the expert
group dates back from 2012 and
we don't know what has been decided in the last few years.
So there's an issue that first issue of transparency of the decision making.
The second aspect is that there's no civil society
participation in this expert group.
And therefore there's no mechanism for
civil society to participate in decisions made by this expert group at the moment.
The only way that civil society can participate in decision making
relating to the residence directive is by formulating complaints to
the European commission about infringements of the directive.
Or sending petitions to the European Parliament.
Aside from those two mechanisms, there is no way that a civil society is able to
participate before problems have arisen in how decisions and
policies are made within the group.
So it would be good for the commission to think about a mechanism to allow for
participation by civil society in how this expert group operate.
Or create another forum which brings together member states and
civil society and the commission and other EU actors.
And then the final problem with this
expert group is that sometimes the member states identify priorities which
are not necessarily backed up by evidence and statistics.
And we know that under the directive there is no obligation on the member states to
create statistics into how the residence rules are applied in practice.
And so one way to provide for further, for
strengthening evidence based policy making would be to either
incorporate an obligation on the members states in the directive.
Or change the regulation that exists on the collection of
immigration statistics to require member states to collect detailed statistics on
how they apply the residence directive in practice.
>> My of this policy address some of those problems you are mentioning.
>> I don't think personally that further decentralization would somehow enhance or
improve the way that the residences directive applies.
In fact we've seen that a lot of the problems are caused in countries that have
a decentralized approach, because there's inconsistency in how decisions are made.
So I think that Incorporating further decentralized
decision making into how the residence directive would
create new problems rather than solve existing problems in
how the residence directive is implemented in practice.
>> Currently there's a digression about rewriting the directive.
Should the current policy be changed, and in what ways?
>> It definitely be changed because it's not working.
It's actually causing quite a disturbance on European labor markets.
Not a disturbance for companies, but a disturbance for workers and
basically small companies.
There is a series of amendment that the ETOC European trade union confederation
As issued, which says that posting
should never be longer than six months.
The exception under work length principle which is the basis of the European
legislation, the exception on that which is posting,
should not be longer than six months.
If you are posted longer than six months you're not posted, you are a worker.
[INAUDIBLE] working abroad that means regulations of the work
[INAUDIBLE] is applied to you.
That creates balance.
This is the most important of all the amendments we've made and
we're also trying to get the commission to get better
governance on A1 issuance on a withdrawal and on minimum wages that apply.
>> Are those elements in the new commission proposal?
>> A few of the elements are, but the most important isn't.
And the EU proposes to limit postings.
So, limit the exception on the work [INAUDIBLE] principle to two years.
As [INAUDIBLE] would say, that is far too long.
Two years is not a temporary job.
Posting for two years is basically, disturbing the labor market.
If you limit the period of posting,
the period of exception to six months, that is long enough.
Most real postings, like I said, the installation guy who goes to Romania to
install us a motor in a ship, he's not gone for longer than three or four months.
So it should be six months maximum.
And I'm afraid European Union is not going that far.
>> So how could the current posting policy,
which we have been discussing, be improved, according to you?
>> In our opinion, the draft prepared by
employments this year and
by Commissioner Tyson can be a good step in
improving the actual posting directive, why?
Because if the concept of the universal collective labor agreement
will be applicable, it is crystal clear that this speculative,
let's say approach that some companies in Europe have in
relationship with the posting forecast directive will diminish.
Because for example, because we talked about
the Romanian employees working in the harbor of Rotterdam.
If this draft prepared by the commission will be endorsed by the member states,
when the collective labor agreement negotiated by the Dutch unions
in the harbor of Rotterdam, will be applicable also to Romanian employees.
The level of payment they will receive will be much higher.
And the competition between workers will diminish in the moment
that basic active labor agreement will be, let's say, universal applicable
also to the posted workers working in someplace in some different companies.
>> How does this opinion of you and
your union compares to the other opinions in Romania?
Is this, let's say, the new focus of the Romanian government?
Or does the Romanian government see this slightly differently?
>> In May, when the Romanian Parliament participated to the yellow car procedures,
we immediately contacted the Romanian government.
And we asked the government directly this question, the prime minister.
Are the government of Romania supporting the draft directive prepared by
the European Commission or not?
And that time the government gave us, let's say, not a direct response.
They said the document is quite new.
We didn't have the time to consult it, but we are going to do this.
But, we regret that Romanian Parliament joined these yellow car procedures,
because just looking a little bit to the directive, how the draft directive,
how it looks on this moment,
apparently, is not a question of let's say
trespassing the providings of the European Treaty.
Because the yellow car procedures initiated by the ten
countries from the Central and Eastern Europe and Denmark.
It is a procedure when the national parliaments are against
an initiative of the commission when they are considering that
an initiative of the commission is trespassing the European Treaty.
This is even in our opinion,
the Romanian National Trade Union Confederation, this is not true.
The draft directive prepared by the Commissioner Tyson doesn't have any,
let's say, It's not against
some direct providings of the article 153 of
the European Treaty, that's crystal clear.
And we believe that, and we asked the Romanian
government to support in the college
of ministers of labors in Brussels, the initiative of the commission.
Because, as I told you, in our opinion, once this draft directive will be endorsed
by the member states, the situation of the posted workers will improve.
>> As a labor union, have you been involved with others, of course,
in Europe, in order to give input on this new proposal?
>> Yeah, we are participating, we are members is a member now for
more than 23 years, we are members of the European Trade Union Confederation.
We have been in contact with all our colleagues from
other confederations in Europe.
72 confederations which are a member of the ETUC.
And we discussed a lot about this draft directive of the commission.
But, what I can tell you is that we are fully supporting all five, Romanian
trading and confederation are supporting the directive prepared by the Commission.
>> And has the Commission been rather receptive to, let's say,
the comments you made in the initial phase of making this draft?
>> Yeah, we also sent an official letter to the Commissioner Tyson.
Just to let her know that we are supporting the initiative of
the commission.
And to convince her that we are pushing the Romanian
government to support the initiative of the commission,
and myself, I had the opportunity,
being the member of the European Economic and
Social Committee, I had the opportunity to discuss directly
with the Commissioner Tyson, then to offer to her,
let's say, to ensure that we, as trade unions in Romania.
We are offering our full support to the initiative prepared
by the the DigiEmployment and the European commission.
>> Do we need to have a change in the way in which policy making is
organized in Europe?
Are unions for example, sufficiently consulted on these kind of issues?
>> That's a good question.
I think unions are sufficiently consulted,
but of course, unions, even unions,
27 countries, 100 unions differ in opinion.
So of course, reaching a consensus even as junior partners or
[INAUDIBLE] in European Union is very difficult.
What I do see is that the practice, the actual practice of posting
is not playing a big part in decision making.
The people who write regulations and
who monitor regulations are very far rippled from
the actual practice of the regulations they make.
>> Mm-hm.
>> This is a problem.
Of course, as unions we need to jump in their gap and give the examples.
But you see well, this is of course a democracy of the European Union.
You can see that the basic inhabitants of Europe does
not recognize himself what is happening in Brussels.
>> To what extent would decentralization of this policy be a solution?
So by giving back let's say some of the competence to the member states again.
>> In our opinion, even
this complete decentralization can be a solution, but in a way
that accepts the national principle.
So if the decentralization finally mean that for any posted workers in Europe,
the national law applicable to the job place will be enforced.
We agree with this concept, but
we are afraid that the member states are not in favor of this idea.
If they don't like the posting of workers directed, which is far less than this.
It's crystal clear they will not agree to
let's say have a decentralized completely decentralized policy.
>> Can decentralization be important for this [INAUDIBLE]?
The working principles very dominant in this field and we could
have partially reinforced this principle by further decentralize this policy.
>> That would be a solution as long as Europe does not have
one set of minimum income standards for all inhabitants for all countries.
And one social security standard for all countries,
you have to decentralize and opposing worker's directive
is basically a breach of the workland principle and a big breach.
It's one of the cancers of Europe at the moment,
because labor markets are being destabilized.
So yes, going back to the workland principle and decentralizing,
the monitoring would be a solution.
There's also another perspective you can take.
You could also say let's have the workland principal leading.
And the workland is responsible for basically social security contribution and
taxation on all income in the workland.
And if there is a posting situation, let the contributions be redistributed
to the governments instead of as is happening now to employers.
In this way, you would basically
take the money and the competition of social security away from the oppressed.
That would be another solution.
>> Would member states be willing to make that step?
>> I think quite a few of the Eastern European members states and
I’ve been to Romania and I’ve been to Poland and I hear this.
Are saying the exportation of our low income, our low labor cost,
that is what our country is in the European Union for.
We have lost so much by coming into the European Union.
We need this benefit.
Explora nuestro catálogo
Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.
Coursera brinda acceso universal a la mejor educación del mundo, al asociarse con las mejores universidades y organizaciones, para ofrecer cursos en línea.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
