Perfiles espectrales y tiempos de reacción
U- PLS/RBL-LD
The collection of primary data is particularly important with regard to forming recommendations for the future of social and cohesion policy at the EU, especially given the number of actors involved. The EU began as an integration project and in this sense the incentive will always exist to further development of a European identity, European culture and European citizenship. However, there is evidence to suggest that the EU has progressed its economic values to a far greater extent than its social values. It is thus important to understand whether there is currently a political and economic incentive at the Union level to invest in a governance shift and progress the bottom-up or social aspect of the EU. By analysing existing initiatives and future legislative proposals in combination with the personal opinions of those working for the EP, the opportunity exists to bring together and compare detailed and up-to-date information on what social policy in the EU governance structure may look like in the future.
159
Kirsten Jane Mander 99543103 Page 67 The sense of urgency felt at the EU with regard to its negative image in the public eye following the Eurozone crisis has led to a shift in focus from pure economics to social inclusion and regional cohesion. Unfortunately, this has occurred to a greater level in the theoretical sense than in reality. Focusing on the immediate future, there are two main points to pull from the political initiative in place for the 2014-2020 period. Europe for Citizens was designed in recognition of the need to bring together local development strategies and local action groups. As the only initiative of its kind however, it appears overly optimistic to delegate to the programme the task of re-establishing the relationship between the Union and the citizen. Moreover, the large-scale and highly ambitious goals of the 2020 strategy set a number of clear targets with regard to social inclusion and regional cohesion policy that Europe for Citizens will not be able to achieve on its own. Thus, there is voiced recognition of a deep social problem in the EU governance system and a clear concern that if new governance strategies are not put in place then the Union will not survive. The benefit of utilising governance strategies with more of a bottom-up focus is evident; these strategies push for social inclusion and regional development because it is genuinely believed that improvements in these areas will improve the Union overall, both economically and politically. Currently, both the political and economic action being taken can be faulted for moving too slowly. One of the more necessary strategies is the development of a stronger link between the determination of the 2020 strategy, Europe for Citizens and the MFF. The opportunity exists here to explore the use of local civil society in the process of aligning the 2020 strategy with its task-bearers.
The perspective from inside the EP provides two additional components to the discovery above: personal preferences for reform of governance structure by those working inside the institution itself; and more reliable insights into the real position of the political actors within the EU. The general opinion supported the initiative for a shift in governance to a directive that places greater priority on the citizen and will really support social strategies, such as solidifying the link between the 2020 strategy and Europe for Citizens. The most common suggestion was the establishment of local level, pan-European political space as a strategy to enhance relations and subsequently democracy. Thus, the data drawn from interviews and documentation analysis highlights two primary issues in the current governance structure of the EU. Firstly, the priority of the EU is to act on the EC Europe 2020 platform through proposed strategies for the 2014-2020 period, but a number of these strategies remain undecided. It also shows that the priority of the individuals involved is to try to connect the people at ground-level to the action at the top. There is a major disconnect between what is desired by the individuals engaged in EU processes and what social policy and initiatives end up being put forward (or not being put forward). This evidence amounts to the fact that there is room and even desire for changes to be made to the EU governance structure
Kirsten Jane Mander 99543103 Page 68 to make it more socially-focused. The incentive exists to engage in a governance model that builds a clear narrative to bridge the divide between the intended objectives and actual results. It is important to point out here that, with regards to integration, such a conclusion suggests a push for “more Europe” should occur. It is not about more regulation, more institutions and more common policy as Farage has suggested, but about a better-quality Europe that sees the qualitative create the quantitative. At a time of great crisis, the people are what counts. All of this information suggests that a structured top-down / bottom-up governance approach may be a more appropriate form of governance for the EU. Furthermore, in this type of approach it should be the case that citizen participation is facilitated or encouraged by supporting locally-led initiatives that remain aligned with Union law. This introduces the second hypothesis in this research, which assumes the role of the ordinary citizen within the EU governance model can be encapsulated most effectively by local, rather than transnational, institutions. These local institutions should thus be further integrated into the EU system. Chapter Four will test the grounds for the second hypothesis by investigating the results of two case studies on the ability of CSOs to promote the role of the citizen and further their engagement within the EU.
Kirsten Jane Mander 99543103 Page 69