European platform against poverty: to ensure social and territorial cohesion such that the benefits of growth and

jobs are widely shared and people experiencing poverty and social exclusion are enabled to live in dignity and take an active part in society. The EU encourages national governments to:

combat poverty and social exclusion social policy = state intervention in order to eliminate the effects of social exclusion and inequality to some extent uses the OMC1 to encourage them to reform their social welfare systems by learning from each other and identifying what social policies work best report on their progress in this co-ordination

EU policy decisions BUT no coercive power per se and little control over national social inclusion policies, only soft power of suggestions and benchmarks, OMC and no implementation mechanisms attached to policies Member States hard power, binding policy decisions and implementation, BUT prone to implementation failure due to many reasons (political, monetary, social, unwillingness) implementation gap between normative EU policies and empirical national policies NGOs soft power, attraction and persuasion advocacy for policies, BUT, their role is changinge.g., in social inclusion OMC some funds were made available for NGOs

<EXAMPLE>
The key to understanding coercive power of NGOs might lie with the concept of discursive regulatory mechanisms mechanisms which are by themselves soft but put together, amount to binding practices and norms recognized as valid. They become coercive through the combined influence of structural and social pressures. The most important of these pressures are: - common discourse agreement in problem definitions, framing of reality - common indicators and statistical databases objective data and transparency - dissemination of results both best and worst practices - review, auditing and control transparency of results attained - time constraints the need to work on national and EU benchmarks simultaneously opens the space for NGOs to give crucial input and be consulted - learning inducing encouraging coordination and comparison in practices - deliberation - framing as a public issue, drawing upon public accountability
1

The OMC is loosely defined space meant to function as a multi-level forum for exchange of experiences and sharing of best practices

This partial delegation of power also implies a new understanding of participation in EU policy-making. The prominent transnational and multi-level dimensions of the OMC decision and implementation procedures might transform the basis for participation beyond representative parliamentary mechanisms, by opening up new mechanisms of voice and political involvement.

The coercive elements here are: social pressure to be taken into account, funds to be gained or lost from compliance (or lack thereof) with EU directives on employment policy (we have mentioned yesterday that the distribution or withholding of funds sits at the boundary of the soft/hard dichotomy), the threat of programmatic exclusion by the EU institutions if recommendations articulated through the OMC are not observed A chain of exercises of power, most of it soft, down to the instance of implementation, when it is hard power that gets policies implemented, i.e. regulation carried out. Is there such a thing as a less coercive way of implementing social policies? Perhaps in the stages leading to it; in the implementation stages, it is still predominantly hard power of the state that gets policies implemented and, with the many intergovernmental arrangements of the EU, it is unlikely that it will become more transnational; however, there is still substantial space and effects to be gained form the inclusion of NGOs subnationally, with them becoming exponents of hard power in their own right, not subject to the state but cooperating with it on social inclusion policies; in this respect, NGOs can be seen as extended hands of the Union, since it is the OMC that legitimates them to become involved. During the process of their inclusion in policy implementation, the power of NGOs also shifts towards the hard power side of the dichotomy, as DRM make NGO input coercive to some extent

Why might it prove useful to include these new actors in regulation for social exclusion policies? because they have incentives beyond those of the state-based regulatory actors because they have less funding than the state and are better motivated to act strategically because they can, on the whole, come closer to the target populations of social policies and gain better insight into what can be done Why might it be risky to include these new actors in regulation for social exclusion policies? because their own incentives might push them to lose sight of their original tasks because their claims to legitimate coercive power are relatively easily contested because they might be easily corruptible by deal offerings These recommendations, however, have some coercive power funds, benchmarking by the countries in which it is best implemented Benchmarking could ostensibly lead to one successful non-governmental undertaking to be generalized across borders thanks to the OMC. Even if not, there is the potential of policy learning to be considered as a method of getting policy practices across borders

ex: The activities of social NGOs (NGOs promoting social inclusion policies) in Sweden Swedish social NGOs have made good use of the OMC to become partners in implementation of the European social inclusion policy at a national level state implementation of social policies was lacking following the 1990s and economic recession that hit Sweden hard long-term unemployment, previously unheard of in the Nordic social states, had become a real problem; especially vulnerable were the young people, ethnic minorities and the disabled so the issue of unemployment spilled over into social exclusion There was a need to enact a policy that would increase social protection in Sweden and counteract vulnerability to social exclusion; the government turned (somewhat reluctantly) to partnership arrangements with some NGOs via the OMC, or rather, a model of outsourcing its power to a network of actors outside the government; this is entirely along the OMC lines At the time of its naming and codification in 2000, Swedish social NGOs (including churches and voluntary groups) had knowledge of OMC provisions; they were already present at the European level through NGO networks and forums but had no become involved nationally yet; nationally, they united many social NGOs into the Network Against Social Exclusion meant to provide social services and represent the socially excluded; the Network was a large-scale collective actor, consisting of organizations with different social agendas low resources but high status The work of the Network focused on providing services to various groups, including the poor, homeless, disabled, immigrants, drug addicts, women and other socially vulnerable people. They advocated the building of housing for these vulnerable groups, better access to education for children from deprivileged families and ensuring that healthcare is universally available. They also advocated that users of social policy be more directly included in its implementation by consultation. Finally, demands of the network went to the local authorities to support local social NGOs in agenda-setting, financial support and advisory boards in order to achieve an integral social policy, from the standpoint of the NGO sector. The Network had no intent of replacing the welfare state, though it did write up an alternative social policy action plan with a stronger role for NGOs. Via the OMC and its contacts, the Network got the Swedish government to consult them and establish a consultative user committee on social and welfare issues. The effects were the reinforcement of Swedish social policy in terms of its expansion to new sectors of vulnerability, re-affirmation of the principle of universal welfare state and a substantial strengthening of the labour policy. Much more resources have been allocated to programs dealing with drug abusers, the mentally disabled, homeless, people under threat of domestic violence and newly released prisoners (no numerical data, though). And representation in social policies has been secured for organizations of policy users, regardless of wealth.