User:Everine Akello/sandbox

= The European Semester =

History
The European Semester was initiated in 2010 with the aim of providing better coordination of the European Union member states’ fiscal and economic policies within the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union after the Financial crisis of 2007–08, the Eurozone crisis, and the European debt crisis. These international economic crises deeply affected the EU member states; hence the need for a coordinated economic and fiscal governance mechanism was reinforced.

Prior to 2010, the EU member states’ economic policies were coordinated separately and yet the member states’ economies are closely integrated under the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union; hence, the member states found it appropriate to synchronize their economic policy coordination procedure schedules so as to facilitate the process and harmonize national budgetary, growth and employment policy goals, while taking into consideration the EU set targets. The elements of the European Semester were meant to boost and improve on the preceding strategies for fiscal, economic, employment and social policy coordination such as the Stability and Growth Pact, the European Employment Strategy, the Lisbon Strategy, and the Open method of coordination. The European Semester process is operated under the legal basis of the Sixpack (European Union law) and the first cycle was instituted in 2011.

Objectives
The main objectives of the European Semester as noted by the Council of the European Union and the European Council include;

•             Contributing to ensuring convergence and stability in the EU

•             Contributing to ensuring sound public finances

•             Fostering economic growth

•             Preventing excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the EU

•             Implementing the Europe 2020 strategy

= Socio-economic Coordination = Socio-economic coordination relates to the coordination of national and European socio-economic policies with the objective to promote growth and jobs. The 2011 European Semester was dominated by the pursuit of fiscal consolidation and macroeconomic austerity, with limited concern for social cohesion and inclusion goals. But as the European debt crisis within the Eurozone morphed into a broader economic and employment crisis, leading to a rapid erosion of public support for the European Union, a significant re-balancing between social, economic, and employment objectives became visible in the policy orientation of successive European Semesters. In the 2017 European Commission’s reflection paper on deepening the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union, the European Commission suggested that the Semester could be further reinforced by fostering cooperation and dialogue among member states at different levels to ensure stronger domestic ownership and to encourage a better implementation of reforms.This coordination has been done through the following process:

Annual Growth Survey (AGS)
Each November of the year preceding the year of the European Semester, the European Commission adopts an Annual Growth Survey (AGS) which has been renamed as ‘the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy (ASGS)’as of the 2020 European Semester. The Annual Growth Survey is a comprehensive document of the Autumn Package which analyses the most recent trends in terms of economic and social policies and establishes the general economic and social priorities for the EU hence providing member states with policy guidance for the upcoming year and it is based on the progress of the Europe 2020 targets, the macroeconomic report and the joint employment report. While the 2019 Annual Growth Survey adopted three main priorities which stressed that policy efforts at national level should focus on delivering high-quality investment and reforms which increase productivity growth, inclusiveness and institutional capacity, while continuing to ensure macro-financial stability and sound public finances; the 2020 Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy stresses the transition to a sustainable and inclusive economy, technological progress, sustainable solutions and demographic changes built on four dimensions; environmental sustainability, productivity gains, fairness and macroeconomic stability.

After the publication of the AGS, in December-January, the European Commission holds bilateral meetings with the Member States, on the process and priorities, and what they mean for each country, as well as the upcoming Country Reports and the state of play of the implementation of Country-Specific Recommendations.

In January and February, the Council of the European Union discusses the Annual Growth Survey in its various configurations and sets overall policy guidelines as well as adopting conclusions. Meanwhile, the European Parliament also discusses the AGS, can take the initiative to report or adopt a resolution, provides an opinion on the employment guidelines, and can stay involved through the Economic Dialogue in which it can recall on the president of the Council of the EU, the European Commission, the European Council or the Eurogroup to discuss matters that are connected to the European Semester.

At the same time, in February, the European Commission publishes the Country Reports which adapt EU priorities to national contexts, while assessing the implementation of the previous year’s Country-Specific Recommendations and outlining key intervention areas for each Member State as identified by the Annual Growth Survey.

Alert Mechanism Report
The publication of the Alert Mechanism Report which identifies member states at risk of potential macroeconomic imbalances is done simultaneously with the Annual Growth Survey and if deemed necessary, the European Commission can issue in-depth reviews for individual member states around February-March.

Country Reports
In March, the European Commission publishes country reports for the participating member states and it holds a second round of bilateral meetings with the Member States in order to collect feedback on the analysis presented in Country Reports. Country reports cover: all areas of macroeconomic or social relevance with the aim of monitoring the progress of Member States’ implementation of the previous year’s Country Specific Recommendations; constitute a detailed analysis of the challenges faced by each Member State, as well as policy suggestions for tackling these challenges; are intended to provide the basis for dialogue with Member States in bilateral meetings which follow their release; and to feed into the preparation of national reform programmes as well as stability (for euro area members) or convergence Programmes (for non-euro area members).

At the same time, the European Council adopts policy guidelines which take into account the overall national and European level macroeconomic situation based on the Annual Growth Survey, and these guidelines allow Member States to develop their stability programmes or convergence programmes and their national reform programs.

National Reform Programs (NRP)
In April, Member States submit their National Reform Programmes (NRP) which show the evolution with regard to national objectives based on Country-Specific Recommendations from the previous year, the main priorities identified in the AGS, as well as the guidelines of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The National Reform Programmes measures are supposed to be precise, represent immediate and comprehensive budgetary consequences in relation to national objectives and targets.

Country-Specific Recommendations (CSR)
In May, the European Commission evaluates the National Reform Programmes of the Member states and drafts Country-Specific Recommendations (CSR) for each member state. The CSRs are drafted after a thorough assessment of the progress made from the previous year's CSRs, and a detailed analysis of the National Reform Programmes and Stability or Convergence Programmes.

The initial preparation and drafting of the CSRs is done by Country Teams which are led by the Secretariat-General of the European Commission, with contributions from desk officers and several responsible and relevant Directorate-Generals of the European Commission in a deliberative and evidence-based process.

At the national level, as its representation, the European Commission engages European Semester Officers (ESOs) who are economic policy experts with the role of bringing the Semester closer to national stakeholders by overseeing the implementation of the CSRs, feeding the Country Teams with CSR analysis, national insights and sentiments, and sometimes explaining complex details of EU economic governance to the national stakeholders.

After the draft has been formulated by the Country Teams, it is then submitted to the Director-Generals of Secretariat-General of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, and Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union (European Commission) for discussion and review, and they in turn submit it to the college of commissioners for approval where some final changes also made.

In June, the Council of the European Union in its different formations such as Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) and advisory bodies such as the Economic Policy Committee (EPC), the Employment Committee (EMCO), and the Social Protection Committee (SPC) discusses and debates the draft country-specific recommendations, which are in turn discussed and endorsed by the European Council. While the EPC is responsible for the preparation of CSR in the economic policy field; EMCO and SPC are responsible for the preparation of the Country-Specific Recommendations in the employment field and Social Protection field respectively for adoption by the Council, and provide an opinion to the Council on the functioning of the Semester, and the work of individual countries.

Finally, in July, the Council adopts the country-specific recommendations, and the member states are supposed to take these into account in the process of national decision-making on the next year’s national budget.

= Criticism/Debate = The economic governance structure of the European Semester has been criticized for focusing more on framing policies at the national level rather than reinforcing policies at the European level, as well as having an inclination towards executive institutions rather than legislative institutions.

Additionally, the overlap of the governance tools has been seen as increasing the complexity of interpretation and understanding of the European Semester for both authorities and citizens at the national and European level.

It has also been criticized for primarily being based on budgetary discipline rather than adequately addressing the coordination and political and economic policy integration in favor of growth and development.

The effectiveness of the European Semester has also been criticized due to the annual decline of the implementation of Country-Specific Mechanisms by the Member States.As observed by Efstathiou et al. (2018), there was a decline in the adoption and implementation of the CSRs by the member states from 2013-2017. And, in an earlier study by Darvas et al. (2015), it was observed that there was a limited response and implementation of CSRs by the member states and an annual decline in CSR implementation from 40% in 2011 to 29% in 2014 in comparison to OECD recommendations was noted.

Another criticism put forward by many authors has been the prioritization of economic objectives over social objectives in the European Semester. For example, Zeitlin et al (2018) observe that many critics argue that social policy has been largely dominated by economic policy and the economic policy actors have dominated the semester process as well as the decision-making process, and that the legal base of some elements of the co-ordination architecture means that the Semester is a hierarchical structure that Member States frequently experience as imposition from above. However, in their study, they note that although the Semester was largely driven by economic considerations when it was initiated, there has been a partial and progressive socialization of the European Semester and they stress that understanding the dynamics of the semester process, and its stages of development, is central to understanding its wider evolution and sense of trajectory.

Additionally, Bekker (2015) observed that the European Semester’s integrated socioeconomic coordination process was complex in nature and that these different dimensions were often difficult to disentangle thus the European Semester may be considered as both economic and social. However, she also notes that the subsuming of social policy goals into economic cycles of governance does not necessarily result in the subjugation of social policy to economic imperatives and concludes that there is still an opportunity to achieve complementary modes of coordination.