Balancing EU Social and Economic Governance Through Performance Management

TY - JOUR

T1 - Balancing EU Social and Economic Governance Through Performance Management

AU - Hansen, Rasmus Hovedskov

AU - Lovering, Ian Alexander

PY - 2022/2/16

Y1 - 2022/2/16

N2 - This article studies the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) to make sense of the reconfiguration of social and economic policy-making in the European Union (EU). The MIP was meant to tackle competitiveness-based imbalances but today addresses a broader range of social concerns like unemployment and poverty. Scholars agree that this fits in a trend towards the depoliticization of governance through tools of performance management. But they disagree whether this marks the ‘socialisation’ or ‘neoliberalization’ of governance. We contribute to this debate by drawing attention to the politics of performance management in the EU in the context of neoliberal integration. We argue performance management has been driven by two tensions: i) macroeconomic divergence and intergovernmental dissensus and ii) EU institutions’ overlapping and contradictory technical responsibilities and political ambitions. We conclude that the expansion of social indicators in the MIP has undermined the coherence of ‘neoliberal’ regulation. However, tied to a distinct project of the European Commission’s empowerment, it is unlikely to improve prospects for greater social protection as some scholars hope.

AB - This article studies the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) to make sense of the reconfiguration of social and economic policy-making in the European Union (EU). The MIP was meant to tackle competitiveness-based imbalances but today addresses a broader range of social concerns like unemployment and poverty. Scholars agree that this fits in a trend towards the depoliticization of governance through tools of performance management. But they disagree whether this marks the ‘socialisation’ or ‘neoliberalization’ of governance. We contribute to this debate by drawing attention to the politics of performance management in the EU in the context of neoliberal integration. We argue performance management has been driven by two tensions: i) macroeconomic divergence and intergovernmental dissensus and ii) EU institutions’ overlapping and contradictory technical responsibilities and political ambitions. We conclude that the expansion of social indicators in the MIP has undermined the coherence of ‘neoliberal’ regulation. However, tied to a distinct project of the European Commission’s empowerment, it is unlikely to improve prospects for greater social protection as some scholars hope.

M3 - Article

SN - 1356-9775

JO - CONTEMPORARY POLITICS

JF - CONTEMPORARY POLITICS

ER -