The EU's role and methods in policy coordination

• Author: Applica, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER)
• Pages: 16-17

Report on the online consultation

16

6 The EU’s role and methods in policy coordination

In this section, partici pants were asked whether or not they agree with four statements

about the EU’s role in policy coordination and the meth ods to use, specifically:

 The issue of fighting child poverty and promoting children’s social rights should be

a more central element of the European Semester than has been the case to date.

 The Commission shoul d do more to prom ote exchange of b est practice between

Member States on tackling child poverty and guaranteeing children’s social rights.

 A system of regular dialogue between the Commission and all relevant stakeholders

should be established specifi cally to support the effective implementation of the

2013 EU Recommendation on Investing in Children.

 EU targets relating to child poverty and children’s social rights should be established

as part of any successor to the Europe 2020 Strategy

Again the great maj ority of respondents agree with all the statements, though slightly

more in the case of the second and fourth statements (92-93%) than the fi rst and third

(85% for both) (Fi gure 8). The strongest support comes from countries with high or very

high levels of child deprivation, especially for the fourth statem ent on establishing EU

targets on child poverty and children’s rights.

Only 1-2% of respondents disagree with the second and fourth statements (that the EU

should promote exchange of information on chil d poverty and establish in dicators on this

for monitoring the Pillar of Social Rights), while 4-5% disagree wi th the other two (on

combating child poverty being a more c entral part of the European Semester and

establishing dialogue on the EU Recommendation on Investing in Children). Of these, many

are from Managing Authorities for Cohesion policy programmes and E U institutions. In

addition, for both these propositions, the proportion of don’t knows is relatively large (10-

12%), implying either that the respondents concerned have insufficient knowledge of the

subject matter (the European Semester and the Investin g in Children Recommendation)

or that they have no opinion one way or the other.

Figure 8 The respondent agrees/disagrees with the fol lowing statements

Q6a: The issue of fighting child p overty and promoting children’s social rights

should be a more central element of the European Semester than has been the

case to date

Q6b: The Commission should do more to promote exchange of b est practice

between Member States on tackling child poverty and guaranteeing children’s

social rights