Agents of Institutional Change in EU Policy: The Social Investment Moment

Caroline de la Porte, David Natali

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The contribution addresses – through actor-centred historical institutionalism – why and how social investment (SI) emerged at the European Union (EU) level. SI policies built on the institutional basis of the policy co-ordination processes in employment and social inclusion, which originated in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The pre-existent processes represented the necessary but not sufficient condition for the EU SIP to materialise. The decisive factor was the activity of three types of entrepreneurs – intellectual, bureaucratic and political – that enabled the crystallization of the EU Social Investment package (SIP) through issue-framing, institutional alignment and consensus-building. Despite this, the SIP of 2013 ended as a ‘social investment moment’ that rapidly lost momentum because no additional measures such as indicators or funds were integrated with SIP. Furthermore, the Commission’s political priorities changed and the key entrepreneurs that had been active for the materialisation of the SIP were no longer centre stage. The continued presence of former influential entrepreneurs in the EU policy arena, although in different roles, may enable integration of EU SI into new EU social policy initiatives.
The contribution addresses – through actor-centred historical institutionalism – why and how social investment (SI) emerged at the European Union (EU) level. SI policies built on the institutional basis of the policy co-ordination processes in employment and social inclusion, which originated in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The pre-existent processes represented the necessary but not sufficient condition for the EU SIP to materialise. The decisive factor was the activity of three types of entrepreneurs – intellectual, bureaucratic and political – that enabled the crystallization of the EU Social Investment package (SIP) through issue-framing, institutional alignment and consensus-building. Despite this, the SIP of 2013 ended as a ‘social investment moment’ that rapidly lost momentum because no additional measures such as indicators or funds were integrated with SIP. Furthermore, the Commission’s political priorities changed and the key entrepreneurs that had been active for the materialisation of the SIP were no longer centre stage. The continued presence of former influential entrepreneurs in the EU policy arena, although in different roles, may enable integration of EU SI into new EU social policy initiatives.
LanguageEnglish
JournalJournal of European Public Policy
Volume25
Issue number6
Pages828-843
Number of pages16
ISSN1350-1763
DOIs
StatePublished - 2018

Keywords

  • Actor-centred institutionalism
  • EU social policy
  • European Union
  • Historical institutionalism
  • Policy entrepreneurs
  • Social investment

Cite this

@article{5b1490b65737455daa3b2010db960bd9,
title = "Agents of Institutional Change in EU Policy: The Social Investment Moment",
abstract = "The contribution addresses – through actor-centred historical institutionalism – why and how social investment (SI) emerged at the European Union (EU) level. SI policies built on the institutional basis of the policy co-ordination processes in employment and social inclusion, which originated in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The pre-existent processes represented the necessary but not sufficient condition for the EU SIP to materialise. The decisive factor was the activity of three types of entrepreneurs – intellectual, bureaucratic and political – that enabled the crystallization of the EU Social Investment package (SIP) through issue-framing, institutional alignment and consensus-building. Despite this, the SIP of 2013 ended as a ‘social investment moment’ that rapidly lost momentum because no additional measures such as indicators or funds were integrated with SIP. Furthermore, the Commission’s political priorities changed and the key entrepreneurs that had been active for the materialisation of the SIP were no longer centre stage. The continued presence of former influential entrepreneurs in the EU policy arena, although in different roles, may enable integration of EU SI into new EU social policy initiatives.",
keywords = "Actor-centred institutionalism, EU social policy, European Union, Historical institutionalism, Policy entrepreneurs, Social investment, Actor-centred institutionalism, EU social policy, European Union, Historical institutionalism, Policy entrepreneurs, Social investment",
author = "{de la Porte}, Caroline and David Natali",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1080/13501763.2017.1401110",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "828--843",
journal = "Journal of European Public Policy",
issn = "1350-1763",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "6",

}

Agents of Institutional Change in EU Policy : The Social Investment Moment. / de la Porte, Caroline; Natali, David.

In: Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2018, p. 828-843.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Agents of Institutional Change in EU Policy

T2 - Journal of European Public Policy

AU - de la Porte,Caroline

AU - Natali,David

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - The contribution addresses – through actor-centred historical institutionalism – why and how social investment (SI) emerged at the European Union (EU) level. SI policies built on the institutional basis of the policy co-ordination processes in employment and social inclusion, which originated in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The pre-existent processes represented the necessary but not sufficient condition for the EU SIP to materialise. The decisive factor was the activity of three types of entrepreneurs – intellectual, bureaucratic and political – that enabled the crystallization of the EU Social Investment package (SIP) through issue-framing, institutional alignment and consensus-building. Despite this, the SIP of 2013 ended as a ‘social investment moment’ that rapidly lost momentum because no additional measures such as indicators or funds were integrated with SIP. Furthermore, the Commission’s political priorities changed and the key entrepreneurs that had been active for the materialisation of the SIP were no longer centre stage. The continued presence of former influential entrepreneurs in the EU policy arena, although in different roles, may enable integration of EU SI into new EU social policy initiatives.

AB - The contribution addresses – through actor-centred historical institutionalism – why and how social investment (SI) emerged at the European Union (EU) level. SI policies built on the institutional basis of the policy co-ordination processes in employment and social inclusion, which originated in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The pre-existent processes represented the necessary but not sufficient condition for the EU SIP to materialise. The decisive factor was the activity of three types of entrepreneurs – intellectual, bureaucratic and political – that enabled the crystallization of the EU Social Investment package (SIP) through issue-framing, institutional alignment and consensus-building. Despite this, the SIP of 2013 ended as a ‘social investment moment’ that rapidly lost momentum because no additional measures such as indicators or funds were integrated with SIP. Furthermore, the Commission’s political priorities changed and the key entrepreneurs that had been active for the materialisation of the SIP were no longer centre stage. The continued presence of former influential entrepreneurs in the EU policy arena, although in different roles, may enable integration of EU SI into new EU social policy initiatives.

KW - Actor-centred institutionalism

KW - EU social policy

KW - European Union

KW - Historical institutionalism

KW - Policy entrepreneurs

KW - Social investment

KW - Actor-centred institutionalism

KW - EU social policy

KW - European Union

KW - Historical institutionalism

KW - Policy entrepreneurs

KW - Social investment

U2 - 10.1080/13501763.2017.1401110

DO - 10.1080/13501763.2017.1401110

M3 - Journal article

VL - 25

SP - 828

EP - 843

JO - Journal of European Public Policy

JF - Journal of European Public Policy

SN - 1350-1763

IS - 6

ER -