Public policymaking and its analysis at National and European levels
Public policymaking and its analysis at National and European levels

Summary/Abstract: Multi-level governance is now an established field of public policy research. In this context there is a need to introduce two new concepts: substantiation of public policy goals and multi- level coordination of public policy goals. In the study based on this assumption a qualitative approach is used. Usefulness of these two concepts was proved by participatory action policy research on one specific goal substantiated and coordinated within Europe 2020 Strategy in the policy area of poverty. In the course of the research (2012-2015) the author was a representative of the network of social NGOs in the governmental body responsible for implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy in Poland. The main action research tool was an attempt to modify the goal of poverty reduction decided by the government in 2011. In that process rich data was generated, analyzed, interpreted and used for subsequent actions. The effect of the research is a deep insight and understanding of multi-level governance process in a specific policy area and a proposal for two new concepts. Emerging new research areas were proposed and discussed.The author describes the specific features of public policy process at the European Union level and its differences related to policy-making at national level. He underlines, among other things that the policy agenda in the European Union is being shaped differently. At the national level the agenda is under greater influence of politicians who are closely interconnected with voters. At the European Union level the technocratic (not directly elected) European Commission has a monopoly of legislative initiative. Furthermore, at the European level feasibility studies - as an element of the pre-decision stage in public policy-making - tend to be ignored. In nation-states we can see such analyses as a result of competition taking place between those who rule and their political opposition. At the European Union level it is not the case. The author points out that these mechanisms would have been beneficial for the EU member states. They would have halted the implementation of decisions which ran the excessive risk. He has also in mind the decision related to the introduction of the monetary union. In his opinion, this decision was made without a proper feasibility analysis (costs and profits). Basically, the decision on a common currency was made on political rather than substantive grounds. A large number of experts were against the idea as they perceived serious risks involved in it. The supporters of greater European integration ignored the fact that the monetary union deprived nation-states of many factors that affected the economic development in a positive way. The point is that they were under influence of "total optimism" expecting only good results of the monetary union. The mechanisms of crisis management, including exit scenario from the monetary union, or methods of supporting those members who need financial aid, have not been even created. Furthermore, the evaluation of the monetary union was not properly carried out as it was based on the assessment of the process (for example, smooth introduction of euro notes and coins or phasing out of the national currencies in 2002) and not of its results.

• Details
• Contents