The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Open Method as a New Mode of Governance: The Case of Soft Economic Policy Co‐ordination
Abstract
Taking economic co‐ordination in EMU as a starting point, this article explores the development of the open method of co‐ordination, addressing whether it is a new form of governance from two related perspectives. First, to what extent can the method be effectively applied outside the scope of economic policy? Second, will it lead to policy transfer to the EU and hence act only as a transitional mode of governance? Identified at the Lisbon European Council, the method codified practices such as benchmarking, target‐setting and peer review developed in the Luxembourg, Cardiff and Cologne processes. The method offers a new approach to governance of the EU as a heterarchical, decentred and dynamic process. It supports and radicalizes the principle of subsidiarity; offers an alternative to the treaty rules on enhanced co‐operation; and addresses some of the legitimacy issues inherent in the EU. In EMU, the method arose out of a specific policy framework with a common monetary policy complemented by the coordination of national economic policies. The recent recommendation issued against Ireland is the first example of the operation of the method in EMU and shows how debate can be stimulated and how different and arguably equally valid perspectives defended. The particular experience of EMU with a sound money, sound finance paradigm, a long history of project‐building by key elites and the central role of the European Council suggest similar conditions are required for the effective application of the method in other policy spheres. The context within which the method has operated to date is contingent and could change either over time or between policy fields. If so, the very openness of the method may serve to reconfigure the boundaries of competence between the Member States and the Union, after all.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU
Pollack, M. A. (2003) · doi:10.1093/0199251177.001.0001 · Cited by 888
The New Intergovernmentalism: European Integration in the Post‐Maastricht Era
Bickerton, C. J., Hodson, D., & Puetter, U. (2015) · JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies · doi:10.1111/jcms.12212 · Cited by 586
Self-citationReview Article: The ‘Governance Turn’ in EU Studies*
KOHLER‐KOCH, B., & RITTBERGER, B. (2006) · JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00642.x · Cited by 390
Twenty years of multi-level governance: ‘where does it come from? What is it? Where is it going?
Stephenson, P. (2013) · Journal of European Public Policy · doi:10.1080/13501763.2013.781818 · Cited by 385
New Governance in the European Union: A Theoretical Perspective
Eberlein, B., & Kerwer, D. (2004) · JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies · doi:10.1111/j.0021-9886.2004.00479.x · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- Hodson, D., & Maher, I.
- Venue
- JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 719-746
- ISSN
- 0021-9886 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-5965
- OpenAlex
- W2140581367
- Cited by
- 574
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 420.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Open Method as a New Mode of Governance: The Case of Soft Economic Policy Co‐ordination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1468-5965.00328
- The paper
- Hodson, D., & Maher, I. (2001). The Open Method as a New Mode of Governance: The Case of Soft Economic Policy Co‐ordination. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00328
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.