ABSTRACT
OMC processes have also featured in the literature. Looking at two learningbased OMCs (employment and research and development policies) in three countries, the literature has found major cross-OMC differences as well as cross-national differences (Borra´s and Ejrnæs 2011). As to the first, the level of participation is higher in the R&D OMC than in the employment OMC, probably owing to the low political saliency of the former policy area and the high political saliency of the latter. Regarding cross-national differences, national traditions of stakeholder involvement play a very central role in cross-national differences. There is also evidence on the levels of participation and transparency in five
different sub-policy areas of the information society (Harcourt 2013). This alerts us on even more sophisticated nuances, within the same domain. Indeed a within-case research design distinguishes between transparency rules and participatory mechanisms. Participatory gains exist in the areas of e-health, e-learning (education) and e-government. However, there is less evidence of participation in the domains of e-business and e-security. This is due to the narrow framing of e-business (concerned exclusively with the business community) and the sensitive issues of e-security in the national context (Harcourt 2013). The democratic standards of the OMC employment have also been appraised
from the perspective of deliberative democracy (Radulova 2007), focusing on the deliberative quality of the interactions inside the EMCO (Employment Committee), the EU-level, treaty-based committee for the European Employment Strategy, formed by national representatives. There was no argumentative style of interaction or openness among these national representatives in terms of the publicity of decision-making in EMCO (Radulova 2007). Note that the evidence laid out by Borra´s and Ejnæs (2011), together with
Harcourt (2013), on the one hand, and by Radulova (2007) on the other, differs in significant ways. Whereas the first studies find evidence of (different levels of) stakeholder participation at the national level, the latter does not find such evidence of participation and deliberation at the EU level. This might indicate that, in the OMC processes focusing on learning goals, the national level of participation, engagement and deliberation is far more relevant than the EU level alone. This corresponds to the notion of demoi-cratic orders, where the different demoi are engaged at the national level. These findings seem to underline the pivotal role that national stakeholders
and national civil society organizations can play in demoi-cratic orders, which complements the role played by the members of national parliaments (Duina and Raunio 2007). These political and societal e´lites at the national level can act as fundamental linchpins in complex multilevel political orders like the European Union.
