Journal of Comparative Politics
64
IMPLEMENTING EU LIFELONG LEARNING POLICY 
THROUGH OPEN METHOD OF COORDINATION IN 
NEW MEMBER STATES:
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC, SLOVAKIA AND 
SLOVENIA
Urška ŠTREMFEL and Damjan LAJH
1
The open method of coordination (‘OMC’) as new mode of European 
governance holds great potential to change and improve different 
aspects of education policies in individual EU member states. 
Due to its soft/non-obligatory way of influencing, it is particularly 
interesting to investigate how different member states have 
adopted to it and how they change their own education policies 
with final aim of achieving EU goals (benchmarks) in this field. From 
that perspective the article focuses on exploring the processes of 
translating objectives defined at the European level in the field of 
education and training into particular national and regional education 
policies in three new member states (the Czech Republic, Slovakia 
and Slovenia). The article aim is through comparative analysis 
investigate various national structures and procedures of putting 
the EU education policy objectives into practice at national level. 
In this way, the analysis endeavours to detect various factors that 
have an impact on the implementation process and reaching EU 
objectives in the field of education and training in new member 
states. The article concludes that despite some differences between 
investigated countries relatively good results are possible to reach 
without exploiting all the potentials of OMC, especially these one 
related to good governance.
1 
Urška Štremfel is Research Fellow at Educational Research Institute in Ljubljana and at the Centre for 
Political Science Research at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. Her research interests 
include European aspects of policy analysis, especially new modes of EU governance and cooperation in 
the field of education policy. Damjan Lajh is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University 
of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and a researcher at the Centre for Political Science Research at the same faculty. His 
research interests include EU policy-making processes, especially implementation of EU cohesion policy, 
Europeanization processes in Slovenia, and processes of democratic transition, especially in post-Yugoslav 
region. As author or co-author has published five books and many articles in scientific journals such as West 
European Politics, Perspectives: The Central European Review of International Affairs, Mezinárodní vztahy, 
Politologický časopis, Politička misao, and Politics in Central Europe.

Journal of Comparative Politics
65
1 Introduction
During the 1950s and 1960s, education did not represent a “natural dimension” 
of the development of the European integration.
2
 Until the early 1970s, the 
Council of Europe was the main intergovernmental forum for cooperation. In 
the framework of the European Community, the first meeting of ministers of 
education in the Council took place in November 1971, while the first Community 
action program on education was established in February 1976. In 1992, 
education finally gained recognition in the Treaty as this sector was incorporated 
into the Maastricht Treaty (Article 126). Today, education and training has finally 
been given a policy framework and an integrated action program, both of them 
devoted to the major ambition of achieving a European area of lifelong learning. 
Simultaneously, education and training are at the heart of the economic and 
social development of the European Union (hereinafter: EU). Nonetheless, at 
this point it is necessary to emphasize that education and training are policy 
fields where harmonization of the national laws and regulations with the EU 
legislation is not required. In this respect, the aim of the EU is primarily to 
contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation 
between member states and by supporting and complementing their action, 
while fully respecting the responsibility of the member states for the content 
of teaching and the organization of education systems and their cultural and 
linguistic diversity. However, on the other hand, at the EU level we are able 
to find many decisions, resolutions and declarations referring to education, 
including, for example, equal opportunities for all, efficiency at school, mobility 
in higher education, foreign language education, safety at school, policy of non-
discrimination, educational technologies and distance learning, lifelong learning, 
academic and vocational certification, quality of education, educational statistics, 
development of general and vocational training, education and possibilities of 
employment etc. All these activities in the EU context have common nomination 
– (voluntary-based) cooperation among member states.
3
In this respect, taking into account the EU context, in the field of education 
and training has been introduced the so-called open method of cooperation 
(hereinafter: OMC). The OMC is a relatively new method of European cooperation 
based on voluntary cooperation between EU member states and EU institutions 
2  
See Jones, D. Peter. Space, Place and Scale: Reframing the Open Method of Co-ordination for »Education 
and Training 2010«, at the Panel on Shaping European Education Agenda European Union Studies 
Association Conference Brussels and Leuven, Belgium, 2007 . Available at http://www.bris.ac.uk/education/
research/centres/ges/gesresearchstudents/peterjones/publications/pdj1 (3 May 2008).
3  
See European Commission. The History of European cooperation in education and training. Europe in 
the making – an example. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006; Hingel, J. 
Anders. Education Policies and European Governance Contribution to the Interservice Groups on European 
Governance, 2001 . Available at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/areas/group12/contribution_education_
en.pdf (28 May 2008); Walkenhorst, Heiko. The Changing Role of EU Education Policy: a Critical Assessment, 
2005. Available at http://aei.pitt.edu/3177/01/Walkenhorst_EUSA_2005_final.pdf (3 May 2008). 

Journal of Comparative Politics
66
on those policy fields where treaties establishing European Communities give 
small or even zero competencies for direct decision-making in the framework 
of EU institutions.
4
 Although already in 1990s the EU policy process contained 
many elements of the OMC, the method was formally introduced with the 
Lisbon Strategy.
5
 Hence, the Lisbon Strategy is perceived as a starting point of 
the OMC. Due to the nature of education as a policy field in which EU member 
states desire to maintain national sovereignty and the simultaneous awareness 
of the meaning of education for achieving the EU’s strategic goals which cannot 
be achieved through 27 inconsistent national education systems, by introducing 
the OMC the Lisbon Strategy established a common European education 
space in which (hitherto completely heterogeneous) education systems could 
connect to create a uniform core of lifelong learning.
6
 The Lisbon process and 
introduction of the method formed the basis for installing the sector in the 
broader EU context and for legitimising its position in European integration.
7
 
In this respect, the OMC represents a milestone in European education policy 
since it is believed to increase and strengthen the education sector at the EU 
level, while opening it up to influences from other fields (economic and social 
policy).
8
 The core of the OMC process in the field of education represents the 
Working Program Education & Training 2010.
9
The article focuses on exploring the processes of translating objectives defined 
at the European level in the field of education and training into particular national 
and regional education policies. The article aims to investigate various national 
structures and procedures of putting the EU education policy objectives into 
practice at national level.
10
 In this way, the analysis endeavours to detect 
various factors that have an impact on the implementation process and 
reaching EU objectives in the field of education and training. In relation to main 
4  
See Dehousse, Renaud. The Open Method of Coordination: A New Policy Paradigm?, 2002. Available at 
http://eucenter.wisc.edu/OMK/Papers/Dehousse.pdf (4 May 2008).
5  
See Laffan, Brigid and Colin Shaw. Classifying and Mapping OMC in different policy areas, 2005. Available 
at http://www.eu-newgov.org/database/DELIV/D02D09_Classifying_and_Mapping_OMC.pdf (4 May 2008)
6  
See Gornitzka, Åse. Coordinating policies for a »Europe of knowledge«, Emerging practices of the 
»Open Method of Coordination« in education and research«, 2005. Available at http://www.arena.uio.no/
publications/working-papers2005/papers/wp05_16.pdf (3 May 2008).
7  
Åse Gornitzka, The Open Method of Coordination as practice – A watershed in European education policy?, 
Working Paper No. 16 (Oslo: Arena Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, 2006).
8  
Ibid., 10.
9  
Lange, Bettina and Nafsika Alexidou. Governing through learning about policy: just all words? An introduction 
to policy learning in the context of open methods of co-ordinating education in the European Union (EU), 
2009.
10  
One of the most visible tools of OMC in implementing the EU objectives in the national education system 
is the revised approach in achieving the goals of Lisbon Strategy and EU Work Programme Education and 
Training 2010 (benchmarks). We should take into consideration that EU goals are also defined as particular 
outputs of the Education, Youth and Culture Council (e.g. in form of conclusions, recommendations, etc.), 
by best practices of member states presented in the work of clusters, by particular proposals resulting 
from various expert studies and analysis published by the European Commission or other EU bodies (e.g. 
Eurydice, Cedefop, etc.)

Journal of Comparative Politics
67
four elements (stages)
11
 in OMC and emphasis from the White Paper of the 
European Commission on European Governance, we focused our comparative 
research on these points: 1) National structures (division of national/regional/
local level, organisation of EU and Lisbon matters, involvement of different 
actors - stakeholders, social partners etc.); 2) National Reform Programmes 
within the Lisbon Agenda (documents); 3) Participation of national countries at 
EU level; 4) Achieving EU benchmarks. 
Picture 1: The process of translating objectives defined at the EU level in 
the field of education and training into education policies of EU member 
states
We compare these aspects in three new member states: the Czech Republic, 
Slovakia and Slovenia, which became members of the EU in 2004. All of them 
are also involved in the project of Central European Cooperation in Education in 
Lifelong Learning (hereinafter: CECE). We conducted the comparative research 
on the basis of analysing National Progress Reports (2005, 2007 , 2009) and 
National Strategies for Lifelong Learning.
12
 In addition, we balanced these 
(possibly) subjective data
13
 with analysis of countries participation in clusters 
and peer learning activities, and with analysis of achieving EU benchmarks. In 
this relation we analysed European Commission’ Progress Reports
14
 to see 
what they tell us about the performances of three analysed member states. The 
article proceeds as follows. First, reasons for different implementation of OMC 
in member states are observed. Second, the article exposes some peculiarities 
of implementing the OMC in new member states. Third, comparative analysis 
11  
These elements are: fixing guidelines for the Union combined with specific timetables for achieving 
the goals which have been set in the short, medium and long terms; establishing, where appropriate, 
quantitative and qualitative indicators and benchmarks against the best in the world and tailored to the 
needs of different member states and sectors as a means of comparing best practices; translating these 
European guidelines into national and regional policies by setting specific targets and adopting measures, 
taking national and regional differences into account; periodic monitoring, evaluation and peer review 
organised as mutual learning processes.
12  
We do not go into detail with the content of the different strategies. We use them as points of reference 
in relation to be able to identify attitudes towards cooperation within OMC among member states.
13  
Some authors warn that member states in their qualitative National Progress Reports can only express their 
symbolic compliance with EU education policy and goals. From that perspective relevance and neutrality of 
presented data in National Progress Reports can be doubtful. 
14  
Progress Towards the Lisbon Objectives in Education and Training – Indicators and Benchmarks.

Journal of Comparative Politics
68
of implementation of EU lifelong learning policy through OMC in the Czech 
Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia is conducted. Finally, conclusion presents the 
syntheses of main findings.
2 Reasons for different implementation of OMC in member 
states 
The OMC as a form of cooperation between member states in the field of 
education was launched with the Lisbon Strategy in 2000. Before that, national 
education systems in EU in accordance with Maastricht treaty
15
 had been 
developing autonomously without (almost) any EU impact, while education 
had traditionally been a policy area anchored nationally. From this perspective, 
national education systems nowadays could differentiate because of different 
historical experiences, traditions, institutional infrastructure, size, dependency 
(on the EU), political culture, different stage of economic, cultural and political 
growth and powerful societal groups. In given circumstances member states 
could - depends on their needs, priorities, capabilities - sovereign decide, 
with which institutional frameworks and national strategies they would adopt 
to reach Lisbon goals. The willingness to change may also relate to member 
states’ expectations towards EU cooperation within education policy.
16
 Member 
states are not passive receivers of EU policies. Instead, they are included in 
the complex process of selectively adopting policy instruments.
17
 Namely, EU 
member states select by themselves the means they perceive as useful (either 
upon recommendation or their own selection) in the context of their individual 
capabilities.
18
 
The political institutional capacities in terms of structures in education policy 
are very different from member state to member state. According to different 
15  
“The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation 
between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully 
respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of 
education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity. ”
16  
Louise Munkholm and Ulrik Kjølsen Olsen, Open Method of Coordination within EU Education policy An 
Analysis of the Potential for Europeanisation (Roskilde: Roskilde University, 2009), 35.
17  
See Alexiadou, Nafsika. The Europeanisation of education policy – changing governance and »new modes 
of coordination, Defining the European Education Agenda. Available at https://camtools.caret.cam.ac.uk/
access/content/group/41d114c3-04b1-4898-8047-9c413ab94fab/Cambridge%20Meeting/Cambridge%20
Working%20PApers/Nafsika%20Alexiadou%20paper.pdf (29 May 2008).
18  
See Kohl, Jürgen and Tobias Vahlpahl. The »Open method of coordination« as an Instrument for Implementing 
the Principle of Subsidiarity? 2005, 6. Available at http://aei.pitt.edu/6104/01/n62_kohl-vahlpahl.pdf (29 May 
2008).

Journal of Comparative Politics
69
authors
19
 this difference in structures creates a basis for domestic change, in 
order to become more alike and thereby be able to compete with the other 
member states. We should take into consideration that the specific nature of 
OMC education makes it hard to document whether domestic changes within 
education policy are a result of an EU process within the framework of the 
OMC, or initiated from home.
20
 
3 OMC in new member states 
When we are talking about implementation of OMC, it is also important to 
look at the time of EU accession of particular member state. We hypothesise 
that new member states have similar starting points for cooperation within the 
OMC framework given their level of experience with EU cooperation. Because 
of OMC softness, non-obligatory nature and rules, it is possible that different 
member states have developed different frameworks of its implementation. 
We hypothesise that different framework of OMC implementation at national 
level result in different levels of activity at the EU level and different achieving 
of EU goals (benchmarks in the field of education). It is in accordance with 
De la Rosa suggestion
21
 that since OMC legal basis is poorly identified—and 
insufficiently clarified by the draft constitutional treaty—the application of the 
OMC in its entirety to the new member states runs the risk of generating a 
sense of disorder, which might obfuscate the priorities themselves.
The effective implementation of the OMC in an enlarged Europe presupposes, 
in the light of the considerations made during the preparations for the new 
member states, the adaptation of its objectives and its indicators, whilst at the 
same time ensuring a great degree of appropriation of its method.
22
 The principal 
challenges need to be faced by each new member state as regards education 
and the principal measures should be adopted to transpose the joint objectives 
19  
See Büchs, Milena. Methodological and Conceptual Issues in Researching the Open Method of Coordination, 
2003. Available at http://www.xnat.org.uk/PDFs/SeventhSeries/Seminar%201%20Researching%20
the%20European%20Social%20Model%20from%20a%20Comparative%20Perspective.pdf (6 August 
2008); Dehousse, Renaud. The Open Method of Coordination: A New Policy Paradigm?, 2002. Available at 
http://eucenter.wisc.edu/OMK/Papers/Dehousse.pdf (4 May 2008); Heidenreich, Martin in Gabriele Bischoff. 
The Open Method of Coordination: A way to the Europeanization of social and employment policies?, 2006. 
Available at http://eucenter.wisc.edu/OMC/New%20OMC%20links/Heidenreich-Bischoff%20jcms_796.pdf 
(6 August 2008); Radaelli, M. Claudio. The Open Method of Coordination: A new governance architecture 
for the European Union? Preliminary report, 2003; Sacchi, Stefano. The open method of coordination and 
national institutional capabilities The Italian Experience as a Heuristic Case Study, 2004. Available at http://
www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/5/9/8/3/pages59836/p59836-1 .php (4 August 
2008). 
20  
Åse Gornitzka, The Open Method of Coordination as practice – A watershed in European education policy? 
Working Paper No. 16 (Oslo: Arena Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, 2006), 48.
21  
Stéphane de la Rosa, “The Open Method of Coordination in the New Member States – the Perspectives 
for its Use as a Tool of Soft Law, ” European Law Journal, 11, 5 (2005), 623. 
22  
Stéphane de la Rosa, “The Open Method of Coordination in the New Member States – the Perspectives 
for its Use as a Tool of Soft Law, ” European Law Journal, 11, 5 (2005), 634. 

Journal of Comparative Politics
70
of the EU on education into national policies. Administrative bodies in the new 
member states need to acquire knowledge of the structure of the education 
OMC, especially the different types of indicators involved.
23
 The new member 
states have yet a lot to learn when it comes to being part of EU cooperation 
as such. Moreover, one could argue that new member states’ expectations 
are different than the ones of old member states, as the latter would suggest 
further development from a level that the new member states have yet to 
reach
24
. These new member states that were accustomed for decades to live 
in a system of “democratic centralism” , may have difficulties to familiarize with 
the new mechanisms of “democratic experimentalism” represented by OMC.
25
 
Nevertheless, the preparation of the new member states for the procedures of 
the OMC is a slow but quite clear process that tends to distort the institutional 
equilibrium underlying this method.
26
 
The question of applying OMC in the education sector could be seen, therefore, 
not only as a question of how far we go with Europeanization of our educational 
policies, but also as one that can help us renew our national ways of governing 
our own education system.
27
 This view is in accordance with Hodson and 
Maher
28
 thinking that “OMC is designed not only to deliver new policy outcomes 
but also to act as a process for improving policy formation” . 
4 Comparing the implementation of EU lifelong learning 
policy through open method of coordination in the 
Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia
In this part we investigate the processes of translating objectives defined at 
the EU level in the field of education and training into education policies in the 
Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia. We focus on various national structures 
and procedures of putting the EU education policy objectives into practice at 
national level. In this respect, we focus on the following four dimensions: 1) 
the role of different (sub)national structures (division of national/regional/local 
level, organisation of EU and Lisbon matters, involvement of different actors - 
23  
Ibid., 626.
24  
Louise Munkholm and Ulrik Kjølsen Olsen, Open Method of Coordination within EU Education policy An 
Analysis of the Potential for Europeanisation (Roskilde: Roskilde University, 2009), 36.
25  
Gábor Halász, European co-ordination of national education policies from the perspective of the new 
member countries (Sint-Katelijne-Waver: Consortium of Institutions for Development and Research in 
Education in Europe, 2003), 12. 
26  
Stéphane de la Rosa, “The Open Method of Coordination in the New Member States – the Perspectives 
for its Use as a Tool of Soft Law, ” European Law Journal, 11, 5 (2005), 627 . 
27  
Gábor Halász, European co-ordination of national education policies from the perspective of the new 
member countries (Sint-Katelijne-Waver: Consortium of Institutions for Development and Research in 
Education in Europe, 2003), 5.
28  
Daniel Hodson and Imelda Maher, “The Open Method as a New Mode of Governance, ” Journal of Common 
Market Studies 39, 4 (2001), 719–746.

Journal of Comparative Politics
71
stakeholders, social partners etc.), 2) the National Reform Programmes within 
the Lisbon Agenda (documents) as core documents of lifelong learning; 3) 
participation of representatives of member states in activities at the EU level, 
and 4) achieving EU benchmarks.
The role of different (sub)national structures
In order to better understand the national contexts with regard to the mechanisms 
of implementing EU objectives in the field of education and training into national 
education systems of the three examined countries the Czech Republic, 
Slovakia and Slovenia, first, we need to have a closer look on the organisation 
of their education systems with special view to EU matters. In three examined 
countries there are differences in organisation of education systems, while 
Slovenia as well does not have formally established regions. Administration 
responsibilities are distributed among the national authorities, local authorities, 
and schools.
29
 In the Czech Republic the responsibility is distributed among 
the central government, regions (which are 14) and communities. Regions 
are given a high degree of autonomy.
30
 Regions are responsible for education 
on their territory and also formulate long-term objectives for their territory in 
compliance with national objectives every four years. On the regional level also 
training activities and Human Resource Development Regional Councils have 
been established.
31
 The communities are responsible for compulsory schooling. 
They establish and administer basic schools and also nursery schools which are 
not compulsory.
32
 In Slovakia, the Ministry of Education is a central body of the 
execution of state administration in education and checks up this execution. 
Above all it determines the network of education establishments, principles of 
pedagogical management of schools. General administration at regional level 
is represented with the regional school offices (eight offices). Their seats and 
territorial area of competence are identical with the seats and territorial area of 
competence of the self-governing regions and by self-governing region. General 
administration at the local level is in competence of municipalities.
33
 
From the viewpoint of OMC, the White Paper of the European Commission 
on European Governance and in accordance with principle of subsidiarity, 
29  
See Eurydice. Organisation of the education system in Slovenia 2008/09, 2009c.
30  
See Eurydice. Organisation of the education system in the Czech Republic 2008/09, 2009a.
31  
See European Commission. Implementing lifelong learning strategies in Europe: Commission Progress 
report on the follow-up to the Council resolution of 2002. EU and EFTA/EEA countries, (2003), 5. 
32  
See Eurydice. Organisation of the education system in the Czech Republic 2008/09, 2009a.
33  
See Eurydice. Organisation of the education system in Slovakia 2008/09 (2009b), 2.

Journal of Comparative Politics
72
the decisions should be taken at the lowest (local, regional) level. Radaelli
34
 
and Zeitlin
35
 argue that OMC should exploit knowledge from local level and 
in that way foster bottom-up learning which enables good EU governance. 
We have to mention that even if there are regions not formally established in 
Slovenia, in the field of lifelong learning (hereinafter: LLL) Slovenia set up eleven 
specialised centres including Regional Training Centres able to act as providers 
and/or catalysts for LLL schemes Guidance and Counselling Centres for Adult 
Education.
36
 Every centre plays the role of coordinator between relevant players 
in the local environment (social partners, learning providers on all levels, local 
authorities, employment services) and therefore enables process of mutual 
learning and cooperation at lowest level without formally established institutions. 
When we compare Organisation of Ministries of education from the viewpoint 
of organisation of EU matters we see that all three countries have got only 
one Department (Unit) for EU Affairs in the entire ministry. There are slight 
differences but such a department, which does not have its variation in any 
other sections of the ministry, is obliged to communicate with particular experts 
from other departments of other sections, who do not deal with EU matters 
on daily basis and who in many cases see the tasks connected to EU agenda 
rather as an uneasy burden. As a result, such a perception of the EU-related 
tasks in other departments has its influence on the particular expert outcomes 
that are produced at the request of the EU Department to be presented at the 
EU level.
37
 
Beside the (re)organisation of Ministries structures examined countries also 
established special bodies for implementing Lisbon strategy. Usually these are 
ad hoc inter-ministerial committees or working groups set up when appropriate.
38
 
All the examined countries reports that Coordinating Units or rather the Lifelong 
Learning Section of the Ministry, which coordinates “the national Lisbon 
processes” , does not have direct powers over the activities of other Sections, 
Departments, or Units of the ministry which were given the tasks to fulfil. As 
a result the extent of the real participation at the implementation of the EU 
34  
See Radaelli, M. Claudio. The Open Method of Coordination: A new governance architecture for the 
European Union? Preliminary report, 2003; Radaelli, M. Claudio. Who learns what? Policy learning and the 
open method of coordination, Paper presented at Conference: Implementing the Lisbon strategy »policy 
learning inside and outside the open method«, European Research Institute – University of Birmingham, 
2004.
35  
See Zeitlin, Jonathan. Introduction: The Open Method of Coordination in Question, 2005. Available at http://
eucenter.wisc.edu/OMK/Papers/EUC/JZPP/introduction.pdf (4 May 2008). 
36  
See European Commission. Implementing lifelong learning strategies in Europe: Commission Progress 
report on the follow-up to the Council resolution of 2002. EU and EFTA/EEA countries (2003), 7–8.
37  
See Central European Cooperation in Education in Lifelong Learning. The Evaluation Analysis of Applying 
the Open Method of Coordination in the Field of Education and Training in Austria, the Czech Republic, 
Hungary, and Slovakia, 2008.
38  
See European Commission. Implementing lifelong learning strategies in Europe: Commission Progress 
report on the follow-up to the Council resolution of 2002. EU and EFTA/EEA countries (2003), 6.

Journal of Comparative Politics
73
objectives into the national educational system depends primarily on the extent 
of individual initiative of the respective ministerial body.
39
 
With regard to the involvement of the Permanent Representation of the three 
countries to the EU in Brussels in the EU coordination process in the field of 
education and training, obviously it varies among the countries. At all levels 
and especially at the Education Committee level the strongest involvement 
of the Permanent Representation is evident in case of Slovakia. As for the 
Czech Republic and Slovenia, their Permanent Representations work more as a 
“translator” of the capital’s position to the EU’s context, hence, the position of 
the national ministries is stronger than in case of Slovakia.
40
 
From the viewpoint of OMC it is important that responsibilities are clearly 
defined. From the organisation of EU matters in the field of education in three 
examined countries we see very complex system of relations (between many 
ad-hoc established intra- and inter- ministerial bodies). The countries have quite 
similar organised systems but the question is how the real communication 
between them really works, taking in consideration the soft nature of OMC and 
lack of control which can mean that actual (in)formal processes are different 
or almost absent as they are defined. This is in accordance with perceiving of 
some authors
41
 that flexibility and non-obligatory nature of OMC can simply lead 
to non-appliance in member states.
As obstacles in implementing OMC in national education policy, the examined 
countries highlights the lack of culture in thinking beyond the limited national (or 
institutional) scope of action, in taking into consideration other alternative views, 
interpreting things in a broader perspective and the domestic developments 
(e.g. implemented from the European Structural Funds) and the representation/
coordination of EU affairs takes place separated from each other. The 
communication between the department responsible for the development and 
the department responsible for EU relations is in most countries occasional, 
and this has not been fully remedied by establishing a forum on ministerial 
or governmental level. There should be established better communication 
channels between different actors, especially the Department/Unit of EU Affairs 
and the department responsible for development and planning, especially the 
39  
See Central European Cooperation in Education in Lifelong Learning. The Evaluation Analysis of Applying 
the Open Method of Coordination in the Field of Education and Training in Austria, the Czech Republic, 
Hungary, and Slovakia, 2008.
40  
Ibid. 
41  
See Alexiadou, Nafsika. The Europeanisation of education policy – changing governance and »new modes of 
coordination, Defining the European Education Agenda, 2007 . Available at https://camtools.caret.cam.ac.uk/
access/content/group/41d114c3-04b1-4898-8047-9c413ab94fab/Cambridge%20Meeting/Cambridge%20
Working%20PApers/Nafsika%20Alexiadou%20paper.pdf (29 May 2008).

Journal of Comparative Politics
74
ones administering European Social Fund.
42
 
Halász
43
 agree with importance of connection between Departments/Units of 
EU Affairs and the ones administering European Social Fund and argue that 
important fractions of education policy may come under Community control 
even within the framework set by the Treaty. Since in these countries, education 
and training reforms were realised in the framework of European development 
(structural) policy with resources coming from the taxpayers of other countries, 
it is natural that the community have to take a strong responsibility on how 
these resources were used and therefore have important impact on national 
education policies. All the examined countries report that they actually broadly 
use European Social Fund for implementing their national education reforms.
Finally, in three examined countries not only governmental actors play role in 
the field of making and implementing lifelong learning policy. There are evident 
some examples of involving stakeholders and social partners. In the Czech 
Republic several representatives of social partners are members of the Intra-
ministerial Coordination group, besides the expert officials from the Ministry, 
experts from cooperating public institutions and officials from other relevant 
ministries. European Commission expose Czech Republic also as good example 
by establishing Councils for human resources development at the regional level, 
which should be an instrument for coordination and creation of a consensus 
on the priorities of a specific policy amongst a large number of independent 
entities active in the particular area (organizations of employers and employees, 
enterprises, educational institutions, civic and special-interest associations, 
etc.).
44
 On the other hand there are weaknesses and deficiencies in involving 
the stakeholders into the debate on the EU matters that would be initiated from 
the Ministry. None of the Council documents are consulted with wider scope 
of stakeholders. As threat of successful implementation of Lifelong Learning 
Strategy in Czech Republic they also mention lack of interconnection of policies 
in the areas of education, industry, health, social services and culture.
45
 
Within the agenda connected to the formulation and monitoring implementation 
of the National Reform Programmes, in the respective Lisbon working groups 
42  
See Central European Cooperation in Education in Lifelong Learning. The Evaluation Analysis of Applying 
the Open Method of Coordination in the Field of Education and Training in Austria, the Czech Republic, 
Hungary, and Slovakia, 2008.
43  
Gábor Halász, European co-ordination of national education policies from the perspective of the new 
member countries (Sint-Katelijne-Waver: Consortium of Institutions for Development and Research in 
Education in Europe, 2003), 2.
44  
See European Commission. Implementing lifelong learning strategies in Europe: Commission Progress 
report on the follow-up to the Council resolution of 2002. EU and EFTA/EEA countries (2003), 7 .
45  
See Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of Czech Republic. The Strategy of Lifelong Learning in the 
Czech Republic (2007a), 49.

Journal of Comparative Politics
75
in Slovakia there are involved various representatives of employers, labour 
unions, academic community, non-governmental organisations, regional self-
governments, etc. Social partners can also have their representation in 17 
expert groups.
46
 They are involved at national, regional and local level. Also the 
idea of learning regions, which are supporting the networks of stakeholders at 
local level is being actively fostered.
47
 If even there are various ways of involving 
stakeholders and social partners, Slovakia highlights that strategically based 
communication with the stakeholders is rather minimal or non-existent.
In the Progress Report from 2007
48
 it is written that strategy for lifelong 
learning in Slovenia was created within the framework of the Ministry of 
Education and Sport, so the main stress is on solutions and measures which 
are directly connected with the field of education and training. Other fields, 
e.g., the economy, are mainly responding to the proposal. It is still hard for the 
idea to be accepted that the question of lifelong learning is not a ‘problem’ 
only of education and training. Slovenia also complains of the lack of ‘effective 
engagement of trade unions’ and also reports that ‘LLL, as a subject of social 
dialogue, is not sufficiently developed at the top, as well as at sectional or 
enterprise level’.
49
 
Although each of the three surveyed ministries can offer some examples of 
good practice, the involvement of stakeholders is generally insufficient. The 
reasons for that are usually the personnel shortage of the relevant departments 
to deal with communicating and coordinating with the stakeholders and the lack 
of initiative of the stakeholders themselves.
50
 Copsey and Haughton
51
 explain 
that the legacy from the former communist regimes plays a key role. This is 
among other aspects reflected in a “lack of highly developed mechanisms 
of accountability” and an absence of institutionalised forums for open and 
transparent interaction among government and key interest groups. From the 
viewpoint of OMC it is important that institutions work in an open manner and 
actively communicate about what the EU does and the decision it takes with 
46  
See Ministry of education of the Slovak Republic. Slovakia National Report on the implementation of the 
Education and Training 2010 work programme (2005), 5.
47  
See Ministry of education of the Slovak Republic. Slovakia National Report on the implementation of the 
Education and Training 2010 work programme (2005), 12.
48  
See Ministry of education and sport of Slovenia. Slovenia National Report on the implementation of the 
Education and Training 2010 work programme, 2007b.
49  
See European Commission. Implementing lifelong learning strategies in Europe: Commission Progress 
report on the follow-up to the Council resolution of 2002. EU and EFTA/EEA countries (2003), 9.
50  
See Central European Cooperation in Education in Lifelong Learning. The Evaluation Analysis of Applying 
the Open Method of Coordination in the Field of Education and Training in Austria, the Czech Republic, 
Hungary, and Slovakia, 2008.
51  
Nathaniel Copsey and Tim Haughton, “The Choices for Europe? National Preference Formation in Old and 
New Member States, ” Journal of Common Market Studies, 47 , 2 (2009), 282.

Journal of Comparative Politics
76
various stakeholders.
52
 In the process of implementing the EU objectives into 
the national level, crucial role plays the involvement of all relevant stakeholders.
53
 
Support for various mechanisms and forms of cooperation between the sphere 
of education and social partners at all levels is also important for harmonizing 
education and the requirements of the labour market. At a national level, 
policies should primarily be coordinated in the areas of education, employment, 
qualifications and support for enterprises, where it would be useful to reconsider 
the need for a coordination body extending over the sectors.
National Reform Programmes within the Lisbon Agenda: core 
documents in the field of lifelong learning
Like for many other EU member states it is also hard to distinguish between 
influence stemming from the EU level and from other international organisations 
such as OECD, UNESCO and the Council of Europe in the Czech Republic, Slovakia 
and Slovenia. For example, debates around the concept of lifelong learning have 
been going on for years within the OECD before they were taken over by the 
EU.
54
 Anyway, clear overlapping with the goals, agreed on the European level, 
can be identified in all key areas of reform of the education system in examined 
three countries. Taking into account the accession process, it was necessary to 
respond to initiatives on the EU level to draw the particular member state closer 
to the trends of the EU and to link some of the key aspects of the national 
education system with the European education area.
55
 Most countries strive to 
implement lifelong learning principles in different components of the education 
and training systems through new legislation or, most often, appropriate 
amendments to the existing legislation. Thus, many acts have been revised 
or are in the process of revision with the view to integrating lifelong learning 
priorities and principles.
56
 From the standpoint of lifelong learning, strategic 
documents of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia are either placed in a 
specific context, i.e. they are concerned with more general aspects of social and 
economic development, the labour market and human resources, or they are 
52  
See European Commission. European Governance – A White Paper. Brussels: European Commission 
(2001), 10. 
53  
In the field of education policy they usually are: teachers, school leaders, universities, parent’s associations, 
non-governmental organisations, civil society etc…
54  
See Eurydice. Lifelong Learning: the contribution of education systems in the Member States of the 
European Union. Results of Eurydice Survey (2000), 8.
55  
See Central European Cooperation in Education in Lifelong Learning. The Evaluation Analysis of Applying 
the Open Method of Coordination in the Field of Education and Training in Austria, the Czech Republic, 
Hungary, and Slovakia, 2008.
56  
See European Commission. Implementing lifelong learning strategies in Europe: Commission Progress 
report on the follow-up to the Council resolution of 2002. EU and EFTA/EEA countries, (2003), 5. 

Journal of Comparative Politics
77
directly related to aspects of education.
57
 The educational system is then seen 
in these documents as one of the basic pillars of the development of lifelong 
learning.
58
 All of three countries use the term lifelong learning in accordance 
as it was defined in the Memorandum of the European Commission and have 
used Memorandum as a starting point for preparing their own Strategies of 
lifelong learning. 
Comparing three core documents in the field of lifelong learning in three 
examined countries’ Lifelong learning strategies, we see that they have quite 
different structure
59
 and content related to specific national context (tradition, 
current situation, national goals in the field of education and training). All of them 
were prepared on the basis of preliminary analyses of others already accepted 
Lifelong learning strategies and analyses of national current situation. For 
example Slovakia evidence basis for identifying strategy’s content was SWOT 
analyses of the educational sector pointing out the fact that Slovak educational 
and guidance system has been reacting insufficiently to labour market needs 
over last decades.
60
 In the Czech Republic Lifelong strategy SWOT analyses of 
concept of lifelong learning is also presented. Only Slovenian Lifelong strategy is 
not translated in English and therefore cannot be accepted for other interested 
actors. 
As we see the measures supporting lifelong learning are an integral part of 
several concept documents and action plans, which were prepared and adopted 
in accordance with the European trends. Number of national strategies in the 
Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia under the umbrella of Lisbon Strategy 
many authors explain by the historical background of being part of a communist 
regime which explains the high motivation and willingness of reforming and 
57  
For example such documents in the Czech Republic are: The National Strategic Reference Framework 
of the CR 2007 – 2013 (2006), The National Lisbon Program 2005 – 2008 (National Program of Reforms 
in the CR) (2005), The Strategy of Economic Growth (2005), The Convergence Program of the Czech 
Republic for 2006-2008 (2005), The Strategy of the Human Resources Development (2003), Long-term 
plan for education and development of the educational system in the Czech Republic (2005, 2007), The 
National Strategy of Education for Sustainable Development (2007). Documents evident in Slovakia are: 
The Competitiveness Strategy of Slovakia until 2010 (2005), National strategic reference framework of 
the Slovak Republic for years 2007 – 2013, Millennium – the National program of education and training 
in the Slovak Republic (2001). In Slovenia some of the documents are: Slovenian Development Strategy 
(2005), Reform Programme for Achieving the Lisbon Strategy Goals (2005), National Strategic Reference 
Framework and Operational Programme for Human Resources Development, Resolution on the Adult 
Education Master Plan (2004), National Programme of education for democratic citizenship and education 
for human rights (2004), Guidelines for Education for Sustainable Development from Pre-school to Pre-
University Education (2007). 
58  
See Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of Czech Republic. The Strategy of Lifelong Learning in the 
Czech Republic (2007a), 19.
59  
Lifelong learning strategies in examined countries are also different length: the Czech Republic 92 pages, 
Slovakia 31 pages, Slovenia 52 pages. 
60  
See Ministry of education of the Slovak Republic. Slovakia National Report on the implementation of the 
Education and Training 2010 work programme (2007b), 2-3.

Journal of Comparative Politics
78
experimenting seen in the new member states after 50 years of inertia.
61
Participation of representatives of the Czech Republic, Slovakia 
and Slovenia in clusters and peer-learning activities
In the field of participation in clusters and peer-learning activities (hereinafter: 
PLA) there are many similarities between analysed countries. Analysis of 
participation in existed clusters
62
 of the Working programme Education & 
Training 2010 shows that examined countries shows similar range of activities. 
The Czech Republic and Slovakia are formally participating in six of ten existing 
clusters, Slovenia formally take part in five of them. Slovakia and Slovenia hosted 
one PLA, while the Czech Republic hosted two of them. Countries explain that 
their representation might fluctuate due to personnel shortage or personnel 
changes in the ministry or relevant expert institutions. 
Cluster members are delegated to the individual clusters by the ministerial 
area which is in charge of the given topic. In all the three countries the cluster 
member is given a great autonomy in his/her performance by the Coordinating 
body. However, in the Czech Republic and Slovenia the aspect of coordination 
is rather minimal of existent at all. The cluster members are given “total” 
independence in which way and to what extent they utilise the knowledge and 
experiences gained in clusters in their work at the national level. They largely 
use the information gained at the EU level in their own work, but they are 
not obliged to distribute it in any established way to the relevant experts or 
policy makers. The extent, how they disseminate findings and insights and 
inform relevant colleges overly depends on personal involvement of the cluster 
member.
63
 From that point of view the background of cluster members, if rather 
of an expert nature or policy and decision making, is very crucial with regard to 
the cluster’s actual impact on the national level. The cluster member is often 
just an expert without any decision-making competences or without a direct 
influence on determining national policy.
64
 
The outputs of the cluster might be very influential in determining and 
realising national policies. However due to the lack of institutional support 
and limited power in the following process, the European Commission looses 
track completely, when the national experts go home. Because of the lack of 
61  
Louise Munkholm and Ulrik Kjølsen Olsen. Open Method of Coordination within EU Education policy. An 
Analysis of the Potential for Europeanisation (Roskilde: Roskilde University, 2009), 45-46.
62  
Modernisation of higher education, Working group on adult education, Information and Communication 
Technology, Key Competences, Making best use of resources, Math, Science and Technology, Recognition 
of Learning outcomes, Teachers and trainers, Teachers and trainers in VET , Access and Social Inclusion.
63  
See Central European Cooperation in Education in Lifelong Learning. The Evaluation Analysis of Applying 
the Open Method of Coordination in the Field of Education and Training in Austria, the Czech Republic, 
Hungary, and Slovakia, 2008.
64  
Ibid.

Journal of Comparative Politics
79
institutional support results of clusters work often don’t reach the policy makers 
in national countries. From that propose European Commission have started 
with meetings of Directors General at the EU level where the results of clusters 
are directly presented to them (not only with meetings but also with publishing 
Policy handbooks). Another view is that participation in cluster is not absolutely 
necessary for national reforms in particular area. For example in National 
Report from 2009 Slovenia explained: “We are not actively participating in 
the key competences cluster, but we do take into consideration the available 
results of the cluster’s work in policy formulation and make use of them in 
the implementation of measures.
65
 If even participation in activities at EU level 
(in clusters and peer learning activities) is not crucial for gaining information 
for national reforms, it is very important from the standpoint of participative 
nature of OMC and bottom-up policy learning where sharing experiences and 
finding solutions for common problems should take place between wide range 
of actors from the lowest (local/regional/national level).
Achieving EU benchmarks in the field of lifelong learning and 
translating them into national context 
When we compare the achieving of EU benchmarks – significant differences 
can be seen between examined three countries. The Czech Republic, Slovakia 
and Slovenia
66
 are significantly beyond average in two of five benchmarks of 
the EU; the number of early school leavers is traditionally low and for a long 
time under 10% and over 90% of 22-year old with completed upper secondary 
education puts the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia high above the 
average of both the EU and the EU benchmark (85%). The main difference 
between countries is evident at benchmarks “low achievers in reading” and 
“adult learning participation” , where Slovenia is above the average and where 
the Czech Republic and Slovakia do not reach not only EU benchmark but also 
not EU average. Different situation is at benchmark “MST graduates” . It is 
interesting to compare achieving benchmarks with participation in clusters and 
organising PLA. For example both Czech Republic and Slovakia hosted PLA in 
the field of adult education, if even they are beyond the EU average. That shows 
that the aim of PLA activities at EU level is not only sharing best practices, but 
practices as such. Slovakia in its National report from 2005 explains that even 
though Slovakia is at present behind the 12,5% benchmark in lifelong learning 
of adults, the implementation of the planned fiscal stimulation of lifelong 
learning together with effective utilisation of sources of the European Social 
Fund makes the achievement of this benchmark feasible and are able to present 
65  
See Ministry of education and sport of Slovenia. Slovenia National Report on the implementation of the 
Education and Training 2010 work programme (2009), 2.
66  
We have to mention that Slovenia does not formally measure the percentage of “early school leavers” and 
that value is only estimation of Slovenian Statistical Office. 

Journal of Comparative Politics
80
its experience to other member states.
67
 
Picture 2: Achieving benchmarks in the field of lifelong learning in the 
Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia
∗	 Data not available. Source: European Commission (2009): Progress Towards the Lisbon 
Objectives in Education and Training – Indicators and Benchmarks.
The Lisbon strategy make high demands of the national education policy, thus 
making a broad information campaign necessary. Many of those involved find 
the process to be too complex and feel that it required a clearer structure. 
Examined countries agree that public reflection if the country’s achievements 
within the Education & Training 2010 does not usually draw any substantial 
media attention (contrary to the OECD PISA study). The process of “naming 
and shaming” thus works only at the level of EU meetings. In that manner 
attempts must be made to separate the co-ordination and reform processes 
from the pure expert level and to win broader public for the implementation 
of the European objectives. Overall, the above-mentioned performances show 
that the member states have different strengths and weaknesses in the five-
benchmark areas, and that no country is falling behind in all areas. The examined 
new member states are comparable with other member states and are in some 
cases even behind EU average. 
5 Conclusion
In the article we analyzed the processes of translating objectives defined at the 
EU level in the field of education and training into national education policies 
in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia. The main aim of the article was 
to investigate various national structures and procedures of putting the EU 
education policy objectives into practice at the national level. In this way, the 
analysis made an effort to detect various factors that have an impact on the 
implementation process and reaching EU objectives in the field of education and 
training. While observing results of national education systems, the conducted 
study showed that all analyzed factors matter: the role of (pre-established) 
national structures, the National Reform Programmes within the Lisbon Agenda 
67  
See Ministry of education of the Slovak Republic. Slovakia National Report on the implementation of the 
Education and Training 2010 work programme (2005), 4.

Journal of Comparative Politics
81
and participation of representatives of member states in activities at the EU 
level. However, despite there are some differences between them, all of them 
are in general able to achieve EU benchmarks in the field of Education and 
training. They all have different strengths and weaknesses in the benchmark 
areas, but they are in general comparable with other member states, while in 
some cases they are even above the EU average. In our opinion, especially two 
factors are of special importance: 1) different institutional structures, dealing 
with EU matters; and 2) different approaches of implementing lifelong learning 
strategies. Differences in these two factors between analyzed member states 
are rather significant. The first reason for this is the soft nature of OMC. While 
the second reason, and at the same time a common nomination in all three 
investigated member states, represents the problem that OMC’s potentials in 
the field of education and training are not being fully exploited. Our analysis 
showed that the procedural processes that characterise the OMC are gradually 
being disseminated in the new member states at the administrative level, 
but the question of the participation of various (especially non-governmental) 
stakeholders and social partners still remains open. It seems this question is 
very sensitive issue in all three analyzed countries and the solution to it will 
have to be found in the long term. 
References
Alexiadou, Nafsika. The Europeanisation of education policy – changing 
governance and »new modes of coordination, Defining the European 
Education Agenda, 2007. Available at https://camtools.caret.cam.
ac.uk/access/content/group/41d114c3-04b1-4898-8047-9c413ab94fab/
Cambridge%20Meeting/Cambridge%20Working%20PApers/Nafsika%20
Alexiadou%20paper.pdf (29 May 2008).
Büchs, Milena. Methodological and Conceptual Issues in Researching the Open 
Method of Coordination, 2003. Available at http://www.xnat.org.uk/PDFs/
SeventhSeries/Seminar%201%20Researching%20the%20European%20
Social%20Model%20from%20a%20Comparative%20Perspective.pdf (6 
August 2008).
Central European Cooperation in Education in Lifelong Learning. The Evaluation 
Analysis of Applying the Open Method of Coordination in the Field of 
Education and Training in Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia, 
2008.
Copsey, Nathaniel and Tim Haughton. “The Choices for Europe? National 
Preference Formation in Old and New Member States. ” Journal of Common 
Market Studies, 47 , 2 (2009): 263–286. 
Council of European Union. Council Conclusions on a strategic framework for 
European cooperation in education and training (“ET 2010”), accepted 14 
June 2002. 
Council of European Union. »Education and Training 2010« The success of 

Journal of Comparative Politics
82
the Lisbon strategy hinges on urgent reforms. Joint interim report of the 
Council and the Commission on the implementation of the detailed work 
programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training 
systems in Europe, accepted 3 March 2004. 
Council of European Union. Council Resolution of 15 November 2007 on 
education and training as a key driver of the Lisbon Strategy, accepted 15 
November 2007 . 
Dehousse, Renaud. The Open Method of Coordination: A New Policy Paradigm?, 
2002. Available at http://eucenter.wisc.edu/OMK/Papers/Dehousse.pdf (4 
May 2008).
European Commission. Memorandum on lifelong learning, 2000. 
European Commission. European Governance – A White Paper. Brussels: 
European Commission, 2001 . 
European Commission. Implementing lifelong learning strategies in Europe: 
Commission Progress report on the follow-up to the Council resolution of 
2002. EU and EFTA/EEA countries, 2003. 
European Commission. The History of European cooperation in education and 
training. Europe in the making – an example. Brussels: Office for Official 
Publications of the European Communities, 2006. 
European Commission. The open method of coordination in education and 
training, 2007 . 
European Council. Lisbon European Council: Presidency Conclusions, 23 and 
24 March 2000.
Eurydice. Lifelong Learning: the contribution of education systems in the 
Member States of the European Union. Results of Eurydice Survey, 2000.
Eurydice. Organisation of the education system in the Czech Republic 2008/09, 
2009a.
Eurydice. Organisation of the education system in Slovakia 2008/09, 2009b.
Eurydice. Organisation of the education system in Slovenia 2008/09, 2009c.
Gornitzka, Åse. Coordinating policies for a »Europe of knowledge«, Emerging 
practices of the »Open Method of Coordination« in education and research«, 
2005. Available at http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/working-papers2005/
papers/wp05_16.pdf (3 May 2008).
Gornitzka, Åse. The Open Method of Coordination as practice – A watershed in 
European education policy?, Working Paper No. 16. Oslo: Arena Centre for 
European Studies, University of Oslo, 2006.
Halász, Gábor. European co-ordination of national education policies from the 
perspective of the new member countries. Sint-Katelijne-Waver: Consortium 
of Institutions for Development and Research in Education in Europe, 2003.
Heidenreich, Martin in Gabriele Bischoff. The Open Method of Coordination: 
A way to the Europeanization of social and employment policies?, 2006. 
Available at http://eucenter.wisc.edu/OMC/New%20OMC%20links/
Heidenreich-Bischoff%20jcms_796.pdf (6 August 2008).

Journal of Comparative Politics
83
Hingel, J. Anders. Education Policies and European Governance Contribution to 
the Interservice Groups on European Governance, 2001 . Available at http://
ec.europa.eu/governance/areas/group12/contribution_education_en.pdf (28 
May 2008).
Hodson, Daniel and Imelda Maher. “The Open Method as a New Mode of 
Governance. ” Journal of Common Market Studies, 39, 4 (2001): 719–746.
Jones, D. Peter. Space, Place and Scale: Reframing the Open Method of Co-
ordination for »Education and Training 2010« Panel on Shaping European 
Education Agenda European Union Studies Association Conference Brussels 
and Leuven, Belgium, 2007 . Available at http://www.bris.ac.uk/education/
research/centres/ges/gesresearchstudents/peterjones/publications/pdj1 (3 
May 2008).
Kohl, Jürgen and Tobias Vahlpahl. The »Open method of coordination« as an 
Instrument for Implementing the Principle of Subsidiarity?, 2005. Available at 
http://aei.pitt.edu/6104/01/n62_kohl-vahlpahl.pdf (29 May 2008).
Laffan, Brigid and Colin Shaw. Classifying and Mapping OMC in different 
policy areas, 2005. Available at http://www.eu-newgov.org/database/DELIV/
D02D09_Classifying_and_Mapping_OMC.pdf (4 May 2008).
Lange, Bettina and Nafsika Alexidou. Governing through learning about policy: 
just all words? An introduction to policy learning in the context of open 
methods of co-ordinating education in the European Union (EU), 2009.
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of Czech Republic. The Strategy of 
Lifelong Learning in the Czech Republic, 2007a.
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of Czech Republic. Czech Republic 
National Report on the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 
work programme, 2005, 2007b, 2009. 
Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic. Strategy of Lifelong Learning and 
Lifelong Guidance, 2007a.
Ministry of education of the Slovak Republic. Slovakia National Report on the 
implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme, 2005, 
2007b, 2009.
Ministry of education and sport of Slovenia. Strategy on lifelong learning, 2007a.
Ministry of education and sport of Slovenia. Slovenia National Report on the 
implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme, 2005, 
2007b, 2009.
Munkholm, Louise and Ulrik Kjølsen Olsen. Open Method of Coordination 
within EU Education policy An Analysis of the Potential for Europeanisation. 
Roskilde: Roskilde University, 2009.
Radaelli, M. Claudio. The Open Method of Coordination: A new governance 
architecture for the European Union? Preliminary report, 2003. 
Radaelli, M. Claudio. Who learns what? Policy learning and the open method 
of coordination, Paper presented at Conference: Implementing the Lisbon 
strategy »policy learning inside and outside the open method«, European 

Journal of Comparative Politics
84
Research Institute – University of Birmingham, 2004.
Rosa, de la Stéphane. “The Open Method of Coordination in the New Member 
States – the Perspectives for its Use as a Tool of Soft Law. ” European Law 
Journal, 11, 5 (2005): 618–640. 
Sacchi, Stefano. The open method of coordination and national institutional 
capabilities, The Italian Experience as a Heuristic Case Study, 2004. Available at 
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/5/9/8/3/
pages59836/p59836-1 .php (4 August 2008). 
Zeitlin, Jonathan. Introduction: The Open Method of Coordination in Question, 
2005. Available at http://eucenter.wisc.edu/OMK/Papers/EUC/JZPP/
introduction.pdf (4 May 2008). 
Walkenhorst, Heiko. The Changing Role of EU Education Policy: a Critical 
Assessment, 2005. Available at http://aei.pitt.edu/3177/01/Walkenhorst_
EUSA_2005_final.pdf (3 May 2008).