Establishment of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness

Overview

Executive Order 13564, signed by President Barack Obama on January 31, 2011, established the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness (PCJC) within the Department of the Treasury. This body was formed to provide non-partisan advice on bolstering the Nation’s economy, enhancing competitiveness, and creating jobs. The Council was composed of members from outside the Federal Government, including representatives from various sectors of the economy, who could bring diverse perspectives on economic growth, innovation, and competitiveness. The underlying intent was to bridge the gap between public policy and private sector insights to foster substantial economic development.

The PCJC was tasked with meeting regularly and soliciting ideas from across the country to inform the President’s decision-making process. This included providing recommendations to executive departments or agencies on how to promote economic growth and competitiveness. The Council’s mandate also involved reporting directly to the President on the implementation of policies aimed at enhancing American workers’ skills and education, maintaining financial stability, and improving long-term prosperity.

This Executive Order also revoked Executive Order 13501, which had established the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB) in 2009. PERAB had been tasked with steering the economy through the financial crisis. By creating the PCJC, the Obama administration signaled a shift from crisis recovery to a broader focus on sustained growth and competitiveness, reflecting changing economic priorities as the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis began to recede.

The establishment of the PCJC reflected a strategic pivot in Obama's economic policy from recovery to long-term prosperity. By incorporating non-partisan advice from industry experts and emphasizing the implementation of innovative growth strategies, the PCJC aimed to enhance U.S. economic competitiveness in the global landscape. The transition from the PERAB to the PCJC marked a shift in focus from recovery advice to strategic competitiveness.

In practical terms, members of the PCJC were to serve without compensation but could receive travel expenses, allowing the inclusion of distinguished citizens who were capable of providing high-level strategic insights. By maintaining the advisory role, the PCJC emphasized that executions of policy would remain within existing government structures, with the Council offering input rather than directives.

Legal and Policy Implications

Executive Order 13564 carried several legal and policy implications, beginning with the relocation of responsibilities among advisory bodies under the executive branch. By revoking EO 13501 and instituting the PCJC, there was a formal reorganization of policy advisory mechanisms in the Obama administration, moving from a crisis-structured model to one that emphasized strategic competitiveness. This illustrates a shift in governance style with a focus on private sector collaboration.

The order reinforced the advisory nature of councils created under the executive branch, emphasizing that the PCJC's functions were purely advisory. This sets limitations on the Council's influence over direct policymaking, thereby circumventing separation of powers concerns. The delineation of advisory versus decision-making roles is crucial, as it reserved substantive legal or regulatory changes for Congress or specific federal agencies.

Through the PCJC, the order touched on statutory authorities related to executive orders and advisory bodies, ensuring compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This inclusion helped clarify that the Council’s formation and operation would adhere to existing legislative frameworks governing federal advisory committees, preserving the rule of law and established constitutional boundaries.

Executive Order 13564 also had policy implications for economic governance and innovation policy. By engaging outside experts, the order aimed to supplement the National Economic Council's work, hinting at a more holistic approach to economic policy that acknowledges both institutional and market-tested insights. This expansion of advisory input mirrors larger executive strategies to harness external expertise while mitigating bureaucratic inertia.

Moreover, the mandate to report on policy implementation and evaluation empowers the PCJC to serve as a bridge between policy creation and its real-world effects, ensuring accountability and refinement. This framework introduces an iterative loop into policy advisory structures, emphasizing ongoing assessment and adjustment in economic strategies.

Who Benefits

The primary beneficiaries of Executive Order 13564 are theoretically the American populace at large, who stand to gain from informed and effective economic policies. By tapping into a diverse pool of experts from various sectors, the administration sought to create conditions conducive to job creation, economic growth, and enhanced competitiveness, aligning with the broad national interest.

Specific industries may benefit from the PCJC's recommendations that emphasize innovation and competitiveness. As the Council was mandated to include representatives from various economic sectors, industries such as technology, manufacturing, and renewable energy could potentially gain from targeted insights that influence federal policy improvements aimed at fostering favorable business environments.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) stand to gain from potential policy adjustments that better accommodate the business climate for growth and innovation. The inclusion of private sector voices could guide policies that reduce regulatory barriers to entry, enhance access to capital, and bolster workforce development initiatives geared towards SMEs' unique needs.

Workers across sectors may benefit from policies informed by the PCJC's guidance aimed at maintaining a stable financial system and improving job stability. Initial emphasis on skill enhancement and education speaks to a focus on labor force readiness, crucial for long-term economic resilience and adaptability in a rapidly evolving job market.

Additionally, the financial sector could see advantages if policy recommendations stabilize financial markets, promoting confidence necessary for lending and investment. A sound financial system, highlighted by the order's objectives, creates the conditions for secure and consistent economic calibration benefiting various stakeholders.

Who Suffers

While the Executive Order aims to benefit the broader economy, some groups may inadvertently face disadvantages. For example, if recommendations favor sectors like high technology over traditional industries, workers reliant on declining industries might experience job displacement or skill obsolescence without commensurate retraining programs.

Furthermore, industries resistant to change or those facing stringent competition due to enhanced global competitiveness initiatives may feel pressured. This includes sectors struggling with modernization in the face of policies oriented towards innovation and competitiveness that may not directly align with their operational models or sectors requiring substantial adaptation.

Public sector employees might encounter challenges if the PCJC's recommendations lead to shifts in economic policy that favor privatization or outsourcing, potentially impacting job security within government roles, particularly if financial efficiencies are sought through reductions in government-managed programs or services.

Traditional energy sectors like coal and oil may face tougher regulatory climates if the Council emphasizes transition to renewable energies within its advisory outputs, aligning with broader environmental and sustainable development goals. Such a shift could adversely impact those regions and workforces reliant on traditional energy sectors.

Ultimately, specific communities tied to outdated infrastructure or technological models may suffer transitional hardships unless proactive measures accompany the PCJC's advisement to foster retraining and community revitalization efforts in vulnerable areas.

Historical Context

Executive Order 13564 fits within the broader historical context of post-recession recovery strategies. As part of Obama's policy agenda, it reflects a shift from immediate economic stabilization—the focal point after the 2008 crisis—towards securing longer-term growth and ensuring American competitiveness on the global stage.

The establishment of the PCJC mirrored trends toward substantive public-private collaboration in policymaking, typical of the Obama administration's approach, which frequently sought to integrate business sector insights with governmental action plans to address national challenges.

The transition from the PERAB to the PCJC highlights an evolving economic policy paradigm, where initial crisis mitigation measures gave way to structure-based strategies for economic dynamism. This move was in alignment with growing economic confidence within the administration, shifting priorities from repair to sustainable augmentation.

Historically, advisory councils like the PCJC have played roles in shaping executive decision-making by providing specialized insights and increasing policy credibility through external validation. The Obama administration's incorporation of such elements highlights broader executive policy trends aimed at modernizing economic governance by leveraging external expertise.

In this context, the PCJC can be seen as a continuation of efforts under past administrations, which recognized the benefit of consultative bodies in enriching policy frameworks. Structurally, the Council blended elements of traditional national advisory committees with modern anticipatory approaches to economic strategy in a globalized context.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Executive Order 13564 did not immediately present significant legal controversies, given its adherence to established legislative frameworks governing federal advisory bodies. However, potential challenges related to the effectiveness and practicality of implementing recommendations could arise. These include bureaucratic inertia and the systemic capability of translating advisory outputs into actionable policy.

Congressional pushback could be a challenge if the PCJC's recommendations are perceived to infringe on legislative prerogatives, particularly around fiscal policies or sector-specific regulations traditionally within legislative oversight. Such dynamics could stump effective policy translation into law or mandatory practice.

Moreover, questions about transparency and accountability could persist if the PCJC does not publicly disclose its recommendations or the government’s responses to such advisories. This could raise concerns about the influence of non-elected experts on policymaking, which critics might argue undermines democratic oversight.

Judicial intervention may arise if recommendations challenge existing legal frameworks or constitutional parameters, particularly if industry standards or competitive practices are significantly influenced by outcomes that shape market dynamics. However, such challenges typically manifest in areas where policy shifts affect competitive equity.

Lastly, effectiveness challenges may derive from political shifts within the executive branch. The advisory nature of the PCJC means that its longevity and influence depend heavily on the administration's political priorities, which can vary significantly with future presidential directives or policy realignments.