In March 2010, the Europe 2020 strategy was released as the follow-up to the very ambitious Lisbon Strategy. Like its predecessor, the strategy aims to increase Europe's competitiveness in the world economy. Also like its predecessor, Europe 2020 is likely to be ineffectual. The strategy focuses too much on areas that are outside the EU's legal competence, it lacks recourse for non-compliance and it contains goals that have very little to do with increasing competitiveness. The probable failure of Europe 2020 could have been avoided had the European Commission focused on policy areas over which the EU has competence, and had been given the tools to accomplish the goals that were outside its competence.
Abstract. Marginality should be seen as an a asset rather than a liability for a region or a community. Marginality reflects a strategy of economic development, and this paper also seeks institutional means for championing marginality over conformity.
Since the beginning of 2010, European Commission has launched the new strategic framework for Europe, which is now known as the "Europe 2020 Strategy". This new strategy has been set as the successor of the so called "Lisbon-Gothenburg Strategy" which was set in early '00 as the strategy for Europe in the 21st century. Actually the two strategies have a lot in common. The main driving forces of Europe still remain the same and some rearrangement in the EU-wide strategic targets has been made. Of course the economic crisis that has emerged forced for a new priority that was set in the "EU 2020" strategy, but the main targeting still encompasses the three corners of the well known sustainability triangle, namely economy, environment and society. The setting of a new strategy arises some questions. Why does Europe need a new development strategy? Was the old strategy successful or not? Was every country in Europe adapted in the old strategy properly? Where there any problems in the implementation of the old strategy? What was the overall outcome of the old strategy in EU Level, in each Member State and in the regions of Europe? Is the new strategy better adjusted to cope with the development problems in European, national and regional level? Furthermore, European Commission has already asked MS to comply with the specifications of the "Europe 2020 Strategy" in the planning and implementation of the Cohesion Policy's programs in the following years (for the remaining of the 2007 - 2013 period and especially for the 2014-2020 period). This article discusses the above questions and tries to find answers on the rationale and prospects of the new strategy. Also, in a second step we give more emphasis in Greece and Greek Regions that have been not well adapted in the "Lisbon Strategy" as shown in the recent 5th Cohesion Report and other studies. Finally, the article closes with policy recommendations regarding the consistency and interaction between the "Europe 2020 Strategy" and Cohesion Policy, and also some policy recommendations for Greek regional policy and Greek regions.
In the year 2015 the European Union reaches the five year period of Europe 2020 strategy implementation. Thus, the aim of the research is to group the European countries based on the level of fulfillment aims of the strategy with the application of natural breaks method. Special consideration was given to the results of New Member States of European Union. As a result in the first part of empirical research a ranking of EU countries with application of zero unitarization method for the year 2004, 2008 and 2013 was made. Based on the rankings the countries were grouped in five classes with natural breaks method. The analysis showed that in spite of economic difficulties in Europe after global financial crisis, from the year 2004 till the year 2013 New Member States had made an important progress in the implementation of Europe 2020 strategy.
This book provides a unique study of the role of universities, as organisation systems, in the pursuit of the Europe 2020 strategy. While Europe 2020 focuses on creating the basis for the advancement and cohesion of the EU's member states, it also has an important role in influencing the development strategies for potential candidate states. In this regard, the book examines two new member states - Slovenia and Croatia - and two potential EU candidate states - Serbia and Kosovo - in the Western Balkans. Based on these cases, the author argues that the operationalization of the Europe 2020 strategy depends to a great extent of the role and contribution of tertiary organisations such as educational institutions, i.e. public and private universities, and therefore requires the formulation of an economic development strategy at the national level that is capable of duly allocating the available financial resources. The study suggests that the paradigm shift represented by Europe 2020 has helped to forge a new academic identity, adding to the relevance of university organisations as fundamental agents for the promotion of economic development; in addition, it shows that an intensive learning process involving major structural changes is underway in the four countries discussed, as well as many other EU member states.--