Suchergebnisse

Common Agricultural Policy has identified three priority areas for action to protect and enhance rural heritage: (i) the preservation and development of natural farming and traditional agricultural landscapes; (ii) water management and sustainable use and (iii) dealing with climate change. Measures of Rural Development Plan in EU countries promote the development of agricultural practices for preserving the environment and safeguarding the countryside. This is achieved by targeting rural development and promoting environmental friendly, sustainable practices, like agri-environment schemes. Farmers are encouraged to continue playing a positive role in the maintenance of the countryside and the environment. Changes in total emission between 1990and 2007 do not show any correlation with the total GHG emission. GHG emission was reduced in Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Estonia and Bulgaria, where GHG efficiency is low.

The article concerns the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The main aim was to analyse the spatial diversity of countries in terms of the degree of implementation of the strategy and the progress that countries have made in this regard. An attempt was made to assess the relative developmental disparities between countries. The methods of multivariate statistical analysis were applied. To assess the degree of implementation of the strategy a dynamic version of Hellwig's synthetic variable method was used. The analysis of the disparities between countries was made with a dynamic measure of the relative taxonomy, proposed by Wydymus. The scientific aim was to evaluate the progress made by countries in implementing the objectives of the strategy and the relative developmental disparities between Member States with particular attention to the countries that joined the EU in 2004. The study confirmed the strong differentiation of EU Member States. The majority of countries that joined the Community in 2004, has made significant progress and reduced the disparities compared to others. The countries, political leaders of EU (Germany, France, Great Britain, and Italy) have achieved rather disappointing results. Most of the countries made significant progress in achieving specific objectives such as increasing investment in R & D, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increase the use of renewable energy and reducing the number of young people do not continue education. The biggest problem remains the fight against poverty and social exclusion. The evaluation of the progress made by individual EU members can not only help to identify good practices, but also to prevent making the same mistakes. The results of the study can be used by the European Commission as well as the institutions and authorities of the different countries of the Community to evaluate the progress made and to take appropriate actions.

The 'Europe 2020 Strategy' was issued in 2010 by the European Commission. This document constitutes a growth scheme for the decade 2010-2020 that aims to help the European Union to emerge from the current crisis through the so-called smart, sustainable and inclusive dimensions of growth. In this context, the basic aim of the SIESTA ("Spatial Indicators for a 'Europe 2020 Strategy' Territorial Analysis") Project has been to illustrate the territorial dimension of the 'Europe 2020 Strategy'. In other words, to show how this document acts territorially, particularly at the regional scale, but, when possible, also at the urban level. The SIESTA Project has been funded by ESPON ("European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion"), a European Commission Programme whose mission is to support policy development in relation to the aim of territorial cohesion and a harmonious development of the European territory. This book includes most of the main findings and conclusions obtained through research of the SIESTA Project. The contents were presented and discussed as keynote addresses or communications at the SIESTA Final Conference held in Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, on 4-5 April 2013.

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.

Rural development, broadly characterized as a process to enhance the quality of life of rural residents and the economic performance of rural areas, is predominantly supported at the EU level by the CAP – particularly its second Pillar – and the Cohesion Policy. The EU policy for supporting rural development beyond 2013 is currently a topic of debate amongst stakeholders and the European Commission. Europe has a growth deficit, and according to different points of view, the excessive supports should be cut, but the primary objectives of the CAP – namely, to provide the population with quality food, to guarantee food security, to meet environmental, public and animal health requirements, and to maintain rural communities – should be maintained. The EU will have to face the economic crisis and its threats, such as poverty, market loss, decreased production in the less favored areas and fight against environmental crisis. How can be these problems solved equally? How can the environment be maintained in line with the development of rural areas? How should it be financed? Several thoughts have arisen concerning the future of the CAP, from re-nationalization of the subsidies to the conversion of the two pillars of the CAP into three pillars; the debate is not yet finished. The significance of rural development is unquestionable; deliberate objectives and measures may solve the economic, environmental, social and global challenges. This paper wishes to compare former rural policies with visions for the future. Keywords: CAP, Europe 2020 Strategy, rural development

The paper aims at analysing the macroeconomic effects of the Europe 2020 Strategy taking into account economic growth theories. The research problem relates to defining differences how various EU policies, materializing themselves through statistical indicators, impact the EU economic growth as well as how different EU member states are regarding the implementation of Europe 2020. It consists of 3 interrelated parts. The first one presents the analysis frame work, i.e. describes the theories of economic growth and methods, such as correlation analysis and cluster analysis, and a data set, i.e. GDP indicators, Europe 2020, macroeconomic imbalances, fiscal indicators and the innovation index. The second part analyses the results of correlation analysis between GDP growth rates and GDP per capita as a dependant variable and 17 other indicators. On the EU level the level of innovations, energy efficiency, current account balance and expenditures for R&D over 2000-2010 ha the strongest impact on economic growth with the correlation coefficient above 0.7. The third part presents the results of cluster analysis. The EU member states are quite different regarding the Europe 2020 indicators, thus 5 identical clusters were obtained, such as the power of Europe, Scandinavian excellence, the Southern path, the middle class Europe, the poverty Europe.

The paper aims at analysing the macroeconomic effects of the Europe 2020 Strategy taking into account economic growth theories. The research problem relates to defining differences how various EU policies, materializing themselves through statistical indicators, impact the EU economic growth as well as how different EU member states are regarding the implementation of Europe 2020. It consists of 3 interrelated parts. The first one presents the analysis frame work, i.e. describes the theories of economic growth and methods, such as correlation analysis and cluster analysis, and a data set, i.e. GDP indicators, Europe 2020, macroeconomic imbalances, fiscal indicators and the innovation index. The second part analyses the results of correlation analysis between GDP growth rates and GDP per capita as a dependant variable and 17 other indicators. On the EU level the level of innovations, energy efficiency, current account balance and expenditures for R&D over 2000-2010 ha the strongest impact on economic growth with the correlation coefficient above 0.7. The third part presents the results of cluster analysis. The EU member states are quite different regarding the Europe 2020 indicators, thus 5 identical clusters were obtained, such as the power of Europe, Scandinavian excellence, the Southern path, the middle class Europe, the poverty Europe.

The paper aims at analysing the macroeconomic effects of the Europe 2020 Strategy taking into account economic growth theories. The research problem relates to defining differences how various EU policies, materializing themselves through statistical indicators, impact the EU economic growth as well as how different EU member states are regarding the implementation of Europe 2020. It consists of 3 interrelated parts. The first one presents the analysis frame work, i.e. describes the theories of economic growth and methods, such as correlation analysis and cluster analysis, and a data set, i.e. GDP indicators, Europe 2020, macroeconomic imbalances, fiscal indicators and the innovation index. The second part analyses the results of correlation analysis between GDP growth rates and GDP per capita as a dependant variable and 17 other indicators. On the EU level the level of innovations, energy efficiency, current account balance and expenditures for R&D over 2000-2010 ha the strongest impact on economic growth with the correlation coefficient above 0.7. The third part presents the results of cluster analysis. The EU member states are quite different regarding the Europe 2020 indicators, thus 5 identical clusters were obtained, such as the power of Europe, Scandinavian excellence, the Southern path, the middle class Europe, the poverty Europe.

The paper aims at analysing the macroeconomic effects of the Europe 2020 Strategy taking into account economic growth theories. The research problem relates to defining differences how various EU policies, materializing themselves through statistical indicators, impact the EU economic growth as well as how different EU member states are regarding the implementation of Europe 2020. It consists of 3 interrelated parts. The first one presents the analysis frame work, i.e. describes the theories of economic growth and methods, such as correlation analysis and cluster analysis, and a data set, i.e. GDP indicators, Europe 2020, macroeconomic imbalances, fiscal indicators and the innovation index. The second part analyses the results of correlation analysis between GDP growth rates and GDP per capita as a dependant variable and 17 other indicators. On the EU level the level of innovations, energy efficiency, current account balance and expenditures for R&D over 2000-2010 ha the strongest impact on economic growth with the correlation coefficient above 0.7. The third part presents the results of cluster analysis. The EU member states are quite different regarding the Europe 2020 indicators, thus 5 identical clusters were obtained, such as the power of Europe, Scandinavian excellence, the Southern path, the middle class Europe, the poverty Europe.

This study deals with the European Commission Communication Europe 2020, which was a direct result of the global economic crisis that began in 2007-2008. The focus is to explore how the Commission gained an extended role as political entrepreneur by launching the Europe 2020 Strategy and turning crisis into a window of opportunity. Europe 2020 was a Commission initiative to deal with the crisis by promoting smart, sustainable and socially inclusive development beyond the narrow scope of economic growth. The Commission addressed the economic crisis as an existential threat to European economy, but also to wealth, health integration and stability. It is argued that the crisis management of the Commission, was, in times of weakened member-state capacities, a result of political entrepreneurship.