Suchergebnisse

"Trotz ihrer Reform im März 2005 bleiben die Erfolge der Lissabon-Strategie, die die Europäische Union bis 2010 zum wettbewerbsfähigsten und dynamischsten Wirtschaftsraum der Welt machen soll, weiterhin aus. Die Ursachen des europäischen Rückstands vor allem gegenüber den USA sind bekannt: ein unvollendeter Binnenmarkt, ausufernde Sozialsysteme, die die öffentlichen Haushalte belasten, und unzureichende Forschungsinvestitionen. Um diese Schwächen in den Griff zu bekommen, sieht die Strategie eine grundlegende Reform der Wirtschafts- und Sozialsysteme vor. Dabei verfolgt sie einen umfassenden Ansatz mit Blick auf verschiedene Reformfelder. Gleichzeitig liegt die Verantwortung für die Ausgestaltung des auf EU-Ebene vertraglich vereinbarten Handlungsrahmens weiterhin bei den Mitgliedstaaten. Die Umsetzung der Lissabon-Strategie krankt daran, dass es weiterhin an einem proaktiven Engagement der Mitgliedstaaten fehlt und es darüber hinaus versäumt wurde, die Notwendigkeit konstruktiver Wirtschafts- und Sozialreformen der Öffentlichkeit zu vermitteln. Deutschland und Frankreich unterscheiden sich in vier zentralen Punkten: Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip wird in beiden Ländern unterschiedlich interpretiert. Dies betrifft die Aufgabenverteilung zwischen den unterschiedlichen Ebenen ebenso wie die Funktion der gesellschaftlichen Kräfte innerhalb des jeweiligen Wirtschafts- und Sozialmodells. Die Interpretationen des Begriffs der 'sozialen Marktwirtschaft' bzw. des ordnungspolitischen Ansatzes des europäischen Modells gehen deutlich auseinander. Beiden Ländern fehlt eine übereinstimmende Auffassung zu der Frage, was die europäische Integration im Kern ausmacht. Dahinter verbergen sich divergierende Vorstellungen zur politischen, wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Finalität Europas. Vor allem in Frankreich taucht Europa in der politischen Debatte entweder nicht auf (obwohl es der eigentliche Reformmotor ist) oder wird den Bürgern als eine ferne Macht dargestellt, die ihnen sinnlose Zwänge auferlegt. Um Fortschritte zu erzielen, sollten diese fundamentalen Divergenzen auf politischer Ebene offen angesprochen werden. Nachhaltige Veränderungen können nur durch eine Politik der kleinen Schritte erreicht werden, die auf die Verantwortung der gesellschaftlichen Akteure aufbaut und somit die Bürgernähe weit effizienter fördert als viele Großprojekte." (Autorenreferat)

The article tries to reveal some of the reasons why the national strategy of research and development and first Version of Lisbon Strategy for the period 2005-2007 in Estonia has been quite efficient. Since 2000, the European Commission has been measuring the innovation performance of countries with the help of the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) which is the instrument developed by the European Commission, under the Lisbon Strategy, to provide a comparative assessment of the innovation performance of EU Member States annually. The research problem being solved in this article is: how to implement Lisbon agenda in Estonia (in 2008-2015). The aim of the article was to highlight the theoretical constitution of knowledge triangle based on Lisbon agenda and to analyse conception problems of knowledge triangle (academic research, infrastructure of higher educational institutions, innovative enterprise) concerning Estonian situation. In order to evaluate Estonia's perspectives in Lisbon strategy in 2008-2015 there was made analysis on ground of European Innovation Scoreboard. There are two main tendencies of the development of Knowledge Triangle: first, innovative rearrangements done in social sphere, in economy and in higher educational sphere to fulfil tasks from Lisbon strategy and, second, increase Estonian competitiveness. Another side of the knowledge triangle concerns creating new economic mechanisms (concrete business solutions) and creating new structure of institutions (rearrangement) to carry out new comprehensive and dynamic innovation model.According to European Innovation Scoreboard 2008 Estonia's place among 27 EU states is 12th. This is clearly evident that Estonia is reaching the EU mean level for summary innovation index and has a relatively high growth rate for its level.

In 2000, the European Union set itself a target in the Lisbon Strategy to become the most dynamic, competitive and knowledge-based economy in the world in ten years, whereas during the mid-term review, which was held five years later, it redefined its two main objectives: creation of new and better jobs and achievement of stronger, lasting economic growth. This paper aims to study the current situation in the European Union and Slovenia regarding the implementation of the targets of the renewed Lisbon Strategy. The analysis focuses on establishing at what stage the EU is in the attainment of its goals and how successfully it has implemented the strategy at the regional level of the EU Member States. The basic tools in the analysis included the time-distance monitoring method and a presentation of the time lead or lag in the implementation of the selected Lisbon Strategy targets at the NUTS 2 regional level of the enlarged EU and Slovenia.

This article provides a brief review of the literature on the Lisbon strategy. The aim is to shed light on the changing attitudes of experts and academics towards the strategy (both on its launch in 2000 and during its subsequent evolution through the mid-term review of 2004–05). The focus of the article is on three main questions: the political and economic rationale of the strategy, the use of participation to increase EU democratic legitimacy, and the cognitive potential of the strategy through learning dynamics. Three broad tensions seem to require more political and analytical attention. The first tension has to do with the reform of the European social model; the second is related to the ambiguous compromise between the supposed depoliticisation of socio-economic reforms through the Lisbon strategy and the aim of improving participation of stakeholders; and the third tension has to do with the respect of national competences on the one hand, and the improvement of strategy's efficacy to shape cognitive and normative maps on the other. For all these, the Lisbon project has represented a first, but not definitive, answer.

Governance architectures are strategic and long-term institutional arrangements of international organizations exhibiting three features; namely, they address strategic and long-term problems in a holistic manner, they set substantive output-oriented goals, and they are implemented through combinations of old and new organizational structures within the international organization in question. The Lisbon Strategy is the most high-profile initiative of the European Union for economic governance of the last decade. Yet it is also one of the most neglected subjects of EU studies, probably because not being identified as an object of study on its own right. We define the Lisbon Strategy as a case of governance architecture, raising questions about its creation, evolution and impact at the national level. We tackle these questions by drawing on institutional theories about emergence and change of institutional arrangements and on the multiple streams model. We formulate a set of propositions and hypotheses to make sense of the creation, evolution and national impact of the Lisbon Strategy. We argue that institutional ambiguity is used strategically by coalitions at the EU and national level in (re-)defining its ideational and organizational elements. Adapted from the source document.

ÖZETBu çalışmanın amacı Lizbon Stratejisinin Türkiye'nin teknoloji yatırımları ve artan uluslararası rekabet gücüne dayalı ekonomik kalkınma amacına ulaşması için uygunluğunu ölçmek amacıyla sorulmuş iki soruya cevap bulmaktır. İlk soru, Lizbon Stratejisinin son 10 yılda AB üyesi ülkelerin ekonomik kalkınmalarına katkıda bulunma ve süreci yönetme konusunda ne kadar başarılı olduğunu sormaktadır. Söz konusu soruyu cevaplamak amacıyla AB üyesi ülkelerin Lizbon Stratejisinde konulan Ar&Ge hedeflerine ulaşmada gösterdikleri performans ülke bazında ve AB genelinde incelenmiştir. AB'nin genel performansı incelendiğinde ortaya çıkan en belirgin sonuç, dünyada Ar&Ge harcamaları ve sonuçları bakımından "iki kutuplu" bir dünyaya doğru gidildiğidir. Çin ve Kore gibi Asya ülkeleri yüksek performans gösterirken, AB ve ABD birçok alanda yerini kaybetmektedir. Üye ülkelerin performansları ise çok çeşitlilik göstermektedir. Tüm üye devletler tek bir Stratejiyi takip ettiği halde performansları büyük farklılıklar göstermektedir ki bu durum birçok çalışmada "Karışık Lizbon Fotoğrafı" olarak adlandırılan sonuçtur. Bu çalışmadaki ikinci soru, Lizbon'da koyulan hedeflerin uluslararası rekabet gücünü artırmak açısından ne kadar anlamlı olduğunu sormaktadır. Bu soruya cevap vermek amacıyla regresyon analizi yapılmıştır. Analizde 3 hipotez kurulmuştur. İlk hipotez toplam Ar&Ge harcamalarının uluslararası rekabet gücüne etkisi olup olmadığını test etmektedir. İkinci hipotez ise dünyada özel sektörün Ar&Ge aktivitelerine katılımının artırılmasına yönelik politikaları dikkate alarak özel sector Ar&Ge harcamalarının devlet ve üniversite Ar&Ge harcamalarından daha etkin olup olmadığını sorgulamaktadır. Son hipotez ise, literatürde Ar&Ge harcamalarının sonucunda ortaya çıkan bilginin ticari ürünlere dönüşmesi için gerekli zamana ilişkin literatürde yer alan çalışmaları dikkate alarak, geçmiş dönem Ar&Ge harcamaların ihracat performansına etkisini test etmektedir. Regresyon analizi sonuçları Lizbon Stratejisinin politika olarak başarısızlığına rağmen, Stratejide koyulan Ar&Ge hedeflerinin, modelde Türkiye'nin yüksek teknolojisi ihracatının OECD içindeki payı ile temsil edilen, uluslararası rekabet gücü üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisi olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, sektörel analiz özel sektör Ar&Ge harcamalarının ihracat performansı üzerinde devlet ve üniversite harcamalarından daha güçlü bir etkisi olduğunu göstermektedir.ABSTRACTThis study aims to answer two questions regarding the suitability of Lisbon Strategy for the economic development of Turkey based on technology investments and increased international competitiveness. The first question asks how successful is Lisbon Strategy itself for governing the process and supporting economic development of EU member states in the last decade. In order to answer this question, the performance of the EU member states in reaching the Research and Development (hereinafter referred to as R&D) related targets are measured both overall and individually. Regarding the overall performance, the striking conclusion is the clear transition to multi-polar world in terms of R&D efforts and output. The Asian countries namely China, Korea, and to some extent Japan, have been experiencing a remarkable progress. On the other side, EU and US are losing ground in main indicators. When the performance of individual countries are considered, the conclusion can be summarized as variety in terms of different indicators. Although, all member states are pursuing the same goals under the same strategy, the results show different trends which is, indeed, interpreted in many studies as the 'Mixed Lisbon Picture'. The second question asks how meaningful the Lisbon targets are for increasing competitiveness. In order to answer this question, regression analysis is applied and the statistical significance and the degree of impact of the variables are tested empirically. Three hypothesis are established and tested in empirical study. First hypothesis tests whether overall R&D expenditures has an influence on international competitiveness or not. Based on the increasing focus on private sector participation in R&D activities in the World, the second hypothesis tests whether business sector R&D expenditures are more effective than government or higher education expenditures. Considering the literature on the time needed for transformation process of knowledge to commercial products, third hypothesis asks if lagged R&D expenditures have an influence on international competitiveness. Empirical findings shows that despite the failure of Lisbon Strategy as a policy, the R&D expenditures that are targeted in the Strategy have a statistically significant impact on international competitiveness which is represented by high technology exports share of Turkey in OECD in the models. Also, the sectoral analysis proves that R&D expenditures of private sector has stronger relation with export performance than government or higher education expenditures.

ABSTRACT European educational policy on lifelong learning has undergone great changes during the last three decades to become a highly complex phenomenon with several internal and external actors involved. The discourse of lifelong learning has undergone great changes, from its initial engagement when it was a matter of social and humanitarian issues as outlined in the early documents of UNESCO, to emphasising lifelong learning as a moral and individual obligation in a more competitive and market-oriented language. In a European context this language of competition to a large extent derives from the vocabulary set out by the Lisbon strategy where competition is a key theme. A policy trajectory that has taken the discourse from an initial phase of great social visions to a second phase focusing on the need for self-regulated and morally responsible citizens. Recent research on the topic indicates that we are now standing at the threshold of a discursive shift where action instead of visions is at stake. Against this background I would like to ask if there is evidence enough to suggest that European policy on lifelong learning is now experiencing a discursive shift into what could be described as a new phase? And if so, how could such a shift be described and what are the implications at an individual level? I take my theoretical point of departure in Habermas`s theory of communicative action using as analytic tools his concept of system and life-world as representations of different rationalities. I use critical discourse analysis as a methodological framework in order to understand how the rationalities bound to the concepts of system and life-world become visible through different actors and actions in the policy discourse of lifelong learning. A number of research reports and policy documents on lifelong learning recently published within the European Union have been read and analysed. The analysis of the empirical material points to a direction where it is relevant to speak about a new "phase" of lifelong-learning discourse emerging in European policy, characterised by the urgent need for implementation. In this paper a tentative conceptual framework is presented as to how this new, action-oriented "phase" can be understood. The policy trajectory of lifelong learning is not to be understood here as a linear development where one phase follows another in a well-defined manner. Instead it is seen as an ongoing discursive struggle where different concepts over time replace each other as fundamental for the discourse and its actors in the new phase represented by concepts such as "crisis" and "implementation".

In the context of increasing globalization, global competition and rapid change the EU sees innovation and its commercialization as an effective way to build long-term global competitive advantage. Innovation policy is a link between research and technological development policy and industrial policy and makes it possible to create conditions conducive to bringing ideas to the market. It is also closely linked to other EU policies regarding e.g. employment, competitiveness, environment, industry and energy. This paper presents the evolution, conditions and objectives of the innovation policy of the European, and describes the main assumptions of the Lisbon and Europe 2020 strategies. Additionally it indicates possible ways of assessing the measures undertaken within the above-mentioned policies and of determining the tools necessary to implement the strategies.

How far is the European Union a vehicle for inclusion and empowerment of a new range of policy actors in education? This article explores the role of actors in policy formation through a case study. It examines European Union attempts since 2000 to develop indicators of 'active citizenship' and 'education and training for active citizenship'. It is based on two main sources: policy documents on the development of indicators and benchmarks; and a case study of an exercise (2005-07) to develop such indicators, initiated by the European Commission's Directorate General for Education and Culture. It shows that policy actors have attempted to take advantage of the Open Method of Coordination, often seen as a neo-liberal control mechanism, to ensure that citizenship remains on thepolicy agenda.