Suchergebnisse

The launch of the EU's Lisbon Strategy in 2000 aimed to make the EU 'the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy' by 2010. The Strategy introduced a strong competitiveness narrative in EU politics and set benchmarks for a variety of policy areas in which the EU had little or no formal legal competence. Member States were encouraged to share 'best practice', report progress and participate in peer review. The governance structure of Lisbon also marked a major break from the traditional 'community method'. The EU's Lisbon Strategy provides the first comprehensive theoretical and empirical evaluation of the Strategy by some of the most notable scholars of EU studies from across the Social Sciences. Drawing evidence from a broad range of policy areas affected by the Strategy, the volume explores two questions: how far did the Lisbon Strategy achieve its own objectives and why?

How successful was the EU's Lisbon Strategy? This volume provides the first comprehensive assessment of the Strategy and reflects on its key developments during its 10-year cycle. The volume contains both theoretical and empirical contributions by some of the leading scholars of EU studies across the social sciences

In March 2010, the European Commission (2010, preface) introduced Europe 2020 as marking "a new beginning" and having "new tools and […] new ambition". The research questions guiding my paper are the following: Does Europe 2020 constitute a new beginning? Does Europe 2020 address the shortcomings of the Lisbon Strategy? Is Europe 2020 likely to succeed? The recent crisis illustrates that the EU needs to decide on how to address multiple and pressing challenges. As the member states are faced by similar challenges, adopting a common economic strategy appears to be sensible. However, in 2000 the Lisbon Strategy was also launched as an ambitious common strategy. Despite the substantial effort and resources which were invested, the Lisbon Strategy was a failure. The success of Europe 2020 will in large part depend on whether the lessons have been learned. I conducted a comparative analysis of two strategies. The analysis of key-documents and publications showed that policy content and implementation mechanism of Europe 2020 closely resemble those of the Lisbon Strategy. Further, I identified the main shortcomings of the Lisbon Strategy and analyzed whether Europe 2020 constitutes an adequate remedy. Here, I particularly focused on the open method of coordination (OMC) and found that many shortcomings of the Lisbon Strategy are likely to persist. Based on my findings, I argue that Europe 2020 is unlikely to succeed, unless significant amendments are made. The paper is of relevance for everyone who is interested in engaging in a critical and informed dialogue regarding European economic strategy.

Abstract.Analysing selected European Commission and Council documents, this article identifies the changes and enduring features of the EU social policy discourse and investigates their potential determinants. It divides this discourse into three periods: the first is associated with the "Lisbon Strategy", the second with the reforms that followed (2005–09) and the third with "Europe 2020". The most recent period has witnessed a radical marginalization and tokenization of social policy as compared with macroeconomic and financial concerns. At the same time, EU institutions have increasingly encroached upon national jurisdiction over social policy. These changes seem to be explained by reshuffling among important actors.

Diese Arbeit untersucht, ob die Lissabon-Strategie geeignet war, die Rahmenbedingungen für eine bessere wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in der Europäischen Union zu schaffen. Unter der Lissabon-Strategie ist ein dynamischer, sich in seinen Schwerpunktsetzungen und Instrumenten über die Jahre ständig verändernder Ziel- und Maßnahmenkatalog zu verstehen, der im Jahre 2000 begründet und im Jahre 2010 abgelöst wurde. Ziel der Strategie war es u.a. die Union zum wettbewerbsfähigsten und dynamischsten wissensbasierten Wirtschaftsraum der Welt zu machen. Als maßgebliche Zielsetzung der Lissabon-Strategie kann die Gewährleistung eines stabilen und stetigen wirtschaftlichen Wachstums in der Europäischen Union identifiziert werden. In Anlehnung hieran prüft die Arbeit, inwieweit der wirtschaftspolitische Bereich der Strategie zu einer stabilen und prosperierenden wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung in der Union beiträgt. Um eine Analyse der Lissabon-Strategie vornehmen zu können, leitet die Arbeit zunächst Anforderungen ab, die allgemein an eine Strategie gestellt werden müssen, die eine bessere wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in der Europäischen Union erzeugen möchte. Diese Erfordernisse dienen als Bewertungsmaßstab, inwieweit die Lissabon-Strategie geeignet ist, ihre maßgebliche Zielsetzung zu erfüllen. Hierbei wird zunächst untersucht, welche Anforderungen an eine derartige Strategie sich aus der Existenz des Wirtschafts- und Währungsraums als solches ergeben. Anschließend werden jene Anforderungen identifiziert, die aus der Stellung des europäischen Wirtschaftsraumes im globalen Markt resultieren. Aus diesen Anforderungen werden Kriterien abgeleitet, die eine Strategie, die die Rahmenbedingungen für eine bessere wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in der Europäischen Union schaffen möchte, erfüllen muss, um erfolgreich zu sein. Nach Aufstellung dieser Kriterien werden die bedeutendsten Maßnahmen der Lissabon-Strategie, die auf eine bessere wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in der Europäischen Union zielen, an ihnen geprüft. Im Ergebnis zeigt ...

The objective of Lisbon Strategy was to make the European Union in the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the entire world, capable of ensuring sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. The strategy highlights the fundamental role of innovation policies so that objectives can be achieved. The reforms include making R&D a top priority, promoting the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and increase the investments in education. What this work proposes is an analysis of the relationship between innovation and economic growth in the first decade of the XXI century using a panel of 14 European Union countries that signed the treaty. The main objective is to quantify the impact of the measures of the Lisbon Strategy in the field of innovation. Estimations have been carried out using fixed-effects (FE) and Arellano-Bond GMM estimator. The findings suggest that innovation (through R&D, patents, and education) has a small effect in economic growth during the Lisbon Strategy. With FE, the R&D has a small effect in Gross Domestic Product per capita and with GMM the result is negative. The problem may arise from the time lag between the investments in R&D and education and the emerging of innovation. The economic crisis also contributed to the decrease of investments in innovation and education. ; O objetivo da Estratégia de Lisboa é tornar a União Europeia na mais competitiva economia baseada no conhecimento em todo o mundo, capaz de garantir um crescimento económico sustentável, com mais e melhores empregos e maior coesão social. A estratégia destaca fundamentalmente o papel das políticas de inovação para que os objetivos possam ser atingidos. As reformas incluem fazer da I&D uma prioridade, promover o uso das Tecnologias de Informação e Comunicação (TIC's) e aumentar os investimentos em educação. O que este trabalho propõe é uma análise da relação entre inovação e crescimento económico na primeira década do século XXI através de um painel de 14 países da União Europeia que assinaram o tratado. O principal objetivo é quantificar o impacto das medidas da Estratégia de Lisboa em matéria de inovação. As estimativas foram realizadas usando o método de efeitos fixos (FE) e o estimador GMM de Arellano-Bond. Os resultados sugerem que a inovação (através de I&D, patentes e educação) tem um efeito pequeno no crescimento económico durante a Estratégia de Lisboa. Com FE, a I&D tem um pequeno impacto no Produto Interno Bruto per capita e com o GMM o resultado é negativo. Este resultado poderá ser explicado pelo intervalo de tempo que existe entre os investimentos em I&D e educação e o surgir da inovação. A crise económica também contribuiu para a diminuição dos investimentos em inovação e educação.

Due to the fact that European markets are currently going through a financial crisisand the economy is significantly slowing down the Lisbon strategy for growth and employment is experiencing a new appreciation, as it is newly considered to be anessential instrument for the European Union to avoid the tendency towards long-lastingrecession. The present article examines, the results obtained by the Europe of the 27 in relation to the targets defined in Lisbon relative to the information society and the information and communication technologies (ICT) under the timeframe ofbeing one year before the fixed horizon of 2010. ; La crisis financiera y la desaceleración económica que actualmente experimentan los mercados europeos han supuesto un nuevo reconocimiento para la estrategia de Lisboa para el crecimiento y el empleo, al ser considerada una vez más un instrumento esencial para que la Unión Europea pueda detener la tendencia hacia una recesión mayor. En este artículo se examinan, a un año del horizonte 2010, los resultados conseguidos por la Europa de los 27 respecto a los objetivos fijados en Lisboa relativos a la sociedad de la información y a las tecnologías de la información y lacomunicación (TIC).

Lagging, in an economic sense, behind USA and Asia, rising unemployment, high costs of pensions in the national framework of member states, are some of the reasons why the European Union developped a strategy for economic development which is based on knowledge and scientific research. Namely, the European Union saw a way out of the recent crisis in improving the higher education system and in increasing the number of educated people. In this paper, the authors emphasise the relevance of higher education and its role in raising productivity not only in the national framework of each country, but also on the level of the EU. The paper discusses the main issues of the Bologna Declaration, the Lisbon Strategy, Europe 2020 Strategy, and the programs implemented by the European Union to raise the level of the higher education system, to recognise foreign diplomas and to increase the mobility of students and lecturers. In a comparative approach the paper shows how Erasmus Mundus and Tempus programs are used in Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia.The authors chose to compare these three countries considering that Croatia recently gained the status of candidate for EU, that Serbia still has not gained the candidate status, while Slovenia has been in the EU since 2004. The research was done on the basis of the old status of countries because more recent data was not available to the authors. The research problem is set in the form of the question: "Which country, Serbia, Croatia or Slovenia, makes more use of European educational programs?" The conclusion of this work, as well as the empirical part, contains suggestions for the improvement of higher education and the Lifelong Learning Program, i.e. their application.