Suchergebnisse

The aim of this article is to identify diversity between the EU-15 and the New Members in their implementation of the Lisbon Strategy in the period 2000-2010. By analyzing a set of structural indicators, we aim to fill a gap in the literature: a lack of publications providing complex evaluation of the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy using measurable indicators. The results of our analyses confirm the hypothesis of a large gap between the EU-15 countries and the 12 New Members in key areas of the Lisbon Strategy. According to rankings given by our taxonomic analyses, a high level of the indicators selected is confirmed only for the EU-15 countries and only three New Members belong to a group presenting the average level of these indicators. This study demonstrates a need for a significant intensification of the EU cohesion policy, which is one of the main tools for achieving the Lisbon Strategy goals.

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.

The aim of this article is to identify diversity between the EU-15 and the New Members in their implementation of the Lisbon Strategy in the period 2000-2010. By analyzing a set of structural indicators, we aim to fill a gap in the literature: the lack of publications providing complex evaluation of the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy using measurable indicators. Given their suitability for international comparisons, we use two taxonomic methods: Ward's cluster analysis and the synthetic variable method proposed by Hellwig.The results of our analyses confirm the hypothesis of a large gap between the EU-15 countries and the 12 New Members in the key areas of the Lisbon Strategy. According to rankings given by our taxonomic analyses, a high level of the indicators selected is confirmed only for the EU-15 countries and only three New Members belong to a group presenting the average level of these indicators. This study demonstrates a need for a significant intensification of the EU cohesion policy, which is one of the main tools for achieving the Lisbon Strategy goals.

The aim of this article is to identify diversity between the EU-15 and the New Members in their implementation of the Lisbon Strategy in the period 2000-2010. By analyzing a set of structural indicators, we aim to fill a gap in the literature: the lack of publications providing complex evaluation of the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy using measurable indicators. Given their suitability for international comparisons, we use two taxonomic methods: Ward's cluster analysis and the synthetic variable method proposed by Hellwig.The results of our analyses confirm the hypothesis of a large gap between the EU-15 countries and the 12 New Members in the key areas of the Lisbon Strategy. According to rankings given by our taxonomic analyses, a high level of the indicators selected is confirmed only for the EU-15 countries and only three New Members belong to a group presenting the average level of these indicators. This study demonstrates a need for a significant intensification of the EU cohesion policy, which is one of the main tools for achieving the Lisbon Strategy goals.

This article summarizes the Lisbon Strategy's aims for improving the European economy and increasing employment and describes the poor behavior of the European job markets from 2000 to 2004, highlighting the differences between thejob markets in the northern European countries and those in the rest of Europe. Finally, the article states that the latter countries should put into greater effect the reforms that the Lisbon Strategy requires. ; Este artículo, tras síntetizar los ambiciosos objetivos de la Estrategia Lisboa en materia de empleo, describe el pobre comportamiento laboral de la UE-25 desde 2000 a 2004, constatando al propio tiempo las notables diferencias laborales que se dan entre los países del norte y el resto de Europa. El artículo sostiene, finalmente, que el deficiente comportamiento de los mercados laborales de los países del centro y sur de Europa les obliga a tomarse más en serio las reformas requeridas por la Agenda de Lisboa.

This article attempts to characterize the programming issues of innovation development in the European Union described in the Lisbon Strategy and Europe 2020 Strategy. It discusses the role of innovation in the long-term development of the economy of the European Union. The author attempts to analyze the level of innovation of the EU economy on the basis of selected indicators in 2010, which allowed the separation of the countries with the highest and lowest potential for innovation. ; Krzysztof Adam Firlej

The European Council in March 2005 confirmed the delay and the gap in the fulfillment of the Lisbon objective, this fact has lead to the relaunch of a renovated strategy for the EU,which priorities are the promotion of growth and employment. The main purpose of this study is the analysis of the present situation of the members of the EU in relation to the globalobjective to convert in a competitive information society in 2010. This article shows the results of a comparative analysis about technology infraestructure in the EU, in order to havea better use of the ITC. ; El Consejo Europeo de marzo de 2005 confirmó los retrasos y lagunas en el cumplimiento del objetivo de Lisboa, hecho que ha provocado el relanzamiento de una estrategia renovada para la Unión Europea, cuyas prioridades son el fomento del crecimiento y el empleo. La finalidad principal de este trabajo es analizar la situación actual de los Estados miembros respecto al objetivo global de convertirse en una sociedad de la información competitiva en 2010. En este artículo se muestran los resultados de un análisis comparativo sobre la infraestructura tecnológica de la Unión, con vistas a un mejor aprovechamiento de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación.

At the end of the 1990s, the challenges of globalization and decreasing competitiveness of the EU economy led to the implementation of a new action plan known as the Lisbon Strategy. It was aimed at improving the position of the European Union in the global economy - especially with respect to the United States. Innovations, competitiveness, dynamic knowledge-based economy, greater employment, sustainable economic growth became the main objectives of the plan. The Lisbon Strategy was modified in 2005. Nowadays it is followed by Europe 2020 - the main strategy of the EU. In order to achieve the goals of the Lisbon Strategy the European Union decided to put into force so called "earmarking" which meant dedicating Cohesion Policy funds to strengthen- among others- competitiveness, research and development activities, human capital and energy efficiency. Earmarking has created the criteria of evaluating the pro - Lisbon expenditures within the operational programmes. The main aim of this paper is to present the results of the analysis of Lisbon - oriented expenditures within the Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013 (WROP) for the Wielkopolska region in Poland. It is especially of great importance since Poland has become the largest national beneficiary of EU Cohesion Policy expenditure within the Financial Framework 2007-2013 which has created a great opportunity for the Polish regions to accelerate and improve the long-term quality of their socio-economic development. This paper will present the results of the analysis of compliance of approximately 1800 projects within WROP with the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. Among the 33 intervention categories under the WROP, 16 were identified as those belonging to earmarking categories. The remaining 17 intervention categories were analyzed in detail in order to estimate the degree of their impact on the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy goals. The preliminary results indicate that the part of non-earmarking expenditure within WROP significantly pursues the goals of the Lisbon Strategy. It gives rise to a discussion on the rigidity of allocations of the EU funds. The conclusions might make a contribution to the debate regarding the rules of funds allocation within the Cohesion Policy in the new Financial Framework 2014-2020.

The article consists of two parts. The first part, appearing in this issue, describes the fundamental principles of the Lisbon Strategy which is intended to radically transform the European economy into a knowledge-based economy (KBE). The attainment of this type of economy is meant to be served by the creation of a so-called European Research Area (ERA). The basic documents of the European Union are described, highlighting the key significance of research, innovation and education in a knowledge-based society (KBS). Concerning the role of R&D, the main plans in this sphere are presented, followed by a discussion of the chief tasks that should be performed as a result of the formation of a European Research Area. A basic package of essential economic reforms permitting the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, as well as basic instruments of realising the development of a KBS, are also discussed. Further in the article, problems connected with the implementation of the Strategy are addressed, and the undertakings currently in progress on the eve of the enlargement of the European Union are pointed out. Doubts and reflections about the possibilities and barriers to the realisation of the Strategy merit particular attention. In conclusion, the article presents figures illustrating the progress of various countries along the path set by the principles of the Lisbon Strategy and considers the chances of its realisation. The second part of the article, devoted to Poland, will appear in the next issue. ; Artykuł składa się z dwóch części. Pierwsza, opublikowana w tym numerze, zawiera opis podstawowych założeń Strategii Lizbońskiej , mającej prowadzić do radykalnej transformacji gospodarki europejskiej w gospodarkę opartą na wiedzy. Realizacji tego typu gospodarki ma służyć stworzenie tzw. europejskiego obszaru badań i innowacji (European Research Area - ERA). Autorka omawia podstawowe dokumenty Unii Europejskiej, podkreślając kluczową rolę badań, innowacji i edukacji w gospodarce opartej na wiedzy. Omawiając miejsce sfery B+R, przedstawia główne zamierzenia związane z tą sferą, a następnie szczegółowe zadania, jakie powinny zostać zrealizowane dzięki stworzeniu europejskiego obszaru badawczego. Omówiony został również podstawowy pakiet koniecznych reform ekonomicznych umożliwiających realizację Strategii Lizbońskiej, a także najważniejsze instrumenty realizacji rozwoju gospodarki opartej na wiedzy. W kolejnej części artykułu Autorka zajmuje się problemami związanymi z wdrażaniem Strategii, zwraca uwagę na przedsięwzięcia podejmowane obecnie oraz w perspektywie rozszerzenia Unii Europejskiej. Na szczególną uwagę zasługują wątpliwości i refleksje dotyczące możliwości i ograniczeń realizacji Strategii. W końcowej części artykułu Autorka prezentuje wyliczenia pokazujące podążanie różnych krajów po ścieżce wyznaczonej przez zamierzenia Strategii Lizbońskiej oraz rozpatruje szanse jej realizacji. Druga część artykułu, poświęcona Polsce, ukaże się w następnym numerze.

The point of departure of EU State aid policy is laid down in the Treaty establishing the European Community (hereinafter the "Treaty"). This Treaty provides that State aid is, in principle, incompatible with the common market. However, the principle of incompatibility does not amount to a full-scale prohibition. In the EU countries state aid is permissible to promote the economic development (of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment) and to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or certain economic areas (where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions contrary to the common interest). The provisions of the 2000 Lisbon Strategy and the "Europe 2020" Strategy are also important in determining the directions of state aid in the European Union. According to their assumptions the member countries have been required to: reduce the level of aid relative to GDP; reduce state aid which decreases competition; reorient sectoral aid to horizontal and regional aid; and change the forms of state aid-from passive to active instruments. The purpose of this paper is to present the directions of allocation of state aid in the EU countries during 2000-2011, and answer the question whether the resolutions contained in the Lisbon Strategy have been implemented. The research hypothesis is: have the changes in the size, direction and allocation of state aid taken place in accordance with the resolutions of the Lisbon Strategy. ; Zasady wspierania przedsiębiorstw środkami publicznymi określone zostały w Traktacie ustanawiającym Wspólnotę Europejską. Zgodnie z podstawową zasadą obowiązującą w Unii Europejskiej, zabronione jest udzielanie pomocy publicznej, która zakłóca lub grozi zakłóceniem konkurencji. Nie oznacza to jednak, iż państwa członkowskie nie mogą wspierać przedsiębiorstw publicznymi środkami. W krajach Unii Europejskiej dopuszczalna jest pomoc przeznaczona na wspieranie rozwoju gospodarczego(obszarów o niskim poziomie życia oraz wysokim bezrobociu) oraz na ułatwianie rozwoju niektórych działań gospodarczych lub niektórych regionów gospodarczych (o ile nie zakłóca konkurencji i handlu wewnątrzwspólnotowego w stopniu niezgodnym ze wspólnym interesem). Dla kierunków polityki pomocy publicznej w Unii Europejskiej istotne znaczenie mają postanowienia przyjętej w 2000 r. Strategii Lizbońskiej oraz Strategii "Europa 2020". Zgodnie z jej założeniami kraje członkowskie zobowiązały się do: redukcji poziomu pomocy publicznej w relacji do PKB, ograniczenia pomocy publicznej, która w największym stopniu zniekształca konkurencję, reorientacji pomocy publicznej z celów sektorowych na cele horyzontalne i regionalne oraz do zmiany form pomocy publicznej – z pasywnych na rzecz instrumentów aktywnych. Celem przeprowadzonej analizy jest odpowiedź na pytanie, w jakim stopniu postanowienia Strategii Lizbońskiej w odniesieniu do pomocy publicznej są realizowane w krajach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej. Sformułować można następującą hipotezę badawczą: obserwowane w ostatnich latach zmiany w wielkości, kierunkach alokacji oraz formach pomocy publicznej są zgodne z wytycznymi Strategii Lizbońskiej w odniesieniu do pomocy publicznej.

The point of departure of EU State aid policy is laid down in the Treaty establishing the European Community (hereinafter the "Treaty"). This Treaty provides that State aid is, in principle, incompatible with the common market. However, the principle of incompatibility does not amount to a full-scale prohibition. In the EU countries state aid is permissible to promote the economic development (of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment) and to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or certain economic areas (where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions contrary to the common interest). The provisions of the 2000 Lisbon Strategy and the "Europe 2020" Strategy are also important in determining the directions of state aid in the European Union. According to their assumptions the member countries have been required to: reduce the level of aid relative to GDP; reduce state aid which decreases competition; reorient sectoral aid to horizontal and regional aid; and change the forms of state aid-from passive to active instruments. The purpose of this paper is to present the directions of allocation of state aid in the EU countries during 2000-2011, and answer the question whether the resolutions contained in the Lisbon Strategy have been implemented. The research hypothesis is: have the changes in the size, direction and allocation of state aid taken place in accordance with the resolutions of the Lisbon Strategy. ; Zasady wspierania przedsiębiorstw środkami publicznymi określone zostały w Traktacie ustanawiającym Wspólnotę Europejską. Zgodnie z podstawową zasadą obowiązującą w Unii Europejskiej, zabronione jest udzielanie pomocy publicznej, która zakłóca lub grozi zakłóceniem konkurencji. Nie oznacza to jednak, iż państwa członkowskie nie mogą wspierać przedsiębiorstw publicznymi środkami. W krajach Unii Europejskiej dopuszczalna jest pomoc przeznaczona na wspieranie rozwoju gospodarczego(obszarów o niskim ...

This paper develops a model of executive empowerment to explain how and why the European Council has become increasingly involved in 'policy-setting' and 'policy-shaping' decisions in the European Union (EU). Rather than being driven by intergovernmental power politics, we draw upon rational choice approaches to attribute this to three characteristics of the EU's economic reform agenda: the domestic distributional consequences; the horizontal functional interdependencies; and divergent national policy preferences. The paper suggests that these contribute to two types of delegation failure at the EU level: agenda failure (in the Commission) and negotiation failure (in the Council of Ministers). Utilising principal–agent analysis, we argue that EU-level agents have sought to overcome delegation failure by transferring functional tasks – policy initiation and decision-making – upwards to Member State principals in the European Council. We refer to this counter-intuitive process of reverse delegation as 'Commission cultivation' and 'Council escalation'. These are illustrated using examples from both the Lisbon Strategy (the Services Directive) and Europe 2020 (the Europe 2020 poverty target). The paper contributes to our understanding of EU governance by reasserting the importance of intergovernmental hierarchy in securing credible political commitments at the European level.

At its 2010 Lisbon summit, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) took significant steps towards becoming a modern alliance. In the face of a changing security environment and divergent strategic interests among 28 members, NATO adapted its strategic concept and reformed its way of formulating strategy. The new strategic concept advances conflict management as a core task for the alliance. In combination with a greater emphasis on developing partnerships, NATO conceptually strengthened its profile as a global security actor. The summit also reflected a new approach to formulating NATO strategy by providing the Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen with a strong role in setting the strategic agenda. Indeed, he assumed a more supranational function rather than acting as a representative of all allies. But as the Libya operation demonstrates, NATO will struggle to maintain cohesion in an increasingly 'polycentric' alliance. While the focus on conflict management will make the alliance more flexible, it will also become a less coherent global security actor.