Pessimistic comments are crowding the medias about the failure of the Lisbon strategy. At the end of 2004, the latest Kok group's report has emphasized "the failure of the Lisbon strategy." There is now a debate about the remodeling or the rationalization of the strategy. Before taking decisions, it would be opportune to organize a reflection about the extent of the failure & its causes. Otherwise any reform runs the risk of being not adapted or even counterproductive. Different questions must be examined: what is the real competitiveness problem?; is there a real need of an EU initiative?; do the different characteristics of the approach chosen in 2000 make sense? Adapted from the source document.
This article considers the relationship between financial and technological integration in Europe. It finds that market-based financial systems support output growth, investment and total factor productivity (TFP) more than bank-based ones. It identifies three groups of countries and estimates the probability of transition between the groups. It finds that financial integration might be a necessary but not sufficient condition for moving towards the 'Lisbon benchmark'.
This article considers the relationship between financial and technological integration in Europe. It finds that market-based financial systems support output growth, investment and total factor productivity (TFP) more than bank-based ones. It identifies three groups of countries and estimates the probability of transition between the groups. It finds that financial integration might be a necessary but not sufficient condition for moving towards the 'Lisbon benchmark'.
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.
To be published at Krings, Bettina-J. ed. (2011), Brain Drain or Brain Gain? Changes of Work in Knowledge-based Societies, Berlin, Ed. Sigma. The author wants to thanks the comments and suggestions from Bettina Krings and Sylke Wintzer. They are not, however, responsible for the final result. ; The majority of papers published in the last decades on European Union policy strongly stress the importance of the so-called Lisbon Strategy approved in the year 2000. The same applies to studies and reports on the shift of the European countries towards modernisation and restructuring policy in recent years. This EU development strategy defines a new direction for the coordination of national policies. But why has it become so important? One of the reasons is the fact that many of the papers are based on the concept of "knowledge society" as the key driver for an increased competitiveness of all political and economic regions of Europe. In this context, the term "knowledge" means the inter-linkage of education (including training, qualification, skills) and innovation (including research, information and communication). The use of the concept represents an important shift in the European strategy: further development would not only be based on investment in material infrastructures, but also more on the immaterial ground. However, this Lisbon Strategy was criticised by many politicians and opinion-makers in the first years of this century because the European structures were not prepared for such a quick change. At the same time, the focus for investment moved away from the traditional support of industrial sectors (manufacturing, agriculture and fisheries, construction) towards the "new economy" sectors. The vision of a knowledge society remained appealing also in a changing international context: the Middle East wars (Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel-Palestine) and the fast growth of the Chinese economy. However, the shadows of new recessions have strongly questioned the options made by the European Council. New challenges have emerged with the need to redefine collective strategies in terms of European development as set by the Lisbon strategy. "Europe 2020" is one more attempt to define a new strategy. But at present no clear path has been identified. Whether the programme will bring about progress for the European economies, or is again an illusion, is not yet clear. This shows, however, that new paths and common strategies are still needed in Europe.
The present article aims to shed light on the concrete implementation of the Lisbon strategy with regard to its governance framework and to participation (of social partners) in particular. The focus is on the European Employment Strategy (EES) (defined in the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 and then integrated into the broader Lisbon strategy that emerged in 2000) and the open method of coordination on pensions (the process of soft coordination of pension reforms agreed at the Stockholm Council of 2001). While the EU discourse has a strong emphasis on social partnership, evidence from the two cases in this article shows limited participation. While social partner access varies considerably between coordination processes, it is evident that expectations concerning increased participation have not been fulfilled in the Lisbon strategy.
Presentation given at the 12th Zermat Symposium "Lissabon" - Der europaische Glaube an die Planbarkeit des Wachstums, August 21st to 24th 2005. Abstract en español e inglés. ; Las esperanzas puestas en la Cumbre de Lisboa el año 2000 no se han cumplido, ya que el proceso no se ha realizado. Se ha vuelto a replantear si aquel giro drástico de la orientacion europea se ha considerado una Utopia o sencillamente era errónea o si bien no ha habido fuerza política y economica para este cambio. La nueva orientacion a las personas en busqueda del conocimiento como respuesta a la competitividad europea se vuelve a plantear dado que es la nueva orientación que está realizando el mundo empresarial. Los sistemas de dirección y de organización de las empresas han asumido esta "visión" y la están realizando más allá de la propia realidad del marco politico.
ÖZETBu tezin temel amacı, Avrupa'daki sosyal ve ekonomik gerilimlere dayanan yabancı karşıtlığını göz önünde tutarak, ne ölçüde bir göçün Avrupa Birliği ekonomisine fayda getireceğini saptamaktır. Birleşik Devletler deneyiminden hareketle, göçmenlerin Amerikan ekonomisine büyük katkı sağladıkları ve bugün Birleşik Devletler'in dünya'nın önde gelen ekonomisi olmasında önemli rol oynadıkları söylenebilir. Bu tez, bu bakış çerçevesinde, devletlerce uygulanmakta olan göç politikaları ile ulusların rekabet güçlerini ilişkilendirmekte ve Avrupa Birliği'nin Lizbon hedeflerine iktisadi göçmenler yoluyla ulaşıp ulaşamayacağı sorusuna cevap aramaktadır.Bu çalışma, Birlik düzeyinde ortak göç politikasının yerleştirilmesi yönünde Avrupa'da güçlü ekonomik gerekçelerin bulunduğunu göstermekte ve ayrıca iktisadi esaslara dayanan bir göç politikasının nitelikli beyinleri Avrupa Birliği'ne çekme konusunda becerisini arttıracağını ortaya koymaktadır. Böyle bir politika sadece nitelikli göçmen işçileri gelmeleri konusunda teşvik etmekle kalmayıp aynı zamanda, Avrupa emek piyasalarındaki vasıfsız yabancıların da piyasada yer alma isteklerini olumsuz yönde etkileyecektir. Daha da önemlisi, bu tezde Avrupa Birliği'nin Lizbon Stratejisi'nin gerçekleştirilmesinin Avrupa'da bilgiye dayalı ekonomilerin oluşumu ile yakından bağlı olduğu gösterilmektedir. Bu argümana dayalı olarak, Avrupa Birliği'nin iktisadi rekabet edebilirliğinin güçlendirilmesinde ve bilgi birikimi transferinde "iktisadi göçün" kilit araç olarak kullanılabileceği kuvvetle vurgulanmaktadır. ABSTRACTBy taking the social and economic tensions of European people towards foreigners into account, the main objective of this thesis is to determine what extent "immigration" brings benefits to the European Union economy. As in the United States experience, it can be said that immigrants have been making great contributions to the US economy and today, the US has a leading economy in the world by immigrants' significant role. From the point of this view, this thesis relates the immigration policies to competitiveness of nations and intends to answer the following question: Whether the European Union can achieve the Lisbon goals by stimulating economic migrants into the Union? This study shows that there are strong economic reasons in Europe to introduce a common immigration policy at the European Union level. This study also tries to explain that an economically motivated immigration policy would increase the Union's ability to attract well qualified brains into Europe. This means that this policy not only encourages the skilled immigrant workers but also discourages unskilled foreigners in European labour markets. More importantly, this thesis argues that the accomplishment of the Lisbon Strategy of the Union is closely linked to creation of knowledge based economies in the EU and as a consequence of this evidence, it is strongly emphasized that "economic migration" can be used as a key instrument to transfer the knowledge (brain gain) and strengthen the economic competitiveness of the EU.
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.
