This paper reviews the governance framework of the Lisbon Strategy and discusses the specific option of increasing the role of benchmarking as a means of improving the implementation record of structural reforms in the European Union. Against this background, the paper puts forward a possible avenue for developing a strong form of quantitative benchmarking, namely ranking. The ranking methodology relies on the construction of a synthetic indicator using the "benefit of the doubt" approach, which acknowledges differences in emphasis among Member States with regard to structural reform priorities. The methodology is applied by using the structural indicators that have been commonly agreed by the governments of the Member States, but could also be used for ranking exercises on the basis of other indicators.
The European Union is changing significantly. It has recently been enlarged by 10 new Member States, decision-making about the European Constitution is going on, and it has set itself the target of becoming the most competitive economy in the world (Lisbon Strategy). The scenarios explore in an integrated way the territorial impacts of future changes in the economy, transport, rural development, environment, and other policy fields. They do not only concentrate on the territorial impacts of the trends and driving forces but also of the relevant EU Policies. The scenarios throw a light on the effectiveness of EU Policies and the synergies as well as conflicts they generate. By doing this they provide important insights in the conditions under which these trends, driving forces and policies will favour a balanced and polycentric territory and territorial cohesion within the enlarging European Union. These insights are relevant for recommendations on possible adjustments and/or changes of EU Policies.
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.
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.
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'.
In this paper, we develop an analysis of the reasons for the apparent failure of the "Lisbon strategy" (2000) so far. After having made the general case for a comprehensive "institutionalist perspective" on the European economy, we first try to formalise the objectives of "Lisbon" in order to present a mid-term review of the results attained. Since we find, like many others, that too little has been achieved, we then offer some possible explanations. Apart from an inconsistency problem between the different objectives set, we argue that the major reason for this failure appears to lie in the contradiction between the EU macroeconomic policy framework, based on the logic of delegation of power and control to independent authorities with conservative objectives, and the proactive policies required by the "Lisbon strategy", which objectives the EU member states eventually find themselves accountable for (not) achieving individually.
In this paper, we develop an analysis of the reasons for the apparent failure of the "Lisbon strategy" (2000) so far. After having made the general case for a comprehensive "institutionalist perspective" on the European economy, we first try to formalise the objectives of "Lisbon" in order to present a mid-term review of the results attained. Since we find, like many others, that too little has been achieved, we then offer some possible explanations. Apart from an inconsistency problem between the different objectives set, we argue that the major reason for this failure appears to lie in the contradiction between the EU macroeconomic policy framework, based on the logic of delegation of power and control to independent authorities with conservative objectives, and the proactive policies required by the "Lisbon strategy", which objectives the EU member states eventually find themselves accountable for (not) achieving individually.
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.
Under the Lisbon strategy, education and training form an essential element of the social pillar which aims to modernise the European social model through investment in human resources and combating social exclusion. Up to 2004, elearning was promoted as a key element in achieving the strategy especially through the Elearning Action Plan (2004-2006). This paper will analyse the process through which elearning emerged as a policy measure in implementing the Lisbon strategy. Using Kingdon's policy streams metaphor (Kingdon, 1995), this paper will outline the policy and problem streams which coalesced in the late 1980s, opening a 'policy window', and which pushed distance learning onto the EU political agenda in the early 1990s. These included the accretion of 'soft law' around the area of vocational education and training since the Treaty of Rome in 1957; the challenges offered by the emerging new information technologies, declining industries and changing demands for skills; the adoption of distance learning systems at national level to redress disadvantage, and to provide flexible, high-quality and cost-effective access to higher education to adults who were unable to attend on-campus; and the role of the Commission, policy entrepreneurs and networks in promoting distance education as a solution to the major social and economic problems facing Europe. The Treaty of Maastricht committed the EU to supporting education and training in the community, and in particular, to 'encouraging the development of distance education' (Art 126 changed to Art 149 in Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties). A series of implementation programmes in the 1990s, including Socrates, Tempus and Phare, funded distance learning initiatives in the EU and accession countries. With the development of the Internet and web technologies, elearning came to replace distance education in the EU discourse. The paper will conclude with some observations on the current role of elearning policy within the Lisbon strategy.
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.
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 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.
Forthcoming in Intereconomics – Review of European Economic Policy, Springer, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2007. The authors are Associate Professor, Universidade Moderna, Lisbon, and Research Fellow at IEEI and Professor and Research Coordinator, IEE, Universidade Católica, Lisbon, and National Institute for Public Administration (INA), respectively. ; In order to ensure that the internal market delivers (growth, jobs) in the face of a changing market and technological environment (internal market liberalisation, globalisation, the knowledge-based economy) and to take advantage of the opportunities that it presents, the European Union (EU) needs to create an adequate institutional framework that promotes its efficiency potential and adaptive capacity. In the reality of European mixed economies, its capacity to solve the structural problems that impair productivity and economic growth in Europe hinges very much on governance, in particular when reforms to realise international synergies and complementarities or policy-learning with a view to common goals involve not only the EU but as well the Member State level. The Lisbon Agenda can be considered an exercise of policy coordination that needs to ensure that Member States' over-regulated economies comply both with liberalisation in the Single Market and with an adequate European-wide institutional environment for sustainable growth without coordination mismatches, protectionism and market segmentation. This ultimately raises the question, central to this paper, of the adequate governance level and of the regulatory model to adopt (systems competition and/or European regulation). ; This paper stems from the authors' joint research and teaching on European Economics at the University of Victoria, Canada, at INA and at the University of Aveiro in 2005 and 2006 and is part of an FCT research project on Economic Growth, Convergence and Institutions (research grant POCI/EGE/55423/2004, partially funded by ...