Suchergebnisse

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'.

Intro -- TITANIC 2010? THE EUROPEAN UNIONAND ITS FAILED LISBON STRATEGY -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHY -- ABSTRACT -- GLOSSARY AND CONVENTIONS -- INTRODUCTION -- ON THE LISBON TRAIN - SOME SECOND THOUGHTSON THE EUROSTAT APPROACH, BASED ON A SINGLEFACTOR MODEL -- IS THERE NO SINGLE LISBON PROCESS AT ALL?A FOUR-FACTOR MODEL -- SOME NOTES ON THE CAUSALITY OF THE LISBONPROCESS ON THE EUROPEAN LEVEL -- ECONOMIC GROWTH AND THEEUROPEAN REGIONS -- BALANCING WORK AND FAMILY LIFE AND GLOBALDEVELOPMENT - THE THEORY -- BALANCING WORK AND FAMILY LIFE AND GLOBALDEVELOPMENT - THE RESEARCH DESIGN -- "DESTRUCTIVE CREATION" AND GLOBALDEVELOPMENT - PRESENTING AND INTERPRETINGTHE NEW EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE -- TITANIC 2010 - THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, R&D,THE PROLONGED WORKBENCH AND THAT OTHERLISBON RACE -- POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES AND CONCLUSIONS -- STATISTICAL APPENDIX -- THE BALANCING WORK AND FAMILY LIFE INDEX -- A PATH MODEL WORLD GROWTH AND SOCIALDEVELOPMENT -- ENHANCING SOCIAL EUROPE - THE MINISTERIALDECLARATION OF THE "12" FOR A SOCIAL EUROPE -- ANNEXSOME HINTS FOR FUTURE WORK -- THE OTHER LISBON RACE:THE SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY RANKING OF THEWORLD'S TOP 500 UNIVERSITIES -- DATA SOURCES -- TUITION FEES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION -- SELECTED REFERENCES -- INDEX.

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.