Is the Lisbon strategy an unattainable project?

Résumé du document

In March 2000, the European Union Heads of States and Governments met at the European council of Lisbon. This statement was the basis to what is called the "Lisbon strategy" or "Lisbon process/agenda", a politic but mostly economic development plan for the members States of the European Union. Nowadays, this ambitious goal has certainly lost the shining enthusiasm that it had provided at first. In the years that have followed the Lisbon council of 2000, the economic context evolved in an unfavorable way, the too precise and too numerous objectives have quickly seem to be almost completely out of reach and the agenda seemed more than overwhelmed. The Lisbon strategy was going into so deep water at its half-point review that the spring European Council of March 2005 had to give the process a second impulse by renewing and refocusing the agenda. This article will try to answer the following "everlasting" question: Is the Lisbon strategy an unattainable project?

Extraits

[...] Is the Lisbon strategy an unattainable project? Table of contents Introduction 1. An ambitious project 1.1 The motivations and objectives of the Lisbon strategy 1.2 A changing economic context 2. A half-hearted assessment 2.1 Progress have been accomplished 2.2 Deficit of implementation 3. Perspectives 3.1 The mid-term review: a more focused strategy 3.2 Recommended actions Conclusion Bibliography Introduction In March 2000, the European Union Heads of States and Governments met at the European council of Lisbon. They agreed and decided to make the Union: "The most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and respect for the environment by 2010[1]". [...]

[...] In order to achieve the “check list” of the strategy, three approaches were targeted[4] : preparing the transition to a knowledge-based economy and society by better policies for the information society and research and development, as well as by stepping up the process of structural reform for competitiveness and innovation and by completing the internal market; modernizing the European social model, investing in people and combating social exclusion; Sustaining the healthy economic outlook and favorable growth prospects by applying an appropriate macro-economic policy mix. These good wills were certainly ambitious. At first, they didn't seem to be out of reach or impossible to accomplish at first. But this was only the beginning of the new Millennium and things changed rapidly after A changing economic context By the end of the 1990's decade, Europe's economic growth rate was superior to and the unemployment rate was reducing sustainably[5]. This period has been characterized by hope and confidence in the economy of the Union. [...]

[...] The Lisbon strategy could not continue to be the priority for the members States at that time. In addition, the Union did not calculate the possibility of having competitors that were coming from outside the western countries area, like India and China. Those emerging countries are recipients of the international aid of development and at the same time, they are competing on the fields of services and production of high-added-value products. Their position has long-time been underestimate by the “cliché” that emerging countries are only capable of furnishing raw materials or products that needed low technologic skills such as the textile production. [...]

[...] It is more likely to see in the future decade the creation of a European innovation pole like the European institute of technology as it has been suggested in the 2005 spring report of the Commission as an integral part of the renewed Lisbon strategy. Conclusion Overall, we can see that even though the Lisbon strategy went into good and bad times, the idea of having an agenda to help economic and social development is still more than relevant and urgent. It is known that the first years of the implementation of the strategy were difficult. The economic context became quickly unfavorable for any sort of progress. [...]

[...] The aim of the Lisbon agenda was to reach 70% by 2010. It seems out of reach for the 2010 horizon. It is important to note that there are major differences between the different countries taken in consideration. For example, the employment rate in Denmark for the same time period was of fulfilling the objective with eyes closed. It is another story for Poland that had a 51,7% employment rate for this period. The employment rate for women is another key objective in the Lisbon agenda. [...]