In March 2000, the European Council meeting in Lisbon set the strategic goal of transforming the European Union into ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ within a decade. Among the jointly agreed goals to be attained by 2010 were raising investment in research and development to three Lisbon Strategy and Europe 2020 In March 2000, the European Council meeting in Lisbon set the strategic goal of transforming the European Union into ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ within a decade. Among the jointly agreed goals to be attained by 2010 were raising investment in research and development to three per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and increasing the rate of employment within the EU from 61 to 70 per cent of the working-age population. In a process dubbed the ‘open method of coordination’ (OMC), policy would be driven by guidelines, benchmarking and the exchange of best practice among member-state governments, rather than by legally-binding commitments of the sort used to complete the single market. The strategy was underpinned by detailed ‘national action plans’ (NAPs), agreed between individual governments and the European Commission. Although some progress was made in the direction of the Lisbon targets during the early- to mid-2000s – for example, the employment rate increased by about 0.4 per cent a year – the Union’s overall economic performance continued to lag behind that of the emerging economies, notably China and India, as well as the United States. Sensing a growing level of disappointment, the Commission invited a high-level group, headed by the former Dutch prime minister, Wim Kok, to conduct a mid-term review of the strategy. Presented in November 2004 and entitled Rising to the Challenge, the Kok Report suggested that the Lisbon Strategy was becoming a ‘synonym for missed objectives and failed promises’. It attributed ‘disappointing delivery’ to ‘an overloaded agenda, poor coordination and conflicting priorities’. Too many competing goals had been set, based on the convenient assumption that employment growth, the knowledge economy, social solidarity and environmental protection were inherently consistent and mutually reinforcing. Kok proposed that the number of explicit objectives be reduced, with a clearer focus on growth and jobs, and that the Commission show itself more willing to ‘name and shame’ member states which were falling down on their NAP commitments. The European Council re-launched the Lisbon Strategy in March 2005. Apart from thinning out the number of objectives, the main change was institutional: the Council of Ministers would henceforth adopt a set of ‘integrated guidelines’, consisting of the Union’s existing Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) and employment guidelines, each year. The OMC approach was still at the heart of the process, because of the political sensitivity of obliging governments to take difficult decisions in several of the fields covered by the strategy. NAPs would remain voluntary, with the Commission still reluctant to embarrass offenders. Once the European economy deteriorated with the onset of the international economic and financial crisis in autumn 2008, achievement of the Lisbon targets started to go into reverse. By June 2009, the Swedish prime minister, Fredrick Reinfeldt, could describe the strategy as a ‘failure’, without fear of contradiction. As the Lisbon Strategy approached its expiry date, the Commission came forward with a successor strategy for the creation of a ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive economy’ during the subsequent decade, known as ‘Europe 2020’. The Commission’s plan, published in March 2010 and endorsed by the European Council three months later, was more focused than the Lisbon Strategy, but still high on ambition and short on assured means of delivery. The Europe 2020 strategy sets the Union five specific objectives for innovation, employment, education, social inclusion, and climate change and energy policy. The goals are that, by 2020, three per cent of EU GDP should be invested in research, development or innovation; that 75 per cent of 20-64 year-olds should be in employment; that the share of early school leavers should be under 10 per cent and at least 40 per cent of those under 35 should have completed tertiary education; that at least 20 million fewer people should be in, or at risk of, poverty and social exclusion; and that the UEnion’s U’s ‘20-20-20’ strategy for climate change and energy policy should be achieved. The last of these, which is already legally binding, provides that greenhouse gas emissions will be 20 per cent lower than in 1990, energy efficiency will have increased by 20 per cent, and 20 per cent of energy will be generated from renewables. To achieve the other four goals, member states will be free to adopt their own national targets in each of these fields, now known as ‘national reform plans’ (NRPs). September 2012 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and increasing the rate of employment within the EU from 61 to 70 per cent of the working-age population. In a process dubbed the ‘open method of coordination’ (OMC), policy would be driven by guidelines, benchmarking and the exchange of best practice among member-state governments, rather than by legally-binding commitments of the sort used to complete the single market. The strategy was underpinned by detailed ‘national action plans’ (NAPs), agreed between individual governments and the European Commission.
Although some progress was made in the direction of the Lisbon targets during the early- to mid-2000s – for example, the employment rate increased by about 0.4 per cent a year – the Union’s overall economic performance continued to lag behind that of the emerging economies, notably China and India, as well as the United States. Sensing a growing level of disappointment, the Commission invited a high-level group, headed by the former Dutch prime minister, Wim Kok, to conduct a mid-term review of the strategy. Presented in November 2004 and entitled Rising to the Challenge, the Kok Report suggested that the Lisbon Strategy was becoming a ‘synonym for missed objectives and failed promises’. It attributed ‘disappointing delivery’ to ‘an overloaded agenda, poor coordination and conflicting priorities’. Too many competing goals had been set, based on the convenient assumption that employment growth, the knowledge economy, social solidarity and environmental protection were inherently consistent and mutually reinforcing. Kok proposed that the number of explicit objectives be reduced, with a clearer focus on growth and jobs, and that the Commission show itself more willing to ‘name and shame’ member states which were falling down on their NAP commitments.
The European Council re-launched the Lisbon Strategy in March 2005. Apart from thinning out the number of objectives, the main change was institutional: the Council of Ministers would henceforth adopt a set of ‘integrated guidelines’, consisting of the Union’s existing Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) and employment guidelines, each year. The OMC approach was still at the heart of the process, because of the political sensitivity of obliging governments to take difficult decisions in several of the fields covered by the strategy. NAPs would remain voluntary, with the Commission still reluctant to embarrass offenders. Once the European economy deteriorated with the onset of the international economic and financial crisis in autumn 2008, achievement of the Lisbon targets started to go into reverse. By June 2009, the Swedish prime minister, Fredrick Reinfeldt, could describe the strategy as a ‘failure’, without fear of contradiction.
As the Lisbon Strategy approached its expiry date, the Commission came forward with a successor strategy for the creation of a ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive economy’ during the subsequent decade, known as ‘Europe 2020’. The Commission’s plan, published in March 2010 and endorsed by the European Council three months later, was more focused than the Lisbon Strategy, but still high on ambition and short on assured means of delivery. The Europe 2020 strategy sets the Union five specific objectives for innovation, employment, education, social inclusion, and climate change and energy policy. The goals are that, by 2020, three per cent of EU GDP should be invested in research, development or innovation; that 75 per cent of 20-64 year-olds should be in employment; that the share of early school leavers should be under 10 per cent and at least 40 per cent of those under 35 should have completed tertiary education; that at least 20 million fewer people should be in, or at risk of, poverty and social exclusion; and that the Union’s ‘20-20-20’ strategy for climate change and energy policy should be achieved. The last of these, which is already legally binding, provides that greenhouse gas emissions will be 20 per cent lower than in 1990, energy efficiency will have increased by 20 per cent, and 20 per cent of energy will be generated from renewables. To achieve the other four goals, member states will be free to adopt their own national targets in each of these fields, now known as ‘national reform plans’ (NRPs).
September 2012
Copyright: Anthony Teasdale, 2012
Citation: The Penguin Companion to European Union (2012), additional website entry