LISBON STRATEGY TZ 1

LISBON STRATEGY : WHAT’S WRONG ?

Tania ZGAJEWSKIZagreb, 3.05.2006

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 2

INTRODUCTION

Personal presentation The importance of the topic

« Not only an economic program, but a society project »

The approach« Reality is important, but so is presentation »

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 3

How Europe speaks about people How Europe speaks about people

will strongly impact will strongly impact

how people will speak about Europehow people will speak about Europe

So the way we talk about the Lisbon strategy So the way we talk about the Lisbon strategy explains much the way explains much the way

we lose referenda we lose referenda

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 4

PLAN

1. THE PROBLEM : EUROPE’S ECONOMIC SITUATION

2. THE ANSWER : THE LISBON STRATEGY

3. THE RESULTS : MITIGATED

4. THE ALTERNATIVE PATHS

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 5

1. THE PROBLEM : EUROPE’S ECONOMY What’s really bad ? What’s not so bad ?

2. THE ANSWER : THE LISBON STRATEGY The 2000 version The 2005 version

3. THE RESULTS : MITIGATED ESPECIALLY AT NATIONAL LEVEL

The EC level The national level

4. THE ALTERNATIVES More decentralization More integration

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 6

1. EUROPE’S ECONOMIC SITUATION

What is the Lisbon strategy backdrop?

We live through two revolutions : ICT and globalization. This is the dawn of a new age (in some ICT corporations, productivity can be multiplied by 4 in 10 years).

We thus need to prepare for the Information economy and the Knowledge society. This requires a lot of reforms.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 7

1. EUROPE’S ECONOMIC SITUATION

There are two ways to present the reality.

1.1. Some problems are very real

(the « black scenario »)

1.2. Things are not that dramatic

(the « pink scenario »)

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 8

1.1. Some problems are very real (« black ») We get into a grey society

… and this is a heavy trend. There are new competitors in town (China, India)

… and they weight a lot. Unemployment remains too high in many places

… especially for low qualified people. Our adaptability to the Information

Society is limited.

« Jurassic Europe », « Eurosclerosis » : we become an economic history museum.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 9

1.2. Things are not that dramatic (« pink »)

Let yourself be surprised :

Productivity growth per capita and hour is not that bad. The debt situation remains manageable.

(public debt, private debt, external debt ) We have survived a strong petrol shock. The environmental situation has improved in some

corners.« The European model »« We are living Halcyon days »

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 10

Conclusion about the Lisbon strategy

The diagnosis part of the strategy is strong« we need to adapt to a new economy, a knowledge society »Structural challenges need structural answers.

The message part of the strategy is weaker The situation has negative and positive aspects, but the official speech is essentially negative.

People are often worried (see the polls before referenda). The « European speech » should offer a perspective, and not compound the problem.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 11

2. THE LISBON STRATEGY

2.1. THE ORIGINAL VERSION (2000)

2.2. THE REVISED VERSION (2005)

…. and the revised version is in fact worse than the original !

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 12

2.1. The original version (2000)

Various objectives : economic social environmental Various instruments at different levels : EC measures (regulations and directives) National measures for the most important part

through Open coordination method (OCM)

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 13

In fact : one contradiction

Many ambitions (which is well) Very little means (which is not so well) - Most things are at the national level- No legal constraints- No budgetary outlays

« Europe » is thus responsible for things it basically cannot control (and about which Member States are not eager to act).

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 14

2.2. The revised version (2005)

Less objectives : « priority to the economy,no more social and environmental objectives »Less coordination : « no name and shame ofthe Member States by the Commission »Less appropriation by the EU : « MemberStates must feel more responsible »

..… but then, what is now the added value of an European approach ?

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 15

In fact : a second contradiction

We want to convince people to accept difficult reforms.

But we have diminished the perspectives we offered them.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 16

Conclusion about the Lisbon strategy

There is a means problem. If the problem is so fundamental, means should

logically be increased. There is a perspective problem.

A lot of people do not feel committed

to a program which has no social and environmental perspective.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 17

Which creates a communication problem …

Let’s not forget that people want a positive perspective.

The revision has reinforced the

« doom and gloom » aspect of

the strategy and reduces the

involvement of the average

citizens in the reforms.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 18

3. THE RESULTS

Growth : limited

RD : limited

Structural reforms : limited

Popularity : limited

Less ambition + little means

=limited results. What’s surprising ?

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 19

The results are not completely negative

Let’s not go ourselves into the « doom and gloom » 

We are in a phase of structural adjustment

(ICT, globalization, rise of energy costs) There is still growth (but not strong enough) Some structural reforms have begun (but not gone

far enough)

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 20

There’s a strong difference in the delivery

3.1. At the EC level

3.2. At the Member States’ level

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 21

3.1. At the EC level

Transports : Railways + airways (market opening has been deepened)

Electronic communications :Telecoms + Internet (essential for the expansion of ICT, and thus productivity)

Energy : Gas + electricity (market opening has been deepened… even with present resistances)

Not so bad. Some things changed.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 22

3.2. At the Member States’ level

Structural reforms : Employment + Pensions + Training

R&D : EC weak (EC budget has been reduced) and

Member States not better (slight improvement)

OCM : Open coordination method So open there is not much coordination in fact

(references to other Member States in national debates are quite inexistant)

Not so good. Not much changed.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 23

Big Member States are generally bad performers, small Member States are generally better.

This is true for structural reforms, and also for public deficits.

(Croatia can be happy about the future…)

This being said, there are strong variations between Member States …

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 24

Conclusion about the Lisbon strategy

• The results remain weak, which is quite normal with limited means.

• Basically, the EC has delivered, and the Member States have not.

Question : What should be done to improve the delivery ?

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 25

4. THE ALTERNATIVE PATHS

The Lisbon strategy has relied from the beginning on a fundamental paradox (big ambitions, small means).

There are in fact two alternative paths which are more logical (reduce ambitions, or increase means).

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 26

The Lisbon compromise is weak. Why ?

Weak as result :

Fundamentally, the EC was not created to be a bureaucratic talking shop. There is very little added value in fact.

Weak as message :

And there is a lot of lost value in communication. The EC must either do something, or keep silent. Simulating action is the worst communication strategy.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 27

4. THE ALTERNATIVE PATHS

4.1. More decentralisation

4.2. More integration

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 28

4.1. More decentralization

Single market for the EC Energy Services Transport

The rest for the Member States Social problems Environment Structural reforms

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 29

4.2. More integration (an illustration)

EC Legislative level- Single market + new environmental (energy taxes, infrastructure

charges) EC Macroeconomic level- Increase the coordination of national economic policies- Create stabilization fund (at least for Eurozone) EC Budget level- Put our money where our mouth is (ICT, networks, environment,

corporations’ restructuration). Thus increase the EC budget, but with new priorities (Sapir report, 2004)

Member States must have environmental and social targets (softer thus than regulations)

- Fear of change must be fought.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 30

So the subsidiarity principle is respected

Environmental regulations- Restructuration of energy taxation and better infrastructure

costs have already been debated at length by EC institutions. EC Macroeconomic level- The 1980s have shown that uncoordinated macroeconomic

initiatives have little efficiency (and this is more valid with a single currency).

EC Budget level- The efficiency of EC outlays is obviously bigger for networks

and research. Environmental and social targets - These are political commitments. No EC instrument.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 31

Where is the added value of more integration ?

EC Legislative level- The EC environmental regulations HAVE allowed better

management of sustainable development. EC Macroeconomic level- Interdependance must be managed. Non management is

costly in growth. EC Budget level- Networks and research outlays are more efficient at EC level.

Better coordination in both cases. Environmental and social targets - The targets are essential to motivate people, and they do not

infringe on the subsidiarity principle.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 32

Let’s remember !

IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO FEEL INVOLVED, SPEAK ABOUT THEIR INTERESTS

(= they must have targets for their interests)

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 33

General conclusion : what’s wrong with the Lisbon strategy ?

In a nutshell :

The diagnosis is correct. The message is unbalanced, because it is

excessively negative. The action program is unbalanced because

means are unsufficient, and targets on non economic aspects have been dropped.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 34

A dangerous communication strategy indeed !

There is thus a need to reintegrate social and environmental objectives in the strategy, AND

to show the link with the other parts.

We have precisely done the reverse.

LISBON STRATEGY TZ 35

How Europe speaks about people impacts strongly How Europe speaks about people impacts strongly on how people speak about Europeon how people speak about Europe

If you want people to invest in Europe, If you want people to invest in Europe,

Europe must first show that it invests in peopleEurope must first show that it invests in people

Thank you