Whatever happened to the EU's "Lisbon Strategy"? Not only is the public almost entirely ignorant of the EU's policy agenda for boosting competitiveness, economic growth and employment, but this ignorance extends to many intellectuals, academics, CEOs and even some members of parliament. For example, in all of the debates on the EU's constitutional treaty, neither its supporters nor its opponents have so much as mentioned the Lisbon Strategy. It is little wonder, then, that Euroskepticism -- in France, the Netherlands and elsewhere -- is on the rise.
Despite the success and popularity of programs like Erasmus, an educational exchange initiative, citizens don't perceive the EU's contribution to superior education or training. Indeed, the last Eurobarometer survey on the Lisbon Strategy found that the European public sees little relation between EU policies and economic competitiveness.
Of course, some laboratories receive EU grants, but without recognizing a specific European mission in research policies. Europe is generally considered more as a constraint than as a plan, more as an instrument than as a vision nourished by a clear and credible idea.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
The responsibility for this state of affairs lies with Europe's ruling class and policymakers. As a recent assessment by former Dutch prime minister Wim Kok pointed out, EU member states have generally not made the Lisbon Strategy a high priority, and they balk at giving the EU the means to pursue more ambitious policies to offset this neglect. It is difficult to ask citizens to be enthusiastic about aims that their leaders ignore.
At bottom, the problem is one of legitimacy. The main targets -- jobs, growth and research -- are considered legitimate from the standpoint of fairness when described in general terms. But the concrete policies needed to realize this aim are not, since reforming the welfare state and labor markets means more competition, which scares many citizens.
Legitimacy is even more problematic regarding recognition, which implies a feeling of community and attachment. When we are faced with conflicting choices -- burden-sharing through taxation, the organization of the public sector, the status of public employees and so on -- member states are considered to be the only bodies entitled to decide.
In short, when the EU brings subsidies, it receives congratulations; but when it pushes for unpopular reforms, it becomes the scapegoat for political, social and economic failures.
From an economic point of view, the Lisbon Strategy's aim is to transform Europe into a power able to compete on equal terms with the US today and the great Asian countries. But this aim does not appear to be creating a European identity, as the euro has. Within many states, "power" isn't politically correct. Above all, there is no link between national power and European power. If we want Europe to be more legitimate, we must explain how to tie these two dimensions of power.
Aside from ignorance of the Lisbon Strategy among the public and inaction on long-term reform among member states, a second problem concerns the lack of acceptance of the virtues of competition -- the most effective way to ensure quality, innovation and low prices for consumers. Competition also puts an end to rent-seeking and protection of traditional corporate advantages.
Of course, we must limit the scope of competition: there is no reason, for example, to extend it to taxation.
Similarly, while competition will improve the quality of research and education, this does not imply reduced public funding, a lower priority for basic research or the elimination of scholarships.
Perhaps most importantly, competition is a powerful means to restore democracy and modernize political institutions by compelling policymakers to ensure transparency and accountability. Elites must give up their privileges, and regulations on corporate governance must limit collusion between managers and civil servants or politicians. We must explain to citizens Europe's contribution to public ethics and the democratic virtues of fair competition in economic, political and social life.
Consider one of the main purposes of the Lisbon Strategy: the organization of research and higher education. It is impossible to change radically the way academics and researchers are appointed in most member states, and to revise completely the criteria for funding faculties and laboratories. But the EU can overcome national impediments by developing exemplary universities and research centers that would be properly European, serving as an incentive to quality and reform at the national level. Emulation through excellence is the motor of competitiveness.
A good place to start is an idea supported by French Socialist leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who has proposed that 0.25 percent of Europe's GDP be dedicated to research and used to create a European Agency for Research. Moreover, Europe must build up tools for strategic analysis, assessment and forecasting to provoke and nourish public debate. Such think tanks at the European level must remain free and independent, but leaders must learn to pay attention to and integrate their recommendations into the policymaking process.
In many matters pertaining to the Lisbon Strategy, the EU cannot avoid member states' concerns. But as the states won't be able to do everything alone and won't renounce maintaining political control, we must be able to link the Union's policies and those of specific states.
Otherwise, the Lisbon Strategy could merely empower an inefficient bureaucracy, rather than boosting the EU's democratic legitimacy. In short, the Lisbon Strategy could lead Europe to become a real power in the coming decades, or it could fuel further growth of Euroskepticism.
Nicolas Tenzer is president of the Centre d'etude et de reflexion pour l'action politique in Paris and director of the journal Le Banquet.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
An article published in the Dec. 12, 1949, edition of the Central Daily News (中央日報) bore a headline with the intimidating phrase: “You Cannot Escape.” The article was about the execution of seven “communist spies,” some say on the basis of forced confessions, at the end of the 713 Penghu Incident. Those were different times, born of political paranoia shortly after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) relocated to Taiwan following defeat in China by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The phrase was a warning by the KMT regime to the local populace not to challenge its power or threaten national unity. The
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
The Iran war has exposed a fundamental vulnerability in the global energy system. The escalating confrontation between Iran, Israel and the US has begun to shake international energy markets, largely because Iran is disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway carries roughly one-third of the world’s seaborne oil, making it one of the most strategically sensitive energy corridors in the world. Even the possibility of disruption has triggered sharp volatility in global oil prices. The duration and scope of the conflict remain uncertain, with senior US officials offering contradictory signals about how long military operations might continue.
RSS