With the US crippled by Wall Street’s collapse, this should be Europe’s moment. Yet the EU’s role in the world is weakening. It is listened to less today than it was 15 years ago. As Singapore’s Kishore Mahbubani, a prominent Asian diplomat and academic, puts it: “Europeans are irrelevant to the world’s great issues, obsessed by internal process, culturally arrogant, craven in the face of the US and blind to the rise of Asia.”
If Europe is to gain a more important role in global leadership, it must reverse its long-term economic decline. Consider the evidence of that decline:
Ownership: After centuries in which European corporations dominated the developing world, the trend is reversing. Indian, Middle Eastern and other investors are buying up European steel mills and carmakers. In coming years, watch out for China and Russia.
Exchange rates: When the dollar slumped a year ago and eroded European competitiveness still further, both the European-led IMF and the European Central Bank proved impotent. Instead, European leaders flew cap in hand to China to ask for support. While the dollar has risen recently against the euro, Europeans did not influence this.
Banks: When US and Swiss banks hit the wall, nobody approached Europe for support. Instead, bank leaders pleaded with the Middle East, Singapore and China to throw a lifeline. Once Europe’s own banks became infected, euroskeptic British leadership was needed to overcome French and German dithering. European institutions remained on the sidelines.
Of course, Europe’s growing irrelevance is not entirely self-inflicted. Emerging-market countries have increased their share of the world economy, giving them a more important voice in international relations. But it is not others that prevent euro-zone growth from climbing above 3 percent, or that are causing the EU-15’s share of the world economy to dwindle, from 19.5 percent of global GDP in 1994 to 16 percent last year.
Despite its Lisbon agenda, EU enlargement and the coming of the euro, Europe’s overall economic performance has not improved because it has neglected many basic and everyday issues. Three examples come to mind.
First, the EU still spends far more of its resources subsidizing declining sectors than preparing for the future. Although research funding is rising, it accounts for just 4.7 percent of EU spending, compared with 31.7 percent for agriculture.
Second, Europe has failed to introduce an independent European Research Council to ensure that funding is allocated on the basis of scientific merit. Too much of the money earmarked for research goes to prestige projects with limited or no connection to science, like Galileo or the European Institute of Technology.
Third, European resources are fragmented and this hampers European competitiveness. The weak and diluted EU Takeover Directive, adopted after more than a decade of debate, fails to facilitate the cross-border mergers within Europe that are needed to build world champions. Company-based social benefits in some leading European countries weaken corporate flexibility by locking in labor.
Yet there are a number of areas of consensus where the EU can push ahead. Enlargement has made far-away countries our neighbors. They need access to our markets, and we should not turn them away. We should expand the European single market to boost growth and avoid new divisions. This means leveraging unglamorous tools like tariffs, industrial standards, market regulation and cooperation in research and education in our relations with countries like Russia and Egypt, just as we have done with Norway and Switzerland.
RSS