1. The Lisbon Strategy Background, development and future perspective

2. Objectives of European Integration • Lisbon can be seen as an extension of integration’s initial objectives • Peace and stability (political) • Economic growth and socio-economic modernization (economic) • Coal and Steel Community • Common Commercial Policy • Agricultural Policy • Regional Policy

3. Re-launch of integration (mid-80s onwards) • Internal Market Programme and the Single European Act • Development of internal policies (environment , social regional, consumer etc.) through new instruments: structural funds, mutual recognition • EMU and the single currency (1992) with the Stability Pact and the European Central Bank resulting in deeper economic interdependence, re-regulation on European level, Europeanization of national administrations, loss of national independence in monetary policy and restricted room for manoeuvre in national economic policy.

4. The Lisbon Summit, March 2000 • “turning Europe into the world’s most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” within 10 years • A three-pronged strategy aimed at • A transition to a knowledge-based economy by improving policies for the information society and R&D, pursuing structural reform for competitiveness and completing the internal market • A modernization of the European social model by investing in people and combating social exclusion • Sustaining the economic outlook and favourable growth perspective by applying an appropriate macro-economic policy mix • Quantifiable targets in a variety of areas (R&D, education, employment etc) • Making use of existing processes and reporting instruments: the BEPG (Stability Pact), the Employment Guidelines (the Luxemburg process) and structural reform (the Cardiff process) • Governance based on the Community method, the Open Method of Co-ordination and political commitment

5. The Lisbon objectives widened • The summits of Nice (December 2000), Stockholm (March 2001) and Gothenburg (June 2001) added new objectives to Lisbon • TheEuropean Social Agenda: structural reform of labour markets, job creation and measures against social exclusion, poverty and discrimination • Sustainable social protection systems (pension and health care systems), promotion of frontier technologies (f.i. biotechnology) • Sustainable development – making the environment Lisbon’s third pillar

6. Running out of steam? • The summit of Barcelona (Match 2002): agreement on liberalizing electricity and gas markets for non-household consumers; a go-ahead for Galileo; political commitment on an increase in public R&D spending (3% of GDP), spreading broadband technology, implementation of the ‘Single Sky’ by 2004 and a host of measures to boost job creation • Brussels I summit (March 2003) overshadowed by the war in Iraq and the beginning of the unraveling of the Stability Pact. First warnings about member states’ dismal implementation record and lack of national reform

7. Faltering implementation • Brussels II summit (March 2004) overshadowed by terrorist attack and the break-up of the Stability Pact • European Action for Growth (package for investment in infrastructure – physical and digital) • Commission warning on faltering implementation of Lisbon objectives, both on European and national levels, indication that EU members would not fulfill the Lisbon objectives in 2010

8. A re-launch of Lisbon? • Brussels III (March 2005) agreed on re-focusing priorities on economic growth and employment by investing in innovation and knowledge and making Europe an attractive place to invest and work • Improving governance by making the setting of priorities clearer, enhancing member states’ commitment (national action programmes, a national Lisbon coordinator and strengthen the involvement of national parliaments) and improving monitoring by the Commission • A reinforced policy process based on an integrated 3-yearly policy cycle based on strategic priorities and integrated policy guidelines followed-up by an annual Community Lisbon programme and national programmes

9. What is Lisbon? • A political commitment to socio-economic renewal based on a series of on-going policy processes in the area of employment, social affairs, market integration, sustainable development, sustainability of public finances, good governance etc. • A mixed policy process based on the traditional Community method in areas linked to the Internal Market, the environment etc. and voluntary alignment of national policies such as social security, employment, pension and public health, education, innovation and R&D against jointly defined objectives • A diffuse institutional structure and multiple administrative processes governed by hard and ’soft’ policy instruments in an uneasy relationship.

10. Institutional set-up • The European Council provides leadership, political commitment and arbitration • Different council formations fight for supremacy: EcoFin, the Competitiveness Council, the GAERC, and sector councils (employment, social affairs, environment etc) • Council committees : the Economic and Financial committee, the Economic Policy Committee • Commission produces annual reports and monitors progress • European Parliament: few institutional points of access • EESC and the Committee of the Regions • European social partners meet in the Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment • National administrations (influential) and national parliaments (thus far little involvement)

11. Decision-making and instruments • The traditional community method • A variety of processes (about 10) governed by the OMC with various reporting instruments • OMC = coordination of national policies towards the fulfillment of jointly agreed targets, no European legislation • Peer pressure, naming and shaming • Joint learning and dissimilation of best practices • Good governance and improved national administrative practices • The Commission in the centre of national administrative networks • National implementation • No formal Community procedures to deal with non-compliance

12. Weaknesses of the Lisbon process • Lack of coherence – too many objectives, some working at cross-purpose • Lack of coherence with other policy processes and instruments (Stability Pact, sustainable development, EU budget/structural funds) • Lack of political will and leadership on behalf of national leaders • Policy-framework too loose (can OMC deliver the intended result?) • Lack of national involvement (parliaments and social partners) • Democratic deficit

13. Reforms and future challenges • Reform of the Stability Pact • EU budget negotiations • Member States’ unwillingness to implement, weak enforcement • Future policy reform and transfer of competences • Institutional and procedural reform • Democratic deficit? • National ownership? • Leadership? A collective European executive?