Nearly four years have passed. How effective is this so-called "Lisbon Strategy"?
The answer is obviously disappointing. An assessment report recently released by the European Commission clearly pointed out that the gap between the European economy and the American economy is widening. Although this conclusion is not surprising, it has caused great repercussions. At the just-concluded EU Summit, evaluating the implementation of Lisbon Strategy is an important topic.
The background of Lisbon strategy is: at the turn of the century, the European economy is developing well, the process of economic integration is also smooth, the unified big market and economic and monetary union are completed as scheduled, and the euro is also launched smoothly. Politically, the EU tries to "speak with one voice" and play a greater role in the international arena, thus becoming a pole of a multipolar world.
But at the same time, the EU is also facing various realistic pressures. As far as the external environment is concerned, the competitive pressure brought by economic globalization has made the disadvantages of European economy rigid and sluggish increasingly prominent; Within Europe, the social welfare system and pension system that Europeans are proud of can no longer bear the burden brought by the aging population. In addition, the enlargement of the EU also makes it necessary for the EU to face the major challenge of unbalanced economic and social development between the old and new member States.
Europeans know that economic strength is the basis of all ambitions. Therefore, it is urgent to promote economic growth and improve the growth potential and competitiveness of European economy. In the Lisbon Strategy, Europeans proposed to make the EU economy "the most dynamic and competitive economy in the world". It is not difficult to see that the EU has set itself a lofty goal: to catch up with the United States!
EU leaders are ambitious, but it seems that their ambitions have not yet been translated into practical results. Looking at this report drafted by former Dutch Prime Minister Kirk, we can only draw the following conclusion: Compared with 2000, the current EU economy is farther away from the goal of becoming the "most dynamic and competitive economy". At present, the per capita GNP in Europe is only 65% to 70% of that in the United States. In recent years, the average economic growth rate of the European Union is 0.5%, while that of the United States is 2%.
As far as the two most important indicators of Lisbon strategy (employment rate and scientific research investment) are concerned, the overall performance of EU countries is also disappointing. Although the Cork Report affirms that EU countries have made some efforts in developing the information industry and reforming the labor market, and the average employment rate has also increased from 62.5% in 1999 to 64.3% in 2003, it is still far from the Lisbon target of increasing to 70% in 20 10. At present, the average employment rate in the United States has reached 7 1%.
In terms of investment in scientific research, Lisbon Strategy proposes that by 20 10, the proportion of investment in scientific research and development in various countries should rise to 3% of GDP. But at present, only two EU countries have achieved this goal. The average proportion of scientific research investment in EU countries is only 1.9%, while that in the United States and Japan is 2.8% and 3. 1% respectively.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Prodi, the outgoing president of the European Commission, lamented that the Lisbon strategy was "a huge failure". Of course, Prodi may be premature, but it is an indisputable fact that the Lisbon strategy is progressing slowly. What is the reason?
The Cork report pointed the finger at the EU leaders, claiming that it was precisely because of "lack of sufficient political awareness and failure to keep promises" that some goals in the Lisbon Strategy could not be achieved. The report warns that if measures are not taken as soon as possible, the Lisbon strategy may eventually become a laughing stock and become synonymous with "dishonesty and failure".
In order to save the failure of Lisbon strategy, the Cork Report put forward a series of countermeasures and suggestions, calling on the leaders of member countries to take stronger actions in eliminating obstacles to unified market, reducing the administrative burden of enterprises and reforming the labor market. The most innovative suggestion in the Cork report is to require EU member states to formulate their own Lisbon Action Plan, and the European Commission will regularly evaluate the implementation and publish it in the form of "hierarchical queuing" to put pressure on those member states that are lagging behind in reform.
In the summit statement, EU leaders stated that they would never give up the goals set forth in the Lisbon Strategy, and agreed to continue the mid-term evaluation of the Lisbon Strategy based on the Cork Report at the summit next March, and strive to "inject new vitality and impetus" into the strategy. The question is, the implementation of Lisbon strategy means all kinds of painful reforms in the social and economic fields. Are EU leaders willing to pay the corresponding political price for the reforms?
Judging from past experience, people may not be too optimistic. However, as Barroso, the incoming president of the European Commission, said, abandoning the Lisbon strategy will cost Europe huge economic, social and environmental costs. Although the reform process may be painful, "delaying the reform will not make it easier."
European Commission President Barroso announced an economic growth plan of "Restarting Lisbon Strategy" in Brussels on February 2nd. Compared with the Lisbon Strategy published by the European Union in 2000, the theme of this program is very prominent, that is, "growth and employment". Barroso claimed that if the plan is implemented, the EU's economic growth rate will rise to 3% before 20 10, and 6 million new jobs will be created!
Compared with the 28 main objectives and 120 sub-objectives of Lisbon Strategy, Barroso's objectives are much more specific and therefore more realistic. However, what attracts most attention from the outside world is that Barroso quietly abandoned the most famous slogan in Lisbon Strategy-"Make the EU the most competitive knowledge economy in the world by 20 10". In other words, Barroso gave up the goal of making the EU economy surpass the United States in 20 10.
It should be said that Barroso's move is both unexpected and reasonable. Although everyone knows that the Lisbon Strategy has long been empty talk, it is really embarrassing to formally admit it. However, Barroso still has the courage of a reformer. He cited a series of figures to illustrate how big the gap between Europe and America is:
First, since 1996, the annual growth level of labor productivity in the European Union has been lower than that in the United States, and now the growth rate of labor productivity in the United States is twice that of the European Union; Second, the EU's annual investment growth rate is only 1.7%, while the United States is 5.4%; Third, the annual investment in science and technology in the United States is $654.38+000 billion higher than that in the European Union, and the per capita patent ownership in the European Union is only a quarter of that in the United States. 4. 32% of the population in the United States has a college degree or above, while only 19% in the European Union. At the same time, the United States spends twice as much money per student as Europe. As a result of the gap, the economic growth rate of the euro zone last year was only 2.2%, while that of the United States was 4.3%.
From a painful experience, Barroso said: "We should avoid shouting slogans that will affect the credibility of our whole cause." To this end, he put forward some specific policy measures, such as setting up the post of "Mr. Lisbon" or "Mrs. Lisbon" in each EU member state to be fully responsible for the implementation of the Lisbon strategy; Make the EU's scientific research investment account for 3% of GDP; Enhance the flexibility of the job market; Complete the construction of a unified internal market; Establish a real "European Institute of Technology" to attract the best talents in the world.
Although Barroso's plan was generally welcomed by European industrial and commercial groups, social groups in the European Parliament, European trade union organizations and many environmental protection organizations accused Barroso of "copying the American model" and unilaterally pursuing "stimulating economic growth" at the expense of "social equity and environmental protection".
Barroso explained his plan. He said that the EU's three main goals are "economic growth", "social equity" and "environmental protection", just like his three children. "Like any father, if one of the children is sick, I will temporarily put everything down to take care of him until he recovers. But that doesn't mean I don't love other children. "
Barroso may be right. However, many analysts pointed out that Barroso's new goal may be difficult to achieve, because EU member States generally lack sufficient political will and public opinion base to promote "painful" economic restructuring. At the EU summit in March this year, whether Barroso's plan can be recognized by world leaders will be the "first touchstone" of EU economic reform.