布鲁盖尔-The-Last-exit-to-lisbon_8页_258kb

Summary of LAST EXIT TO LISBON

Core Content

The document analyzes the effectiveness and governance of the Lisbon 2 strategy, a reform initiative launched in 2005 to enhance growth, employment, and innovation across the European Union. It highlights the mixed success of the strategy and outlines key challenges in its implementation. The authors, Jean Pisani-Ferry and André Sapir, argue that while the Lisbon agenda remains relevant, its current governance model is insufficient and needs improvement.

Main Viewpoints

1. Lisbon 2 Governance Model:

   • The Lisbon 2 strategy emphasizes national ownership of reforms, rejecting the earlier "name and shame" approach and EU funding incentives.
   • The EU's role has shifted from that of a "schoolmaster" to a "coach", promoting a more collaborative but less directive approach.
   • This model has led to a lack of explicit methodology for evaluating National Reform Programmes (NRPs), making it difficult to assess progress.

2. Stakeholder Involvement:

   • A 12-point scale was developed to measure the "ownership" of NRPs, based on stakeholder engagement and media coverage.
   • The results show that national ownership is weak, especially among larger EU countries, and that stakeholder involvement is inconsistent.
   • Only a few countries involved their parliaments or social partners in the design and adoption of the NRPs.

3. EU Dimension and Euro Area Considerations:

   • The EU dimension is limited in the current strategy, with no clear link to the euro area.
   • The euro area dimension is particularly important due to the interdependence of monetary and structural policies.
   • The ECB's response to structural reforms in the euro area (e.g., labor or product market reforms) can influence interest rates and inflation, making coordination essential.

Key Information

Challenges in the Lisbon Strategy

• Structural Heterogeneity:
  The EU is a highly diverse group of countries with different economic structures, making it difficult to apply a one-size-fits-all approach.
  For example, R&D investment is more efficient in technologically advanced countries than in less developed ones, yet the Lisbon strategy does not account for this.

• Policy Heterogeneity:
  National policies vary significantly, and the EU lacks a clear mechanism to align these differences.
  The Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs are too broad and do not provide a prioritization framework for individual countries.

Evaluation of NRPs

• The Commission's evaluation of NRPs is based on national priorities rather than a strict adherence to the guidelines.
• There is limited consistency between the Commission and the OECD in identifying reform priorities, particularly for R&D spending.
• The participation rate of older workers is more consistently prioritized across both institutions.

Recommendations

1. Strengthen the Rationale:

   • Clarify the EU rationale for each reform item in Lisbon 2 to avoid confusion and ensure coherence.
   • Avoid the "Christmas tree" effect where too many unrelated items are added without a clear focus.

2. Reinforce the Instruments:

   • Reintroduce benchmarking and peer pressure to encourage reform and provide a clearer basis for evaluation.
   • Use league tables to highlight performance gaps and promote national debate.
   • Amend the EU budget to better reflect Lisbon priorities, with the 2008 budget review being a critical test.

3. Address the Euro Area Dimension:

   • The Eurogroup should take an active role in integrating the euro area dimension into the Lisbon strategy.
   • This includes addressing monetary policy transmission and competitiveness issues in the euro area, especially in countries with higher inflation.

Conclusion

The Lisbon 2 strategy has failed to deliver on its promise of political ownership and effective coordination. While the strategy retains some value, it lacks a clear methodology for evaluation and does not sufficiently address the specific needs of the euro area. The authors argue that without urgent corrective actions, the Lisbon strategy will not succeed where its predecessor failed.