scholarly journals Towards a Sustainable Reset in the EU. What Comes After the Lisbon Strategy, EUROPE 2020 and ... COVID-19?

Author(s):  
Tamás Szemlér

The aim of the paper is to present and compare the three major European Union (EU) strategies/instruments designed to promote the dynamic economic development of the EU. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the EU has clearly demonstrated its ambitions related to economic growth, competitiveness and sustainability. Despite the progressive ideas reflected in the Lisbon Strategy, its limitations have logically resulted in only partial success. The 2008 world economic crisis has led to important changes, reflected in the Europe 2020 Strategy, but – despite certain progress – no spectacular success was seen. 2020 will not be remembered as the closing year of the Europe 2020 Strategy, but as the (first) year of the world-wide shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The changes caused by this shock can be seen in EU actions, as well: the Next Generation EU instrument is an innovation that could not have been imagined without such a shock. The paper discusses the potential ways of changes of the EU’s approach to the objectives of economic growth, competitiveness and sustainability as a result of the COVID-19 shock.

European View ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mojca Kucler Dolinar

In the current economic and social crisis affecting Europe, dialogue is of great importance. The reaction of the EU to the present situation is evident from various discussions and documents. Following the ambitious Lisbon Strategy, a document created during a period of economic growth for most of the Member States, we now have before us the Europe 2020 Strategy. In this article, the author explores the contents of this strategy in light of the implementation of its goals of multilevel governance.


European View ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Erixon

In March 2010, the Europe 2020 strategy was released as the follow-up to the very ambitious Lisbon Strategy. Like its predecessor, the strategy aims to increase Europe's competitiveness in the world economy. Also like its predecessor, Europe 2020 is likely to be ineffectual. The strategy focuses too much on areas that are outside the EU's legal competence, it lacks recourse for non-compliance and it contains goals that have very little to do with increasing competitiveness. The probable failure of Europe 2020 could have been avoided had the European Commission focused on policy areas over which the EU has competence, and had been given the tools to accomplish the goals that were outside its competence.


Author(s):  
Seda Sonmez Ozekicioglu ◽  
Filiz Yetiz

Along with their flexible production structures and rapid adaptation to technological innovations in the world economic race, SMEs are among the prominent wheels of both the EU economy and the whole world economy. In this chapter, the importance and the size of SMEs which contribute to production capacity, productive investments, economic growth, and national income, as well as employment and many other areas, are explicated using the current data; hence, the EU financial support programmes organized regarding the financial problems of SMEs are introduced. In this respect, the shares of the funding programmes offered to SMEs within the EU budget over the period from 2014 to 2020 in the Union's budget are assessed, and recommendations are made for the years 2021-2027.


2013 ◽  
Vol 58 (196) ◽  
pp. 71-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Predrag Bjelic ◽  
Danijela Jacimovic ◽  
Ivan Tasic

The world economic crisis that paralyzed the world economy in 2008 and 2009 had a profound impact on all countries in the world. Due to the interconnectedness of national economies the crisis spread rapidly from its centre in the United States to the world. There were two main transmission channels for the spread of the crisis between countries - international trade and the exchange of private capital between states in the form of foreign direct investment (FDI). This economic downturn has greatly influenced the domestic economic stability of the Western Balkan economies. The Western Balkan countries have shaped their economic policy towards European Union (EU) membership, resulting in a high degree of liberalization in international economic relations accompanied by a commitment to free international capital movement. Since this region has close economic ties with the EU the crisis spread to the region very quickly, manifesting itself in decreasing regional exports to the EU market and a downward trend of FDI inflow to the region. This paper will focus on the impact of the world economic crisis on the Western Balkan economies and especially on their exports and FDI inflow. Our empirical analysis, based on panel data, uses a wider sample of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) which includes the Western Balkans, since we wanted to analyze if the effects of the economic crisis in the Western Balkans are specific or are common to most countries in transition. The analysis shows that Western Balkan exports have suffered due to the crisis, but reveals some interesting results on the different dynamics of export flows which depend on regional trade integration for their destination.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 121
Author(s):  
Kemal Aziz Stamboel

Recently, Indonesia’s economy records very high and stable economic growth. The growth is above 6 percent. Despite the world economic crisis, our economic growth is adequately resistant to turmoil from external crisis. The relatively high economic growth is mainly caused by high domestic demand, both from consumption and investment. The question is how foreign banks can play a role in development of Indonesian economy? In this notes, I discuss several challenges posed by structural changes in Indonesia as well as opportunities for foreign banks to play a role in Indonesian financial development. 


2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-35
Author(s):  
Bożena Mikołajczyk

Innovativeness in Europe has been a formulated goal of the EU since the Lisbon Strategy. One of the goals of the new Europe 2020 Strategy is smart growth, i.e. growth based on knowledge and innovation. This requires improving the quality of education and research results, the transfer of knowledge and innovations between countries, and broader commercialization of research results. Hence, the measurement of innovation evolves in order to reflect the factors that determine the level of innovativeness of economies. The purpose of this paper is to present the level of Poland’s innovativeness against the background of the EU countries, using the SII (Summary Innovation Index).


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 3-18
Author(s):  
Francisco Parra-Luna

The present work tries to demonstrate that, mainly since the emergence of the world economic crisis in 2020, those responsible (theoretical and practical) for the Spanish economy, have been making four mistakes that are causing an unnecessary delay in getting out of the crisis. These errors would be: first, not having started from an analysis of the Spanish "value system" in which the crisis occurs; second, not having known how to differentiate before the international markets and organizations the specificities of the Spanish system that, because important and unusual, would have allowed economic growth superior to that of the surrounding countries; third, not having developed an integrated and quantified global model with the series of measures proposed; and fourth, to continue being attached to obsolete economic theories that do not give rise to the innovation demanded by the new characteristics of complex societies.


2013 ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
Zoltán Eperjes

After the relaunchment of the Lisbon strategy, the cohesion policy of the EU concentrates even stronger on the establishment of the knowledge based economy, on R&D activities and innovations. In the first chapter I demonstrate the funds division of the convergence and regional competitiveness targets in the financial perspective between 2007–2013. The first sheet shows unambiguously that the new member states from Middle-Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean countries spend their funds on convergence and cohesion issues. The situation is contrary in the highly developed Western-European countries, in the core regions, where decisive part of the funds are spent on competitiveness issues. In the second chapter of the study I present the Europe 2020 strategy of the EU, that is a crucial paradigm change in the European strategy-making. While the Lisbon strategy focused on the social cohesion of the European Union, the Europe 2020 strategy strives the fostering of the European competitiveness. In the third part of the study I make a comparison how the funds-allocation altered during the two financial perspectives.


Author(s):  
Asc.Prof.Dr. İclal Kaya Altay ◽  
Shqiprim Ahmeti

In order to increase the level of integration and development at the scale of the Union and to raise the conditions of competition on a global scale, EU has announced two basic development strategies within the process: Lisbon Strategy (2000) and the Europe 2020 Strategy (2010). Though the EU 2000-2006 Cohesion Policies corresponding to the 2000-2006 fiscal period and 2007-2013 Cohesion Policy Program that was reformed in comparison to the previous program were prepared within the scope of the Lisbon Strategy, 2014-2020 financial program and Cohesion Policies have been produced within the context of EUROPE 2020 Strategy. During the said process, the objectives and priorities as well as the budgets of the EU structural funds have changed. In March 2000, the European Council meeting in Lisbon set the strategic goal of transforming the EU into ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ within a decade. Among the jointly agreed goals to be attained by 2010 were raising investment in research and development to three per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and increasing the rate of employment within the EU from 61 to 70 per cent of the working-age population (Teasdale, 2012). Based on the interim evaluations of Lisbon Strategy, EU Commission stated that the required specific objectives could not be achieved because the financial crisis and planned reforms could not be implemented. At the same time, the major expansion in 2004 made the existing inter-regional disparities more evident. Published on 2010 by EC, Europe 2020 Strategy (which is considered to be a reviewed and updated Lisbon Strategy) brought in a new expansion in terms of achieving the initial objectives. The strategy in question focuses not only on the economic – social cohesion but also on spatial cohesion. However, the statistics within the process reveal that the economic, social and territorial cohesion could not be achieved at the scale of EU yet, even it has been asserted in a report, which was prepared by the Secretariat of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR) in 2015 that besides the disparities between the Member States, disparities between regions within countries increased, as well. Within the scope of this study, it will be discussed how much the cohesion target, given in the founding treaty of EU is reflected on the development strategies; the role and accomplishments of these strategies and funds in achieving that target. While the role and accomplishments of the Europe 2020 Strategy, which is still in effect today, are questioned in terms of ensuring particularly the territorial cohesion, also the importance and the priority granted to urban spaces in order to achieve the objectives of strategies - as well as objectives of the founding agreement – will be discussed. The Method of the Study can be summarized as the literature survey based on the Lisbon and Europe 2020 Strategies of European Commission, the EU Financial Period Programs and observations and critics prepared by a variety of institutions as well as the evaluation of the findings based on statistical datas.


2010 ◽  
pp. 4-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Nekipelov ◽  
M. Golovnin

The paper analyzes the qualitative changes in monetary policy goals and instruments during the world economic crisis of 2007-2009 in industrial countries and Russia; it represents the authors view on Russian monetary policy goals and results on different stages of crisis development. On the basis of the analysis the authors conclude on the necessity of active exchange rate policy in Russia, while developing interest rate instruments, and implementation of some exchange restrictions to prevent crisis contagion in the future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document