scholarly journals Efficiency of Implementing Climate/Energy Targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Structural Diversity between Old and New Member States

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (24) ◽  
pp. 8428
Author(s):  
Malgorzata Klaudia Guzowska ◽  
Barbara Kryk
Keyword(s):  
Malmquist Index ◽  
Structural Diversity ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Member States ◽  
New Member States ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Europe 2020 ◽  
Europe 2020 Strategy ◽  
New Eu Members ◽  
Over Time

The most important goals included in the Europe 2020 Strategy are climate/energy targets, which determine not only the achievement of its other goals but also climate neutrality by 2050. This article aims to assess the efficiency of implementing the climate/energy targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy and to analyse changes over time, taking into consideration the structural diversity between the old (EU 15) and new EU members (EU 13) in the period of 2014–2018. The assessment of changes in the efficiency of climate/energy targets over time adds value to the evaluation methods used to date in this area. This was done using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and the Malmquist index. Earlier works usually specified only the level of target achievement, mostly jointly in relation to all of the goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The efficiency of their implementation at the macroeconomic level has not been studied. Furthermore, the added value of this paper consists in obtaining additional information concerning the internal structure and character of the studied efficiency of old and new member states. Changes in the efficiency level have been analysed with regard to the key climate/energy indicators used to monitor the Europe 2020 Strategy. Based on the results, the EU countries were divided into six groups with similar levels of efficiency in achieving energy and climate objectives and ranked using the DEA–Malmquist index according to changes in their level over time. This makes it possible not only to assess the performance of countries but also to formulate recommendations for decision-makers.

scholarly journals Implementation of Climate/Energy Targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy by the EU Member States

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 2711
Author(s):  
Barbara Kryk ◽  
Małgorzata Klaudia Guzowska
Keyword(s):  
Energy Policy ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Member States ◽  
Strategic Objectives ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Europe 2020 ◽  
Europe 2020 Strategy ◽  
Basic Set ◽  
The Eu

The most important goals on the Europe 2020 Strategy contained were the climate/energy goals, which determine the achievement of other targets of the strategy. The aim of the article is to evaluate the implementation of the climate/energy targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy by the EU Member States in 2010 and 2019 and to compare the results achieved by them. To measure them, a basic set of indicators was used for this purpose, which the authors supplemented with additional indicators. The evaluation was done using the taxonomic and zero-unitarization method. They made it possible to integrate all indicators. Moreover, the added value in relation to other studies is: the use of individual indicators, instead of general ones obtaining additional information about the internal structure and nature of the implementation of multidimensional groups of targets and focusing solely on the achievement of climate/energy targets. The achieved results not only reflect the progress of the Member States in achieving the climate/energy targets and the differences in the level of achieving objectives between countries, but they are also discussion on future strategic objectives, their indicators and necessary directions for a further community climate/energy policy.

BIOECONOMY DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BASED ON MORE EFFICIENT LAND USE IN THE EU

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina PILVERE ◽  
Aleksejs NIPERS ◽  
Bartosz MICKIEWICZ
Keyword(s):  
Green Growth ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Growing Stock ◽  
Europe 2020 ◽  
Europe 2020 Strategy ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
Key Industries ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Production Resource

Europe 2020 Strategy highlights bioeconomy as a key element for smart and green growth in Europe. Bioeconomy in this case includes agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and pulp and paper production, parts of chemical, biotechnological and energy industries and plays an important role in the EU’s economy. The growth of key industries of bioeconomy – agriculture and forestry – highly depends on an efficient and productive use of land as a production resource. The overall aim of this paper is to evaluate opportunities for development of the main sectors of bioeconomy (agriculture and forestry) in the EU based on the available resources of land. To achieve this aim, several methods were used – monographic, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, statistical analysis methods. The findings show that it is possible to improve the use of land in the EU Member States. If all the Member States reached the average EU level, agricultural products worth EUR 77 bln would be annually additionally produced, which is 19 % more than in 2014, and an extra 5 billion m3 volume of forest growing stock would be gained, which is 20 % more than in 2010.

19. Enlargement

2020 ◽  
pp. 440-468
Author(s):  
Ulrich Sedelmeier
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Member States ◽  
New Member States ◽  
Policy Practice ◽  
External Governance ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

This chapter examines the main phases of the European Union’s enlargement policy process—association, pre-accession, and accession—and the key decisions involved in each of these stages. It discusses how these decisions are made, and how policy practice has evolved over time. The chapter then explores enlargement as a tool of foreign policy and external governance. It discusses the development of the EU’s accession conditionality as an instrument to influence domestic change in candidate countries and why conditionality appears to have become less effective after the 2007 enlargement round, including the impact of the EU’s ‘enlargement fatigue’ and manifestations of ‘democratic backsliding’ among new member states.

scholarly journals Integration conditions and „new” development and management possibilities of regional structures – the importance of smart specialization

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (146) ◽  
pp. 131-142
Author(s):  
Marianna GRETA ◽  
◽  
Jacek OTTO ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Development Strategy ◽  
Regional Policy ◽  
Member States ◽  
Europe 2020 ◽  
Europe 2020 Strategy ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
International Structure ◽  
Smart Specialization ◽  
The Impact

Purpose: The main goal of the study is to document and attempt to assess the impact of the latest European Union development strategy, i.e. Europe 2020 Strategy. It is inextricably linked to smart specialization, development and competitive capabilities of regions of EU member states. The partial goals are:  presenting Europe 2020 Strategy in the context of setting goals and management areas for regional policy which is part of multi-level transnational structure management in EU the Europe 2020 Strategy setting goals and management for regional policy and region will be described;  presenting smart specialization as a result of the development of integration conditions and determining new opportunities, challenges, decision-management orders for EU regions. Design/methodology/approach: At work, the authors mainly use source materials of European Commission, as well as foreign language studies which are also based on source material from EU institutions. Sometimes the authors had to use archival materials to take into account the value and sense of the latest integration conditions. Findings: The work mainly shows the links between: Europe 2020 Strategy, regional policy, regions of member states, smart specialization, guidelines for multi-level management in an international structure, and practicalisation of a development strategy. Practical implications: A member country of an integration group (EU) should be viewed in the context of an international structure and multi-level governance (including decision29 making). The consequences of that concern the impact on the member state, on the regions, on other entities in the regions. This is mainly about implementation of knowledge, environmental protection, quality of human capital. Changes (or actually adaptations) also apply to socio32 economic development. Social implications: The analyzes, documentation and authors’ suggestions regarding mutual dependencies and connections carried out here, have an undoubted impact on society. Europe 2020 Strategy has a social dimension in all its assumptions. And they concern intelligent growth, sustainable growth, but also (above all) the growth of social integration.Originality/value: The study has values of originality because it goes beyond the collected materials and their presentation. The collected materials were used to capture relationships and interrelationships. A development strategy and smart specialization were used to present the latest integration conditions. Then, these conditions were presented as guidelines for multi-level governance and, consequently, for the competitiveness of European Union and its regions in the global economy

The Lisbon Strategy and Europe 2020

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Bongardt ◽  
Francisco Torres
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
Peer Pressure ◽  
Policy Coordination ◽  
Social Market Economy ◽  
Structural Reforms ◽  
Member States ◽  
Europe 2020 ◽  
Europe 2020 Strategy ◽  
Demographic Aging ◽  
The Impact

The Lisbon (2000–2010) and its successor, the Europe 2020 strategy (2011–2020), denote EU-wide exercises in economic policy coordination for economic and institutional modernization. They set an ample reform agenda with common targets to transform a host of common challenges facing the EU and its members (as varied as globalization, the paradigm shift to a knowledge economy, demographic aging, or climate change) into economic opportunities and quality growth. The economic and political economy arguments for EU-level coordination rested on positive spillovers from trade and peer pressure, respectively. The Europe 2020 strategy, a revised Lisbon rather than a new strategy, set a renewed vision of a European social market economy that also plays an important role in the global context (the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). Built on the Lisbon strategy’s governance framework, Europe 2020 inherited a problem-laden legacy with respect to governance and ownership of reforms and in addition faced the impact of large negative transnational spillovers, which put in sharp focus that there was an as-yet-unaccounted-for euro-area dimension to the reform agendas. The sovereign debt crisis (2010–2014) added urgency to dealing with the EU’s structural weaknesses and economic governance building. The European Semester was set up as the chief instrument to help overcome compliance and implementation problems, inserted within broadened economic policy coordination, of which structural reforms under the Europe 2020 strategy constitute one of three blocks. The OMC method affords member states the possibility of finding their own consensual path toward agreed economic reform targets within the strategy’s adequate, 10-year timeframe. The central idea continues to be the promotion of reforms tailored to member states’ heterogeneous situations and preferences and that so are also politically sustainable. Without being framed and perceived in terms of desirable reforms in line with socioeconomic objectives and preferences, reforms carry potential for a political backlash. The Europe 2020 strategy also captures the fundamental and long-term issues for economic development and competitiveness, notably institution building, and outlines a forward-looking model of society with social and environmental dimensions. The European Commission came to base its assessment of the implementation of structural reforms on the broader objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and also included the respect for the European social pillar in the European Semester. Nonetheless, Europe 2020 results have been mixed. The OMC does not feature sanctions for non-compliance. The sovereign crisis context added compliance-enhancing mechanisms that were absent before (market and peer pressure, conditionality in countries subject to adjustment programs) although those came essentially to a halt when financial market pressure subsided, and ECB actions had the side effect of relieving pressure. Efforts undertaken to improve implementation include a structural reform support program to make country-specific recommendations more effective. Yet, close to the end of its term the Europe 2020 strategy continues to be held back by member states taking insufficient ownership of reforms and not prioritizing the relevant ones from an EU point of view, a lack of visibility and ultimately, governance (the unanimity requirement).

Cohesion Policy and European Union Politics

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simona Piattoni ◽  
Laura Polverari
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Management Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Progressive Alignment ◽  
Member States ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Eu

Cohesion policy is one of the longest-standing features of the European construction; its roots have been traced as far back as the Treaty of Rome. Over time, it has become one of the most politically salient and sizable policies of the European Union, absorbing approximately one-third of the EU budget. Given its principles and “shared management” approach, it mobilizes many different actors at multiple territorial scales, and by promoting “territorial cooperation” it has encouraged public authorities to work together, thus overcoming national borders. Furthermore, cohesion policy is commonly considered the most significant expression of solidarity between member states and the most tangible way in which EU citizens “experience” the European Union. While retaining its overarching mission of supporting lagging regions and encouraging the harmonious development of the Union, cohesion policy has steadily evolved and adapted in response to new internal and external challenges, such as those generated by subsequent rounds of enlargement, globalization, and shifting political preferences regarding what the EU should be about. Just as the policy has evolved over time in terms of its shape and priorities, so have the theoretical understandings of economic development that underpin its logic, the nature of intergovernmental relations, and the geographical and administrative space(s) within which the EU polity operates. For example, whereas overcoming the physical barriers to economic development were the initial targets in the 1960s and 1970s, and redesigning manufacturing clusters were those of the 1980s and 1990s, fostering advanced knowledge and technological progress became the focus of cohesion policy in the new century. At the same time, cohesion policy also inspired or even became a testing ground for new theories, such as multilevel governance, Europeanization, or smart specialization. Given its redistributive nature, debates have proliferated around its impact, added value, and administrative cost, as well as the institutional characteristics that it requires to function. These deliberations have, in turn, informed the policy in its periodic transformations. Political factors have also played a key role in shaping the evolution of the policy. Each reform has been closely linked to the debates on the European budget, where the net positions of member states have tended to dominate the agenda. An outcome of this process has been the progressive alignment with wider strategic goals beyond cohesion and convergence and the strengthening of linkages with the European Semester. However, some argue that policymakers have failed to properly consider the perverse effects of austerity on regional disparities. These unresolved tensions are particularly significant in a context denoted by a rise of populist and nativist movements, increasing social discontent, and strengthening Euroskepticism. As highlighted by research on its communication, cohesion policy may well be the answer for winning back the hearts and minds of European citizens. Whether and how this may be achieved will likely be the focus of research in the years ahead.

Multilevel governance within the European Union

European View ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mojca Kucler Dolinar
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
European Union ◽  
Present Situation ◽  
Multilevel Governance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Lisbon Strategy ◽  
Member States ◽  
Europe 2020 ◽  
Europe 2020 Strategy ◽  
The Eu

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document