February 27, 2007
Lisbon is not the reason for Europe’s economic reforms
The March economic summit is upon us, and as every year my in-tray is being flooded with reports examining the EU’s progress towards meeting the dreaded Lisbon Agenda targets.
The Lisbon Agenda - for those who believe that life is too short - was an ambitious package of reforms and targets agreed by EU leaders in the Portuguese capital seven years ago. In what was perhaps the most strikingly overblown claim in recent EU history, the heads of government said at the time that the Agenda would transform the Union into the "most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010".
Well, it clearly is not going to do that - and the European Commission acknowledged as much when it quietly dropped the target date a couple of years ago.
But as the most recent raft of reports indicates, progress has been made. Member states have engaged in economic reforms, growth is up, and the Union as a whole has engaged in another round of market liberalisation efforts.
The only problem with this upbeat conclusion is that it is far from clear to what extent these improvements - if they even prove durable - are down to the Lisbon Agenda. Germany, probably the biggest turnround story, has embarked on labour market and pension reforms not because of any commitments made at the 2000 Lisbon summit, but simply because pressures at home were building to such an extent that cosy social-welfare-driven policies were no longer an option.
Britain, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries, meanwhile, have simply continued the pro-innovation and market-orientated policies that were already in place before the Lisbon Agenda saw the light of day.
The Commission has long been advocating many of the policies that are necessary to boost growth and employment in the EU. But Brussels is surely wrong to claim that it has had a decisive hand in bringing about economic reforms in the member states.
Ooh the use of the dreaded word, “Brussels”. I really do hate it when journalists do that, because it doesn’t help readers to understand what is meant.
I once challenged a Brussels-based UK journalist about this, and he came up with a rather lame excuse - that it’s shorter than “European Commission”. If you are really concerned about column inches, use “EC” (which is far shorter than “Brussels”) or “Commission” (which is only two characters longer).
The other common excuse is that readers generally understand what is meant. Rubbish. Yes, I know, FT readers are more likely than most to interpret the word as journalistic shorthand for the European Commission, but come on. This is a classic example of the insiders using jargon that isn’t understandable by the masses.
The other objection is that “Brussels” is often also used to refer to the Belgian government and to NATO.
When will we have a code of conduct in the media on the use of this word?
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 28th, 2007 at 9:30 am | Report this commentOn the substance of your thread, I do agree that the Lisbon Agenda/Objectives alone are clearly not solely responsible for the reforms that have been made.
But I’m not sure it really matters - the Member States do not exist in a vacuum. That is, after all, the whole point of the EU. Ministers and officials meet regularly and put pressure on each other to act responsibly in the interests of all. Some of this pressure results in single-country reform processes that are not mandated by EU law or other explicit EU policy commitments. Some does result in EU action. It so happens that ministers decided at Lisbon to package pro-competitiveness measures and discussions together and label them “Lisbon”, as well as try to focus more EU energy (Commission resources, Council time) on these areas.
Some results have been achieved; nowhere near enough, but some. What you can say is that the 2010 target was fanciful and was not reflected in political will in practice on matters of substance. But I don’t think the answer to the question of whether Lisbon is responsible for the progress made so far is significant.
That the Commission is trying to make it significant is par for the course - they naturally tend to emphasise the bits of EU integration that are institutional and explicit and public (and for which the Commission can be the public face), and de-emphasise the role of the less tangible work that is done informally in the context of the Council.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 28th, 2007 at 9:45 am | Report this comment