Europe 2020 Strategy and Structural Diversity Between Old and New Member States. Application of zero unitarization method for dynamic analysis in the years 2004-2013

In March 2000, the Lisbon European Council agreed upon a new strategic goal for the European Union: to become the “most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.” One decade and the sobering experience of a global economic crisis later, the European Commission's new 2020 Strategy sets out a vision of Europe's social market economy for the 21st century that “shows how the EU can emerge stronger from the economic crisis and how it can be turned into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy delivering high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion.” If somewhat more modest in its targets, Europe 2020 reiterates the guiding ambition to enhance the EU's economic performance in the internal and global market that already dominated the Lisbon strategy. The lesson learned from Europe's “lost decade” is that the EU needs to replace the “slow and largely uncoordinated pace of reforms” with a “sustainable recovery” in order to regain its competitiveness, boost its productivity, and put it on “an upward path of prosperity.” This is, then, the EU's first “Lisbon” agenda that heavily relies on the internal market and that depicts social inclusion and political stability as conditioned upon further European economic integration. The recipe to defy what has grown from a “merely” economic crisis into a social and political crisis of the Union and its Member States is a combination of “smart,” “sustainable,” and “inclusive” growth.

From the very beginning, the Eurozone was conceived as a new brand of economic governance institutions: a single currency, with a single, independent central bank conducting monetary policy according to a simple — and almost single — objective of price stability; and decentralized fiscal policies, in the hands of national governments of member states, with simple fiscal rules — the Stability and Growth Pact — and a minimal , rather informal, coordination institution : the Eurogroup. Alongside the objective of monetary stability, the ambition was to foster further economic integration, convergence in living standards amongst member states and sustained growth. Indeed, the "Lisbon strategy" adopted by the European Council in March 2000, a little more than one year after the launching of European Monetary Union, bravely stated that the objective was to make the EU "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion" by 2010. The successor strategy, adopted in 2010 — "Europe 2020" — posted similar, yet less precise objectives of "smart and inclusive growth." In the minds of its founding fathers, the Eurozone was to be the spearhead of this leap forward in economic and social performance; launched with 11 of the then 15 member states, it would act as a shield from the rest of the world instability and disturbances and would eventually become so successful as to attract all EU member states, including those (Denmark and the UK) that had willingly opted out from the beginning, and those (Central and Eastern European Countries) that would join the EU a few years later.

Since the beginnings of 1957, the European Union has always been aimed at promoting the development and cohesion of the Member States. Competitiveness as well as sustainable development have therefore long been focal points among strategic goals of the European Union. These goals were therefore documented in some strategies, namely European Single Market programme, the Lisbon Strategy and the Europe 2020. The Lisbon Strategy was aimed at turning the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion by 2010. However, it was obvious that the Lisbon goals have not been achieved and a new strategy, Europe 2020, was hence initiated. Many Lithuanian and foreign authors analyzed (Tamosiuniene et al., 2007; Daugeliene, 2008; Grybaite, Tvaronaviciene, 2008; Melnikas, 2008; Tvaronaviciene et al., 2008; Martinkus et al., 2009; Kirch, 2010; Balezentis et al., 2010) the situation of Lithuania and other Baltic states in a global economic system during the processes of globalization and European Union (EU) integration. However, the need for the evaluation of the Lisbon Strategy's outcomes and proposal of guidelines for ongoing strategy Europe 2020 is still topical. Hence this study focuses on the improvement of the open method of co­ordination and thus the implementation of strategy Europe 2020 by integrating quantitative methods with respect to the experience gained during the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. This study is aimed at proposing a framework for a strategic management model dedicated to successful implementation of the new strategy Europe 2020. This article is organized in four sections according to the following tasks defined in order to achieve the aim: 1) to overview main the strategies dedicated to promoting competitiveness of the European Union, namely the Lisbon Strategy and strategy Europe 2020; 2) to assess efforts of the EU Member States in seeking Lisbon goals applying multi-criteria evaluation method MULTIMOORA; 3) to evaluate reliability of selected structural indicators applying multiple correspondence analysis; and 4) to summarize the proposed guidelines for the new strategy Europe 2020 according to the results of this study and other works. The novelty of this study lies in the fact that it introduces the application of multi-criteria decision making methods in EU policy making procedures. Multi-criteria evaluation method MULTIMOORA as well as multiple correspondence analysis were the most important methods of the research. Analysis of EU Member States performance in the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy resulted in describing three groups of states and structural indicators: high performance group, medium performance group, and low performance group. Moreover, indicators of youth education attainment level, business investment and employment rate of older workers, are not highly correlated with economic performance of certain Member States and therefore can be regulated uniformly at the European level. These findings can be considered as the premises for successful EU-level targets translation into those for certain groups of countries. The synthesis of proposals for target-setting and transformation methodology resulted in framework for strategic management model dedicated to successful implementation of strategy Europe 2020. The model should encompass: 1) selection of targets for the EU, certain groups of states and separate Member States; 2) mutual learning enabling to transfer the best practice among member States; 3) development of appropriate structural indicators, equally identifying all dimensions of sustainable development; 4) benchmarking (selectonovation) principles applied for an effective distribution of EU support among Member States. Multi-criteria methods (e. g. MULTIMOORA) can be successfully applied in such benchmarking.http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.3.517

Significant imbalances of existing development models are demonstrated by global economic growth, and outlines the need to move to a new more flexible and balanced model that is able to maintain the declared high and long-term growth rates together with the preservation of social equality and population general welfare. The purpose of the study is to identify EU comprehensive growth opportunities through of EU flagship initiatives achievement current EU situation in the field of poverty, unemployment, youth and women's unemployment and their involvement as labor force geographical aspects analysis; current state and prospects of EU inclusive development analysis; possibility of the sustainable development goals and inclusive growth based on the EU's flagship initiatives achievement substantiation. The object of the study is the process of inclusive economic growth within the EU through the EU flagship initiatives practical implementation. It is determined that along with traditional economic growth indicators it is necessary to take into account the human capital equality, ecological state of the environment, social protection, food security and social cohesion. Imperative knowledge on the interconnection of EU policy priorities and flagship initiatives, sustainable development goals and their compliance with inclusive economic development are systematized. The expediency of European inclusive economic growth model, declared in the “Europe 2020” strategy, design and implementation was grounded. Modern trends and geographical aspects of state of unemployment and poverty in the European region countries is determined. The level of women's participation in the European economy is analyzed. The level of women employment in comparison with men in the EU countries is analyzed, which made it possible to determine that this indicator is consistently lower, however, there is no significant disparity in most member states. It is substantiated that at the new cross-border economic order conditions, proposed by the EU, inclusive growth allows all member countries enjoy the progressive results of the union, economic integration and economic growth. Key words: inclusive growth, sustainable development, employment.

The sustainability issue is the crucial one in distressed, socio-economic environment and in the new and old social risks era. Additionally, the welfare state crisis and the regulations failure which has been revealed after 2008 are significant factors determining the need for searching a new ways and solutions for stabilising of national economies and creating conditions for sustainable economic development. Social and financial exclusion, increasing income disparities, inefficient redistribution system, and negative economic externalities (including environment protection problems) are selected challenges facing states and local governments. This chapter will provide an introduction to these and other broad issues and point out the role of sustainable finance as a toll supporting sustainable economic development. Our empirical research examines the OECD countries after the crisis 2008. We found that soundness of banks, quality of educational system and burden of government system have a positive impact to the nominal GDP per capita. On the other side, the misery index and ease of access to loans negatively affected nominal GDP per capita in the period of our observation. Hence, as a policy recommendations, it is very important to construct a model which will reflect these and other similar results in order to accelerate the economic development. That is the main challenge for people, governments, financial organisations and companies worldwide.

This article investigates the recent changes in the Latvian banking industry related to the emergence of 'new economy' and consequences that it has caused.It analyses an impact of new information technologies in the context of knowledge-based economy facilitating the changes in service strategy of the banking institutions in order to seek the most efficient service model.Knowledge-based economy has an influence not only on the choice of the dominating solutions offered by financial service providers, but it also reflects the preferred choice of them by customer.Moreover, customer demands, priorities and lifestyle are influenced by changes in external environment arising from the transformation of economical structure.These aspects are examined from the angles of globalization and customer trust in conditions of service depersonalization.Beside that, the article emphasizes potentially severe problems of the financial sector development in Latvia and analyzes e-banking services and the perspectives of their future escalation.

In March 2000 at the Lisbon European Council, the heads of states and governments promised to make the EU by 2010 'the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and respect for the environment'. If this statement was meant to inspire enthusiasm, it has failed. Over-commitment and unachievable goals have ridiculed European policy-makers. Despite desirable objectives, national compliance with the Lisbon Strategy remains poor. The European Commission (2005a: 4) has explained this underperformance by 'a policy agenda, which has become overloaded, failing coordination and sometimes conflicting priorities'. Yet, the official mid-term review did not explain the reasons for this co-ordination failure. It has exhorted governments 'to do more reforms', but few member states seem capable of achieving them and when they do so, the results are not as expected.

Policy debates frequently invoke lifelong learning as a key to achieving both national economic competitiveness and. social cohesion. The European Commission's targets for education and training, for instance, are considered central to the overall Lisbon strategy for 'a competitive and knowledge-based economy … with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion'. (Fontaine 2000). But how far is it possible to achieve a competitive and dynamic 'knowledge economy' which is also a 'knowledge society' with high levels of social cohesion? And if it is, what forms of lifelong learning are most likely to promote this, and combined with what policies in other economic and social domains? This chapter seeks to examine these questions by analysing the different national and regional models of the knowledge economy and knowledge society in Europe and the contribution that lifelong learning makes in each.KeywordsIncome InequalitySocial CohesionNordic CountryLifelong LearningWage InequalityThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of public governance quality on tax evasion levels in old (pre-2004) and new (post-2004) European Union (EU) members before and after the 2004 EU-enlargement. Design/methodology/approach This study uses panel data of 28 EU countries over the period 1996-2015. Tax evasion is measured using an updated version of the shadow economy size based on the light intensity, as calculated by (Medina and Schneider, 2018). The World Bank’s worldwide governance indicators are used as a measure of public governance. Findings The results indicate that new EU members have higher tax evasion levels compared to the old ones before and after the 2004 EU enlargement. The findings also report that the public governance quality is superior in old members throughout the 1996-2015 period. Furthermore, the authors found that after the EU enlargement, tax evasion levels decreased in both EU groups; however, the authors noticed an improvement in the public governance quality in new members and a deterioration in old ones. Additional analysis confirms the impact of public governance quality as an effective tool for reducing tax evasion behavior in both EU groups before and after the EU enlargement. Practical implications The findings are potentially useful for EU policymakers in identifying the most effective tools that can minimize tax evasion levels in EU countries. Additionally, the results are alarming as they show the negative consequences of the EU enlargement in old EU members. Thus, policymakers should consider them when setting their rules and regulations to reduce the significant differences between both EU groups to prevent member states from potentially exiting the EU. Originality/value To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study that examines the tax evasion behavior and public governance quality in the EU before and after the EU enlargement.

Gender Equality as EU Strategy

The reformed EU fiscal rules (also referred to as Stability and Growth Pact) entered into force in April 2024. The main objectives of the reform were to ensure sound and sustainable public finances, while promoting sustainable and inclusive growth in all Member States through reforms and investments. This article provides an overview of the new legal framework and examines the relation and balance between debt reduction and sustainable growth in the application of the revised framework. It also analyses the Commission’s discretion in balancing these policy goals, first when assessing Member States’ fiscal-structural plans and second, when recommending the opening of an excessive deficit procedure. Further, this article examines the latest revision of the fiscal rules in the broader context of the EU’s legal competence in the field of economic policy, also taking into account other recent initiatives, such as NextGenerationEU and REPowerEU.

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.

IntroductionUntil recently, the question of economy's competitiveness was covered by the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs, the primary target of which was, that the European Union should become until 2010 the most competitive and most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth in which there will be more and better jobs and greater social cohesion (Ministry of Finance SR, 2005). In 2010 the Lisbon Strategy was successed by a new strategy developed by the European Commission and called Europe 2020. As in the Lisbon Strategy, also in Europe 2020, the European Commission identified key targets the fulfilment of which, until the year 2020, will contribute to the desired growth and progress in individual Member States, as well as in the European Union overall. The Strategy includes the five following targets (European Commission, 2010):* Employment - 75% of the 20-64 year-olds should be employed;* RD* Climate change/energy - this objective includes three sub-objectives: greenhouse gas emissions should be 20% (or even 30%, if the conditions are right) lower than in 1990; 20% of energy should be from renewable; energy efficiency should increase by about 20%;* Education - this objective includes two sub-objectives expressed by two indicators, namely the rate of early school leavers and population with tertiary education. The first indicator concerns the reduction of early leaving education rate and training of population aged 18 to 24 years below 10%. The second indicator expresses the increase of the population aged 30-34 years who have completed tertiary education for the minimum of 40% in this age group;* Poverty/social exclusion - in the European Union there should be at least 20 million fewer people in or at risk of poverty and social exclusion.The fourth target concerning education isin the focus of our analysis here. Every year, 6 million young Europeans leave school with at best lower secondary education. This currently represents 14% of the 18-24-year-olds, which in turn fuels high levels of youth unemployment (European Commission, 2014b). This is why the European Commission is trying to reduce the number of early school leavers and increase the number of people with tertiary education. The southern countries of the European Union belong according to the most actual Eurostat data among the countries with the highest rate of youth unemployment.In this paper we will analyse the current state of achieving the established targets with the emphasis on the southern countries of the European Union and explore by using regression analysis the estimated development of the related indicators untill 2020.1. Theoretical FrameworkThe Europe 2020 presents an ambitious and comprehensive strategy to guide the EU out of the economic crisis, to ensure macroeconomic stability and to put in place an ambitious structural reform agenda. An essential part of this strategy is the introduction of reforms with a medium - term to long - term horizon that focus on promoting the sustainability of public finances, enhancing potential growth and realising the 2020 objectives (Hobza & Mourre, 2010).Relevance of defined objectives is criticized and their interconnectedness is being discussed. Feasibility of achieving the objectives is a basic issue for the successful fulfillment of the objectives. This issue is solved by Colak and Ege (2013), but also by Leschke, Theodoropoulou, Watt (2012). Roth and Thum (2010) pointed out that the objectives in the area of education are very ambitious and almost impossible to fulfill in a given time horizont.Despite numerous critics, the Europe 2020 was adopted and implemented at the national level. Attention and efforts should therefore focus on fulfillment the objectives at the national level.It is important that European policy-makers understand that the quantity and quality of education will play a key role in maintaining European competitiveness. …

In March 2000, the heads of the European Union countries proclaimed the aim of making Europe the “most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustaining economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” by 2010. To achieve this overall goal, a set of economic and social reforms called the “Lisbon Strategy” or the “Lisbon Agenda” to be undertaken was defined. Several objectives, grouped in five dimensions (employment, innovation and research, structural economic reforms, social cohesion, environment) were set up. It was agreed upon that the European Commission should annually prepare progress reports in order to evaluate the progress the Member States have made in achieving the Lisbon goals. In its mid-term review in 2005, the European Commission concluded that the implementation of reforms in line with the Lisbon Strategy had in many areas been too slow. In particular, the growth performance of the past five years had been disappointing, particularly as compared to other regions of the world economy such as the US and certain Asian economies. Therefore, the Lisbon Strategy was revised, focussing on growth and the creation of employment (European Commission, 2005 and 2006).KeywordsTotal Factor ProductivityEuro AreaTotal Factor Productivity GrowthLabour Market RegulationLabour Market InstitutionThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Achieving 'social cohesion' across race and class divides in South African settlements is a major challenge, given the divided urban geography of apartheid. Cosmo City, a new mixed-use settlement north-west of Johannesburg, was conceived and designed for social inclusion and cohesion, albeit between people of different income levels rather than race groups. A number of the development's spatial features were also thought likely to reduce crime and fear of crime, either directly or as mediated by stronger social cohesion. A survey was conducted among 400 Cosmo City households to determine the extent of community cohesion, fear of crime, and rates of crime victimisation. Results found a strong sense of localised community pride and belonging within immediate neighbourhoods, and relatively high feelings of safety. However, self-reported crime victimisation rates did not suggest that there had been a crime reduction effect - in fact, they were extremely high. This may be a surprising but not unprecedented outcome of strong social cohesion, which may allow knowledge of crime incidents to spread through community networks as a shared sense of victimisation and thus raise the likelihood of survey reporting above the real rate of crime incidence. Further research should test whether, regardless of any impact on crime itself, greater social cohesion may reduce fear of crime even while raising a perception of crime rates. Policy and design that successfully promote social cohesion but fail to reduce crime may exacerbate a perception of victimisation.