European Structural Indicators, A Way Forward

One of Europe’s major weaknesses lies in its inferiority in terms of transforming the results of technological research and skills into innovations and competitive advantages (European Commission, 1995, p. 8). Technology transfer is a key aspect of economic development and research administration. These concerns are shared equally between academia and industry on both sides of the Atlantic. As technology is developed at a greater rate, concerns about the technology transfer will heighten. This article focuses on technology transfer in Ireland, particularly in the SME (Small and Medium size Enterprises, under 250 employees) sector. As the main Lisbon Objective has not been met in Europe (“Europe is 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”), the authors suggest a better model of technology transfer applicable not only to Ireland and Europe, but with possibilities for the United States. Demonstrating the international dimensions of technology transfer, the article also provides an American perspective, demonstrating commonality of interest yet subtle differences. Research Management Review, Volume 15, Number 1 Winter/Spring 2006 2 THE EUROPEAN UNION’S STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE FOR INNOVATION Since the publication of the European Commission’s Green Paper on Innovation, there has been general acknowledgment of the need to address the European Paradox, as outlined in Figure 1, in which EU scientific performance, as measured by number of scientific publications, was deemed superior to the that of the U.S. and Japan but technical performance, as measured by patents, was deemed inferior. Half a decade later, the European Council of Ministers proudly stated in Lisbon that they had reached a clearly identifiable measurable strategic objective. By this decade’s end, Europe is “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” (Fontaine, 2000, p. 5). Note: DAE=Developing Asian Economies; BERD=Business Enterprise Expenditure on R&D Figure 1: First European Report on Science & Technology Indicators (European Commission, 1994) For the past five years, very influential and powerful European Commission mechanisms, supported by national policies and directives, have driven wave after wave of initiatives, pushing research and enterprise with the aim of overtaking Europe’s main trading partners in terms of effectively commercializing new knowledge. The European Commission’s Enterprise and Industry Directorate has closely measured Europe’s activity in this area, with its latest release in January 2005 of information on EU member country performance as compared to that of the other main trading blocks (European Commission, 2005a). Figure 2, in summarizing recent performance, shows that European performance has not been as good as might be expected. The recent review by The World Economic Forum concludes: “the EU as a whole receives lower scores than the US in seven out of eight Lisbon dimensions” (Blanke & Lopez-Carlos, 2004, p. 14). This has led to open acknowledgment by the highest levels of the Commission that the gap is actually widening. Jose Manuel Barroso, the EU President, bluntly states, “the EU is falling behind on its Lisbon objective of making Europe the most competitive economy in the world” (Barroso, 2005). Propensity of the EU, U.S., Japan and the DAE to produce results a. Scientific performance (number of publications b. Technological performance (number of per million ecus, at 1987 U.S. prices, non-BERD) patents per million ecus, at 1987 U.S. prices, BERD)

The 'Open Method of Co-ordination' was first introduced in the European arena at the Lisbon Summit of March 2000. To reach the European Union's goal of becoming 'the world's most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy, capable of sustainable economic growth with better jobs and greater social cohesion', a new method of intervention was needed. The Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) was, thus, presented as the appropriate tool for an integrated approach toward achieving an economic and social renewal. This method is now applied in the employment field and in the fight against poverty and social exclusion. Other sensitive fields, such as pensions and immigration, have been identified as future areas where OMC could be applied. Social partners at the European level have also been called to develop their own experience of OMC. They are now in charge of benchmarking best practices as regard to life-long learning and the quality of industrial relations in Europe. As the Commission states in its European Governance White Paper, OMC is aimed at completing or reinforcing Community action, in particular when there is little scope for legislative solutions. This new form of intervention is not to replace traditional means. Rather, the European Union (EU) would play a role consistent with its supranational position. The objective is to organize a learning process to allow the exchange of experience and best practices. OMC is gaining ground in the European polity. Since its introduction, many areas that, until then, were considered falling under the sovereignty of Member States are now tackled at a European level. Some commentators even define OMC as a possible new way of Building Social Europe. For the time being, it seems that one of OMC's main interests remains in the new approach to legislation that about it allows. OMC shapes a form of supranational governance by mean of soft regulation, providing a dynamic that is interesting to look at, not only from aEuropean perspective but also from an international one. The purpose of this article is to analyse this new tool of intervention and underscore its potential to offer a model of supranational governance. The Open Method of Co-ordination is composed of different phases, each one deeply marked by a common feature: co-ordination. The very structure of OMC relies on the presence of a supranational actor able to co-ordinate. But in order to grasp its importance, one cannot consider OMC only from the Lisbon Summit. To have a fully-fledged comprehension of this new regulatory tool, it is necessary to look at the whole development of the European Employment Strategy. It is in the field of employment that this method finds its premises and was first developed. With this background, it is possible to see from where the different components of OMC come, and also to give a clearer picture of the fundamentals of this new form of governance. The reminder of this paper is organized as follows. Starting from the Delors White paper of 1993, it analyses the contributions that each European Summit has made to the framing of a strategy that was first confined to the employment field and, later, became a method applicable to any sensitive area. OMC is an interesting tool to look at, in particular, in considering new forms of supranational governance in a global context.

From the perspective of the European Union (EU), the justification for the support it lends to CSR lies in the fact that it regards it as the contribution of business to sustainable development. As a business strategy, CSR is directly linked to the achievement of the strategic objective established in the Final Declaration of the Lisbon European Council (March 2000): by 2010, ‘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’. Each sector of society can contribute to this strategic objective from its own activity, characteristics and capacities. In this context, CSR expresses the engagement of the business sector in the construction of a Europe characterised by sustainable economic development and social cohesion. The EC considers that companies can, by incorporating CSR into their business values, practices and policies, at least help to minimise the negative social and environmental consequences of their activity, thus contributing to the objective mentioned above.

The transition from an industrial towards a post-industrial society involved a shift in global labour markets, from national economies mainly based on the manufacturing sector towards ‘global knowledge economies’, as I showed in Chapter 2. In this context, human capital is considered vital, and a fierce competition exists between countries and world regions to attract and keep the best and brightest in their labour markets.1 With this background of a ‘global competition for talent’, promoting human movement across borders has been repeatedly underlined by the European Commission. The promotion of intra-European mobility was, for example, an essential part of the Lisbon Strategy ‘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’ (European Parliament 2000), and is also of key importance in Europe’s new growth strategy, ‘Europe 2020’. Moreover, as I also argued in Chapter 2, higher education plays a fundamental role in European economic growth strategies. In the Prague communiqué (2001: 1), the European Ministers in charge of Higher Education stated, for example, that the creation of a European Higher Education Area ‘is a condition for enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness of higher education institutions in Europe’.

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.

The increase in productivity is an obvious objective for business, moreover with the research and development objectives set out for Barcelona 2010 and the Lisbon Summit. Productivity is linked to efficiency as enterprises have increased productivity when they need less input to achieve certain outputs or when they increase outputs with the same inputs. The objective for this article is to analyze the innovation efficiency in Spain by activity branch. To this end we will work with the 2006 data from the INE (Spanish National Institute of Statistics) innovation and R&D activities surveys. To this aim, we will use the following methodology for the efficiency analysis: the one based on output oriented DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) with constant returns to scale. This technique will be completed in two aspects. Firstly with the introduction of more inputs and outputs without causing an increment of efficient units and, secondly the study will be completed with a robust analysis to improve the DEA discrimination capacity. MOTIVATION OF THE RESEARCH AND LITERATURE SURVEY The structure of the Spanish economy is suffering nowadays some very significant changes marked by a double crisis at the same time. On one hand the serious international crisis, and on the other hand a national crisis product of a long term growth model based on exhausted activity branches. It has been pointed out within the new strategic goals for the next decade set at the Lisbon European Council, in march 2000, that the European Union will 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. Achieving these goals requires an overall strategy aimed at preparing the transition to a knowledge-based economy and society by better policies for the information society and R&D, as well as by stepping up the process of structural reform for competitiveness and innovation and by completing the internal market. (Lisbon European Council, 2000). Spain, as a Member State of the European Union, should add value to the Union to become the most competitive, efficient, and dynamic economy in the world based on the knowledge, such as education, innovation, research and development. In that point the following questions arises: • Which the strengths and weaknesses of the Spanish economy are? • In what economic activities should Spain specialize? • Which is the role of the innovation in the transformation of the economic structure of Spain? • Which is the efficiency in the innovation of the different branches of activity of the Spanish economy? • In which branches is obtained the bigger productivity of the investments? • Which activity branches of the Spanish economy are the most efficient ones? All these key questions will be studied throughout the present paper to understand the current structure of the Spanish economy and to be able to offer information to economic politics decision makers. Structural transformations needed to the economic growth and increase of the rent per capita imply changes of certain relevance in the structure of the production, in the role of the trade and in the public sector weight. (Garcia and Myro, 2008). Proceedings 23rd European Conference on Modelling and Simulation ©ECMS Javier Otamendi, Andrzej Bargiela, Jose Luis Montes, Luis Miguel Doncel Pedrera (Editors) ISBN: 978-0-9553018-8-9 / ISBN: 978-0-9553018-9-6 (CD) These changes leaded by the upward tendency of some activity branches and the decline of others, alter the structure of the whole economy. The research, development and innovation, all of them focused on the increase of productivity, are needed to lead these significant structure changes. Throughout the base of a balanced and sustainable economic growth based on innovation must be designed the nowadays Spanish economy structure change. We conclude that the first motivation of this paper is to answer all the previous key questions related to the Spanish economy, but the second motivation is the methodological one, because methodologically it has never been applied such a innovative technique to try to answer to the previous questions. Although there has been carried out very interesting researches on this topic (Buesa et al, 2006), (Galende del Canto 2008), (Gomez and Zabala 2008) it has not been applied the methodologically solution to the problem offered in this paper even by the most advanced DEA research methods. (Cooper et al. 2004), (Doyle and Green, 1994), (Dyson et al, 2001), (Lugones et al, 2003), (Madlener et al, 2006), (Maystre et al, 1994), (Raftery, 1993), (Roy and Bouyssou, 1993), (Zhu and Cook, 2007). In order to follow the most authorized data analysis methodology it has been developed the study under the Oslo Manual framework and in concordance with the the INNO-policy reports, INNO Metrics (2007) and the European regional innovation scoreboard report (2006).

Reviewed by: Tokyo-Brussels Partnership: Security, Development and Knowledge-based Society Dimitri Vanoverbeke (bio) Tokyo-Brussels Partnership: Security, Development and Knowledge-based Society. Edited by Takako Ueta and Éric Remacle. Peter Lang, Brussels, 2008. 315 pages. $58.95, paper. This volume is a collection of selected papers from the eighth and ninth Japan-EU Cooperation Conferences. These annual conferences focus on the relationship between these two strategic partners and their wider regions without any restriction on topics or approaches. Beyond their methodological and disciplinary diversity, the conferences and their subsequent publications are noteworthy because they bring together high-level policymakers as well as leading academic specialists on Europe and Japan. Both Europe and Japan face an imperative need to reposition themselves on the rapidly shifting world scene. They increasingly look toward each other to play a prominent role in a newly multipolar world. This volume attempts in particular to cover those issues raised in the Lisbon Agenda that are relevant to the partnership between Japan and Europe, yet for obvious space-related reasons it could only focus on some of them. As the Lisbon Agenda's life span comes to a close, and the time for its critical assessment and renewal draws near, the publication of this book seems timely—in spite of the fact it was published four to five years after the conferences were held. The challenges that prompted the Lisbon Agenda in Europe remain valid today and must be addressed efficiently in the near future. Rather than covering [End Page 479] the relationship between Japan and Europe, the authors of the majority of the chapters analyze issues from the Japanese or European perspective and suggest possible elements of convergence in the future between the two regions. As such, this publication is a faithful reflection of the ambiguous relationship that has emerged between these two so-called "unconventional powers." With the conclusion of the 2001 Action Plan, a decade of intensified cooperation was launched between the European Union and Japan. However, the partnership's evolution has often been criticized as being more "plan" than "action." Nevertheless, as illustrated throughout the book, possible fields for common action remain plentiful. Most chapters of this book are symptomatic of the state of the art in comparative European-Japanese studies. Characterized by its disciplinary openness, the product of the Japan-EU conferences reflects the complex, uneven, and at times contradictory components of the EU-Japan dialogue. This book brings together and confronts a variety of disparate contributions that delve into different academic traditions, all of which have been engaged in analysis of the multifaceted Euro-Japanese relationship. Roughly three ongoing scientific dialogues on Euro-Japanese, and a fortiori Euro-Asian, affairs are reflected throughout the publication: an exercise in comparative area studies articulated through the specific exemplary contribution of the EU's regional experience; comparative analyses of the international political economies and socioeconomic regulatory frameworks on both sides; and issue-specific foreign policy analyses. Those chapters engaged with the comparative area studies effort offer a coherent vision of elements of convergence as well as divergence between the European and Asian experiences. The socioeconomic studies assess the relative merits of various policy options and seek to foster mutual learning dynamics, whereas the foreign policy contributions have squarely focused on the capacities and expectations associated with the EU-Japan partnership. Accordingly, this book offers timely contributions to these various dialogues while tentatively suggesting through its bridging effort a future interdisciplinary research agenda. Both the opening and closing contributions by Ambassador Takekazu Kawamura highlight possible avenues of Euro-Japanese cooperation. Economic reform and demographic changes are rightly pointed out as the issues most suited to the context of the partnership. The first two chapters in this book open with the conclusion of the Lisbon European Council stating that the European Union should strive to become "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of providing a sustainable economic growth, a better and greater social cohesion" (p. 53). Both Japan and Europe are trying to increase their economic competitiveness through issues such as "acceleration of accessibility and the improvement in the affordability of knowledge" (p. 25). [End Page 480] Issues like those...

“The Union has today set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade: 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” was proudly declared at the March 2000 European Council summit in Lisbon, when the Heads of State and Government agreed on a common strategy for sustainable growth, the so-called Lisbon strategy. Although work has been done to stimulate economic reforms within the EU ever since the summit, the results so far have been meagre. The EU is therefore currently discussing a renewed Lisbon strategy and the necessity of “putting the work in a higher gear”.

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.

In March 2000, the Lisbon European Council set the goal of becoming by 2010 “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”. This was called the Lisbon Strategy. The project of creating a European Research Area (ERA) was endorsed as a central element of the Lisbon Strategy to achieve this goal. However, EU still invests too little in R & D. In 2003, top 500 private R & D spenders in EU decreased their R & D investment by 2.0%. Top 500 private R & D spenders outside EU increased their R & D investment by 3.9%. Overall R D US: 2.59%; S. Korea: 2.91%; Japan: 3.12%. ERA is implemented through so-called Framework Programmes (FP). FP7 is proposed on the basis of a doubling of funds and the duration is 7 years (2007-13). FP7 will fund R& D projects of immediate industrial relevance & needs of industry. Projects will include both public research institutions and private companies (PPP). FOUR MAJOR COMPONENTS OF EUROPEAN RESEARCH IN FP7: I. Cooperation: COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH COMPONENT Support transnational cooperation in 9 themes: 1. Health 2. Food, agriculture and biotechnology 3. Information and communication technologies 4. Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies 5. Energy 6. Environment and Climate Change 7. Transport and Aeronautics 8. Socio-economic sciences and the humanities 9. Space and Security Research

Major steps are currently being taken to make Europe an attractive destination for foreign students willing to increase their competencies and skills. They include the creation of a comparable structure of study courses; the mutual recognition of diplomas; the assessment of academic institutions and programs based on common quality standards; the granting of financial incentives for geographical mobility of students and staff; and, more recently, the adoption of a strategic marketing approach. Significant efforts are in fact aimed to create a clear European “identity” in higher education, by improving the availability and accessibility of information on studying in Europe and by enhancing the attractiveness, profile, visibility and image of European higher education worldwide. Coherently with the Lisbon Strategy – whose aim was to make the European Union «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 – a great emphasis has been given to the promotion of the European Union as an educational destination and a centre of excellence at world level. In particular, within the Erasmus Mundus Programme1 several projects have been financed with the aim of promoting and rising awareness of the European higher education sector. Furthermore, within the Erasmus Mundus Global Promotion Project (GPP), a European brand – “Study in Europe” – has been built upon perceived strengths and with the aim to overcome negative perceptions; a web portal has

The following is not so much a paper as a comment on the discussions in the working group I was co-chairing during the conference. In several of the presentations, it was widely held that the role of the nation-state had peaked. Some years ago when I published the book Comparative Education with the subtitle: Scientific Tradition and Global Challenge (Winther-Jensen 2004), I took the same position. The book was written during the heydays of the Lisbon Declaration (2000), which intended to turn Europe 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”. Globalisation was a hot theme, and I was further influenced not only by writers who declared the end of the nation-state, like the Japanese Keniche Ohmae in The End of the Nation State (Ohmae 1995), but also by writers with a more moderate point of view, e.g. Anthony Giddens (Giddens 1991, 1999).

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. …

Europe's politicians greeted the new millennium with a sense of optimism. Meeting in Lisbon, in March 2000, the heads of government agreed on a strategy to make the European Union...

In July 2001 the European Commission issued a Green Paper entitled Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. The paper was elaborated by the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs. It focused on companies’ responsibilities in the social field. The term ‘corporate social responsibility (CSR) emerged from discourses and statements delivered by companies reflecting upon, even praising, their own functioning. The European Union's concern with the topic is rooted in the expressed conviction that CSR can be a positive contribution to the strategic goal set in Lisbon ‘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’ (European Commission 2001: 4). This article seeks to examine the Green Paper's ‘new speech’ from the conceptual angle of collective labour law. It assesses the legal nature of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as well as its implications, in particular for human and fundamental workers’ rights, and for the trade union movement. It also addresses the question of whether CSR amounts to a new understanding of the freedom of enterprise.