Lisbon Goals Research Articles

ENHANCEMENT OF THE STRATEGY FOR THE EMPLOYMENT AND INTEGRATION INTO THE WORK ENVIRONMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

The paper is prepared as a forecast of the employment strategy towards to the EU Lisbon goals - to promote employment and social inclusion for all people. The problems are the inadequate employment of persons with disabilities. The objectives of the research study were as follows: to clarify the problem of above mentioned attitude of employers and the main reasons for not hiring people with disabilities several problems can be identified. Information for the paper is gathered through contacting experts - respondents and conducting extensive literature reviews. The research approach was based on the premise that employers with professional training of employees with disability are responsible for recruitment, pre-employment screening and other workplace practices that positively affect the hiring and retention of this group. It is hoped that the outcome of the research study will assist in reducing all forms of existing barriers with special emphasis on attitudinal barriers against prospective employees with disabilities. Furthering the integration of persons with disabilities into the mainstream activities will promote the employment of people with disabilities and thereby would make a considerable effort to integrate inactive labour resources into the labour market to promote the achievement of the EU Lisbon goals.

COGITO ERGO SUM HOMOMACHINE?

When European Union (EU) heads of state and government met at a summit in Lisbon in 2000 (Lisbon declaration, 2000), they set the goal of making Europe 'the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world'. In a knowledge economy, the 'most effective modern economies will be those that produce the most information and knowledge, and make that information and knowledge easily accessible to the greatest number of individuals and enterprises'. This policy brief suggests that individuals and companies can easily collaborate and compete globally, and that the solution for Europe in meeting the Lisbon goals is to invest heavily in education and skills. Statistical evidence briefly demonstrates the high return on investment in education. It makes recommendations for ensuring that Europe' school systems become more flexible and effective in improving learning outcomes, and argues that Europeans capacity to compete in the global knowledge economy will depend on whether its higher education institutions can meet the rapidly growing demand for high-level skills. International comparisons demonstrate the challenges confronting Europe but also illustrate the success of efforts to meet such challenges.

Framework of Strategic Management Model for Strategy Europe 2020: Diachronic Analysis and Proposed Guidelines

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

The European Research Area: in quest of the Lisbon goals

strong educational and scientific knowledge basie is one of Europe's traditional key assets that has made it possible for our continent to become world class in several research fields. Despite these great achievements, the position of the European research and technological development (RTD) potential is currently being challenged by a rapidly changing global competition, including the two main rivals, the US and Japan. The European Union (EU) is behind these countries as regards research and innovation output. Moreover, European research is faced with theimplications of globalisation of markets and industries, digitalisation and new technologies, as well as a need to address societal issues such as an ageing population or climate change.At the same time, the European Union (EU) is facing the uneven distribution of RTD capacities and excellence within its own borders, especially the EU12 countries are lagging behind in thisrespect.In order to meet this twofold challenge the EU has to step up its efforts for the creation of a legitimate "European Research Area" that will make the EU more competitive on the international scene, and also encourage the less developed EU member states to invest more and better into research and innovation.

The aspect of ‘accessibility’ in the light of European lifelong learning strategies: Adult education centres—a case study

The problems faced by a postmodern European Union, due to internationalisation of the economy, loss of competitiveness, rise in unemployment and negative demographic outcomes, call for transformations able to promote excellence in knowledge, technology and economic effectiveness, which also promote social cohesion. Thus, investment in human capital emerged as a core priority for European Union policies at the Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000, providing for strategic goals to strengthen employment, economic reform and social cohesion. Within this framework, a new period of enhanced collaboration in education and training has been initiated among member states, committing them to a consistent strategy, with clear concrete objectives that accentuate aspects of openness and accessibility to adult education systems. This is expected to promote equal opportunities for all European citizens enabling them to participate in a ‘knowledge‐led society’. Hence, novel priorities have emerged for Greek educational policy. These have given prominence to lifelong learning and initiated the implementation of adult education centres in 2003 to meet the Lisbon goals. The present paper reports the findings of three case studies, relating to the promotion of openness and accessibility to learning opportunities throughout life. The research was launched in three adult education centres in northern Greece. The study attempted to assess strengths and weaknesses in their efforts to deliver educational services or activities to both citizens of urban and rural areas and to promote adult learning in a broader sense, in the light of the Lisbon mandate.

Legislative Policy, Law and Competitiveness: A Mysterious and Difficult Relationship in the EU

AbstractThe Lisbon Agenda places Europe in a uniquely difficult position globally, most particularly as an example of a social and regulatory experiment which many consider to be doomed to failure. The drive towards economic competitiveness has led to a focus on regulation and its effect on entrepreneurship, productivity and business growth but assessing this relationship is complex for a number of reasons. First, not all regulatory effects can be predicted precisely in relation to behavioural outcomes. Path‐dependency scholars have also demonstrated that the regulation will have varying effects depending on context. Second, theoretically it is clear that many non‐regulatory factors may contribute to economic and competitive success. Third, there is evidence of internal conflict within the Commission as to the relative importance of the Lisbon goals. Finally, the experience of distinct Member States presents challenges both for assessment and prescriptive remedies. The Commission has estimated that the cost of regulatory compliance obligations on businesses in the EU is between 4% and 6% of gross domestic product and that 15% of this figure is avoidable ‘red tape’ (the term used specifically to signify unnecessary compliance burdens). This article proposes to assess the likely outcomes of de‐regulation as we rapidly approach 2010, the year for attainment of the Lisbon goals. However, the difference in legal infrastructure does not result from the California legislature's efforts to provide the proper conditions for the development of high technology industrial districts. Rather . . . a serendipitous result of the historical coincidence between the codification movement in the United States and the new state's efforts at developing a coherent legal system out of its conflicting inheritance of Spanish, Mexican, and English law.1

Is it possible to give the territorial dimension more relevance for choices of competitiveness and sustainability policies?

In the past 10–15 years, several discussions and/or paradigmatic hypotheses have stemmed from the more relevant economic and territorial international scientific theories of the 90s, EU political reports, declarations and directives with regard to both competitiveness and sustainability. Recently, their critical revision has permitted a definition of the question of the discussion about the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategy in Europe: how to be competitive in sustainability and review the concepts of sustainability and competitiveness in the European territorial dimension by new criteria and indicators of measure. This paper wishes also to evidence, as in order to apply the updated Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategy goals it should be, to introduce a real territorial dimension into assessment processes, developing them by the new Structural Funds 2007–2013. An ex ante analysis of the impacts of these strategies 2000–2006 and a new methodological approach was useful for both these scopes. These ambitious goals were developed into the ESPON Programme, developing four key “determinants” or composite indicators as very significant expression of the two strategies.

How to shift the EU's spending priorities? The multi-annual financial framework 2007–13 in perspective

At the Lisbon European Council in 2000, heads of state and government made strong political commitments to invest in Europe's future, in order to transform its economy into ‘the most competitive knowledge based economy in the world’ by 2010. To what extent were the Lisbon goals translated into a shift in spending priorities during the negotiations on the EU's multi-annual financial framework (2007–13)? Could the stated competitiveness goals be underpinned by a reallocation of scarce financial resources in the EU's budget? This paper starts with theoretical considerations on the odds of shifting financial priorities in the EU's ‘consensus democracy’. Then it gives an overview of the slow pace of change to be found in the new financial perspective which is to be compared to earlier deals on the multi-annual budget since 1988. In order to explain this result, the political context and the sequence of decision-making are examined, looking at the respective roles of the Commission, the European Council, and the European Parliament.

A total society of knowledge

The major Lisbon goal is to give Europe back the primacy as a society of knowledge. `Giving back' is a more appropriate term than `giving', as Europe long held that primacy in the past, and virtually as a monopoliser from the 17th century throughout the 19th. Then, Europe shared it with North America for a long portion of the 20th century.

The Lisbon Strategy and the Quality of Public Finances

In the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy only moderate progress towards the European Union's becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010 could be observed. The EU Commission had emphasised the impact of fiscal policy on the structural reforms necessary to achieve the Lisbon objectives. This paper examines the empirical relationship between fiscal policy and progress towards the Lisbon goals and offers a critical assessment of the indicators available.

Compliance obstacles to competitiveness

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explain the competitiveness obstacles that European businesses face, which, if not addressed, limit the potential of the EU economy, particularly in terms of the Lisbon goals. Adopting a broadly defined compliance‐centred approach, the paper seeks to identify how some significant competitiveness obstacles of European business might best be addressed.Design/methodology/approachIn‐depth interviews in 44 multinational and medium‐sized companies were used to investigate compliance requirements, the tools and methods used to manage compliance, compliance‐related obstacles to competitiveness. A survey of four European Information Centres was conducted to evaluate their effectiveness in achieving their stated mission.FindingsOrganisations lacked systems to proactively manage compliance to allow them to deepen or sustain their competitive positioning. Companies were concerned with the reliability and comprehensiveness of reports on compliance risks and how these could be related to prioritised strategic goals. A gap was identified between regulation production and dissemination, and conversion of regulatory information into knowledge used to gain and maintain business advantage. This gap is inadequately filled by business supports, including the European Information Centres.Originality/valueThe business‐focused approach to managing compliance suggested here could increase the competitiveness of EU businesses and the EIC Network is potentially well positioned to play its part in the value‐adding process of both the providers and consumers of EU information.

Technology and special needs provision in the UK: is current law satisfactory?

Recently, the government has issued legislation on disability discrimination (the UK Disability Discrimination Act 2005) that is silent on the issue of access to technology for those adults and minors with special needs/disabilities either in the classroom or out of the classroom. At the same time, commercial legislation from Europe drives forward with new directives on the regulation of technology as part of the European Union's Lisbon Goals to make Europe more efficient through the use of Information Communications Technologies (ICTs) and to provide an increasing array of on-line services (payment of taxes, licensing, identity cards, and access to public services). With more rapid provision of public and private services on-line, there is a pressing need to ask to what extent current legislation should address access to assistive technology for those with special needs and disabilities. Furthermore, the legal obligation on government to provide ICTs as communications aids in school classrooms either as ...

Competing Higher Education Futures in a Globalising World

Globalisation, together with readier access to capability-enhancing technologies and to technological insights once restricted to a few leading economies, are resulting in greater competition within Europe, and more widely within the developed world, for influence of all kinds (not just influence over the choices that foreign students make about the Higher Education courses on offer to them from Europe, but also influence of a more overtly imperialist kind, extending to the policies, incomes and futures of others). This article looks at trends in one important market for European Higher Education, the Middle East (particularly the GCC countries), which has many providers from North America and Australia. As observed by the late Edward Said, the USA is particularly forceful in the Middle East. Its technological superiority is accompanied by fervour to introduce American methods and curricula, and strong belief in their merit, reminiscent of the belief of the old French empire that ‘France had a “mission civilisatrice”, to civilize the natives”. The danger, highlighted in a recent UNESCO report ‘New Ignorances, New Literacies’, is that the natives will not be listened to. Is Europe listening more or less than the USA, and is it being listened to? Despite attention-gaining initiatives such as the proposed European Institute of Technology, EIT, and the commitment of EU governments to the Lisbon goals on competitiveness, there are indications of a drop in the influence of European Higher Education institutions in the Middle East. This paper explores the kinds of issues that may be at work, and the implications for European Higher Education policy.

Engineering for Health - A Partner in Building the Knowledge Economy of Europe

Medical and biological engineering and science (MBES) in Europe has come a long way from the initial steps taken more than a century ago. Today, MBES is organized in national and transEuropean societies and alliances and has established firm synergistic relationships with other stakeholders. The contributions of Engineering for Health to economic growth and competitiveness in Europe are a vital ingredient for achieving the Lisbon goals. Excellence in MBES research and education has the capacity to be a dynamic and effective engine for the development of the knowledge society and economy, and a magnet for international top-quality talents. Through its activities and opportunities, Engineering for Health represents a major thrust in policy-oriented research and development and provides European added value in important areas identified as key EU policy targets in the four main programs of FP7 (2007-2013). Engineering for Health provides an essential link bridging the "bio-nano-info" themes and will play a crucial role in fostering future frontier research for improving innovation and production of new knowledge.

Competitiveness and Environmental Policy: A Failed Marriage?

Since the mid-1990s, the traditional Community method of policy-making and the resulting command-and-control legislation has been challenged as viable means to regulate markets. The emphasis on subsidiarity and on the “better regulation” agenda contributed to weakening the political support for centralized, top-down EU legislative action and encouraged wider recourse to more cooperative modes of multi-level governance. This trend was further reinforced by the debates following the adoption of the Lisbon strategy. In this context, competitiveness entails working with markets which, in turn, implies that measures that could be detrimental to the competitiveness of producers and could give rise to contestation are avoided. At the same time, the adoption of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and its addition as the third, environmental, pillar to Lisbon meant that environmental policy-making would be influenced by the overall Lisbon goals. In order to achieve support and cooperation from actors in the markets, policy makers must convince actors in the market of the benefits and competitive rewards of operating in an environmentally sound manner. This concern for competitiveness gave rise to a particular market-oriented approach to EU environmental policy, which seeks to work ‘with’ rather than ‘against’ markets to achieve environmental improvements.

The European system of small- and medium-sized enterprises

As the European Commission has indicated, SMEs have a key role to play in stimulating job creation and in improving European competitiveness. This article provides an overview of the position of SMEs in the economic system of the European Union and highlights the weaknesses that constrain SMEs in fulfilling that key role. The article also explores the factors that promote profitability in SMEs at the expense of productivity, including low pay, poor working conditions and long working hours. It proposes that there is a contradiction between the representation of SMEs as a strategic lever in pursuit of the Lisbon goals, and the reality that European SMEs are generally incapable of generating either technological innovation or continuing education and training, leaving them ill-equipped to compete in global markets.

The ‘Europeanisation’ of Vocational Education between Formal Policies and Deliberative Communication

This article deals with current European policies of vocational education and training, namely the Copenhagen Process, the Open Method of Coordination and the framework of the Lisbon Agenda. The analysis shows that there is no standard European path of achieving the Lisbon Goals, but rather that there are considerable variations depending on the prevailing VET systems and the respective VET policy. Two antagonistic scenarios on the possible effects of the current activities to implement a European Credit Transfer System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET), and the European Qualification Framework (EQF) are sketched. The best and worse case scenarios can be used to assess the current national activities to improve the quality of European VET systems and stimulate processes of discursive communication. The concluding section outlines some prospects of a European VET policy by utilising the presented findings and proposes some cornerstones of a European VET policy aiming at improving the teaching and learning processes. It is argued that the coherence of policies formulated through the so-called Lisbon Goal is not mirrored in concurrent European policies of VET and that more ‘deliberative’ processes of communication between different actors in VET spanning from the level of practice to the level of European policies are needed in order to truly ‘Europeanise’ VET in Europe.

Regions and cities “have key role in achieving Lisbon goals on education and training”

Regions and cities “have key role in achieving Lisbon goals on education and training”

The “Lisbon Goal” of the EU: Rhetoric or Substance?

This paper explores the relationship between the rhetoric of the Lisbon Goal of the EU and key insights from trade theory and growth theory. It argues that the policy initiative as such is valid, but the paradigm of international competitiveness is potentially misleading. The focus should, instead, be on productivity. Industrial policies, while potentially valid against the backdrop of recent developments in growth theory, are subject to pitfalls in practice. Policies focusing on institutions are more promising. The paper offers a framework for discussing the role of different types of institutions with respect to the Lisbon Goal.

European Union policies in education and training: the Lisbon agenda as a turning point?

This paper investigates European Union (EU) education and training policies in the light of the evolving Lisbon agenda on improving the competitiveness of the EU. It examines the ways in which EU policies have developed over time, focusing on their legal basis, underlying principles, main forms of implementation and their impact on national education and training systems. The paper argues that, in the wake of the Lisbon agenda, the legal basis for EU activities has been substantially extended by intergovernmental agreements. The discourse on the concept of economic competitiveness has changed the formulation of new EU policies in education and training, exemplified by a strong emphasis on educational indicators, benchmarks and quality controls. This has resulted in a new wave of EU initiatives in the field, sometimes updating or recycling activities that had not been successful in the past. The slow progress regarding the Lisbon goals for education and training seems to indicate, however, that the impact of EU programmes and projects for educational provisions in the Member States remains limited.