21:17, 16 January 2010
Comments on the strategy of the EU
EU2020 is being designed as the successor to the current Lisbon Treaty. The European Commission’s EU2020 strategy focuses on creating growth through knowledge/IT, empowering people in inclusive societies and creating a competitive, connected and greener economy. According to the document ‘the Commission’s aim is for Europe to lead, compete and prosper as a knowledge-based, connected, greener and more inclusive economy, growing fast and sustainably, creating high levels of employment and social progress. To achieve this, Europe needs a strengthened and competitive industrial base, a modern service sector and a thriving agriculture, rural economy, and maritime sector’ (p.4).
The document makes an effort to combine economic growth with green policies, which is by far the most progressive message in the document. As the strategy states: ‘the exit from the crisis should be the point of entry into a new sustainable social market economy, a smarter, greener economy, where our prosperity will come from innovation and from using resources better’ (p.2). Another positive message in the document is the declared opposition to the cutting of spending in education and research (p. 3). EU2020 argues for the prevention of early school leaving, as a means of minimising the risk from future labour market exclusion from the labour market and the threat of future social exclusion. The document also mentions that ‘a greater emphasis on vulnerable groups, gender equality and social cohesion is needed to ensure that no one is excluded from knowledge’ (p.5). These are a few progressive messages included in the EU2020 document. The strategy also reproduces themes of efficiency and productivity that, according to the document, can be solved with generous doses of education, IT and green technology. Overall, however, the strategy lacks vision, precision and self-criticism. In more detail:
The strategy needs to become more humane:
On a first read, the strategy sounds too technocratic and lacking a vision of society (with the exception of its ‘green’ dimension and the value it puts on education). It prioritises financial growth and by doing so fails to put humans first. It mentions the importance of empowering people in inclusive societies through employment and education. However, empowerment involves far more than giving people a badly paid job and a low pension. Nor does the document tackle the issue of fighting ‘black employment’. Nevertheless, millions of people (particularly amongst the youth, women and immigrants) work in unsecured jobs under bad conditions. Should n’t this issue be a matter of concern? The document does not even address the question of work standards, nor does it make the point for a fair deal for employees. Redistribution of wealth and any form of imposition of social justice do not have a place in the strategy. The document also mentions the importance of promotion of ‘open and rules-based global trade’ (p.10). Still, it does not attempt to redress the imbalances that open trade brings to the poorest countries.
The strategy needs to become more inclusive
The strategy needs to become more inclusive. For instance, although subsidiarity is mentioned in the document (p.9), the argument is not fully developed. The Commission strategy should adopt a ‘bottom up’ approach to its initiatives. The strategy puts emphasis on the private sector and needs to become more balanced in order to cover all sections of society. It is not only the private initiative that needs to be incorporated in a future strategy. What about the establishment of local plans of action? Where do municipalities and regions fit into the Commission’s strategy? In addition, the contributions of NGOs, trade unions, student/academic bodies and charities on issues of employment and welfare are not mentioned. Surely all the above-mentioned actors are valuable partners on questions on employment and education?
The strategy needs to become more ‘empowering’ by offering precise solutions to issues it claims to address
The strategy is too generic and often vague. Although, this is the nature of strategies, the EU2020 readers would appreciate a few precise ideas on how problems can be tackled in detail. The strategy could also have offered various targets in terms of numbers/statistics. Furthermore, EU2020 could have explained what EU instruments it can use in order to tackle ongoing problems. For instance, the document mentions the importance of a vibrant EU research area. However, it is known that with a few exceptions (the UK, the Netherlands and some Scandinavian institutions), most European University posts are reserved for ‘national’ candidates even if they are not the most suitable candidates. Why has real mobility of researchers still not happened, and what measures can the Commission adopt to tackle this problem?
In general, the document is characterised by vague language. What, for instance, are the ‘new resources of growth’ that the strategy mentions (p.2)? What is proposed with reference to ‘remaining problems in the financial system therefore need to be solved swiftly’(p. 9)? In another part, the document emphasises the rethinking of ‘education systems and labour markets, enhancing mobility and boosting Europe’s dynamism to unleash our innovative and creative potential’ (p.3). Which directions should this rethinking take? What policies and instruments are to be used in this rethinking process? EU2020 also repeats the simplistic approach that knowledge on its own will bring employment. Strengthening education is indeed one of the ways to empower people but does not necessarily lead them to full employment (see the large number of highly- qualified unemployed currently on the labour market).
Furthermore, according to the EU2020, ‘lifelong learning needs to be much more accessible and universities should be more open to non-typical learners’ (p.6). This is a fair point but it would be useful if the document included the incentives proposed for universities to implement life-long learning programmes. And why does the document mention only universities? Local governments, colleges and NGOs could also train people in a wide variety of fields that would serve local needs.
In reading the strategy, I somehow feel that it was written in the pre-crisis era. For instance, the document states that ‘self-employment should become a real option for those who may have recently lost their job’ (p.7). Is the reader to believe that it is considered genuinely feasible for the millions of recently sacked family people (with children to feed and mortgages to pay) to dip into their savings to set up their own businesses in times of severe recession?
Other elements mentioned in the draft require further elaboration. Are ‘administrative simplification and technical support’ enough to help SMEs (p. 5)? Which EU financial tools can be used to support innovative SMEs? How can SMEs get round the over-complicated application forms for EU funding in order to profit from it? The Commission should explain how to empower small businesses, communities, NGOs, local governments. The document could have also could mentioned how to circumvent the endlessly complicated Commission bureaucracy in order to get vital funding for the services they provide. It would also be useful for the Commission to realise that some EU funding needs to be directed at these partners (and not only to fat cats who have the resources to fill its lengthy application forms).
Finally, I am left wondering if there is a link between the Lisbon Treaty and the EU2020. Can any of the newly-established instruments of the Lisbon Treaty help to promote the aims of EU2020?
The strategy should become more self-critical
At times of increased Euro-scepticism and low turnouts in European elections, it is important to cast a critical eye on EU achievements (and/or lack thereof). A fair description of setbacks and ways of addressing them would have been much more beneficial to the reader than the vague ideas that the document contains. For instance, EU2020 mentions that ‘obstacles to cross-border activity remain, which in turn reduce consumer choice, price competition and potential productivity’ (p. 9). It is a fact that overcoming such obstacles is vital in order to maintain a healthily functioning common market. Who is to blame for these obstacles and what measures is the Commission ready to take to tackle the problems?
It would also have been better had the documents left flowery phraseology aside. For example, the strategy claims that: ‘a Europe that is open to the world will continue to be a model for others to follow, projecting its values and fostering stronger labour, environmental, and safety standards around the globe’ (p.4). Unfortunately, the achievements of the last years in the above-mentioned standards have been very modest indeed. Such projection of ‘values’ hasn’t really shaken the ground either inside nor beyond European borders. On many issues, (such as the environment) Europeans have not yet managed to get their act together, so it is rather ambitious (if not impossible) to talk about a ‘European model’ Verhofstadt’s recent declaration that ‘the EU risks becoming a global Switzerland with no influence in global affairs’ gives a more precise overview of the modest EU achievements.
Conclusions
I named the EU2020 a ‘retro look on what the future was supposed to be’ because the strategy seems to have been written before the major financial crisis took place. It was then widely accepted that unregulated liberalism was the panacea to all problems and that the market would be somehow regulated by an ‘invisible hand’. However, it didn’t work out that way. Liberal strategies led us into major economic, financial and social crises. Yet, the language has not changed: becoming more productive and improving efficiency standards will continue to be the main themes. This rhetoric comes at a time when big bosses run away with millions while the great majority is left to flounder in precarious jobs or unemployment. Interestingly enough, no suggestions on improving efficiency and productivity are mentioned in relation to the Commission’s own performance!
The document neither provides reflections on aspects of the crisis that affected Europe nor critical evaluation on what has been done incorrectly. There is no mention on issues of social equality and redistribution of wealth. The strategy repeats the ‘education, education, education’ mantra, yet it fails to inspire by providing new solutions. EU2020 repeats the basics themes of ‘innovation of all sectors, improvement of productivity and IT,’ but does not set a clear vision based on concrete targets and initiatives. It sprinkles all issues with generous proportions of ‘green’ but steps back when it comes to allocating responsibility for environmental issues that have not been addressed.
Overall, the document lacks self-criticism, provides no feasible targets. EU2020 is characterised to a large degree by generalisations and vagueness. It does not address issues of social partners’s inclusion at times where everyone in Brussels talks about the importance of multi-level governance. It omits important actors (local government, NGOs, charities, trade unions) and thus overemphasises the importance of the public sector. It lacks imagination, uses a ‘langue du bois’ and in my opinion is grey, dull, and uninspiring.
Vasilis Margaras
