Learning from Past Failures? Governance in the European Union from Lisbon 2000 to Lisbon 2020
| Published date | 01 June 2010 |
| Author | Mark Dawson |
| Date | 01 June 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X1001700201 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
17 MJ 2 (2010) 107
edItoR IAL
LeARnInG FRoM PAst FAILURes?
GoveRnAnCe In tHe eURoPeAn UnIon
FRoM LIsBon 2000 to LIsBon 2020
M D*
§1. INTRODUCTION
e March 200 0 Lisbon European Council was meant to be a tur ning point in the EU’s
history. Facing economic decline in relat ion to its ma in global competitors – Chi na,
Japan a nd the US – EU leaders announced their intention for the Union to become –
by 2 010 – the ‘most dynamic and competitive economic area in the world’. is was
accompanied by an overhaul of the EU ’s governance structu re, with Lisbon’s goals to be
achieved and monitored not by traditional legal methods , but through the Open Method
of Co ordination (OMC) – a so new governance instrument. It was only, EU leaders
reasoned, a coupling of ambitious EU-level target s with a commitment to recognizing
– and even celebrating – national diversity, that could allow the EU to wake-up from its
economic and political slumber.
10 years on, we are still wait ing. Assessing the rst ten years of t he strategy in early
2010, it was dicult for European leaders to put a s hiny gloss on the failure of t he
Union to meet Lisbon’s two main headl ine targets. While L isbon sought to raise overall
employment to 70% and to invest 3% of combined GDP in research and development by
2010, both targets had stagnated even before the recent economic crisis (with the average
employment rate rising only 4 points to 66% by 2008, be fore falling again, and R&D
spending st agnating at 1.8%).1 Far f rom gaining i n competitiveness, t he strategy’s goal
of making the EU a world leader in growth and innovation seems even further away in
2010 than it was at the strategy ’s inception.
e l ast 8 months has seen rapid attempts by the Commission and the European
Council to negotiate a ‘renewal’ of Li sbon for the next ten years. Both institut ions have
promised that the rst step in developing a new strategy should be reection on the
* Lecturer, Depa rtment of Internationa l and European Law, Maas tricht University.
1 See Commission Sta Working Document, Lisbon St rategy Evaluation Docume nt SEC (2010) 114 nal,
3.
To continue reading
Request your trial