Lisbon Scorecard calls for focus and continuity in Lisbon process
'The EU should resist the temptation to add extra clutter to an already demanding economic reform agenda,' states the fourth Lisbon Scorecard, published by the Centre for European Reform. The scorecard is released in the run-up to the 2004 spring European Council, as well as the beginning of a mid-term review of the Lisbon process, which set the target of making Europe the world's most competitive economy by 2010 back in 2000. The report calls for prioritisation, saying that 'The EU pays lip service to focus and clarity, but in practice the Lisbon agenda has increased in scope every year since its inception.' The author of the scorecard, Alisdair Murray, also acknowledges the temptation to modify some of the Lisbon targets, which could be justified by the need to take account of the new Member States and make the goals realistic for all. However, such a move should be resisted, even for those targets which are unlikely to be met, for two reasons, according to Mr Murray: to maintain clear and consistent targets, and to avoid giving the impression that the EU lacks ambition with regard to economic reform. The report alludes to proposals from various coalitions of EU leaders intended to reinvigorate the Lisbon process. The Irish, Dutch, Luxembourg and British finance ministers have called for the EU to cut red tape, white the British, French and German leaders suggested spending more on research and development (R&D), and creating the post of 'Lisbon Commissioner'. 'In reality, most of these supposedly new ideas were simply restatements of existing proposals and commitments,' summarises Mr Murray. He also notes that such proposals should not be regarded as a means of shifting responsibility for reform from national governments to the Commission. The scorecard runs through the measures taken by the Commission and Member States in the various elements of the Lisbon agenda, which include innovation, enterprise and education. The innovation section is divided in two under the sub-headings 'information society' and 'R&D'. The Commission's eEurope Action Plan is praised by the scorecard for having increased the proportion of EU households with Internet access twofold, and the rapid spread of cutting edge technologies, such as broadband and third generation (3G) mobile phones is also highlighted. However, the EU continues to lag behind the US in the use of new technologies as well as in spending on information technology (IT). In terms of R&D, the scorecard notes progress towards a Community patent, the three per cent of GDP research spending target, the establishment of technology platforms, moves to reduce brain drain, discussions on increasing the EU's R&D budget and proposals to spend more of the EU's Structural Funds on R&D. Despite these initiatives, the EU continues to lag behind its principal competitor, the US, in all but one area covered by the Commission's annual innovation scoreboard - the total number of science and technology graduates. The scorecard gives the EU as a whole a grade 'C' for R&D, and selects Finland, Slovenia and Sweden as the 'heroes', while labelling Greece, Italy and Portugal as the 'villains'. Sweden and Finland are matching or outperforming the US in many areas, including R&D spending and patent applications, while Greece and Portugal are at the bottom of the table for both indicators. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia are ranked higher than Greece and Portugal on the innovation scoreboard, while Slovenia is applauded by Mr Murray for the number of patent applications filed at the European Patent Office in 2001 - 41 per million inhabitants, compared to less than ten per million in Greece and Portugal. Overall, the EU's Member States are divided into four groups. The Nordic Member States score well in almost every aspect of the Lisbon agenda - 'a reminder that a country can achieve high levels of competitiveness without importing wholesale the Anglo-American economic model.' A second group, comprising the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain, is 'highly committed to the Lisbon process and performs well on many, although not all, measures.' The third group includes France and Germany, whose reforms are described in the scorecard as 'unlikely to ensure the two countries achieve their Lisbon goals.' Greece and Portugal score poorly on most Lisbon measures, but are pushing through reforms, while Italy is described as 'sliding backwards'. A definitive assessment of the performance of the accession countries remains difficult, according to Mr Murray. However, it is already clear that several of these countries, including Estonia, Malta and Cyprus, are outperforming some of the EU's existing Member States.