abstract
09
04e
Europe 2020:
The New Lisbon Strategy
abstract
Europe 2020:
The New Lisbon Strategy
Abstract of the SER advisory report Europa 2020 : de nieuwe
Lissabon-strategie
The Hague, July 2009
SociaalEconomische
Raad
The Social and Economic Council in the Netherlands
The Social and Economic Council (Sociaal-E conomische Raad, SER) advises government
and parliament o n the outlines of national and internatio nal so cial and eco no mic
policy and o n matters of important legislation in the social and economic sphere.
Employers, employees and independent experts are equally represented in the SER.
Their recommendations voice the opinion of organised industry.
In additio n to its advisory function, the council is responsible for the execution of
certain laws.
A brochure on tasks, structure and procedures of the SER can b e obtained, free of
charge, from its Sales Department. Please also visit the SER’s home page on the
Internet: (ww w.ser.nl). It offers a host of information, such as the composition of the
Council and its committees, press releases and the latest news.
Social and Economic Council
Bezuidenhoutseweg 60
PO Box 90405
2509 LK The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)70 - 3 499 499
Fax: +31 (0)70 - 3 832 535
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.ser.nl
Telephone Sales Department: +31 (0)70 - 3 499 5 05
© 2009, Sociaal-Economische Raad
All rights reserved. Sections fro m the SE R advisory reports may b e used for the purpose
of quotation, with due acknowledgement of the source of the pub lication.
Translation of the ab stract o f the advisory report: Euro pa 2020: de nieuw e L issabo n-strategie,
2008, 178 pp., ISBN 90-6587-989-7.
Translated b y: Balance Maastricht/Amsterdam
ISBN 9 0-6587-991-9 / CIP
2
Contents
1
Introduction
7
2
Outline of advisory report
9
2.1
2.2
2.3
3
4
5
Social and economic policy agenda for E urope, 2010-2020
Recommendations for 2020
Improving the open method of coordination
9
10
13
Evaluation of the Lisbon Strategy since 2005
15
3.1
3.2
3.3
Review of the main points
Progress in various policy domains
Process
15
17
18
The new policy agenda for the decade ahead
19
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
19
19
20
21
23
Basic principle: promote public prosperity
The external dimension of the Lisbon Strategy
Economic po licy
Social policy
Environmental policy
Proposed adjustments to division of responsibilities and governance 25
5.1
5.2
5.3
Division of responsibilities between the E U and the Member States
Improving the open method of coordination
Dedicated use o f Community instruments
3
25
27
30
4
A BS TRA CT
5
6
1
Introduction
The present ab stract provides a detailed summar y in English of the Dutch Social and
Economic Council’s advisory report Europe 2020: The New Lisbo n St rategy, adopted in June
2009. The report responds to two sets of questions submitted by the Dutch Government,
one concerning the Lisbon Strategy after 2010 and the other concerning the European
Commissio n’s Social Po licy Agenda.
Section 2 outlines the Council’s main recommendations. The remaining sections focus
more specifically on the Government’s questions. Section 3 offers an evaluation of the
Lisbon Strategy since 2005. Section 4 sets out the new po licy agenda for the coming
decade, while section 5 discusses changes to the division of responsibilities and
governance proposed by the Council
7
I NT RO DUC TI O N
8
2
Outline of advisory report
2.1
Social and economic policy agenda for Europe, 2010-2020
In vest in increasing prosperity in the broad sense of the word
The key message is that the EU’s social and economic policy agenda should continue to
focus on increasing pro sperity in the b road sense of the word after 2010, i.e. by promoting
sustainability in three dimensions: peo ple (social), planet (ecological), and profit
(financial/economic). The extent to which that is possible depends largely o n improving
both the employment participation rate and labour productivity.
Shift the em phasis to labo ur productivity gro wth
Until now, the emphasis has been mainly on improving the employment participation
rate. T hat emphasis should now shift to improving lab our productivity per hour worked.
Public pro sperity and European integrat ion
The core aim of the Lisbo n Strategy is to b oost pub lic prosperity in future, by suppo rting
and exploiting the potential for sustainable growth in E urope as effectively as possible.
Membership of the European Union enables the individual Members States to cope more
effectively with the globalisation pro cess. On their own, they are too small to influence
the “rules of the globalisation game”. That is something that the EU can do, however.
The internal market makes an important co ntribution to public prosperity in E uro pe,
and the EU has adopted a communal set of social, environmental and consumer
protection policies for that reason. Coordinating national policy at European level can
lead to more effective outcomes, especially in times of crisis. The euro has demonstrated
its value b y providing stability where it was vitally needed.
European integ ration is successful precisely because it is much more than an alliance
between nations. Where concerted action has added value, the Memb er States have
transferred their authority and concentrated it in common structures. The E U is also a
community of shared values and has its own legal system. It not only imposes obligations
on the public and businesses, but also confers rights on them.
The so cial component of the Lisbon Agenda
The social component of the original Lisbon Strategy was clearly expressed in its objective:
“mo re and better jo bs and g reater social cohesion”. The social dimension will remain
important as a separate co mponent of the post-Lisbon A genda. Unacceptable forms of
policy competition must be combated, for example in connection with occupational
health and safety.
9
O UTL I NE OF
A DV I SOR Y REP OR T
A separate social dimension is also needed to win public acceptance of econo mic
integration. Pub lic worries about the possible consequences of business and job
relocatio ns are understandable. There should be no reason to do ub t society’s w illingness
to make a good job of these adjustment pro cesses. Those affected must b e ab le to count
on a social safety net and help finding a new jo b, although people are and will continue
to be responsible for supporting themselves if possible and for acquiring the necessary
qualifications and sk ills to do so.
Ext ernal dim ensio n
Memb ership of the E uro pean Union enab les the individual Members States to cope more
effectively with the globalisation process. At the same time, the EU has become such a
key player that its own policy-mak ing can have negative effects in non- EU countries.
The credit crisis has demonstrated that well-intentioned policy meant to prevent damage
at national or EU level can lead to major imbalances in the countries around us. The E U’s
trade, climate and energy policy can also have negative external effects.
The credit crisis is no reason to change course
The current credit crisis means that the EU will b e entering the coming decades in less
favourable circumstances than anticipated until recently. The crisis will inevitab ly knock
Europe back a few steps in terms of prosperity and employment participation. It will also
lead to a considerable increase in government debt in the Memb er States.
That is no reaso n to change course, however. It is important to continue working o n
increasing the employment participation rate. As the population continues to age,
however, the emphasis must shift more tow ard boosting lab our productivity, something
that w ill require an improvement in the EU’s innovative capacity.
The present crisis has also revealed flaw s in co ordination and integration. One clear
example concerns gaps in the supervisio n of cross-border financial institutions. It is
important to repair these flaws. The European Commission’s proposals and the De
Laro sière Group’s report offer a sound b asis for this.
2.2
Recommendations for 2020
Improving labour pro ductivity
It is important for the EU to chart its ow n economic course, focused on improving the
employment participation rate and labour productivity. The Member States must make
it po ssible fo r the E U to gain added value in completing the internal market and in
reinforcing the E uropean Research Area (for example by reallocating monies in the EU’s
budget). The EU must also be able to operate effectively o n the world stage.
After 2 010, E uro pe’s social and economic policy agenda should focus more on improving
labour productivity, and that shift in focus must affect the division of respo nsibilities
10
O U T L IN E O F A D VI S O R Y R E P O R T
between the EU and the Member States. The Member States have not made enough
progress in such areas as R&D, innovatio n and entrepreneurship working with the open
method of co ordination.
R&D, innovation and entrepreneurship
The EU could make great progress in these areas, relatively speaking, by co mpleting
the internal market and creating a European Research Area. Its budget and instruments
would need to be realigned with these efforts. Specifically, the Social and Eco no mic
Council recommends the following:
• Make more funding availab le in the EU b udget fo r the E uropean Research Area.
• Regard the research area as a knowledge triangle consisting o f education, research
and innovation, so that educatio n (in particular higher education) is more closely
involved in developing the European Research Area.
• Promote innovation and entrepreneurship thro ugh the effective operation o f the
internal market and by reducing the amount of red tape for b usinesses (in particular
small and medium-sized enterprises). The Small Business Act plays an impo rtant role
in removing barriers. One key way to reduce red tape lies in the agreement that
companies hiring their first employee can deal w ith all the relevant formalities
through a single service counter. T hat agreement, which dates from 2006, has yet to
be implemented in a number of Member States, including the Netherlands.
• Pursue a facilitato ry and supportive policy fo r promising clusters and secto rs,
focusing on b oosting their innovativeness. This policy, mainly a national one, merits
support by the European Union.
Equality between econom ic and social objectives
The Social and E conomic Council emphasises that the EU’s economic and social
objectives must b e regarded as equal. That means, for example – as indicated by the Court
of Justice in relevant rulings – that the free movement of goods, persons, services and
capital arising from EU law must be weighed up against the EU’s social policy objectives.
An impartial assessment of this kind means that neither the collective rights of
employees no r the fo ur freedoms enshrined in EU law will take precedence. T he peak
trade union federations would like this interpretation to be adopted in a social protocol
to the Treaty.
Econom ic policy and em ploym ent guidelines
The m acro -econom ic guidelines focus on increasing public pro sperity by means of b alanced,
sustainable growth. Significant points of concern include: the sustainability of government
finances after the crisis and in the light of the ageing po pulation; how governments and
the social partners can avoid procyclical policy; and how accountability fo r the cho ices
made in Natio nal Reform Programmes can help w in public support.
The micro-guidelines focus mainly on R&D, innovation and entrepreneurship. There is a
need to define an overall o bjective for labour productivity growth per hour worked by
11
O UTL I NE OF
A DV I SOR Y REP OR T
2020. To ensure that the necessary adjustments are made in good time, supplementary
targets (e.g. for R&D) and indicators (e.g. for entrepreneurship and the po sition of SMEs)
should also be determined.
The employ ment guidelines will continue to apply. They are:
• getting more people into the labour market and keeping them there, increasing the
supply of labour, and updating social security systems;
• improving the adaptability o f employees and businesses, with flexicurity being an
important guiding principle;
• investing more in human capital, in other words improving education, training and
skills.
The top priority at the moment is to minimise the impact of the credit crisis on
unemployment. That is why, where necessary, employees must be guided to new jo bs
as quick ly and effectively as possib le while lab our market reform continues.
Flexicurity
The flexicurity principle is a key element of the social policy agenda.
Flexicurity is not an end in itself, but a means of helping people find a job in every phase
of their working lives and maintain their career prospects in a rapidly changing economy.
For flexicurity to function pro perly, the two elements – flexib ility and security – must
be in proper balance. Once that is achieved, flexicurity can make a vital contributio n to
creating a dynamic, competitive labour market geared to the high level of employment
and so cial protection envisaged in Article 2 of the Treaty.
Improving the adaptability of employees and businesses and investing mo re in human
capital both fit in w ith the greater emphasis on pro ductivity growth. An ongoing concern
for so cial inclusion is also important in this regard, W ithin the context of the open
method of coordination for social inclusion and protection, that concern can be expressed
by look ing mo re closely at the issue of equal opportunity and active integration.
The European social partners will soon be concluding a framework ag reement on the
integration of disadvantaged g roups into the labour market and the workfo rce.
Com munity dim ension of social policy
The Social and Econo mic Council recommends that the division of powers and
responsibilities between the E U and the Member States sho uld be clearly defined in the
European social policy agenda.
The Community dimension of the EU’s social policy involves regulating transfrontier
labour mobility and employment conditions. With respect to labour mobility, w hat is
most important is to apply the principle of free movement to wo rkers from Romania and
Bulgaria and to properly regulate and implement the transfrontier mobility of knowledge
workers from non-EU countries.
12
O U T L IN E O F A D VI S O R Y R E P O R T
With respect to transfrontier employment conditions, the Social and Eco nomic Council
would like to see more emphasis on enforcing and monitoring compliance w ith existing
rules and regulations. This is needed to boost support for the further completion of the
internal market. Specifically, the Council is concerned ab out the enforcement of the
Po sting of Wo rkers Directive. Points to consider include:
• further arrangements facilitating administrative cooperation between the Member
States;
• coordination of the various administrative procedures used under E U law when
workers are posted abroad;
• a more precise definition of “business location” in order to exclude offshore companies;
• a sharper distinction in natio nal legislation between employee and self-employed
person.
Environment action programm es as context
It wo uld be advisable to root the environmental, climate and energy problem mo re
firmly in the Lisbon Strategy and to promote the ties between economic and ecological
innovation more systematically. The E U’s multi-year Environment Actio n Programme
offers an appropriate context fo r doing so. The new Lisbon Agenda and the next (seventh)
Environment Action Prog ramme should be clearly linked. By encouraging eco-efficient
innovation, the E U can use its environmental, energy and climate policy to make an
important contribution to the productivity agenda.
2.3
Improving the open method of coordination
The Social and E conomic Council makes the follow ing recommendations for improving
the open method of coordination:
• Separate monitoring and policy learning. It is difficult to learn w hile keeping an
eye on others. To promote policy learning, more emphasis should be placed on
comparative research, evaluations and policy experiments.
• Give the National Reform Prog rammes more of a leading role. The Member States
sho uld take the common, overall strategy more seriously in their Natio nal Reform
Programmes. T hey can do this by aligning their national Lisb on cycles with the terms
in office o f their national governments.
• Country-specific employment targets. For credib ility’s sake, it is important fo r the
Member States to set their own employment participation targets, in addition to and
derived from the overall E uropean target. These targets could then be converted into
specific Government policy statements and programmes, so that the Member States
would be accountable not only to their fellow Member States but also to their national
legislatures.
• Relevant and persuasive indicators. The number o f common objectives should not be
too large. Guidelines should correspond closely to these o bjectives. The targets should
be made tangible by applying relevant and persuasive indicators, making it easier to
evaluate the Memb er States on their performance. By publishing the results of the
13
O UTL I NE OF
A DV I SOR Y REP OR T
Memb er States by ob jective and indicator, the open method of coo rdination will also
gain in effectiveness. After all, no Member State wants to be bringing up the rear. It is
particularly important to set an effective overall ob jective fo r the micro-guidelines.
The Social and Eco no mic Council recommends identifying an objective for 2020 with
respect to labo ur productivity growth per hour worked. Consideration must, however,
b e g iven to the differing situations of the Member States at the start.
• Differentiation of the R&D target. The current R&D target remains important b ecause
R&D is a good indicator of future innovativeness. After 2010, however, it would b e
sensib le to differentiate between technologically advanced co untries and countries
that lag b ehind in this respect. That would not be the case for pub lic expenditure on
R&D, which should amo unt to at least 1% of GDP within the context of the Lisbon
Strategy.
14
3
Evaluation of the Lisbon Strategy since 2005
3.1
Review of the main points
In its advisor y repo rt Evaluatie van de Lissabon-strategie [Evaluation of the Lisbon Strategy]
(2004), the Social and Eco no mic Council stated that experience o f the Strategy had,
unfortunately, been largely negative. One key criticism of the first stage of the Lisbon
Strategy (2000-2005) was the lack of “ownership” by the Member States. The Kok Committee,
which produced an initial evaluation of the Lisbon Strategy at the request of the European
Council, also noted a confusing division of respo nsibilities (“ Everybody is responsible and
thus nobody” ).
Mindful of this background, the Social and Economic Council proposed a two-track
strategy. The first track is for the EU to stick to what it does b est, in particular completing
the internal market and creating a European Research Area. The second track is fo r
there to b e more commitment at national level. A dynamic internal market and tough
competitio n on the world markets make demands on society’s ability to adapt. To ensure
that these restructuring processes unfold in a responsible manner, the Member States
and the social partners must draw up a suitable social and economic agenda. That agenda
has taken the form of a National Refo rm Programme (NRP ).
Governance of the Lisb on Strategy has in fact been more effective in its second phase.
The Co mmunity and national dimensions have b een clearly delineated, and the various
policy processes are now more clo sely coordinated. Both improvements have made it
possible to involve stakeho lders (the social partners, environmental organisations, lower
tiers of government) mo re closely in the Lisbo n Strategy.
The national dim ension of the Lisbon Agenda
One major challenge for the Lisbon Strategy was to foster a deeper sense of “ownership”
on the part o f the individual Member States. How can the EU induce its Member States
to commit themselves more fully to policy domains in which they are largely sovereign?
In the course of the Lisbon Strategy, a method w as found to track and discuss policy
reform in the Member States and to link tho se reforms to the possibility of reciprocal
learning. That method involves commo n guidelines, some of which are linked to
quantifiable targets. The main ones are:
• the broad economic policy guidelines; after 2005, as part o f a streamlining operation
(see below ), these have included the macro-economic, micro -economic and
employment guidelines;
• The commo n objectives set within the context of the open method of coordination
for social protection and social inclusion – the social OMC.
15
E V A L UA T I ON O F T HE LI S B ON S T RA T E G Y S I NC E 2 00 5
Based on the broad economic po licy guidelines, each Memb er State draws up a three-year
National Reform Programme, which is updated every year.1 These documents are discussed
with stakeholders such as the social partners, enviro nmental organisations and lower
tiers of government and then sub mitted to the E uro pean Commission. The Commission
submits its co mments to the European Council. Ultimately, this leads to countr y-specific
recommendations (or “points to watch”). T he Member States must take these
recommendations into account when updating their NRPs.
In the Netherlands, stakeholders are invited to contribute to the actual substance o f the
NRP. T hat is not the case in every Member State, however, and the European Economic
and Social Committee is right to draw attention to this issue.
One strike against the Dutch NRP is that it is to o similar to a technical report by and for
specific experts. It is therefore an unsuitable vehicle to generate support for the Dutch
Lisbon Strategy.
St reamlining the various policy processes
Besides developing the Community and national dimensions of the Lisb on Strategy,
efforts have also been made to streamline the various co ordination pro cesses. In its 2000
advisory report So ciaal-econom ische beleidscoördinatie in de EU [Social and E conomic Policy
Coordination in the EU], the So cial and Economic Council noted the rapid growth in the
numb er o f coordination processes and argued in favo ur of streamlining and
co ordination.
After 2005, a number of these processes were indeed combined and streamlined. Now,
integrated economic policy and employment guidelines are drawn up that cover the
micro-economic, macro-economic and employment dimensions. The various coordination
pro cesses related to social inclusion and social protection have also been comb ined.
Uncertain status of enviro nmental policy
The streamlining operation is hampered by the confusion associated with the
environmental policy. Initially, it was an inherent part of the Lisbo n Strategy. After the
Mid-Term Review of 2005, it w as decided that the Lisbon Strategy would focus mainly on
employment and g row th. Shortly thereafter, however, the EU’s energy and climate policy
were hitched to the Lisbon Strategy (mainly for geo-political reasons).
Some progress has been made on environmental issues since 2005, particularly at E U
level. For example, a new and important Regulatio n on chemicals and their use was
introduced (REACH), as well as measures concerning air and water quality.
1
In the same way, national s trategy reports are drawn up based on the comm on objectives for soc ial protection and
soc ial inc lusion.
16
E V AL U AT IO N O F
T H E L IS BO N S T R AT E G Y S I N CE 20 05
The problem, however, is that these initiatives, while significant in themselves, were not
developed in conjunctio n with the other dimensions of the Lisbon Strategy. Since 2005,
the general impression is that the environmental dimension has been put on the back
burner, but that will not make the broad concept of prosperity credib le or help generate
public support for the Lisb on Strategy.
3.2
Progress in various policy domains
Econom ic policy
So far, assessments of the Lisb on Strategy indicate that there is reason to amend the
EU’s economic policy after 2010. Integration and coordination at EU level are flawed in
various respects, for example the transfrontier supervision of financial institutions, the
Community patent (agreement is still pending), and the E U budget, which does not yet
adeq uately support the Lisbon Agenda. In additio n, macro-economic policy co ordination
is far fro m ideal.
The Member States have made progress in such areas as R&D, innovation, entrepreneurship,
employment participation and employab ility via the open method of coo rdination.
They were already well on their way to meeting many of the employment participation
objectives when the credit crisis hit. Conversely, pro gress on meeting the R&D target of
3% of GDP by 2010 has been disappointing.
One po sitive development is that the Member States have accounted for their efforts
in National Reform Programmes (NRP) since 2005. In the Netherlands, this has made
it possible to involve stakeho lders (social partners, environmentalists, lower tiers of
government) in the national Lisbon Strategy.
Social policy
The E uropean social policy agenda corresponds with the general objectives o f the Treaty
as set out in Article 2: sustainable growth with a high level of social pro tectio n and
employment. The agenda also reflects the Treaty’s specific objective with respect to
employment policy coordination: to promote training and education, the adaptab ility
of employees, and labour markets that respond flexib ly to eco no mic change. The present
crisis will require adjustments to b e made, with a robust social system in place to guide
the relevant processes.
The basic underpinning s of the social policy agenda do not require adjustment; what is
important in the period ahead is to focus on practical implementation. However, there
are various reasons to shift the emphasis (Section 4) and reconsider the division of
respo nsibilities and governance of the Strategy and the relevant instruments (Section 5).
17
E V A L UA T I ON O F T HE LI S B ON S T RA T E G Y S I NC E 2 00 5
Enviro nmental policy
The environment has been one of the three foundations of the Lisbon Strategy since the
Gothenburg Summit (20 01). While the Strategy was being revised in 2005, it was decided
to shift the ecolo gical dimension to the back ground. Indeed, only one of the guidelines
relates to the environment. T he aim of sustainable growth and the major challenges this
presents for environmental, climate and energy policy require the E U to embed the
ecological dimension more firmly – and recognisably – in the Lisbo n Strategy in the
co ming period.
3.3
Process
Since 2005, the various policy processes have b een better coordinated at EU level.
That has led to 24 integrated guidelines for economic and employment policy (microguidelines, macro-guidelines and employment guidelines), based o n a three- year cycle
(currently 2 008-2010). The Memb er States repo rt o n the guidelines in their three-yearly
National Reform P ro grammes.
Working with the National Reform Programmes has clarified the division of responsibilities
for the Lisbon Strategy. One disadvantage is that the Lisbon Strategy policy cycle do es not
match the national policy cycle in the various Member States, which usually co rresponds
to four-year Government terms in office. As a result, the Member States too often regard
the current NRP s as just another reporting obligatio n.
18
4
The new policy agenda for the decade ahead
4.1
Basic principle: promote public prosperity
In the view of the Social and Economic Council, the Lisbon Strategy should focus o n
promoting public prosperity in accordance with the broad concept o f prosperity as the
Council understands it. That concept is closely allied with efforts to achieve sustainable
growth. Sustainability has three dimensions – people (social), planet (eco logical), and
profit (financial/econo mic) – and adds an inter-generational and international
dimension to the aim of public pro sperity.
In the present advisory report, the Social and Economic Council suggests ways of focusing
the Lisbon Strategy more sharply on sustainable growth, solidarity and the quality of life
within and outside the EU. In addition to the pub lic authorities, the social partners and
businesses have an important role to play in these efforts. The “Triple P” of the Lisbon
Strategy reflects the “Triple P” of corpo rate social responsib ility (CSR). 1
It w ill naturally be quite a challenge to attain economic, social and ecological objectives
simultaneously and in proper balance, and choices will certainly have to be made.
The various objectives can, however, also b e mutually reinforcing: a sound social policy
allow s people to take risk s, which in turn promo tes economic growth. In the same way,
working tow ard sustainab ility can fo ster innovation (and vice versa).
4.2
The external dimension of the Lisbon Strategy
Europe is the gateway to the world economy. None of the EU’s Member States can
influence the rules of the “world economy game” by themselves. T he E U, in co ntrast, is
powerful enough to have a major impact on that game, and to channel the globalisation
process in a way that leads to sustainab le growth in public prosperity w ithin and outside
the EU.
At the same time, the EU has become such a key player on the world stage that its ow n
policy-making can have unintended negative effects in non-EU countries. The credit crisis
has demo nstrated that well-intentioned po licy meant to prevent damage at national level
can lead to major imbalances in the countries around us. T he E U’s trade, climate and
energy policy can also have negative external effects.
A display of leadership by the EU implies that the Union can act on behalf of its Member
States on the wo rld stage. The Lisbon Treaty provides an extra framework for such action.
1
SER (200 1) Corporate Social Responsibility – A Dutch approach , Assen.
19
TH E N EW
PO LI C Y A G E ND A F O R T HE D E C A D E A HE A D
EU stan dards and values
The fundamental labour standards represent an important component of the EU’s standards
and values. They concern child lab our, forced labour, workplace and occupational
discrimination, and the freedom of association and collective action. In its advisory
report Sociaal-econom ische grondrechten in de EU [Fundamental Social and Economic Rights
in the EU], the Social and Economic Council argued that the fundamental labour
standards should be regarded as fundamental principles of EU law.
There is a prob lem with the fundamental labo ur standards, however: while they enjoy
broad suppo rt around the world, their implementation and enforcement leaves much
to be desired in many countries, frustrating the proposed sustainability policy at global
level and distorting internatio nal competitio n.
Macro-econom ic supervision and supervision of the financial markets
The credit crisis has not only exposed the need for European supervision of financial
institutions (see below ), b ut also revealed gaps in glo bal supervision. In the opinion o f the
Social and Economic Council, it is vital for rules and regulations and supervision to be
reinforced at global level as well. T he G20 too k a step in the right direction in April 2009
by agreeing to strengthen glob al financial supervision. A further po sitive development is
the IMF’s greater financial leeway.
In the longer term, the co mposition of the IMF’s board w ill have to be adjusted to reflect
the altered economic relationships. Emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil
are demanding mo re say, and not without good reason. E urope will have to relinquish
some of its influence to them, and the dominance of the USA must also be brought to
an end.
Ext ernal trade policy
It is crucial worldw ide that the current Doha Round negotiations lead to a world trade
agreement this year. Only some o f the original aims are likely to be achieved, but at the
very least, an agreement of this kind will severely limit the latitude countries have to
raise import tariffs. An agreement would also boost the po sition of the World Trade
Organization (WTO), an essential factor in combating a rising wave of protectionism.
It is furthermo re important to take the interests of developing countries into account as
the Doha Round negotiations draw to a close.
4.3
Economic policy
The world has changed considerab ly since 2000. The dominance of the USA on the world
stage is no lo nger unquestioned. After 2010, the E U will have to rely on its own strength
to a greater extent, and at the same time consider the consequences of its policy for
non-EU countries.
20
T HE NE W P OL IC Y A G E N D A
FO R T H E D E C AD E A H E A D
More diversity in t he EU
The EU has also changed considerably since 2000. The accession of so many new Member
States has g reatly increased diversity in the Union. That is something that the EU’s policy
agenda w ill have to consider much more after 2010. The same holds for its common
objectives. In selecting and applying a yardstick (for example labour pro ductivity grow th
per hour worked), the EU must consider the varying co nditions in each Memb er State at
the start.
Im proving labour productivity
It is important for the E U to chart its own economic course, focused on improving the
employment participation rate and lab our productivity. The Member States must make
it possible for the EU to gain added value in completing the internal market and in
reinforcing the European Research Area, certainly after 2010. At the same time, the EU
must also be able to operate independently on the wo rld stage.
After 2010, Europe’s social and economic policy agenda should focus mo re on improving
lab our productivity, and that shift in focus must affect the division o f responsibilities
between the EU and the Member States. The Member States have not made enough
progress in such areas as R&D, innovatio n and entrepreneurship working with the open
method of co ordination. The EU could make great progress in these areas, relatively
speak ing, by completing the internal market and creating a European Research Area.
Its b udget and instruments would need to be realigned w ith these efforts. Specifically,
this invo lves reallocating the EU b udget in favour of the European Research Area.
Im portance of relevant and persuasive indicators
More generally speaking, it is important to restrict the number of common objectives,
to ensure that the guidelines match these objectives, and to determine relevant and
persuasive indicators for clarification purposes. This will make it easier to assess how well
the Member States are performing with respect to the Lisbon Agenda. By publishing the
results of the Member States by objective and indicator, the open method of coordination
will also gain in effectiveness. After all, no Memb er State w ants to be bringing up the rear.
4.4
Social policy
Equality between econom ic and social objectives
The Social and Economic Council emphasises that the EU’s economic and social objectives
must be regarded as equal. That means, for example – as indicated by the Court of Justice
in relevant rulings – that the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital arising
from EU law must be weighed up against the EU’s social policy objectives.
In the Council’s view, that will guarantee that any collective actio n or collective
bargaining undertaken within the contex t o f the so cial objectives will be assessed
impartially in accordance w ith the principles o f legitimacy, efficiency and
21
TH E N EW
PO LI C Y A G E ND A F O R T HE D E C A D E A HE A D
pro portionality. The four fundamental freedoms will play a role in any such assessment,
but without precedence being given in advance to either the collective rights of employees
or the four freedoms.
The peak trade union federations believe that this interpretation should be ado pted in a
social protocol to the Treaty.
Flexicurity
The flexicurity principle is a key element of the social policy agenda. Flexicurity here
means a labour market instrument that aims – by means of rules and regulations,
support and incentives – to improve flex ibility in employment relations and labo ur
mobility o n the one hand and to ensure income and employment security on the other,
simultaneously and in mutual co ordination.
Flexicurity is not an end in itself, but a means of helping people find a job in every phase
of their working lives and maintain their career prospects in a rapidly changing economy.
For flexicurity to function properly, the two elements – flexibility and security – must be
in proper b alance. Once that is achieved, flex icurity can make a vital contrib ution to the
long-term development of a dynamic, competitive labour market geared to the high level
of employment and social protection envisaged in Article 2 o f the Treaty.
Emplo yment guidelin es – priorities
Given the challenges the EU is facing, the employment guidelines’ priorities remain
valid. T hey are:
• getting more people into the labour market and keeping them there, increasing the
supply of labour, and updating social security systems;
• improving the adaptability o f employees and businesses, with flexicurity being an
important guiding principle;
• investing more in human capital, in other words improving education, training and
skills.
The top priority at the moment is to minimise the impact of the credit crisis on
unemployment b y guiding employees to new jobs as quickly and effectively as possible
while co ntinuing to reform the lab our market.
Improving the adaptability of employees and businesses and investing mo re in human
capital both fit in with the greater emphasis placed on productivity g row th in the social
and econo mic agenda for the next decade. An ongoing concern for social inclusion is
also important in this regard. That is why the Social and Eco nomic Council supports
the European Commission’s intention of loo king more closely at the issue of equal
opportunity and active integration within the context of the open method of coordination
for so cial inclusion and protection. In this connection, the Council has noted the
22
T HE NE W P OL IC Y A G E N D A
FO R T H E D E C AD E A H E A D
framework agreement that the European social partners will shortly conclude on the
integration of disadvantaged groups into the lab our market and workfo rce.
Comm unit y dimension
The Co mmunity dimension o f the EU’s social policy involves regulating transfrontier
lab our mo bility and employment conditions. With respect to labo ur mob ility, what is
most important is to apply the principle of free movement to workers from Romania and
Bulgaria and to properly regulate and implement the transfrontier mo bility of
knowledge workers from non-EU countries.
With respect to transfrontier employment co nditions, greater emphasis must be placed
on enfo rcing and monitoring compliance with existing rules and regulatio ns. This is
needed to b oost support for the further co mpletio n of the internal market. Specifically,
the Council is concerned about the enforcement of the Posting of Workers Directive.
Po ints to consider include:
• further arrangements facilitating administrative cooperation between the Member
States;
• coordination of the various administrative procedures used under E U law when
workers are posted abroad;
• a more precise definition of “business location” in order to exclude offshore companies;
• a sharper distinction in natio nal legislation between employee and self-employed
person.
European so cial dialo gue
The Social and E conomic Council stresses the importance of the European social
dialogue. Collectively agreed social ob jectives, such as those set out in the Treaty (Article
136), are the result not only of the internal market or policy coordination between the
Member States, but also of consultations between the social partners.
4.5
Environmental policy
Im portance of European env ironm ental policy
Many environmental issues are transfrontier ones and require international coordination
so as to prevent present and future loss o f prosperity. The Euro pean Union plays a vital
role in international coordination. T he environment is one of the policy areas in which
the EU and the Memb er States share responsib ility. Environmental protection requires
integration with policy in a range of different sectors. The Lisbon T reaty gives the EU a
separate legal basis from which to pursue a specific energy policy.
Environment Actio n Program mes as co ntext
It would be advisab le to ro ot the environmental, climate and energy issue more firmly in
the Lisbon Strategy and to promote the ties between econo mic and eco logical innovation
more systematically. The EU’s multi-year E nvironment Action Programme offers an
23
TH E N EW
PO LI C Y A G E ND A F O R T HE D E C A D E A HE A D
appropriate context fo r doing so . The new Lisb on Agenda and the next (seventh)
Environment Actio n Programme sho uld be clearly linked.
The sixth and current Environment Actio n Prog ramme distinguishes four priority policy
fields: climate change; nature and biodiversity; environment and health; and natural
resources and waste. In its Mid-Term Review in 2007, the European Commission o bserved
that the EU had not made much progress tow ard sustainab le grow th: 2
There has only been lim it ed progress w ith the fundamental issues of integratin g environmental
concerns int o other policy areas and impro ving the enforcem ent of EU legislatio n. Many
enviro nmental pressures are actually increasing: global emissio ns o f greenho use gasses are
rising, the loss o f biodiversity is accelerating, pollution has a majo r effect o n public health, the
amo unt of waste produced inside the EU co ntinues to increase, and o ur ecolo gical footprint is
steadily grow ing.
Climate change, biodiversity, health and resource use remain the most pressing environmental
challenges…
A review of the m ost recent scientific situatio n does reveal several gaps between the objectives
set in the 6th EAP and the measures set o ut fo r achieving these objectives. In these areas existing
m easures w ill have to be strengthened o r new m easures adopted.
The new Lisbon Strategy should naturally also cover such issues. Eco-efficient innovations
– which offer b oth economic and environmental advantages – should be promoted as an
important resource. In this w ay, the EU’s environmental, energy and climate policy can
make a significant contribution to the productivity agenda.
Clim ate policy
In terms of climate policy, the most important challenge worldwide is to halt the progress
of global w arming. T he Social and E conomic Council is convinced that the worldw ide
carbo n trade can play a significant role in this endeavour. This issue must b e tack led at
global level in order to guarantee a level playing field. That is why the Council believes
that E urope should suppo rt extensive CO 2 emissions trading in the negotiations fo r a
new global climate coalition.
Tax measures
The Social and Econo mic Council advocates well-considered tax-related measures at EU
level that benefit the environment, and it supports the suppression of funding that
harms the environment or other tax-related facilities having similar negative effects.
The European Union Emission T rading Scheme is important within that context.
2
European Com m ission, M id-term review of the Sixth Com mu nity Environm en t Ac tion Programm e (Com m unication) ,
CO M(2 007) 225, Bru ssels, 30 -4-2007, p. 17.
24
5
Proposed adjustments to division of responsibilities
and governance
5.1
Division of responsibilities between the EU and the Member States
European Research Area
The assessment show s that the open metho d of coordination has produce little prog ress
in R&D, innovation and labour productivity, even though there is ample oppo rtunity to
continue developing the European Research Area at EU level.
Vario us criteria play a role in applying the sub sidiarity principle:
• the degree of variation in national or regional preferences - g reater diversity requires
mo re scope for national or regional policy;
• possible economies of scale;
• transfrontier effects, or the extent to which knowledge creation is a public good;
• the possib ility of policy learning, for example via the o pen metho d of co ordination.
Bearing these criteria in mind, it will likely always be necessary to find the right b alance
between national policy and supplementar y Co mmunity policy. Member States differ
from one ano ther in terms of their starting position, preferences and po tential for
innovation. Tho se that are not among the technological front-runners, for example,
have the opportunity to catch up without requiring a huge effo rt in R&D.
Although the national scale is and w ill remain important, the criteria show that it would
be useful to allow the EU to play a larger role in developing the European Research Area.
It can do so by deploying a larger range of instruments/powers and by using its budget
more specifically to promote k now ledge and innovation.
Distinction b etween national and Community dimensio n in the social policy agenda
The Social and E conomic Council has already advocated making a clear distinction
between the national and European dimensions of the social and economic policy agenda.
That distinction was introduced in the Lisb on Agenda in 2005, but the two dimensions
are still jumbled together in the current social policy agenda. T he Social and Economic
Council finds this an undesirable state of affairs and argues that the division of duties
and responsibilities between the E U and the Member States sho uld be clarified here as
well.
Tax law
Tax law is at the heart of the Member States’ national sovereig nty. That is why w ithin the
EU, autonomy in tax po licy matters is protected by the requirement o f unanimity in taxrelated decisio n-making. European integration is helping to make taxatio n an important
25
PR OP OS E D A D J US T ME NT S T O D IV I S I ON O F RE S PO NS I B IL I T I E S A N D G OV E RN A NC E
instrument of policy competition between governments. Policy competition of this kind
generally has the effect of improving discipline and efficiency.
Harmful forms of policy competition are also common in tax matters, however; they
distort competition between businesses and could lead to a “tax race to the bottom”, the
end result b eing that capital, as a mobile factor, would be eliminated as a tax base (and
all direct taxation wo uld come to be charged o n labour).
This raises the question of how tax-related policy co mpetition can b e safely channelled in
the EU, with a view to promoting the successful operatio n of the internal market.
Important points to consider in that connection are:
• preventing impediments to free movement (double taxation on businesses; tax and
social insurance contributions deducted from b order workers’ income; tax treatment
of pensions);
• comb ating significant distortions of co mpetition (including corporate tax facilities
that can be regarded as state aid);
• promoting Community objectives – for example with respect to sustainable growth
and the Lisbon Strategy – by means of indirect taxation;
• b attling fraud and abuse.
The existing distribution of authority in tax matters does not adhere to the principle of
subsidiarity in all respects. In a previous advisory report, the Social and Economic Council
argued that the requirement of unanimity should be relaxed in order to avoid long-term
impediments to the integration pro cess. This is easier said than done, however.
Supervisio n of financial institutio ns
The credit crisis has also revealed serio us flaws in the way transfrontier financial
institutions are supervised. Monetary policy in the E MU is centralised, with the financial
markets being closely integrated. That has led to a growing number of financial institutions
that operate across national borders. Innovations in the financial world also mean that
the risk s are more spread out.
Financial institutio ns – including transfrontier ones – are supervised by national
regulators, however. Regulators coo rdinate and cooperate with one another, but their
co ordination is not compulsor y, making it difficult for them to take timely preventive
action. In crisis situations, which can spread rapidly acro ss national borders, it is unclear
who is responsib le for what.
A High-Level Group on Financial Supervision, headed b y former IMF Managing Director
Jacques de Larosière, issued its report in Februar y 2009. It makes reco mmendations for
improving regulations and the level of coordination between European regulato ry
bodies.
26
PRO PO S E D A D J U S T M E N T S T O D I V IS IO N OF R E S P ON S I BI L IT IE S A ND G OV E R NA N CE
Based on this report, the European Commission has now issued proposals on the basic
architecture of a new E uropean financial supervisio n system. The Commission proposes
to introduce legislative amendments this year so that the new European financial
supervision system will b e operational in 2010 .1
The Social and E conomic Council believes that the Commission’s proposals are a step
in the right direction; they go a lo ng w ay toward addressing the previously noted lack o f
integration with respect to transfrontier supervision of financial institutions.
5.2
Improving the open method of coordination
Separating m onitoring and policy learning.
One of the aims of the open method of coordination (OMC) is policy learning. There
are signs that the OMC is failing to meet that aim. Po licy learning does not thrive when
combined with monitoring and peer pressure in a highly politicised environment.
Po licy-makers are more likely to defend their ow n policy in such a context than to admit
that they may be able to learn so mething from others who perhaps do it better. It is
difficult to learn while keeping an eye on others.
To promote policy learning, it would be better to separate it from monitoring and peer
pressure so as to “depoliticize” it. One goo d example is the approach taken by the OE CD;
this would entail placing more emphasis on comparative research, scientific conferences
and expert meetings (w ith the participation of the social partners). More use should also
be made of the results of evaluations and policy experiments in order to explore what
does and does not work w hen it co mes to active labour market policy, lifelong learning
and employee training. This is an argument in favour of more evidence-b ased policymaking.
Give the National Reform Programm es mo re o f a leading role
The Member States should take the EU’s common, overall strategy more serio usly in their
Natio nal Reform Programmes. One way of doing so is to have the natio nal Lisbon cycle
in each Member State correspond with its Government’s term in office after 2010. The
Government’s policy prog ramme w ill then automatically take the commo n guidelines
into account. It will also be more acceptable for the EU to questio n new Governments at
length about the aims of their national Lisb on Strategy.
This approach may affect the number of guidelines (24 at present), common objectives,
and indicators used to measure progress.
1
Eu rop ean Com mis sion, Com mun ication from the Com missio n; European Fin ancial S upervision , COM (2009 ) 252 final,
Brussels, 27 M ay 2009
27
PR OP OS E D A D J US T ME NT S T O D IV I S I ON O F RE S PO NS I B IL I T I E S A N D G OV E RN A NC E
Macro-gu idelines
The macro-economic guidelines focus mainly on increasing public prosperity by promoting
balanced, sustainable grow th. Their purpose is to coordinate the vario us po licy domains,
as well as the policies of the natio nal governments and the social partners.
One point of concern is that the macro-guidelines make no reference to the external
dimensio n of the EMU. This is disadvantageous fo r Member States that use the euro as a
reference currency but whose interests are disregarded in the policies of the euro zo ne
co untries and the E uropean Central Bank .
It would be advisab le to loo k more closely at the following when developing the macroeconomic g uidelines:
• The future of government finances in the light o f the recession. Measures that w ill
get government finances back on track and how they should be paced.
• The sustainab ility of government finances in the light of the ageing population.
• Coordination between the national governments and the social partners with respect
to their separate responsibilities. This also covers how governments and the social
partners can avoid procyclical policy.
• Coordination between monetar y and budgetar y policy, especially in the euro zone.
•
The proper balance between budgetary autonomy (adhering to the rules of the
Stability and Growth Pact) and contrib uting to the macro-economic stabilisation of
the EU and the euro zone respectively.
• Solidarity between the Member States in the euro zo ne, between the euro zo ne and
other EU Member States, and b etween the euro zone and non-EU countries.
• Accountability fo r choices made in the National Reform Prog rammes in order to gain
pub lic support.
• The merits of a euro- zone-wide “ Natio nal” Reform Programme.
Micro -guidelines: overall objective and indicators
It would be advisab le with respect to the micro- guidelines in particular to identify an
effective overall o bjective. T he Social and Economic Council recommends identifying an
objective for 2 020 for labour productivity growth per hour worked. Consideration must,
however, be given to the differing situations of the Member States at the start. Member
States that w ill benefit from their effo rts to catch up should aim to attain a relatively
large degree o f labour productivity growth.
Lab our productivity grow th is a good overall objective for the long term. The problem,
however, is that it is difficult to make yearly adjustments with this o bjective. The diag ram
in the appendix shows that labour productivity growth depends on the policy implemented
in a variety of different domains. To make yearly adjustments possible, additional
indicators will be required.
28
PRO PO S E D A D J U S T M E N T S T O D I V IS IO N OF R E S P ON S I BI L IT IE S A ND G OV E R NA N CE
One example are the indicators related to promoting entrepreneurship and improving
the positio n of SME s. They sho uld focus not only on reducing the volume of bureaucratic
red tape, but also on streamlining and simplifying the rules and speeding up procedures.
The Small Business Act for Europe (SBA) and its evaluation play an important role in this
respect.
The current R&D target remains important because R&D is a good indicator o f future
innovativeness. After 2010, however, it would be sensible to differentiate between
techno logically advanced countries and countries that lag b ehind in this respect.
Countries in the vanguard should make extra investments in R&D; after all, it is they
that must push forw ard the boundaries o f technology.
The secondar y target for public expenditure on R&D need not take the starting position
of the various countries into account; it sho uld basically amo unt to at least 1% of GDP
for all Memb er States.
That means that the Dutch government will also need to make up for lost g ro und in this
regard. In addition, private investment in R&D w ill need to increase in the Netherlands
if the countr y is to join the trendsetters in Europe, as it aims to do.
Em ploym ent guidelines
For credibility’s sake, it is important for the Member States to identify their own employment
participation targets, in addition to and derived fro m the overall European objective.
These targets could then be co nverted into specific Government policy statements and
programmes, so that the Memb er States would b e accountable not only to their fellow
Member States but also to their national legislatures. This would increase the political
cost of failing to achieve the targets. The national action programmes sho uld indicate
how the E uropean agreements are to be co nverted into national policy aims. In order
to prevent the common aims from b eing eroded, agreements must b e reached abo ut
a minimum increase in the net employment participation rate (for example by five
percentage points).
To increase bo th peer pressure and domestic political pressure, a “scoreb oard” can be
introduced for the employment ob jectives. This would show at a glance how the various
Member States co mpare. No country enjoys being at the b ottom of the list, after all.
The current method used to present performance o n the employment guidelines is too
fragmented, allow ing Member States that perfo rm poorly to get off much too easily.
Guidelines for so cial protect ion and so cial inclusion
There is an obvious connection between the broad social and economic policy guidelines
and the social protection and social inclusion guidelines. The aim of public prosperity
requires an integrated approach encompassing contractual relationships, labour market
measures, training and social protection. Some caution should be exercised in formulating
29
PR OP OS E D A D J US T ME NT S T O D IV I S I ON O F RE S PO NS I B IL I T I E S A N D G OV E RN A NC E
quantifiab le targets for so cial pro tection at E uropean level, given the many different
systems in operation in the Memb er States.
5.3
Dedicated use of Community instruments
The Social and Economic Council recommends giving the Lisb on Strategy greater support
by the dedicated use of the EU’s key instruments: its legislation and b udgetary resources.
Kno wledge triangle: education, research and innovation
The Social and Econo mic Council notes that, although advocated by the E uropean
Commission, the fifth freedom (free movement of knowledge) has not been implemented
in full. For example, the European Research Area can be regarded as a “knowledge triangle”
co nsisting of education, research and innovation. The EU has already introduced various
funds and instruments related to research and innovation, b ut the education side of the
triangle is virtually empty. In view of the complementar y nature of knowledge, innovation
and higher education, the Council co nsiders it extremely important for education to
become more of a priority o n the Community Agenda.
More concern for t he posit ion of research universities and universities o f applied sciences
In the current higher education system, which is organised on a national basis, universities
tend to resemble one another too closely, with too little differentiation, specialisation
or excellence. As a result, Europe fails to make enough use of outstanding talent; top
researchers and students prefer American universities; and European universities cannot
attract an adequate number of talented researchers and students from non-EU countries.
If knowledge is to be the most important factor o f production in future, then this trend
poses a major threat to the post-Lisbon ambitions. Ultimately, it means that the contribution
higher education makes to improving lab our productivity will be inadequate.
All this means that the EU must pay closer attention to the position o f research
universities and universities of applied sciences in the post-Lisbon Agenda. Relevant
points of concern are:
• the autonomy o f the universities: their autonomy must b e reinforced w ithin a public
system (as in Northwest Europe, including the Netherlands), creating more scope for
differentiation, specialisation and excellence;
• improving the university funding system: compared with their key OECD competitors,
universities in EU countries receive too little funding for education and research;
•
increasing general spending on higher education: spending on higher education
must increase across the b oard as part o f a strategy to improve labour pro ductivity in
the long term;
• the university classification system: there should be a sharper distinction between
research universities (which combine higher education and research) and universities
of applied sciences (higher vocational education). A proper classification system also
means greater transparency for students;
30
PRO PO S E D A D J U S T M E N T S T O D I V IS IO N OF R E S P ON S I BI L IT IE S A ND G OV E R NA N CE
• combining research and hig her education as much as possible: it is essential to the
training and career prospects of knowledge workers to offer them a combination o f
higher education and outstanding research. Research universities in fact place higher
in international rank ings, which in tur n helps them attract talented fo reign students
and researchers;
• improving student and staff mobility by expanding grant programmes and removing
barriers. 2
Excellence in higher educatio n also depends on the influx of students from secondary
general and vocational education. Investing in higher educatio n in order to engender
excellence therefo re means investing in education as a whole, so that excellence can b e
guided toward higher education and skills and competencies can be matched to the
demands of the labour market.
Eighth Fram ework Program me for R&D
The Eighth Framework Programme for Research and Development, which will commence
in 2014, should strike a better balance between science and business so as to improve
Europe’s competitiveness. Further points of attention should be to simplify the Programme’s
bureaucratic procedures and make it more accessible for SMEs.
In novation, ent repreneurship and industrial po licy
Innovation is supported via the operation o f the internal market and by boosting
entrepreneurship. In this connection, the Social and Economic Council would emphasise
the need to reduce bureaucratic red tape for businesses. T he bureaucratic obligations are
more onerous for SMEs than for large European companies.
The policy of both the EU and the Member States should therefore focus on resolving the
problems faced by SME s. The Small Business Act for Europe (SBA) plays an important role
in this respect. The proposed evaluation of the SBA is fairly noncommittal. To make it
more concrete, it would be advisab le to introduce a “scoreboard” with well-defined
evaluation criteria at European and national level. One key way to reduce red tape lies in
the agreement that companies hiring their first employee can deal with all the relevant
formalities through a single service counter. That agreement, which dates from 2 006, has
yet to b e implemented in a number of Member States, including the Netherlands.
Ano ther desirab le avenue is to pursue a facilitatory and supportive policy for promising
clusters and sectors, focusing on boosting their innovativeness. This policy, mainly a
national one, merits support by the European Union.
2
See also: The Bologna Process 2 020 – Th e Europea n Higher Edu cation Area in the new deca de. Com mun iqu é of the Con ference of European M inisters Resp onsible for High er Education , Leu ven and Lou vain-la-Neuve, 28-29 April 2009,
item s 18 an d 1 9.
31
PR OP OS E D A D J US T ME NT S T O D IV I S I ON O F RE S PO NS I B IL I T I E S A N D G OV E RN A NC E
EU budget
In the view of the Social and Eco no mic Council, the E U b udget should be deployed more
specifically to achieve the Lisbon objectives. That means, for example, allocating mo re of
the budget to reinforce the know ledge triangle.
The Council refers in this connection to a study that co mpares the breakdow n of the
EU’s budget to an eco nomically efficient b udget that can be derived from the principle
of subsidiarity.3 The study also distinguishes between what is econo mically desirable and
what is po litically feasible.
Generally speak ing , it would be advisable for more of the EU budget to b e spent on R&D,
environmental policy, transfro ntier networks and international cooperatio n.
The ESF is also available to co-finance measures intended to address the impact of the
credit crisis on employment. T he So cial and E conomic Council recognises the desirab ility
of allocating more of the ESF monies to implementing the social policy agenda. This
would, however, depend o n closer supervision of the expenditure by European audit
offices and the obligation to set targets and o bjectives in advance for ESF projects and to
then systematically collect data on the projects so that a pro per evaluation b eco mes
possib le. This w ill provide mo re insight into the effectiveness of the ESF mo nies and can
help foster policy learning.
3
Ecorys Nederland BV, N etherlands Bu reau for Ec onom ic Policy An alysis (C PB) and Institute for Econom ic Research
(IF O) (20 08) A study on EU spending , Rotterdam, 24 Jun e 2008 .
32
A P P EN DI X
33
34
APPEN DI X
35
A PP E ND IX
36
List of publications
General comments
The Social and Economic Council publishes a series of b ooks every year containing its key
advisor y and other reports. A year-lo ng subscriptio n to this series costs  90.50. Separate
copies may be purchased for  7.50 each (unless indicated o therwise). The Council also
compiles separate abstracts of most of its reports, which can be consulted o n our
website. So me of the abstracts are pub lished in b ook fo rm (see lists o f abstracts in Dutch
and in translation). The list of recent publications indicates in which languages these
ab stracts are available (free o f charge): N stands fo r Dutch, E for English, F fo r French,
G for German and S fo r Spanish.
For a complete list of pub lications, please visit our web site (w ww.ser.nl).
Advisory reports
Abstracts
Consumenten rechten in de interne markt
2009, 120 pp., ISBN 90-6587-990-0, besteln r. 09/05
Europa 2020: de n ieuwe Lissabonstrategie
2009, 178 pp., ISBN 90-6587-989-7, besteln r. 09/04
E
Diversiteit in h et personeelsbestand
2009, 94 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-988-9, b estel nr. 09/03
Een kwestie van gezo nd verstand
2009, 184 pp., ISBN 90-6587-986-2, besteln r. 09/02
Veilig omgaan m et nanodeeltjes op de werkplek
2009, 156 pp., ISBN 90-6587-984-6, besteln r. 09/01
Duurzame glob aliserin g: een wereld te win nen
2008, 334 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-973-0, bestel nr. 08/06
E
Waarden van de landbou w
2008, 106 pp., ISBN 90-6587-971-4, besteln r. 08/05
E
Zu inig op de Ran dstad
2008, 82 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-969-2, b estel nr. 08/04
Langdurige zorg verzekerd: toekom st van d e AWBZ
2008, 288 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-970-6, bestel nr. 08/03
Kernenergie en een duurzame energievoo rziening
2008, 106 pp., ISBN 90-6587-968-4, besteln r. 08/02
E
Evenwichtig Ondern em ingsbestuur
2008, 100 pp., ISBN 90-6587-966-8, besteln r. 08/01
Evenwichtig Ondern em ingsbestuur: bijlage met consultatie en on derzoeksrapportages
2008, 215 pp., ISBN 90-6587-967-6, besteln r. 08/01A
37
Benoemingsrech t Soc iaa l-Eco nomische R aad 1 april 200 8 – 1 april 2010
2007, 28 pp ., ISB N 90-6587-965-X, besteln r. 07/07
M eedoen zo nder beperkingen
2007, 212 pp., ISBN 90-6587-958-7, besteln r. 07/06
Groenb oek H erziening co nsumentena cquis
2007, 54 pp ., ISB N 90-6587-957-9, bestel nr. 07/05 E
Lissabon in de wijk: het grotestedenbeleid in een nieuwe fase
2007, 58 pp ., ISB N 90-6587-953-6, bestel nr. 07/04
E
Eenvoudige procedure voor eenvou dige civiele zaken
2007, 86 pp ., ISB N 90-6587-951-x, besteln r. 07/03
E
A rbeidsmigratiebeleid
2007, 212 pp., ISBN 90-6587-948-x, besteln r. 07/02
E
Niet de afko mst m aar de toekom st
2007, 122 pp., ISBN 90-6587-947-1, b estel nr. 07/01
E
Toekom stige energievoorziening
2006, 120 p p., ISBN 90-6587-943-9, bestelnr. 06/10
E
M obiliteitsm anagement
2006, 44 pp., ISBN 90-6587-942-0, besteln r. 06/09
E
Welvaartsgroei door en voor iedereen
2006, 150 p p., I SBN 90-6587-937-4, bestel nr. 06/08
E,F,D ,S
Welvaartsgroei door en voor iedereen: Th em adocum ent Sociale inn ovatie
2006, 66 pp., ISBN 90-6587-938-2, besteln r. 06/08 I
Welvaartsgroei door en voor iedereen: Th em adocum ent Arbeidsverhoudin gen
2006, 90 pp., ISBN 90-6587-939-0, besteln r. 06/08 II
Welvaartsgroei door en voor iedereen: Th em adocum ent Arbeidsm arktperspec tieven
laaggeschoolden en ontwikkeling kwalificatiestruc tu ur beroepsbevolkin g
2006, 58 pp., ISBN 90-6587-940-4, besteln r. 06/08 III
Personenkring werknem ersverzekeringen
2006, 154 p p., I SBN 90-6587-926-9, bestel nr. 06/07
E
Nederland en EU-milieu richtlijnen
2006, 86 pp., ISBN 90-6587-925-0, besteln r. 06/06E
Cofinanciering van het EU-landbouwbeleid
2006, 70 pp., ISBN 90-6587-924-2, besteln r. 06/05
E
Voorko men arbeidsmarktknelpu nten collec tieve sector
2006, 100 pp ., I SBN 90-6587-923-4, b estel nr. 06/04 E
Wegn em en belem meringen voor doorwerken n a 65 jaar
2006, 100 pp ., I SBN 90-6587-922-6, b estel nr. 06/03
A dviezen van de Bestuurskamer inz ake hergroepering bedrijfslich amen 1 998-2 003
2003, ISBN 90-6587-845-9
deel 1 (212 pp .)
deel 2 (219 pp .)
38
E
Surveys
CSED-rapport: M et Eu ropa meer groei
2004, 210 pp., ISBN 90-6587-880-7
N, E, F
Witte vlekken op pensioengebied, quick scan 2001
2002, 94 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-815-7
CSED-rapport: Levensloopbanen: gevolgen van veran deren de arbeidspatron en
2001, 140 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-797-5
CSED-rapport Gezondheidszorg in het licht van de toekom stige vergrijzing
1999, 198 pp., ISBN 90-6587-720-7
CSED-rapport Economische dyn amiek en sociale u itsluiting
1997, 220 p p., I SBN 90-6587-656-1
CSED-rapport A rbeidsmarkt, informatietechnologie en internationalisering
1996, 189 p p., ISBN 90-6587-610-3
Abstracts in English, French, German, Spanish and Dutch (free of charge)
08/02e
Nuclea r En ergy an d S ustain able En ergy Provision
2008, 78 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-972-2
06/08e
Increasing prosperity by and for everyone
2006, 38 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-955-2
06/08f
Accroissement de la p rosperité par et po ur chacu n
2007, 40 pp., ISBN 90-6587-952-8
06/08s
Crecimiento d el bienestar por y para todo el mundo
2007, 40 pp., ISBN 90-6587-954-4
06/08d
Gem einsam Wohlstandswachstu m für alle schaffen
2007, 40 pp., ISBN 90-6587-956-0
06/05e
Co-financing of the Com mon A gricu ltural Policy
2006, 32 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-927-7
05/07f
La directive aux services dans le marché intérieur
2005, 24 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-907-2
05/07d
Dienstleistungsrichtlinie
2006, 26 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-909-6
05/07f
La directive aux services dans le marché intérieur
2005, 24 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-907-2
39
05/07d
S ER-Em pfehlungsentwurf z ur Dienstleistu ngsrichtlinie
2005, 26 pp., ISBN 90-6587-909-9
03/08e
Employee Involvem ent in th e Eu ropean Company
2003, 32 pp., ISBN 90-6587-859-9
03/08n
De rol van de werknemers in de Eu ropese vennoo tschap
2003, 26 pp., ISBN 90-6587-856-4
03/04e
Generating K nowledge, S haring K nowledge
2003, 26 pp., ISBN 90-6587-858-0
03/02e
Towards a susta in able eco nomy
2003, 24 pp., ISBN 90-6587-855-6
03/01e
Conven tion on the F uture of Eu rope
2003, 18 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-842-4
03/01f
La Convention sur l’avenir de l’Europe
2003, 18 pp ., I SB N 90-6587-844-0
02/10e
The New L earning - Advisory report on lifelong lea rning in the knowledge-ba sed econo my
2002, 20 pp., ISBN 90-6587-825-4
Other publications
Indu strial relations and th e adaptability of the Dutch economy
2007, 88 pp ., ISB N 90-6587-961-7, p ubl ication no. 06/08 IIe
S tatement on the occasion of the fiftieth ann iversary of the Treaty of Rom e
2007, 8 pp .
N,F,D,S
M odified S ystem for O ccupatio nal Exposure Limits
2005, 62 pp., ISBN 90-6587-915-3
The Dutch Works Councils A ct
2004, 38 pp., ISBN 90-6587-878-5
M odel Rules of Procedure for Works Cou ncils
2003, 127 p p., ISBN 90-6587-861-0
€ 7,50
The S ocial an d Econom ic Cou ncil of the Netherla nds
leaflet on th e SER
A full ove rview of S ER-publications is available a t the SER website: w ww.ser.nl
Most a dvisory reports, su rveys and othe r publicat ions of t he SER a re full text available on t he
website.
40
Bezuidenhoutseweg 60
P.O. Box 90405
2509 LK The Hague
www.ser.nl
ISBN 90-6587-991-9