Editor's Note: The great trans-Atlantic race is over
After five years, in an unsuccessful race for the laurels of the best economically developing continent, it has suffered an abysmal defeat. The standard of living in the U.S. is still 50 percent higher than in the EU. This is too much to overcome with just one successful jump.
The Lisbon Strategy that was accepted by the EU members in 2000, and that set such an ambitious aim for the old continent, failed. Now the Union is lowering the crossbar. Instead of being a star pupil, it is trying to at least get to the next class. New objectives, already presented in Brussels, include an average annual growth of three percent. Within the next six years, six million new jobs will be created. Each EU member has to work out its own strategy to cope with unemployment, and spend up to three percent of its GDP on Research and Development every year. The old continent is also to fully open its market of services, energy, government commissions, and labor in the Union. At the same time, public aid should only be directed at those enterprises that operate in the sector of the highest growth potential.
The just-buried Lisbon Strategy of 2000 was accused of having too many imprecise aims and, ultimately, of being unviable. Today, the new version of the strategy could be the object of a contrary accusation, namely that it is too passive and that it does not pose itself very ambitious objectives.
What is worth emphasizing is that Poland is one of the few countries that has to some extent realized the Lisbon Strategy. For the last five years the Polish economy has been developing faster than America's (except for 2002). The capacity of labour was better as well. This is why Polish representatives on the European forum are skeptical about the Commission's new ideas. Poland, which has only benefited from the boon of the common market for a short time, wants the EU to introduce difficult structural reforms, essential for its development. Poland is waiting with bated breath for the economies of the biggest Union members, such as Germany, France and Italy, to emerge from stagnation and match at least half of Poland's growth rate.
Eliza Durka
Editor-in-chief
The Lisbon Strategy that was accepted by the EU members in 2000, and that set such an ambitious aim for the old continent, failed. Now the Union is lowering the crossbar. Instead of being a star pupil, it is trying to at least get to the next class. New objectives, already presented in Brussels, include an average annual growth of three percent. Within the next six years, six million new jobs will be created. Each EU member has to work out its own strategy to cope with unemployment, and spend up to three percent of its GDP on Research and Development every year. The old continent is also to fully open its market of services, energy, government commissions, and labor in the Union. At the same time, public aid should only be directed at those enterprises that operate in the sector of the highest growth potential.
The just-buried Lisbon Strategy of 2000 was accused of having too many imprecise aims and, ultimately, of being unviable. Today, the new version of the strategy could be the object of a contrary accusation, namely that it is too passive and that it does not pose itself very ambitious objectives.
What is worth emphasizing is that Poland is one of the few countries that has to some extent realized the Lisbon Strategy. For the last five years the Polish economy has been developing faster than America's (except for 2002). The capacity of labour was better as well. This is why Polish representatives on the European forum are skeptical about the Commission's new ideas. Poland, which has only benefited from the boon of the common market for a short time, wants the EU to introduce difficult structural reforms, essential for its development. Poland is waiting with bated breath for the economies of the biggest Union members, such as Germany, France and Italy, to emerge from stagnation and match at least half of Poland's growth rate.
Eliza Durka
Editor-in-chief
