Capitals snub Lisbon, warns Polish think-tank

By Anna McLauchlin

Date: 23/02/06

National programmes explaining how EU governments intend to boost economic growth and create more jobs are unlikely to lead to any solid reforms, according to a study carried out by a Polish think-tank.

The European Commission is hoping that at the European Spring Council on 23-24 March, government leaders will make real commitments to Europe's competitiveness, including spending on research and development and making it easier to set up a business.

But while it welcomes the Commission's new approach to competitiveness, which has reduced the number of targets and made the member states more accountable for their contribution by making member states draft their own national reform plans (NRPs), the Polish Lisbon Strategy Forum has fundamental criticisms about member states' commitments.

The Forum, an industry-supported think-tank, judges that the plans - which were submitted to the Commission in November - were merely drafted under duress from the Commission rather than with any intention of following up any proposed action.

"It was noted that usually there had been little interest in making NRPs a real tool that would have been taken seriously by political actors in member states," it says.

It highlights that very few of the plans have been sent to national parliaments for their opinion, showing the lack of political will behind their content.

A new feature of the revamped Lisbon Agenda is that governments should be more accountable for their contribution to EU competitiveness to avoid the issue continuing to be a vacuous political discussion at EU level. Part of this national accountability is to appoint a 'Mr or Ms Lisbon' who would be responsible for managing the national plans, but according to the report the response has been half-hearted.

"In most cases Mr or Ms Lisbon were usually civil servants with no significant political positions," it says.

And even more significantly, the report notes that the economic policy cycle required for reforms was not consistent with the political cycle.

"The first warning signs of the attitude of several member states towards their NRPs show that as sent to the Commission these are not credible reform strategies. At least eight of the 25 were prepared by governments that due to upcoming elections will not be able to implement them," it reads.

Those plans that are more credible are only so because the political situation in the country is "mature enough" to support the reforms, the report says. "Thus it helps only those who help themselves."

Aurore Wanlin from the Centre for European Reform, a London-based think-tank, agreed that the fact that the majority of plans had not passed through the French parliament was a bad sign and noted that very few of them are linked to the national budget. "It's all very well to say you will spend more on research but if you don't say how you will do that then it's very likely to remain rhetoric," she said.

But Wanlin said that the reports were still a "good step" for the Lisbon Agenda and that some member states - notably the Nordic countries, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Baltics - had been taking their reform agenda seriously. Poland, Greece, Portugal and Italy are lagging behind.

A spokesman for Industry and Enterprise Commissioner Günter Verheugen said: "Clearly some member states have not carried out as detailed, thorough or intense discussions with stakeholders and parliaments as we would have liked, because that is what the Lisbon Agenda is about. But one thing is clear and that is that all member states are moving in the same direction and we will have to see how they live up to their promises."

Article reports on the critical assessment of Member States' role in the Lisbon Process given by the Polish think-tank Polish Lisbon Strategy Forum in its December 2005 report 'National Reform Programs: Key to Successful Future of the European Project?'.

• Primary Source

Polish Lisbon Strategy Forum: Publications: National Reform Programs: Key to Successful Future of the European Project? December 2005 http://www.jeneweingroup.com/eng/documents/plsf/conference_programme.pdf

---