IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/erp/eiopxx/p0110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The European Union benchmarking experience. From euphoria to fatigue?

Author

Listed:
  • Zängle, Michael

Abstract

Even if one may agree with the possible criticism of the Lisbon process as being too vague in com-mitment or as lacking appropriate statistical techniques and indicators, the benchmarking system pro-vided by EUROSTAT seems to be sufficiently effective in warning against imminent failure. The Lisbon objectives are very demanding. This holds true even if each of the objectives is looked at in isolation. But 'Lisbon' is more demanding than that, requiring a combination of several objectives to be achieved simultaneously (GDP growth, labour productivity, job-content of growth, higher quality of jobs and greater social cohesion). Even to countries like Ireland, showing exceptionally high performance in GDP growth and employment promotion during the period under investigation, achieving potentially conflicting objectives simultaneously seems to be beyond feasibility. The European Union benchmark-ing exercise is embedded in the context of the Open Method(s) of Co-ordination (OMC). This context makes the benchmarking approach part and parcel of an overarching philosophy, which relates the benchmarking indicators to each other and assigns to them their role in corroborating the increasingly dominating project of the 'embedded neo-liberalism'. Against this background, the present paper is focussed on the following point. With the EU bench-marking system being effective enough to make the imminent under-achievement visible, there is a danger of disillusionment and 'benchmarking fatigue', which may provoke an ideological crisis. The dominant project being so deeply rooted, however, chances are high that this crisis will be solved im-manently in terms of embedded neo-liberalism by strengthening the neo-liberal branch of the Euro-pean project. Confining itself to the Europe of Fifteen, the analysis draws on EUROSTAT's database of Structural Indicators. ...

Suggested Citation

  • Zängle, Michael, 2004. "The European Union benchmarking experience. From euphoria to fatigue?," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 8, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:erp:eiopxx:p0110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-005a.htm
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-005.htm
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2004-005.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dermot Hodson & Imelda Maher, 2001. "The Open Method as a New Mode of Governance: The Case of Soft Economic Policy Co‐ordination," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 719-746, November.
    2. Eberlein, Burkard & Kerwer, Dieter, 2002. "Theorising the New Modes of European Union Governance," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 6, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Smismans, Stijn, 2006. "New Modes of Governance and the Participatory Myth," European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) 1, CONNEX and EUROGOV networks.
    2. Kaiser, Robert & Prange, Heiko, 2002. "A new concept of deepening European integration? The European Research Area and the emerging role of policy coordination in a multi-level governance system," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 6, October.
    3. Schäfer, Armin, 2004. "A new form of governance? Comparing the open method of coordination to multilateral surveillance by the IMF and the OECD," MPIfG Working Paper 04/5, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    4. Tanja Börzel, 2010. "European Governance: Negotiation and Competition in the Shadow of Hierarchy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(2), pages 191-219, March.
    5. Simon Fink, 2013. "Policy Convergence with or without the European Union: The Interaction of Policy Success, EU Membership and Policy Convergence," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 631-648, July.
    6. Sapir, Andre & Aghion, Philippe & Bertola, Giuseppe & Hellwig, Martin & Pisani-Ferry, Jean & Rosati, Dariusz & Vinals, Jose & Wallace, Helen, 2004. "An Agenda for a Growing Europe: The Sapir Report," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199271498.
    7. Gonzalo Escribano, 2006. "Europeanisation without Europe? The Mediterranean and the Neighbourhood Policy," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 19, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    8. Sabine Saurugger & Fabien Terpan, 2016. "Do crises lead to policy change? The multiple streams framework and the European Union’s economic governance instruments," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(1), pages 35-53, March.
    9. Jakob de Haan & Helge Berger & David-Jan Jansen & Jakob de Haan, 2003. "The End of the Stability and Growth Pact?," CESifo Working Paper Series 1093, CESifo.
    10. Marie-Claude Bélis-Bergouignan & Elie Brugarolas, 2010. "Building research and technology (R&T) transregional networks through an Interreg IIIB project," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(2), pages 135-155, November.
    11. Schäfer, Armin, 2004. "Beyond the Community Method: Why the Open Method of Coordination Was Introduced to EU Policy-making," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 8, September.
    12. Vassilis Monastiriotis & Sotirios Zartaloudis, 2010. "Beyond the crisis: EMU and labour market reform pressures in good and bad times," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 23, European Institute, LSE.
    13. Matilde Luna & José Luis Velasco, 2010. "Knowledge Networks: Integration Mechanisms and Performance Assessment," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Ioannou, Demosthenes & Ferdinandusse, Marien & Lo Duca, Marco & Coussens, Wouter, 2008. "Benchmarking the Lisbon Strategy," Occasional Paper Series 85, European Central Bank.
    15. Annamaria Artner, 2005. "New modes of governance and EU structural and cohesion policy in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania," IWE Working Papers 165, Institute for World Economics - Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    16. Citi, Manuele & Rhodes, Martin, 2007. "New Modes of Governance in the EU: Common Objectives versus National Preferences," European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) 1, CONNEX and EUROGOV networks.
    17. Tanja A. Börzel, 2016. "From EU Governance of Crisis to Crisis of EU Governance: Regulatory Failure, Redistributive Conflict and Eurosceptic Publics," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54, pages 8-31, September.
    18. Schmähl, Winfried, 2005. "Nationale Rentenreformen und die Europäische Union: Entwicklungslinien und Einflusskanäle," Working papers of the ZeS 03/2005, University of Bremen, Centre for Social Policy Research (ZeS).
    19. Kaiser, Robert & Prange, Heiko, 2004. "The reconfiguration of National Innovation Systems--the example of German biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 395-408, April.
    20. Pülzl, Helga & Lazdinis, Marius, 2011. "May the Open Method of Coordination be a new instrument for forest policy deliberations in the European Union?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 411-418, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:erp:eiopxx:p0110. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Assistant (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.