IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/cesisp/0106.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Lisbon Agenda From 2000 To 2010

Author

Listed:
  • Johansson, Börje

    () (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology)

  • Karlsson, Charlie

    () (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology)

  • Backman, Mikaela

    () (JIBS)

  • Juusola, Pia

    () (JIBS)

Abstract

The Lisbon Agenda was approved in mars 2000 and at that time, the European Union was facing economic prosperity. Even so, globalization and new knowledge economies were becoming an increasing threat and the EU was in need of a transformation in its economy and society. The Lisbon Agenda was set to make the EU the most competitive, knowledge-based economy in the world, and at the same time preserving, or even improving social cohesion and maintain environmental sustainability. Another important motivation for the Lisbon Agenda was the perception that the EU was lagging behind the US and other major economies. The main instrument that was put forward was open method of co-ordination (OMC) that includes indicators, benchmarking, peer pressure, and best practise. The time-period was set for ten years and the midterm evaluations found that the goals had not be reached. Due to the lacking results, the Lisbon Agenda was forced to change some of the implementation processes. The many quantitative goals were reduced, and only the goal to dedicate three percent of GDP to R&D stayed in its original shape. The main goals were now on growth, and jobs.

Suggested Citation

  • Johansson, Börje & Karlsson, Charlie & Backman, Mikaela & Juusola, Pia, 2007. "The Lisbon Agenda From 2000 To 2010," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 106, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:cesisp:0106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://static.sys.kth.se/itm/wp/cesis/cesiswp106.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Derek Clark & Tore Nilssen, 2013. "Learning by doing in contests," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 329-343, July.
    2. Mehmet Çolak & Aylin Ege, 2013. "An Assessment of EU 2020 Strategy: Too Far to Reach?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 659-680, January.
    3. Magdalena Olczyk, 2014. "Structural Heterogeneity Between Eu 15 And 12 New Eu Members – The Obstacle To Lisbon Strategy Implementation?," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 9(4), pages 21-43, December.
    4. Pedro Mazeda Gil & Oscar Afonso & Paulo B. Vasconcelos, 2015. "Skill-Structure Shocks, the Share of the High-Tech Sector and Economic Growth Dynamics," FEP Working Papers 554, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    5. Magdalena Olczyk, 2013. "Lisbon Strategy implementation in 12 New EU Members – multivariate analysis of structural indicators," GUT FME Working Paper Series A 16, Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdansk University of Technology.
    6. Alka obadić & Sanja Porić, 2008. "The coordination between education and employment policies," EFZG Working Papers Series 0802, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Lisbon Agenda; knowledge economy; goals; instruments;

    JEL classification:

    • F00 - International Economics - - General - - - General
    • N24 - Economic History - - Financial Markets and Institutions - - - Europe: 1913-

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hhs:cesisp:0106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Vardan Hovsepyan). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cekthse.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.