IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

From the Lisbon strategy to EU2020: illusion or progress for european economies?


  • António Brandão Moniz

    (IET, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia)


The majority of papers published in the last decades on European Union policy strongly stress the importance of the so-called Lisbon Strategy approved in the year 2000. The same applies to studies and reports on the shift of the European countries towards modernisation and restructuring policy in recent years. This EU development strategy defines a new direction for the coordination of national policies. But why has it become so important? One of the reasons is the fact that many of the papers are based on the concept of “knowledge society” as the key driver for an increased competitiveness of all political and economic regions of Europe. In this context, the term “knowledge” means the inter-linkage of education (including training, qualification, skills) and innovation (including research, information and communication). The use of the concept represents an important shift in the European strategy: further development would not only be based on investment in material infrastructures, but also more on the immaterial ground. However, this Lisbon Strategy was criticised by many politicians and opinion-makers in the first years of this century because the European structures were not prepared for such a quick change. At the same time, the focus for investment moved away from the traditional support of industrial sectors (manufacturing, agriculture and fisheries, construction) towards the “new economy” sectors. The vision of a knowledge society remained appealing also in a changing international context: the Middle East wars (Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel-Palestine) and the fast growth of the Chinese economy. However, the shadows of new recessions have strongly questioned the options made by the European Council. New challenges have emerged with the need to redefine collective strategies in terms of European development as set by the Lisbon strategy. “Europe 2020” is one more attempt to define a new strategy. But at present no clear path has been identified. Whether the programme will bring about progress for the European economies, or is again an illusion, is not yet clear. This shows, however, that new paths and common strategies are still needed in Europe.

Suggested Citation

  • António Brandão Moniz, 2011. "From the Lisbon strategy to EU2020: illusion or progress for european economies?," IET Working Papers Series 01/2011, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
  • Handle: RePEc:ieu:wpaper:32

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Monique Ramioul, 2008. "Work organisation and restructuring in the knowledge society," Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, vol. 4(4), pages 9-19, November.
    2. Dietmar Braun, 2008. "Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(4), pages 227-239, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    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. Henderson, Dylan & Roche, Neil, 2018. "From consensus to conflict in the regional policy mix for broadband deployment: examining the role of informal coordination," 29th European Regional ITS Conference, Trento 2018 184944, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    2. Elvira Uyarra & Jens Sörvik & Inger Midtkandal, 2014. "Inter-regional Collaboration in Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3). S3 Working Paper Series no 6/2014," JRC Research Reports JRC91963, Joint Research Centre.
    3. António B. Moniz & Margarida R. Paulos, 2009. "The clothing industry as a globalized sector: implications for work organisation, quality of work and job content," IET Working Papers Series 13/2009, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
    4. Emmanuel Muller & Andrea Zenker & Miriam Hufnagl & Jean-Alain Héraud & Esther Schnabl & Teemu Makkonen & Henning Kroll, 2017. "Smart specialisation strategies and cross-border integration of regional innovation systems: Policy dynamics and challenges for the Upper Rhine," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 684-702, June.
    5. Xiaoke Zhang, 2022. "Understanding innovation policy governance: A disaggregated approach," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(3), pages 303-329, May.
    6. Jan Fagerberg, 2023. "The global green shift: Where it comes from, how it works, and where it’s heading," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20230923, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    7. Marc Dijk & Eric Iversen & Antje Klitkou & René Kemp & Simon Bolwig & Mads Borup & Peter Møllgaard, 2020. "Forks in the Road to E-Mobility: An Evaluation of Instrument Interaction in National Policy Mixes in Northwest Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    8. Lily Kiminami & Shinichi Furuzawa & Akira Kiminami, 2021. "Rice policies for long-tail market-creating innovations: empirical study on consumers’ cognition and behavior in Japan," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 909-931, October.
    9. Chung, Chao-chen, 2013. "Government, policy-making and the development of innovation system: The cases of Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology policies (2000–2008)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1053-1071.
    10. Francis Green & Alan Felstead & Duncan Gallie & Golo Henseke, 2022. "Working Still Harder," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(2), pages 458-487, March.
    11. Krings, Bettina-Johanna & Moniz, António & Frey, Philipp, 2021. "Technology as enabler of the automation of work? Current societal challenges for a future perspective of work [A tecnologia como facilitadora da automação do trabalho? Desafios sociais atuais para ," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(21), pages 7-30.
    12. Jan Fagerberg & Gernot Hutschenreiter, 2020. "Coping with Societal Challenges: Lessons for Innovation Policy Governance," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 279-305, June.
    13. Martin Ferry, 2021. "Pulling things together: regional policy coordination approaches and drivers in Europe [‘PiS wchodzi w buty marszałków. Cel? Miliony z funduszy europejskich’]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(1), pages 37-57.
    14. Löschner, Lukas & Nordbeck, Ralf, 2020. "Switzerland’s transition from flood defence to flood-adapted land use–A policy coordination perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    15. Cristian Matti & Davide Consoli & Elvira Uyarra, 2017. "Multi level policy mixes and industry emergence: The case of wind energy in Spain," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 661-683, June.
    16. Csaba Makó & Miklós Illéssy & Péter Csizmadia, 2012. "Declining Innovation Performance of the Hungarian Economy: Special Focus on Organizational Innovation. The Example of the European Community Innovation Survey (CIS)," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 8(1), pages 116-137.
    17. Mandaroux, Rahel & Schindelhauer, Kai & Basse Mama, Houdou, 2023. "How to reinforce the effectiveness of the EU emissions trading system in stimulating low-carbon technological change? Taking stock and future directions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    18. Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter & Johann Wackerbauer, 2013. "Koordination von Innovations-, Energie- und Umweltpolitik," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 61, June.
    19. Matei, Ani & Dogaru, Tatiana-Camelia, 2012. "Coordination of Public Policies through Strategic Planning Instruments: Romania Case study," MPRA Paper 53674, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jan 2014.
    20. Kidjie Saguin & Michael Howlett, 2022. "Enhancing Policy Capacity for Better Policy Integration: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in a Post COVID-19 World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-13, September.

    More about this item


    European Union; Lisbon Strategy; knowledge society; innovation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • E61 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook - - - Policy Objectives; Policy Designs and Consistency; Policy Coordination
    • F55 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Institutional Arrangements
    • H5 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • O47 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Empirical Studies of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence
    • O52 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Europe

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ieu:wpaper:32. 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: António Brandão Moniz (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.