EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/1

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Smart and inclusive growth’ (own-initiative opinion)

2012/C 351/01

Rapporteur: Mr BARÀTH

On 19 January 2012 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on

Smart and inclusive growth

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 September 2012.

At its 483rd plenary session, held on 18 and 19 September 2012 (meeting of 19 September 2012), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 140 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 The EESC feels that long-term, sustainable and smart growth is not possible without a process of catching up. It therefore feels that the triple objective of the Europe 2020 strategy, i.e. smart, sustainable and inclusive-cohesive growth, is generally appropriate; however, in order to achieve these objectives, a well-balanced macroeconomic policy mix and structural reforms together with more and better instruments are needed.

1.2 Intelligent implementation of the strategy has become all the more important in this period of major challenges. We need to build on the existing strategy, to fine-tune and adjust it to the new macro-economic situation. We need to strike a new balance between responsibility and solidarity.

1.3 In order to achieve the requisite change of emphasis the EU needs to show that it has the necessary political will and a specific vision of substantially closer integration. At the same time, it is vital to enrich the various forms of multilevel cooperation between Member States and the regions, and to achieve "more and better" Europe.

1.4 In the EESC's view, governance in support of economic policy and development must be further strengthened, with more abundant and diverse government funding, and support for faster structural reforms in the Member States.

1.5 The EESC feels that it can endorse the general approach and emphasis of the regulatory framework for implementation of the EU 2020 strategy, i.e. the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the Common Strategic Framework (CSF).

1.6 At the same time, the EESC emphasises that measures in support of stability, growth, employment and poverty reduction are not sufficient; it is essential to widen the range of existing instruments.

1.7 Responsibilities have to be clearly divided between the European Union and the Member States. In the interests of strengthening foundations for growth, implementation of measures such as a European banking union (European regulation, monitoring, bailouts and guarantees of bank deposits), together with the issuance of project bonds, should be accelerated. The role of the European Central Bank should be strengthened.

1.8 In the Committee's opinion, it is not enough just to define "frameworks" for development policies. By stepping up targeted investments, and implementing pan-European, cross-sectoral, multi-dimensional programmes at European level, the objectives can be achieved more quickly. Given that completion of structural reforms is currently the vital issue in many countries, development policies must support such reforms.

1.9 In order to combine smart and inclusive growth, one possibility is to increase employment as a goal and to encourage networks covering a wide range of activities. To this end, the Single Market needs to be consolidated in numerous areas.

1.10 However, cohesion policy must not remain purely focused on boosting the economy and competitiveness. All the funds and programmes should be more tailored to the social goals of the Europe 2020 strategy such as job creation, social services, combating poverty, education and training, etc.

1.11 The EESC feels that individual proposals for the 2014-2020 period, such as the planned development of macro-regional strategies, should be backed with the requisite instruments.

1.12 If extended to other common European objectives, and with the involvement of private-sector funding too, the Connecting Europe Facility could be a good example of closer integration.

1.13 Reconciling the EU 2020 strategy and cohesion policy requires a strategy and associated instruments which are European in scale while also taking the local and regional dimension into account. Work on drawing up a European Territorial Strategy must be accelerated.

1.14 In our opinion it is vital to ensure much broader involvement of experts and public opinion in preparing decisions. We therefore suggest defining a 12th thematic objective in the Common Strategic Framework, in order to strengthen "communication and social dialogue".

2. Introduction

2.1 Over the last few years - partly due to international changes, partly due to enlargement of the EU, the crisis and Europe's response to it - the EU has become more complex, with a greater tendency to multi-speed integration, and more divergent national interests.

2.2 The threat of social and political conflicts has grown, and political extremism is gathering momentum. We need to acknowledge that overcoming the economic, financial and social/solidarity crisis will remain Europe's main challenge, up to the middle of this decade. Unfortunately, in many Member States output has fallen significantly. A conflict has arisen between financial stability and growth. Without growth, efforts to achieve stability and solidarity are also in conflict.

2.3 The EU 2020 strategy was not designed with this situation in mind. The strategy took the crisis into account, but it did not anticipate that it would last so long or be so serious.

2.4 The EU needs both fiscal consolidation and an effective programme for growth. There are some grounds to hope that the drop in demand that is resulting from the indispensible fiscal consolidation can be offset in the long term if that consolidation is done in an intelligent and balanced way.

2.5 In the EESC's view, the multi-annual financial framework (MFF) proposed by the Commission for the 2014-2020 period represents a relatively acceptable compromise. If we can succeed in increasing the EU's own resources and making more efficient and effective use of them, while focusing them on objectives which are directly linked to the EU 2020 strategy and structural reforms, this will support economic development.

2.6 However, the proposal does not sufficiently address catching-up issues and social tensions. The (undoubtedly very significant) financial assistance provided to countries struggling to achieve budgetary stability has exhausted the capacity of donor countries.

2.7 Cohesion policy must not remain purely focused on boosting the economy and competitiveness. All the funds and programmes should be more tailored to the social goals of the Europe 2020 strategy such as job creation, social services, combating poverty, education and training, etc.

2.8 Relatively significant changes are taking place in the field of cohesion policy. The focus here has shifted to strengthening macro-and micro-economic conditions together with territorial convergence. However, in order to ensure the EU 2020 strategy is implemented in harmony with inclusive/cohesive growth, a paradigm shift is needed. Cohesion policy funds are not donations or subsidies; they are part of European investment policy, and must be used efficiently.

2.9 In order to achieve inclusive and sustainable growth, alongside traditional criteria, there is an vital and growing role for certain "soft" factors, e.g. the situation in terms of healthcare and demographics, as well as educational quality and trends; at the same time, there is more and more interest in a healthy environment. Recent documents pay very little attention to the possibility of providing the requisite Community support in this area.

2.10 The European Commission has published a proposal on opening the labour market with the aim of reversing negative trends. Subsidies could boost both supply and demand. It is particularly important to ensure the transferability of pension rights and to dismantle the various legal, administrative and fiscal barriers.

3. General comments

3.1 The expected dynamic development resulting from the EU 2020 strategy is not adequately reflected in simplification and increased efficiency of the institutional system, nor are adequate additional resources being made available to this end.

3.2 In difficult situations it is vital to make maximum use of intellectual resources. It makes sense to strengthen permanent and/or temporary analytical, advisory, monitoring and early warning bodies alongside legislative and executive bodies. For example, such bodies could look at the following issues: — the implications of changes in the global balance of power, — a new look at the interplay of competition, cooperation and solidarity, which are fundamental European principles, — establishing governance geared to development and growth, — putting in place the political and economic conditions (in terms of macro-economic balance, taxation, monetary policy, and macro-prudential measures) for an effective Economic Union, — clarifying the current institutional system of responsibilities, which has already become somewhat opaque.

3.3 It is of fundamental importance to ensure that the European Union operates transparently and to strengthen participatory democracy. It would be useful to make much greater use of online forums, and in cases where face-to-face discussions are more effective, high level and broad ranging conferences could be organised and/or supported, in parallel with debates in national parliaments. It is recommended to strengthen EU communication, and inform the public of certain European negotiations; in a more limited number of cases, online monitoring or details of voting could be made accessible to all.

3.4 The three objectives of the EU 2020 strategy are extremely ambitious. However, as several EESC opinions have emphasised, there is a mismatch between the timeframe envisaged and the available resources, particularly in view of "historical" experience, which has been both negative as in the case of the first "Lisbon" strategy, and positive as in the case of the rapid and effective economic governance measures which have already been mentioned here.

3.5 From the point of view of procedures and implementation, the measures and legislative proposals envisaged in order to achieve EU 2020 objectives and make use of cohesion and structural funding only broadly reflect the lessons learned during the period up to 2013.

3.6 The principles and thematic proposals set out in the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) offer good prospects for progress towards "more" and "better" Europe. However, they are not sufficient to translate these prospects into reality. Some countries will have to change their approach to planning if we are to work out the details.

3.7 Over the past few decades, particularly in the field of research and development, and in major infrastructure projects (in the latter case inevitably given the intrinsic nature of the tasks) a broad European approach has emerged, which can be adapted at regional level. The EU's strategies, including the 11 thematic objectives, have shortcomings in terms of sectoral economic policies and multidimensional regional development programmes.

3.8 A future regional development strategy could define objectives and instruments to encourage macro-regional economic and social cooperation in areas such as: — enhancing research and innovation infrastructure (research areas): linking up European centres of excellence and nurturing centres of competence, in order to invigorate Europe's development poles; — investment in business research and innovation, product and service development etc., internationalisation of local production systems (clusters), and support for the development of European networks; — transport systems in addition to the TEN-T infrastructure network (management of water resources, environmental protection, energy, information and communication systems, etc.); — the institutional network, for the bottom-up development of macro-regional and transnational tiers of government, etc.

3.9 Over the past decade the potential offered by urban systems on the one hand, and on the other the accumulated tensions within them, have appeared in unmanageable concentrations.

3.10 Networking between individual European urban centres, hubs and concentrations of highly developed activities in line with the concept of excellence could be a good example of dynamic and cohesive, but sustainable development.

3.11 The vision of a connected Europe, as part of a macro-regional strategy, could add the thematic guidelines needed for political and institutional, economic and social integration to infrastructure elements, thus helping to achieve objectives more effectively at macro-regional level. This broader approach would still be compatible with proportionate and fair distribution of resources.

3.12 In a previous opinion, the EESC also recommended identifying a new European framework for integrated project concepts of "special European interest".

3.13 It is worth considering full implementation of a European Energy Community, given that with political support the EU could speak with one voice in international forums, at the same time as more effectively representing the strategic, economic, environmental and social aspects.

3.14 In the absence of conceptual progress at European level, legislative proposals and financial frameworks for the 2014-2020 period will once again push Member States in the direction of individual and often ineffective solutions.

3.15 The EESC could do justice to its role if, on the basis of its composition, it uses its expertise and a sophisticated methodology to express knowledge reflecting relations between economic interests, social values and the criteria determining the sustainability of growth.

4. Other recommendations

4.1 The EU 2020 strategy, the regulatory system supporting implementation of the cohesion funds in the post-2014 period, and the Common Strategic Framework are examples of an awareness of what integrated development involves.

4.2 However, the EESC feels that global competition requires not just awareness, but the planning and implementation of more specific, wider ranging programmes.

4.3 The overarching goal to be achieved through the smart and inclusive growth envisaged by the EU 2020 strategy is to boost the EU's production and reception capacity at macroeconomic level, at the same time as ensuring constant and sustainable improvement in the quality of life for ordinary Europeans at microeconomic level, based on quantitative and qualitative employment growth.

4.4 In order to achieve effectiveness and efficiency, plans for the use of European funds must take into account that there are certain interconnected, interdependent activities which may be presented as specific multi-dimensional and integrated clusters.

4.4.1 Such objectives, which span multiple sectors, are of macroeconomic relevance and therefore influence the competitiveness of the European Union. In such cases, it is vital to focus on organisations participating in the development process or directly impacted by it and which are linked in terms of production or services.

4.4.2 Territorial (regional and local) networks of stakeholders in (or beneficiaries of) development processes, and the system of relations between them, must be taken into account in planning processes.

4.5 Analysis and planning of the two above systems of interaction, together with EU-level support, will make it possible to achieve the combined impact of smart and inclusive growth.

4.6 In the past decade, largely due to EU-financed infrastructure development, the European structure of such manufacturing processes has fundamentally changed, resulting in the development of production tools and culture in backward regions, renewing education and vocational training, at the same time as boosting employment, income and consumption.

4.7 Development of the spatial structure of the economy is determined by conditions which can be ensured at microeconomic level; these conditions are closely linked to the criterion of "sustainability" envisaged by the Strategy.

4.8 Factors such as the education, age and vocational training of employees, their general work culture, expansion of employment, and the quality of services are important here. The health of the local population, the quality of the environment, and course the business and physical infrastructure, as well as the level of logistical systems, are also important prerequisites.

4.9 Such coordinated development capable of bringing together macro- and microeconomic levels is a key factor in European competitiveness.

4.10 Provided funding is used efficiently and effectively, a change in its focus could be justified by the following arguments: — firstly, it can be shown that at macroeconomic level investments from the EU budget deliver above average growth in the financial results and output of the EU economy, thanks to advanced technological transfers, a high percentage of investment imports, a skilled labour force, the benefits of a cheaper infrastructure, and investments benefiting from financial support and building on modern infrastructure; — secondly: enlargement of the Single Market, free movement of services, more widespread activities and growth in the knowledge base are all factors which in themselves already contribute substantially to innovation activities and to catching up; — thirdly: at microeconomic level, for the SME sector, Structural Fund financing often means markets, access to markets or development resources, while supporting labour market growth; — finally, the potential beneficial impact of integration and catching up for the most disadvantaged social groups, excluded from the labour market in various ways, is considerable.

4.11 With regard to EU support for economic sectors (particularly in the form of non-repayable subsidies), it is generally agreed that small and medium-sized enterprises engaged in innovative activities and declining industrial regions affected by structural changes are the areas where funding is most needed. In relation to production networks, the concept of "entrepreneurship" may require the stepping up of support for SMEs in individual underdeveloped regions or cities, if growth which is both smart and inclusive or allowing areas to catch up is to be achieved.

4.12 In the case of well functioning innovation chains, clusters and local production systems, it would be worth considering whether to ensure greater flexibility both for large companies established in a particular region, and for suppliers, by providing them with various forms of combined financing.

4.13 Healthcare is one example of how a multidimensional strategy can be developed. Health sector networks range from health and environmental education to the various related manufacturing sectors, and include training, with the involvement of the environmental sector, the healthcare sector, medical tourism, biological research, equipment manufacture and the associated higher education activity, experimental and innovative industrial parks together with the small and medium enterprises operating within them; at the same time, all of these fields interact with such networks. The "grey" economy is playing an increasingly important role here.

4.14 The EESC has analysed the role of the social economy as a key factor in policies to achieve inclusive growth in several opinions.

4.15 The economic and financial interaction of activities capable of comprising networks of similar type to those mentioned as examples could have a major impact on structural reforms in Member State budgets, which in turn could change social attitudes and behaviour.

4.16 A macro-level approach to regional development could strengthen polycentric European territorial restructuring, thus consolidating both the requisite concentration of activities, and, by taking advantage of different local conditions, sharing tasks within a network, in line with the ideal of sustainability.