Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 52002IE1030

**Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Lisbon — Renewing the Vision?"** 
  
*Official Journal C 061 , 14/03/2003 P. 0145 - 0153*

  

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Lisbon - Renewing the Vision?"

(2003/C 61/24)

At its plenary session on 16 January 2002, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on the "Lisbon - Renewing the vision?"

In accordance with Rules 11(4) and 19(1) of its Rules of Procedure the Committee set up a sub-committee to prepare its work on this above-mentioned subject.

The sub-committee adopted its draft opinion on 29 July 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Morgan.

At its 393rd Plenary Session (meeting of 18 September 2002) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 86 votes in favour with one abstention.

1. Introduction

1.1. High hopes were raised by the Portuguese Presidency during the preparation for the Lisbon European Council held in March 2000. In its Opinion prepared for Lisbon(1) the EESC shared the optimism associated with the event and offered its own agenda.

1.2. In the process of preparation for the Barcelona European Council held in March 2002, it was clear that although everyone accepted that the Lisbon targets were very ambitious, many observers and many participants felt that insufficient progress was being achieved against the Lisbon agenda.

1.3. The EESC decided to wait for the report of the Barcelona Council before giving its opinion on progress, and its view of the priorities going forward.

2. The Vision

2.1. The Vision for the Lisbon Council meeting was eloquently expressed by the Portuguese Presidency in a letter dated 17 January 2000 addressed to the members of the European Council. The following is an extract from Prime Minister Guterres' letter:

"A new period is beginning in European construction.

Despite the economic recovery, serious social problems continue to exist, such as unemployment, social exclusion and the risks of a future imbalance of the social security systems - which are also the reflection of deeper-seated structural difficulties calling for courageous reform. These difficulties are heightened by the unavoidable challenges posed by globalisation, technological change and an ageing population. The European social model can only be sustained by building new competitive factors and the renewal of the social model itself.

There is a central issue which I would like to raise as a starting point. A new paradigm is emerging: that of the economy of innovation and knowledge, which is becoming the main source of the wealth of nations, regions, enterprises and people. Europe is lagging behind significantly and should define its own path for a new competitive platform, while also fighting the new risks of social exclusion. It is necessary to combine innovation with social inclusion.

I believe that we have the conditions to define a new strategic goal for the next ten years; to make the European Union the world's most dynamic and competitive economic area, based on innovation and knowledge, able to boast economic growth levels, with more and better jobs and with great social cohesion.

An economic and social strategy to renew the basis of growth in Europe, must combine macro-economic policies, and the modernisation of social protection."

2.2. Before the Lisbon Council everyone knew that this was a hugely ambitious undertaking. In effect, the Council set out a ten-year agenda for economic and social renewal, subsequently complemented by an environmental dimension. The interaction and synergy between these three dimensions is vital, because they are clearly interdependent. To fulfil its potential for improving employment and economic growth, and be the leading region, Europe will clearly need to perform at or beyond the targets set across all three dimensions of the Lisbon strategy. In Section 2 of the Communication from the Commission - "The Lisbon Strategy - Making Change Happen"(2) - Table 2 details the progress towards the Lisbon Goals made in the last two years. The best Member States are already performing at the target levels. The challenge is to bring the EU average up to this level.

2.3. To put these economic goals into perspective, here are some EU:US comparative data. Two caveats must however be expressed: first, that economic data may not reflect actual quality of life comparisons and, second, that the quality of economic activity may also vary considerably by country, especially if measured against the standards of good corporate governance and corporate social responsibility.

2.3.1. The ambition from Lisbon is to achieve a growth rate of 3 % p.a. during the decade. Against that target of 3 % per annum aggregate GDP here are the average annual percentage growth rates in real GDP over recent periods(3):

>TABLE>

2.3.2. These differentials versus the USA have contributed to a huge gap in aggregate figures over the period 1992-2000(4):

EU-15: 20,7 %;

USA: 38,7 %.

Again, Member States' performance in this context is mixed, with many of the smaller states outperforming the larger. To close this gap, something radical has to be done: "courageous reform" in the words of the Portuguese Presidency.

2.3.3. An important component of GDP is the rate of employment. In 2001, the EU ran at 66 % while the US was at 75 %. The employment rate at any one time is the outcome of previous employment growth. The annual average percentage employment growth over recent time periods is as follows:

>TABLE>

2.3.4. This inability to create enough jobs goes to the heart of the EU dilemma. There needs to be a greater demand for workers and the employment market needs to work effectively. Much is being done throughout the EU in respect of workforce skills, quality of work and equal opportunity. More remains to be done to get people into work.

2.3.5. The following facts are widely understood, but the issue does not get effectively addressed and so the problem does not get resolved: employment growth in the business sector over the period 1980 to 2000 has been 5 % in the EU and 43 % in the USA(5). The EU does not have the necessary job creation dynamics and this is at the heart of the challenge expressed in the Lisbon Vision.

2.3.6. It is instructive to consider the industries involved in job creation. The technology driven industries have had a higher share in total manufacturing in the United States compared with the EU throughout the period since 1985 and the divergence has risen considerably ever since. By 1998, for example, technology driven industries represented about 35 % of manufacturing value added compared to around 24 % in the EU(6). The United States share has risen by almost 9 percentage points over the period (1985-1998), while the EU share has increased by only 1.5 percentage points.

2.3.7. In the EU services account for 69 % of all jobs and 70 % of total output. This is an increase of about 6 % in each term since 1990(7). In the US the services share of jobs is about 74 % and the share of output about 78 %. In the business services sector, the relative data as a percentage of the total are:

>TABLE>

2.3.8. Because of the rising demand for services as incomes grow, the EU must ensure that the potential employment goals associated with the growth of the service sector are realised. This requires that the obstacles to service sector growth be removed(8).

2.4. This need to create more new jobs was why the EESC stated in its Opinion for the Lisbon Council that the key requirement was to take a strategic view of Europe in the context of the new paradigm "The current cyclical economic recovery could provide an excuse for not taking the fundamental action which is needed if the cyclical recovery is to be translated into a structural renaissance leading to sustained growth in employment(9)."

2.5. We also said that: "It is our conviction that in Europe we do have the necessary innovation, creativity, knowledge and enterprise to excel in the new paradigm. But we must release these capabilities. Obstacles must be replaced by opportunities. Penalties must be replaced by incentives. The last decade saw the liberalisation of European industries. Now we have to liberate the energies of European men and women."

2.6. The issue which is now being faced in most Member States is how to do this. They need to get the balance right between social security and economic flexibility and between the short term and the long term. The US results demonstrate that the overall economic and employment performance of the EU can and must be substantially improved. Models for how this may be done are available in Europe, notably in the examples set by the few EU Member States that match or outperform the US in employment and other areas. Moreover, as demonstrated by the experience of some of these countries (e.g. Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden) there need not be any contradiction between a high level of social protection and a high level of employment. In fact, if - as is the objective of the Lisbon vision - economic, social and employment policies are made mutually supportive, the traditional trade-offs between growth and security can contribute positively to the strengthening of existing synergies.

3. Presidency Conclusions - Lisbon European Council - March 2000

3.1. The Vision was carried forward into the Presidency Conclusions:

"The Union has today set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion."

3.2. In order to give effect to this goal, two main courses of action were outlined:

a) preparing the transition to a competitive dynamic and knowledge-based economy;

b) modernising the European Social Model by investing in people and building an active welfare state.

3.3. The detailed items proposed to prepare the transition of the economy were:

- an information society for all;

- establishing a European area of research and innovation;

- creating a friendly environment for starting up and developing innovative businesses, especially SMEs;

- economic reforms for a complete and fully operative internal market;

- efficient and integrated financial markets;

- consideration of macro-economic policies, fiscal consolidation, quality and sustainability of public finances.

3.3.1. These decisions were important for two reasons: first, they signalled the intent to complete the internal market in respect of the sections still to be opened up; second, in the context of the theme of innovation and knowledge they represent a framework for the transformation of the economy.

3.4. The detailed items proposed for modernising the European Social Model were:

- education and training for living and working in the knowledge society;

- more and better jobs for Europe: developing an active employment policy;

- modernising social protection;

- promoting social inclusion.

3.4.1. The Social Agenda was further developed at the Nice European Council - see Section 4 below.

3.5. In addition to the two programmes referred to above, there was a focus on putting decisions into practice:

- improving the existing processes;

- implementing a new, open method of coordination;

- mobilising the necessary means.

3.5.1. The striking aspect of the Lisbon process is the interaction between Member States acting at the national level and the coordination of this activity culminating in the Spring Summits. Targets are designed to be achieved through a combination of peer pressure and open coordination, with the Spring Summits acting as an annual checkpoint on progress. For the Lisbon vision to become a reality, it is essential that Member States recognise this co-responsibility and the need to achieve reforms at the national level.

3.5.2. In addition to the "vertical" coordination between the EU and Member States, a "horizontal" dimension is added through the involvement of the social partners, culminating in the social summit in advance of the Spring Summit. Involving the social partners also means involving business, so that business is also expected to play a part in making change happen.

3.6. In the view of the ESC the vision outlined at Lisbon is correct. The challenge is for the Union to make happen all the changes envisaged, both at Member State and EU levels.

4. Presidency Conclusions - Nice European Council - December 2000

4.1. At Nice the Council approved the European Social Agenda which defined, in accordance with the Lisbon European Council conclusions, specific priorities for action for the next five years. "This Agenda constitutes a major step towards the enforcement and modernisation of the European Social Model". At Nice the Council also undertook, at each Spring meeting, in examining progress on the Lisbon Strategy, to look at how the Agenda is being implemented. The social partners were invited to play their full part in implementing and monitoring the Agenda, particularly at an annual social summit to be held before its Spring Council meeting.

4.2. The main chapters of the Social Agenda are:

- more and better jobs;

- anticipating and capitalising on change in the working environment by creating a better balance between flexibility and security;

- fighting poverty and all forms of exclusion and discrimination in order to promote social integration;

- modernising social protection;

- promoting gender equality;

- strengthening the social policy aspects of enlargement and the European Union's external relations.

4.3. The EESC underlines the need to modernise social protection and create a better balance between flexibility and security in the working environment while stressing the individual responsibilities of employees and employers.

5. Presidency Conclusions - Gothenburg European Council - June 2001

5.1. At Gothenburg the Lisbon strategy was expanded:

"The European Council agrees a strategy for sustainable development which completes the Union's political commitment to economic and social renewal, adds a third, environmental dimension to the Lisbon strategy and establishes a new approach to policy-making."

5.2. The main themes supporting the environmental dimension were:

- a new approach to policy-making;

- the global dimension;

- targeting environmental priorities;

- integrating environment into Community policies.

The EESC has prepared an Opinion on sustainable development strategy as its contribution to the Barcelona European Council(10) and built on this work in an Opinion on the Global dimension in view of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in August/September 2002(11).

5.3. The four targeted environmental priorities were:

- combating climate change;

- ensuring sustainable transport;

- addressing threats to public health;

- managing natural resources more responsibly.

5.4. The priorities are stated at a rather conceptual and multi-discipline level. It remains to be seen how they can be converted into action. More than that, the real issue will be the "sustainability" of the EU policies in the social, economic and environmental fields and the extent of policy coherence.

6. Commission Communication: - The Lisbon Strategy - Making Change Happen - January 2002

6.1. In this Communication the Commission provided its assessment of the progress in the two years since Lisbon:

"Achieving the Lisbon objectives requires a sustained EU growth rate of 3 %. [Data provided in the Commission's report shows a growth rate of 1.6 %]. Given the slow down that the European Union is going through, it is all the more important to be successful in implementing the reforms leading to a continued rise in the employment rate and a higher labour productivity.

Since Lisbon, the gap in GDP per capita between the European Union and the USA has remained unchanged. According to the latest data, GDP per capita was equivalent to 64 % of that of the USA. The difference in labour productivity per hour explains around one-third of the gap. The other two thirds are due to the smaller number of yearly working hours per worker and the lower employment rate in the Union. Progress across the whole of the Lisbon Strategy is needed if this gap is to be narrowed substantially."

6.2. Elsewhere it went on to say: The Barcelona Council will be a critical moment for the Lisbon Strategy...

- The Commission has now tabled most of the main policy proposals.

- The second phase of agreeing and adopting these policies is well under way. Success or failure is largely in the hands of the European Parliament or Council, who must take decisions in key areas of strategy.

- The final phase, where agreed policies are implemented and start to have an impact on the ground has barely begun.

6.3.

"Transforming new policies into visible results, as this report shows, needs action from all the parties involved. There have already been important successes but in some other crucial areas of economic and structural reform, progress has been slow or disappointing.

The European Council must overcome this 'delivery gap' before it grows any wider. It must send a signal of confidence and give a clear political impulse in those areas where the need for progress is most urgent."

6.4. The EESC notes that after the emphasis at Lisbon and Gothenburg on putting decisions into practice, the Commission still felt the need to take the politicians to task. Nevertheless, the EESC recognises the progress that has been made in closing the delivery gap in the months since the Barcelona meeting.

6.5. Preparations for and expectations of the Barcelona Council were clouded by the fact that election campaigns were in progress in a number of countries. Politicians did not want to prejudge at Barcelona those issues which were being debated in the electoral campaigns.

6.6. The EESC welcomes a greater use of open method of coordination and it notes the efforts made by social partners in the field of their responsibilities at the European level. However, the Committee believes that it is essential for the success of this approach that public and systematic evaluation of progress is made in the Member States. The EESC recommends that an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of this approach is performed by the Commission in its preparation for the next Spring Summit.

7. Presidency Conclusions - Barcelona European Council - March 2002

7.1. The conclusions focussed on two main programmes:

- maintaining the momentum behind our long-term strategy (i.e. the Lisbon Strategy);

- priority actions in three areas.

7.2. Maintaining the momentum had four themes:

- coordination of economic policies;

- sustainable development;

- a more favourable environment for competitiveness and entrepreneurship;

- rigorous social cohesion - the Social Agenda.

7.3. A statement in the section on coordination of economic policies was noteworthy:

"Focal points will be the quality and sustainability of public finances, pursuing further necessary reforms in product, capital and labour markets, and ensuring coherence with policies established in each domain." The key question is how the reforms highlighted in italics would be translated into proposals in the Action Programmes.

7.4. The three Priority Actions are:

- active policies towards full employment - more and better jobs;

- connecting European Economies;

- a competitive economy based on knowledge.

7.5. The first Action Priority invites active policies towards full employment. There is no discussion of boosting economic activity, and the demand for employment. However, paragraph 28 of the Conclusions states: "Full employment in the European Union is the core of the Lisbon Strategy and the essential goal of economic and social policies, which requires the creation of more and better jobs. It is therefore necessary to continue paying special attention to the reforms of employment and labour-market policies".

7.6. The general theme of a Reinforced Employment Strategy is to increase employability and the employment rate; in other words, to improve the supply side of the employment equation via skills development, social inclusion, etc.

7.7. There is one specific guideline relating to the working of the labour market:

"In order to strike a proper balance between flexibility and security, Member States, in line with national practice, are invited to review employment contract regulations and, where appropriate, costs with a view to promoting more jobs."

This issue is now central to the political debate in a number of Member States.

7.8. The second Action Priority involves Connecting European Economies. The themes are:

- financial Markets (Financial Services);

- integrating European Energy, Transport and Communications Networks;

- quality Public Services.

7.9. All of these items are desirable although their execution will face considerable difficulties. These measures are expected to stimulate the demand side of the employment equation, although they will take time to work through.

7.10. The third Action Priority is a Competitive Economy based on Knowledge. It has two dimensions:

- education;

- research and frontier technologies.

Both of these are very desirable. The slow realisation of the Lisbon R& D programme is one of the major disappointments to date. The EESC urges priority action in this field. It is, however worried, about the R& D target of 3 % of GDP. There is a danger of shortfall from both the public and the private sectors.

7.11. The European Council also took decisions to improve Union working methods. The preliminaries to Barcelona demonstrated that improvements are needed in the implementation of the open method of coordination especially with regard to the execution of the Lisbon programme at national level.

7.12. The key political question is the extent to which the social model will be reformed. There are two aspects. First, the ways in which social security systems either encourage or discourage people to seek work. Second, the ways in which they either encourage or discourage employers to add jobs. In a social market economy both aspects must work well. It is necessary to balance security with flexibility for both employees and employers. This is the ongoing debate which the Lisbon process needs to resolve.

8. Renewing the Vision?

8.1. The EESC would like to re-emphasise the main agenda themes which it submitted to the Lisbon European Council in point 3.2 of its Opinion

8.1.1. Adapt the social model(s) to the new paradigm

"While retaining social protection, the social model in its different manifestations needs adapting to remove barriers to employment, avoid social exclusion in all age groups and reinforce equal opportunities, especially for women."

In the EESC Opinion to the Lisbon Council we highlighted the existence of Rhenish, Nordic, Mediterranean and Anglo Saxon social models and observed that they produced different economic and social outcomes across a wide range of measures. In the Communication from the Commission prior to the Barcelona Council, Table 2 showed progress towards certain Lisbon goals and also indicated that the average of the best three Member States was now often at or above the 2010 target. It is instructive to look at which social models produced these better than average results. The Nordic model seems to produce the best results and also, arguably, produces the best quality of life. The open method of coordination provides the means by which the best from each model can contribute to a higher level of achievement overall.

8.1.2. Achieve mass training in Information Society Technologies

"To ensure employability and avoid social exclusion, specific consideration needs to be given to each generation of men and women."

While a wide range of significant initiatives are underway, the mismatch between job opportunities and skills in each age band remains a fundamental impediment to the achievement of the Lisbon goals and, in particular, full employment.

8.1.3. Popularise and facilitate the growth of the enterprise culture

"Issues include skills and employability for all, incentives for entrepreneurs and employees and recognition of the social value of enterprise. By entrepreneurs we mean the founders and managers of SMEs, including social economy firms, exploiting new technologies and addressing new markets."

In the Lisbon Opinion, the EESC was particularly concerned about the formation and growth of new businesses as the generators of new employment. There is, of course, the overall issue of entrepreneurship in enterprises of all sizes and in society at large. In the two years since Lisbon there have been a number of Commission initiatives to create a friendly environment for starting up and developing innovative businesses, especially SMEs. However, there remains a general need to stimulate entrepreneurial culture and support entrepreneurial activity.

8.1.4. Help established companies to convert to the new paradigm

This theme can involve considerable change at the enterprise level. A consensus has now developed that the resurgence of productivity growth in the second half of the 1990's in the US and in some EU Member States is closely related to the use and diffusion of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) that featured a wide and ever increasing set of economic activities(12). With ICT now playing a crucial role in the modernisation of our economies, it is essential to create conditions so that its diffusion is the widest possible(13).

In paragraph 29 of the Barcelona European Council Conclusions, social partners were urged to place their strategies at the service of the Lisbon Strategy. "The multi-annual programme which they will submit in December 2002 should already include that contribution, particularly with regard to the adaptability of businesses in matters such as collective bargaining, wage moderation, improved productivity, life-long training, new technologies and the flexible organisation of work".

The EESC emphasises the need for social partners to facilitate such change at the enterprise level as will allow ICT to have the necessary impact on competitiveness and growth.

As was highlighted at Barcelona, the next Spring Summit will be an important check-point for these concerns.

8.1.5. Adapt education and training to the new paradigm

"While education and training is central to the whole concept of the new paradigm in general, and employability in particular, it is remarkable that the new paradigm in the USA is emerging from a base of generally low educational achievement. Given the support of governments and companies, the EU has an opportunity to create new employment of quality as well as quantity as a result of higher educational achievement. Investment in human capital is the basis for a society of innovation and knowledge."

There have been a number of Commission initiatives for education and training for living and working in the knowledge society. Since this is such a fundamental issue, it would be good to see more focus and more progress with the relevant indicators at the next Spring Summit.

8.1.6. Harness sustainable development for innovation and growth

"Fully adapting the economy and culture of the EU to the principles and precepts of sustainable development involves radical change, fundamental discontinuity and both technological and behavioural innovation. Such developments are consistent with the new paradigm."

The EESC, taking a holistic view, had already anticipated in Section 9 of its Lisbon Opinion the need to incorporate the environmental and sustainable dimensions. On reflection, the need for political leadership to bring about the scale of change needed should have been given more emphasis.

8.2. The following was the sustainable development agenda proposed by the EESC in point 9 of its Opinion.

"8.2.1. It would be difficult to conceive of a new paradigm which did not encompass sustainable development. It must be a 'sustainable' paradigm, and to be so, it must be based on innovation and knowledge. Amongst the major concerns are:

- The control and reduction of waste and pollution on land, in water and in the atmosphere.

- The sustainable use of land and water, involving agriculture, forestry, horticulture, urbanisation, industrialisation, transport, tourism and sport.

- The development of sustainable fuel resources and the use of organic fuel and other limited natural resources.

- That food production on land and at sea be better balanced to demand and sustainability, with increased attention to the quality of the good chain.

- A better balance between public and private transport, supported by a more rational approach to spatial planning and land use."

8.3. The EESC commends the above structure as a way of giving effect to the Commission's own priorities which are more conceptual, less concrete, and less focussed.

- combating climate change;

- ensuring sustainable transport;

- addressing threats to public health;

- managing natural resources more responsibly.

8.4. Since Gothenburg, the Commission has introduced a number of initiatives aimed at adding an environmental dimension. Again, the EESC would emphasise that the key issue is sustainability in all dimensions. In this context, we repeat sections of our Opinion relating to sustainability:

"8.4.1. Development of the relevant knowledge base provides the means for improved management of sustainability. There are opportunities for public and private research but public initiatives are imperative.

8.4.2. There is a vast potential for job creation arising from the exploitation of technologies for environmental protection and sustainable development.

8.4.3. Technical, industrial, behavioural and cultural innovations will all be needed if the concerns detailed in 8.1 above are to be achieved. Successful innovation should lead to the revival of existing companies and the formation of new and successful SMEs. Member States will need to establish appropriate incentives (both carrots and sticks) to stimulate such innovation.

8.4.4. The prospects for a durable economic, ecological and socially stable future will improve if a broad basis of technological and organisational expertise can be built up and developed further. One of the requirements for this is a functional and effective system of innovation in which the interplay between research and education, between training, production and organisation, and between technology transfer and state policy on innovation takes on a variety of forms.

8.4.5. It is also necessary for this purpose to give more support in Europe, in terms of breadth and depth, to research and development as the seedbed and basis for future innovations(14). At the same time the associated careers must be made so attractive that the most gifted candidates can be attracted and remain in Europe. Already in schools there must be more qualified teachers of mathematics and science subjects (and also, if need be, of technical subjects).

8.4.6. The Lisbon Summit should charge the Commission with the responsibility for examining the issues raised in point 8.1 (point 9.1 of the initial EESC submission) in the context of existing EU programmes and commitments, so that the Council can consider further actions to ensure that the new paradigm is sustainable."

9. Conclusion

9.1. It is our opinion that good progress has been made in many areas especially those where the Commission has had the initiative.

9.2. It is our opinion that in areas which require political leadership, only a few Member States have made the necessary progress. In particular we urge politicians to incorporate environmental protection and sustainability considerations in all their major initiatives in every field. The sustainability of existing social models needs to be addressed in a number of Member States.

9.3. The EESC has received the Commission Communication(15) entitled "Productivity: The key to Competitiveness of European Economies and Enterprises". In this document the Commission itself underlines the challenge and the importance of achieving the Lisbon Goals. The EESC will produce its own Opinion on this Communication in due course.

9.4. Progress on Lisbon depends heavily on the open method of coordination and the progress reported at each Spring Summit and the involvement of the social partners at the prior social summit. This process needs objective appraisal in the context of the 2003 Spring Summit, when the Lisbon timetable will already be 30 % complete. The EESC will submit its own report to the Council and the Parliament prior to the Spring European Council in 2003.

9.5. In the Opinion submitted to the Lisbon Council, the EESC asked whether it might not be the case that in order to address the challenges of the new paradigm, we might not need a new paradigm for government itself. It is clearly appropriate to ask that question again, if we are to get the action needed to fulfil the Lisbon Vision. The new paradigm should be defined by the Convention on the Future of Europe. The EESC requests the Convention to do so.

Brussels, 18 September 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) OJ C 117, 26.4.2000, p. 62.

(2) COM(2002) 14 final.

(3) Source: European Competitiveness Report 2001, p. 19.

(4) Source: EUROSTAT, 2002.

(5) Source: OECD 2000.

(6) COM(2002) 206 final - Section 4, 4th paragraph.

(7) European Competitiveness Report 2002, Chapter III.

(8) COM(2002) 206 final - Section 5 - 6th paragraph.

(9) OJ C 117, 26.4.2000.

(10) OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.

(11) OJ C 221, 17.9.2002.

(12) COM(2002) 262 final - Section 3, 2nd paragraph.

(13) COM(2002) 262 final - Section 3, last paragraph.

(14) See also Commission Communication 'Towards a European research area' (COM(2000) 6 final).

(15) COM(2002) 262 final.

[Top](#document1)