The Lisbon Strategy’s architecture of governance was modified, formally or informally, various times in the course of its ten years of life. This study dwells on these changes, contributing to the ongoing debate on the future of the Lisbon Strategy and the appropriate architecture of governance for coordinating Eu policies after 2010. The paper is in two main parts; the first reconsiders the governance of the Lisbon Strategy since March 2000, giving a general critical view of the three main phases of its development. The second looks forward, examining an appropriate future architecture of governance for coordinating Eu policies after 2010. The last part assesses the probable outcomes of the ongoing debate on the Lisbon Strategy post-2010, on the basis of the information available at the moment of writing.only subscribers can see the full article

Since 2004 the Lisbon Strategy has been centred on structural reforms and economic prescriptions, while at the conclusion of the Lisbon summit a different strategy, organized partly around methods open to coordination, had introduced genuine innovation, with the hope of a real acceptance at community level of Europe’s “social dimension”. Since the second Kok Report things have changed. Important later events completely changed the picture, to say nothing of the economic crisis that exploded in 2007-2008. In these conditions we still need to establish the global balance of what is known by metonymy as “Lisbon”. This article tries to trace the main lines of the story. If we restrict ourselves to the social material of the Lisbon strategy, as two symbolic examples show (the implementation of social protection and flexicurity), it has not kept its promises. In the end it has been only a discourse accompanying the economic reforms, against a background of growing importance for community law, and privileges economic freedom over social rights.only subscribers can see the full article

This article is an introduction to a first and incomplete assessment of the influence of the Lisbon Strategy on the European social model. This exercise is complex for various reasons: first, because of the complexity of the Strategy; secondly because of the difficulty in identifying a clear definition of the European social model. On the basis of the existing literature and the main indicators proposed by the Strategy itself, we try in each case to suggest some reflections on the (limited) success and the (many) limitations of the Strategy. By this we mean the contents of the Lisbon Agenda and its influence on the modernization of the European social model, and also the development of the southern-European welfare model (further removed from the aims of Lisbon and so subject to greater pressure). We also study the procedural aspects of the Strategy and its capacity to influence participation, the learning process and the institutional capacities of individual member countries. The article ends with a comment on the lights and shadows linked to the implementation of the Strategy and (substantive and procedural) tensions that are still to be resolved. only subscribers can see the full article

The Lisbon strategy is a community approach designed to create learning opportunities for one’s national system and that of other countries, with the aim of encouraging the best solutions, selecting the best practices and using indicators as benchmarking. It is a process that has made the idea of convergence a reality, aiming at getting those involved to redefine their strategic and political priorities under the effect of continuous learning. However, it is clear that none of the indicators adopted at Lisbon or immediately after will be reached in 2010. It is therefore a failure that is not limited just to the social area. Using the most recent data, the article discusses the reasons for this partial failure and concludes with some suggestions for possible solutions. only subscribers can see the full article

The open method of coordination is a third way between intergovernmental cooperation and community method, in that it leaves an ample margin of manoeuvre to the member states, ensuring both that the Union has a guiding role through a procedure of comparison between the action of European countries in a context of mutual learning. The OMC was designed to ensure the necessary institutional changes and a new democratic legitimacy for the Union; however, as much of the literature indicates, the extension of the open method of coordination does not seem to have achieved these goals. In addition, if the new Treaty institutionalizes the responsibilities for coordination in the Union, a complete “constitutionalization” of the OMC will not be achieved. The incorporation of the Nice Charter of Fundamental European Rights brings out, however, the advance of the process of “constitutionalizing” “social Europe”: social rights are now the fundamental values of the integration process. Nevertheless, the guarantees for social rights given at national level by judges and Constitutional Courts cannot be regarded as interchangeable with those granted by the Community.only subscribers can see the full article