The deplorable story of the Lisbon Strategy
orHow the European Union squandered the one chance it had to come to par with the USA, China and Japan in technology
In casual conversation in Europe today, it is popular to talk
about the unicorns and the incredible capital gains of early investors in Apple
and Alibaba.
However, these are stories of other cultures, other continents, made possible
by different attitudes to risk than are found in Europe. In The Netherlands,
even in Europe, such stories do not exist.
The Dutch golden age (1575 – 1672)
owed its success to entrepreneurs and financiers who were not afraid to take
risks and explore the new. I refer to the brilliant book of the historian Simon Schama called The
Embarrassment of Riches
and an
article about the wealth of the Dutch nation, although there are also
references to it in Samuel Pepys diary. From the 18th century
onwards, the Dutch culture edged inexorably toward risk avoidance. Even in
modern times where technology develops at supersonic speeds, cherry picking in venture capital firms is
done much on the basis of 'proven business' and 'minimizing risk', and this is
seen as 'sound investment strategy'. But this 'sound' investment strategy is as
perilous as it gets, for the end result of the self-indulgent way of investment
policies is that Europe is lagging hopelessly behind in bringing its
technological and scientific prowess to market, or, in the vernacular of European
politics, Europe is missing out on 'valorisation'.
The creation of technologically advanced behemoths is
not
only severely hampered by the language barriers and lack of consistent
policies, there are also barriers in the form of cultural barriers, like political
correctness, the fight for the right on privacy, traditional portfolio
management, and other risk-averse attitudes. This is recognised in Europe and
in rare occasions some people try to break through such attitudes and policies. But
as long as there are no cultural changes and no changes in financial
infrastructure and legislation, it remains hard to get something going in Europe
that is world class and has a world-wide impact.
It is not that Europe did not have its chances, too. They
have been rare and were fleeting, quite the opposite of American and Chinese
situations where the infrastructure to finance opportunities are permanently
present in ever bigger numbers.
A fine example of such a rare chance is The
Lisbon Strategy, agreed to by the European Council in March 2000. (Ill. its
logo) The traditional lag of 50 years had been reduced to 20 or 15 years, even.
By all accounts, The Lisbon Strategy or Lisbon Initiative was an
extraordinary achievement, showing great insight and a correct evaluation
of European priorities, an extremely rare feat in European politics, if
anything. The Lisbon Initiative was perfectly
timed, well-formulated, and, above all, it was exciting, intrepid, ambitious
and inspirational. Funded with €72 billion, its mission of the year 2000 was to
make the European Union in 2010, "the
most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world". This
goal had a huge wow!-factor. It was splendid and excited great interest.
The Lisbon Strategy was formulated for a crucial decennium,
at the very moment when it counted most. If Europe simply would have done the
program, we now would have been at least at par with China, Japan and the USA
in terms of technology, if not more advanced. Instead, we have to discuss
whether technologies by Huawei for 5G would enable the Chinese to spy on us.
That would have been a sound argument in the year 2000, even in 2010 still, but
today, what on Earth would be so interesting about Europe that China would want
to spy on us? The China of today is way ahead, not behind Europe any more. Wake
up, you politicians! How could this come about? How could such a best laid plan
go awry?
The first problem that the EU created for itself followed
the brilliant Lisbon Initiative immediately afterwards, in 2001. Some negative
thinkers or destructive tinkerers of policy found it politically correct and
obligatory to have a bunch of insipid and stultifying words added to the
mission of 2000. These new words dampened all enthusiasm and all of a sudden
put The Lisbon Strategy in a politicised context that it should not have had
because it created endless problems. These stultifying words, which destroyed
the initiative as if by a black magic spell, were: "capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and
greater social cohesion". The
addition was unnecessary for we are not ruled by the American Republican Party
nor by the thought-slaves of Donald Trump. In our European societies "working
for the betterment of all" belongs to the core values that on our continent still go
without saying – in other words, what else could be the idea behind the original mission
of The Lisbon Strategy?
The second problem was that the money had to be distributed
to all 15 states that comprised the EU in 2000. It would have been much better
to concentrate the funds in an independent body and use it where the
opportunities presented themselves. Alas, that is not how the EU works. Every
country wants to assert its identity and importance, and, most of all, get its
share, preferably as large as it can get. These are typically male
characteristics by the way. Instead of cooperation to let everybody profit,
there is competition for a higher rung on the pecking order. The basic tenet
that makes Europe weak is the idea that every single state, large or small, should
have the complete set of industries, services, governmental institutions and
technologies as if we live in times where full independence and the ability to be fully self-supporting are paramount. Perhaps that
was a logical policy in the dark ages of Medieval times (450 – 800 C.E.) but
full independence has never really existed anywhere. Each nation, each region
should have and has its own function and specialties. What is wrong with that?
They can trade with other regions that make or do other things and provide
different services. Bulgaria is doing very well trading its agricultural
riches. Denmark is taking over the windmill business. Each to its own best. The
functioning of the EU with its veto system and lack of cooperation constitutes an
innate weakness and this, in conjunction with its cultural traits of
self-sufficiency and extreme risk-avoidance, is the second and perhaps most
important reason why the EU lags behind the USA and the Far East. Talking about
this may be considered controversial by some diplomats but not talking about it
leaves Europe in the doldrums, slowly simmering into political oblivion.
In view of the shortcomings of the EU as mentioned above, it
is no wonder that, as early as in 2004, it was conceded that member states were
not pursuing The Lisbon Plan with any interest. In 2010, the official evaluation
of the Lisbon Initiative stated that the program had failed utterly. The money
had been squandered; it had been distributed according to political power
instead of the needs of science and technological development; it had been
pocketed with gratitude by one and all (let's call it what it actually is, a
handout to "friends and acquaintances"), and that was that.
In 2010, a new but toned-down, mundane agenda
of five
points with the drab title Europe
2020 replaced the Lisbon strategy. The new strategy set laudable but
uninspiring goals formulated in terms of statistics. However, this was fairly
successful, especially when viewed in the context of the economic crisis of
2008 – 2011.
In 2020, the ambitions have been formulated in six
"Policy Guidelines for 2019 – 2024".[iii]
No logo,
no simplifying image, nothing exciting, nothing viscerally enticing, nothing visual.
That is EU today.
It is easy to complain and call people names, it is hard to do
something about it and come up with an idea that is captivating and has the potential
to help the EU in a substantive way. This is what I tried to do with the initiative
Free Female Entrepreneurs Funding Fund,
FFEFF, for which the meagre sum of €1.2 billion
is needed to make it a success, "a sure thing".
The FFEFF initiative fits in perfectly with the second
guideline of "Six Policy Guidelines for 2019 – 2024"[iv],
which is "An Economy that works for people." And ties in with Policy
Area "Jobs, Growth and Investment",
especially the Policy "Investment
Plan for Europe, Getting Europe investing again." [v]
This proposal does not benefit just a few financial
interests and a tiny group of selected entrepreneurs, but will be manna from heaven
to thousands of female entrepreneurs in The Netherlands alone, all of whom have
the potential to provide economic growth and new jobs, and, what is more, have a
happy and fulfilling life.
Amsterdam, Charles van der Hoog, February 19, 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment