The Lisbon Strategy and the "Scandinavian Model". The Kok report, distributing criticism and attributing blame for the delays and shortfalls in the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy by the Member States (see this column over the previous few days), made a partial exception for the Scandinavian countries of the Union. Finland, Sweden and Denmark, without having nailed all of the programme's objectives, are a lot further along than the other Member States. In particular, they have exceeded the Lisbon objectives in two essential areas: budgetary equilibrium and research effort. They have either achieved or exceeded the objective of spending 3% of GDP on this latter. More generally, Wim Kok observed that the Scandinavian countries have obtained better results in terms of employment, social cohesion, research and technological development.
This came as no surprise, because the data were there for anyone to do the maths. But Wim Kok's words made an impact on the public, or at least those members of it which inform and represent it, because a few questions on this subject were put at the press conference. I could sum up the main thrust of the issue thus: the Community institutions and most governments believe that a reduction in the stranglehold of public expenditure on the GDP of Member States is desirable, and this reduction on the part of the Member State could help to free up more resources for private initiative, thus boosting the economy. The report confirms that it is in these same Scandinavian countries that the share of GDP retained by the Member State is not going down, in fact it is continuing to rise and is beyond 50% in all of the three aforementioned countries, which are, nonetheless, in better economic shape than the others.
It would be hard to claim that the answers European political leaders made to this question were particularly enlightening. Romano Prodi didn't give the impression that he'd given the subject much thought, merely describing the idea that the Scandinavian growth model works better than the others as "surprising", as taxes are on the high side. The President of the European Council, Jan Peter Balkenende, shied away from the question slightly, observing that it is a subject that they could talk about for a very long time, and that "cultural factors" doubtless played a part.
A very simple reason. Not being subject to the caution, even reticence, which tends to hold official figures back somewhat, let me express a very simple opinion; the Scandinavian model works better because the authorities and the political class use the impressive proportion of the national product entrusted to them in a way which I wouldn't say is perfect (there's no such thing), but is more efficient and honest than is the case elsewhere. Scandinavian citizens, which give the State over half of the value of what they produce and earn, know that their schools are working well, that education is guaranteed for all as far as University, that healthcare is of high quality, that no child is left alone in the streets and that single mothers get the help they need, and so on. To quote from Jacques Delors, a Danish citizen pays a lot in taxes but "gets his money's worth". Of how many countries in the EU can you say the same? In many of them, instead there's mistrust and wastage, and occasionally even corruption. Look at the corruption classification per country, established by a highly respected specialist body: the Scandinavian countries always top the "least corrupt" list, but other Member States are pretty low down it, alongside countries of central Europe and not far off the most corrupt of the poorest countries. Certainly, other "cultural" factors, as Mr Balkenende has it, have their part to play, but the fact is there: how many people trust their political classes and the administration of their country enough to give it a good half, and more, of their national product?
I do not believe that the statements made by the Kok report provide definite proof of the superiority of one societal model over another; they are simply the result of better use of public money, with more rigour and less waste and corruption.
The knowledge-based society is incompatible with uncontrolled immigration. Another aspect of the Kok report calls for a couple of comments. The chapter on the "knowledge-based society" logically highlights the need to concretise the commitment to bring expenditure of research to 3% of GDP and to bring the European patent into being (which will require certain governments to relax their position on the language of the patents, which are so cumbersome to translate, and superfluous in some languages). But at the same time, it vigorously stresses the need to attract high-level scientists from the whole world to Europe.
The report calls for the "Spring Summit" (next March) to approve a specific action plan to this effect, eliminating or reducing obstacles to their mobility between the Member States (with particular regard to the new ones) and from third countries. Visas and work permits for these categories of people will be issued using flexible and quick procedures, because this flexibility will ensure a genuine efficiency for growth in investments in research, by stopping it from having the effect of increasing bureaucracy.
If I am not mistaken, this facilitated welcome for scientists and researchers is the only reference the Kok report makes to the immigration problem. Recommendations on the employment market call for an effective lifelong training strategy (to be defined, with some urgency, by next spring), and a strategy for active ageing (to be defined in 2006). The alarmist calculations by certain UN bodies that Europe will need several tens of millions of immigrants in the next few decades, are not even mentioned. The Kok report clearly avers that the Lisbon objectives call for an entirely different policy, based not on uncontrolled immigration, but on the highest possible level of knowledge and preparation for workers, thus on: better training and education for all, lifelong learning, extended active life in order to make better use of skills accumulated and to ease the pensions burden on new generations (which is what "active ageing" is all about). These conditions are vital to safeguard the European model of society based on societal guarantees, the fight against exclusion, the smooth running and equilibrium of social security, efficient healthcare systems and the fight against illegal work (which benefits cheating employers human traffickers, who oil the wheels of illegal immigration).
Contradictory objectives. We need to understand that safeguarding the European model of society and the arrival of millions upon millions of immigrants are two diametrically opposed objectives. Those who attempt to uphold both at the same time are either dishonest or naïve. This does not mean that aid to poor countries would be abandoned or reduced: quite the contrary. In this field as well, the Scandinavian countries (plus the Netherlands and Luxembourg) set the example: they are the only Member States who stick to or exceed the UN objective for aid to poor countries (0.7% of national product), and are thus showing the way. Helping people in difficulty does not mean leaving them at the tender mercies of traffickers in human flesh, who endanger the lives of women and children in these degrading transactions, but the regular and guaranteed supply of pre-agreed aid, in order to promote initiatives and developments on the ground, by making the beneficiaries of the aid responsible for it, so that they use it in the most effective, honest and peaceful way possible.
In favour of a demographic policy? By taking note of the initiative by France, Germany, Spain and Sweden for a "European Youth Pact" (which we summed up in our bulletin of 3 November, p.10), the Summit of 4/5 November indicates that the letter by Messrs Chirac, Schröder, Zapatero and Persson underlines "the important role played by demographic factors in the economic and social development of Europe". The letter states that the European youth pact recommended by the "four" should provide, in particular, for "new actions to support European demography", alongside effective responses to youth unemployment and their problems with getting a foot on the social and professional ladders. Commitment to young people is vital for the "European model" to be able to keep its strength, because the objectives of growth and competitiveness are dependent on increasing numbers of better educated and trained young people.
Initiatives to this effect should be defined as a matter of urgency: the four signatories of the letter feel that the youth pact should be ready for next March, so that the Heads of Government can discuss it at the Spring Summit. Thus an extra initiative comes on top of those indicated in the Kok report to add to the panoply of instruments to be put into practice to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. This addition also goes in the same direction: Europe should rely on its own strengths, its own youth, by shifting the emphasis onto training (initial and permanent), on prolonging active life, by adding what amounts to the need for a demographic policy.
Refusal to integrate? Am I going to far when I say that these choices (which were not so clear and obvious, earlier on) are determined by the need for social cohesion in the population of the Union? The impetus expected from the united Europe presupposes that Europeans share a number of values which have nothing to do with their religious or philosophical beliefs, nor with their political choices or sexual orientation, but which go by the names of freedom, tolerance, democracy, gender equality, respect for others. These values are necessary for all those who want to live and work in our Community Europe. Given various recent events, we may wonder whether sometimes problems are down to a refusal to integrate and the arrogance on the part of a number of new arrivals, rather than the disinclination of the host countries.
(F.R.)