Not least of the changes which indicate that the EU is not quite as badly paralysed as it is sometimes made out are the initiatives concerning the European industrial policy. It may not sit comfortably with people who have not been following Community activities for long to understand how important the Commission's recent communication on this subject really is. But this document represents the conclusion of a debate which has lasted several decades. To start with, even the words "industrial policy" were banned at European level, because they sounded to Germany like the "five-year plans" of the former USSR, setting production objectives for each State, a culture of leadership instead of liberty of enterprise. Any terminology which might be slightly ambiguous was banished. The European decision-makers could try to explain that they had no intentions of leading anything, just to facilitate the creation of conditions, legal and otherwise, until there were blue in the face: reservations and reluctance abounded. The successful restructuring of sectors, such as steel and shipbuilding, which were struggling, were not enough to overcome this inherent mistrust.
What is acquired. We had to wait for Gerhard Schröder for Germany to change course and become the main proponent of the manufacturing industry at European level, and for the Commission and the Economy/Finance Council to recognise that the production of material goods is the basis on which Europe is founding its prosperity and its weight in the world. Two Commission documents, of 2002 and 2004, looked at the dangers of "disindustrialisation" and the phenomenon of delocalisations, and the conclusions were reasonably reassuring. I'm not going to sum up these texts again or even comment on them; if anybody's interested, please refer to this column in bulletins 8395 (February 2003) and 8695 (April 2004), to name but two, on our electronic diskette. This was when various economists, taking as their basis a dilatory reading of statistics on the decline of the manufacturing industry and agricultural activities as part of GDP and employment, sketched out an "advanced economy" for Europe, which was virtually denuded of agriculture and the production of goods which could be made elsewhere. The reasoning in vogue at the time was this: why should we knock ourselves out to produce things which are others are offering at a lower costs? This less than ept reasoning must have a certain allure, given the support it received (and which it still enjoys now, to a certain extent, at least for the agricultural plank). The European institutions swept aside with statements which are now part of the intellectual community acquis: " the European economy continues to depend on the dynamism of its industry"; the production of goods for the citizens "has an irreplaceable role to play in the prosperity of Europe". At the same time, proof was provided that the development of services was linked to the existence of a solid industrial fabric, because a lot of it was services to business. The image of the European economy based on services, on the financial activities and the production of non-material goods, has been demolished and the production of goods has got its old place back (even Tony Blair said he agreed with this).
Atmosphere. The change in atmosphere rapidly had knock-on effects on the activities of the Commission. You may remember the German battle for the creation of a vice-president with responsibility for all sectors with a direct impact on industrial activity. This institutional reform has not taken place quite as the Germans had planned, because the other Commissioners could not agree to any kind of apparent subordination, but the kernel of the idea subsists, thanks to the creation of a "competitiveness group", which is chaired by Günter Verheugen (Industry/Enterprise) and comprises the Commissioners with responsibility for Employment, Research, Competitiveness, the Internal Market and the Environment. Its result has been that a closer eye is being kept on the demands of industrial activity, whilst taking due account of the social and environmental aspects and the needs of competition. Of course, there are different shades of meaning, and sometimes more than just shades, separating the Commissioners of this group, because the requirements do not always coincide; the relationship between competitiveness and the environment, for example, has not been the easiest. But there is an effort to do this, as indicated by the very title of the new document: "A political framework to EU manufacturing- a new integrated approach to industrial policy". At the same time as this new dynamism and the broader vision reflected in the work of the Commission, the debate has been resumed within civil society, with outstanding contributions, such as the colloquium "In Favour of European Industrial Dialogue" organised by the association "Confrontations Europe".
Tomorrow, I will try to sum up on the Commission's document and on the melting pot of ideas, initiatives and stances which surround it, because this is a subject which is vital for Europe. (F.R.)