Search

Working Paper No. 170. Entrepreneurship and Growth

PublicationWorking paper
Dennis C. Mueller, Entreprenörskap, EU, Företagandets villkor, Humankapital, Tillväxt
Working Paper No. 170.
Download

Abstract

In the year 2000 at a meeting in Lisbon, leaders of the European Union (EU) articulated a set of goals for the Union, which have come to be called the Lisbon Strategy or Lisbon Agenda. The agenda had three main goals: to promote growth through innovation, to create a learning economy, and to bring about social and environmental renewal. Exactly what the last goal implies is not clear, at least to me, but the intent and substance behind the first two certainly is. Research spending was to rise across the EU, university enrollments would rise with them, and a more friendly environment for innovation would be created as markets continued to be liberalized and integrated. The EU leaders meeting in Lisbon set the year 2010 as their goal for fulfilling this agenda. The year 2010 has come and gone. Today, growth rates in Europe are even lower than they were in 2000. Research and university budgets have been cut – sometimes drastically – across the EU. These developments are, of course, largely a response to the recent financial crisis and its impact on state finances. But the crisis would not have been nearly as severe as it has been, if EU countries had been well on their way to fulfilling the goals of the Lisbon Agenda when the crisis hit. The EU’s failure to come anywhere near meeting the goals set out in the year 2000 stems, I shall argue, to underlying structural factors and ideological perspectives, which constitute major obstacles to the kind of knowledge-based, innovative society that the EU leaders dreamed of in Lisbon more than a decade ago. This paper attempts to identify what these obstacles are.

Mueller, D.C. (2011). Entrepreneurship and Growth. Ratio Working Paper No. 170.

Based on content

Working Paper No. 170. Entrepreneurship and Growth
Working paperPublication
Mueller, D.C.
Publication year

2011

Published in

Ratio Working Paper

Abstract

In the year 2000 at a meeting in Lisbon, leaders of the European Union (EU) articulated a set of goals for the Union, which have come to be called the Lisbon Strategy or Lisbon Agenda. The agenda had three main goals: to promote growth through innovation, to create a learning economy, and to bring about social and environmental renewal. Exactly what the last goal implies is not clear, at least to me, but the intent and substance behind the first two certainly is. Research spending was to rise across the EU, university enrollments would rise with them, and a more friendly environment for innovation would be created as markets continued to be liberalized and integrated. The EU leaders meeting in Lisbon set the year 2010 as their goal for fulfilling this agenda. The year 2010 has come and gone. Today, growth rates in Europe are even lower than they were in 2000. Research and university budgets have been cut – sometimes drastically – across the EU. These developments are, of course, largely a response to the recent financial crisis and its impact on state finances. But the crisis would not have been nearly as severe as it has been, if EU countries had been well on their way to fulfilling the goals of the Lisbon Agenda when the crisis hit. The EU’s failure to come anywhere near meeting the goals set out in the year 2000 stems, I shall argue, to underlying structural factors and ideological perspectives, which constitute major obstacles to the kind of knowledge-based, innovative society that the EU leaders dreamed of in Lisbon more than a decade ago. This paper attempts to identify what these obstacles are.

Working Paper No. 170. Entrepreneurship and Growth
Working paperPublication
Mueller, D.C.
Publication year

2011

Published in

Ratio Working Paper

Abstract

In the year 2000 at a meeting in Lisbon, leaders of the European Union (EU) articulated a set of goals for the Union, which have come to be called the Lisbon Strategy or Lisbon Agenda. The agenda had three main goals: to promote growth through innovation, to create a learning economy, and to bring about social and environmental renewal. Exactly what the last goal implies is not clear, at least to me, but the intent and substance behind the first two certainly is. Research spending was to rise across the EU, university enrollments would rise with them, and a more friendly environment for innovation would be created as markets continued to be liberalized and integrated. The EU leaders meeting in Lisbon set the year 2010 as their goal for fulfilling this agenda. The year 2010 has come and gone. Today, growth rates in Europe are even lower than they were in 2000. Research and university budgets have been cut – sometimes drastically – across the EU. These developments are, of course, largely a response to the recent financial crisis and its impact on state finances. But the crisis would not have been nearly as severe as it has been, if EU countries had been well on their way to fulfilling the goals of the Lisbon Agenda when the crisis hit. The EU’s failure to come anywhere near meeting the goals set out in the year 2000 stems, I shall argue, to underlying structural factors and ideological perspectives, which constitute major obstacles to the kind of knowledge-based, innovative society that the EU leaders dreamed of in Lisbon more than a decade ago. This paper attempts to identify what these obstacles are.

Ratio Working Paper No. 349: Industrial conflict in essential services in a new era – Swedish rules in a comparative perspective
Working paperPublication
Karlson, N.
Publication year

2021

Published in

Ratio Working Paper

Abstract

This paper examines whether the Swedish regulatory system of dealing with industrial conflicts that affect essential services need an update or reform. Are the existing rules effective in a world where many essential services are upheld by many interdependent agents in complex systems where every single node becomes critical for the functioning of the system, and where the essential service activities could be either private or public? A comparative study is conducted with the corresponding regulatory systems of the United Kingdom, Germany, and Denmark.
The conclusion is that Sweden is a special case. The Swedish protection against and readiness in dealing with societally harmful industrial conflicts in essential services is weaker than in the countries of comparison. Just as in relation to other threats to essential services, it is not sustainable to claim that just because such a threat is not currently present, there would be no need for preparedness.
There are many alternative ways to handle this. Desirable methods should both prevent harmful conflicts from erupting and end conflicts that have grown harmful to society at a later stage. The labour market organisations should have a mutual interest in reforming the rules.

Show more