Spillovers from economic reform

  • Klaus Weyerstrass
  • Johannes Jaenicke
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)


In March 2000, the heads of the European Union countries proclaimed the aim of making Europe the “most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustaining economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” by 2010. To achieve this overall goal, a set of economic and social reforms called the “Lisbon Strategy” or the “Lisbon Agenda” to be undertaken was defined. Several objectives, grouped in five dimensions (employment, innovation and research, structural economic reforms, social cohesion, environment) were set up. It was agreed upon that the European Commission should annually prepare progress reports in order to evaluate the progress the Member States have made in achieving the Lisbon goals. In its mid-term review in 2005, the European Commission concluded that the implementation of reforms in line with the Lisbon Strategy had in many areas been too slow. In particular, the growth performance of the past five years had been disappointing, particularly as compared to other regions of the world economy such as the US and certain Asian economies. Therefore, the Lisbon Strategy was revised, focussing on growth and the creation of employment (European Commission, 2005 and 2006).


Total Factor Productivity Euro Area Total Factor Productivity Growth Labour Market Regulation Labour Market Institution 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Badinger, H. (2004), Do we really know that the EU’s Single Market Programme has fostered competition? Testing for a decrease in markup ratios in EU industries. Europainstitut, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Working Paper 55.Google Scholar
  2. Bayoumi, T., D. Laxton, and P. Pesenti (2004), Benefits and spillovers of greater competition in Europe: A macroeconomic assessment, NBER Working Paper 10416.Google Scholar
  3. Blanchard, O. and F. Giavazzi (2001), Macroeconomic effects of regulation and deregulation in goods and labour markets, NBER Working Paper 8120.Google Scholar
  4. Calmfors, L. and J. Driffill (1988), Centralization of wage bargaining; Economic Policy 2, p.14–61.Google Scholar
  5. Coppens, F. and D. Vivet (2004), Liberalisation of network industries: Is the electricity sector an exception to the rule?, National Bank of Belgium, Working Paper 200409.Google Scholar
  6. Estevao, M. (2004), Why is Productivity Growth in the Euro Area so sluggish? IMF Working Paper WP/04/200.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (2004), The EU Economy: 2004 Review, European Economy no. 6.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission (2005), Communication to the Spring European Council: Working together for growth and jobs. A new start for the Lisbon Strategy, Brussels.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission (2006), Communication to the Spring European Council: Time to move up a gear. The new partnership for growth and jobs, Brussels.Google Scholar
  10. Griffith, R. and R. Harrison (2004), The link between product market reform and macro-economic performance, European Commission, Economic Papers no.209.Google Scholar
  11. Gwartney, J. and R. Lawson (2004), Economic Freedom of the World: 2004 Annual Report, Fraser Institute, Vancouver, http://www.freetheworld.com.Google Scholar
  12. IMF (2003), Unemployment and labour market institutions: why reforms pay off; April World Economic Outlook.Google Scholar
  13. Martins, J.O., S. Scarpetta and D. Pilat (1996), Mark-up Ratios in Manufacturing Industries. Estimates for 14 OECD Countries. OECD Economics Department Working Paper no. 162.Google Scholar
  14. Nickell, S. (2003), Labour Market Institutions and Unemployment in OECD Countries, CESifo DICE Report 2/2003, p.13–26.Google Scholar
  15. Nickell, S. and L. Nunziata (2001), Labour market institutions database, vers. 2.00, LSE, Centre of Economic Performance; http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/data0502.zipGoogle Scholar
  16. Nunziata, L. (2001), Institutions and Wage Determination: a Multi-Country Approach, University of Oxford, Nuffield College, Working Paper 2001-W29.Google Scholar
  17. Roeger, W. (1995), Can imperfect Competition explain the Difference between Primal and Dual Productivity Measures? Estimates for US manufacturing. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 103, no. 2., p.316–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Weyerstrass
    • 1
  • Johannes Jaenicke
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Advanced StudiesViennaAustria
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of ErfurtErfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations