Three objectives as regards the governance of the Lisbon reform process underpin the Commission's plans:
- more focus with "rigorous prioritisation": the Commission proposes to focus on economic growth and employment by launching the idea of a "Partnernship for Growth and Jobs", which would be supported by an action plan at Union level and national action plans in the member states;
- mobilise support for reforms: national member states, social partners and even citizens need to take "ownership" of the necessary reform processes. Lisbon "must become part of national political debate"; member states will be urged to present national action programmes and to appoint a 'Mr or Ms Lisbon' at government level;
- simplification, clarification and simpler reporting: instead of the myriad reports "that no one reads" (dixit Barroso), there will be a single Lisbon report at EU level and one at national level.
Several challenges follow from these three objectives:
- the idea of focusing the Lisbon agenda can lead to an unfruitful and sterile ideological debate on the equality of the three pillars of the Lisbon agenda: economic growth and competitiveness, social inclusion and environmental concerns. Several social organisations and NGOs have already warned that the re-focusing of Lisbon is part of a "neo-liberal" growth-only agenda of the new 'business-friendly' Barroso Commission.
- probably the biggest challenge for the Commission will be to get member states, social partners and citizens behind the Lisbon agenda. It is unclear how the Commission will be in a position to force the member states to establish national action plans, and even if governments would agree to such plans, to control how these will be implemented (see the problems the EU has with its Stability and Growth Pact). Even more daunting will be the task of communicating to the citizens what Lisbon means to them.
- simpler reporting seems like a very laudable ambition but what are reports when the will and the political leadership to implement the necessary reforms are lacking?
