Social Indicators Research

, Volume 129, Issue 1, pp 77–93 | Cite as

Europe En Route to 2020: A New Way of Evaluating the Overall Fulfillment of the Europe 2020 Strategic Goals

Article

Abstract

The growth strategy of Europe 2020 includes standards to be achieved by the EU member states in many crucial areas, such as in employment, innovation, education, poverty, climate and energy policy. The progress is regularly measured by a set of predetermined indicators in each area. Although Eurostat annually publishes the values of these indicators on both national and cross-national levels, not many studies have been conducted on the methodology of how the progress can be quantified. In this paper we propose a new, more efficient complex index that measures how close the member states are to the completion of the strategy, also considering the heterogeneity of growth paces across the countries. A series of calculations (such as the Mahalanobis distance between the actual and the target values of the indicators and a special self-weighting average constructed to eliminate country-specific differences in development) that were based on the original indicators showed that the EU seemed to lag behind in fulfilling its goals that had been set for 2020 in 2008–2013. It can be empirically proven that a successful cohesion policy is essential in order to fulfill the growth expectations set for a decade.

Keywords

Europe 2020 Complex measure Level of success Composite indicator Self-weighting average 

JEL Classification

C43 I38 O52 

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., Rappai, G., Szerb, L. (2011). Index-building in a system of interdependent variables: The penalty for bottleneck. GMU School of Public Policy Research Paper No. 2011–2024. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstrack=1945346. Accessed 24 June 2013.
  2. Aristovnik, A., & Obadić, A. (2014). Measuring relative efficiency of secondary education in selected EU and OECD countries: The case of Slovenia and Croatia. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(3), 419–433. (Online ed.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aristovnik, A., Pungartnik, A. (2009). Analysis of reaching the Lisbon strategy targets at the national level: The EU-27 and Slovenia. MPRA Paper no. 18090. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18090. Accessed 21 January 2015.
  4. Bourgeais, V., Gebhard, F. (2015). How is the European Union progressing towards its Europe 2020 targets? Eurostat NewsRelease. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6664132/1-02032015-CP-EN.pdf/e339ff6c-ee5c-4385-9cbc-bce32fbdb8d7
  5. Box, G. E. P. (1949). A general distribution theory for a class of likelihood criteria. Biometrika, 36(4), 317–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Çolak, M. S., & Ege, A. (2013). An assessment of EU 2020 strategy: Too far to reach? Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 659–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Copeland, P., & Daly, M. (2012). Varieties of poverty reduction: Inserting the poverty and social exclusion target into Europe 2020. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(3), 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Damro, C. (2012). Market power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(5), 682–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Maesschalck, R., Jouan-Rimbaud, D., & Massart, D. L. (2000). The Mahalanobis distance. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 50(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EUROSTAT (2014). Getting messages across using indicators. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5936409/KS-GQ-12-001-EN.PDF
  11. Goedemé, T. (2013). How much confidence can we have in EU-SILC? Complex sample designs and the standard error of the Europe 2020 poverty indicators. Social Indicators Research, 110(1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoedl, E. (2011). Europe 2020 strategy and European recovery. Problems of Sustainable Development, 6(2), 11–16.Google Scholar
  13. Mahalanobis, P Ch. (1936). On the generalised distance in statistics. Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India, 2(1), 49–55.Google Scholar
  14. Obadić, A., & Aristovnik, A. (2011). Relative efficiency of higher education in Croatia and Slovenia: An international comparison. Amfiteatru Economic, 13(30), 362–376.Google Scholar
  15. Pasimeni, P. (2013). The Europe 2020 index. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 613–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Walburn, D. (2010). Europe 2020. Local Economy, 25(8), 699–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of PécsPecsHungary

Personalised recommendations