Table I

Structural Indicators (short list), Spring Council March 2004

Indicator Main domain of per-formance Target Strategic pertinence of indicator,
causal status of indicator
1. GDP per capita Competitiveness    
2. Labour productivity Competitiveness    
3. Employment rate Employment total: 70 % by 2010 raises output, raises living standards (1), promotes social cohesion (9,10,11)
4. Employment rate of older workers Employment total: 50 % by 2010 raises the overall employment rate (3), thus raising living standards (1), improves social cohesion (9,10,11). Tackling problems resulting from aging populations
5. Spending on human resources (public ex-penditure on education) Innovation, competi-tiveness, social cohesion   Increases labour productivity (2), thus raising living standards (1), improving social cohesion by offering equal opportunities in knowledge-based society
6. Research and Devel-opment expenditure Innovation 3 % of GDP by 2010 Improving production technologies (2) and raising growth (1)
7. Information Technology expenditure Innovation   Enhances productivity growth (2). US superiority largely due to competitive advantages in IT-producing and IT-using industries
8. Financial market integration (convergence in bank lending rates) Economic reform   Indicator not yet available. Is in-tended to measure ease and equality of access to financial capital
9. At risk-of-poverty rate Social cohesion   [No hints to causal status in COM (2003) 585.]
10. Long-term unem-ployment Social cohesion   Under-utilisation of human resources (3) loss of human capita by loss of skills (3)
11. Dispersion of regional employment rates Social cohesion   Lowering regional disparities raises employment (3)
12. Greenhouse gases emissions Environment   Ensuring sustainability of growth (1) by preventing detrimental impacts of climate change
13. Energy intensity of the economy Environment   Ensuring sustainability of growth (1)
14. Volume of transport Environment   Protecting economic growth (1) against detrimental consequences of congestion, noise, pollution

Source: Extracted from COM(2003) 585 final.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Table II

Monitoring upward convergence of the employment rate

Best performance Poor performance Mean Performance Upward Convergence Coefficient of variation
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
1990 76,80 52,30 63,38 68,10 ,16
1991 74,67 51,73 63,35 69,29 ,14
1992 72,50 51,27 62,34 70,71 ,13
1993 70,27 50,20 60,38 71,44 ,13
1994 70,33 50,17 60,75 71,33 ,12
1995 71,03 50,77 61,15 71,47 ,12
1996 71,03 51,37 61,48 72,31 ,12
1997 71,43 51,93 62,19 72,70 ,12
1998 71,97 52,90 63,12 73,51 ,11
1999 72,90 53,90 64,33 73,94 ,11
2000 74,07 55,20 65,29 74,53 ,10
2001 74,77 55,97 65,77 74,86 ,10
2002 74,63 56,87 65,93 76,19 ,10

Legend for colums:

  1. Three best performing member states, unweighted mean of employment rate Poor performance
  2. Three poorest performing member states, unweighted mean of employment rate Mean performance
  3. mean performance of member states, un-weighted mean of employment rate Upward convergence
  4. column 2 * 100 / column 1. Poor performance mean as percentage of best performance mean. Coefficient of variation
  5. Standard deviation divided by the mean.

Table III

Best-performance benchmarking of employment performance. Composition of best performing trio

First Second Third Year SE KD UK NL FI AT
se dk fi 1990 1 1 0 0 1 0
se dk fi 1991 1 1 0 0 1 0
se dk uk 1992 1 1 1 0 0 0
dk se uk 1993 1 1 1 0 0 0
dk se at 1994 1 1 0 0 0 1
dk se at 1995 1 1 0 0 0 1
dk se uk 1996 1 1 1 0 0 0
dk uk se 1997 1 1 1 0 0 0
dk uk se 1998 1 1 1 0 0 0
dk se uk 1999 1 1 1 0 0 0
dk se nl 2000 1 1 0 1 0 0
dk nl se 2001 1 1 0 1 0 0
dk nl se 2002 1 1 0 1 0 0

Table IV

Poor employment performance. Composition of poor performing trio

Last 2nd last 3rd last Year ES IE IT GR
Es ie gr 1990 1 1 0 1
Es ie gr 1991 1 1 0 1
Es ie gr 1992 1 1 0 1
Es ie it 1993 1 1 1 0
Es it ie 1994 1 1 1 0
Es it ie 1995 1 1 1 0
Es it gr 1996 1 0 1 1
Es it gr 1997 1 0 1 1
Es it gr 1998 1 0 1 1
It es gr 1999 1 0 1 1
It gr es 2000 1 0 1 1
It gr es 2001 1 0 1 1
It gr es 2001 1 0 1 1

Table V

Benchmarking selected Lisbon objectives

  Lisbon
(data available) 		Barcelona
 (latest data) 		EU Best
Performance
Indicator 		EU 2010
Target
1.General economic background
a. GDP per capita in 1995 PPS, US=100 (99/01) 65.1 65.1 96.0  
b. Growth rate of GDP at constant prices 1995 (99/01) 2.6 1.6 4.9  
c. Productivity per employee in PPS, US=100 (99/01) 74.0 72.2 106.0  
2. Employment
a. Overall (% of active population) 99/01 63.2 63.9 73.6 ** 70
67 (2005)
b. Women 99/01 52.8 54.7 69.0 60
57 (2005)
c. Older workers (55-64) 99/01 37.2 38.3 66.0 50
4. Education and Training
a. Public spending on education as % GDP Years 99, 00 5.0 5.1 6.7 -
b. Early school leavers (% not in further edu-cation) Years 99, 01 18.7 17.7 7.2 9.4
c. Lifelong learning (% participation of adults) Years 99, 01 8.2 8.3 21.4 -

Source: COM (2002) 14 final, p. 8, no extraction for point 3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 2

©2004 by Michael Zängle
formated and tagged by KH&MN 9.6.2004