Mr Erkki Liikanen Member of the European Commission, responsible for Enterprise and the Information Society "Innovation and Opportunities in the Enlarging Europe" 24 Hours Management Conference Copenhagen, 29 January 2004

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for me to join you here in Copenhagen and to exchange views with you on the prospects, opportunities and challenges of enlargement.

One of the priorities, if not the priority of the Prodi Commission is about to become a reality. In about 3 months from now, we will see the biggest enlargement in the Union's history.

The city of Copenhagen has witnessed two great historical breakthroughs in the enlargement process. In 1993, the Copenhagen European Council defined the political and economic accession criteria and launched the negotiation process.

Nine years later, in December 2002, again in Copenhagen, the European Council agreed that ten Candidate countries had met these criteria and successfully finalised negotiations.

The ten new Member States will increase the Union's population by a further 75 million citizens. They represent a diversity of cultures and histories, of experiences and skills, which I believe, will add to the Union's richness, and will be a shot in the arm to the European project.

We are looking forward with great excitement to the First of May this year. It will be a historical date. Enlargement will indeed produce major economic, political and social impacts.

All parties involved have worked hard to prepare for accession. After a decade of transition, almost all the necessary preparations are in place. Economic integration has evolved gradually, but the reforms of the societies in the accession countries have been impressive driven forward by the prospects of EU membership. This process has already brought remarkable opportunities for enterprises in both the current and future Member States.

In the Accession countries, income, investment and productivity growth have been high, in some cases even higher than in the Union. Companies in Accession countries are now looking forward to easier access to EU markets, enhanced transparency in business practices, larger inflows of investment and better access to new technologies. Major financial transfers have already been made and will surely be reinforced under the Cohesion and Structural funds.

Enterprises in the current Member States are also benefiting from enlargement. As Accession countries invest in new equipment to comply with EU (environmental and safety) standards they have become one of the main markets for EU exports. Their share in external EU trade has continued to increase from 5% in 1990 to about 15% today. This is more than the share of Japan and well above half of the US share.

This is a significant increase. But I believe that the most important opportunities flowing from enlargement do not lie in the trade area, but rather in the possibilities for companies in current and new Member States to re-organise themselves and their processes. By taking advantage of the diversities and skills of the enlarged Union, companies will be able to strengthen their competitiveness. But more on that later.

However, there are still important difficulties with respect to the economic development of most of the Accession countries. Per capita incomes are around 60% below the EU average, ranging from 70% below average in Latvia to 31% in Slovenia. On the basis of current growth rates it would take Accession countries between 15 and 40 years to catch up.

But I believe that such a slow catch-up scenario is unlikely, given the huge opportunities of enlargement.

Government and business will have to collaborate closely to make the most out of these opportunities, to maximise win-win situations and to minimise the risks.

The current economic situation in Accession countries

Let me briefly elaborate on the current economic situation in Accession countries.

After a decade of privatisation, downsizing and reorganisation, the industrial structure of the Accession countries has come closer to the EU pattern, both in terms of production and employment structures.

Since 1995 industrial labour productivity has increased fast in most Accession countries. But significant divergences persist. Hungary is the productivity leader with around 50% of the EU average and Latvia is lagging behind at 33%.

As in the current Member States, productivity grows unevenly across sectors. The positive development in the electrical, optical, transport and furniture sectors is strong. Some of these have even increased their comparative advantage vis-à-vis the present Member States. Sectors where challenges remain are food, beverages and tobacco, textiles, leather, wood products and chemicals.

In the more advanced Accession countries, production is shifting towards more sophisticated sectors. Important shares of exports from technology-driven industries are observed in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary and Slovakia. In Hungary the export share of technology-driven industries is already comparable to the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Estonia and Hungary show the biggest shares of exports in industries that rely on high-skilled and white-collar workers. On the whole, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia rely less on labour-intensive industries in their exports to Member States than Greece and Portugal. Conversely, labour-intensive industries account for the major part of export gains in Latvia and Lithuania.

Overall, Accession countries are converging with the EU in terms of competitiveness, industrial structures and trade specialisation. But some divergences have nevertheless emerged. Countries specialising in technological sectors are catching up relatively quickly. Other countries seem to be stuck in more traditional sectors, mainly concentrated on low-skill labour intensive activities.

The role of foreign direct investment

As mentioned earlier, I believe the potential for trade based economic integration has to a large extent been exploited. The next wave of integration will rely on other, "deeper" forms of cooperation.

Foreign direct investment has already contributed a lot to restructuring and modernisation.

Most FDI has gone into the manufacturing sector. It has attracted nearly half of the FDI in Central Europe and approximately one fourth in the Baltic States. For example, in Hungary, 70% of manufacturing sales comes from foreign-owned companies.

Foreign owned companies in export-oriented branches such as automobiles, electrical and optical equipment are now among the main exporters in some countries.

The motivations for investing have evolved over time. Initially, investment choices were mostly "market seeking". Investors wanted to gain a foothold in stable domestic markets, such as tobacco and beverages, sometimes using them as springboards into the region.

The low-cost and educated labour force has been another attraction for FDI. This has motivated transfers of production from the EU to candidate countries, notably in the textile and clothing sector.

Low-cost relocation strategies helped to retain production activities in Europe that would otherwise have been lost to Asia. Without this West/East reorganisation of the value chain, the erosion of Europe's competitiveness would have been a fact. And local producers benefited to some extent from the transfer of knowledge and technology.

However, design, marketing, input supply, management and other high-skill segments of the production chain usually remained in the current Member States. This unequal distribution of added value along the supply chain has sometimes led to negative perceptions of FDI by the general public.

And indeed, low-cost relocation alone will not bring about long-term catching-up. As wages in the Accession countries will gradually converge with those in the EU, standard labour-intensive tasks will tend to move further east to countries with still lower wages, such as Ukraine, Russia or East Asia.

It is precisely to prevent wages from "racing to the bottom" and to overcome fears of "social dumping" that motivated Accession countries to join the Union. In the enlarged Europe, competitive advantages mainly based on low labour-costs are neither sustainable nor desirable.

Maximising win-win situations through innovation

But, there are now signs that industrial co-operation in the enlarged Europe goes beyond the simple outsourcing of production. More complex European production networks are emerging. They are based on innovation and a valuing of local technological inputs and skills.

These international production networks integrate Eastern and Western capabilities in a more complementary way. We may call it the "high road" of industrial integration through innovation. It allows EU industry to fully exploit opportunities in the enlarged EU, while at the same time accelerating sustainable growth in the new Member States.

West/East inter-firm co-operation is in the process of rapidly intensifying, from simple trade-based activities to more stable business networks and capital joint ventures. More "deep integration" of this kind is an indispensable condition for local subsidiaries and suppliers to move up the value chain.

"Deep integration" requires good co-operation skills, even more so in trans-national cooperation schemes, where bridging cultural differences and building mutual trust is paramount. Enterprises from the Nordic countries are good at cooperative innovation.

Companies from the Accession countries are less experienced in network-based business models and could learn from the Nordic example.

How can public policy contribute?

The development of innovation-based West/East production networks in the enlarged Europe is a strategic challenge of the post-enlargement era.

It is a challenge for enterprises in the current and in the new Member States. It is the enterprises that are in the driver's seat and it is not up to public authorities to tell them how to innovate, cooperate and build partnerships.

But public policy is far from neutral to companies. The way we design and implement policies can promote or hinder enterprise. The public in general and businesses in particular expect a positive contribution from policy makers.

Public policy has already contributed a lot, but it must do even more to help economic development in the enlarged Europe. Let me mention three aspects:

·         First, framework conditions,

·         Second, regional development, and

·         Third, research and innovation policy.

During the entire accession process, national governments and the European Commission have cooperated to reform the institutional environment and provide a stable framework for entrepreneurial decision making.

The acquis communautaire has been largely transposed and as a result legislation has reached a high degree of alignment with the European Union.

But improving framework conditions is not only a matter of legislation. Initiatives such as the European Charter for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, the Entrepreneurship Action Plan and various European benchmarking exercises are equally important. They have contributed to improve the entrepreneurial climate in Europe and the conditions under which companies are created.

For example, registering a company on-line is already possible in Austria and here in Denmark. Other Member States are following suit. Malta, Cyprus, Latvia and Lithuania have come out in a benchmarking exercise as close to the best in Europe in cutting the administrative costs and time required to set up a new enterprise.

I expect enlargement will push reform further and not hamper it. A greater variety of locations competing for investment will inevitably lead to more pressure for optimising national framework conditions. Ineffective taxation structures will increasingly be challenged.

Let me now turn to regional and cohesion policy.

The future Structural and Cohesion funds will address the structural changes and provide the capital necessary for catching-up. The institutional and conceptual preparations to ensure a proper use of Structural funds have started well ahead of accession. "Development Plans" and "Community Support Frameworks" for the years 2004-2006 are in place in all Accession countries.

Developing the transport, energy and telecommunications infrastructure will remain a crucial function of these funds. But the main challenge for the next programming period will be to adapt regional and cohesion policy to encourage nature of economic convergence in the knowledge economy. We want to move towards integrated approaches that combine infrastructure development, training measures and the provision of quality business support services around identified investment projects.

Innovative means of support to enterprise networking and co-operation requires the active contribution of business and other stakeholders in the design and implementation of these policies. New forms of public-private partnerships are at stake.

One example is human capital development and knowledge creation. Both aspects have already been dealt with under the Structural funds of the past. But much of these efforts relied on the intervention of public institutions. This is not always the most efficient way to satisfy the needs of the private sector.

Building strong universities and public research centres is certainly necessary as these can stimulate regional clusters of knowledge-based activities. But government R&D and business R&D are not the same; public R&D is not a substitute for private R&D and innovation. We should think about new ways to manage structural funds in a way that encourages companies in the target regions to execute themselves a larger share of research, innovation and training.

This requires intense cooperation between companies and regional authorities. The degree to which the private sector is prepared to take responsibility is critical for the economic success of a region.

Last but not least I want to mention research and innovation policy. This is a third area where public policy must play an active and leading role to contribute to economic development and convergence in the enlarged Europe.

I mention research and innovation policy together because research and innovation are indeed closely connected. Many innovations are directly based on research, for example in biotechnology.

For quite sometime now, the EU's Framework Programmes for Research have been open to participants from Candidate countries. This means many opportunities for companies to build research partnerships with companies from the new Member States. It means opportunities for enterprises, including SMEs, to strengthen their technology base and enhance their contribution to European competitiveness.

However, not all innovation is research based. Applying an existing technology in a new context and for new purposes can be as challenging as entering a totally new technological field.

Take for example the widespread and in-depth adoption of Information and Communication Technologies. Faster adoption of ICT is not primarily a matter of research. Rather it involves innovations in the work environment, development of new skills, and organisational change in general. Our analyses show that weaknesses in organisational innovation are one of the main reasons behind Europe's productivity gap with the United States.

Denmark is one of the Member States where companies have less problem with organisational change. This has much to do with the Nordic style of industrial relations, based on participation and flexibility. Countries with a more confrontational management style and an institutional environment which is less favourable to organisational change do less well in adopting ICT than Denmark.

The ICT example shows that our view of innovation should be more comprehensive. Research and hi-tech are essential but they are not everything. This is a strong message from the draft European Action Plan for Innovation that we plan to launch for consultation shortly. This initiative will complement the European Action Plan on research that fixed the 3% expenditure target for R&D and which is already well underway.

The Innovation Action Plan will be focussed on companies and on entrepreneurial innovation. One strand of action will improve the conditions for innovative companies who want to become truly European innovators.

The European Internal Market is a reality but it is still far from perfect. Europe's innovative companies still have difficulties in taking full advantage of Europe's potential: from trans-national technology sourcing and mobility of highly qualified staff to using the diversity of European markets more effectively. Improvements and political emphasis in this area will be even more justified because enlargement will further increase European diversity most notably in its positive aspects.

Concluding remarks

In conclusion, let me stress that the opportunities of enlargement are significant. New countries, companies and citizens will enter the Union offering markets, experiences and skills that are new to the current Member States.

There will be new challenges for industry to reorganise across national borders. New innovation based value chains will emerge. Making enlargement a success will depend on the ability of all of us to innovate.

Stakeholders, including the business community, must be involved in the shaping of policies.

Let us consider the upcoming enlargement as an enormous opportunity. An opportunity to enrich our lives, as the newcomers add their part to the mosaic of European society. With the right policy mix in place, it is also an opportunity for European business to innovate and to reinforce itself.

Thank you for your attention.