Europos Sąjungos Lisabonos strategijos įgyvendinimas Lietuvoje: tarp Vilniaus ir Briuselio

• Nakrošis, Vitalis
• Barcevičius, Egidijus

LTŠiame straipsnyje nagrinėjama, kokius Lietuvos viešosios politikos pokyčius paskatino Lietuvos dalyvavimas ES Lisabonos procese. Daugiausia dėmesio skiriama šiam procesui po 2005 m., kai buvo atnaujinta Lisabonos strategija, o Lietuvoje (kaip ir kitose šalyse narėse) parengta nacionalinė Lisabonos strategijos įgyvendinimo programa. Pagrindinė straipsnio išvada – nacionalinis Lisabonos procesas tik iš dalies prisidėjo prie pageidautinų viešosios politikos pokyčių. Neišnaudotas nacionalinės Lisabonos programos potencialas svarbioms viešosios politikos reformoms paskatinti. Nevisiškai aiški nacionalinės Lisabonos programos vieta Lietuvos strateginio planavimo dokumentų sistemoje – „Briuseliui“ tai lyg ir svarbiausias vidutinio laikotarpio strateginio planavimo dokumentas, o Lietuvoje šalia nacionalinės Lisabonos strategijos yra parengta dar keletas strategijų, kurios „konkuruoja“ dėl politikų, valdininkų ir visuomenės dėmesio. Siekiant giliau atskleisti Lisabonos proceso įtaką konkrečiam viešosios politikos turiniui, straipsnyje atliekamos dvi atvejo studijos – aktyvios darbo rinkos bei mokslinių tyrimų ir technologinės plėtros srityse. Konstatuojama, kad būtent pastarojoje srityje Lisabonos procesas prisidėjo iškeliant gana ambicingus tikslus. Abiejose srityse pastebima ir tam tikra teigiama įtaka politikos procesui, nors šiuo atveju reikia kalbėti labiau apie „inkrementinį“ pagerėjimą, o ne kokius nors esminius pokyčius. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Lisabonos strategija; Lisbon strategy; EU; Europos Sąjunga (European Union).

ENThe major question for this article was to what extent the implementation of the Lisbon strategy contributed to public policy change in Lithuania. Two main aspects of such change were discussed: change of general or specific contents of public policy as well as change of public policy institutions or processes. The main conclusion of this article is that the implementation of Lisbon strategy in Lithuania has partly contributed to the public policy change. However, many opportunities have not yet been realised. Surely, one has to take into account that the Lisbon strategy itself was reviewed rather recently (in 2005) and the National Programme for Implementation of the Lisbon strategy was adopted in at the end of the same year. On the other hand, Lithuania takes part in the EU policy processes based on the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) since 1998, and in 2000 as the candidate country joined the Lisbon process. Thus, a significant experience of participating, learning and taking advantage of the OMC-type processes has already been accumulated. The first and perhaps the most important opportunity, which has not yet been realised is the fact that the National Lisbon programme did not become a catalyst for policy reform. The programme itself is a collection of many measures, which vary significantly in their importance, scope and timing. This has happened because of lack of committed and coherent co-ordination process. Various ministries and social partners were invited to provide “their” measures while the co-ordinating institution (the Ministry of Economy) has mainly played a role of collecting these measures and putting them into a single document. No significant mediation, questioning, conflict resolution was performed.This, in turn, is related to the administrative culture of Lithuanian bureaucracy, which tends to delineate the “territory of influence” of each ministry strictly and discourages any behaviour across the lines of this “territory”. Therefore, the co-ordination of horizontal policies (like research and technological development) is especially complicated. Strong political will may help to overcome such bias, however such will was not present at the moment the national Lisbon programme was prepared. The national Lisbon programme has still to find its place among other major national strategies in Lithuania. On the one hand, the programme is designed so as to make it the most important medium-term planning document. On the other hand, the programme was adopted by a government decree while the national parliament was involved into the preparation of the strategy only to a limited extent; the society at large is hardly aware of such a programme. At the end of the day, it remains unclear, whether the national strategy should remain an umbrella collection of various initiatives and measures brought together from other documents or it has somehow be streamlined in the future and provide a basis for vital reform initiatives.The national Lisbon programme to some extent has contributed to changes in public policy institutions and processes. Various commissions, working groups and sub-groups were created. The strategic planning process has became more elaborate to some extent (measurable indicators adopted, implementation monitoring system created). However no substantial breakthrough in the overall implementation of strategic planning was achieved. The working groups have not been meeting on a regular basis and did not provide a framework for meaningful coordination, joint development of priorities and conflict resolution. Surely, in the process of preparation of the national strategy, there was a clear commitment to follow the principle of partnership and various interest groups had an opportunity to provide their suggestions. However without a strong co-ordination such inputs contributed significantly to the overall fragmentation of the national Lisbon programme. [From the publication]

• Politikos mokslai / Political sciences
• Vadyba / Management