Višnja Samardžija world primacy by 2010, which could be expressed in several key words ­competitiveness, dynamism, knowledge-based economy, sustainable economic growth, jobs, social cohesion- was far from being reached within the first five years of implementation. The Lisbon Strategy was initially intended to improve Europe's economy and boost employment through approaching certain goals, such as creating an internal market for services, decreasing administrative burdens, improving human capital, reaching the target of raising the level of expenditure on R&D to 3% of GDP, raising the level of the employment rate to 70%. To meet the targeted employment rate, an average annual growth rate of 1.5% until 2010 would be needed, from the difference of 0.7% per year achieved in 2000-2003. The expected growth and investment to boost productivity was missing. Productivity is growing in the US twice as fast as in Europe, due to insufficient expenditure on R&D and low levels of investment(the average annual investment growth in the EU is 1.7% compared to 5.4% in the US). In spite of the fact that Europe represented 20% of world trade, 30% of global GDP and 45% of FDI, it could not mobilise enough resources to further strengthen its competitiveness. Sustainable growth, full employment and social inclusion were needed to increase competitiveness. European productivity was in decline, as compared to the early 1990s(European Commission, 2005d). The mid-term review showed that the results were below expectations and that the Lisbon Strategy was not a success. The glass was half empty, not half full. The envisaged reforms were comprehensive, but targets had been set too wide, with an overloaded agenda, and conflicting priorities, poor coordination and mechanisms that were too weak. There was an evident lack of strong leadership based on principles and European values. Although there were positive achievements in some areas, insufficient progress was made in reaching the overall Lisbon goals. The“ delivery” was disappointing. A lack of clear division of responsibilities between national and EU levels resulted in limited ownership of the process in member states. The economic integration needed coordinated national policy measures which were not achieved. Close partnership between member states and the Community was needed. The results of the first stage of the Lisbon Agenda were limited- economic growth was moderate, R&D did not increase significantly, structural reforms were slow( Randzio-Plath) 1 . The EU is facing the combination of two phenomena: globalisation and the information society. Their mutual combination might increase their particular 1. The references to the authors/contributors made in this introductory paper relate to their articles published in this book, unless otherwise stated. 10