The Lisbon Strategy: What is Wrong? reference to what happened or was happening in other member states. Belgium acted as it was the Galapagos Islands- without any contact with the outside world. This being said, there are strong variations between member states. Big member states are generally bad performers. Small member states are generally better. This is true for structural reforms, and also for public deficits. So Croatia could have reason to entertain hopes about its future participation in EC processes. In conclusion on this third part, there are two main lessons. First, the results remain weak, which is quite normal with limited means and limited incentives to participate. Secondly, basically the EC has delivered results and the member states have not. Their implementation of the Lisbon Strategy has been poor. The fundamental question then becomes: what should be done to improve the delivery? THE ALTERNATIVE PATHS We have seen that from the beginning the Lisbon Strategy has had a deficit between its ambitions, even if they have been reduced, and the means to attain them. This situation has transformed the EC into a kind of bureaucratic talking shop which does not produce much, except endless speeches. This is not good. In addition, a message has been delivered saying“something must be done to improve the economic situation of Europe” and at the same time almost no action is taken. Simulating action is the worst communication strategy. It inevitably brings communication problems with the public. To suppress such a deficit, which begins to undermine the credibility of the Lisbon Strategy, and of the EC itself, there are two alternative paths. They are much more logical and they bring simplification. The first one consists in reducing once again the level of the ambitions. If governments do not want to add supplementary resources, then it would be better to reduce the ambitions and send back the responsibility of almost everything to the member states. This solution would mean“more decentralisation”. The second one consists in increasing the means. If governments want to keep strong ambitions, they have to add additional means. This solution would mean “more integration”. Personally, this is the solution I find the most convincing one. The challenge of the Lisbon Strategy remains essential for our future and thus we cannot afford to reduce once again the level of ambitions. 67