Tania Zgajewski Concerning the second element, economic cooperation was already mentioned in the Treaty of Rome in 1957. It certainly is an EC competence since the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty. Since the 1980s, we know very well that macroeconomic policies adopted by a single member state have very little effect. So the efficiency of a coordinated approach has been proven again and again. Concerning the third element, the proposals of the Sapir report have never been criticised with regard to the subsidiary principle. They were criticised by people who wanted to maintain the present structure of spending, meaning firstly in favour of the agricultural sector. Furthermore, outlays like research or networks have certainly an added efficiency if they are done at the EC level. Where is the use of financing five different systems of electronic localisation of goods or helicopters? Concerning the fourth element, we must see here that it represents only a political commitment of the member states. This does not concern the adoption of EC measures at all. And consequently it has nothing to do with Article 3.b of the EC Treaty. This solution of more integration has thus a clear added value. It is a pity that member states do not see it in the present context. GENERAL CONCLUSION It is difficult to summarise in such a complex domain. Nevertheless, in a nut­shell:  The diagnosis of the Lisbon Strategy regarding the situation of the European economy is basically correct, and even quite subtle on some aspects.  Nevertheless, the message of the European institutions is unbalanced, because it is excessively negative.  On the reverse, the action programme of the Lisbon Strategy is basically insufficient. Firstly, means are too limited. Secondly, targets on non­economic aspects have been dropped. Thirdly, initiatives at the EC level are not sufficiently developed.  Furthermore, on this point also, the message of the European institutions is also unbalanced, because it does not underline this structural weakness. 70