Our Philosophy

Dynamic, indeed tectonic changes in the present world, and corresponding pressures on European economies and societies, require more intensive changes of policies and priorities than we seem to be ready to undertake. The European international competitiveness has been traditionally based on technological and other innovations, depending basically on quality of human capital and appropriate systemic conditions for entrepreneurship. For decades our position has been gradually weakening, and although we seem to understand that the only response lies in upgrading human capital, its better utilisation, and creation of conditions needed for stronger competitiveness, this is not really happening – except to a large degree in Nordic countries.

EU institutions produce many valuable strategies and policy documents, but their dissemination is usually far too restrictive, and the implementation often rather disappointing. There is a tendency in the Commission to propose ever new programmes and initiatives with fancy names – but their implementation is not sufficiently monitored and proper impact assessment is not made systematically enough.

Why is that so? Is it really inevitable that Europe becomes “a victim of its glorious past”? Is the new “Europe 2020” Agenda offering a sufficient framework for knowledge society developments, particularly at the regional level?

The reasons for lack of urgently needed action can be found in many domains, from political systems, patterns of governance, persistence of non-innovative thinking and lack of motivation for change at all levels: this can be at least partly attributed to inadequate self-perception of the real position of Europe in the global competition.

Particularly in the times of crisis, politicians tend to address primarily the accute, politically most sensitive problems – i.e.  the short term consequences and not the long term causes and roots of problems. This is the way how our political process is functioning, with the impact of civil society on policy making being far too limited.

European union institutions are trying to accelerate changes with rather modest success. Unfortunately, they are limited by member states’ concern over loosing too much control, and having their disappointing results openly published. Lack of transparency – accompanied with often less than responsible media reporting – is a serious problem of our time, so far without satisfactory solutions. On the other hand,  the Commission often tries to play the role of “super government” in the classical style of bureacracy, instead of being a modern “manager” – with much better prospects for success. It is an issue of innovative, multilevel governance, which requires very sophisticated methods of coordination (beyond the ill-famous “Open Method of Coordination”). Paternalistic attitude – usually a poor surrogate for responsible leadership is not characterizing only EU politicians and technocrats, but equally those at the national and regional level – with poor quality of decisions and inconsistent policies as unavoidable result. The healthy principle of subsidiarity is often abused as aliby for no Community action.

But, very often good policy recommendations and success stories remain far from the stakeholders in member states, particularly at the regional and local level. Useful reports, studies and statistical series produced by EU bodies more often than not, end at the desks of government officials in the capitals. Many regional and local success stories – which could effectively inspire and motivate literally thousands of decision-makers and millions of stakeholders - remain unknown at larger European scale.

There are many associations, and networks in Brussels, who are trying to bridge this gap, but most frequently they are effective mostly in transmitting their members interests and positions, rather than being effective in two-way communication, and also bringing European policies to relevant institutions and individuals. Most of European associations and networks are sectorial or single-issue oriented. However, the complexity of modern society and business require an integrated policy approach, and more collaboration, and coordination is needed - horizontal (cross-sectoral) and vertical (between EU, national, regional & local levels). Due to inadequate training, lack of proper information, and traditional mindsets, many decision makers are unable to think “out of the box”, long term, and thereby fail to perceive the “bigger picture”.

Before defining the role of the Network, it is necessary to outline the KEN philosophy, i.e. what kind of society and economy the Network members consider as their preferred model:

• effective, inclusive democracy based on rule of law, transparency, accessible and responsible government, and responsible, participatory proactive citizenship;
• social market economy, appreciating and effectively supporting entrepreneurship and innovations, with readily available venture capital, fair distribution of rewards and reasonable support for the weaker members of community;
• “common sense” subsidiarity and stronger role of regions at national and EU level;
• corporate social responsibility and business ethics supporting sustainable development at all levels, with particular reference to the local and regional levels;
• respect for values of knowledge society (particularly creativity and entrepreneurship) and appreciation of excellence;
• full gender equality and balance, allowing society & corporate world (companies) to benefit from gender-specific human qualities.