The one and only reason is unemployment. We are aware of its scale, and of its consequences too. The difficult thing, as experience has taught us, is knowing how to tackle it.
The Copenhagen European Council in June invited the European Commission to present a white paper on a medium-term strategy for growth, competitiveness and employment. That decision followed an in-depth discussion between the Heads of State or Government based on an analysis by the President of the Commission of the weaknesses of the European economies.
The White Paper draws in large part on the contributions from the Member States. It has also been guided by the discussions - often beset by conflict - under way in our countries between governments and social partners (employers' and trade union organizations).
The European Commission is aware of the difficulty of the task. For if the solutions already existed, our countries would surely have applied them; if there were a miracle cure, it would not have gone unnoticed. With national situations being so different, any proposal has to be presented with sensitivity and caution. That being so, the Commission does share the view, expressed by many Member States, that joint responses would strengthen the hand of each player, and therefore of the European Union.
There is no miracle cure
How has it come to this?
We will not dwell here on the analysis presented in Copenhagen. This has been confirmed and fleshed out by the national contributions and the Commission's research : competitiveness, growth, employment and unemployment are closely interrelated, and have been for some time.
And yet the Community over the past few years enjoyed what all observers agree was a period of growth and restructuring prompted by the 1992 objective. That objective was not an illusion: it swiftly received broad support from all sections of society, and the structural changes it generated account for many of the nine million jobs created between 1986 and 1990.
How, then, can we explain the fact that all these achievements have not made it possible at least to cushion the effects of the world recession? Was the single market process merely a flash in the pan?
While it is true that we have changed, the world has changed even faster.
The present crisis can be understood only in the light of the universality of the trends which have been shaping the global economy and their acceleration since the end of the 1970s.
In geopolitical terms
The heart of the problem : the three types of unemployment
Since the beginning of the 1970s, unemployment in the Community has risen steadily except during the second half of the 1980s. Today 17 million people are out of work. Over the last twenty years, 80% more wealth has been created but total employment has risen by only 9%. To explain this, a distinction must be drawn between the three different forms of unemployment:
Cyclical unemployment
In a context in which labour resources are increasing by some 0.50% a year, any slackening in growth immediately triggers a sharp rise in unemployment. This is particularly so at present when, for the first time since 1975, Europe has experienced a decline in economic activity.
Structural unemployment
At the end of the 1980s, when the economy was going strong, unemployment still stood at 12 million.
The explanations for this rigidity of unemployment are now clear:
This problem is as old as industrial society itself, which has continually changed - albeit not always smoothly - by incorporating technical progress. Nevertheless, the phenomenon now seems to be undergoing a change of scale. This is not to say that technological progress in enterprises is doing away with more jobs than it is creating: for example, the employment situation is on average more favourable in those firms that have introduced microelectronics than in those that have not done so.
It is nevertheless the case that we are once again passing through a period in which a gap is opening up between the speed of technical progress, which is concerned primarily with how to produce (manufacturing processes and work organization) and which therefore often destroys jobs, and our capacity to anticipate new (individual or collective) needs or new products which would provide new job opportunities.
And yet technical progress is presenting opportunities for growth and employment, on condition that we alter our development model, meet the needs stemming from the upheavals in social life, family life, urban civilization and new modes of consumption, preserve our rural areas, and improve the environment and the quality of our natural assets. In so doing, we will pave the way for our entry into the 21st century.
It is the economy which can provide the necessary pointers to a reappraisal of principles inherited from an age in which manpower resources were scarce, technological innovation was made possible through imitation, and natural resources could be exploited at will. We are thus setting out a number of broad guidelines which have a predominantly economic basis, although it will be seen that they cannot be dissociated from the major trends which are affecting society itself: an economy that is healthy, open, decentralized, competitive and based on solidarity. However, these efforts will succeed only if we make far-reaching changes in employment policy, which must once again become the centre-piece of our overall strategy.
A healthy economy
The people of Europe need stability. The false prophets of inflation and of a return to exchange-rate variability represent special or short-sighted interests. Their bad money still threatens to oust the good.
The White Paper is, accordingly, consistent with the guidelines submitted to the European Council, in accordance with the new Treaty (Article 103), to mark the beginning of the second stage of European economic and monetary union, which must be successful if a single currency is to be achieved. We must therefore place our thinking within a macroeconomic reference framework for both economic and monetary convergence which will increase the opportunities available to our economies.
This strategy could be applied in two phases, the first consisting of pulling out of the current recession as quickly as possible and the second from the mid-1990s consisting of returning to a path of strong and healthy growth. The macroeconomic policies to be implemented for these two phases are set on similar courses but have different points of emphasis.
The gradual reduction in public deficits is necessary during the initial phase in order to bring indebtedness under control and to continue to increase public saving during the second phase. This will call for increased efforts to restructure spending - and in particular to curb operating expenditure -in favour of public resources allocated to tangible and intangible investment and to an active employment policy.
Stable monetary policies consistent with the aim of low inflation will be a constant benchmark throughout the period. They would lead to further interest-rate cuts that would make more attractive the investment essential to the modernization and competitiveness of our economies. Investment in infrastructures, housing and environmental-improvement projects would thus be given a particular boost.
Finally, the trends of all categories of income should be made consistent with the objectives of monetary stability and cost moderation. During the first phase, the task would be to avert an acceleration which would frustrate the reduction of long-term interest rates; during the second, it would be necessary to guarantee an adequate rate of return to permit an increase in the investment ratio and hence in growth.
An open economy
Only properly managed interdependence can guarantee a positive outcome for everybody.
Each of the major bursts of growth in the European economies started with a qualitative leap in international trade. The most spectacular contribution probably came from the establishment of the multilateral trading system resulting from the Bretton Woods agreements after the Second World War.
Today we are perhaps seeing the beginnings of an equally important leap forward with the very rapid integration into world trade of developing countries and former communist countries.
The Community must be open and prepare itself for this prospect. This is why a successful completion of the Uruguay Round negotiations is of such importance for it too. For the first time, these negotiations will produce a global agreement between industrialized and developing countries containing balanced concessions aimed at fair access to all markets.
Among the issues in these negotiations, the transformation of GATT into a fully fledged international institution designated a "multilateral trade organization" would guarantee a sustainable and harmonious development of international trade. The Community is attached to this idea: it regards it as the means of ensuring that GATT has the authority to stand up to hegemony and to address other issues where the existence of multilateral rules would be invaluable. There is indeed a need to ensure better consistency between the various bodies responsible for fostering healthy competition and between the international institutions responsible for monetary or other relations, to deal with the inequality of the conditions for direct investment, and to guarantee a fair sharing-out of burdens in the area of environmental protection.
The strengthening of the multilateral trading system, its effective application and the transparency of its rules are, for the Community, the best guarantee of success with its own effort to adjust. This is part and parcel of the goal of achieving coherent world management of the problems posed by development inequalities and the concentration of poverty in certain regions.
The European Union has put this openness of mind into practice with the European Economic Area. It must now demonstrate this openness to its eastern and southern neighbours. Enormous potential exists, but it requires us to invest massively, to transfer a considerable volume of know-how, to open up our markets more widely and to step up industrial cooperation. If all of these countries manage to pursue reasonable policies of adjustment and modernization, they will fully benefit from our action and return those benefits to us in the form of new markets and, consequently, new jobs.
Decentralized economy
The market economy has a decentralizing effect. This was the reasoning behind the "single market" project (Objective 92). Its aim was not only to achieve economies of scale but also to set free the dynamism and the creativity inherent in competition.
Decentralization now also reflects a radical change in the organization of our societies, which are all confronted with the growing complexity of economic and social phenomena and the legislative or regulatory framework.
Hence the growing importance of the local level at which all the ingredients of political action blend together most successfully and partnership networks are developing.
Hence also the decentralization movement affecting the business world. SMEs are often cited as models because they embody operational flexibility and a capacity for integration which the units which make up the big companies are now trying to imitate. Hierarchical and linear systems are gradually giving way to interactive organizations.
This movement towards decentralization, supported by the new technologies, is taking us towards a veritable information society. The corollary to decentralization is information sharing and communication.
The European dimension would give the information society the best possible chances of taking off. The Commission is therefore proposing, in the context of a partnership between the public sector and the private sector, to accelerate the establishment of "information highways" (broadband networks) and develop the corresponding services and applications (see Development Theme I).
A more competitive economy
Drawing maximum benefit from the single market
While industrial policy continues to be controversial no-one is in any doubt as to the responsibility of governments and of the Community to create as favourable an environment as possible for company competitiveness. Compliance with the competition rules is an important element. It helps to ensure that the single market is a living reality. However, where companies are concerned, progress is needed in three areas:
The first concerns the body of rules (laws, regulations, standards, certification processes) which assure the smooth functioning of the market. These rules (concerning pharmaceuticals, intellectual property or company law, for example) have to be supplemented. But, above all, how it then develops has to be guaranteed against the risk of inconsistency between national and Community laws. This means fresh cooperation between governments at the legislative drafting stage. Likewise, care should be taken to ensure that the Community legislation affecting companies is consistent, especially the environmental legislation. This is the aim of the strategic programme which the Commission is about to propose.
The second condition revolves around small- and medium-sized enterprises. While they are a model of flexibility for big companies, they are also increasingly a factor of competitiveness as a result of "farming-out" and subcontracting. Hence the measures taken on the initiative of big companies to galvanize their suppliers and clients. However, the "demography" of SMEs, i.e. their birth, growth and regeneration, is also a matter of national policy. In some countries it will be necessary to adapt their tax systems, rights of succession and access to equity and to simplify inter-company credit regulations and practices. While most of the work has to be done at national level, the Community, for its part, must help to fit SMEs into the dynamics of the single market. The immediate task, therefore, is to work towards simplification and information. An initiative will shortly be proposed in this connection, among other things to facilitate trade and develop cooperation between SMEs across the old internal frontiers.
The third condition concerns the accelerated establishment of trans-European infrastructure networks (see Development Theme II).
Why ?
In order to establish these networks, promote the information society, and develop new environmental improvement projects, the Commission proposes to accelerate the administrative procedures, act as a catalyst, to use the existing financial instruments and to supplement them through recourse to saving as indicated in the annex.
Stepping up the research effort and cooperation
Without eschewing competition, the ability to cooperate and share risks is increasingly becoming a sign of creativity. Our laws, our tax systems and our programmes have to be adapted as a result, both at national and at European level. Community competition policy has thus made broad allowance for these new forms of inter-company cooperation.
As part of an increase in the overall research effort, cooperation between the different countries' research policies and between companies will be encouraged. This cooperation will gradually become a basic principle and not just one "aspect" of Community research and development policy. This principle will help to identify major priorities and to promote meetings between operators and especially between producers and users concerning important issues of common interest, this being the only guarantee that market potential is taken into account when defining research priorities.
The Commission will propose to the Member States that this new approach should be followed for a limited number of major joint projects geared to the following:
An economy characterized by solidarity
All this shows how the dynamism of the market can help boost growth.
Experience has also shown, however, that the market is not without its failings. It tends to underestimate what is at stake in the long term, the speed of the changes it creates affects the different social categories unequally, and it spontaneously promotes concentration, thereby creating inequality between the regions and the towns. Awareness of these insufficiencies has led our countries to develop collective solidarity mechanisms. At Community level the Single European Act has helped to restore the balance in the development of the single market by way of joint flanking policies as part of economic and social cohesion.
However, the social welfare system is now being re-examined in many Member States to improve efficiency and reduce costs through greater responsibility and selectiveness. The new model of European society calls for less passive and more active solidarity.
Solidarity, first of all, between those who have jobs and those who do not. This key concept has not figured at all in the collective discussions and negotiations of the last ten years. That is why we are proposing a sort of European social pact, the principle of which is quite simple but whose detailed arrangements would be adapted to the specific circumstances of each country and each business; in the spirit of a decentralized economy and of subsidiarity, new gains in productivity would essentially be applied to forward-looking investments and to the creation of new jobs.
Solidarity between men and women making it easier to reconcile family life and working life and ensuring that greater account is taken of the role of women in the development of human resources (social services, working hours, diversified training).
Solidarity also between generations, with an eye to the repercussions of a demographic trend which will see falling numbers of persons of adult, working age. It is absolutely essential that all decisions taken today take account of this demographic dimension. That is why we must not only tackle unemployment, which is jeopardizing all our social security systems, but also expand, and not reduce, the volume of work which generates wealth and so finances solidarity.
Solidarity, once again, between the more prosperous regions and the poor or struggling regions. Hence the confirmation of economic and social cohesion as an essential pillar of European construction.
Solidarity, lastly and most importantly, in the fight against social exclusion. If only one proof were needed that our economies have not yet reached maturity and that there are still needs to be met it would be the existence in Europe of some fifty million people below the poverty line. This is a matter for the Member States, but it is also the business of each citizen to practice "neighbourly solidarity". We need a comprehensive policy, preventive as well as remedial, to combat the poverty which splits society in two. The areas of action are familiar: renovation of stricken urban areas, construction of subsidized housing, adaptation of education systems with extra resources for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and an active employment policy which attaches high priority to the search for an activity or training accessible to everyone rather than the registration and payment of the unemployed, even though, in the last resort, this is still essential where all other means of social reinsertion seem, for the moment, to be exhausted.
As we have seen, the Community has failed to match the substantial increase in generated wealth with parallel improvements in job opportunities. Looked at more closely, however, the performances of individual States differ quite considerably. For instance, Germany and Spain have enjoyed a comparable rate of growth over the last 15 years of around 2.3%, yet their average levels of unemployment are 6 and 16% respectively. Over the same period, meanwhile, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and Italy have all had an unemployment rate of around 9% of the active population, but with growth rates ranging from 1.8 to 2.5% on average. These disparities tell us a lot.
In a general manner, they show that growth is not in itself the solution to unemployment, that vigorous action is needed to create jobs. However, such action must take account of national circumstances. More specifically, the inflexibility of the labour market, which is responsible for a large part of Europe's structural unemployment, can be traced back to specific institutional, legal and contractual circumstances in each country. The educational system, labour laws, work contracts, contractual negotiation systems, the social security system, and business management (including internal work management) form the pillars of the "employment environment" in each Member State and combine to give each of them a distinctive appearance. In each case, the entire environment must be mobilized to improve the functioning of the labour market. This goes to show, once again, that there is no miracle solution; nothing short of coordinated action by the various players responsible for the components of these environments can effect the necessary transformation. Moreover, in each country the methods of social dialogue will reflect national traditions.
Investment in education and training: knowledge and knowhow throughout life.
Our countries' education systems are faced with major difficulties, and not only of a budgetary nature. These problems are rooted in social ills: the breakdown of the family and the demotivation bred by unemployment. They also reflect a change in the very nature of what is being taught. Preparation for life in tomorrow's world cannot be satisfied by a once-and-for-all acquisition of knowledge and know-how. Every bit as essential is the ability to learn, to communicate, to work in a group and to assess one's own situation. Tomorrow's trades will require the ability to make diagnoses and propose improvements at all levels, and the autonomy and independence of spirit and analytical ability which come of knowledge. Hence the need to adapt the content of training and to be able to improve one's training (knowledge and know-how) whenever necessary.
Lifelong education is therefore the overall objective to which the national educational communities can make their own contributions. Difficult choices will have to be made, between increasing university capacity or quality, between higher education and vocational paths, and between traditional courses and "sandwich" courses (studying plus work experience). However, each country should be aiming towards universally accessible advanced vocational training.
As is shown by the Member States' contributions, principles and methods of financing may differ. In some cases, the emphasis is on equal opportunities for all individuals and the proposed response is the provision of training capital or cheques financed by the redistribution of public resources. In other cases, advanced vocational training is linked to businesses and so contractual mechanisms will be proposed for training investment or for co-investment with the participation of wage-earners. In any event, public and private efforts must be married to create the basis in each Member State for a genuine right to on-going training. This should be a key area of social dialogue at European level. A start has in fact already been made. To enhance this right, the Community will have to facilitate cooperation between the Member States with a view to creating a genuine European area for vocational qualifications.
The need for double flexibility - both internal and external - in labour markets
Generally speaking, the flexibility of the labour market has deteriorated under the effects of an accretion of partial measures designed to reduce registered unemployment. All of these measures now need to be reexamined by all the players with a view to removing obstacles to employment.
The question of labour flexibility needs to be examined from two angles: that of the external labour market, where supply meets demand, and that of the market internal to each business, i.e. the human resources at its disposal which it adjusts according to its needs, and the chosen forms of work organization and working hours.
Improving external flexibility means making it possible for more unemployed persons to meet the identified requirements of businesses. The first step here is to improve geographical mobility. This could be encouraged by injecting new impetus into the accommodation market and, in particular, by removing obstacles to the construction of rented accommodation.
Access to on-going training is a major pillar of flexibility, which also calls for initiatives, sometimes radical, from the two sides of industry in cooperation with the public authorities:
Internal flexibility is the result of optimum management of a company's human resources. The aim is to adjust the workforce without making people redundant wherever this can be avoided. Focusing on the continuity of the link between the company and the worker, it maximizes the investment in human resources and staff involvement. It is up to individual companies to improve internal flexibility by means of staff versatility, the integrated organization of work, flexible working hours (development of part-time working or job-sharing) and performance-related pay. Tailored to the European company model, it should be central to negotiations within the company between management and staff representatives.
The virtues of decentralization and initiative
The optimum operation of the labour market calls for a large degree of decentralization within "employment areas". In return, the national authorities should focus on the quality of training and compatibility between different types of training, to make it easier to move from one specialization to another. The successful experience of several Member States shows the importance of effective participation of the social partners in the decentralized management of employment areas.
Likewise, it is only by a decentralized approach, i.e. at company level, that adjustments to working hours can lead to improved competitiveness, and thereby encourage job retention and job creation.
Thus we can see how at Volkswagen imaginative negotiations based on a four-day week have led to a sensible, socially responsible form of partial unemployment. More flexible retirement schemes, more diversified working years, and greater provision for part-time working correspond in many situations to the wishes of salaried staff and the interest of undertakings which are concerned to make better use of their production potential. Very often, such "downward" adjustments in working hours are blocked by inflexible practices which standardize the working week in Europe at between 37 and 39 hours. To remove these obstacles, it is necessary, on the basis of the specific provisions of each country, to review labour legislation (role of legislation on working hours) and contractual practices (overtime pay), and in many cases simplify the way in which pension rights are calculated.
Reducing the relative cost of unskilled and semi-skilled labour
The problem of social security contributions has to be seen in the broader context described in Part B of this document (Chapter 9). In most countries of the Union, labour costs have to bear the heavy burden of statutory charges. It should be remembered that between 1970 and 1991 they rose from 34% to 40% of GDP whereas, for example, they remained stable in the United States, at below 30%. Are we not to see this as a cause of the economic slowdown and especially of the increase in unemployment?
To return to unskilled and semi-skilled labour, which is very closely linked to long-term unemployment, it should be noted that, In eight out of the twelve countries of the European Union, social security contributions are relatively more onerous on low incomes. These countries suffer the most from what is one of the most severe structural causes of unemployment and undeclared employment in the Community.
Studies have been carried out in several countries with very high levels of social security contributions. These studies show that a reduction of 30%-40% in social security contributions for low-paid workers would increase employment by 2%. In other countries, the possibility of replacing existing forms of income guarantee payments with a system of negative tax deserves close attention.
For most countries of the Union, it is essential to reduce the non-wage costs of unskilled and semi-skilled labour by an amount equivalent to 1 or 2 points of GNP by the year 2000. The improvement in tax revenue resulting from this measure would offset the cost by up to 30%. The remainder should be financed by savings or other revenue. Irrespective of its intrinsic merits, the CO2/energy tax proposed by the Commission is one of the best ways of offsetting reductions in the cost of employment. Homogeneous taxation at source of investment income as proposed by the Commission since 1989 would be another possibility.
A full-scale overhaul of employment policy
Investing in human resources is not the task of business alone. It is also the task of government. It is no longer possible to leave masses of unemployed people in Europe unoccupied. Such is, however, the structure of government spending on unemployment: roughly two-thirds of public expenditure on the unemployed goes on assistance and the remainder on "active measures".
A complete reversal of attitude is required, the aim being to prevent long-term unemployment. On the one hand, the unemployed should be offered, according to how long they have been unemployed, first training leading to meaningful qualifications, then the possibility of working, possibly in the public sector, for a number of months. In exchange, unemployed people who are thus given real assistance in returning to employment would make a personal investment in this training and employment. This, too, is a question of a social dialogue in which the unemployed should themselves be involved.
Such a substantial change would require a considerable increase in public employment services, the objective being for every unemployed person to be monitored personally by the same employment adviser. The job of the employment service would become more diversified but comprise three main tasks: provision of information, job placement and support.
Contrary to popular opinion, such an overhaul of employment policy would not be prohibitively expensive. For example, it has been calculated that the cost of tripling operational expenditure on the public employment services in the countries of the Union would mean an increase from 0.17% to 0.5%
of GNP. Spread over a period of three years, the corresponding expenditure would be almost entirely offset by the fall in unemployment, estimated at 100 000 in the first year, 400 000 in the second year, and a million in the third year.
Bringing the long-term unemployed - those who have been unemployed for more than twelve months -- back into employment is a difficult but not impossible task; this is demonstrated by the success of initiatives in several countries aimed at creating a real route back into employment for such people. These initiatives should be generalized, in cooperation with various associations and the local authorities.
Finally, active employment policy should cross a new threshold in promoting youth employment. Anyone who leaves the school system before the age of 18 without acquiring a meaningful vocational certificate should be guaranteed a "YouthStart". It is proposed that a scheme should be progressively established at national level which will give everyone access to a recognized form of training, preferably accompanied by employment experience. Moreover, at Community level these schemes could be supplemented by training experience and public utility work in another Member State of the Union, to be financed by European Social Fund pilot initiatives. This initiative could back up the "YouthStart" arrangements.
Dealing with new needs
Many needs are still waiting to be satisfied. They correspond to changes in lifestyles, the transformation of family structures and relations, the increase in the number of working women, and the new aspirations of the elderly and of very old people. They also stem from the need to repair damage to the environment and to renovate the most disadvantaged urban areas.
The scope for job creation depends largely on the existing structures and services in each country, lifestyles, and tax rules.
However, several estimates agree that some 3 million new jobs could be created in the Community, covering local services, improvements in the quality of life and environmental protection.
Examples:
Local services
Provision of leisure and cultural facilities
Improvements in the quality of life
The objection will be voiced that if such needs exist, the market should rapidly provide for them. In fact, the development of both the supply of and demand for such new services comes up against barriers:
As a result, the development of the services in question is either left to the undeclared employment market, or is publicly funded, which is expensive. A new initiative could stimulate both demand and supply, thus creating a "continuum" of possibilities ranging from supply totally protected by public subsidies to totally competitive supply. Thus a new "social economy" would be born, benefiting:
The analyses set out in this document and the possible solutions identified should guide us towards a sustainable development model, both from the viewpoint of the effectiveness of the triangular relationship growth-competitiveness-employment and as regards the environment and the improvement in the quality of life.
The effort to be made calls for adaptations in behaviour and policies at all levels: the Community level, the national level, and the local level. Since we are aware of the differing situations in Member States, we deemed it preferable not to formulate the possible solutions in unduly concise terms. It will be for each Member State to take from the document the elements it regards as making a positive contribution to its own action.
Nevertheless, in the Commission's view, the individual chapters of Part B should provide the basis for work in the various specialized meetings of the Council of Ministers. If conclusions along these lines were reached at the forthcoming European Council meeting, this would facilitate and actually set in motion the mobilization of the Community institutions in the pursuit of the objectives set.
As for Community action proper, it is proposed to impart a new impetus or give a new form, but only in accordance with five priorities:
These last two priorities hold the key to enhanced competitiveness and will enable us to exploit technical progress in the interests of employment and an improvement in living conditions.
It needs to be stressed that the implementation of these two priorities in no way calls into question the financial decisions taken as part of Package II by the Edinburgh European Council. There is, therefore, no need to review the ceilings on resources.
Recourse to saving is the only other source of financing. It would be modest in magnitude since the borrowings envisaged would account for less than 2% of total market issues.
For the rest, what we are advocating is not only economically indispensable but also financially viable and hence carries no risk of adding to national public deficits.
Through these forward-looking measures, the Community will lay the foundations for sound and lasting economic growth the benefits of which will far outweigh the cost of raising the funds required.
As a parallel development, and this is also one of the far-reaching changes made to our growth model, the new-found consistency between macroeconomic policy and an active employment policy will eliminate all the behavioural or structural rigidities that are partly to blame for the underemployment with which we are having to contend. It will then be possible to satisfy the numerous needs that have not
yet been met as well as those to which the changes both in the organization of our societies and in the organization and sharing-out of work will give rise.
The Commission thus calls on everyone to conduct a lucid analysis of our strengths and weaknesses and to adapt behaviour to the rapid changes taking place in today's world, setting our sights and focusing our determination on what the future holds.