Lithuania

   

Economic Policies

#11
Key Findings
Showing considerable progress in recent years, Lithuania receives high rankings (rank 11) in the area of economic policies. Its score on this measure has improved by 0.5 points since 2014.

Growth rates have been robust in recent years. Rises in energy prices and wages are becoming competitiveness challenges for Lithuanian companies. The government is focusing on large energy-system infrastructure projects.

Unemployment rates have declined steadily to moderate levels. A new labor code has made hiring and firing practices more flexible. Minimum wages have been steadily increased. Businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable skilled labor. The rise in hourly labor costs has far exceeded the EU-27 average. The country has a highly advanced fintech regulatory framework.

The country has one of the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios in the EU. A significant share of revenue is generated by the value-added tax, which is high by EU standards. Social security contributions exceed 30% of wages. The government has run small budgetary surpluses in recent years, with public debt stabilizing below 40% of GDP.

Economy

#10

How successful has economic policy been in providing a reliable economic framework and in fostering international competitiveness?

10
 9

Economic policy fully succeeds in providing a coherent set-up of different institutional spheres and regimes, thus stabilizing the economic environment. It largely contributes to the objectives of fostering a country’s competitive capabilities and attractiveness as an economic location.
 8
 7
 6


Economic policy largely provides a reliable economic environment and supports the objectives of fostering a country’s competitive capabilities and attractiveness as an economic location.
 5
 4
 3


Economic policy somewhat contributes to providing a reliable economic environment and helps to a certain degree in fostering a country’s competitive capabilities and attractiveness as an economic location.
 2
 1

Economic policy mainly acts in discretionary ways essentially destabilizing the economic environment. There is little coordination in the set-up of economic policy institutions. Economic policy generally fails in fostering a country’s competitive capabilities and attractiveness as an economic location.
Economic Policy
8
Lithuania’s economic policies have created a reliable economic environment, fostering the country’s competitive capabilities and improving its attractiveness as an economic location. In its 2020 Doing Business report, the World Bank ranked Lithuania at 11th place out of 190 countries. The country’s position in this rating exceeded the target of 15th place set by the Skvernelis government after the parliamentary elections in late 2016. The criteria assessed most positively included registering property (ranked 4th), enforcing contracts (ranked 7th) and dealing with construction permits (ranked 10th). Meanwhile, resolving insolvency (ranked 89th) was assessed least positively, but the country is working on new insolvency legislation and flanking measures that should make the insolvency framework more effective in the next few years. Lithuania climbed three positions in the 2020 report, from 14th place out of 190 countries in 2019. This is attributable to the fact that obtaining electricity services was made simpler through the launch of an integrated digital application and a reduction in the cost of new connections, as well as to the fact that minority investor protections have been strengthened thanks to the clarification of ownership and oversight structures. In the Global Competitiveness Report 2019, the World Economic Forum ranked Lithuania at 39th place out of 141 countries, with the nation scoring particularly well with regard to its macroeconomic environment (ranked 1st) and ICT adoption (ranked 12th). Here, Lithuania gained one position in the 2019 report. These regulatory improvements have mostly resulted from the focused work of the Ministry of Economy and Innovation. After the formal expansion of the ruling coalition to include two additional parliamentary factions in mid-2019, several new tax-introduction initiatives were added to the government agenda. This created significant uncertainty during the debates over the draft state budget for 2020, and led to complaints by the main business associations that the government had broken its agreement with social partners regarding the stability of the tax regime.

The European Commission has identified the following challenges to Lithuania’s long-term competitiveness: unfavorable demographic developments, labor market deficiencies and high emigration rates, growing levels of poverty and social exclusion, a lack of competition and interconnections in the country’s infrastructure (particularly its energy system), low energy efficiency (especially in the case of buildings), a low level of R&D spending, and poor performance with respect to innovation. Recent increases in energy prices and increasing wages in the labor market have made it more difficult for Lithuanian companies to maintain their competitiveness, in particular under the relatively restrictive labor-immigration regime. Further infrastructural integration projects – including the construction of links between the Baltic states’ electricity systems and those of Central Europe through Poland, withdrawal from BRELL (the Russian-managed electricity grid) by 2025, and the construction of a natural-gas connection to Poland by 2021 – are high on the agenda of the current government.

The Skvernelis government was also able to push through a few important reforms, including changes to the tax system and the second pillar of the pension system. Although reducing the overall tax burden on labor will have a negative short-term effect on state and municipal revenues, the implementation of these structural reforms was expected to increase the annual GDP growth rate by an average of 0.3% between 2019 and 2030 (assuming the reforms are in fact implemented). However, as noted above, some of these reform decisions, including the reduction of the tax burden on labor, have already been revised or delayed; this stems from proposals by newly elected President Gitanas Nausėda to fund his proposal for old-age pension increases by increasing taxes, as well as proposals by some coalition partners to impose additional taxes on financial institutions such as banks in order to increase child benefits and other budgetary expenditures. Many analysts and business representatives criticized the process of debating tax-code changes during the 2020 budget process as chaotic.

Streamlining the regulatory environment for businesses is one of the few areas where some progress has been achieved, especially in terms of the number of procedures and days required to start a new business. However, inefficient government bureaucracy remains the second-most-problematic factor with regard to doing business in the country, according to surveyed business executives. In the Global Competitiveness Report 2019, the World Economic Forum ranked Lithuania at 85th place out of 141 countries with regard to the burdens imposed by government regulation, and 91st with regard to the efficiency of the legal framework in challenging regulations. Additional efforts are necessary to promote Lithuania’s transition to a circular economy, as the country’s economy remains very resource-inefficient, with landfill remaining the cheapest way of treating industrial waste.

Citations:
World Bank Group, Doing Business Report 2020: http:// https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/doingbusiness
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, country report Lithuania 2017: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2017-european-semester-country-report-lithuania-en.pdf
The 2019 Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf
Standard Eurobarometer 86, Public Opinion in the EU, Autumn 2016, Brussels: European Commission 2016
Vilpišauskas, R. `The evolving agenda of energy security in the Baltic Sea Region: persistent divergences in the perception of threats and state-market relationship,’ in Sprūds, A., Andžans, A. Security in the Baltic Sea Region: Realities and Prospects, Riga Conference Papers 2017, Riga: LIIA, p. 187-199

Labor Markets

#22

How effectively does labor market policy address unemployment?

10
 9

Successful strategies ensure unemployment is not a serious threat.
 8
 7
 6


Labor market policies have been more or less successful.
 5
 4
 3


Strategies against unemployment have shown little or no significant success.
 2
 1

Labor market policies have been unsuccessful and rather effected a rise in unemployment.
Labor Market Policy
7
Though Lithuania’s labor market proved to be highly flexible during the financial crisis, probably due to low compliance with the Labor Code, persistent labor market challenges undermine economic competitiveness. With unemployment rates declining in recent years, a mismatch between labor supply and market demand has become the main issue of the labor market. It is increasingly difficult for businesses to find suitable skilled labor. Although immigrant workers from Ukraine and Belarus increasingly fill job vacancies in sectors such as construction and transport, immigration procedures are complex and create significant barriers to employment. Skills shortages are emerging in some sectors of the economy, posing an increasing challenge in the tight labor market. In its 2019 report, the European Commission noted a number of challenges as a shrinking labor force, skills shortages and territorial disparities.

In the Global Competitiveness Report 2019, Lithuania was ranked highest with regard to the flexibility provided in determining wages (ranked 5th out of 141 countries). However, rules for hiring foreign labor were considered very restrictive (ranked 112th out of 141 countries), and the reported noted that the tax system has a very negative effect on incentives to work (ranked 131st out of 141 countries). Implementation of the new Labor Code has made hiring-and-firing practices more flexible, thus improving the country’s position in this area (59th out of 141 countries in 2019).

In recent years, the minimum wage has been increased a number of times by the previous and current governments. The minimum monthly wage is set to increase from €555 to €607 (before taxes) beginning in 2020. The council decided depoliticizing the setting of the minimum wage by indexing it to the average wage. Though the increase in the minimum wage contributes to increased economic consumption, a high minimum wage to average wage ratio increases the risk of unemployment for low-skilled workers. However, unemployment rates have continued to decline, from 7.9% in 2016 to 7.1% in 2017 and again to 6.4% in 2018, and are expected to continue declining in the future. Relatively high rates of emigration to other EU member states have partially compensated for the country’s inflexible hiring-and-firing rules and rigid labor code. In the coming years, the shortage of labor, and structural mismatches between the supply and demand of skilled labor will be the biggest constraint on the economy’s continued convergence to the EU average. It should be noted that according to Eurostat, in the third quarter of 2018, the growth in hourly labor costs compared to the same period a year ago was 10.7%, among the highest such rate in the EU-28 (EU average growth being 2.7%). The IMF staff concluded in November 2019 that “raising productivity via structural reforms is crucial to sustain high wage growth going forward.”

Citations:
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, country report Lithuania 2019: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/2019-european-semester-country-report-lithuania_en.pdf
The 2019 Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf
IMF staff concludes visit to the Republic of Lithuania, November 21, 2019: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/11/21/IMF-Staff-Concludes-Visit-to-the-Republic-of-Lithuania

Taxes

#4

How effective is a country’s tax policy in realizing goals of revenue generation, equity, growth promotion and ecological sustainability?

10
 9

Taxation policy fully achieves the objectives.
 8
 7
 6


Taxation policy largely achieves the objectives.
 5
 4
 3


Taxation policy partially achieves the objectives.
 2
 1

Taxation policy does not achieve the objectives at all.
Tax Policy
8
Lithuania has one of the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios in the EU, with tax revenues (without social contributions) being just 29.5% of GDP in 2017 (compared with an EU average of 39.0%). A significant share of government revenue is generated from indirect taxes, especially the value-added tax (VAT), which remains relatively high at 21% (increased from 18% during the financial crisis a decade ago), while environmental and property taxes are relatively low. Taxes on labor (personal income tax and social security contributions), which combined are above the average tax burden on labor in the EU, have become a barrier to the competitiveness of Lithuanian businesses. Furthermore, there is significant tax evasion. According to the European Commission, the VAT gap (as a percentage of theoretical VAT liability) is significantly higher than the EU average. In its 2019 report, the European Commission recommended improving tax compliance and broadening the tax base to include sources less detrimental to growth, which would in turn allow the government to address income inequality, poverty and social exclusion.

Although Lithuania’s 2019 budget was expected to include a small surplus, the IMF warned in November 2019 of several fiscal risks. On the one hand, it noted the risk of revenues failing to keep up with output growth; on the other, it cited risks associated with higher wage bills and social spending, especially with regard to poorly targeted child benefits, which are projected to increase further in 2020 (the year of the parliamentary elections). Potential tax revenues are still influenced by the country’s significant shadow economy, extensive tax avoidance, and insufficient structural reforms in the education and healthcare sectors (where budgetary resources are dispersed across many public sector organizations despite the declining population). An improvement in VAT and excise-tax collection has been noted in recent years; this is attributed partially to improvements in tax administration and partially to a reduction in fuel and tobacco-product smuggling from Russia’s Kaliningrad region and Belarus (due to the general decline in trade with Russia).

Thus, on the one hand, the tax system’s ability to effect redistribution is relatively small in Lithuania. Employees in the education, healthcare, fire-fighting and other sectors, many of whom took part in public demonstrations in autumn 2019, say these sectors are underfunded. On the other hand, the State Audit office and analysts have pointed out that unreformed education and healthcare institutions use budgetary resources inefficiently; for example, there is considerable potential for savings in public procurements, and other opportunities to free up financial resources by improving these institutions rather than by increasing taxes. As noted by the IMF, “in health and education, the upfront wage increases have not been complemented by other critical, but socially sensitive, reform areas. The systems remain oversized at the cost of lower quality, hindering the efforts to boost productivity and competitiveness.”

In terms of horizontal equity, there are mismatches between various groups of economic actors with similar tax-paying abilities. Labor is taxed somewhat more heavily than capital, while specific groups such as farmers and lawyers benefit from tax exemptions. Previous governments have reduced the number of exemptions provided to various professions and economic activities with regard to personal-income tax, social-security contributions and VAT. Social security contributions are high, exceeding 30% of wages. While there are ceilings on payments from the social security fund (pensions), there are no ceilings on contributions to it. The implementation of the new “social model” reduced social security contributions for employers by 0.5% beginning on 1 July 2017, and will gradually introduce a progressive cap for employers’ contributions.

The Ministry of Finance proposed in 2019 to reduce the property value at which the property tax of 0.5% must be paid to €100,000 rather than €220,000, which could have generated an extra €8 million a year for the state budget. However, following parliamentary debate, the threshold value was instead set at €150,000. Newly elected President Gitanas Nausėda announced a package of proposals for the parliament’s 2019 autumn session that included increases in taxes on income sources other than regular employment (including self-employment, capital gains and dividends), cuts in the exemptions on diesel-fuel taxes provided to farmers, and delays in planned increases to the thresholds for tax-exempt income. Adoption of these proposals was forecast to generate around €100 million of revenue for the additional old-age pension increases that are part of the president’s new welfare-state agenda. However, although the parliament eventually adopted the president’s proposal to increase pensions (beginning in mid-2020) and slow down the reduction of the tax burden on low- and medium-wage earners, it watered down most of his tax proposals, instead introducing a tax on vehicles and increasing the tax on financial-institution profits from 15% to 20%. President Nausėda’s proposal to reduce tax exemptions for farmers was largely weakened by parliament after public protests by farmers.

In terms of vertical equity, the Lithuanian tax system to a certain extent imposes a higher tax burden on those with a greater ability to pay taxes, insofar as large companies pay larger sums than do small companies. However, there is a flat income-tax rate of 15%. An element of progressivity is introduced through the use of an untaxed income threshold currently fixed at around €1,633 per year, thus favoring those receiving lower wages. The income-tax threshold will grow more slowly in 2020 than in the previously adopted plan, and is expected to reach €350 per month. In 2018, the Lithuanian parliament adopted changes to the individual income-tax system that took effect in 2019. The main goals of the reform were to ease the overall tax burden on labor, in particular for low- and medium-wage earners, and to make the social security contribution system more transparent (by assigning responsibility for paying social security contributions to employees rather than employers). To compensate employees for this shift in the tax burden, gross salaries were recalculated by 28.9%. Furthermore, ceilings for social security contributions are applied to incomes exceeding a threshold beginning in 2019. Also, a shift from a single personal-income-tax rate (15%) to a progressive income-tax system was implemented. The standard rate of 20% is applied for employment-related income up to the ceiling for social security contributions, while income exceeding that ceiling was made subject to a higher rate (27%). The latter rate was further increased to 32% for the highest income earners with the adoption of the 2020 budget. This increase in progressivity will effectively eliminate the benefits associated with the ceilings on high income earners’ social security contributions.

Thus, in terms of equity, there remain a number of exemptions for particular groups and professions in terms of income-tax rates, while the progressivity of income taxes and social contributions has been increased.

With regard to the competitiveness of Lithuania’s tax environment, tax rates themselves – for example, the standard tax on profits of 15% – are not the primary challenge to businesses. Rather, the frequent changes to the tax code are a greater concern. Changes to tax rules are usually initiated when elections approach or when there are changes in ruling coalition. After it introduced its changes to labor taxes and social security contributions in 2018, the current ruling coalition signed an agreement with the social partners committing itself not to introduce any new legislative changes in this area through the end of its term in 2020. However, following the presidential elections in 2019 and the enlargement of the composition of ruling coalition, new initiatives emerged. Some of these legislative proposals, such as introduction of a new turnover tax on large retailers, were eventually abandoned, but others such as the higher profit-tax rate of 20% on financial institutions were adopted.

Thus, although tax rates for business are relatively competitive, the frequency of tax-code amendments creates uncertainty. In addition, the tax administration system could be further improved. As noted by the IMF, “Lithuania struggles to find the right balance between increasing demands for better public services and a competitive tax environment to attract investment.”

The IMF has also recommended that environmental taxes be increased. There has been an ongoing debate on taxing polluting cars in Lithuania, as the country has the EU’s lowest taxes on transport. In autumn 2019, a draft bill on this issue was prepared by the government, but was eventually amended in parliament to delete the term “pollution” from the title. The law introduces a tax linked to the vehicle-registration process, and was adopted with the 2020 state budget. The tax varies from €13.5 to €540 depending on the type of vehicle and quantity of emissions produced, and it slated to enter into force in mid-2020. However, it has been criticized for being linked to the registration of the vehicle at the time of purchase, as this might create incentives for current owners of heavily polluting older vehicles to continue using them as long as possible. In addition, vehicles weighing more than 3.5 tons have been exempted from this tax, leading to accusations of additional tax exemptions for farmers. Thus, the excise tax on fuel currently remains the primary tax aimed at reducing pollution (although this also contains exemptions for farmers). The ruling coalition has also reallocated money from climate-change programs to fund wage increases for some public sector professions.

Thus, the current taxation system fails to promote ecological sustainability, at least in terms of taxing emissions.

Citations:
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, country report Lithuania 2019: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/2019-european-semester-country-report-lithuania_en.pdf
Tax Reforms in EU Member States 2015: Tax policy challenges
for economic growth and fiscal sustainability, September 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/eeip/pdf/ip008_en.pdf.
IMF staff concludes visit to the Republic of Lithuania, November 21, 2019: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/11/21/IMF-Staff-Concludes-Visit-to-the-Republic-of-Lithuania

Budgets

#13

To what extent does budgetary policy realize the goal of fiscal sustainability?

10
 9

Budgetary policy is fiscally sustainable.
 8
 7
 6


Budgetary policy achieves most standards of fiscal sustainability.
 5
 4
 3


Budgetary policy achieves some standards of fiscal sustainability.
 2
 1

Budgetary policy is fiscally unsustainable.
Budgetary Policy
8
During the financial crisis, Lithuania’s fiscal situation deteriorated rapidly. The fiscal deficit grew to 3.3% of GDP in 2008, and to 9.4% of GDP in 2009. As a result of fiscal consolidation, the deficit dropped to 7.2% in 2010 and again to 5.5% in 2011. In 2014, the European Council adopted a decision allowing Lithuania to join the euro area as of 1 January 2015, in part recognizing its work in regaining control of the deficit. However, despite relatively high rates of economic growth, the 2012 to 2016 government was only able to reduce the budget deficit toward the end of its political term. According to European Commission forecasts, the general government surplus was around 0.5% during the 2017 – 2019 period, decreasing slightly to 0.4% in 2019 due to the reforms passed in the middle of 2018. Government debt also expanded during the crisis, reaching 39.8% of GDP in 2012 (from a pre-crisis low of 16% in 2008). This measure is projected to stabilize around 37% to 38% of GDP over the coming years. In November 2019, the IMF observed that “the small surplus projected for 2019 will fall short of the budget [forecasts] due to revenues that have not kept up with output growth and a higher wage bill and social spending, especially poorly targeted child benefits. With growth exceeding expectations and higher than last year, fiscal policy in 2019 is unnecessarily pro-cyclical.”

Despite improvements in Lithuania’s fiscal performance since the crisis, the country faces a number of challenges in terms of keeping its public finances sustainable. Factors such as projected expenditures related to an aging population, a relatively restrictive immigration regime, and the vulnerability of the country’s small and open economy to external shocks pose significant risks to the consolidation path projected by the government in its convergence program. The goal of introducing the euro in 2015 preserved the government’s determination to maintain the deficit at a level below 3% of GDP, while the fiscal-discipline law provides an incentive to maintain a balanced fiscal policy as the economy keeps growing. The government is also revising the state budgeting system, with the purpose of extending the time horizon for budgeting and strengthening the link between expenditure and overall economic policy.

Spending pressures are increasing, as evidenced by the significant autumn 2019 street protests launched by public sector employees during the debates over the 2020 draft budget. However, it has proved difficult to increase total tax revenues. The tax reform that came into effect in 2019 somewhat reduced government revenues due to the easing of the overall tax burden on labor, though this was partially delayed in late 2019 in order to compensate for the increases in social spending planned for 2020, in particular with regard to old-age pensions and child benefits.

The government’s initial draft 2020 budget sought to increase alcohol, tobacco and fuel excises; expand real-estate taxation; and introduce new taxes on cars and retail chains. This draft projected a deficit of €1.1 billion, although the general government balance was otherwise expected to show a surplus of 0.2% of GDP in 2020. The IMF considered the draft’s projections to be based on overly optimistic revenue projections. In the end, the Lithuanian parliament rejected some of these taxes, dropping the retail-chain tax altogether, while increasing the tax on financial-institution profits. It additionally postponed their others’ entry into force until mid-2020, thus reducing projected revenues by around €95 million, and further increasing the tension between planned revenue and projected spending increases, some of which were added as a result of the public protests. The tendency to water down planned tax increases and increase spending can be largely attributed to the influence of the forthcoming parliamentary elections in autumn 2020. As concluded by the IMF, domestic risks are related “to upcoming parliamentary elections next year, and the lack of progress in structural reforms. External risks are related to uncertainty surrounding trade tensions, Brexit and the European Commission’s Mobility Package, with the latter having a potentially large impact on the recently booming transportation sector.”

Citations:
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, country report Lithuania 2019: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/2019-european-semester-country-report-lithuania_en.pdf
Commission Autumn 2018 economic forecasts – Lithuania: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/ecfin
IMF staff concludes visit to the Republic of Lithuania, November 21, 2019: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Article s/2019/11/21/IMF-Staff-Concludes-Vi sit-to-the-Republic-of-Lithuania_forecast_autumn_081018_lt_en.pdf

Research, Innovation and Infrastructure

#26

To what extent does research and innovation policy support technological innovations that foster the creation and introduction of new products?

10
 9

Research and innovation policy effectively supports innovations that foster the creation of new products and enhance productivity.
 8
 7
 6


Research and innovation policy largely supports innovations that foster the creation of new products and enhance productivity.
 5
 4
 3


Research and innovation policy partly supports innovations that foster the creation of new products and enhance productivity.
 2
 1

Research and innovation policy has largely failed to support innovations that foster the creation of new products and enhance productivity.
R&I Policy
6
Lithuania’s economy is characterized by the exploitation of cheap factors of production rather than innovation-led growth. According to the EU Innovation Scorecard, the country performs below the EU average, falling into the “moderate innovators” group. However, its overall innovation performance has improved since 2008. The country was ranked 40 out of 126 countries assessed in the 2018 Global Innovation Index. The country has set an ambitious target of spending 1.9% of GDP on R&D by 2020. In 2017, Lithuania’s R&D investment was 0.9% of GDP. Moreover, the share of this sum spent by the business sector was very low (totaling just 0.3% of GDP in 2017), as research and innovation policy is dominated by the public sector and highly dependent on EU funds. Within the country’s innovation system, research is oriented only weakly to the market, research products are not supported with sufficient marketing or commercialization efforts, investment is fragmented, funding levels are not competitive with other European states. Although some sectors of the Lithuanian economy are export-oriented and have strong potential for growth, Lithuanian industry is in general dominated by low- and medium-low-level manufacturing sectors, and Lithuanian enterprises remain only weakly integrated into global value chains. The recent OECD review of the country’s innovation policy recommended introducing favorable framework conditions for innovation, developing innovation-oriented higher education and skills training, improving governance in the innovation system, balancing the policy mix and supporting international knowledge linkages.

Lithuanian authorities have used EU structural funds to improve the country’s R&D infrastructure. So-called science valleys have been developed, integrating higher-education institutions, research centers and businesses areas that work within specific scientific or technological areas. However, using this new research infrastructure efficiently remains a major challenge, and cooperation between industry and research organizations remains rather weak. The government has also supported the sector through financial incentives (in particular, an R&D tax credit for enterprises) and regulatory measures. Demand-side measures encouraging innovation are less developed. Excessively bureaucratic procedures are still an obstacle to research and innovation, while the existing system of innovation governance is rather complex, with limited synergies between the several implementing agencies and support schemes. Due to the lack of funding and the rules for calculating the salaries of scholars participating in EU-funded programs such as Horizon 2020, incentives to apply to such programs are weak. In its 2019 staff working document, the European Commission recommended the development of a coherent policy framework supporting science-business cooperation, and the consolidation of the various agencies that oversee research and innovation policies in Lithuania.

The 2012 – 2016 government developed a new smart-specialization strategy intended to focus resources in science and technology areas in which Lithuania can be internationally competitive, although it has been criticized for investing too heavily in the construction of new buildings and renovation of low-ranking universities’ campuses. In 2016, the parliament approved new science and innovation policy guidelines, which were proposed by the president. The guidelines proposed restructuring the research and higher-education systems, supporting innovation development, improving coordination of science and innovation policy, and monitoring science and innovation policy implementation. In June 2017, the parliament approved a resolution to optimize Lithuania’s state universities. The plan proposed merging the existing state universities into two comprehensive universities in Vilnius and Kaunas, and regional science centers (branches of other Lithuanian universities) in Klaipėda and Šiauliai. However, after intense lobbying by representatives of the existing universities, the initial plan was amended, and the government’s ambitions of reducing the overall number of higher-education institutions were scaled back and delayed. By the end of 2019, the implementation of the optimization plan had produced results only in the city of Kaunas (in terms of absorbing the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences and the Aleksandras Stulginskis University into the Vytautas Magnus University). Further consolidation of funding and staff is unlikely before the next parliamentary elections in 2020. In 2018, the Skvernelis government significantly increased the size of stipends for PhD students, with the goal of attracting more young researchers into the R&I ecosystem. Furthermore, as part of its structural-reform program, the current government has focused on innovation, successfully promoting the growth of new and innovative companies in the Lithuanian market. Virginijus Sinkevičius, who led this reform as the minister for economy and innovation in the Lithuanian government, was nominated to serve on the 2019 – 2024 European Commission.

Citations:
The EU Innovation Scoreboard is available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/facts-figures-analysis/innovation-scoreboard/
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, country report Lithuania 2019: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/2019-european-semester-country-report-lithuania_en.pdf
Global Innovation Index 2018 Report: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2018-report#
OECD, Review of Innovation Policy: Lithuania, Overall Assessment and Recommendations, June 2016.

Global Financial System

#4

To what extent does the government actively contribute to the effective regulation and supervision of the international financial architecture?

10
 9

The government (pro-)actively promotes the regulation and supervision of financial markets. It demonstrates initiative and responsibility in such endeavors and often acts as an international agenda-setter.
 8
 7
 6


The government contributes to improving the regulation and supervision of financial markets. In some cases, it demonstrates initiative and responsibility in such endeavors.
 5
 4
 3


The government rarely contributes to improving the regulation and supervision of financial markets. It seldom demonstrates initiative or responsibility in such endeavors.
 2
 1

The government does not contribute to improving the regulation and supervision of financial markets.
Stabilizing Global Financial System
8
Lithuanian authorities contribute to improving financial-market regulation and supervision. Lithuania joined the euro area and the single European banking supervisory system in 2015. The Lithuanian Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Lithuania (the country’s central bank) are involved in the activities of EU institutions and arrangements dealing with international financial markets (including the European Council, the European Commission, the European Systemic Risk Board’s (ESRB) Advisory Technical Committee, the European supervisory authorities, etc.). Lithuanian authorities are involved in the activities of more than 150 committees, working groups and task forces setup by the European Council, the European Commission, the ESRB’s Advisory Technical Committee and other European supervisory authorities. Lithuanian authorities support inclusive euro zone decision-making, which includes EU members that are not members of the euro area, as well as further completion of the banking union.

In addition, the Bank of Lithuania cooperates with various international financial institutions and foreign central banks, in part by providing technical assistance to central banks located in the EU’s eastern neighbors. Lithuania’s Financial Crime Investigation Service cooperates with EU institutions, international organizations and other governments on the issue of money laundering. The country has lent its support to many initiatives concerning the effective regulation and supervision of financial markets. In recent years, the Bank of Lithuania has tightened regulation of short-term lending practices to target so-called fast-credit companies and attract foreign financial institutions. At the same time, the Bank of Lithuania has attempted to attract fintech companies to Lithuania in the context of the United Kingdom leaving the EU. This would increase competition in a banking sector heavily dominated by Nordic banks, where the largest three make up 86% of the total banking sector. Lithuania is regarded as having one of the world’s most highly developed fintech-sector regulatory frameworks. Recently, the Bank of Lithuania initiated debates on making Lithuania a center of excellence for anti-money laundering activities. MONEYVAL assessed the bank in early 2019 as a supervisor that proactively implements anti-money-laundering measures.

Citations:
The Bank of Lithuania, February 11, 2019: https://www.lb.lt/en/news/bank-of-lithuania-acknowledged-as-a-supervisor-that-proactively-implements-anti-money-laundering-measures
Back to Top