An opinion article under the heading “What does Europe do to satisfy Mario Draghi” signs Economist’s “By Invitation” column in the Economist’s “By Invitation” column.

As the Minister of National Economy points out: “It’s been a year since Mario Draghi, a former Italian prime minister and commander of the European Central Bank, presented his report on European competitiveness – an emblematic effort to engage in growth. His message was clear then: Without bold reforms, Europe is risking to lead to a “slow and excruciating” course of economic decline. A year later, the sense of urgency has intensified even further, hence Mr Draghi’s ongoing warnings, including in a recent speech where he warned that Europe should make “mass investment … now, as long as we still have the power to form our future”.

The article continues as follows:

“Among the many recommendations made by Mr. Draghi, the Complete the single market – The venture that ensures the free movement of goods, services, capital and people in Europe – remains the most important. Is the Key to release the next phase of Epirus growth.

The impetus for completing the single market must, however, keep up with the resuscitation of competitiveness. The European Commission is right to aim for the persistent obstacles that fragment the economies of Epirus. But while regulatory convergence is necessary, it is far from being sufficient.

The importance of completing the single market is underlined by raw statistics: intra-European obstacles act as a de facto duty of around 44% on average in goods-three-fold in terms of barriers to trade between US states-and even higher, 110%, in the services. Eliminating these obstacles should be a priority. However, a new outbreak of European development will require two more critical shifts.

First, a greater strategic targeting is needed to concentrate on our resources – a sector. Let’s take the telecommunications as an example. It is a high -capital intensity industry with shrinking margins, but essential for digital competitiveness. Today in Europe, telecommunications providers face 27 different regulations and had to go through 27 separate 5G spectrum auctions. This mosaic regulations increases costs, delays growth and makes it difficult to achieve scale.

On the contrary, America has only one regulator, the Federal Committee on Communications, and a single spectrum distribution process. In the meantime, China went even further, distributing the spectrum administratively to providers, instead of auctioning it, acknowledging that the value of 5G is not in revenue from auctions but in the applications and services it allows.

Europe’s position in this broader geopolitical context has been paradoxical. In recent years, global competition for digital infrastructure has evolved into a complete strategic rivalry. While the European Union lacked a coherent response, European companies were often at the heart of the most important developments – as top 5G infrastructure and innovation providers. In other words, Europe had many of the tools but lacked common policy to turn them into long -term industrial power.

In my own country, Greece, we have tried to respond to this challenge at national level. We maintained 25% of the revenue from 5G auctions to set up a special fund that will invest in companies that develop 5G -based applications. This reflects the recognition that in the digital age infrastructure alone is not enough. The innovation on these infrastructures is that feeds growth.

If Europe had adopted a coordinated or even a single regulatory approach, a single auction framework and a common funding mechanism for strategic technology investment in 5G applications, it may have been more convincingly positioned as a world leader in 5G -based innovation. The cost of opportunities for fragmentation is measured not only in lost efficiency but also in lost competitiveness.

The second required change is to align the regulation with the development priorities of the future, not the past. Let us take the public procurement, which in Europe is governed by the Public Procurement Directive. Here traditional construction projects go much faster than digital or innovative projects. This divergence is not only procedural – reflects the development priorities of a time where natural infrastructure dominated strategic thinking.

Today, the life span of digital works is often measured in months. In Europe, however, times for their assignment and completion have been measured in years. If we need more to obtain a digital identity system or a public e -health platform than to pave a motorway, then the institutional framework is clearly a hindrance to the ambitions.

This is not just a matter of simplification. This is a matter of direction. The question we need to ask is not “how do we make public conventions easier?” But “what do we want public contracts to achieve?” The answer must be: Development and Innovation. This means releasing the rules so that they are suitable for flexible growth, public and private partnerships in technology and rapid implementation in areas such as artificial intelligence, cyber security, energy transition and advanced industrial production.

Let us finally eliminate the invisible tariffs that fragment Europe’s internal market. But let’s also wonder: What kind of economy do we build when these obstacles disappear?

The answer cannot be “one of the same”. It must be an economy that innovates, competes and develops – with an institutional architecture designed not only to manage dangers, but to liberate Europe’s true dynamics. “