Venturing into the European Research Area –

some far-reaching speculations

Wolfgang PoltInstitute of Technology and Regional Policy - Joanneum Research / Vienna

wolfgang.polt@joanneum.at

6CP Conference ‚Crossing Borders‘, 30.- 31.10.2003, Kismarton/Ödenburg

Growing role of European RTD policies? (I)

• Increased volume and scope of FPs• New instuments to achieve closer

integration of RTD efforts• Open Method of Coordination (OMC) to

better co-ordinate national policies• Definition of common goals on the

European levelEU becoming an increasingly important

actor (...or so one might think...)

Growing role of European RTD policies? (II)

• FPs still only a small fraction of overall EU RTD expenditure

• EU RTD policies not figuring prominently – in the policy agendas of most larger

countries – and probably the most developed

small countries as well (SF !)

The rationale behind the concept:

• „Brussels, we have a problem....“: percieved relative weakness in technological development and innovation (despite scientifc excellence, hence the ‚European Paradox‘)

• ‚15+1‘-situation led to fragmentation, isolated policies, ‚governance gap‘ and reduced efficiency in policy implementation

• „our main message is [...] that the FP alone is not enough to implement European RTD policy. It needs to be complemented by other tools“ (FP assessment panel, 2000)

What is ERA ... and what could it probably be?

• ERA as a goal• ERA as a political concept• ERA as a an instrument• When will we know when we are

there?

The main pillars of the current approach:

• FP• IPs, NoEs• Art 169

Effects of the FP: converging EU RTD systems?

• The FPs have had – a ‚europeanisation effect‘ in terms of

sustained networking, increased collabortation in publishing etc.

– a ‚convergence effect‘ on the participating countries in terms of participation patterns

– probably for the smaller/less R&D intensive countries a ‚guidance effect‘

– a ‚distributional effect‘ among member countries

What else can we say about the FPs?

• The FPs have had – a ‚europeanisation effect‘ in terms

of sustained networking – a ‚convergence effect‘ on the

participating countries in terms of participation patterns

ERA for a ‚growing Europe‘ (I)

• ‚Sapir-Report‘: „An agenda for a growing Europe“. July 2003

• Among the main findings: – Europe is underinvesting in R&D and

education in comparison to US and Asian countries („growing inadequancy of public support for R&D“)

– Europe as a whole is not growing on the „Growth/Technology Frontier“ (indication: trade-off between productivity and employment)

– ...while growth in the recent decades was closely linked to innovation and skills

ERA for a ‚growing Europe‘ (II)

• Recommendations of the ‚Sapir-Report‘:– „Boosting investment in knowledge“:

increased spending on R&D and education/HC

• Tax credits• IPRs• Centers of excellence

– Increased mobility and immigration• ‚Green cards‘• Portability of social security benefits /

compatibility of regulation

ERA for a ‚growing Europe‘ (III)

• Increasing policy coherence and changing policy governance: – COM should extend its capabilities for

strategic decisions, implementation should be devolved to independent bodies: • European Agency for Science and

Research (modelled after the NSF)• Fund for economic growth (R&D and

innovation, education and training, infrastructure)

• ....Funds for convergence, re-structuring....

European patterns of RTDI policy: a ‚governance gap‘

• Growth of FPs in scope and volume• ...but RTDI policies – especially in

the larger countries´- are still formulated with a pre-dominantly national focus (even those vis-a-vis the EU!)

• ... Still a ‚15+1‘ situation: European RTD policy being just an additional layer

Governance Regimes in EU policies

Outlook for a new ERA

• Increasing policy coherence and changing policy governance: – COM should extend its capabilities for

strategic decisions, implementation should be devolved to independent bodies: • European Agency for Science and

Research (modelled after the NSF)• Fund for economic growth (R&D and

innovation, education and training, infrastructure)

• ....Funds for convergence, re-structuring....

New Member States‘Participation in the 5th

Framework Programme

Sources:

OECD; EUROSTAT; PROVISO latest data Dec. 2002; own calculations

(next 19 slides)

General Overview

countryoverall

participationssuccessful

participations success rateCY 780 157 20,1CZ 3473 708 20,4EE 892 194 21,7HU 3209 613 19,1LT 636 152 23,9LV 607 129 21,3MT 148 33 22,3PL 5079 1090 21,5SI 1717 397 23,1SK 1049 233 22,2

PL

CZ

HU

SI

SKEELT

LVCY

MT0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

[tendered participations]

[su

cces

sfu

l p

arti

cip

atio

ns]

Participations per 100 RTD Personell*

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL SI SK

data basis: 1996 no data for Malta and Cyprus available

RTD Personell* and Number of Participations

5.Framework Programme

LV

EE

LT

SK

SI

HU

PL

CZ

y = 0,6463x

R2 = 0,6302

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

7,0 7,5 8,0 8,5 9,0 9,5 10,0 10,5 11,0 11,5

ln (number of researchers)

ln (

nu

mb

er

of

pa

rtic

ipa

tio

ns

)

RTD Personell* and Number of Participations

5. Framework Programme

LT

EE

LV

SK

SI

HU

CZ

PL

CY

y = 0,388x + 2,3777

R2 = 0,5345

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0 11,0 12,0

ln (number of researcher)

ln (

nu

mb

er

of

pa

rtic

ipa

tio

ns

)

Specialisation Patterns by Programme- 5 largest New Member States

0,0

0,1

0,1

0,2

0,2

0,3

0,3

0,4

0,4

0,5

QoL IST Growth Environment Energy IHP LA Socioec.

CZ HU LT PL SKno IST-data available for Slovakia

Specialisation Patterns by Programme- 5 smaller New Member States

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

QoL IST Growth Environment Energy IHP LA Socioec.

CY EE LV MT SIno IHP-data available for Malta

RCA* (Specialisation Patterns by Programme)

RCA (5.RP)

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

QoL IST Growth Umwelt Energie IHP LA-Soziö

CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL SI SK

Specialisation Patterns based on RCA (5 large New Member States)

stand. RCA (5.RP)

-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

CZ HU LT PL SK

LA-Soziö.

Umwelt

Energie

IHP

Growth

IST

QoL

Specialisation Patterns based on RCA (5 small New Member States)

stand. RCA (5.RP)

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

CY EE LV MT SI

LA-Soziö.

Umwelt

Energie

IHP

Growth

IST

QoL

Success Rates* by Programme

QoL IST Grow th Environment Energy IHP LA Socioec.CY 13,5% 19,0% 27,4% 17,9% 40,5% 33,3% 33,3%CZ 14,9% 17,2% 26,6% 23,7% 28,1% 47,4% 15,8%EE 19,0% 24,2% 28,8% 17,1% 27,4% 80,0% 25,3%HU 12,9% 19,7% 30,6% 15,6% 27,6% 45,7% 20,2%LT 23,5% 20,3% 35,0% 25,9% 23,4% 25,0% 14,0%LV 13,7% 20,6% 27,3% 23,0% 38,5% 50,0% 21,9%MT 18,5% 13,0% 30,8% 23,9% 23,1% k.A. 40,0%PL 15,9% 19,2% 32,3% 18,6% 24,7% 52,1% 17,2%SI 16,6% 21,9% 31,1% 20,2% 29,5% 56,3% 20,2%SK 14,7% k.A. 33,6% 19,9% 34,5% 58,3% 20,8%

Success Rates by Programme- 5 largest New Member States

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

QoL IST Growth Environment Energy IHP LA Socioec.

CZ HU LT PL SKno IST-data available for Slovakia

Success Rates by Programme- 5 smallest New Member States

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

QoL IST Growth Environment Energy IHP LA Socioec.

CY EE LV MT SIno IHP-data available for Malta

FIP Charts: Participation of EU-15

4th and 5th Framework Programme

Success Rates by Country (4. FP)

LUAT

PTIE

FIDK

SE

BE GR

ES

IT

FRGB

DE

NL

y = 0,3123x

R2 = 0,9939

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

[tendered participations]

[su

cces

sfu

l p

arti

cip

atio

ns]

Success Rates by Country (5.FP)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000S

tan

d: D

UK F I E

NL

EL B S A

DK

FIN P

IRL L

nu

mb

er o

f p

rop

osa

ls (

ove

rall

)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

succ

ess

rate

(o

vera

ll)

Eingereichte Beteiligungen

Erfolgreiche Beteiligungen

Erfolgsquote

Durchschnitt

©: PROVISO

tendered participations

average

success rate

successful participations

data: Dec. 2002

Percentage Distribution of Participations by Programme: Germany in Comparison to all EU-15

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

ACTS

BIOM

ED 2

BIOTECH 2

BRITE/E

URAM 3

ENV 2C

ESPRIT 4

ESSI 2FAIR

INCO

INNOVATIO

N

MAST 3

NNE-JOULE C

NNE-THERM

IE C

SMT

TELEMATIC

S 2C

TMR

TRANSPORT

TSER

Germany

EU-15

4. Framework Programme

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

QoL IST

Gro

wth

Env

ironm

ent

Ene

rgy

IHP

LA-S

ocio

ec.

Germany

EU-15

5. Framework Programme

Relation between Number of Participations in the 4th and 5th FP and Number of RTD Personell

IT

DE

SE

AT

FR

ES

IE

BE

FIPT

NL

GR

GB

DK

y = 0,7668x

R2 = 0,8372

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

8,0

8,5

9,0

9,5

10,0

8,0 9,0 10,0 11,0 12,0 13,0

ln (number of researchers)

ln (

nu

mb

er o

f p

arti

cip

atio

ns)

4. Framework Programme

DK

GB

GR

NL

PT

FI

BE

IE

ES

FR

AT

SE

DE

IT

y = 0,7653x

R2 = 0,8839

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

8,0

8,5

9,0

9,5

10,0

8,0 9,0 10,0 11,0 12,0 13,0

ln (number of researchers)

ln (

nu

mb

er o

f p

arti

cip

atio

ns)

5. Framework Programme

Number of Participations in the 4th and 5th FP per 100 RTD Personell

0

5

10

15

20

25

GR IE NL PT BE DK ES IT FI SE AT GB EU FR DE

participations per 100 researchers (4.FP)

participations per 100 researchers (5.FP)

RCA-Values Germany, France and GB for Programmes of the 5th FP

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

QoL IST Growth Environment Energy IHP LA-Socioec.

Germany France UK