Measuring the integration and coordination dynamics of the ERA2nd EU-SPRI Conference

Karlsruhe, 12-13 June 2012

Rémi Barré (CNAM, Paris)

Luisa Henriques (European Commission, JRC-IPTS, Sevilla)

Dimitrios Pontikakis (Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

K. Matthias Weber (AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna)

Overview

Background Objectives Conceptual framework

Macro-functions Organisational relationships RF Matrix

Historical perspectives Key indicators Main findings Conclusions

219.04.2023

Background

How to monitor progress towards „ERA“?

How to capture the process of transforming research in Europe by way of meaningful measurement and analysis?

How to conceptualize different models/modes of Europeanisation?

319.04.2023

Objectives

Conceptual Revisits theoretical literature to construct a novel conceptual framework

Methodological Based on the framework, devise a methodology to monitor and measure

Substantive Investigate empirically transformation of research landscape in Europe

over the past twenty years

419.04.2023

Conceptual framework – macro-functions

Functions of research and innovation systems cover macro-, meso- and micro-conditions for R&I

Focus on policy dimensions of R&I system function („macro-functions“) Orientation Programming and funding Research performance

519.04.2023

Conceptual framework – multi-level governance institutions

In the European multi-level system, each governance level can in principle be endowed with each of these functions European level National level Regional level

Research in European can thus be described as three sets of organisational realisations, one for each of the functions with different balances for each function

619.04.2023

Conceptual framework – models of transformative change

This leads ultimately to three ideal-type models of transformative change of research in Europe, each model corresponding to different organisational relationships between the institutional levels

Transformation models Integration Coordination Juxtaposition

719.04.2023

Europeanisation

RF-Matrix

819.04.2023

Relationships

Functions

Europeanisation 3.

Juxtaposition 1.

Integration 2.

Coordination A. Orientation

A1 EU level political decisions and budgetary processes: the Council, European Parliament & European Commission institutional triangle

A2 Policy design and budgeting by governments on their own resources – done in a coordinated way, i.e. in a single policy perspective, with or without EC intervention Example: the governmental level of the Grand challenges / joint programming policy conception and overall budgeting ; Intergovernmental research organisations strategic orientations elaboration

A3 National research budgets and research policy elaboration processes by national Parliaments and governments (same at regional scale)

B. Programming & funding

B1 Integrated programme design, thematic priorities definition and funding from a common or single budget (pot) Example: FP thematic programmes set-up and implementation; programming activities in some Inter-governmental research organisations

B2 Joint programming, with or without EU funding, but national funding reserved to own participants, including ‘juste retour’ Example:programming activities of Joint Technology Initiatives, ESA, EUREKA, ERANETs, Joint Programming Initiatives

B3 Nationally based programming and funding Example: activities of national funding agencies or research councils, except what is in B2

C. Research performance

C1 Research performance of EU or intergovernmental institutions Example: JRC, CERN, EMBL..

C2 Research performed in a biding institutional / contractual arrangement among several national organisations: consortium agreements or strategic alliances Example: FP projects consortia in ‘coordinated actions’

C3 Research performed in national organisations, except what is under C2 Example: Public research organisations activities on their own budget

Europeanisation

We call Europeanisation the increase of the relative budgetary weight of the columns for integration and coordination types of relationships.

This definition enriches the notion of Europeanisation on three grounds: Coordination is considered as a possible form of Europeanisation,

complementary to the restrictive vision of integration as the only Europeanisation modality,

Europeanisation is addressed in a more specific way, distinguishing the situation of the three functions, which may have different Europeanisation dynamics,

Beyond the dynamics of nations, Europeanisation refers here also to a dynamics of regions, which are accounted for in the framework.

919.04.2023

Historical perspectives on Europeanisation

From the mid 1950s to the late 1970s: Europeanisation as integration of programming and of performance functions in

restricted areas From the late 1970s to 2000:

Europeanisation as coordination of national entities and their performance function through European funding

since 2000: Europeanisation as fostering coordination of national entities involved in the

orientation and programming functions – beyond FP projects (the building of the ERA)

1019.04.2023

Key indicators

Indicators focused on integration and coordination, and on programming and performance

Comparing the years 2000 and 2007

Indices of Integration (programming; performance) Coordination (programming; performance) Europeanisation (programming; performance; overall) Modalities of Europeanisation (programming / (programming + performance);

coordination / (coordination + integration))

1119.04.2023

Overviewof funding

instruments in the

RF-Matrix

1219.04.2023

Functions Instruments ( Building blocks of the RF matrix)

A Orientation

B Programming

C Research

performance Framework

Programme

JRC A1 B1 C1

Thematic programmes

EC funds A1 B1 C2

National (matching) funds [project matching funds*]

A3 B1 C2

ERANETS and EUROCORES

EC funds A1 B2 C2

National (matching) funds – [programmes matching funds]

A2 B2 C2

JTI + art 169 EC funds A1 B2 C2

National (matching) funds – [programmes matching funds]

A2 B2 C2

ERC + Marie Curie

EC funds A1 B1 C3

Structural Funds EC funds A1 B2 C3

National (matching) funds

A2 B2 C3

Intergovernmental research organisations

Research performing org. / infrastructure

CERN, EMBL, ESO. A2 B1 C1

Funding body ESA.. A2 B1 20% C1 80% C3

Intergovernmental programmes or activities

Eureka, COST A2 B2 C2

Other public funding for research (national and regional) A3 B3 C3

TOTAL Total public RD funds

Total public RD funds

Total public RD funds

The RF-Matrix in empirical terms

Based on all data collected on budget for each instrument in the RF-Matrix Provides the basis for the calculation of the different indices

1319.04.2023

Year 2000, in current Bio € Relationships

Functions

Europeanisation 3. Juxtaposition

TOT RD 1.

Integration 2. Coordination

B. Programming & funding 7,86 2,93 64,84 75,63*

C. Research performance 2,15 5,45 54,16 61,76**

Year 2007, in current Bio €

Relationships

Functions

Europeanisation 3. Juxtaposition

TOT RD* 1.

Integration 2. Coordination

B. Programming & funding 12,09 15,28 81,09 108,46*

C. Research performance 2,49 9,00 71,17 82,66** * Public funding (=GBAORD + international initiatives not normally included in GBAORD) ** Publicly funded execution (= Publicly funded GERD + any international initiatives not included in GERD)

Main findings

Europeanisation The level of Europeanisation has increased by half Europeanisation of programming has become significantly more important than

Europeanisation of performance, thus becoming the main component and driver of Europeanisation

Integration vs. coordination Integration was more developed than coordination in 2000, but coordination has

clearly overtaken integration in 2007 Coordination in terms of programming has developed particularly fast

1419.04.2023

Indicators of integration Indicators of coordination

programming performance overall programming performance overall 2000 10,4 3,5 7,0 3,9 8,8 6,4 2007 11,1 3,0 7,1 14,1 10,9 12,5 * ratio of the value for 2007 to the value for 2000 then multiplied by 100; index 107 for example can be read as an increase of 7 %

Indicators of Europeanisation programming performance overall 2000 14,3 12,3 13,3 2007 25,2 13,9 19,6 Contribution 2000 54 46 100 Contribution 2007 64 36 100

Main findings

The contribution of programming (vs. performance) and coordination (vs. integration Relative importance of Europeanisation of programming as compared to

performance has grown from half to two thirds The same holds for the relative importance of Europeanisation of coordination as

compared to integration

1519.04.2023

Indicators of modalities of Europeanisation Contribution of:

programming coordination 2000 54 48 2007 64 65

Conclusions

The latest phase of evolution of Europeanisation of research (since about 2000) is characterised by a superposition of Established big science infrastructures, Performance coordination through the FPs, and Coordination of programming as a novel, fast growing and now its most

significant element.

As a consequence, Europeanisation is no more limited by the funding of FP and other infrastructures, but mobilizes also national funding

1619.04.2023

Conclusions (2)

Methodology developed and tested represent the basis for a comprehensive and refined approach to monitoring progress towards ERA, but much work remains to be done: include indicators for the orientation functions; include the funding by the regions; compute values for year 1980 and possibly before; develop national indicators of Europeanisation; and develop sectoral / thematic indicators of Europeanisation.

Comparison of benefits of Europeanisation with similar research work on US, Japan and China as a longer-term perspective

1719.04.2023

Thank your for your attention !

Contact:

Matthias Weber

Austrian Institute of Technology AIT

Foresight & Policy Development Department

Research, Technology and Innovation Policy

matthias.weber@ait.ac.at

1819.04.2023