Universities of the Third Age in Poland. Emerging Model for 21st Century

Main objective of this paper is to describe emergence of a Polish Universities of the Third Age model. These are a multidisciplinary non-formal education centers, which allow formation of positive responses to the challenges of an ageing population. Article indicates main organizational changes of these institutions conditioned by internal and external factors. Essay describes transformation, differentiation factors, and characteristics of these institutions for elderly based on a critical analysis of literature

Report on SHAFE policies, strategies and funding

The objective of Working Group (WG) 4 of the COST Action NET4Age-Friendly is to examine existing policies, advocacy, and funding opportunities and to build up relations with policy makers and funding organisations. Also, to synthesize and improve existing knowledge and models to develop from effective business and evaluation models, as well as to guarantee quality and education, proper dissemination and ensure the future of the Action. The Working Group further aims to enable capacity building to improve interdisciplinary participation, to promote knowledge exchange and to foster a cross-European interdisciplinary research capacity, to improve cooperation and co-creation with cross-sectors stakeholders and to introduce and educate students SHAFE implementation and sustainability (CB01, CB03, CB04, CB05). To enable the achievement of the objectives of Working Group 4, the Leader of the Working Group, the Chair and Vice-Chair, in close cooperation with the Science Communication Coordinator, developed a template (see annex 1) to map the current state of SHAFE policies, funding opportunities and networking in the COST member countries of the Action. On invitation, the Working Group lead received contributions from 37 countries, in a total of 85 Action members. The contributions provide an overview of the diversity of SHAFE policies and opportunities in Europe and beyond. These were not edited or revised and are a result of the main areas of expertise and knowledge of the contributors; thus, gaps in areas or content are possible and these shall be further explored in the following works and reports of this WG. But this preliminary mapping is of huge importance to proceed with the WG activities. In the following chapters, an introduction on the need of SHAFE policies is presented, followed by a summary of the main approaches to be pursued for the next period of work. The deliverable finishes with the opportunities of capacity building, networking and funding that will be relevant to undertake within the frame of Working Group 4 and the total COST Action. The total of country contributions is presented in the annex of this deliverable

Innovations in the Digital Economy: Promotion of R&D and Growth in Open Economies

This paper presents key figures on innovativeness and export dynamics in selected OECD countries and develops some new ideas on optimum R&D policies in open economies. We take a look at some selected indicators of technological and economic competitiveness in the field of RCAs and export unit values with a special focus on the US, France, Italy, Germany and the UK on the one hand and Hungary as an accession country on the other. Specialization patterns differ across countries; as do weighted export unit values. The US has been very successful in the 1990s in several key sectors which have improved both RCAs and export unit values. France has made progress in some high technology fields, Italy also stands for considerable successful structural adjustment. Germany's dynamics has been very strong in the automotive sector and in the field of precision instruments; however, Hungary and the UK also have a positive development in the automotive sector which could signal problems for Germany's exports in the lower segment of the market. As regards welfare effects of R&D support in particular, interesting cases concern technology-intensive intermediate tradables and network effects. We also emphasize the macroeconomic effects of government R&D subsidies for promoting product innovations and process innovations. It would be useful to have an EU (or OECD) tax revenue sharing system which would particularly compensate producers of intermediate innovative tradables. In a more general policy perspective, one may argue that the government should subsidize those technologyintensive fields in which the respective country has a comparative advantage or enjoys sustained increases in (weighted) export unit values. The new Schumpeter-Mundell-Fleming model presented clearly points to the benefits of an expansionary fiscal policy which would stimulate product innovations, with output and employment being higher. By contrast, there is an ambiguous result in the case of stimulating process innovations by way of expansionary supply-oriented (R&D promoting) fiscal policy. Knowledge transfer from universities to the business community would be stimulated by privatization of a considerable share of stateowned universities and the introduction of incentives for professors to create technologyintensive firms on or off campus. Knowledge and skills can be kept in the region only if the overall mix of policies creates positive growth prospects or if the country has specialized in immobile Schumpeter industries.Digital economy, product and process innovation, R&D policies