Towards a new MFF New priorities and their impact on Italy. CEPS Research Paper 20 February 2020

This paper analyses the outlook for regional funding under the next Multiannual Financial Framework of the EU for which the Commission has proposed new criteria. The starting point is the so-called Berlin formula, developed from a blend of national and regional indicators. In reality, the allocation for any region depends not only on the state of the region, but also heavily on the income level of the member state in which this region is located. The modifications to the Berlin formula proposed by the Commission would accentuate the importance of the national component, despite the fact that the EU cohesion policy is supposed to aim at lagging regions, not countries. Growth in Italy has been below the EU average for some time. This means that the poorer Italian regions should be entitled to a higher amount of cohesion policy funding. However, the increase one could expect on this count is limited given the modifications to Berlin formula proposed by the Commission. The application of the new formula would lead to a somewhat lower allocation for Italy overall (especially for the Mezzogiorno) for two reasons: i) Italy is still a relatively prosperous member state, ii) There are caps to the increase of cohesion policy funding to which regions can be eligible even if their relative income position has worsened a lot. Italian Universities and research institutes benefit less from EU funding than one would expect given the size of the Italian economy from competitive support for research and innovation programmes under Horizon 2020. This underperformance is not due to political decisions as the research funding of the EU is allocated strictly on scientific merit. In the area of research and innovation there is as well a strong north-south divide within the country. Creating high quality research institutions in the south might be a more promising way to use cohesion policy funds than building roads or railways. It should receive more attention and funding from national and EU policymakers

The Effect of Public Funding on Scientific Performance:A Comparison Between China and the EU

Public funding is believed to play an important role in the development of science and technology. However, whether public funding actually helps to increase scientific output (i.e. publications) remains a matter of debate. By analysing a dataset of co-publications between China and the EU and a dataset of joint project collaborations in European Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation (FP7 & H2020), we investigate whether different public funding agencies have different goals in their research policy. Our results support the hypotheses that funded research output represents the intentions of funding sponsors and a high level of public funding does not necessarily lead to high scientific output. Our results show that FP7/H2020 funded projects do not have a positive contribution to the output of joint publications between China and the EU. Interestingly, cooperation in the form of jointly writing proposals to these EU programmes, especially when they are not granted by the European Commission, can contribute significantly to joint scientific publications at a later stage. This applies in particular to cases where funding from China is involved. Our findings highlight the key role that funding agencies play in influencing research performance. While the Chinese government is interested in pursuing a high number of publications, the EU cares more about the social impact and indirect effect, which is hard to measure in the short term

The United States of America and Scientific Research

To gauge the current commitment to scientific research in the United States of America (US), we compared federal research funding (FRF) with the US gross domestic product (GDP) and industry research spending during the past six decades. In order to address the recent globalization of scientific research, we also focused on four key indicators of research activities: research and development (R&D) funding, total science and engineering doctoral degrees, patents, and scientific publications. We compared these indicators across three major population and economic regions: the US, the European Union (EU) and the People's Republic of China (China) over the past decade. We discovered a number of interesting trends with direct relevance for science policy. The level of US FRF has varied between 0.2% and 0.6% of the GDP during the last six decades. Since the 1960s, the US FRF contribution has fallen from twice that of industrial research funding to roughly equal. Also, in the last two decades, the portion of the US government R&D spending devoted to research has increased. Although well below the US and the EU in overall funding, the current growth rate for R&D funding in China greatly exceeds that of both. Finally, the EU currently produces more science and engineering doctoral graduates and scientific publications than the US in absolute terms, but not per capita. This study's aim is to facilitate a serious discussion of key questions by the research community and federal policy makers. In particular, our results raise two questions with respect to: a) the increasing globalization of science: “What role is the US playing now, and what role will it play in the future of international science?”; and b) the ability to produce beneficial innovations for society: “How will the US continue to foster its strengths?

The effect of competitive public funding on scientific output

Public funding is believed to play an important role in the development of science and technology. However, whether public funding and, in particular, competitive funding from public agencies actually helps to increase scientific output (i.e. publications) remains a matter of debate. By analysing a dataset of co-publications between China and the EU and a dataset of joint project collaborations in European Framework Programs for Research and Innovation [FP7 and Horizon 2020 (H2020)], we investigate whether different public funding agencies’ competitive assets have different impact on the volume of publication output. Our results support the hypotheses that competitively funded research output varies by funding sources, so that a high level of funding does not necessarily lead to high scientific output. Our results sho

Towards better integration of environmental science in society: lessons from BONUS, the joint Baltic Sea environmental research and development programme

Integration of environmental science in society is impeded by the large gap between science and policy that is characterised by weaknesses in societal relevance and dissemination of science and its practical implementation in policy. We analyse experiences from BONUS, the policy-driven joint Baltic Sea research and development programme (2007–2020), which is part of the European Research Area (ERA) and involves combined research funding by eight EU member states. The ERA process decreased fragmentation of Baltic Sea science and BONUS funding increased the scientific quality and societal relevance of Baltic Sea science and strengthened the science-policy interface. Acknowledging the different drivers for science producers (academic career, need for funding, peer review) and science users (fast results fitting policy windows), and realising that most scientists aim at building conceptual understanding rather than instrumental use, bridges can be built through strategic planning, coordination and integration. This requires strong programme governance stretching far beyond selecting projects for funding, such as coaching, facilitating the sharing of infrastructure and data and iterative networking within and between science producer and user groups in all programme phases. Instruments of critical importance for successful science-society integration were identified as: (1) coordinating a strategic research agenda with strong inputs from science, policy and management, (2) providing platforms where science and policy can meet, (3) requiring cooperation between scientists to decrease fragmentation, increase quality, clarify uncertainties and increase consensus about environmental problems, (4) encouraging and supporting scientists in disseminating their results through audience-tailored channels, and (5) funding not only primary research but also synthesis projects that evaluate the scientific findings and their practical use in society – in close cooperation with science users − to enhance relevance, credibility and legitimacy of environmental science and expand its practical implementation

Investigating the interplay between fundamentals of national research systems: performance, investments and international collaborations

We discuss, at the macro-level of nations, the contribution of research funding and rate of international collaboration to research performance, with important implications for the science of science policy. In particular, we cross-correlate suitable measures of these quantities with a scientometric-based assessment of scientific success, studying both the average performance of nations and their temporal dynamics in the space defined by these variables during the last decade. We find significant differences among nations in terms of efficiency in turning (financial) input into bibliometrically measurable output, and we confirm that growth of international collaboration positively correlate with scientific success, with significant benefits brought by EU integration policies. Various geo-cultural clusters of nations naturally emerge from our analysis. We critically discuss the possible factors that potentially determine the observed patterns

Redefining a Post-Brexit EU-UK Partnership in Research and Higher Education. College of Europe Policy Brief #6.18, April 2018

>Continuity and certainty are crucial to excellent scientific research, which builds on decades of fruitful relationships and networks between European partners. > Following the withdrawal of the UK from the Union in March 2019, the eligibility of UK researchers and universities to access EU research funds will be at risk. > Either formal association, or an arrangement of similar ambition in the area of research and innovation is crucial to maintain continuity. > Should there be no agreement, additional UK research funding must be agreed upon at a national level and match any projected EU increase for the 9th Framework Programme (2021- 2027). > UK government funding should be ring fenced and remain available regardless of potential changes in government. > Because cross-border collaborative applications to EU grants are time consuming, any further delay is damaging to the wider European research and science community as well as to the development of the European Research Area. > An urgent solution is of the essence, as an EU-UK partnership in research and higher education is already behind schedule

European Research Area (ERA) from the Innovation Perspective: Knowledge Spillovers, Cost of Inventing and Voluntary Cooperation

The paper analyses the European Research Area policy (ERA) from the innovation perspective. The Lisbon Treaty gives the Union the objective of free circulation of researchers, scientific knowledge and technology. The five ERA initiatives implement the ERA policy on the basis of voluntary cooperation. The ERA and innovation are linked through the business sector R&D investment. The economic value of the ERA comes from accelerated cross-European knowledge spillovers reducing the cost of inventing. In general, important obstacles hinder the knowledge spillovers making them largely intra-national. These obstacles arise due to the incentives in providing and sharing knowledge and to costs of capturing knowledge spillovers. Funding of knowledge from national budgets and uncertain benefits from knowledge circulation across the heterogenous member states complicates situation further. The analysis of Joint Programming and Better Careers and Mobility initiatives reveals multiple sources of obstacles to cross-European knowledge spillovers. Weak incentives in the member states and limited possibilities at the EU level block the implementation of ERA. In this constellation, the ERA initiatives need to support openness and competition in publicly funded research and universities as well as better models of scientific management to guarantee highest scientific quality. Accelerated (ERA) knowledge spillovers require extended and dynamic markets.European Research Area (ERA), knowledge spillovers, innovation, incentives, voluntary cooperation

The EU Framework Programs: Are they worth doing?

Using CIS data from the Netherlands, Germany and France we test whether EU Framework programs do have effects on their participants' R&D input and innovative output. From our probit analyses, we conclude that the FPs attract the "elite" of European innovators. The question is whether, after correction for self-selection, the programs have positive effects on innovative behaviour. This is hard to test meaningfully among large firms as EU funding is likely to cover only a minor share of their innovative activities. Analysing changes in R&D input we find that smaller firms increase their R&D input quite substantially after entering an EU FP program. Estimating equations that explain sales of innovative products, we find that firms that collaborate on R&D with clients, suppliers, competitors or public research institutes do not have increased sales of innovative products. We try to provide explanations for this counter-intuitive finding. Moreover, participation in an EU FP neither increases sales of innovative products. This result holds after numerous robustness checks. We argue that our insignificant outcomes do not necessarily imply that the FP programs are worthless. There is independent evidence that innovative projects funded by the EU FPs do, on average, involve more technical and scientific risks, they are more complex, and involve longer time horizons. Obviously, they are farer from market introduction which is not surprising, given the regulatory demand that EU FPs should be "pre-competitive". Against this background, we cannot exclude the possibility that an insignificant coefficient of FP participation in our equation on innovative output may still have a positive meaning