BookPDF Available

Policy Approaches towards S&T Cooperation with Third Countries. Analytical report on behalf of the CREST Working Group Internationalisation of R&D – Facing the Challenge of Globalisation

Authors:

Abstract

This report summarises the results of analytical and empirical work, mutual learning exercises and thematic discussion of the CREST Working Group.Internationalisation of R&D – Facing the Challenge of Globalisation: Approaches to a Proactive International Policy in S&T. It includes an empirical overview of and best practice examples for policy strategies and concrete policy measures at the level of EU Member States and Associated States.
29 November 2007
CREST Working Group
Internationalisation of R&D – Facing the Challenge of Globalisation:
Approaches to a Proactive International Policy in S&T
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Policy Approaches towards S&T Cooperation with Third Countries
Brussels, December 2007
On behalf of the Working Group: Jan Nill, Klaus Schuch, Sylvia Schwaag Serger,
Jörn Sonnenburg, Peter Teirlinck, Arie van der Zwan
This report summarises the results of analytical and empirical work, mutual learning exer-
cises and thematic discussion of the CREST Working Group. It does not necessarily reflect
the official views of the Member States, Associated States and the European Commission.
29 November 2007
Preface
The work on this report was conducted by a Working Group set up by CREST as a part of
the process of Open Method of Coordination (OMC).
21 Member States and Associated States joined activities of the CREST Working Group:
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Finland, France, Ireland,
Island, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.
Seven meetings of the CREST Working Group were held.
The chair of the CREST Working Group was Jörn Sonnenburg (International Bureau of the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research at the German AeroSpace Centre).
The rapporteurs were Arie van der Zwan (Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Netherlands)
and Peter Teirlinck (Belgian Science Policy Office).
EU Directorate General for Research gave valuable contributions to the work through Peder
Christensen (C.3) and Heiko Prange-Gstöhl (D.2). Jan Nill and Gaston Heimeriks from the
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Joint Research Centre of the Euro-
pean Commission provided analytical support to the work of the group as part of the
ERAWATCH project. Klaus Schuch (Centre for Social Innovation, Austria) and Sylvia
Schwaag Serger (Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies, ITPS) provided analytical
support as external experts.
29 November 2007
Table of Content
Executive Summary..............................................................................................................I
Summary of Recommendations.......................................................................................XV
1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
2. Drivers of internationalisation of R&D: Present state of discussion and
respective policy concerns ........................................................................... 4
2.1 General trends and drivers in the field of internationalisation of S&T 5
2.2 Policy implications for Europe and for the Member and Associated
States 6
2.2.1 Policy concerns at the level of the Member States/Associated States 7
2.2.2 Main policy concerns at the level of the European Union 8
2.2.3 Concluding reflections 9
3. Policy strategies at the level of the Member States/Associated States: A
comparative analysis and good practice................................................... 11
3.1 Policy strategies, objectives and priority setting of internationalisation
of R&D 12
3.1.1 Strategies towards the internationalisation of R&D 12
3.1.2 Objectives for policies towards the internationalisation of R&D 18
3.1.3 Priority setting in international S&T policies 21
3.1.4 Conclusions 26
3.2 Influential policies and the strategy development process 27
3.2.1 Influential policies for internationalisation of R&D 27
3.2.2 International S&T cooperation between competitive advantage and
development assistance: synergies, bridges of different spheres 31
3.2.3 Conclusions 33
3.3 Monitoring and evaluation of internationalisation policies 34
4. Concrete policy measures at the level of the Member States/Associated
States............................................................................................................ 37
4.1 Fostering international cooperation of S&T institutions 38
4.2 Stimulating international mobility of individual scientists 46
4.3 Attracting and making use of foreign direct investments 54
4.4 Setting the frame for the international exploitation of knowledge 64
5. Coordination of Member States’/Associated States’ internationalisation
policies and strategies towards international organisations................... 75
5.1 Present state of trans-national coordination of S&T policies 76
5.2 Reflection on present and future Community instruments to foster
coordination of Member States’/Associated States’ policies 80
5.3 National strategies towards international organisations 82
5.4 Lessons learned and existing barriers for cooperation and coordination
84
29 November 2007
5.5 Conclusion: Potential ways of cooperation at the EU level and
recommendations for enhanced coordination of R&D policies towards
Third Countries between Member States and Associated States 86
6. Outlook........................................................................................................ 97
List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 99
Annexes
Annex (a): Questionnaire on national policy measures for the internationalisation
of R&D towards third countries outside the EU ................................... 103
Annex (b): Questionnaire on countries’ cooperation in science and technology with
China ......................................................................................................... 125
Annex (c): Terms of Reference for the ‘Analysis of emerging economies/ upcoming
competitors’ .............................................................................................. 131
Annex (d): Lessons learnt from the S&T cooperation of Member States/Associated
States with present and future international competitors: Pilot case
China ......................................................................................................... 133
Annex (e): Reflection of the CREST Working Group on the Green Paper ‘The
European Research Area: New Perspective’ ......................................... 161
29 November 2007
I
Executive Summary
Background
Globalisation is an overarching ‘mega-trend’, which will increasingly shape the world dur-
ing the next decades. It will sustain world economic growth, raise world living standards,
and substantially deepen global interdependence. At the same time, it will generate enor-
mous economic, demographic, environmental, energetic, cultural, security and conse-
quently political convulsions. Although the overall benefits are expected to be positive, the
net benefits of globalisation will not necessarily be global.
Europe, its Member States and the states associated to the European RTD Framework Pro-
gramme are challenged by globalisation in R&D, which remarkably transcends the former
focus on the Triad regions (the US, the EU and Japan). New emerging countries appear on
the international science and technology scene, notably the BRICS countries Brazil, Rus-
sian Federation, India, China and South Africa. This causes new opportunities for knowl-
edge and technology acceleration including the promise to develop and penetrate new mar-
kets, but it also increases the competition for scarce resources, e.g. human capital, leading
research infrastructures and foreign direct investments in R&D. A new division of labour
develops at world scale and also affects the sphere of science and technology (S&T). The
key question is how to benefit most from this phenomenon and at the same time how to re-
duce risks related to the globalisation process.
Applying the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), it was one of the objectives of this
CREST Working Group to take stock on the strategies and activities of the EU Member
States (MS) and Associated States (AS) to the European RTD Framework Programme to-
wards the ongoing trends in internationalisation of R&D. In particular, the mandate of the
CREST Working Group was
1. to collect and present MS/AS policy approaches to internationalisation of R&D and
innovation,
2. to identify good practice, pending questions and problems related to the develop-
ment and implementation of a proactive internationalisation strategy based on na-
tional and Community experiences,
3. to analyse the lessons learnt from coordinated multilateral initiatives like the hori-
zontal ERA-NETs and to develop scenarios for future multilateral approaches of
MS based on OMC and building on national and Community instruments and
4. to develop recommendations related to the international cooperation dimension in
S&T of both MS/AS and, if appropriate, also for Community activities.
These tasks have been fulfilled by a work programme which employed a variety of analyti-
cal and discursive methods. It was firmly build on the commitment of the members of this
Working Group and their readiness to data provision, information exchange, in-depth dis-
cussion and mutual learning. The process was structured and evidence-based by empirical
investigations (two questionnaire-based inquiries), desk research of policy documents and
statistics dealing with the issue of internationalisation of R&D and targeted information in-
puts from the European Commission and external experts.
The main results, trends, conclusions and statements of this work, which are elaborated in
full length in the analytical report are summarised as follows.
29 November 2007
II
Drivers of Internationalisation of R&D
In the field of science and technology, globalisation enhances a tendency for higher reliance
on external sources, international collaboration and networking. The greatest benefits will
accrue to those countries that can most efficiently access, adopt and exploit new technolo-
gies developed at whatever geographical scale, also world-wide. In front of this back-
ground, internationalisation in R&D is driven by the aims
to strengthen research excellence and innovation performance by a better access to
foreign sources of knowledge and by increased global cooperation between research
organisations and innovation networks to jointly develop and exploit new knowl-
edge and technologies based upon comparative factor advantages (in terms of
knowledge and technologies),
to increase the attractiveness of Europe on the worldwide R&D market and to suc-
cessfully compete for R&D contracts and services, to attract more foreign invest-
ments in R&D as well as the best and most creative ‘brains’,
to prepare the domestic ground for successful European innovations abroad and
to respond to global problems, international commitments and to foster the role of
the EU as a community of values.
Usually three modes of internationalisation in R&D are distinguished1:
international R&D cooperation between partners in more than one country to gener-
ate new scientific knowledge and technological know-how, whereby each partner
retains its own institutional identity and ownership remains unaltered (e.g. the case
of FPs or bilateral intergovernmental S&T programmes)
international generation of knowledge and innovations carried out by multinational
enterprises (MNEs) which create innovations across borders by building up research
networks including the establishment of new R&D units in the host country or the
acquisition of foreign R&D units (i.e. FDI in R&D)
international exploitation of innovative know-how and technologies through means
of trade, granting of licences and patents, reverse engineering etc.
There are, however, problems interfering against the driving motivations, like insecure in-
tellectual property regimes, unbalanced brain circulation flows, the relocation of FDI in
R&D from Europe to other regions (notably Asia) etc. Thus, new concepts need to be de-
veloped and tested and efforts (and funds) invested
to upgrade the impact of international S&T collaboration of S&T institutions in Eu-
rope
to facilitate the international mobility of researchers according to individual career
paths through the introduction of more comprehensive brain-circulation concepts
to enhance spillovers from FDI in R&D to the relevant European research commu-
nities, irrespectively if these FDIs are implemented abroad by European companies
or domestically implemented by foreign companies
1 Archibugi, D. (2001): European Innovation System. In: Fischer, M.M. and Fröhlich, J. (eds): Knowledge, Complex-
ity and Innovation Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, pp. 58-75
29 November 2007
III
provide better (regulatory) conditions for national S&T institutions and innovative
firms on the one hand to better access foreign knowledge and on the other hand to
exploit domestic knowledge in Third Countries in a fair manner.
Evidently, to overcome these challenges structural adjustment costs will occur and multi-
level dialogues and new governance modes will have to be established which will transcend
the traditional S&T frame towards other policy domains (like economic, trade and labour-
market policy, development policy, environmental policy, education policy etc.) as well as
towards non-political stakeholders (autonomous universities, autonomous research organi-
sations, companies, philanthropic associations, NGOs etc.). This calls also for a revisiting
of national innovation policy instruments in light of the differing impact that the interna-
tionalisation of S&T has on their relative efficiency and efficacy.
The accelerated internationalisation of R&D is very differently absorbed by the MS/AS,
depending – at least partly – on each country’s current position on the global R&D map.
But also ERA will have to prove itself in a world of globalisation increasingly shaped by
open innovation approaches of the business enterprise sector. More systemic policy answers
towards the internationalisation of S&T are needed. A first major challenge exists in inves-
tigating how the negative effects of globalisation can be addressed without diminishing the
benefits of globalisation. In this respect a key question refers to fair global rules (e.g. relat-
ing to IPRs, technical and social standards, trade and investment etc.) and the soundness
and compatibility of national policy responses. A second challenge involves the S&T re-
sponsibility towards global challenges and the specific S&T problems of the developing
world. As regards the latter, there is a need for more coordination of policy initiatives be-
tween the field of S&T policy and Official Development Assistance (ODA) on one hand
and between countries/regions on the other.
Policy Objectives and Strategies of MS/AS towards Internationalisation of R&D
The major objectives of MS/AS regarding internationalisation of R&D towards Third
Countries can be subsumed in three bullet points:
1. the objective to increase the quality and absorption capacity of domestic S&T
through international S&T partnerships allowing access to foreign knowledge and
S&T resources (this subsumes the explicit aim to support ‘excellence’ but also the
less ambitious aim to push-forward the internationalisation of domestic R&D and,
thus, to raise the quality and absorption level in general);
2. the objective to gain access to new markets and to increase the own innovation sys-
tem’s competitiveness (in this respect internationalisation of R&D is very often per-
ceived as an important complementary approach to other international economic ac-
tivities);
3. the readiness to engage in solving global problems which cannot be tackled in an ef-
ficient way by an individual country (in this sense a certain commingling with the
strategy for sustainable development and the global development goals deriving
from development cooperation, e.g. Millennium Development Goals, can be ob-
served).
It can be roughly summarised that all three dimension have been almost equally perceived
as important objectives for the internationalisation of R&D with Third Countries. Also it
turned out that these objectives are not exclusive as most MS/AS have mixed objectives for
their internationalisation policies in the field of S&T. Most priority, however, is addressed
to the issue of facilitating access to foreign markets and raising competitiveness.
29 November 2007
IV
Alternatively, the objectives can be distinguished by such ones, which focus on enhancing
the national attractiveness (‘inward objectives’) and those which focus on connecting to re-
search in Third Countries (‘outward objectives’). The ‘inward objectives’ include
the objective to attract expatriate and foreign researchers
the objective to attract inward FDI in R&D
the objective to promote of national science abroad and
a set of objectives related to ‘clean/prepare the own house’ (e.g. in order to offer
ideal conditions for research cooperation in a broad range of S&T fields, to continu-
ously develop adequate innovation environments, to turn research into new tech-
nologies, innovation and entrepreneurship, to enhance the knowledge society and to
provide world top-level education).
The ‘outward objectives’ relate to
higher involvement in international cooperation and the enhancement of bilateral
and multilateral STI relations (including the establishment of new ones)
connecting domestic research(ers) into global STI activities (either in general, or fo-
cused at frontier or strategic research areas or focused at excellence and greater val-
orisation, partially complementing and underpinning trade and investment linkages)
enhancing international mobility of researchers and
opening of the national research programmes to researchers from third countries.
Ten of the 22 European countries who provided information on the policy objectives to-
wards internationalisation of R&D indicated that they have already a comprehensive na-
tional strategy on internationalisation of R&D. An impressive number of eight of the re-
maining twelve countries stated that they are in process of developing one. In addition,
many countries envisage new initiatives, which underpin the dynamic with respect to inter-
nationalisation and globalisation of R&D. These planned new initiatives encompass a wide
field ranging from far-reaching generic approaches (e.g. to emphasise globalisation as a
horizontal priority topic) to more technical, instrumental ones. Frequently indications on
envisaged initiatives derive from the wish to implement the existing (very often new) inter-
national strategies on S&T and to make them operational (e.g. by developing implementa-
tion respectively action plans). Also an assessment of the results and impact of the devel-
oped strategies is an issue envisaged by a few MS/AS.
Priority Setting in International S&T Policies
The issue of priority setting was discussed along two dimensions: first, selecting priority
partner countries and, secondly, selecting priority themes for international R&D coopera-
tion. The criteria for the selection of priority partner countries and respective thematic pri-
orities can be classified along scientific, political, and economic criteria.
As regards the identification of partner countries, six selection categories can be distin-
guished (by rank order):
1. expected scientific benefits including improving quality and excellence
2. political reasons including solving societal problems and contributing to develop-
ment goals
3. gaining access to (new) markets, competition and innovation aspects
29 November 2007
V
4. human factors (immigration of knowledge workers, brain drain, brain gain and brain
circulation)
5. promotional activities for the national science system
6. geographical, historical, linguistic and cultural ties.
It needs to be underlined, that in case of a partnership with third countries, the common
ground is given by mutual interest and a mutual net benefit of the different countries in-
volved. Here, the criteria mentioned above need to be applied by both/all partners and the
various perspectives need to be considered. This basic principle is considered one of the
assets of any cooperation.
Regarding the scientific criteria MS/AS mentioned the present and future S&T potential in
the partner country including the potential for partnerships in high-tech domains, the striv-
ing for excellent research on the basis of cooperation with leading R&D centres, benefits
for joint participation in FPs and better access to large international research infrastructures.
The main political aspects relate to foreign policies and instruments like bilateral agree-
ments and umbrella agreements which can act as ‘opportunities to get windows opened’,
capacity building in less developed countries, responsibility sharing for global issues and
respecting IPR and ethical rules as well as cultural and historic ties. Economic criteria refer
to the future growth potential of the partner country reflected through the partner countries
position on the various scoreboards (trend chart, global competitiveness report) as an ex-
ample of a more evidence based approach.
Another selection criterion is the assessment of already existing cooperation relations of
research organisations. However, data mining for this issue becomes increasingly difficult
due to the increased autonomy and diversity of the involved organisations. Desirable met-
rics for evidence-based decision-making are not always available and, moreover, existing
metrics do not necessarily reflect the current (and expected future) performance of certain
countries (such as China or India). Thus, systematic information gathering on S&T in Third
Countries is important. Most MS/AS collect information systematically and use a variety of
tools for this purpose. The four most frequently mentioned measures are embassies in Third
Countries, regular bilateral workshops, national liaison offices in Third Countries and sys-
tematic analysis of the participation of domestic research teams with foreign partners in in-
ternational programmes (especially FPs). Cooperation in information collection with other
MS/AS does not happen frequently.
It should be noted that a lot of countries stressed that many forms of official international
S&T cooperation are the result of individual contacts between researchers and research or-
ganisations, without any government strategy behind it. In some countries, and only re-
cently, this bottom up process has been complemented by more strategic top down proc-
esses.
Across Europe, China and USA are most often mentioned as partner countries. Many
MS/AS mentioned additionally Japan and the (other) BRICS countries. Historical ties are
still important in selecting partner countries. This preference is in line with existing re-
search that indicates the importance of geographical, cultural and linguistic proximity as
important factors for establishing collaboration. It should, however, not be forgotten that
overall international cooperation is still dominated by the intra-EU collaboration.
The prioritisation or top-down selection of scientific topics for R&D cooperation with
Third Countries is not very much expressed. Half of the interviewed MS/AS did not con-
sider a thematic prioritisation as really relevant, which could be – at least partially – ex-
29 November 2007
VI
plained by the bottom-up character of some international schemes. Among the countries
which provided more specific answers in terms of thematic priorities, in some cases a cer-
tain orientation towards the scientific needs and priorities of the partner countries could be
detected. This is especially true as regards developing countries. In general, the thematic
range of scientific cooperation is quite broad and only a few obvious thematic specialisa-
tions can be identified.
Influential Policies and the Strategy Development Process
Next to S&T policy also other policy areas influence the internationalisation of R&D.
These policies include (by rank order) foreign policy (partly in some countries also because
of its competence in ODA), followed by economic and labour market policy, development
policy and – with some distance – environmental policy. In all but a few MS/AS, the coor-
dination of the development of the national strategy for the internationalisation of S&T lies
within the authority of either the relevant science ministry or another national S&T body
(e.g. Council for S&T). S&T internationalisation strategies were or are mostly developed
cross-governmentally, often by inclusion of important stakeholders with representative
functions. Universities and non-university research organisations (or their institutionalised
representation bodies) were almost always included. Business organisations were a little
less involved and were also perceived as comparatively less important. Very high priority
levels were attributed to the inclusion of S&T councils and other R&D advisory bodies as
well as research funding agencies.
The implementation of the S&T internationalisation strategies is very often organised by
division of labour across different organisational constituencies: ministries, public agencies,
science organisations and research councils (in rank order). Business organisations are usu-
ally not involved in the implementation of the strategy.
As regards the connection between science and development policies a clear trend towards
more coordination can be detected in some countries, especially in fields like agriculture,
water, energy, biotech, climate change and health. However, the responsibilities concerning
development and research policies are distributed among various ministries and agencies.
There are potential goal conflicts in terms of different geographical foci, different thematic
foci and different approaches. Some countries seems to be quite advanced in the effort to
combine scientific excellence and development goals while others only start to look for
synergies.
Monitoring and Evaluation of S&T Policy Implementation
Around 60% of the MS/AS who responded to the questionnaire confirmed that they moni-
tor and/or evaluate the implementation of national policy measures supporting the interna-
tionalisation of S&T. Of those countries who do not monitor or evaluate, all but two replied
that they plan to establish such activities. The scope of the monitoring activities, however,
varies and formal evaluations are less frequent – with the repeatedly mentioned exception
of the evaluation of the participation in the European FPs. 70% of the monitoring countries
who responded the survey use internal evaluation panels and units as evaluators. Other
types like external evaluation panels and contracts for evaluation studies with independent
organisations are less frequent. The aspects most often evaluated are the number of partici-
pants, the budget and, in case of joint initiatives, the national returns. Around half of the
monitoring countries evaluate the impacts and effects of the measures. Explicitly mentioned
elements of such an evaluation include the degree of achievement of the goal of the meas-
29 November 2007
VII
ure, the achieved S&T results and the resulting co-operation structures. Information pro-
vided on the applied evaluation methods is scarce, some examples include the analysis of
international and national data bases and the use of questionnaires for the ex post evaluation
of projects and programmes. Only a few relevant evaluation reports are publicly available.
National Policy Measures towards International Cooperation of S&T Institutions
International S&T collaboration of research institutions has significantly increased in the
last decade. Despite the fact that the majority of internationalisation activities occur on a
bottom-up-basis, it is a regular practice of the MS/AS to support the internationalisation of
S&T organisations established in their respective countries with a variety of policy meas-
ures. The growing importance of international cooperation is reflected by the high number
of MS/AS which have intensified existing schemes and or initiated or plan new initiatives,
which characterises a trend to treat the issue of internationalisation of R&D not anymore as
just a pure ‘add-on’-activity but as an emerging pillar of S&T policy making itself.
The overall rationale of the existing policy support measures is oriented towards a reduction
of transaction costs for the participating (national) institutions, which result from interna-
tional cooperation and asymmetric information. Measures in this respect include on one
hand ‘small scale funding’ to cover for instance travel costs within international collabora-
tive R&D projects and on the other hand information support services, including legal and
technical advice, research promotion activities, partner search support, matchmaking etc. to
reduce additional information related transaction costs. Another important approach is the
permission of participation of foreign institutions in national R&D programmes, usually
without funding. A trend towards more thematically focussed initiatives, mostly based upon
national strengths, which are increasingly differentiated by target countries, can be ob-
served. Small scale initiatives, which by now have usually centred around mobility, are
more and more complemented by genuine research promotion activities to add critical mass
and momentum to the internationalisation activities of R&D organisations.
National Policy Measures towards the International Mobility of Individual Scientists
The stimulation of international in- and outward mobility of individual scientists is one of
the classical arenas of international S&T co-operation policies, not at least because mobility
measures can also be implemented if available budgets are constrained. With the increasing
acknowledgment of the crucial role of human resources for successful R&D and innova-
tion, the issue of international mobility has received renewed attention also from a more
exploitation-oriented perspective. The rationale behind is based on the insight that knowl-
edge cannot be entirely codified and thus, in principle, accessed each and everywhere.
In front of this background, it is not surprising that 19 of 21 responding countries have na-
tional policy measures in place to enhance the mobility of researchers through governmen-
tal funds. In addition, bottom-up initiatives of agencies and other stakeholders exist. Most
MS/AS target all types of mobility (‘brain attraction’, ‘brain retention’, ‘brain connection’
and ‘brain circulation’) with similar and usually high priority. A focus on brain circulation
is often a top priority in countries with a rather high RTD performance, while attraction and
retention of researchers is more frequently identified in countries with a less developed
RTD system in order to catch-up. In general, however, a need, especially on the intra-
European level, towards more comprehensive and balanced ‘brain circulation’ models
rather than concentrating only on ‘brain attraction’ can be observed.
29 November 2007
VIII
From the viewpoint of policy measures, four types stand clearly out in terms of frequency:
the enhancement of individual mobility under S&T agreements,
the provision of incoming fellowships
the provision of outgoing fellowships and
measures aimed to raise the attraction of domestic universities and research insti-
tutes.
These policy measures are complemented by other important ones, which are, however, not
so frequently in place, such as the provision of return programmes or measures to decrease
the administrative burden to obtain working permits. Many of the new or planned initiatives
of MS/AS focus on mobility measures towards Third Countries, because intra-European
mobility is to a certain extent perceived as being already covered under the FP. Joint Euro-
pean initiatives, such as the creation of researcher’s mobility portals, the ERA-MORE-
initiative or the implementation of the EU Directive 2005/71/EC (‘visa package’) are often
mentioned as successful measures in this respect.
National Policy Measures towards Foreign Direct Investment in R&D
R&D has for long times been one of the least mobile activities of multinational enterprises
(MNE) due to different factors of local ‘stickiness’. Current evidence on flows of R&D
suggests, however, that the global R&D business environment has changed due to intensi-
fied global competition and the need to innovate more quickly at different scale and scope.
At the same time, barriers to the dispersion of R&D have decreased due to rapid develop-
ments in ICT and international regulation progresses. This results in emerging patterns of
globally distributed R&D networks which are increasingly connected to the concept of
‘open innovation’. At the same time, there are signs on a declining interest for inward FDI
in R&D in Europe (especially by US based companies) and an increasing competition by
emerging economies (especially China).
As a result both inward and outward foreign direct investment (FDI) in R&D is high on the
political agenda of most MS/AS, although the R&D part is usually included in more general
FDI polices. Most of the MS/AS have recently put in place or revised their policies with the
aim to increase the country’s attractiveness for inward FDI. The most frequently applied
policy measures include the promotion of local strengths abroad and active recruitment of
foreign companies, cluster policies to attract FDI in R&D, administrative support for for-
eign investors, provision of infrastructure, direct financial support and fiscal incentives.
Although only a limited number of countries have specific policy instruments in place to
stimulate spillovers from FDI in R&D to the domestic (or local) R&D environments, there
is a rising awareness to innovate policy measures in order
to take advantage of inward FDI in R&D by means of embedding (former) high-
tech enclaves with little knowledge diffusion in the local environment and to gener-
ate spillovers without hollowing out the local research base
to capture the scientific benefits of outward FDI in R&D (back) to domestic R&D
environments and
to adapt policy measures to the rational of knowledge competition rather than cost
competition.
29 November 2007
IX
Policy Measures towards the International Exploitation of Knowledge
The policy objective as regards the international exploitation of knowledge is to find a bal-
ance between protection and dissemination of knowledge. A large group of MS/AS have a
balanced view on the international exploitation of research. Some have an open view and an
almost equally big number has no clear opinion (yet) on this matter. No MS/AS has a
closed approach. Among the countries with a balanced view, regulatory interventions in the
field of IPR protection and exploitation are usually made on case-by-case basis (e.g. in cer-
tain high-tech domains). Most common, however, is the inclusion of IPR regulations in
S&T and other relevant bilateral agreements. Specific measures to promote protection of
knowledge generated by domestic universities and research centres are perceived with an
increasingly important priority, but concrete measures are still rare.
A few MS/AS put a special focus on knowledge and technology (usually under the context
of competitiveness and exploitation) within general programmes aiming to promote the in-
ternationalisation activities of their domestic companies. There are few cases with respect
to developing countries, where governments of MS/AS encourage also a shared utilisation
of new domestic knowledge in and with partners from developing countries. As regards the
enhancement of domestic exploitation of knowledge produced in Third Countries only a
few MS/AS have policy measures in place, mostly through means of technology licensing
from abroad and international knowledge and technology scouting activities.
From a policy perspective, the issue of international exploitation of knowledge seems to be
in an experimentation stage, confronted with insecurity and complexity, not at least because
of the lack of reliable data, the need to cooperate across different policy spheres and the
private ownership of many of the ongoing activities. There is, however, growing awareness
that comprehensive measures are needed to enhance the domestic exploitation of knowl-
edge produced in Third Countries and the exploitation of domestic knowledge on interna-
tional markets. Possible ways to go into this direction include a stronger promotion of the
rationale of the model of open innovation within funding programmes to provide more
flexibility on how to use the granted money, to support measures designed to identify and
acquire technologies and licences from abroad and to cooperate in a sustainable way with
developing countries in the field of technology transfer and technology development for the
mutual benefit of both partners involved.
Present State of Trans-National Coordination of S&T Policies towards Third Countries
in the European Research Area
Trans-national coordination of MS/AS towards Third Countries in the field of S&T is al-
ready being practiced. Around three quarters of the MS/AS who responded the question-
naire apply mechanisms for trans-national coordination of S&T policies towards Third
Countries. In addition, 60% perceive a strong or even very strong need for enhanced trans-
national coordination. Two countries reported that they do not have any further need for
trans-national coordination, one country reported a weak need and an indifferent assessment
was given by three countries. The majority of respondents, however, indicated a strong
need for coordination.
The major objectives for applying trans-national coordination are
to share expertise and experience in order to gain information as well as to learn les-
sons in view of the challenges of international S&T cooperation and
to undertake joint activities and to share efforts.
29 November 2007
X
The latter objective is very often pursued under European initiatives.
In general, trans-national coordination is perceived as a means to strengthen and to add
critical mass to national efforts, to overcome segmentation of singular activities, to avoid
duplication of efforts and to increase the impact. The potential benefit of using already
available resources of other MS/AS (e.g. agencies, strong research teams, specific equip-
ment) to implement own national ideas or projects, e.g. in third countries, was not ad-
dressed yet.
In terms of coordination instruments, Community instruments were highlighted to be of
most importance. Those instruments were partly introduced under FP6 (such as ERA-NET)
and are presumably even strengthened under FP7 (Coordination and Support Actions,
ERA-NET [plus] and INCO-NET). 18 MS/AS reported that they participate in community
instruments which support the coordination of EU-Member States activities in the field of
international cooperation with Third Countries (ERA-NETs, SSA). The second most often
used coordination instrument is the one of sporadic bilateral consultations. Only seven
countries make use of S&T counsellors to apply trans-national coordination and only three
cases reported on regular bilateral consultations.
Reflection on Community Instruments to Enhance Policy Coordination of MS/AS
The community instruments are in general perceived as the most successful coordination
instruments, because they stimulate learning and generate outcome and – from a more prac-
tical point of view - because they are tangible and provide an EU-label as well as funding,
resources and commitment. MS/AS emphasised the importance of ERA-NETs and SSA,
but slightly more ERA-NETs. Values attributed to SSAs include ‘flexibility’, ‘effective-
ness’ and ‘door-opener for international contacts and experience’.
However, it should be stated that the majority of FP6 ERA-NET activities were not meant
for the development of the international dimension of the ERA. There are 6 out of 71 Coor-
dination Actions with an explicit focus on international cooperation (3 regional ERA-NETs
and 3 thematic ERA-NETs). There is room for a more extended use of ERA-NETs. Joint
initiatives in strategic research areas with programme owners in highly industrialised coun-
tries (USA, Japan, Canada) as well as joint initiatives with candidate and neighbouring
countries (e.g. MEDA, Black Sea) are still missing. Complementing the ERA-NET scheme,
there are some SSA and CA respectively CSA under FP6 and FP7, which are dealing with
mapping and structural S&T issues in and with Third Countries. The knowledge obtained
under these projects has, however, not been fully exploited yet. For this purpose special
new information and dissemination channels should be developed.
In addition to the proven instruments, there is much expectation in the MS/AS related to the
new INCO-NET instrument allowing a systematic bi-regional dialogue with major regions
of the world. It is acknowledged, that existing coordination instruments like the Monitoring
Committee for the S&T cooperation with the Mediterranean partner countries (MoCo) and
the Steering Platform on Research with the Western Balkan Countries will be strengthened
through providing operational and knowledge based tools. For the other regions, such dia-
logue structure can be enabled through the INCO-NET mechanism for the first time.
Finally, there are a number of Community instruments which are so far not well harmo-
nised with MS activities including the S&T agreements between the EU and selected part-
ner countries, the network of EU science counsellors in distinguished Third Countries and
the participation of the EU and the Member States in international organisations. Here, the
29 November 2007
XI
respective community instrument could play a better integrative role to provide at least to
some extent an umbrella for activities of the MS.
MS’/AS’ Strategies towards International Organisations
From all international organisations outside of the EU, the OECD was generally perceived
as the most important international body influencing S&T policy shaping, especially – but
not only – from the OECD members among the interviewed MS/AS. UNESCO was men-
tioned as frequent as the OECD, but the priority value assigned to UNESCO is considerably
lower than the one for the OECD. Although the influence of UNESCO is below average in
general, it is usually significantly higher among the new EU Member and Associated
States. All other international bodies rank with descent interspace, out of which FAO,
IAEA and UNIDO are most often mentioned. Quite a high priority is assigned from a hand-
ful of MS/AS to WHO and – by countries which are members – to G8/Carnegie Group.
The human resources approach of the MS/AS towards an active participation in relevant
international S&T bodies varies considerably. There are some countries who implement a
wide spectrum of measures in this respect ranging from awareness raising on job opportuni-
ties to secondments of national experts paid by national funds. Other countries focus more
on selected specific measures or assign a lower priority to this issue in general. Among the
applied instruments an active delegation approach is ranked with highest priority, because
of the personal and institutional increase of experience and knowledge. In addition, delega-
tion enables the receipt of first-hand information and, thus, among other things, an early
awareness on emerging new initiatives. Another important issue is to participate in deci-
sion-making processes as well as to learn from experience of other countries. It has also
been mentioned, that an inclusion in decision-making processes of international S&T or-
ganisations increases the commitment and ownership at home (i.e. within the national pol-
icy making processes). In terms of assigned priority, this instrument is followed by the in-
strument of seconding national experts paid by national funds and measures to provide
practical assistance to those experts, who will take over jobs in international organisations.
The strategic value of seconding experts paid by national funds lies in the proximity to na-
tional interest and priorities. The still existing close link of seconded experts with and
through their home institutions is seen as a major institutional asset in this respect.
Only a handful of countries reported that major changes in policy measures for a proactive
participation in international organisations were implemented in the last years. The empha-
sis on new measures seems to be rather a result of a general process of allocating higher
awareness to the issue of internationalisation of S&T than to be a singular response to S&T
relevant international organisations.
Lessons Learnt from and Barriers for Cooperation and Coordination
In general, there is a clear tendency of the MS/AS for a closer cooperation on S&T policy
level towards Third Countries, but cooperation and coordination needs to be built on na-
tional interests and to prove clear benefits for all parties involved. So far, this process has
been driven by new Community instruments. However, there is still much room for improv-
ing the coordination of S&T policies starting with a more extensive and strategic use of es-
tablished Community instruments (which to some extent still require some reshaping to
meet the particular needs of international cooperation) and building on new instruments
like, most prominently, the INCO-NET mechanism. In addition, the potential of policy co-
ordination initiated by MS and AS in variable geometries without using Community in-
29 November 2007
XII
struments needs to be explored building on national interests, instruments and funding. In
general the analysis shows, that harmonisation and consistency of the activities of the MS
and the EU-Commission could be further enhanced for implementing a leading role of
Europe in the process of globalisation and in global problem solving. Here, the interrela-
tionship of S&T agreements of the Community and the MS, the interaction between the EU
delegations abroad and Member States’ embassies and the participation in international or-
ganisations are three pillars of major importance.
Despite a generally benevolent attitude also barriers for trans-national coordination exist.
Most often mentioned are four dimensions in this respect:
differences in national legislations and administrative regulations which make the im-
plementation of trans-national activities more difficult,
lack of coordinating capacities and resources,
lack of awareness of national stakeholders on the importance of a coordinated approach
towards Third Countries and
other centrifugal factors based on competition between MS/AS or specific geographical,
linguistic and cultural ties which call rather for unilateral than for coordinated bi- or
multilateral interventions.
Other obstacles refer to a general but conscious reluctance against any forced coordination,
no clear and measurable outcomes and recognition of benefits yet (input-output ratio, spill-
over effects from international S&T cooperation), the lack of knowledge on areas of com-
mon interest with other MS/AS and cultural differences.
Enhancing Coordination of S&T Policies of MS/AS towards Third Countries
Building on the analytical part of the report and the OMC discussions, the following actions
are proposed:
1. Identifying the relevant targets for coordination activities
Cooperation and coordination should build on common interest and mutual benefit and
seems to be possible in areas where a number of MS/AS share common goals such as
research aiming to solve particular problems of developing countries, research aiming to
solve problems of global impact, the transfer and promotion of European S&T stan-
dards and models, joint access to scientific resources in Third Countries as well as de-
velopment and use of S&T infrastructure built around particular resources of Third
Countries and in spheres where research is simply better implemented through collabo-
rative research efforts than through national efforts only.
2. Raising awareness of needs and benefits of coordinated S&T policies towards Third
Countries
There are manifold addressees for awareness raising initiatives in this respect ranging
from domestic S&T policy makers to the interested public. It is important to identify
and disseminate good practice, preferentially based upon evaluations, via tailor-made
instruments.
3. Establish and improve instruments for a better coordination of activities
There are certain mechanisms and Community instruments already available and ac-
cepted to share and disseminate information, such as the CREST OMC working groups,
ERAWATCH, the new INCO-NET platforms etc.. However, there seems to be room for
29 November 2007
XIII
continuous improvement and the need to discuss the implementation of efficient man-
agement procedures and infrastructures for joint (programmatic) efforts of MS/AS to-
wards or with Third Countries (eventually based on Art. 171/172). As regards practical
opportunities for international collaboration of researchers from MS/AS with colleagues
from Third Countries there are - apart from the presumably rare practical cases of inter-
national participation in Community instruments, a few specific initiatives or pro-
grammes of a group of MS/AS and Third Countries (such as BSEC or the Northern Di-
mension) and some opportunities under other international programmes - almost no ap-
propriate frameworks. Lessons from existing bilateral schemes need to be learned and
expanded towards programmatic multilateral approaches. Here, not only funding pro-
grammes are addressed (e.g. via ERA-NETs), but also other essential elements such as
joint agenda setting, mobility aspects, intellectual property regulations and good gov-
ernance in international S&T cooperation.
4. Implement a proactive approach in international S&T initiatives
Referring to the economic and scientific capacity of the ERA, there is the potential to
play a strategic role in international S&T initiatives implemented for instance on OECD
or UN level. Here, building on European values and common objectives of its Member
States, the global challenges should be addressed in first line, but additional European
S&T agendas might be covered as well under the precondition, that the Member States
share a common interest, which has to be explored and shaped by preceding strategic
consultation processes.
5. Ensure coherence towards developing countries and development policies
As regards synergies between S&T policy and development policy there seems to be
more multi-level effort to assure coherence, consistency and synergy and to avoid du-
plications. Building S&T capacities in developing countries and implementing dedi-
cated activities of ‘research for development’ should play a self-evident and prominent
role in the MS’ strategies to reach their ODA budget goals. By complementing and sup-
porting MS’ activities, the relevant Community instruments, most prominently the in-
struments of foreign assistance, need to be strengthened as well in this respect.
6. Ensuring harmonised and consistent activities of MS and the European Commission
One of the present weaknesses of the ERA is its still existing fragmentation in many re-
spects. To overcome these deficit mechanisms should be implemented to ensure syner-
gies of S&T agreements of the Community and the Member States, to build a living
network of the EU delegations abroad and MS’ embassies and to identify areas of clear
benefit of coordination between Member States and the European Commission in inter-
national organisations.
7. Establish a sustainable strategic dialogue on the internationalisation of R&D
In order to support the development, implementation and evaluation of an internation-
alisation strategy for the ERA addressing both national level (through mutual learning)
and Community level (through coordinated efforts), a strategy forum on international
S&T cooperation with high-level representatives of the MS/AS and the European
Commission with an adequate support should be considered. The mandate of such a fo-
rum might cover,
- to define and regularly adapt specific common objectives of the Member States and
respective priorities for Community action for the S&T cooperation with Third Coun-
tries,
29 November 2007
XIV
- to monitor the implementation of respective activities of international cooperation at
Community level with respect to consistent and coordinated approaches of Member
States and Commission measures,
- to propose actions to the Member States and the European Commission,
- to exchange information on strategic issues of S&T cooperation towards Third Coun-
tries at MS/AS and Community level.
In summary, addressing the activities of the CREST Working Group it is proposed that
Member States, Associated States and the European Commission consider the Working
Group Report and its recommendations for further developing R&D internationalisation
strategies both on national and on Community level and to draw conclusions for appropriate
policy actions including amongst others:
o to provide an appropriate umbrella to proceed with and deepen the strategic discus-
sion on internationalisation of R&D resulting in a wider Community Strategy for
internationalisation of R&D, which is embedded in other Community policies
o to arrange dedicated discussion forums on key policy issues including those ques-
tions, which are mentioned above
o to prepare a better and transparent analytical ground for political decision making at
MS/AS and Community level
Along that line, MS/AS and the European Commission should jointly take necessary action
to further analyse the setting-up of a high-level European strategy forum on internation-
alisation of R&D for developing, implementing and monitoring the international dimension
of the ERA on a regular basis.
Existing instruments on Community level such as the EU RTD Framework Programme
should be applied as much as possible to further develop international S&T cooperation.
The full Analytical Report elaborates all the issues addressed above in more detail and
complexity. It refers to specific experiences and activities of MS/AS and it features good
practice examples in highlighted boxes. The full report includes also some essential an-
nexes on lessons learnt from the S&T cooperation of MS/AS with China and the reflections
of the working group on the Green Paper ‘The European Research Area: New Perspective’.
29 November 2007
XV
Summary of Recommendations
Building on analytical work and the OMC discussion, the following recommendations are
made to policy makers in Member and Associated States:
S&T Policy Strategies at the level of Member States/Associated States
(Chapter 3)
i. develop comprehensive internationalisation strategies as integral part of national S&T
policy. This would include national (core) objectives and priorities in order to make
optimum use of the benefits and to properly address the challenges of globalisation. It
covers the links to other relevant policies and requires national coordination between
the different stakeholders involved.
ii. develop a methodology and establish an evaluation system for policy measures to-
wards the internationalisation of R&D covering ex-ante evaluation, monitoring and
impact assessment. Here, appropriate quantitative and qualitative indicators need to be
developed. A European approach could be considered to allow benchmarking of na-
tional internationalisation performance.
S&T Policy Measures at the level of Member States/Associated States
(Chapter 4)
Fostering international cooperation of S&T institutions (section 4.1)
iii. scale up available bilateral funding schemes for the internationalisation activities of
R&D organisations through direct funding of collaborative research in addition to
small-scale mobility-based networking measures.
Stimulating international mobility of individual scientists (section 4.2)
iv. develop more advanced instruments to foster a balanced brain circulation (considering
multilateral schemes).
Attracting and making use of Foreign Direct Investments (section 4.3)
v. improve instruments which allow national S&T institutions and innovative firms to
raise the full potential of spillover effects from inward and outward FDI.
Setting the frame for the international exploitation of knowledge (section 4.4)
vi. set a regulatory frame and support (incl. funding) activities of national S&T institu-
tions and innovative firms allowing on the one hand better access to foreign knowl-
edge and on the other hand a fair exploitation of domestic knowledge in Third Coun-
tries.
29 November 2007
XVI
Coordination of R&D policies towards Third Countries between Member
States and Associated States (Chapter 5)
It is recommended that policy stakeholders from MS/AS and the EC:
Identifying the relevant targets for coordination activities building on common interest
and mutual benefit
vii. work-out a specific agenda with priorities for coordinated actions of MS and AS to-
wards and with Third Countries in non-competitive areas through a strategic dialogue
process involving the EU Commission as well and including Third Countries where
relevant.
viii. identify barriers and threats for S&T cooperation with Third Countries and develop
joint strategies to overcome them e.g. through coordinated policy approaches in terms
of a common Community framework (addressing among other issues IPR, mobility
aspects, access to S&T infrastructure and resources).
Raising further awareness for the needs and benefits of coordination of R&D policies
towards Third Countries
ix. identify and disseminate information on success stories of coordination activities
taken into consideration
- the outcome of an evaluation of existing coordination instruments on Community
level (linked to recommendation xiv),
- national approaches to enhanced coordination with other MS/AS and
- joint activities in international organisations.
x. encourage a debate at ministerial level on the topics and instruments of enhanced co-
ordination of S&T policies towards Third Countries.
Instruments for a better coordination of activities
xi. systematically extend ERAWATCH to major Third Countries as well as increase its
efficiency through linking it with existing information services in EU MS/AS and up-
coming services to be developed under the INCO-NET scheme.
xii. increase transparency on opportunities for trans-national coordination of S&T policies
and coordinated joint S&T activities within European and international organisations,
programmes and initiatives. It is proposed to develop and update a ‘Directory of
European and International Organisations’, describing their coordination instruments
and listing contacts in terms of respective MS/EC participants.
xiii. develop a light but standardised system of indicators and databases through a coordi-
nated effort to capture and assess the diverse policy measures related to the interna-
tionalisation of R&D in order to generate comparable statistics and evidence-based
knowledge for decision-making processes (linked with recommendation ii.).
xiv. contribute to the mid-term evaluation of FP7 through establishing an Assessment
Group on coordination instruments for S&T cooperation measures with Third Coun-
tries. Come-up with recommendations for optimising Community instruments and for
assuring their sustainability.
29 November 2007
XVII
xv. analyse the interest of Member States/Associated States to establish a joint pro-
gramme management institution for implementing multilateral funding activities tar-
geting Third Countries. Together with the European Commission: Exploiting options
of applying art. 171.
It is recommended that policy stakeholders from MS and the EC :
Implementing a proactive approach of the EU in international S&T initiatives through
enhanced and coordinated participation in international organisations
xvi. set-up a strategic dialogue between Member States and the Commission. This dia-
logue would identify and regularly update common priorities and relevant emerging
topics, which are of joint interest for European initiatives in international organisa-
tions. If appropriate it could provide a process for ad-hoc consultation between Mem-
ber States and the EU Commission
xvii. entrust the European Commission with the participation in international organisations
complementing MS participation - but not replacing them. If appropriate and legally
possible, the Commission could represent the Community on the basis of positions
previously agreed by the Member States on a case by case basis. The European Com-
mission should report on their respective activities to the Member States.
Ensuring coherence and complementarity of European S&T policy towards developing
countries and development policies at Member States and Community level
xviii. increase transparency through establishing a data base of ongoing and past activities
of ‘research for development’ at MS/AS and Community level (emphasis on DCEC
and ENP instruments);
xix. work-out a policy document on ‘S&T and development policies’ incl.
- synergies of S&T and development policy objectives towards Africa, South-East
Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean
- recommendations on how to link instruments of S&T policy and development
policy at MS’ and Community level in order to exploit synergies
- criteria and respective proposals for joint activities of MS/AS
- scenarios, how to use ODA money for the upgrading of S&T structures in
developing countries (through capacity building, institution building and research
for development measures).
Here, the upcoming activities within the bi-regional dialogues implemented through
the INCO-NET scheme should be considered.
xx. coordinate S&T related activities towards developing countries on MS/AS and Com-
munity level through establishing a ‘Global INCO-NET’ as a dialogue forum of re-
spective stakeholders involving wherever appropriate stakeholders from developing
countries.
29 November 2007
XVIII
Ensuring harmonised and consistent activities of Member States and the European
Commission
xxi. establish an ad-hoc Expert Group of Member States and Commission Service to:
- analyse the relevance, practicability and the impact of present S&T agreements at
MS and Community level and the need for a legal frame for S&T cooperation (in
view of EU interest, barriers and threats for cooperation with Third Countries to be
identified according to recommendation vii/viii)
- define the future complementary role and content of Community S&T agreements
in relation to MS S&T agreements with Third Countries.
xxii. make optimum use of the established consultations mechanism between the Member
States and the Commission in the negotiation phase of new Community S&T agree-
ments and set-up a mechanism for an enhanced information exchange and coordina-
tion between Member States and the Commission on implementing ongoing S&T
agreements.
xxiii. set-up Terms of Reference for local networks of EC, MS and AS science counsellors
in Third Countries organised with secretarial support of the EU Delegation aiming at
sharing information and good practice as well coordinating efforts (if appropriate).
Establish a sustainable strategic dialogue between Member States, Associated States and
the European Commission on internationalisation of R&D
xxiv. set-up a strategy forum on international cooperation with high-level representatives of
the Member States, Associated States and the European Commission in an appropriate
form (i.e. by CREST) for developing, implementing and monitoring the international
dimension of the ERA with adaquate support (see also vii and viii).
29 November 2007
1
1. Introduction
The relaunch of the Lisbon strategy committed the Member States to undertake a series of new
measures to achieve the ambitious targets adopted in March 2000. These measures, whose cen-
tral tool is the setting up of national reform programmes (NRP) by the Member States, concen-
trate mainly on national activities: the performance of the labour market, sustainability of public
finance and a favourable business and innovation climate are focal points within the NRPs. The
role of science is widely recognised within this process, as the 3% target shows.
At the same time, the S&T systems of the Member States, Accession States and the European
Union as a whole are faced with the challenges of globalisation. Globalisation with its numer-
ous opportunities of cooperating world-wide opens ways to accessing knowledge, S&T re-
sources and market opportunities abroad, and entails an immense potential in producing new
know-ledge and ideas, simply through joining forces. Along that line an important aspect of the
globalisation processes is a new division of labour developing at world scale, embracing also
S&T. Today’s key questions are how to benefit most of this phenomenon and at the same time
how to reduce risks related to the globalisation process.
Improving international competitiveness, increasing the international attractiveness of the do-
mestic science system, responding to international commitments to solve global problems and
be economically competitive at global level are targets, which all Member States more or less
have in common. Therefore, on one hand several Member States set up or are developing own
internationalisation policy strategies in research and innovation. Another important European
asset for taking more advantage of the opportunities of globalisation is to further overcoming
the fragmentation of its research policy. The recently published Green Paper of the European
Commission ‘The European Research Area: New Perspectives’2 addresses as one important
aspect, that ‘the European Research Area should be … open to the world, and also S&T coop-
eration with partner countries should be steered in a coherent and policy-driven manner. A co-
herent approach towards international S&T cooperation, under the banner of global sustainable
development, can assist in building bridges between nations and continents.’
In the frame of CREST, the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and mutual learning exer-
cises offer optimal instruments to compare, discuss and further develop the independent initia-
tives of the Member States. Additional value results from developing coherent or even coordi-
nated and joint concepts for the international dimension of national research policies. This gives
the opportunity to widen the impact of the national initiatives through multilateral efforts up to
Community level.
With reference to the report ‘Globalisation of R&D: linking better the European economy to
foreign sources of knowledge and making EU a more attractive place for R&D investment3
elaborated by Commissioner Potocnik’s Experts Group on ‘Knowledge for Growth’ CREST
set-up an OMC Working Group with the mandate to
1. collect and present Member States’ policy approaches to internationalisation of R&D
and innovation,
2. identify good practice, open questions and problems related to the development and im-
plementation of a proactive internationalisation strategy based on national and Commu-
nity experiences
2 Brussels, 4 April 2007, COM(2007) 161
3 Presented by the Experts Group on 4 April 2006
29 November 2007
2
3. analyse the lessons learnt from institutionalised multilateral dialogues like the Monitor-
ing Committee for the Mediterranean Countries or projects like the horizontal ERA-
NETs and develop scenarios for future multilateral approaches of Member States based
on OMC and building on national and Community instruments.
4. develop recommendations related to the international cooperation dimension of Member
States Policies and programmes and, if appropriate recommendations for Community
actions that reinforce Member States’ actions.
Until September 2007 the CREST Working Group was asked to deliver
a. an inventory of recent strategic initiatives and instruments of Member States, Associated
Countries and the Community targeting the internationalisation of science, research and
development outside the EU
b. a draft outline of recommendations for the Member States
- to reach better coordination of their international research policies - to find
ways for joint action with regard to Third Countries
- to reach better coherence of national and Community activities.
In order to fulfil its mandate the CREST Working Group implemented a work programme
which included data and information collection and in-depth discussions on the basis of
a standard questionnaire on Member States’/Associated States’ Policy Measures for
the internationalisation of S&T towards Third Countries outside the EU (22 re-
sponses),
a standard questionnaire on Member States’/Associated States’ cooperation in science
and technology with China, which is considered as pilot case (20 responses),
policy documents on the internationalisation of S&T of Member States/Associated
States,
mutual learning exercises through comprehensive country presentations to the CREST
Working Group and thematic discussions among the Member States/Associated
States,
targeted information from the Commission,
analytical documents and statistics of international organisations with particular em-
phasis on OECD activities,
studies and other information on the internationalisation strategy of present and future
European competitors (China as a pilot case).
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are built on matching the outcome of the
different analytical elements and on consensus building within the CREST Working Group.
In addition, the CREST Working Group reflected on the above mentioned Green Paper of the
European Commission ‘The European Research Area: New Perspectives’ in order to provide
targeted input to develop the international dimension of the ERA.
This ‘Analytical Report’ summarises the results and recommendations of the CREST Work-
ing Group in order to
increase the transparency among the Member States/Associated States,
identify commonalities and differences in terms of policy objectives and implementa-
tion instruments,
facilitate in-depth discussions on internationalisation strategies, respective joint activi-
ties of Member States/Associated States and appropriate Community instruments,
29 November 2007
3
initiate a knowledge based debate on S&T policy strategies of present and up-coming
competitors in order to learn lessons and draw conclusions for a proactive cooperation
with these countries,
stimulate appropriate and efficient coordination activities at policy level to provide a
common strategic umbrella for the internationalisation of S&T,
provide an input for the debate on the ERA Green Paper published by the European
Commission on 4 April 2007.
In Chapter 2 the present state of discussion on drivers in the field of internationalisation of
R&D and respective policy concerns addressed by national and Community S&T strategies
are summarised.
Chapters 3 and 4 provide an overview and a comparative analysis of national policy ap-
proaches in the field of internationalisation of R&D and respective implementation instru-
ments. A number of practice examples are given.
Chapter 5 deals with the present state of coordination of Member States/Associated States
policies addressing the role of respective Community instruments and participation in interna-
tional organisations. Acknowledging the findings of the previous chapters as well, recom-
mendations on the perspectives of coordination of national policies are given.
Addressing open questions related to internationalisation of S&T and the respective policy
framework, Chapter 6 provides an outlook on major issues for in-depth analytical work, for
targeted mutual learning among Member States and Associated States and for a priority future
action at MS/AS and Community level.
Considered as a pilot case, Annex (d) gives an insight in the internationalisation strategy of
China, representing one of the emerging international competitors for Europe and the present
Member States’/Associated States’ cooperation strategies. It describes lessons learnt and
draws conclusions on implications for the ERA, both at national and Community level.
A reflection of the CREST Working Group on those issues raised in the ERA Green Paper,
which address its international dimension, is subject of Annex (e).
29 November 2007
4
2. Drivers of internationalisation of R&D: Present state of
discussion and respective policy concerns
Chapter 2 starts with a summary of present discussions on major drivers in the field of in-
ternationalisation of S&T in section 2.1. Respective S&T policy implications of these gen-
eral trends are highlighted in section 2.2. From an EU perspective a distinction can be
made between policy concerns as seen from the perspective of the Member and Associated
States (section 2.2.1) and from the perspective of the Community as such (section 2.2.2).
Section 2.3 provides first concluding reflexions. This chapter provides the general back-
ground of the CREST Working Groups’ activities.
Main conclusions:
I. The ability to have access to, to adapt, and to exploit new knowledge and technologies
will be an important factor for countries/regions to maximise the benefits and minimise
the drawbacks from the broad process of globalisation. Newly emerging economies are
actively building scientific capabilities (both in terms of people and infrastructures) and
their possibilities for ‘catching up’ are greater than before. S&T will be crucial in ad-
dressing critical issues like energy, environment, security and health at the global scale.
II. The process of internationalisation of S&T is driven by (1) strengthening research ex-
cellence and innovation performance through foreign knowledge and cooperation,(2)
increasing the attractiveness to compete for R&D services and for FDIs, (3) preparing
the ground for European innovations abroad and (4) responding to global problems.
III. The main policy concerns raised by the accelerated internationalisation of R&D differ
depending on each country’s current position on the global R&D map and competitive
arena. Europe’s position is particular given its risk to be incapable of reducing the
technology gap with the US and Japan and at the same time being caught up by newly
emerging economies (especially China). Also, it may not be neglected that Europe is the
sum of quite heterogeneous (groups of) countries. The challenge emanating from this
heterogeneity is that within Europe there is a need for flexible policy schemes that en-
able the differentiation needed. In any case, the importance should be stressed of not be-
ing lured into different protectionist measures. Protectionism has never been the answer
for a better future. This is most certainly true also with the R&D off-shoring phenome-
non.
IV. At the level of the Member and Associated States policy measures in terms of general
framework conditions are no longer considered sufficient to answer newly emerging
very concrete policy questions in terms of international collaboration in S&T and inno-
vation, international mobility of researchers, support of new R&D activities via FDI and
contributions to global problem solving including responding to the needs of the devel-
oping world. These broader objectives require the development of S&T policies in close
relation with other policy domains.
V. At the level of the EU main concerns include the Community objectives, priorities and
instruments, which add value to and complement individual MS/AS approaches, the co-
ordination between MS/AS policies and the interaction between national governments
and the European Commission and multilateral initiatives beyond the ERA.
29 November 2007
5
2.1 General trends and drivers in the field of internationalisation of S&T
Globalisation can be defined as growing interconnectedness reflected in expanded flows of
information, technology, capital, goods, services, and people throughout the world. It is
seen as an overarching ’’‘mega-trend’ which can be supposed shaping the world during the
next decade. It will sustain world economic growth, raise world living standards, and sub-
stantially deepen global interdependence. At the same time, it will generate enormous eco-
nomic, energy, demographic, environmental, cultural, security and consequently political
convulsions. As such, its future is not fixed, and although the overall benefits are expected
to be positive, the net benefits of globalisation will not necessarily be global.
The role of science, technology and innovation (and knowledge creation more generally) is
emphasised in addressing critical issues like health, environment, energy, security at the
global scale. Also, it is generally expected – and already reflected in many countries’ poli-
cies - that the greatest benefits will accrue to those countries that can access, adopt and ex-
ploit new technologies. This with the risk of an increasing gap between the ’’haves’ and
‘have-nots’.
The process of internationalisation of S&T is enabled by factors like the rapid development
of a global information and communication infrastructure; digitisation and standardised
tools; and fragmentation of the production process. In surplus, two more closely S&T re-
lated phenomena can be added. These include the fact that more countries are actively
building scientific capabilities, increasing their scientific quality standards and participating
in the global R&D community; and intensified cross-border S&T activities.
For the former, if so far the Triad regions (US, EU, Japan) were leading in terms of science
and engineering on the world scale, currently countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China
are emerging on the global stage and the possibility of emerging economies, including the
Islamic countries, 'catching up' is greater than before. Also, the features of world collabora-
tion are changing, as more of the world’s regions become active in S&T.
Addressing the report ‘Globalisation of R&D: linking better the European economy to for-
eign sources of knowledge and making EU a more attractive place for R&D investment4
elaborated by Commissioner Potocnik’s Experts Group on ‘Knowledge for Growth’ the fol-
lowing common drivers of internationalisation policies addressing research and innovation
can be described:
strengthening research excellence and innovation performance through a better access
to knowledge abroad and an increased global cooperation with individual scientists,
R&D teams, centres of excellence and science and innovation networks,
increasing the attractiveness of the EU to promote European R&D on the world-wide
market, to successfully compete for R&D services (contracts) and to attract more for-
eign investments in European R&D,
preparing the ground for European innovations abroad,
responding to global problems, international commitments and fostering the role of the
EU as a community of values.
At the same time Europe is faced with challenges of globalisation and aims at turning them
into opportunities like:
world-wide but fair utilization of IP
4 Presented by the Experts Group on 4 April 2006
29 November 2007
6
brain circulation
(re-)attracting R&D of European and trans-national enterprises
European FDI.
Addressing those drivers and the challenges of globalisation, four main processes can be
identified through which the internationalisation of R&D materialises5:
International collaboration in S&T, where partners (firms and research institutes) from
more than one country join their respective knowledge, skills and resources;
The international mobility of S&T students and researchers according to individual ca-
reer paths;
The internationalisation of Technology Development and Innovation by firms who
develop R&D activities internationally, simultaneously home and abroad driven by
economic concerns;
The internationalisation of the exploitation of research (e.g. by means of technology
licensing and reverse engineering). This topic is closely related to the protection of
knowledge.
Looking forward, it is likely that the internationalisation of S&T will continue and even ac-
celerate – perhaps interrupted by periods of consolidation – resulting in a more global mar-
ket of innovation resources. Although it should be noted that the least-developing world
seems not to take part in this process yet.
Before relating policy implications to the above described trends, two important remarks
need to be formulated concerning the internationalisation of S&T. Firstly, the internationali-
sation of S&T in many cases is part of broader strategic decisions by companies on produc-
tion, marketing and mergers and acquisitions resulting in international flows and a redistri-
bution of R&D capabilities. Moreover, R&D off-shoring is a modern way for global EU
companies to leverage the creativity of the rest of the world. Modern global R&D includes
partnering with a range of smaller R&D firms, universities and centres of excellence dedi-
cated to more narrowly defined areas of research.
Secondly, the nature of research itself and the way it is performed is changing as well. Fu-
ture technology trends will be marked by more trans-disciplinary and trans-institutional co-
operation will gain importance. These phenomena are closely related to a tendency for
higher reliance on external sources and networking. This is part of a fundamental shift in the
way companies generate new ideas and bring them to the market, as is emphasised by the
‘open innovation’ paradigm6.
2.2 Policy implications for Europe and for the Member and Associated States
The rise of an open innovation model in a context of globalising product and factor markets,
increased international mobility of human resources in combination with changing interna-
tional supply patterns of knowledge workers, and the expansion of the internationalisation
of innovative activities in terms of increasing engagement in cross-border collaboration and
global sourcing of knowledge from mainly large to also medium and smaller firms and pub-
5 OECD, 2006. The internationalisation of Business Research. Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy, 7-8
December, the Kurhaus Hotel, the Hague, the Netherlands. DSTI/STP/TIP(2006)11.
6 Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Boston, Mas-
sachusetts, Harvard Business School Press.
29 November 2007
7
lic research organisations, are major drivers increasingly affecting all aspects of science,
technology and innovation policies. Moreover, international mobility of S&T, global chal-
lenges and responsibilities towards developing economies forces STI policy to go beyond
its STI frame strictu senso (i.e. invoking other policy domains like e.g. economic and la-
bour-market policy, foreign policy, development policy ...).
Whereas policy makers generally acknowledge that the internationalisation of R&D yields
net global benefits (e.g. creating more optimal conditions for excellent research, while
avoiding fragmentation, minimizing R&D duplication and generating more R&D funding,
both public and private), many worry about the international distribution and intensity of
such net benefits and associated structural adjustment costs. A recent study that was as-
signed by the European Commission has concluded that R&D off-shoring results in coop-
eration and collaboration that is beneficial to European Union as a whole, especially if the
political measures are directed towards increasing the lucrative features of the European in-
novation environment and developing new ways for cooperation7.
However, it would be wrong to consider the S&T situation homogenous across the Member
States and the challenge emanating from this heterogeneity is that within Europe there is a
need for flexible policy schemes that enable the differentiation needed. Subsections 2.2.1
and 2.2.2 deal with main policy concerns respectively from the perspective of the Member
States/Associated States and at EU level.
2.2.1 Policy concerns at the level of the Member States/Associated States
Until recently, most of the Member/Associated States identified a number of general policy
options for facing the challenges and opportunities raised by the internationalisation of
R&D. These include solid macro economic policies and a healthy business environment,
linking R&D policies with other relevant policy areas, a strong and vibrant research base,
effective IPR and a well trained workforce, a framework of local conditions for R&D to
create the necessary absorptive capacity, and last but not least adaptive and well trained
human resources. But the acceleration in the process of internationalisation of S&T and the
new trends as described in section 2.1 make policy needs pop-up in terms of answering
newly emerging questions especially in the following fields:
1. Internationalisation of research and innovation
How to improve framework conditions for international collaboration in science
and research?
What policy approaches can be used to stimulate linkages between national inno-
vation systems to access foreign sources of research and innovation?
How to set-up an international dialogue between science and policy stakeholders
to solve societal problems resulting in necessary actions, frameworks or harmo-
nised procedures?
How to respond to research infrastructure needs on a multilateral or global scale?
How to deal with the risk that increasing internationalisation of R&D erodes or
‘hollows out’ the domestic knowledge base in some countries?
7 The Implications of R&D off-shoring on the innovation capacity of EU firms, LTT-Tutkimus Oy, Helsinki School of
Economics, 2007
29 November 2007
8
How does globalisation affect different categories of firms, e.g. SMEs and multi-
national enterprises? Has firm size become more important, as companies require
economies of scale and scope, or is globalisation offering new opportunities for
SMEs?
2. Mobility of researchers, notably foreign talents
How can the international mobility of researchers be improved?
How to turn brain drain into brain circulation in a life long career perspective?
3. Support for R&D activities via Foreign Direct Investment
How to increase the quality and the quantity of foreign direct investment address-
ing issues like attractiveness, specialisation and concentration?
Which other structural policies (e.g. education, labour market, social security, etc.)
have an impact on the locations of R&D-intensive FDI?
How to increase beneficial returns from foreign owned R&D investments both lo-
cated at home (absorption capacity) and abroad (technology sourcing)8?
Related to each of these fields and from a national policy perspective, until now most atten-
tion is paid to the attraction and making advantage of foreign S&T and a proper use of
home-based generated knowledge. Although, there is a trend towards a growing focus on
responsibilities in terms of responding to global challenges as well as to the specific needs
of the developing world. From this perspective, policy concern is raised how home-based
research can be used and – given their complexity – connected to foreign sources of knowl-
edge in favour of solving these problems.
It needs to be taken into account that the main national policy concerns raised by the accel-
erated internationalisation of R&D differ depending on each country’s current position on
the global R&D map and competitive arena. Europe’s position in this respect is particular in
the sense that – despite the Lisbon agenda - S&T indicators (especially R&D investments
by the business enterprise sector) indicate an incapability of Europe to reduce the technol-
ogy gap with the US and Japan on the one hand, and a catch-up by emerging economies
(especially China) on the other hand9.
An in-depth overview of policy strategies and objectives as well as concrete policy meas-
ures towards the internationalisation of S&T at the level of the Member and Associated
States will be dealt with in chapters 3 and 4.
2.2.2 Main policy concerns at the level of the European Union
The European Research Area (ERA) combines: a European ‘internal market’ for research,
where researchers, technology and knowledge freely circulate; effective European-level co-
ordination of national and regional research activities, programmes and policies; and initia-
tives implemented and funded at European level. Some progress has been made since the
concept was endorsed at the Lisbon European Council in 2000. The European Research
Area has become a key reference for research policy in Europe. However, there is still much
8 Globalisation of R&D: Linking better the European Economy to foreign sources of knowledge and making EU a more
attractive place for R&D investment; Expert group Knowledge for Growth, 2006.
9 European Commission, 2007. Europe in the Global Research Landscape, DG Research.
29 November 2007
9
further to go to build the ERA, particularly to overcome the fragmentation of research ac-
tivities, programmes and policies across Europe. Also ERA will have to prove itself in a
world of globalisation and open innovation.
One of the six topics presented in the recently published Green Paper of the European
Commission ‘The European Research Area: New Perspectives’ concerns the opening of the
ERA to the world. It is underlined that international S&T cooperation is considered an asset
for the successful implementation of the Lisbon agenda.
Reflecting recent discussions on the international dimension of the ERA i.e. at CREST level
and the key questions raised in the Green Paper, the following policy concerns at Commu-
nity level can be summarised:
1. Objectives, priorities, instruments
How to set thematic and geographical priorities for a strategic internationalisation of
the ERA? What are specific objectives for S&T cooperation with various groups of
partner countries? Should complementary regional approaches be explored?
What are the appropriate Community instruments for strengthening the international
dimension of the ERA? How to make the best use of Community instruments (like
S&T agreements) to provide an optimum frame?
2. Policy coordination
How to provide an appropriate Community frame for coordinating MS’/AS’ policy
measures in variable geometries fully respecting national interests?
How to reach greater coherence between S&T activities and external and sector poli-
cies and instruments at Community level?
How to ensure an effective and efficient interaction between MS/AS and the Euro-
pean Commission?
How can neighbourhood countries be best integrated into the European Research
Area to establish a borderless 'broader ERA' as part of the European Neighbourhood
Policy?
3. Multilateral initiatives beyond the ERA
How to define common European agendas for international S&T cooperation ad-
dressing global issues as well?
To what extend and how should the Community «speak with one voice» in multilat-
eral initiatives?
S&T Policy coordination between the MS/AS is particularly addressed in chapter 6. A re-
flection on the key question raised in the Green Paper is the subject of chapter 7.
2.2.3 Concluding reflections
From the above presented insights it became clear that there is a need for more systemic
policy answers towards the internationalisation of R&D. A first major challenge exists in
investigating how the negative distributive effects of globalisation can be addressed without
29 November 2007
10
foregoing the benefits of globalisation. A second challenge involves the responsibility to-
wards global challenges and the specific problems of the developing world.
Some remarks can be formulated to obtain these challenges. Firstly, as the challenges are
broader than S&T strictu senso, there is a need to develop more integrated and coherent pol-
icy approaches. This involves horizontal coordination across different policy areas (educa-
tion, RTD and innovation, but also macro, trade, fiscal, competition and employment poli-
cies) at different levels of governance, regional, national and international. This involves a
revisiting of national innovation policy instruments in light of the differential impact that
the internationalisation of R&D has on their relative efficiency. Which types of policy in-
struments (e.g. IPRs) or mixes (e.g. tax incentives versus discretionary grants) are strength-
ened by the process of globalisation and which types, on the contrary, are weakened? Also
questions arise about the character of programmes, for instance should closed programmes
be opened up etc.?
Secondly, in order to respond to global challenges, there is a need for more coordination of
policy initiatives between countries/regions, provided that the internationalisation process
increases the influence of both global and local factors. Coordination needs to be built on
mutual interest and should result in mutual benefit. This includes interested Member States,
Associated States as well as third countries.
Finally, the process of internationalisation of R&D should not be solely driven by selfish in-
terests or fear. For instance, the main fear from off-shoring business R&D outside the EU is
the decreased innovation capacity of the European firms. This would in turn lead to sluggish
aggregate productivity development and slower economic growth. The result would be lower
economic welfare in the European Union as well as several negative short-term effects like
reduced level of employment.
On the basis of a recent study by the EU it can be concluded that there are no real reasons to
expect R&D off-shoring to lead to any of those10. Further, the study does not reveal any im-
plications of European firms losing their competitiveness. In fact, both the survey results as
well as the different econometric analyses and case studies suggest that EU firms have either
maintained or improved their competitiveness by engaging in global R&D operations.
A key question for policy makers is under which conditions this process of internationalisa-
tion will gradually result in fair and efficient global knowledge flows respecting IPR as an
asset for innovation. This will depend on both the appropriateness of global rules (e.g. relat-
ing to IPRs, trade and investment) and the soundness and compatibility of national policy
responses. The majority of less developed countries fear the risk of being altogether margin-
alised in the process of R&D globalisation. The international community must avoid that
such concerns inspire policies which not only would be inefficient at national level but
would also result in a ‘negative sum game’ globally.
As noted in the introduction of this chapter, many of the questions raised here will be dealt
with in more detail in the remainder of this report.
10 Ibidem 5.
29 November 2007
11
3. Policy strategies at the level of the Member States/Associated
States: A comparative analysis and good practice
Chapter 3 deals with policy strategies at the level of Member and Associated States. A brief
overview of the current strategies of individual states will be given, as well as on a compara-
tive analysis and examples of ‘good practice’. Section 3.1 investigates to which extent com-
prehensive policy strategies towards the internationalisation of R&D exist and what the un-
derlying objectives and priority settings of these strategies are. Section 3.2 highlights other
than S&T policies and the wide range of stakeholders which are involved in the development
of a national strategy towards the internationalisation of R&D. Special attention is paid to
synergies and bridges between development and research policies. Section 3.3 has a closer
look at the scope of the monitoring activities as well as the main evaluation criteria for the
implementation of national policy measures supporting the internationalisation of R&D.
Main conclusions:
I. Over half of the MS/AS have already implemented a comprehensive national strategy on
internationalisation of R&D. However, in most of the countries this is a recent and ongo-
ing phenomenon that still needs to be embedded in a broader approach on globalisation.
II. Increasing the quality of research as well as competition and market access, and tackling
global issues are the three main underlying objectives for policies towards the interna-
tionalisation of R&D. Selection criteria for partner countries and thematic priorities are
closely related to these objectives. They can be classified along scientific, political and
economic criteria and are increasingly applied based on systematic information gathering
on S&T in Third Countries.
III. Foreign policy, economic and labour-market policy, development policy and environ-
mental policy are major policies influencing national strategies towards the internation-
alisation of R&D. Despite differences in several countries in terms of responsibilities,
geographical and thematic focuses between S&T policies and development policies, at
least in some countries, there is a trend towards more coordination between both policy
domains.
IV. Ministries, universities, non-university research and business organisations, research
funding agencies, as well as S&T councils and other R&D advisory bodies, are major
stakeholders involved in the development of the national R&D internationalisation strat-
egy.
V. The scope of the monitoring activities for the implementation of national policy measures
supporting the internationalisation of R&D varies among Member and Associated states.
In general, formal evaluations are less frequent and internal evaluation procedures are
usually applied.
29 November 2007
12
3.1 Policy strategies, objectives and priority setting of internationalisation of R&D11
An overview on national strategies is given in section 3.1.1. It investigates in how far com-
prehensive national strategies towards the internationalisation of R&D exist and how they are
integrated in the broader national policies towards internationalisation/globalisation. In sec-
tion 3.1.2, the underlying objectives of these policies are analysed. A distinction is made be-
tween S&T related objectives (differentiating between policies focused at the internal attrac-
tiveness side and policies more focused at opening and connecting home-based research with
research and technology in Third Countries) and broader objectives. 3.1.3 summarises present
national approaches to the selection of priority partner countries and thematic priorities and
identifies current priority partner countries.
3.1.1 Strategies towards the internationalisation of R&D
Ten of the 22 European countries providing information on their policy strategy towards in-
ternationalisation of R&D indicated that they have already a comprehensive national strategy
on internationalisation of S&T. Out of these, three mentioned that this strategy is part of a
broader strategy on globalisation (see Figure 3.1). The impressive number of eight of the re-
maining twelve countries stated that they are in process of developing a national strategy fo-
cused on internationalisation of S&T which might – at least partially – explain the great inter-
est in exchanging views, opinions and information on this issue under the CREST Working
Group with the support of the Open Method for Coordination (OMC). Just four countries in-
dicated that they do neither have nor plan to have a national strategy on internationalisation of
S&T (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Lithuania and Liechtenstein) for the time being. Norway is the
only country which already has a focused strategy on international S&T at hand, but who pre-
pares also a strategic inclusion of this matter into a broader globalisation strategy.
The reasons for the four countries who do not have and who are not developing any interna-
tionalisation strategy in the field of S&T ar