Content uploaded by Anita Pelle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anita Pelle on Jul 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
S ug ge st ed C it at ion :
Pelle, A. (2015). Europeanization of Research and Innovation Policies: Big Achievements but Still
a Lot to Do (chapter 6). In: P. Stanek & K. Wach (Eds.). Europeanisation Processes from the
Mesoeconomic Perspective: Industries and Policies. Kraków: Cracow University of Economics,
pp. 111-131.
6
Europeanization of Research and Innovation
Policies: Big Achievements but Still a Lot to Do
Anita Pelle
University of Szeged
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
Institute of Finance and International Economic Relations
6722 Szeged, Kálvária sgt. 1., Hungary
e-mail: pelle@eco.u-szeged.hu
Summary:
There has been the common research and development policy in the European Economic Com-
munity and the Euratom since their establishment in 1957. Within the Joint Research Centre,
several Institutes were set up in the member states. The first framework programme, introducing
cross-border collaboration projects, was launched in 1984. The post-socialist Central and Eastern
European countries (CEECs) joined the framework programmes already in their accession phase.
With EU membership, they enjoy full ‘membership’ in the EU’s research and innovation policies
as well. However, evidence shows that there is still a long way to go to reach the real and full
integration of the CEECs into these policies. As a matter of fact, the Southern periphery of the
Eurozone is not in any more favourable position in this respect. Whether we look at participation
in framework programme projects, the location of JRC sites, or participation in the newly formed
Knowledge and Innovation Communities under the EIT, the Eastern and Southern periphery is
largely underrepresented. The usual explanation for this lies in these countries’ weaker research
and innovation capacities and their less enabling and supportive research and innovation envi-
ronments. For sure, that is true. Nevertheless, EU-level policies should not take these circum-
stances as given but should aim at tackling the differences through improving the conditions in
the periphery – because that is the EU’s interest as a community. Without closing this gap, the
EU’s integrity is threatened, and a lot of its research and innovation resources (ideas, innova-
tions, and human talents) are wasted.
Keywords: R&D policy; innovation policy; European Union (EU), economic integration
JEL classification: O3, O38, O52, F02
The chapter is based on the author’s research carried out in the framework of the project no.
TÁMOP-4.1.1.C-12/1/KONV-2012-0005 entitled “Sectoral preparation for the training and R&D
tasks related to the national ELI project” supported by the European Union, co-financed by the
European Social Fund, realized at the University of Szeged (Hungary).
114 Anita Pelle
6.1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
By now more than ten years have passed since the first, largest round of the
three subsequent Eastern enlargements (2004, 2007, 2013), in the course of which
the Central Eastern European countries (CEECs)
1
joined the European Union,
took place. Even more time has passed since these countries were entitled to join
the EU’s various research and development initiatives. The integration, in this
respect as well, occurs as a process. The process is continuously unfolding but has
not gone through to its end yet.
The CEECs integration into the common research and development (and,
later, innovation) policy (R&D, then R&D&I policy) actions has definitely fos-
tered the Europeanization of these areas in the relevant countries (just as in all of
the altogether 13 new member states) both at the level of policy, and of the re-
search and innovation institutions (both public and private). All this has taken
place as part of a general Europeanization of different policies all across the EU
(Bretherton & Mannin, 2013). And, obviously, the Europeanization of policies
has been going on as part of internationalisation and globalisation (Wach, 2014).
In this study, we are interested in the advancements that have taken place in
the CEECs in the field of R&D&I. Besides that, we make an attempt to draw an
overall picture of where these countries in 2015 are in this respect. We will show
that a lot has been achieved by the CEECs in the field of R&D&I since their ac-
cession to the EU.
On the other hand, considerable differences between old and new member
states seem to persist. Some of these differences can be explained by the largely
diverse research and innovation capacities of the member states which, obviously,
correlate with the level of economic development. (However, this correlation is
not proportionate and not necessarily evident either, as we will discuss in the
chapter.) Nevertheless, there are also traceable weaknesses in the EU level policy
in respect of handling this evident internal divide and thus really encouraging
Europeanization of R&D&I in the CEECs by policy instruments.
The main implication of our findings is that, unless the general attitude in the
common policy changes, it will most likely contribute to the further widening of
the discrepancies instead of helping in decreasing or closing the gap.
6.2. EUROPEAN R&D POLICY ACTIONS
There has been common research and development in the European Eco-
nomic Community and the Euratom since their establishment in 1957. Within the
Joint Research Centre (JRC), several Institutes were set up in the (at that time)
member states. The JRC is 100% funded from the common European budget un-
der the EU’s framework programme for research and innovation, Horizon 2020.
1
By the term we hereby refer to 8 countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Hungary and Slovenia.
Europeanisation of Research and Innovation Policies: Big Achievements but …
115
The overall budget of the JRC amounts for ca. 330 million EUR annually and
further income is generated by the JRC through performing additional work for
the European Commission, and contracted work for third parties (e.g. public au-
thorities or industry). The JRC also undertakes nuclear-related research under the
Euratom Research Framework Programme (EC Website, 2015a). The JRC cur-
rently employs over 3,000 staff, of whom ca. 77% are scientists and researchers or
work on scientific projects (EC Website 2015g).
Currently there are seven institutes of the JRC in five locations, and a man-
agement centre in Brussels (Figure 6.1). The seven institutes are the following:
− Institute for Energy and Transport (IET);
− Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM);
− Institute for Transuranium Elements (ITU);
− Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP);
− Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES);
− Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC);
− Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS).
The five locations are found in the Netherlands (Petten), in Beligum (Geel),
in Germany (Karsruhe), in Italy (Ispra), and in Spain (Seville). Of these locations,
only Spain is not a founding member states. No JRC institute has been set up in
the new member states since the Eastern enlargement.
The Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development,
also called Framework Programmes or abbreviated FP1 through FP7 with "FP8"
being named "Horizon 2020", are funding programmes created by the EU to sup-
port and foster research in the eligible countries (EC Website 2015b). The first
framework programme, introducing cross-border collaboration projects, was
launched in 1984, based on the success of the intergovernmental programme ES-
PRIT (European Strategic Programme for Information Technology) preceding it
(Csonka, 2008).
The specific objectives and actions vary between funding periods. FP6 lasted
between 2002 and 2006 and, as such, it was the first full programme adopted and
implemented after the Lisbon summit in 2000. Accordingly, FP6 introduced new
funding schemes and launched programmes with the aim of establishing strength-
ening the European Research Area (ERA) as decided in Lisbon. In view of the
expert group assessing FP6 (Annerberg et al., 2010), the programme was success-
ful in catalysing European level R&D activities, and the fundaments of the ERA
could indeed be strengthened. However, the expert group also found some weak-
nesses and proposed improvement in those fields. Among these weaknesses, the
insufficient level of transparency in consultation with stakeholder communities,
the fragmented structure of the framework programme and the inconsistencies
deriving from that, weaknesses in implementation (delays, lack of actions taken in
order to keep to objectives), and the programme’s vague role in the EU’s policy
mix were highlighted. Accordingly, in relation to FP8 (as the report was finalised
in 2009 and published in 2010), the expert group recommended, among others,
116 Anita Pelle
the simplification of the objectives, the clarification of the way stakeholder com-
munities’ positions are considered, the increase of small and medium-sized enter-
prises (SMEs) participation in funding to at least 15%, and to make research an
attractive career for talented young people. The report also emphasised that good
quality design of the next programme was a necessary condition of its good quali-
ty implementation.
Figure 6.1. Joint Research Centre sites
Source: www.ec.europa.eu/jrc
FP7 was a big step forward in terms of financial resources dedicated to
R&D: compared to the previous programme, FP7 meant a 63% rise in budget,
amounting to ca. 50 billion EUR for the seven years’ period 2007-2013 (EU,
2006). This way, a huge step was taken in the EU towards strengthening one of
the three pillars of the knowledge triangle (education, research, and innovation)
(EC Website 2015c). Similarly to fp6, largest part of the budget was dedicated to
research carried out in the form of cooperation of large international consortia.
While in FP6 and FP7 focus was still on technological research, in Horizon
2020 the focus is on innovation, with the objectives of delivering economic
growth faster and delivering solutions to end users (that are not exclusively busi-
nesses but often governmental agencies). The framework programmes up until
FP6 covered five-year periods, but from FP7 onwards, programmes are running
for seven years. With each new framework programme, the budget has increased
(Table 6.1).
Europeanisation of Research and Innovation Policies: Big Achievements but …
117
Table 6.1. Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development
Framework Programme Period Budget (billion EUR)
First 1984-1988 3.750
Second 1987-1991 5.396
Third 1990-1994 6.600
Fourth 1994-1998 13.215
Fifth 1998-2002 14.960
Sixth 2002-2006 17.883
Seventh 2007-2013 50.521
Horizon 2020 (Eighth) 2014-2020 80.000
Source: http://www.jeupiste.eu/horizon-2020-and-around/historical-timeline-framework-programme
6.3. CEECs AND COMMON R&D POLICY
With the Eastern enlargement process, the candidate countries’ accession to
the European research and development programmes also started in an organic
way. In the accession treaties, Chapter 17 covers Science and Research (EC,
2002a). Negotiations of this chapter concerned two areas: participation in the
Framework Programmes, and science and technology cooperation agreements
with third countries. The negotiations concluded in the case of all of the CEECs
that no transposition was required in the national legal order of the accession
countries. At the same time, the negotiations also pointed out that implementation
capacity did not relate to legal provisions but rather to the existence of necessary
conditions for effective participation. These conditions refer to many aspects in-
cluding infrastructures, effectively functioning institutions, quality of researchers,
collaboration capacities etc. As regards the institutional setting, the negotiations
documents emphasised the importance of the quality of both public and private
institutions.
In the framework of accession to the common R&D activities, National Con-
tact Points (NCP) had to be set up in the at-that-time candidate countries. The
relevant chapter was closed in October 1998 for the countries that started negotia-
tions in 1998 (“the Luxembourg six”) and in May 2000 for the countries that
started negotiations in 2000 (“the Helsinki six”).
2
In parallel with the negotiations, a study was commissioned by the Direc-
torate General for Enterprise of the European Commission on the innovation ca-
pabilities of the so-called “Luxembourg six” candidate countries. The study, pub-
lished in 2001, pointed out that, in general, innovation capabilities in these coun-
tries were considerably weak and that the cohesion of the enlarged EU would
depend on the candidate countries’ ability to sustain high growth rates through
increased technological change (Mickiewicz & Radosevic, 2001).
2
The Luxembourg six were the candidate countries with whom accession negotiations were authorised at the
December 1997 European Council: Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Cyprus. The
Helsinki six were the candidate countries with whom accession negotiations were authorised at the December
1999 European Council: Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Malta.
118 Anita Pelle
There was already some scattered participation on behalf of the CEECs in
FP5 (Schuch, 2003) but the CEECs officially (and ceremonially) joined the
framework programmes in October 2002, upon the launch of FP6 (EC, 2002b).
The association agreements to the framework programme covered the at-that-time
candidate countries: Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey. The
agreements stated that candidate countries would have the same rights and obliga-
tions as EU member states under FP6.
Nevertheless, as Vonortas (2008) reveals, participation showed an obvious
gap between the old member states (EU15) and the new member states (NMS):
the whole CEECs underperformed the EU15. However, as for success rates, the
two country groups’ performance was comparable: the EU15 performed an over-
all 20.8% success rate while the respective rate for the NMS was 18.9%. Still, the
success rates at the countries’ level in CEECs showed some variety (Table 6.2)
and can be roughly approximated with the general level of economic and institu-
tional development of the countries, and of later entry of some countries (espe-
cially Bulgaria and Romania) into the programme.
Table 6.2. Success rates for new member states in FP6
Country Success rate
Cyprus 19.1%
Czech Republic 20.0%
Estonia 22.4%
Hungary 20.4%
Lithuania 19.1%
Latvia 18.8%
Malta 19.3%
Poland 18.6%
Slovenia 18.9%
Slovakia 19.3%
Bulgaria 16.2%
Romania 15.3%
Source: Vonortas (2008, p. 16.)
Regarding the participation rates, Poland, Latvia and the Czech Republic
underperformed even the other CEECs. Nevertheless, most of the funding went to
the EU member states (more than 70.000 million EUR). Associated and candidate
countries received substantially smaller funding (ca. 8.000 million EUR), and
third countries even less (ca. 4.500 million EUR). The highest number of pro-
posals was handed in from Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain,
Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands (Rietschel el al., 2009). Besides the East-
ern NMS, Portugal, Finland and Greece are also found on the other end of the
rank of EU member states in terms of absolute funding. The gap is the most strik-
ing in terms of the average participation contract size: while the EU15’s average
Europeanisation of Research and Innovation Policies: Big Achievements but …
119
contract size was 250,000 EUR, it was only 112,000 EUR for the NMS (Rietschel
et al., 2009, p.32.).
The European science and research community noticed the problématique of
the gap. As a result, several studies and actions were initiated. In the field of so-
cial science research, the MOCEE (Member Organisations in Central and Eastern
Europe) project was launched (ESF Website 2015). The project results (ESF,
2008) provide a very useful insight into the issue. Perhaps the most important
message of the whole research was that research in social sciences in the post-
socialist CEECs practically had to reinvent itself. Another major finding of the
project was that research in the CEECs (just like elsewhere) depends largely on
the quality and general capabilities of institutions, which were largely underde-
veloped at the change of the system and which cannot be built up from one day to
the other (Virtasalo, Järvinen, 2010). Evidently, the direction and speed of the
development matters greatly and determines the success of the national research
and innovation systems in these countries.
6.4. CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS AND TENDENCIES
Horizon 2020 is the EU’s research and development programme for the 2014-
2020 programming period (EC, 2011a). Horizon 2020 is organised around the set
of objectives defined by the Europe 2020 strategy: to foster the realisation of
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the EU by 2020. As regards R&D ex-
penditures, the Lisbon objective is still valid: 3 per cent of GDP should be spent
on R&D. The target has not yet been reached at the level of the EU but there has
been a slight but definite improvement since the launch of the Lisbon strategy, in
spite of the crisis (Figure 6.2).
Figure 6.2. Research and development expenditure (% of GDP, 2002-2013)
Source: Eurostat
Regarding the organisational structure, Horizon 2020 forms part of the Innovative
Union agenda, one of the seven flagship initiatives under the Europe 2020 strate-
gy and one of the four under the smart growth objective (Figure 6.3). This setup
1,6
1,65
1,7
1,75
1,8
1,85
1,9
1,95
2
2,05
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EU (28 countries)
120 Anita Pelle
also implies that R&D and innovation are now integrated at the EU policy level
and are handled directly as tools of economic development (see also Ambroziak,
2015 on the EU's role in economic development). Also, the framework pro-
gramme’s full name now encompasses innovation as well, besides research
3
, so it
is justified to discuss the EU’s R&D&I policy in relation to the 2014-2020 period.
Europe 2020 strategy
Priorities Smart growth Sustainable growth Inclusive growth
Flagship
initiatives
Digital agenda
for Europe Resource efficient Europe An agenda for
new skills and jobs
Innovation Union An industrial policy
for the globalisation era European platform
against poverty
Youth on the move
Figure 6.3. The structure of the Europe 2020 strategy
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm (accessed on June 22, 2015).
The European Commission, in order to make the framework programme (the
main instrument of R&D&I policy) more effective, enacted some simplifications
in Horizon 2020, compared to earlier framework programmes. Of the simplifica-
tions, the most obvious one is that there are now only three priorities: “Excellent
Science, “Industrial Leadership”, and “Societal Challenges” (EC, 2011a, pp. 4-5.),
compared to the much more complex structure of FP7 (four areas of intervention,
broken down into further sub-activities), not even mentioning the fragmented
nature of the previous ones. As for the priorities, Excellent Science targets the
development of Europe’s science base in order to ensure long-term competitive-
ness so the first priority already connects research and competitiveness. Industrial
Leadership is the priority where business investments into R&D&I are promoted,
with special regard to leading technologies. Accordingly, facilitating access to
risk finance and support of innovation in SMEs are also included among the eligi-
ble activities. Societal (and not social) challenges, as its name also indicates, ap-
plies a “challenge-based approach” (EC 2011, p. 5.) and, at the same time, pro-
motes interdisciplinarity in identifying the relevant challenges that European soci-
eties are facing, and in finding the ways of resolving them (Vilnius Declaration
2013).
The Commission’s impact assessment accompanying the Horizon 2020 pro-
gramme pointed out that neither the triple objectives of smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth, nor the diverse societal challenges can be handled solely
through market mechanisms; public intervention is inevitable. And that public
intervention has to be undertaken at the European level as the objectives and the
challenges are also of that scale. The Commission also emphasised that, by going
3
Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.
Europeanisation of Research and Innovation Policies: Big Achievements but …
121
on with the business-as-usual approach and/or by renationalising R&D&I poli-
cies, the results would not be achieved. In fact, the integrated approach applied in
Horizon 2020 is needed. The impact assessment quantified the expected econom-
ic, competitiveness and social impacts of Horizon 2020 (over and above the busi-
ness-as-usual and the renationalisation scenarios) as follows (EC, 2011b):
− Horizon 2020 will generate an extra 0.92 (0.53+0.39) per cent GDP.
4
− It will also enhance Europe’s competitiveness, increasing its exports by 1.37
(0.79+0.58) per cent, and reducing its imports by 0.15 (0.1+0.05) per cent.
− It will create jobs and increase European employment by 0. 40 (0.21+0.19)
per cent.
The calls for proposals under Horizon 2020 have been launched rather early
(some of them already in late 2013, (EC, 2013)); the first calls have in fact been
closed and evaluation of proposals has started (EC Website 2015d). The first in-
terim evaluation of the programme is expected in its mid-term, that is, by 2017-
2018.
Similarly to the earlier framework programmes, the Joint Research Centre
continues to be integrated into Horizon 2020. Nevertheless, now a further institute
has become part of the Horizon 2020 scheme: the European Institute of Innova-
tion & Technology (EIT) is responsible for effectively operating the knowledge
triangle by establishing and developing thematic Knowledge and Innovation
Communities (KICs) (EIT Website 2015b). This setup is highly in line with what
economic theory implies in respect of the relations between economic perfor-
mance, knowledge as a factor of production, and education as investment in that
factor. The structure of the EIT is much more modern than that of the JRC; it
strives for exploiting the possibilities lying in networking, cooperation, stakehold-
er consultations, several types of meetings and other events (much of those utilis-
ing the advantages of ICT in communication), and operating a vivid, up-to-date,
interactive and user-friendly portal (EIT Website 2015a).
At present, there are three KICs: one dealing with the climate challenge, one
in the field of ICT, and one searching for innovative solutions in energy produc-
tion and use (Figure 6.4). We can see that the CEECs (and, in fact, the Southern
EU member states as well) are again largely underrepresented in these networks:
apart from one of KIC InnoEnergy’s offices in Krakow (Poland) (KIC Website
2015), none of the networks’ co-location centres can be found in any of the
CEECs. The Climate KIC has a regional implementation and innovation centre in
Central Hungary (where ca. half of the Hungarian national GDP is produced), and
another one in Lower Silesia, Poland. And that’s all the CEECs presence in the
KICs – which does not appear to be balanced.
4
First figure in parentheses refers to the positive impact compared to the business-as-usual option, second figure
to the renationalisation option, respectively, in all three dimensions.
122 Anita Pelle
Figure 6.4. Knowledge and Innovation Communities in the European Union
(as of May 2015)
Source: http://i3s.ec.europa.eu/commitment/13.html
Figure 6.5. Cities under the Green Digital Charter
Source: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/two-more-cities-join-green-digital-charter-
initiative
Under another flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 strategy, the Digital
Agenda, there are many different actions. One of them, closely related to research
and innovation, is the Green Digital Charter. The cities signing the Charter com-
mit themselves to introducing solutions for reducing emissions by the use of ICT,
and to promoting progress in tackling climate change through the innovative use
of digital technologies in cities (Green Digital Charter 2015). This way, the objec-
tives of the Charter are in line with the EU’s Horizon 2020 objectives as well
(especially through the Societal Challenges pillar). The Digital Agenda supports
Europeanisation of Research and Innovation Policies: Big Achievements but …
123
the actions taken in the framework of the Green Digital Charter, and also the un-
derlying research and innovation activities. At present, there are 46 cities from 20
EU member states representing more than 25 million EU citizens that have al-
ready signed the charter (Figure 6.5). Of these 46 cities, very few can be found in
the CEECS – again.
After the participation of the CEECS in the different programmes and ac-
tions, let us now examine the R&D&I performance of these countries in compari-
son to the whole of the EU. There are many possibilities to undertake such exam-
inations, and the R&D expenditures is just one of the indicators, not necessarily
the best one to depict R&D&I performance (Török, 2005). Therefore, in the fol-
lowing section, we will analyse the countries’ R&D&I performance along several
dimensions:
− gross expenditure on research and development (GERD);
− business sector’s expenditure on research and development (BERD);
− share of business sector in gross expenditure on research and development
(BERD/GERD);
− share of government budget appropriations of outlays on research and devel-
opment;
− research and development personnel;
− human resources in science and technology (HRST);
− patent applications to the European Patent Office.
As shown above (Figure 6.2), the gross expenditure on R&D in the EU28 (as
% of GDP) has increased in the past years. Nevertheless there are considerable
differences in the performance of individual member states (Figure 6.6). In 2013,
three member states outperformed the EU-level target (3% of GDP): the three
Nordic countries. Five more member states’ performance was better than the EU
average – among them, we find Slovenia from the CEECS. The Czech Republic,
Estonia and Hungary follow in the CEECS group. Nevertheless, of the ten mem-
ber states that do not even reach a 1% GERD, four are from the CEECS (Latvia,
Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania) besides the Balkan countries (Romania, Bulgaria,
Greece and Slovakia), and the two Mediterranean islands, Cyprus and Malta.
Another important indicator of R&D performance is the business sector’s
such expenditure (BERD). Quite similarly to the GERD data, there are major
differences among EU member states’ performance in this respect (Figure 6.7).
As a matter of fact, the range is even larger, which shows that with the level of
development the business sectors role in the overall financing of R&D grows.
Most of the CEECs are found among the worst performers, with Slovenia, Czech
Republic, Hungary and Estonia being the exceptions.
5
Nevertheless, the tendency
of the CEECs’ merging with the Southern member states can be traced in this
respect as well (Bučar, 2015).
5
Please note that, both for the GERD and the BERD rates, Luxembourg’s data are so low due to the very high
level of GDP/capita in the country.
124 Anita Pelle
Figure 6.6. Gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) as % of GDP, EU member states, 2013*
EU28 data (2.01%) marked by horizontal line
Source: Eurostat.
Figure 6.7. Business expenditure on R&D (BERD) as % of GDP, EU member states,
2013* EU28 data (1.28%) marked by horizontal line
Source: Eurostat
In order to see the connection better, we also consider the BERD/GERD rate
(Table 6.3). In developed countries, the typical rate of business sector participa-
tion in gross R&D expenditure is 2/3 (Borsi & Telcs, 2004). In this respect, the
outstanding rate for Slovenia (0.76) and Hungary (0.70) gaining 1
st
and 3
rd
posi-
tions not only in the CEECs but also in the EU ranking, is remarkable. However,
it has not been so earlier (Török & Csuka, 2014). Especially for Hungary, the
growth in the business sector’s R&D expenditure is outstanding (Table 6.4).
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Germany
Austria
Slovenia
Belgium
France
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Estonia
United Kingdom
Ireland
Hungary
Portugal
Italy
Spain
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Poland
Malta
Slovakia
Croatia
Greece
Bulgaria
Latvia
Cyprus
Romania
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Slovenia
Austria
Germany
Belgium
France
Ireland
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
Hungary
Estonia
Luxembourg
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Malta
Croatia
Bulgaria
Poland
Slovakia
Greece
Lithuania
Latvia
Romania
Cyprus
Europeanisation of Research and Innovation Policies: Big Achievements but …
125
Table 6.3. BERD/GERD rates, EU member states, 2013*
EU member states BERD/GERD
Slovenia 0.76
Ireland 0.72
Hungary 0.70
Belgium 0.69
Sweden 0.69
Finland 0.69
Austria 0.69
Germany 0.67
Denmark 0.65
France 0.65
United Kingdom 0.64
Bulgaria 0.62
Luxembourg 0.61
Netherlands 0.58
Malta 0.54
Italy 0.54
Czech Republic 0.54
Spain 0.53
Croatia 0.51
Portugal 0.48
Estonia 0.48
Slovakia 0.46
Poland 0.44
Greece 0.34
Romania 0.31
Latvia 0.28
Lithuania 0.25
Cyprus 0.15
*EU average is: 0.64
Source: Eurostat.
The BERD/GERD rate, at the same time, has a further message, namely that
in a convergence phase the government’s role in developing a critical mass in
research and development is crucial. So, as long as countries GERD is not surpas-
sing the 1% (or even 1.5%) of GDP, the government is necessarily playing the
main role in providing the financial resources needed for R&D activities. Then,
once a certain level of development is reached and critical capacities for R&D&I
have been established, incentives can be introduced to foster business participa-
tion. Incentives can take various forms, and can work through the tax system or in
126 Anita Pelle
other areas of regulation shaping the national business environments (Török,
2006; Kosała & Wach, 2014).
Table 6.4. GERD, BERD, and BERD/GERD rates, Hungary and Slovenia, 2004-2013
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Hungary GERD 0.87 0.93 0.99 0.97 0.99 1.14 1.15 1.2 1.27 1.41
Hungary BERD 0.36 0.4 0.48 0.49 0.52 0.65 0.69 0.75 0.84 0.98
BERD/GERD 0.41 0.43 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.66 0.70
Slovenia GERD 1.37 1.41 1.53 1.42 1.63 1.82 2.06 2.43 2.58 2.59
Slovenia BERD 0.92 0.83 0.92 0.85 1.05 1.17 1.4 1.79 1.95 1.98
BERD/GERD 0.67 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.74 0.76 0.76
Source: Eurostat.
As public financing is so crucial in a nurturing phase, let us see how big part
of the EU member states’ national budgets is appropriated for such purposes
(Figure 6.7). In relation to these data please note the following:
− as the data are taken from the budgetary plans, they only show ex-ante ap-
propriations and do not show how the actual expenditures were (or were not)
realised;
− the rate is expressed as percentage of budget and not of GDP and as the re-
distribution rates (that is, their budgets’ size compared to their GDPs) vary
greatly across EU member states, the rate of R&D expenditure compared to
the budget can be influenced by these differences (e.g. Estonia has an unusu-
ally low redistribution rate);
− in countries where the business sector’s role is large in financing R&D, there
may simply be less need for public financing of such activities (e.g. Slove-
nia).
Looking at the data, we again see large dispersion across the EU, and mostly
between Northern and Western European ‘old’ member states in the first half of
the rank, and the CEECs and Southern Europe in the second half. Estonia, the
Czech Republic, and Hungary are again the countries from the CEECs that stand
out from the group (Slovenia not in this respect).
R&D&I is one of the most human capital intensive sectors. It obviously has
physical infrastructure input need as well but, still, its main drive is knowledge
that can be found in the heads of humans (Pelle & Laczi, 2015). Moreover, busi-
ness sector financial resources tendentiously move towards entities and activities
where human resource capable of pursuing R&D&I activities successfully are
available, both in quantity and quality terms (EC, 2014). Therefore, human re-
source in the field of R&D&I is crucial.
The European Union uses several indicators to assess human resource avail-
able for the R&D&I sector. The main unit is the person but that is not obvious as
we will soon see. In European statistics, a researcher is “a professional engaged in
the conception or creation of new knowledge, product, processes, methods and
Europeanisation of Research and Innovation Policies: Big Achievements but …
127
systems, as well as in the management of the projects concerned” (EC Website
2015e). Perhaps the best basis for comparison is the so-called full time equivalent
R&D personnel, expressed as percentage of the total labour force. According to
the Eurostat’s methodology, “R&D personnel include all persons employed di-
rectly on R&D, plus persons supplying direct services to R&D, such as managers,
administrative staff and office staff” (EC Website 2015f). The data are calculated
by converting these people’s working hours into their full time equivalent and
then divide it by the full time equivalent of the economically active population.
Figure 6.7. Share of government budget appropriations or outlays on research and devel-
opment, % of total general government expenditure, EU member states, 2013
Source: Eurostat.
Again, we see large differences (Figure 6.8). Along this dimension, Luxem-
bourg also earns a place among the top-performing Northern member states. Slo-
venia and Austria follow right after. Apart from Slovenia and the Czech Republic,
the CEECs (and the Southern member states but Italy) can be found in the second
half of the rank. Similarly to the R&D expenditures, the business sector’s role
grows as overall capacities grow.
Another approach to the human resource potentially available in the R&D
sector is the human resource in science and technology (HRST) indicator. This
indicator encompasses all persons in the age group 20-64 years who have a ter-
tiary education attainment and/or is employed in the science and technology
fields. The indicator is expressed as percentage of working age population. The
concept and calculation of the HRST indicator is based on the Canberra Manual
(OECD, 1995).
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
Estonia
Germany
Portugal
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Austria
Sweden
Czech Republic
Luxembourg
Hungary
Croatia
France
United Kingdom
Spain
Belgium
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Slovakia
Poland
Slovenia
Cyprus
Greece
Malta
Bulgaria
Romania
Latvia
128 Anita Pelle
Figure 6.8. Research and development personnel, by sectors of performance, EU member
states, 2013, full time equivalent, % of labour force
Source: Eurostat
So, how are the EU member states, and especially the CEECs, performing in
this respect? The countries more or less take ‘the usual’ order in the rank (Figure
5.9). However, Luxembourg comes first (61% in 2013). The reason for that is that
the proportion of urban population in Luxembourg is exceptional. The country is
followed by the three well-performing Northern countries. Then come the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands and Ireland. These are the member states where the
rate exceeds the 50% – neither of the countries is from the CEECs or from the
South. The mid-range (40-50%) consists of 10 member states, out of which 4 are
from the CEECs; though 3 of the 4 are the Baltic states (Slovenia is the fourth
one). The rest of the CEECs can be found in the last third in the rank.
Last but not least, we examine the data on patents. Literature is not unani-
mously on the view that patents are good indicators of R&D&I performance as
there are numerous innovations that are deliberately not patented, for strategic
reasons (Nagy, Pelle & Somosi, 2014). Nevertheless, they definitely give a pic-
ture about the intensiveness of innovation activities. As EU member states mani-
fest a large variety both in terms of population and economic output, we consider
the data that are normed according to population: the number of patent applica-
tions handed in the European Patent Office (the EPO), so intended for utilising in
the EU internal market. The indicator shows the number of applications (per mil-
lion inhabitants), independent of the outcome of their evaluation. (Should a patent
application be handed in by residents of several member states, the data are re-
vealed proportionately at the respective member states, thus avoiding multiple
consideration.)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
Denmark
Finland
Luxembourg
Sweden
Slovenia
Austria
France
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Greece
Hungary
Estonia
Malta
Lithuania
Slovakia
Croatia
Poland
Latvia
Bulgaria
Romania
Cyprus
Business enterprise sector Government sector
Higher education sector Private non-profit sector
Europeanisation of Research and Innovation Policies: Big Achievements but …
129
Figure 6.9. Human resources in science and technology, EU member states,
2013, % of active population
Source: Eurostat.
The data reveal that, even normed to population, there are vast differences
across the EU, ranging from 290 (Sweden) to 2.8 (Romania) per million inhabit-
ants in 2012 (Figure 6.10). Besides the Northern member states, Germany and
Austria are also in the top five with over 200 patents. They are followed by Bel-
gium (133.15), Luxembourg (133) and France (126.4). The United Kingdom,
Italy and Ireland are also performing measurable outputs, exceeding 50 patents
(per million inhabitants). Among these this relatively well performing member
states, we cannot find any country from the CEECs and, outside Italy, none from
the Southern countries either.
Nevertheless, as pointed out above, there are vivid academic and practical
debates in relation to patents so we would be cautious about drawing any far-
reaching conclusions from the data. Instead, we take a look at the development of
the respective output of the CEECs since 2004 (Figure 6.11). We omitted the
EU28 average data from the chart in order to see the performance of the individu-
al countries of the CEECs better. Nevertheless, the EU average ranged between
117.17 (2006) and 108.55 (2012) in the reference period. Interestingly, after the
2006 peak, the overall EU performance started to decrease. In the meanwhile,
most of the previously weak-performing CEECs improved. Slovenia, the member
state that stood out from the CEECs group in the early years after EU accession,
has lost most of its advantage while Estonia is stepping upper and upper the Eu-
ropean patent application ladder.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Luxembourg
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Ireland
Belgium
Estonia
France
Cyprus
Germany
Lithuania
Slovenia
Austria
Spain
Latvia
Poland
Malta
Czech Republic
Hungary
Greece
Croatia
Italy
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Portugal
Romania
130 Anita Pelle
Figure 6.10. Patent applications to the EPO, per million inhabitants,
EU member states, 2012
Source: Eurostat
Figure 6.11.
Patent applications to the EPO, per million inhabitants, CEECs, 2004-2012
Source: Eurostat
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Sweden
Germany
Finland
Denmark
Austria
Netherlands
Belgium
Luxembourg
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Ireland
Slovenia
Spain
Estonia
Hungary
Czech Republic
Poland
Slovakia
Portugal
Latvia
Croatia
Cyprus
Lithuania
Greece
Malta
Bulgaria
Romania
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Czech Republic Estonia Latvia
Lithuania Hungary Poland
Slovenia Slovakia
Europeanisation of Research and Innovation Policies: Big Achievements but …
131
6.5. CONCLUSIONS
The CEECs gradually joined the European R&D&I activities in parallel with their
accession to the European Union. The CEECs, after the change of the system, was
considerably underdeveloped in these fields compared to the at-that-time member
states. On the way to their EU membership, and even more since then, these coun-
tries’ participation in European R&D&I collaborations has shown spectacular
advancement. In certain aspects, some countries from the CEECs have already
outperformed some (or, in a few cases, all) Southern European member states and
others are on the way of catching up as well.
Nevertheless, the CEECs are apparently not following one single pattern but
are rather showing a variety of development paths. Also, the overall gap in the EU
in terms of R&D&I performance is not narrowing. Instead, after the economic and
financial crisis, a core-periphery divide is unfolding. These tendencies are not
favourable and, even if some countries from the CEECs (Slovenia, the Czech
Republic and Estonia in the first place) show a development that provides them
the chance to adhere to the core in the medium term, the overall divergence at the
level of the European Union is in fact threatening the integrity of the whole inte-
gration in the longer run.
REFERENCES
Ambroziak, A. A. (2015). Europeanization of Industrial Policy: Towards Re-
Industrialisation? (chapter 4). In: P. Stanek & K. Wach (Eds.). Europeanization
Processes from the Mesoeconomic Perspective: Industries and Policies. Kraków:
Cracow University of Economics, pp. 61-93.
Annerberg, R. & Begg, I. & Acheson, H. & Borrás, S. & Hallén, A. & Maimets, T. &
Mustonen, R. & Raffler, H. & Swings, J-P. & Ylihonko, K. (2010). Interim Evalua-
tion of the Seventh Framework Programme – Report of the Expert Group. Stock-
holm – Brussels: European Commission.
Borsi, B. & Telcs, A. (2004). A K+F-tevékenység nemzetközi összehasonlítása or-
szágstatisztikák alapján. Közgazdasági Szemle, LI(február), pp. 153-172.
Bretherton, Ch. & Mannin, M. L. (2013). The Europeanization of European Politics. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bučar, M. (2015). Europeanization of R&D and Innovation Policies: What has the Mem-
bership Changed? (chapter 7). In: P. Stanek & K. Wach (Eds.). Europeanization
Processes from the Mesoeconomic Perspective: Industries and Policies. Kraków:
Cracow University of Economics, pp. 133-148.
Csonka, L. (2008). The R&D Policy of the European Union (chapter 1). In: Buzás, N.
(ed.), Research and Development in the European Union. Szeged: JATEPress, pp. 7-
38.
EC (2002a). Enlargement of the European Union – Guide to the Negotiations Chapter by
Chapter. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General Enlargement.
EC (2002b). Enlargement becomes an early reality as candidate countries sign 6th EU
Research Framework Programme. IP/02/1559. Brussels: European Commission.
132 Anita Pelle
EC (2011a). Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.
COM(2011) 808 final. Brussels: European Commission.
EC (2011b). Impact Assessment Accompanying the Communication from the Commission
‘Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation’.
SEC(2011) 1427 final. Brussels: European Commission.
EC (2013). Horizon 2020 – first calls. MEMO/13/1122. Brussels: European Commission.
EC (2014). Helping Firms Grow – European Competitiveness Report 2014. Brussels:
European Commission, Directorate General Enterprise and Industry.
EC Website (2015a). http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/index_en.cfm?pg=how
(accessed on June 23, 2015).
EC Website (2015b). http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/ (accessed on June 23,
2015).
EC Website (2015c). http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher-education/knowledge-
innovation-triangle_en.htm (accessed on June 23, 2015).
EC Website (2015d). http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en (accessed on June
23, 2015).
EC Website (2015e). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Glossary:Researcher (accessed on June 23, 2015).
EC Website (2015f).
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=ts
c00002 (accessed on June 23, 2015).
EC Website (2015g). http://www.ec.europa.eu/jrc (accessed on June 23, 2015).
EIT Website (2015a). http://eit.europa.eu/ (accessed on June 23, 2015).
EIT Website (2015b). http://eit.europa.eu/eit-community/eit-glance/eit-strategy-2014-
2020 (accessed on June 23, 2015).
ESF (2008). Status and Developments of Social Science Research in Central and Eastern
Europe. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.
ESF Website (2015). http://www.esf.org/hosting-experts/scientific-review-groups/social-
sciences-soc/activities/mo-fora/backgroundmember-organisation-forum-in-central-
and-eastern-european-countries-mocee.html (accessed on June 23, 2015).
EU (2006). Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European
Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities
(2007-2013). Luxembourg: Official Journal of the European Union, 30.12. pp.
L/412/1-41.
Green Digital Charter (2015). http://www.greendigitalcharter.eu/ (accessed on June 23,
2015).
KIC InnoEnergy (2015). http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/office/poland-plus/ (accessed on
June 23, 2015).
Kosała, M., & Wach, K. (2014). Linking Regional Knowledge Laboratory and Growth of
SMEs – Empirical Investigation in Southern Region of Poland. Prace Komisji Geo-
grafii Przemysłu Polskiego Towarzystwa Geograficznego, 26, 113-131.
Europeanisation of Research and Innovation Policies: Big Achievements but …
133
Mickiewicz, T. & Radosevic, S. (2001). Innovation capabilities of the seven EU candidate
countries: comparative data based analysis. London: University College London,
School of Slavonic and East European Studies.
Nagy, B. & Pelle, A. & Somosi, S. (2014). A szellemitulajdon-védelem hatása a versenyre
és a versenyképességre – az Európai Unió esete. In: Kovács, P. & Kovács, B. O.
(eds.): Gazdasági és társadalmi elemzések és fejlesztési lehetőségek: Az ELI tár-
sadalmi, gazdasági megalapozása és multiplikátor hatása. (Abstract book) Szeged:
SZTE GTK, p. 52.
OECD (1995). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities – Manual on
the Measurement of Human Resources Devoted to S&T (Canberra Manual). Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Pelle, A. & Laczi, R. (2015). The Human Aspects of Competitiveness in the European
Union. In: Radyka, S. (ed.). Proceedings of International Conference of European
Economy, vol. IV. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 201-219.
Rietschel, E. Th. & Arnold, E. & Čenys, A. & Dearing, A. & Feller, I. & Joussaume, S. &
Kaloudis, A. & Lange, L. & Langer, J. & Ley, V. & Mustonen, R. & Pooley, D &
Stame, N. (2009). Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and
Technological Development 2002-2006. Berlin – Brussels: European Commission.
Schuch, K. (2003). Inter-Institutional RTD Co-operation between Austria and the Central
European Candidate Countries under the 4
th
and 5
th
European Framework Pro-
gramme for RTD. ZSI Discussion Papers, 2003(2).
Török, Á. & Csuka, Gy. (2014). Magyarország a nemzetközi innovációs versenyben az
EU-csatlakozás után. Közgazdasági Szemle, LXI(április), pp. 509-526.
Török, Á. (2005). Competitiveness in Research and Development – Comparisons and
Performance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Török, Á. (2006). A krékakör közepén: K+F és innovációs stratégiai dilemmák Magyaror-
szágon 2006-ban. Magyar Tudomány, 2006(4), pp. 432-444.
Vilnius Declaration (2013). http://horizons.mruni.eu/vilnius-declaration-horizons-for-
social-sciences-and-humanities/ (accessed on June 23, 2015).
Virtasalo, I. & Järvinen, J. (2010). The problématique of structures: Social sciences and
Central and Eastern Europe in flux (chapter 4). In: Pálné Kovács, I. & Kutsar, D.
(eds.), Internationalisation of Social Sciences in Central and Eastern Europe. Lon-
don – New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 59-71.
Vonortas, N. S. (2008). FP6 Participation. Washington, DC: The George Washington
University, Centre for International Science & Technology Policy.
Wach, K. (2014). Internationalisation and Globalisation as the Wider Context of Europe-
anisation Processes from the Macro- and Microeconomic Perspective. Horizons of
Politics, 5(10), pp. 11-30.
134 Anita Pelle
About the Author:
Anita Pelle Assistant Professor at the University of Szeged (Hungary). PhD in
Economics (2010), post-doc scholarship from Hungarian National
Centre of Excellence (2013-2014), Jean Monnet Chair (2014-2017).
Teaching and researching on the economy of the EU, the European
economic integration process, history of European economic thought,
the EU internal market and its regulation and, most lately, the EU internal divide. Vis-
iting professor at Université d’Angers (France), IAE Lyon III (France), Universitá di
Pavia (Italy) and Vysoká Škola Ekonomická v Praze (Czech Republic).
