Title: BUMPY ROAD OR FAST LANE Central European countries, ERA and the LisbonBarcelona strategy Attila Hava
1BUMPY ROAD OR FAST LANE?Central European
countries, ERA andthe Lisbon-Barcelona
strategyAttila HavasInstitute of Economics,
Hungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestSix
Countries Programme workshopCROSSING
BORDERSVenturing into the European Research
AreaKismarton - Ödenburg, 30-31 October 2003
2Outline
- Methodology (aims, sources)
- Context challenges
- RTDI policy goals in the context of FP4-6
- Implementation
- ST results and socio-economic impacts of FP
participation - Prospectsnew instruments, Lisbon-Barcelona
strategy - Conclusions
3Methodology
- Aims
- recall some challenges to set the context
- summarise findings (stylised facts, no
ranking!) - draw preliminary conclusions, policy proposals to
launch a lively discussion at the
workshopprovide food for thought for follow-up
activities - Sources
- interviews with policy-makers 4 CE
countriesThanks again!No reply whatsoever from
3 countries (1 CE, 2 Baltic) - background documents, literature
41. CONTEXT
- Various types of challenges
5Context the main challenges
- Political and economic transition sweeping
changes ownership, production, trade,
employment and social structures - demanding and socially costly process
- (re-)integrated into the EU by the late
1990s, via trade and ownership links, supplier
networks - EU enlargement accession harmonisation of
laws, adapting/ adjusting the institutions,
values and behavioural rules cohesion
competitiveness, quality of life - Changes in the global settingsST, global
production networks, China, S-E Asia,
anti-globalisation movements, etc. ? new
structures, rules, institutions
6Context (2)
- Enlargement Global changes ?
- the first phase of transition is over, YET,
C(E)E is at a cross-roads, againdrifting vs.
active strategy - Inherent contradictions of transition
- short-term vs. long-term
- macroecon. stab., institution-building,
sustainable development (long-term
competitiveness) - 4) 5) Shift in attention of policy-makers??
- fire fighting ? strategic thinking ?
realisation of the role of STI in
socio- economic development?
7Transition Challenges - Innovation
- Loss of former markets, and hence the need to
find new onesBUT fragile international
competitiveness - Budget, trade, balance of payment deficits?
grow out from those traps - Poor quality of life (economic, health,
environmental aspects) - Brain drain (attractive conditions to reverse
interesting projects, funds, equipment, income,
etc. ) - Innovation is a must to tackle to above issues,
but not a panacea
8STI System ChallengesLegacy and transition
- Severe cuts in RD spending (public, private) due
to austerity measures and weak position in the
power struggle - Diminishing science base (number of RSEs,
institutesinternal and external brain drain
again) - Increasingly obsolete equipment with some
exceptions - while a strong need for ever more
expensive ones to keep up with other countries - Still somewhat isolated research and higher
education - Lack of relevant managerial skills in academia
- project development, project mgmt, networking,
IPR, exploitation - Weak academy-industry links
- Infant capital markets (lack of venture capital
or lack of worthy projects??)
9STI System Challenges (2)
- Poorly integrated NIS in general
- Persistence of the linear model of innovation,
lack of up-to-date, relevant policy
knowledgeBalázs (1999), Chataway (1999),
Innovation Policy in Six Applicant Countries
(2001) JIRD Dec 2002, Trend Chart reports
(2002-3) - ? Drastic restructuring, institution-building
and (un-)learning at all levels planned,
policy-assisted creative destruction - BUT
- Small, fragile innovation policy constituency
- Bipolar policy framework (ST or Education vs.
Economy Ministries), lack of communication and
co-ordination among ministries
10External Challenges/ Options
- Globalisation, changes in global settings
- threats/ opportunities of FDI and international
production networks - foot-loose low-tech, low-value added
activities, low paid jobs, ready to leave for
even cheaper sites - OR anchored knowledge-intensive, high-value
added activities, highly paid jobs, close
contacts with local RD and HE, strong local
supplier base - integrated into international sectoral systems
of innovation - OR left out (marginalised as a low-cost
production site) - Strong NIS, clear strategic goals, conscious
policy implementation to take advantage - Co-ord investment, industrial, STI, education,
regional development, competition policies
11EU Funds and Policies two facets
- Arms to fight the above challenges
- Policy challenges themselves how to use them
effectively - learning at various levels politicians,
policy-makers, executive agencies, applicants
(research organisations, firms, esp. SMEs) - learning in various ways
- what impacts on agenda setting, policy
discussions co-ordination, funding decisions at
national and regional level?
122. FINDINGS
- Arranged by the logic of an idealised
Policy Planning Cycle - Stylised facts to be validated, amended
- No ranking or beauty contest
13Policy Intentions
- Why to join FP4-6 obtain extra fundingexceeding
membership fee similar to the A case 10 years
ago - not much sophistication in terms of policy
goals and thus methods to define goals - EU ? national ST priorities directly or
indirectly (contributions to FP projects)to a
different degree in CE countries no attempt in
the other direction (? EU) yet via
EURAB?selection among FP6 priorities ones at
national level, sometimes implicitly (e.g.
more staff for given programmes/ calls) - National ? EU some influence on membership fees
and FP6 funding new instruments vs. STREPs(CE
countries jointly)
14Policy Intentions (2)
- Excellence vs. relevance not a (major) concern
- tensions between evaluation criteria and SE
needs, both at national and the EU-level other
sources of info! - exceptions in Poland
- increased emphasis on social science and
humanities for economic developmentbetter
understand drivers, dynamics, impacts of
transition - keep national research centres to support
HE separate ROs HE vs. research integrated
with HE
15Policy Intentions (3)
- Creation vs. exploitation of knowledgemore
emphasis on creation - BUT
- special schemes e.g. in H, P, SR to promote
academia industry co-operation? foster
exploitation - a new post-graduate course launched by Institute
Jozef tefan (Sl) jointly with business a new
way of thinking - indirect way ROs are forced to raise extra
funding, mainly from application-oriented projects
16Policy Intentions (4)
- No priorities in terms of types of
participantse.g. academia business large
firms SMEs single org. networks/ clusters - The problem is realised in most CE countries,
though - More firms in FP projects would be needed/
beneficial
17Implementation
- Schemes to assist potential participants
- differences over time ? learning occurred
- differences across countries ? more learning
would be possible and needed - Patterns of participation in recent FPs
- applications and approved projects by
- fields of research
- types applicants mainly ROs
- size of projects (participants, budget)
- co-ordinators (country, type of organisation)
- Preliminary result important differences, more
data and work needed ? not to be discussed in
detail
18Impacts of FP Participation
- Potential benefits
- ST results (publications, citations, patents,
etc.) - socio-economic outputs and impacts
- behavioural effects, new/ improved skills
(writing project proposals, managing RTD
projects, IPR issues, innovation, network
building, co-operation, etc.)esp. in transition
countries ASIF country case study - Impact studies Noneinitiated in one country,
but not started perhaps FP6 - Self-assessment None (only monitoring)
- Largely unknown approach in CE differences among
current member states
19Prospects as seen by policy-makers
- FP6 new instruments important tools for ERA
- BUT
- not clearly defined/ explained (e.g. how many
members in NoEs) - big countries and large firms are favoured
- less opportunities for small countries (both
current members accession countries!) - Lobbying for special funds/ access to join IPs,
NoEs open new calls (both new instruments
STREPs)
20Prospects (2)
- Art. 169 small countries can initiate policy
co-ordination, with EU-fundinge.g. Interregional
Fund (A, Cr, H, I, Sl, SR) - ERA some negotiations startede.g. F, G, P on
nanotechnology, cancer research, transport
technologies - likely to be time-consuming
21Prospects (3)
- Lisbon-Barcelona process, cohesion
- differences across CE countries
- setting RD spending targets vs. broader cohesion
strategy - also in terms RD spending targets ( in line
with current diff) - differences in the same country over time
- less ? more importance by politicians
- among policy-makers
- awareness of initiatives
- importance attached to broader issues beyond RD
spending targets - policy goals (e.g. road construction vs.
innovation controversial signs from Brussels,
too!)
22Similarities differences in CE
- Common (fairly similar) recent past, current
challenges - Differences also matter
- 1) size ? different breadth of RD
- 2) level of development ? ambitions, benchmarks
? strategy, policy targets - 3) geographical size vs. RD size
- 4) different chances for (different?) cohesion
strategies - Differences ? scope, willingness for
co-operation?
233. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS
- Issues, questions, preliminary conclusions,
policy proposals to launch a lively discussion at
the workshop - Food for thought for follow-up activities
24Conclusions
- Managing EU national RTDI relationships is a
difficult enough task in itself, but it has to be
done in a very demanding context in CE countries - 1) Pressing needs of transition ? not sufficient
intellectual and financial resources to tackle
all long-term issues? only the burning ones - long-term drawbacks, by definition, cannot be
felt immediately - 2) Major changes in the international
settingsFDI, international production networks,
EU - Do not fight the previous war!
- Can international comparison help?
- Identify best practice??
25Conclusions Policy Learning
- No one fits all (best practice, optimal,
ideal) way of governing national EU RTDI
co-operation/ policies - ? not to copy goals/ schemes of any successful
country in a mechanistic way - benchmarking vs. learning by interacting/
comparing - active participation of policy-makers in these
processes - What issues to focus on?
26Conclusions EU Funds and Policies
- A different EU is evolving
- different decision-making processes
- a less cohesive,
- two-speed EU?
- L Georghiou, S Kuhlmann, B-A Lundvall, M Sharp,
L Soete - Following FP priorities vs. tackling
country-specific socio-economic issues by
RTDIscientific excellence vs. relevance
role,impactof RTDI?
27EU Funds and Policies (2)
- RTDI ? cohesion
- Pressure on cohesion ( EU funding opportunities)
? RTDI - more political clout in domestic agenda setting
and funding decisions - BUT
- Lisbon-Barcelona processa good argument for more
RD spending vs.impetus for more coherent RTDI
policies - setting mechanistic (RD spending) targets
vs.exploiting opportunities stemming from
international co-operation so as to implement a
localised Lisbon-Barcelona strategy - align, mobilise public private efforts
28Conclusions Barcelona trap?
- Lisbon Barcelona strategy (RTDI in general)
- convince policy-makers to increase RTDI spending
- (public induce private)
- urge them to introduce org./ inst. changes in the
same time - costly measures money, intellectual resources
- disturbing strong groups (e.g. die hard
scientists) - ? a self-defeating, counterproductive policy
proposal? - YET, not to call for systemic policies is likely
to be suicidal, too - evoke a more visible Solow paradox
- provoke a strong (counter-)attack from
(neo-liberal, conservative) macro economists to
cut RTDI spending diminution of RTDI policies
altogether - ? study (and influence?) the policy formulation
process
29Recommendations
- Art. 169 small countries in the driving seat?
- (i) not only new less advanced current member
states! - (ii) strong EU support (financial and policy)
for those who are willing to take the lead in
co-ordination - (iii) RTDI co-operation to address jointly
identified and/or transborder issues, e.g. - cross-border regions competitiveness (clusters,
synergies, regional ST base, HE) environmental,
region-specific health problems - small-country problems
- critical mass
- role of, opportunities for, SCs in international
co-op in general, enlarged EU in particular - SCs vs. globalisation (global production
systems, MNCs, culture, identity, etc.)
30Recommendations (2)
- SCs/ new member states devise a strategy to
influence EU RTDI policies - e.g. goals, structure, tools of FPs
- Do they have
- a clear vision (set of goals)
- negotiation skills
- intellectually powerful arguments
- political power behind arguments?
-
31Summary equationV f(R, T, TR, S, M, P, Ve,
DS, NS)
- V speed comfort
- R road (surface, roadblocks)
- T traffic
- TR traffic rules
- S signposts
- M maps
- P traffic police
- Ve vehicle
- DS driving skills
- NS navigation skills
- What conditions can be changed, at what cost?
- Driving alone vs. in a convoy