Discussant session 2.1
National research and innovation policies as parameters of the multilevel governance of ERA
-
The new partnership between MS and the COM in ERA under the Lisbon Treaty calls for a better coordination of integrated strategies among the Member States and with the Commission to enhance the transformation towards higher degrees of knowledge intensity of the society.
-
Already now the transborder interactions in research and innovation are so intensive that autonomous national policies are neither possible nor desirable. Coordinated policy approaches are indispensable. They have to rely on the people in MS. ERA offers a chance to extend the scope and the efficiency of well defined and interrelated national research and innovation policies.
-
A centrally elaborated master plan, even though based on a broad involvement of stakeholders, will not attain the political power required for the necessary structural changes to cope with the grand challenges due to lack of ownership. We continue to live in a multi-polar Europe where every country has it specificities and wants to bring its impact to bear on the political processes. This has to be taken into account in the design of the post-2010 Lisbon strategy.
-
National goals still play an important role, because governments have to convince their parliaments to provide taxpayers’ money for R&D. The national parliaments determine the public expenditure for R&D in the MS and (indirectly) at the EU level. The national interest dominates the policy. Therefore, a broader approach with policy-makers at all levels (national and European) sharing the ownership of R&D&I policies could lead to a more sustainable public investment in R&D. The combination of national and European funds in the context of the 7th Framework Programme is a promising development in this direction. The concept of Joint Programming is another option which deserves further exploration.
-
The ERA vision 2020 is still only a paper for a few insiders. Broader awareness is necessary to guide priority- setting in national policies.
Increasing the investments in the knowledge society
-
Research, education and innovation are input factors for the generation of wealth. The relationship as such is not questioned but its strength is unclear and varies over time and between regions. Since there are other important factors influencing the well-being of a society, growth rates of GDP tell us too little about the efficiency of the research-education-innovation system. Therefore, whole series of indicators have been developed to “measure” the performance of research, education and innovation systems. In many cases there is a consensus about the direction in which the indicators should move, and more or less ambitious benchmarks have been set. (But: Comparison with the US has been a focus for many years without really convincing the people or political leaders in MS.)
-
The 3% R&D target has had and still has a mobilizing effect on the allocation of public funds, and therefore there are strong arguments for keeping this target in the post 2010 era, even though it lacks a theoretical basis. Nevertheless it strongly underlines the determination of governments to increase the investment in knowledge generation activities.
-
Quantitative targets for public expenditure are directly related to policy actions. The allocation of public funds for various purposes (e.g. sciences, humanities, education, supporting R&D or innovation in industry) has quite different welfare implications. A closer look at the public part (1/3) of the 3%-target is worthwhile and could lead to useful policy orientations.
-
The arguments of better control and accountability of public expenditure on R&D&I also apply to the Union’s budget. A long term quantitative target (possibly with annual growth rates) for the investment in the knowledge economy should be considered. The definition of “Competitiveness” in the EU budget seems to be inadequate for this purpose.
-
The evidence for setting a target of 5% of GDP by 2020 on combined investments in R&D and Higher Education is not clear. Apart from the questionable approach of simply summing up expenditures in different policy areas, the focus on Higher Education is inappropriate for national systems with well developed vocational training schemes. What ultimately matters is the skills of the labor force matter, not the number of academic degrees or the funds for institutions of higher education. This is why indicator systems based on output are developed under the auspices of the Education Ministers (e.g. EQF). The Life Long Learning paradigm is another argument against the exclusive consideration of higher education in a composite indicator for knowledge intensity.
National specificities
-
There is a remarkable diversity in the composition of the knowledge triangles in MS as regards expenditure as well as the relative role of universities, public research organizations (PROs) and business. The breakdown of research activities according to industrial sectors or to basic and applied R&D also shows a considerable diversity. National policies have to build on strength, comparative advantages and the endowment with natural and human resources. R&D&I strategies strongly depend on the chosen approach (path dependency).The diversity of national innovation systems is likely to persist in the future. We may ask ourselves whether a greater convergence would be desirable.
-
Universities have great potential as central places for knowledge generation. But only universities which have a clear strategy for education, research and knowledge exploitation will be able to meet this expectation. In order to set the right incentives, public funds have to be allocated on a competitive basis. This competition will only be efficient if the funds and the number of eligible universities pass certain thresholds. This calls for coordinated national approaches or action at the European level (e.g. ERC). The modernization of universities is an issue for mutual learning.
The crucial importance of intellectual capital
-
A scientific world market has emerged and Europe still has a strong stance in it. The fact that scientific knowledge is not a pure public good in many cases but may be appropriated and commercialized, has become increasingly recognized, esp. in the life sciences. Different patent policies have developed in the US and Europe with important impacts on the innovation systems. Each country tries to strike a balance between the incentives for investing in research by granting a patent and the benefits of competition by imitators. Open access policies have to be defined properly. In any case, differing national systems of patent and copyright law could severely hamper scientific and economic progress. This is a global issue where Europe should speak with one voice.
-
I share the view of Bjorn von Sydow that there is an urgent need to implement the Community Patent. But patentable inventions are only part of the entire body of scientific knowledge. If Europe wants to remain a leader in science, the Union and MS have to develop a comprehensive strategy for the protection, sharing, distribution and free circulation of knowledge. The new competences of the Lisbon Treaty (para.182, 5) could be explored as a legal basis for such a strategy.
The necessity of structural changes
-
Although many European countries invest heavily in basic research, third countries do better in turning scientific output into successful products. This innovation gap is partly due to the weak interaction between the players in academia and business. Structural changes facilitating cooperation between them (excellence clusters, commercial spin-off of universities, promotion of intersectoral mobility etc) are therefore top priorities on the reform agendas. In this context the EIT can assume a role as a reference model.
-
Transnational cooperation of universities and PROs can improve their performance. Activities going beyond cooperative projects require changes in the institutional settings. National research policies should focus on supporting internationalization strategies of universities and PROs.
The underinvestment of the private sector
-
For a number of reasons, MS support business R&D so that companies spend more on R&D than without these measures. The Internal Market rules and the State Aid rules set limits to this kind of interventions in order to preserve fair competition on the markets for goods and services. Within these limits, the policy mix for setting incentives for private investment in R&D has to fit in with national specificities (tax system; industrial structure (e.g. share of SME, Multinationals)) of MS.
-
It is obvious that a high proportion of research intensive industries like pharmaceuticals, ICT or automotive engineering in a country will lead to a high overall R&D intensity. But it seems strange to encourage a shift in the industrial structure towards more research intensive industries only in order to increase the research intensity. The research intensity is not an end in itself.