IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hig/fsight/v8y2014i3p6-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participation of the ‘New’ EU Member States in the European Research Programmes — A Long Way to Go

Author

Listed:
  • Klaus Schuch

    (Centre for Social Innovation, Austria)

Abstract

This paper discusses the participation of the EU13 countries in European research, mainly in the European Framework Programmes for RTD. It briefly reflects on the structural challenges of the then Central European candidate countries during the transformation period in the 1990s to recall their starting-point at the time when they first became associated to the European Framework Programme for RTD. Almost 15 years after the first full association to the European Framework Programme for RTD, the actual participation situation of the ‘new’ EU member states is analysed. Next, the European Union’s measures to enhance widening participation of organizations in the ongoing European Framework Programme for RTD with the name ‘HORIZON 2020’ are concisely described. Finally, conclusions are drawn as to why – despite several efforts – participation of the EU13 is still low. It is argued that structural deficiencies of national innovation and research systems have to be further eliminated, that smaller corrective measures like upgraded NCP systems may be necessary but not sufficient and that a sustainable enhancement of participation has to be based on increasing excellence adopted to the national and local context. The paper introduces a set of adoption actions such as awareness-raising, information and advice to access HORIZON 2020, advice and quick checks of project ideas, support for international partner search, creation of sectorial or cross-sectorial interest groups, promotion of local academia-industry cooperation and their cross-border networking, provision of training to potential EU project managers etc. Such activities are often performed by NCP systems. They can help to mobilise ‘dormant’ research communities, and perhaps upgrade a proposal from one level to the next. Nonetheless, they can neither generate excellent ideas nor write outstanding research proposals which are needed to compete successfully in HORIZON 2020. NCP systems can neither balance structural deficiencies of national innovation and research systems, nor replace forward-looking STI policy-making which requires special efforts to implement.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus Schuch, 2014. "Participation of the ‘New’ EU Member States in the European Research Programmes — A Long Way to Go," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 8(3), pages 6-17.
  • Handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:8:y:2014:i:3:p:6-17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://foresight-journal.hse.ru/data/2014/10/18/1100831091/1-Schuch.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Svarc, Jadranka, 2006. "Socio-political factors and the failure of innovation policy in Croatia as a country in transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 144-159, February.
    2. Havas, Attila, 1998. "A Long Way to Go: The Hungarian science and technology policy in transition," MPRA Paper 63533, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Attila Havas, 2002. "Does Innovation Policy Matter in a Transition Country? – The case of Hungary," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 0205, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    4. Slavo Radosevic, 2011. "Science-industry links in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States: conventional policy wisdom facing reality," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(5), pages 365-378, June.
    5. Margit Suurna & Rainer Kattel, 2010. "Europeanization of innovation policy in Central and Eastern Europe," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(9), pages 646-664, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sitnicki Maksym W., 2018. "Determining the Priorities of the Development of EU Research Universities Based on the Analysis of Rating Indicators of World-Class Universities," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 8(1), pages 76-100, June.
    2. repec:ces:ifofor:v:19:y:2018:i:1:p:16-23 is not listed on IDEAS

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Balázs Lengyel & Tamás Sebestyén & Loet Leydesdorff, 2015. "Challenges for regional innovation policies in Central and Eastern Europe: Spatial concentration and foreign control of US patenting," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 1-14.
    2. Havas, Attila, 2004. "EU Enlargement and Innovation Policy in Central European Countries: The case of Hungary," MPRA Paper 69872, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Attila Havas, 2002. "Identifying Challenges and Developing Visions - Technology Foresight in Hungary," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 0206, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    4. Lengyel, Balázs & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "The Effects of FDI on Innovation Systems in Hungarian Regions: Where is the Synergy Generated?," MPRA Paper 73945, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Attila Havas & Lajos Nyiri, 2004. "The Socio-economic Impacts of Framework Programmes in Transition Countries - A systemic Approach of Assessment Methods," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 0401, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    6. Havas, Attila, 2007. "O alargamento da UE e a política de Inovação nos países da Europa Central: O caso da Hungria [EU enlargement and innovation policy in Central European countries: The case of Hungary]," MPRA Paper 69874, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Lakitan, Benyamin, 2013. "Connecting all the dots: Identifying the “actor level” challenges in establishing effective innovation system in Indonesia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 41-54.
    8. Sabiiti Mulema, 2019. "Long term Financing and Development of Small and Medium Enterprises in Uganda: A case study of MPK GRAPHICS," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 3(3), pages 310-325.
    9. Švarc, Jadranka & Dabić, Marina, 2021. "Transformative innovation policy or how to escape peripheral policy paradox in European research peripheral countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    10. Jan Ženka & Josef Novotný & Ondřej Slach & Igor Ivan, 2017. "Spatial Distribution of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services in a Small Post-Communist Economy," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 8(2), pages 385-406, June.
    11. Dirk Czarnitzki & Kornelius Kraft, 2006. "R&D and Firm Performance in a Transition Economy," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 481-496, November.
    12. Slavo Radosevic & Katerina Ciampi Stancova, 2018. "Internationalising Smart Specialisation: Assessment and Issues in the Case of EU New Member States," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(1), pages 263-293, March.
    13. Varga, Attila & Sebestyén, Tamás, 2015. "Innováció Kelet-Közép-Európában. Az EU keretprogramjaiban való részvétel szerepe az innovációs teljesítményben [Innovation in Central East Europe. The role played in innovation performance by parti," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 881-908.
    14. Teixeira, Aurora A.C. & Fortuna, Natércia, 2010. "Human capital, R&D, trade, and long-run productivity. Testing the technological absorption hypothesis for the Portuguese economy, 1960-2001," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 335-350, April.
    15. Karo , Erkki & Kattel , Rainer, 2015. "Innovation Bureaucracy: Does the organization of government matter when promoting innovation?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/38, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    16. Peter Howard-Jones & Jens Hölscher, 2020. "The Influence Of The Washington Consensus Programme On The Transitional Economies Of Eastern Europe – A Firm-Level Analysis," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 65(226), pages 9-44, July – Se.
    17. Parmendra Sharma & Neelesh Gounder, 2012. "Obstacles to bank financing of micro and small enterprises: empirical evidence from the Pacific with some policy implications," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 19(2), pages 49-75, December.
    18. Klapper, Leora & Sarria-Allende, Virginia & Zaidi, Rida, 2006. "A firm-level analysis of small and medium size enterprise financing in Poland," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3984, The World Bank.
    19. Arogyaswamy, Bernard & Koziol, Waldemar, 2005. "Technology strategy and sustained growth: Poland in the European Union," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 453-470.
    20. Andrei Coca & Manuela Rozalia Gabor & Irina Olimpia Susanu, 2023. "Do Innovation Metrics Reflect Sustainable Policy Making in Europe? A Comparative Study Case on the Carpathian and Alpine Mountain Regions," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-31, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    co-operation; European Union; framework programmes; HORIZON 2020; new Member States; EU-13; EU-15; project management;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O20 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - General
    • O21 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Planning Models; Planning Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:8:y:2014:i:3:p:6-17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nataliya Gavrilicheva or Mikhail Salazkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.