Post on 02-Jan-2016
description
transcript
BUMPY ROAD OR FAST LANE?Central European countries, ERA and
the Lisbon-Barcelona strategy
Attila HavasInstitute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Budapest
Six Countries Programme workshopCROSSING BORDERS
Venturing into the European Research AreaKismarton - Ödenburg, 30-31 October 2003
Outline
Methodology (aims, sources)
Context: challenges
RTDI policy goals in the context of FP4-6
Implementation
S&T results and socio-economic impacts of FP participation
Prospects‘new instruments’, Lisbon-Barcelona strategy
Conclusions
Methodology
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 workshop;provide food for thought for follow-up activities
Sources:• interviews with policy-makers 4 CE countries
Thanks again!No reply whatsoever from 3 countries (1 CE, 2 Baltic)
• background documents, literature
Context: the main challenges1) 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
2) EU enlargement accession: harmonisation of laws, adapting/ adjusting the institutions, values and behavioural rules
cohesion: competitiveness, quality of life
3) Changes in the global settingsS&T, global production networks, China, S-E Asia, anti-globalisation movements, etc. new structures, rules, institutions
Context (2)
4) Enlargement & Global changes the first phase of transition is over, YET, C(E)E is at a cross-roads, again:drifting vs. active strategy
5) Inherent contradictions of transitionshort-term vs. long-termmacroecon. 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?
Transition 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
STI System Challenges:Legacy and transition
Severe cuts in R&D spending (public, private) due to austerity measures and weak position in the power struggle
Diminishing “science base” (number of RSEs, institutes;internal 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 academiaproject development, project mgmt, networking, IPR, exploitation
Weak academy-industry links
Infant capital markets (lack of venture capital or lack of worthy projects??)
STI System Challenges (2)
Poorly integrated NIS in generalPersistence 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”
BUTSmall, fragile innovation policy constituencyBipolar policy framework (S&T or Education vs.
Economy Ministries), lack of communication and co-ordination among ministries
External Challenges/ OptionsGlobalisation, 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 R&D and HE, strong local supplier base
integrated into international sectoral systems of innovationOR 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
EU 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?
2. FINDINGSArranged by the logic of an ‘idealised’ Policy Planning Cycle
‘Stylised’ facts to be validated, amended
No ranking or ‘beauty contest’
Policy IntentionsWhy to join FP4-6: obtain extra funding
exceeding 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 S&T 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)
Policy 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 development[better understand drivers, dynamics, impacts of transition]
keep national research centres to support HEseparate ROs & HE vs. research integrated with HE
Policy Intentions (3)
Creation vs. exploitation of knowledge:more 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 Štefan (Sl) jointly with business: a new way of thinking
• indirect way: ROs are forced to raise extra funding, mainly from application-oriented projects
Policy 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”
ImplementationSchemes to assist potential participants• differences over time learning occurred
• differences across countries more learning would be possible and needed
Patterns of participation in recent FPsapplications 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
Impacts of FP ParticipationPotential benefits• S&T 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
Prospects 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)
Prospects … (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
Prospects … (3)
Lisbon-Barcelona process, cohesiondifferences across CE countries• setting R&D spending targets vs. broader cohesion strategy• also in terms R&D 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 R&D
spending targets• policy goals (e.g. road construction vs. innovation: controversial signs
from Brussels, too!)
Similarities – differences in CE
Common (fairly similar) recent past, current challenges
Differences also matter1) size different ‘breadth’ of R&D
2) level of development ambitions, benchmarks strategy, policy targets
3) geographical size vs. R&D size
4) different chances for (different?) cohesion strategies
Differences scope, willingness for co-operation?
3. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS
Issues, questions, preliminary conclusions, policy proposals to launch a lively discussion at the workshop;
Food for thought for follow-up activities
Conclusions
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’??
Conclusions: 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?
Conclusions: 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 RTDI;scientific excellence vs. relevance
role,impactof RTDI?
EU Funds and Policies (2)
RTDI cohesion
Pressure on cohesion (+ EU funding opportunities) RTDImore political clout in domestic agenda setting and funding decisions
BUT
Lisbon-Barcelona processa good argument for more R&D spending vs.impetus for more coherent RTDI policiessetting mechanistic (R&D spending) targets vs.exploiting opportunities stemming from international co-operation so as to implement a ‘localised’ Lisbon-Barcelona strategy
align, mobilise public + private efforts
Conclusions: 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 paradoxprovoke 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
RecommendationsArt. 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 S&T 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.)
Recommendations (2)
SCs/ new member states devise a strategy to influence EU RTDI policiese.g. goals, structure, tools of FPs
Do they have• a clear vision (set of goals)• negotiation skills• intellectually powerful arguments• political power behind arguments?
Summary equation
V = 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