Analysis of Researchers' Mobility€¦ · 5. Various segments of mobility are important in order to...

Analysis of Researchers’ Mobility

1

Dr. Annamária Inzelt Supporting Expert


in the Context of the European Research Area


2

Content Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Part 1. EU policymaking ......................................................................................................................... 6

Supporting schemes............................................................................................................................. 7 Part 2. Definitions and terminology ........................................................................................................ 8 Part 3. State of play on researchers’ mobility in Europe and the capacity of attractiveness ................. 11

Attractiveness of European countries................................................................................................ 17 Attractiveness between academic organisations ............................................................................... 18 Knowledge flows between firms and public research sectors........................................................... 19

Part 4. Mobility-related policies toward ERA....................................................................................... 19 The main European targets in the mirror of FP7............................................................................... 19

Part 4. Implementation of European targets in national policies and policy measures ......................... 21 � Geographical mobility........................................................................................................... 22 � Virtual mobility ..................................................................................................................... 25 � Mixed (collaboration, networking, platform based) mobility ............................................... 25 � Sectoral mobility ................................................................................................................... 25

Mobiles.............................................................................................................................................. 26 � Women .................................................................................................................................. 27 � Mobility of future HRST....................................................................................................... 27

Resource allocation for mobility programmes .................................................................................. 28 Conclusions and recommendations ....................................................................................................... 29 Acknowledgement................................................................................................................................. 31 References ............................................................................................................................................. 31 ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................ 34


3

Executive Summary

1. International mobility of human resources in science and technology (HRST) is currently an important policy matter in Europe. One of the major challenges for Europe is making European researchers more mobile and to provide a more attractive environment for creative and innovative researchers. A healthy distribution of the R&D personnel may play an important role to decrease the gap between the EU27 and other advanced regions, to bring closer the EU15 and the NMs to each other. 2. The importance of mobility of European researchers was already clear for the founders of the European Research Area. However, the programs supporting mobility have an even longer history since 1968. Most of the mobility-related progress is arching over FPs but the actual focus and the extent of activities were modified by FPs because of the learning process in programming and also as a response to the new challenges Europe has to face. 3. A detailed analysis of the impact of such efforts to enhance (international) mobility of HRST is burdened by the lack of data and statistical information on researchers not only in an internationally comparable way, but national sources are scattered and contain limited information too – even if the importance of this kind of information is well known. Availability of data is much better on cross-border mobility of doctoral students, than on researchers. 4. The accumulated knowledge, data availability and indicators on mobility (spot data and time series) have developed a lot since the beginning of the breakthrough programme, the European Research Area. But there is still a huge lack of facts for further analysis. 5. Various segments of mobility are important in order to achieve the crucial European agendas: attracting the best and most appropriate researchers from different geographical areas to the EU in different organisational sectors (academic, industrial) and/or to involve them in FP7. The examined mobility types include geographical (physical), virtual, and sectoral mobility of researchers and doctoral students. 6. According to existing data, the mobility of S&T professionals has grown in a considerable way in recent years. This growth is not only a result of the European integration, but is a worldwide trend. 7. Among the EU27 there are important differences in their attractiveness for researchers’ and for doctoral students. Not only the size of inflow is significantly different, but the host countries in the EU27 vary by sending regions and by the scale of intra-European flows too. In the EU27 westward mobility still strongly characterizes the process. The most important host countries of incoming professionals from extra EU27 are the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and Portugal. 8. In global comparison the United States hosted the largest foreign doctoral population. The top four European destinations for doctoral graduates are the UK, France, Spain and Italy. These four European countries host at least two thirds of foreign doctoral students from all major regions of origin. Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Ireland also have good positions to attract talented people from other countries. 9. In comparison to American research institutions only few European research labs are important meeting places for emerging fields of science. Grantees programme launched by the European Research Council try to make more attractive best performing European institutions for young researchers. 10. Industry-academia collaboration with foreign partners is very limited in Europe as we consider either collaboration with partners across Europe or with partners outside Europe.


4

Only innovative firms from the Nordic countries and some small European economies tend to collaborate frequently with partners abroad. 11. EU programs and national programs back up each other to achieve a real ERA and a single market for researchers that can improve the previously summarized situation of international mobility. The successful build-up of the European Research Area strongly depends on how Member States are realizing it in their national legislation, actions, and budgets to fulfil the common European goals. It may be stated that the majority of national

programmes are more quantity than quality based. The countries wish to attract more well educated, highly skilled people and are paying less attention to get the best highly skilled ones. Only a few programmes are focusing directly on the best and most appropriate researchers by the programme screening. 12. A comparable source of INNO-Policy Trendchart annual reports / ERAWATCH network provided some limited opportunity to extract information on the mobility-related measures introduced recently in EU27 countries for researchers and/or doctoral students. 13. Most national measures are focusing on geographical (physical) mobility of researchers. In this category the programmes supporting the inflow of foreign researchers or creating favourable conditions for returnees are in majority and only some of the programmes are supporting the outflow of HRST. In some of the cases countries determine spatial limitations to these programs to express preferences for certain geographical regions. 14. In a smaller number of cases policies are focusing on sectoral (intra- and inter-sectoral) mobility to enhance knowledge diffusion but only a part of these measures involve international mobility. 15. The virtual mobility may be observed as an additional tool in research collaboration programmes but only two Nordic countries’ programmes are focusing directly on virtual mobility. 16. All programmes are open for women but they do not particularly encourage women to participate. There are hardly any support schemes that take into account their special situation and programmes that would offer solutions to increase the participation of women in the labour market and in HRST mobility are scares too. 17. Further efforts are needed to support the attractiveness of certain regions of the EU for researchers and to shift from brain drain/brain gain towards brain circulation.


5

Introduction

International mobility of human resources in science and technology (HRST) is currently an important policy matter in Europe. As people convey knowledge between organisations and countries, brain circulation may lead to many positive effects on the speed and quality of knowledge transfer, and on the absorption of new knowledge. The mobility of scientists and engineers (S&E) is commonly believed to diffuse knowledge and, consequently, to support innovativeness and competitiveness.

Economic growth is linked to the pool of skilled labour available. The availability of HRST is based on the training system and mobility. There is apparently a growing shortage of skilled labour in many Member States, due to the booming demand for skilled labour. The internationalisation of research, technology and innovation is no longer limited to scientific élites and to a few high-tech multinational companies. International mobility and its economic effects are variegated phenomena. The primary effect (often labelled ‘brain drain/brain gain’) is to transfer human capital from the sending country to the recipient country. International mobility may result in a growth of innovation in the recipient country with a symmetric loss in the sending country. So one of the major challenges is to make European researchers more mobile and to provide a more attractive environment for creative and innovative researchers.

This study focuses on various segments of mobility. The most important European agendas are: attracting the best and most appropriate researchers from different geographical areas to the EU in different organisational sectors (academic, industrial) and/or involving them in FP7. The first chapter summarises the mobility relevant policies and measures at the EU level to back up further analysis, while the second section shortly describes the most relevant definitions, terminologies and typologies of mobility to help the common understanding. Some of the definitions are internationally harmonised and accepted among the experts, but some of the others are only preliminary.

The state of play on researchers’ mobility in Europe and capacity of attractiveness are studied in third chapter. Although Europe as a whole has seen a remarkable growth in the numbers of science and technology professionals during the last decade, this growth was not a strictly European dynamic, as could have been expected as a result of closer European integration. There are important differences among the EU27 in their attractiveness for researchers and for doctoral students. Not only does the volume of inflow is differ significantly from one country to another, but EU27 as host countries are also different by their large delivering regions. The intra-European flows dominate mobility in European countries. Mobility is much higher within the EU15 than within the NMS-10 (new member states). In the EU27, the process is still strongly characterised by westward mobility.

The successful development of the European Research Area depends to a great extent on how each member state implements the actions, budgets for the common European goals via its national legislation. The fourth chapter attempts to screen national policies/programmes by FP7 mobility related actions. These attempts basically build upon Trendchart country reports that contained information on national actions and mobility related research programmes. The study also made use of some other international information sources to touch upon how European nations are progressing in the creation of mobility framework conditions. In many cases there is significant crossover between the EU and national levels with respect to the creation of the relevant conditions. In the frame of this report, there was no option to make a systematic collection of information such that could have revealed other details.


6

It may be stated that the majority of national programmes are rather quantity than quality based. Countries are seeking to attract a lot of well-educated, highly skilled people and are paying less attention to getting the best highly skilled ones. Only a few programmes focus directly on finding the best and most appropriate researchers by the programme screening. The inflow related programmes may be identified as soft recruiting programmes that are supported in some countries by selection criteria among job-seekers.

Maybe this picture is changing a bit if more detailed information becomes available on national programmes. We must not forget that Trendchart country reports focused on many other relevant policy issues besides the mobility of HRST and that they may not cover all HRST mobility-related programmes. As regards the internationalisation of academia/industry mobility, the majority of national programmes merely include an international dimension but do not focus on it. One country (Belgium) is using mobility to upgrade or revitalise several regions in the country by attracting HRST into the region. Few countries have special programmes to attract HRST from less advanced countries outside the EU27.

Although there are more and more opportunities for virtual mobility that may be observed as an additional tool in research collaboration programmes, only two programmes in Nordic countries focus directly on virtual mobility.

The encouragement of female HRST mobility was a predominant feature in only one Swedish programme. All other programmes are open to women but do not include any special incentives to encourage them to participate.

Student mobility is an important agenda in all countries and the available information is much better on their mobility than it is for researchers.

The available budget figures on national mobility programmes do not allow for the calculation of the total European budget on allocated funds for encouraging European mobility, however they do provide some idea of the differences between national programming.

The final chapter makes some conclusions and recommendations.

Part 1. EU policymaking

The importance of mobility of European researchers was clear for the founders of the European Research Area. The EC Communication of January 2000 'Towards a European Research Area' identified increasing the number of mobile researchers in Europe as a central objective in constructing the ERA. The Communication also advocated the introduction of a European dimension to scientific careers.

The availability of highly qualified human resources is fundamental to the development of a knowledge-based society, of an innovative Europe. That is why the Aho Report (EC 2006) stresses that mobility is one of the crucial socio-cultural factors that encourage innovation, and proposes to set a target for 10% S&E movement in each year. This figure was based on the assumption of a healthy turnover though a significantly larger percentage is undesirable.

The assumption is that the mobility of HRST will support not only European research performance, but also the competitiveness of European industry. Regulatory changes as well as supporting programmes are crucial to speeding up inner mobility in the EU27 and in making Europe more attractive to researchers from beyond the borders of the EU27. In FP7, the main strategic objectives of the PEOPLE Programme are to make Europe more attractive for researchers, to encourage European researchers to stay in Europe, and to attract the best researchers from the entire world. Because of these objectives, it is important to foster relevant working and employment conditions and competitive salaries, career development


7

allowances, a pan-European pension system, portable grants and a scholarship system within Europe.

The middle years of FP7 were dominated by responses to the economic downturn. In these years much of the focus was concentrated on measures aimed to attract or retain skilled workers and to deal with the shortage of occupations. The favouring of high-skilled migration has continued even if the policies opening to labour migration have been restricted. The economic downturn has increased pressure to accurately identify skilled labour shortages in some countries (OECD Migration Outlook 2010, p. 57).

Mobility – the change of one’s workplace – has not only positive but also some negative effects on delivering/recipient institutions, firms and states. In certain countries, there are fears that the movement of highly qualified foreign workers in the context of international geographic mobility could have a negative impact on the level of employment and wages of their nationals. When key employees leave, there is a potential loss in tacit knowledge and an increase in training costs to replace those who have left. Unbalanced inflow and outflow may cause a brain drain in certain geographic areas. Less advanced EU member states as well as the EU as a whole may lose the global competition for high skills, especially in S&T. Poor conditions for innovation and opportunities for S&T personnel at home may incite these professionals to move abroad at least temporarily. Limited opportunities in higher education and research at home such as the lack of modern equipment, research capacities below critical mass, scarcity of research grants, differences in tax rates, and a weak entrepreneurial and innovation environment all may incite S&T workers to emigrate.

Taking into account the expected positive and negative effects of the mobility the regulation of environment, supporting programmes have to cope with them both at EU and national level, and must seek to maximise the positive effects for Europe as a whole and for all of its member states, regardless of their level of development. At the same time, the programme has to minimise negative effects.

Supporting schemes A very important foundation was laid down in 1968 with the free movement of

workers within the Community (articles 10 and 39 EC, article 7 (1) of Regulation (EEC) N°1612/68 of 15 October, 1968. Actions in favour of research mobility have been in place since the beginning of the Community RTD policy. Since the mid-1980s, the European Commission has been running a series of subsequent programmes aimed at training young scientists and research engineers (such as COMETT, Erasmus, Human Capital and Mobility).

For the first time, FP3 (1990-1994) launched the ‘Human Capital and Mobility’ Programme and the brand name of these types of programmes, 'Marie Curie' was introduced under FP4 (1994-1998) through the 'Training and Mobility of Researchers' programme.

As a testimony to the success of this type of initiative, programmes were continued and reinforced under FP5 (1998-2002) called ‘Improving Human Research Potential”, as well as FP6 (2002-2006) under 'Human Resources and Mobility'. These programmes encompassed more than merely the mobility of HRST, but the mobility issue was one of their priorities.

The mobility programmes were modified by FPs because of the learning process in programming and as responses to the new challenges which Europe has to face.

During the preparatory work of the FP7 the European Parliament noted: 'Marie Curie actions are widely considered as the best part of the Framework

Programme and have been highly successful. [ ...] Significant increase in the budget

for this programme is fully justified.' FP7 launched the People Programme which includes Marie Curie actions. The

recognition of upgrading human resources and mobility may be observed in the increase of the allocation of resources to mobility actions. (Figure 1)


8

Figure 1 Evolution of the resources allocated to the mobility actions

Source: EC (2009) Marie Curie Actions: A decade of building a single market for European researchers, p. 7.

Budget data clearly show that Marie Curie Actions (PEOPLE Programme) have

enjoyed a gradually increase from FP to FP. The budgetary increase was very substantial from FP6 to FP7.

In FP7 Marie Curie Actions are implemented under five headings: 1. Initial training of researchers 2. Life-long training and career development 3. Industry-academia pathways and partnerships 4. International dimension – World fellowships 5. Specific policy actions.

Actions 1-3 have a transnational mobility dimension while action 4 is devoted to international mobility. For an indicative budget breakdown by actions for 2007-2013, see Table A-1.

Part 2. Definitions and terminology

The definitions, terminologies and typologies of mobility are differing by their maturity. Some of the definitions are internationally harmonised and accepted among the experts, but some of the others are only preliminary that we have to use in this report.

The Frascati Manual (OECD 2002. p. 93) defines researchers as follows: 'Researchers are

professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes,

methods and systems and also in the management of the projects concerned'.

The Canberra Manual (OECD 1995) proposes a definition of Human Resources in Science

and Technology (HRST) as persons who either have higher, third level education or persons who are employed in positions that normally require such education. This definition includes many persons who are not involved in R&D in their professional activities.

The ISER expert group proposed a definition for science, engineering and technicians (SET) professionals. ‘SET professionals’ should be defined as people who fulfil both of the following criteria: (1) Possessing tertiary education at or above ISCED97 level 5, and (2) having an occupation is selected areas. These fields are the following, by ISCO codes: ISCO


9

211-214, 221-222 and 2311. This definition comes from the ‘HRST-core’ logical concept of the Canberra manual, but it is not an equivalent to it.

Several mobility programmes, including European Science Council programmes, are targeting the best and/or most appropriate researchers. There are no internationally accepted definitions for either on the best, or on the most appropriate that may apply for measuring mobility. The classification of the terms 'the world’s best researchers’ and 'most appropriate researchers’ is beyond the scope of this paper. The study will use these terms colloquially.

Colloquially the best researcher may be identified as the most skilful. (Scientometrics or patent-inventor based ranks may identify the best researchers; several attempts have been made to include other criteria for identifying the internationally best researchers but it is hard to follow either their mobility patterns or their inflow in a country on a macro level.)

The most appropriate researcher or HRST may be defined as the person who is the most suitable for the job, for a special purpose. In the mobility context the most appropriate implicitly includes missing knowledge at an organisation or in a country. The most appropriate incoming international expert may be an experienced manager who can guide the development of an invention through to commercialisation as this capability is usually missing at European universities.

Appropriate HRST can diminish the shortage of qualified people in a given field either to replace the outflow or to increase the available intellectual capacity. At the moment, mobility statistics are insufficient to measure researchers by these categories.

Future HRST is students. PhDs or doctoral students are defined as people who have tertiary education at or above ISCED97 level 6 (i.e. doctorate holders). PhD students are the most mobile part of the population. The internationalisation of the post-doc workforce is largely supply-driven through education and training.

‘Mobile’ is defined as relating to everyone who has moved in from abroad to the national labour force or national education system. Usually, mobility is used to designate any type of change of country, job, employer, function, employment status, other types of transitions of labour or student status. International mobility comprises only those who have come from abroad at one point in time prior to the observation period. For a better understanding of geographical mobility two terms are relevant here: 'foreigner' and 'international'. Three international organisations (Eurostat, OECD, and UNESCO) have developed a new term for international doctoral students that can apply to researchers too.

The term international student refers to students who have crossed borders with the express intention to study. International students are those who are not residents of their country of study or those who received their prior education in another country. Overall, the country of prior education is considered a better criterion for EU countries in order to take account of intra-EU student mobility. The residence criterion is usually a good proxy in countries that require a student visa to enter the country.

1 ISCO 211 Physicists, Chemists and Related Professionals ISCO 212 Mathematicians, Statisticians and Related Professionals ISCO 213 Computing Professionals ISCO 214 Architects, Engineers and Related Professionals ISCO 221 Life Science Professionals ISCO 222 Health Professionals (except nursing) ISCO 231 College, University, and Higher Education Teaching-Professionals.


10

Foreign students (or foreign researchers) belong to an old statistical classification. Beyond the above mentioned international group, it includes all non-citizens who are studying or doing research in the country. They may have arrived in the country earlier with other intention as studying or doing research activities (more details in: OECD Education Database, 2009). Classification of non-naturalised 2nd or 3rd generation of immigrants as ‘foreigners’ does not represent the real inflow of HRST. Data by country of birth are much closer to incoming HRST however they do not give any information about foreign HRST. They may arrive in the country in their childhood, or may have graduated in the host country or may have obtained their degree or accumulated work experience before their arrival. Statistics cannot separate foreign-born HRST by their graduation level at their time of arrival.

Recurrent mobility is used in the contexts of international collaboration, networks, and platforms. International collaboration is an important source of knowledge inflows. It can take a variety of forms and may occur at different levels or have different actors of interaction ranging from simple one-way information flows to highly interactive, formal arrangements. Actors can be individuals or intra-sectoral and inter-sectoral institutions.

The recurrent type of short term mobility is different from traditional short-term mobility that has a one-off character. Recurrent mobiles are people who work together for several years and visit one another's laboratories several times, participating on joint workshops. The combination of short term recurrent mobility and virtual mobility may be an alternative to long-term mobility.

Among the different types of mobile HRST, it is worth distinguishing them by their employers, by categories of mobiles, by physical categories and by length of stay:

1) By employers the mobility may be a. Intra-sectoral

i. Between academic organisations ii. Among firms

b. Inter-sectoral i. Between firms and public research sectors

ii. Between academia and public sector Each type of these may occur by any dimensions (regional, national, international). 2) By mobiles, several categories can also be distinguished:

a) Potential S&E, student mobility b) Researchers c) Non-researcher HRST (engineers, medical doctors, lawyers, marketing

mangers and so on) Mobiles also may be differentiated by the initiators of mobility, such as posted, recruited, job-seekers. These categories are general and not HRST specific.

3) By type of physical conditions for mobility: a) Geographical (spatial location of mobiles change, between countries or regions) b) Virtual (there are no changes in the location but ICT allows e-conferences, e-seminars, electronic newsletter, thematic portal, e-fora and chats, videoconference, and virtual labs). Virtual mobility is an effective and efficient complement to physical mobility. c) Mixed (combination of physical and virtual mobility). Mixed mobility is very common in the cases of collaborative research, RTD networks that include both kinds of conditions. The advantage of this combination is that physical


11

mobility can be made shorter and that the virtual connection is backed up by physical joint activities.

Each kind of geographic (or physical) mobility may have intra- or inter-sectoral dimensions. 4) By length of stay

a) Short-term mobility (for giving a lecture, discussion on joint research, participating on workshops or conferences, teaching or studying on summer or winter schools, study tours, guest researchers or guest professor for 1semester)

b) Long-term mobility is a delicate issue. Migration statistics is using more than 1 year (366 days) as borderline for migrants. It may employ the same numeric measure in mobility statistics. However many national statistics takes into account a shorter period as long-term mobility if students or professors are sending / hosting at least half a year visits. (Hardly mobile countries are using 3 month as borderline for long-term mobility.) There are pros and cons to these different lengths as long-term mobility.

Part 3. State of play on researchers’ mobility in Europe and the

capacity of attractiveness

Putting Europe in a global context, the number of European inhabitants (EU27) is 40% less than population of China, but the number of European R&D personnel (in FTE) is significantly higher (36% more) than the corresponding Chinese figure. The total R&D personnel to total employment are a marginal fraction in any country. In 2007 it was 1.08 in EU27 (1.21 for EU15) and 0.23 for China.

Comparing the US and the EU27, the differences in population size are the following: the population of the EU27 now reaches 497 million, while there are 304 million people living in the US. The GDP per inhabitants in 2009 (market prices, Euro) was 32,900 in the US and 23,600 in the EU27 (27,500 for the EU15). Table A-2 gives the basic comparative figures on large geographic regions.

European R&D personnel may play an important role in decreasing the gap between the EU27 and other advanced regions, bringing the EU15 and the NMSs closer to each other. Figure A-1 and Table A-3 gives R&D personnel to total employment indicators by countries.2

According to an EU Report (2008, STC 2008/2009) the total non-national HRSTC having EU27 citizenship increased from 229,000 in 2000 to 376,000 in 2006. This implies an annual growth rate of 8.6%.3 Their share in the HRSTC total increased from 2.2% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2006. In Spain and in the United Kingdom, there were increases from 26,000 to 94,000 and from 80,000 to 110,000 respectively. (p. 120) Detailed data are available only for 9 member states.4

2Timing of data is an important problem. There are no up-to-date data for the interim evaluation of the impact of FP7 on various kinds of mobility of researchers. If data are available, their latest reference year is either the final year of FP6 (2006) or the first year of FP7 (2007) when only first calls had been launched. 3 Most of the analyses use data on human resources in science and technology as a proxy of the population for researchers, even if everybody knows that HRST also includes other professionals. 4 The most natural scientific tool would be to employ official European (and OECD) statistics to describe researcher mobility within Europe and between Europe and other countries. Currently however, there is not very much data on these issues in official statistics. An obstacle to detailed analysis is not only the lack of internationally comparable data and statistical information on researchers, but also the fact that national sources are scattered and contain limited information, despite the awareness of the importance of this kind of information. It must be mentioned that the accumulated knowledge and availability of data and indicators on mobility (spot data and time series) has improved a lot since the beginning of the breakthrough European


12

The growth in the mobility of S&T professionals is not a strictly European dynamic,

as could be expected of closer European integration. In fact, the number of non-nationals having citizenship from outside the EU27 increased over the 2000-2006 period, from 167,000 in 2000 to 318,000 in 2006 in the nine Member States from which relevant data are available. This implies an annual growth rate of 11.3%. The same trend exists for foreign-born HRSTC: the increase of mobility is higher for extra-EU HRSTC than for intra-EU HRSTC. The total HRSTC born in a country outside the EU27 increased from 524,000 to 854,000 (an increase of 8.5% per annum) (p. 121).

Figure 2 shows the proportion of incoming HRST into European countries. (Table A-4 provides the total number of HRST and their proportion to total population).

Figure 2 Proportion of foreign-born HRST by EU member states

in 2008 and in 2002 (%)

Source: Author’s compilation based on EUROSTAT online database

The vast majority of the HRST population in each country are home-born or second

or multiple generation immigrants. The foreign-born population is between 5.8% and 16.2% in the EU15 (except in Luxembourg where it is 51.5%), while in NMSs it ranges between 0.7% and 21.0%.5

The number of foreign-born HRST has increased between 2002 and 2008. The fastest increase has been observed in Luxembourg, Ireland and in the UK. The proportion of foreign-born HRST is the highest in Luxembourg, Ireland and Cyprus and the lowest in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. The next figure (Figure 3) shows the host countries and main regions where mobile HRST come from.

Research Area programme. (Most of the sources are internationally co-ordinated pilot projects that usually do not cover all EU member states, as only volunteer countries are included that were ready for investigation. Country selection did not depend on their involvement in mobility but on their policy making culture (how strong matters are the facts in policy making) and, as a related issue, their statistical capacities for pilot surveys, for modifying sampling.) The most data available are those pertaining to doctoral students. 5 However the difference is conceptually clear between foreigners and internationals, the choice between these

terms is limited by data scarcity. (Eurostat provides data on HRST by country of birth and by nationality. Data by nationality is useful for many reasons in studying HRST but it is somewhat misleading if we are focusing on inflow of HRST.) The term ‘foreigners’ must use as a proxy for internationally mobiles in most cases.


13

Figure 3 Proportion of foreign-born HRST in EU member states

by large region of birth in 2008 (%)

Source: Author’s compilation based on EUROSTAT online database

Apart from differences by the size of inflow, there is no different pattern by sending

regions between old and new member states. More countries are hosting HRST from outside the EU27. The largest number and proportion is in the UK, followed by Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, and, to a lesser extent, in Greece, Poland and Slovenia. Numbers are much lower, but the proportion is still high in the former Soviet member states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). Within the EU27, the leading region sending mobile researchers consists of a few countries: Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria and Slovakia. In several countries, the inflow from the EU27 and from extra-EU27 countries was almost equal (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Cyprus, and Norway).

Generally the inflow is much larger from the EU15 than from NMSs. It is possible that the deviation from this trend in the Czech Republic and Slovakia may originate from the split of Czechoslovakia and not from other reasons. (The relevancy of the respective Hungarian data is dubious.) More than 20,000 HRST born in NMSs were in the UK (121), Austria (38), Sweden (22) Italy (22), and Switzerland (20).

Going abroad to study is a tradition with deep roots in European history. However, the volume of international students has changed significantly in recent decades. What is interesting about the mobility pattern of this population is that international mobility often starts at the time of researcher training, since many doctoral students register in a doctoral programme abroad and therefore conduct research for their thesis in the host country. Mobility during the years of studying has an influence on post-doctoral mobility. A number of post-docs will also remain in the host country for a post-doctoral or other job position. In


14

addition, it seems that international students are increasingly targeted by the recruitment strategies of large transnational corporations (Auriol 2010 p. 18).

The best available data and indicators are those on cross-border student mobility from the different layers of HRST. The main sources are Eurostat’s New Cronos database, and an OECD study (2010) which includes data on foreign PhD students (ISCED 6) as a percentage of total PhD enrolment. This indicator is available by country of origin. The disadvantage of this indicator is that they refer to all tertiary or all PhD students, rather than specifically S&E students, and there is no information as to whether or not the students remain in the country after graduation. Table A-5 in the Annex gives some details about the changes in the proportion of foreign students in host countries.

The share of foreign doctoral students in the total doctoral enrolment is around 40% in the UK and Switzerland, the largest European destination countries, followed by France and Belgium (whereas data on Germany is again absent). Each European host country (on which data are available) has increased the share of foreign doctoral student enrolment between 1998 and 2006 except for Slovakia. (Figure 4)

Figure 4 Share of foreign doctoral students, 2006 as a % of total doctoral

enrolment in host country

Source: OECD STI Scoreboard 2009

For more details and time series on the number of foreign doctoral students across the EU27, see Table A-5. Looking at the magnitude of international doctoral students by host country they are less than 2,000 in most European countries. (Figure 5)


15

Figure 5 Number of international doctoral students by host country, 2006

Source: OECD STI Scoreboard 2009.

If we compare Europe's performance on a global level, the United States hosted the largest foreign doctoral population, with more than 92,000 students from abroad in 2006, followed by the United Kingdom (38,000) and France (28,000). (Figure 5) This is a clear indication of the international attractiveness of US universities and research opportunities.

European universities enrol large shares of doctoral students from other European countries. The existence of exchange programmes (e.g. Erasmus) are, in addition to traditional cultural and historical ties and geographical proximity, all factors promoting intra-European student mobility.

With regards to gender issues, female doctoral students constitute less than 50% of mobile students in each country. Women, whose presence among doctoral graduates has grown over the years, are still enrolling in smaller numbers than men. The percentage of female doctoral students was above 40% in most countries. Their proportion was the lowest in Slovakia, Estonia, Norway, Belgium and Canada (35% and under). During their years of study women are more mobile than during their working lives. Spreading virtual mobility might be useful in involving more women in brain circulation.

The importance of brain circulation is highly appreciated by the EU. However, brain losses are avoidable for Europe as a whole and for less advanced EU member states. So attractiveness is not only an issue for increasing the inflow of foreign researchers into Europe and from one member state to another one, but is also an issue of how national systems can keep European researchers in their own countries.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) indicator is a very useful tool to gain a better understanding of the attractiveness of European countries for their own research communities (and for internationals too.) The WEF indicator is characterised to some extent by the


16

differences in the mobility patterns of countries, although this indicator is less accurate from a statistical point of view.

Figure 6 clearly shows the strong relationship between relatively high proportion of R&D jobs and countries’ capabilities to keep their own researchers.

Figure 6 Average WEF score for the lack of brain drain / brain gain,

Change from 2004 to 2010

Source: Total R&D personnel data (2004 and 2008) from Eurostat online database, brain drain data from WEF Global Competitiveness Report, 2010-2011 and from 2003-2004. : http://www.cap-lmu.de/fgz/statistics/brain-drain.php Notes: 1) Brain drain is judged by the following question: Does your country retain and attract talented people? (1 = no, the best and brightest normally leave to pursue opportunities in other countries; 7 = yes, there are many opportunities for talented people within the country), 2008–2009; 2003-2004 weighted averages. 2) The direction of the arrows points from 2004 to 2010. 3) At each countries from 2003-2004 to 2010-2011 As figure shows Sweden, Great Britain, Germany and France (and somehow the Netherlands) have relatively high proportion of R&D jobs and these countries had not only good position in 2004 to avoid brain losses but they were able to improve their position by 2010. These countries can offer many opportunities for talented people: they are very attractive for talented people and, in addition to keeping their own researchers and they gain more from other countries. Conversely, many EU Member States suffer a loss of talent. Even if Spain has increased the proportion of R&D jobs from 2004 to 2008 the country lost her attractive position she is just keeping the brains. The hardly attracting and more loosing countries are some other Southern European countries, such as Italy, and Greece and NMS such as Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, and Poland. (Only spot data are available for several other NMS e.g. Romania, Slovakia, and Bulgaria. By data on 2010 they are among low R&D job offering countries and losing their talents.) These loosing countries are forcing their talented people to find opportunities in other countries or regions, while mobile people avoid these less attractive regions. Even if these less advanced regions can engage in brain circulation they are usually the net losers of the process.

Brain drain / brain

gain

Loosing

Keeping

Attracting


17

Attractiveness of European countries The ability to attract researchers, non-researcher HRST or students are different

issues. Many different economic, social and educational factors influence the inflow of doctoral candidates or researchers.

The best statistical information for mapping the attractiveness of doctoral students in different countries can be found in the OECD/UNESCO/Eurostat project of Careers of doctorate-holders data collection (OECD/UNESCO/Eurostat 2010) and the IPTS-IISER project. Data from these projects are applied here. Although none of these cover all EU member states, they do provide relevant information.

Table 1 Destination of doctoral candidates

Rank Country TOTAL Own

country

Intra

EU

Other

European

countries

Africa

North-

Central

America

South

America Asia

1 France 23.2 19.9 21.1 39.7 75.8 14.0 17.8 29.4 2 United

Kingdom 20.5 16.3 44.7 19.0 12.3 46.3 7.9 57.8

3 Spain 17.6 18.9 10.8 1.4 3.7 34.1 63.2 1.5 4 Italy 8.6 10.8 1.4 4.2 0.7 0.7 1.9 0.9 Share of TOP-4 69.9 65.9 78.0 64.3 92.5 95.1 90.8 89.6

5 Czech 5.3 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 Sweden 5.1 5.3 6.2 9.2 1.0 1.8 1.1 3.3 7 Finland 4.9 5.9 2.4 4.8 0.4 0.6 0.2 1.6 8 Portugal 4.0 4.8 0.8 1.3 1.8 0.4 5.9 0.2 9 Austria 3.6 3.6 7.7 9.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 2.2

10 Slovakia 2.1 2.8 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 11 Hungary 1.8 2.2 0.4 5.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 12 Belgium 1.6 1.4 3.1 2.6 3.2 1.0 1.4 1.4

TOTAL-16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: IPTS-IISER project, Researchers coming into the EU, 2007 based on EUROSTAT data. How to read: 75, 8% of doctoral candidates in the EU-16 from Africa are located in France. Note: Data are available only for 16 EU MSs (From large countries is not available for Germany.) Among 16 countries the share by broad regions is less than 2% for Denmark and less than 1% if any for Estonia, Cyprus and Malta.)

As Table 1 clearly shows, there are four European countries that host at least two thirds of foreign doctoral students coming from the large geographic regions. The share of these countries hosts more than 90% of the doctoral students coming from the Americas. As Auriol (2010) summarised

'In the European countries for which data are available, 15% to 30% of doctorate

holders who are citizens of the reporting country have experienced mobility abroad

during the past ten years. Migration and mobility patterns of doctoral graduates are

similar to those of other tertiary level and other categories of the population with

important flows towards the United States, principally from the Asian countries, and

large intra-European flows, notably towards France, Germany and the United

Kingdom. While a number of foreign graduates receive their doctorate in the host

country, a large share (and the majority in the Western European countries for which

data are available) have acquired their doctoral degree out of the host country and

experienced mobility afterwards. Mobility of doctorate holders is driven by a variety

of reasons that can be academic, job related as well as family and personal.''

According to the data collection of OECD et al. (2010) intra-European flows

dominate mobility in the European countries, representing in the countries for which data are


18

available 60% to 75% of the total movements. Denmark stands as an exception to this with however 47% of its doctoral citizens having experienced mobility elsewhere in Europe. While intra-European mobility dominates, the United States is one of the three main destination countries for doctorate holders from all countries. The three large European countries (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) come next among the top destination countries cited. Destination choices also reflect linguistic preferences as well as geographical proximity or cultural and historical links, as in the case of other migration flows. (Auriol 2010, p. 20.)

The attractiveness of leading European countries is still lagging behind the United States, where a large inflow of doctorate holders of Asian origin (such as Chinese, Indian and South Korean) characterises the mobility situation. The presence of Asians is even more significant at the level of doctoral education, reaching two-thirds of all foreign students. Attractiveness between academic organisations

The world famous Nobel Prize milieus could attract researchers from all over the world. Well equipped US labs are attracting many researchers from all over the world. Many non-American born Nobel Prize laureates from different scientific fields emphasised in their speech that they had come to America to test their theory there. They found a large pool of excellent researchers with whom to discuss their work. At present, few European research labs are important meeting places for emerging fields of science. Shorter or longer temporary work there could upgrade the scientific career for many young researchers.

One of the important functions of European Research Council is to fund frontier research projects. As the preliminary ‘self assessment’ (p. 6) stated, although the ERC operations have only been running for a few years and will need a longer time to yield the expected impact, there are some important structural impacts. One of them that are crucial for European researchers is mobility. Thus, a number of institutions try to make them more attractive to become an important location – meeting place – for ERC Grantees. These universities and research institutions are encouraging ERC Grantees to choose their institutions as host environment. The best performing and highest ranked European institutions took part in and were among the winners in ERC competitions. They may take into account as a relevant meeting place for European researchers and the availability of these places are backed up by ERC.

Table 2 List of most successful institutions with the number of their grantees

Rank Name of the organisation Nr. of ERC grantees

1 CNRS 47 2 The University of Cambridge 27 3 The University of Oxford 25 4 Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne 24 5 Max Planck Gesellshaft E. V. 23 6 Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich 22 7 Weizmann Institute 20 8 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine 20 9 The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 20

10 University College London 19 Source: Interim evaluation of the 7th Framework Programme “Self-assessment”, circa.europa.eu/FP7 Interim

Evaluation Table 2 shows the top 10 institutions hosting ERC Grantees, 6 of them located in EU

member states, including the University of Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial College and University College London are British, while CNRS is a large French organization, covering many institutions as well as the Max Planck institutes in Germany. There are 4 institutions in contracted countries. These labs also can profit from hosting gifted talents.


19

Knowledge flows between firms and public research sectors It is a delicate issue to map knowledge flows between the public research sector and

firms. It is assumed that this type of mobility speeds up the diffusion of new knowledge and promotes the access to not only codified but also to tacit knowledge. This can occur in many different ways, and may be the taking of a permanent position in another sector or merely temporary exchanges. Inter-organisational collaborations such as academia/industry, academia/public sector (state administration, health sector, local government) co-operations are devoted not only to R&D but innovations too.

Industry/academia collaboration with foreign partners is very limited in Europe. According to the latest available innovation survey data (2004-06) the total share of firms collaborating on innovation with partners across Europe ranges from less than 2% in Spain and Turkey to over 13% in Finland, Luxembourg and Slovenia. Collaboration with partners outside Europe is much less frequent and concerns between 1% and 5% of firms in most European countries. Overall, innovating firms from the Nordic countries and some small European economies (Belgium, Luxembourg and Slovenia) tend to collaborate more frequently with partners abroad. (OECD STI Scoreboard 2008, p. 124) It must be noted that this international collaboration performance includes not only industry/academia collaboration but also customers and suppliers, who are more sizeable partners than academia. Multinational companies are important initiators in this mobility process.

Part 4. Mobility-related policies toward ERA

EU programs and national programs support one another in the performance of ERA. Framework programmes expressing joint European aims are supported at the EU level, and national programmes decided in National Action Plans clearly demonstrate how joint European targets are becoming national actions.

In the last decade, several European countries have been actively promoting the in-migration of skilled scientists and engineers or adjusting their immigration policies to encourage immigration by highly skilled workers, thus following the US immigration model. In discussing the programmes, the incoming and outgoing HRST must be borne in mind, which is the targeted population for EU national programs, is a minute fraction not only of inhabitants but of HRST population too. However its role - as brain gain, brain loss, brain circulation - goes far beyond its percentage. That is why STI policymakers are paying special attention to this tiny population. The main European targets in the mirror of FP7 The present European targets are deeply rooted in ERA policy aims and in previous FPs. Most of the mobility-related progress is overarched by the FPs, allowing us to observe how national policies have introduced common goals.

The broad policy goals of ERA initiatives are defined by the Commission in partnership with EU member states in order to contribute to the implementation of the work programme, national legislation and so on. In 2005 the European Charter and Code made clear the value of mobility:

“Employers and/or funders must recognise the value of geographical, inter-sectoral,

inter- and trans-disciplinary and virtual (i.e. remote collaboration over electronic

networks) mobility as well as mobility between the public and private sector as an

important means of enhancing scientific knowledge and professional development at

any stage of a researcher's career. Consequently, they should build such options into


20

the specific career development strategy and fully value and acknowledge any mobility

experience within their career progression/appraisal system.

This also requires that the necessary administrative instruments be put in place to

allow the portability of both grants and social security provisions, in accordance with

national legislation.”

In April 2007, the European Commission's Green Paper on the European Research

Area reconfirmed the importance of these two areas of action for the realisation of a European Research Area: a high level of mobility of researchers between countries and institutions and fully opening up academic research positions across Europe. In 2008, the EC Communication on mobility and careers [182] proposed the development of a partnership with member states to ensure that researchers across Europe could benefit from attractive careers and from the removal of barriers to their mobility (including the introduction of systematic open recruitment of European researchers).6 The ERA Expert Group Report (2008, EUR 23321) on Realising a Single Labour Market for Researchers has identified the policy options in order to progressively eliminate the obstacles hampering researchers’ mobility. The implementations of several conditions by different actors will determine whether Europe does indeed become a single labour market for researchers and an attractive location for non-European talents. The European Commission can lead this process but member states have to be very active in matching legislation, regulations, measures and programmes.

The Expert Group summarised the policy options in four cornerstones: 1.) Attraction, ethical recruitment and retention of researchers

2.) Mobility in all its facets (geographical, sector, disciplinary and ‘demographic’)

3.) Researcher-friendly social security and supplementary pension systems

4.) The European Charter for researchers and the Code of Conduct their recruitment

as a dynamic process (Charter and Code)

FP7 is focusing on these options and continuing previous initiatives either through modifications of the previous actions or launching new ones. Generally speaking, a lot was accomplished in line with these policy options to move towards the European Research Area in the mid-2000s. However plenty of tasks remained for FP7.

Cornerstones 1 and 2 are reflected in the Marie Curie Actions (IEF, ERG, COFUND, IRG, IRSS and Policy Support actions). It may be observed in practice through EURAXESS how researcher recruiting policies have changed. More and more academic jobs (researcher, research associate) are advertised internationally, and competition for positions has increased. However there are still important differences between countries and main geographic regions with respect to their legal, political, and economic environments that have an important influence on the mobility and relocation of researchers. EURAXESS (Researchers in Motion and EURAXESS Links) supports ethical recruitment policies and the openness of the researcher labour market. Both the Commission and member states are active in performing these activities.7

6 EU 2008, STC Report 2008/09

7 The EURAXESS "Researchers in Motion" activities, which include in particular the former European Researchers' Mobility Portal and the ERA-MORE network to assist and inform mobile researchers and their families, contributed to breakthroughs towards a labour market for researchers within the ERA. In the first half of 2010: nearly 40,000 individual visitors/month on "EURAXESS Researchers in Motion" as a whole; more than 4,000 active registered organisations, and 15,000 researchers' active CVs/month on the EURAXESS Job Portal). EURAXESS Links supports collaboration between European Researchers in Europe and foreign scientists abroad, and helps European researchers to return in Europe. It connects more than 3,000 members, particularly in the US and was extended to Japan, (2008),


21

Progress towards the implementation of a researcher-friendly social security and supplementary pension system is moving slowly. Cornerstone 3 is in its preparatory phase. (Hewitt report 2010)

The fourth cornerstone is on its way. The European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for recruitment, describing researchers' entitlements and obligations and implemented through the Human Resources Strategy, also contributes to the progressive realisation of the ERA, through a constant increase in the number of the undersigning organisations (almost 1,000 at the end of 2009). The Charter and Code was signed by at least one organisation in 23 EU member states from among the EU27 (Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Malta are missing) along with 7 countries outside the EU27 (Croatia, Iceland, Israel, Norway, Russia, Serbia and Switzerland), according to EURAXESS. The number and types of organisations that endorsed this declaration varied in each country.8

Although information as to how member states are implementing these issues is not yet available, the first step for surveying the situation has been made. As the Commission recently launched an invitation to tender (N° RTD-2010-S134-205089) to monitor human resources policies and practices in research, assess the impact of the Scientific Visa package and monitor the implementation of Pan-EU Pension Schemes targeted at researchers. This project will also provide information on research professions in Europe and about how research organisations are incorporating the Charter and Code. However the deadline for application is 30 August 2010 so there are no findings as of yet.

Part 4. Implementation of European targets in national policies

and policy measures

Looking at one of the EU pillars, the free movement of workers within the Community (1968) has some limitations; thus, labour regulations may prevent or may not prevent companies from employing/hiring foreign highly skilled labour. The citizens of new member states do not have complete freedom to be mobile as EU15 countries made different decisions. National regulations may prescribe different limits on the inflow of non-EU nationals.

The aim of the PEOPLE Programme9 in FP7 is the 5th freedom, through the implementation of the ‘European Partnership for Researchers’ (EPR) for better careers and more mobility. The EPR is implemented through National Action Plans (NAPs) in partnership with the Commission in four priority areas: open recruitment, skill, working conditions and

social security. Scattered information is available from various sources on how European countries

are implementing joint European policies that are co-ordinated only on the conceptual level. There are some internationally comparable sources on some of the mobility related issues.

China (2009) and possibly to India and other part of the world in the very coming years. (Self assessment, People Programme, downloaded 2010, 12 of August) 8 Other mobility related regulation issues: visa procedures for third country researchers (scientific visa),

standardised Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with third countries that satisfies both parties.

9 Since the 1st of March 2010, the PEOPLE Programme was transferred to the Directorate-General for Education and Culture. The implementation of the Marie Curie Actions is ensured by the Research Executive Agency (REA), set up by the Commission in December 2007. REA reached its administrative autonomy on 15 June 2009. Until then, a dedicated service of the European Commission was in charge of the operational activities and management of the programme over the life of FP7, REA will manage research projects to a value of €6.4 billion (of which €4.7 billion of the People Programme).


22

A comprehensive but non-exhaustive source is the Trendchart (IPTS, ERAWATCH Programme). The Trendchart country reports allow us to analyse how national policies are including the investigated policy targets. Trendchart reports are available on all EU member states and give a short description of mobility related measures. Apart from the unified structure of the reports there are some differences in the details and quality of descriptions. Evaluation of the measures is scattered. Not all countries are devoting attention to evaluating their measures and countries with good evaluation practices have not evaluated each of their measures.

According to Trendchart reports, the EU27 have launched several actions related to HRST. Some of the programmes in a few countries are fully devoted to the issue of mobility, while some other programmes cover various issues of STI policy (among them, the mobility of researchers and/or students). The number of mobility programs and actions varies from country to country but the differences in numbers are not an accurate reflection of variations in mobility-supporting policies. Sometimes it simply maps programming habits (umbrella programs versus single focus programs.)

In accordance with the Trendchart based information, national actions can be grouped by physical mobility types as follows.

• Geographical mobility

All national programs labelled geographical have an international dimension. The geographic mobility programs differ by their direction of mobility. There are programmes that support both outgoing, incoming mobility and the reintegration of returnees.

Taken from Trendchart, geographical mobility programmes are summarised in Table 3, which provides an overview of international geographical mobility programs. Eleven member states from the EU27 reported these kinds of programs. In this summary, the multipurpose programmes are taken into account as mobility programmes if one of their elements focuses on any kinds of HRST mobility.

Programmes on outflow of researchers and students are encouraging/supporting them to accumulate knowledge and good practices abroad. These programmes usually implicitly assume brain circulation. Some of the programmes are general purpose programmes for international experiences, improving professional quality, knowledge accumulation and transfer, and upgrading linguistic capabilities.

Four countries, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia and Hungary have outflow programmes. These countries are also encouraging inflow of researchers and two of them (Belgium and Hungary) also encourage returnees and support their relocation and reintegration.

Outflow programmes in several countries give precedence to knowledge accumulation in selected fields to upgrade home-country capabilities, such as training researchers in research project administration and in contemporary research methodologies Support the access to international research infrastructure and equipment (Hungary – Development of human resources for basic research).

Inflow programs seek to attract researchers (HRST) from other EU27 and non-EU countries. Few programs have a clear focus on locating world class / best researchers for upgrading research activities in order to strengthen the position of the national community globally (e.g. the Ireland – E.T. S. Walton Visitor Awards, SFI Research Professorship Programme.) Several other countries have set up measures to generate inflow and to attract foreign researchers. Besides those countries already mentioned, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland and Italy have enacted inflow policies.


23

Table 3 Geographical mobility programmes by target activity and by country Target

activity Country Program Title Type

Estonia Doctoral Studies and Internationalisation Programme “DoRa” M

Belgium French-speaking Community - Scientific impulse mandate – ULYSSES mobility F.R.S.-FNRS

S

Öveges József Programme S Development of human resources for basic research M Hungary MOBILITY M O

utf

low

Czech Republic

Mobility Centre M

Brussels-Capital - Research in Brussels S Belgium

Brussels-Capital - Prospective Research for Brussels S Czech Republic

Mobility Centre M

25 % Tax Scheme: Taxation of the Salaries of Well-paid Foreigners and Foreign Researchers M

Denmark Niels Bohr Visiting Professorship S MOBILITAS Programme S

Estonia Doctoral Studies and Internationalisation Programme “DoRa” M

Finland Finland Distinguished Professor Programme (FiDiPro) S BioFuture S

Germany ExistGo-Bio S Development of human resources for basic research M

Hungary MOBILITY M SFI Principal Investigator Programme M SFI Research Professorship programme S E. T. S. Walton Visitor Awards S

Ireland

President of Ireland Young Researcher Awards S

Infl

ow

/ a

ttra

ct f

ore

ign

ers

Italy Tax incentives to non residential researchers S Austria Brain Power Austria S

Brussels-Capital: Brains (Back) to Brussels S Belgium

Federal - Return Grants S

Denmark 25 % Tax Scheme: Taxation of the Salaries of Well-paid Foreigners and Foreign Researchers

S

France Post- PhD initiative programme S

Greece Incorporation of foreign researchers into the Greek R&T system (ENTER)

S

Support for outstanding young researchers M Development of human resources for basic research M R

etu

rnee

s, r

elo

cati

on

,

rein

teg

rati

on

Hungary MOBILITY M

Source: Author’s compilation based on Trendchart Annual Reports.

Notes: S – program targeting one purpose of mobility, M – multi-purpose program that includes various types of mobility.

A special group of incoming researchers are returnees. There are some national programs to attract returnees back home by offering them good research conditions and assisting them in their relocation. These kinds of programs exist in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece and Hungary10. However, the focus of relocation was modified in Greece and France, where measures were made more general in scope rather than merely

10

By the OECD (2010), several countries in Central and Eastern Europe have taken steps to encourage their citizens currently living abroad to return home. (p.62.) These returnee programs are not focusing on HRST.


24

focusing on the diaspora.11 Greece used to have a returnee policy which was subsequently modified, and returnee attraction became a part of its general inflow programme.

Table 4 Spatial limited international mobility programs

Country Regional Bilateral Large geographical

region

Belgium

- Wallonia - FIRST Spin-off - Brussels-Capital - Prospective Research for Brussels - Brussels-Capital: Brains (Back) to Brussels - Wallonia - FIRST PhD Enterprise International (FIRST D.E.I.) - Wallonia - START programme - Flanders: Odysseus programme - French-speaking Community - Scientific impulse mandate – ULYSSES mobility F.R.S.-FNRS

- -

Bulgaria - Bulgarian-French RILA Programme

-

Ireland - China-Ireland Research Collaboration Fund

North-South Research Partnership Supplement

Malta - - Third Country Researcher Mobility

Slovakia - Several bilateral mobility programmes

-

Source: Author’s compilation based on Trendchart Annual Reports

Geographical mobility programmes promoting or supporting the inflow of researchers differ by their spatial openness / limitations. In addition to national programmes, spatially limited programmes may prioritise a given region (such as Wallonia or Flanders) and make it attractive for foreigners. (Table 4) (See Table A-6 for the number of spatially limited programs by country and Table A-7 for the number of mobility programs limited by fields/sectors by country).

Inflow is supported by regionally limited programs. Few Belgian programs have a strong regional focus in addition to their international dimension. Bilateral and extra EU27 mobility related programs are encouraging bi-direction mobility.

From the Trendchart reports we can identify a single program that is performing the declared EU target to facilitate brain circulation in Europe and to remove obstacles to mobility. This program introduced portable fellowships (Belgian Federal programme: post-doc fellowships for non-EU researchers).

Complementing Trendchart information on geographical mobility from another source shows how countries try to select the best and most appropriate job-seekers for inflow through a point-based system. OECD Migration Outlook (2010) provides some useful information on HRST migration and related policies. The Outlook focuses not only on researchers but on any kind of HRST. According to this report (OECD 2010, p. 58), three European countries have introduced a point-based system for managing labour immigration: the United Kingdom (October 2008), Denmark (July 2008) and the Netherlands (January 2009). A part of this system is HRST focused, such as in the United Kingdom, the point-based system operates under Tier 2, for highly skilled workers who are on a shortage

11 According to OECD Migration Outlook 2010 (p. 62) Lithuania designed a project to encourage the return of highly qualified personnel engaged in scientific research abroad to Lithuania, through organised visits to Lithuanian educational and scientific institutions.


25

occupation list, are recruited after a resident labour market test or are intra-company transferees. An independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) was created to identify skill shortages, but saw its mandate extended in 2009 to look into broader issues. Shortage occupation lists – an element of the points system – are revised every six months.

The pilot phase of a Czech project to bring in young, qualified people who are interested in permanent resettlement in the country has ended and the project is now open to nationals of most non-EU countries. Germany, too, has sought to attract more highly-

qualified migrants in the context of international competition for skills and increasing shortages of skilled workers in some sectors, in the framework of an action programme. Measures in 2009 included exemption from the labour market test for all migrants from the new EU member countries holding a tertiary degree, as well as any others with a tertiary degree from a German institution. The latter, however, must have an employment offer commensurate with their qualification level.

In August 2009 Lithuania simplified the immigration of family members of highly-

qualified specialists, for scientists and researchers and for some other categories of employees; family members may now accompany the workers in these categories, rather than wait two years. It also simplified employment procedures for highly-qualified workers from non-EEA countries by removing the need for work permits in some occupations, while speeding up their processing for others.

• Virtual mobility

Virtual mobility has always been present throughout the history of science. However, the age of information technology has significantly increased its opportunities and its roles. Virtual mobility is increasingly taking precedence over other forms of mobility. 'Virtual inflow’ is an additional tool that can mobilize the involvement of the best non-European researchers in FP7. Pure virtual mobility programs are still rare (Finland's MOTIVE program with China; Sweden's Global links for Strong Research and Innovation Milieus).

• Mixed (collaboration, networking, platform based) mobility

Mixed mobility is more and more common in Europe, and the number of national schemes supporting collaborative projects is increasing. All of these programs have recurring short-term mobility elements. Networks and platforms are important for the development of international connections and for supporting conferencing and publication opportunities and inter-disciplinarily as well as, from the perspective of supervisors, institutional links. Research collaboration programmes implicitly or explicitly include virtual mobility. (Table A-8)

• Sectoral mobility

By employers both inter-sectoral and intra-sectoral mobility are present in the programmes.

Inter-sectoral mobility

Important mobility programmes are the Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways in FP7. In the majority of cases, national programmes serve to stimulate inter-sectoral mobility, that is, collaborations between academia (university) and industry including start-ups and spin-offs for commercialising research findings. Although these programmes usually support domestic collaborations, they do not exclude foreign collaboration. Most of the multi-purpose programmes supporting industry-academia collaborations include mobility for shorter or longer terms. The mobility issue is only one of the tools that can support


26

stronger relationships between industry and academia; however its specificity is its recurrent

character. Intra-sectoral mobility

As for programmes supporting intra-sectoral mobility, these relate to geographic (international) mobility. Several old and new programmes are encouraging cross-country mobility inside the academic circle.

Naturally there are no intra-sectoral governmental supporting programmes for B2B mobility. In this respect, the most important role of the governments is to eliminate or at least to decrease the number of factors impeding mobility.

Attracting to sectors

Any mobility program may focus on all fields of science/economy or may select a few fields that are faced with a shortage of human resources or skills. Over the last decade, one such field was information technology. In this decade, biotechnology or food and health industry researchers are the most sought after. Because of differences in the balance of the researcher labour market, several national programmes encourage inflow in selected economic

fields/sectors. Some countries prefer the inflow of researchers with sector-relevant skills. In a broad sense, these programmes are performing the task of attracting appropriate HRST.

Table 5 gives a summary of those programs which focus on a specific scientific field and/or economic sector.

Table 5 Field / sector specific mobility programs

Country Programs Open for

Cyprus DIDACTOR - PhD Degrees in Cooperation with Enterprises Manufacturing, tourism and services

Denmark Research programme for substances similar to hormones Food and health industry

Finland - The Research Programme on Nutrition, Foods and Health (ELVIRA) - Ubiquitous computing and diversity of communication (MOTIVE) cooperation between Academy of Finland and National Natural Science Foundation, China

- Nutrition, food and health industry - ICT

Germany - BioFuture - The Humanities in the Social Dialogue - ExistGo-Bio

Biotechnology Humanities Biotechnology

Hungary - Development of human resources for basic research - MOBILITY

Technical, natural, life, social sciences Technical, natural, life sciences

Ireland - SFI Principal Investigator Programme - SFI Research Professorship programme - President of Ireland Young Researcher Awards

∑Biotechnology and ICT


As the table 5 shows, Germany and Ireland are focusing on biotech experts, while the inflow of ICT experts is still important for Finland and Ireland. Food and health experts are preferred in Denmark and Finland, while the preferences of Cyprus and Hungary diverge from global trends. (To see the list of sectoral mobility programmes by countries, see Table A-9 in the Annex).

Mobiles There are two different layers of mobiles who merit special attentions: women and students.


27

• Women Mobility of women HRST is a delicate issue for the European labour market. Well-

educated European female doctorate holders are still a great potential pool of HRST. Beyond the European documents focusing on the relevant conditions for female mobility, national programmes are rarely attempt to tap this reservoir. Trendchart annual reports contain only one programme that is devoted to female mobility (VINNMER in Sweden).

• Mobility of future HRST Students are a potential source of HRST, particularly at the PhD level. In recent years

the international migration of students has played a growing role in the global mobility system. Student mobility supports cross-cultural education and communication: the new generation can adapt to globalised knowledge economies, and will be more open-minded with respect to working abroad or cross-border collaborations. Brain circulation may become a routine experience for them. International student migration can be a win-win situation for both hosting and sending countries.

Post graduates are often viewed as creators of new knowledge who have the potential to contribute directly or indirectly to economic growth. Both during and after their studies, doctoral students contribute to the advancement of research in the host country. When returning home, they bring back with them new competencies and connections with international research networks. In both their home and host countries, students are an important prospective source of supply for hiring foreign S&E. The international mobility of students gives potential employers a good opportunity to attract the best and brightest candidates with whom they have become acquainted through their networking activities.

As the OECD has stated (2010 p. 62): ‘There is evidence that increasing numbers of global firms are actively targeting international students for recruitment. Overall international student policy has now become a tool in the international competition for high level skills. As the most popular destination countries of foreign students can make good income for educational institutions and they are in better position to become employer for post-study work, policy focus must be different in favourite student destination countries from student launching countries.” According to the OECD report (2010), in the United Kingdom, Tier 4 of the new

point-based immigration management system relates to students. All educational institutions wishing to recruit international students must be on a list of sponsors approved by the UK Border Agency, a branch of the Home Office. Universities and other education providers are unable to recruit non-EEA students if they are not listed. The cost of a student visa fee has also been increased. In Luxembourg the main concern has been the right of international students to work while studying. Legal changes in August 2008 defined the conditions of residence for students coming from third world countries to register with the University of Luxembourg. Whatever their nationality, students have the right to work under certain

conditions but they must obtain a student’s residence permit. In Sweden the government has assigned a number of universities and colleges to arrange supplementary courses for people with a foreign university degree. Lithuania has taken steps to facilitate entry. Students from third countries may come to Lithuania with the national D visa valid for one year and in this case do not need to apply for a residence permit (“Rules on visa issuance”).

FP7 creates a good framework for student circulation within Europe and between Europe and other large regions. One of the aims is to make more institutions relevant destination places and offer good education opportunities to all students and the best possibilities to gifted talents. One of the positive impacts of the student mobility: introduces


28

healthy competition among academic institutions, which contributes to improved levels of education. (Students are voting their feet.)

There is hardly any information on doctoral mobility programmes in Trendchart reports. Various studies on higher education clearly show that member states are continuing their traditional programs for supporting studying abroad while non-traditional host countries are paying growing attention to attract foreign students. These programmes are increasingly reflecting the targets of the European Higher Education Area rather than those of the European Research Area.12

Resource allocation for mobility programmes The allocation of budgetary resources supporting mobility is a delicate issue. It is still

a dream to include mobility as part of the total European budget (EU + National budgets). In particular, difficulties may emerge because mobility measures are frequently just a part of the multi-purpose programmes and that it is hard to separate the mobility content as only the overall budgets are known.

Taking into account only those programs whose main purpose is to support HRST mobility, 37 programs can be identified within 19 EU member states. It is not easy to add up their budgets, given that, in accordance with the national budgeting practice, overall budgets are only partially available for single purpose programmes. The budget is known for the majority of the single purpose, close-ended programmes. However, some countries make budgeting decisions only on an annual basis even if the program is close-ended.

Financial support may have other form than budgetary allocations. Two countries (Denmark and Italy) apply tax incentives for encouraging mobility that are hard to calculate in advance. Table 6 gives a summary of the known budgets of mobility-focused national programs, while Table A-10 in the Annex presents budget information by mobility programmes.

12

EU launched student mobility programme (Erasmus) has important role in many EU MSs. Student mobility has grown very fast in NMSs since 1995 (started with Socrates I. programme). The number of participating students was 7 times more in 2007-08 (LLP-Erasmus) than between 1995-2000 (Socrates I) from NMSs. The share of NMSs in Socrates-I was only 3% to EU27 and became 19% in LLP Erasmus by 2007-08. The growth rate of student mobility was much slower in EU17 however the increase was remarkable between Socrates-I and Socrates-II. The proportion of yearly mobile student is much more stable in EU17 than in EU10. For further analysis it is important to accumulate more facts.


29

Table 6 National budgets for mobility-focused programs Budget in million EUR Countries Number of

programs Known Not available

Austria 1 1.5 Belgium 8 26.9 (+) Bulgaria 2 1.3 (+) Cyprus 1 0.4 Czech Rep. 1 + Denmark 3 45.4 Estonia 1 20.3 Finland 1 32.5 France 2 + Germany - - + Greece 1 3.3 Hungary 2 13.2 Ireland 5 60.9 Italy 1 0 Latvia - - + Lithuania 1 + Luxemburg 1 6.3 Malta 2 + Netherlands 2 4.5 (+) Poland - - + Romania - - + Slovakia 1 + Slovenia 1 4.0 Spain - - Sweden 1 32.0 (+)

Source: Author’s compilation based on Trendchart Annual Reports.

Note: + = no any budget data are given (+) = budget data are not complete

The problem for fact-based policymaking is the lack of consistency across countries and the failure to collect adequate data for constructing comparable indicators.

Conclusions and recommendations

Europe as a whole has seen a remarkable growth in the numbers of science and technology professionals during the last decade, but this growth was not strictly due to a European dynamism. The EU is still lagging behind the USA which seems to be much more attractive for researchers and enjoys a significantly higher inflow than EU Member States. Since 2000 the mobility of researchers outside of the EU27 has grown around 11%, while those with EU27 citizenship grown around 8%. There are important differences among the EU27 Member States in their attractiveness for researchers and for doctoral students. The intra-European flows dominate mobility in European countries. In the EU27, the process is still strongly characterised by westward mobility. In overall, researchers within the countries of the EU15 are still more mobile than within the ten new Member States. A further harmonization of efforts is required to improve and to balance the attractiveness of the various regions within the EU.

An important group of mobile HRST are PhD / doctoral students. Studying abroad is deeply rooted in the European history and influences their mobility in a positive way in their late career phase. Generally the share of foreign PhD students is around 20% (of total PhD students) in many western European countries, while this figure is below 10% in many southern- and CEE countries.

A further reserve for HRST mobility could be women. Currently there are hardly any support schemes that take the special situation of female HRST into account and that


30

offer solution on how to increase their participation in the labour market and in HRST mobility.

The successful development of the European Research Area largely depends on how Member States implement the actions and budgets for the common European goals in the national legislations. Surveying these programmes on the base of Trendchart country reports may identify those national policies/programmes that are national partners to FP7 mobility related actions. European nations are making a progress in the creation of mobility framework conditions.

The majority of national programmes are rather quantity than quality based. Countries are seeking to attract a lot of well-educated, highly skilled people and are paying less attention to get the best highly skilled ones. Only a few programmes focus directly on finding the best and most appropriate researchers by the programme screening.

As regards the internationalisation of academia/industry mobility, the majority of national programmes merely include an international dimension but do not focus on it.

The mobility of European researchers is not only a research policy matter. It needs the collaboration of different EU polices (labour market, migration, innovation, education) as well as collaboration with national and regional policies. Beyond the ERA-NET scheme it may be necessary to create another appropriate instrument to foster a significant shift from the Member States towards a real coordination of regulations and programmes.

Based on the screening of information we can state that more investment is required in the development of relevant HRST and especially that of researcher mobility statistics. The scarcity of reliable data is a burdening factor on the efforts to analyze mobility processes and to develop a fact-based mobility policy either on national or on EU level. The present lack of good mobility indicators and the scarcity of relevant data on HRST cross-country and cross sectoral mobility are crying for more investment in the development of relevant HRST mobility statistics. To improve the competitiveness of Europe for the best and brightest researchers and for the most appropriate HRST it is necessary to assess trends overtime. Regular and repeated data collection is unavoidable. Several new indicators require new survey work. Beyond that some of the existing indicators have to complete international dimension.

Maybe the picture on national programmes will slightly change if more detailed information becomes available from other sources. Strengthened and continued efforts are necessary to facilitate the monitoring of ERA-mobility related national policies and regulations. It may be necessary to create another appropriate instrument. Although intra-EU mobility is vital for ERA, third countries are also important actors in the European mobility landscape. So it is essential to continue the ‘opening the ERA to the world’ which is the further policy and programme adjustment to reinforce mobility policy and actions.


31

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to express her gratitude to the members of FP7 interim evaluation expert panel for their inspirative questions and valuable comments to earlier version of this report. She also thanks the tireless assistant work to Laszlo Csonka, Zsolt Mohácsi and Fruzsina Keszıcze.

References

EU:

EC (2010) Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Brussels EC: PEOPLE Work Programme 2010, 2009 & 2008, Brussels EC (2009): Marie Curie: A decade of building a single market for European research,

Brussels EC (2009) On the progress made under the 7th European Framework Programme for

Research, Brussels EC (2008): Evidence on the main factors inhibiting mobility and career development of

researchers, Brussels EC (2008) Strengthening research institutions with a focus on university-based research,

Report of the ERA Expert Group, Brussels EC (2008) Realising a single labour market for researchers, Report of the ERA Expert Group,

Brussels EC (2008) Better Careers and More Mobility: A European Partnership for Researchers,

Brussels EC (2008) Better Careers and More Mobility: A European Partnership for Researchers –

Impact Assessment, Brussels EC (2008) FP6 Final Review: Subscription, Implementation, Participation, Brussels EC (2008) A more research-intensive and integrated European Research Area – Science,

Technology and Competitiveness key figures report 2008/2009, Brussels EC (2006) Creating an Innovative Europe (Expert Group), called Aho Report EC (2006) Mobility of Researchers between Academia and Industry – 12 practical

recommendations, Belgium EC (2005) The European Charter for Researchers – The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment

of Researchers, Brussels EC (2004): Second Implementation Report on „A mobility strategy for the European

Research Area”, Brussels EC (2003): First implementation report on “A mobility strategy for the European Research

Area”, Brussels EC (2002) Commission’s Action Plan for Skills and Mobility, Brussels. EC 1996 International Education and Training of Scientists and Engineers and their

Employment in European Industry, PREST Report, Brussels-Luxembourg EC JRC: Sixth Framework Programme Priority: Structuring the European Research Area –

Human Resources and Mobility, Marie Curie Action, Integrated Information System on European Researchers II, Deliverables 1, 2 & 3. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/research-and-innovation/iiser.cfm

EUROSTAT (2010) Science, technology and innovation in Europe, 2010 edition, Eurostat Statistical Books, Luxembourg


32

Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development 2002-2006, Report of the Expert Group, 2009

Interim evaluation of the 7th Framework Programme “Self assessment”: European Research Council, circa.europa.eu

Interim evaluation of the 7th Framework Programme “Self assessment”: Marie Curie Actions, circa.europa.eu

IPTS (2007): Researchers coming into the EU, Seville IPTS (2007) Intra-EU mobility of researchers, Seville IPTS (2007) Mobility of researchers out of the EU, Seville Mogureou, P., M. P. Di Pietrogiacomo (2008): Stock, Career and Mobility of Researchers in

the EU, JRC, Seville Official Journal of the European Union Council Decision of 19 December 2006 concerning

the specific programme ‘People’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013), 22.2.2007

Official Journal of the European Union Council Decision of 19 December 2006 concerning the specific programme ‘Ideas’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013), 30.12.2006

World Economic Forum (2009): Global Competitiveness Report, 2009-2010, Geneva OECD:

OECD (2010): Career of Doctorate Holders: Employment and mobility patterns, STI Working Paper 2010/4, Paris

OECD, 2002. Proposed standard practise for surveys on research and experimental

development. ‘Frascati Manual’.

OECD (2001): International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, Paris OECD, 1995, The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Manual on the

measurement of human resources devoted to S&T ‘Canberra Manual’,

OECD/GD(95)77, Paris OECD (2010) International Migration Outlook, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2009) Online Education Database, www.oecd.org/education/database

OECD (2009) Science and Technology Scoreboard 2009, www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard Others:

Auriol, L. (2010) Career of Doctorate Holders: Employment and mobility patterns, OECD STI Working Paper 2010/4, Paris

Joan Burelly (2010) Foreign Science and Engineering Students in the United States, InfoBrief SRS, July 2010, NSF

NSF (2010): Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, National Science Board, Arlington Websites:

cordis.europa.eu http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/mariecurieactions/home_en.html http://cordis.europa.eu/mariecurie-actions/ cordis.europa.eu/erawatch ec.europa.eu/euraxess http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/index.htm epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu circa.europa.eu


33

www.researchersmobility.eu/ www.nsf.org http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/PastReports/index.htm http://www.proinno-europe.eu/trendchart Non-official EU-documents:

Åkerblom, Mikael, 1999, ‘Mobility of highly qualified manpower, a feasibility study of the possibilities to construct internationally comparable indicators’, Report for Camire (Eurostat) and the OECD, 14th December.

ETAN-STRATA expert group ‘Human Resources In RTD (including attractiveness of S&T

professions) Final report 21 August 2002’ http://www.usistf.org/download/documents/Reports-ScienceTechnolgy/HR-Technology.pdf

ENMOB: European Network on Human Mobility (HPSE-CT2001-50002, coordinated by A. Ekland, STEP), 2001-2004

Hansen, W., S. Avveduto, A. Inzelt (2003) Brain drain - Emigration flows for qualified scientists, MERIT, CNR & IKU, 2000-2003.

Hewitt for EC (2010) Feasibility Study for a EU Pension Fund for Researchers, n° RTD/DirC/C4/2009/026879

Laafia, Ibrahim and Alex Stimson, 2001, ‘Using the Labour Force Survey data to measure HRST and other S&T indicators on employment’ paper by Eurostat presented in Uruguay, 15-18 October 2001.

ResCar: Collection and analysis of existing data on researchers careers and Implementation of new data collection activities, ERAWATCH Network Asbl, 2007

PoHR: Policies on Human Resources, ERAWATCH Network Asbl, 2006 High Level Task Force on Skills and Mobility, Final Report 2001,

http://www.ecdl.com.cy/assets/mainmenu/129/docs/EU-SkillsMobilityFinalReport.pdf


34

ANNEXES

I. Abbreviations and notions II. Tables and figures

List of tables and figures in Annex Table A-1 Distribution of resources inside the PEOPLE programme Table A-2 Key figures by large geographic regions, 2008 (or nearest available year) Table A-3 Total R&D personnel (in all sectors) as a % of total employment (FTE) Figure A-1 Total R&D personnel as a % of total employment (FTE) in 2008 and 2003 Table A-4 HRST 2008 and in 2002, % Table A-5 Foreign PhD students in hosting countries as a percentage to total PhD

students in EU countries, 2004-2007 (%) Table A-6 Number of spatially limited mobility programs by country Table A-7 Number of mobility programs limited by fields/sectors by country Table A-8 Mobility programmes for international cooperation by country Table A-9 Sectoral mobility programmes by country Table A-10 Budgeting of mobility-focused programs

I. Abbreviations and notions

B2B CIS

Business to business Community Innovation Survey

CLFS Community Labour Force Survey CNRS Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique (French National Center for Scientific

Research) EPR European Partnership for Researchers ERA European Research Area ERAWATCH The European Commission's information platform on European, national and regional

research systems and policies. Its main objectives are to support policy-making in the research field in Europe and to contribute to the realisation of the European Research Area

ERC European Research Council ESF European Science Foundation EU15 EU member states prior to EU enlargement on 1 May 2004. EU27 Current EU member states (2010) EURAXESS Researchers in Motion (EU service) Extra EU27 Non EU-member countries (any countries outside EU member states) FP Framework Programme (numbers mean the rank of FPs) FTE Full Time Equivalent HE Higher Education HRST Human Resources in Science and Technology HRSTC Core of Human Resources in Science and Technology IISER Integrated Information System on European Researchers IPR Intellectual Property Rights IPTS The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies ISCED International Standard Classification of Education ISCO International Standard Classification of Occupations ICT Information and Communication Technologies LFS Labour Force Survey MAC Migration Advisory Committee


35

NAPs National Action Plans NMSs New Member States are those countries which joined to EU in 2004 or latter. NSF National Science Foundation OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development QSEs Qualified Scientists and Engineers R&D Research and Development REA Research Executive Agency RTD Research, Technology and Development S&E Science and Engineering SET Scientists, Engineers and Technicians UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation WEF World Economic Forum


36

II. Tables and figures

Table A-1 Distribution of resources inside the PEOPLE programme

Actions

Indicative budget

share 2007-2013 (%)

Budget 2008

(EUR million)

Budget 2009

(EUR million)

Budget 2010

(EUR million)

1 Initial training of researchers around 40 185.0 145.0 243.8

2 Life-long training and career development (including Co-funding)

between 25-30 147.0 201.0 202.0

3 Industry-academia pathways and partnerships

5 to 10 45.0 65.0

4 International dimension-World Fellowships

25 to 30 93.3 86.0 86.0

5 Specific Policy actions around 1 6.9 5.9 3.5

Actions not subject to open calls for proposals

5.5 4.7

Expert and Reviewer Evaluators

6.8 7.7

Total 477.1 515.1 547.7

Source: EC (2009) 2010 Work Programme ’People’ p. 44, EC (2008) Work Programme 2009 ’People’ p. 34-35, EC (2008) Work Programme 2008 ’People’, p. 30-31.

Table A-2 Key figures by large geographic regions, 2008 (or nearest available year)

Regions /countries

Population in

Million*

Total R&D

personnel (FTE)

in

Million**

Total R&D personnel

(FTE) to total employment;

%**

GDP at market prices,

€/inhabitant***

GDP at market

prices, billions of

€

European Union (27 countries)

497.6 2.46 1.11 25100 12511.6

China 1337.4 1.74 0.23 n.a. n.a. Japan 127.6 0.94 1.46 25000 3313.3 South Korea n.a. 0.27 1.15 n.a. n.a. USA 304.2 n.a. n.a. 32000 9769.6 Source: Own compilation based on EUROSTAT online database. Population data for China, Japan, and USA are

from OECD online database. Notes: * 2008 population data are provisional / projected. ** EU27 data is Eurostat estimate, all other data refers to 2007. *** Data for Japan refers to 2007.


37

Table A-3 Total R&D personnel (in all sectors) as a % of total employment (FTE)

Country 2008 2003

Luxembourg (Grand-Duché) *2.34 2.14 Finland 2.24 2.42

Iceland 1.76 1.9 Denmark **1.69 1.54 Sweden **1.69 1.69

Japan : 1.4 France : 1.39

Norway *1.42 1.29 Austria **1.41 : Germany (including ex-GDR from 1991) **1.33 1.32 Belgium *1.32 1.28 European Union (15 countries) 1.24 1.14

Russian Federation 1.23 1.47 United Kingdom *1.22 **1.13

Korea (Republic of) (South) : 0.84 Slovenia 1.16 0.76 European Union (27 countries) 1.11 1.02

Spain 1.06 0.88 Netherlands *1.03 1.06 Czech Republic 1.02 0.59 Italy *1.01 0.73 Portugal *0.94 0.5 Ireland 0.92 0.8 Lithuania 0.83 0.67 Greece : 0.75 Estonia *0.77 0.7 Hungary 0.71 0.59 Croatia 0.65 0.6 Slovakia 0.64 0.62 Latvia 0.58 0.48 Malta *0.56 0.28 Bulgaria *0.51 0.55 Poland *0.47 0.57 Cyprus *0.34 0.28 Romania 0.32 0.36

Turkey : 0.18 China (excluding Hong Kong) : 0.15

Source: EUROSTAT online database Notes: * provisional value ** estimated value


38

Figure A-1 Total R&D personnel as a % of total employment (FTE) in 2008 and 2003

Source: Own compilation based on EUROSTAT online database


39

Table A-4 HRST 2008 and in 2002, %

Total HRST,

thousands

Total HRST as % of

total population Country

2008 2002

Change

2008/2002

(%) 2008 2002

Change

2008/2002

(pp) EU27 90295 n.a. n.a. 18.1 n.a. n.a. Germany 17454 15702 111 21.2 19 2.2

United Kingdom 12120 10038 121 19.8 17 2.9

France 11766 9531 123 18.4 15.5 2.9

Spain 8953 6377 140 19.8 15.6 4.2

Italy 8807 n.a. n.a. 14.8 n.a. n.a.

Poland 5491 n.a. n.a. 14.4 n.a. n.a.

Netherlands 3955 3428 115 24.1 21.3 2.8 Belgium 2260 1892 119 21.2 18.4 2.8

Romania 2197 n.a. n.a. 10.2 n.a. n.a.

Sweden 2170 1901 114 23.6 21.3 2.3

Switzerland 2062 n.a. n.a. 27.2 n.a. n.a.

Czech Republic 1878 1492 126 18.1 14.6 3.5

Greece 1594 1196 133 14.2 10.9 3.3

Hungary 1480 1180 125 14.7 11.6 3.1

Austria 1451 1206 120 17.4 15 2.5

Denmark 1368 1191 115 25 22.2 2.8

Finland 1287 1134 113 24.3 21.8 2.5

Portugal 1175 814 144 11.1 7.9 3.2

Norway 1152 1043 110 24.3 23.1 1.3

Bulgaria 1106 n.a. n.a. 14.5 n.a. n.a.

Ireland 882 589 150 20 15.1 4.9

Slovakia 823 n.a. n.a. 15.2 n.a. n.a.

Lithuania 651 513 127 19.3 14.8 4.6

Latvia 433 n.a. n.a. 19.1 n.a. n.a.

Slovenia 390 294 133 19.4 14.7 4.7

Estonia 289 258 112 21.6 19 2.6

Cyprus 167 123 136 21.2 17.4 3.7

Luxembourg 99 70 141 20.5 15.8 4.7 Iceland 73 53 138 23.1 18.5 4.6

Malta 49 n.a. n.a. 11.9 n.a. n.a.

Source: EUROSTAT online database


40

Table A-5 Foreign PhD students in hosting countries as a percentage to total PhD

students in EU countries, 2004-2007 (%)

Country 2007 2006 2005 2004

Greece n.a. n.a. n.a. 0

United Kingdom 51.3 42.7 41.4 40.3

France 37.9 35.8 n.a. n.a. Belgium 29.9 31 30.8 31.3

French speaking community in Belgium (incl. small German- speaking community)

37.7 37.6 37.4 38.0

Flemish speaking community in Belgium 19.5 22.7 22.7 22.4

Spain 21.9 19.2 n.a. 17.5

Sweden 21.7 20.6 20.3 19.9

Denmark 21.5 19.2 18.5 20.4

Austria 21.5 20.9 20.2 21.5

Portugal 9.6 7.7 7.3 7.8

Czech Republic 8.9 8 7.2 7.1

Cyprus 8.8 8.3 10.4 10.9

Finland 8 7.5 7.3 7

Slovenia 7.9 5.5 4.9 n.a.

Hungary 7.5 8.1 8.6 7.4

Bulgaria 6 6.7 7.5 6.9

Italy 5.9 5 4.3 3.6

Malta 5.6 3.1 3.8 11.8

Estonia 4 3.4 n.a. n.a.

Romania 3.1 3.7 n.a. n.a.

Poland 2.8 2.9 3.2 n.a.

Slovakia 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.2

Latvia 0.8 0.4 n.a. n.a.

Lithuania 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2

Table A-6 Number of spatially limited mobility programs by country

Limits of mobility programs Country

Number of

programs

Regional Belgium 7 Bulgaria 1 Ireland 1

Ireland 1

Malta 1

Spatial

Bilateral

Slovakia 1



41

Table A-7 Number of mobility programs limited by fields/sectors by country

Limits of mobility programs Country

Number of

programs

Cyprus 1 Denmark 1

Finland 2

Germany 3 Hungary 2

Sectors

Ireland 3


Table A-8 Mobility programmes for international cooperation by country

Country Program Title Type

TRAFO - Transdisciplinary Research Social Sciences, Cultural Studies, and Humanities S Austria NODE - New orientations for democracy in Europe S

Belgium Federal - Post-doc fellowships to non-EU researchers M Bulgarian-French RILA Programme S Bulgaria Research competitions, based on bilateral agreements for S&T cooperation S Research programme for substances similar to hormones M Denmark Innovation accelerating research platforms M

Finland The Research Programme on Nutrition, Foods and Health (ELVIRA) 2006-2010 M Germany The Humanities in the Social Dialogue S

MECENATURA M Hungary "Kozma Laszlo" Programme S Industrial Partnership Research Supplements M Ireland China Ireland Research Collaboration Fund S

Poland Strengthening potential of science staff S Source: Author’s compilation based on Trendchart Annual Reports


42

Table A-9 Sectoral mobility programmes by country

Country Program Title Type

Wallonia - FIRST Spin-off S Belgium Wallonia - START programme S Programme for the Support of Young Researchers (PENEK) S Cyprus DIDACTOR - PhD Degrees in Cooperation with Enterprises S Industrial PhD initiative S Denmark Innovation accelerating research platforms M Support to the recruitment of PhD candidates on an applied research project within an enterprise - CIFRE convention

S France

CNRS Mobility towards higher education programme S Ireland Industrial Partnership Research Supplements M Malta Mobility of researchers between academia and industry S Netherlands Casimir Scheme S Romania Promotion of RDI clusters S

Torres Quevedo S Spain PROFIT S VINNMER S Sweden VINNPRO S



43

Table A-10 Budgets for mobility-focused programs

Country Title of program Overall budget if available

in million EUR

Austria Brain Power Austria 1.5 Brussels-Capital - Research in Brussels The budget is decided

annually Brussels-Capital - Prospective Research for Brussels 8.1 Federal - Return Grants n.a. Flanders: Odysseus programme 12.6 French-speaking Community - Scientific impulse mandate – ULYSSES mobility F.R.S.-FNRS 0.8 Brussels-Capital: Brains (Back) to Brussels 4.2 Wallonia - START programme 1.2

Belgium

Federal - Post-doc fellowships to non-EU researchers n.a. Bulgarian-French RILA Programme n.a. Bulgaria Research competitions, based on bilateral agreements for scientific and technical cooperation 1.3

Cyprus DIDACTOR - PhD Degrees in Cooperation with Enterprises 0.4

Czech R. Mobility Centre n.a. Industrial PhD initiative 33.3 25 % Tax Scheme: Taxation of the Salaries of Well-paid Foreigners and Foreign Researchers Tax deduction

Denmark

Niels Bohr Visiting Professorship 12.1 Estonia MOBILITAS Programme 20.3 Finland Finland Distinguished Professor Programme (FiDiPro) 32.5

CNRS Mobility towards higher education programme n.a. France Post- PhD initiative programme n.a.

Greece Incorporation of foreign researchers into the Greek R&T system (ENTER) 3.3 "Kozma Laszlo" Programme 3.2 Hungary MOBILITY 10.0 SFI Research Professorship programme 46.7 E. T. S. Walton Visitor Awards 4.7 China Ireland Research Collaboration Fund 0.5 President of Ireland Young Researcher Awards 8.8

Ireland

North-South Research Partnership Supplement 0.2 Italy Tax incentives to non residential researchers Tax deduction Luxembourg Training-through-research fellowship 6.3 in 2007

Third Country Researcher Mobility n.a. Malta Mobility of researchers between academia and industry n.a. Casimir Scheme n.a. Netherlands

Rubicon scheme 4.5 annually Slovakia several mobility programmes n.a. Slovenia Co-financing of employment of researchers in enterprises

4.0 Sweden VINNMER 32.0 Source: Author’s compilation based on Trendchart Annual Reports

Date post:	14-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Analysis of Researchers' Mobility€¦ · 5. Various segments of mobility are important in order to...

Documents