Evaluating the uptake and

impact of participation in
the European Framework
Programmes for Research in
Member States
Evaluating the uptake and impact of participation in the European Framework Programmes for
Research in Member States

European Commission
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate A — Policy & Programming Centre
Unit A.2 — Programme Analysis & Regulatory Reform
Contact Ann-Sofie Ronnlund
Email RTD-A2-SUPPORT@ec.europa.eu
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels

Manuscript completed in December 2017

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the
European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019

PDF ISBN 978-92-76-14233-1 doi: 10.2777/07973 KI-01-19-906-EN-N

© European Union, 2019

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by
Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of the European Union, permission must
be sought directly from the copyright holders.
Cover page image: © Lonely # 46246900, ag visuell #16440826, Sean Gladwell #6018533, LwRedStorm #3348265, 2011;
kras99 #43746830, 2012. Source: Fotolia.com
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Evaluating the uptake and

impact of participation in
the European Framework
Programmes for Research in
Member States

The Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services LLP (CSES)

Oxford Research

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

2019 Horizon 2020
Table of Contents

GLOSSARY 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8

1. INTRODUCTION 20
1.1 Aims and objectives of the study ................................................ 20
1.2 Report Structure....................................................................... 22

2. METHODOLOGY 23
2.1 Overview of methodology .......................................................... 23
2.2 Limitations .............................................................................. 27

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 28
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................. 28
3.2 A Theory-based evaluation framework ......................................... 28
3.3 Research & innovation systems .................................................. 29
3.4 Drivers and inhibitors of impacts ................................................. 32
3.5 Typology of FP impacts at national level ....................................... 35
3.6 Country groupings .................................................................... 44

4. AN ANALYSIS FOR OF THE NATIONAL R&I LANDSCAPE AND

POLICIES DURING THE PAST 15 YEARS 49
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................. 49
4.2 R&I policy within the national framework ..................................... 49
4.3 Funding for R&I at national level ................................................. 70
4.4 International collaboration ......................................................... 85

5. AN ANALYSIS OF PATTERNS IN
PARTICIPATION TRENDS IN THE FPS 94
5.1 Introduction – EU R&I funding from a national perspective ............. 94
5.2 Design and assessment of FP6.................................................... 96
5.3 Design and assessment of FP7.................................................. 100
5.4 Design and assessment of Horizon 2020 to date ......................... 106
5.5 Trends over time – national level participation ............................ 109

6. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ADDED VALUE AND

IMPACT OF FP PARTICIPATION 129
6.1 Introduction – context to assessing added value and impacts........ 129
6.2 Scientific impacts from FP participation ...................................... 134
6.3 R&I systems impacts............................................................... 149
6.4 Policy impacts ........................................................................ 156
6.5 Economic and innovation impacts from FP participation ................ 159
6.6 Societal impacts from FP participation ....................................... 169

2 
 

7. A TAXONOMY OF FACTORS CONDUCIVE TO GENERATING

LASTING IMPACT FROM FP PARTICIPATION 174
7.1 General factors inhibiting or driving impacts ............................... 174
7.2 Challenges for small R&I countries/participants with
less experience ...................................................................... 193
7.3 Key impacts and typical drivers and barriers identified
by country groupings .............................................................. 198

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 205

8.1 Overarching conclusions .......................................................... 205
8.2 Recommendations .................................................................. 207

ANNEX A BIBLIOGRAPHY 212

ANNEX B SUPPORTING PARTICIPATION DATA 215

ANNEX C INTERVIEW LIST 232

ANNEX D FP COORDINATION AND PARTICIPATION DATA

PER COUNTRY 242

ANNEX E WORKSHOP REPORT 244

ANNEX E.1 WORKSHOP AGENDA 259

ANNEX E.2 PARTICIPATION LIST 261

ANNEX F SURVEY ANALYSIS 262

Tables
Table 1 Overview of Study Tasks ..................................................................................... 21
Table 2 Task 1 remit ...................................................................................................... 23
Table 3 Horizon 2020 measures ...................................................................................... 35
Table 4 Types of impacts at national level derived from FP participation ............................... 38
Table 5 Indicators for country groupings .......................................................................... 45
Table 6 Typology of countries ......................................................................................... 48
Table 7 Examples of R&I governance ............................................................................... 50
Table 8 Overview of National R&I Systems ....................................................................... 52
Table 9 Framework conditions for R&I .............................................................................. 58
Table 10 Overview of national R&I strategies ...................................................................... 61
Table 11 Lisbon and ERA policy context ............................................................................. 64
Table 12 Level of European influence on national R&I systems .............................................. 68
Table 13 The extent to which R&I performers in your country are able to use
national/regional funding and FP funding as co-funding for their R&I activities ........... 75
Table 14 Overall relevance of thematic and scientific funding priorities supported
through the EU RTD FPs in each period to your country’s R&I strengths .................... 75
Table 15 The extent to which your country’s R&I activities has changed as a result
of the economic and financial crisis that began in 2008 and
subsequent low economic growth ......................................................................... 78
Table 16 The Framework programmes and its impact on the internationalisation ..................... 89
Table 17 Cross-border examples ....................................................................................... 91
Table 18 Country participation in the FPs ........................................................................... 95
Table 19 Funding breakdown for FP7-IDEAS ......................................................................101
Table 20 Funding breakdown for FP7-PEOPLE ....................................................................102
Table 21 Funding breakdown for FP7-COOPERATION ..........................................................103

3 
Table 22 Funding breakdown for FP7-CAPACITIES ..............................................................104
Table 23 European Institute of Innovation and Technology ..................................................108
Table 24 Participation per country across FP6, FP7 and H2020 (per cent of funding) ...............110
Table 25 Example of other factors negatively influencing FP participation ..............................115
Table 26 Average share for FP6, FP7 and H2020 per country ...............................................119
Table 27 Average participation share for FP6, FP7 and H2020 taking into account
population size (FP funding share / population) .....................................................120
Table 28 breakdown of national participation (percentage of participations)
share by country for FP6, FP7 and H2020 .............................................................121
Table 29 FP7 participation according to participant entities (per cent of total funding) ............123
Table 30 FP7 participation country share per participant type (of total funding) .....................124
Table 31 Horizon 2020 participation country funding share per participant type (total funding) 126
Table 32 Coordination of FP projects FP6, FP7 and H2020 ...................................................127
Table 33 Evolution of EAV ...............................................................................................133
Table 34 Examples of EAV indicators ................................................................................134
Table 35 Types of scientific impacts ..................................................................................135
Table 36 Impacts of participation in FP research projects compared with
national funded R&I projects? .............................................................................138
Table 37 The role of ERC and MRCA grants in the UK ..........................................................141
Table 38 Types of impacts on the R&I system ....................................................................149
Table 39 Types of policy-related impacts ...........................................................................156
Table 40 Economic impacts and impacts on innovation .......................................................161
Table 41 Types of societal impacts ...................................................................................169
Table 42 Focus on societal challenges ...............................................................................171
Table 43 Drivers for impact Latvia ....................................................................................178
Table 44 Impact of financial crisis – overview ....................................................................179
Table 45 Norway FP support tools ....................................................................................184
Table 46 Western Balkan in FP6 .......................................................................................186
Table 47 Factors influencing Denmark’s FP uptake .............................................................187
Table 48 Examples of lack of synergies / different roles played by the SFs and FPs.................188
Table 49 Summary of extent of impacts per country group ..................................................200
Table 50 Typical drivers and barriers identified by country groupings ....................................202
Table 51 Total FP6 Funding .............................................................................................215
Table 52 Total FP7 Funding .............................................................................................216
Table 53 Total FP7 Public Body Funding ............................................................................217
Table 54 Total FP7 Higher Education or Secondary Education Funding ..................................218
Table 55 Total FP7 Other Funding.....................................................................................219
Table 56 Total FP7 Research Organisation Funding .............................................................220
Table 57 Total FP7 Private for Profit SME Organisation Funding ............................................221
Table 58 Total FP7 Private for Profit Non-SME Organisation Funding .....................................222
Table 59 Total FP7 Private for Profit SME Organisation Unknown Funding ..............................223
Table 60 Horizon 2020 Total Funding ................................................................................224
Table 61 Horizon 2020 Public Body Funding.......................................................................225
Table 62 Horizon 2020 Higher or Secondary Education Funding ...........................................226
Table 63 Horizon 2020 Other Funding ...............................................................................227
Table 64 Horizon 2020 Research Organisation Funding .......................................................228
Table 65 Horizon 2020 Private for Profit SME Organisation Funding ......................................229
Table 66 Horizon 2020 Private for Profit Non-SME Organisation Funding ...............................230
Table 67 Horizon 2020 Private for Profit SME Organisation Missing Funding ...........................231
Table 68 Values for calculation of country average answer ..................................................270
Table 69 Average answers per country: Has your country improved its performance
in the following aspects across FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 (n=42) q.7 ....................270
Table 70 In the case of each of the following types of impacts, please indicate
whether the impacts of participation in the research projects tend to be
of a greater or lesser magnitude compared with national funded R&I projects?
(n=27, multiple answers possible) q.23 ...............................................................286
Table 71 In general, to what extent are R&I performers in your country able to use
national/regional funding and FP funding as co-funding for their R&I activities?
(n=31) q.27 .....................................................................................................288
Table 72 How would you rate the overall relevance of thematic and
scientific funding priorities supported through the EU RTD FPs
in each period to your country’s R&I strengths? (n=29) q.28 ..................................288
Table 73 To what extent have your country’s R&I activities changed as a result of the
economic and financial crisis that began in 2008 and subsequent low economic
growth? (n=29) q.33 .........................................................................................292 

4 
FIGURES
Figure 1 Research and Innovation system.......................................................................... 30
Figure 2 Intervention logic (derived from a theory-based evaluation approach) ...................... 32
Figure 3 Drivers and inhibitors in the national R&I system (examples) .................................. 33
Figure 4 R&I systems impact typology............................................................................... 36
Figure 5 The extent to which your country’s mix of funding sources has changed since 2000? .. 71
Figure 6 Changes in BERD spending (OECD countries) ........................................................ 72
Figure 7 Percentage of FP6 out of the GERD ....................................................................... 73
Figure 8 Scatter plot – relationship between FP6 and GERD per capita .................................. 73
Figure 9 The extent to which your country’s researchers and scientists rely on the following
sources of funding for R&I project and infrastructure financing ................................ 74
Figure 10 To what extent are your country’s/ region’s R&I funding programmes’ priorities and
FP priorities complementary? (n=29) q.30 ............................................................ 76
Figure 11 The extent to which the economic and financial crisis from 2008 have had an impact
on the level of national / regional R&I funding available .......................................... 78
Figure 12 FP7 vs European Structural and Investment Funds support for R&I .......................... 80
Figure 13 Total FP6 funding in EU27 (in EUR million) ............................................................ 82
Figure 14 Total ERDF funding in the field of interest 18 (RTDI) in the EU27 ............................. 83
Figure 15 Scatter plot – Relationship between FP6 and ERDF funding in the area of research
and innovation – absolute numbers (in EUR million) ............................................... 84
Figure 16 Scatter plot – Relationship between FP6 and ERDF funding in the area of research
and innovation – per capita (in EUR) .................................................................... 85
Figure 17 The extent to which your country’s researchers and scientists have access to R&I
cross-border or transnational funding (NOT including the Framework Programmes).... 92
Figure 18 FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 themes ...................................................................... 96
Figure 19 Breakdown of FP7 funding by organisation type ....................................................105
Figure 20 Share of EU contributions to macro-regions by FP7 sub-programme ........................106
Figure 21 SME instrument success rates 2014 and 2015 ......................................................109
Figure 22 Portugal number of participants and co-ordinators compared to overall FP
participation .....................................................................................................114
Figure 23 Types of impacts on the R&I system ....................................................................129
Figure 24 Immediate and cumulative (long-term) scientific impacts linked to participation in
multiple FP programming periods ........................................................................137
Figure 25 What impact of FP participation in the FPs on national R&I policies ..........................150
Figure 26 Impacts of the EU RTD FPs on national R&I systems and structures over successive
FPs ..................................................................................................................151
Figure 27 Main impacts discernible as a result of participation in FP projects on innovation at
national level ....................................................................................................162
Figure 28 Extent of innovation spillovers at national and regional level from FP projects...........163
Figure 29 The extent to which national participation in the FPs have had positive economic,
social and environmental impacts at national level ................................................170
Figure 30 The extent to which one or more of the following factors has negatively affected FP
participation .....................................................................................................175
Figure 31 The extent to which one or more of the following factors have positively affected FP
participation?....................................................................................................176
Figure 32 Financing for R&D in Latvia ................................................................................190
Figure 33 Annual Number of Scientific Publications with Latvia affiliation (retrieved from
SCOPUS)..........................................................................................................190
Figure 34 The extent to which you consider that your country has an effective support system
in place for supporting FP applicants ....................................................................195
Figure 35 The extent to which your country currently supports (potential) FP applicants ..........196
Figure 36 Number of responses received per country (n=87) q.1 ..........................................267
Figure 37 Types of organisations (n=115, multiple selection possible) q.2 ..............................268
Figure 38 Length of participation (n=83) q.3 ......................................................................268
Figure 39 Assessment of country participation in FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 (n=42) q. 4-6 .....269
Figure 40 Performance in different aspects across FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020? (n=38) q.8 ......272
Figure 41 To what extent do you consider having an effective support system in place for
supporting FP applicants? (n=44) q.9 ..................................................................273
Figure 42 To what extent does your country currently support (potential) FP applicants
through any of the following means? (n=42) q. 10 ................................................274
Figure 43 Main types of impacts that have arisen at national or regional level through the
implementation of EU funded research projects through the FPs? (n=29, multiple
selection) q.12 ..................................................................................................276
Figure 44 What types of immediate and cumulative (long-term) scientific impacts can be
discerned which are linked to participation in multiple FP programming periods?
Please tick all that apply. (n=28, multiple answers possible) q.16 ...........................277

5
Figure 45 What are the main impacts discernible as a result of participation in FP projects on
innovation in your country? (n=26) q.17 ..............................................................278
Figure 46 To what extent have there been any innovation spillovers at national and regional
level from FP projects? (n=27, multiple answers possible) q.18 ..............................279
Figure 47 What impact has participation in the FPs had in relation to national R&I policies in
your view? (n=27, multiple answers possible) q.19 ...............................................280
Figure 48 With regard to the impacts of the EU RTD FPs on national R&I systems and
structures over successive FPs, how far has the existence of the FPs influenced the
following: (n=27) q.20 ......................................................................................281
Figure 49 In your assessment, to what extent has national participation in the FPs over
successive programming periods had positive economic, social and environmental
impacts in your country? (n=26, multiple answers possible) q.21............................282
Figure 50 Were there any particular national or regional barriers to achieving the anticipated
different types of impacts across different FP projects in your country? (n=32) q.13 .283
Figure 51 To what extent, if at all, have one or more of the following factors negatively
affected your country’s FP participation? (n=33) q.14 ............................................284
Figure 52 Conversely, in your assessment, to what extent have one or more of the following
factors positively affected your country’s FP participation? (n=30) q.15 ...................285
Figure 53 To what extent do your country’s researchers and scientists rely on the following
sources of funding for R&I project and infrastructure financing? (n=31) q.24............287
Figure 54 To what extent are your country’s/ region’s R&I funding programmes’ priorities and
FP priorities complementary? (n=29) q.30 ...........................................................289
Figure 55 To what extent has your country’s mix of funding sources changed since 2000?
(n=29) q.31 .....................................................................................................290
Figure 56 To what extent do your country’s researchers and scientists also have access to R&I
cross-border or transnational funding (NOT including the Framework
Programmes)(n=29) q.26 ..................................................................................291
Figure 57 To what extent did the economic and financial crisis from 2008 have an impact on
the level of national / regional R&I funding available? (n=29) q.32..........................292

6
GLOSSARY

AC Associated Country
AL Albania
AT Austria
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina
BE Belgium
BG Bulgaria
CEE Central and Eastern European countries
CH Switzerland
COST European Cooperation in Science & Technology
CY Cyprus
CZ Czech Republic
DE Germany
DK Denmark
EAV European Added Value
EE Estonia
EHEA European Higher Education Area
EL Greece
ERA European Research Area
ERC European Research Council
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ES Spain
ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds
EU-28 28 EU Member States
FI Finland
FO Faeroe Islands
FP Framework Programme
FR France
GDP Gross Domestic Products
HR Croatia
HU Hungary
IE Ireland
IL Israel
IS Iceland
IT Italy
JRC Joint Research Council
LI Liechtenstein
LT Lithuania
LU Luxembourg
LV Latvia
MD Moldova
ME Montenegro
MK Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
MSCA Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
MT Malta
NL Netherlands
NO Norway
PL Poland
PT Portugal
RI Research Infrastructure
RIS3 Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation
RO Romania
RS Serbia
SE Sweden
SF European Structural and Investment Funds
SI Slovenia
SK Slovakia
STI Science, Technology & Innovation
TR Turkey
UK United Kingdom

7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study assesses the uptake and impact of participation in the European RTD Framework
Programmes (“FPs”) in the 28 EU Member States (“MS”) and 13 Associated Countries (“AC”)
during the time period 2000-2015, covering the 6th and 7th FPs (“FP6”, “FP7”) and Horizon 2020
(“H2020”).

The study was commissioned to support the European Commission in better communicating the
European Added Value (“EAV”) and impacts of the Framework Programmes in each MS and AC.
Secondly, the study should help to facilitate the design of future EU RTD programmes so as to
maximise their future impacts.

As the study covered a large number of FP participating countries (41 in total), for a considerable
number of countries, this study constitutes the first ever attempt at assessing the extent and the
impacts of participation in the FPs at country level.

This final study report sets out the research results and findings. These are:
1. An analysis for each MS and AC of the national research and innovation (“R&I”) landscape and
policies during the past 15 years, including the development and deployment of strategies, and
how these relate to the FPs.
2. An analysis of participation patterns in each MS and AC and participation trends in the FPs,
setting these in the wider context of national research capabilities and national research
orientations, policies, cross-border cooperation and structures.
3. An assessment of the added value of FP participation (beyond financial return on investment)
for each MS/AC and to establish what the additional impact of previous FP participation has
been in each MS and AC in quantitative and qualitative terms.
4. A taxonomy of factors conducive to generating lasting impact of the FPs in the MS and AC. The
aim of this exercise was to increase our understanding as to ‘why particular factors have been
conducive to generating last impact of the FPs’.

In describing the above findings the report also looks at interlinkages between developments in
national and EU R&I policies. As such, it aims to develop a more systematic understanding as to
how national and EU level interactions affect FP participation – among countries, sectors and
different types of actors that participate in the EU RTD FPs.

This study produced 41 stand-alone country reports. These assessed each country’s national R&I
landscape and policies during the past 15 years, each country’s FP performance and impacts
achieved through FP participation.

The country reports’ findings are synthesised and assessed in the final report, producing
conclusions covering both participation patterns and national impacts. The subsequent sections
summarise the study’s findings and conclusions with regards to participation in the FPs and
national impacts as a result of FP participation respectively.

Participation rates in FP6-H2020 and enhancing participation in future

The study looked at FP performance in terms of the number of participations achieved by a country
as well as the level of funding received through the FPs. The analysis of participation rates
identified considerable variations in performance across MSs/ACs and over time. Some countries’
performance has improved, whilst that of others has declined or remained stable.

Lessons can be learned from studying high-performing MS/AC that have increased their
participation level (in terms of share and volume in EUR of participations). Common characteristics
for MS/AC that have improved performance over successive FPs are partly the result of long-term
investment and an internationally strong R&I environment, e.g.

• Strong national R&I capacity (including systems / structures)

• Strong performance on the European Innovation Scoreboard/ key R&I metrics

Other characteristics seen in high-performing countries can be more easily emulated and adapted
by other MS/AC who are looking to improve their performance in the FPs. For example:

8
• Developing a strong rationale for FP participation and political support for competing for
funding

• A strong/growing interest among R&I performers in participating, which may stem from an
award system/incentives for participation (e.g. successful FP participation may count as a
criterion for accessing national funding)

• A clear division of labour between the role of national funding and that of EU/FP funding

• A strong/growing understanding among R&I performers of the ‘workings’ of the FPs and what
benefits can be derived from participation

• Investment in, and professionalisation of support structures by universities and PROs within
their institutions to help project applicants to develop successful FP applications, including
accessing networks

Lessons can also be learnt by identifying / analysing characteristics of countries where FP

participation rates have declined over the past 15 years. Difficulties in enhancing participation
include:

• Weak national R&D&I capacity (ineffective systems / structures) including lack of funding and
sustained political support, an inability to modernise as well as to compete internationally

• Poor framework conditions, including regulatory barriers to funding (e.g. financial regulation)

• A backlog with regards to research infrastructures and of public-private collaborations

• A small proportion of national R&I performers active internationally (within or outside of the
FPs), which makes it difficult to disseminate good practice for internationalisation to other R&I
performers in that particular country

• Lack of incentives or ‘training for internationalisation’ in the career development structures of

– in particular – public sector R&I performers

• Poor preparedness to produce quality applications, with a lack of formalised support structures
at national and/or institutional level

• Absence of training support measures to improve quality of FP applications

• A lack of knowledge about the FPs and/or a lack of access to R&I networks internationally

• Weaker EN language skills

• Lack of evidence and understanding of what the barriers to participation are.

However, it is difficult to generalise and to develop a categorisation system that explains relative
success, as a complex range of factors influences FP performance.

Some countries have a strong R&I system and research infrastructure but nevertheless participate
‘below capacity’ (i.e. have a significant proportion of internationally competitive R&I performers
which do not partake in the FPs). In these cases, other factors apply – e.g. if it is easier to apply
for national or ESIF funding. If national funding is estimated to be more easily accessible, the R&I
performer is more likely to prepare an application for this particular funding source.

Impacts and maximising the impacts of the FPs at MS/AC level in future

An assessment of FP impacts is inherently dependent on i) the particular national R&I

characteristics, capacity and the R&I system’s baseline, ii) the length and type of participation, and
iii) data availability at national and regional level in order to establish participation trends in the
first place.

Although this study’s focus has been on scientific impacts, impacts on innovation, impacts relating
to the overall R&I systems, economic impacts, wider societal impacts, and policy impacts, in
practice, many impacts are crosscutting, i.e. affecting more than one actor and/or component of
the R&I system.

Impacts observed from FP participation are often interrelated and/or interdependent – that is,
Impact B is likely to follow after Impact A has been observed, and/or Impact B is dependent on
Impact A occurring first. For example – R&I systems impacts (e.g. HEI reforms aimed at improving
international competitiveness) may follow after initial scientific impacts have been achieved (e.g.

9
raising excellence and collaborative behaviour among national FP participants, which helps prompt
calls for systematic change).

Impacts can be top-down or driven by changes from the bottom. In terms of types of impact, the
following conclusions are drawn:

Scientific impacts: scientific impacts, tend to be one of the most immediate and, by far, the type
of impact most documented. Generally scientific impacts can also be attributed (at least in part) to
FP participation, however the overall funding mix plays an important role.

Scientific impacts dependent on accumulated FP participation of different kinds, e.g.

• Participation of individual researchers in grant schemes such as the ERC, MSCA are important
for the internationalisation of research and the mobility/ exchange of knowledge.

• Coordination of (large) FP projects is strategically important both for participants but also at
the strategic level, since there can be wider ramifications, in particular if the area of research
is in line with overall R&I priorities.

R&I systems impacts can be traced back to EU policy initiatives as well as to national
organisational reforms. A pronounced outcome is the strengthening cooperation between
universities, research institutions within countries, in the regions and internationally. FP
participation therefore also contributes to behavioural changes.

• An indirect R&I systems impact can be seen in the agenda setting of national research
activities. FP activities raise awareness of the scientific community within a nation of particular
issues or subjects, focus attention and efforts and influence the allocation of national R&D-
resources.

Policy impacts particularly prominent among countries that are preparing for close association to
the EU in general and the FPs specifically (as an Associated Country) Smaller capacity countries
also tend to see stronger impacts in this regard.

Economic impacts are quite challenging to measure as it entails tracing the impact of spillovers
and attributing change back to the FP-supported activities. Some national policymakers have a
tendency to focus on Return on Investment (RoI) from FP participation as this approach is
commonly used for assessing value for (taxpayers) money. However the RoI from FP participation
may be negative in the short- and even medium-term. Although this is of course a real cost in
itself, a too heavy focus on the RoI from a national perspective may come at the expense of
assessing economic benefits derived at the participant level.

• There is interesting evidence of economic impact from selected countries. To give one
example, Denmark has invested in evaluations to measure economic impacts from the FPs.
However, overall the assessment of economic impacts is still a somewhat unexplored area at
national level.

• From a national perspective, economic impact is generally considered to be ‘marginal’ or

‘niche’ but not unimportant.

• However, FP participation can lead to economic impacts indirectly/ in the longer-term.

Successful FP participation creates political incentives to allow for an incremental increase in
R&D spending nationally, leading to more capacity and improved competitiveness.

Impacts on innovation need to be assessed taking a wide view of innovation activities.

Importantly, innovation is not confined to the economic activities of enterprises that are able to
provide innovation outcomes to the market. Moreover – and although the FPs have always
supported innovation activities in some form – the FPs should be assessed bearing in mind that
innovation was only fully brought into the FPs with the launch of Horizon 2020.

• Impacts on innovation include ‘classic’ outputs in the form of Intellectual Property (albeit,
some argue, these are comparatively few). There is considerably more evidence which points
to pretty extensive positive impacts on institutional and organisational behaviour, i.e. regular
participation in the FPs and exposure to international networks contribute to creating
behaviour, which is more conducive to innovation (e.g. collaborative, multidisciplinary,
outcome-driven or risk taking).

• Most innovation impacts are documented in higher-capacity countries and/or where substantial
data are available, but lower-capacity countries also demonstrate an ability to create
innovation impacts. Anecdotal evidence suggests that lower-capacity countries in particular

10
 observe changes in individual and organisational behaviour (e.g. improved collaboration skills,
wider networking).

Societal impacts are particularly noticeable in improving the evidence base for policymaking and
on environmental awareness/processes and regulation.

• Multiple anecdotal evidence show that data and result from the FPs (e.g. ERA-Nets) is utilised
in the policymaking process and taken into account at times of national reforms, regulation
changes and so forth. Moreover, MS policymakers who have access to ample high-quality
scientific expertise with good knowledge of the EU can benefit from their advice.

• The focus on societal challenges in H2020 is considered strongly relevant and has impacted the
evolution of national policy frameworks.

• For smaller R&I capacity countries, FP participation is also an important part of government
reform overall.

Country groupings based on FP performance and impacts

In order to provide meaningful recommendations, the study developed four country groupings
based on each country’s R&I performance and history of their FP participation. The aim with the
country groupings was to improve our understanding of the different ways that the FPs interact
with the national R&I systems in the study countries and how the FPs can create impacts at
national level. As such, the aim has explicitly not been to create a league table of countries, but
rather to better understand how the different country groupings can improve their performance
based on their particular strengths and weaknesses, whilst taking into account the features of their
R&I system and overall R&I performance, as assessed through country research undertaken. 1

Key characteristics and impacts from participation per group include:

Group 1 Leaders & Influencers: Germany, Switzerland, UK

A smaller number of countries perform very strongly in R&I, both inside and outside of the FPs.
They are internationally competitive which means that the FPs may play a comparatively smaller
role than for other countries, i.e. these countries tend also to look towards collaboration with the
US and BRIC countries as well as with European FP partner. As a result, the FP portfolio may be
proportionally smaller than for countries in the other country groups (that are more reliant on the
FPs for internationalisation). However, thanks to this competitiveness, FP participants from these
countries are also sought after partners when forming consortia for the FPs. Moreover they attract
a lot of high-quality international researchers through mobility schemes, who in turn contribute to
the overall pool of competitive researchers active in Group 1 countries.

Group 1 countries have generally seen strong long-term impacts both in terms of scientific
discovery as well as the advancement of scientific fields and interests. Although Group 1’s FP
funding share is significant in absolute terms, it has also been matched by generous national
funds.
Although economic impacts tend to be described as marginal, the FPs have facilitated the
expansion of nationally competitive areas and also contributed towards the development of new
niche research fields. The FPs have also contributed to internationalisation of participating
industries. The Societal challenges approach promoted by the FPs have generally strengthened
Group 1 national activities.

Group 2 experienced FP countries with multiple pockets of excellence: Austria, Belgium,

Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,
Sweden

Group 2 includes countries with long-standing and reoccurring FP participation. The Core players
group has a relatively high overall comparative participation rate but they are not in the same
league as Group 1. They do however often collaborate with Group 1. Group 2 is not exclusively

1
As each country’s characteristics are complex but unique, there is consequently some fluidity between the
groups as the country groupings were derived using a wide range of indicators, i.e. some countries could
arguably belong to more than one group.

11
made up of, but includes a lot of the long-standing participants i.e. they have participated in the
FPs over a long period, possibly since FP1.

Group 2 countries have generally seen strong long-term impacts both in terms of scientific
discovery. FP funding has also played an important role in maintaining research communities
during cuts in national funding. FP participation has increased the international competitiveness of
R&I system elements and have had a positive effect on Group 2 R&I collaboration.

Similar to Group 1 policy impacts have been limited, however there are multiple examples of how
national policies carried by Group 2 countries have been reinforced after having been promoted at
EU level and directly implemented in FP design. Similar to Group 1, impacts tend to be described
as marginal, however the FPs have facilitated the expansion of nationally competitive areas and
also contributed towards the development of new niche research fields. The FPs have also played a
key role in the internationalisation of participating industries.

As with Group 1, evidence is strongest around impact on climate change, health, security and
other societal challenges themes. The Societal challenges approach promoted by the FPs have
generally strengthened Group 2 national activities.

Group 3 Reformers and specialists: Cyprus, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia

The third group of countries is either less experienced in the FPs or has tended to focus their
participation on specialised areas. They tend to be medium or even small R&I countries although
the R&I performed is – at least in specialised areas – very competitive. They moreover tend to
have articulated R&I policy at national level, which is then partly reflected in their FP participation.
By and large, national R&I policy also reflects EU priorities.

Group 3 countries have generally seen strong long-term impacts both in terms of scientific
discovery as well as the advancement of scientific fields and interest in a smaller number of fields.
Group 3 countries have also used the FPs to developed niche areas in innovation and industry. The
FPs have contributed towards improved collaboration between industry and academia, and the
application of the triple/ quadruple helix model.

The FPs have had a positive influence on capacity building for R&I policy makers and have
contributed to improved and more tailored approach to R&I policy making. The FPs have also
played a key role in shaping the R&I system and has sped up institutional changes and reforms in
e.g. the HE sector.

The social dimension of the FPs – including environmental protection, the application of evidence-
based policymaking and social protection – have influenced Group 3 countries however to a
varying degree. Generally, capacity-building exercises have contributed to the spread of good
practice in R&I policy making and evaluation.

Group 4 Support-focused and sporadic participation: Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina,

Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, FYROM, Hungary, Latvia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland
Romania, Serbia, Turkey

Group 4 are countries with pockets of excellent science that have successfully participated in the
successive FPs. However, these countries also have a history and profile characterised by
comparatively low or sporadic levels of FP participation. FP participation is below par or uneven
(depending on changing levels of national support available to facilitate FP participation). Much of
the group’s FP participation is related to capacity-building rather than ‘pure’ R&I.

Scientific impacts are partly limited to participating research groups and institutions. FP funding
has contributed with badly needed funding to maintain and support researcher performers in
Group 4 countries.

The FPs have contributed to promoting change and raised ideas about R&I however concrete long-
term change is overall less noticeable. With a few exceptions, economic and innovation impacts
have tended to be limited to participants, largely due to a lack of domestic capacity to effectively
compete at a European level. As with Group 3, the social dimension of the FPs – including
environmental protection, the application of evidence-based policymaking and social protection –
have influenced Group 4 countries however to a varying degree. Most often, the FPs have also had
a positive influence on capacity building for R&I policy makers although participation and levels of
engagement has varied across Group 4 countries.

12
Although it should be pointed out that the countries grouped together are not completely
homogenous – but there are some important differences within groups as well as between groups
(e.g. specific specialisms, overall size of R&I system, and capacity to fund R&I post-2008) – in
summary one can conclude that in terms of key impacts traits the country groups can be viewed
as follows:

• Strengthening effect of FP participation for Group 1 and 2’s respective participation in the
FPs have created leverage to add to the multiple existing strengths. Although FP funds have
contributed to science and innovation impacts, Group 1 countries have not directly ‘transposed’
a European approach to R&I. Countries in Group 1 (and to a lesser extent in Group 2) have
also exerted some influence on the development of EU R&I policy.
• Strengthening and structuring effect of FP participation for Group 2 and 3. These
countries’ FP participation have helped to shape national R&I capacity. FPs are key tools for
internationally. For some countries (predominantly Group 3), participation has also
considerably strengthened their competitiveness through improved policies but equally also
legislative reform.
• Capacity building effect on Group 4. Impacts for Group 4 include direct impacts on research
and innovation but is also characterised by capacity building. In a number of countries there is
also evidence of good practice exchange and learning among policymakers. All Group 4
countries also demonstrate areas of excellent science.

13
RÉSUMÉ
Cette étude évalue la mise en œuvre et l’impact de la participation aux programmes-cadres de
recherche européens (‘PCs’ ou en abrégé, ‘FP’ en anglais) au sein des 28 États-Membres (‘EM’) et
dans les 13 pays associés (‘PA’) au cours de la période 2000-2015, couvrant le 6ème et 7ème FP
(FP6, FP7) et l’Horizon 2020 (H2020).

Afin de soutenir la Commission européenne, l’étude vise à mieux communiquer la valeur ajoutée
européenne (‘VAE’) et l’impact des programmes-cadres dans chaque EM et PA. En deuxième lieu,
l’étude devrait permettre de faciliter la conception de futurs programmes de RDT de l’UE de
manière à maximaliser leur futur impact.

L’étude a couvert un grand nombre de pays participants aux PC (41 au total). Ainsi, cette étude
constitue la première tentative d’évaluer l’ampleur et les impacts de la participation aux PC à
l’échelle nationale.

Les résultats et les conclusions de ces travaux de recherche sont présentés dans ce rapport final et
exposé ci-dessous :

1. Une analyse du paysage en termes de recherche et innovation (R&I) et des politiques des
dernières 15 années pour chaque EM et PA a été réalisée. Cela comprend également une
analyse du développement et du déploiement de stratégies et comment ils sont liés aux PC.

2. Une analyse des modèles de participation au sein de chaque EM et PA et des tendances de

participation lors des PC ont également été fait afin de les définir dans un contexte plus large
des capacités de recherche nationale et des orientations de recherche, des politiques, de
coopération transfrontalière et des structures.

3. La valeur ajoutée de participer aux PC (au-delà du rendement financier) a été évaluée pour
chaque EM/PA. L’étude essaie aussi d’établir quels ont été les impacts quantitatifs et qualitatifs
supplémentaires lors de PC précédents dans chaque EM/PA.

4. Une taxonomie de facteurs qui génèrent un impact durable des PC pour les EM/PA. L’objectif
de cet exercice était d’améliorer notre connaissance sur les éléments ayant favorisé un impact
durable des PC

Ce rapport analyse également les liens entre l’évolution de l’union nationale et les politiques de
R&I. L’étude cherche à développer une compréhension plus systématique sur la façon comment les
interactions nationales et au niveau de l’UE affecte la participation aux PC – en comparant les
pays, les secteurs et les différents types d’acteurs qui participent aux PC de RTD au sein de l’UE.

Cette étude a produit 41 rapports de pays autonome. Ceux-ci ont évalué le paysage et les
politiques nationaux de R & I de chaque pays au cours des 15 dernières années, les performances
de chaque pays en matière du niveau de participation PF et les impacts obtenus grâce à la
participation aux PC.

Les conclusions des rapports de pays ont été synthétisés et évalués dans le rapport final, la
production de conclusions couvrant à la fois les caractéristiques de la participation et des impacts
nationaux. Les sections suivantes résument les résultats de l'étude et conclusions en ce qui
concerne la participation aux PC et impacts nationaux à la suite de FP la participation,
respectivement.

Les taux de participation dans FP6-H2020 et l'amélioration de la participation à

l'avenir

L'étude portait sur la performance du PC en termes de nombre de participations obtenus par un

pays ainsi que le niveau de financement reçu par le programme cadre. L'analyse des taux de
participation identifiés des variations de performances d'un EM/PA et au fil du temps. Dans
certains pays, la performance s'est améliorée, tandis que celle des autres a diminué ou est restée
stable.

Des leçons peuvent être tirées de l'étude des EM/PA qui ont augmenté leur niveau de participation
(en termes de volume et de partager en EUR de participations). Caractéristiques communes pour
EM/PA qui ont de meilleures performances au cours de périodes successives de PC sont en partie

14
le résultat de l'investissement à long terme et d'un ‘environnement fort de recherche et de
l’innovation (« R&I »), par exemple:

• R&I nationale forte capacité (y compris les systèmes / structures)

• Forte performance sur le tableau de bord européen de l'Innovation/ key metrics

D'autres caractéristiques observées dans les pays à haut rendement peuvent être plus facilement
repris et adapté par d'autres MS/AC qui cherchent à améliorer leur performance dans les PC. Par
exemple :
• L'élaboration d'une justification solide pour le FP6 et de participation politique en faveur de la
concurrence pour le financement

• Une forte/intérêt grandissant parmi les exécutants de R-je à participer, ce qui peut être le
résultat d'un système de bourse/incitations à la participation (p. ex. participation PC réussie
peut compter comme un critère pour l'accès à des financements nationaux)

• Une division claire du travail entre le rôle du financement national et celui de l'EU/ PC

• Une forte compréhension entre les acteurs interprètes ou exécutants de la R&I de 'comment la
participation dans les PC marche' et quels avantages peuvent être tirés de leur participation;

• Dans l'investissement, et la professionnalisation des structures d'appui par les universités et

les organismes publics dans leurs institutions pour aider les auteurs de projet à développer des
applications PC, notamment l'accès aux réseaux

Les leçons peuvent également être apprises par l'identification / l'analyse de caractéristiques des
pays où les taux de participation du FP7 ont baissé au cours des 15 dernières années. Des
difficultés dans l'amélioration de la participation sont les suivants :

• La faiblesse des R&D&I capacité (inefficacité des systèmes / structures) y compris le manque
de financement et d'appui politique soutenu, une incapacité à moderniser et à la concurrence
internationale

• Un cadre peu favorable, y compris les obstacles réglementaires au financement (p. ex.
règlement financier)

• Un retard en ce qui concerne les infrastructures de recherche et de collaborations public-privé

• Une petite partie de la R&I artistes actifs au niveau international (au sein ou en dehors de la
PC), ce qui rend difficile de diffuser les bonnes pratiques pour l'internationalisation d'autres
artistes R&I dans ce pays particulier

• L'absence d'incitations ou de la "formation pour l'internationalisation' dans le développement

de structures de carrière - en particulier - secteur public R&I les artistes interprètes ou
exécutants

• Préparation aux pauvres de produire des applications de qualité, avec un manque de

structures de soutien officiel au niveau national et/ou des institutions

• L'absence de mesures de soutien à la formation pour améliorer la qualité des applications FP

• Un manque de connaissances des PC et/ou un manque d'accès à la R&I des réseaux à l'échelle
internationale

• Compétences linguistiques en anglais faibles

• Manque de preuves et de compréhension sur la nature des obstacles à la participation

Cependant, il est difficile de généraliser et d'élaborer la gamme complexe de facteurs ayant une
influence sur les performances du FP sur le système de catégorisation qui explique le succès relatif
de ce programme.

Certains pays ont un bon système de R&I et d'infrastructure de recherche mais participent 'en
sous-capacité" (c.-à-d. ont une grande part d’acteurs en R&I qui sont compétitifs mais qui ne
participent pas aux CP). Dans ces cas, d'autres facteurs l’expliquent – par exemple, la facilité de
présenter une demande de financement nationale ou au travers de l’ESIF. Si le financement
national est estimé plus accessible, le participant R&I est plus susceptible de faire une demande
pour cette source de financement.

15
Les impacts et la maximisation des impacts futurs des PC au niveau de EM/PA

Une évaluation des impacts des PC dépend i) des caractéristiques nationales de R&I, la leur
capacité et le système de base de R&I, ii) la durée et le type de participation, et iii) la disponibilité
des données au niveau national et régional afin de déterminer les tendances de participation.

Bien que cette étude ait mis l'accent sur les impacts scientifiques, les impacts sur l'innovation, les
impacts relatifs à l'ensemble du système de R&I, les impacts économiques, sociétaux et les
répercussions des politiques, en pratique, très souvent les impacts sont transversaux, c'est-à-dire
ils touchent plus d'un acteur et/ou des composants du système de R&I.

Les impacts observés sur la participation aux PC sont souvent liés entre eux et/ou sont
interdépendants - c’est-à-dire, l' impact B est susceptible de suivre après que l’impact A ait été
observé, et/ou l'impact B peut dépendre seulement si impact A s’est produit. Par exemple, les
systèmes d’impact de R&I (par exemple les reformes de HEI qui visent à améliorer la compétitivité
internationale) peuvent suivre après l'impact scientifique initial (par exemple, suite à l’amélioration
de l'excellence et des comportements de collaboration entre les participants du 6ème FP, ce qui
incite les appels de changement systématique).

Les conséquences peuvent être vues de haut en bas ou entrainé par des changements par le bas
de l’échelle. En termes de types d'impacts, les conclusions suivantes ont été faites :

Impacts scientifiques : Les impacts scientifiques ont tendance à être observés immédiatement
et c’est le type d'impact qui est le plus documentés. Les impacts scientifiques en général peuvent
aussi être attribuée (au moins en partie) à la participation aux PC, cependant la répartition des
fonds - joue un rôle important.

Les impacts scientifiques dépendent sur l’accumulation de la participation aux différents types de
FP, par exemple :

• La participation de chercheurs individuels dans les régimes de subvention, comme le pays

d'Europe centrale et orientale. Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions sont importants pour
l'internationalisation de la recherche et de la mobilité/ l’échange de connaissances.

• La coordination de (grands) projets FP est d'une importance stratégique à la fois pour les
participants, mais aussi au niveau stratégique, puisqu'il peut y avoir des ramifications plus
larges, surtout si le domaine de la recherche est conforme aux priorités globales de R&I.

L’impact sur les systèmes de R&I peut être retracé jusqu'aux initiatives politiques de l'UE ainsi
qu'aux réformes organisationnelles. Un résultat prononcé est le renforcement de la coopération
entre les universités, les institutions de recherche au sein des pays, des régions et à l’échelle
internationale. De ce fait, la participation aux PC contribue aussi aux changements de
comportement.

• Un impact indirect des systèmes de R&I peut être perçu dans l'ordre du jour des activités
nationales de recherche. Les activités de PC suscite une prise de conscience parmi la
communauté scientifique sur certains enjeux ou sujets, et permet de concentrer l'attention, les
efforts et l'influence de la répartition de ressources en R&D.

Les incidences des politiques parmi les pays qui se préparent à s'associer plus étroitement avec
l’Union Européenne et les PC (comme pays associé) pays de moindre capacité tendent aussi à voir
l'impact plus fort à cet égard.

Les impacts économiques sont très difficiles à mesurer car cela entraîne des retombées sur
l'impact de la recherche et attribue des changements aux activités soutenues par les PC. Certains
responsables des politiques nationales ont tendance à se concentrer sur le retour sur
l’investissement de la 4ème PC parce que cette approche est souvent utilisée pour évaluer la
valeur pour les contribuables. Cependant le RoI de la participation aux PC peuvent être négatives à
court et même à moyen terme. Bien que ce ne soit pas un coût réel en soi, un accent trop lourd
sur le retour sur investissement du point de vue national peut se faire au détriment de l'évaluation
des avantages économiques tirés parmi les participants.

• Il y a des preuves intéressantes sur l'impact économique de certains pays. Pour donner un
exemple, le Danemark a investi dans les évaluations pour mesurer les impacts économiques
des PC. Cependant, dans l'ensemble, l'évaluation de l'impact économique est encore
inexplorée au niveau national.

16
• D'un point de vue national, l'impact économique est généralement considéré comme
«marginal' ou 'niche' mais ne peut pas être ignoré.

• Cependant, la participation aux PC peut mener à des impacts économiques indirects/ à plus
long terme. La participation réussie aux FP crée les incitations politiques pour permettre une
augmentation supplémentaire des dépenses de R&D à l'échelle nationale, amenant à une plus
grande capacité et l'amélioration de la compétitivité.

Les impacts sur l'innovation doivent être évalués en tenant en compte l'ensemble des activités
d'innovation. L'innovation ne se limite pas aux activités économiques d'entreprises qui sont en
mesure de fournir les résultats de l'innovation sur le marché. En outre - et bien que les EM ont
toujours soutenu les activités d'innovation - les PC doivent être évaluée en tenant compte du fait
que l'innovation n'est que pleinement intégré dans les PC avec le lancement d'Horizon 2020.

• Impacts sur l'innovation : les sorties "classiques" dans la forme de propriété intellectuelle
(même si, selon certains, ils sont relativement peu nombreux). Il y a beaucoup plus
d'éléments qui indiquent des effets positifs sur le comportement organisationnel et
institutionnel, c.-à-d. la participation régulière aux PC et l'exposition à des réseaux
internationaux contribuent à la création d'attitudes qui sont plus favorable à l'innovation (par
exemple, la recherche coopérative, multidisciplinaire et axée sur les résultats ou la prise de
risque).

• La plupart des impacts de l'innovation sont documentés dans les pays de plus grande capacité
et/ou là où des données sont disponibles, mais aussi des pays à faible capacité de démontrer
une capacité à créer des impacts de l'innovation. L'évidence anecdotique suggère que les pays
à faible capacité, surtout pour observer les changements dans l'individu et le comportement
organisationnel (par exemple, une amélioration des compétences de collaboration).

Impacts sociétaux sont particulièrement notables dans l'amélioration de la base de données

pour l'élaboration des politiques et sur la sensibilisation à l'environnement, les processus et la
réglementation.

• Plusieurs résultats empiriques montrent que les données et le résultat de la fonction publique
fédérale (par exemple ERA-Net) est utilisée dans le processus d'élaboration et prise en compte
au moment d’élaborer des réformes nationales, le changement de réglementation. De plus, les
EM qui décident les politiques peuvent avoir accès à une expertise scientifique de haute qualité
avec une bonne connaissance de l'UE peuvent bénéficier de leurs conseils.

• L'accent sur les défis sociétaux dans l’H2020 est considéré comme tout à fait pertinent et a eu
un impact sur l'évolution des politiques nationales.

• Pour les petits pays de la capacité de R&I, la participation au 6ème FP est aussi une partie
importante de la réforme en général.

Groupes de pays en fonction des performances et des impacts du 7e PC

Afin de fournir des recommandations, l'étude a établi quatre groupes de pays en fonction de R&I
par pays et l'histoire de leur performance lors de la participation aux FP. L'objectif de ces
groupements était d'améliorer notre compréhension des différentes façons que les PC interagissent
avec les systèmes nationaux de R&I dans les pays d'étude et la façon dont les PC peuvent créer
des impacts au niveau national. À ce titre, l'objectif n'a pas été de créer un tableau de pays, mais
plutôt de mieux comprendre comment les différents groupes de pays peuvent améliorer leurs
performances en fonction de leurs forces et faiblesses, tout en tenant compte des caractéristiques
de leur R&I et l'ensemble de leur performance aux PC, tel qu'évalué par la recherche entreprise. 2

Principales caractéristiques et impacts de la participation par groupe comprennent :

Les dirigeants du groupe 1 & influenceurs : Allemagne, Suisse, Royaume-Uni

Un petit nombre de pays s'en sortent très bien dans la R&I à l'intérieur et l'extérieur de la PC. Ils
sont concurrentiels à l'échelle ce qui signifie que les PC peuvent jouer un rôle comparativement

2
Comme chaque caractéristiques du pays sont complexes mais unique, il n'y a par conséquent une certaine
fluidité entre les groupes comme les groupements de pays ont été calculé à l'aide d'une large gamme
d'indicateurs, c.-à-d. certains pays pourrait peut appartenir à plusieurs groupes.

17
plus petit que pour d'autres pays, c.-à-d. ces pays tendent aussi à se tourner vers la collaboration
avec les États-Unis et les pays BRIC ainsi qu'avec des partenaires européens dans les PC. En
conséquence, le portefeuille PC pourrait être proportionnellement plus petit que pour les pays dans
d’autres groupes (qui sont plus dépendantes de l'IPS pour l'internationalisation). Cependant, grâce
à cette compétitivité, les participants aux PC de ces pays recherchent aussi des partenaires lors de
la formation de consortiums pour les PC. En outre, ils attirent un grand nombre de chercheurs
internationaux de grande qualité grâce à la mobilité sociale, qui à leur tour contribuent à
l'ensemble du bassin de chercheurs concurrentiels active dans les pays du groupe 1.

Groupe 1 Les pays ont généralement connu une forte incidence à long terme tant sur le plan de la
découverte scientifique ainsi que l'avancement des domaines scientifiques et des intérêts. Bien que
le financement des FP au sein du groupe 1 est significatif en termes absolus, il a également été
accompagnée par de généreux fonds nationaux.

Bien que les impacts économiques aient tendance à être décrit comme marginal, les PC ont la
facilité de faire une expansion de secteurs concurrentiels à l'échelle nationale et contribuent à
l'élaboration de nouveaux champs de recherche niche. Les PC ont également contribué à
l'internationalisation des industries participantes. L'approche des défis sociétaux promu par les PC
ont généralement renforcé les activités nationales du Groupe 1.

Groupe 2 : expérience des pays à de nombreuses poches d'excellence : Autriche, Belgique,

Danemark, Finlande, France, Grèce, Irlande, Israël, Italie, Norvège, Pays-Bas, Portugal, Royaume-
Uni, Suède

Le groupe 2 comprend des pays ayant une participation aux PC de longue date. Le groupe de
joueurs de base dispose d'un nombre relativement élevé de participation mais ils ne sont pas dans
la même ligue que le groupe 1. Cependant ils collaborent souvent avec le groupe 1. Le groupe 2
n'est pas exclusivement composé de, mais inclut un grand nombre de participants de longue date
c'est à dire qu'elles ont participé aux PC sur une longue période, peut-être même depuis le PC1.

Les pays dans le groupe 2 ont généralement connu une forte incidence à long terme tant sur le
plan de la découverte scientifique. Le financement du 7e PC a également joué un rôle important
dans le maintien des communautés de recherche au cours de la réduction des financements
nationaux. La participation aux PC a augmenté la compétitivité internationale de R&I et les
éléments du système ont eu un effet positif sur le groupe.

L'impact des politiques du groupe 1 sont limités, mais il y a plusieurs exemples de la manière dont
les politiques nationales menées par les pays du groupe 2 ont été renforcés après avoir été promu
au niveau de l'UE et mis en œuvre directement dans le design des PC. Similairement au groupe 1,
les effets ont tendance à être décrit comme marginal, mais les PC ont facilité l'expansion de
secteurs concurrentiels à l'échelle nationale et a également contribué à l'élaboration de nouveaux
champs de recherche niche. Les PC ont également joué un rôle clé dans l'internationalisation des
industries participantes.

Comme avec le groupe 1, il y a de fortes preuves autour de l'impact sur le changement climatique,
la santé, la sécurité et d'autres défis sociétaux thèmes. L'approche des défis sociétaux promu par
les PC a généralement renforcé les activités nationales du Groupe 2.

Groupe 3 Les réformateurs et spécialistes : Chypre, Estonie, Îles Féroé, Islande,

Liechtenstein, Lituanie, Luxembourg, Malte, Slovaquie, Slovénie

Le troisième groupe de pays a moins d'expérience dans les PC ou a tendance à porter leur
participation sur des domaines spécialisés. La R&I ont tendance à être de taille moyenne ou même
petites - au moins dans des domaines spécialisés – mais demeurent très compétitif. En outre, ils
ont tendance à avoir des politiques de R&I articulés au niveau national, ce qui est ensuite
partiellement reflétée dans leur participation aux FP. En gros, la politique nationale de R&I reflète
également les priorités de l'UE.

Les pays au sein fy groupe 3 ont généralement connu une forte incidence à long terme tant sur le
plan de la découverte scientifique ainsi que sur la promotion de domaines scientifiques et de
l'intérêt dans un plus petit nombre de domaines. Les pays du groupe 3 ont également utilisé les PC
sur des créneaux développés dans l'innovation et de l'industrie. Les PC ont contribué à
l'amélioration de la collaboration entre l'industrie et le milieu universitaire et l'application de la
triple hélice modèle.

18
Les PC ont eu une influence positive sur le renforcement des capacités pour la R&I et les décideurs
politiques ont contribué à l'amélioration et l'approche plus adaptée des politiques de R&I. Les PC
ont également joué un rôle clé dans l'élaboration de la R&I et a accéléré les changements
institutionnels et des réformes dans le secteur.

La dimension sociale des PC - y compris la protection de l'environnement, l'application de

politiques fondées sur des données probantes et de la protection sociale - ont influencé les pays du
groupe 3 mais à un degré variable. En général, les exercices de renforcement des capacités ont
contribué à la diffusion des bonnes pratiques dans la R&I l'élaboration et à l'évaluation.

Groupe 4 Support du groupe ciblé et participation sporadique : Albanie, Bosnie et

Herzégovine, Bulgarie, Croatie, République tchèque, de l'ARYM, Hongrie, Lettonie, Moldova,
Monténégro, Pologne, Roumanie, Serbie, Turquie

Le groupe 4 sont des pays avec des poches d'excellence des sciences qui ont participé
successivement et avec succès aux PC. Cependant, ces pays ont aussi une histoire et un profil
caractérisé par des niveaux relativement faibles ou sporadiques de participation aux FP. Leur
participation aux FP est au inégale (en fonction de l'évolution des niveaux de soutien disponibles
pour faciliter la participation du 6ème PCRD). Une grande partie de la participation du groupe FP
est liée au renforcement des capacités au lieu de 'pure' R&I.

Les impacts scientifiques sont en partie uniquement perçus sur des groupes de recherche et des
établissements. Le financement du 7e FP a contribué avec le financement nécessaire pour
maintenir et soutenir les artistes interprètes ou exécutants dans le groupe 4 des chercheurs de
pays.

Les PC ont contribué à la promotion de changements et ont soulevé des idées sur la R&I de béton
toutefois un changement à long terme dans l'ensemble est moins perçu. À quelques exceptions
près, les impacts économiques et de l'innovation ont eu tendance à se limiter aux participants,
principalement en raison d'un manque de capacité nationale à soutenir efficacement la
concurrence au niveau européen. Comme avec le groupe 3, la dimension sociale de la FP - y
compris la protection de l'environnement, l'application de politiques fondées sur des données
probantes et de la protection sociale - ont influencé les pays du groupe 4 mais à un degré variable.
Le plus souvent, les EM ont également eu une influence positive sur le renforcement des capacités
pour les décideurs de R&I, bien que la participation et le niveau d'engagement diffèrent selon les
pays du groupe 4.

Bien qu'il convient de souligner que les pays regroupés ne sont pas complètement homogènes - il
existe des différences importantes au sein des groupes et entre les groupes (p. ex., en termes de
spécialisation, de la taille de l'ensemble de R&I, et la capacité de financement de R&I-2008) - on
peut conclure qu'en termes de traits principaux sur les impacts, les groupes de pays peuvent être
considérés comme suit :

• Le renforcement de l'effet de participation FP pour le premier et deuxième groupe: la

participation respective dans les PC ont créé des moyens d'ajouter aux multiples atouts
existants. Si les fonds du 6ème FP ont contribué à l'impact de la science et de l'innovation, le
groupe 1 de pays n’a pas transposé "directement" une approche européenne de R&I. Les pays
du groupe 1 (et dans une moindre mesure dans le groupe 2) ont également exercé une
certaine influence sur le développement de la politique de R&I de l'UE.
• Le renforcement et l'effet structurant de la participation aux PC pour le deuxième et
troisième groupe. La participation aux PC pour ces pays a contribué à façonner les capacités
nationales de R-JE. Les PC sont des outils clés pour promouvoir l’internationalisation de la R&I
. Pour certains pays (surtout le groupe 3), la participation a également considérablement
renforcé leur compétitivité grâce à des politiques mais également aussi de la réforme
législative.
• Le renforcement des capacités d'effet sur le groupe 4. Les impacts pour le groupe 4 :
impacts directs sur la recherche et l'innovation mais est également caractérisée par le
renforcement des capacités. Dans un certain nombre de pays, il est également la preuve de
l'échange de bonnes pratiques et l'apprentissage parmi les décideurs. Tous les pays du Groupe
4 montrent également des domaines d'excellence scientifique.

19
1. INTRODUCTION
This document contains the Final Report of the assignment “Evaluating the uptake and
impact of participation in the European Framework Programmes for Research in Member
States” (2015/RTD/A5/SC/PP-02921-2015), led by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation
Services LLP (CSES) and Oxford Research.

1.1 Aims and objectives of the study

The objective of this study was to assess the uptake and impact of participation in the European
RTD Framework Programmes (“FPs”) in the 28 EU Member States (“MS”) and 13 Associated
Countries (“AC”).

This study was commissioned to support the European Commission in better communicating the
European Added Value (“EAV”) and impacts of the Framework Programmes in each MS and AC.
Secondly, the study should help to facilitate the design of future EU RTD programmes so as to
maximise their future impacts.

The main focus of the study has therefore been on assessing the impacts achieved at national level
through participation in (and the uptake of research results from) the 6th and 7th Framework
Programmes (2002-2006 and 2007-2013 respectively). The study has also taken into
consideration the initial period of implementation of Horizon 2020 (up to October 31st 2016 as a
data cut-off point). To the extent possible, the study has also considered the preceding FPs prior to
FP6. The term uptake relates to the level of applications and participations received from each of
the 41 countries within scope in the programming periods concerned.

This final study report sets out the research results and findings. In particular:
5. Provide an analysis for each MS and AC of the national research and innovation
(“R&I”) landscape and policies during the past 15 years.
6. Provide an analysis of participation patterns in each MS and AC and participation trends
in the FPs, setting these in the wider context of national research capabilities and national
research orientations, policies, cross-border cooperation and structures.
7. Carry out an assessment of the added value of FP participation (beyond financial return
on investment) for each MS/AC and to establish what the additional impact of previous
FP participation has been in each MS and AC in quantitative and qualitative terms.
8. Present a taxonomy of factors conducive to generating lasting impact of the FPs in
the MS and AC. This will be derived using a theory-based approach, i.e. the study should
increase understanding as to ‘why particular factors have been conducive to generating
last impact of the FPs’.

This Report also provides a set of conclusions and recommendations relating to these objectives.
The 41 country reports produced for each MS and AC have been published as stand-alone, but
accompany this report. These outline and assess the impacts that FPs have had at national level.

1.1.1 Summary of Key Tasks

The main motivation behind this study was to address gaps in knowledge about the longer-term
impacts of participation in the EU RTD FPs. In particular, the study provided an assessment of how
the incidence and type of participation by different participant and beneficiary type in each MS and
AC has influenced the nature and extent of impacts in each country.

The Tender Specifications detail four separate Tasks, encompassing the four above-mentioned
objectives that were undertaken through the study. Along with these, CSES also organised a
validation workshop in Brussels on the 19th May 2017 to discuss the findings and conclusions of
this Draft Final Report. Table 1 provides an overview of the study tasks.

20
Table 1 Overview of Study Tasks

Task Scope

Task 1: • Major changes in the national research and innovation landscape (key
Assessment of players, success stories etc.);
how the national
• Major changes in national R&I policy objectives;
research and
innovation • Major changes in national R&I funding (thematic content and budget
landscape and allocations);
policies have
evolved during • The interaction of national and EU level R&I policies, in particular, the
the past 15 years extent to which - and how - the Framework Programmes have shaped
in each MS/AC national research and innovation agendas;
• The extent of transnational cooperation in the R&I fields to achieve
scientific excellence.

Task 2: • Participation patterns by type of organisation, by region by research

Assessment of field, by thematic/area/specific programme/priority area, by budget,
the evolution of per MS/AC and any major changes in this respect;
participation
• Changes in the most active research fields within each MS/AC
patterns in
participating in the FPs;
Framework
Programmes in • Shifts in the interests for thematic area/specific programmes/priority
each MS/AC area most popular within each MS/AC;
during the past
15 years • The impact of changes from FP6 to FP7 and from FP7 to H2020 in the
FP structure on MS/AC (also e.g. the simplification measures, the
innovation approach in FP7 etc.);
• The factors influencing the participation of each MS/AC in the FPs and
the way in which these influence potential applicants and successful
participants. The ways in which the economic and financial crises has
affected participation in the FP in different MS/AC;
• Accompanying measures to stimulate participation in the RTD FPs;
• Influence on the structuring of the higher education and research
systems;
• Influence on transnational cooperation (e.g. through multi-country
research) and cross-border cooperation (wherever R&I programmes in
contiguous countries have been combined).

Task 3: Based on the findings from Tasks 1 and 2, the study shall assess the added
Assessment and value of FP participation (beyond return on investment) for each MS/AC;
description of and establish what the extra impact of previous FP participation has been
the quantitative in each MS/AC in quantitative and qualitative terms.
and qualitative
The following types of impacts will be assessed:
impact of FP
participation on • Scientific impacts;
each MS/AC
based on the • Impacts on innovation;
findings of Tasks • Impacts on national research and innovation policies;
1 and 2
• Wider societal impacts including economic, social and environmental
impacts.

21
 Task Scope

Task 4: To • Establish country groupings based on an assessment of FP participation

present list of patterns and their evolution and whether there is any correlation with
different forms the evolution of national R&I policies;
of impact of FPs
• Present a synthesis analysis of different forms of impact of FPs in MS/
in MS/AC
ACs within these groupings; and
groupings and to
assess which • Analyse which general factors are conducive to generating lasting
general factors impact of the FPs in MS/ACs.
are conducive to
generating
lasting impact of
the FPs in MS/AC

Task 5: The study organised a validation workshop on the 19th of May 2017 at the
Organisation of a European Commission premises in Brussels to present the draft study
validation results and to discuss the recommendations with MS/AC external experts
workshop and members of the Steering Committee

It should be noted that in the study methodology, the validation workshop is named “Task 5”,
although it is not referred to as a separate Task per se in the Tender Specifications.

1.2 Report Structure

Section 2 of this report sets out the methodology. Section 3 sets out the theoretical framework,
and outlines the theory-based approach to assessing impacts that has been incorporated into the
methodology. A typology of impacts is also provided along with an overview of the proposed
country groupings.

Section 4 provides an analysis of the R&I landscape and policies during the past 15 years
(Objective 1). Section 5 provides an analysis of participation patterns in each MS and AC and
participation trends in the FPs (Objective 2). The following Section, Section 6 provides an
assessment and description of FP added value and impacts observed at national level (Objective
3). Section 7 presents a taxonomy of factors conducive to generating lasting impact of the FPs in
the MS and AC (Objective 4). Section 8 sets out the overall conclusions and recommendations
from the study.

22
2. METHODOLOGY
Section 2 of this Final Report summarises the methodology deployed for the study.

2.1 Overview of methodology

The assignment and structure of this report was centred around the four main Tasks.

2.1.1 Task 1 – Assessment of how the national research and innovation landscape and
policies have evolved during the past 15 years in each MS/AC

The key objective of Task 1 was to assess how the national research and innovation (“R&I”)
landscape and policies have evolved during the past 15 years in each Member State/Associated
Country.

Task 1 is an important part of the study, and served a more fundamental role than ‘merely’
providing a historical context. A central aim of the study was to map the inter-linkages between
developments in national and EU R&I policies and to develop a more systematic understanding as
to how these impact on FP uptake and participation – among countries, sectors and different types
of actors that participate in the EU RTD FPs, covering FP6, FP7, and Horizon 2020. Task 1 is
therefore closely linked to Task 2.

The Study Specifications explain that Task 1 should include an assessment of the following
aspects:

Table 2 Task 1 remit

Study Specifications Study approach

1. Major changes in the This describes the last 15 years’ development of the management of
national research and the national R& system – both the public and private sectors, i.e. the
innovation landscape evolution (and changes to any) key actors involved in shaping R&I
(key players, key policy and funding amounts and priorities, as well as the main private
success stories etc.) actors of the R&I sectors of the system (prominent sectors, regional
specialisations etc.). The objective is to explain how – and why –
major changes have taken place, and – if possible – to describe how
and what impacts have occurred as result of any changes.

2. Major changes in the This traced developments in the objectives and priorities of R&I
national research and policies at national – and where applicable – regional level, covering
innovation policy the key institutions involved in R&I policy (whether public or private).
objectives

3. Major changes in This analysed the national/regional/sector-specific changes in

national research and funding, including either budgetary cuts or increases, as well as
innovation funding changes in the balance in funding allocation (e.g. overall funding for
R&I, shifts from one thematic, research or scientific discipline to
another).

4. The interaction of This sub-Task entailed outlining each country’s intended approach to
national and EU level the FP and how policymakers and the R&I community at large
research and envisaged what role (if any) FP participation has played/ is playing
innovation policies, in today in the overall R&I system. The study also aims to illustrate how
particular, to what each country’s national (regional) policy and priorities have
extent and how have developed vis-à-vis the ERA and in particular the FPs, and to what
the Framework extent they have aligned / been complementary; giving concrete
Programmes shaped examples of achievements and impacts.
national research and
innovation agendas

23
 Study Specifications Study approach

5. Cross-border Task 1 also described each country’s close cross-border cooperation,

cooperation which countries tend to work together, in what areas, and how
cooperation has evolved since 2000. We will look at the relationship
between cross-border cooperation and the FPs and how this is
developing.

Task 1 was carried out by the national researchers assigned for the 41 countries, and was
coordinated by CSES and Oxford Research. Some members of the core team were also involved in
producing country reports. Therefore, core team gained first-hand experience of the challenges in
preparing the reports.

Task 1 used two main research tools:

1. A literature review focusing on national and regional information and analysis available in
each of the 41 countries. EU-wide evaluations were used as underlying sources as long as they
are relevant to individual countries.
2. Although a substantial amount of data collected for Task 1 was derived from desk research,
each national researcher were asked to carry out 1-3 interviews. The interviews had three
main purposes: i) to validate the information collected, ii) to fill any data gaps unanswered
through the desk research, and iii) to enrich the analysis. Suitable interviewees may include
policy-makers with long FP experience and/or relevant National Contact Points 3.

Each national report was analysed according to the five aspects outlined in the Tender
Specifications. The outputs and analysis derived from Task 1, along with country-specific analysis
of participation data (Task 2), provided the context and background on the situation in each MS
and AC that was a precursor for Task 3.

2.1.2 Task 2 – Assessment of the evolution of participation patterns in Framework

Programmes in each MS/AC during the past 15 years

The objective of Task 2 was to carry out a longitudinal assessment of the evolution in participation
patterns in the EU FPs over successive programming periods (FP6, FP7 and H2020) across EU28
MS and the 13 ACs. Task 2 was carried out by CSES. The analysis of FP participation data aimed to
facilitate a comparative assessment of participation levels across the 41 countries.

A number of different research tools were utilised to carry out the assessment of participation data
and of the underlying drivers and inhibitors. These included, in summary:

• Desk research – analysis of quantitative participation data in FP6, FP7 and H2020.
Key patterns and trends over time series were highlighted.
• Interviews – with the purpose of:
- Addressing data and information gaps in secondary literature
- Soliciting views on the impacts of participation
• Country reports – the quantitative analysis of participation data were eventually fed into the
development of country reports i.e. each Task 1 report.

The analysis of Task 2 was predominantly quantitative in nature, but a strong qualitative
dimension to interpret the participation data, drawing on the feedback from the Task 1 country
research to identify reasons for variations over time in participation levels, key drivers and
inhibitors etc.

In analysing participation data quantitatively, the study team took into account a number of issues
relating to the baseline situation, namely:

3
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/support/national_contact_points.html

24
• The length of time that particular EU Member States have taken part in the FPs. Although
EU15 countries (the “old” Member States) have participated in the FPs for the full duration of
the period under review, ten ‘new’ Member States joined the EU in 2004, while Bulgaria and
Romania only joined the EU in 2007, and Croatia in 2014. However it should also be noted that
the ‘new’ MS were also generally classified as an AC prior to EU accession.
• The 13 Associated Countries each became involved in participating in the FPs at different
times. Many ACs have a shorter history of FP participation, although some have participated in
all the programming periods within scope (e.g. CH, NO).
• The fact that there are different types of participants taking part in the EU RTD FPs (e.g. SMEs,
HEIs) and play different types of roles in project delivery.

Examples of qualitative considerations that could influence participation levels and trends over
time included:

• The extent of realignment of national funding priorities to reflect thematic shifts in EU

funding priorities between rounds.
• The level of scientific and research capacity of a particular MS or AC to participate in the
FPs (and how this has evolved over time).
• The capacity of different actors (e.g. HEIs, RTOs, SMEs, large enterprises) AC to participate
in the FPs within a particular MS or (and how this has evolved over time).

• The extent to which national and regional authorities have exploited potential synergies and
complementarity between the FPs and relevant EU funding programmes, notably ESIF

• Any other drivers and inhibitors of participating in the FPs by country (and within countries,
to the extent the data allows).

When analysing participation data trends qualitatively, it was important to take into account the
evolving policy and programming context at EU level for FP implementation over the past
15 years. In each period, changes have been made to the thematic and programming mix, the
level of expenditure allocated to different research themes, etc.

The main output from Task 2 was a country-by-country (EU28, 13 ACs) analysis of participation
patterns over time in the FPs, analysed by the different variables e.g. success rates, type of
organisation, thematic / scientific areas, role in delivery of research projects. Analysing success
rates by MS and AC over time was important because to shed light on how efficiently and
effectively different countries are utilising the availability of EU research funding and engaging in
transnational collaborative research.

The analysis of participation data was used to inform a number of different aspects of the
research:

• Task 1 – Assessment of how the national research and innovation landscape and
policies have evolved during the past 15 years in each MS/ AC. The analysis of
participation data at national level by MS / AC was used in the country reports to demonstrate
the evolution in participation levels (applications, successful projects) over 15 years.
• Task 3 – Assessment and description of the quantitative and qualitative impact of FP
participation on each MS /AC.
• Task 4 – List different forms of impact of FPs in MS/AC groupings.
• Final report – an EU-level synthesis analysis of participation data by MS / AC. This will
include a cross-comparative dimension.

2.1.3 Task 3 – Assessment and description of the quantitative and qualitative

impact of FP participation on each Member State/Associated Country

The key objective of Task 3 was to assess the added value and impact for MS/AC of FP
participation. This assessment will go beyond calculating the return on investment (RoI) in
financial terms and should cover each of the 41 countries within study scope. A typology of
impacts was developed (see Table 4 of this report), but which is compatible with the types of
impacts presented in the Tender Specifications:

25
• Scientific impacts;
• Impacts on innovation;
• Impacts on national research and innovation policies;
• Wider societal impacts including economic, social and environmental impacts in particular as
compared to national funding, private funding and synergies with European Strategic
Investment Funds

In conducting Task 3 and preparing the 41 case studies it was necessary not only to focus on the
outcomes of the projects supported by the different FPs in each country, but also the processes
leading to these outcomes. This helped to no only throw light on the mechanisms generating the
outcomes, but also highlight intermediary outcomes, such as the changes in research and
innovation capacities and capabilities, that can be an important determinant of future R&I
performance. The analysis made use of theory-based approaches, which also incorporated explicit
reference to the important institutional and other contextual determinants of R&I processes at a
national level.

The Tender Specifications requested that Task 3 was based on a case study approach, supported
by a series of interviews in each case. Therefore the research methods to inform the case studies
were:

• Interviews at national level with participants in multiple projects in the FPs and with
stakeholders at national and regional level able to provide a broader perspective on the
impacts of the FPs in each country over a 15 year period.
• An online survey of national stakeholders (NCPs). A summary report of the survey responses
and analysis can be found in Annex F in this report.
• Desk research to review relevant national and regional evaluations to assess the impacts of
the FPs at national level (see bibliography in Annex A).

The output from Task 3 was 41 case studies focusing on the impacts of participation in each MS
and AC and an accompanying analysis at an EU-aggregate level (which also fed into the
development of a typology of FP impacts (Task 4). The study also – as far as feasible – considered
causation of impacts under Task 3.

2.1.4 Task 4 – To present a list of different forms of impact of FPs in MS/AC

groupings and to assess which general factors are conducive to
generating lasting impact of the FPs in MS/AC

The objective of Task 4 was to produce a typology of impacts (observed at national level)
conducive to generating lasting impact of the FPs. Although this is an interesting exercise in its
own right, another key aspect of Task 4 is – through the use of theory-based methods – to
develop an understanding of how sustainable impacts have been achieved. In order to do this the
study:

1. Drew on the findings from Tasks 1 and 3.

2. Drew out the context, rationale and mechanisms underlying the impacts achieved. This will
help us understand what pre-conditions – in terms of institutions, strategies, behaviour or
interventions – are key enablers/barriers to producing impacts through FP participation.
3. Related the typology of impacts back to Task 1’s assessment of each country’s R&I system to
allow for a comparison of the overall R&I system with the types of impacts achieved.

Task 4 did not involve any data collection, rather it was undertaken through an analysis of the
findings of Tasks 1-3.

The final stage of the Task 4 analysis was to – for each grouping – look more closely at the factors
which the evidence indicate contribute to being instrumental in aiding lasting impacts. These
included strategies and interventions, types of industry participation or academic strengths and
collaboration methods. The study focused on drawing out and explaining in the analysis i) how and
why these factors play a role, and ii) what the (developing) relationship is between the national
R&I system and the FPs.

26
2.1.5 Task 5 – Organisation of a validation workshop

The organisation of the validation workshop was the fifth and final Task. The validation workshop
served two main purposes. Firstly, it was an exercise of validation of the findings and conclusions
derived from Tasks 1-4. The workshop involved experts from the 41 countries and Steering
Committee members who, along with the study team, discussed the findings and preliminary
conclusions of the study. Secondly, the workshop also helped to validate the emerging study
recommendations.

The validation workshop was held in Brussels on the 19th of May 2017. Annex E outlines the
workshop agenda, list of participants and workshop summary report.

2.2 Limitations

A key activity of this assignment has been the assessment and description of the quantitative and
qualitative impact of FP participation in the MS/AC of the study. This constitutes one of the few
examples of evaluation studies that have attempted to assess the long-term impacts of EU RTD
Framework Programme participation. The scope is therefore ambitious, as it covers not only the 28
EU Member States, but also 13 countries associated to all or some of the Framework Programmes
included in the study remit.

The broad scope of the study has provided an opportunity to explore how the FPs interplay across
and between (widely different) national Research & Innovation systems and capabilities and to
assess what kind of distinctive impacts the Framework Programmes may contribute towards.
However, the depth of analysis that can be undertaken at EU level has been somewhat constrained
by the need to divide up the available resources for the study across 41 countries. In any
evaluation of this magnitude involving 41 country reports, even with standardisation of the
reporting format, given variations in the amount of data and information available, the extent of
cooperation and input from key stakeholders on impacts etc. the evidence base gathered is
uneven. This is also due to unevenness in terms of the availability of data and information on the
impacts of FP participation available since some countries have undertaken dedicated evaluations
on FP participation and the associated impacts whereas most countries previously have not.

It has therefore been necessary to not only focus on the outcomes of the projects supported by
the different FPs in each country, but also the processes leading to these outcomes, as
understanding the processes and mechanisms generating the outcomes also highlight intermediary
outcomes, such as the changes in research and innovation capacities and capabilities, that can be
an important determinant of future research and innovation performance.

27
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Introduction

Before this report presents and discusses the findings of the study research, it will outline the
theoretical framework, which has determined how the investigations have been structured and
implemented and through which the study findings have ultimately been derived. The purpose of
including this methodological introduction is two-fold.

Firstly, section 3 shall explain the overall approach and how this has determined the type of
investigation that has been conducted. Secondly, certain analytical tools derived from the
approach adopted are set out and their features described, since these help to explain the nature
of the finding that are presented in subsequent chapters.

3.2 A Theory-based evaluation framework

In order to determine the main elements of the investigation, and above all the explanatory
framework to be developed that would shape both the investigations and the analysis of the
findings, the study drew inspiration from a theory-based approach to evaluation. The following
paragraphs explain how this has influenced approach adopted for the study.

Research and Innovation (“R&I”) strategies at EU and national levels are evolving rapidly,
reflecting the broadening concept of innovation and its relationship to research. This presents an
even more complex picture than was the case in the recent past when innovation and research
were less closely integrated at a policy and strategic level. Elements of this growing complexity in
the R&I landscape include the transition away from over-dependence on a linear model of
innovation to a more open and systems-based conception (explained further below) and the
growing appreciation of the multi-faceted nature of innovation so that it encompasses changes in
processes and business models as well as in products and technology. At the same time, there has
been pressure on policy makers to make interventions more transparent and cost-effective and to
adopt an evidence-based approach to new policy developments.

As pointed out in the 2014 Commission Communication on ‘Research and innovation as sources of
renewed growth’ 4, policymakers should take account of this emerging thinking and new
paradigms, generated by factors such as big data, open innovation and open access to data, and
the on-going changes in research and the organisation of science (“Science 2.0”), driven by digital
technologies and the globalisation of the scientific community. Within this context, evaluation and
related assessment techniques have a critical role. The Communication comments: ‘objective
information and evidence is an integral part of policy making, including foresight and systematic
ex-ante and ex-post evaluations, in particular to assess the long-term socio-economic impact of
R&I funding’.

In parallel with the shifts in the conception of innovation and in the orientation of policymaking
processes, there have also been significant developments in evaluation methodology, such that the
picture has become more complex here too. On the one hand, there has been a continuing
pressure for a clearer identification of the effects of policy interventions, through better data
collection and quantification techniques and more robust characterisation of counterfactual
scenarios, notably in the selection of matching comparators. At the same time, there has been the
development of a whole range of ‘theory-based’ approaches, from the realist school developed by
Pawson and Tilley in 1997 and refined in 2004 5 to approaches such as process tracing, as
developed for instance by George & Bennett 6 congruence analysis stemming from systems theory
(e.g. Nadler and Tushman 7) and contribution analysis, following the approach initially developed
by Mayne. 8

4
https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2013/research-and-innovation-as-
sources-of-renewed-growth-com-2014-339-final.pdf - COM(2014) 339 final
5
Pawson & Tiley (2004) Realist Evaluation. http://www.communitymatters.com.au/RE_chapter.pdf
6
George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social
Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7
Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1997) Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational Architecture. New
York: Oxford University Press
8
Mayne J (2001) Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly.
Canadian Journal of Programme Evaluation 16, 1-24

28
These approaches all have their distinctive traits, often reflecting the different academic disciplines
within which they were initially formulated, but they also have a number of common features. All
of them tend to rely on qualitative analysis, while at the same time introducing elements of rigour
and structure. Equally, all place an emphasis on two important elements – the context or
environment in which policy is applied and the mechanisms or processes by which policy
instruments are implemented. In this respect they all attempt to get inside the ‘black box’ that is
often said to characterise the methodology of counter-factual analysis. Consequently, theory-
based approaches and counter-factual methods have often appeared to be in opposition to each
other. However, it should be stressed that methodologically the two broad approaches are not
contradictory and, indeed, can provide an important degree of complementarity.

Counterfactual analysis is most robust when it makes use of an extensive data set that allows it to
discriminate between potentially significant explanatory variables across many instances of the
instrument’s application. With their emphasis on specific context and mechanisms, in contrast,
theory-based approaches tend to take a more in-depth, ‘vertical’ view of particular instances and
hence are particularly appropriate for case-study analysis. In doing so, they can fill out
explanations, throwing light on why particular variables are found to be significant in counter-
factual analysis and also (at least partially) why other potential explanatory variables turn out not
to have statistical significance. Nonetheless each approach faces its own challenges in methods
and interpretation.

Theoretically, there are a number of advantages of using a theory-based approach, especially if

this can be combined with elements of counterfactual analysis. However, there are practical
problems in using the approach systematically, especially when a broadly based policy measure, or
set of policy measures, is under consideration. Because of the requirement to spell out many
elements of the context that define the approach adopted by a policy measure and the need to
explore the detail of mechanisms by which the effects of a measure are delivered, theory-based
approaches are best suited to specific, relatively narrowly defined interventions. When as, in the
current case, a wide range of contextual circumstances has to be taken into account and the
delivery mechanisms are multiple and very varied a consistent application of theory-based
methodology is very difficult to achieve for practical reasons. Nonetheless, it is possible to draw
inspiration from the approach and to make use of some of its features, especially when, as with
this study, it is necessary to take into account the institutional context in which policy processes
take place and when it is also important to understand the mechanisms whereby policy objectives
are implemented and the outcomes generated.

The following sections, therefore set out some of the defining elements, suggested by a theory-
based approach, that have guided the more detailed investigations conducted under this study.
They relate to:
• The national institutional and policy context in which the FPs have operated;
• The mechanisms and especially the drivers that have delivered the outcomes of R&I policy;
• The extent of alignment between national R&I policies and programmes and the EU RTD FPs;
• The nature of the impacts that constitute the main part of these outcomes.

None of these elements stands alone. They all interact with each other and this will be part of the
account that will be given, not least as a result of a process of adjusting and re-defining the
characterisation of these elements that has taken place as the investigations have progressed. A
significant example of this process will be set out in the last section of this chapter, where as a
result of a consideration of the interaction between the three elements in particular countries, it
has been possible to arrive at a categorisation of R&I types, combining the three elements, which
can be a significant instrument for describing the situation of a particular country.

3.3 Research & innovation systems

An important part of an account of the formation and implementation of R&I policy at a national
level is an explanation of the institutional arrangements that characterise the country concerned
and especially the way that the R&I system is structured. Our theoretical framework, therefore,
makes use of the R&I systems approach, which sets out the interactions between the different
parts of the R&I system. The diagram below (Figure 1) shows the interlinkages between the
industrial system, the education and research system and the political system, and also
emphasises the important role of framework conditions.

29
Arnold and Kuhlmann (2000) define an innovation system as being composed of a number of key
elements such as demand for innovation, framework conditions such as the regulatory framework
or tax system, industrial systems composed of large companies, SMEs and start-ups, education
and research systems, intermediaries such as business and support organisations, political
systems and infrastructures including an IPR regime, the availability of venture capital and the
development of technical standards. Whilst all the different elements in an innovation system have
the potential to reinforce one another, they may also risk blocking one another and have an
opposite, rather than the desired, effect. 9

Figure 1 Research and Innovation system

Source: Adapted from Arnold and Kuhlman, 2001 via Gretchen Jordan What Might a Theory-Based
Roadmap for Prospective Evaluation and Developing Innovation Policy Look Like? 2009

This latter point is important, as in the last decade or so R&I policy has increased in complexity.
Nationally and internationally, efforts are being made to develop R&I capacity and to align
research with societal needs and challenges. In some countries, policy reforms have also altered
the management, funding and prioritisation of R&I interventions.

It should also be noted that the system described has many of the elements of the triple (or
quadruple) helix model 10 that has been extensively used in the context of innovation promotion as
part of European regional development strategies and the emphasis in the current programming
period on Smart Specialisation, though perhaps by referring to an upward spiral, this model points
to the dynamic aspects of the interaction between key actors that can be an important element in
successful innovation promotion.

The literature also indicates that R&I policy is becoming wider and more interlinked with other
policy areas (e.g. environmental, social, industrial policy and competitiveness). Innovation funding
dedicated to thematic priorities has also been increasing. It is therefore becoming more important
to understand how different elements within each R&I system operate as a common structure.

Innovation has also increasingly been seen as ‘open’, involving interaction with customers and also
with other researchers with a common interest, rather than simply the internal concern of
enterprises and many now subscribe to this multi-faceted conception of innovation. Consequently,
it is becoming increasingly important to support the mobilisation of entire R&I systems to address
social and economic challenges. One of the lessons which OECD and Eurostat point to after

9
Quoted in Izsák et al (2013) Lessons from a Decade of Innovation Policy What can be learnt from the INNO
Policy TrendChart and The Innovation Union Scoreboard. Final Report
10
See for instance an early statement of the model in Henry Etzkowitz & Loet Leydesdorff, (2000) The
dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–
government relations, * Research Policy, vol 29, pp 109–123.

30
decades of innovation studies is that “innovation systems, although dynamic, can become locked
into trajectories that make it difficult to mobilise or shift resources to address new goals”. 11

This study therefore opted to use an R&I system approach rather than making use of e.g. the
more simplified linear model of innovation. Not only is a system approach more conducive to
understanding the interplay between actors and activities at national level; it also puts the study in
a stronger position to analyse the interplay between national and EU actors and activities.

Finally in this context, it should be remembered that the majority of publicly-funded research in
the EU has been undertaken at national level. 12 In 2011, this accounted for 85% of total R&D
expenditure. This left European funding, including the FP, as making a contribution of less than
15% towards individual countries’ investments. This means that European funding – including the
FPs – make a contribution of less than 15% towards individual countries’ R&I GERD. Furthermore,
in many EU-13 Member States, of the EU funding element, only a small percentage of this comes
since the majority of EU funding for R&I is obtained through European Structural and Investment
Funds.

Nevertheless, the literature points to evidence that the pooling of resources in R&I is a particularly
effective way of creating impact. The European Parliament’s European Added Value Unit has
estimated 13 that the implementation of the ERA has the potential to lead to an efficiency gain of at
least EUR 1 billion per year over a period of 15 years 14. We should therefore expect the FPs to
have leveraging effects in the 41 countries concerned. These effects are likely to be different for
different countries, regions, sectors or type of FP participant.

A second important point about the 85-15-percentage ratio is that the 85% that constitutes
national level funding is distributed unevenly across Europe. As a result, in absolute terms FP
funding may constitute considerably higher amounts of R&I funding in the lowest capacity
countries.

Establishing the elements of an R&I system in this way and examining the implications for the
operation of R&I measures, it follows that a suitable Intervention Logic model shall also spell out
the processes involved. Figure 2 below, adapted from Gretchen Jordan, illustrates this approach.
This unpicks many of the mechanisms (rationale, networking behaviour, assessments and
anticipations) not easily discernible in a simple input-output-impact model that is often used as an
alternative to theory-based approaches. It also distinguishes between activities and events at
micro (project or actor level), meso (sector or regional level) and macro (national) level. This
aided the unpicking and analysis of the different level interactions that occur and impact on each
other in an R&I system model.

11
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014
12
LERU. Advice Paper No.9. The European Research Area: Priorities for Research Universities, December 2011.
LERU response to the European Commission Consultation: "The European Research Area Framework, Untapped
areas of potential"
13
The estimation is based (with caution) on the EC Impact Assessment accompanying the Communication - A
Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth, SWD(2012)212 final.
14
European Added Value Unit, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament Mapping the
Cost of Non-Europe, 2014 -19. PE 510.983. First edition: March 2014. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/the-
secretary-general/resource/static/files/files/mapping-the-cost-of-non-europe--march-2014-.pdf.

31
Figure 2 Intervention logic (derived from a theory-based evaluation approach)

Source: Adapted from Gretchen Jordan What Might a Theory-Based Roadmap for Prospective
Evaluation and Developing Innovation Policy Look Like?

Subsequently, through Task 3 of the study, 41 case studies were prepared which assessed and
described the quantitative and qualitative impact of FP participation on each MS/AC, in turn based
on Task 1’s national reports on the development of each national R&I system.

This way it was possible not only to focus on the outcomes of the projects supported by the
different FPs in each country, but also the processes leading to these outcomes. This threw light on
the mechanisms generating the outcomes and highlighted intermediate outcomes, such as the
changes in research and innovation capacities and capabilities (especially highlighted through the
longitudinal perspective of the research), that can be an important determinant of future R&I
performance. This analysis also incorporated explicit reference to the important institutional and
other contextual determinants of various R&I processes at a national level.

3.4 Drivers and inhibitors of impacts

Another significant element in the account of the R&I policy measures in the 41 countries, needed
to establish a way of characterising the processes whereby the results of policy have been
delivered and especially the main drivers.

Because the processes concerned could be many and varied, it was only possible initially to
indicate the sort of processes that are relevant. These include the following:
• The governance structure and processes and national (and regional) commitment to R&I;
• The strengths and operational practices of the Higher Education and research institutes,
including the nature of funding mechanisms;
• The processes of engagement of the industrial sector in R&I, both within and between
organisations and between the industry and academic sectors and the use of the support
available;
• The nature and processes of R&I infrastructure and support;
• Cultural and social processes – nature of entrepreneurial discovery evident in a country,
attitudes towards entrepreneurship.

The detail would have to be established at a national level and also reflect the areas within the
FPs that countries tend to exploit.

32
The figure below provides an illustration on (examples of) the types of drivers and inhibitors that
can exist in national R&I systems and consequently, how these may affect – to different degrees –
a country’s ability to compete in the FPs and deliver the anticipated outcomes expected from FP
participation.

Figure 3 Drivers and inhibitors in the national R&I system (examples)

Source: Adapted from Arnold and Kuhlman, 2001 via Gretchen Jordan What Might a Theory-Based
Roadmap for Prospective Evaluation and Developing Innovation Policy Look Like? 2009

The evaluative literature that covers national FP participation indicates that the intervention logic
and strategic use of EU RTD FP funding differs between countries. Having said this, there does not
appear to be a complete or comparable analysis of each country’s strategy vis-à-vis the
Framework Programmes. 15 Nevertheless there are some examples which indicate that the nature
and extent of the FPs’ influence and impact on European countries’ R&I systems and structures,
policies and programmes differs between countries this and may also change over time.

Rather, the FPs are viewed by national R&I stakeholders as playing a different role in different
European countries, depending on heterogeneous factors, such as the baseline situation in respect
of the state of development of national R&I capacity, the degree of internationalisation, etc.
Moreover, the way in which the FPs influence national developments depend on different
mechanisms, as will be explained under the various headings below, which draw on selected
examples from previous studies:

• Transformative behavioural role of the FPs

In Austria, FP7 effects are largely visible through new and improved R&I relationships,
collaborations and (strategic) partnerships. Austrian participants have also increased their
scientific and technological capabilities and the capacity to conduct R&D. The Austrian evaluators
recommend that the country (continues) to focus on promoting behavioural additionality, i.e.
learning how to understand and participate in new international activities, rather than subsidising

15
It is equally important to note that not all 41 countries have undertaken analysis of their FP participation;
and even those who have will have undertaken studies examining different aspects of the FP (value for money,
business participation, thematic participation etc.).

33
the continued performance of activities that have (or should have) been learnt or that should be
taken over by other actors. 16

• Strategic transformative role of the FPs

Other country evaluations, such as a Danish study on FPs 6 and 7 17, indicate a multi-dimensional
strategy to enhance the relevance of FPs. These include the strategic placing of national
representatives on the FP programme committees, the establishment of Reference Groups in
seven FP7 priority areas to strengthen national consultation on draft work programmes and to
advise on ways to enhance Danish involvement, participation in EU-level conferences, workshops
and other network activities, participation in European Technology Platforms, Joint Technology
Initiatives, Article 169 actions and other forums that are helping to set future FP research
trajectories and priorities, participation on FP Advisory Groups and a range of ‘lobbying’ activities
aimed at influencing Commission officials responsible for FP planning.

• Inverse relationship between FP and national funding

The importance of the interplay between national and EU funding policy is clearly illustrated in the
case of Ireland. In Ireland, the Sixth Framework Programme coincided with a period of rapid
expansion in the levels of national research funding and this contributed to a decreased desire to
apply to the FPs. Conversely, when the economic crisis and subsequent recession meant that Irish
R&I funding was cut, Irish R&I performers turned once again to the FPs (FP7) to counteract the
cuts imposed at national level.

Based on existing evidence, this study makes a number of assumptions about the processes by
which the FPs generate impacts on the national R&I system, and these underpin the research
findings, namely: i) the relationship between the Framework Programmes and the national R&I
system is unique to each particular country although common patterns can be detected. ii) FP
uptake and types of impacts observed at national level are likely to change over time. iii) Impacts
from the FPs can manifest themselves in different elements of the national R&I system and will
depend on the pre-existing conditions in each country.

This account also has to take into account inhibitors of performance. The literature on the
performance of counties in the FPs often focuses on the performance of the EU-15 since the EU
enlargement rounds (2005, 2007 and 2013 respectively). In assessments of FP7 country
performance, a common key conclusion is that the performance of a group of countries within the
established EU-12 is significantly more competitive than the EU-15, since the latter countries’
performance was characterised by low financial contribution per capita and per project, as well as
by fewer coordinators.

There are a number of factors behind disparities in research excellence and innovation
performance between FP participating countries, but what they have in common is that they create
a barrier to improving competitiveness and creating growth and jobs across Europe. The European
Commission actively tries to support wider participation in Horizon 2020 and alleviates common
barriers to participation, such as, e.g.:
• Insufficient national R&D investments
• A lack of synergies between national research systems and the EU research landscape
• Differential wage level between countries and low salaries for researchers in EU-13 and some
EU candidate countries participating as associate countries in the FPs
• System learning effects
• Existing networks constituting barriers to entry
• Large projects being problematic for small countries and new actors
• Problems with information, communication and training

16
Technopolis (2010) Evaluation of Austrian Support Structures for FP 7 & Eureka and Impact Analysis of EU
Research Initiatives on the Austrian Research & Innovation System
17
Technopolis (2009) Evaluation of Danish Participation in the 6th and 7th Framework Programmes

34
Table 3 Horizon 2020 measures

The Commission currently provides support for measures to strengthen research and innovation
performance in the major part of the catching-up economies of the EU, under a new set of
arrangements in Horizon 2020, within the separate specific objective "Spreading Excellence and
Widening Participation" (WIDESPREAD) with a total budget of EUR816 mil:
• Teaming for Excellence
• Twinning (institutional networking)
• ERA Chairs (bringing excellence to institutions)
• NCPs (information, communication, support)
• Policy Support Facility (support for R&I Policy design)
• COST (stimulating cross border science networks) run under an intergovernmental
framework
Actions to widen participation also aim to create synergies between R&I (H2020) and Cohesion
Policies (ESIF) notably through Smart Specialisation.

The above support schemes and structures are relevant to the analysis presented in this report.
However, it should be recalled that some of these initiatives are relatively new, such as the Policy
Support Facility, whereas others, such as COST also ran in previous programmes. Our assessment
in relation to widening participation and to assessing available support structures presented later
in this study therefore extends beyond the above measures to include efforts to enhance
participation and to provide support to Member States and prospective FP applicants in FP6 and
FP7.

3.5 Typology of FP impacts at national level

The third element to consider in the explanation of the workings of R&I policy is the identification
and assessment of the impacts of FP participation and consideration as to how these can be
characterised. This section will first consider the different types of impact, and then the study’s
approach to assessing them.

3.5.1 Typology of impacts

A typology of impacts was developed in the study’s early stages and has proved to be an effective
framework for the analysis of the different impacts that have been observed. This typology was
designed to cover the main elements of the national R&I system, as illustrated in Figure 4. A
distinction is made between:
• Scientific impacts
• R&I systems impacts
• Policy impacts
• Economic impacts and impacts on innovation
• (Wider) Societal impacts

35
As the figure below suggests, some impacts are more likely to manifest themselves on different
parts of the R&I system than others. However, it is also important to remember that according to
the R&I system theory there is always a degree of interaction between the elements.

Figure 4 R&I systems impact typology

Source: Adapted from Arnold and Kuhlman, 2001 via Gretchen Jordan What Might a Theory-Based
Roadmap for Prospective Evaluation and Developing Innovation Policy Look Like? 2009

Naturally, in terms of the different types of impact shown above, scientific impacts tend to be
one of the most immediate and, by far, the type of impact most documented through both national
and EU level evaluations and other studies. These are predominantly focused on the production
and processes around science and research (i.e. involving higher education, research institutes
and organisations, public agencies and to a lesser degree the private sector), but also address the
application of knowledge as this impact type equally affects the training and mobility of highly-
skilled researchers.

R&I systems impacts are concerned with capturing the wider effects, notably networking effects
among several performers (public and/or private R&I) and changes in the effectiveness of
cooperation between universities, research institutions and other public and private actors. R&I
systems impacts cover institutional changes (e.g. improved. management structures) but equally,
behavioural and cultural changes among R&I performers are relevant.

While R&I system impacts denote the effects relating to the interrelationships between R&I actors,
in contrast, policy impacts refer to effects within governance and management, effects on soft
and hard legislation regulating R&I at national level and to the application of evidence-based
knowledge on policymaking (relating to R&I policy but equally to other areas of public policy, such
as health and the environment).

Economic impacts and impacts on innovation are effects which contribute to wealth creation
and economic prosperity, particularly through the commercialisation of scientific knowledge.
Although economic impacts and impacts on innovation tend to be associated with industry FP
participants, it is important to acknowledge the role of universities and research institutes and
their own impacts, which are also actors that may produce spin-offs and other relevant
outcomes/impacts.

Societal impacts, including the contribution to addressing societal challenges, are impacts which
are produced within the R&I system, and which may affect elements within the R&I system itself,

36
but which are observable within society at large. Societal impacts can therefore range from
improved environmental legislation/protection to an improved public awareness and understanding
of science. A key factor of societal impacts is the increased use of evidence in policymaking.

Simply put, in terms of attributing the observed effects to FP involvement, the former impacts (i.e.
scientific impacts, R&I systems impacts and policy impacts) are easier to provide strong evidence
for and can be more easily attributed – at least partly – to FP participation.

The latter impact types (economic impacts, impacts on innovation, and societal impacts) are more
challenging to gather evidence on, partly – as the literature concludes – because of the extended
time lag between the activities carried out and the wider impacts resulting from these. However,
another important factor is that innovation and economic growth, along with societal impacts are
comparatively more complex impacts that tend to require a mix of activities, actors and funding to
occur – i.e. the funding mix over time plays a more important role. For example, national
regulation promoting environmental protection is not likely to change as a result of one or even
multiple FP projects, but the technical know-how and strengthening of the evidence base derived
from FP participation can over time contribute towards promoting legislative changes in this field
at national level.

This is not to say that the FPs do not contribute directly to these kinds of impact – indeed they do.
The FPs are an important source of funding for R&I performers and lead directly to innovation
outputs such as registered patents, the development of prototypes and demonstrations, new
products, etc. However, these R&I performers also benefit from other funding streams – many
Centre of Excellence/Competence Centre models require national governments, universities and
businesses to co-fund activities and at a basic level national funding is used to strengthen national
participation internationally, and in the FPs specifically. A study commissioned by VINNOVA on the
Long Term Industrial Impacts of the Swedish Competence Centres estimated that between one-
third and one-quarter of the Swedish businesses involved in the Competence Centres evaluated
had also participated in EU Framework programmes (FP4, FP5 and/or FP6). 18

As this report argues in later sections, the different types of impacts identified above are often
interrelated.

Table 4 (overleaf) provides a more complete picture of the scope of each type of impact. It was
developed using a typology originally taken from Research Councils UK. The study has slightly
revised this typology, making Policy impacts a category in its own right (RCUK grouped it under
social impacts) since we consider this to be an important enough (and distinct enough) type of
impact to present it separately, especially considering the close relationship between the
Framework Programmes and the implementation of the ERA. We have also reviewed some of the
indicators.

18
Long Term Industrial Impacts of the Swedish Competence Centres (2013) Peter Stern, Erik Arnold, Malin
Carlberg, Tobias Fridholm, Cristina Rosemberg & Miriam Terrell

37
 Table 4 Types of impacts at national level derived from FP participation
Types of impacts
Promoting world-class science
Enhancing the knowledge economy
through the generation of new
knowledge and scientific
advancement
The development and utilisation of
new and innovative methodologies,
equipment, techniques,
technologies, and cross-disciplinary
approaches
38
Indicators Example data & information
sources
Scientific impacts
• Proportion of researchers in (high-quality) international • Programme data (e.g. eCorda)
collaborations
• Bibliometric data (e.g. Scopus)
• Proportion of scientific articles published in high-impact
• Existing (secondary) national
journals
analysis and data compilation
• Proportion of co-produced scientific articles published in
• Citation analysis
high-impact journals
• Alternative (Altmetric) data
• Academic output in terms of papers, journals and books • Programme data (e.g. eCorda)
published
• Bibliometric data (e.g. Scopus)
• Level of science-in-society engagement
• Existing (secondary) national
• Proportion of scientific articles published in cross- analysis and data compilation
disciplinary journals
• Citation analysis
• Alternative (Altmetric) data
• Academic output in terms of papers, journals and books • Programme data (e.g. eCorda)
published
• Bibliometric data (e.g. Scopus)
• Level of international collaboration
• Existing (secondary) national
• Level of science-in-society engagement analysis and data compilation
• Proportion of scientific articles published in cross- • Citation analysis
disciplinary journals
• Alternative (Altmetric) data
 Types of impacts
Developing expertise and knowledge
in new or established disciplines or
multi-disciplinary areas
Delivering and training highly-skilled
researchers
Promoting the mobility of highly-
skilled researchers
Contributing to wealth creation and
economic prosperity i.e. the creation
and growth of enterprises and jobs;
enhancing business revenue and
innovative capacity
The commercialisation and
exploitation of scientific knowledge,
leading to the creation of new spin
out enterprises, processes, products
and services
Indicators Example data & information
sources
• Level of international collaboration • Programme data (e.g. eCorda)
• Level of science-in-society engagement • Bibliometric data (e.g. Scopus)
• Proportion of scientific articles published in cross- • Existing (secondary) national
disciplinary journals analysis and data compilation
• Citation analysis
• Alternative (Altmetric) data
• Proportion of population in higher education and R&I • National statistics and Eurostat,
system OECD
• Proportion of population in training • Existing (secondary) national
analysis and data compilation
• Level of mobility i) internationally, ii) in industry • National statistics and Eurostat,
(compared to international R&I population) OECD
• Existing (secondary) national
analysis and data compilation
Economic Impacts
• (Comparative) Number of high-skilled employment • National statistics and Eurostat,
opportunities created OECD
• (Comparative) Number of new knowledge-intense • Existing (secondary) national
enterprises, including spin offs and spin outs analysis and data compilation
• Turnover and profitability of knowledge-intense sectors
• (Comparative) Number of new knowledge-intense • National statistics and Eurostat,
enterprises, including spin offs and spin outs OECD
• Turnover and profitability of knowledge-intense sectors • Existing (secondary) national
analysis and data compilation
• (Comparative) Number of patent, licence applications and
the proportion of patents, licences issued • Patents, licence database data
• Proportion of patents, licences issued in specific sectors
39
 Types of impacts
Enhancing the efficiency,
performance and sustainability of
businesses/ organisations including
public services
Attracting R&D investment from
global businesses
Shaping and enhancing the
effectiveness of public services
Tackling societal challenges (as set
out in the Horizon 2020 objectives,
e.g. climate change, an ageing
population)
Enhancing cultural enrichment,
quality of life, health and well-being
40
Indicators Example data & information
sources
• Proportion of new businesses established with innovative • National statistics and Eurostat,
business model (e.g. eco-innovation, social innovation OECD
models)
• Existing (secondary) national
• Degree of importance of innovation in public procurement analysis and data compilation
(criteria weighting)
• Data and analysis of national (EU)
public procurement regulation
• Proportion of Foreign Direct Investment in R&I • National statistics and Eurostat,
OECD
• Degree of importance of innovation in public procurement • Data and analysis of national (EU)
(criteria weighting) public procurement regulation
Societal impacts
• Growth in innovations tackling societal challenges • Patents, licence database data
• Progress towards achieving EU and national targets set to • Existing (secondary) national
measure progress in terms of increased energy efficiency analysis and data compilation
etc.
• Evidence and advice submitted to
• Level of scientific community contributions to policy, e.g. policymaking organisation
through contributions to the IPCC (International Panel on
Climate Change)
• Growth in social and cultural innovation • National statistics and Eurostat,
OECD
- New businesses, including spin offs and spin outs
• Existing (secondary) national
- New employment opportunities
analysis and data compilation
 Types of impacts
Improving social welfare, social
cohesion and/or national security
Contributing toward environmental
sustainability, protection and impact
reduction (e.g. through more
sustainable use of raw materials
Contributing to increasing public
awareness and understanding of
science, economic and societal
issues
Indicators Example data & information
sources
• Growth in innovations tackling societal challenges • National statistics and Eurostat,
OECD
• Progress towards achieving EU and national targets set to
measure progress in terms of increased social welfare, • Existing (secondary) national
security, etc. analysis and data compilation
• Growth in social and cultural innovation • Evidence and advice submitted to
policymaking organisation
- New businesses, including spin offs and spin outs
- New employment opportunities
• Level of scientific community contributions to policy, e.g.
through contributions to international organisations
• Growth in innovations tackling environmental •
sustainability, protection and impact reduction
• National statistics and Eurostat,
• Progress towards achieving EU and national targets set to OECD
measure progress in terms of increased energy efficiency
• Existing (secondary) national
etc.
analysis and data compilation
• Level of scientific community contributions to policy, e.g.
through contributions to the IPCC (International Panel on
Climate Change)
• Growth in eco- innovation
- New businesses, including spin offs and spin outs
- New employment opportunities
• Level of scientific community contributions to policy, e.g. • Evidence and advice submitted to
through contributions to international organisations policymaking organisation
• Level of international collaboration • National statistics and Eurostat,
OECD
• Level of science-in-society engagement
• Existing (secondary) national
analysis and data compilation
• Alternative (Altmetric) data
41
 Types of impacts
Translating evidence-based policy
into practice and informing
professional and policy practices
R&I systems impacts (organisational and process-related impacts)
Networking effects: Strengthening
cooperation between universities,
research institutions
Changing organisational culture and
practices (congruence model of
organisational behaviour)
Enhancing the research capacity,
knowledge and skills of businesses
and organisations
42
Indicators Example data & information
sources
• Level of scientific community contributions to policy, e.g. • Evidence and advice submitted to
through contributions to international organisations policymaking organisation
• Level and width of policy consultations (and contributions) • National statistics and Eurostat,
OECD
• Level of science-in-society engagement
• Existing (secondary) national
analysis and data compilation
• Alternative (Altmetric) data
• Number of initiatives supporting public-private and triple • National statistics and Eurostat,
helix cooperation OECD
• Degree of success of programmes (evaluations of • Existing (secondary) national
competence centres etc) analysis and data compilation
• Growth in social and cultural innovation • National statistics and Eurostat,
OECD
- New businesses, including spin offs and spin outs
• Existing (secondary) national
- New business models
analysis and data compilation
- New employment opportunities
• (Comparative) Number of high-skilled employment • National statistics and Eurostat,
opportunities created OECD
• (Comparative) Number of new knowledge-intense • Existing (secondary) national
enterprises, including spin offs and spin outs analysis and data compilation
- Turnover and profitability of knowledge-intense • Patents, licence database data
sectors
• Growth in social and cultural innovation
- New businesses, including spin offs and spin outs
- New business models
- New employment opportunities
 Types of impacts
Promoting the uptake of advanced
manufacturing and key enabling
technologies (KETs) among
manufacturers
Contributing towards evidence
based policy-making and influencing
public policies and legislation at a
local, regional, national and
international level
Source: Research Councils UK
Indicators Example data & information
sources
• (Comparative) Number of new knowledge-intense • National statistics and Eurostat,
companies, including spin offs and spin outs in the KET OECD
manufacturing sectors
• Existing (secondary) national
- (Comparative) Number of high-skilled analysis and data compilation
employment opportunities created in the KET
• Patents, licence database data
manufacturing sectors
- Turnover and profitability the KET manufacturing
sectors
• (Comparative) Number of patent, licence applications and
the proportion of patents, licences issued in the KET
manufacturing sectors
Policy impacts
• Level of scientific community contributions to policy, e.g. • Existing (secondary) national
through contributions to international organisations analysis and data compilation
• Level and width of policy consultations (and contributions) • National statistics and Eurostat,
OECD
• Level of science-in-society engagement
• Secondary data (interviews)
• Extent to which R&I policy are complementary/aligned at
local, regional, national and international level
43
3.6 Country groupings

Taking into account the three elements of the explanatory model and especially their interaction,
plus early feedback on how these played out in specific countries, it was possible to develop a
typology of the different kinds of R&I process and impact deriving from the FPs and to create
country groupings on the basis of the ‘archetypical’ characteristics of the 41 MS and ACs. This
exercise requires some further explanation of the rationale behind the groupings.

The aim of the exercise to develop country groupings was to improve understanding of the
different ways that the FPs interact with the national R&I systems in the study countries and how
the FPs can create impacts at national level.

As such, the aim has explicitly not been to create a league table of countries, but rather to better
understand how the different country groupings can improve their performance based
on their particular strengths and weaknesses, whilst taking into account the features of their
R&I system and overall R&I performance, as assessed through country research undertaken for
the purposes of our study. A further purpose of developing the groupings was to develop tailored
recommendations aiming to support each archetypical group by building on their particular
strengths and addressing weaknesses common to each country in the various groups (see
Section 8).

This study has therefore created the country grouping looking at FP participation processes and
impacts from three perspectives:

• A country’s baseline – the state of the national R&I system and the extent of its development
in the 2000-2015 period, assessing the international competitiveness of each country and – by
extension – its capacity to compete for FP funding.
• The breadth and length of a country’s FP participation. The 41 countries have very different
histories of participation with a number of core countries that have experience of FP
collaboration dating back to FP1 (1984-1987). Other countries, including the EU-13 and the
Balkan associated countries have considerably less FP experience in terms of the number of
years. Similarly, the range of areas within the Programmes differs between countries and the
countries’ long-term FP participation follows different patterns, according to the size, capability
and capacity of each national R&I system.
• The extent to which impacts can be observed and also (partly) attributed to FP participation.
While this study has worked to try to isolate the impacts that can be attributed to EU-level
interventions, it has equally aimed to understand how national and/or non-FP European
funding streams may have contributed to common impacts.

The study specifications requested that the investigations undertaken as part of the study
produced “country groupings based on an assessment of FP participation patterns and their
evolution and whether there is any correlation with the evolution of national R&I policies.” This
required the study to triangulate the final findings from Tasks 1-4 and, by making use of the
theory-based approach, to map and describe to what extent different internal and external
mechanisms are likely to lead to different kinds of FP related impacts.

It is always challenging to categorise countries/R&I systems according to their specific

characteristics, since the characteristics that underline their respective R&I performance may not
be directly comparable. However, an attempt to develop either a ranking classification or a
grouping of countries according to defined criteria has already been attempted through the
European Innovation Scoreboard, the Regional Innovation Scoreboard and by Eurostat. Moreover,
the OECD regularly assesses R&I performance by publishing statistics and comparative country-
based analyses of spending and performance.

The aim was to describe different FP participation and impact patterns based on the broader
national context and thereafter to suggest recommendations as to how each grouping may
maximise the impacts of FP participation based on the broader context and capacity.

In order to avoid oversimplification, this study’s approach was to use a combination of qualitative
and quantitative data collected throughout the desk research and empirical investigations carried
out under the Tasks required for this study. These provided a wealth of information about the
institutional context, drivers and performance data that allowed a nuanced picture of the situation
in each country to be established. The assessment of these data allowed the initial country

44
groupings to be formed, which were then reviewed in light of the validation workshop and
finalised.
Table 5 provides an overview of the key indicators that were used in this process:
Table 5 Indicators for country groupings
Task Quantitate indicators
(where data were available at national
level)
Change over time from the year of the baseline (2000) up to 2015
Task 1 • Basic research expenditure as a
% of GDP
• Total number of researchers
(FTE)
• Total number of researchers
(FTE) per thousand total
employment
• Business enterprise sector: Total
number of researchers (FTE)
• Government researchers (FTE)
• % of GERD financed by different
actors (HES, business,
government)
Task 2 • Proportion of R&I performers
participating in the FPs
• Type of FP participation (e.g.
mobility grants, large projects,
type of instruments)
• EU FP funding / co-funding
• Proportion of FP coordinators
• MSCA hosting
• Success rates in ERC grants
• - ERA-Net participation
(High/med/low)
Task 3 • Proportion of FP funding in the
(4) R&I system
• European Structural and
Investment Funds spending on
R&I over time
• Synergies between FP and
national and ESI funding
(High/med/low)
Qualitative indicators
(where assessments could be made at
national level)
• Priority and quality of R&D
governance (High/med/low)
• Creation of new R&I
agencies/organisations
• Adoption of strategies
• Reform of (parts of the) R&I system
• Competitive vs. block funding
• Level of internationalisation
• Impact of 2008 financial and
economic crisis (High/med/low)
• Level of braindrain (High/med/low)
• Implementation of support
measures for FP participation
• EU R&I policy influencing factor
(High/med/low)
• Push – pull factors for R&I
performers to participate in the FPs
• FP scientific impacts
(High/med/low)
• FP economic impacts
(High/med/low)
• FP policy-related impacts
(High/med/low)
• FP societal impacts (High/med/low)
45
A central challenge to the country groupings was that data are not available for all indicators for all
the 41 countries. Notably data are missing for some of the Western Balkan countries (e.g.
Albania). Secondly, for very small countries (e.g. Faroe Islands, but also ‘larger’ territories such as
Cyprus, Malta) some indicators may prove ineffective in characterising the overall situation.
Secondly, given heterogeneity in R&I performance indicators and qualitative factors taken into
account in assessing baseline, there is a degree of fluidity between countries as to where they
should sit within classification system. A good example of this is Sweden – which has over time
(FP6 – H2020) declined in terms of relative FP performance, however when taking into account
other factors (e.g. high level of FP projects which have a Swedish cooridnaotr, type of FP
participation) performs very strongly.

Thus, to the best of its ability the study examined the commonalities and differences in the
underlying mechanisms in FP performance (relative to overall R&I performance). This covered:

1. An assessment of the internal and external factors behind FP performance and any
changes in performance – the types of participation, such as moving from support actions
to research projects), i.e. drawing parallels between developments in each of the country
groupings and to what extent these have caused similar impacts on FP participation.
2. An assessment of the relative FP performance and impact of participation for each
grouping for different types of impact (qualitative and quantitative).
3. A description of the mechanisms behind (changes in) FP performance for each
grouping and to what extent each of the countries in the respective groupings manifests
similar impact patterns. For example, it may be expected that in lower-capacity R&I more
extensive impacts can be observed on the policy level (as these countries tend to more directly
imitate R&I policy at EU level) but that scientific impacts are isolated within pockets of
excellence (i.e. only internationally competitive researchers with appropriate support
participate in the FPs). The reverse – or a different – impact pattern may be true for leading FP
participant countries.
4. An assessment of qualitative and quantitative changes that have taken place
compared with the baseline situation, taking into account the nature and magnitude of
different types of impacts, their prevalence and sustainability to identify common
characteristics across the different groupings.

The table overleaf shows the key characteristics of each of the groupings along with archetypical
countries.

3.6.1 Key and common characteristics of the country groupings

The final country groupings exercise created four main groupings as outlined in Table 6.

Group 1: Leaders & influencers

The first group of countries consists of a smaller number of countries that perform very strongly in
R&I both inside and outside of the FPs. They are internationally competitive which means that the
FPs may play a comparatively smaller role than for other countries, i.e. these countries tend also
to look towards collaboration with the US and BRIC countries as well as with European FP partner.
As a result, the FP portfolio may be proportionally smaller than for countries in the other country
groups (that are more reliant on the FPs for internationalisation). However, thanks to this
competitiveness, FP participants from these countries are also sought after partners when forming
consortia for the FPs. Moreover they attract a lot of high-quality international researchers through
mobility schemes, who in turn contribute to the overall pool of competitive researchers active in
Group 1 countries.

As large-capacity R&I countries, these countries also make equivalently large contributions to the
EU budgets, but they are then involved in a substantial number of FP projects – that is, countries
in the Leaders & influencers group tend to be net beneficiaries of FP funding.

They tend to participate widely in ERA Nets and JPIs. Their strong R&I performance appears to
mean that their policy makers are organised and vocal in feeding into EU policy. Group 1 countries
not only influence EU R&I policy but as they have many excellent scientists working with European
policy they are also well positioned to influence general EU policy making and regulation as they
have good insight into the evidence base that goes into the regulatory process.

46
Group 2: Core players – experienced FP countries with pockets of excellence

The second group are countries with long-standing and reoccurring FP participation. The Core
players group has a relatively high overall comparative participation rate but they are not in the
same league as Group 1. They do however often collaborate with Group 1.

Group 2 is not exclusively made up of, but includes a lot of the long-standing participants i.e. they
have participated in the FPs over a long period, possibly since FP1. The Core players group has
competitive R&I systems but they are not as international as Group 1; hence Framework
Programme participation tends to be a central strategy for internationalisation. Group 2 by and
large tend to have an R&I system which fits nicely with the design of the FPs.

Group 2 countries tend to have fairly stable and broad FP participation although often wish to
improve their performance. Having said this, a number of southern European countries in Group 2
are at risk of deteriorating in the longer term as they have seen recent substantial cuts to R&I
following the economic and financial crisis that took place from 2008-2010, but which due to the
sovereign debt crisis continues to mean reduced national expenditure for R&I in some countries.
Nevertheless, they have performed well over the 15-year period overall, and can also demonstrate
considerable science and innovation-related impacts during this period.

Group 3: Reformers and specialists

The third group of countries, Reformers and specialists, are either less experienced in the FPs or
have tended to focus their participation on specialised areas. They tend to be medium or even
small R&I countries although the R&I performed is – at least in specialised areas – very
competitive.

They moreover tend to have articulated R&I policy at national level, which is then partly reflected
in their FP participation. By and large, national R&I policy also reflects EU priorities.

Another key aspect is that Group 3 includes countries that have seen effective reforms of their
systems, for example reforms to make HEI more autonomous or ease regulation to promote
innovation etc. They have on balance created framework conditions that facilitate – or at least do
not entail an obstacle to – FP participation.

Group 4: Support-focused and sporadic participation

The Group 4 countries have a history and profile characterised by comparatively low or sporadic
levels of FP participation. FP participation is below par or uneven (depending on changing levels of
national support available to facilitate participation in the FPs). Much of the group’s FP participation
is related to capacity-building rather than ‘pure’ R&I.

However although structural weaknesses hamper their overall ability, Group 4 should not be
underestimated, as these are equally countries with pockets of excellent science and industry that
have successfully participated in the successive FPs.

A key issue is therefore a limited capacity for R&I, (a lack of ‘critical mass’) which is often
exacerbated by national researchers leaving to work abroad (braindrain), often as a result of a lack
of domestic opportunities and low salaries in publicly funded research.

A second key issue is that this group also appears to be more vulnerable to poor R&I governance
and implementation, with frequent changes in national policy and in governments. In such
countries, R&I may be prioritised intermittently depending on which government is in power, but
has not been consistently treated as a priority. Furthermore, policies may not be implemented
consistently and funding amounts and structure may drastically change from one government to
another.

47
Table 6 Typology of countries

Group Key characteristics (FP participation) Other characteristics Country

groupings

Group 1 • Long-term strong FP performance relative to overall • Strong long-term performance in terms of coordinating Germany,
Leaders & R&I system FP projects Switzerland, UK
Influencers • Due to strong internationally competitive position the • Have benefitted from researcher mobility
FPs may play a relatively smaller role in the overall R&I • Strong articulated R&I policy
portfolio • Strong R&I internationalisation beyond the FPs
• Large proportion of national R&I performers (public and • Influence on EU R&I policy
private) participate competitively in the FPs
Group 2 • Many Group 2 countries share a number of attributes • Growing R&I internationalisation beyond the FPs Austria, Belgium,
Core players with Group 1 however display a number of weaknesses • Strong ability to coordinate FP projects (albeit below Denmark, Finland,
– not found in Group 1 Group 1) France, Greece,
experienced • Many but not all Group 2 countries have faced • Generous/well functioning national R&I funding system Ireland, Israel,
FP countries increased competition in the FPs from new EU countries may work against FP participation Italy, the
with and AC • Among a smaller number of Group 2 countries R&I Netherlands,
multiple • A medium proportion of national R&I performers (public spending has dramatically decreased since 2008 Norway, Portugal,
pockets of and private) participate competitively in the FPs Spain, Sweden
excellence
Group 3 • Above-expected and consistent strong performance in • R&I policy well integrated in national/regional Cyprus, Estonia,
Reformers some areas of the FPs, but with low or very low governance Faroe Islands,
and presence in other FP areas – partly due to the small • Reforms to enhance competitiveness of R&I system Iceland,
specialists size of the R&I system • Group 3 countries also tend to be affected by Liechtenstein,
• A medium proportion of national R&I performers (public braindrain Lithuania,
and private) participate competitively in the FPs Luxembourg,
Malta, Slovakia,
Slovenia
Group 4 • History of comparatively low or sporadic FP • R&I system poorly affected by braindrain and/or lack of Albania, Bosnia &
Support- participation. However all Group 4 countries have new generation of researchers Herzegovina,
focused and specific pockets of excellent science and industry that • R&I policies and framework conditions for R&I Bulgaria, Croatia,
sporadic have successfully participated in the successive FPs underdeveloped the Czech
participation • Tend to participate as a partner rather than take on the • For a number of countries in Group 4, a large part of FP Republic, FYROM,
role of FP project coordinator participation is characterised by Twinning or support Hungary, Latvia,
• A rather small proportion of national R&I performers actions Moldova,
(public and private) participate competitively in the FPs • From a longitudinal perspective, FP participation may Montenegro,
be uneven (depending on national support available) Poland Romania,
Serbia, Turkey

48
4. AN ANALYSIS FOR OF THE NATIONAL R&I LANDSCAPE AND
POLICIES DURING THE PAST 15 YEARS

Section 4 consists of an analysis of the national R&I landscape and policies during the past 15
years. Although it is not directly addressing FP participation, this section still forms a more
fundamental role than ‘merely’ providing a historical context. Instead, the analysis outlined in this
section serves to improve our understanding of the individual national R&I baseline from which to
assess each country’s FP participation and impacts observed as a result of this participation.

This analysis is based on a review of the findings from the 41 country reports produced as part the
study but focuses on the findings pertaining to the national context and developments within R&I
policy in the past 15 years (2000-2015). As such, the purpose of Section 4 is to provide a
background on the current situation and the historical evolution of national R&I systems and to
give an indication as to how R&I policies have evolved in the 41 countries and what implications
these developments have had vis-à-vis the Framework Programmes.

Furthermore, the analysis presented in this section also provides insight into interlinkages between
developments in national and EU R&I policies. This analysis serves to provide a more systematic
understanding as to how the national context impact on FP participation – among countries,
sectors and different types of actors that participate in the Framework Programmes – and how
different FP-related impacts manifest themselves based on each country’s policy mix.

4.1 Introduction

In assessing the evolution in the R&I operating context at country level, a central concept is that
of the overall R&I policy mix. The concept of policy interaction (or policy mix) recognises that that
policy interventions are deployed in an already busy (and interacting) environment, which includes
other policy (national, regional and/or cross-border) mechanisms. These mechanisms may be part
of a portfolio which targets support at a specific group, technology, sector or societal challenge.
Policy mixes also need to consider pre-existing policy paradigms and the policy traditions of
different national, regional and local actors. As a consequence of this interaction, policymakers –
when designing and deploying new activities – are affected by interventions that already exist.
New policies deployed can in turn either provide additional support to existing policy instruments
or may serve to undermine these, for instance, if a new policy leads to a lack of continuity with
previous policy instruments.

In conclusion – the policy mix to strengthen R&I in a particular country is not related to a single
policy actor, but is the result of the different policy inputs by a multitude of actors from different
policy positions that influence a given geographical area or sector(s).

This idea can in turn be linked to a national system’s ability to effectively compete for and absorb
funding from the FPs for R&I activities, which can create positive impacts in the national R&I
system (and in the country more generally). Since the FPs constitute competitive funding based on
high-quality R&I activities, this will favour stronger R&I systems that are internationally
competitive. Nevertheless, it should be recognised that smaller capacity R&I systems may be able
to identify (through a bottom-up or top-down approach) ways to compete for, and to integrate FP
funding into their system in a manner which creates strong impacts – albeit in targeted areas
and/or those accumulated over a longer time period.

This section will first discuss the overall national characteristics of R&I systems, including the
development and deployment of strategies, and how these relate to the FPs. It will then look at
the funding of R&I, including the use of the European Structural and Investment Funds to support
R&I capacity and the continued impact of the economic and financial crisis, which began in 2008
and has impacted the European socioeconomic landscape, with evidence of a decline in R&I
funding in some countries during the crisis but with impacts beyond the crisis due to government
austerity measures in some countries. Lastly, section 4 will look at trends in international
cooperation beyond the FPs.

4.2 R&I policy within the national framework

There is a wealth of previous literature pointing to the growing importance of R&I policy at
international (e.g. OECD-level) and European (EU) level. R&I policy is becoming increasingly
horizontally – embedded into other policy areas, such as the environment and climate change,
social and health policy, regional policy, and education, training and skills policy. However,

49
national R&I policies are organised in distinct ways depending in part on the prevailing R&I
system. There is some evidence that approaches to R&I are converging – at least in policy if not at
a practical implementation level, for instance, in response to the priorities set out in the ERA.

In addition to the ERA, another driver towards convergence in R&I policy is the development and
implementation of EU Member States’ Smart Specialisation strategies for R&I (RIS3), which is a
contributing factor towards the more direct participation of, and greater engagement by regional
actors in the development of R&I policies. The RIS3 strategies are also increasingly used as a tool
for linking the FPs with the European Structural and Investment Funds.

Most European countries at least aim to prioritise support for R&I. However, the way in which
activities relating to the R&I system are organised differs greatly between the 41 countries. 19 Of
course, the baseline situation in terms of research strengths, the quality and quantity of human
resources, the quality of research infrastructure and the historical context of a country also plays a
key role. Our research has also highlighted that some low-capacity R&I countries of the study are
particularly vulnerable to political changes at national level and to a lack of continuity in terms of
the extent of support for R&I. Examples were identified through the study of some countries where
R&I was accorded as a major priority in one government, but was then drastically downgraded in
its importance following an election and a change in the political administration.

Table 7 Examples of R&I governance

Decentralised R&I governance Centralised R&I governance

In Belgium, where the centre of gravity of In contrast, examples of very centralised

scientific and innovation policy has been
transferred from the federal to the regional and
community levels since the early 1990s, direct
support to innovation by enterprises or
universities is now in the hands of regions and
communities. 20
In the UK, a degree of decentralisation has
taken place over the period within scope. Under
the devolution process, central government has
given the national devolved administrations of
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as
some cities increased autonomy over
determining their R&I priorities. England has in
practice moved the organisation of innovation
and research from NUTS 2 to NUTS 3 level.
countries have also been identified, some of
which reflect lower national R&I capacity.
This may stem from the fact that R&I is
increasingly being undertaken in the capital
region (e.g. B&H, BG). For example, the
research system in Bulgaria remains highly
concentrated in institutional and geographic
terms. The top five R&I institutions in Sofia
produce about 75% of total R&I publications.
The most active scientific organisations in
attracting funding (86% of total R&D
funding) and in the implementation of
national and international projects are Sofia-
based organisations. Neighbouring Balkan
countries also tend to have very centralised
systems. However, not all small or medium-
capacity countries follow this pattern.

Spain has had a quasi-federal decentralised In other cases (e.g. CY, MT) a centralised
political system for a long time. The regions system simply reflects the fact that the
(“Autonomous Communities”) have political and country itself is physically small.
administrative responsibilities for R&I, and are
in charge of university funding. Yet in spite of
the longevity of the coordination role played by
the regions, the allocation of specific
competences to the regions in the field of R&D
and innovation-related policies has not been
clearly assigned. This has led most regions to
develop similar R&D plans and to launch (often)
overlapping instruments, programmes and
agencies at both regional and national
administrative levels. Recent developments
have tried to improve this coordination. 21

19
Edquist (2014) Efficiency of Research and Innovation Systems for Economic Growth and Employment. Final
report from the SESSION Iof the 2014 ERAC Mutual Learning Seminaron Research and Innovation policies
20
Joint Research Centre European Commission, RIO Country Report 2015: Belgium, p27.
21
Spain country report

50
Out of the 41 countries covered by this study, centralised R&I systems can be found in (e.g.)
FYROM, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Latvia, Malta, B&H, and Croatia. But unless a country is small
enough to benefit from a centralised approach to the R&I system there is a general preference
towards decentralisation even if the approach to R&I is coordinated at the national level.

Although not all R&I systems have explicitly put in place governance mechanisms at both national
and regional level, the increased participation of more actors in R&I policy means that inputs to
policymaking in the R&I sphere are becoming more heterogeneous.

With an increasing number of actors involved, R&I policies are also becoming more complex, in
particular national (and also regional) innovation policies. Innovation policy is considered to be an
important platform for addressing a wide range of issues in order to restore competitiveness in
Europe, boost productivity, upgrade industrial structures, and to address global challenges,
including mitigating climate change. 22 In addition, at the regional level, the preparation and
implementation of Smart Specialisation strategies in the 2014-2020 period has accentuated the
role of innovation generally, and knowledge transfer mechanisms and clusters in particular, in
supporting regional economic development.

Some countries have experienced major reforms in their R&I systems during the period under
review, such as Romania and Turkey. This can however present practical implementation
challenges. The Romanian government introduced a National Council for Science and Technology
Policy in 2002 but this agency is still not operational. There is also limited coordination among
ministries, agencies, and no centralised database with the projects financed from the state
budget. 23

Turkey adopted a bottom-up strategic approach to formulating and implementing STI policy in
2013 precisely to enable “the wide and active participation of non-state actors. Through this
process, both the private sector and academia have identified their R&D needs in a detailed and
more efficient way, and support mechanisms have acquired a more targeted structure.” 24

Denmark’s approach to R&I is a typical example of a country whose R&I strategy has a
multifaceted approach. Denmark has developed priorities for strategic research areas Forsk2015,
Forsk2020 and Forsk2025 (Research2015, Research2020 and Research2025). Based on societal
challenges, the Forsk catalogues (research catalogues) identified a number of high-potential
research areas for Denmark, where research could contribute to improving growth, employment
and welfare. These initiatives are equally in line with the focus on a closer integration between
research and innovation and focus on large societal challenges introduced in EU’s Europe 2020
strategy and Horizon 2020. 25

In smaller capacity countries, such as Lithuania, a particular challenge identified through the
literature and confirmed in interviews is mainstreaming the integration of innovation into
traditional sectors (e.g. food production and processing, wood processing and furniture
production). Firms in these sectors, which have important export potential, need to be encouraged
to invest in R&D and thereby to embed innovation within the value chain. However, an analysis of
GERD identified low levels of business R&D expenditure.

The table overleaf provides a very brief overview of the current strengths and weaknesses of the
41 national R&I systems covered through the study.

22
OECD (2014), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2014-en
23
Romania country report
24
Turkey country report
25
Denmark country report

51
Table 8 Overview of National R&I Systems
Country EU Innovation Key strengths Key challenges
Scoreboard
Ranking

AL N/A Recent development of strategic framework and national Modest investment levels in R&D (0.15% GERD in 2008) and significant brain
government infrastructure to support R&I drain.

AT Strong High levels of public and private investment, strong national Weak relationships between industry and science.
innovator (11) strategic framework.

B&H N/A Limited number of public and private universities providing GERD has fallen from highs of 1.85 in the period 1984 – 1989 to 0.3%. This
high quality education and skills, creating a qualified research neglect has led to increased brain drain in recent years.
base.

BE Strong High-quality public research system, and significant Further work needed on providing access to finance for SMEs.
innovator (8) investment in R&I, which amounts to a total 2.3% of GDP in
2013.

BG Modest Increase in R&D intensity and improvement of the country’s Under-funded R&D sector; lack of shared research infrastructures and a weak
innovator (32) innovation performance, with increased business R&D human resources base. Lack of integrated approach in defining policies for
expenditure and foreign investments in the R&D. research and innovation.

CH Innovation Open and “excellence driven” research system. Potential for Reduced role of public policy instruments might lead to difficulties in priority-
leader (1) more opportunities has been identified in the areas of setting and affect the country’s performance in case of rapid technological
environment, biotechnology, energy, transport, space and changes.
research that benefits SMEs.

CY Moderate Policymakers have made strengthening of the R&I system a No measurement of effectiveness of programmes, meaning that core thematic
innovator (16) priority, with more strategic and focused spending on R&I. areas might be ignored. Lack of R&I in private sector, leading to threat of brain
drain and fears for the long-term sustainability of the R&I system.

CZ Moderate 2% GERD and high levels of R&D expenditure in the public Limited synergies between public and private R&D and low share of high-tech
innovator (19) sector. The private sector component of the R&D system is sectors. Limited access to financial sources for innovation (particularly in SMEs
one of the biggest in the EU28 and characterised by sector) with a fragmented funding mechanism and frequent changes in the public
openness. budget allocation to R&D&I.

DE Innovation An increase in public and private expenditure on R&I in A recent decline in innovation by SMEs can be detected accompanied by a
leader (5) Germany has helped to maintain strong innovation capacity. downward trend in human capital availability.
Investment in R&D in high-tech sectors has helped to
strengthen the country’s European and global competitive
position.

DK Innovation
leader (3) High spending on R&D&I, high quality of public and private Decrease in public funding of R&D&I over the last couple of years.
research, and a solid base of private companies engaged in
advanced research.

52
Country EU Innovation Key strengths Key challenges
Scoreboard
Ranking

EE Moderate Strong performance by small and medium-sized enterprises Limited performance in terms of human resources, scientific production,
innovator (17) (SMEs) introducing product or process innovation. Estonian technology development and innovation. The quality of the higher education
R&I system funding mechanism and the policy mix is highly system needs enhancing and the number of highly skilled graduates in firms
project- and competition-based. remains modest. R&I policy coordination is very fragmented.

EL Moderate Strong research community abroad, and ‘islands’ of scientific
innovator (22) and technological excellence in public research institutions
and the private sector. Another strong point is the availability
of high-quality equipment and infrastructure.
Lack of reliable funding from national sources, coupled with the absence of a
national strategy and associated prioritisation for research. Other difficulties
include lack of critical mass in certain scientific and technological areas, limited
incentives to attract/retain researchers, lack of entrepreneurial culture in the
research force and the very low technology transfer activity.

ES Moderate Significant investment in R&D until 2008, when financial crisis Limited private investment and significant public sector cuts since 2008. Low
innovator (23) led to substantial cuts. Maintains a highly educated public-private sector linkages and limited innovation outputs.
population and high-tech export sector.

FI Innovation Research-intensive country with a high level of innovation The level of internationalisation and of exports of knowledge-intensive goods and
leader (4) and R&I funding in an international comparison. The services is low. Collaboration between industry and academia is not as seamless
environment for business and R&I activities is favourable: as it could be.
there is an active field of international research, a vibrant
start-up ecosystem, political stability, and a strong education
system.

FO N/A
Specialisation in specific sectors, for example health care and
marine research. 2011 saw the development of the first ever
General Research Policy of the Faroe Islands (2011-2015).
The research environment is small and weak with evidence of over-
fragmentation. Room for strengthened cooperation between government
research institutes and with universities, overseas education and research
institutions to help prevent brain drain.

FR Strong Good conditions for business creation and effective policies
innovator (13) encouraging the creation of young innovative firms as well as
various government support schemes for innovation, offering
businesses a wide range and allowing them to experiment in
order to choose the most effective schemes.
Segmented and rigid labour market and public research system which do not
encourage labour force mobility. Framework conditions (particularly taxation
and social thresholds) that do not support business expansion.

FYROM Modest Reformed R&I governance through the introduction of the Underfunding of R&I, particularly in terms of private sector investment
innovator (33) National Council for Higher Education, Science, Innovation Concentration of R&I capacity in the capital city of Skopje.
and Technology and the National Council for Entrepreneurship
and Competitiveness.

HR Moderate Focus on strengthening of the legal framework and the

innovator (30) quality of administrative support at the national and Lack of coherent and integrated R&I policy framework and a lack of financing.
institutional level. Weaknesses in the monitoring of research and innovation policies.

53
Country EU Innovation Key strengths Key challenges
Scoreboard
Ranking

HU Moderate
innovator (24) Reform of the R&I institutional framework to strengthen Historically unclear, short-term R&I perspectives, strategies and planning.
coordination across the R&I system in the past two years, Insufficient support to policy areas related to the transition from research to
notably the establishment of the National Research, innovation, e.g. University-Industry links, technology transfer and
Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH). commercialisation, etc.

IE Strong Ireland has gradually improved its position on international Low level of privately-funded public R&D and only average cooperation between
innovator (7) research and innovation league tables thanks to high level of innovative companies and universities and research performing organisations.
educational attainment in population. Business friendly Indigenous SMEs show lower levels of formal collaborations with HEIs compared
context and a high level of private sector investment in R&I. to foreign-owned businesses.

IL Strong Government focus on enhanced innovation culture and
innovator (11) performance backed up by strong support in terms of policies,
institutions and incentives and increased investment in
education and research as well as innovation infrastructure.
Shortages in scientific and technological education and a lack of professional-
technical education. High-tech innovation, but a divided economy with a very
high share of non-participant groups in innovation in the economy (e.g. Ultra-
Orthodox and Arab groups). Obstacles in transferring technology from academia
to industry.

IS Strong One of the highest R&D intensities in Europe (close to EU 3%
innovator (12) target for most of the last 15 years). Establishment of
Science and Technology Policy Council (STPC) in 2003 has
helped to stabilise and strengthen the role of R&I in national
policy-setting.
Lack of critical research mass due to small population and over-fragmentation of
higher education sector. Heavy reliance on block funding for the public sector
and limited competitive funding, potentially blocking innovation and
entrepreneurial growth.

IT Moderate Strong research tradition, with high level of publications and Unfavourable framework conditions and low level of business R&I activities,
innovator (20) citations. Highly innovative SME sector. territorial inequalities and limited public sector funding of R&I.

LI N/A Provision of innovation cheques helps support SMEs, with Funding limited to innovation-cheques, with a reliance on Swiss and Austrian
support for academic research centres provided by Swiss funding for larger-scale R&I support.
funding institutions.

LT Moderate Transition towards competitive (national) institutional funding
innovator (28) for public HEIs and research centres in past 10 years.
Strategic clusters emerging with sectoral specialisations (e.g.
lasers, bio-tech, ICT, health) through a Valleys approach
Some progress in development of venture capital market.
Low level of business expenditure on R&D and overly-fragmented framework for
carrying out publicly-funded research (although process of consolidation
ongoing). Disincentives to applying to take part in the FPs (language barrier, low
salaries in public research/ academia). Low success rates in the FPs.

LU Strong Favourable regulatory environment and a responsive Need for a national innovation strategy to improve direction setting and
innovator (10) government Improved research system governance as a coordination in the national innovation system. Stronger incentives required for
result of consolidation and well-designed performance accumulating innovation capabilities within firms and extending their ambition.
contracts.

LV Moderate Policy instruments geared towards strengthening the Low expenditure on R&D in both the public and private sector. Shortage of high-
innovator (29) competitiveness of the industrial sector by improving quality human resources, exacerbated by net migration and brain drain. Low
business innovation capacity. Strong in R&D intensive collaboration and poor knowledge transfer among HEIs, PROs and private sector.
manufacturing sectors.

54
Country EU Innovation Key strengths Key challenges
Scoreboard
Ranking

MD N/A Moldova has preserved its research capabilities in certain Fragmented R&I system with low integration of research and innovation in
areas of excellence in spite of transition challenges and Higher Education institutions and weak interactions with business. The input of
economic difficulties faced over the 2000-2015 period. Moldovan industrial and business sectors in R&I is low.

ME N/A Strong political will to support RTDI, primarily through
substantial public spending increases. A newly adopted
strategy on innovative activity (2016-2020) includes more
realistic targets for an increase in national and private
expenditure by 2020.
Total national spending on research and development (R&D) remains low (0.36
% of GDP). The level of investment in research, particularly from the private
sector, is relatively small.

MT Moderate Strong positive trend in R&D intensity over the last decade Political support for R&I is rather weak, with limited coordination between the
innovator (18) (increased from 0.53% of GDP in 2008 to 0.85% in 2013). public bodies relevant to R&I governance.

NL Innovation
leader (6) Knowledge intensive economy with high level of public Comparatively low levels of private R&D spending and a relatively small high
expenditure on R&D. tech sector. There is limited collaboration between enterprises and knowledge
institutions.

NO Moderate
innovator (15) Effective and easy to access system for R&D funding with a Relatively small home market for technology innovation, particularly following
long tradition of allocation of resources on the basis of peer economic contraction due to collapse in oil prices. Private and public R&D needs
reviews and evaluations. Strong entrepreneurial/innovative more investment.
culture.

PL Moderate Wide-ranging institutional reform of the R&D system shifted
innovator (27) the focus of the public funding to R&D and created
institutions responsible for coordination and financing of the
system for basic and applied science, based on competitive
calls ( NCN and NCBIR).
Poland’s R&D intensity has increased substantially since 2007, reaching 0.94% of
GDP in 2014, however remains far below the EU average and is overly
dependent on public spending. There has been a decline in innovation activities
performed by SMEs.

PT Moderate Good quality R&D infrastructure and scientific capabilities, Necessity to decrease the government budget deficit is a major barrier to the
innovator (21) including a critical mass of young researchers. expansion of state funded GERD. Private sector funding of R&I is largely
concentrated in a small number of larger firms.

RO Modest Financial support, including improved fiscal legislation for the Low level of private sector R&D&I expenditure and low percentage of innovative
innovator (34) accounting treatment of R&D&I expenses, tax exemption on SMEs. Weak linkages between R&D&I organisations and business enterprises.
salaries of R&D&I employees. New, state of the art functional
research laboratories in top engineering and science
universities.

RS Moderate Well-developed institutional system of R&I, with R&I
innovator (26) strategies in place and established organisations on the
national and regional, intermediary level and national funding
organisations, such as an Innovation Fund, science
technology parks, TT offices etc.
Outdated organisation and equipment of research and innovation, low level of
R&D and innovation activities in the business sector and lack of mechanisms for
cooperation between science and industry in general. Limited investment in
research, (below 1% of GDP) and issues with brain drain.

55
Country EU Innovation Key strengths Key challenges
Scoreboard
Ranking

SE Innovation One of the top spenders on R&D in the world as a percentage Dross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD) as a per cent
leader (2) of GDP. High level of R&D investments and the high R&D of GDP is declining. The output of research and innovation is assessed poorly in
capacity. relation to the high level of R&D expenditure, something referred to as a Swedish
Paradox.

SI Strong Strong manufacturing sector characterised by an increase in Low academic standards and fragmentation due to a lack of strategic competitive
innovator (14) the number of innovative start-ups. High levels of investment funding for R&D.
in research and development funds invested in research
compared to EU average.

SK Moderate Government is committed to reform of R&D governance, Fragmented system of R&D&I governance. Low co-operation by key
innovator (25) which is laid out in the National Reform Programme and the stakeholders. A comprehensive R&D&I strategy was missing until 2014, resulting
Action Plan for the S3 document. in a lack of thematic focus of public R&D&I policies.

TR Moderate Good quality public research tax incentives for R&D, and high Lack of R&D investment of multi-national cooperation (MNCs) and problems
innovator (31) quality/ cost ratio in content production. transferring knowledge from academia to industry.

UK Strong High research productivity, high levels of GERD and is one of Relatively low level of investment in R&D (as a share of GDP). Comparatively low
innovator (9) the top 10 countries in the world for innovation capacity. levels of productivity.

Sources: Innovation Union Scoreboard 2016, Country reports

56
4.2.1 Industry and national R&I systems

Europe has a strong tradition of research and innovation, particularly within universities and higher
education institutes. However, there has been a tendency for Europe to lag behind competitors in
Asia and North America in terms of the commercialisation of research outcomes. In 2006, the
European Commission published the communication “Putting knowledge into practice: A broad-
based innovation strategy for the EU”, which outlined 10 key areas of action. This underlined the
necessity of creating stronger linkages between industry, HEIs and public research institutes
through greater inter-sectoral mobility, increased knowledge transfer and a shift towards
“industry-driven research agendas” This focus does appear to have had some positive impact, with
R&D expenditure in the private sector increasing by 2% from 2008 to 2015, with private sector
non R&D-related innovation expenditure increasing by 1.9% in the same period. 26

There is significant variation in the levels of industry participation and investment at national level.
Industry-level R&I still lags behind public sector investment across the EU. It is traditionally driven
by the big five (France, Germany, UK, Italy and Spain) but there is also a history of strong private
sector innovation in Scandinavian countries, particularly in Sweden. In the last 20 years,
significant developments have been seen in Finland and Denmark, with traditionally oil-
dependent Norway also looking to make investments in green technologies to help wean the
country off from its traditional economic dependency on oil and gas.

Ireland is a good example of how strong private-sector R&D can help to boost economic growth.
The business sector is the main performer of RDI in the country, accounting for 73% of GERD
performed in 2014. The majority of this expenditure (65%) comes from large multinational
companies, although the research activities of indigenous businesses are beginning to increase. In
2013, there were 1,574 Irish owned enterprises engaged in R&D activities in 2013 which equates
to 80% of all R&D active enterprises. There is also evidence of relatively strong collaboration
between industry and HEIs. Some 19% of Irish-owned R&D performing enterprises collaborate
with HEIs or other institutions in Ireland and 7% with HEIs or other institutions outside Ireland,
whereas for foreign-owned R&D performing firms these percentages are 21% and 10%
respectively. 27

Some smaller countries also perform strongly when it comes to industrial R&I. Foremost amongst
these is Malta, which is ranked 19th in terms of business-enterprise expenditure on R&D as a
percentage of GDP. Maltese BERD has increased in real terms between 2005 and 2012 at an
average annual growth rate of 6.1%. 28

The SME Instrument, introduced under Horizon 2020, has been a real boon for businesses in
countries with less well established public sector R&I systems but with sector-specific industrial
strength such as Lithuania and Romania.

4.2.2 Framework conditions

In addition to the policy mix, there are a number of broader framework conditions which can have
a significant impact on R&I at the national and regional level. These conditions can equally be
affected by policy decisions at the national level. The table below provides an overview of six
broader framework conditions, which can be used to better understand the national innovation
context. These six conditions represent a combination of resources, incentives, capabilities and
opportunities which provide strong background conditions for firms to innovate. 29

26
European Innovation Scoreboard 2016
27
Ireland country fiche
28
Malta country fiche
29
Allman et al., Measuring Wider Framework Conditions for successful innovation, Nesta/University of
Manchester 2011 https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/measuring_wider_framework.pdf

57
Table 9 Framework conditions for R&I
Framework Links to innovation
Condition
Public research A strong public research base, made up of universities and public research
and knowledge institutes, can create a culture of research and scientific discovery, which
exchange creates the backdrop for a creative economy based on innovation and
entrepreneurship. In times of economic difficulty, public investment in
research can act as a stepping-stone to private sector growth.
Furthermore, private sector innovation can provide the key to new avenues
for scientific research, Networking of skilled researchers and innovative
companies can also act as a strong asset for innovation and growth,
working in collaboration to push the boundaries of scientific research and
commercialise their discoveries.
Demand for Demand conditions can have a crucial role in encouraging innovation. An
innovation understanding of what potential buyers are willing and able to buy can help
with the development of new products and services. How this is signalled
to the market is a key stepping-stone between demand and supply side
innovation. Two types of demand have been identified, both of which play
their part in creating an atmosphere conducive to R&I: triggering
demand, where the supply side reacts to information from users; and
responsive demand, characterised by the capacity of a market to absorb
new innovations.
Business The relationship between innovation and competition is complex. In
environment and general, there appears to be a correlation between strong competition and
competition higher levels of innovation. However, this is not always the case –
between firms sometimes dominance in an industry can give a firm the confidence to
innovate whereas sectors dominated by many smaller companies may
have relatively low levels of innovation. A key distinction highlighted by the
Cambridge Compendium is that of competition between products (creative
destruction) and competition in process innovation (creative
accumulation).
Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurs help to build dynamism within an economy by identifying
and finance new opportunities, exploiting gaps within the current market and acting as
pathfinders in the creation of new niches in terms of unmet or as yet
unrecognised needs. Creating conditions to encourage entrepreneurship
can thus be key to promoting industrial innovation and growth. Fear of
failure has been identified as a key barrier to entrepreneurship, with other
identified difficulties including administrative, bureaucratic and financial
constraints.
Infrastructure Knowledge-intensive business services are very important to production,
and services alongside more conventional labour, equipment and raw materials.
Infrastructure can be equally crucial – one example of this is high speed
broadband and the growth of 3G/4G coverage, which enables small
businesses to function without the necessity for high upfront investment in
office space, phone lines etc. and helps to reduce overheads.
Human capital At the macro level, a high level of education is correlated both with the
capacity to develop innovative products on the supply side and to absorb
them on the demand side. Furthermore, an environment, which welcomes
and encourages individual creativity would be expected to lead to an
innovative culture, as it promotes the development of new ideas into viable
new products and services.
Source: Adapted from Nesta/University of Manchester. Allman et al (2011) Measuring Wider
Framework Conditions for successful innovation A system’s review of UK and international
innovation data 30

This set of framework conditions implies the importance of an open, creative, well-educated and
bold society in creating a positive context for R&I. A lot of national policies have focused on
creating or facilitating these framework conditions. The role of government here can be

30
See https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/measuring_wider_framework.pdf

58
contentious, as it can be difficult to create the space for innovation in a centralised, top-down
economy (see further the discussion on the policy mix concept in section 4.1).

There are a number of good practice platforms for improving framework conditions for R&I, such
as the OECD. Furthermore, the European Semester recommendations provide annual
assessments of each of the EU-28’s national economic policies and performance. 31 Although the
country-specific recommendations cover a much wider remit than ‘just’ R&I, they also pinpoint to
systemic weaknesses in underlying framework conditions, which need to be effective in promoting
R&I in the first place.

Indeed, the 2017 H2020 interim evaluation also points out that “when Horizon 2020 was conceived
Europe suffered from a number of critical weaknesses in its R&I system, which contributed to the
problems of low productivity, declining competitiveness, inadequate response to societal
challenges and the inability to move to a new sustainable economic model […] Horizon 2020 was
adopted to tackle those problem drivers and improve Europe’s competitiveness.” 32

The H2020 interim evaluation equally acknowledges that these structural challenges still exist,
making the annual semester recommendations one mechanism through which to strive for
improvements. Although this study’s research cannot evidence a direct link between improved
framework conditions and FP performance, clearly framework conditions are key to improve and
maintain an effective R&I system.

For example, the validation workshop held to discuss this study’s preliminary conclusions raised
the issue of how low public sector researcher salaries in lower-capacity contributed to the
braindrain phenomenon. There is a practical example illustrating this from Romania in Annex E:

“Brain drain. The mobility programme under FP6 was also a great success, but there was an
issue around brain drain with researchers not coming back to RO post-completion of a Marie-Curie
mobility period. There were also concerns in other EU-13 countries and in southern Europe about
the risk of brain drain when researchers benefit from mobility grants. Whilst recognising that the
experiences gained by researchers during these periods are invaluable, the importance of putting
in place policy measures or incentives schemes to attract researchers back was stressed.
However, the current salary differential approach within H2020 has made this more difficult since
salaries within FP projects are paid not according to the nationality of the researcher themselves
but the country in which they are undertaking research. Therefore, there is no incentive for a
researcher from a low salary country to return when they can continue doing researcher in a
Western European university and be paid significantly more.” 33

These types of challenges can in turn be seen reflected in the latest set of country
recommendations developed by the European Semester for 2016-17: “Given productivity
developments, income convergence and the competitiveness position of Romania, increases in
public and private sector wages deserve special attention. Public wage increases have the potential
to spill over to the private sector, impacting Romania’s competitiveness. Romania’s minimum wage
level, while still among the lowest in the EU, has increased significantly in recent years.” 34

Looking further into at the evidence collected through this study’s country research, Denmark
provides a good example of how governments can legislate to provide the space for innovation to
flourish. The Danish government has worked hard to create conducive framework conditions,
including introducing the strategy “Denmark – the Land of Solutions”. The strategy aims at
providing conditions that enables firms to be innovative and ease the relations with public research
institutes and universities. This includes a significant focus on the relationship between the supply-
and demand side of research and innovation measures. These strategies have been supplemented
by a revision of legal regulation to reduce bureaucracy and free up time for innovation. Legislation
has also been implemented that supplies R&I subsidies for innovative entrepreneurs. This led to
Denmark being ranked by the World Bank as the sixth best country to do business in 2015. 35

Iceland has also worked to improve overall its R&I environment and has used access to finance to
create improved conditions for innovation. In 2009, the Icelandic parliament introduced tax-based
incentives for companies to invest in R&D. Companies were given a tax concession of 20% for R&D
expenditure and this has been applicable since 2010. The public contribution to the scheme has
increased significantly to the scheme over time as the scheme has become better known, from

31
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/european-semester_en
32
Commission Staff Working Document In-depth interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 SWD(2017) 220 final
33
Workshop report see Annex E
34
European Semester Recommendations 2106-2017 – Romania country recommendations
35
Denmark country fiche

59
614m ISK in 2011 to 1084m ISK in 2014 36. Furthermore, there have been infrastructure
investments in the form of incubators have been established by the University of Iceland and by
the Innovation Centre Iceland (ICI), under the Ministry of Industry and Innovation through its
IMPRA division. The incubator offers support and facilities to start-up companies working on
innovative business ideas. IMPRA provides advice and courses for existing SMEs and would-be
entrepreneurs that will become the start-ups of the future. 37

A very common challenge is that of creating conditions that are conducive for public-private R&I
collaborations. This is a European shortcoming clearly reflected in the European Semester
recommendations. For example, the most recent European Semester recommendations concluded
that “innovation in France does not match the performance of Europe’s innovation leaders. A high
degree of complexity remains and overall coordination is a challenge. […] In particular,
cooperation between public research and companies is suboptimal and weighs on the economic
output of the innovation system.” 38 Similar European Semester recommendations – pointers to
improve public-private collaboration were made to – for example – the Czech Republic, Estonia,
and Spain (this list is not exhaustive). 39

On the other hand, our research suggests that in France there have equally been a number of
initiatives to strengthen framework conditions, such as the introduction of a R&I tax credit for
French companies that invest in new R&I equipment, laboratories but also in employing young
researchers. Whilst such measures have helped to strengthen R&I at national level, they have not
however yet translated into increased FP participation, with other barriers, such as a lack of formal
recognition within national career appraisal mechanisms to recognise participation in international
collaborative research projects being a problem.

4.2.3 Development of R&I strategies

At the EU level, since the signing of the Lisbon Treaty and the subsequent creation of the ERA,
there has been a strong emphasis at EU level on ensuring that national R&I strategies are put in
place. Of course, many countries previously had national R&I strategies but at EU level, the
stronger focus on R&I – and monitoring through the ERAWATCH and subsequently the annual RIO
reports – has helped to promote greater and more consistent focus across EU-28 and in the ACs.

National policy developments were found both through our study and in numerous wider literature
sources as being partly driven by EU/ERA level activity. However, convergence under the ERA
umbrella should not be taken for granted, but rather ERA priorities must also align with the
existing national system. For instance, a recent JRC report points out that, in principle, ERA
impacts on national R&I systems may in practice have either adverse or beneficial impacts from
both national and EU level perspectives. Examples to support this observation are that “an adverse
ERA impact could drive national policies to focus on ineffective instruments, for example, national
knowledge transfer policies supported by European Structural and Investment Funds within the
context of systemic failure in the economy. Similarly, policy changes observed may occur due to
other dominant national policy rationales, coinciding with the ones supporting the ERA goals.” 40

EU developments have of course primarily affected the countries that are EU Member States. For
instance, in the ERAWATCH report 2008, the participation of Latvia in the ERA was found to have
had a strong impact in influencing national research and development policymaking in the country.
The national policy mix is, to various degrees, aligned with the ERA pillars. Most of the ERA
objectives are addressed, though with variable rates of performance, and with support of the EU
European Structural and Investment Funds and FP7 / Horizon 2020 project financing. 41 But,
alignment in the EU-28 has wider impacts. The close collaboration with ACs has meant that
developments within the EU also involve neighbouring European countries.

The table below provides an overview of different national strategies for R&I amongst the
countries covered by this study. National strategies for supporting R&I often vary in their duration
and generally do not look further into the future than the next five or 10 years. Generally, the
European countries – in particular the smaller countries – have defined their national strategies

36
ERA - Facts and Figures 2014, Iceland
37
Iceland country fiche
38
2017 European Semester: Country Specific Recommendation / Commission Recommendations - France
39
Respective European Semester Recommendations 2106-2017
40
Cuntz et al (2013) European Research Area Impact on Member States' policy development. JRC Scientific
and Policy Reports.
41
Latvia country fiche

60
 broadly within the framework and timeframe of the EU’s Horizon 2020 framework, although there
are some minor variations. 42

Table 10 Overview of national R&I strategies

Country National R&I strategy Timeframe*
AL Draft National Strategy of Science, Technology and Innovation 2015-2020
AT Becoming an Innovation Leader: Realising Potentials, Increasing Dynamics, 2011-2020
Creating the Future
B&H Strategy of development of Scientific-Research and Research-Development Work 2012-2022
BE Federal Government Agreement combined with individual policies for the three To 2020
communities
BG Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialisation of the Republic of Bulgaria (ISSS) 2014-2020
CH Promotion of Education, Research and Innovation (ERI) Dispatch 2013-2016
CY National 2014-20 R&I Strategy and Smart Specialisation Strategy for Cyprus 2015-2020
CZ National RDI Policy of the Czech Republic 2009-2015
National Innovation Strategy 2012-2020
DE High-Tech Strategy 2020 of the Federal Government To 2020
DK Innovation Strategy: Denmark – A Land of Solutions 2012-2020
EE RD&I Strategy 2014-2020: ‘Knowledge-based Estonia’ 2014-2020
Estonian Entrepreneurship Growth Strategy 2014–2020
EL National Smart Specialization Strategy (RIS3) 2015-2020
ES Spanish Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation (EECTI 2013-2020) 2013-2020
FI Reformative Finland: Research and Innovation Policy Review 2015-2020 2015-2020
FO The General Research Policy of the Faroe Islands 2011-2015
FR National Research Strategy plus regional innovation strategies in line with Smart To 2020
Specialisation
FYROM Research and Innovation Policy Review 2015-2020
HR Strategy for Fostering Innovation in the Republic of Croatia 2014-2020
Research and Innovation Infrastructures Roadmap in Croatia
HU National Research, Development and Innovation Strategy (2013-2020) 2013-2020
“Investment in the Future”
IE The National Research Prioritisation Strategy (2012) and ‘Innovation 2020’ 2015-2020
IL No overarching RTDI policy, strong R&D infrastructure. No national innovation N/A
strategy.
IS Science and Technology Policy for Iceland Every 3 yrs
IT Programma Nazionale per la Ricerca 2015-2020 2015-2020
LI No overarching national strategy N/A
LT Lithuania 2030 - strategic framework for the achievement of the country’s policy 2010-2020
goals in the area of R&I. The Lithuanian RSI3 strategy
LU Luxembourg 2020 To 2020
LV Guidelines on Research, Technology Development, and Innovation for 2014– 2014-2020
2020
MD Innovation Strategy of the Republic of Moldova ‘Innovations for Competitiveness’ 2013-2020
2013-2020
Research and Development Strategy 2020
ME Strategy for Scientific and Research Activity 2008-2016 2008-2016
MT National R&I strategy (2014-2020) 2014-2020
NL Top Sectors strategy 2010-2025
National Science Agenda
NO Multiannual R&D strategies defined every four years N/A
PL The Strategy for Innovation and Efficiency of the Economy (SIEG) 2013-2020
PT Common Strategic Framework 2014-2020
RO National Strategy for R&D&I 2014-2020
RS Strategy of Scientific and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia 2010
SE National R&I system is governed through the Research Bill which is produced 2014-2020
once every four years. National Innovation Strategy (provide guidelines for
innovation policy up to 2020)
SI Research and Innovation Strategy of Slovenia 2011-2020
SK Smart Specialisation Strategy (RIS3) 2014-2020
TR National Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy 2011-2016
UK Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth (IRS) Open-ended
UK Industrial Strategy (announced in September 2012),
Sources: Country fiches and www.innovationpolicy.org Note – in some cases, the implementation
timeframe was 2014-2020 but the strategy document was approved later i.e. 2015

42
OECD (2014), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2014-en

61
Different countries have approached the development of national R&D and innovation strategies
differently. Some have combined the two and produced national R&D&I strategies, in line with the
current structure in Horizon 2020, whereas others have developed a national R&D strategy
separate from the innovation strategy. The Smart Specialisation Strategies (RIS3) appear to have
played an exceptionally important role in shaping many national innovation strategies.

In some instances, it was difficult to identify a national innovation strategy prior to the adoption of
the Smart Specialisation Strategy (RIS3). In some countries, such as Slovakia, it is interesting to
note that the Smart Specialisation Strategy (RIS3) for 2014-2020 has become the national R&D&I
strategy in that it sets goals and policy measures aimed at research, innovation and education.
There does not appear to be a separate R&D strategy. In other countries, the national R&D and
the national innovation strategies remain separate. In Slovenia too, the Research and Innovation
Strategy has been integrated into a single document.

Associated countries tend also to follow in similar policy footsteps. In 2013, the Moldova
Government launched an Innovation Strategy ‘Innovations for Competitiveness’ for 2013-2020 as
well as a Research and Development Strategy (2020), both of which are broadly in line with other
European policy trends. Moldova’s proposed reforms will increase the role of the Ministry of
Economy and provide for an institutional reform of R&I sector, an improved legal framework for
innovation activities, transparency in public consultations and communication, improvements of
R&I statistics and innovation policies. The R&D Strategy envisages facilitated networking and
technological integration of Moldovan and foreign businesses, facilitated access to financial
resources for innovators, provision of state support for innovation businesses, state acquisitions to
foster innovation activity, facilitated integration of Moldovan innovators and researchers in the
global system of innovations and ideas. The Strategy specifies notably the importance of
consolidating innovation links between businesses and the research and education sector,
increasing the efficiency of innovation entities in implementing research based innovations. 43

Serbia has had strategies pertaining to R&I in place since 2010, although there is a “general
opinion” that the implementation of the adopted strategies is lagging behind, mainly due to the
lack of funding and lack of coordinated approach between relevant Ministries. Monitoring and
evaluation bodies and mechanisms are not in place either. 44

In Montenegro, there is a good level of involvement from research organisations but the focus on
the policy level is currently to build the “foundations of the research system, rather than
competing at full speed with other national systems”. 45

Larger capacity R&I countries tend to take a more selective approach when adopting EU R&I
priorities.

In conclusion, although the academic world is increasingly turning away a linear model of
innovation and despite the increasing complexities that R&I policies are expected to address, the
linear model of innovation still tends to dominate in policymaking in Europe. This may be starting
to change as in recent years there has been an increasing interest in 'broad-based innovation
policies', 'systemic innovation policies, 'a demand-pull view', and 'demand-oriented policy
instruments'. According to ERAC, this may constitute the beginning of move towards a more
holistic approach to R&I policy. 46

Secondly, increased complexity of policy is also leading to “a larger toolbox” 47 of policy

instruments and the involvement of new actors. This is a key change, as it will ultimately impact
upon the national policy mix and governance of R&I. As pointed out by the 2014 OECD Outlook,
the “silo” approach caused by thematic and vertical segmentation, which has underpinned policy
developments, is being questioned. Significant efforts are being made to integrate R&I policies at
different levels (regional, national, supra-national) and in different fields (research, industrial
innovation, etc.). In many countries, new governance arrangements pool resources from various
sources, public as well as private, e.g. strategic public-private partnerships for innovation. In

43
Moldova country fiche
44
Serbia country fiche
45
Montenegro country fiche
46
Edquist (2014) Efficiency of Research and Innovation Systems for Economic Growth and Employment. Final
report from the SESSION Iof the 2014 ERAC Mutual Learning Seminar on Research and Innovation policies
47
OECD (2014), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2014-en

62
addition, governments are taking steps to rationalise their interventions and to consolidate R&I
programmes. 48

Other EU-level studies also note an increasingly diverse range of interventions, which, to varying
degrees, combine demand and supply-side R&I measures. The key characteristic of most of the
interventions is their complexity. 49

4.2.4 Influence between EU R&I policy, the FPs and national R&I systems

Over the course of the previous 15 years, the evolution in the thematic focus of the FPs and in the
types of research that can be funded has evolved. At the higher policy level, the ERA has impacted
on research and higher education. The ERA has also influenced the level and thematic orientation
of science and research funding through national and regional R&I programmes, just as national
and international developments have shaped EU R&I policy.

Overall, the opportunity to participate in the FPs has had a positive impact on the evolution in
national R&I systems, accelerating the pace of reform in the EU-13 and EU-candidate countries.
However, the study found that access to FP funding was only one among a wide range of drivers
that have influenced the development of national R&I systems and policies.

Whilst the FPs are of crucial importance to research, other EU policies and programmes have also
influenced the development of national R&I systems such as the development of the ERA and of
the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the Bologna Process since 2000. Perceptions as to
how far the FPs have had an influence on national R&I systems are also linked to the level of
country participation, which varies significantly. In some MS and ACs, FP funding accounts for a
significant percentage of total R&I funding, whereas in other countries, it accounts for a very small
percentage and other funding sources a high percentage, such as the EU European Structural and
Investment Funds (ESIF).

Although the EU-13 tend to be thought of as more reliant on ESIF, this is not always strictly the
case. Our research in Italy has also noted that the European Structural and Investment Funds had
overall been a greater driver of changes to the R&I system than the FPs. However, there were
difficulties generally in ensuring that reforms were followed through. Whilst some positive reforms
have taken place, such as a new R&D tax credit scheme and the adoption of the Law on Innovative
Start-ups and SMEs due to frequent governmental changes, there has been a lack of stability in
governance arrangements, which may have undermined the effectiveness of reform efforts.

With regard to innovation, whilst funding opportunities through the FPs have had some influence
in shaping national innovation systems and strategies, the impact over 15 years is much less
pronounced than for research and development, since it has only been since Horizon 2020 that
innovation was embedded within the FPs, and previously there were separate EU programmes to
strengthen innovation i.e. the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) 2007 to 2013 and
its predecessor. Nevertheless, the ability to support closer to the market R&I at a higher
Technology Readiness level (TRL) in the current programming period, along with the introduction
of new instruments, notably the SME Instrument, has had a positive impact overall in promoting
greater attention to innovation in national R&I strategies. In addition, in some countries, it has
influenced the integration of innovation into national research strategies, whereas formerly these
were treated separately in most countries.

Our study has made a number of observations in terms of influence (and the directions of
influence) presented in the bullet points below:

• In the EU-13, the accession process leading to EU membership was a significant

driver of reforms of national R&I systems. Participating in the ERA for the first time
was also a catalyst for many institutional reforms.

In many countries FP funding has had less impact in the short term, reflecting relatively low levels
of participation. Since in most EU-13 countries (CY, SI, MT, and EE excepted), the funding
obtained through the FPs is relatively low compared with other sources of funding, especially ESIF,
the visibility of the FPs as a catalyst for developments at the national level is sometimes low.

48
OECD (2014), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2014-en
49
Inno AG, University of Manchester (MIOIR), INNOVA Europe, SQW Limited SQW (2015) Supply and Demand
Side Innovation Policies. Final Report for Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

63
Nevertheless, at least in some countries, the FPs have had a significant strategic impact, for
instance, as to how ESIF have been utilised in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programming
periods. There is also a recognition in many low capacity countries that there is a need to
modernise the national research infrastructure and to reform and strengthen the R&I system as a
necessary precursor to strengthening R&I competitiveness at national level, and in turn increasing
the level of FP participation.

Several countries have also instituted reforms relating to the funding of the higher education and
research system in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their R&I systems. In many
new member states, as well as in some EU candidate countries in Southern and South-Eastern
Europe, there is a trend towards encouraging universities to become more self-financing, with a
proportion of funding being allocated through competitive research funding rather than a block
grant (for instance, in Lithuania). This is likely a sign of increased internationalisation of the
system – i.e. a revision of the regulatory environment to create more competitive and
international R&I actors.

A recent assessment by the European Parliament on the implementation of Horizon 2020 equally
mentioned that “a number of the low-capacity countries are hampered by a lack of university
autonomy, which means they are not able to act independently from the public administrations to,
e.g. set sufficiently competitive salaries and invest sufficiently in infrastructure and equipment.
This means that they are much less likely to succeed in attracting international and/or holding on
to national high-quality researchers. Two EU-13 countries are faring better, namely Cyprus and
Estonia. Estonia has also undergone recent institutional changes including a self-governing
university system, which was considered to have increased the country’s competitiveness.” 50

But reforms do not only affect low-capacity R&I countries. National reforms in the Netherlands,
which have put an increased focus on competitive research grant funding, and has – according to
the European Research Council – resulted in increased applications from Dutch researchers and
institutions to the ERC in the last few years. 51 Indeed, the interrelationship between the FP and
national policy if further elaborated in the next point.

• There is evidence that the FPs have influenced the focus of national R&I policies.

For instance, there has been an evolution towards promoting priorities that are strongly
emphasised at European level, such as fostering excellent research and addressing societal
challenges, but also ensuring that the R&I policy framework is better geared towards knowledge
transfer, the commercialisation of research results and cluster development. Some countries have
undertaken major institutional reforms in order to strengthen the policy importance of R&I, such
as setting up new R&I bodies and agencies.

Table 11 Lisbon and ERA policy context

The role of R&I has grown continually in importance and has been embedded in central EU-level
strategies to promote growth and jobs for the last decade and a half, from the Lisbon strategy
onward, up to the Europe 2020 goals and the ERA. R&I is also seen as a means of generating
sustainable economic growth and being key to Europe’s future economic competitiveness.

Furthermore, with the development of the ERA, the role of the Framework Programmes is
changing. In the years before the European Research Area strategy there was little interaction
between the FP and national research programmes in the sense that programme owners (Research
Councils, Government Agencies etc.) were not engaged in FP policy. This does not mean that the
FP did not have an impact at national level. In some thematic areas, the FP has accounted for a
large proportion of national research (e.g. health) but less in other areas (e.g. ICT). With the
introduction of the ERA, the FP interacts more with national programmes and private investments
than any predecessor, especially through ERANET, ERANET Plus, Article 169, JTIs etc. The
Ljubljana Process which started in May 2008 means that the Commission and Member States will
have to work in partnership. One consequence is that it means that the preparation of new FPs
take into account national/regional/industrial programmes in Europe.

OMC is characterised by voluntary (as oppose to regulatory) policy coordination in the form of
mutual learning initiatives. It is a non-binding, bottom-up process and is led by the Member
States. The European Commission acts as a guide and facilitator, but also provides analyses and
recommendations in response to Member State progress reports. An OMC approach was first

50
Horizon 2020 EU framework programme for research and innovation European Implementation Assessment
51
Horizon 2020 EU framework programme for research and innovation European Implementation Assessment

64
introduced in 2000 and deployed as a key policy instrument to reach the goals of the Lisbon
Strategy economic competitiveness.

The diversity (e.g. in size, influence, priorities and governance structure) of the EU Member States
research systems across has been a real sticking point to achieving the Lisbon (and later ERA)
goals. The different starting points of each Member States system in terms of the institutions in
place and the legislative and budgetary powers of each research system lead to different research
and innovation policies. These factors acted as a real hindrance to achieving a common European
research policy – the ERA. An added difficulty could be found at a political level. There are
examples of considerable resistance among the Member States to allowing perceived European
interference in national research policies 52 and the OMC approach was as such a ‘soft’ policy
instrument to work towards an agreement, using peer review and peer pressure as opposed to
legal interference to encourage Member State involvement and collaboration. 53

The Commission also aims to support the development of the ERA through specific policy
initiatives, such as encouraging more effective national research systems by promoting
competitive funding through calls for proposals and institutional assessments as the main modes
of allocating public funds to R&I. Opening up competition to national-level RTDI programmes is
seen as crucial to deriving maximum value from public money invested in research. Other ways in
which the EU supports the ERA includes the following mechanisms:

• Support mutual learning and the exchange of good practice between Member States on the
removal of national legal and other barriers to ERA.
• The Smart Specialisation Platform whereby Member States and regions use European
Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) to develop research capacity and smart specialisation
strategies, including support to joint research programmes, in line with Cohesion Policy
objectives.
• Fostering structural change within HE and research institutions to raise their research quality
to international levels of excellence.

In Greece, the European FPs have influenced the R&I system in recent decades to a large extent,
shaping the priorities of basic research in Greek universities and research institutions 54. In this
way, funding has been available for areas of specific interest to researchers, but these have had
no connection with national priorities. In a sense, FPs have contributed to increasing the gap
between public research and the priorities of the stakeholders of the public and private sector
dealing with economic development. The FPs appear to be the main tool for international
cooperation in S&T.

Iceland has participated in the FPs since FP4 when the country gained FP-associated status. Since
then, FP participation has been a major driver influencing the evolution in the national R&I system.
As a direct result of the FPs, institutional reorganisation of R&I took place. The Icelandic
government set up RANNIS, the Icelandic Centre for Research, an agency responsible for
coordinating the country’s participation in the FPs. In addition, the Science and Technology
Policy Council (“STPC”), was established in 2003. It plays an important strategic role at the
centre of the R&D policy system. It is the main body responsible for developing and adopting the
general policy for science and research in Iceland. Additional funding was also made available for
R&I through national R&I programmes to help strengthen the R&I system. Successive
governments have recognised the growing importance of R&I in general, and the
internationalisation of R&I in particular. This was directly attributed to FP participation.

FYROM has focused comparatively more on innovation policy, largely thanks to a €20 million
allocation – in part a World Bank load – to the Fund for Innovation and Technological development,
which has been set up to facilitate access to risk capital to co-finance innovations, new
technologies start-ups and spinoff companies. FYROM is also taking active steps to strength
research capacity, and recently developed a 2015-2019 programme for higher education and
scientific and research activities. This aims specifically at funding national research in line with the

52
See Gornitzka 2009 via Tamtik (2012) Rethinking the Open Method of Coordination: Mutual Learning
initiatives shaping the European Research enterprise
53
Tamtik (2012) Rethinking the Open Method of Coordination: Mutual Learning initiatives shaping the
European Research enterprise
54
As stated in the 2015 RIO Report for Greece, although Greek research teams participate in ERAnets and
other EU initiatives, participation in actual common programming is limited. Moreover, Greece did not
participate in any JPIs or JTIs (Tsipouri, et al., 2016, pg 47-48

65
EU priority areas. 55 However, the EC has recommended that FYROM takes actions to strengthen
the research capacity in line with the European Research Area.

The interplay between larger capacity countries and EU-propelled R&I priorities is also more
nuanced with influences going both directions. In Denmark, national and EU R&I priorities and
national R&I programmes have been similar, either by coincidence or because EU policy reflected
trends presented in R&I intensive countries generally. However, over time, EU priorities have
become more important in shaping Danish policies and strategies, especially among research
actors themselves. For example, Danish universities now take EU policies into account whenever
strategies are being developed.

In Austria, R&I policymakers tend to assess national strengths in light of EU policy when
addressing R&I strategies and funding directions. For example, the Societal Challenges approach
has existed in Austria for some time but was reinforced at national level when also taken up as a
EU priority in Horizon 2020.

A third example is the long-standing championing of basic excellent science (and the
establishment of the ERC) by e.g. the Nordic countries and the UK.

A good example in respect of the symbiotic relationship between national and regional R&I
programmes is that of France. Some national research programmes have been explicitly designed
so as to facilitate the participation of research performers as participants in the FPs, with the
national programmes serving as an opportunity to carry out research projects in particular
scientific disciplines and thematic areas and this experience serving as a stepping stone to develop
follow-up research project ideas wherever FP applicants are successfully financed through the FPs.

In Germany, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) initiated a national
programme of civil security research in 2007 (which was part of a High-Tech Strategy which
focused on 5 sectors) to develop national capacity in this area. This was the first national security
research programme and there were synergies with the European Security Research Programme 56,
FP7 Security under the Cooperation Programme (whose successor is H2020 Secure Societies),
which was also the first time such a programme had been supported at EU level. The programme
allocated EUR 123 million to foster security research and industrial competitiveness between 2007
and 2010. Some bi-lateral research projects have also been undertaken, for instance, between
Germany and France, Israel and the US. There are evidently complementary areas between the
objectives and thematic priorities identified in the national programme and those in FP7 Security.
As such, successful participants in the German national civil security research programme were
able to use their participation as a conduit to applying for successor and / or entirely new projects
in FP7 Security and H2020 Secure Societies.

Having said this, there appears to be a ‘natural’ limit to the extent to which a country can
effectively align its priorities and actions with that of the EU. Indeed, in some cases, it may be
inappropriate for countries to take on too much. For example, our research in Romania suggests
that the country indiscriminately followed EU trends during FP6, as policymakers were simply
inexperienced in thinking and operating at an international level, and as a result Romania lacked a
national lead. With time and as experience has built up, the county has increasingly avoided the
‘copy-paste’ approach and now look to develop an approach to R&I more tailored to strengths and
weaknesses.

Among the findings from a review of the 41 country reports are that the FPs have shaped the
development of many national R&I systems. For instance:

• Some countries have decided to reform their R&I systems partly in order to enhance
the level of their country’s participation in the FPs by overcoming fragmentation in
the structure of their domestic HEI system and / or of publicly funded research
institutes.

The objective of such rationalisation is to strengthen the competitiveness of the research system
overall and of individual research performers.

55
SWD(2015) 212 final Commission Staff Working Document: The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Report 2015, Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
The council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions EU Enlargement
Strategy
56
European Perspectives on Security Research, Klaus Thomas

66
For example, in some of the former Soviet bloc countries, there has been a merger of different
HEIs and research institutes in order to avoid over-fragmentation and operating inefficiencies and
to strengthen R&I competitiveness nationally in order to better compete at EU level. Conversely, in
other countries, there has been greater stability in the R&I system and in funding arrangements,
but over time there have still been changes to address structural weaknesses. Sometimes this was
directly influenced by the FPs, whereas in other countries, access to FP funding was only one
among a number of drivers. Among drivers of changes to national R&I systems and structures are:
domestic budgetary pressures demanding greater efficiency in R&I systems, and / or realigning
the R&I system in order to enable particular countries to be better positioned towards accessing FP
funding and other sources of international funding.

In Lithuania, there have been various major reforms of the national R&I system since 2000,
driven in the 2000-2004 period by the prospect of achieving the strategic objective of EU
membership. Whilst being able to access international sources of funding was an important
additional factor influencing the institutional reforms that were put in place, it was not the primary
driver. Reforms such as rationalising the public research and university system and reforming the
funding of HEIs and moving towards more competitive research funding allocation at national level
were mainly driven by domestic considerations, such as the need to modernise the R&I system
given the outdated legacy from the Soviet period, the need to modernise HEIs in light of the
Bologna process and participation in the ERA, etc.

Turkey has made huge investments and efforts to make Turkish research area actors exploit the
benefits proposed by FPs such as networking, knowledge and technology transfer, joint innovation
activities, access to new markets, etc. Other than FPs, TÜBİTAK carries out project-based bilateral
cooperation with 28 organisations from 24 countries, and it is in cooperation with 90 global and
regional organisations through specific S&T agreements by the end of 2013. Moreover, between
the years 2007-2012 TÜBİTAK participated in total 41 ERA-NETs in which 107 Turkish institutions
participated through around EUR 15.6 million.

In 2012, for instance, EUR 7.4 million were spent through bilateral cooperation and ERA-NETs
which makes approximately 0.12% of R&D expenditure realised in 2012. Turkey participates in 9
Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) except Cultural Heritage JPI. Turkey also participates in Article
185 initiatives, namely Eurostars and EMPIR on European research on metrology in FP7 and its
participation continues under Horizon 2020. Strategic Research Agendas are implemented jointly
with JPI partners and joint research priorities are built within ERA-NETs and Article 185 initiatives.
Common funding and evaluation principles applied in ERANET, JPIs and Article 185 initiatives
together with partner countries add on further enhancement of cooperation among researchers
from applicant countries. Turkey is represented in European Research Area Committee (ERAC) and
its sub-committees as High-Level Group for Joint Programming (GPC), Strategic Forum for
International cooperation (SFIC), Knowledge Transfer Group, Steering Group for Human Resources
and Mobility (SGHRM).

The below table provides a brief overview of European influence on each 41 countries.

67
Table 12 Level of European influence on national R&I systems
Level of
Country Basis for assessment
Influence
AL Low Limited participation to date, although there is a long-term goal to more closely align national and EU strategies.
AT Medium The FPs are the main source of international collaboration, however national funding is still main source of R&D investment and
national objectives exceed EU mandated aims.
B&H Low Still a candidate country with limited interactions in the FPs, but EU funding is helping to reconstruct and shape national R&I
framework.
BE High FPs have had influence on policy at federal and regional level, with national policies shaped by EU timeframes and significant FP
participation.
BG Medium Did not participate in shaping EU R&I policy to reflect country specific needs in the area, but the thematic priorities of the FPs
defined priority areas for science and innovation development in the country
CH Medium Not a MS and lacks explicit references to EU policies, but Swiss research “largely complies with the spirit of the ERA objectives
and the related priorities” and has high historic FP participation
CY High Strong influence of FPs on the design of national R&I policies, including significant reorganisation of government structures
CZ Medium EU priorities have fed into national policy development but have not been a strong influencing factor.
DE High High interaction between EU and national policies, with strong advocacy from the German government in terms of shaping EU
priorities, high levels of government support to applicants and high FP participation
DK High Has been active in shaping EU priorities, and has adapted its own adapted its own R&I system to reflect the FPs in order to
increase the chances of securing funding
EE High Impacts on national policy and infrastructure, as well as funding mechanisms which have been reshaped to promote
complementarity
EL Medium Strong influence on the design of national R&I policies, but no strategy for increased participation and no evidence of strategies
to influence the design of the FPs
ES High National strategies for effectively using FP funding have been key to successful participation. FPs have also shaped national and
regional R&I agendas, behaviour and funding priorities
FI Medium FP participation is limited however the EU approach to programme based development has spread to national approaches to
managing development
FO Low Associate status has led to cooperative approach with EU towards identifying priority areas for participation, but effect on national
policy is limited
FR High Committed to the ERA and has increasingly aligned national and European priorities, in theory and in practice, since 2000.
FYROM Medium R&I policies and the performance measurement system designed and developed with close relevance to EU policies, but no
strategy to influence the overall direction.
HR Low Limited alignment of national and EU priorities and attempt to influence the direction of European research.
HU Medium FPs are a key source of finance and have been integrated into national strategic plans, but there is limited influence on overall EU
strategy.
IE High FPs are a significant and increasing source of finance. There is a national strategy in place to increase participation and attempts
to influence the direction of the FPs.
IL Low Associated country – FPs are an important source of finance and cooperation.

68
 Level of
Country Basis for assessment
Influence
IS Medium Progress in consolidating existing science base through participation in the FPs. Participation has strengthened research
excellence in particular fields and increased researcher mobility.
IT Medium Limited historical alignment, but recent attempts to develop a strategy for increased and more diverse participation and integrate
EU and national priorities.
LI Low No considerable influence in shaping EU level R&I policies. Focus is rather on cooperation with neighbouring countries.
LT Medium EU priorities have been included in national innovation strategy, however there is limited strategic integration and no input into
EU priorities.
LU Medium Significant participation and stronger collaboration through, for example, the ERA-NETs
LV Medium National incentives to participate in FPs, which are viewed as a mark of excellence and alignment of national policy mix with ERA
pillars.
MD Medium National Action Plans since 2008 to foster integration of ERA into national strategy.
ME Low Associated country with limited participation
MT Medium R&I system is too small to completely emulate the width of EU policies, however EU membership and FP participation is clearly a
high priority in Malta.
NL Medium/High Receives high levels of funding and has been working to both align national policies with EU priorities and influence EU policy to
integrate with national interests.
NO Medium Targets for R&D investment are set to match EU levels. However national priority setting is less closely aligned with EU strategic
objectives.
PL Medium Significant participation to date and plans to increase its participation in Horizon 2020 through different policy measures
PT Medium EU R&I funding strong influence in shaping R&I public policies. EU programming mechanisms have been gradually internalised by
governmental authorities, at national, regional and local levels, and national planning cycles are becoming increasingly co-
ordinated with the EU programming periods.
RO Medium Has tried to reform its R&D&I system since before accession, in order to correlate it as much as possible with EU research policy.
RS Low Ad-hoc national support for FP participation but no structured support at national level.
SE Medium European strategies have guided the national and regional structural fund programmes, and innovation, entrepreneurship and
sustainable growth have been high on the national agendas
SI Medium Participation in the FPs has generated valuable experience that undoubtedly reflects in other R&D activities and the research
priorities of participating institutions; it is not clear however to what extent this reflects also on the level of national R&D policy
and priorities.

SK Low The focus has been on infrastructure construction through the European Structural and Investment Funds to date rather than a
significant focus on the alignment of strategic priorities.
TR Medium The FPs are main tool for collaboration, with significant investments and efforts to make Turkish research area actors exploit the
benefits proposed by FPs such as networking, knowledge and technology transfer, joint innovation activities, access to new
markets, etc
UK High Significant participation and concerted efforts to influence EU priorities have led to alignments between national and European
strategic objectives.
Source: country reports

69
4.3 Funding for R&I at national level

Although in the last 15 years policy frameworks and R&I strategies in Europe have clearly outlined
the (socio)economic importance of R&I, national funding streams have not always follow the same
clear direction. Despite the EU Member States – and European countries more generally – working
towards a greater or at least more defined role for R&I, there are significant differences in national
research capacity and in funding allocations to R&I. Across Europe, there are considerable
differences in the amount and proportion of public funding which is allocated to research.

In terms of funding for R&I, we can draw out a number of longer-term trends:

• There are significant differences in national research capacity and in funding

allocations to R&I

Despite the EU Member States – and European countries more generally – working towards a
greater or at least more defined role for R&I, there are significant differences in national research
capacity and in funding allocations to R&I. Across Europe, there are considerable differences in the
amount and proportion of public funding which is allocated to research. In terms of Government
expenditure on R&D, the average GBAORD in Europe (2004-13) is 1.29% of GDP. Norway has the
highest average (2.24%). Switzerland’s expenditure is also relatively high although because there
is a break in the data series, an average cannot be precisely calculated. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece,
Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Poland 57, Romania, and Slovakia have spent less than 1% of their public
funding on R&D. However, measuring only the inputs does not provide a full picture. Notably, the
UK often argues that the relatively low spending on R&D (GBAORD averaging 1.35%), while
maintaining a strong science base with high outputs, is evidence that the UK system is efficient. 58

• National governments allocate research funding in different ways.

While competitive project-based funding is used in most European countries, the extent to which
this allocation method is used varies significantly. There are considerable differences between EU
countries in terms of the ways in which they prioritise research, how much they spend on it, and
what strengths and weaknesses their national systems have. Germany and the UK are the two
biggest beneficiary countries in terms of winning funding from the European Commission budget
for R&I in terms of their overall level of success in both the FPs and in the ERC grants schemes.

• The regional funding mix is increasingly important.

The findings of the 41 country reports indicate that as the regional R&I system is increasingly
becoming interconnected (and receiving more attention), the importance of the use of the
European Structural and Investment Funds in Europe to encourage R&I is in tandem growing in
importance. Although 13 out of the 41 countries that are part of the study are Associated
Countries in the FPs only, and therefore do not benefit from access to the European Structural and
Investment Funds (with the exception of self-funded Interreg activities in Norway). In many EU13
MS, the European Structural and Investment Funds were a much more significant source of
funding and were seen as more important, given the need to improve the quality of research
infrastructure through modernisation and upgrading. Among stakeholders in many of these
countries, this was seen as an essential precursor prior to being able to compete for FP funding,
especially in a lead coordinator capacity.

Furthermore, the online survey of NCPs and policymakers undertaken by this study indicates that
R&I funding growth have tended to come from the FPs and/or national sources. However other
countries have clearly experienced cuts in national R&I funding, as indicated by the significant
proportion of respondents indicating less funding. Other European programmes (e.g. COST) also
appear to have increased in importance – at least for a smaller number of respondents.

Other findings worth noting here is the relatively small role of funding from industry/businesses
and the lack of access to international sources.

57
Data is not available for all years.
58
We have appended to this report illustrations that show total national spending on R&D (Gross domestic
expenditure on R&D, GERD) and total government spending on R&D as a percentage of total general
government expenditure (GBAORD).

70
Figure 5 The extent to which your country’s mix of funding sources has
changed since 2000?

Other European funding (e.g.

COST)

EU-co-funded programmes
administered at cross-border level
(e.g. Interreg funding)

Multilateral funding programmes

(non-EU)

Bilateral funding programmes (non-

EU)

International sources, e.g. UNESCO

More funding/ opportunities

Framework Programme funding

Less funding/fewer
opportunities
Funding from international
industry/businesses
Not applicable
Funding from national
industry/businesses

EU-co-funded programmes
administered at national/regional
level (e.g. Structural Funds)

Regional funding programmes

National funding programmes

0 10 20 30
Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

• The economic crisis, which began in 2008, has impacted negatively on R&I.

To a varying degree, OECD governments all face sluggish economic growth, in combination with
pressing societal and environmental issues. Despite these issues, fewer public resources are being
made available to R&I to respond. These public cuts are also reflected in R&I budgets, and many
governments are initiating a “new deal” for innovation, encouraging public-private partnerships
and/or loans as a response to declining public funding. The OECD’s 2014 STI Outlook stated that
“the impact of the recession and the moderate pace of recovery on innovation and innovation
policies has been considerable. At 1.6%, gross expenditure on R&D in OECD countries over 2008-
12 was half the rate for the years 2001-08”.59

With regards to BERD, OECD’s analysis indicates that the recent increase in BERD spending is
being driven by the US. But also in Europe, the situation has improved gradually (see Figure
below), although a new decrease in private research spending in 2012 suggests that the recovery
is fragile.

59
OECD (2014), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2014-en

71
Figure 6 Changes in BERD spending (OECD countries)

Source: OECD (2014), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing

The OECD inventory equally suggests that R&D budgets have levelled off in many countries and
have started to decline in others. From 2009, GBAORD began to shrink markedly in France,
Finland, Spain, and the UK. In 2011 notable slowdowns were observed in Denmark and
Switzerland. 60

4.3.1 National and regional R&I programmes and co-funding complementarity

The research across the 28 EU MS and the 13 ACs has identified a number of national R&I
programmes in many countries. The scale and scope of these programmes varies considerably. In
respect of national and regional R&I programmes, the level of funding varies significantly. In
some countries, the funding exceeds financing available through the FPs, whereas in others,
funding levels are relatively modest. In some federal EU countries, such as German and Belgium,
there are (also) prominent regionally administered programmes.

In this sub-section, selected examples of programmes are provided. The purpose is to illustrate
the type of programmes in operation, and to examine how far there are synergies and inter-
linkages with the FPs.

One way in which one can assess the role of national public funding vis-à-vis the FP is to look at
the relationship between FP funding (in this case FP6) with the overall amount of expenditure on
R&I at national level, measured by the Gross Domestic (GERD) expenditure on R&D.

The OCED database provides annual data on GERD 61 while the FP6 provides information for the
period 2002 2006. For comparison reasons, we decided to sum together the annual data provided
by the OECD. We are aware of the limits of this approach, e.g. not considering the inflation rate,
however this can still provide an initial idea (in quantitative terms) of the role played by FP6 in the
national context. To reduce this type of problem and avoid issues related with the use of exchange
rates in this section only the countries included in the Eurozone within 2003 are included (i.e.
countries that have joined the European Monetary Union before 2003). Some countries have been
excluded because they adopted the Euro currency after 2002 or because data on the OECD
database was not available (CY, EE, SK, LV, LT, SK, MT). This analysis is based on 12 countries
(AT, BE, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LU, NL, PT).

Whilst we are aware of the limitations of this approach, it provides a good understanding on the
role played by the FP6 at national level. Thus data should be considered as able to provide a first-
level analysis and not be taken as a milestone for future exercises.

Overall, the total amount of funding provided towards FP6 during 2002 and 2006 represents only a
small fraction of the funding available at national level. An overview of the importance of FP6
funding at national level is provided in the table below.

60
OECD (2014), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2014-en
61
GERD in national currency (for euro area: pre-EMU euro or EUR)

72
Figure 7 Percentage of FP6 out of the GERD 62

12%

10.4%

10%

8%

6%

4%
3.0%
2.7%
2.1% 2.0%
2% 1.6%
1.3% 1.2% 1.1%
0.8% 0.6%
0.3%

0%
EL PT BE ES IT AT FR LU DE IE NL FI
Source: OECD, eCORDA and authors’ calculations
Using the above calculations, a conclusion can be drawn that the only country in which FP6 played
a major role was Greece. In Greece the amount of funding from FP6 represented more than 10%
of the GERD expenditure on R&D. It is followed by Portugal (3%), Belgium (2.7%), Spain (2.1%)
and Italy (3%). The countries presenting the lowest impact of FP6 are Finland (0.3%), Netherlands
(0.6%), Ireland (0.8%) and Germany (1.1%).

The scatterplot below shows the relationship between the two variables. The x-axis presents the
amount of money obtained through FP6, while the y-axis reports national GERD spending.

The coefficient of the correlation calculated shows a positive relationship (0.17). If we remove the
main outlier, i.e. Finland, the coefficient of correlation shows a much stronger positive relationship
between the two variables (0.44).

Figure 8 Scatter plot – relationship between FP6 and GERD per capita

6,000

5,000 FI

4,000 LU
DE AT
3,000 NL FR
BE
2,000 IE

ES IT
1,000
PT EL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Source: OECD, eCORDA and authors’ calculations

62
This table is based on a number of assumptions provided at the beginning of the section.

73
The main conclusion emerging from this scatter plot is that Southern European countries (ES, EL,
ES, PT) are all below the trend line, showing modest levels of GERD expenditure per capita
associated to relatively low take-up figures of FP6 funding. Conversely countries performing well at
national level (e.g. LU, AT, DE) are more likely to attract FP6 funding per capita.
In terms of preferred sources of R&I funding at national level, this study undertook an online
survey of FP NCPs and other national policymakers. Pertaining to questions relating to the national
R&I funding mix, the respondents indicated that the most popular (reliant) source of funding for
R&I projects and infrastructure financing are still national funding programmes, followed by the
FPs and the European Structural and Investment Funds.
Figure 9 The extent to which your country’s researchers and scientists rely on
the following sources of funding for R&I project and infrastructure financing

International sources, e.g. UNESCO

Framework Programme funding

Funding from national

industry/businesses
Heavily reliant
EU (co-) funded programmes Somewhat reliant
available to Associated Countries,
e.g. Connecting Europe, EEN Rely on to a limited extent
Not applicable
Structural Funds/ ESIFs available to
EU Member States

Regional funding programmes

National funding programmes

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

In total, 61.29% of respondents consider their country’s researchers to be ‘heavily reliant’ on

national funding instruments compared to 38.71% for Framework Programme funding (more
respondents considered their R&I performers to be only relying on the FPs to a limited extent.
However, for Group 3 (Reformers and specialists) only two responses indicating heavy reliance on
national funding (heavy) and these countries were more likely to also suggest some/heavy reliance
on the FPs.
Over one-third (35.48%) of respondents considered their country’s researchers to be ‘heavily
reliant’ on the European Structural and Investment Funds/ESIF; also a significant proportion when
looking at the bigger picture. Unsurprisingly, Group 4 countries the reliance on ESIF was more
palpable – out of 17 responses for this group, nine suggested a heavy reliance on national funding,
while 10 also suggested a heavy reliance on ESIF. In contrast to this, Group 2 (Core countries)
were generally more reliant on national funding. Out of nine responses for Group 2, only one
response indicated a heavily reliance on ESIF, while seven out of nine reported a heavy reliance on
FP.
However, as the responses to the question on co-funding ability show, in general there is limited
scope for strong (effective) co-funding potential, with only 10.34% considered instruments to be
effectively paired, although if including ‘some co-funding potential’, respondents are more positive.

74
Table 13 The extent to which R&I performers in your country are able to use
national/regional funding and FP funding as co-funding for their R&I activities
Answer choices % of responses

Strong co-funding potential (R&I performers who need to access funding 10.34%
from several sources most often receive the funding required for ALL
activities planned)

Some co-funding potential (R&I performers who need to access funding 41.38%
from several sources sometimes receive the funding required for ALL
activities planned)

Little co-funding potential – mainly dependent on own resources (R&I 48.28%

performers who need to access funding from several sources do not tend
to receive the funding required for ALL activities planned)
Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

Interestingly – and although our survey was limited in scope and size – the key challenge appears
to be that of the practical/administrative/organisational issue of combining different funding
sources, and not an issue of thematic complementarity of funding sources. This conclusion is
drawn as, in terms of relevance and complementarity, most respondents consider the FPs to have
some or strong relevance in terms of the thematic and scientific funding priorities; with FP7 and
H2020 scoring highest (88% of respondents suggesting that FP7 had strong or some relevance,
while the equivalent number were 79.3% for H2020 and 70% for FP6).

Table 14 Overall relevance of thematic and scientific funding priorities

supported through the EU RTD FPs in each period to your country’s R&I
strengths
Answer choices FP6 FP7 H2020

Strong relevance
30% 36% 45%
Some relevance
41% 52% 34%

Little relevance
15% 6% 10%

No relevance
4% 3% 3%

Don't know/ unable to

say 11% 3% 3%

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

As the below figure suggests, respondents largely view the FPs as being complementary to
national and regional priorities. For Groups 1 (Leaders and influencers) and 2 (Core countries)
complementarity was particularly strong, with no response indicating little complementarity.
However, for Groups 3 (Reformers and specialists) and 4 (Support-focused and sporadic
participation), there was less consensus, with approximately one-thirds of respondents suggesting
there was little complementarity between their national priorities and H2020.

75
Figure 10 To what extent are your country’s/ region’s R&I funding
programmes’ priorities and FP priorities complementary? (n=29) q.30

70%

62%

60%

50%

To what extent are your

country’s/ region’s R&I
funding programmes’
40% priorities and FP
priorities
complementary?

30%

21%
20%
17%

10%

0%
Strong Some complementarity Little complementarity
complementarity

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

4.3.2 Continued impact of the 2008 economic crisis

The 2016 DG RTD report Science, Research and Innovation performance of the EU starts off by
stating that ”the European economic forecast report of October 2015 showed that the economic
recovery in the EU was in its third year and should continue in 2016. For the EU as a whole, real
GDP is forecast to grow by 2.0% in 2016 and 2.1% in 2017. To a large extent, this more positive
outlook is driven by factors related to the overall decrease in energy prices, following the drop in
oil prices, the monetary stimulus by the European Central Bank and other EU central banks, and
the euro’s exchange rate depreciation, notably against the US dollar. Despite these positive
developments, doubts still persist about the robustness of the recovery in the EU, should the
above-mentioned tailwinds start to fade. At the same time, new challenges are appearing, such as
the slowdown in emerging market economies and global trade, and persisting geopolitical tensions.
The economic recession has emphasised Europe’s long-term growth gap against the United States
and unveiled structural weaknesses in the EU economy” 63

It is clear that generally, the above-mentioned ‘structural weaknesses in the EU economy’ also risk
hampering R&I investments.

63
Science, Research and Innovation performance of the EU (2016) A contribution to the Open Innovation Open
Science Open to the World agenda. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

76
During the time period 2000-2008 Spain made a very strong effort in R&D and innovation
activities, in the sense that the country nearly duplicated its Gross Expenditures on R&D (GERD) in
absolute terms and resulting in a continuous increase in the R&D intensity (GERD as a percentage
of Gross Domestic Product). Indeed, Spain’s investment in research and development (R&D) grew
faster than the EU average over this period, reaching its peak in 2008. However, and since onset
of the financial crisis in 1998, this positive trend has been completely changed, threatening to set
back the progress made before during the previous period. 64

Even in countries classified as leaders in innovation, there is uncertainty and economic challenges:

The Finnish economy was in economic decline from 2012-2014, i.e. three years in row. A modest
growth returned in 2015 but it is still fragile and based heavily on domestic consumption and
construction, which is boosted by low interest rates. This all means that the economic growth is
still vulnerable and ultimately uncertain. The industrial system of Finland has undergone a
structural change, including the scaling down of Finnish mobile phone industry and shrinking of
printing paper industry. Over the period from 2008 onward the trend of Finnish export has been
declining and Finland has been running deficit in the trade balance in material goods. The positive
trend is the growth of service export which mainly means ICT services and related software. That
is related to vivid start-up activities in Finland and growing venture capital investments in early
phase companies. 65

R&D has for long had a high priority in Sweden, which is one of the countries in the world that
devotes the most funding to research, relative to the size of its population. In 2014, the gross
domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD) as a per cent of GDP was 3.16%. This
corresponds to a EUR 1,411 GERD per capita, far above the EU28-average of EUR 558. 66 The 2016
European Semester Country Report for Sweden notes that Sweden has the second highest level of
R&D expenditure as a proportion of GDP in the EU. The business sector accounts for nearly two
thirds of GERD. That being said, despite increases in public R&I funding, GERD has been in relative
decline since 2008 when it peaked at 3.5%. The cause of this is mainly lower business R&D
spending. 67

The last set of survey questions aimed at NCPs and policymakers explored the extent to which the
economic and financial crisis from 2008 onwards have an impact on the level of national / regional
R&I funding available.

As the responses to the question “To what extent did the economic and financial crisis from 2008
have an impact on the level of national / regional R&I funding available”, clearly the FP
participating countries have experienced some difficulties in funding R&I in the last decade.

Although (for a smaller number of respondents), the crisis did not affect access to funding at
national level, the general ‘squeeze’ on R&I funding nevertheless affected the overall portfolio of
funding, in particular making it more difficult to access co-funding sources and/or FP funding. For
65.22% of respondent and 73.91% of respondents the crisis led to an immediate and long-term
negative impact of national R&I funding respectively.

64
Spain country report
65
Finland country report
66
Merle Jacob, Åsa Lindholm Dahlstrand, Maren Sprutacz (2015) RIO Country Report 2015: Sweden, EUR
27859 EN, doi:10.2791/21226
67
Sweden country report

77
Figure 11 The extent to which the economic and financial crisis from 2008 have
had an impact on the level of national / regional R&I funding available

The crisis did not affect our

ability to access RTD funding at 6 9
national level
The economic and
financial crisis had an
The crisis made it more difficult immediate impact
to find the necessary co-financing
18 15
(from own funding) to participate
in the FPs
The economic and
financial crisis have
had a long-term
The crisis made it more difficult
impact
to obtain the necessary co-
14 11
financing (from national public
sources) to participate in the FPs

The economic and financial crisis

led to a reduction in national / 15 17
regional R&I funding availability

0 10 20 30 40

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

The lack of funding has in turn impacted on R&I activities, as illustrated in the below Table. Over
half (56%) of respondents indicate that R&I performers have been affected. Most notably, to a
small extent (62.96%) or large extent (25.93%) there has been a shift towards R&I performers
“predominantly seek funding through the EU RTD FPs”, with only 11.11% of respondents stating
that this is not the case. In tandem with this perceived shift in funding sources, a significant
number of respondents (28.57% + 57.14%) also suggest that R&I performers have revised their
strategy with regard to R&I activities. In also appears that R&I performers frequently postpone
and/or carry out fewer activities than compared to pre-2008.

Table 15 The extent to which your country’s R&I activities has changed as a
result of the economic and financial crisis that began in 2008 and subsequent
low economic growth

Type of impact To a large To a small Not at all

extent extent

R&I performers in my country have 35.71% 42.86% 21.43%

postponed R&I activities

R&I performers in my country carry out 29.63% 40.74% 29.63%

fewer R&I activities than previously
R&I performers in my country have 28.57% 57.14% 14.29%
revised their strategy with regard to R&I
activities
R&I performers in my country 16.00% 28.00% 56.00%
organisation have not been affected
R&I performers in my country now 25.93% 62.96% 11.11%
predominantly seek funding through the
EU RTD FPs
Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

Looking beyond the survey results and at the wider context, associated countries, and some of the
EU-13 Member States, also face longer-terms structural challenges as a legacy from previous

78
economic systems – or indeed as a result of their independence being obtained relatively recently.
In many of the smaller-capacity countries, there have been considerable challenges in applying for
and participating in the FPs such as: a lack of links to international networks and potential
partners, under-developed R&I infrastructure and the need to utilise European Structural and
Investment Funds over the medium-term to improve the basic infrastructure before there is a
realistic chance of becoming significant players in competing at European level for international,
transnational research projects through the FPs.

Bulgarian SMEs in particular were seriously affected by the financial crisis in 2008. Overall, they
have released 8% of employees compared to 16% in large enterprises, but their added value
decreased by 4% between 2008 and 2013, at an increase of 8% in large companies. According to
the Commission, this is due to the ability of large enterprises to increase their productivity and
diversify their markets, while SMEs are not so flexible in this regard.

Concerning the R&I sector in Romania, the trend during past eight years has been negative.
Although in view of Europe 2020, the Romanian government assumed 2% of GDP to be spent on
R&I by 2020 (1% public and 1% private), the current situation needs to be reversed in order to
achieve this objective. Our country fiche also states that it is important to underline that before
1990 the state-owned research institutes, state owned universities and state owned large
companies with own R&D departments were the only players in the field with the government the
only funding source. With the dismantling of large state owned enterprises during the 1990s and
their subsequent privatisation / closure / conversion, the research institutes started to remain
without customers and thus in impossibility to capitalize the results of their research activities.
Pressure on budget increased in parallel with the economic downturn has strongly affected
Romanian economy during 1996-2000. 68

Before the global financial crisis, Albania was one of the fastest-growing economies in Europe,
enjoying average annual real growth rates of 6%, accompanied by rapid reductions in poverty.
However, after 2008 average growth halved and macroeconomic imbalances in the public and
external sectors emerged. This has impacted on public spending including spending on R&I. There
are discrepancies between planned budgets as stated in various policy documents and allocated
funds to implementing agencies, due to public budget shortages.

There are also other exacerbating factors – and which risk contributing to a wider deterioration of
R&I investments. Most notably, in the UK, following the recent EU referendum result, there is a
more uncertain future and various recent articles point to potential difficulties in accessing EU
funding through the RTD FPs even if the UK is formally still a Member State.

4.3.3 European Structural and Investment Funds and ESIF support of R&I

The European Commission itself has stated that “Research and high-tech activities are highly
concentrated in the core regions of the EU. Approximately half of total research expenditure goes
to 30 regions out of 254. Disparities between regions in business research expenditure are even
wider” 69. With this imbalance, the European Structural and Investment Funds “play a substantial
role to help all regions build research and innovation capacities corresponding to their situation
and priorities”. 70

The development of EU policy over the last programming periods clearly shows a commitment to
R&I as part of regional development:
• Between 2000 and 2006, approximately EUR 13 billion – around 6% of the EU European
Structural and Investment Funds – will have been was spent on research infrastructures and
networks, innovative business start-ups and the modernisation of SMEs.
• In the period 2007-2013, EUR 86 billion out of EUR 347 billion have been allocated to
innovation: Research and Innovation including infrastructures, Entrepreneurship, ICT
development and human capital actions. Innovation has also become a key aspect in applying

68
Romania country report
69
European Structural and Investment Funds (archived website). See http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-
research/funding/funding04_en.htm
70
European Structural and Investment Funds (archived website). See http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-
research/funding/funding04_en.htm

79
 to receive European Structural and Investment Funds. Specific European Regional Innovation
Scoreboard indicators have been developed in the context of the Innovation Union. 71

The screenshot below, taken from a recent Royal Society report, show the combination of FP7 and
European Structural and Investment Funds support for R&I.

Figure 12 FP7 vs European Structural and Investment Funds support for R&I

Source: The Royal Society (2015) UK research and the European Union The role of the EU in
funding UK research

In the current 2014-2020 programming period, regions and Member States must target EU
investments on four key areas for economic growth and job creation: (1) Research and
Innovation; (2) Information and Communication Technologies (ICT); (3) Enhancing the
competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); and (4) Supporting the shift
towards a low-carbon economy. 72

To further facilitate R&I in the regions and to align with national and EU policy in the field, EU
countries are developing Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3). RIS3
should support the creation of knowledge-based jobs and growth not only in leading R&I
geographical areas but also in less developed and rural regions. RIS3 is a key part of the proposed
EU Cohesion Policy reform supporting thematic concentration and reinforcing strategic
programming and performance orientation. The EC has appointed an Expert Group to monitor the
development of the RIS3, which reported on progress last year (2015). Although the Group fully
agreed that RIS3 had the potential to become ‘a true EU innovation’ it equally concluded that

71
EU European Structural and Investment Funds. See
http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=structural_funds
72
EU COHESION POLICY 2014-2020 Targeting Investments on Key Growth Priorities.
See http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/fiche_innovation_en.pdf

80
“there is still much room for improvement for fully harnessing synergies with Horizon 2020 and the
large number of other EU support programmes available. From what we saw it became evident
that more operational guidance is not enough for substantial improvement. It also requires
structural changes concerning governance mechanisms and the use of strategic business and
policy intelligence tools that relate or complement policy instruments across governance levels,
across borders, and across policy domains and administrative bodies.” 73

In many EU-countries MS, the European Structural and Investment Funds and ESIF were a much
more significant source of funding and were seen as more important, given the need to improve
the quality of research infrastructure through modernisation and upgrading. Among stakeholders
in many new MS, this was seen as an essential precursor prior to being able to compete for FP
funding, especially in a lead coordinator capacity. Although the latest RIS3 report shows a mixed
picture, the country research results show concrete examples of the (increased) importance and
interaction between regional (structural) and R&I (FP) funding. As with any longer-term results in
the R&I field, tangible impacts take time to emerge and to document:

Until 2013 In Latvia, there was low awareness at government level regarding EU R&I policy
towards promoting innovation through applied research, pilot production lines and by support to
Key Enabling Technologies through Smart Specialisation allowing Cohesion policy and research and
innovation policy sustained by Horizon 2020 complement each other. 74 However, the design of the
RIS3 Strategy in order to access European Structural and Investment Funds over the period 2014-
2020 and to respond to certain Horizon 2020 calls was the first case when different stakeholders
where involved and bottom-up initiatives in two domains derived from Latvian successful
participation in FP programmes taken into account 75

In Slovenia, national funding for R&I is increasingly scarce, with increasing reliance on EU
funding. In the 2007-2013 programming period, ERDF and ESF funds were used to support R&D&I
through various measures of Operational Programmes of ERDF and ESF funds (EUR 531,977,376
and EUR 121,239,702 respectively). In the 204-2020 programming period, in total EUR 461 mio of
ESI funds will be dedicated for research. Slovenia participated in programmes dedicated to R&I,
such as FP6, FP7 and now Horizon 2020, as well as various forms of Erasmus programme. The
research system is thus increasingly aligned with EU R&I policy and the FPs as the national
programmes and OPs are increasingly based on EU R&I priorities and objectives. Slovenia is
mainly a follower of the development of EU R&I policy and has influenced neither EU policy nor its
programming priorities. 76

On a regional level in Sweden, EU policy has in the past few years played a part in shaping
regional strategies particularly with regard to smart specialisation. As responsibility for regional
development in Sweden has shifted from a national to a regional level over the last 10 to 15 years,
increasingly many regions are developing regional innovation strategies based on the concept of
smart specialisation. On a regional level, there is also overlap with the priorities set as part of the
European Structural and Investment Funds, in particular ERDF-funds. The European strategies
have guided the national and regional structural fund programmes, and innovation,
entrepreneurship and sustainable growth have been high on the agendas in Sweden particularly
for the ERDF funds. For example, in the European Structural and Investment Funds for period
2007-2013, the Swedish national strategy prioritised innovation and change, as well as
availability. 77

Lithuania has utilised ERDF funding to invest in research infrastructure. The programmes have
been implemented at a national rather than a regional level through national OPs reflecting the
fact that Lithuania was treated as a single NUTS I region for the purpose of SFs. However, the
regions have benefited from ESIF implementation through the involvement of municipalities within
the Lithuanian counties that have helped to determine some spending priorities (though not
generally RTDI-related), especially through interventions supported in the Cohesion Policy OP in
2007-2013. However, in the area of RTDI, the approach to programme design and implementation
has been primarily driven at the national level. Whilst Lithuania has benefited greatly from EU
funding available through ESIF to increase investment in RTDI, there has not as yet been great

73
Expert Group established to assess the contribution of “Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart
Specialisation” (RIS3) to the Europe 2020 Growth Strategy (2015) Perspectives for Research and Innovation
Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) in the wider context of the Europe 2020 Growth Strategy.
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
74
Ubelis A. (2014) ERAWATCH Country Reports 2013: Latvia
75
Latvia country report
76
Slovenia country report
77
Sweden country report

81
success in accessing competitive research funding available through the RTD FPs in FP7 and in
H2020, or in accessing individual research grants such as those available through Marie Curie and
the ERC. More generally, there appears to be a need for further measures at domestic level to help
Lithuania to access available funding opportunities through the RTD FPs. 78

In Cyprus, the Smart Specialisation strategy will exploit resources from the European Structural
and Investment Funds, for a better enhancement of R&I in strategic areas in which each country
has a significant competitive advantage. There have been certain priority areas for Cyprus which
are: Energy, Tourism, the Structured Environment/Construction Industry, Transport/Marine,
Agriculture/Food Industry and the sector of Health. Furthermore, a number of horizontal priorities
have also been identified (such as Information Technology, Environment and Human Resources).
Cyprus’ gain from implementing the S3CY strategy in addition to the broader concept of innovation
introduced, which includes not only investments in research or in manufacturing, extends to
building competitiveness through creative industry, social innovation and innovation in services,
new business models and applied innovation.

One way of attempting to quantify the relationship between the ERDF and the FPs is to assess the
expenditure in the field of R&I made by a selected number of Member States, i.e. to analyse the
amount of funding in the area of R&I through the respective funds.

Although there are considerable data constraints (e.g. data is only available for a partial country
sample and covering the FP6 programme period) we can provide some further insights on the
ability of the single Member States to attract EU-level funding on R&I.

The ERDF data used are the “final total field of intervention expenditures” in the area of RTDI (i.e.
FoI 18) provided by the DG Regio database. The FP6 funding data analysed are collected through
the e-corda database. It has to be noted that the ERDF data cover the period between 2000 and
2006 while the FP6 funding refers to 2002-2006. This should be considered as an important
limitation of the analysis whose conclusions should therefore be only considered as indicative.

The total amount of funding provided at European level for the period between 2002 and 2006
through the FP6 programme accounted for approx. EUR 13.4 billion. 79 As illustrated in the table
below the distribution of funding during this programming period has been squeezed towards a
small number of countries, namely Germany (EUR 3.1 billion), France (EUR 2.3 billion) and Italy
(EUR 1.5 billion).
Figure 13 Total FP6 funding in EU27 (in EUR million)

3,500
Millions

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
DE FR IT ES UK BE SE EL AT NL PT HU CZ FI DK IE SI RO SK BG EE PL CY LT LU LV HR MT

Source: e-corda database

Conversely, during the same period 18 countries (PT, HU, CZ, FI, DK, IE, SI, RO, SK, BG, EE, PL,
CY, LT, LU, LV, HR, MT) were only able to attract less than 9% of the funds available. This uneven

78
Lithuania country fiche
79
E-corda database

82
distribution of funding is also clear when we compare the total amount of funding with the size of
the country: Germany, Italy and France represented 40% of the total EU population and have
benefited of 56% of the total expenditure available under the FP6 programme. As a result the
number of Member States able to attract R&I funding through the ERDF has been limited.

With regard to the ERDF, the funding available for R&I have been channelled through the field of
interest number 18 called research, technological development and innovation (RTDI). 80 During
the programming period 2000-2006 the total expenditure in this area accounted for EUR 16.2
billion.

An overview of the funding provided at Member State level is shown in the figure below.

Figure 14 Total ERDF funding in the field of interest 18 (RTDI) in the EU27

6,000
Millions

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
ES DE IT PT FR UK AT BE PL SE FI HU NL DK LT CZ SI LU

Source: DG Regio
Missing countries: EE, IE, LV, SK, BG, CY, EL, HR, MT, RO

Nearly one third of the funding on R&I available under the ERDF has been collected in Spain (EUR
4.7 billion), followed Germany (EUR 3 billion) and Italy (EUR 13.9 billion). Conversely almost half
of the countries collected less than EUR 1 billion (AT, BE, CZ, DK, FI, HU, LT, LU, NL, PL, SE, SI,
UK). Hence the majority of the funds in the area of RTDI available under the ERDF (63.1%) have
been channelled in three countries (DE, ES and IT), which represent less than 40% of the
population.

Relationship between ERDF and FP6

An initial analysis of the relationship between the amount of ERDF and FP6 collected by each
Member State can be carried out through a scatter plot. Scatter plots show the extent of
correlation, if any, between the values of observed variables. The scatter plot illustrated below
presents on the x-axis the amount of money obtained through FP6, while the y-axis reports the
total expenditure of ERDF funding in the field of intervention dedicated to R&I (i.e. FoI 18, called
research, technological development and innovation (RTDI)).

80
The data refer to the final allocations and in particular to the “final total FOI expenditures”.

83
Figure 15 Scatter plot – Relationship between FP6 and ERDF funding in the area
of research and innovation – absolute numbers (in EUR million)
Millions 6,000

5,000
ES

4,000

3,000 DE

IT
2,000
PT
UK
FR
1,000 AT
PL FI

NL SE BE
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Millions

Sources: E-corda and DG Regio databases

Missing countries: EE, IE, LV, SK, BG, CY, EL, HR, MT, RO

The graph above shows that Member States with the highest total expenditure on FP6 also report
highest levels of RTDI spending on the ERDF. To provide more robust evidence of the relationship
between the two variables, the coefficient of correlation has been calculated. This coefficient is
numerical value ranges from +1.0 to –1.0 and provides an indication of the strength and direction
of the relationship. 81

The correlation coefficient between FP6 and ERDF funding is 0.64, showing a significant positive
relationship between the two variables. By excluding the main outlier from the analysis (i.e. Spain)
the positive relationship between the two sources of funding is even stronger (0.87).

Despite this result, an analysis only based on absolute numbers provides a partial picture. The
positive correlation identified above might reflect the different size of the economies across
countries: large-capacity Member States have a larger higher-education sector and a higher
number of companies, therefore they are more likely to report higher levels of expenditure in ERDF
and FP6. To minimize misleading comparisons that can arise with the use of absolute numbers we
will calculate the amount of expenditure of FP6 and ERDF per capita. The per capita expenditure is
especially useful when comparing one country to another and is calculated by dividing the total
amount of expenditure using the population data provided by Eurostat. 82

The figure below provides an overview of the EUR per capita spent by each Member State (y-axis)
and funding obtained from FP6 (x-axis).

81
Note that a correlation is a statistical measure to determine the positive or negative relationship between
two variables, but is does not provide information on the causal relationship between the two variables. In
addition, the correlation is associated with measuring a linear relationship between the two variables.
82
Data have been collected from Eurostat, table called “2006 population on 1st of January for each Member
State” [demo_pjan]

84
Figure 16 Scatter plot – Relationship between FP6 and ERDF funding in the area
of research and innovation – per capita (in EUR)

140

PT
120

ES
100

80

AT
60
FI
DE LU
IT
40
BE SE

20 FR

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Sources: E-corda and DG Regio databases

Missing countries: EE, IE, LV, SK, BG, CY, EL, HR, MT, RO

The most relevant message emerging from the above figure is that the relationship between the
two variables is not as evident as it used to be: the correlation coefficient is still positive but much
smaller (0.12 instead of 0.64). In addition differences can also be seen at Member State level:

• The absorption rate between FP6 and ERDF is overall even across Member States: 9 Member
States present a better performance under FP6 (BE, CZ, DE, DK, FR, LU, NL, SE, SI) while the
other 9 Member States report a higher expenditure per capita for ERDF (AT, ES, FI, HU, IT, LT,
PL, PT, UK).
• The Member States that see higher spending in terms of expenditure per capita on FP6 are:
Sweden (EUR 78), Belgium (EUR 71) and Austria (EUR 51). The countries reporting the least
amount of FP6 spending per capita are Poland (EUR 1), Lithuania (EUR 8) and the UK (EUR
12).
• South European Member States (ES, IT, PT) report a higher spending via ERDF compared to
FP6. Spain and Portugal spend the most through the ERDF, with EUR 130 and EUR 108 per
capita respectively. The Italian performance is slightly higher than the average amount of
spending per capita (EUR 38).
• Despite this, their spent funds under FP6 are not in line with the ERDF. In Portugal ERDF
expenditure per capita is EUR 113 higher compared to FP6 (and more than EUR 10 lower than
the EU average); in Spain the difference is also relevant (EUR 86) and shows a low
expenditure performance for FP6. The expenditure per capita is more balanced Italy, with a
difference of nearly EUR 12 and in line with the average results.
• CEE Member States report lower spending for both EU sources. In addition no clear pattern
emerges in what type of funding they perform better. In Poland the expenditure per capita on
ERDF is nearly ten times lower than the expenditure per capita in FP6. Conversely, in the
Czech Republic the expenditure per capita for FP6 is more than four times higher (their ERDF
performance is the lowest in Europe). Finally, Hungary reports similar spending for both
sources of funding.

4.4 International collaboration

The added value of collaborating internationally in research is becoming increasingly apparent and
seen from a global perspective; the internationalisation of research is growing. According to
research supported by the publisher Elsevier “numerous studies have shown that research outputs
that represent collaborations – particularly international collaboration – have a higher citation

85
impact than those that do not”. 83 International collaboration can also foster the development of
technological capabilities and innovations. 84 Globally, inter-country collaboration rates stood at
17% in 2011 (up from 14% in 2003). 85 The Elsevier report suggests that in ‘both Europe and the
US, there is a tendency for inter-institutional collaboration to increase at the expense of single
author and single institution publications’ 86 and on average (across disciplines). The nature of
research collaboration is also changing, from a bilateral or multi-lateral approach which often
tended to exclusively focus on the research community and on mobility from middle- and low-
income countries to high-income countries, to international collaboration including cooperation
among research funders. 87.

A Commission Expert Group published an overview of EU internationalisation strategies for

cooperation in Science, Technology and Innovation in 2012. This makes clear that
internationalisation of R&I is a long-standing priority at EU level – defining internationalisation as
both inward (attracting international talent) and outward (collaborating internationally – within and
beyond the EU and AC). Although the EU-28 prioritises internationalisation too, capacity – and
planning – for internationalisation at national level varies. This is partly a result of the “economic
and budgetary crisis in many European countries are increasingly resulting in a stagnation or even
reduction of public spending on research, innovation and education in Europe at the same time as
it undermines Europe’s ability to attract global talent and corporate STI investments.” 88

The EC’s Expert Group report calls for a strategic approach to internationalisation and international
cooperation, involving both the Member States as well as Associated Countries. It also points to
the Framework Programme unique position in promoting internationalisation and calls for the FPs
(Horizon 2020) to be used to shape cooperation with other parts of the world. 89

International collaboration is indeed a fundamental part of the FPs, and since FP6 and the
introduction of the ERA-Net, international programme collaboration, which goes beyond the basic
pooling of resources into the use of a variable geometry approach and aims to align research
efforts in a more efficient way, has also been part of the Framework Programme.

ERA-NET, launched in 2002 as part of FP6, aims to step up EU-level cooperation and coordination
of research activities that are carried out at national and regional level. Since its establishment,
the ERA-NET scheme has further developed in line with evaluations and other considerations. The
scheme has switched from a bottom-up to a more top-down approach, from cross-cutting activities
in the FP6 to thematic areas in the FP7 and – in Horizon 2020 – launching joint calls that are
mandatory for ERA-NET actions 90.

FP6 funded at total of 71 ERA-NETs while FP7 funded (2007-13) 83 different ERA-NETs and 26
ERA-NET Plus actions. Thirty-two of the original FP6 contracts also received further funding for
coordinating their activities under FP7. Continuation could take different trajectories among the
new instruments launched in the FP7. Similarly, the Joint Programming Initiatives have built on
existing (ERA-NET) networks, and thus also contributed to the pooling of resources and to align
existing national R&I programmes. A total of 122 different ERA-NET topics were funded under FP6
and FP7. The total public funding of research implemented by ERA-NETs and ERA-NET Plus since
between 2004 and 2011 amounts to more than €1.697 million, with 95% national and regional
funding and 5% EU top-up funding for ERA-NET Plus.
Source: European Commission

83
See Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility: A
report prepared in collaboration between Science Europe and Elsevier’s SciVal Analytics, September 2013.
84
Penner-Hahn and Shaver (2004) Does international research and development increase patent output? An
analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal. Volume 26, Issue 2, pages 121–
140, February 2005
85
Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility: A report
prepared in collaboration between Science Europe and Elsevier’s SciVal Analytics, September 2013
86
Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility: A report
prepared in collaboration between Science Europe and Elsevier’s SciVal Analytics, September 2013
87
Jacob Background document Research funding instruments and modalities: Implication for developing
countries Draft report Research Policy Institute Lund University Sweden
88
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2012) International Cooperation in Science, Technology
and Innovation: Strategies for a Changing World: Report of the Expert Group established to support the further
development of an EU international STI cooperation strategy
89
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2012) International Cooperation in Science, Technology
and Innovation: Strategies for a Changing World: Report of the Expert Group established to support the further
development of an EU international STI cooperation strategy
90
However, in spite of the economic crisis, the amount of funding dedicated to joint calls has drastically
increased in recent years but the use of joint calls remains rather unequal among ERA-NET actions.

86
As cross-border collaboration not only involves researchers cooperating but increasingly
policymakers are also working more closely together. As a result any differences in national
processes and systems governing research become more pronounced.

The main funding sources for transnational competitive research and other sources of international
research funding include:

• The EU RTD Framework Programmes – funding through the FPs is the major source of
funding for transnational collaborative research projects.
• Other European programmes, such as COST (and in the past European Science Foundation)
• International research programmes financed by e.g. the US (many of the National
Institutes of Health programme are open to international applicants)
• Bilateral and multi-lateral agreements between individual countries. For example:
- Several regional research areas with long standing traditions in cooperation, such as
the Nordic collaboration set up under the Nordic Council of Ministers (Nordforsk).
Another example is the German-speaking countries which also have a closer
relationship through bilateral and multi-lateral agreements.
- The Western Balkan countries have been active in efforts to coordinate policies and
to establish organisations with implementation capacity. However, policy coordination
and institution building remain a key challenge in the region. In Albania, reforms have
been undertaken to improve the strategic governance of research and innovation
policies.

For many of the 41 countries included in the study, key international programmes include the FPs,
other European cooperation initiatives such as COST actions, and bilateral (or regional)
cooperation schemes.

International collaboration is of course a fundamental part of the FPs, and since FP6 and the
introduction of the ERA-Net, international programme collaboration, which goes beyond the basic
pooling of resources into the use of a variable geometry approach and aims to align research
efforts in a more efficient way, has also been part of the Framework Programme. 91 With increased
collaboration, any differences in national processes and systems governing research become more
pronounced (e.g. administration of funding periods for research programmes or peer review
processes. Peer review is practised in all the EU Member States and although there are a number
of criteria that are recognised to be key standards when practising peer review (objectivity,
scientific excellence, avoidance of ad hominem attacks) there is no agreed standard approach of
how to organise international peer review). 92

It is generally argued that the pooling of resources is the most efficient way of solving common
challenges. Internationalisation and international collaboration in research not only enhances
intellectual and cultural diversity, but also allows countries’ national research systems to specialise
in that they do best. One of the most significant developments in research funding is the increased
importance and means of international collaboration. 93 That said, research and research
management is a key national policy. In 2011, 85% of publicly-funded research in the EU was
undertaken at national level with the remaining 15% coordinated either through intergovernmental
organisations or spent jointly through the FPs. 94 There are however other perspectives on this
issue. 95, 96

91
Haegeman et al (2014) Added value of transnational research programming: lessons from longstanding
programme collaborations in Europe. NETWATCH Policy Brief Series – Brief No3. JRC Technical Reports.
92
ERA Progress Report 2014
93
Jacob Background document Research funding instruments and modalities: Implication for developing
countries Draft report Research Policy Institute Lund University Sweden
94
LERU. Advice Paper No.9, ‘The European Research Area: Priorities for Research Universities’, December
2011. LERU response to the European Commission Consultation: "The European Research Area Framework,
Untapped areas of potential"
95
Science Europe Position Statement On the Role and Future of Joint Programming August 2015
96
A recent Science Europe Opinion Paper argues that European figures underestimate the real level of research
co-ordination in Europe. The paper argues that the data are misleading as they include university and research
institutional block spending as ‘funding which risks fragmentation of resources’. This disregards the possible
use of these funds as a strategic part of collaborative efforts at institutional level. Science Europe’s analysis
leads to the conclusion that fragmentation is not a widespread issue. On the contrary, the analysis finds
several reasons for supporting multiple research teams, including the importance of reproducibility of research

87
The importance of the internationalisation of research has been confirmed through this study’s
research. Participation in the FPs and in other international research programmes was viewed as
being crucial for a number of reasons, such as: the importance in pursuing the objective of
excellence science (and research for top-class researchers to cooperate internationally in specialist
fields), the necessity of international cooperation to enhance the visibility of research strengths in
particular disciplines and to gain prestige and a more international reputation, and the ability to
attract world-class researchers from other countries and thereby to strengthen human resource
capacity to carry out leading-edge research, among others. Taking part in international research
has also helped participants to develop international networks. In addition, in the context of public
budgetary pressures for HEIs and research institutes, participating in international research
funding is also crucial in helping HEIs in contributing towards the achievement of self-funding.

From an industry perspective, taking part in international research projects has also grown in
importance. Partly, for SMEs, this has been funding-driven, but has equally been driven by the
opportunity to establish collaborative networking relationships with international partners. Firms
operating in technology-intensive and/or niche areas and/or emerging areas are also motivated to
collaborate as a way of gaining access to expertise not available through other channels.

At the programming level, promoting the participation of SMEs and industry in the FPs is a current
priority, but has been prioritised differently over time. For instance, in FP7, a target was set of
achieving a 15% participation rate whereas in FP6, there was no such formal target.

The FPs promote internationalisation in a number of different ways.

results, the role of competition between research teams, and the importance of local knowledge networks and
the need for place-specific research.

88
Table 16 The Framework programmes and its impact on the internationalisation
Aspect of FPs that Description
promotes
internationalisation
Direct SME participation in
• SMEs actively take part in FPs (accounting for about 15% of all participations) and the transnational dimension of
research projects within
cooperation has promoted the internationalisation of SMEs themselves and of research activities.
FPs
• Participation by industry (SMEs and larger firms) decreased from 31% in FP6 to 25% in FP7. It currently accounts
for XX% in H2020.
• Distinction between SME participation by funding instrument. Examples:
- Collaborative research projects in which all types of actors can participate (including SMEs).
- SME-dedicated instruments, such as the SME Instrument in H2020

SME participation in the SME participation in the FPs broken down by programming period and programme:
FPs (disaggregated)
• In FP6 and FP7, target of at least 15% participation was foreseen for research-performing SMEs. Actual participation
in FP7 - 17.9% of all participations.
• SMEs took part in collaborative research projects in FP6, FP7 and H2020
- FP7 – SMEs participated in the Cooperation and Capacities programmes.
- H2020 – SMEs are taking part in the SME-dedicated instrument and in calls across the different pillars,
societal challenges, industrial leadership (LEITs) and excellent science.
• Eurostars Programme - €100 million EU funding and €300 million funding from participating countries.
• CIP ECO-Innovation programme (2007-2013) and ECO-Innovation within H2020.
• SME Instrument in H2020
International mobility of
• The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) funds worldwide and cross-sector mobility that implements excellent
researchers
research in any field.
• The FPs are promoting the internationalisation of researchers by encouraging transnational, intersectoral and
Marie-Curie (FP6, FP7 and interdisciplinary mobility. In H2020, the MSCA has become the main EU programme for doctoral training, financing
H2020) 25,000 PhDs.
• Grants for doctoral students and experienced researchers are in turn closely linked to the internationalisation of S&T
institutions and research activities within universities and HEIs.
ERC grants (FP7, H2020)

89
 Aspect of FPs that Description
promotes
internationalisation
• Participation in the MSCA is also breaking down barriers between academia and business.
• Through the ERC grant schemes, different types of grants are available (e.g. Starting Grants, Consolidator Grants,
Advanced Grants and Proof of Concept).
• The aim is to support top researchers from anywhere in the world. Since ERC grants are portable i.e. those awarded
a grant from one country may choose to use the research grant in another country, the scheme promotes mobility
and internationalisation.
Role of European
• Industry-led stakeholder fora recognised by the EC as key actors in driving innovation, knowledge transfer and
Technology Platforms
European competitiveness. ETPs develop research and innovation agendas and roadmaps for action at EU and
(ETPs)
national level to be supported by both private and public funding.
• ETPs were established in 2003
(FP6, FP7 and H2020)
Role of ERA-NETs (FP6,
• Fostering transnational collaboration in Europe at programme level (in specific scientific or technical domains,
FP7 and H2020)
societal challenges, industry sectors), also strengthening networking and building relations with international peers
towards a more strategic approach. Almost 80% of the networks consider the implementation of joint transnational
calls a strategic objective. Policy coordination on SMEs.
• Among the objectives of the ERANET are: encouraging industry participation in H2020, and cooperating with
networks in Member States; fostering networking opportunities with other ETPs and other partners along the value
chain to address cross-sectoral challenges and promote the move towards more open models of innovation;
identifying opportunities for international cooperation.
The EIT
• EIT promotes the internationalisation of research activities through Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs)
are partnerships that bring together businesses, research centres and universities. Each KIC focuses on a different
societal challenge.
• Since the composition of KICs and outreach networks linked to individual Co-location Centres within KICs is
transnational, the EIT helps to promote joint collaboration between industry, academia and publicly funded and
private research.

90
There are other methods of promoting internationalisation such as encouraging the mobility of
researchers. According to the 2014 ERA Progress Report, just under one-third (31%) of EU
researchers (post-PhD) have worked abroad within or outside of Europe, “as researchers for more
than three months at least once during the last decade”. 97 Although difficulties can arise when
working abroad, international mobility is largely considered to be a positive factor in developing
new research skills. 98, 99

The countries covered in this study – including the Associated Countries – conduct international
research outside of the FPs, generally with neighbouring countries or with countries with other
(cultural) ties. Put very simply, the level of cross-border cooperation tend to correspond with the
size and capacity of the R&I system – i.e. larger-capacity countries have larger cross-border
networks, while smaller-capacity country collaboration tend to be focused on fewer (often
neighbouring country) partners. Within the geographical remit of the 41 countries there are also
several ‘Research Areas’ – cross-border areas where there is a higher degree of cross-border
(multi-lateral) cooperation, including the Nordic and Baltic countries (thorough the Nordic Council
of Ministers), the West Balkan countries (that have also developed a Western Balkans Regional
Research and Development Strategy for Innovation 100), the BENELUX countries and the German
speaking countries of Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Table 17 Cross-border examples

Cross-border cooperation is highly important for Moldova, helping the country to increase its
financial resources, building international partnerships and accessing modern infrastructure.
Countries with more advanced R&I capacity as well as smaller R&I countries seek out bi- and
multi-lateral agreements on research cooperation. In the case of Moldova, the FPs are instruments
for collaboration with countries that are also research partners outside of the FPs. In 2015 Moldova
had 10 on-going bilateral projects with Germany and 10 bilateral projects with Italy. Up to date,
the Academy of Sciences concluded bilateral cooperation agreements with science academies of
Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Turkey, Austria, Czech Republic, France, Italy,
Portugal and the UK Royal Society. The country cooperates with the European Union within the
framework of the EU-Moldova Cooperation Committee and Subcommittee on ‘Energy,
Environment, Transport and Telecommunications, Science and Technology, Training and
Education’. The main EU partners of Moldova are Romania, Germany, Italy and France. 101, 102

Since Iceland is a small country, whilst participation in the EU RTD FPs as an associated member
is an important source of funding support, there is strong cooperation in the R&I fields between
Iceland and other Nordic countries through transnational collaborative research programmes. In
terms of the main thematic areas of cooperation, these include societal challenges such as health
and welfare, clean energies and green technologies. In addition, other research priorities are also
supported that are important to the Nordic countries, such as marine innovation, where the
specific geographical features are important. However, the research results from such programmes
are naturally of potential utility to other EU countries with maritime borders. 103

This study’s online survey also asked NCP and policymakers about the extent to which their R&I
performers have access to cross-border and transnational funding, excluding the FPs. Clearly,
access is relatively good, although it is worth noting the rather high responses of ‘limited ‘access to
bi- and multilateral funding programmes, considering the increased emphasis on
internationalisation in the last decade.

97
ERA Progress Report 2014
98
ERA Progress Report 2014
99
The ERA Progress report suggests that 80% of internationally mobile researchers felt that the mobility had a
positive impact on developing their research skills.
100
http://www.rcc.int/press/226/western-balkan-countries-develop-joint-strategy-for-innovation-based-
economic-growth
101
The 2012 ERAWATCH Country Report indicates that in 2009 and 2010, Moldova invested €187,500 in
research projects with Germany, specifically in human, natural and information resources, nanotechnologies
and new materials, biomedicine and pharmaceutics, agriculture and biotechnology, rule of law and cultural
heritage. In 2010-2012, Moldova invested €150,000 in 24 research projects with Romania.
102
Moldova country report
103
Iceland country report

91
Figure 17 The extent to which your country’s researchers and scientists have
access to R&I cross-border or transnational funding (NOT including the
Framework Programmes)

60

50

40 EU co-funded programmes
administered at cross-border
level (e.g. Interreg funding)

30
Multilateral funding
programmes (non-EU), e.g.
transnational R&I
agreements between groups
of countries
20
Bilateral funding
programmes (non-EU), e.g.
cross-border R&I
agreements between two
10 countries

0
Easy access Some access Limited access Not applicable
Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

More generally bilateral or multilateral agreements and other types of organised cooperation and
exchanges play an important role in international research overall. Specifically, there can be an
interaction between FP-derived international research cooperation and cross-border research
conducted outside of the framework of the FPs. It is also suggested by a JRC report that “ERA-
Nets and similar EU constructs can serve as a learning environment and a test-bed for coordination
in a variable-geometry style, largely appreciated by many European countries. However, bi- or
multilateral ties can also be an (exclusive) precondition for EU funding which may increase the
significant, current European divergence on ERA integration observed within and across country
clusters”. 104

In terms of cooperation at a (technological) stage nearer commercialisation, recent analysis which

contrast the EU-27 (current Member States minus Croatia) and EFTA countries, with other
international regions – North America and Asia – suggests more intra-collaboration by EU-27
inventor teams when developing technology (patents) compared to EFTA and Asia, i.e. the EU
countries collaborate more internally than internationally in this regard. However, within Europe
there are also clear differences seeing more domestic collaboration in Italy, Spain and Germany
while Ireland, the Netherlands and Belgium have a much higher share of foreign collaboration in
Ireland, the Netherlands and Belgium. These latter three countries do indeed have a high share of
internationalisation, and especially Ireland and Belgium showed a considerable share growth over
the considered period.

Overall – in spite of variations between countries – the analysis suggested that the EU-27 has a
“moderate but steadily increasing international dimension in its patents. At the same time, EU-27
applicants show a clear tendency of collaborating with inventors from within EU-27 borders, which

104
Cuntz et al (2013) European Research Area Impact on Member States' policy development. JRC Scientific
and Policy Reports.

92
suggests that the presence of a European ‘research’ area is reflected in intra-European
collaboration in technology development as well”. 105

It is clearly well known that the European R&I systems are heterogeneous and have varying
capacity. The expansion of the EU has been a significant challenge facing the ERA, as it means
that there is a greater diversity of research systems and of stages of development within them. In
a 2015 paper, Makkonen and Mitze used data from the Web of Science database to analyse
patterns of co-authorship between scientists in different EU countries, with the particular aim of
seeing what membership of the EU meant for scientists in the EU-12 (Croatia was excluded from
the study as its accession was deemed to recent to show any meaningful impact. Nor did the study
cover any of the Associated Countries included in this research).

Although the authors took into account the natural increase in east-west collaboration which
occurred following the collapse of the Soviet bloc, they still concluded that there is a marked
increase in (international) collaboration for the EU-12, even at the pre-accession stage (albeit with
Romania and Bulgaria lagging behind the other EU-12 countries). Collaboration is continuing to
increase, driven by EU funding – however, within this overall increase, the authors found stronger
collaboration patterns within the EU-12 and the EU-15 respectively, i.e. the EU-12 and the EU-15
tend to collaborate within their two blocs.

The study also makes a number of particularly relevant observations from this study’s perspective:

• A EU membership status significantly increases the collaboration between a specific new

member state and the other EU countries.
• Early anticipation effects of consecutive EU accessions are clearly visible i.e. the anticipation of
subsequent EU enlargement has a positive impact on the collaboration intensity between
present and future EU countries.

The process of internationalisation in scientific collaborations seems to be far from reaching its
end. The paper suggests that perhaps differences in between the ‘new’ and ‘old’ member states
would converge as time passes by as it seems that the EU-12 are catching-up to the EU-15 in
terms of the share and total numbers of intra-EU co-publications. On the other hand, the authors
point out that that “no statistical evidence conclusively verifying this kind of development exists:
as the impact of the EU membership in the scientific collaboration patterns is an issue rarely
discussed in the academic literature”. 106

105
Von Looy et al (2014) Intra-European cooperation compared to international collaboration. Final report for
the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
106
Makkonen and Mitze refer to e.g. Mattsson et al. 2008

93
5. AN ANALYSIS OF PATTERNS IN PARTICIPATION TRENDS IN THE
FPS

This section presents our findings relating to Objective 2 of the study – an analysis of participation
patterns in each MS and AC and participation trends in the FPs, setting these in the wider context
of national research capabilities and national research orientations, policies, cross-border
cooperation and structures.

As such, this section is predominantly focused on summarising the findings from the studies
assessment of the evolution of participation patterns in the Framework Programmes. Specifically,
it looks at design, participation and trends for FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020. However, evidence is
also drawn from other study tasks, including our review of the ex-post evaluations of FP6 and FP7
and first findings from Horizon 2020 (to the end of October 2016) and draws on the country
reports as well as an analysis of the eCorda data provided by DG RTD.

5.1 Introduction – EU R&I funding from a national perspective

Historically, the trajectory of R&I collaboration in Europe has been very closely tied to
developments and key trends in EU industrial policy. Although the First Framework Programme
was approved by the Council in July 1983 (FP1 ran from 1984-1987 with a budget equivalent to
EUR 3.75bn), research activities have been funded under the European Treaties since the
European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1955.

The Framework Programmes are today the EU’s main instruments for the funding of Research and
Innovation (R&I) in Europe. The EU’s competences 107 are set out in the EU TFEU. These provide
the basis for the actions that the EU institutions are able to take. 108 A key point here is that the EU
and the Member States share competence in the R&I field. This is important as it implies the need
for each country to establish and maintain a successful policy mix of EU and national support to
promote R&I. Of course, the associated countries are not bound by the TFEU itself but sign
individual bilateral agreements with the EU in order to participate on an equal footing in individual
FPs. The Lisbon Treaty, the development and implementation of the ERA and the Ljubljana Process
have all contributed to strengthening the EU-national shared ownership of European R&I.

There are significant differences between EU and Associated countries in terms of participation
rates and the extent of engagement by national policy makers in the Framework Programmes.

Many smaller countries that have less indigenous capacity to fund large-scale R&I programmes
have tended to follow EU R&I policy more closely, while larger-capacity countries have tended to
take an interest both in the funding possibilities available through the RTD FPs whilst at the same
time following their own domestic R&I agenda more closely than in smaller-capacity countries.

When analysing participation rates it is important to keep in mind that factors other than country
capacity can also influence the extent to which a country’s R&I actors participate in the RTD FPs,
such as whether particular EU countries are innovation laggards or innovation leaders within the
EU, terms and conditions for national funding programmes, etc. Conversely, generous funding at
national level (or a high amount of national industrial innovation activity) can lower participation
rates in the FPs.

Beyond the basic practical considerations, one can also pose questions of how well each FP design
‘fits’ into each of the 41 R&I systems under consideration for this study. National evaluations109
tackling the issue of the EU-national FP interaction have (where this is explored) noted that there
is a lack of ‘programme logic’, resulting in a situation where the relationship between the FP and
activities at national level are not sufficiently articulated or defined. There are significant changes
that take place in the specific FP programmes, which indicate that some national reconsideration
may be necessary in order to ensure that R&I performers are encouraged to engage in the FPs
(and that this is also implemented at a practical level, e.g. that research actors at institutional
level are informed of the key changes and changing priorities, so that they may be taken into
consideration when revising R&I strategies).

107
There are different types of competence – “exclusive”, “shared” or “supporting”.
108
In addition to adhering to the competence, the EU must act in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental
Rights and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
109
For example Arnold et al (2008) Impacts of The Framework Programme in Sweden

94
Section 4 pointed to several different kinds of relationship between national R&I systems and the
Framework Programmes. A second key consideration is the relative performance of each of the 41
countries. The immediate point is that there is wide heterogeneity in performance and capacities
across the national R&I systems. Each system has its own history in terms of governance and the
institutional division f labour.

Furthermore, the length (and extent) of FP participation varies. The recognition of the timeline of
participation is important not just in terms of appreciating a country’s learning curve in winning
and effectively absorbing FP funding, but equally in terms of the overall interplay between the FPs
and other resources and measures, notably pre-accession EU funding and the European Structural
and Investment Funds, but also national and international (e.g. UNESCO, COST, World Bank)
sources. Participation must therefore be relative to the maturity and level of internationalisation of
the national R&I system and the resources available for supporting R&I.

Table 18 Country participation in the FPs

Country FP6 FP7 Horizon 2020
participation (2002-2006) (2007-2013) (2014-2020)
2002- 2004- 2007- 2013 2014-2019
2003 2006 2012
EU Member EU-15 EU-15 EU-27 EU-28 EU-28
States
EU-10
Associated EU-10 BG, CH, AL, B&H, CH, FO, FYROM, AL, B&H, CH, FO,
countries HR, IL, IS, HR, IS, IL, LI, MNE, NO, FYROM, HR IS, IL, LI,
LI, NO, RO, RS, TR (2012 – MD) FYROM, MNE, NO, RS, TR
TR (2012 – MD)
Countries AL, B&H, FO, FYROM, MD, LI
not a MS or MNE, RS
AC
Source: Authors based on EC data

The next sections (5.2-5.4) will provide brief assessments of participation in each of the three FPs
within the scope of this study, exploring the themes of each FP and how changes in FP priorities
and themes (see illustrated in the Figure below) may have affected participation trends. The
longitudinal participation analysis will thereafter be tackled in the subsequent parts of Section 5.

95
Figure 18 FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 themes

Source: Adapted from Arnold et al (2011) Understanding the Long Term Impact of the Framework
Programme

5.2 Design and assessment of FP6

The Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration
(FP6) was established in 2002 and the programme period ran until 31 December 2006.

The Sixth Framework Programme marked a significant departure from the preceding Framework
Programmes, both in terms of scale and objectives. While the programming period was
comparatively short, it was set against the backdrop of a major expansion in terms of EU
membership. Ten new Member States acceded to the Union over the course of the programming
period. This was the basis for some of the greatest challenges facing the FPs currently: namely,
how to encourage participation amongst newly included R&I performers when faced with
increasing competition, and how to enhance integration while taking into consideration variation in
areas such as pre-existing national research infrastructures, levels of capacity, national R&D
expenditure and areas of strategic focus.

FP6 was designed at the time when the Commission launched policy of establishing the European
Research Area (ERA), with the aim of concentrating research resources and creating a system
whose most outstanding parts could compete readily with those of the EU’s key competitors,
including the USA and Japan. This policy in turn led to an increased concern with building up
research excellence on a large scale, somewhat at the expense of a strong industrial element. FP6
therefore included new, larger instruments. The previous industrial strand of FP5 was continued
but had less profile and – especially outside ICT – involved less effort.

Enlargement of the Union changed the role of the FP programme committees and also led to
changes in the structure and content of the latest Framework Programme itself as a result of
revised articles in the TFEU. E.g. Article 185 stipulates that integration (in research) can be
developed without the consent of all Member States (a concept known as variable geometry) and

96
it also allows closer coordination between Member State research activities (scientific, financial and
management) with the support of the EU.

As part of this, FP6 saw the creation of Technology Platforms (ETP) and ERA-NETs, in which the
Commission encouraged groupings within the Union to self-organise and try to develop cross-
border groupings that would drive R&D and innovation policies for their sectors or technologies.

European Technology Platforms (ETPs) are recognised by the European Commission but are self-
funded industry-led stakeholder fora that are tasked with developing research and innovation
agendas and roadmaps for action at EU and national level to be supported by both private and
public funding. ETPs work to mobilise stakeholders to deliver on agreed priorities and share
information across the EU.

Hence, it could be argued that the industrial aspects of research – or at least innovation policy -
was delegated to collaborative and tailored country and industry groupings through the ERA-Nets
and ETPs led by EU and AC countries and by industry players respectively, but with EC support.

5.2.1 FP6 design

One response to the increased complexity of FP6 created by the expansion of the EU can be seen
to be in the redefinition of European Added Value (EAV) to include interventions that do not
necessarily involve all Member States. 110 Secondly, the principal of subsidiarity was expanded to
allow the EU to intervene in areas where it makes sense to do so at a European level, even if this
could be addressed by national governments. These two changes opened the way for the
Commission to be more flexible and strategic in its interventions from FP6 onwards.

The majority of FP6 funding (almost 65%) was dedicated to seven thematic priorities: life
sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health; information society technologies;
nanotechnologies and nanosciences; aeronautics and space; food quality and safety; sustainable
development, global change and ecosystems; and citizens and governance in a knowledge-based
society. A significant proportion of the budget (approximately 16% of the total budget), however,
was dedicated to structuring and strengthening the ERA, which included funding for Research
Infrastructure, the Marie-Skłodowska-Curie Actions and the Science and Society priority.

Launched in 1996, Marie-Skłodowska-Curie Actions are designed to promote trans-national, inter-

sectoral and inter-disciplinary researcher mobility. The Actions are named in honour of the double
Nobel prize winning scientist Marie Cure, and aim to strengthen Europe’s research and innovation
capacity by equipping individual researchers with knowledge, skills and contacts. As of 2016,
more than 100,000 researchers had participated in the Programme, including eight Nobel
laureates. 111

Grants are provided in the form of individual fellowships for researchers, funding for innovative
training networks of universities, industry and research centres, opportunities for research and
innovation staff exchange, and co-funding for regional, national and international research
programmes. 112 The programme’s focus on exchange and cooperation is designed to encourage
knowledge transfer and strengthen the bonds between individual researchers, research institutes
and HEIs in different countries, and between business and researchers.

Within Horizon 2020, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions are expected to generate around 1,500
patent applications and lead to the creation of over 100 spin-offs. 113

The focus on the consolidation of the ERA meant that research and the knowledge infrastructure
were preoccupations for FP6. This focus benefitted universities and research institutes, which
received over 60% of the allocated funding. Countries with a highly-developed research sector –
such as Germany, the UK and the Nordic countries – were particularly well-placed to benefit from

110
Rietschel et al (2009) Ex-post Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes 2002-2006. European
Commission
111
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions: 20 years of European support for researchers' work, European Commission
2017
112
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions: 20 years of European support for researchers' work, European Commission
2017
113
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions: 20 years of European support for researchers' work, European Commission
2017

97
this focus. The strong performance amongst universities and research institutes was accompanied
by a decrease in industrial participation in FP6 compared to preceding FPs. 114

Another fundamental break from preceding FPs was the deliberate choice to use funding in a more
targeted manner, awarding relatively fewer grants with a higher value per grant. While the ex-post
evaluation of FP6 recognised that many participants welcomed this change, it did create difficulties
regarding the capacity of smaller organisations, particularly in countries with less well-developed
administrative and reporting infrastructures, to absorb and manage the higher amounts involved.

5.2.2 New instruments and their implications

Administratively as well, FP6 saw some significant developments. Pressure to minimise

administration costs meant that funding was mainly distributed using larger instruments, many of
which were carried over from FP5, with three being created from scratch. These were Integrated
Projects (IPs), Networks of Excellence (NoEs) and Article 169 arrangements.

IPs were intended to bring together a large pool of key stakeholders in order to build a “critical
mass” of activity which would help address major societal needs. IPs were self-administered and
required strong managerial capacity in order to manage the numbers of participants and the scale
of budgets involved. With their strong managerial experience, research institutes and industrial
representatives often coordinated IPs. These types of project tended to be popular within the EU-
15, making up 24% of overall participations in these countries as opposed to only 11% in the EU-
13. Germany, France, the Netherlands and the UK were particularly well represented – perhaps
due to the strength of their industrial R&D sectors (Overall, industry received 17% of all funding in
the EU-15 as opposed to 11% in the new member States. In France, industrial representation was
particularly strong, accounting for 26% of the funding received). 115 As with the FP more broadly,
IPs played to the strengths of established players with strong administrative capacity and were not
so suitable for smaller capacity countries and research actors, or smaller and more entrepreneurial
companies.

NoEs were a relatively fluid concept within FP6, conceived at the start as major funding
instruments with few partners, but later becoming larger, more academic networks. Industry
participation was minimal (accounting for 7.6% of participations and 4% of funding) and the focus
tended towards networking rather than joint programmes of activities. In terms of coordination,
France and Italy dominated with only two NoEs coordinated by an organisation from the EU-13. In
FP7, NoEs were by and large replaced by the concept of Joint Research Initiatives (JRIs).

Article 169 (today known as Article 185) arrangements required a co-initiative between a number
of Member States and the Commission – in practice the joint implementation of (parts of) national
programmes. The administration associated with establishing such an initiative was complex, and
only one Article 169 arrangement was funded under FP6: the European and Developing Countries
Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP).

A small but significant amount of funding (7.3% of the total budget) was devoted to “specific
activities covering a wider field of research”. This included specific activities for SMEs, measures in
support of international cooperation, policy-relevant research and the New and Emerging Fields in
Science and Technology (NEST) programme. NEST was singled out for praise in the 2009
Evaluation of FP’6 for its bottom-up approach, which promoted collaboration on frontier research
areas put forward by the researchers themselves. This enabled the development of cutting-edge
research partnerships between researchers in contrast to other grants which tended to fund
individual researchers in their work. Furthermore, it allowed the identification of interesting trends
in R&I which could be built on in later FPs. NEST was viewed as a precursor to the European
Research Council (ERC), which was introduced in FP7 (see section 5.3.1).

Another important initiative that was introduced within FP6 was the ERA-NET actions, a new
funding scheme launched in 2002 to support the coordination and collaboration of national
research programmes. ERA-NETs were divided into Specific Support Actions (aimed at developing
new networks) and Coordination Actions (to support the activities of the ERA-NETs). They were
intended to facilitate the exchange of good practice, the planning and design of joint research
programmes and the implementation of joint activities.

114
P. V, Rietschel et. Al, Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes for Research and Technological
Development 2002-2006, European Commission 2016
115
Rietschel et al (2009) Ex-post Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes 2002-2006. European
Commission

98
In all, 47 countries participated in a total of 71 ERA-NETs over the course of the FP6 programme
period including Member States, Associated Countries and third countries. France, Germany and
Spain were key participants, but smaller countries including Austria, Belgium, Finland, Sweden and
the Netherlands were also very active. The EU-15 made up for around 13% of all ERA-Net
participations for FP6 and FP7, while the most active associate countries were Israel, Norway,
Switzerland and Turkey. 116 According to the expert group evaluation of FP6, “Initiatives like the
ERA-NETs […] have helped stakeholders identify and explain their needs jointly, easing the process
of developing mutually supportive policies at European and Member State levels.” 117

The most predominant interests of the active ERA-NETs have been in scientific or technical
domains (such as nanotechnology or chemistry). Around 15% of the ERA-NETs with a unique focus
concentrated their interest on specific policy areas generally related to grand societal challenges
(such as water or climate change), on industry sectors (related to applied research in fields such
as transport or food production) or on the development of particular regions (e.g. Mediterranean
or Balkan areas).

This study has equally found that in larger capacity EU countries specifically, taking part in the
ERA-NET was viewed as beneficial since ERA-NET instruments are seen as key to improving
coordination of research funding and agendas, which is highly relevant from a national R&I
funder’s perspective, as well as clear European added value in terms of trying to minimise the
duplication of funding. 118

Our research – as well as previous studies – on this scheme indicates that national policymakers
are also positive about ERA-NET participation since the funding agencies involved have a direct
influence over the research funding process from start (development of calls for proposals) to
finish. 119

Moreover, participation in ERA-NETs appears to have led to involvement in other forms of

transnational research programming (ranging from other ERA-NETs, to JPIs and bi/trilateral
cooperation) . 120 EU Member States have also to a considerable extent begun to use the ERA-NET
programmes to streamline and coordinate regional programmes in particular federal countries like
Belgium where ERA-Net participation has also contributed to increased coordination between the
regional governments. 121

Other examples of ERA-NET impacts observed at national level include:

• The creation of opportunities for international collaborative research and the increased profile
of transnational R&D activities within the research communities (e.g. in the Social Science and
Humanities, Industrial Technologies & SMEs themes);
• Increases in national budgets earmarked to fund projects in specific thematic areas (e.g.
Environment and Transport). Thematic ERA-NETs can equally increase the visibility of thematic
domains at the European level;
• The creation and coordination of national programmes in specific research fields (ERA-ARD,
ASPERA and SEE ERA-NET); and
• National R&D programme design and management informed by good practice drawn from
ERA-NET participation (e.g. EU-12 in the life Sciences thematic area). 122

ERA-NET participation also requires active efforts from the participating organisations (both
research funders and research performers), and the impacts of participation are dependent
on the national context. For example, a JRC impact assessment of the FP7 ERA-NETs found that

116
The ERA-NET scheme from FP6 to Horizon 2020, European Union 2014
117
Rietschel et al (2009) Ex-post Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes 2002-2006. European
Commission
118
Interview feedback 16 September 2016
119
CSES Final Evaluation of the EUROCORES Programme (2015) for the European Science Foundation
120
Doussineau et al (2014) for the Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies An
assessment of the impact of the FP7 ERA-NET scheme on organisations and research systems. NETWATCH -
Platform on transnational R&D programme collaboration
121
Belgium country report
122
Evaluation and impact assessment of the ERA-NET scheme and the related ERA-NET actions under the 6th
Framework Programme [VOLUME 3] Final Report

99
for newer MSs, participation yielded fewer benefits than expected, while the opposite was true for
the EU-12. 123

There are also barriers to ERA-NET participation. For example:

1. Changes in R&D governance at the national level occurring in the climate of the economic crisis
together with budget constraints appear to have been major barriers to active participation in
an ERA-NET.
2. EC administrative procedures and the lack of flexibility of the ERA-NET scheme can also affect
motivation and the possibilities to participate in ERA-NETs.
3. Even if participation of regional authorities was clearly encouraged in FP7, this participation
remained limited in ERA-NETs. No clear increase of their involvement has been observed. It is
hoped that the growing importance of synergies between European Structural and Investment
Funds and Horizon 2020 may encourage regions to better participate in the future. 124

5.3 Design and assessment of FP7

With a budget in the region of EUR 50 billion over 7 years, FP7 was bigger and more ambitious
Framework Programme than any of its predecessors. FP7 built on the aims of FP6 in its objectives
of further strengthening the ERA and improving Europe’s competitiveness, improving the skills,
resources and mobility of researchers in Europe and encouraging a collaborative approach to
solving key societal challenges.

Financial assistance was also provided to pre-accession countries to enable them to participate in
anticipation of eventual EU membership. This support was provided through reduced participation
fees negotiated individually with the European Commission and via the Instrument for pre-
Accession Assistance (IPA) launched in 2007. Montenegro, for example, benefitted both from
reduced participation fees and a 50% annual reimbursement from the IPA. This meant that in pure
financial terms, it received far more through projects than was paid through annual fees.

5.3.1 FP7 design

The Seventh Framework Programme was structured around four programmes: FP7-IDEAS which
supported frontier research by individual top‐level researchers from all scientific disciplines; FP7-
COOPERATION, dedicated to the programme’s ten thematic priorities; FP7-PEOPLE, focussing on
mobility of researchers and support for the development of networks and consortia; and FP7-
CAPACITIES, which aimed to strengthen research infrastructure.

The ERA-NET scheme was reinforced by introducing an additional new module, ERA-NET Plus,
which allowed European Union funding to be used to top-up joint trans-national funding for calls.

A major innovation in FP7 was the creation of the European Research Council (ERC) in 2007. The
ERC provides competitive funding to (individual researchers) with the aim of enhancing the
dynamic character, creativity and excellence of European research at the frontiers of knowledge.
The ERC builds on bottom-up approaches to research funding, inviting researchers to propose
their own research projects, with successful applications chosen through a process of peer review.

The ERC has proven to be a very successful initiative, in terms of both the quantity and quality of
science supported. The popularity of ERC grants is shown in a qualitative review of the ERC
programme which found that by the end of 2014, some 6000 projects worth approximately EUR
9.8 billion had been selected for funding. 125 In terms of quality, a September 2014 citation
analysis of 30,319 publications retrieved from Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database found
that 2,005 articles and reviews acknowledging ERC support – amounting to 7% of these

123
Doussineau et al (2014) for the Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies An
assessment of the impact of the FP7 ERA-NET scheme on organisations and research systems. NETWATCH -
Platform on transnational R&D programme collaboration
124
Doussineau et al (2014) for the Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies An
assessment of the impact of the FP7 ERA-NET scheme on organisations and research systems. NETWATCH -
Platform on transnational R&D programme collaboration
125
P.1, Qualitative Evaluation of completed projects funded by the European Research Council, European
Commission 2016

100
publications – were classified in the top 1% of the most highly cited publications in their scientific
discipline and year of publication. 126

ERC grants have been awarded to 26 of the 28 EU Member States, with only Lithuania having
received no funding to date (April 2017). However, there are marked disparities in terms of the
amount of funding received. The UK, for example, has received over 1,500 ERC grants. This is
almost 500 more than Germany, which is the next most important ERC recipient. The focus on
excellent research rewards countries with strong research sectors and the UK has been very
effective in working to shape the nature of the scheme to ensure it is well suited to its national
research structure.

The individual focus and bottom-up nature of the funding does, however, afford space for excellent
individual researchers from countries which do not perform so strongly in the FPs, to gain access
to funding. Some small countries such as Belgium and Finland have done very well. A number of
associate countries have also benefited from ERC funding – particularly Switzerland (503 grants),
Norway (65 grants) and Turkey (18 grants).

A difference can be seen in terms of success rates for MSCA and ERC funding when it comes to the
new Member States. According to a report commissioned by the German government on the
participation of the Central and Eastern European EU Member States in the 7th Framework
Programme, the success rate of for CEE countries for the Marie Curie Actions was 25.5%, whereas
only 4.3% of all applications for ERC funding from new MS were successful compared to 13.3%
from the EU-15. Only Hungary has achieved a similarly high level of participation in ERC projects
as over the FP7 as a whole. 127

The table below provides a breakdown of the funding allocated under the FP-7 IDEAS programme.
The amounts involved are relatively low, with the value of the entire programme amounting to just
over EUR 7.5 million. FP7-IDEAS was the spiritual successor to the FP6 NEST programme, which
allowed researchers to propose their own research topics for funding – a structure which was
believed to help promote cutting edge research and to scope new and emerging trends. The
programme was overseen by the ERC. With its focus on cutting edge research, it is perhaps not
surprising that FP7-IDEAS was dominated by the EU-15. The EU-13 was barely represented in this
programme, but associated countries, such as Switzerland, Israel and Norway, with a strong
research sector, were able to benefit.
Table 19 Funding breakdown for FP7-IDEAS
per project (€
participations

participations
% of projects

(€ thousand)
participation
contribution

contribution

contribution
per project
FP7-IDEAS

(€ Million)

projects
Total EC

% of EC
contrib.

Avg EU

Avg EU
No. of

No. of

thou)

Avg

per

ERC 3,115 7% 2,315 9% 2,714 1,345 1.17 1,148

Starting
Grants
ERC 3,708 8% 1,700 7% 2,076 2,181 1.22 1,786
Advanced
Grants
ERC Other 851 2% 510 2% 615 1,669 1.21 1,384
Activities
Subtotal 7,673 17% 4,525 18% 5,405 1,696 1.19 1,420
FP7-
IDEAS
Source: Ex‐Post‐Evaluation of the 7th EU Framework Programme (2007‐2013)

FP7-PEOPLE was also dedicated to research, supporting researchers directly rather than the
organisations they worked for. The table below provides an overview of the money awarded under
this programme. Funding from FP7-PEOPLE was used to support career development through
training, mobility of researchers, international networking and research consortia. This programme
benefited different countries in different ways. Countries such as Germany and the UK were able to

126
P.1, Qualitative Evaluation of completed projects funded by the European Research Council, European
Commission 2016
127
Pp 9-10, Participation of the Central and Eastern European EU Member States in the 7th Framework
Programme, Fraunhofer Institute 2012 (commissioned by BMBF)

101
use mobility grants to attract leading researchers from across the EU in order to strengthen their
higher education sector and researchers from countries including Poland and Croatia benefited
from the ability to meet, network and work with other leading academics on cutting edge research
into broad societal problems. The risk of brain drain in smaller countries such as Croatia and
Lithuania was high, however, causing some concern that the individual benefits being reaped by
researchers were not being captured at the national level. 128
Table 20 Funding breakdown for FP7-PEOPLE

per project (€
participations

participations
% of projects

(€ thousand)
participation
contribution

contribution

contribution
per project
FP7-PEOPLE

projects
Total EC

% of EC
contrib.
(€ mill)

Avg EU

Avg EU
No. of

No. of

thou)

Avg

per
Initial 2,175 5% 655 3% 5,611 3,321 8.57 388
Training

Career 1,482 3% 6,303 25% 6,442 235 1.02 230

development

Industry- 415 1% 330 1% 1,402 1,257 4.25 296

Academia
partnerships

World 665 1% 3,061 12% 4,473 217 1.46 149

Fellowships

Other 40 0% 366 1% 1,587 110 4.34 25

activities of
FP7-PEOPLE

Subtotal 4,777 11% 10,715 43% 19,515 446 1.82 245

FP7-
PEOPLE

Source: Ex‐Post‐Evaluation of the 7th EU Framework Programme (2007‐2013)

FP7-COOPERATION accounted for the largest chunk (64%) of research funding within FP7.
Furthermore, the size of the projects funded was significant – ranging from EUR 1.5 million to
projects worth over EUR 50 million. The thematic priorities made up the largest proportion of FP7
funding and, although they tended to be dominated by traditionally strong partners, they did
provide space for countries to develop particular specialisations. A good example of this is
Lithuania, which joined the European Union in 2004. Although performing relatively poorly in the
FPs to date, it has nonetheless been able to develop a particular specialisation in laser technology.
Slovenia has also been able to capitalise on a particular specialisation, coming seventh in Europe in
terms of success rates for projects under Theme 6 – Environment.

As well as the 10 thematic priorities, FP7-COOPERATION was responsible for the continued funding
of ERA-NETS, in which there was significant continuity. Out of the 71 ERA-NETS funded under FP6,
26 received further funding as ERA-NET actions for coordinating their activities under FP7.

The final element of FP-COOPERATION was the Joint technology initiatives (JTIs), which were
designed specifically to address the needs of industry. These built on European Technology
Platforms (ETPs), which were introduced midway through FP6 and were designed to allow for
easier and more effective collaboration.

128
Croatia country fiche, Germany country fiche, Poland country fiche, UK country fiche

102
Table 21 Funding breakdown for FP7-COOPERATION

% of EC contrib.

contribution per

contribution per
project (€ thou)
contribution (€

No. of projects

participations

(€ thousand)
participation

participation
% of project
COOPERATION

per project
Total EC

Avg EU

Avg EU
No. of
mill)

Avg
FP7-

Theme 1: 4,792 11% 1,008 4% 11,297 4,754 11.21 424

Health

Theme 2: 1,851 4% 516 2% 7,903 3,587 15.32 234

KBBE

Theme 3: 7,877 18% 2,328 9% 22,502 3,384 9.67 350

ICT

Theme 4: 3,239 7% 805 3% 10,235 4,023 12.71 316

NMP

Theme 5: 1,707 4% 368 1% 4,272 4,640 11.61 400

Energy

Theme 6: 1,719 4% 494 2% 7,148 3,480 14.47 241

Environment

Theme 7: 2,284 5% 719 3% 9,029 3,177 12.56 253

Transport

Theme 8: 580 1% 253 1% 2,770 2,291 10.95 209

SSH

Theme 9: 713 2% 267 1% 2,636 2,671 9.87 271

Space

Theme 10: 1,295 3% 314 1% 3,836 4,126 12.22 338

Security

ERANET 313 1% 104 0% 183 3,007 1.76 1,709

JTI 1,966 4% 736 3% 5,812 2,672 7.90 338

Subtotal 28,336 64% 7,912 31% 87,623 3,581 11.07 323

FP7-
COOPERATI
ON

Source: Ex‐Post‐Evaluation of the 7th EU Framework Programme (2007‐2013)

The next table shows the amount of funding awarded under the FP7-CAPACITIES programme. With
its focus on research infrastructure and support for SMEs, it is perhaps unsurprising that the EU-13
was well represented in FP7-CAPACITIES. In monetary terms, however, the amounts involved
were lower than in other FP7 programmes. This is partly due to size of consortia, which tended to
be large, and to the relatively low contributions per project
(the average contribution per partnering organisation was approximately EUR 200,000 – much less
than in FP7-COOPERATION and FP7‐IDEAS.

The success rates for the CEE countries are slightly higher in the area of Research Infrastructures
than the rates for the EU-15. Latvia and Lithuania are most successful here. The CEE countries
have similar success rates, in comparison to the EU-15, in the areas of Regions of Knowledge and
Research Potential, even though in general the success rates for Research Potential are at a low
level. Only about one in ten applicants was successful. This high level of oversubscription confirms
the strong demand for additional research infrastructure, in order to support greater participation
in the FP in the coming years. There is still a significant backlog of demand in the CEE countries

103
with regards to research infrastructures and the establishment of regional and technical
networks. 129

Table 22 Funding breakdown for FP7-CAPACITIES

No. of projects

per project (€
participations

participations

(€ thousand)
participation
% of project
contribution

contribution

contribution
per project
CAPACITIES

Total EC

% of EC
contrib.
(€ mill)

Avg EU

Avg EU
No. of

thou)
Avg

per
FP7-

Res. 1,528 3% 341 1% 5,267 4,482 15.45 290

Infrastructure

Res. for 1,249 3% 1,028 4% 9,124 1,215 8.88 137

benefit of
SMEs

Regions of 127 0% 84 0% 1,005 1,508 11.96 126

knowledge

Res. Pot. of 378 1% 206 1% 307 1,834 1.49 1,230

Conv. Regions

Science in 288 1% 183 1% 1,820 1,576 9.95 158

Society

Coherent dev. 28 0.1% 26 0% 131 1,087 5.04 216

of res. Policies

International 173 0.4% 157 1% 1,393 1,105 8.87 124

cooperation

Subtotal 3,772 8% 2,025 8% 19,047 1,863 9.41 198

FP7-
CAPACITIES

Source: Ex‐Post‐Evaluation of the 7th EU Framework Programme (2007‐2013)

In its structure and focus, FP7 had somewhat of a reinforcing effect upon the trends already
recognised within FP6 with regard to the types of project and organisations which were funded.
The move towards larger consortia and frontier research played to the strengths of countries with
a well-established, relatively academic, research tradition. The larger work programmes still
tended to be dominated by the EU-15, especially research intensive economies such as Germany,
Italy and the UK.

Participation in coordination and support actions (CSAs) was deemed to be a good way to gain
better access to pre-established European networks but could also be a source of frustration for
those wishing to use the FPs to develop specific research strengths. There were some notable
exceptions, however, with countries such as Iceland using the FPs strategically to strengthen pre-
existing research specialisations, develop new areas of expertise and attract high quality foreign
researchers. 130 The introduction of funding for research infrastructure, the focus on mobility of
researchers and the inclusion of newer MSs in large consortia, as well as a shift towards greater
commercialisation, did provide some areas for smaller countries to contribute strategically.

5.3.2 FP7 participation patterns

The next table provides a breakdown of funding awarded by type of organisation in FP7. The
dominance of basic research is clear, with the higher education sector receiving 43% of overall
funding and 27% being awarded to research institutes. By comparison, private sector actors make
up around 25% of funding received, including 11% awarded to SMEs. The public sector (excluding

129
Participation of the Central and Eastern European EU Member States in the 7th Framework Programme,
Fraunhofer Institute (commissioned by BMBF) 2012
130
Iceland country report

104
universities) is included in the 2% of “other” recipients, representing a very small proportion of the
overall funding.

Figure 19 Breakdown of FP7 funding by organisation type

4% 11%

11% 43%

27%

2%

HES OTH REC PRC PRC - PRC - UNKNOWN

- SME NO SME

Source: eCorda

The table below, originally compiled for the ex-post evaluation of FP, provides a detailed
breakdown of participation in the various FP7 programmes, with participants divided into 4 groups:
EU-15, EU-13 (new Member States), Associated Countries and third countries. Perhaps
unsurprisingly, the EU-15 dominates in all categories. However, it is interesting to see the areas in
which the newer Member States are participating. Although conspicuously absent from the ERA-
NETs and FP7-IDEAS, there was consistent participation across all ten thematic priorities and
comparatively high participation in FP7-PEOPLE and FP7-CAPACITIES, particularly with regard to
convergence. Associated Countries performed particularly strongly in FP7-IDEAS, with consistent
levels of participation in ERC Starting Grants, Advanced Grants and other activities. There was also
a particularly strong showing from Associated Countries in FP7-COOPERTION, under the theme of
ICT.

While a high proportion (25%) of organisations participating in FP7 had already been involved in
FP6, a substantial number (74%) of new organisations – enterprises and public authorities in
particular – took part in FP7 for the first time. 131 This increase in participations may well reflect the
simplification measures which were introduced in FP7, since the high administrative burden in
FP6was seen to be a barrier to SME participation. While the number of new participants increased
substantially, the majority of funding remained with organisations which had previously
participated in FP6. This may reflect the more minor roles which are generally taken by newer
consortium members, as well as the funding conditions within certain innovation actions which
only provided 70% co-funding for private sector organisations.

131
O. Fresco et al., Commitment and Coherence – Ex‐Post Evaluation of the 7th EU Framework Programme,
European Commission 2015

105
Figure 20 Share of EU contributions to macro-regions by FP7 sub-programme

Source: Ex-post Evaluation of FP7

5.4 Design and assessment of Horizon 2020 to date

Horizon 2020 is explicitly linked to the Europe 2020 strategy, which aims to meet a series of
European environmental, social and industrial objectives by the year 2020.The overarching
objective of the Horizon 2020 programmes is to “contribute to building a society and an economy
based on knowledge and innovation across the Union by leveraging additional R&D&I funding and
by contributing to attaining R&D targets, including the target of 3% of GDP for R&D across the
Union by 2020.” 132

5.4.1 Horizon 2020 design

Horizon 2020 is structured around three core pillars dedicated to Excellent Science, Industrial
Leadership and Societal Challenges, and two specific cross-cutting objectives: Spreading

Horizon 2020 Evaluation Logic, accessed at:

132

https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/h2020_evaluations/intervention_logic_h2020_052016.p
df#view=fit&pagemode=none

106
excellence and widening participation, and Science with and for society. Important instruments
from previous FPs are slotted into this structure. The ERC, for example, forms a core part of the
Excellent Science pillar, as do the Marie-Skłodowska Curie Actions, while the Societal Challenges
build on the thematic priorities of earlier FPs while further enhancing the society-driven approach.

Pillar I: Excellent Science

The first pillar maintains the focus on fundamental research and aims to further strengthen the
ERA. A number of earlier initiatives can be found here, including the ERC (FP7), the Future and
Emerging Technologies programme (FP4) and MSC Actions (FP 4). The Excellent Science pillar also
provides financial support for research infrastructure, including both physical infrastructure, and in
areas such as archiving, databases etc. With its focus on funding for individual researchers and
infrastructure (although FET funds collaborative projects), Pillar I appears to have been adapted to
provide support to all MSs, ACs and third countries in developing their human resources and
infrastructure no matter what their starting point. However, in many less competitive countries –
such as Lithuania, Croatia and Estonia, national and EFSI funding are still viewed as much less
competitive and administratively burdensome than the FPs, meaning that to date the level of
interest has been relatively low. However, with the likely imminent reduction in ESIF funding
available post 2020 and increased participation by the EU-13, the Framework Programmes could
become much more interesting to more participants in future.

Pillar II: Industrial Leadership

Pillar II focuses on increasing the speed at which new technologies are developed and brought to
market, through the development of Key Enabling Technologies, support for research and
development activities, and support for innovative SMEs. This orientation towards the private
sector is a key part of the European Innovation Union strategy and marks a coordinated attempt to
fix the innovation gap caused by a historical weakness in converting high quality basic research
into marketable products and services. 133 The focus on private sector innovation and higher TRL
levels has been welcomed in countries with a strong SME sector and high levels of interaction
between the private and research sectors (e.g. Sweden, Germany, UK).

Pillar III: Societal Challenges

Seven societal challenges have been identified within Horizon 2020: health, demographic change
and wellbeing; food security; secure, clean and efficient energy; smart, green and integrated
transport; climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials; inclusive societies;
and secure societies. For each of these challenges, funding is available for the full R&I cycle:
basic research, applied research, knowledge transfer and innovation. The idea behind this
approach is that a critical mass of knowledge and resources will be created across all sectors
(science, technology and research) in order to effectively address each challenge.

Objective I: Spreading excellence and widening participation

The first over-arching objective within Horizon 2020 is to overcome the divide in innovation levels
between different regions of the EU by promoting “teaming” and “twinning” activities between
research institutes in higher and lower performing countries. Other aims include providing expert
input into national and regional innovation policies, increasing participation of leading researchers
in international networks, and strengthening national contact points.

Objective II: Science with and for society

The second cross-cutting objective is to strengthen the role of science within society, with funding
available for areas such as recruiting young people into the sciences, promoting gender equality
within the research sector and ensuring governance for responsible research and innovation. The
design of the two crosscutting objectives should provide support to MSs that have historically
under-performed in the FPs, particularly new Member States with lower numbers of people
working in research and a weak R&D infrastructure.

The focus on industry and commercialisation of research is stronger in Horizon 2020 than in
previous FPs, which have tended to focus more on basic research. Both the European Institute of
Innovation and Technology and parts of the 2007-13 Competitiveness and Innovation Framework
Programme (CIP) were integrated into Horizon 2020.

133
The Grand Challenge: The design and societal impact of Horizon 2020, European Commission 2012

107
Table 23 European Institute of Innovation and Technology
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) is a clear example of the move
in successive FPs towards converting high quality basic research into market-driven innovation.
The EIT was set up in 2008, with two specific aims. Firstly, it is charged with finding innovative
solutions to address specified Societal Challenges. Secondly, it is tasked with strengthening the
“knowledge triangle” of research institutes, HEIs and business in order to promote
entrepreneurship and help bring research outcomes to the market. 134

The EIT works by providing grants to autonomous partnerships of business, research institutes
and universities known as Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs). European
financial support is provided through time-limited Framework Partnership Agreements. This
support is expected to last for a period of 7-15 years, after which the KICs are expected to be
financially self-sufficient. The KICs carry out three main types of activity: training and education;
collaborative innovation-driven research; and innovative business creation and development.135
They are organised thematically, with each KIC addressing a particular sector. The first three KICs
were launched in 2010 and were dedicated to the development of world-class ICT, sustainable
energy provision and addressing climate change. These were followed in 2015 by EIT Health,
which explores how to improve quality of life through health and social care, and EIT Raw
materials, which looks into access to, and the sustainable use of, raw materials within the
European economy. Two further KICs dedicated to Food and Manufacturing were set up in 2016,
with a further KIC on Sustainable Urban Mobility is expected to be funded in 2018. 136

According to the European Commission, the KICS have brought together more than 800 partners
from across Europe and beyond, supported more than 200 innovative start-ups, incubated more
than 1200 business ideas and launched more than 200 new products and services since 2010. 137
However, the long-term sustainability of the KICs has been called into doubt, with a 2016 report
by Commissioner Navracsics' High Level Group raising fears that as European financing is replaced
by external sources, there is a risk that the KICs may sacrifice their more innovative activities to
remain financially viable. 138 Furthermore, although the KICs have a good reputation at the
European level, their visibility at the national level within Member States is much lower. This has
led to the High Level Panel suggesting that the EIT integrate more closely with regional and
national priorities, particularly the Smart Specialisation Strategies. 139

Another example of the more central incorporation of innovation within Horizon 2020 is the
introduction of the SME instrument, designed specifically to support close-to-market activities by
highly innovative SMEs. This has been a boon to smaller economies with a high concentration of
small businesses, such as Ireland, Luxembourg and Estonia (see Figure below) but has not been
universally popular. In a position paper published to feed into the interim review of Horizon 2020,
the German government warned that the instrument may be creating a negative incentive to
investing in R&D, in that “applicants from countries which have cut back national funding for small
and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) were especially successful in the application process.” The
German government therefore suggests that it must be established “how far the SME Instrument
creates European added value while taking into account the undesired distortion of incentives”.

134
The Future of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Strategic Issues and Perspectives,
Directorate-General for Education and Culture High Level Group on the EIT 2016
135
P. 10, The European Institute of Innovation and Technology must modify its delivery mechanisms and
elements of its design to achieve the expected impact, European Court of Auditors 2016
136
https://eit.europa.eu/activities/innovation-communities
137
https://ec.europa.eu/education/initiatives/european-institute-innovation-technology_en
138
The Future of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Strategic Issues and Perspectives,
Directorate-General for Education and Culture High Level Group on the EIT 2016
139
The Future of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Strategic Issues and Perspectives,
Directorate-General for Education and Culture High Level Group on the EIT 2016pdf

108
Figure 21 SME instrument success rates 2014 and 2015

Source: European Commission (Horizon 2020: 2 Years On)

Despite a further significant increase under FP7 in funding available (c. EUR 74.8 billion),
competition within Horizon 2020 remains incredibly high and success rates historically low. This
has caused some concern, particularly in newer Member States who fear their lack of
representation in established consortia that are more experienced in navigating the administrative
complexities of the FPs. Clear attempts have been made to simplify the administrative process for
participants, including the introduction of one central database for all reporting requirements.

Horizon 2020 has also standardised application, participation and implementation rules and
procedures in an attempt to simplify administrative procedures for participants. These on-going
attempts to lighten the administrative burden should, in theory, make application to, and
participation in, the Framework Programmes easier for countries with less well-developed national
support structures, including smaller countries and the newer Member States.

There have also been criticisms of the complexity created by superimposing the new structure
outlined above onto the pre-existing funding structure. This has created some complications, for
example with more than one DG having budgetary responsibility for different aspects of the same
“pillar” and leaving its implementation to be carried out by a combination of executive agencies
and public-public and public-private partnerships. This can cause confusion and a lack of
standardisation in terms of project governance. 140

5.5 Trends over time – national level participation

Section 5.5 will focus on participation rates over time, and also begin to address some of the
factors that may affect the ability of a country’s R&I actors to compete effectively for FP funding.

It is generally acknowledged that as the Framework Programmes are based on excellence, they
cannot achieve a juste retour with an even geographical distribution of funds. The number one
factor is excellence in R&I and (thus) the ability of a country’s R&I actors to compete
internationally.

Furthermore, as described in the preceding section, the FPs under consideration in this study (FP6,
FP7 and H2020) are all vast funding programmes with varying multiple components and with
intervention logics that have changed somewhat throughout the programme evolution.

Despite the importance and visibility of the FPs, there is a tacit agreement that no simple measure
can adequately describe the position of individual countries’ participation in the FPs. Nevertheless,
there are important differences between higher-capacity R&I countries and lower-capacity

140
Horizon 2020 budget and implementation: A guide to the structure of the programme, European Parliament
2015

109
countries, in participation patterns, the nature and/or magnitude of impacts 141 the FP funding
spread across a country’s regions and the extent of knowledge intensive employment. Varga and
Sebestyén suggest that lower-capacity regions use participation in the FPs to help transfer
knowledge gained from the experience to compensate for their less developed local knowledge
infrastructure. 142

Our research corroborates this view. The national impact reports produced for this study point to
strategic interventions by a many smaller countries to help build on pre-existing research fields
and develop new ones. Iceland, for example, used FP7 as an opportunity to develop its expertise
in healthcare solutions and renewable energies. The Faroe Islands were also able to build on their
strength in marine technologies with six participations in the KBBE (knowledge-based bio
economy) theme. Moldova, which joined as an Associated Country in 2012 having previously
participated with third country status, was able to carve out niches of excellence in areas such as
health and life sciences within the European Research Area. However, strategic interventions
funded by the FPs need political support, planning and a good level of coordination at national and
regional levels.

According to research by Varga and Sebestyén, lower capacity countries – in this case the CEE
(Central and Eastern European countries) – have caught up somewhat vis-à-vis the EU-15,
although there is still a considerable gap. 143 As discussed more in-depth in section 7 of this
report, this study’s investigations have found that a comparably low level of participation in EU-13
and CEE ACs is linked to a complex range of factors.

FP national performance over time

This section will outline each country’s FP performance trend over time. This is done in four ways

1. An analysis of the 41 countries’ share of total FP funding (Tables 24 and 26-27)

2. An analysis of the 41 countries’ share of FP participations (Table 28)
3. Performance across different entities and their share of total FP funding (Tables 29-31)
4. An analysis of the 41 countries’ share of FP coordinations (Table 32).

The below table provides a breakdown of national participation share by country for FP6, FP7 and
Horizon 2020 respectively. This table looks at total funding (i.e. EC + co-funding share). Note that
it does not take into account population size.

Table 24 Participation per country across FP6, FP7 and H2020 (per cent of
funding)
Country FP6 share FP7 share H2020 share (to date)
AL* 0.014% 0.0053% 0.0035%
AT 3.151% 2.6516% 2.8470%
B&H* 0.030% 0.0072% 0.0091%
BE 5.499% 4.3369% 4.0206%
BG 0.309% 0.2219% 0.1427%
CH 3.569% 4.5744% 1.8027%
CY 0.195% 0.2084% 0.3100%
CZ 1.029% 0.6422% 0.6448%
DE 23.329% 15.9989% 17.8500%

141
Policy Notes Of Working Paper 4.26 EU Framework Program participation and innovation: The role of
regional development; Attila Varga, Tamás Sebestyén; University of Pécs, Faculty of Business and Economics;
MTA-PTE Innovation and Economic Growth Research Group; 2013
142
Varga and Sebestyén (2013) EU Framework Programme participation and innovation: The role of regional
development University of Pécs, Faculty of Business and Economics MTA-PTE Innovation and Economic Growth
Research Group. See http://www.ub.edu/searchproject/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WP4.26_Press-
Release.pdf
143
Varga and Sebestyén (2013) EU Framework Programme participation and innovation: The role of regional
development University of Pécs, Faculty of Business and Economics MTA-PTE Innovation and Economic Growth
Research Group. See http://www.ub.edu/searchproject/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WP4.26_Press-
Release.pdf

110
 Country FP6 share FP7 share H2020 share (to date)
DK 0.655% 2.4048% 2.4861%
EE 0.246% 0.2157% 0.3625%
EL 3.390% 2.2562% 2.0494%
ES 7.255% 7.3927% 8.6747%
FI 0.660% 1.9641% 2.0159%
FO* 0.001% 0.0058% 0.0128%
FR 16.947% 11.6787% 10.4132%
HR 0.109% 0.2033% 0.1750%
HU 1.093% 0.6506% 0.5508%
IE 0.547% 1.4061% 1.8024%
IL 1.297% 1.9200% 1.9449%
IS 0.181% 0.1501% 0.1992%
IT 11.266% 8.1179% 8.0399%
LI 0.004% 0.007% 0%**
LT 0.193% 0.116% 0.110%
LU 0.173% 0.136% 0.251%
LV 0.146% 0.109% 0.111%
MD* 0.006% 0.009% 0.007%
ME* 0.0003% 0.010% 0.001%
MK* 0.037% 0.027% 0.010%
MT 0.071% 0.048% 0.063%
NL 2.277% 7.570% 8.074%
NO 2.346% 1.700% 1.785%
PL 0.230% 0.988% 0.875%
PT 1.306% 1.172% 1.712%
RO 0.413% 0.319% 0.388%
RS* 0.006% 0.143% 0.139%
SE 5.252% 3.945% 3.258%
SI 0.543% 0.382% 0.531%
SK 0.321% 0.171% 0.255%
TR 0.391% 0.442% 0.423%
UK 5.516% 15.695% 15.651%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100%
Source: eCorda and authors calculations

** Liechtenstein is not participating as an AC in Horizon 2020

* Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, the Faroe Islands, FYR Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro and
Serbia were all third countries during FP6, which meant participation was paid for by national
funding on a project-by-project basis

Over the last three FPs (including data up to 31 October 2016 for Horizon 2020), the larger-
capacity countries from North-western and Southern Europe dominate – Germany, France, Italy,
Spain, the UK, the Netherlands and Belgium account for approximately two-thirds of all FP
funding). Four Scandinavian countries (DK, FI, NO and SE) also feature strongly although
Sweden’s share of the FPs has decreased pretty significantly over time.

111
As an initial comment on participation per country across FP6, FP7 and H2020, the countries’
performances could be – with some important caveats – divided into five groups based on positive
or negative long-term trends (regardless of baseline proportional share and the extent of overall
R&I capacity of each country). These five groups are considered in turn.

Overall increase in funding share – Cyprus, Denmark, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Israel,

positive trend between FP6 and FP7 and Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, and the Faroe
for H2020 to date Islands

Cyprus, Denmark, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Israel, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, Iceland, and the
Faroe Islands have all consistently increased their participation share in the FPs, i.e. the national
share has increased between FP6 and FP7 and again between FP7 and Horizon 2020 to date.

However, the trend for micro countries such as the Faroe Islands, Liechtenstein (and to a lesser
extent Cyprus) needs to be carefully considered when using eCorda statistics on countries, as a
handful of addition projects could make the difference between an increase and a decrease.
Secondly, Liechtenstein is not participating in H2020 as an AC 144, thus an increase can only be
meaningfully measured between FP6 and FP7.

On the other hand, the evidence points to the FPs being highly strategic and growing in
importance in Denmark, Ireland and Spain:

• In Ireland, commitment to FP participation has grown considerably over the period under
consideration and there is currently a high degree of integration of FP participation into
national research strategy with detailed targets for participation in the various elements of
Horizon 2020 145. A relatively sophisticated support infrastructure has also been developed to
encourage participation by Irish researchers and enterprises.
• Denmark has launched a number of initiatives to promote participation in the FPs. These
include contributions by Danish representatives in the programme committees, increased
emphasis on collecting input to the operation of working programmes and how Denmark can
participate, participation in EU-technology platforms, participation in the EU FP advisory
committees and input to the focus, planning and prioritization of future FPs. Denmark has also
created a number of centres, which help researchers, enterprises etc. apply for funding from
the European Framework programmes. In addition, the Danish universities and regions also
have offices providing FP-tailored guidance and support. 146
• In Spain, the FPs were virtually unknown around the time of the start of FP6, with just a few
companies and research centres interested in taking part, and partly thanks to the support
offered and the effort made by the Spanish authorities in the last 10 years, FP programmes
are currently widely known by the Spanish R&D network and businesses. FP participation is
also rather industry focused, as Spanish enterprises obtained 38.6% of the financing received
under FP7, followed by universities (19.7%), public research centres (12.7%), research
associations (10.6%), technological centres (9.8%), public administrations (5.6%) and
associations (3%). The FP project coordination rate also keeps growing in Spain, from 10.7%
in the 7th FP to 14.2% in H2020 to date. 147

Israel has participated in the FPs since FP4, but the country’s initial performance was
disappointing – Israel contributed EUR 100 million and received only half that in return – a result
that raised questions in Israel about the Programme. Based on this initial experience, Israel
reconsidered its position and focused on domestic strengths. Subsequently, Israel’s success has
been particularly in the ERC grants for outstanding researchers doing ground-breaking research,
and grants in the ICT, water and health sectors. In addition, there was also notable success with

144
In 2014, the Liechtenstein Parliament decided to not take part in the Horizon 2020 programme. The reason
for this cancellation of the participation stemmed in the country’s growing share in financing the FP, rising from
2.5 Mio EUR for FP5 to 30 Mio for Horizon 2020. This amount stood in no relation to the funds going back to
research programmes in Liechtenstein (around 9.7 Mio EUR for all projects in all FPs) or for what they were
used. The combination of this rising financial share and issues with the national budget led to the cancellation
of the FP participation.
145
Ireland Country report
146
Denmark Country report
147
Spain Country report

112
Israeli participation in the SME Instrument; a funding tool intended to support small and medium-
sized businesses with quick growth and global ambitions. 148

With regards to Finland it seems that success in the FPs has gone hand in hand with a drive to
fund and internationalise R&D in general. Finnish funding to research increased to over 3% of the
GDP in 2000, after having grown strongly throughout the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s, and the research
volume relative to GDP was among the highest in the world in Finnish enterprises, universities and
research institutes alike. 149 The trend to increased funding was exceptional and internationally
acknowledged: an OECD report from 1998 identified economic resources for science as a major
Finnish strength, along with cooperation between universities and enterprises, and technological
development and applications. 150
Trend that is likely to be
positive – decrease in Austria, B&H, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Iceland,
funding share between FP6 Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Germany, Switzerland*, Norway,
and FP7 but positive increase Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia
for H2020

*Switzerland has not participated as a full AC during the first two years of 2020

Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Iceland, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Germany, Switzerland,
Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia all saw a dip in their participation share
between FP6 and FP7 but have since gained back an H2020-share that is larger than that achieved
in FP7.

As for the countries that have seen a steady decrease in shares, it is highly unlikely that there is a
single factor responsible for this weak positive trend, which in itself is very preliminary considering
that data for H2020 is only available for the first two years. In some cases (e.g. CZ, PT) the
increase is only very marginal. In addition, the H2020 budget is set to increase towards the
programming period’s latter years, thus there is still significant scope for change.

Furthermore, as Switzerland’s participation has been restricted during the H2020 study scope, it
is rather misleading to suggest that its participation share has decreased, as it is simply not
comparable with that of any other countries.

As for the other countries that are seeing a likely or possible positive trend, Austria, Luxembourg,
Germany, Norway, and Portugal have all participated in the FPs for some time according to their
country’s respective capacities.

Austria and Norway in particular are taking an active interest in the FPs, although FP funding
remains a relatively small proportion of overall R&D expenditure in Norway, estimated to be
around 1.3% in 2009 or 5-7% of total external funding for R&I performing institutions depending
on the organisation type. In general, Norway’s participation is characterised by a high share of
participation by research institutes and industry and a lower share for universities, which possibly
reflects the generous national funding available for HEIs and the more competitive position of
Norway’s research institutes. Nevertheless, in terms of the actual volume of activities, FP
participation remains the most important internationalisation channel for the Norwegian research
system. 151

Germany has had a strong position in the FPs since their start, which is unsurprising given the
sophisticated and well-equipped national R&I system. However, as with other high and medium-
capacity countries, in Germany the FP budget hardly exceeds the national budgets in most
thematic areas, although some notable exceptions include genome and biotech, nanotechnology
and new materials, plus information technologies where FP funding represents a higher proportion
of overall available funding. Furthermore, the FPs contributes more than national funding to
transnational activities such as support of mobility across Europe (Marie Skłodowska- Curie
actions). 152

In contrast to Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal and Iceland are much smaller R&I countries that
are both seeing a positive learning curve over time.

148
Israel Country report
149
Finland Country report
150
Finland Country report
151
Norway Country report
152
Germany Country report

113
Luxembourg’s overall position in the FP league tables can partially be explained by the fact that
the national research system is young; the first public research institutions were created in the
late 1980s and Luxembourg’s first and only university was set up in 2003 to contribute to the
country’s research development. But as a very European-minded country, Luxembourg has a long-
term commitment to the Lisbon goals and has been an active participant in the European Research
Area (ERA) and a full member of the European Space Agency (ESA) since 2005. 153

Similarly, the impact case study on Portuguese participation indicates a positive development
over time. Over the period of the three FPs, the number of Portuguese coordinators has been
increasing steadily with small reductions in the inter-programme transition periods (2007 and
2014) and stagnation during the economic downturn of 2009-2012. As the figure below illustrates,
the number of participants, though increasing at a similar pace, shows a more volatile
behaviour. 154

Figure 22 Portugal number of participants and co-ordinators compared to

overall FP participation
p
350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Co-ordinators Participants

Source: eCorda database

Despite a declining success rate for FP proposals with Portuguese partners (certainly due to
increased competition for research funds at EU level), the share of funds attracted to Portugal has
been growing over the last five years (FP7 and H2020), after the period of recession in 2009-2012.
According to our research, this trend corroborates the progress of the learning process Portuguese
organisations are experiencing, thus enabling them to improve their ability to prepare better
quality proposals that are more focused on FP objectives.

Iceland has since taken part in FP4, 5, 6, 7 and Horizon 2020. There is a strong correlation
between areas where Iceland has historically received funding under the FPs and topics which are
currently recognised as national research strengths. Following the financial crisis of 2008-2011 and
an accompanying drop in national research funding; the FPs became a vital resource for Icelandic
research institutions. They have responded by developing new areas of expertise, which align with
some of the European priority areas. Iceland is historically strong in terms of scientific cooperation
(as measured by number of co-publications), but weaker when it comes to technological
cooperation (as measured by number of co-patents). 155

153
Luxembourg Country report
154
Portugal Country report
155
Iceland Country report

114
Table 25 Example of other factors negatively influencing FP participation
• Lack of experience of FP participation. Although smaller-capacity countries can of course
produce eminent researchers, their researchers tend to lack the experience and capabilities of
coordinating pan-European projects. This tendency is in turn linked to smaller national research
budgets and a lack of access to international networks.
• Lack of influence of some countries at the programming stage. Smaller countries are
less influential in the lobbying corridors of Brussels and thus less likely to input and guide
funding and policy decisions. 156
• Some countries had to make substantial investment in strengthening R&I
infrastructures (often through European Structural and Investment Funds where this is
available) before their research laboratories and equipment could be considered sufficiently
‘state of the art’ to be internationally competitive, at least in some scientific disciplines.
Divergences in participation levels across some EU-13 countries stem from factors relating to
the baseline situation in terms of the state of development of their national (and regional) R&I
system and its relative level of competitiveness compared with levels necessary to win
competitive research projects.
• Disincentives in applying for FP funding due to availability of alternative EU funding
sources – in the EU-13, in both 2007-2013 and 2014-2020, European Structural and
Investment Funds were available to support R&I. R&I project funding was perceived as more
generous and less difficult to apply for than FP funding. The ability to apply in the national
language rather than in English was also seen as attractive. Although the majority of funding
was used to support investment in modernising research infrastructures, funding was also
available for research projects.
• Disincentives in applying for FP funding due to availability of alternative national
funding sources – the availability of national research funding with a higher chance of success
than in the FPs also dissuades some applicants from applying for the FPs.
• Financial disincentives in terms of the salaries of researchers participating in the FPs.
In many lower-capacity countries, many researchers earn a low salary. Changes were made to
rules in respect of paying salaries between FP7 and H2020. 157 Whereas in FP7, national rules
could be set relating to the salaries of researchers working on FP projects, and some
researchers were able to earn a multiple of their salary working on FP projects, national
participants can now only be paid a maximum of their current salary, if this is more than EUR
8,000 / annum. This has led to a situation where researchers from different countries working
on the same project in Western Europe may be being paid three to six times what those in
some Central and Eastern European countries are earning.
• Lower success rates in applying for FP funding. In some newer MS, success rates have
been lower than the EU average. This has meant that some prospective applicants have been
deterred from applying, a problem compounded by the availability of alternative, easier-to-
access sources of financing.
• Historical circumstances. In the case of the Social Sciences and Humanities funded under
FP7, participation from former communist regime countries is lower than half that compared to
EU-15. 158

As for the remaining countries that are seeing a trend that is likely to be positive – the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia – are countries that have
less/shorter experience of the FPs. Out of these, Estonia, Malta and Slovenia perform slightly
better when comparing the FP share with population size (see Table 27) while CZ, LV, RO, and SK
perform below average for this particular indicator.

More generally, the EU-13 are adversely affected by a number of factors which may constitute
barriers to FP participation (concrete examples provided in the box below). These countries have
comparatively lower research budgets and less expenditure on research personnel and
infrastructure. Research personnel in the EU-13 make up just over one-tenth of the figure for the
EU overall.

156
Titarenko and Kovalenko (2014) Analysis of participation of new EU Member States (“EU-13”) in FP7 in the
area of Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities (SSH)
157
Whereas in FP7, low-paid researchers in some new member states could earn up to three times their normal
national salary by participating in the FPs, in H2020, EU-wide rules have been introduced starting that the
maximum salary should be the researcher’s normal salary + 8000 EUR per year (less tax).
158
Titarenko and Kovalenko (2014) Analysis of participation of new EU Member States (“EU-13”) in FP7 in the
area of Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities (SSH)

115
 Strong long-term increase - increased FP
funding share since the start of FP6 despite a Poland, UK, Serbia
dip in Horizon 2020 to date

A small number of countries perform (very) slightly worse in Horizon 2020 to date compared to
FP7, but have increased their FP share since the start of FP6 – Poland increased its share fourfold
from FP6 to FP7 (from 0.230% to 0.988%), but is performing less well under Horizon 2020 to
date. One concern from the Polish perspective is that its industry is not yet sufficiently
internationally competitive to participate in the FPs innovation projects. Poland has also struggled
to achieve success in excellence science areas, notably the ERC.

With regards to Serbia, our research indicates that there has been a substantial amount of activity
to support and encourage internationalisation of research in general, and FP participation in
particular. The country’s FP participation remains limited but has increased from 0.006% in FP6
(participating as a third country) to 0.143% in FP7 but is slightly lower – 0.139% – in H2020 to
date. Furthermore, according to statistics from December 2012, Serbia achieved a success rate of
13.32%, which is lower than the EU average (21.8%), but is among the leaders in the region 159.

In 2000, after a long period of isolation, war and a destroyed economy, the ‘state’ of the research
system in Serbia was at a very low level. Isolated from international trends and networks, Serbia
established a network of national contact persons for FP7 (formed in late 2006, extended in 2009),
and nominated experts and delegates to the FP7 Programme Committees in 2007 and 2008.
Serbia has also established a Consultative Bureau for International projects (in March 2008), with
the objective to support research and economic development, and promote their broader
involvement in the FPs and active participation in decision-making at the level of work
programmes in specific priority areas. In addition special support to the institutions and
researchers that are coordinators on FP7 projects are available from a ministerial level. 160.
Although other factors most certainly play a role, Serbia appears to have a higher than expected
level of participation in Horizon 2020, and is also continuing to provide support similar
developments to those established under FP7.

Lastly, the UK has increased its overall FP share almost three fold between FP6 and Horizon 2020
to date (FP6: 5.516%, FP7: 15.695% and Horizon 2020: 15.651%). UK science has historically
been very strong – internationally competitive – and this excellence preceded UK’s cooperation in
R&I with its European neighbours. However, as European integration has developed in R&I, the
UK has retained its leading position in the face of growing competition from around the world. 161
The UK’s strong position is particularly driven by its HEI sector, which performs exceptionally well.

Overall decrease in funding share - FP Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, France,

share decrease between FP6 and FP7 and Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia and
again for H2020 Sweden

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia and Sweden
have all seen their FP share decrease between FP6 and FP7 and again for H2020.

The heterogeneity of these R&I systems indicates that the reasons for the on-going decline in FP
share is highly likely to stem from diverse factors– and most likely there is no one single
explanation. The findings from our national research suggest that a number of factors could be
relevant.

Our research for Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania and FYR Macedonia suggest that these
countries struggle to reach sufficient level of international competitiveness and/or lack a sufficient
support system and knowledge of the FPs. Indeed FYR Macedonia performed better as a Third
Country during FP6 than the country has achieved as an AC during FP7 and H2020 to date.
Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Lithuania as well as FYR Macedonia all also towards the bottom half

159
National Platform for Knowledge Triangle in Serbia – Synergy between education, research and innovation,
KNOWTS 158881-TEMPUS-RS-JPHES, June 2013
160
Serbia country fiche
161
UK House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee 2nd Report of Session 2015–16 EU
membership and UK science. Published 20 April 2016 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords. HL
Paper 127.

116
of the table in terms of FP share per population size, whereas Belgium and Sweden perform much
better on this indicator. Greece also does relatively well, but France and Italy less so (see Table 25
for comparison).

Belgium, France and Sweden are possibly relying on national funding which may be more easily
accessible (in particular innovation in Swedish industry appears to be driven by large domestic
enterprises rather than competitive funding). However, it should be noted that in particular
France’s decline and also to a lesser extent Sweden’s, are much more dramatic than that of
Belgium.

During FP6, FP7 and in the first years of H2020, France is placed as the third largest FP
beneficiary, having received some 11% of total EU financing, after Germany in first place (16% of
total financing) and the UK in second place (15%). Still, France is one of the few countries where
participation in the Framework Programmes has declined continuously since FP5. The success rate
has gone down to 17.5% under H2020. Possible reasons for this are linked to EU enlargement and
the opening of the programmes to certain third countries, but more recently – as the programmes
have increasingly focused on the valorisation of research results – the fact that French public
research institutes and universities concentrate on fundamental research could also be part of the
explanation. For instance, the focus on increasing funding for projects with higher TRLs within two
of H2020 three pillars (i.e. excluding Excellent Science) may have contributed to France’s to
improve its FP participation performance

Greece and Italy have both been heavily affected by the last decade’s economic and financial
turbulence.

Our research suggests that the evolution of the research and innovation (R&I) system in Italy has
been heavily affected by the economic crisis, the reduction in public expenditure associated with
austerity programmes, and the fall of private R&D and investment efforts. Over the last decade,
the Italian economy has been oriented towards non-research intensive activities and the R&D
intensity increased only moderately (RIO, 2015). The intensity of business expenditures for
research and development (BERD) in Italy is 0.72%, much lower than in other large EU economies
such as France (1.46%), Germany (1,93%) or the UK (1.11%). In addition, the Italian science
community also face challenges relating to mobility and braindrain. 162

The financial crisis and adverse economic environment in Greece since 2010, had a negative
impact on university research: in addition to cuts in the national funds available for research
programmes, salaries have decreased, which goes has reduced the attractiveness of the research
profession. Under these conditions, FP funding has been a major source for high-level research
and the number of proposals submitted by Greek researchers considerably increased. Our research
in Greece suggests that although the country has seen positive developments in e.g. the number
of FP projects coordinated by Greek entities, its participation decline is – at last in part – due to
increased competition from other countries at a time when the Greek R&I system has come under
pressure from a lack of national funds.

Trend that is likely to be negative - lost

FP funding share between FP7 and
Moldova, Montenegro, Turkey and Croatia
H2020, but performed better during
FP6/FP7

Moldova, Montenegro, and Croatia are all experiencing a negative trend currently, i.e. these
countries have all lost FP share during H2020, but performed better during FP7, when contrasted
with FP6. Turkey also belongs to this group, although the difference between programme periods
is very slight.

Moldova and Montenegro were third country participants in FP6 but became associated during FP7,
while Croatia has been an AC since FP6.

All three country reports produced as part of this study cite a lack of experience as a reason for
their low participation. In the case of Moldova, FP projects have been carried out mainly in the

162
See for example Symposium on Science Policy, Mobility and Brain Drain in the EU and Candidate Countries
Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe University of Leeds, July 27-28th No.7 S. Morano-Foadi and
J.Foadi Italian Scientific Migration: From Brain Exchange to Brain Drain

117
public sector and have not yet created a footing within universities and other R&I performing
entities.

Similarly, both the Montenegrin and Croatian R&I policy were established relatively recently. In
Croatia, science and research policies have been suffering from a lack of long-term political
commitment to innovation, as well as a lack of coordination between government bodies
responsible for research and innovation policy 163. Since there are limited national funding sources,
capacity for managing competitive EU projects is still quite weak in the majority of Croatian
research institutions.

Contrasting change over time, the two tables overleaf provides the share of the EC funding (FP6,
FP7 and H2020) absorbed by each country between the period 2002-2016. Table 25 is based on
the averages presented in table 24 but then adjust the ranking according to population size. 164
There are a few additional points which can ban be made here:

Average participation share for FP6, FP7 and H2020 per country

• Looking at average country performance of participation rates the ranking list is dominated by
the larger countries towards the top and smaller towards the bottom. As expected, countries
with less FP experience also fall towards the bottom.

Average participation share for FP6, FP7 and H2020 taking into account population size

• In theory, this should provide a fairer illustration of relative FP funding share. However the
result for very small/micro countries may be misleading when adjusting for population size (in
particular the prominent positions of IS and LU need to be explained by additional factors.
Nevertheless, clearly smaller (and smaller-capacity) countries including CY, EE and SI do quite
well.

• On the other hand, the second table sheds some lights on the strengths of the Nordic countries
and Ireland. The table is almost consistent with Danish data on Denmark’s participation in the
FPs, which have concluded that Denmark is consistently in the top-5 when measured as
funding received per capita. 165

163
Domagoj Račić, Jadranka Švarc, Hristo Hristov (2016) RIO Country Report 2015: Croatia, p. 9
164
Taking into account population size is a slight methodological dilemma as the average is based on
performance between 2002-2016, while population figures are based on 2015 World Bank data. However, with
come caveats, we consider this to be a valid exercise, as population changes are minimal across this time
period.
165
Danish country report

118
Table 26 Average share for FP6, FP7 and H2020 per country
Ranking Country Share of EC funding Ranking Country Share of EC funding

1 DE 17.723% 22 TR 0.429%

2 UK 13.836% 23 RO 0.351%

3 FR 12.369% 24 EE 0.252%

4 IT 8.674% 25 CY 0.227%

5 ES 7.639% 26 BG 0.221%

6 NL 6.714% 27 SK 0.216%

7 BE 4.481% 28 HR 0.180%

8 SE 4.037% 29 LU 0.167%

9 CH 3.805% 30 IS 0.166%

10 AT 2.784% 31 LT 0.129%

11 EL 2.419% 32 RS 0.117%

12 DK 2.104% 33 LV 0.116%

13 NO 1.835% 34 MT 0.055%

14 IL 1.812% 35 MK 0.025%

15 FI 1.738% 36 BA 0.012%

16 IE 1.334% 37 MD 0.008%

17 PT 1.311% 38 AL 0.007%

18 PL 0.826% 39 FO 0.006%

19 CZ 0.713% 40 ME 0.006%

20 HU 0.710% 41 LI 0.005%

21 SI 0.443%

Source: eCorda and authors calculations

** Liechtenstein is not participating as an AC in Horizon 2020

* Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, the Faroe Islands, FYR Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro and Serbia were all third countries during FP6, which meant
participation was paid for by national funding on a project-by-project basis

119
Table 27 Average participation share for FP6, FP7 and H2020 taking into account population size (FP funding share / population)
Ranking Country Share of EC funding / population in Ranking Country Share of EC funding / population in
millions millions
1 IS 0.00502 22 FO 0.00132
2 CH 0.0046 23 LI 0.00128
3 SE 0.00412 24 MT 0.00128
4 BE 0.00399 25 PT 0.00127
5 NL 0.00397 26 HU 0.00073
6 DK 0.00371 27 CZ 0.00068
7 NO 0.00354 28 LV 0.00059
8 AT 0.00323 29 LT 0.00045
9 FI 0.00318 30 HR 0.00043
10 LU 0.00293 31 SK 0.0004
11 IE 0.00288 32 BG 0.00031
12 EL 0.00224 33 PL 0.00022
13 DE 0.00217 34 RO 0.00018
14 IL 0.00217 35 RS 0.00017
15 SI 0.00215 36 MK 0.00013
16 UK 0.00213 37 ME 0.0001
17 CY 0.00196 38 TR 0.00006
18 EE 0.00192 39 BA 0.00004
19 FR 0.00186 40 AL 0.00003
20 ES 0.00165 41 MD 0.00003
21 IT 0.00143
Source: eCorda and authors calculations

120
The below table provides a breakdown of national participation share by country for FP6, FP7
and Horizon 2020 respectively.

Table 28 breakdown of national participation (percentage of participations)

share by country for FP6, FP7 and H2020
Country FP6 share FP7 share H2020 share (to date)
AL 0.055% 0.030% 0.023%
AT 2.784% 2.748% 2.915%
B&H 0.075% 0.035% 0.045%
BE 4.338% 4.468% 4.501%
BG 0.644% 0.543% 0.510%
CH 2.858% 3.419% 2.477%
CY 0.333% 0.357% 0.465%
CZ 1.555% 1.096% 1.098%
DE 14.849% 14.039% 12.817%
DK 2.385% 2.144% 2.317%
EE 0.532% 0.423% 0.488%
EL 3.173% 2.868% 2.862%
ES 7.133% 8.828% 10.598%
FI 2.075% 2.206% 2.065%
FO 0.003% 0.013% 0.018%
FR 10.871% 9.809% 10.073%
HR 0.218% 0.311% 0.461%
HU 1.680% 1.251% 0.914%
IE 1.267% 1.522% 1.711%
IL 1.080% 1.525% 1.194%
IS 0.193% 0.207% 0.201%
IT 9.305% 9.248% 9.823%
LI 0.007% 0.011% 0.004%
LT 0.482% 0.321% 0.371%
LU 0.155% 0.197% 0.336%
LV 0.310% 0.256% 0.295%
MD 0.024% 0.043% 0.049%
ME 0.001% 0.040% 0.029%
MK 0.094% 0.080% 0.063%
MT 0.183% 0.153% 0.182%
NL 5.805% 6.354% 6.353%
NO 1.826% 1.693% 1.594%
PL 2.690% 1.694% 1.649%
PT 1.681% 1.843% 2.311%
RO 0.855% 0.823% 0.906%
RS 0.003% 0.247% 0.354%
SE 3.718% 3.469% 3.157%
SI 0.862% 0.715% 0.906%
SK 0.632% 0.377% 0.539%
TR 0.664% 0.920% 0.664%
UK 12.601% 13.674% 12.661%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100%
Source: eCorda and authors calculations

As illustrated by the above Table 28, over the last three FPs the five largest-capacity countries –
Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK – account for more than half of the participants. Among
these Member States, the two South European countries (Italy and Spain) and the UK show an
increase in the share of participants, with Spain performing best among all countries (+3.5
percentage points). Conversely, Germany and France report a negative trend in the share of
participants. Among the ACs, Israel, Norway and Switzerland feature strongly, although in Norway
and Switzerland shares of the participants has decreased over time. However, Switzerland’s
significant decrease in H2020 is the result of the vote to limit immigration in 2014, which led to its
partial exclusion from H2020 (the country gained full access to H2020 at the beginning of 2017).

121
The trend of countries’ participation in the last 15 years could be divided in four main groups:

Belgium, Cyprus, Spain, Croatia, Ireland,

A long-term increase in terms of share
Luxembourg, Portugal, Moldova, Faroe Islands, and
of participations
Serbia

All these countries feature a more or less significant increase in their participation share across the
whole period, i.e. between FP6 and FP7 and again for H2020 to date.

If one compares total share of funding across the FPs (Table 24) with the total share of
participations, then most of these countries balance (mostly or fully) their share of funding with
share of participation. The main exception is Belgium, which has experienced an overall decrease
in funding share but a long-term increase in terms of share of participations.

A likely positive trend with an initial

Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France,
decrease between FP6 and FP7 but a
Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Romania, Slovenia,
positive trend between FP7 and H2020
Slovakia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina
to date

Several factors are likely to play a role in the reduced share of participants experienced by these
countries in FP6 and FP7 and in the gain back for H2020. In all the countries considered despite
the increase in the share of participation between FP7 and H2020, the absolute number of
participants dropped. The most significant drops are experienced in France and Italy. However,
judging by participation to date, the number of participants under H2020 may increase during the
next years.

As with the previous group, most countries perform similarly across share of funding and share of
participations, although Denmark has experienced an overall increase in funding, while France,
Italy and Latvia have seen an overall decrease in funding share.

A likely negative trend characterised

by a positive performance between F6 Finland, the Netherlands, UK, Switzerland, Israel,
and FP7 and loss of FP share between Iceland, Lichtenstein, Montenegro and Turkey
FP7 and H2020

This trend can be observed in nine countries. In most cases the dip in the share of participants is
marginal, while in the UK and Switzerland the negative performance in terms of number of
participants is around 1 percentage points lower compared to FP7. Both the UK and Switzerland
also belong to the group, which has increased its share of funding across the FPs, as do Finland,
the Netherlands, Israel and Iceland. Montenegro and Turkey balance their share of funding with
share of participation.

In the case of Liechtenstein, the country’s dip is easily explained by the decision not to participate
in H2020.

A steady decrease in the share of Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland,

participation Sweden, Albania, FYR Macedonia, and Norway

This group of countries have reported a steady decrease in the share of participation in the last 15
years. Also in this case, no specific pattern emerge and the countries included in this group show
significant differences in the performance of their R&I systems. On the one hand, Germany,
Greece, Sweden and Norway are countries showing robust R&I systems with long-experience in FP
participation, on the other hand four countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland) report less
developed R&I systems and sporadic participation to FPs.

Mostly these countries balance funding and participation shares – Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, FYR
Macedonia, Hungary, and Sweden have all also seen a steady decrease in funding share. Germany
has lost funding share overall, although performed stronger FP7-H2020, Poland performs better
when taking funding share as a criterion, indicating that Polish participants have increased the
share of EUR gained through FP projects (fewer participations but increased funding).

122
Of course, the participation picture has other dimensions and there are other perspectives that can
be adopted in assessing it. The annexes provide a breakdown of FP funding allocated to different
types of participating entity for FP7 and for Horizon 2020 (these data were not available for FP6).
These cover funding for:

• Public bodies • Private for Profit SME organisations

• Research Organisations • Private for Profit non-SME organisations
• Higher Education or Secondary Education
organisations (HES)

Table 29 FP7 participation according to participant entities (per cent of total

funding)
Country Public HES Research Private for Private for
bodies Organisations Profit SME Profit non-
organisations SME
organisations
Albania 0.0003 0.00006 0.00002 0.00006 0.00002
Austria 0.0393 0.02649 0.02158 0.02939 0.0243
Bosnia &
Herzegovina 0.0003 0.00009 0.00004 0.00012 0.00001
Belgium 0.0589 0.03767 0.04865 0.0416 0.04558
Bulgaria 0.0021 0.00169 0.00237 0.00291 0.00042
Switzerland 0.0271 0.06356 0.03071 0.03411 0.03952
Cyprus 0.0021 0.00248 0.00032 0.00488 0.00068
Czech
Republic 0.0064 0.0101 0.00559 0.00989 0.00365
Germany 0.0788 0.14199 0.19244 0.14584 0.19685
Denmark 0.0679 0.03192 0.00861 0.02975 0.02831
Estonia 0.0030 0.00208 0.00072 0.00449 0.0003
Greece 0.0059 0.01735 0.03389 0.02228 0.0075
Spain 0.1117 0.04084 0.10777 0.08939 0.05824
Finland 0.0346 0.0197 0.0256 0.01802 0.01421
Faeroe
Islands 0.0008 0 0.00004 0.00025 0
France 0.0647 0.03682 0.22127 0.10124 0.14467
Croatia 0.0071 0.00205 0.00152 0.00279 0.00126
Hungary 0.0146 0.00567 0.0056 0.01266 0.00112
Ireland 0.0289 0.02087 0.0027 0.02196 0.0021
Israel 0.0160 0.02795 0.00177 0.01558 0.00496
Iceland 0.0027 0.0008 0.00105 0.00399 0.00219
Italy 0.0755 0.06619 0.08851 0.08457 0.1256
Liechtenstein - 0.00004 0 0.00018 0
Lithuania 0.0023 0.00118 0.00058 0.00283 0.00038
Luxembourg 0.0113 0.00068 0.00059 0.00195 0.00047
Latvia 0.0019 0.001 0.00168 0.00079 0.00001
Moldova 0.0004 0.00005 0.00007 0.00014 0

123
 Country Public HES Research Private for Private for
bodies Organisations Profit SME Profit non-
organisations SME
organisations
Montenegro 0.0003 0.00018 0.00001 0 0
FYR
Macedonia 0.0007 0.00022 0.00025 0.00056 0.00013
Malta 0.0025 0.00034 0.00011 0.00139 0.00103
Netherlands 0.0454 0.09299 0.06378 0.07726 0.06958
Norway 0.0266 0.01397 0.02598 0.01833 0.00664
Poland 0.0108 0.00997 0.01178 0.01038 0.00337
Portugal 0.0159 0.00756 0.01548 0.01688 0.00544
Romania 0.0123 0.00222 0.00342 0.00544 0.00078
Serbia 0.0012 0.00113 0.00169 0.00085 0.00028
Sweden 0.0844 0.05681 0.01655 0.04298 0.0912
Slovenia 0.0075 0.00223 0.00537 0.0059 0.00128
Slovakia 0.0026 0.00161 0.00162 0.0033 0.00166
Turkey 0.0047 0.00484 0.00281 0.00776 0.00303
United
Kingdom 0.1205 0.24661 0.04746 0.12733 0.11322
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: eCorda and authors calculations

The below table use the same data but rank the countries according to participant entity for ease
of view.

Table 30 FP7 participation country share per participant type (of total funding)
Ranking Public bodies Research HES Private for Private for
Organisations Profit SME Profit non-
organisations SME
organisations
1 United United
France Germany Germany
Kingdom Kingdom
2 United
Spain Germany Germany France
Kingdom
3 Sweden Spain Netherlands France Italy
4 United
Germany Italy Italy Spain
Kingdom
5 Italy Netherlands Switzerland Italy Sweden
6 Denmark Belgium Sweden Netherlands Netherlands
7 United
France Spain Sweden Spain
Kingdom
8 Belgium Greece Belgium Belgium Belgium
9 Netherlands Switzerland France Switzerland Switzerland
10 Austria Norway Denmark Denmark Denmark
11 Finland Finland Israel Austria Austria
12 Ireland Austria Austria Greece Finland
13 Switzerland Sweden Ireland Ireland Greece
14 Norway Portugal Finland Norway Norway
15 Israel Poland Greece Finland Portugal
16 Portugal Denmark Norway Portugal Israel
17 Hungary Hungary Czech Republic Israel Czech Republic
18 Romania Czech Republic Poland Hungary Poland

124
 Ranking Public bodies Research HES Private for Private for
Organisations Profit SME Profit non-
organisations SME
organisations
19 Luxembourg Slovenia Portugal Poland Turkey
20 Poland Romania Hungary Czech Republic Iceland
21 Slovenia Turkey Turkey Turkey Ireland
22 Croatia Ireland Cyprus Slovenia Slovakia
23 Czech Republic Bulgaria Slovenia Romania Slovenia
24 Greece Israel Romania Cyprus Croatia
25 Turkey Serbia Estonia Estonia Hungary
26 Estonia Latvia Croatia Iceland Malta
27 Iceland Slovakia Bulgaria Slovakia Romania
28 Slovakia Croatia Slovakia Bulgaria Cyprus
29 Malta Iceland Lithuania Lithuania Luxembourg
30 Lithuania Estonia Serbia Croatia Bulgaria
31 Bulgaria Luxembourg Latvia Luxembourg Lithuania
32 Cyprus Lithuania Iceland Malta Estonia
33 Latvia Cyprus Luxembourg Serbia Serbia
34 Serbia FYR Macedonia Malta Latvia FYR Macedonia
35 Faeroe Islands Malta FYR Macedonia FYR Macedonia Albania
36 FYR Macedonia Moldova Montenegro Faeroe Islands Latvia
37 Bosnia & Bosnia & Bosnia &
Moldova Liechtenstein
Herzegovina Herzegovina Herzegovina
38 Albania Faeroe Islands Albania Moldova Faeroe Islands
39 Bosnia & Bosnia &
Albania Moldova Liechtenstein
Herzegovina Herzegovina
40 Montenegro Montenegro Liechtenstein Albania Moldova
41 Liechtenstein Liechtenstein Faeroe Islands Montenegro Montenegro
Source: eCorda and authors calculations

Clearly, the level of excellence and internationalisation are primary factors to take into
consideration when assessing types of participant, along with the size of the country – the above
tables have not been adjusted to account for population size. It is notable that the 41 countries
rank rather similarly across the various entities, i.e. if a country’s research organisations perform
strongly, HES and industry also tends to be similarly well positioned.

However, in national contexts, funding streams such as block grants can also play a part. A good
example is the Norwegian funding system, which provides rather substantial block funding for
universities while Norwegian research institutes are funded at a lower level. This is also reflected in
Norwegian FP participation rates, where research institutes were more competitive in FP7
compared with HES. However, for H2020 the gap between Norwegian research organisations and
HES has narrowed considerably. This could perhaps be attributed to the comprehensive inventive
and support system offered to Norwegian universities along with the explicit Norwegian strategy to
improve participation among HES and university hospitals.

Other examples of this phenomenon include:

• UK Research Organisations lagged behind other UK entries in FP7 however they have
improved their position during Horizon 2020 (ranked fifth rather than seventh)
• Poland’s ranking has changed considerably between FP7 and Horizon 2020. In the latter FP,
Polish public bodies have improved their ranking considerably and research organisations
maintain their position, but other entities have lost some of their competitiveness.
• Similarly in Luxembourg public bodies perform far better than other entities in FP7, but have
declined from 19th to 27th position for H2020.

125
Table 31 Horizon 2020 participation country funding share per participant type
(total funding)
Ranking Public bodies Research HES Private for Private for
Organisation Profit SME Profit non-
s organisations SME
organisations
1 United Germany United United Germany
Kingdom Kingdom Kingdom
2 Spain France Germany Germany France
3 Germany Spain Netherlands Spain Italy
4 Italy Italy Italy France Spain
5 Sweden United Spain Italy Netherlands
Kingdom
6 France Belgium Switzerland Netherlands Austria
7 Denmark Netherlands Sweden Belgium United
Kingdom
8 Norway Greece France Finland Belgium
9 Netherlands Switzerland Denmark Sweden Switzerland
10 Austria Portugal Belgium Greece Norway
11 Poland Austria Israel Austria Israel
12 Belgium Finland Ireland Ireland Sweden
13 Portugal Norway Austria Denmark Ireland
14 Ireland Sweden Finland Israel Portugal
15 Switzerland Poland Norway Switzerland Finland
16 Finland Romania Greece Portugal Greece
17 Israel Denmark Portugal Hungary Slovakia
18 Greece Turkey Poland Slovenia Slovenia
19 Turkey Czech Republic Czech Republic Norway Denmark
20 Estonia Hungary Estonia Poland Romania
21 Romania Slovenia Turkey Iceland Czech Republic
22 Hungary Croatia Hungary Estonia Poland
23 Czech Republic Ireland Cyprus Cyprus Hungary
24 Slovenia Iceland Luxembourg Turkey Turkey
25 Latvia Bulgaria Slovenia Czech Republic Luxembourg
26 Slovakia Slovakia Romania Slovakia Iceland
27 Luxembourg Serbia Croatia Romania Cyprus
28 Lithuania Luxembourg Latvia Luxembourg Bulgaria
29 Croatia Latvia Serbia Lithuania Serbia
30 Malta Cyprus Slovakia Serbia Estonia
31 Bulgaria Israel Iceland Bulgaria Croatia
32 Iceland Lithuania Lithuania Croatia Malta
33 Cyprus Estonia Bulgaria Latvia Latvia
34 Moldova Moldova Malta Malta Bosnia &
Herzegovina
35 Serbia Bosnia & FYR Macedonia Faroe Islands Lithuania
Herzegovina
36 Albania FYR Macedonia Bosnia & Bosnia & Moldova
Herzegovina Herzegovina
37 FYR Macedonia Malta Montenegro FYR Macedonia Faroe Islands
38 Faroe Islands Faroe Islands Albania Moldova FYR Macedonia
39 Bosnia & Albania Moldova Albania Albania
Herzegovina
40 Montenegro Montenegro Faroe Islands Montenegro Montenegro
41 Liechtenstein* Liechtenstein* Liechtenstein* Liechtenstein* Liechtenstein*
Source: eCorda and authors calculations

* Liechtenstein does not participate as an AC in Horizon 2020

126
Looking specifically at trends in the coordination of FP projects over time, Table 32 provides an
overview of the percentage of projects each country has coordinated for FP6, FP7 and H2020 (to
date) respectively.
It should be noted that:
1. The ranking has not been adjusted for population size.
2. A number of countries (Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, the Faroe Islands, FYR Macedonia,
Moldova, Montenegro and Serbia) participated as a Third Country in FP6, and will therefore see
a lower coordination rate. Liechtenstein is not participating as an AC in Horizon 2020
3. The table does not reveal the type of project coordinated.
FP Coordination is an important indicator in terms of assessing the extent of R&I performers
abilities, across the different countries, to manage large-scale projects in relation to both scientific
standing and co-ordination capacity. Consistent coordination of FP projects could also support a
country’s medium- and long-term goal of strengthening particular research areas. Thirdly,
coordination may also provide a certain prestige that may spill over into the policy sphere.
Unsurprisingly in terms of performance, as with the other indicators, large (capacity) countries
continue to dominate. Moreover, there is little movement among country positions between FPs,
though of the following points are worth making:
• The UK tops the list across FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020, followed by Germany and France.
Spain performs very strongly in terms of coordination of projects, reaching second position
under Horizon 2020. It may be that Spain’s SMEs/industry, which generally perform well in the
FPs, have a role to play in this, especially when considering the innovation focus of H2020.
Other countries that are seeing a positive trend include in particular Ireland, Slovenia and
Estonia. Portugal, Montenegro and Serbia are also seeing an unbroken positive trend, albeit
not as steep. Denmark is performing comparatively well under H2020 after seeing its
coordination position slump between FP6 and FP7.
• Switzerland’s relative position increased from 12th to 7th position between FP6 and FP7;
however, it is highly likely that the country’s partial Associated status during 2014-2015 has
impacted negatively on its coordination ability, since under H2020, CH is ranked 13th.
• Sweden’s relatively competitive ranking is interesting, in that although the country’s overall
share of FP participation is declining, its ability to coordinate appears rather stable (FP6 – 9th,
FP7, 10th, H2020 – 9th), which may indicate a more selective approach to the FPs. Perhaps the
FPs is more highly valued as a programme for international strategic R&I than as a funding
opportunity per se.

Table 32 Coordination of FP projects FP6, FP7 and H2020

Ranki Country % of total Ranki Country % of total Ranki Country % of total

ng FP6 ng FP7 ng H2020
coordinati coordinati coordinati
ons ons ons
1 UK 0.1712 1 UK 0.20394 1 UK 0.19817
2 Germany 0.1443 2 Germany 0.12343 2 Spain 0.12025
3 France 0.1303 3 France 0.10587 3 Germany 0.11649
4 Italy 0.0917 4 Spain 0.09476 4 France 0.09096
5 Spain 0.0720 5 Italy 0.07664 5 Italy 0.08786
6 Netherlan 6 Netherlan 6 Netherlan
0.0664 0.06475 0.07151
ds ds ds
7 7 Switzerlan 7
Belgium 0.0471 0.04139 Belgium 0.03172
d
8 Greece 0.0348 8 Belgium 0.03702 8 Denmark 0.03139
9 Sweden 0.0330 9 Israel 0.03119 9 Sweden 0.02487
10 Austria 0.0286 10 Sweden 0.02891 10 Austria 0.02387
11 Denmark 0.0212 11 Greece 0.0267 11 Ireland 0.02332
12 Switzerlan 12 12
0.0209 Austria 0.0267 Israel 0.02255
d
13 13 13 Switzerlan
Poland 0.0198 Denmark 0.02056 0.02067
d
14 Ireland 0.0172 14 Ireland 0.01816 14 Finland 0.01868
15 Finland 0.0156 15 Finland 0.01398 15 Greece 0.01802
16 Norway 0.0143 16 Norway 0.01398 16 Portugal 0.01757
17 Israel 0.0118 17 Portugal 0.01347 17 Norway 0.01359
18 Hungary 0.0111 18 Turkey 0.01119 18 Poland 0.01017
19 Portugal 0.0107 19 Poland 0.00941 19 Hungary 0.00763

127
Ranki Country % of total Ranki Country % of total Ranki Country % of total
ng FP6 ng FP7 ng H2020
coordinati coordinati coordinati
ons ons ons
20 Turkey 0.0066 20 Hungary 0.00831 20 Estonia 0.00685
21 21 Czech 21
Romania 0.0044 0.00481 Turkey 0.00663
Republic
22 Bulgaria 0.0039 22 Cyprus 0.00303 22 Slovenia 0.00663
23 Czech 23 23 Czech
0.0038 Romania 0.00244 0.00475
Republic Republic
24 Slovakia 0.0031 24 Slovenia 0.00228 24 Cyprus 0.0042
25 Slovenia 0.0031 25 Estonia 0.00228 25 Romania 0.00321
26 Cyprus 0.0025 26 Bulgaria 0.00189 26 Slovakia 0.00276
27 27 27 Luxembou
Estonia 0.0023 Iceland 0.00185 0.00243
rg
28 Lithuania 0.0021 28 Croatia 0.00165 28 Lithuania 0.00243
29 Iceland 0.0019 29 Serbia 0.00165 29 Iceland 0.0021
30 Luxembou 30 30
0.0014 Slovakia 0.00161 Serbia 0.00188
rg
31 31 Luxembou 31
Latvia 0.0010 0.00126 Bulgaria 0.00177
rg
32 Croatia 0.0009 32 Latvia 0.00114 32 Croatia 0.00177
33 Malta 0.0007 33 Lithuania 0.0011 33 Latvia 0.00166
34 Albania 0.0002 34 Malta 0.00091 34 Malta 0.00077
35 B&H 0.0001 35 FYROM 0.00055 35 FYROM 0.00022
36 Faroe 36 Monteneg 36 Monteneg
0.0000 0.00035 0.00022
Islands ro ro
37 FYROM 0.0000 37 Moldova 0.00032 37 B&H 0.00022
38 Liechtenst 38 38
0.0000 B&H 0.0002 Moldova 0.00011
ein
39 39 Faroe 39 Faroe
Moldova 0.0000 0.00016 0.00011
Islands Islands
40 Monteneg 40 Liechtenst 40 Liechtenst
0.0000 0.00008 0
ro ein ein
41 Serbia 0.0000 41 Albania 0.00004 41 Albania 0
Source: CORDIS

128
6. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ADDED VALUE AND IMPACT OF FP
PARTICIPATION
Section 6 presents the findings relating to the third study objective and is based on an assessment
of the added value of FP participation (beyond the national financial return on investment for FP6,
FP7 and H2020) for each of the 41 countries, an estimation of what the additional impact of
previous FP participation has been in each MS and AC in quantitative and qualitative terms.

The findings relating to the different types (and descriptions of) of FP impacts observed have been
derived from the country-level research. In turn, the national data collection stems from interviews
and from local data and/or EU level data (e.g. eCorda, Cordis) where no national data are
available.

6.1 Introduction – context to assessing added value and impacts

As outlined in the theoretical framework in Section 3, this study has explored the impacts of long-
term FP participation, focusing on scientific impacts, the impacts on innovation, impacts relating to
the overall R&I systems, economic impacts, wider socioeconomic impacts, and policy impacts. In
some instances, the research has also sought to identify – where applicable – regional/ community
impacts at the NUTS2/NUTS3 level (particularly focusing on countries that have strong regional
R&I systems, reflecting their decentralised and/or federalised structure, such as Belgium and
Germany).

Figure 23 Types of impacts on the R&I system

Source: Adapted from Arnold and Kuhlman, 2001 via Gretchen Jordan What Might a Theory-Based
Roadmap for Prospective Evaluation and Developing Innovation Policy Look Like? 2009

In practice, and as the evidence outlined in the following sections also shows, many of the impacts
described are crosscutting, i.e. cover more than one category and/or component of the R&I
system.

It is also important to note that many impacts are interrelated and/or interdependent – for
example Impact B is likely to follow after Impact A has been observed, and/or Impact B is
dependent on Impact A occurring first. For example, sophisticated R&I infrastructure is required in
order to compete internationally in many scientific fields. At the same time, R&I infrastructure,

129
laboratories and equipment need to be operated and supported by highly-skilled staff, hence in
order to create an effective, sustainable environment, strong human capital is required.

The third study objective relating to assessing the added value of participation has required an
assessment of existing evaluation studies to assess the long-term impacts of EU RTD Framework
Programme participation. However, it should be recalled that only a small number of countries
have commissioned evaluation studies to investigate the longitudinal impacts.

The broad geographic and longitudinal scope of the study has provided an opportunity to explore
how the FPs interplay across and between (widely different) national R&I systems and capabilities
and to assess what kind of distinctive impacts the Framework Programmes may contribute
towards. However, the depth of analysis that can be undertaken at an EU synthesis level has been
somewhat constrained by the need to divide up the available resources for the study across 41
countries. In any evaluation of this magnitude involving 41 country reports, even with
standardisation of the reporting format, the evidence base gathered is uneven. This is also due to
unevenness in terms of the availability of data and information on the impacts of FP participation
available since some countries have undertaken dedicated evaluations on FP participation and the
associated impacts whereas most countries previously have not.

This introduction will briefly discuss these issues before moving on to discussing the added value
of FP participation and then providing an assessment and description of the different kinds of
impacts observed in the study countries.

6.1.1 Assessing long-term impacts of FP participation at national level

The Commission systematically undertakes ex-ante, mid-term and ex-post evaluations of the FPs
at a global level (i.e. covering participant countries across EU Member States, associated countries
and third countries), but there is no requirement that FP evaluations should be undertaken at
national (or regional) level. However, as noted earlier, a number of countries have undertaken
such studies voluntarily, such as studies from Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France,
Germany, Ireland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. Some existing evaluations
and other types of studies covered more than one country.

It is therefore important to note that, for a considerable number of countries, this study
constitutes the first ever attempt at assessing the extent and the impacts of participation in the
FPs at country level. The analysis of the impacts of participation has largely relied on the
perception of stakeholders interviewed. With this in mind from the outside of the assignment, the
study team put efforts in gaining access to individuals and representatives of organisations with
close links and long experience of the FPs.

Although national evaluations provide useful evidence and have helped to build on the existing
analysis at country level, the earlier national evaluation studies undertaken were not generally
undertaken in parallel and adopted different methodological approaches and reported the findings
in different ways, depending and focused their research questions on different issues, e.g.
participation of SMEs or other key policy areas of interest to that particular country (e.g. ICT,
health). As such, they do not provide comparable information to one another. 166

Many countries have not yet commissioned at all or have not published externally longitudinal
evaluative literature on the participation and impacts of FP participation by their own national
research communities. It is possible to distinguish a diverse range of reasons for this, such as:

• Reliance on internal analysis

Estonia does not appear to commission evaluations but assesses performance at the end of each
FP programme period by conducting internal evaluations. However, the Estonian Research Council
conducts regular studies on Estonian FPs’ participation. These include an overview of Estonian FP
participation: the success of applications, participation by different research actors, the
performance of SMEs, project financing schemes, international cooperation, gender balance and
the quality of participation (i.e. lead coordinators versus other roles within project consortia). A
detailed overview of thematic participation in FPs is also provided. During the study, a survey or

166
Generally, the methodology applied in evaluation studies is in most cases a combination of qualitative and
quantitative methods. The most common tools are: analysis of secondary literature, legislation, annual reports
and databases; conduction of surveys; structured and semi-structured interviews of FP participants (scientists
and non-participating scientists and institutional stakeholders); and scoping analysis.

130
interviews with participants to obtain their feedback on the added value and impact of participation
is also carried out.

In Poland, FP participation is monitored by the National Contact Point. Overall analyses of Polish
participation in FP6 and FP7 have published. Since the start of FP7, periodic reports have also been
prepared and published on the website of the NCP network, bringing information generated
together with the use of the CORDA database. In Horizon 2020, a more detailed analysis of
participation data is being prepared on a regular basis (once every 50 calls).

Many of the south-eastern European Associated Countries reported a lack of robust and continuous
assessment of national participation data on the FPs. For example, in Serbia, the available data
and information provides a high-level assessment of the national R&I system, but national
authorities responsible for R&I only address the country’s performance in the FPs at a general
level.

• Ad hoc studies but no consistent evaluation of participation or national FP impacts

In most countries that do evaluate the national impacts of participation in the FPs, studies tend to
be commissioned on an ad hoc basis. For example, the impacts of innovation policy and FP
projects in the Netherlands are not consistently, quantitatively monitored at the governmental
level. According to the country research, only two studies address participation and/or impact of
participation of Dutch researchers in the FPs.

Although the Czech Republic has carried out at least one FP evaluation, FP studies are not
regularly commissioned. This was attributed to the lack of a target-oriented policy regarding the
country’s participation in the EU RTD FPs that would allow it to evaluate progress towards
objectives. However, the Czech Research, Development and Innovation Council prepares regular
annual analyses of research, development and innovation in the Czech Republic for international
comparison purposes. An integral part of these reports is information about the participation of the
country’s performance in the FPs. Nevertheless, current evaluation practice is primarily based on
the data outputs from the information system and less effort is made to efficiently measure the
scope of the expected impacts and progress in the scientific research fields or industrial sectors.

A number of evaluation studies to assess the benefits (and costs) of or FP participation in Norway
have been commissioned by or for the Norwegian Parliament, because as an Associated Country
the decision to participate in the FPs is subject to Parliament’s approval. In addition, the Research
Council of Norway has recently commissioned an evaluation to assess the participation and impact
of FP participation and in particular to identify means of strengthening participation among under-
represented groups, such as the health institutes. Whilst Norway’s return ratio was close to its
target of 2% during H2020, there is political interest in improving participation rates. The study
was on-going in 2017.

• FP participation stemming from a bottom-up interest

In a smaller number of countries e.g. Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Ireland interest in
participating in the FPs has grown over time through the bottom-up involvement at university
institutions. Greek participation in the FPs was triggered by specific initiatives by individual public
and private sector organisations. In the period covering FP5, FP6 and FP7, there was no underlying
strategy in Greece aiming to promote participation at a national / regional level, with associated
quantitative or qualitative (thematic) targets. Although some analyses exist, there have not to
date been any studies carried out dealing with qualitative aspects of Greek FP participation or with
identifying and describing impacts produced as a result of FP participation. 167

Similarly, in Croatia, there are some partial analyses of FP performance which have been
undertaken by individual scientists, but no comprehensive analysis by the relevant bodies
managing the R&I system.

• Lack of experience or cumulative knowledge

A lack of institutional memory can also hamper data collection. A new agency – the Agency for
Research, Technology and Innovation – took over FP management from the Albanian Ministry of

167
A number of studies mainly from the National Documentation Centre (NDC) of Greece present statistics on
the FP participation of Greek organisations. Some bibliometric studies, also by NDC provide useful information
on the characteristics of Greek publications over time.

131
Education in 2010, and monitoring is therefore said to mainly be ad hoc (specific projects can be
traced but there is no continuous data trail.

6.1.2 Assessing the added value of FP participation at national level

National evaluations carried out to date have partly assessed the impacts of FP participation but
also devote an effort to assessing participation and national returns on investment. Fewer studies
appear to deal with the added value of FP participation, i.e. the economic and non-economic
benefit derived from conducting interventions at the European level rather than at the regional
and/or national level.

The challenge of assessing added value is both a methodological and political challenge. Added
value is strongly linked to the drivers and motives of different actors for the specific actions they
are involved in, and therefore linked to different types of impacts and benefits, hence added value
can mean different things to different actors depending on their viewpoint and organisational and
policy objectives. However, there is a broad consensus that R&I is an area which places a strong
emphasis on collaboration as a key driver of added value.

The concept of assessing European Added Value (EAV) has evolved in tandem with the Framework
Programmes (see Table 33). For example, up to and including FP4, the added value of the FPs was
seen as being derived from a combination of networking, benefits through economies of scale
through joint collaboration in specialist scientific disciplines. This was largely seen as being
sufficient justification for the FPs. In FP5, the focus shifted towards the added value of the FPs in
terms of bringing about socioeconomic benefits. 168

Thereafter, the concept of added value evolved into a clearer focus on a distinctive EAV derived
from “adding value to national efforts through scale and networking to playing a role in
coordinating Member State policies and taking wider actions in support of EU-level Policy”. This is
illustrated by the change of focus in the FPs and specific programming instruments from a focus on
collaborative research to other areas, such as promoting the internationalisation of research in
order to foster excellence science and strengthening researchers’ mobility. In FP7, and to a lesser
extent also Horizon 2020, a strong emphasis was put on the role of the FPs in promoting the
ERA. 169 The FPs’ emphasis on international competitive funding is also considered to have added
value by serving as a driver to encourage national R&I policy makers to make adaptations to
national R&I funding systems with a transition evident in many countries towards more
competitive national funding arrangements, with less reliance on block grants.

168
Vullings et al (2014) European Added Value of EU Science, Technology and Innovation actions and EU-
Member State Partnership in international cooperation.
169
Vullings et al (2014) European Added Value of EU Science, Technology and Innovation actions and EU-
Member State Partnership in international cooperation.

132
Table 33 Evolution of EAV
Dimensions of European Added Value FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6 FP7 H2020
Scale too big for FP participating countries
to handle alone
Financial benefits from a joint approach
Combining country expertise to tackle
European problems
Cohesion of European markets
Unification of European S&T platforms
across borders
Promotes uniform regulation and
standards
Mobilising EU potential at European and
global level by coordinating national and
EU programmes
Contributes to implementing EU policy
Contributes to societal challenges (and
social objectives more broadly)
Exploits opportunities for the development
of European science, technology and
industry
Structures the EU R&D community
Improves quality through exposure to EU-
wide competition

Source: Adapted by authors from Vullings et al (2014) European Added Value of EU Science,
Technology and Innovation actions and EU-Member State Partnership in international cooperation.
Original source: Arnold (2012)

As an alternative or indeed complement to Vullings et al, the Strategic Forum for International S&T
Cooperation (SFIC) which was established by the Council of the EU, proposed a definition of EAV
as a way to identify a common approach on the external dimension of the ERA:

• Scale and complexity: These are international STI activities of such scale and complexity
that no single Member State can provide the necessary financial or human resources, and
hence need to be carried out at European level in order to achieve and develop critical mass;
and to reduce the research or commercial risk for a single country or organisation. Interesting
examples are, for instance, the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership
and the Human Frontier Science Programme.
• Coordination of the EU and the STI potential of EU-28 MS: These are international STI
actions that contribute to the development of the external dimension of the European Research
Area (ERA) by promoting EU and Member States' STI potential emerging from European
science and technology policies and programmes in a global context and work in international
fora as well as research that may lead (when necessary) to the establishment of uniform
international rules or standards.
• Enhanced European knowledge base: International cooperation that contributes to
increasing the excellence, attractiveness and global competitiveness of European R&I. This
includes improving STI capabilities, enhancing mobility, and increasing the research
competition by for instance developing European research infrastructures.
• Economic impact, efficiency gains and financial benefits: International action at
European level or EU/MS partnerships vis-à-vis third countries that have an economic impact,
either in the form of efficiency gains (e.g. simplification and streamlining, pooling and more
efficient use of scarce public resources, etc. allowing avoidance of duplication and
rationalisation of efforts) or financial benefits (even after considering all costs and risks
inherent in international cooperation). This can include for instance the leverage public funding
can have on securing additional private investment.
• Societal/grand challenges: International STI activities that focus on specific societal/grand
challenges that are shared across Europe (pan-European) and with third countries.
• European values: International cooperation at EU-level that can enhance European values in
cooperation with third countries (i.e. mutual interest, respect, reciprocity).

133
Thus, although EAV takes a top-down European approach, from a national perspective, EAV can
bring benefits that are social and economic as well as political.

Clearly the EU-28 is more closely linked to the concept of EAV than non-EU countries. However, for
ACs – notably EU Accession countries and smaller capacity countries, the concept of added value
could be equally valid. Many of the EEA/EFTA countries also have a close alignment to the EU and
to EU R&I policy and programming priorities.

In terms of assessing added value, this study’s impact typology reflects previous work carried out
in terms of the articulation of EAV criteria, in particular relating to networking, the coordination of
critical mass, fostering mutual learning and harmonisation and avoiding redundancies and
improving efficiency.

Table 34 Examples of EAV indicators

EAV criterion Initial EAV assumption (based on a number of the major areas of
EAV)
Networking Provides easy access to networks
Leads to new networks and collaborations
Improves diplomacy
Facilitating European Organises better consortia with leading minds
excellence and capacity
building Increases the reputation, position and status for researchers and
organisations
Coordination of critical Organises stronger commitment amongst all partners
mass
Coordinates the EU and MS STI potential
Adds size and scope to the networks and work
Increases visibility of Europe towards third countries
Fostering mutual Leads to harmonisation and standardisation
learning and
harmonisation Leads to best practice sharing
Addresses framework conditions for research, competitiveness and
innovation
Supports capacity building in research and project management
Avoiding redundancies Supports alignment of STI cooperation activities
and improving
efficiency Leverages funding for research
Pools funding and resources
Source: Adapted from Vullings et al (2014) European Added Value of EU Science, Technology and
Innovation actions and EU-Member State Partnership in international cooperation.

The remaining section of this section will now explore the added value, and in particular, impacts
observed from FP participation, starting with scientific impacts.

6.2 Scientific impacts from FP participation

From among the possible impacts that can be observed as a direct result of FP participation,
scientific impacts tend to be one of the most immediate and, by far, the type of impact most
documented through national and EU level evaluations and other studies alike.

Existing literature have used a wide range of approaches and tools to measure scientific impacts,
including bibliometric analysis, network analysis as well as interview and survey analyses of
projects, programmes and research themes.

In terms of key scientific impacts, the most recent EU-wide ex post evaluation of an FP (the EC’s
ex post evaluation of FP7) emphasised that FP7 was particularly effective in strengthening
scientific excellence “FP7 projects have so far generated 170,000 publications, with an open access
rate of 54% for all scientific peer reviewed publications created during the life time of FP7. The

134
share of publications that is in highly-ranked journals lies above the EU average.” FP7 was, among
other things, also effective in fostering inter-disciplinary research and increased Europe-wide
research and innovation collaboration and networking.

6.2.1 Overview of scientific impacts

This study’s task is to look at scientific impacts from a national perspective. Our scope of different
types of scientific impacts have focused on the impacts and indicators outlined in the below table
and this section will present the synthesised analysed covering these impact types, and which
have been derived from the country level research.

Table 35 Types of scientific impacts

Scientific impacts
Types of impact Overview of study findings
Promoting world-class • Medium or high impact in all 41 countries regardless of R&I
science capabilities or size of the national R&I system.
• For the vast majority of countries, the FPs have for many years
constituted the key programme for enhancing excellence, in
particular, the MSCA and ERC stand out as important.
• Scientific excellence and internationalisation form an important basis
for creating continued and sustained scientific impacts in R&I
institutions more broadly. However, for countries with limited
participation, key impacts focus on researchers directly involved, with
limited ‘spillover effects’ to date.
Enhancing the • Medium or high impact in most countries, however a key challenge is
knowledge economy a lack of robust evidence. Moreover, FP-funded research does not
through the occur in isolation but other funding sources and inputs play a part in
generation of new the creation of new knowledge and scientific advancement.
knowledge and
• Evidently, due to the competitive nature of the FPs, participation
scientific
strongly appears be focused on areas where there are specific national
advancement
strengths, including industrial strengths, which in turn enhances the
strategic relevance of the knowledge produced. Over time, FP
participation has also helped countries to focus their efforts in key
areas of research.
The development and • Medium or high impact in all 41 countries regardless of R&I
utilisation of new and capabilities or size of R&I system.
innovative
• A key outcome/impact as a result of international collaboration. New
methodologies,
ways of approaching science and research have also helped to update
equipment,
and modernise the production of knowledge. However, adequate R&I
techniques,
infrastructure also often plays a key role which requires consistent
technologies, and
funding support in order to ensure adequate human capital to operate
cross-disciplinary
the infrastructure effectively and to maintain it.
approaches
• In many EU-13 countries, ESIF play a central role in investing in
purchasing new equipment as part of the modernisation and updating
of research infrastructure including laboratories (especially in 2007-
13, but also 2014-20).
• Although there is overall less consistent evidence, industry
participants tend to report positive impacts on how knowledge transfer
within the FPs have facilitated new approaches and techniques.

135
 Scientific impacts
Types of impact Overview of study findings
Developing expertise • Overall medium impact in all 41 countries, however this is an impact
and knowledge in that does not appear to be extensively documented.
new or declining
• Several counties report that the FPs have supported the development
disciplines or multi-
of niche areas, which have been too small or fragmented to develop
disciplinary areas
under national funding, however as part of a multi-country approach,
it has been easier to establish a critical mass.
• Some evidence that FP participation has promoted a multi-disciplinary
approach, with more openness to cross-collaborations, for instance,
due to the need to put together multi-disciplinary project consortia at
application stage.
Delivering and • This ability of the FPs to support the training and mobility of
training highly-skilled researchers is largely considered to be high. Here, there are
researchers synergies between efforts to stimulate international researcher
mobility and to improve researcher careers and the opportunities that
become available to mobile researchers thanks to successful FP
project applications which create new research positions.
Promoting the • Mobility of researchers is one of the five objectives of the ERA. In
mobility of highly- practice, mobility is a difficult objective to tackle as it is interlinked
skilled researchers with the problem of braindrain, which is a challenge in many low- and
medium-capacity countries. Without diminishing the negative effects
that are associated with braindrain, mobility of researchers as part of
the FPs is an important part of ensuring quality and internationally
competitive researchers, in particular in research fields that are
considered marginal within a specific country.
• The ERDF has been used in some countries (e.g. EE, PT) to attract
mobile researchers back to a particular country so as to reverse
braindrain.
Note: The High – Medium – Low categorisations of impact are qualitative assessments based on
the evidence collected in the 41 national reports.

As the indicators in Table 35 suggest, with a few exceptions (e.g. level of science-in-society
engagement, level of mobility in industry), scientific outputs and immediate outcomes are largely
associated with HEIs and to a lesser extent, organisations such as RTOs, operating in the applied
sciences and more closely to industry.

Having said this, our country-level research show that RTO and industry participants in the FPs
have gained significant benefit through the development and utilisation of new and innovative
methodologies, equipment, techniques, etc. and through the development of expertise and
knowledge. Hence, such, and other scientific impacts do occur within more industry-focused
organisations (in particular in FP6 and FP7) and should not be underestimated, especially as these
types of impact are incremental but can lead to further innovation and productivity improvements.

Finally, indirectly of course, for-profit organisations and public organisations may also benefit from
scientific impacts derived in HES/HEIs etc.

This study conducted an online survey of NCP representatives and other policymakers in the 41
countries in which questions were posed on the scale of immediate and long-term impacts from FP
participation. The responses received largely followed the pattern of the evidence collected through
the national report investigations (as illustrated in the below figure).

136
Figure 24 Immediate and cumulative (long-term) scientific impacts linked to
participation in multiple FP programming periods

Strengthened ability to attract top researchers / global talent - 5 13 5 3 2 4

Strong (immediate) impacts

Strengthened ability of EU to participate in world-class science 8 14 1 3 2 4

- Strong (immediate) impacts

Strengthened bibliometric performance (e.g. citations) - Strong 5 8 3 6 2 4 2

(immediate) impacts

Greater mobility of highly-skilled researchers - Strong 12 5 5 5 11 2

(immediate) impacts

Greater availability of highly-skilled researchers - Strong 7 10 4 6 3 1 3

(immediate) impacts

Strengthened scientific collaboration at an international level - 9 15 3 1 3 2

Strong (immediate) impacts

Strengthened scientific collaboration at a European level - 9 13 5 3 11

Strong (immediate) impacts

The development and utilisation of new and innovative 5 8 1 9 2 3 2

methodologies - Strong (immediate) impacts

Contributions to the knowledge economy - Strong (immediate) 3 13 3 5 5 3 2

impacts

Strengthened training of existing researchers - Strong 7 6 9 7 6 2

(immediate) impacts

Strengthened training of young researchers - Strong 4 8 7 10 11

(immediate) impacts

The emergence of multi-disciplinary areas - Strong 2 7 8 7 3 2 2

(immediate) impacts

The emergence of new disciplinary areas - Strong (immediate) 3 9 6 7 3 1 2

impacts

Scientific impacts relating to addressing societal challenges - 2 13 6 6 2 3

Strong (immediate) impacts

Strengthening existing scientific knowledge in specific 5 18 8 4 2

disciplines - Strong (immediate) impacts

0
Strong (immediate) impacts 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Strong long-term impacts

Medium (immediate) impacts

Medium long-term impacts

Low (immediate) impacts

Low long-term impacts

Not applicable (not relevant to your country's participation)

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

As for the greatest immediate and cumulative impacts linked to participation in multiple FPs,
respondents indicated most of all the “greater mobility of highly skilled researchers”, followed
strongly by “strengthened scientific collaboration on international level and European level”.
Multiple respondents is also said to strengthen the existing scientific knowledge in specific
disciplines, with a strong long-term impact.

The survey also asked policymakers to compare FP-derived impacts with those achieved at
national level. In this instance, clearly national policymakers recognise the important roles(s) of
the FPs, in particular in achieving greater scientific impacts than may be possible through national
R&I. In total, 71.43% of respondents considered the FPs to achieve greater scientific impacts than
national programmes (although 3.57% considered scientific impacts to be lesser).

137
Table 36 Impacts of participation in FP research projects compared with
national funded R&I projects?
Type of impact Greater Lesser About the Cannot say
same (equal
impact)

Scientific impacts 71.43% 3.57% 25.00% 0%

Impacts on innovation 57.14% 14.29% 28.57% 0%

Impacts on national research and 42.86% 7.14% 46.43% 3.57%

innovation policies

Wider societal impacts including 48.15% 7.41% 33.33% 11.11%

economic, social and environmental
impacts

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

Over half (57.14%) of respondents also considered funding at European level to achieve greater
innovation related impacts. A greater proportion of respondents were also of the opinion that wider
societal impacts could be achieved to a greater extent through the FPs as compared to through
national instruments.

The national research undertaken by the study indicates that, fundamentally, the extent and level
of impact will depend on the input (i.e. level and length of participation in FP projects). Although
some scientific impacts of FP participation can be observed almost ‘immediately’ after participation
begins others – arguably, most kinds of impacts – need time, consideration and consistent
resources to materialise.

There is also a certain amount of overlapping (and potential synergies) between the different types
of impacts outlined in our table – e.g. the training (and mobility) of highly skilled researchers is a
key precondition of developing world-class science.

Lastly, in our assessment, scientific impacts, as well as other impact types also are dependent on
the accumulated kind of FP participation. For example:

• Participation of individual researchers (and associated research teams) in grant schemes

such as the ERC, MSCA are important for the internationalisation of research and for the
mobility and exchange of knowledge. However, although the grants schemes primarily
facilitate individuals and small teams (ERC grants support a Principal Investigator and team)
they are important for the host institutions as grant holders often attract further funding and
open up opportunities and access to wider networks of excellence.
• Coordination of (large) FP projects is strategically important at the participant level and is
viewed as a key aspect of the quality of participation when assessing country participation data
(i.e. if FP participants in a given country have often assumed the coordinator role, then this
signifies high quality of participation in the FPs. It is also important in terms of the strategic
benefits which can stretch further, in particular if the area of research is in line with national
overall R&I priorities. The reason for this is that project coordination allows the research actor
concerned to exercise much greater influence in research direction than for other consortium
members. As such, coordination can provide important leverage in terms of credibility to lead
projects, and technical capacity to participate in future projects, as well as enhancing the
future chance of success rate.
• Participation in capacity-building and support actions, e.g. through FP7’s Capacities, or
H2020 Twinning projects, are more likely to lead to more R&I systems or policy-related
impacts as well as improving scientific performance.
• Similarly, participation in ERA-Nets and JPI has wider implications beyond strictly scientific
impacts. Indeed, these types of instruments focus on streamlining national R&I portfolios and
avoiding duplication between EU-national and national-regional level R&I activities. The
objectives of these instruments are equally relevant to policy and R&I systems management.

138
It should be acknowledged that there are challenges in establishing clear links between FP
participation and particular FP instruments and their design. For example, a long-term impacts
study on the FPs in the UK, was “unable to establish a correlation between particular FP
instruments and the scale of their respective impacts”, although participants and stakeholders did
express strong preferences for particular instruments, and often had a preference for the medium-
sized research projects that had been the mainstay of FP5 and FP6 (Specific Targeted Research
Projects, STREPs). 170 Clearly, therefore, the design of an instrument may not be directly
attributable to a specific impact, although having said this, in our assessment, when analysing the
cumulative impact of different instruments - applied in R&I systems with varying capabilities – the
different intervention logic of individual instruments become more differentiated.

Promoting world-class science & enhancing the knowledge economy through the
generation of new knowledge and scientific advancement
Many of the most significant scientific breakthroughs come from curiosity-driven research. Through
e.g. the ERC and MSCA, FET (H2020), the FPs fund a significant number of excellent curiosity-
driven research projects. Although policy/challenged-driven research has been a key trend in R&I
in the last 15 years, it does not mean that support for curiosity-driven (basic, blue skies,
exploratory, bottom-up) research has diminished. Rather a sound excellent scientific foundation is
required for sustainable impact in R&I more broadly.

Overall, and regardless of the level of sophistication of the individual national R&I systems, the FPs
have generated long-term impacts through the promotion of world-class (high-quality) science and
through the generation of new knowledge. The higher level of FP participation reached, the more
extensive these impacts are likely to be, implying that less countries with less capacity to win FP
funding naturally report that impacts tend to be contained within specific research groups or
institutions. Nonetheless, scientific impacts relevant to the promotion of excellent science are
clearly documented in all 41 country reports:

In Latvia, observed FP impacts are mainly associated with scientific excellence. According to the
informative report of the Ministry of Education and Science, all FPs have contributed to the
development of Latvian scientific excellence and cooperation. Several programmes have been
especially emphasized a key contributors: REGPOT, ERA-NET, ARTEMIS and IMI.

Similarly, in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) to a large extent the scientific impacts observed
among its FP participant research community relate to raising quality and scientific standards and
methods, including:

• Promotion of World Class science in a sense of introducing of BiH researchers to international

collaboration, establishing contacts with international researchers and organisations, but
related to limited number of direct participants (researchers);
• The development and utilisation of new and innovative methodologies, equipment, techniques,
technologies, and cross-disciplinary approaches, albeit focused on limited number of direct
participants (researchers);
• The mobility of BiH highly skilled researchers in EU countries;
• Upgrading the standards for scientific recognition in Bosnia and Herzegovina and scientific
advancement of researchers and HEIs.

In Poland, the impact on the proportion of researchers in (high-quality) international

collaborations was assessed to be medium to high. The FPs have provided Polish research teams
with the opportunity to participate in international research projects. However, when measuring
the impact of this collaboration on the proportion of scientific articles published in high-impact
journals and proportion of co-produced scientific articles published in high-impact journals, the
results remain below expectations especially compared with the significant human resource
potential of Polish science.

From a Polish perspective, the FPs have supported the development of a culture of excellence and
collaboration. One of the impact factors is the difference in organisational culture between Polish
research institutes and that of practices in the EU-15. Polish institutions have focused less on
excellence and collaboration, and more on individual success rather than on team excellence. The
old Polish system tended to promote careers in science administration (dean or rector) than
researcher careers, since the former positions were better paid and gave additional benefits. The

170
Technopolis Simmonds et al (2010) The impact of the EU RTD Framework Programme on the UK

139
research in Poland undertaken for this study found that an approach that favours quantity over
quality has continued to hamper Polish success in the FPs, especially for competitive sub-
programmes where scientific and research excellence is paramount. Whilst Poland significantly
increased participation between FP6 and FP7, participation levels have declined in H2020.

In smaller countries like Malta, the participation of the main university can begin to trigger wider
effects by encouraging other research actors to participate in the FPs thanks to the fact that the
research community is limited in size and thus well connected. Although the total number of
participations is very small (189 in FP7), because of the small R&I system, the activities of a single
organisation can have a significant effect on the global figure. The key research performer that has
benefitted from the FPs is the University of Malta (although the Malta College of Arts Science and
Technology won its first project as coordinator in H2020). The University of Malta has coordinated
at least 19 FP projects across the three programme periods. Just over half of these projects have
predominantly benefitted Principal Investigators or smaller research teams, as they have been
grants awarded under the People/MSCA or ERC scheme. Thematically, research fields that have
been strengthened/ supported by FP projects include biomedical, food and engineering. FP
participation by the University’s researchers has provided opportunities that could not have been
achieved through national funding. University funding is limited – approximately EUR 1,000-5,000
per researcher per year, depending on the subsidy level. Thus, over the last 15 years, FP funding
has made a huge difference to the amount of work that could have been carried out by university
researchers.

In contrast to these more ‘isolated’ but significant effects, higher-capacity countries tend to report
more complex scientific excellence-related impacts, and the FPs appears to have been used as a
key element in the policy toolbox to leverage scientific excellence and competitiveness more
broadly through international collaborative cooperation on research projects.

The importance and scientific impact of FP participation for the Belgian R&I landscape has been
highlighted by all stakeholders interviewed, both from the private and academic sectors. The
scientific impact in terms of excellence has been especially highlighted in the “raising the
excellence bar” function that participating institutions have undergone. For example, the number
of ERC Grants awarded to institution/countries is now commonly used to “measure” the scientific
quality of HEI institutions and of Belgium’s participation as a country. These scientific impacts have
also ‘spilled over’ to influence R&I management in Belgian institutions as FP processes have
greatly contributed to promote standards from scientific integrity, gender equality in research and
standards in recruitment, salaries, pensions, etc. of researchers.

The increased competition and the possibility to participate in collaborative projects, has pushed all
Belgian actors to raise the quality of research. Universities have appreciated the opportunity to
compete for international excellence funding to carry out basic research although there are some
outstanding questions among stakeholders interviewed if the focus on high TRL levels in Horizon
2020 may limit participation opportunities to undertake basic research.

The pros and cons of funding a wider range of TRL in H2020 (combining research and innovation in
one programme) is a continuing debate. The EC’s staff working document of the interim evaluation
of H2020 found that “almost half of the stakeholders commented on the balance between research
and innovation support. The majority of those who commented stated that the programme needs
to ensure a good balance between research and innovation.” 171

171
SWD(2017) 221 final Commission Staff Working Document Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020. Annex 1.
Brussels, 29.5.2017

140
Table 37 The role of ERC and MRCA grants in the UK
Although UK universities and higher education institutions are strong in thematic fields and in
applied and translational research, such as Societal Challenges, the ERC and MSCA grants are seen
by many universities as key European grants to acquire as, on the one hand, they help attract
talent from outside of the UK, and on the other, can facilitate further (national or European)
funding. According to the House of Lords, in 2016, “30% of European Research Council grantees
working in the UK come from other Member States; and 15% of UK academic staff are from
continental Europe, which compares with 11% of the whole of non-EU”. 172

The UK clearly reaps substantial funding through the ERC and MSCA. In FP7, UK-based
researchers received EUR 1,665 million in ERC grants or 22.4% of the total budget. For MSCA, UK-
based researchers were granted EUR 1,086 million (25.5% of the programme’s total budget). 173

For many UK universities, the FP7 Ideas programme and the establishment of the ERC has – over
the last 10-15 years – led to more articulated strategies for FP participation, where more and
more, different projects come to play different roles in university portfolios. The ERC and MSCA
have become key funding for improving and increasing internationalisation, mobility and
researchers’ careers.

UK universities appear to have been increasingly developing targeting strategies (head hunting)
researchers who are deemed competitive enough to submit proposals, and they receive tailored
support and advice on e.g. estimate the best time to put an application in.

Source: UK House of Lords and interviews

Internationalisation of R&I networks

A key aspect of scientific impacts has been the development of international networks as part
of FP participation. This is a well-known and well-documented impact. According to the research
undertaken as part of our study, in comparison to other international R&I instruments available,
participation in FPs is by far the most important funding mechanism in terms of the impact on
promoting international collaboration and networking.

The internationalisation of networks and of R&I activities performed by research actors is also
closely interlinked with issues relating to research excellence and the quality of participation. For
example, a Swedish long-term impact study covering the country’s participation from FP3 to FP6
showed that international networking as a consequence of FP participation has most likely had
positive impacts on scientific quality. 174

Internationalisation and international collaboration in research not only enhances intellectual and
cultural diversity, but also allows countries’ national research systems to specialise in what they do
best. One of the most significant developments in research funding is the increased importance
accorded to international collaboration, for instance in determining the criteria for national block
funding allocations 175 However, international collaboration in research is a broad concept as the
type and length of interaction varies according to the specific sciences and actors involved. Some
research fields or disciplines, such as medicine or physics, are more used to collaborating than
others, such as in the humanities field.

Seen from a global perspective, the internationalisation of research is growing and the added value
of collaboration internationally in research is becoming increasingly apparent. According to
research supported by the publisher Elsevier ‘numerous studies have shown that research outputs
that represent collaborations – particularly international collaboration – have a higher citation
impact than those that do not’. 176 International collaboration can also foster the development of

172
UK House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee 2nd Report of Session 2015–16 EU
membership and UK science. Published 20 April 2016 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords. HL
Paper 127.
173
Royal Society How much research funding does the UK get from the EU and how does this compare with
other countries? https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/uk-research-and-european-union/role-of-EU-in-
funding-UK-research/how-much-funding-does-uk-get-in-comparison-with-other-countries/
174
VINNOVA (2008) Impacts of the framework programme in Sweden, VA 2008:11
175
Jacob Background document Research funding instruments and modalities: Implication for developing
countries Draft report Research Policy Institute Lund University Sweden
176
See Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility: A
report prepared in collaboration between Science Europe and Elsevier’s SciVal Analytics, September 2013.

141
technological capabilities and innovations. 177 Globally, inter-country collaboration rates stood at
17% in 2011 (up from 14% in 2003). 178 The nature of research collaboration is also changing,
from a bi- or multilateral approach which often tended to exclusively focus on the research
community and on mobility from middle- and low-income countries to high-income countries, to
international collaboration including cooperation among research funders.

In addition to financial support for international collaborations, there are other methods of
promoting internationalisation such as encouraging the mobility of researchers. Just under one-
third (31%) of EU researchers (post-PhD) have worked abroad within or outside of Europe, “as
researchers for more than three months at least once during the last decade”. 179 Although
difficulties can arise when working abroad, international mobility is largely considered to be a
positive factor in developing new research skills. 180

This study’s country reports suggest that both outbound and inbound internationalisation is among
the most important effects of FP participation. In Moldova, the FP7 and H2020 have created
possibilities for internationalisation of research and cooperation, for increasing the mobility of
highly-skilled researchers and building new partnerships within Higher Education institutions. FP7
projects have resulted in new partnerships and new long-term projects. Participation has
contributed to raising the scientific quality in the country, confirmed by the granting of the
‘Excellence in Research’ logo to a number of Moldovan institutions.

In Iceland, given the country’s geographic isolation, and the historical lack of doctoral courses
some 20 years ago, using the FPs to attract international researchers and to help retain Icelandic
researchers was seen as having been crucial in strengthening the competitiveness of the country’s
R&I base. The country has invested significantly in increasing the number of taught PhDs and
doctoral training opportunities since there was previously a lack of post-Masters level education.
The FPs were a strong driver of changes to national R&I strategy, given the opportunity to increase
the supply of doctoral graduates and in parallel benefit from international competitive R&I funding
opportunities.

The internationalisation of research is also an important issue in Poland. In the first few FPs, the
inclusion of Polish research teams was seen as a means of gaining additional points during the
evaluation process for applications submitted by international consortia. Today, in most cases, FP
applicants from Poland are from well-established research teams and are included as partners in
consortia due to their scientific quality and often previous cooperation on collaborative
international research projects. Today, the situation is more positive, with examples of Polish
research actors being invited to participate in project consortia to help the consortium score
additional points for scientific excellence.

The research found that Polish teams are now much better recognised on the international
research market. This change in external perception was caused at least in part by FP project
participation over the years. The strong impact of the FPs on the internationalisation of research
in Poland happened through the increased participation of Polish scientists and research actors in
EU networks. This extends beyond science itself, and is viewed as being a positive EU integration
instrument. The FPs have also had an impact in terms of promoting changes in organisational
culture, especially in terms of high standards of organisation. It also influenced the national R&I
system in terms of how science is performed in Poland and has promoted the adoption of more
robust R&I reporting and monitoring procedures. However, less positively, to some extent, the
administrative burdens and perceived bureaucracy inherent within the FPs has been perpetuated in
the Polish national system of R&I funding.

The internationalisation of research is also a key impact observed in the Nordic countries.

One of the more important impacts of the FPs in Iceland has been the opportunity to take part in
international R&I cooperation and networks, and the ability to enhance the visibility of its research
actors and their outputs. The country has developed an international reputation in a number of
specialist scientific fields. These include natural sciences, such as geology and more applied

177
Penner-Hahn and Shaver (2004) Does international research and development increase patent output? An
analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal. Volume 26, Issue 2, pages 121–
140, February 2005.
178
Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility: A report
prepared in collaboration between Science Europe and Elsevier’s SciVal Analytics, September 2013
179
ERA Progress Report 2014
180
The ERA Progress report suggests that 80% of internationally mobile researchers felt that the mobility had a
positive impact on developing their research skills.

142
scientific sectors such as energy, healthcare and food production. A good indication of this is the
high number of co-publications which include an Icelandic author. According to a 2012 OECD
report, international collaboration is vital to Icelandic research, since 72% of scientific articles and
42% of PCT patent applications are produced with international collaboration. 181

Data from Denmark’s participation in FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 illustrates the importance of the
FPs for the internationalisation of Danish research and access to international networks for Danish
researchers. According to the latest data, almost 5,500 researchers from Denmark have
participated in almost 4,000 projects under FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020. More than 1,000 of the
projects had Danish coordinators and total funding received is approaching EUR 2 billion. Most
projects – but not necessarily all – will have involved collaboration with researchers from other
countries. In terms of individual funding, especially the mobility of researchers under the Marie
Skłodowska-Curie Actions, has been highlighted in as an important driver for the
internationalisation to Danish research.

Regarding the internationalisation of the Swedish R&I system, it was suggested that the FPs have
been the most powerful internationalisation tool the past 15 years. Moreover, the transition within
the R&I system to greater internationalisation has opened up new possibilities that in turn have led
to a higher degree of scientific quality. Increased internationalisation in Sweden as a consequence
of the FP participation has been a key enabler for Swedish actors to become leading partners and
coordinators in the European Institute of Innovation and Technology’s Knowledge and Innovation
Communities (KICs) and in other European R&I consortia such as the ERA-NETs. It was also
suggested that increased internationalisation contributed to the decision to locate the international
research facility European Spallation Source (ESS) in Sweden.

Collaboration with a critical mass of highly-skilled researchers from other countries

The opportunity to collaborate across borders and in multi-disciplinary teams is considered to be

especially critical for smaller countries with limited resources within their national R&I systems.
Participation in the FPs can open the door to a critical mass of researchers in the same and/or
complementary field(s) as well as opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration with top
scientists from other fields. In this regard, collaboration and internationalisation are closely related
concepts.

However, due to a range of factors (financial, organisational, behavioural) research collaborations

risk being unsustainable, i.e. the collaboration ceases after a given FP project has been completed,
despite opportunities to build on what was achieved. This is particularly a risk if the funding
instrument requires proposals to include e.g. industry-research collaboration, or partners from
multiple countries, as do many of the FP instruments. In some cases teams are put together in
response to administrative requirements rather than genuine scientific needs. From the evidence
that we have gathered, there is an element of ‘artificial’ collaboration in the FPs, however this
appears to have been given increased attention in recent evaluations and is increasingly discussed
among relevant R&I policy makers. Moreover, fruitful collaborations may also seize as a result of
lack of funding, hence not all collaborations, which appear to constitute ‘convenient’ ones, are truly
artificial. Indeed, many project consortia reapply for FP funding (successfully, unsuccessfully),
through second and third generation project applications involving many of the same partners.
Whilst this represents an example of how participation in projects can lead to longer-term
collaborative R&I relationships and networks.

Despite the risks of (mostly) requiring multi-country collaborations it makes sense for a European-
wide programme to require multi-country cooperation. Although across the national-level research
undertaken across 41 countries, the issue of ‘participation from some countries has been on paper
only’ was occasionally brought up, the consensus view among R&I stakeholders at country level is
that collaboration with researchers from other countries has been overwhelmingly positive.

181
http://www.oecd.org/iceland/sti-outlook-2012-iceland.pdf

143
A 2015 evaluation of FP6 and 7 in Denmark identified significant scientific impacts from FP
participation. The analysis suggests that the impacts are larger than what is generally achieved
through Danish research programmes. Part of the additional effect might be explained by the fact
that due to the high level of competition, only the best and most talented researchers receive FP
funding. In addition, the international dimension, where researchers get to work with a critical
mass of top researchers from other countries, is highlighted as being an additional driver of
positive scientific impacts.
Source: Denmark country report

Moreover, the opportunity to collaborate internationally can also be an incentive – or even a

necessity for smaller countries. This can help to build up national capacity in the longer-run. Our
research in Greece has found that, given the limited size of the country’s R&I system, the FPs
provided an opportunity for motivated researchers in Greek Universities and Research Centres to
be involved in state-of-the-art research and to obtain adequate funding for this purpose. This was
the case in particular for top Greek scientists (many of whom had relocated to Greece in the
1990s’ after distinguished careers abroad) to build very competitive research teams, as EU funding
enabled them to pursue high-profile research. Strong research teams have been created for
instance in Thessaloniki (Central Macedonia), Patras (Dytiki Ellada) and Iraklion (Crete).

Impact on national research programmes and the strategies of participating institutions

Although participation in sporadic/individual FP projects is highly unlikely to trigger any wider

impacts, once a certain level of involvement or interest in European science has been triggered
(from the scientific and business communities as well as R&I policy makers), it becomes more
plausible for institutions and agencies to take a closer look at alignment between the ‘workings of
the FP and national research activities. Although many countries deny the direct influence of the
FPs on their national R&I system and on institutions, the majority of the 41 countries point to an
interplay between the development of FP priorities and institutional strategies, in particular to
strengthening key priority areas and often to improving inbound mobility. Smaller-capacity
countries tend to go further and suggest that FP and ERA priorities are a key influencing factor,
both at an institutional and national level.

Over the years, the EU Framework Programmes have played an increasingly important role in
influencing and reinforcing developments in French R&I policy. Examples are providing guidance
to the national R&I policy mix in the early years of the 15 year period within scope, to a situation
in Horizon 2020 where the French national authorities in charge of research, MENESR and ANR 182,
seek to ensure that that there is consistency between European strategies and regional and
national ones. Since 2014, a major effort has been made to align France’s thematic and strategic
R&I priorities with the three pillars of H2020. There has been especially strong focus on Societal
challenges, but also on Excellent science.

In Greece, the FPs also appear to have been guiding developments at national level. The FPs are
said to have over time contributed to bringing public research closer to national priorities related
to economic development, while prompting policy makers to take a greater interest in the
relationship between science and industry. At the same time, FP participation has significantly
contributed to the establishment of benchmarks of excellence for Greek researchers, which is
important, given that in the last 10 years no institutional and legal framework has existed for the
evaluation of research activities conducted in Greek Universities.

At an institutional level, UK universities’ strategies for participating and creating impact from the
FPs have developed over time over the past two decades. In terms of developments in FP themes
(e.g. challenges-based research, open innovation etc.) with high immediate societal relevance, this
has over time in benefitted the UK’s former polytechnic universities in particular, which undertake
a substantial amount of high-quality science, but are less focused on basic research.

In Serbia, the major impact of Framework Programmes is that institutions, especially universities,
faculties and institutes have matured through FP participation. They have acquired knowledge and
skills in administration and project management. At the very beginning of FP7, the Serbian
research community was largely unaware of the possibilities for FP funding and lacked an
understanding of how international projects function. Issues like project administration, auditing,
sustainability, and impact were new. Before 2007, the Serbian researcher community was financed
mostly by the state. It has become increasingly clear to researcher performers that financing of

182
MENESR (Ministère de l'Education nationale, de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche) and ANR
(Agence Nationale de Recherche).

144
science has to come from international projects. During FP7 the number of successful Serbian FP
proposals grew. Great awareness has been achieved and the visibility of the Serbian institution
that took part in FP7 projects has increased. FP participation has also led to the concept of the
“Centre of Excellence” being recognised and emulated in Serbia as an instrument for R&I. Other
high impacts of the FPs can be seen in university faculties as they have redrafted strategic
directions and began turning to international cooperation.

Hungary has had a similar experienced in terms of benefiting from the processes of their FP
participation. However, a lack of insight into the workings of the FPs may have hampered the
participation of Hungarian research actors. A key drawback highlighted in the country report for
Hungary is that Hungarian applicants did not have insight into the working principles of the FPs.
Although different supporting initiatives and programmes to promote participation were in place,
this did not reach out to Hungarian institutions and potential applicants. The Hungarian R&I
system was not accustomed to the FP system and could not make good use of it. It was
considered to be very difficult, if not impossible, to get integrated into existing networks of FP
applicants which in many cases are based on decade-long relationships and well-functioning
partnerships. Hungarian researchers thought it very challenges to join international networks due
to the difficulty in joining project consortia for FP newcomers. This integration process is still
considered as being not very well developed in Hungary, and stakeholders have just begun to
realise how consortia work and how they are created, what values the different partners have to
be able to come up with to be asked to partner in consortia that stand a good chance of success.

It is important to note that many smaller R&I countries may not have been involved in core
science projects but have gained insights through support actions. The Balkan countries have
not been truly successful in "real" science projects – but have achieved better results through
participation in Specific Support Actions (167 successful participations) and Coordination Actions
(51 participations). They have also achieved a good participation rate through Specific Targeted
Research Projects (113 STREPs), and won 37 contracts for Integrated Projects and 14 contracts for
Networks of Excellence (NoE).

The development and utilisation of new and innovative methodologies, equipment,

techniques, technologies, and cross-disciplinary approaches
In this sub-section, the role of the FPs in the development and utilisation of new and innovative
methodologies, equipment, techniques, technologies, and cross-disciplinary approaches is first
considered. The extent to which the FPs have developed expertise and knowledge in new or
declining disciplines or multidisciplinary areas is then considered.

The development and utilisation of new and innovative methodologies and of knowledge can have
important structuring effects insofar as it can allow countries to improve and develop
specialisations not previously available within the national pool of resources.

Moreover, there is evidence that interdisciplinary research activity is growing in intensity.

Interdisciplinary research collaboration can be especially important when it comes to tackling
complex scientific questions, as highly intricate problems may require input and solutions from
different disciplines. 183 The OECD suggests that interdisciplinary research supports convergence in
scientific research 184 as new fields of research emerge from traditional disciplines and these
develop a (new) mix of approaches using a variety of methods and analytical instruments. The
convergence of new fields – nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive
sciences – can lead to new industries or existing industries being transformed.

The European RTD FPs have played a fundamental part in collaborative multidisciplinary research
activities in Spain. Over the course of the previous decades, the country has experienced a wide-
scale transformation of its science and technology system during this time. This was thanks to
both domestic efforts and international influences, which called for a change in the way research
was conducted. Thus, Spain has progressively evolved towards a multidisciplinary model
undertaken by international research groups.

183
However, the traditional way of approaching research funding and the monitoring and evaluation of
research outputs is through scientific disciplines. Funding agencies can be thematic (as in the UK) or – if a
single agency is responsible for all sciences (e.g. Norway, Germany) – divided into compartments along with
their own earmarked budget for research funding. Seen from a perspective of inter-disciplinarity, set
institutional structures risk becoming barriers that separate disciplines and might cause create zero-sum
situations; where one department gains financially, another may lose.
184
OECD STI Outlook 2014

145
Indeed, overall, the impact of FP participation on the development and utilisation of new and
innovative methodologies, equipment, techniques, technologies, and cross-disciplinary approaches
is considered to have been rather high, presumably as the collaborative element is one that is
beneficial for these types of impacts, as new ideas often require inputs from multiple areas of
expertise.

In Poland, the FPs are said to have influenced participating RTOs and HEIs as regards the
equipment and the ability to apply innovative methodologies and technologies. However, the larger
interventions in terms of research infrastructures were financed through the European Structural
and Investment Funds, where public research infrastructure investment in new laboratories at
research institutes and universities were financed in the last 12 years. The FPs are nevertheless
seen as a programme that has contributed to the creation of well-equipped laboratories allowing
for the use of new methods and techniques. Likewise, in Lithuania, although some equipment
has been financed through FP projects, such as specialist industrial lasers, most equipment and
investment in improving laboratories has been financed through European Structural and
Investment Funds, with a particularly significant volume of funding in 2007-2013, but with some
further investment to improve research infrastructures in 2014-2020.

Although a considerable amount of European Structural and Investment Funds grants are
dedicated to Research Infrastructure, FP7 participation has also contributed to the improvement of
Serbian research infrastructure in science through different equipment and funding for
renovation. This especially relates to the progress in development of the IT infrastructure,
management of data, databases and information. In this respect, the REGPOT projects had the
greatest impact. In addition to Serbia, both Malta and FYROM interviewees indicate that the FPs
have helped participating institutions upgrade their RI.

In Slovenia, the FPs have also been instrumental in integrating scientific findings into industrial
processes and business operations. There is a much longer tradition of basic science compared
with applied research in Slovenia, and consequently, the transfer of research results to industry
has been lagging behind. This can also be seen in the structure of FP project partners from
Slovenia where research institutions and universities strongly dominate. Thus, the FPs’
contribution to the knowledge economy has largely been limited to knowledge transfer within the
research sector itself, rather than there being evidence of knowledge spillovers more generally.
However, as in other countries, this is closely linked to the wider question of how important FP
funding is as a total of GERD. Where the percentage is negligible, it has been much harder to
identify evidence of knowledge transfer.

It is clear however that participation in the FPs in Slovenia has helped participating research
institutions and universities to develop and introduce new and innovative methodologies,
equipment, techniques and technologies. Often this was done by transfer of technology and
experience from project partners, however, also completely new techniques, materials and
methodologies were developed, for example in the field of nanomaterials, photovoltaics and
batteries.

Similar impacts have been observed in Albanian industry. Before 2000, the Albanian economy
was dominated by the agriculture sector, the mining industry and mineral extraction such as
petroleum, natural gas and ore. Albania did not develop an innovation strategy until 2009. Long-
term FP participation has helped the country to develop a competitive garment industry through
the development of new equipment and technologies. Several projects were initiated during FP6 on
research studies relating to the garment industry, and these have continued during FP7. There is
evidence that this has had positive impacts on value chains and on strengthening the industry’s
competitiveness. Several regional projects with a special focus on SME development like COSME
have also been implemented. Today, the garment industry is a leading export sector in the
Albanian Balance of Payment.

Impact on scientific output

According to the latest UNESCO data, as a group, the EU-28 is the most productive worldwide. EU
scientists authored 432,195 scientific articles (2014), more than a third of world total (34%),
representing 847 articles per million inhabitants. As a comparison, the USA produced 321,846
scientific articles in 2014 (25.3% of world total) while China stood for 20.2%. 185

185
From the UNESCO Science Report, Towards 2030. See http://en.unesco.org/node/252282

146
Scientific output is a key metric for researchers and for institutions. For individual researchers, it is
a key metric for advancing careers, and for institutions, scientific output may be directly linked to
the allocation of block grants from national governments.

Despite the importance of the metric it can be challenging to link scientific output to specific grant
programmes (partly to do with logistics and administration). Only a small number of the 41
countries can robustly link scientific output with FP participation directly. However, a few more
countries can draw links indirectly by looking at co-authorship, internationalisation of the country’s
research base and FP participation, and then triangulate developments between these.

For example, recent data show that Greek scientific publications in international journals have
increased from 4,548 publications in 1998, to 11,138 publications in 2012 186. Moreover, in addition
to an overall increase of their influence, as measured by the relative citation impact, Greek
international co-publications went up after 2008, reaching 45% of total publications with a Greek
author in 2013, exceeding by 8% points the EU-28 average 187,188. The enhanced quantity and
quality of scientific production by Greek researchers can be also linked to work conducted in FP
projects. 189

In Denmark, national evaluations have demonstrated that the impact of participation in FPs on
citations is high. A 2015 evaluation found the impact of FP6- and, in particular, the FP7-linked
publications to be outstanding. The publications are above international citations performance
levels. The average article citation score for the FP6 publications are approximately 50% the
international benchmark level, and the score for the FP7 publications are close to 75% above the
international level. The evaluation shows that FP7-linked publications have a higher impact than
even publications linked to the Danish Council for Independent Research and the Danish National
Research Foundation, which are regarded as the Danish flagship funds for academic research.
Interviewees from the universities point out, that part of the high impact might be explained by
the fact that only the best researchers (including promising young researchers within emerging
research teams) are encouraged by universities to apply for FP funding. Their research would most
likely have a high impact regardless of where they obtain funding. The universities also believe,
however, that the international component of projects increases the impact.

This study’s Serbian report indicates that high scientific impact that can be measured by the
number of registered publication. There was a great increase of publications and Serbian co-
authors working with the international scientist during the period 2006-2012. In 2011 more than
5% of publications were the result of international cooperation, although not all can be attributed
to the FPs. In more than 35% of the scientific papers indexed in the World of Science (WoS), at
least one of the authors is a foreign author. However, as of 2012 there is a slow decrease which is
an impact of reduced financing at the national level.

In Finland, the number of journal publications, including international collaboration publications,

has also increased in the last 15 years, which can partly be attributed to FPs. The number of non-
apportioned publications of Finnish universities in the WoS database increased from 14,000 in
2000-2003, to 15,900 in 2004-2007, and to 18,400 in 2009-2012. The reference index value in
2004-2007 was 1.02 and the Top10 index value 1.01; in 2009-2012, the values were 1.08 and
1.05. However, the proportion of Finnish research out of the global total has decreased due to the
increasing publishing activity of especially Chinese and Indian researchers and research
organisations. The number of non-apportioned publications has also grown faster than the number
of apportioned publications, which indicates increasing participation of Finnish researchers and
research organisations in international research projects. This is probably partly connected to FP
participation. Internationalisation effects of the FPs have generally been estimated high, including
increased mobility of researchers and a general mentality, ‘thinking in international terms’.

The production of scientific publications in Luxembourg has increased by 10 times between 2000
and 2012 (from 90 publications in 2000 to 1,100 in 2012) and now exceeds the EU average with
2.87 publications per 1,000 of population in 2013 against 1.43 in the EU. The share of its scientific
publications is also among the top 10% most cited publications worldwide (12.4% vs EU28 11%).

186
Sahini E., Malliou N., Housos N., Karaiskos D. (2015), Greek Scientific Publications 1998-2012: Bibliometric
Analysis of Greek Publications in Academic Scientific Journals – Web of Science, National Documentation
Centre, Chapter 2.1
187
Sahini E., Malliou N., Housos N., Karaiskos D. (2015), Greek Scientific Publications 1998-2012: Bibliometric
Analysis of Greek Publications in Academic Scientific Journals – Web of Science, National Documentation
Centre, Chapter 2.6
188
Tsipouri et al. (2016), pg. 46.
189
Study interview 14 November 2016

147
If you look at Luxembourg’s top-cited scientific publications, over 70% involve a foreign co-author,
which is the highest share among OECD countries (EU average at 30.4%). This achievement is
partly due to the creation and rapid expansion of the University of Luxembourg, since one of the
ways in which it has endeavoured to improve its research capabilities has been by engaging top-
quality scientific staff, often from abroad. In 2013, 45% of the university’s staff were from
neighbouring countries France, Germany and Belgium, 19% from other EU Member States and
14% from other countries. In our assessment, participation in EU programmes has certainly been
a contributing factor in allowing Luxembourg’s research organisations to either create or
strengthen their international collaborations and has contributed to enhancing the recognition of
their researchers.

Delivering and training highly skilled researchers & Promoting the mobility of highly-
skilled researchers
This ability of FP participation to play a role in supporting the training and mobility of researchers
is largely considered to be high. Mobility of researchers is one of the five objectives of the ERA. In
practice, mobility is a difficult objective to tackle as it is interlinked with the problem of braindrain,
which is a challenge in many low- and medium-capacity countries. Geographically speaking, within
the EU-28, braindrain appears to effect central and eastern and southern European countries the
most, and in associated countries, countries in south-Eastern Europe appear to be particularly
adversely affected. The portability of Marie-Curie and ERC grants was identified as a particular
concern since this was widely seen as risking accelerating braindrain. Nevertheless, examples of
reverse braindrain measures and incentive schemes were identified, funded using other EU
programmes, such as the ERDF (e.g. EE, PT).

Without diminishing the negative effects that are associated with braindrain, the mobility of
researchers as part of the FPs plays an important role in ensuring that research is of high quality
and internationally competitive, in particular in research fields that are considered marginal within
a specific country. Unsurprisingly, the long-established MSCA scheme is particularly singled out for
having facilitated mobility, although since 2012, the ERC grants are another key instrument in this
regard.

The Marie Curie/Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions have enabled Polish researchers to work and
relocate internationally to the extent that has never before been seen in the history of the Polish
R&D system. To some extent there is also a negative side effect of such mobility. Highly skilled
researchers from Poland obtained the possibility to relocate to Western European countries. With
FP financing they have received the possibility to start their careers in the Western system, within
their hosting institutions. This has caused a brain drain effect of unknown, but noticeable scale in
the Polish research teams. It must be noted that mobility is actually resulting from the general
freedoms assured in EU treaties, FPs have however added a framework of possibilities for Polish
researchers to apply for grants with foreign companies of research institutes.

There is also anecdotal evidence as to how FP funding has enabled smaller countries to attract top
researchers to return to their country of origin. An internationally renewed Latvian scientist was
persuaded to return to his country of origin from Germany with the help of FP6 re-integration
grant “Laser Manipulation of Stochastic Molecular Processes”. This grant allowed him to establish a
Laser Centre of University of Latvia and to become the head of the “Molecular Beam laboratory”.
Having relocated to France, the same scientist returned again in 2012 with the help of FP7
REGPOT project funding. This example shows how crucial is FP financing for attracting scientific
excellence – typically national funding is too weak to retain top researchers.

The FPs have had a strong, positive effect in Greece in developing a highly trained research force.
FP participation enabled Greek research teams to recruit 190 and train a large number of PhDs and
postdocs and to provide them with technical/technological skills that could be directly exploited in
follow-up academic or private sector positions. A key benefit for the young researchers
participating in FPs was gaining confidence for their scientific capabilities, as a result of their
involvement with state-of-the-art research as members of EU wide consortia. Moreover, FP
participation had a positive effect on teaching methods in Greek Universities: the FP projects
provided a means for professors to include illustrative examples from FP research projects in order
to explain theoretical developments in formal courses, as well as to define topics for the different
projects that undergraduate students had to prepare as part of their curriculum. 191

190
Ibid, prior experience with Erasmus was a major asset, because undergraduates with scientific training from
other EU countries could be readily integrated to an international research environment
191
Ibid

148
6.3 R&I systems impacts

This section presents the findings concerning R&I systems impacts.

While the importance of supporting R&D is well established per se, the last decade has shifted
focus towards innovation as the intended outcome of research activities. This has also highlighted
the importance of a sound overall R&I system, which in turn has raised questions such as how to
best commercialise results and how to improve the framework conditions for innovation in general.
Effective framework conditions (e.g. simplification efforts, robust evaluation and peer-review
systems) are a pre-condition for creating sustainable impacts from public R&I spending, both at
national and at European level.

6.3.1 Overview of R&I systems impacts

The Table below provides an overview of the R&I systems impacts explored through the study and
of the key study findings.

Table 38 Types of impacts on the R&I system

R&I systems impacts
Types of impact Key study findings
Networking effects: • The FPs have extensively encouraged collaborations
Strengthening cooperation between the public and private sectors. Collaborative
between universities, research research models promoted at EU level and also ‘trickled
institutions down’ at national level. However, overall, sustainability
between industry and academia collaborations is less
Enhancing the research apparent
capacity, knowledge and skills
of businesses and • A key challenge is to integrate newcomers and smaller-
organisations capacity countries and facilitate open/growing
collaborations
Changing organisational • Strong positive impacts across the majority of countries, in
culture and practices particular in smaller-capacity countries with significant
(congruence model of interest in R&I
organisational behaviour)
• Smaller-capacity countries may be at risk from ‘copying’
too much of the EU/FP approach whereas larger-capacity
countries tend to take existing national organisation and
management in closer consideration
Promoting the uptake of • Examples of positive developments in a number of
advanced manufacturing and countries, which could be used as illustration for others, but
key enabling technologies there is no overall picture emerging
(KETs) among manufacturers
• A related issue is that there are some generic weakness
relating to knowledge transfer in Europe

In the last 15 years there has been extensive collaboration in Europe on R&I and relevant
framework conditions. A fair amount of the emphasis on wider conditions encompassing industry,
HE the research and public sectors, and partnerships to facilitate R&I stems from the ERA, which in
turn in is tied into wider EU policies such as the Innovation Union and the Europe 2020 strategy.
The Smart Specialisation strategies have in turn emphasised the regional dimension.

For the HE sector, the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has been a top-down driver for
reforms on higher education to facilitate autonomy for institutions, independent students unions,
academic freedom, free movement of students and staff etc.

As such, the Framework Programmes have been only one of many European drivers to promote
the development of a more effective R&I system. Nevertheless the FPs have clearly played its role
as part of the overall funding mix (and as a key instrument). The Framework Programmes have
been reflected and shaped national funding priorities and policy.

149
Figure 25 What impact of FP participation in the FPs on national R&I policies

Strengthened national IPR legal framework

4 8 9 1
(incl. through EU regulatory developments…

Greater attention to the commercialisation of

6 12 5
innovation results (incl. technology…

Greater attention to international

8 11 4 1
cooperation in research and scientific…

Greater attention to transnational

11 6 6 1
collaborative research

Realignment of thematic/ research /

12 8 5 1
scientific priorities in national R&I funding…

Strengthening the emphasis in policies on

7 10 8 1
the exploitation of research results

Strengthening innovation policy in EU and/or

9 10 3 3
Associated countries

Strengthening focus on Societal challenges 10 10 4

Excellent science through transnational

14 7 6
cooperation

Development of a European Research Area

13 4 6 1
(ERA)

Realignment of national R&I policies with

11 12 2 1
European policy priorities

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

High importance Medium importance Low importance No impact Not applicable

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

The Figure above also shows that, according to this study’s online survey of policymakers, the FPs
are seen as having had a strong impact on the realignment of national R&I systems and structures
with key EU policies. In fact, all three aspects listed in this question received a significant positive
answer with a large majority of answers in the “strong” and “some impact” categories.

The survey results also indicate that participation in FPs have also led to impacts on national R&I
policies, especially through a focus on excellent science (in turn) through transnational
cooperation. The FPs have also had a strong impact on aligning national R&I policies with EU policy
priorities. In particular, national programmes have realigned their thematic priorities to match
European funding priorities. To a lesser extent, the FPs have also had an Influence of national IPR
frameworks.

Another positive finding is that the FPs have also had considerable impact on the all of the three
following structuring impacts (all key areas of the European Research Area):

• Reform of national R&I systems and structure = 83% of respondents opted for ‘strong’ or
‘some’ impact.
• Realignment of national R&I systems and structures with key EU priorities = 80% of
respondents opted for ‘strong’ or ‘some’ impact.
• Further investment in strengthening national research infrastructures = 77% of respondents
opted for ‘strong’ or ‘some’ impact.

150
Figure 26 Impacts of the EU RTD FPs on national R&I systems and structures
over successive FPs

35

30 1 1 1
2
4 5
25 4

20 Not applicable

12 Negative
17 impact
15 15
No impact

Some impact
10

12
5
8 8

0
Reform of national R&I Realignment of national R&I Further investment in
systems and structures systems and structures with strengthening national
key EU priorities research infrastructures

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

This study’s assessment is that among the 41 countries the FPs have overall been more influential
among those small and medium-capacity countries which have worked to align their national
governance more closely to that of the EU – either in order to prepare for Accession to the
European Union or as part of an internationalisation drive more generally.

At the same time, countries with very low FP participation appear less affected by positive R&I
systems impacts, presumably as participation to date has not yielded sufficient impact to ‘spread’
beyond direct participants. For example, the B&H country report states that “neither of the
implemented projects with the BiH participation within FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 did not have
any direct systems impact on R&I sector in BiH (organisational and process related impact), and
participation in FPs is seen by BIH R&I bodies and government (at all levels) just as source of
additional limited funding that can keep the eroded and dysfunctional R&I system alive. […] By
2015, Bosnia and Herzegovina was in the category of low performance countries regarding the
participation in FP6 and FP7 bioeconomy ERANET initiatives as well as in the first ERA-NET Cofunds
of H2020, with the just 1 observer status recorded.” 192

Other smaller-capacity countries have been more proactive in investing in reform. Montenegro,
for example, has recognised the importance of participation in joint programming in research at
national and international level in order to encourage national reform. The country has been
implementing principles of joint programming in national programmes (national call for co-
financing of scientific research activities) and bilateral programmes (with EU and third countries).
Although the increase in number of newly developed measures is evident, there are some areas
which our country-level assessment has concluded could need further focus in the future, such as
the design of new instruments and measures that could contribute making a career in research
career more attractive and instruments to encourage mobility.

R&I systems impact can also be traced back to policy initiatives as well as organisational reforms
more widely. For example, the FPs has not had a prevailing impact on the national research
agenda in Albania, although they have had an impact on prioritising the research activities within
the higher education system.

Looking at the larger R&I countries, these generally acknowledge that there has been a limited
impact from the FPs on their organisation of R&I, however larger-capacity countries with a more
sophisticated approach to R&I have seen their ideas taken up by the EU and disseminated across

192
B&H country report

151
the continent more widely (for example Sweden has a long tradition of funding triple-helix
initiative as today modelled through the EIT). For large-capacity associated countries, the trends
and priorities picked up by the EU has been met by a ‘pick-and-mix’ approach. i.e. there has been
less of a convergence towards EU priorities but rather these countries have tended to engage in
areas that are of more interest to national priorities. For example, Israel is a strong FP performer
but R&I and especially innovation stems from cultural factors rather than an organised top-down
strategy (the country does not have an innovation strategy). R&I is also closely linked to military
and defence aspects.

Networking effects: Strengthening cooperation between universities, research

institutions & Enhancing the research capacity, knowledge and skills of businesses and
organisations

Universities and industry have been collaborating for many decades, but the onset of globalisation
and the emphasis on the knowledge economy has strengthened the need for strategic partnerships
that go beyond the traditional funding of ad hoc research projects. As part of the general
globalisation drive, the focus on universities’ ‘third mission’ to engage with society in addition to
teaching and research has also become a policy priority.

In order to achieve sustainable networking effects, a number of conditions should be in place. For
example, (national) policymakers need to ensure a predictable, stable environment of funding and
regulation for long-term strategic partnerships to thrive. Secondly, universities need adequate
autonomy to operate effectively and form partnerships.

The MS and AC countries are at very different points and provide a varying degree of sophisticated
support. The extent to which national and regional polices support sustainable collaboration
between the public and private sector varies considerable from ‘best practice’ to ‘poor conditions’.

Moreover, a recent report by the European University Association (EUA) which assessed the
capacity of universities to decide on issues as diverse as tuition fees, governance structures,
recruitments and salaries or language of instruction and student numbers concluded that there is
no uniform trend towards university autonomy in Europe. The report also concluded that “while
some countries have achieved a relatively high degree of university autonomy in all or most of the
four dimensions considered, there is no unique model to foster autonomy. Countries scoring high
in at least three dimensions include models as diverse as that of Finland, Luxembourg, Estonia or
the UK.” 193

The FPs provide a good opportunity to initiate and build up international R&I networks but the
Programmes are on the other hand increasingly competitive, making it difficult even for high-
quality applicants to gain access to expertise and funding. Recent European Parliament
assessments of H2020 highlight these points.

However if taking a longer-term perspective, the majority of the more established FP countries
that have had more time to cumulate experience, report a significant positive impact on
networking (as described under scientific impacts) and concrete collaborations.

Illustrative examples of this include Albania, Spain, Greece and Denmark:

• One of the most pronounced outcome of Albanian FP participation has been the strengthening
of cooperation between universities and research institutions within the country, in the region
and internationally. University management bodies have largely been and built up capability to
support participating research teams. Another significant outcome of Horizon 2020
participation has been the engagement of civil society organisations and local governments,
which are new entities with a short history in the Albanian context.
• Fifteen years ago Spanish R&D centres and universities had more difficulties in working on
international projects with international partners (they felt more “scared” about it). However,
growing participation in European FP projects has helped the Spanish R&D system to overcome
these barriers. Actually, the participation in FP programmes has generated positive ‘learning
effects’, which have created a more open and mature R&D network. For Spain, the FPs have
also facilitated improved R&I capacity at regional level (see text box below).
Information collected from interviews indicates that there are significant differences between
Spanish regions. Spain is a large country where regions may have different economic and
business structures, so R&D players are not equally distributed. Thus, participation rates and

193
http://www.university-autonomy.eu/

152
 impact levels (e.g. economic return) are not the same for all Spanish regions. In any case,
interviewees have highlighted that FP programmes have helped to create more general
coherence and balance at national level in the R&D domain. On the other hand, and according
to the Evaluation of the impact of the FP6 in the RTD public system in Spain, FP6 had an
impact on regional R&D policies, especially when defining measures and implementing
mechanisms and structures to help regional R&D agents participate in FP6 (regional
information structures, promotion and advice on FPs, financial support to prepare proposals,
etc.). Also, regional R&D programmes generally include FP participation goals; in any case,
there are significant differences among regions regarding the degree of detail and the
breakdown of these goals. Finally, according to an interview conducted with the Basque
regional Government 194, which is actively engaged in the support of regional companies in FP
programmes, there is an interesting impact derived from the FPs, that is to say, the
positioning of the region in European terms. In other words, the participation of regional SMEs
in European projects is positive for the region as a whole, because it helps making the region
known and promotes business relations, knowledge and resources exchange, etc. Thanks to
European projects, the technical and professional capacities of regional companies can be
known out of regional/national borders (it is worth noting that the Basque Country has
traditionally excelled in technological and innovation capacities in comparison to the rest of
Spain).

• FP participation has improved the role of some Greek private companies in EU RTD projects,
especially in FP7, and strengthened their links with leading Universities and Research Centres.
Through FP participation, Greek academic partners have developed advanced technologies that
could be used in an industrial / business environment. However our research equally noted
that these positive effects have not led to any significant improvements in the coordination
and management of the national R&I system. Another shortcoming is the very limited success
of Greek policy measures to promote different forms of technology and knowledge transfer
from the FPs.
• In Denmark, FP6 and FP7 have generated substantial collaboration between public and private
research organisations and has internationalised Danish research considerably. In addition, the
large number of companies that has participated in FP research activities has enhancing the
research capacity, knowledge and skills of businesses and organisations. However, these
effects are difficult to isolate and quantify as Danish developments have also contributed
towards opening up new collaborative approaches. Societal challenges have become a central
principle in Danish research and Innovation policy over the last 5-10 years and the Danish
Innovation Strategy focus on creating a closer link between research, education and innovation
in the companies, introduced “societal partnerships” and merged a number of innovation
schemes and initiatives under the Innovation Fund. This is in line with the focus on a closer
integration between research and innovation and focus on large societal challenges introduced
in EU’s Europe 2020 and Horizon 2020.

Thus, once a country’s R&I performers have sufficiently ‘broken’ into and established
collaborations that can compete for FP funding, the impacts on research capacity, knowledge and
skills become more easily obtainable.

Long-term participation can also support the development of new areas of R&I strengths. To
Israel, the EU has growing as a research partner of Israel as compared to the traditional main
research partner the USA in the last decade. With increased collaboration with the EU shift in focus
took place that must have had a more than negligible impact on the long-term impacts and
outcomes of the R&I system. In addition, particularly within H2020 there has been an increased
opportunity to work in areas other than the traditionally key ICT area such as societal challenges
related to demography and health, as well as climate change and the environment. Israeli
researchers and innovators have taken up this opportunity and as such the FPs would contribute to
shift in long-term outcomes and impacts.
Changing organisational culture and practices
Cumulatively, the FPs appears to have had a significant positive effect on organisational culture
and practices, however predominantly for public research organisations and public R&I governing
institutions. Overall, evidence showing positive effects on industry is somewhat more nuanced,
albeit possibly as R&I collaborations tend to be viewed from the public perspective more often than
from industry’s point of view.

194
Interview conducted in the framework of a previous project elaborated by this consulting team in 2013,
concerning FPs

153
In the Czech Republic, the FP has been an “essential driver for transformation and re-orientation
of the entire research system”. 195 Through participation in FP6, the Czech R&I system has adopted
a range of programmatic qualities, including the strategic and 'applied' approach to research within
priority areas, the planning horizon (e.g. adopting a 2007-2013 time horizon), and the evaluation
procedure for national research proposals.

Countries that are preparing for close association to the EU in general and the FPs specifically (as
an Associated or Third Country) often experience fairly sharp changes in organisational and
strategic behaviour over a short period of time. Interviewees agree the FPs have had a medium to
high impact on the Croatian research system, but are unable to specify concrete examples.
Rather impacts could be described as being cumulative. The FPs have brought significant financial
resources into a under-resourced R&I system. However, some Croatian institutions have resisted
the change that the FPs (and increased competition) have brought, preferring to keep the status
quo, including annual block-grants from the Croatian government. It has been the institutions (the
Ruđer Bošković Institute and the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing and the
University of Zagreb) that were quick at accepting more competitive conditions (seeking excellence
and cooperation in international terms) through the introduction of internal reforms and re-
organisation that have been most successful in the FPs.

Faroe Island’s association to FP7 and Horizon 2020 has had positive impacts on the R&I system.
The Research Council published a research strategy “Knowledge and Growth” covering the period
from 2011 to 2015 in 2011. The strategy highlights several potential improvements and the
importance of international cooperation. Other impacts include:
• Coordination. The research strategy highlights that Faroese research and development priorities
shall, when appropriate, be adjusted according to international priorities, so that Faroese
research projects become a stepping-stone to fully utilise international possibilities. When the
Research Council evaluates applications they also take into account to what extent a research
project has a chance of developing into a Horizon 2020 application.
• Application process. The Research Council has been inspired by international procedures for
applying for research funding. Today they for example ask for a data plan to accompany
applications which is something often used internationally but which the Research Council had
not even considered 10 years ago.
• Quality of applications. The Research Council has experienced a significant increase in the
quality of the applications they receive. The experience from applying for FP grants and working
with partners from other European countries has contributed to the increase in applications.

In Poland, the most visible impact of FPs on R&I system is seen in the organisation of research
units’ participation in the FP projects. Poland has in general undergone a period of
professionalization of operations on all levels. For Polish research institutions these were important
changes. For example, most of research institutes established specialised offices assisting
scientists in preparation of applications, administration of projects and assuring legal advice on IP
management and other areas. In the old system only purely basic research programmes were
funded by the Polish government, with no innovation or commercialisation perspective. In this
context it must be said that focus on commercialisation in EU FPs made the country very much
focusing on projects with high TRL. The support for basic research was over time up taken by ERC,
but these calls are highly competitive and Polish researchers have struggled to gain funding. Yet,
despite limited success, the ERC is said to have made a great contribution to excellence of science
in Poland. ERC was also a major inspiration for development of NCN, the institution responsible for
funding of basic research from national sources in Poland.

However, on the other hand, the close following of the European R&I system has meant that today
the Polish funding system is largely following what is programmed in EU institutions, instead of
providing complementary support structures. Too much mirroring of EU research priorities has
caused a move towards more applied research, which may have undermined the support of basic
sciences. Some Polish R&I actors have expressed the opinion that national funds should focus
more on basic research while FPs shall invest in commercialisation projects, as this division of
labour would be more complementarity.

In larger capacity-countries there is a more nuanced view as to the extent to which FP

participation has prompted organisational change. There has certainly been an avoidance of
copying EU priorities too closely without considerations to the national context.

195
Czech Republic country report

154
On the one hand, Finnish stakeholders interviewed for the study agree that the fundamentals of
national systems and structures have not been greatly influenced by FPs, on the other hand, there
was recognition management on the national level have been somewhat adapted according to a
‘FP model’. Finnish national funding is to some extent fitted so that it could fill the gaps between
programme periods of European funding. Funding may furthermore be tied to requirements that
originate in FPs, such as requirements of open access publishing. Reforms of this kind may have
raised system requirements, but have also improved the quality and general utility of the system.
In addition, there are attempts from Finnish funders to synchronise national and FP project
contents. Certain cumulative effects can reportedly be observed regarding for instance the
development of preparation and co-financing, national programme activities, optimising co-funding
for companies, and as a factor for the profiling and quality improvement of higher education
institutions.

The Spanish, Dutch and Irish country-level research also provide concrete example of how FP
participation has influenced organisational culture domestically. For example, the Netherlands
suggest that FP participation has led to behavioural changes for specific organisations in terms
setting an agenda for directions of research – for example, regarding research institutions that
strategically focus on FP funding rather than other types of funding.

In Ireland, participation in EU FPs has helped to drive a change both in Irish national strategy and
in the organisation and support provided. The Office of Science, Technology and Innovation (OSTI)
has been responsible for the development, promotion and co-ordination of Ireland’s Science,
Technology and Innovation policy; and Ireland’s policy in European Union and international
research activities. In particular, OSTI has worked through Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) and
Enterprise Ireland, respectively to improve Ireland’s scientific research base and develop
collaboration between industry and universities and research organisations, including with a view
to commercialising the outputs of research. Through a series of measures these organisations
continue to provide support. Since 2012 Science Foundation Ireland, for instance, has developed
Research Centres within various universities, working with research project officers. These centres
are co-funded by industry. They each have an EU coordination manager and play an important role
in identifying opportunities and co-ordinating applications to Horizon 2020 across multiple
partners. These and other support measures are a major explanatory element in the increasing
success of Irish applications for funding.

FP-facilitated collaboration not only involves researchers and/or industry working together but
increasingly policymakers are also cooperating more closely. With increased collaboration, any
differences in national processes and systems governing research become more pronounced (e.g.
administration of funding periods for research programmes or peer review processes. Article 185
collaborations, such as the ERA-NETs (described in section 5 of this report) has contributed to
positive change, particularly among smaller-capacity countries (although their participation is
significantly lower than for high-capacity countries. Further policy-related impacts are also
reported in the next section (6.4).

Promoting the uptake of advanced manufacturing and key enabling technologies (KETs)
among manufacturers

KETs are a group of six technologies: micro and nanoelectronics, nanotechnology, industrial
biotechnology, advanced materials, photonics, and advanced manufacturing technologies. KETs
are among the priority action lines of European industrial policy. The European Strategy for KETs
aims to increase the exploitation of KETs and to reverse the decline in manufacturing as this will
stimulate growth and jobs. KET technologies are fundamental in a range of products across all
industrial sectors, including eco-innovation.

KET innovation requires cross-disciplinary approaches, which are more strongly encouraged in the
FPs compared with some national schemes. In Slovenia institutions participating in the FPs have
become more cross-disciplinary and started to look around more for partners from different fields.
This has shifted the focus from basic science (often supported through national funding).
Participation in both FPs and H2020 have had a positive impact on the quality and reach of
scientific research and innovation in Slovenia, especially as it helped to develop expertise and
knowledge in new disciplines or multi-disciplinary areas, such as dementia research, research on
batteries and use of photovoltaics and research of nanomaterials. Researchers build on their
experience in project proposal preparation and project management and often continue to
cooperate with their project partners. Exchange of information and partners’ visits increases the
skills and mobility of top researchers, which then positively affects the quality of research at home.

Although Malta’s industry participation in the FPs have been low in the past, it is beginning to
increase, much thanks to collaboration with national teams from academia, both from the state

155
universities as well as from private ones. This has helped industry participants, which tend to have
very small (if at all existing) R&D teams in-house. Important areas of interest include biotech,
healthcare, pharma and IT. These homegrown collaborations have also helped to attract
government attention away from an overreliance on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), which
historically have played a major role in Malta’s economy; and to an extent FDI still does, albeit it is
also becoming more specialised to knowledge-intensive sectors.

6.4 Policy impacts

This section examines the policy-related impacts that have been observed through the country
research undertaken for this study. Although the impacts on national R&I policies might be
considered to be a kind of R&I systems impact or even a social impact, this study opted to
categorise policy impacts in their own distinct category. This reflects the extent of influence of EU
policy on countries participating in the FPs, as well as the interplay between national and EU policy
– including the influence of large R&I systems relating to the articulation of EU policy. It should
also be recognised that policy impacts are interlinked with broader societal impacts, as improved
policymaking can – and does – contribute to better societal welfare at large.

6.4.1 Overview of policy impacts

The below table provides an overview of impact types along with a summary of findings.

Table 39 Types of policy-related impacts

Policy impacts
Types of impact Overview of study findings
Contributing towards • Increased cooperation through e.g. ERA NETs and other
evidence based policy- initiatives, however dominated by larger-capacity countries
making and influencing
• Smaller capacity countries – in particular countries with
public policies and
historically lack of R&I policy – generally positive impact on the
legislation at a local,
policymaking process and understanding of R&I, including
regional, national and
capacity-building
international level
• Medium-capacity countries largely appreciate opportunity to
Transforming evidence-
streamline funding and cooperate on R&I policy
based policy into practice
and informing professional
and policy practices

The main criterion for FP funding is scientific excellence however the global objectives of the
Framework Programmes are very much policy-oriented and linked to the EU’s political priorities.
The fact that participation in the FPs has been seen by past and present Accession Countries to
facilitate European integration confirms this. Moreover, the design of FP Work Programmes and
Calls by the FP Management Committees reinforces the implementation of policy priorities.
Political developments, notably the ERA and the reinforcement of ERA goals through the Ljubljana
Process reflect this R&I policy steering process at a higher level.

At a programme level, the establishment and development of the ERA-NETs have been a key
instrument for coordination of policy within the FPs themselves along with Joint Programming
Initiatives (JPIs), Article 185 initiatives, European Innovation Partnerships and, most recently
launched under H2020, the European Joint Programme Cofund actions.

As described in section 5, the ERA-NETs are widely-used instruments, however dominated by

larger-capacity countries. An analysis of ERA-NETs from FP6 to H2020 showed that the EU-12
represents only 5% of the public funding mobilised by ERA-NETs. 196 Key issues for a lack of EU-12
commitment revolve around a lack of funding available as well as a lack of research capacity to
successfully apply for funding.

However, other long-term impacts of the ERA-NET initiative includes more policy-oriented effects,
including the establishment of international peer review as an evaluation standard, as well as

196
Niehoff (2014) The ERA-NET scheme from FP6 to Horizon 2020: Report on ERA-NETs, their calls and the
experiences from the first calls under Horizon 2020

156
successfully increasing financial integration to ensure proposal selection exclusively based on
excellence. 197

This differentiation in impacts between larger and medium-capacity countries on one side and
smaller-capacity countries on the other side observed in ERA-NET assessments, can also be found
when observing the policy-related impacts of FP participation more broadly.

As a result of the small size of the FYROM R&I system, EU policy in general, and the FPs in
particular play a central role. As FYROM is a candidate country (the EC recommending that
accession negotiations opened in 2009), the EU and the European Research Area will continue to
be influencing factors in FYROM. However R&I is currently not a high priority within the current
national government, and anecdotal evidence suggest that this has had a negative effect on R&I
policy as well as FYROM participation in the FPs (supported by eCorda data) as the country has not
prepared well for H2020 nor capitalised on early on achievements under FP6 and FP7.

Looking at the Balkan countries more generally, these ACs participated in the FPs is partially
characterised by capacity-building projects. The Western Balkan Countries have participated in
several FP projects (stemming from FP6 onwards) that have sought to strengthen and improve
public services. The Albanian research cites two projects specifically RACWEB (Risk Assessment
for Customs in Western Balkans) 198 and ELLECTRA-WEB (European Electronic Public Procurement
Application Framework in the Western Balkan Region) 199 as having had high impact in initiating
new measures and policies in the government procedures and regulations for Custom Management
and Public Procurement Management.

In Montenegro, FP participation has led to the strengthening of research capacity in the region,
including improving regional cooperation in science, research, and development, and boosting
cooperation with the private sector. Montenegro is putting efforts into aligning strategic documents
and agendas, and equally related legal acts, with the EU research agendas addressing major
challenges. The Law on Scientific Research Activity (“Official Gazette of Montenegro”, no 80/10)
defines as one of programmes of public interest those “which facilitate integration of scientific
research institutions and researchers into the European Research Area and international scientific
programmes”. Also, the SSRA 2012 - 2016 defines 10 priorities in research which are very similar
or in line with those defined in FP7 but also with a new Framework Programme for Research and
Innovation - HORIZON 2020.

Looking at the countries that have acceded to the EU during the last 15 years, EU R&I policy has
clearly helped shaped national policy developments. In Poland, participation in FP programmes
has led to the visible convergence towards EU research policy. Participation in the FPs has brought
up different topics such as the working conditions of scientists. In 2015, a change in the law was
implemented that turned most of the temporary (5 years) contracts of research personnel into
permanent contracts and, as regular evaluation by election disappears, the evaluation of the
professional performance of research personnel must now take place at least once every 5 years.
Participation in the FP programme has also brought up the issue of the low salaries of researchers,
which serves as a disincentive to participation. This issue was also raised in Lithuania and
Romania. Transnational collaborative cooperation in FP projects raises the expectation that there
will be equal treatment of scientists from different member states. Examples were provided where
since rules on the maximum salaries payable to researchers were changed in H2020, this means
that the same researcher from a new member state characterised by low researcher salaries could
be paid one-quarter or one-fifth of the amount of an equivalent researcher in a country with higher
salaries in another Member State. This is an interesting example of the law of unintended
consequences, since this reform was driven by a desire on the part of the EU to avoid the FPs
distorting the market and to ensure that the FPs do not subsidise national scientific research and
innovation.

Estonia has implemented a number of regulatory changes to improve R&I framework conditions.
For example, amendments have been made to the Aliens Act in order to change the procedures for
the allocation of work permits with the objective of making it easier for potential top-level
specialists and highly qualified employees to enter Estonia’s labour market. In addition, a number
of incentives measures have been launched to attract top-flight Estonian researchers (as well as
non-Estonian researchers that have previously studied/ undertaken research in the country) back
to Estonia through the Mobilitas Pluss Program 200, an international researcher mobility measure to

197
Niehoff (2014) The ERA-NET scheme from FP6 to Horizon 2020: Report on ERA-NETs, their calls and the
experiences from the first calls under Horizon 2020
198
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/80523_en.html
199
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/80525_en.html
200
http://www.etag.ee/en/funding/programmes/mobilitas-pluss/

157
reverse brain drain. The Estonian government and Estonian Research Council has recognised the
importance of tackling brain drain at a policy level. It was recognised that in addition to such
national incentives measures, there is a role to be played through FP participation in attracting
researchers back.

Similar to Cyprus, Malta’s participation in the FPs to date has led to drafting and relevant input to
various policy elements including strategies and guidelines. The latter have come to existence via
the use of focus groups and consultation sessions, which adopted a thematic-based approach to
the identification of low-performing and high-performing areas within the national R&I system,
which subsequently aided the development of the Smart Specialisation strategy. The latter has in
turn been of great importance for Malta’s participation in areas such as the spreading excellence
and widening participation part of Horizon 2020. These are FP initiatives that are seen to be
particularly key for smaller countries.

To many ACs, participating in the FPs have been part of broader reforms of modernisation.
Albania has a short history of democratic governments and market economy therefore the focus
of any government in the last 25 years have mainly been on emergency solutions rather than
development, social and economic prosperity. The country has only in recent years advanced in
structuring its R&I division and making it a policy and funding priority. The constant changes to
the legal framework, although inciting the redesigning and some progress in scientific research,
due to contradictory policies of former governments’ interventions did not manage to create a
stable and coherent system of research.

In contrast to the adoption of (selected) EU policy practice by smaller-capacity countries, larger-

capacity countries tend to highlight opportunities for them to influence EU policymaking.

EU membership and FP participation (in its broadest sense) are considered to have been very
beneficial to the UK. From an international perspective, UK’s influence in EU science policy is
thought to have been given the UK additional purchase in international scientific issues, such as
climate change research and policy (notably COP21). 201 Furthermore, UK space research has also
used FP participation to leverage its role internationally. In brief, UK’s role in the EU and the FPs
has attracted international research collaboration more broadly. 202 Generally, policy actors believe
that there is a good alignment between the major EU and UK science priorities including, research
into climate change, energy, antimicrobial resistance, advanced materials, and healthcare. Indeed,
although difficult to measure, the House of Lords concluded that the UK has played a key and
influential role in the development of R&I policies in the EU and in decisions relating to science and
research. 203 Strategic alignment between the EU and UK has improved over time, and has been
notable during FP6 and FP7. This increased alignment has been concluded as the result of the
evolution within the FPs, rather than changing UK priorities. “Most notably, with FP7, the
Commission extended the FP remit to include basic research, earmarking around 15% of its
budget for blue-skies research, to be overseen by the European Research Council. Elsewhere the
Commission had been experimenting with more flexible, programmatic instruments, where
participants and member states play a fuller role in determining research agendas and investment
portfolios. The European Technology Platforms and ERA-NETs are both cases in point, and there is
strong interest in the proposed Joint Programming method. Topically, successive FPs increased
support for social science research and latterly for humanities research, two areas where the UK
has strong domestic interest.” 204

Although FP participation countries with an ambitious agenda for R&I and with sufficient capacity
view there as being opportunities to influence FP design and political priorities at an EU level,
caution should be exercised in attributing changes in national R&I policy making to the process of
the degree of success in effective lobbying and contributing to the formulation of the RTD FPs
directly. Influence between national R&I policy and EU R&I policy (including the evolution in the
FPs) is not always a straight two-way system. External factors, such as international trends,
technological and societal developments also play an important role.

As section 4 has outlined – there have been a number of important developments in R&I policy in
the last 15 years, and if one attempts to trace the cause and effect of these developments, many
contributing factors can be identified. France provides an interesting illustration of the complex

201
UK House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee 2nd Report of Session 2015–16 EU
membership and UK science. Published 20 April 2016 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords. HL
Paper 127.
202
Ibid.
203
Ibid.
204
Technopolis Simmonds et al (2010) The impact of the EU RTD Framework Programme on the UK

158
interplay between national R&I systems and policies and the extent of alignment with the FPs.
France has put in place waves of policy initiatives designed to restructure its R&I system, and to
some extent at least, these have been inspired by European developments and the ambition to
build a European Research Area, as expressed through the articulation of the European RTD
Framework Programmes. However, our research suggest that it is difficult to judge exactly in how
far the changes in France’s research landscape can be attributed to their participation in the FP
programmes. It is probably questionable how much direct influence FP participation has had on the
country’s current R&I performance, where other factors such as the significant level of national
resources made available for R&I, and France’s strong competitive position internationally in many
R&I fields plays an important role. All things considered, the impact of FP involvement can
probably be said to be ‘medium’.
This assessment is echoed by the findings in Denmark, which is a country that is actively trying to
coordinate its input on the European stage in the direct attempt to improve its influence on EU R&I
policy and funding (although key aspects of current Danish R&I policy is aligned with the EU and
Horizon 2020). As with the case of France, it is unclear to what extent the development of the
Danish R&I system can be attributed to the EU and the FPs. For example, the idea that R&I policy
should be demand-driven and contribute to solving societal challenges has existed in Denmark for
many years. Nevertheless, stakeholders within the Danish political system admit to taking into
account EU priorities and structures at an early stage in the policy formulation process today. It
was moreover suggested that it is now an explicit priority to align the Danish R&I policy system to
the EU. This was not the case previously to the same extent.

The Danish assessment also appears to be applicable to Austria, where equally R&I policymakers
assess national strengths when aligning national priorities with EU policy. For example, the
Societal Challenges approach existed in Austria for some time but was reinforced at national level
when SC were also taken up as a EU priority/theme in H2020.

Ultimately, one has to be careful not to view policy influences as being a simple two-way system
where the small is always influenced by the dominating trends. Although this may be true to a
certain extent, it should equally be acknowledged that once countries have picked up a certain
amount of know-how and capacity, they become more adept at carving out their own tailored
policy.

6.5 Economic and innovation impacts from FP participation

A recent example of EU-level economic impact assessments of the FPs is the EU-level FP7 ex-post
evaluation. This estimates that, through indirect economic effects, FP7 will increase GDP by
approximately EUR 20 billion per year over the next 25 years, or EUR 500 billion in total and
create over 130,000 research jobs per year (over a period of 10 years) and 160,000 additional
jobs indirectly per year (over a period of 25 years). The analysis also found evidence of positive
impacts in terms of micro-economic effects with participating enterprises reporting innovative
product developments, increased turnover, improved productivity and competitiveness. Yet the
study equally concluded that it is too early to make a final assessment of the market impact of FP7
projects. 205

It is widely recognised that economic impacts of R&I are quite challenging to measure. As
described in section 3 of this report, this is partly due to the time delays in producing innovation
outputs, and partly due to the limited funding stemming from the FPs when compared to national
R&I budgets. Although, it should also be remembered, as section 4 has established, structural
funding is also an important alternative EU funding stream for many countries, which enables
countries and R&I performers to build up innovation performance in the longer-term.

The funding mix is not only relevant to countries that receive substantial amounts of European
Structural and Investment Funds. For Belgian actors, the FPs are only partly contributing to the
production of innovation outcomes, in addition to regional funding. Interviews underline the
impossibility of distinguishing between the FPs’ contribution and that from the other source of
funding in the successful market uptake of a product resulting from an EU co-funded research
project or the set-up of a spin-off enterprise. This is because different kinds of funding are
appropriate to different stages of the route to market. Innovation outcomes produced are not
exclusively attributable to FPs but rather to the whole research ecosystem of funding schemes.

Source: Belgium country report

205
Ex-post evaluation of the 7th Framework Programme

159
The last decade’s economic climate has also negatively affected public spending on R&I, which has
seen national innovation actors become more dependent on EU financial resources.

Although the FPs ultimately fund a large number of innovation projects, from the FP participants’
perspective, it can be difficult to disentangle individual activities undertaken as part of FP projects
from other co-funded or internal activities which equally contribute to innovation. In this regard,
one can assess the impact on innovation from the perspective of the FP – what outputs, results
and long-term impacts did the FP funding achieve or from the firm’s perspective – exploring the
role of FP support in achieving innovations.

To address the issue of innovation impacts from FP participation, there is firstly a need to define
what is actually understood by innovation. Innovation, simply defined as " a new idea, device or
method”, is a continuous process accomplished through more-effective products, processes,
services, technologies, or business models that may be readily available to markets, governments
and society. Process, innovation often referred to as the innovation focus of a company, is
challenging to measure, both at micro and macro level. Innovative firms constantly make changes
to products and processes and collect new knowledge; therefore it is difficult to measure such a
dynamic process, especially in the context of enterprise participation in Framework Programme
projects.

Importantly, innovation is not confined to the economic activities of enterprises that are able to
provide innovation outcomes to the market. A wider view of innovation is increasingly needed for
instance to assess new and experimental collaborations for promoting innovations, such as the
inclusion of public sector organisations

A wide view of innovation is particularly relevant when looking at the country sample included in
this study. Literature often addresses the R&I gap between the EU-15 and EU-13 (although
important nuances need to be pointed out as these two groups are far from homogenous) but less
is said about the heterogeneity of the MS and AC countries as a group. This latter point needs to
be taken into account as the ACs include strong innovators such as Switzerland, Norway and Israel
but equally also lower-capacity countries such as the Balkan countries.

There are few existing studies that can with reasonable certainty measure the economic impacts of
the FPs at a national level. 206 Even measuring the influence of the FPs on different types of
innovation activities (e.g. technological – organisational – social) is often a challenge. Whilst there
are examples of impacts on employment and on new spin-off firms created, those impacts solely
attributable to FP projects are difficult to identify, since many effects are indirect.

Another complicating factor is simply the lack of sufficient participation. The country level research
in Slovakia suggests that FP participation did not have a chance to significantly influence the
innovation scene in the country. There were simply too few projects to make any great impact.
What is quite interesting in the country profile is the relatively high level of enterprise
participation, something which is particularly visible in Horizon 2020, where double the number of
enterprises are applying for grants than is the case of HEIS and RTOs. Therefore, it could be
inferred that FPs are considered to be increasingly attractive by private enterprises. This has been
driven at least in part by the availability of new funding instruments in Horizon 2020, notably the
SME instrument.

A third factor at national level is that policymakers often (understandably) wish to measure FP
participation in terms of return on investment. This entails subtracting the EUR amount received
from the FPs from the country’s EUR contribution. If this is negative, it is often assumed that the
economic impact is negative. Although this is technically correct from a RoI perspective it could be
argued to be a somewhat short-sighted approach to innovation policy since there are wider
strategic benefits of participation that extend beyond the purely monetary.

Another issue – particularly pertinent when assessing multiple FP programming periods – is that
over the FP6 to H2020 the explicit objectives of the FPs have evolved from a focus that is primarily
on excellent science to one that encompasses more policy-oriented objectives and finally to one
that includes a much more substantial innovation focus. However, this latter objective was only
really put in place in 2014 with the start of Horizon 2020 and the inclusion of the Competitiveness
and Innovation Programme and its objectives within the FPs. The introduction of such instruments
as the SME Instrument in Horizon 2020 is also a good indication of such a shift, putting a large

206
This was also verified by external experts at the study workshop.

160
number of highly innovative SMEs in the centre of the Programme and making an effort to provide
funding for close to market research.

Having said this, FPs 6 and 7 also included socioeconomic objectives and aimed to promote
innovation and entrepreneurship.

Thus, one could take different views on the seemingly low levels of (measured) innovation and
economic activity that can be evidenced in the FPs.

• Some analyses and experts consider innovation outputs and outcomes from FP projects to be
disappointing. One example that may be cited is the comparatively few patent registrations
that could be directly attributed to FP7, and comparing this number – 1,200 patents – with the
total number of patents registered in Europe ever year, namely 50,000. 207
• On the other hand, one has to be careful when assessing outputs quantitatively, since this
does not reveal anything about the quality of the registered patents, nor does it measure the
income derived from the registered patents in question. Moreover, studies also show that the
FPs produced important research, which can be applied in industry sectors (e.g. healthcare,
public sector) but that these outputs/outcomes are inadequately measured in evaluations.
• One can also take the view that the key objective of the FPs is to produce high-quality
research outcomes. As such, employment outcomes and economic spillovers from the
commercialisation of research do occur, but these are secondary impacts, sometimes of an
indirect nature, that may take place years after the completion of the project.

These contextualising aspects of economic and innovation impacts are useful to bear in mind for
the subsequent sections.

6.5.1 Overview of economic impacts and impacts on innovation

The table below provides an overview of the economic and innovation impacts explored as part of
the research.

Table 40 Economic impacts and impacts on innovation

Economic impacts and impacts on innovation
Type of impact Overview of study findings
Contributing toward wealth creation • Low to medium for the 41 countries overall, however
and economic prosperity i.e. the this is partly due to a lack of evidence that robustly
creation and growth of enterprises attributes economic impacts to FP participation
and jobs; enhancing business • Positive impacts on institutional and organisational
revenue and innovative capacity behaviour are better documented and appear more
widespread
The commercialisation and • Patent output is rather low; however, current
exploitation of scientific knowledge, monitoring only provides a partial picture.
leading to the creation of new spin • Most impacts are documented in higher-capacity
out enterprises, processes, countries and/or where substantial data are available
products and service
Enhancing the efficiency, • Low to high impact predominantly based on
performance and sustainability of widespread anecdotal evidence and the circumstances
businesses/ organisations including around organisations’ FP participations. Although
public services institutional and organisational behavioural impacts
appear strong, there is very limited evidence on
widespread direct improvements to efficiency,
performance or sustainability of participating
organisations
Attracting R&D investment from • There is a lack of consistent evidence, but there is
global businesses positive anecdotal evidence, in particular, in smaller
countries

207
Figure cited at the study’s validation workshop

161
 Economic impacts and impacts on innovation
Shaping and enhancing the • As with other indicators, in particular institutional and
effectiveness of public services organisational behavioural impacts, appear to be
positive. Greater impacts tend to come from former
and current Accession Countries and from smaller-
capacity countries
Note: The High – Medium – Low categorisations of impact are qualitative assessments based on
the evidence collected in the 41 national reports.

Unsurprisingly considering the FPs historical focus on research (rather than the application of
science), our survey results of NCP/policymakers indicate that innovation impacts are considered
to be comparatively less prominent (than e.g. scientific impacts). Although a not insignificant
number of respondents indicated there have been impacts of “high importance”, in particular for
the categories ‘enhanced innovation capacity – products and services’ and in relation to the
organisation of innovation.

The FPs have also had a positive impact on “enhancing innovation capacity” and “development of
breakthrough technologies” which are the effects that have been rated as having the largest share
of high and medium impact among all the possible types. “Exploration of IPR” and “uptake of
innovation by end users” are on the opposite end of scale, i.e. are considered to have had a lower
impact.

Figure 27 Main impacts discernible as a result of participation in FP projects on

innovation at national level

Greater take-up of innovation by end-users 3 8 8 4 2

Cross-fertilisation of innovation between sectors 4 5 8 6 2

Sectoral-wide innovations/ innovations in value-chains 5 9 7 3

Increased value creation (e.g. through enhanced

5 8 9 3
labour productivity)

Higher level of long-term investment in R&D activity 5 9 8 2 1

Attracting R&D investment from global businesses 5 9 8 2

Enhancing the organisational efficiency, performance

6 7 9 2 2
and sustainability of public sector organisations

Enhancing the organisational performance and

6 7 11 1 1
sustainability of businesses

Exploitation of IPR (e.g. patents and licenses) 4 7 11 2 1

Development of breakthrough/ disruptive technologies 3 14 6 2 1

Enhanced innovation capacity – products and services 7 10 8 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

High importance Medium importance Low importance No importance Not applicable

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

162
The survey results indicate a stronger impact on the question of spillover effects. The Framework
Programmes are considered to have been a general positive influence on national R&I and FP
projects have facilitated the creation of (some) innovation spillovers both at national and at
regional level (see the below Figure).

Figure 28 Extent of innovation spillovers at national and regional level from FP

projects

35

30

25 15

20
Regional level
15
National level
10
5 17
3
5
6 5
0
There have been strong There have been some There have been no
innovation spillovers innovation spillovers innovation spillovers

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

The subsequent sections will provide the findings for the main impact indicators covered in this
study.

Contributing to wealth creation and economic prosperity i.e. the creation and growth of
enterprises and jobs; enhancing business revenue and innovative capacity

Contributing to wealth creation and economic prosperity is a global objective of the FPs, but is also
particularly underlined in the EU2020 strategy, which underpins the Horizon 2020 Programme.

A recent EU-commissioned study carried out by Robert Madelin highlights many aspects of wider
innovation thinking and, among other things, points out the necessary involvement of public
agencies and the role of regulation (the need to embed innovation in regulation) in facilitating
innovation in Europe. It acknowledges the weaknesses of the linear model of innovation and the
over-reliance on the input-output model, which risks undermining our understanding of real
innovation needs. 208 These conclusions also echo those of Prof Mazzucato whose research
highlights the active role of the state in creating innovation and economic growth. 209

This discussion has also arisen in recent assessments of H2020 commissioned by the European
Parliament, which concluded that “[a]lthough at both EU and national level, the definition of
innovation is slowly broadening, several of our interviewees thought that Horizon 2020 still (over-
)emphasised technological innovation, including steering too close to the idea of the linear model
of innovation, which was considered to work more effectively for highly R&I intensive regions in
Europe than for low-medium-capacity institutions and regions. It was felt that insisting that the
linear model is the right approach for all European regions was counter- productive.” 210

The widening of the innovation concept is not just a challenge for smaller-capacity countries, since
the traditional dichotomy between research and innovation has remained an obstacle in more
established countries (at least during the FP6 and FP7 periods). Our research in Italy found that
university-industry cooperation remained limited and Italian participation in FP6 and FP7 was
considered to depend on a two-speed system, consisting of:

• Top-performing R&D institutions/enterprises that are internationally recognised; and

208
European Commission (2016) Opportunity Now: Europe’s Mission to Innovate
209
Mazzucato (2013) The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs. private sector myths
210
European Parliament (2016) Horizon 2020 EU framework programme for research and innovation European
Implementation Assessment

163
• A large base of participants whose potential; contribution, although valuable cannot be
demonstrated in responses to the calls.

In terms of the country-level findings on the extent that the FPs contribute toward wealth creation
and economic prosperity, medium- and larger-capacity countries are more likely to agree that this
is positive. However, from a national perspective, the economic impact of the FPs is generally
considered to be ‘marginal’ or ‘minor’, but as the following country examples indicate, this does
not mean that impacts are ‘unimportant’:

In Sweden, our research assessed the overall economic effects as marginal. This is also in line
with other assessments of Swedish FP participation. However, a 2008 study did conclude that the
FPs have had economic impacts in e.g. the solar energy area. The effects of Swedish participation
in FP6 and FP7 on innovation are considered marginal partly due to the fact that innovation first
became an explicit part of the FPs with H2020. Another reason is the Swedish structure of
industry. In Sweden, it has been industry, with high R&D investing multinational corporations
(MNCs), rather than the research community that has been the driver towards innovation. The
added economic value of the FPs for the knowledge intensive MNCs is marginal in that the FP
funding only makes up a fraction of their total R&I investments. This together with the Swedish
Paradox (claiming that a large amount of innovation funding is resulting in a low innovation
output), leads to the statement that the impact of Swedish FP participation on innovation is seen
as low.

A similar ‘marginal effect’ could be concluded for Switzerland. For Switzerland, the innovation
impact produced by the FPs is relevant but limited in absolute terms and difficult to quantify. A
positive impact was identified in specific phases of the innovation process and at a political level.

A third example of the marginal effect can be found in Luxembourg. Our conclusion here is that
national funding tends to cover domestic needs. In Luxembourg, there is a clear political will to
provide support for business innovation, and developments in this field in recent years appear
rather to be the result of substantial national backing than demonstrating an impact from
European project participation. The Government provides extra support for private sector research
and additional funding for projects involving experimental development, industrial design and
fundamental research in collaboration between an SME and a CRP.

Large industry also contributes to the funding mix. Innovation impact is said to be a visible part of
FP participation in Liechtenstein. Sixteen of the seventeen projects that were undertaken with EU
funds dealt with innovation (in various industry-related contexts). However outcomes and impacts
could only be ascribed to two projects in FP7. The impacts of other projects (FP6 as well as FP7)
and the innovation they generated happened within the wider international context of the big
industry players. These were mostly funded through large industry and therefore cannot really be
ascribed (exclusively) to Liechtenstein’s FP participation. General innovation processes related to
the FPs will continue in Liechtenstein. However, Liechtenstein’s decision not to take part in Horizon
2020 will influence future activities especially for SMEs.

In terms of more concrete examples, there are other pertinent country-level findings, commonly
described in the EU-15 in particular:

• FP participation has improved the role of some Greek private enterprises in EU RTD projects,
especially in FP7, and strengthened their links with leading Universities and Research Centres.
One important weakness comes from the very limited success in Greece in implementing policy
measures to promote different forms of technology transfer. Thus, the main benefits from FP
participation are linked to knowledge creation and training that have contributed to an
improved R&D quality in Greek public and private sector organisations. FP projects had the
effect of multiplying the Master and PhD positions in the Greek Universities and Research
Centres, offering intensive formal and on-the-job training for young researchers, as well as
networking opportunities with EU partners. On many occasions, the graduates of these
programmes have been offered follow-up positions, including post docs, or permanent posts in
academia and business. FP participation contributed, therefore, to brain circulation, but under
the current economic conditions the Greek public and private organisations cannot offer
attractive employment conditions to repatriate this very skilled work force.

• In Germany, FP participation is generally considered to have had a significant and positive

effect on employment since the projects often contribute to the creation of new jobs in the
research field. One interviewee estimates that at least 10% to 15% of long-term employment
opportunities in research have emerged out of the FP projects over the years.

164
• Spain recorded a significant decrease in the number of innovative enterprises, particularly
among enterprises based on technological innovation, from 30,000 in 2009 to 16,000 in 2013.
This reduction, which was visible in all sectors, has caused drops in innovation funding and the
production of innovation outcomes of over 46% on average (CES, 2015).
• In Denmark, the perceived effect on innovation is high with 49% of participants in FP6 or FP7
projects answering that their participation has led to the launch of new products or services.
18% of the participants have submitted patent applications and 46% have employed additional
knowledge workers. Despite this, the 2010 evaluation of Danish Participation in the 6th and
7th framework programmes finds that the innovation impacts are smaller than the participants
expect. Since most of the research under the FP6 and FP7 is pre-commercial research, the
study concludes that this is not surprising. 211 Still, even the participants that stress the
importance of commercially oriented outputs find the innovation impacts to be smaller than
expected.

The Danish evaluation of FPs 6 and 7 looked at the perceived and statistical economic effects of
participating in FPs. It found that FP6/FP7 enterprises are highly unusual compared to the
average Danish enterprise. On average, they gain about 40% of their revenue through exports,
grow revenue at a fast pace and employ many highly-skilled workers. Large enterprises
participate frequently in FP6/FP7 and the largest share of participants is found in the following
industries: manufacturing, professional, scientific and technical activities. EU programmes are an
integral part of the overall landscape for public funding of research and innovation in Danish
enterprises; half of the enterprises participating in FP6 and FP7 have also participated in the
Danish R&I system. Danish enterprises participating in FP6 and FP7 perceive funding of activities
that would not otherwise have been implemented as the most important effect, closely followed
by cooperation with foreign universities and research organisations and access to new knowledge.
FP6 and FP7 thus seem to have a high attribution effect. The perceived effect on innovation is
also high. Just under half (49%) of the participants in FP6 or FP7 projects answer that their
participation has led to the launch of new products or services. Moreover, 18% of the participants
have submitted patent applications and 46% have employed additional knowledge workers.

• In Ireland, participation in FP7 produced a number of tangible research commercialisation

outputs. The evaluation referred to above estimates that around 228 patents specific to
Ireland were generated from FP7 and, according to Knowledge Transfer Ireland, there were 13
spin-outs which had an EU-funding component (not necessary all related to FP7).
• 52% of FP participants surveyed in Norway fully or partly agree that their project contributed
to innovation, 34% that it has increased their knowledge on new R&D markets, and 13% that
it has increased their knowledge on patenting or protection of intellectual property. 5% fully
agree that the project has changed their way of doing research and innovation, and 22%
partly agree. The country focus on EU FP participation is seen as a way to boost Norwegian
R&I system innovativeness in general. The government makes significant efforts to facilitate
participation of the country in current FPs.

The commercialisation and exploitation of scientific knowledge, leading to the creation

of new spin out enterprises, processes, products and services

FP‐funded research projects have reported over the years a large numbers of patents, innovations
and micro‐economic benefits. The available evaluations from FP6 and FP7 operate mostly with IPR,
including patents as the most common and reliable indication of innovative outcomes.

An indicator of the FP’s contribution to European competitiveness is the development of

protectable IPR. In this regard, the overall number of IPR claims registered and emanating from
FP7 projects is around 1,700 (February 2015). Registered IPR concerns mainly patent applications
(83%), however, trademarks, utility models and registered designs are also prevalent. Copyright
(including software copyright), of course, is not registered. Recent analyses suggest that the real
number of patents is higher than the number reported and the real new knowledge gained equally
much higher than the number of registered patents suggests. 212

211
DASTI (2010) Evaluation of Danish Participation in the 6th and 7th framework programmes
212
Ex‐Post‐Evaluation of the 7th EU Framework Programme (2007‐2013)

165
The ex-post evaluation of FP7 provides the following numbers, which can be seen as one indicator
of the innovation impact of this particular FP:
• Patent applications 2,435 213
• Commercial use of R&D results 9,048 214

FP7 participants report an increase in their turnover and profitability, a rise in productivity, an
increase in market share, obtaining access to new markets, reorienting their research, technology
and innovation strategies and also their commercial strategies, investing significant funds
themselves and coordinating that in the larger context, and improving their competitiveness

It should be noted that Horizon 2020 projects, many of which are still in their very early phases,
have not yet produced large numbers of publications or patents.

The countries with largest EU funding in the historical Framework Programmes naturally produced
the highest number of IPR results that can be associated with innovation and that are seen as a
direct expression of innovation impact. This group includes countries with EC contributions to
implemented projects of over EUR 1 billion and above 40 reported IPRs resulting from FP7
participation. The initial years of Horizon 2020 participation are not taken into consideration in this
context since the time span between projects funded and IPR registration is not sufficient to allow
innovation impact to be registered in databases. Simultaneously, historical data from other FP6
projects are very similar, listing the biggest EU economic impacts as FP participation and IPR
production. There are however differences between countries in this group. A clear leader in terms
of produced IPR outcomes is Germany, registering almost twice as many IPRs as the second
country (France).

Germany has a higher than average level of innovation funding at the national level and a high
output in terms of patent applications. According to a national report into the impacts of FP6, it is
a firmly held belief amongst scientific personnel that this level of patent application is at least in
some part due to FP participation. 215 Interviews confirm that FPs have had a significant and
positive impact on innovation. Enterprises particularly were able to secure a substantial amount of
the funding from FP6 and FP7 which translated into an increase of innovation. Lower success rates
and high competition in Horizon 2020 applications have led to the view that less German
enterprises will try to apply for funding in the future, which could in turn have a detrimental effect
on the innovation results from the FPs.

Similarly, a long-term assessment in the UK – another innovation leader – concluded that FP

participation has provided longer-term benefits and impacts. Generally, the majority of FP
participants taking part in the study indicated that the FPs have had a “significant and positive
impact on their knowledge base and technological capabilities.” 216 This appears to be particularly
true for SMEs – which may not possess sufficiently broadly-based in-house expertise for achieving
new innovations. Most UK business participants stated that their involvement had yielded
“important commercial benefits”. More specifically, approximately 20% of businesses stated that
their participation “had made significant contributions to the development of new products and
processes”. Ten per cent of cases organisations reported “increased income and market share”. 217

Although predominantly, positive impacts on the creation of new spin out enterprises, processes,
products and service have tended to come from the large- and medium-capacity countries (and in
particular from those countries where precise data were available), there is also anecdotal
evidence from smaller capacity countries:

For example, Lithuania has been recently successful at developing a presence in niche areas such
as lasers, biotechnology and ICT. SMEs, particularly those specialising in bio- and laser
technologies, tend to be the most successful in terms of funding. This can be seen with regard to
the new SME instrument, introduced in (Horizon 2020).

Icelandic participation has equally opened up new areas of research, for example, with regard to
food processing and healthcare – in turn, these areas have created new industries which will have
created new jobs.

213
Excluding ERC, 2 140 from eCORDA extracted on 19/8/2016 and 295 from DG CONNECT
214
Excluding ERC, 7 794 from eCORDA extracted on 19/8/2016 and 1 254 from DG CONNECT.
215
German Participation in the Sixth European Framework programme for Research and Technical
Development, p7
216
Technopolis Simmonds et al (2010) The impact of the EU RTD Framework Programme on the UK
217
Technopolis Simmonds et al (2010) The impact of the EU RTD Framework Programme on the UK

166
Similarly, in Romania participation is a source of inspiration for future research directions
(disaster management, speech rehabilitation and logaoedic assistance) and FP-generated research
has been introduced to some new master courses which have emerged from research carried out
under FP7 projects. One major project under FP7 promoted by the Faculty for Automation from the
Bucharest Polytechnical University carried out during 2010-2013 resulted in a registered national
patent and a spin off which applied later for national financing and also a perceived increase in the
quality level of research in terms of number of articles published in high impact ISI magazines.

An important point raised through the Polish country research but equally applicable more widely,
is that in 2012 the work productivity in Poland was three times lower than EU-27 average, four
times lower than in the Nordics and finally 20% lower than on average in the region. In 2010 less
than 30% of all enterprises above 10 employees were considered to be innovative. On the other
hand, between 2002–2012 work productivity rose on average 3.4 % per year – being the highest
in the entire sample. In the context of innovation this might indicate that even if the economy is
largely underdeveloped, a fast modernisation process is taking place that is actually supported by
wide uptake and the adaptation of enterprises. This is associated with considerable spending on
new production equipment, technologies, licences and patents. This issue is illustrated in the next
sub-section, namely that lower-capacity innovation countries may still benefit from participation,
even though these effects tend to be less tangible.

Enhancing the efficiency, performance and sustainability of businesses/ organisations

including public services & shaping and enhancing the effectiveness of public services

The biggest, but most indirect impact related to innovation reported in the absolute majority of the
41 countries in this study relates to the opportunity created to cooperate and exchange ideas with
partners in FP projects. This international co-operation leads to general development in the way
research is conducted and creates a focus on innovation in the institutions engaged.

In many countries, longer-term participation in FPs has played an important role in opening R&I
performers to new ideas, technologies and processes, and international scientific discussion,
always influences the way people think and act. Although intangible, this is an important
behavioural impact with the potential to affect the way in which innovation is organised.

For many smaller-capacity countries, direct innovation impacts are often not adequately reported.
However the general perception is that the FPs have largely influenced the mentality of
researchers and innovators and shaped the entire way of thinking about innovation that had
previously not existed in many low-capacity countries. The EU and FP practice of promoting the
triple- and/or quadruple helix for example is a key idea which is taking root in smaller-capacity
countries, including the Balkan countries, but other innovation-promoting activities have also been
stimulated:

• FYROM’s participation in H2020 appears to suggest that innovation activities within the
private sector are still at a low level and are characterised by capacity-building (partly through
the Enterprise Europe Network) and innovation management rather than direct innovation
activities. Having said this, if one looks at innovation activities more broadly, FYROM has
successfully created – largely through FP7 projects – a number of interesting foundations for
innovation in several of its key sectors – and partly aligned with the KBBE theme of FP7 (Food,
Agriculture, Biotechnology). 218
• Available data show there has been a significant impact on innovation since Croatia started
the process of joining the European Union. However, the concrete impacts of FPs have not
been clearly determined as these changes are seen as consequences of involvement in
European affairs in general. This is understandable given the late accession of Croatia to the
EU and the significant changes that European funds brought to all spheres of society. In
Croatia, the FPs had a high impact in stimulating cooperation between science and the
business sector through FP6 and FP7 funded projects called SME Associations, where research
and technology organisations transfer knowledge to SMEs. Participation in such programmes
has contributed to an increased absorptive capacity on the part of Croatian SMEs.
Organisations from Croatia have benefitted from scientific opportunities that have arisen from
the successful participation of Croatian scientists in FP programmes. Scientists and institutions
have profited from international knowledge accumulated in FP and Horizon projects and
ensured quality and excellence of knowledge produced. In this way the FPs have had a high

218
FYROM country report

167
 impact on enhancing the research capacity, knowledge and skills of participating organisations
– scientific and research institutes, as well as enterprises. 219

Looking at the development of EU-13 and the current Accession Countries from a more general
level, it is also possible to point to contributions from the FPs as part of the overall political process
of becoming an EU Member State. In Poland, the country’s EU accession process has had
profound effects on the economy overall and the although the FPs have played a part in this, other
European programmes, notably the European Structural and Investment Funds have had a more
prominent role. On the other hand, FPs projects have generated some spin-offs or spin-outs from
RTOs and industry participation in the process. However, the reporting and evaluation system is
not able to track this change, in terms of survival rates, employment or turnover.

In Slovenia, a key impact of the FPs has been the change in the mentality of the research sector.
While research was at the core of their work in the past, not much attention was paid to actively
and systematically encouraging innovation. FP participation has changed this, as innovation has
become a more important part of research, and the understanding of innovation, patent
registration, and the innovation cycle in general has increased. As participation of Slovenia in FP6
was limited, the change largely occurred in FP7 and is now further stimulated through H2020, thus
innovation levels are likely to increase further. SME participation in H2020 is above expected and
this can be at least partially explained by the competitiveness of Slovenian SMEs: as the country is
rather small, Slovenian SMEs have to compete on the global market if they are to grow (and in
some sectors even just to sustain their activities) their business and innovation is an important
factor for outperforming the competition on the global market.

Although the general public budget or the budgets of Moldovan organisations do not include a
specific financing line for innovation, interview data indicate that innovative approaches in different
sectors of the national economy have been implemented mostly as a result of participation in FPs,
including technology solutions and new technologies. Other actors, such as UNDP and national
programmes administered by the Academy of Sciences and the Agency for Innovation and Transfer
of Technologies have also influenced innovation creation. The FPs have been generally led to a
high internationalisation effect. The programmes have helped to improve performance and
enhanced the country’s human development. All these opportunities would be impossible for
Moldovan science, with the little public funding allocated to science and research by the state.
Equally, a representative of the scientific community mentioned the new knowledge acquired as an
important effect of Moldovan participation in FPs. In particular, in the management of scientific
activities, marketization of scientific results, access to external scientific evaluations. A long-term
outcome and positive impact is the change in mentality, corporate culture, management, and work
style.

Attracting R&D investment from global businesses

The Croatian business sector has increased its R&D expenditures, and for the first time in 2013
this has exceeded the share of R&D funding provided by the Government sector. This could be
partially attributed to the availability of EU funding for the business sector, primarily through the
support measures implemented by HAMAG-BICRO. Programmes administered by HAMAG-BICRO
(previously BICRO) were the subject of an ex-post evaluation in 2013 and it was concluded that
these had a significant impact on the development of research and innovation infrastructure in
Croatia, as well as on the development of research projects and innovation activities of both
research organisations and SMEs. Available data show there has been a significant impact on
innovation since Croatia started the process of joining the EU. However, the concrete impacts of
FPs have not been clearly determined as these changes are seen as consequences of involvement
in European affairs in general.

Historically, Malta has relied heavily on Foreign Direct Investment and is increasingly making use
of this experience and applying it to the R&I sector. Malta Enterprise has, with the help of ERDF
funds, recently established the Malta Life Sciences Park, which is also building on the country’s
knowhow built up through the FPs.

Italian interviewees agree that the international competition gained through the FPs have
provided benefits to the Italian R&D system by stimulating a sort of specialisation. For example,
Italy has achieved some important successes in the fields of nanotechnologies, aerospace and
human capital sciences. The opinion of interviewees is that the Italian academic R&D system has
benefited from the competition created during the 6th and 7th Framework Programmes. The

219
Croatia country report

168
university system has reorganised its managerial and organisational skills to support consortium
creation and drafting competitive tenders and new professional roles dedicated to the business
development were created. For example, nowadays, most universities have an office dedicated to
EU funds and EU opportunities. In addition, according to some interviewees, the international
exposure and the international mobility of researchers have increased the quality of publications
and of the R&D output in general terms.

6.6 Societal impacts from FP participation

Although historically, R&I evaluations have focused on measuring scientific outputs and impacts,
an increasingly wide-spread interest and political necessity to assess broader societal returns of
R&I spending has led to the scope of research evaluations becomes to also include societal
products (outputs), societal use (societal references), and societal benefits (changes in society) of
research. For funding agencies like Tekes (Innovation Agency) in Finland, assessing the impacts of
research and innovation is important for determining its contribution to the societal challenges and
public objectives and understanding the impacts and their interactions helps the agency make
strategic choices in R&I.

6.6.1 Overview of societal impacts

As the below Table also indicates, the concept of societal impacts can be defined very widely and
cover inter alia assessment of social, cultural, environmental, and economic returns (unless
evaluated in a separate category) from results or products of publicly funded R&I.

Table 41 Types of societal impacts

Societal impacts
Types of impact Overview of study findings
Tackling societal challenges (as set out • Clearly the EU has taken a lead in promoting a
in the Horizon 2020 objectives, e.g. challenge-based approach to R&I. This has partly
climate change, an ageing population) stemmed from initiatives originally developed at
Enhancing cultural enrichment, quality national level (e.g. AT, UK), however the fact that
of life, health and well-being the EU has taken ownership has helped
Improving social welfare, social implement the approach more widely. In
cohesion and/or national security particular health, climate change and environment
are mentioned as key areas.
Contributing toward environmental • Although impacts are partly intangible, anecdotal
sustainability, protection and impact evidence indicates positive impact on both policy
reduction (e.g. through more and the development of new green technologies.
sustainable use of raw materials
Contributing to increasing public • Science in Society and MSCA Researchers’ Night
awareness and understanding of provides some positive anecdotal evidence.
science, economic and societal issues
Source: RCUK adapted by authors

The below Figure – showing the absolute number of responses (multiple responses allowed)
received in the study’s survey of NCP and policymakers – provides an overview of the responses
for wider socioeconomic impacts. The impacts defined broadly as “economic”, “social” and
“environmental” overall received fewer responses than other more defined scientific and innovation
impacts, suggesting respondents may find them difficult to gauge.

169
Figure 29 The extent to which national participation in the FPs have had
positive economic, social and environmental impacts at national level

Improved environmental regulation/regulatory framework 4 4 4 7 6 5 2

Enhanced technical and scientific capacity to address environmental

3 4 9 8 3 6
problems and challenges

Increased public awareness and understanding about environmental

2 4 8 7 5 6 1
issues (e.g. climate change, noise, air pollution)

Contribution to environmental sustainability, protection and impact

2 3 6 11 5 6
reduction

Enhanced quality of life, health and well-being 2 2 5 8 5 5 2 2

Environmental impacts 2 3 2 5 4 2 3

Improved use of evidence-based policy making 3 2 5 5 8 6 2 1

Public understanding of science 2 1 7 8 6 4 2 2

Improved policy making 4 2 7 6 5 6 11

Strengthened capacity to tackle societal challenges (e.g.

3 4 7 5 7 4 3
demographic ageing, climate change)

Social impacts 2 4 1 5 4 2 2

Strengthened ability of firms to access national R&I funding 4 3 5 6 4 5 1 4

Strengthened ability of firms to access other types of relevant EU

2 3 6 7 5 7 11
funding

Strengthened ability of firms to access FP funding 4 2 10 5 3 3 2

Strengthened firm competiveness 1 2 7 7 6 8 2

Active IPR management and exploitation 3 3 3 8 6 5 2

Strengthening of value chains 2 3 6 9 7 3 4

Strengthening of sectoral clusters 3 4 6 8 6 3 1

The commercialisation of research results 1 3 4 6 10 6 2 1

Employment creation across non-R&I sectors 1 4 3 5 6 8 3 1

Employment creation in the research and innovation fields 1 3 9 5 10 3 11

Economic impacts 2 4 3 6 4 4 11

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Strong direct impact Strong indirect impact Medium direct impact Medium indirect impact
Low direct impact Low indirect impact No impact Not applicable

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

170
Although the response rate is less than ideal, overall this question reveals some differences in
terms of country responses, which also tie in with the research findings stemming from the
national researchers’ work at country level:

Medium-capacity countries suggest they have observed an overall strong or medium impact for
employment creation (direct and indirect), in contrast to smaller-capacity countries that tended to
state that direct and indirect impacts on employment creation have been low. Only Bulgaria
suggested the FPs had contributed to strong indirect impact on employment creation nationally.

The remaining parts of this section will now focus on the country report synthesis.

Tackling societal challenges & Enhancing cultural enrichment, quality of life, health and
well-being & Improving social welfare, social cohesion and/or national security
Although FP6 and preceding Framework Programmes were organised around disciplines, FP7 and
Horizon 2020 include areas that are directly address transnational societal challenges, e.g. R&I in
the area of energy, ICT, environment, health, food safety, climate change, and security, which
addresses societal challenges that could not have been fully resolved by single countries alone. In
the opinion of some countries, including the UK, DE and AT, the Nordic countries, this approach
has been complementary with and helped reinforce activities carried out at national level. In the
eyes of the UK, societal challenges approaches are advantageous as they are more inclusive and
multi-disciplinary than singe discipline funding, and thus avoid creating a zero-sum game, where
some disciplines lose out, while others receive funding.

Most other countries tend to agree that the FPs address research and innovation topics relevant to
wider society, for instance, on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine and resources’ efficiency. In
Moldova, the FP7 projects RERAM and Ener2i resulted in the familiarisation of the scientific
community, public authorities, businesses and citizens on energy efficiency measures and
possibilities for saving energy resources. The Government plans future improvements to the
innovation framework.

But ultimately, it is difficult to quantify (and attribute) societal impacts to FP participation directly.
Rather there seems to be a consensus that EU policy – through tools like the FPs and Structural
Funding influence and support positive change.

Table 42 Focus on societal challenges

The 2009 Lund Declaration from 2009 stated that European research must focus on the “Grand
Challenges of our time, moving beyond rigid thematic approaches”. Grand Challenges – a concept
largely interchangeable with the term Societal Challenges – involve a combination of major public
and private interests, key for realizing future economic growth. As such, Grand Challenges are not
to be defined, assessed or solved by any single scientific or technological discipline or within one
specific sectorial policy framework. They therefore require new policies, new governance models,
new innovation solutions and strategies and new investment models. The tackling of Societal
Challenges has been an objective of all FPs included in the scope of this study, but the objective
has become increasingly ambitious and articulated under Horizon 2020. This development towards
a focus on Societal Challenges is clearly reflected in the EU-28, the EEA countries, and to a lesser
extent the remaining 10 Associated Countries.
Societal challenges have become a central principle in Danish research and Innovation policy over
the last 5-10 years. It was one of three central components of the innovations strategy, The
INNO+ research catalogues identifies concrete and important societal challenges and serves as a
tool to priorities Danish research and innovation policy and initiatives. Further, the Innovation
Strategy focus on creating a closer link between research, education and innovation in the
companies, introduced “societal partnerships” and merged a number of innovation schemes and
initiatives under the Innovation Fund. This is in line with the focus on a closer integration between
research and innovation and focus on large societal challenges introduced in EU’s Europe 2020 and
Horizon 2020. Thus, important aspects of the Danish innovation policy and focus of the R&I system
is aligned with the EU and Horizon 2020. However, it is unclear to what extent the development of
the Danish R&I system can be attributed to the EU and the FPs. The idea that the research and
innovation policy should be demand driven and should contribute to solving societal challenges has
existed in many years. Representatives from the political system have highlighted in the interviews
that EU priorities and structures are taken into account at an early stage in the policy formulation
process today and that it is an explicit priority to align the Danish research and innovation policy
and system to the EU. This was not the case previously to the same extent. While representatives
from universities and private companies agree that EU priorities are taken into account to a larger

171
degree today than previously they argue that Danish policy is formulated first and then adapted to
EU policies and priorities to the extent possible afterwards.
Contributing toward environmental sustainability, protection and impact reduction

Although another societal impact that is difficult to attribute to Framework Programme

participation, the majority of countries tend to agree the FPs have played a positive role, albeit
mostly indirect. As a minimum, FP environmental themes and calls – and the FPs have a long
traditional of supporting environmental research – have strengthened national efforts in the area.
For smaller-capacity countries (and countries with less of a record of environment protection) the
FPs have contributed to dissemination of good practice. In brief, one can discern two types of
environmental impact at national level – on policy and on the development of new green
technologies.

As for green innovations, participation in FP programmes has been important for the Faroe
Islands’ marine research community. Participation in FPs has also increased focus on climate
change in the projects the Havstovan Faroe Marine Research Institute has been involved in and
the research they have conducted. This is due to the strong focus on climate change in the FPs. In
Sweden, the FPs have also had an impact on the commercialisation of solar cells, which in turn
could be thought to have an impact on the usage of clean energy. In addition, a Swedish
evaluation study from 2008 suggested there have been positive effects of the FPs on the state of
knowledge regarding sustainable energy in Sweden. Access to, and commercialisation, of
environment technologies, such as low CO2 emission technologies, renewable energies, and water
treatment technologies, has also been an important impact for Hungarian companies.

In terms of policy impacts, Turkey has been experiencing environmental pressures due to
population growth, industrialisation and rapid urbanisation. These pressures translate into a range
of environmental challenges such as climate change, desertification, deforestation, water scarcity,
nature degradation and marine pollution. To address these challenges, Turkey has adopted new
legislation and institutional practices as part of an effort to comply with the EU environmental
acquis. The clearest environmental impacts are produced by FP-funded environmental research. As
a result, Environmental sustainability, protection of environment and natural resources become
one of the national research priorities.

Environmental policy has also been grown in importance in Malta. Malta has signed to be one of
the contracting parties to the Barcelona Convention to which Horizon 2020 has been launched as
the instrument to reduce pollution substantially by 2020. In terms of participation, Malta has
participated in nine environmental projects during the period of FP7 and to date has participated in
already six Horizon 2020 projects showing an increase in participation in this thematic area over
the past years. This might be a result of Malta’s involvement in various environment policy related
initiatives towards a more sustainable Europe.

In Serbia there has been a general lack of strategies, programmes or incentives on the
governmental level on environmental policies targeting SMEs or NGOs. This situation has in a way
created an incentive for the progressive Serbian teams to look more intensively for the other
sources of financing and participation in international trends. Serbian organisations have been part
of consortia in 20 FP7 projects, although only in one had a role of coordinator.

However much of the country-level research acknowledge that real the impact is intangible to
many stakeholders. It is widely accepted that FPs have made a difference regarding the
environment by setting the agenda and establishing the importance of environmental issues; since
environmental challenges are a great part of the FPs, this can be thought to have an impact on
research topics.

Contributing to increasing public awareness and understanding of science, economic and

societal issues

Predominantly FP themes/programmes are considered to have contributed to increased public

awareness. Unsurprisingly, the long-running Science and Society (FP6) / Science in Society (FP7) /
Science with and for Society (H2020), and MSCA Researchers’ Night are singled out as effective
instruments.

However, the evidence is overall anecdotal and tend to stem from smaller-capacity countries or
countries with small populations (possibly as small countries can run more effective campaigns).
Malta for example has organised FP funded events such as ‘Researchers’ Night’ (under MSCA).
These are considered to have been very useful in creating awareness and improving the general
visibility of researchers’ work. The Researchers’ Night event in Malta attracts a large number of

172
attendees (up to 20,000 attendees which constitutes 5% of the 400,000 strong population)
through public engagement and other interactive activities used to promote research and
researchers’ careers. 220

Luxembourg also has an expressed interest in the wider societal issues, including secure
societies, inclusive societies, widening participation or science for and with society. Two of
Luxembourg’s public research institutes are specialised in societal issues: the Institute of Socio-
Economic Research (LISER) and the Institute of Health (LIH), and they will seek to ensure that
participation in FP programmes will continue to shape the country’s development in this field.

The challenges of quantifying soft measures such as public awareness is recognised in the FP7 ex-
post evaluation of Science in Society which concludes that “[t]he SiS programme does not perform
strongly on most of the Commission’s standard output metrics, which are reported in the Annual
Monitoring Report. This reflects the programme’s emphasis on coordination and support activities,
and the relatively lower level of interest in more conventional types of research outputs, whether
that is international peer-reviewed articles or intellectual property. This is understandable
considering that the focus of the programme was on structuring of ERA and changing the
governance framework within the EU, rather than generating new knowledge”. 221

Although this study is of course focused on national level impact, it has encountered a parallel
problem – the lack of documentation of impact has forced an overreliance on individual opinions
through interviews. These have uncovered anecdotal positive impacts, such as the example from
Romania – “In Romania, interviews held with researchers involved in FP6 and FP7 projects
revealed that one lesson learned from the projects was the organization [sic] of Science workshops
with the community to learn about the community’s problems and propose scientific projects which
might offer solutions with social impact.” 222

Other prominent examples of wider societal and policy impacts can be found in the Turkey report,
cited in the box below.

The achievements gained through EU-funded projects have helped to grasp the importance of
improving the core values of social life to be a contemporary and prosperous society. At the local
level, wider masses have met many contemporary concepts such as "social inclusion" and "positive
discrimination". Thanks to the local interest in many EU programmes, Turkey has began to assess
national shortcomings in these thematic priorities, as well as what we need to do and what we can
do such as the promotion of women's employment, the development of social integration for the
disabled, the promotion of ethics, the strengthening of pre-school education, the enrolment of
girls, the fight against violence against women, the protection of cultural values, the strengthening
of the capacity of local and national NGOs, democratic citizenship and human rights education.
Framework programmes is a major reform movement that bring universal standards and practices
to Turkey.

The Framework Programmes also set a valuable benchmark for the working conditions and
employment standards in Turkey by mobility programmes in both FPs. At the same time, the
growing need for better innovation and technology skills result an increase to entrepreneurship
performance which results new jobs due to increasing number of spin-off companies, boost human
capital and social capital, new products and services and enhanced regional development.

Although the lack of indicators makes it an opaque area to asses, one thing that can be stated is
that high added-value of soft programmes such as Science in Society. At a national level, research
funding towards softer measures is often small, and moreover, national research communities and
activities are small and fragmented. EU-level interventions are therefore a sensible and effective
solution. Secondly, programmes such Science with and for Society has an important capacity
building function for the EU-13 and smaller-capacity Associated Countries to enhance the
performance and institutional capacity of national research and innovation landscapes. 223

220
Interview
221
European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2016) Ex-post Evaluation of
Science in Society in FP7. Submitted by ICF Consulting Services, in association with Delft University, Facts of
Life and Technopolis
222
Romania country report
223
European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2016) Ex-post Evaluation of
Science in Society in FP7. Submitted by ICF Consulting Services, in association with Delft University, Facts of
Life and Technopolis

173
7. A TAXONOMY OF FACTORS CONDUCIVE TO GENERATING
LASTING IMPACT FROM FP PARTICIPATION
Section 7 presents the study analysis, which assesses factors that are conducive to generating
sustainable impact of the FPs at national level, and conversely, what kinds of barriers exist which
contribute to hampering sustainable impact. Section 7 should ideally be read in tandem with
Section 6.

Section 7.1 will address more general barriers and drivers for participation, taking national and
other external factors as a starting point. Section 7.2 will thereafter discuss challenges specifically
acute for small R&I countries/participants with less experience. This will allow a more refined
analysis for how i) barriers can be reduced, and ii) drivers for participation can be reinforced,
further developed and ultimately promote sustainable participation that may lead to stronger
impacts.

7.1 General factors inhibiting or driving impacts

This section focuses on challenges that may be applicable to all 41 countries of the study, how
factors become an inhibitor but what possible solutions – drivers for participation – have been
developed and implemented in response to challenges. This will consider factors – national R&I
characteristics, policies, programmes and external factors – that contribute to driving FP
participation and generating impact of participation. External factors (notably economic crisis and
fiscal constraints) can also count against FP participation, as can a lack of political consideration
and support for R&I.

This section will begin by presenting the survey results relevant to barriers and drivers for FP
participation and impacts, as the study’s survey of NCPs and policymakers also posed questions
about the nature of these.

174
Figure 30 The extent to which one or more of the following factors has
negatively affected FP participation

Lack of IPR exploitation rights in cases

5 14 12
when particular partner brings IP to the…

Lack of co-funding to complement FP

11 12 9
funding

Lack of support system to aid FP applicants 7 13 13

Lack of interest/motivation to participate in

10 14 8
the FPs

Lack of incentives for FP participation 8 15 10 High negative impact

Medium negative
Lack of thematic/policy networks 7 18 7 impact
No impact

Lack of knowledge of the FPs 4 15 14

Lack of human resource capacity (e.g.

10 13 9
ageing R&I population, braindrain)

Low-capacity/fragmented R&I performers

9 15 9
(lack of international competiveness)

Lack of effective R&I strategies and

6 18 9
implementation plans

Lack of effective R&I policy coordination 10 13 10

An ineffective national regulatory system 4 14 14

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

The most serious negative barriers to participation were considered to be: “lack of funding to
complement FP funding”, “lack of interest and motivation to participate in the FPs”, “lack of human
resource capacity” and “lack of effective R&I policy coordination”. The lowest scoring factors
having impact on participation are: “ineffective national regulatory system” and “lack of knowledge
of the FPs” followed by “lack of support system to aid FP participants”.

In contrast to barriers, the Figure below shows positive factors affecting national FP participation.

175
Figure 31 The extent to which one or more of the following factors have
positively affected FP participation?

Improvements within FP consortium

agreement to allow for IPR sharing and 8 10 11
retention by those bringing IP to a project

Administrative simplifications made to the

FPs (e.g. participant portal, grant agreement 11 8 10
changes)

Availability of co-funding to complement FP

7 5 16
funding

Support system to aid FP applicants 9 13 6

Interest/motivation in participation in the

12 12 5
FPs

Access to incentives for FP participation 9 10 9

High positive impact

Access to networks to ‘break into’ FP
16 8 6 Medium positive impact
consortia
No impact

Knowledge of the workings of the FPs 11 12 6

Capacity of R&I performers (influx of

9 14 7
researchers)

Internationally-competitive R&I performers 9 14 7

Effective R&I strategies and implementation

8 9 11
plans

Effective R&I policy coordination 6 8 13

An effective national regulatory system 7 7 14

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

Positive factors influencing countries’ participation are seen especially in participants’ “access to
networks to ‘break into’ FP consortia” (highly outstanding factor, comparing to other factors
marked with “high impact”). This is followed by Interest/motivation to participate in the FPs. The
weakest impact on participation is linked to the following factors: “availability of co-funding to
complement FP funding” (somehow contradicting previous responses) as well as “an effective
national regulatory system”.

Looking at the study results more broadly, what can be observed at a general level is that in the
last 15 years (2000-2015) there have been some significant changes affecting the Framework
Programmes.

EU enlargement, in 2004, 2007 and in 2013, has profoundly changed the size and scope of the
FPs. There is a considerable amount of analysis of the performance of the EU-10/EU-12/EU-13
versus the EU-15, with the overall conclusion that the EU-13 face larger challenges vis-à-vis R&I
than their EU-15 counterparts. In terms of capacity to spend public funds on R&I, one study
(2004) calculated that in terms of GDP the gap between the EU-10 and EU-15 represents the
former having a time lag of 15-35 years. In other words the average GDP per capita of the EU-10

176
was reached by the average EU-15 between 15 and 35 years ago. In terms of innovation, the EU-
10 share of patents registered with the European Patent Office in the year 2000 was only 0.27%
(100 times less than the share of the US at 27.5%). 224

More generally, governments in many European countries have instigated reforms to modernise
the structure and organisation of public management, not exclusively pertaining to research and
innovation, but certainly including R&D and innovation. This trend is sometimes referred to as New
Public Management (NPM) model for public governance. With regards to research and innovation
performance, NPM has meant an expansion of the scope, use and expectations of evaluation.
Nationally and internationally, efforts are being made to develop R&I capacity and to align
research with societal needs and challenges. There is a today a much stronger focus on tackling
societal challenges, such as climate change, health, and energy policy.

In some countries, policy reforms have also altered the management, funding and prioritisation of
research and innovation interventions. 225 For example, some public R&I funding dedicated
research institutions and which was previously provided through block grants are today being
allocated using principals of competitiveness and quality. This in turn can also affect funding at EU
level. In an interview with the ERC, the council explained that they can observe a certain interplay
between national and EU level in funding performance. For example, national reforms in the
Netherlands, which have put an increased focus on competitive research grant funding, has
resulted in increased applications from Dutch researchers and institutions.

In e.g. the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Slovenia R&I funding has been
traditionally dominated by institutional support but a common increasing trend is that these
countries are moving towards channelling funding through competitive programmes. The shifts
towards competitive funding are also a result of budget cuts of R&I – for example in Bulgaria and
Romania, which increases the importance of other competitive funding such as the programmes
managed through the European Structural and Investment Funds. In Spain competitive funding
has increased due to changes in the policy mix laying more attention to public-private R&D
collaboration and research excellence. Similarly, project-based funding has increased in
importance in France, Germany and the UK. 226

What is clear is that by and large the countries face a combination of challenges in order to
compete successfully in the FPs. To take a country-level example, the Italian country research
lists a range of different types of barrier:

• Structural challenges: Ministerial governance structure: three different ministries involved in

R&D policies (i.e. Ministry of Education, Ministry of Economic Development and Ministry of
Health) with different competencies and different responsibilities;
• Political challenges: Priorities in the political agenda: so far, the Italian ability to influence
EU strategies for R&D has been limited;
• Lack of public research support system: Administrative support to R&D: lack of
managerial and organisational skills to support consortium creation and drafting competitive
tenders;
• Industrial challenges: The Italian industrial system is characterized by a large number of
SMEs and micro firms in low-medium knowledge-intense sectors.

In terms of drivers for participation and for impact, different drivers may generate different kinds
of impact. For example, the Latvian report distinguishes between drivers/factors behind scientific
impacts and for R&I systems impact:

224
Cizelj (2004) The European Research Area and EU Enlargement. See https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-
content/uploads/2005/09/New-Frontiers_Chapter-10.pdf
225
CSES (2015) Evaluation of the Scientific and other Tangible Outcomes from the EUROCORES Scheme 2003-
2014. Final Report for the European Science Foundation
226
Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., Lukach, R., Wastyn, A. (2013). The impact of the crisis on research and
innovation policies. Study for the European Commission DG Research by Technopolis Group Belgium and Idea
Consult.

177
Table 43 Drivers for impact Latvia
Bottom- up drivers for science and Top-down drivers for R&I systems impact
innovation impacts
The preparation of a high quality project Latvia is paying a participation fee in FP budget,
proposals for FPs require the selection of but is receiving back through FP projects less that
themes were Latvian partners are this. Therefore policy makers of science in Latvia
competitive within European Research Area are motivated to raise the competitiveness of
and the selection of high quality project Latvian scientists to participate more successfully
partners. Additionally actions with high in FPs. This gives much stimulus to improve and
impacts are proposed in projects to obtain reorganize R&I system in Latvia.
high marks in project evaluation. The
The Government of Latvia is looking for a science
implementation of such project lately
to give a significant impact on the economy of
requires the fulfilment of all planned
Latvia. Only innovations can make this impact
activities, including the need to reach all
therefore various innovation supportive
planned scientific results
programmes are created to motivate scientists to
FP projects typically have several consortium innovate and to collaborate with industry.
partners and they are typically scientific
leaders in their themes. These excellent
partners require high quality of scientific
outcomes. For weakest partners this gives
high motivation to reach the quality criteria
of more advanced project partners. This is as
a peer-review or a “consortium-review”
mechanism for high scientific outcomes of
FPs projects
If there is a significant financial support from
EC in FP projects then participants may be
satisfied with their salaries and can
concentrate fully on a scientific work within a
project. This gives the outcome of scientific
excellence. Otherwise due to unstable
financing for research in Latvia some
researchers may lose their motivation on
high quality scientific work.
Innovations within a research group may be
prepared if some FP calls are requesting this.
Researchers are motivated to focus on
innovation rather than fundamental research
if this may allow to attract stable financing;
SMEs are motivated to work on innovations
with high impact as SME Instrument call is
requesting this.

Addressing innovation impacts specifically, this study suggests that one of the biggest barriers for
achieving innovation impacts reported across all country groups was related to historical FPs focus.
In both FP6 and FP7 the focus was on research and international collaboration, not so much on
producing (and reporting) innovation outcome.

The findings of FP6 and FP7 evaluations seem to be also very much actual and confirmed also in
interviews conducted in this study. The Innovation Impact study, Community Innovation Survey
and FP evaluations explored links between the FPs and industrial innovation. Industrial participants
in FPs tended to be more RTD-intensive, better networked, more orientated to international
markets and to patent more. However, knowledge and networking goals were more important
than others. Compared with projects that the companies funded internally, FP projects tended to
involve less commercial risk, and have longer-term RTD horizons, more interest in the non-core
technologies of participants, a focus on exploration (rather than exploitation). 227

227
Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development 2002-2006
Report of the Expert Group, 2009.

178
The creation of more innovation-focused mechanisms in Horizon 2020 is seen as a method to
change the way in which participants operate in implementation of FP projects. SME instrument is
listed very often in this context. However, this mechanism is also reported as difficult for
companies not having experience in application preparation and EU-funded projects’ management,
and obviously not having resources to prepare such application, due to their size. The existence of
specialised support mechanisms for SMEs in different countries, helping them in preparation of
proposals, seems to be the key factor for rising participation and awareness.

Here appears the issue of competition. Horizon 2020 and in particular its SME instrument is one of
the most competitive mechanisms in EU history. Success rates in Horizon 2020 are lower than in
FP7 and much lower than in FP6. Definitely, European instruments gained large popularity, but
also became more difficult for SMEs and other actors to get the funding. This in many cases turns
applicants to search for more statistically successful funding lines, including the national
programmes and (for the new MS) European Structural and Investment Funds.

The problem is also with reporting of innovation outcome. Better information on patents,
prototypes, services spinouts and spinoffs and so forth resulting from the FP would be useful,
however is impossible to measure. The problem is that many of innovation projects in the
companies continue after the EU funding is finished, and in many cases, there is no direct link
between new product and an invention made years ago. Also, reporting on such link seems to be
impossible due to time span between invention and successful market introduction. This process
takes several years in most of the cases and no one is there to report this back to European
Commission reporting system. The same complexity goes with spinoffs and spinouts. New
companies, even if reported in EU database when closing the project, are not monitored after 2-3
years, therefore the real long term outcome on macro scale remains unknown.

7.1.1 Financial crisis – sovereign debt

The 2008 financial and subsequent economic crisis has clearly played a big factor in the European
R&I landscape generally, as well as impacted on FP participation trends and profiles. There is
considerable national literature on the subject and its impact. Table 44 provides an overview from
a EU-level study (not including the FP Associated Countries).

Another noteworthy finding is that the decline in government R&D expenditures did not always
coincide with a general decline in other government expenditures. This indicates that the public
R&D expenditures budgets are not necessarily considered ‘protected funding lines’ in all countries
as advocated. The pressure on public funding led to more private-public partnerships in
implementing research and innovation programmes. The emphasis therefore shifted towards the
European Structural and Investment Funds or other EU and international funding as more stable
sources of financing. 228

Table 44 Impact of financial crisis – overview

The 2008 crisis had a profound effect on both general and knowledge intensive activities. Both
general and knowledge intensive activity indicators showed a downturn in: Austria, Croatia,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia, Spain and United Kingdom.

In the cases of Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland,
Slovakia and Sweden only the general economic indicators appear to have been affected by the
crisis – but not the knowledge intensive activities. Countries with a robust knowledge intensive
industrial structure appeared to be less sensitive to the financial and general economic downturn
(the Nordic Countries, for example).

Several countries have not shown any statistically significant indications of structural change since
the 2008 economic crisis. These countries include: Germany - due to its strong economic
fundamentals, well established innovation system and advanced sectoral specialisation; Malta – a
small open economy with the sectoral specialisation less sensitive to the factors behind the 2008
crisis; Norway - strong economic fundamentals based on its resource abundance; and Switzerland
- due to its strong and robust financial sector and advanced sectoral specialisation.

Interestingly, countries were affected by the 2001 recession; such as Austria, Belgium, France,

228
Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., Lukach, R., Wastyn, A. (2013). The impact of the crisis on research and
innovation policies. Study for the European Commission DG Research by Technopolis Group Belgium and Idea
Consult.

179
Ireland and the Netherlands appear among those that have managed to keep their private sector’s
R&D growing or at a stable level. Also, countries that appeared not to have been affected by the
crisis in terms of their economic performance indicators show positive post-crisis dynamics in their
R&D inputs. At the same time their R&D outputs and commercialisation enablers did suffer from
the crisis, which is an indication that the tendencies influencing innovation activities are not
bounded by the national borders.

The cases of Greece and Spain, apart from their reputation of being the hardest hit by the crisis,
are also interesting as examples where the predominantly positive pre-crisis dynamics in R&D
inputs and outputs has changed into overall decline in the post-crisis period.

Comparing the trends in public research and innovation funding (based both on GBAORD and
TrendChart inventory funding figures) the negative evolution is striking. Although research and
innovation policies were protected right after 2008 until 2010, maintaining funding levels have
become difficult most recently. In the period 2008- 2009/2010, only Greece, Romania and Latvia
showed more than a 10% decrease in R&I budgets. This changed dramatically when looking at the
2011-2012/2013 period when Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands Portugal,
Spain and the UK experienced negative trends. The fall in GBAORD figures in the cases of Greece,
Latvia, Romania and Spain were especially severe.

Source: Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., Lukach, R., Wastyn, A. (2013). The impact of the crisis on
research and innovation policies. Study for the European Commission DG Research by Technopolis
Group Belgium and Idea Consult.

We have less evidence on the crisis impact on FP participation on the Associated Countries,
although it is clear that the economic situation differs widely. For example, Iceland was hard hit
financially, whereas Norway experienced a different economic crisis related to the price of oil, but
was overall unaffected by the downturn that originated in 2008.

Norway has instead experienced its own economic crisis. Norway’s economy is currently
struggling to gain traction after 2015’s collapse in oil prices, which sent business investment into a
tailspin and lowered government revenues. Norway’s economy is closely linked to the price of oil,
and higher prices are generally an advantage for the oil-rich nation. Thus, the most important
challenge ahead relates to maintaining good long-term governance of the county’s economy and to
restructure R&I and economic activity away from natural resources to a new wide-ranging portfolio
of industrial activity. To date, the Norwegian economy has been sheltered from the European
crisis, but there are signs that the economy is increasingly dependent on the petroleum sector.
Ensuring that the mainland economy stays competitive over the long term will be a key challenge.
If the world reverts permanently to a low petroleum price level, as was suggested in the second
half of 2014, this could have a strong impact on the Norwegian economy.

Looking across the 41 countries of the study, the downturn in the economy has not had a
homogenous impact. Poland survived the economic crisis quite well, compared to many other EU
countries, partly thanks to the extensive funding available through the European Structural and
Investment Funds, and which have continued to finance, e.g. infrastructure investments.

Although the financial crisis has not directly affected the Swedish R&I system significantly (there
have been no notable cutbacks in the public R&I funding) the subsequent economic downturn may
still have had a negative impact on FP participation as other EU MS and AC, that have experienced
cutbacks of national R&I funding, have focused more on winning FP funding and consequently
competition has increased, making it harder for Swedish R&I actors to obtain FP funding. This
trend of facing increasing competition has also been picked up by Polish FP participants.

Setbacks in R&I investments caused by the economic and financial may also come on top of
existing structural challenges. Over the years, R&I in Greece has been heavily centralised with
very limited involvement of principal actors of economic development at regional and national
levels. As a result, the Greek R&I system was oriented towards research themes that had little to
do with economic and/or societal priorities of the country. The Business Expenditure on R&D
(BERD) in Greece is one of the lowest in the EU, mainly due to the structural characteristics of the
national economy, in particular the high concentration of economic activity in less knowledge
intensive and low added value business segments. The low private investment in R&I is also due to
the unstable economic environment and the constantly changing tax regime, many bureaucratic
obstacles, as well as preference of businesses for options leading to short-term returns. Although
these are conditions not conducive to improving FP performance in the first place, under these

180
circumstances, financing of R&I in Greece has been much more dependent than the European
average on EU support and especially on the co-financed EU Framework Programmes.

Incoming funds from the ESIF and the through favourable government policies over the last
decades has enabled Portugal to develop both R&I infrastructure and to attain high levels of
capacity in certain research fields. However, the maintenance of this progress became more
difficult by the very challenging budgetary climate over recent years.

Neighbouring Spain face similar challenges. During the time period 2000-2008 Spain made a very
strong effort in R&D and innovation activities, in the sense that the country nearly duplicated its
Gross Expenditures on R&D (GERD) in absolute terms and resulting in a continuous increase in the
R&D intensity (GERD as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product). Indeed, Spain’s investment in
research and development (R&D) grew faster than the EU average over this period, reaching its
peak in 2008. However, and since onset of the financial crisis in 2008, this positive trend has been
completely changed, threatening to set back the progress made before. The consequent severe
cuts in R&D and innovation investments are raising very important concerns among research-
related agents and organisations. One of the main questions refers to the financial sustainability of
the Spanish R&D and innovation system.

Not only the Southern European countries are seeing long-term effects of the 2008 crisis, OECD
data shows that there are 50% less new companies, including start-ups, being founded in Finland
in 2016 as compared to before the financial crisis. Enterprise death rates are also higher than
before the crisis. 229 The share of start-ups of the country’s total employment is comparatively low,
new companies are small and grow slowly. However, the survival rate of the companies is good. 230

Although turbulence in R&I support is reported in a fair number (and range of) of countries, there
are a handful of examples of countries that have kept a steady course, including Switzerland. In
this case, generous national funding has not noticeably deterred FP participation. It is believed
that strong national R&I funding promotes high FP participation since high scientific quality and the
opportunity to access to co-funding are crucial preconditions for participating in FP projects.
Despite representing a small fraction of the total funding available at national level, involvement
FP participation is perceived as important driver to increase research quality, identify international
networking opportunities and raise the profile of the institution/organisations involved. Thus it is
not unexpected that several respondents identify the ERC as particularly attractive funding
opportunities to transfer knowledge and attract talented researchers.

7.1.2 Fluctuations in national policy and funding

From a policy perspective, a top-down approach to improving and maintaining a competitive
advantage in the FPs require the support of high-quality R&I actors. Equally there is a need to
earmark finance and to facilitate and maintain framework conditions conducive to cooperation and
internationalisation. Although each R&I system may need to develop a unique set of strategies
(i.e. there is no one-size-fits-all approach), it is clear that fluctuations in policy and disruptions in
R&I as a policy priority can cause difficulties.

The trend of cutting public spending for R&I post-2008 has gone hand in hand with revised
strategies as budgets have diminished. To an extent these cuts appear most severe in countries
where R&I is less of a political priority, although not exclusively. The current Finnish government,
which took power in 2015, has scaled down funding to research. For instance the University of
Helsinki has been obliged to cut nearly 1,000 jobs and some projects at the VTT Technical
Research Centre are being terminated early. Government funding to the Academy of Finland and
the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation Tekes has decreased substantially. National funding has
furthermore been limited so that projects would not receive simultaneously both national and FP
funding, which has caused some research fields to fall virtually outside any funding. The decline in
national funding, especially to Tekes, is likely to have effects on innovation activity and landscape
overall, and thereby indirectly on the impacts of Horizon 2020 funded projects. The cuts will
mainly hit Tekes funding to universities and research institutes, as well as cooperation projects
and structures between universities and businesses, while funding to SMEs and start-ups will
remain intact. 231 At the same time, one of the Government’s key projects is the strengthening of
cooperation between higher education institutions and industry, so as to facilitate the

229
OECD 2016
230
Calvino, Criscuolo & Menon 2015
231
Tekes 2015

181
commercialisation of innovations. Horizon 2020 is to be used in support of the concentration of
resources for strategic projects and of the national R&D&I work distribution. 232

FYROM has participated in the FPs as an AC since FP6 (2002). The then Macedonian government
was very supportive of R&I, prioritised investments and internationalisation of FYROM R&I. A
change in government has since deprioritised R&I, cut funding and support, and this has
contributed to a stagnation and decrease of FYROM participation in subsequent FPs. As a result,
promising R&I fields including food and agriculture, electrochemistry, structural chemistry, and
materials sciences. The fall in participation (and in R&I internationalisation generally) has led to
e.g. laboratory equipment purchased through FP6 participation becoming a burden on the Ss. Cyril
and Methodius University, which struggle to meet maintenance costs of the equipment and it is no
longer in use, i.e. it has become a burden rather than an asset. A crucial missing factor is access
to co-funding (there are few if no co-funding opportunities in FYROM). This makes it difficult for
researchers to want to internationalise and collaborate across borders. Furthermore, although
there is bottom-up interest from scientists, the lack of co-funding makes the universities more
unwilling to support collaboration, as they are concerned about the potential costs should a
proposal be successful and requires university resources. In addition to co-funds, FYROM
researchers also lack institutional support structures and support in proposal development. More
generally, there are few opportunities for young researchers, including no grants for Masters and
PhD studies. This is skewing the demographic balance in Macedonian universities. Involvement in
the FPs was in this regard very positive, as it provided (financial) opportunities to develop the
careers of young researchers. It should also be said that these challenges are tied to the wider
national context and regulation. For example, the FYROM bank system is inherently restricting
research as grant funding for R&I cannot easily be transferred to HEIs for research.

Generally, the Western Balkans is investing less in R&D than would have been expected at its
level of development. The region’s R&D intensity is around 0.33 % of gross domestic product
(GDP) is much lower than that of Bulgaria and Romania when they joined the EU in 2007 (0.5%).
The level of R&D investment in the Western Balkans as the actual value of R&D per capita falls
below the predicted value, based on a regression of R&D per capita on GDP per capita. For
example, regression analysis predicts that, based on its level of income, Albania should be
spending $41 (EUR38.76) per person. Even though Croatia spends fifteen times more than
Albania, it should be spending 60% more than its current level of $135 (EUR 127.63). Current
levels of international collaboration, which could help leverage the region’s research capacity, are
comparatively low, as illustrated by the limited involvement of the Western Balkans in the ERA.
The participation of foreign scientists in local research organisations is also limited, demonstrating
the difficulties that face the region in research mobility and in attracting new foreign researchers.
Obstacles to regional mobility and mobility from other countries include visas, work permits,
taxation, and social benefits.

In Moldova, the economic context and delayed R&I reforms have generally detracted from
achieving extended scientific impacts. The Moldovan fiscal deficit is projected to gradually decline
to 2.5 % of GDP to ensure fiscal sustainability, with debt to GDP ratio below 50 %. 233 The current
account deficit is very likely to impact the national R&I funding. Independent experts alert on the
low R&I expenditure per capita in Moldova, which is more than 80 times lower compared to the EU
average. “Such low levels of financing go against the national R&D intensity target of 1% of GDP
by 2020 and are not supportive of an R&I sector capable of spurring solid economic growth.” 234

Interview data from Moldova confirms that the economic and financial crises have affected the
research system and country’s FP participation. For example, the HEI system has received,
through the Academy of Sciences, symbolic funding for a long period of time, only 10% of public
funding for research and since 2015 it has been cut significantly. In 2015 the funding allocated by
the state to HEIs for research was reduced by 6% and in 2016 by 12%. Further enhanced
cooperation with the EU is expected to allow overcoming certain negative aspects in the
development of the Moldovan science and innovation. The Government, in its activity Programme
for 2016-2018, sets the objective of reforming the national research and innovation system. The
Programme provides for improvements to the legal framework on sustainable funding. A national
scientific career incentive programme is to be developed. Multi-disciplinary research funded from
the state budget and external sources, aimed at solving societal challenges, is intended to be
promoted.

232
Finnish Government 2016
233
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/moldova/brief/moldova-economic-update
234
European Commission (2016) Peer Review of the Moldovan Research and Innovation System

182
7.1.3 Strategies for R&I and FP participation
As outlined in section 4 in this report, the design and implementation of national and regional R&I
strategies are on the increase but are heterogeneous. Some countries reference the importance of
smart specialisation (e.g. Cyprus, Malta) whereas a few countries opt for focusing on long-term
developments (e.g. the UK – albeit national strategies are currently being revised following the
2016 EU referendum result).

A key trend in terms of strategy development has been a noticeable shift in policy priorities for
R&I. Although there have been no fundamental changes, compared to 2000, today’s strategies
show a keener attention to:

• The use of loans, guarantees and state backed venture capital as alternative finance;
• The Extended use of R&D tax incentives;
• More pressure on commercialising research results;
• Targeting/prioritising research and innovation programmes. 235

Even before the start of financial crisis in 2008, the recognition that public money is tight has
become more and more the norm and policymakers need to make clear justifications for R&I
spending. This trend can manifest itself in cuts in funding, priority reallocation or revisions in
eligibility for support. In the UK, the innovation agency (Innovate UK) is transforming business
support from grants to loans.

Cyprus is a good example of an R&I system that is learning through the years and is using the
experience curve positively, in order to improve and strategise its system. Typically this has been
the case for Cyprus, because one of the major advancements that took place from the period
2000-2015 was that spending on R&I gained a more strategic and focused nature, utilising of
course of the Smart Specialisation Strategy released by the European Union, as an ex ante
conditionality. Therefore, one of the major strengths of the Cyprus R&I system is that the system
matured through the years, and became stronger, while it is currently viewed as a priority by
policy makers, that have added the strengthening of the system in their important agenda topics.
It is expected that the system will keep going strong and spending in R&I will be increased
compared to the low percentages spent at the moment SR3 Cyprus has the highest number of FP7
beneficiaries per head of population and the highest gain of FP7 monies per inhabitant in the EU13.
Cyprus success rate in applying for FP7 is 15.6%, not far from the EU13 average (18.1%).
However, the country was still very far from the EU 27 average which was recorded at 21.7%. 236
FP7 results showed that there was a significant space for improvement specifically as it concerns
Cyprus participation in the most competitive consortia while also the need to widen the
participation of Cypriot participants as project coordinators was realised. The six specialisation
areas chosen in the RIS3 strategy are partially aligned with the FP7 specialisation profile. In terms
of funding 70% of the FP7 funding can be estimated as being aligned to the specialisation areas.

Clearly, national strategies can play central roles in creating impacts from national participation in
the FPs. The Swedish Innovation Agency VINNOVA’s study Impacts of the framework programme
in Sweden covers the period of 1990-2007 and explores the impact within the areas of Sustainable
energy, Life sciences and health, ICT and Vehicles at the Universities of Lund, Gothenburg and
Växjö, the Karolinska Institute and the Chalmers Institute of Technology. The study shows that
when there have been R&I strategies, the FPs have helped to attain the goals of those strategies
and that the FPs have not been able to add extra value when such strategies are missing. The
Government Research Bills from 2008 and 2012 emphasize that participation in the FPs is
strategically important and that the aim is for a high national participation in the FP programmes.
On the other hand, the VINNOVA FP impact study from 2008 concludes that national strategies
regarding FP uptake and participation were in many cases inadequate.

For less R&I intensive countries, the intervention logic of the FPs can be a factor of something
more fundamental than ‘merely’ an internationalisation driver for certain sectors. For Poland, the
FPs have played a certain mental role in terms of opening Polish science to the world. They have
also provided resources for improved mobility, the building of the infrastructure and equipment,
other drivers have played a part, including of course the reforms towards a market economy.

235
Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., Lukach, R., Wastyn, A. (2013). The impact of the crisis on research and
innovation policies. Study for the European Commission DG Research by Technopolis Group Belgium and Idea
Consult.
236
http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/20182/117536/S2E_Report_CY.pdf

183
Poland’s economy is dependent on its competitiveness and as such, more companies see and
understand the need for innovation. This in turn requires the ability to think long-term, an ability
that is said to be currently missing in the Polish business sector. Businesses also lack experience of
long-term cooperation. Consequently, the Polish NCPs are developing fora in which research and
industry can communicate and initiate cooperations, which are in effect copying the EU’s approach
of creating platforms for collaboration. These national support programmes are also planned in the
way to be complimentary to EU funding. This shift in thinking and practice will take time and
effort, but according to our interviews, Poland is managing to increase cooperation in industry
sectors such as aerospace, machine, food and mining.

7.1.4 Incentives and support for FP participation

There is evidence of FP participation growing from the bottom-up, i.e. participation being initiated
from a researcher/research team level. In Serbia, researchers and research teams were
motivated primarily to catch-up and take part in European trends and get some additional financial
support. Other drivers for participation have been top-down. In Spain, the FPs were largely
unknown 10-15 years ago, and participation has been partly driven by information campaigns from
governmental level. It is probably fair to say that most countries experience a bit of both.

All impact case study reports confirm there is some level of support for FP participation in place.
However this can vary between providing limited ad-hoc support at the institutional level to a
countrywide eco-system of support. The most sophisticated systems provide national support
(provided by NCP organisations and related networks) as well as institutional-specific support (e.g.
organised by HESs, Chambers of Commerce, regional actors etc.). According to our assessment,
generally both types of support are required in order to effectively compete in the FPs.

One of the most extensive support systems can be found in Norway. The Norwegian government
recently announced that it will increase stimulus funds for Norwegian participation by NOK 400
million (EUR 44.87m) by 2018. The Research Council of Norway is the primary agent for increased
Norwegian participation in the FPs. It has the several financial and non-financial support measures
for potential participants throughout the different phases of the application process at its disposal.

Some of these are outlined in the table below:

Table 45 Norway FP support tools

• STIM-EU: The award scheme for research institutes that already participate in the European
research programmes is in addition to basic funding in the research sector, and is calculated
based on the institution’s share of research projects registered in eCORDA. STIM-EU funds
awarded to the institutes are meant to give incentives to participate in the FPs and take
responsibility for coordination of applications. Furthermore, the funds are supposed to
contribute to increased cooperation between research institutes, industry and public sector,
with the aim to increase participation in the FPs. The Norwegian government acknowledges the
institutes’ central role in spearheading projects with industry involvement. STIM-EU supports
this.
• NCP - National Contact Points are appointed for each thematic section of Horizon 2020. NCPs
may assist applicants in terms of counselling and information about current research within the
EU and Horizon 2020. NCPs also provide input on applications and project drafts, as well as
practical information on project management, consortia building and applying for Horizon 2020
funds. NCPs are often embedded in their respective national research programmes
• Relevant RCN-programmes and initiatives, such as IKTPLUSS are structured according to
H2020-structures, and seek to foster competitive ecosystems of research actors. Such
programmes also offer financial support for positioning and establishing projects (see next
bullet point).
• Exploration award scheme (Prosjektetableringsstøtte – PES2020): The support scheme is
intended to promote project application development and to compensate for expenditures due
to travel, positioning and building consortia. In addition, PES2020 funds can be used for
influencing processes and future calls, as well. PES2020 is regarded to be an effective measure
to improve the Norwegian participation 237. PES2020 applications are administered by the
respective NCP
• Funds for positioning (Posisjoneringsmidler – POS) are available for applicants through some
regional research development funds and are intended to support partner finding, consortia

237
FP7 and Horizon 2020 - a comparative study of the support services in the Nordic countries, Vinnova, 2013

184
 building, as well as development of projects that may qualify for international R&D fund,
including from Horizon 2020. POS-funds are targeted towards actors that do not qualify for
positioning funds from the RCN. POS is considered a prerequisite for PES2020, and recipients
are encouraged to apply for PES2020 support from the RCN if possible 238.
• A range of counselling and coursing activities, as well as workshops and courses for developing
project ideas and applications
• Network activity: The RCN supports establishing and running EU-networks with the aim to
contributing to increase mobilisation and Norwegian participation in Horizon 2020. The
networks provide knowledge and competences, as well as contacts, learning and sharing of
best practice. There are both regional and thematic EU-networks.

Source: Norwegian country report

Another good practice example can be found in Belgium. All Belgian University have a quite
developed support unit that assist researchers in all administrative, legal and financial aspects of
FPs participation, and have created a sort of FPs “help-desk” informing potential applicants on
Calls opportunities, eligibility and requirements, through info session, workshop and publication of
information on the Universities dedicated webpages. While not contributing directly in the writing
of the proposal, these teams advice on the overall quality of the Proposal and provide essential
information regarding the budget section. These are of particular importance due to the low
success rate of Proposals in Horizon 2020 and time and resources investment that writing a
Proposal constitutes for researcher, the support of Universities has been key to their participation.

In some cases, Universities have also in place financial instruments to support the participation to
FPs. In the case of the Université Catholique de Louvain, such funds came in substitution of
cancelled regional Support initiatives, such as the Horizon Europe subsidy. This support scheme
provides financial support to build H2020 projects, up to a maximum EUR 10,000 to cover costs
related to the preparation of an EU funded project. The Brussels Region provides, for all entities
based there and wishing to build a consortium up to 70% of EUR 10,000 and up to 70% of EUR
25,000 when the entity requesting the subsidy is Coordinator. The FRS-FNRS (for the Belgian
francophone scientific institutions) provides funds for applying to H2020 pillar 1 actions and Social
Sciences and Humanities (SSH) action, up to EUR 3,500 when the applicants is a partner or EUR
10,000 if the applicant is a coordinator.

Our research of the Spanish situation has provided some evidence of what support measures (and
other factors) are conducive to producing strong FP impacts. These are summarised as:

• Support offered by national/regional public institutions can be an important driver behind

participation in FPs. Increasing efforts made by Spanish authorities have turned into increasing
participation rates among Spanish entities. For instance, CDTI (Centre for the Development of
Industrial Technology) has launched several initiatives to encourage Spanish entities’
participation, which seem to have had a very positive impact.
• The conditions and requirements for participation in each FP (as determined by European
institutions) may have a significant influence on participation rates. For instance, FP6 gave
priority to larger projects, which was less attractive for the Spanish business network
(composed largely by SMEs), whereas the ‘SME instrument’ of H2020 has been positively
valued by interviewees, who see this instrument as an encouraging tool for Spanish
companies.
• The ‘learning effect’ is also an important driver. Those companies that have already
participated in FP projects are more likely to apply for participation in new consortia in future
FP editions. The importance of having contacts and knowing people to collaborate with was
also highlighted in interviews.
• Qualitative information obtained from interviews shows that European public FP funding is
much more attractive for enterprises (and for SMEs in particular) than existing Spanish
support measures (either at national or regional level), given that FP funding conditions are
much more attractive, in terms of amount of resources provided, type of projects, conditions
of the subvention (credits vs. non-recoverable subvention), etc.

A clear trend in most of the smaller and some medium sized R&I countries is that the support
system for FP participation is insufficient but essential, as per the example provided in the table
below.

238
Utlysning: Posisjoneringsstøtte - internasjonale forskningsprosjekter - 25.11.2015, RFF Agder

185
Table 46 Western Balkan in FP6

The Vienna Workshop was organised in 2001 by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency and the
EC among others to discuss the future role – both the opportunities and the challenges – of the
non-candidate South Eastern European countries – shortly called the Western Balkan countries –
within the European Research Area and the future research and technology activities of the
European Union, in particular the Sixth EU Framework Programme for Research, Technological
Development and Demonstration (FP6). The Western Balkan countries include Albania, Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), the Republic of
Yugoslavia. Based on the developments of the political situation, the Republic of Yugoslavia will be
integrated in the proposed activities, as soon as feasible. There was an agreement amongst the
Workshop participants that the new policy framework of the European Research Area must not be
limited to the EU member states. The enlargement of the European Union and the reintegration of
the Western Balkan countries should be a matter for specific measures to be foreseen in future EU
activities related to research and technological development. There will be a need for appropriate
measures to be taken primarily in the forthcoming Sixth EU RTD Framework Programme (FP6), but
this will be not sufficient. Well co-ordinated support from other European and international
programmes, initiatives and actions will be necessary too, in order to ensure that all aspects of the
present problems of the Western Balkan countries including infrastructure can be addressed.
Source: Busek et al (2001) VIENNA Memorandum on the Western Balkan Countries in Future
European RTD Activities: Integration of the non-candidate countries in South Eastern Europe
(Western Balkan countries) into the European Research Area and the future EU RTD activities

In Serbia, the Ministry of Education and Science firstly established the Bureau for International
Cooperation, and later, system of National Contact Points. These bodies provided counselling,
information, and one-one meetings for the parties that were interested in applying. The work of
the Bureau was extremely useful in raising wide awareness about the FPs and providing assistance
in project preparation. The NCPs are also active, but it is noted that they lack capacities.
Strategically, appointed NCPs were also individuals from the Universities (University of Novi Sad),
Chamber of Commerce, Office for Intellectual Property Rights, NGOs and Ministries which provides
good necessary network. In later phases, private agencies, and consultants have also emerged to
provide support to the applicants on a profit basis. This relates more to the international experts
engaged for the project proposal preparation, working on the success fee, rather then national
consultants and agencies.

In Albania, support appears to be focused on the university sector and research centres, actors
that are already the country’s top FP performer as, typically, Albanian businesses/firms
participating in FPs have begun their involvement after receiving invitations from academic
partners.

In Croatia, the Agency for Mobility organise FP information events nationally. There are only a few
large research organisations in Croatia, which have acquired managing capacities and developed
their own offices for EU and international projects. Since they are also large institutions with
significant human capacities in R&I, they are more prepared for the competition within FPs than
smaller research organisations. This illustrates that the most critical factors for success in EU
projects for Croatian participants are the concentration of research resources in terms of human
capital, equipment, large infrastructure as well as in project management capacities through
accumulation of practical experience and skills. The institutional culture collected through active
collaboration and experience is an important factor in successful participation in H2020. Since
accumulation of the skills, knowledge and experience is critical in this process, there is a risk that
a small number of research organizations or groups continue to be successful in winning project
grants and in further accumulation of experience, while the vast majority remain on the margins of
EU cooperation 239.

239
Domagoj Račić and Jadranka Švarc (2015) Stairway to Excellence Country Report: Croatia, p. 14

186
Table 47 Factors influencing Denmark’s FP uptake
A number of factors have been identified that have influenced Denmark’s FP uptake positively.
These include:

• Information campaigns and support. Denmark has increased its efforts to inform about the
possibilities under the FPs and advise Danish companies, universities, research institutes and
other stakeholders about participation in the FPs. The resources dedicated to the national
contact point (EuroCenter) have increased and a network of 45 organisations, which advise
about participation in FPs has been established. 240 The 2010 evaluation of Danish participation
in FP6 and FP7 also highlights that the EuroCenters provide very effective support and
encourage higher levels of participation and success. 241 The universities have also increased
the support staff dedicated to help researchers understand the FPs, apply for funding, and
administer and coordinate grants.
• Influence on the overall focus of the FPs and the different sections of the FPs.
Denmark has increased its focus on and resources available for shaping and influencing the
FPs and the different sections and sub sections. This has increased the relevance of the
sections and alignment with Danish interests and strongholds.
• Availability of alternative funding – the universities in Denmark have to obtain external
funding for their research activities to a larger and larger degree. This has increased their
interest in the FPs. Lately, funding for research and innovation in Denmark has also been
reduced, which has increased the interest in alternative sources of funding even further. A
similar trend can be observed in areas with large Danish private research funds. Here the
scarcity of resources is less prominent and the same is the need to apply for funding from
sources outside Denmark.
• Growing international mind-set – even if Danish companies and researchers has always
been engaged in international collaboration the acknowledgement of the added-value of
international collaboration has been growing, especially among researchers at the universities.
They regard funding of their research as important but the opportunity to work with the most
prominent researchers from other European countries are at least as important and often a
significant motivation for applying for FP funding.
• The power of the good example. The university representatives have also highlighted that
researchers often have become interested in applying for the FP funding after a colleague has
secured funding from an FP and they have seen what he/she has been able to do and the
results he/she has achieved.
• Increased prestige. At the universities, it has also increased interest in FP funding that it has
become more prestigious. Especially funding from Excellent Science and the European
Research Council has become prestigious and can have a significant positive influence of one’s
academic career.
• Focus by management level at universities. At the universities, the management level has
taken an active approach to identifying and encouraging the best and most talented
researchers to apply for FP grants. They have also made funding available to create networks
and prepare applications.
• Reduced administrative burdens. Especially under Horizon 2020 administrative procedures
have been simplified and the structure of Horizon 2020 – including the focus on societal
challenges - have made it much easier to communicate the content and focus of the
programme. This has in particular increased private companies’ interest.

As mentioned Danish research and innovation policy has also been better aligned with EU policy
and Horizon 2020 but it is unclear from the interviews to what extent this has led to an increased
participation in Horizon 2020.

Source: Danish country report

240
http://ufm.dk/en/publications/2010/evaluation-of-danish-participation-in-the-6th-and-7th-framework-
programmes
241
ibid.

187
7.1.5 Interactions with the national policy mix
FP participation occurs within specific national /regional policy mixes, that is, FP funding is used in
combination with other kinds of R&I instruments. This section will cover our initial findings on how
the FPs interact within other instruments.

With regards to EU-level instruments, the EC and the Member States are mandated by the
regulations that lay down the rules for the European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon
2020, and other EU programmes directly managed by the EC in the areas of R&I. These relate to
in particular COSME, Erasmus+, Creative Europe, and the European Union Programme for
Employment and Social Innovation and the digital services part of the Connecting Europe Facility.

From the EU’s point of view, “it is of utmost importance to ensure optimal synergies between the
funds to face the ever-increasing competitive pressure from global markets and maximise impact
and efficiency of public funding”. Both the European Parliament and Council have clearly stated
that synergies between EU/EU and EU/national funding sources must be accommodated for and
maximised. 242

Interactions with the European Structural and Investment Funds

R&I has increasingly become a priority of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI
Funds). There are a fairly large number of national strategies that draw links between the FPs and
European Structural and Investment Funds, in particular for EU Member States that currently
receive significant ESI funding. Of course, 12 countries covered in this study are not EU Member
States are thus outside the scope of the European Structural and Investment Funds (Albania,
Bosnia & Herzegovina, Switzerland, Faroe Islands, FYROM, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Moldova,
Montenegro, Norway, Serbia and Turkey).

Although not in the strictest sense a counterfactual, the supporting role of the European Structural
and Investment Funds in lower-capacity R&I EU countries can be illustrated through examples of
how Associated Countries – that lack SF access – struggle to build up capacity. As an illustration,
Moldova’s particular weakness in FPs participation is its limited involvement in research projects.
Policymakers confirm and explain this is partly due to weak scientific infrastructure and insufficient
internal funding and investments in R&I infrastructure.

There is also a fair amount of evidence on how the two EU instruments can be used to enhance
R&I, although our research suggests that in practice, R&I actors struggle to implement strategies
successfully. There is not always data evidencing interaction of funding and/or the regional-
national policy interactions can prevent some countries to maximise the use of the two funds.

Indeed, the EC recently initiated the Seal of Excellence certificate, which is one example of an area
of increasing EU-national coordination. The SoE aims to facilitate national/regional or ESI Fund
support for unfunded Horizon 2020 proposals that were above the quality threshold but could not
be funded under the EU Framework Programme because of budget restraints. The certificate has
been taken up by a number of countries. Although the SoE largely supports SME instrument
proposals, there are some countries that are applying the SoE principle more broadly.

Table 48 Examples of lack of synergies / different roles played by the SFs and
FPs
• The assessment by interviewees is that the synergies between the FPs and the European
Structural and Investment Funds are of an ad hoc nature in Sweden. Although there might be
strategies for enhancing funding interplay in individual organisations, the nature of the
programmes is considered to be so different that more structured synergies are difficult to
achieve. There have been discussions between VINNOVA (the Swedish Innovation Agency) and
the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (the European Structural and
Investment Funds Managing Authority) about potential synergies between the European
Structural and Investment Funds and the FPs, but that it might be difficult to achieve due to
the fact that the regions receiving most of FP funding are receiving the least European
Structural and Investment Funds and vice versa.

• In Germany, the European Structural and Investment Funds are considered to be more

242
Enabling synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020 and other research,
innovation and competitiveness-related Union programmes: Guidance for policy-makers and implementing
bodies

188
 suitable for the regional level and thus do not really interfere with the FP funding. The
Structural Fund budgets in the period of 2007 to 2013 considerably increased budgets for
research and technology development. Within both funds (ERDF and ESF), EUR 26.3 billion
related to research, innovation and entrepreneurship out of which EUR7.55 billion (29%) were
granted to Germany. This means that large budgets are implemented at regional level within
an overall national strategy framework plan. Out of four funding priorities, the first focuses on
support of innovation, research and development, knowledge based development and
education. The regions are divided along their socio-economic into convergence and
competitiveness regions, and measures within RTD are tailored accordingly. Across the board
of all regions, instruments and support measures within the first priority are widely in use. In
an interview it was suggested that the German funding is designed to complement in the best
possible way the EU funding. A lot of attention has been put on avoiding overlap between the
different funding instruments.

One consequence of the changes in – or decreases in parts of – national public R&I funding is that
the role and importance of other sources has increased. This includes efforts on building more
private-public partnerships in implementing R&I programmes, but equally – and especially for the
EU-13 countries – an emphasis towards the European Structural and Investment Funds or other
EU and international funding as more stable sources of financing. 243 Yet there is less evidence of
widespread synergies. The examples provided through our Task 3 research is largely, albeit not
fully, anecdotal.

With regards to the role of the European Structural and Investment Funds, key findings cover
some of the following points:

• The European Structural and Investment Funds are more easily accessible than FP
and thus a preferred instrument

Generally, in the EU-13 the European Structural and Investment Funds are considered more easily
accessible compared with the more competitive FPs. European Structural and Investment Funds
funding can also be accessed without the need of forming or joining international consortia, which
is an advantage for less R&I actors with less international experience. Although more easy access
to R&I funding is a positive factor, there are issues around the sustainability of this situation.
There is a danger of overreliance by the EU-13 on the European Structural and Investment Funds,
and as strong and consistent FP participation takes time to accumulate, a lack of focus on
accessing FP funding may prove to be a bigger disadvantage in the longer run.

• The European Structural and Investment Funds complement as well as provide

funding when FPs not available (innovation)

In Hungary, in order to rectify the problem of the low success rate of applications for FP
participation, several projects were funded through the 2007-2013 European Structural and
Investment Funds to support potential future FP7 participants. Hungary generally performs well
when it comes to the employment in knowledge-intensive activities and the number of business
enterprise researchers while its weaknesses include human resources, scientific production and
technological production. Improving the innovativeness of Hungarian companies through the ESI
funds and FPs, and better exploiting the presence in Hungary of many large multinational
companies active in high-tech and medium-tech sectors are still needed to foster the emergence of
an effective national R&I ecosystem. In financing the Hungarian R&D&I the European Structural
and Investment Funds have been playing a significant role. The national operational programmes
(OPs) are arranged so that on the basis of co-financing, funding innovation is realised through SFs.
However, FPs also has a complementary role in financing innovation when other funds were not
accessible for the Hungarian applicants.

The approach of ‘substituting’ European Structural and Investment Funds finance when national
researchers perform less well in the FPs – and using EU funding sources complementarily –
highlights the importance of effective and efficient implementation, and the opportunities lost
when planning/implementation is weak. In Croatia, the use of European Structural and
Investment Funds 2007-2013 was lower than expected due to significant delays in the absorption

243
Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., Lukach, R., Wastyn, A. (2013). The impact of the crisis on research and
innovation policies. Study for the European Commission DG Research by Technopolis Group Belgium and Idea
Consult.

189
of allocated funds, and the ESIF 2014-2020 funds have not been used for funding research
activities so far, again due to significant delays in announcing public calls. 244 The low absorption of
SF and ESIF funds is the consequence of inadequate national coordination and division of
responsibilities between relevant public bodies, as well as inefficient administration, that is weak
administrative capacities for absorbing EU funds. 245

• SF can support and encourage increase in R&I capabilities

Related to the above point, the European Structural and Investment Funds can be used effectively
to develop R&I capabilities, although on par the evidence is stronger for developing research
infrastructure while fewer projects/strategies support a growth in the number of researchers. The
below example shows the situation in Latvia.

As illustrated in Figure 32 the peaks in financing in 2004-2008 and 2010-15 are attributed,
according to our research, to the availability of European Structural and Investment Funds for
science and higher education. A peak in financing can be seen 2014, but, according to the
Statistical Bureau of Latvia, there is no corresponding increase for the number of FTE researchers.
This can be explained that large investments are provided to infrastructure, but not to research
personnel.

Figure 32 Financing for R&D in Latvia

200
R&D, million EUR
investments in

150
100
Total

50
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Source: Statistical Bureau of Latvia

Yet despite not seeing an increase in FTE researchers, in Figure 33 we can see that the number of
scientific publications with Latvian affiliation have increased for about 4 times from 2000 to 2015.
In this period the number of research articles issued annually increased 3 times (300 in 2000 and
876 in 2015) and the number of conference papers increased 20 times (44 in 2000 and 829 in
2015). This figure does not describe appropriately the scientific outcome of researchers in Latvia
before 2000 as at that period large part of scientific articles were published in Russian issues that
are not covered in SCOPUS 246.

Figure 33 Annual Number of Scientific Publications with Latvia affiliation

(retrieved from SCOPUS)

2000
Number of articles in
SCOPUS with Latvia

1500
affiliation

1000

500

0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
year

Source: Statistical Bureau of Latvia

244
Domagoj Račić, Jadranka Švarc, Hristo Hristov (2016) RIO Country Report 2015: Croatia, p. 49
245
Ibid., p. 9
246
The database SCOPUS of scientific articles, access rights are required, www.scopus.com

190
In Slovenia, innovation and research excellence have improved also with the support of
Competence Centres and Centres of Excellence supported by ERDF funding. These are lead by
consortia of research institutions, universities and businesses (with businesses being stronger
component of Competence Centres) and have achieved a breakthrough not only in number of
innovations, but also their effects. It is important to note that the innovations and patents have
become more strategic, wider in their application and relevance. Consequently, Slovenian research
institutions and researchers are more often invited to participate in various platforms, committees
and advisory boards. The Competence Centre (CoE) model can be an effective way of building up
both research infrastructure as well as human resources – and circumventing the danger of
braindrain that may be associated with R&I investments too focused on RI.

Interactions with other EU instruments (excluding the European Structural and

Investment Funds)

Although the Associated Countries lack access to the European Structural and Investment Funds,
clearly other EU instruments – that are available to opt into – are important tools for R&I.
Although financially they cannot be compared to SF, we can conclude that they equally contribute
to the development of knowledge foundations and to network opportunities.

The European Enterprise Network is used in tandem with the FPs by both EU States and ACs
alike. The Albanian ARTI agency engages national SMEs in R&I collaborations through EEN, which
may include encouraging proposals to the LEIT Priority under H2020.

Croatia’s accession to the EU and the pre-accession period were crucial in the process of building
an institutional framework for innovation. A whole array of innovation policy programmes in
different areas of social-economic activity became relevant for Croatia once it became an EU
Member State. The motivation to build the institutional infrastructure and framework for research
and innovation in Croatia was derived from the opportunity of using structural and cohesion funds
that became available in this period and which put a significant accent on innovation. The
establishment of a consistent innovation system in Croatia demanded better coordination between
ministries so the innovation policy and programmes were put under the jurisdiction of the Ministry
of Economy, instead of the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports that was responsible for it
beforehand.

From 1992 to 2012, the Tempus programme has played a vital role in Albania in bringing the
academic community into the European network of higher education institutions, mainly by
supporting retraining and upgrading of academic staff (70%-80% of academic staff have retrained
abroad through Tempus). Tempus has also been instrumental in supporting the reform of the
Bologna process and the development of the capacity of universities to upgrade institutional
management. Two overall long-term processes, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement and
the building of the EHEA, have shaped Tempus cooperation in Albania since 2000 and the
dynamics of both have led to the updating of cooperation priorities on a yearly basis.

Study programmes covering the fields of agriculture, environmental sciences, geology,

engineering, natural sciences, nursing, tourism and leisure and cultural heritage have been
updated since 2000. Lifelong learning courses have been developed in the fields of civil society,
environmental policy, transport policy, public administration reform, public health, justice and
teacher training. Information management systems, institutional evaluation, continuing education
and the development of university strategic plans have also been supported through Tempus.

Under Tempus IV the trend has been mainly towards regional projects in different fields, such as
curricular reform, university governance and university and society. Tempus has contributed to
the harmonisation of higher education in terms of introducing the three cycles of studies in all
Albanian higher education institutions and the development of unified curricula that comply with
the Bologna criteria.

Interactions with other national funding instruments

It clearly takes planning and coordination to maximise combined effective use of the European
Structural and Investment Funds and the FPs, it is also a challenge to effectively combine national
funding with the FPs Generous national funding may prove an impediment and disincentive for
national researchers, who may prefer national funding over the internationally competitive FP
funds. A lack of funding, in particular in the short-term, can galvanise efforts to access FP funding,
however a lack of national support for R&I risks longer-term performance, especially in securing a
sufficient intake of new and young researchers.

191
In Sweden, the former hypothesis is one that tends to be used to explain the reason behind why
the impacts of FP participation are overall modest – it is considered that the generous national
funding system has in part substituted for FP participation. However – somewhat contradictory, it
is equally thought that the strong R&I funding system also promotes high FP participation – in
particular in areas where internationalisation of research is a key factor. High scientific quality and
an ample supply of co-funding are preconditions for participating in FP projects. Yet, the fact that
FP funding only makes up a small fraction of the total R&I funding in Sweden still stands, and the
Swedish Paradox indicate limited FP outputs of already marginal FP inputs, which should be seen
as a major explanation for marginal impacts of the FPs. Regarding the simplifying measures
introduced between FP6 and FP7, this has made it more attractive to apply for FP funding, but
applying for national funding is still considered to be less complicated. In addition, there may be
other factors making FP funding unattractive to apply for, such as the low success rate.

Similarly, in Finland national funding has traditionally been relatively readily available, hence it
may be that actors find it difficult to adjust into EU channels. National funding has been easier and
more convenient to attain compared to European funds, which are often thought more
bureaucratic and inflexible. The strong national funding has generally been regarded a strength
which has supported the domestic knowledge base, but its sustainability internationally in the long
term could be discussed. The readjustment is a learning process. Furthermore, it has been
suggested that Finnish R&I actors lack a ‘FP culture’. Formal reporting structures have been the
standard, and the presentation and marketing of the work have not been prioritised. The ways and
modes of communication should therefore be improved and adapted. Interviewees find that
domestic inter-university networks and communications are not very well organised. The Finnish
research tradition has favoured individual work, while collaboration and coordination have often
been found laborious. National structures largely rely on individuals, and information flows are
insufficient, which also impedes international communications.

Ireland is a well-known example of how a sudden drop in national funding can drive an
improvement in FP participation. Before the 2008 economic crisis, Ireland invested heavily in R&I
and, as a result of national funding, FP participation lost priority. This changed post-2008 as the
national government was forced to cut deep into R&I spending, and which drove Irish R&I
organisations back to compete at European level.

Our interview programme suggests that Germany has put in efforts to align its national R&I funds
(as well as European Structural and Investment Funds) so that they complement EU funding
effectively. Efforts have been made to avoid overlap, in particular since the Germany presidency in
2010 when the BMBF initiated a working group under the Council advisory body CREST (now
ERAC) to define guidelines for improving the coordination of the European Structural and
Investment Funds (which are predominantly seen as s regional instrument in Germany, see Table
48) and the FPs to better align regional development. The BMBF together with the Federal State
Brandenburg conducted a good practice model as to how best integrate structural fund and
framework initiatives.

The Netherlands has also sought to complement national and FP funding through the Top Sector
policy, which links in particular to Horizon 2020. Initially, there were been many synergies
between the national and FP instruments thus national funding was redesigned so that it would not
overlap with FP and that it would provide funding for activities and approaches that cannot be
funded by FP. As part of the Top Sector Strategy, the parties collaborating in the top sectors
established 17 Top Consortia for Knowledge and Innovation (TKIs) developed the so-called
Innovation Contracts. In these contracts the business sector, researchers and the government
have made agreements on how the resources that are earmarked for knowledge and innovation
will be used in each top sector to build on existing scientific excellence and to meet the need for
innovative solutions to societal problem. As Dutch national funding is decreasing, more effort is
put into supporting the applications to Horizon 2020. For this purpose, various activities are
organised, such as study visit to project coordinators/hosts (for example of the ERC projects),
communication and lobbying in Brussels through the research network, consultations and briefings
for potential project partners etc. Researchers are also advised and encouraged to become FP
project evaluators because this speeds up the learning processes. In addition, success at FP is
taken into account also on national level – successful FP project applicants gain additional points
as FP success indicates competence and high level of experience. FP participation has influenced
also preparation of new legislation in order to lower administrative barriers (e.g. for ERA-Net) and
adjust tax policy because of increased interest of SMEs.

The German and Dutch experiences make interesting comparison to that of France. Although the
French R&I system is traditionally very strong, impacts from the FPs appear to be largely
unknown. Moreover, the country performs below par when compared to its peers. In terms of

192
possible reasons for the poor French performance, it is suggested that the European financing
opportunities are not sufficiently well coordinated with and integrated into the national research
landscape, and that EU calls for proposals are granted insufficient visibility, especially in relation to
private sector actors. Furthermore, the availability of well-funded national schemes do not
encourage applicants to run the additional risk of applying for the more selective and competitive
European funds. There are at least 10 national financing schemes that have an ambiguous or even
competitive positioning vis-à-vis H2020 as their objectives are similar but they are more attractive
by offering more easily accessible funding. Another problem appears to lie in a lack of adequate
support for potential EU project holders faced with the complexity of EU procedures requiring
significant investment, a problem which especially affects SMEs.

Other contributing factors are thought to include that there is a lack of formal recognition in the
French national system to evaluate the performance of researchers to take into account
experiences in managing FP projects. The researchers’ performance appraisal system 247 is focused
on conventional academic benchmarks of R&I performance, i.e. indicators such as the number of
scientific publications, or citations, etc. The French have in this regard compared themselves to
Spain and the Netherlands, where the appraisal system strongly encourages researchers to take
part in transnational collaborative research projects funded through the EU RTD FPs.

7.2 Challenges for small R&I countries/participants with less experience

Clearly, some types of barrier to participation diminish over time and with cumulated FP and
international collaborative experience. Countries with smaller R&I system and/or less participation
are disproportionally affected by a number of key barriers, which are now described.

Immature and/or ineffective R&I systems

The Framework Programmes are internationally very competitive and a basic prerequisite for
successful participation is the sound structure and general functioning of the national R&I system.
This study’s reports compiled for some of the less experienced countries describe difficulties
experienced by R&I systems in this regard.

• Organisational factors (ineffective dichotomies)

The evidence point to the fact that potential FP participants from countries with weaker R&I
systems are disadvantaged as organisational bottlenecks hampers the general performance of R&I
(collaborations). For example, this study’s research in Croatia suggests there is a general
disconnect between science and the economy, which e.g. manifests itself in a general lack of
interest to pursue Horizon 2020 opportunities and a lack of interest in R&I generally.

Within the R&I system itself, there is a divide between different themes and scientific disciplines
(e.g. between SSH and STEM fields), hampering cooperation within the country. These divisions
are often the result of national and institutional policies which result in a zero-sum game (e.g.
different disciplines compete for funding). It should be noted that these types of barriers are not
exclusive to smaller countries but that cooperation between SSH and STEM is more widely
spread, 248 but are particularly noticeable in a ‘weaker’ R&I system.

In 2004, the Moldovan government delegated its competencies in the field of research and the
role of coordinator in promoting innovations and technological transfers to the Academy of
Sciences. The Academy of Sciences became a de-facto Ministry of Sciences. However, the reforms
appear ineffective, as universities and private sector organisations are not keen to due to barriers
and poor incentives provided for the collaboration of public and private sector. 249 Moldovan
legislation has in effect the access to public finance for R&D of private companies. Although any
organisation, regardless its ownership state and legal registration type can participate in R&D
activity, as of 2005 in order to benefit from public funds organisations must meet stringent
accreditation criteria set by the Academy of Sciences.

247
L'Agence d'évaluation de la recherche et de l'enseignement supérieur (AÉRES) is responsible for evaluating
the career development of academic researchers. Its Comité nationale d’évaluation does not take participation
in FP projects into account when evaluating researchers’ careers thereby disincentivising them to take part.
248
See for example Dr. Viola Peter, Zsuzsa Jávorka, Malin Carlberg, Paresa Markianidou, Paul Simmonds
(Technopolis) Improving the contribution of the Social Sciences (including Humanities) to tackling the Grand
Challenges Study to assist the European Research Area Board
249
Popa A. (2011): Research, Development and Innovation in the Republic of Moldova

193
• Regulatory factors

A number of the low-capacity countries are hampered by a lack of university autonomy, which
means these institutions are not able to act independently of the public administrations to, e.g. set
sufficiently competitive salaries and invest sufficiently in infrastructure and equipment. They are
also much less likely to succeed in attracting international and/or holding on to national high-
quality researchers. One interviewee suggested that in Horizon 2020 there are more Central and
Eastern European researchers in UK institutions than there are in the whole of the EU-13. Two of
the EU-13 countries are fairing better, namely Cyprus and Estonia. Estonia has also undergone
recent institutional changes including developing a self-governing university system, which was
considered to have increased the country’s competitiveness.

In the previous two decades, Bosnia and Herzegovina has struggled to re-establish and
structure its R&D&I system, and some improvements are noticed in the field of new legislation and
regulation adoption and adoption of R&D strategic documents at state and entity levels. Still,
activities in this sector like in many others are not vertically synchronized, coordinated, and very
often are divergent.

The major issue in spending of the public funds for R&D are transparency and application of
criteria for support and essence of these criteria, where usually administrative (applicant status)
criteria are dominant, rather than quality of the project proposals. Since the two entity
governments are in charge for distribution of these funds, it is obvious territorial (ethnic)
preference, and major problem is not lack of trans-national cooperation, but rather lack of inner-
national cooperation in BiH.

In Poland, there have been recent reforms of state regulations of researchers salaries (salaries
are no longer capped, but minimum salary requirements are still in place). However the potential
size of salaries are still an issue. Interviewees agree that the FPs contributed to creation of
additional employment opportunities in research. Salaries for positions financed from FPs were
initially attractive. The biggest incentive for employees to implement a project is financial, the
possibility to earn higher wages were attractive. This positive influence of this factor recently came
to an end with the new funding rules, which prohibit additional income to researchers engaged in
Horizon-financed projects to certain limit per year (EUR 8,000). This has reduced the incentive to
participate. This new introduced EU regulation is widely discussed in Poland. In order to reach
higher levels of participation and success rates for application, top scientists must be interested in
project application preparation, while this is now not the case, due to the imposed limitations. For
this positive goal to be reached, the way in which salaries are regulated shall be adapted
specifically to the entire funding system. Currently, it is more attractive to be hired in FP abroad
than in Poland since limits in other countries are higher, as they were calculated from other
average salaries. This is a development which risks leading to brain drain. Alternatively, Polish
researchers prefer to apply to other national or bilateral grants, as they have no equivalent
limitations.

In contrast to the above examples of wider regulatory context, countries such as Estonia, which
has a most competitive R&I system has faired better. The main strengths of Estonia’s R&I system
is performance above the EU average both in SMEs introducing product or process innovation, and
in terms of the level of funding attained through the EU RTD Framework Programmes. Estonian
R&I system funding mechanism and the policy mix has been from the beginning highly project-
and competition-based, which explains strong results in FP participation as it has given Estonian
researchers a competitive advantages to apply for FP funding.

Lack of international experience/competitiveness

A number of countries, including Croatia, describe their scientific community is isolated or

fragmented, indicating that too many researchers and research groups are not internationally
competitive and lag in scientific knowledge, advances and competences. As a result, they lack
skills in the manner required by the FPs.

According to this study’s country research, participation in FP7 reveals the high level of
concentration of human capital and R&I activities in Croatia’s capital, Zagreb. Most of the
Croatian participants in the FP7 are research institutions located in Zagreb. Zagreb University
absorbed 80% of all FP funds for universities and provided 80 out of 104 participants. It is followed
be the School of Medicine of the University of Rijeka, while the four smaller universities in Croatia
(Dubrovnik, Osijek, Pula and Zadar) had a total of only two participants. In the domain of research
institutes, Croatia’s most successful institution, the RBI provided 60% of participants and absorbed
around 95% of funds. What is evident is the prevalence of institutions from the capital region as

194
the biggest “winners” of Horizon 2020 in Croatia. The universities and research institutes in Split
and Rijeka (Croatia’s second and third largest city) are significantly lagging behind.

Croatian interviewees have commented that regional innovation systems need to be developed as
a prerequisite for use of synergies between Horizon 2020 and European Structural and Investment
Funds, which is currently not the case in Croatia. In order for this to happen the universities
should be more connected and integrated with their surroundings. Apart from this, he sees the
lack of human capital in these areas that would be able to implement projects of bigger
significance.

Lack of comprehensive support systems

Although the Framework Programmes offer initiatives like Spreading Excellence and Widening
Participation and Twinning, FP participation often starts with a handful of researchers (e.g. Malta,
FYROM) becoming involved through their own initiative. This has meant that participating
researchers have had to face a steep learning curve, not just of the R&I aspects of participation
but the administrative support aspects too. As FP participation is not widespread, there is little or
no support available at the institutional level and FP participants (in particular coordinators) face a
disproportionally heavy workload just to learn how the project management aspects work.

However, a lack of support systems is also an issue faced by more competitive R&I systems albeit
to a lesser magnitude. As can be seen from the Figure below, most of the NCPs and policymakers
responding to the study’s survey rated their national support systems as working effectively and
considered it to be sophisticated. However, a more detailed look suggests that respondents from
the same countries at some instances provide different opinions when responding this question,
suggesting in reality there is a lack of consensus on the state of support systems.

Figure 34 The extent to which you consider that your country has an effective
support system in place for supporting FP applicants

50

45

5
40 1 8

35
8
16
30 13

25
14
20

15

23 23
10
15
5

0
FP6 FP7 Horizon 2020

Not applicable (my country did not participate formally in this programme period)
An effective/sophisticated FP support system is lacking
Some mechanisms in place to support FP participants
Effective/sophisticated FP support system in place

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

As indicated overleaf there is a difference in attitude between the country groupings, as high and
medium-capacity countries tend to suggest a satisfaction with the national support systems in

195
place. In contrast, responses from lower-capacity countries are more mixed - roughly one-third of
these countries express that the support system could be improved (i.e. an effective/sophisticated
FP support system is lacking.

The survey also asked more specifically which types of services are currently available in each of
the countries for supporting FP participation: “To what extent does your country currently support
(potential) FP applicants through any of the following means?”.

Three types of services seem to be significantly more common than others. These are:

• Information and guidance pertaining to the different types of programmes, awards etc. of the
FPs
• Workshops covering FP topic
• And Information days organised in tandem with specific FP calls for proposals

Figure 35 The extent to which your country currently supports (potential) FP

applicants

Availability of national funding for high-quality

2 8 18 3
unsuccessful FP applicants

Co-funding for successful FP applicants 5 7 14 4

Financial support for proposal writing 6 5 14 2

Support systems for businesses (e.g. located in

9 18 2 4
chambers of commerce etc)

Support systems at the institutional level (e.g. located

14 17 2 1
in research institutes, universities)

Support for individual applicants (ERC, MSCA) 19 13 3 2

Information days organised in tandem with specific FP

31 10 1
calls for proposals

Direct support / feedback on written proposals 13 17 6

Networking and partnering events 12 21 3

Workshops covering FP topic 29 10 2 1

Information and guidance pertaining to the different

35 4 1
types of programmes, awards etc of the FPs

To a large extent To some extent To a little extent Not all all Don't know

Source: Study online survey of FP NCPs and policymakers in the 41 countries

Perceived outsider status / Challenges in being FP newcomers

Some analyses also suggest that countries with smaller R&I capacity perceive themselves to be
outsiders and that the FPs are dominated by actors that are ‘members of a closed club’. Although
this perception is largely anecdotal, out other existing analyses cover this point more strongly, and

196
inter alia argues that the EU-13 and the Western Balkan countries (in effect) lag behind as a result
of their post WW2 history. Although this argument is somewhat contested, participation analysis of
the FPs clearly show marked differences in performance (without directly explaining the causes
behind this). The geographical spread of funding clearly differs notably within Horizon 2020 as
small countries and newcomers 250 have a lower share of funds.

A possible disadvantage is that the current Horizon 2020 programme tends to call for and fund
comparatively large projects. This does not necessarily favour low-capacity countries and smaller
institutions that are yet to build up sufficient international experience and capacity.

Hungary is one of the countries that have struggled to break into the FPs. The Hungarian report
explains that the cause for limited participation was that Hungarian researchers have been unable
to find their ways into the winning consortia. Most of the financial resources go to big consortia
projects, and these consortia are well-functioning proposal-writing teams. The core of these
consortia remains the same and only a very small number of the consortium members change.
With no experience in consortia application, the Hungarian participants have struggled to either
join with or compete against larger teams.

An initial assessment of the geographical distribution of the EU contribution indicates that this
challenge is particularly relevant under the ERC. According to the EC’s 2015 monitoring report, the
EU-15 countries represent 47% of the total budget allocated under the whole priority compared to
less than 1% of the overall budget provided to EU-13 countries. This skewed allocation
phenomenon is also highly visible in the low number of newcomers – for example, in 2014 and
2015, Excellent Science’s share of newcomers was 5.5% and 5.8% respectively, compared with
19.6% and 21.7% in Horizon 2020 overall. 251

Brain drain

Our findings indicate that one of the most concerning and widespread issues for lower capacity R&I
countries is the current challenge of brain drain.

Examples of braindrain from our research include:

• In the previous two decades, Bosnia and Herzegovina has struggled to re-establish and
structure its R&D&I system. Brain drain remains a persistent problem in BiH. Many researchers
formerly working in industrial laboratories and universities have migrated to foreign countries.
• The difficulties in retaining students from the Faroe Islands and the related issue of brain
drain are problematic. A report on Higher Education in the Nordic Countries noted that in a
survey of university students, students from Iceland and the Faroe Islands that had gone to
study abroad “reported that they studied abroad due to the absence of domestic
opportunities”. This is most likely because the Faroe Island only has one very small university.
• Braindrain (along with e.g. a low uptake of science and research education) can also be linked
to a sustained lack of capacity. In Slovenia, potential FP partners lack sufficient capacity for
larger involvement in the implementation of FP programmes.
• In Cyprus – currently one of the best performing small R&I countries – braindrain is singled
out one of two threats to the R&I system’s performance (along with the lack of R&I undertaken
in companies).

The Slovak research system is quite efficient in terms of input/output ratios (value for money),
but has problem with efficacy. Slovak research institutions, for example, are able to generate
papers and citations with at a relatively low unit cost, but rarely appear in the leagues of top-class
research performers. This points to some problems with establishing excellent research and
education provisions. No Slovak HES was included into the list of top 500 World’s HEIs, in contrast
to a number of several Czech and Hungarian universities. Slovakia also faced serious brain drain
and ranked among countries with the highest emigration rates.

Although the challenge of braindrain is largely seen to be a problem too big for a single actor to
solve, our reports also map some measures in place that are aimed at counteracting braindrain
and reversing this trend through capacity building. Croatia has a long-standing (established 2001)
programme aimed at building a foundation of national innovation system. HITRA, the Croatian
Programme for Innovative Technological Development, is aimed at promoting science and industry

250
Newcomer countries are defined as Horizon 2020 Participants who was not involved in a FP7 Project (not a
FP7 participant).
251
Horizon 2020 Monitoring Reports

197
cooperation and in building a foundation of national innovation system in the country. In order to
tackle the issues of weak human resources in R&I, human development programmes were
launched, primarily oriented towards rejuvenation of scientific population within higher education
institutions and public institutions. Another measure undertaken to strengthen human resources in
R&I was the encouragement of research cooperation and mobility between Croatian scientists in
the country and the ones in the foreign countries (Diaspora), aiming to stimulate the return of
Croatian scientists from abroad, which was financed through “Unity through Knowledge Fund
(UKF)” of the Ministry of Science and Education.

Our research in Serbia further suggests that its participation in FPs and Horizon projects has
provided the possibility to provide additional financial resources and this has attracted young
researchers into science. It also has an impact on reducing the brain drain of Serbian researchers.
In 2012 Serbia was in 37th position in the world among the 50 countries with the largest
emigration. In relation to the total population, Serbia was in the 9th place with 5,354 emigrants
per million inhabitants (2012). Good examples for the prevention of the brain drain are the Faculty
of Technical Sciences in Novi Sad which supports its students in establishing innovative enterprises
and the Technological Business Incubator of Technical Science in Belgrade which attracted young
Serbian entrepreneurs from abroad and has supported the establishment of innovative enterprises
and/or their involvement in FPs and Horizon 2020. 252

The current braindrain phenomenon is not solely linked to peripheral or low-capacity countries, but
equally a result of the 2008 financial and economic crisis. Countries including Greece, Ireland,
Latvia, Portugal and Spain that have seen R&I budgets shrink (at some point) during the 2000-
2015 period have struggled to retain skilled human resources. According to research
commissioned by the EC in 201 “many researchers and parts of the skilled labour force have been
leaving due to the instability of the system, low career prospects and salary cuts. Although there
are no exact statistics of the migration of highly skilled people, but the analysis based on the
Eurostat and OECD data shows that indeed this might be an area for concern.” 253

There is also some correlation between the migration of highly skilled personnel including
researchers from countries hard hit by economic downturns, and immigration in larger-capacity
R&I countries. The OECD notes that highly skilled migration flows to Germany, UK, the
Netherlands and Sweden increased sharply in 2012 by almost 70% for Germany and 40% for
Sweden, for example. 254 Indeed one conclusion from the aforementioned study is that countries
suffering from braindrain need to make also “good use of existing scientific networks and strategic
participation in Framework Programmes”.

7.3 Key impacts and typical drivers and barriers identified by country
groupings

The two tables presented overleaf provide high-level summaries of key impacts observed per
country group, and typical drivers and barriers to impact per country group respectively.

The table illustrating key impacts per country group reinforce the nuances between different types
of impacts found in different county groups. Secondly, the table refers to differences in magnitude
of impacts between groups. Having said this, it should be pointed out that the countries grouped
together are not completely homogenous – but there are some important differences within groups
as well as between groups (e.g. specific specialisms, overall size of R&I system, and capacity to
fund R&I post-2008).

Nevertheless, in summary one can conclude that in terms of key impacts traits the country groups
can be viewed as follows:

• Strengthening effect of FP participation for Group 1 and 2’s respective participation in the
FPs have created leverage to add to the multiple existing strengths. Although FP funds have
contributed to science and innovation impacts, Group 1 countries have not directly ‘transposed’
a European approach to R&I. Countries in Group 1 (and to a lesser extent in Group 2) have
also exerted some influence on the development of EU R&I policy.

252
Serbia country report
253
Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., Lukach, R., Wastyn, A. (2013). The impact of the crisis on research and
innovation policies. Study for the European Commission DG Research by Technopolis Group Belgium and Idea
Consult.
254
Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., Lukach, R., Wastyn, A. (2013). The impact of the crisis on research and
innovation policies. Study for the European Commission DG Research by Technopolis Group Belgium and Idea
Consult.

198
• Strengthening and structuring effect of FP participation for Group 2 and 3. These
countries’ FP participation has helped to shape national R&I capacity. FPs are key tools for
internationally. For some countries (predominantly Group 3), participation has also
considerably strengthened their competitiveness through improved policies but equally also
legislative reform.
• Capacity building effect on Group 4. Impacts for Group 4 include direct impacts on research
and innovation but is also characterised by capacity building. In a number of countries there is
also evidence of good practice exchange and learning among policymakers. All Group 4
countries also demonstrate areas of excellent science.

The second table showing drivers and barriers illustrate the ‘other side of the same coin’. Common
traits within country groupings strongly appear to be key factors that can drive participation.
These include a strong support system at national/regional and institutional level, clear rationale
and prioritisation for competing in the FPs, favourable framework conditions (e.g. HEI autonomy)
and good access to international networks.

Conversely, the country groupings display common barriers, which are more prominent in some
groups than in others, such as a lack of political support and funding, fragmented research
systems and regulatory barriers.

199
 Table 49 Summary of extent of impacts per country group
Group Scientific impacts R&I systems impact Policy impacts Economic & innovation Societal impacts
impacts

Group 1 Leaders Strong long-term impacts Fewer and more nuanced FP research results that Although impacts tend to Evidence is strongest around
& Influencers both in terms of scientific impacts, compared to have contributed evidence be described as marginal, impact on climate change,
discovery as well as the other groups, as Group 1 towards EU regulation however the FPs have health, security and other
Germany, advancement of scientific countries have a strong have had an impact Group facilitated the expansion societal challenges themes.
Switzerland, UK fields and interest. R&I system independently 1 countries. However of nationally competitive The Societal challenges
Although Group 1’s FP of the FPs. Group 1 countries also areas and also contributed approach promoted by the
funding share is significant influence EU policy. towards the development FPs have generally
Participation has
in absolute terms, it ha Impacts of EU policy on of new niche research strengthened Group 1
nevertheless facilitated
also been matched by these countries are fields. The FPs have also national activities.
more international
generous national funds. therefore fairly limited. contributed to
collaboration and
internationalisation of
strengthened the national
participating industries.
R&I systems as Group 1
countries have attracted
international researchers
and experts.
Article 185 has also
contributed to improved
alignment with other FP
countries, in particular EU
states.

200
Group Scientific impacts R&I systems impact Policy impacts Economic & innovation Societal impacts
impacts

Group 2 Core Strong long-term impacts FP participation has Similar to Group 1 policy Similar to Group 1, As with Group 1, evidence is
players – both in terms of scientific increased the international impacts have been limited, impacts tend to be strongest around impact on
experienced FP discovery as well as the competitiveness of R&I however there are described as marginal, climate change, health,
countries with advancement of scientific system elements (HEIs) multiple examples of how however the FPs have security and other societal
multiple pockets fields and interest. FP and have had a positive national policies carried by facilitated the expansion challenges themes. The
of excellence funding has also played an effect on Group 2 R&I Group 2 countries have of nationally competitive Societal challenges approach
important role in collaboration. been reinforced after areas and also contributed promoted by the FPs have
Austria, Belgium, maintaining research having been promoted at towards the development generally strengthened
Article 185 has also
Denmark, Finland, communities during cuts EU level and directly of new niche research Group 2 national activities.
contributed to improved
France, Greece, in national funding. implemented in FP design. fields. The FPs have also
alignment with other FP
Ireland, Israel, played a key role in the
countries, in particular EU
Italy, the internationalisation of
states.
Netherlands, participating industries.
Norway, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden

Group 3 Strong long-term impacts The FPs have played a key The FPs have had a Similar to scientific The social dimension of the
Reformers and both in terms of scientific role in shaping the R&I positive influence on impacts, Group 3 FPs – including
specialists discovery as well as the system and has sped up capacity building for R&I countries have used the environmental protection,
advancement of scientific institutional changes and policy makers and have FPs to developed niche the application of evidence-
Cyprus, Estonia, fields and interest in a reforms in e.g. the HE contributed to improved areas in innovation and based policymaking and
Faroe Islands, smaller number of fields. sector. and more tailored industry. social protection – have
Iceland, approach to R&I policy influenced Group 3 countries
Liechtenstein, Positive impact on RI Article 185 has also making. The FPs have also however to a varying degree.
Lithuania, capacity. contributed to improved contributed towards Capacity-building exercises
Luxembourg, alignment with other FP improved collaboration have contributed to the
Malta, Slovakia, countries, in particular EU between industry and spread of good practice in
Slovenia states. academia, and the R&I policy making and
application of the triple/ evaluation.
quadruple helix model.

201
Group Scientific impacts R&I systems impact Policy impacts Economic & innovation Societal impacts
impacts

Group 4 Scientific impact is partly The FPs have contributed The FPs have had a With a few exceptions, As with Group 3, the social
Support-focused limited to participating to promoting change and positive influence on economic and innovation dimension of the FPs –
and sporadic research groups and raised ideas about R&I capacity building for R&I impacts have tended to be including environmental
participation institutions. FP funding however concrete long- policy makers although limited to participants, protection, the application of
has contributed with badly term change is overall less participation and levels of largely due to a lack of evidence-based policymaking
Albania, Bosnia & needed funding to noticeable. engagement has varied domestic capacity to and social protection – have
Herzegovina, maintain and support across Group 4 countries. effectively compete at a influenced Group 4 countries
Bulgaria, Croatia, researcher performers in European level. however to a varying degree.
the Czech Group 4 countries.
Republic, FYROM,
Hungary, Latvia,
Moldova,
Montenegro,
Poland Romania,
Serbia, Turkey

Table 50 Typical drivers and barriers identified by country groupings

Group Key drivers to impact Key barriers to impact Countries

Group 1 Leaders • Strong national R&I system • (Perceived) drawbacks of FP participation in terms of Germany, Switzerland, UK
& Influencers administrative burden, too long timeframe for successful
• High levels of internationalisation
innovation etc.
(including well-established networks for
collaboration) • Availability of national funding becomes a disincentive.
• High quality R&I performers, many with
international experience
• Strong at attracting scientific expertise
from aboard (strong inward mobility)
• Well-established support system for
participation

202
 Group Key drivers to impact Key barriers to impact Countries

Group 2 Core • Strong national R&I system • (Perceived) drawbacks of FP participation in terms of Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
players – administrative burden, too long timeframe for successful Finland, France, Ireland,
• FP participation a key tool for
experienced FP innovation etc. Israel, the Netherlands,
internationalisation
countries with Norway, Spain, Sweden
• In some instances:
multiple • Well-established support system for
Greece, Italy, Portugal
pockets of participation - Availability of national funding becomes a
excellence disincentive (SE)
• Generally, good interplay between role
of national funding and FP funding - Lack of effective strategy for improving FP
participation (FR)
• Good levels of internationalisation
(including well-established networks for
collaboration)
• In some instances:
- Cuts in national funding drives
FP applications
Group 3 • Well-established objectives • (Perceived) drawbacks of FP participation in terms of Cyprus, Estonia, Faroe
Reformers and (intervention logic, strategies) to administrative burden, too long timeframe for successful Islands, Iceland,
specialists compete in the FPs innovation etc. Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta,
• Effective specialisation • Lack of capacity to grow R&I sectors
Slovakia, Slovenia
• High quality R&I performers • Competition from stronger countries
• Effective (improving) framework • Braindrain
conditions for improving FP participation
• R&I a well-established political priority

203
 Group Key drivers to impact Key barriers to impact Countries

Group 4 • Strong willingness of the scientific • Fragmented R&I system with pockets of excellence too isolated Albania, Bosnia &
Support- community to participate to make wider impacts from participation Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
focused and Croatia, the Czech Republic,
• Lack of domestic funding necessitates • Lack of domestic funding
sporadic FYROM, Hungary, Latvia,
FP applications
participation • Lack of innovation experience Moldova, Montenegro,
• Capacity-building FP participation an Poland Romania, Serbia,
• Lack of support system Turkey
opportunity to expand FP participation
more widely • Regulatory barriers (e.g. lack of HES autonomy)
• Lack of knowledge of FPs and networks
• Braindrain

204
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section presents the study’s conclusions and recommendations. Overarching conclusions are
provided in relation to participation rates in FP6, FP7 and H2020. These conclusions address
factors which may contribute to enhancing – on the one hand – participation in the Framework
Programmes – and on the other hand – sustainable impacts from participation.

Recommendations are then provided. These are aimed at i) national level policymakers, ii) EU-
level policymakers, and iii) the individual country groupings respectively.

The aim of the recommendations is not simply to influence FP participation quantitatively, but to
suggest approaches to tackling barriers, encouraging interest in and understanding of the role of
the FPs in each country so as to build up a comprehensive picture of key achievements to date and
to foster an approach which may help to create sustainable long-term impacts. This may entail
learning from other countries in the cohort.

8.1 Overarching conclusions

Participation rates in FP6-H2020 and enhancing participation in future

• The study looked at FP performance in terms of the number of participations achieved by a

country as well as the level of funding. The analysis of participation rates identified
considerable variations in performance across MSs/ ACs and between FPs. Some countries’
performance has improved, whilst that of others has declined or remained stable.

• Lessons can be learned from studying high-performing MS/AC that have increased their
participation level (in terms of share and volume in EUR of participations). Some of these
characteristics are the result of long-term investment and an internationally strong R&I
environment:

- Strong national R&I capacity (including systems / structures)

- Strong performance on the European Innovation Scoreboard/ key R&I metrics

Other characteristics can be more easily emulated and adapted by other countries that wish to
invest in improving their FP performance:
- Strong rationale for FP participation and political support for competing for funding
- Strong/growing interest among R&I performers in participating, which may stem
from an award system/incentives for participation (e.g. successful FP participation
may count as a criterion for accessing national funding)
- A clear division of labour between the role of national funding and that of EU/FP
funding
- A strong/growing understanding among R&I performers of the ‘workings’ of the
FPs and what benefits can be derived from participation
- Investment in, and professionalisation of support structures by universities and
PROs within their institutions to help project applicants to develop successful FP
applications, including accessing networks

• Lessons can also be learnt by identifying / analysing characteristics of countries where FP

participation rates have declined over the past 15 years. Difficulties in enhancing participation
include:

- Weak national R&D&I capacity (ineffective systems / structures) including lack of

funding and sustained political support, an inability to modernise as well as to
compete internationally
- Poor framework conditions, including regulatory barriers to funding (e.g. financial
regulation)
- A backlog with regards to research infrastructures and of public-private
collaborations
- A small proportion of national R&I performers active internationally (within or
outside of the FPs), which makes it difficult to disseminate good practice for
internationalisation to other R&I performers in that particular country
- Lack of incentives or ‘training for internationalisation’ in the career development
structures of – in particular – public sector R&I performers

205
 - Poor preparedness to produce quality applications, with a lack of formalised
support structures at national and/or institutional level
- Absence of training support measures to improve quality of FP applications
- A lack of knowledge about the FPs and/or a lack of access to R&I networks
internationally
- Weaker EN language skills
- Lack of evidence and understanding of what the barriers to participation are

However, it is difficult to generalise and to develop a categorisation system that explains relative
success, as a complex range of factors influences FP performance.

Some countries have a strong R&I system and research infrastructure but nevertheless participate
‘below capacity’ (i.e. have a significant proportion of internationally competitive R&I performers
which do not partake in the FPs). In these cases, other factors apply – e.g. if it is easier to apply
for national or ESIF funding. If national funding is estimated to be more easily accessible, the R&I
performer is more likely to prepare an application for this particular funding source.

Impacts and maximising the impacts of the FPs at MS/AC level in future

• An assessment of FP impacts is inherently dependent on i) the particular national R&I

characteristics, capacity and the R&I system’s baseline, ii) the length and type of participation,
and iii) data availability at national and regional level in order to establish participation trends
in the first place.

• Based on the above point, it is therefore not meaningful to make direct comparisons between
countries. However a categorisation of countries and impacts, if allowing for some fluidity, is
possible.

• Although this study’s focus has been on scientific impacts, impacts on innovation, impacts
relating to the overall R&I systems, economic impacts, wider societal impacts, and policy
impacts, in practice, many impacts are crosscutting, i.e. affecting more than one actor and/or
component of the R&I system.

• Many impacts are also interrelated and/or interdependent – for example Impact B is likely to
follow after Impact A has been observed, and/or Impact B is dependent on Impact A occurring
first. For example – R&I systems impacts (e.g. HEI reforms aimed at improving international
competitiveness) may follow after initial scientific impacts have been achieved (e.g. raising
excellence and collaborative behaviour among national FP participants, which helps prompt
calls for systematic change).

• Impacts can be top-down or driven by changes from the bottom. In terms of types of impact,
the following conclusions are drawn:

Scientific impacts: scientific impacts, tend to be one of the most immediate and, by far, the type
of impact most documented. Generally scientific impacts can also be attributed (at least in part) to
FP participation, however the overall funding mix plays an important role.

• Scientific impacts dependent on accumulated FP participation of different kinds, e.g.

- Participation of individual researchers in grant schemes such as the ERC, MSCA are
important for the internationalisation of research and the mobility/ exchange of
knowledge.
- Coordination of (large) FP projects is strategically important both for participants
but also at the strategic level, since there can be wider ramifications, in particular
if the area of research is in line with overall R&I priorities.
R&I systems impacts can be traced back to EU policy initiatives as well as to national
organisational reforms. A pronounced outcome is the strengthening cooperation between
universities, research institutions within countries, in the regions and internationally. FP
participation therefore also contributes to behavioural changes alongside other EU measures, such
as ESIF (smart specialisation) and pre-accession funding.

• An indirect R&I systems impact can be seen in the agenda setting of national research
activities. FP activities raise awareness of the scientific community within a nation of particular
issues or subjects, focus attention and efforts and influence the allocation of national R&D-
resources.

206
Policy impacts are particularly prominent among countries that are preparing for close
association to the EU in general and in particular to join the FPs as an Associated Country) Smaller
capacity countries also tend to see stronger impacts of this kind.

Economic impacts are quite challenging to measure as it entails tracing the impact of spillovers
and attributing change back to the FP-supported activities. Some national policymakers have a
tendency to focus on Return on Investment from FP participation as this approach is commonly
used for assessing value for (taxpayers) money. However the RoI from FP participation may be
negative in the short- and even medium-term. Although this is of course a real cost in itself, a too
heavy focus on the RoI from a national perspective may come at the expense of assessing
economic benefits derived at the participant level.

• There is interesting evidence of economic impact from selected countries. To give one
example, Denmark has invested in evaluations to measure economic impacts from the FPs.
However, overall the assessment of economic impacts is still a somewhat unexplored area at
national level.

• From a national perspective, economic impact is generally considered to be ‘marginal’ or

‘niche’ but not unimportant.

• However, FP participation can lead to economic impacts indirectly/ in the longer-term.

Successful FP participation creates political incentives to allow for an incremental increase in
R&D spending nationally, leading to more capacity and improved competitiveness.

Impacts on innovation need to be assessed taking a wide view of innovation activities.

Importantly, innovation is not confined to the economic activities of enterprises that are able to
provide innovation outcomes to the market. Moreover – and although the FPs have always
supported innovation activities in some form – the FPs should be assessed bearing in mind that
innovation was only fully brought into the FPs with the launch of Horizon 2020.

• Impacts on innovation include ‘classic’ outputs in the form of Intellectual Property (albeit,
some argue, these are comparatively few). There is considerably more evidence which points
to pretty extensive positive impacts on institutional and organisational behaviour, i.e. regular
participation in the FPs and exposure to international networks contribute to creating
behaviour, which is more conducive to innovation (e.g. collaborative, multidisciplinary,
outcome-driven or risk taking).

• Most innovation impacts are documented in higher-capacity countries and/or where substantial
data are available, but lower-capacity countries also demonstrate an ability to create
innovation impacts. Anecdotal evidence suggests that lower-capacity countries in particular
observe changes in individual and organisational behaviour (e.g. improved collaboration skills,
wider networking).

Societal impacts are particularly noticeable in improving the evidence base for policymaking and
on environmental awareness/processes and regulation.

• Multiple anecdotal evidence show that data and result from the FPs (e.g. ERA-Nets) is utilised
in the policymaking process and taken into account at times of national reforms, in stimulating
regulatory changes and so forth. Moreover, MS policymakers who have access to ample high-
quality scientific expertise with good knowledge of the EU can benefit from their advice.

• The focus on societal challenges in H2020 is considered strongly relevant and has impacted the
evolution of national policy frameworks, which often mirror at least some of the societal
challenges identified at a European level. This partly reflects the role and impact of the FPs in
promoting alignment in key policy areas between the European and national levels.

• For smaller R&I capacity countries, FP participation is also an important part of government
reform overall.

8.2 Recommendations

Overarching recommendations – national level

• Improve the alignment of national strategies with FP pillars and thematic priority areas for
intervention, in order to avoid overlap; develop an (intervention logic for FP participation),
insofar as national funding can be complementary to FP funding.

207
• Ensure sufficient national support to maximise participation in, and the impact of FP
participation – both strategic (e.g. capacity-building, ensuring appropriate framework
conditions), and localised support structures appropriate for R&I performers in each area.

• Improve monitoring and evaluation of FP performance in accordance with explicit goals.

• Put in place appropriate R&I strategies, which thoroughly carve out a role for the FPs within
the national context, that is, set constructive goals for FP participation that are aligned with
national R&I capacity and priorities.

• Ensure that knowhow and experience gained from the FPs by national R&I performers are
disseminated and used to generate new ideas for further improving performance.

• Put in place sufficiently funded support systems (NCP) at a national, institutional and industry
level (as appropriate).

• Where appropriate, put in place mechanisms, such as national funding programmes, which
focus on improving capacity and/or reversing brain drain.

• Incentives to promote internationalisation of R&I in general and FP participation in particular

should be integrated more systematically into the national R&I system.

• Existing cross-border collaboration platforms could be better utilised to facilitate a successful

transition towards participating in the FPs.

• As far as possible, national funding schemes should enhance rather than compete with FP
funding, for instance, by initially fostering national research up to the point where it is able to
compete effectively for FP funding.

• Prioritise national resources and support measures by targeting high-quality R&I actors that
have further capacity but are presently under-represented.

• National R&I actors need to activity engage with EU R&I policy In order to be informed
developments such as forthcoming calls or new subjects, and also in order to participate and
influence decisions about new subjects and programmes (smaller capacity countries can
collaborate in highlighting common themes).

• Some R&I strategies place an emphasis on strengthening framework conditions but more
needs to be done to systematise approaches.

• Carry out evaluation and monitoring of FP participation to assess progress and impact. Ideally
the mechanism necessary to achieve both should also be understood through evaluation.

Overarching recommendations – EU level

• The design of FP9 should consider all types of R&I capacity. There is a consensus that the FP
must focus on excellence but without inadvertently excluding those with a weaker baseline
position. One possible way of achieving this is to further creating synergies between the FP
and ESIF. For example, according to the H2020 interim evaluation, the “Horizon 2020 and
Cohesion Policy regulations now foresee the possibility to combine the funds in the same
project.” 255 Another approach is to encourage MS to further exploit (and refine existing) ‘Seal
of Excellence’ initiatives.
• The design of FP9 should also strongly consider moving further away from the linear model of
innovation on the basis that this risks defining innovation too narrowly and risks excluding
public sector organisations that have innovation capacity. Instead a collaborative approach
may be more beneficial for including both traditional actors as well as encouraging applications
from ‘new players’. A collaborative approach to innovation may also improve knowledge
transfer between participating actors.
• Encourage MS to implement national recommendations (e.g. framework conditions, support
structures) using existing mechanisms (semester recommendations, ERAWATCH/ RIO reports).
The national semester recommendations developed at EU level can in particular help improve
the wider framework conditions necessary for international R&I.
• Encourage and support MS and AC to adopt a wider view of innovation and explore beyond the
linear model of innovation in line with existing evidence 256, which takes into account national

255
SWD(2017) 221 final Commission Staff Working Document Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020. Brussels,
29.5.2017
256
E.g. Robert Madelin and David Ringrose (ed.) (2016) Opportunity now: Europe’s mission to innovate

208
 specificities in terms of R&I maturity and varying industry participation, and which capitalises
on building collaborative networks between R&I actors and R&I performers.
• Enhance the role of the ERAC WG in spreading good practice, organise collective learning,
exchange of experiences between countries, and benchmark analysis in monitoring and
evaluation of MS/AC uptake and impact of FP participation.
• Ensure outstanding barriers to FP participation that arise from programme design, application
procedures, administrative requirements and reporting and monitoring procedures are
addressed.
• The administrative simplification measures already introduced in FP7 and H2020 have been
well received. Further simplification would still be beneficial for example in order to overcome
the remaining challenges in respect of “Time to Grant” which may deter SMEs/ industry
applicants and applicants with a strong innovation focus.
• Consider the possibility of a shorter cycle for R&I projects targeted at SMEs and industry since
there is under-representation of these research actors in some MSs/ ACs.
• The Commission could further promote awareness of good practice to enhance FP participation
e.g.:
- Effective incentive measures to promote FP participation
- Strengthened R&I framework conditions
- Proactive steps to address under-participation by particular types of R&I performers
(e.g. universities, research and technology organisations, industry etc.)
- Development of effective support structures, in particular NCP networks

• Undertake a follow-up study to e.g. analyse the longitudinal impacts of FP participation in

selected countries from a micro-level perspective and/or analyse longitudinal participation
patterns from a micro-level perspective. This would enable a much more detailed analysis
compared to the rather high-level assessments undertaken by this study (a result of covering
a large number of countries). Other analyses could for example look at ‘legacy projects’, i.e.
thematic projects that have evolved over successive FP periods or specific regional impacts of
FP funding.

Recommendations for Group 1 - Leaders & Influencers

Germany, Switzerland, UK

• Group 1 countries should continue to provide strong support for their R&I performers currently
participating in the FPs and consider tailored support for improving participation from
underrepresented actors (industry/regional actors).
• Group 1 countries derive considerable benefits from FP participation. Group 1 countries should
continue to use the FPs as a means towards wider internationalisation. International networks
involving Group 1 countries may be encouraged to participate in the FPs.
• Group 1 countries have advanced R&I systems, which depend on international collaboration.
Group 1 countries should be made aware of their responsibilities, as major beneficiaries of EU
funding, to identify and highlight the benefits of FP participation and to support the further
exploitation of research results.
• Group 1 countries should consider improving collaboration with other country groupings as a
means to reversing the brain drain.

Recommendations for Group 2 - Core players – experienced FP countries with multiple

pockets of excellence

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden

• Group 2 countries should continue to use the FPs to promote internationalisation and R&I
excellence.
• As with Group 1 countries, Group 2 countries should consider strengthening their support for
R&I performers currently participating in the FPs and consider tailored support for improving
participation from underrepresented actors (industry/regional actors).

209
• Group 2 countries should consider identifying the factors behind current weaknesses in FP
participation and assess appropriate solutions.
• Group 2 countries should consider improving their R&I policy influence at EU level, i.e. taking a
more proactive approach to ensuring that national R&I needs are sufficiently covered in FP
design and in wider R&I policy developed at a European level.
• Group 2 countries should consider enhancing existing cross-border cooperation as a means of
increasing FP participation through, for example, teaming up with countries and regions with
related smart specialisation priorities.
• Group 2 counties should consider the effectiveness of the current funding mix – including FP
ESI Funding and national funding – and aim to enhance the use and rationale of funding.
• Group 2 countries adversely affected by the 2008 economic crisis and its aftermath should
consider the effects of cuts and aim to support a regeneration of R&I, including assessing the
loss of expertise through braindrain and the availability of funding for RI.

Recommendations for Group 3 - Reformers and specialists

Cyprus, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia,
Slovenia

• (As with Group 2) Group 3 countries should continue to use the FPs for developing
internationalisation and R&I excellence.
• Group 3 countries should develop a wider portfolio and broaden their scientific base / capacity
by strengthening their university system and improving their R&D infrastructure.
• Group 3 countries should encourage university-business cooperation to benefit FP participation
– although it is also important to develop scientific infrastructure. R&I investments must also
encourage human development in both the public and private sectors. In this regard,
instruments such as Competence Centres and other collaborative methods of producing
research may prove effective (provided they are developed in prioritised areas of e.g. smart
specialisation).
• Group 3 countries should identify factors behind current weaknesses in FP participation and
assess appropriate solutions, including ensuring funding for supporting capacity-building in
potential areas of growth, and assessing the suitability of the regulatory framework.
• Group 3 countries should consider improving their R&I policy influence at EU level, i.e. take a
more proactive approach to ensuring that national R&I needs are sufficiently covered in FP
design and in wider R&I policy developed at a European level. This should include ensuring
that new forms of innovation are sufficiently covered in FP design (e.g. inclusion of the public
sphere) to support the Group 3 countries that have young R&I systems.
• Group 3 countries should consider enhancing existing cross-border cooperation as a route
towards FP participation.
• Group 3 countries should consider a review of its current support system for participating in
the FPs and assess how it can be improved.
• (As with Group 2) Group 3 counties should consider the effectiveness of the current funding
mix – including the FPs, ESIF and national funding – and aim to enhance the use and rationale
of funding sources.

Recommendations for Group 4 - Support-focused and sporadic participation

Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, FYROM, Hungary, Latvia,
Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Turkey

• Group 4 countries should continue to build on scientific and R&I systems impacts achieved to
date, but place a greater emphasis on strengthening the sustainability of their FP participation.
• Group 4 countries should prioritise building broad political support for R&I investment in order
to make it a long-term national policy priority, backed up by appropriate levels of funding.
• Group 4 countries should consider developing an explicit strategy leading to improved
participation in the FPs, including targets for the level of participation in key thematic areas,
for key R&I performers and a robust monitoring of progress.

210
• Group 4 countries need to continue to address the strengthening of research infrastructures
and the establishment of regional and technical networks.
• As with Group 3, Group 4 countries should encourage university-business cooperation to
benefit FP participation and explore new forms of innovation more broadly.
• Group 4 countries should consider political and regulatory reforms for improved participation
(e.g. awareness and knowledge of the FPs, reversing brain drain).
• Group 4 countries should consider collaborating with other small-capacity R&I countries to
ensure their needs are met.
• Group 4 countries should strengthen current cross-border cooperation with the explicit aim of
improving participation in the FPs, for instance via teaming up with countries and regions with
related smart specialisation priorities.

211
ANNEX A BIBLIOGRAPHY
List of literature

N.B. Each country report contains an additional bibliography for sources compiled and used by the individual
country researchers.

Allman et al., Measuring Wider Framework Conditions for successful innovation, Nesta/University of Manchester
2011 https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/measuring_wider_framework.pdf
Arnold et al (2008) Impacts of The Framework Programme in Sweden
Cizelj (2004) The European Research Area and EU Enlargement. See https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-
content/uploads/2005/09/New-Frontiers_Chapter-10.pdf
Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility: A report
prepared in collaboration between Science Europe and Elsevier’s SciVal Analytics, September 2013.
CSES Final Evaluation of the EUROCORES Programme (2015) for the European Science Foundation
Cuntz et al (2013) European Research Area Impact on Member States' policy development. JRC Scientific and
Policy Reports.
DASTI (2010) Evaluation of Danish Participation in the 6th and 7th framework programmes
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2012) International Cooperation in Science, Technology and
Innovation: Strategies for a Changing World: Report of the Expert Group established to support the further
development of an EU international STI cooperation strategy
Domagoj Račić and Jadranka Švarc (2015) Stairway to Excellence Country Report: Croatia, p. 14
Domagoj Račić, Jadranka Švarc, Hristo Hristov (2016) RIO Country Report 2015: Croatia
Doussineau et al (2014) for the Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies An
assessment of the impact of the FP7 ERA-NET scheme on organisations and research systems. NETWATCH -
Platform on transnational R&D programme collaboration
Dr. Viola Peter, Zsuzsa Jávorka, Malin Carlberg, Paresa Markianidou, Paul Simmonds (Technopolis) Improving
the contribution of the Social Sciences (including Humanities) to tackling the Grand Challenges Study to assist
the European Research Area Board
EC Impact Assessment accompanying the Communication - A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership
for Excellence and Growth, SWD(2012)212 final.
Edquist (2014) Efficiency of Research and Innovation Systems for Economic Growth and Employment. Final
report from the SESSION Iof the 2014 ERAC Mutual Learning Seminaron Research and Innovation policies
Enabling synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020 and other research,
innovation and competitiveness-related Union programmes: Guidance for policy-makers and implementing
bodies
ERA Progress Report 2014
Etzkowitz & Loet Leydesdorff, (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a
Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations, * Research Policy, vol 29, pp 109–123.
EU COHESION POLICY 2014-2020 Targeting Investments on Key Growth Priorities.
See http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/fiche_innovation_en.pdf
European Added Value Unit, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament Mapping the Cost
of Non-Europe, 2014 -19. PE 510.983. First edition: March 2014. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/the-
secretary-general/resource/static/files/files/mapping-the-cost-of-non-europe--march-2014-.pdf.
European Commission (2016) Opportunity Now: Europe’s Mission to Innovate
European Commission (2016) Peer Review of the Moldovan Research and Innovation System
European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2016) Ex-post Evaluation of Science
in Society in FP7. Submitted by ICF Consulting Services, in association with Delft University, Facts of Life and
Technopolis
European Innovation Scoreboard 2016
European Parliament (2016) Horizon 2020 EU framework programme for research and innovation European
Implementation Assessment
Evaluation and impact assessment of the ERA-NET scheme and the related ERA-NET actions under the 6th
Framework Programme [VOLUME 3] Final Report
Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development 2002-2006
Report of the Expert Group, 2009.
Ex-post evaluation of the 7th Framework Programme

212
Expert Group established to assess the contribution of “Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart
Specialisation” (RIS3) to the Europe 2020 Growth Strategy (2015) Perspectives for Research and Innovation
Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) in the wider context of the Europe 2020 Growth Strategy.
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
FP7 and Horizon 2020 - a comparative study of the support services in the Nordic countries, Vinnova, 2013
George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social
Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haegeman et al (2014) Added value of transnational research programming: lessons from longstanding
programme collaborations in Europe. NETWATCH Policy Brief Series – Brief No3. JRC Technical Reports.
Horizon 2020 budget and implementation: A guide to the structure of the programme, European Parliament
2015
Horizon 2020 EU framework programme for research and innovation European Implementation Assessment
Inno AG, University of Manchester (MIOIR), INNOVA Europe, SQW Limited SQW (2015) Supply and Demand
Side Innovation Policies. Final Report for Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Izsák et al (2013) Lessons from a Decade of Innovation Policy What can be learnt from the INNO Policy
TrendChart and The Innovation Union Scoreboard. Final Report
Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., Lukach, R., Wastyn, A. (2013). The impact of the crisis on research and innovation
policies. Study for the European Commission DG Research by Technopolis Group Belgium and Idea Consult.
Jacob Background document Research funding instruments and modalities: Implication for developing
countries Draft report Research Policy Institute Lund University Sweden
Joint Research Centre European Commission, RIO Country Report 2015: Belgium
LERU. Advice Paper No.9. The European Research Area: Priorities for Research Universities, December 2011.
LERU response to the European Commission Consultation: "The European Research Area Framework, Untapped
areas of potential"
Long Term Industrial Impacts of the Swedish Competence Centres (2013) Peter Stern, Erik Arnold, Malin
Carlberg, Tobias Fridholm, Cristina Rosemberg & Miriam Terrell
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions: 20 years of European support for researchers' work, European Commission
2017
Mayne J (2001) Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly.
Canadian Journal of Programme Evaluation 16, 1-24
Mazzucato (2013) The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs. private sector myths
MENESR (Ministère de l'Education nationale, de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche) and ANR (Agence
Nationale de Recherche).
Merle Jacob, Åsa Lindholm Dahlstrand, Maren Sprutacz (2015) RIO Country Report 2015: Sweden, EUR 27859
EN, doi:10.2791/21226
Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1997) Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational Architecture. New
York: Oxford University Press
National Platform for Knowledge Triangle in Serbia – Synergy between education, research and innovation,
KNOWTS 158881-TEMPUS-RS-JPHES, June 2013
Niehoff (2014) The ERA-NET scheme from FP6 to Horizon 2020: Report on ERA-NETs, their calls and the
experiences from the first calls under Horizon 2020
OECD (2014), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2014-en
P. V, Rietschel et. Al, Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes for Research and Technological
Development 2002-2006, European Commission 2016
Participation of the Central and Eastern European EU Member States in the 7th Framework Programme,
Fraunhofer Institute 2012 (commissioned by BMBF)
Pawson & Tiley (2004) Realist Evaluation. http://www.communitymatters.com.au/RE_chapter.pdf
Penner-Hahn and Shaver (2004) Does international research and development increase patent output? An
analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal. Volume 26, Issue 2, pages 121–
140, February 2005.
Policy Notes Of Working Paper 4.26 EU Framework Program participation and innovation: The role of regional
development; Attila Varga, Tamás Sebestyén; University of Pécs, Faculty of Business and Economics; MTA-PTE
Innovation and Economic Growth Research Group; 2013
Popa A. (2011): Research, Development and Innovation in the Republic of Moldova
Qualitative Evaluation of completed projects funded by the European Research Council, European Commission
2016

213
Royal Society How much research funding does the UK get from the EU and how does this compare with other
countries? https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/uk-research-and-european-union/role-of-EU-in-
funding-UK-research/how-much-funding-does-uk-get-in-comparison-with-other-countries/
Sahini E., Malliou N., Housos N., Karaiskos D. (2015), Greek Scientific Publications 1998-2012: Bibliometric
Analysis of Greek Publications in Academic Scientific Journals – Web of Science, National Documentation
Centre, Chapter 2.1
Science Europe Position Statement On the Role and Future of Joint Programming August 2015
Science, Research and Innovation performance of the EU (2016) A contribution to the Open Innovation Open
Science Open to the World agenda. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
See Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility: A report
prepared in collaboration between Science Europe and Elsevier’s SciVal Analytics, September 2013.
SWD(2015) 212 final Commission Staff Working Document: The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Report 2015, Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
The council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions EU Enlargement
Strategy
SWD(2017) 221 final Commission Staff Working Document Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020. Annex 1.
Brussels, 29.5.2017
Symposium on Science Policy, Mobility and Brain Drain in the EU and Candidate Countries Centre for the Study
of Law and Policy in Europe University of Leeds, July 27-28th No.7 S. Morano-Foadi and J.Foadi Italian
Scientific Migration: From Brain Exchange to Brain Drain
Tamtik (2012) Rethinking the Open Method of Coordination: Mutual Learning initiatives shaping the European
Research enterprise
Technopolis Simmonds et al (2010) The impact of the EU RTD Framework Programme on the UK
The ERA-NET scheme from FP6 to Horizon 2020, European Union 2014
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology must modify its delivery mechanisms and elements of its
design to achieve the expected impact, European Court of Auditors 2016
The Future of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Strategic Issues and Perspectives,
Directorate-General for Education and Culture High Level Group on the EIT 2016
The Grand Challenge: The design and societal impact of Horizon 2020, European Commission 2012
Titarenko and Kovalenko (2014) Analysis of participation of new EU Member States (“EU-13”) in FP7 in the
area of Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities (SSH)
Tsipouri et al. (2016), pg. 46.
Ubelis A. (2014) ERAWATCH Country Reports 2013: Latvia
UK House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee 2nd Report of Session 2015–16 EU membership
and UK science. Published 20 April 2016 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords. HL Paper 127.
UNESCO Science Report, Towards 2030. See http://en.unesco.org/node/252282
Varga and Sebestyén (2013) EU Framework Programme participation and innovation: The role of regional
development University of Pécs, Faculty of Business and Economics MTA-PTE Innovation and Economic Growth
Research Group. See http://www.ub.edu/searchproject/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WP4.26_Press-
Release.pdf
VINNOVA (2008) Impacts of the framework programme in Sweden, VA 2008:11
Von Looy et al (2014) Intra-European cooperation compared to international collaboration. Final report for the
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

214
ANNEX B SUPPORTING PARTICIPATION DATA

Table 51 Total FP6 Funding

FP6
Country Abbre- EC Funding Total Funding Total funding Percentage
viation (EC and (minus EC)
national)
Albania AL 1879775 2464487 584712 0.014%
Austria AT 424635354 610981531 186346177 3.151%
Bosnia and BA 3998784 6599834 2601050 0.03%
Herzegovina
Belgium BE 740993619 1054325017 313331398 5.499%
Bulgaria BG 41626798 52316248 10689451 0.309%
Switzerland CH 480969300 716855205 235885905 3.569%
Cyprus CY 26230621 30779536 4548915 0.195%
Czech Republic CZ 138605155 188112248 49507093 1.029%
Germany DE 3143799886 1.0949E+11 1.06346E+11 23.329%
Denmark DK 5624060594 577393515 -5046667080 0.655%
Estonia EE 33211918 44778872 11566954 0.246%
Greece EL 456823669 554692763 97869093 3.39000%
Spain ES 977726735 1498420454 520693719 7.255%
Finland FI 9161040139 492083635 -8668956505 0.66%
Faeroe Islands FO 84990 214990 130000 0.001%
France FR 2283783682 6071265620 3787481937 16.947%
Croatia HR 14662991 18392687 3729696 0.109%
Hungary HU 147253109 218683124 71430014 1.093%
Ireland IE 253188746 194750542 -58438204 0.547%
Israel IL 174838876 232399462 57560586 1.297%
Iceland IS 24361248 38351253 13990005 0.181%
Italy IT 1518109612 2190128176 672018565 11.266%
Liechtenstein LI 569843 1126274 556431 0.004%
Lithuania LT 26030803 32171244 6140441 0.193%
Luxembourg LU 23253166 42749096 19495930 0.173%
Latvia LV 19735191 25139194 5404003 0.146%
Moldova MD 749649 1259245 509595 0.006%
Montenegro ME 40800 81000 40200 0.0003%
Former Yugoslav MK 4927686 5959225 1031538 0.037%
Republic of
Macedonia
Malta MT 9515398 12201640 2686242 0.071%
Netherlands NL 5753177452 1584647355 -4168530097 2.277%
Norway NO 316092577 445514054 129421476 2.346%
Poland PL 284928700 272273149 -12655550 0.23%
Portugal PT 176019586 235792666 59773081 1.306%
Romania RO 55610347 77627445 22017098 0.413%
Serbia RS 779762 2127083 1347321 0.006%
Sweden SE 707691344 910034769 202343425 5.252%
Slovenia SI 73113829 123101857 49988028 0.543%
Slovakia SK 43320767 51346763 8025996 0.321%
Turkey TR 52664002 64315439 11651436 0.391%
United Kingdom UK 5872151307 3019947984 -2852203323 5.516%
Total 100%

215
Table 52 Total FP7 Funding
FP7
Country Abbre EC Funding Co-Funding Percentage
viation (non-EU Total funding
funding)
Albania AL 2386056.76 691648.05 3077704.81 0.00530%
Austria AT 1192465943 544154269 1736620212 2.65160%
Bosnia and BA 3229855.14
808069.06 4037924.2 0.00720%
Herzegovina
Belgium BE 1950379265 860352629.7 2810731895 4.33690%
Bulgaria BG 99783112.62 27619823.47 127402936.1 0.22190%
Switzerland CH 2057214614 724314663.1 2781529277 4.57440%
Cyprus CY 93708090.94 25255545.26 118963636.2 0.20840%
Czech Republic CZ 288813856.9 193227208.3 482041065.2 0.64220%
Germany DE 7195046850 3300463525 10495510375 15.99890%
Denmark DK 1081475424 425044514.4 1506519938 2.40480%
Estonia EE 97015552.36 26581597.88 123597150.2 0.21570%
Greece EL 1014663963 325188212.1 1339852175 2.25620%
Spain ES 3324670627 1304341323 4629011950 7.39270%
Finland FI 883301433.4 418885935.7 1302187369 1.96410%
Faeroe Islands FO 2599039.92 1113338.17 3712378.09 0.00580%
France FR 5252149857 3037486057 8289635914 11.67870%
Croatia HR 91420187.94 29779086.31 121199274.3 0.20330%
Hungary HU 292572146.6 86857239.76 379429386.4 0.65060%
Ireland IE 632361475.8 206891733.4 839253209.2 1.40610%
Israel IL 863475842.2 295790848.4 1159266691 1.92000%
Iceland IS 67518787.6 25276229.89 92795017.49 0.15010%
Italy IT 3650804600 1582262576 5233067176 8.11790%
Liechtenstein LI 2993630.14 1958512.15 4952142.29 0.00700%
Lithuania LT 52226894.91 16186957.35 68413852.26 0.11600%
Luxembourg LU 60975808.17 34925901.77 95901709.94 0.13600%
Latvia LV 49174265.23 14302906.28 63477171.51 0.10900%
Moldova MD 3963916.33 1027654.51 4991570.84 0.00900%
Montenegro ME 4315761.99 799374.49 5115136.48 0.01000%
Former Yugoslav MK 12208001.76
Republic of 4129198.22 16337199.98 0.02700%
Macedonia
Malta MT 21388224.91 13007612.33 34395837.24 0.04800%
Netherlands NL 3404257991 1490429704 4894687695 7.57000%
Norway NO 764307322 308880436.7 1073187759 1.70000%
Poland PL 444355510.1 148266486.6 592621996.7 0.98800%
Portugal PT 527027666.3 176159593.3 703187259.6 1.17200%
Romania RO 143494904.2 55147804.61 198642708.8 0.31900%
Serbia RS 64382090.51 16556866.85 80938957.36 0.14300%
Sweden SE 1774068613 941670625.9 2715739239 3.94500%
Slovenia SI 171979524.7 59978220.48 231957745.2 0.38200%
Slovakia SK 76678141.12 33894325.28 110572466.4 0.17100%
Turkey TR 198747054.6 77791214.27 276538268.9 0.44200%
United Kingdom UK 7058541238 2071645390 9130186628 15.69500%
Total 18909144858 63881287998 100%

216
Table 53 Total FP7 Public Body Funding
FP7 Public Body
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 495086 595491.88 100405.88
Austria AT 39402541.85 74903966.65 35501424.8
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 430543.01 546728.25 116185.24
Belgium BE 53536243.82 112192731 58656487.22
Bulgaria BG 2965030.7 4008607.93 1043577.23
Switzerland CH 35043313.51 51724208.19 16680894.68
Cyprus CY 2936916.42 3989193.41 1052276.99
Czech Republic CZ 8374272.55 12140111.05 3765838.5
Germany DE 83854332.13 150232906.8 66378574.66
Denmark DK 80189717.36 129457382.4 49267665.07
Estonia EE 3885314.47 5805178.77 1919864.3
Greece EL 8163661.87 11307560.23 3143898.36
Spain ES 132095556.5 212827917.5 80732361.07
Finland FI 25212923.45 65954350.18 40741426.73
Faeroe Islands FO 946416.8 1455222.4 508805.6
France FR 74978872.28 123330986.8 48352114.56
Croatia HR 7025060.19 13504187.43 6479127.24
Hungary HU 16199890.45 27784307.54 11584417.09
Ireland IE 26559020.75 55036007.9 28476987.15
Israel IL 19635829.33 30428111.97 10792282.64
Iceland IS 3349418.97 5176605.67 1827186.7
Italy IT 92376265.83 143956417 51580151.16
Liechtenstein LI
Lithuania LT 3472541.8 4391763.77 919221.97
Luxembourg LU 8644985.65 21506858.24 12861872.59
Latvia LV 2321163.23 3545987.4 1224824.17
Moldova MD 569654.87 828936.47 259281.6
Montenegro ME 415642.26 549755.11 134112.85
Former Yugoslav Republic MK 905256.25 1325331.26 420075.01
of Macedonia
Malta MT 3998313.93 4697101.42 698787.49
Netherlands NL 56323986.55 86455953.55 30131967
Norway NO 25477861.09 50747323.03 25269461.94
Poland PL 11391048.05 20648001.25 9256953.2
Portugal PT 19206827.87 30280460.99 11073633.12
Romania RO 17174524.82 23503794.94 6329270.12
Serbia RS 1344537.14 2262386.41 917849.27
Sweden SE 88633282.61 160893798.1 72260515.48
Slovenia SI 9202006.75 14356761.79 5154755.04
Slovakia SK 2672837.65 4883557.57 2210719.92
Turkey TR 6179365.33 8925237.69 2745872.36
United Kingdom UK 145011675.5 229686982.4 84675306.85

217
Table 54 Total FP7 Higher Education or Secondary Education Funding
FP7 Higher Education
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 1062561.74 1318173.8 255612.06
Austria AT 509536590.7 621121469 111584878.3
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 1632776.26 2000520.65 367744.39
Belgium BE 733210825.9 883131432 149920606
Bulgaria BG 32999084.41 39674173.3 6675088.89
Switzerland CH 1273366425 1490243818 216877392.7
Cyprus CY 47954932.93 58035402.68 10080469.75
Czech Republic CZ 120995397.6 236841719.6 115846322
Germany DE 2729080130 3329072843 599992712.5
Denmark DK 610192768 748293838.3 138101070.3
Estonia EE 40338254.82 48788013.94 8449759.12
Greece EL 328410162.3 406816084.8 78405922.53
Spain ES 786774286.1 957537268.7 170762982.7
Finland FI 377846951.7 462008697.9 84161746.2
Faeroe Islands FO
France FR 728214245.4 863228571.1 135014325.7
Croatia HR 40460975.77 48020200.65 7559224.88
Hungary HU 110110675.2 132871118.7 22760443.54
Ireland IE 401670167.6 489357713.7 87687546.13
Israel IL 609013725.7 655313060.4 46299334.68
Iceland IS 15987206.98 18762752.99 2775546.01
Italy IT 1240330040 1552032672 311702632.7
Liechtenstein LI 743057 968820.8 225763.8
Lithuania LT 22314308.86 27709944.63 5395635.77
Luxembourg LU 12782909.1 15979389.88 3196480.78
Latvia LV 19538832.7 23552581.96 4013749.26
Moldova MD 999601.4 1163925.6 164324.2
Montenegro ME 3558411.22 4163359.96 604948.74
Former Yugoslav Republic MK 4004675.33 5139105.99 1134430.66
of Macedonia
Malta MT 5971492.41 7939069.4 1967576.99
Netherlands NL 1823173993 2180326615 357152622.6
Norway NO 264376268.9 327571216.4 63194947.47
Poland PL 188515250.6 233827703.3 45312452.64
Portugal PT 144030501 177172961.6 33142460.62
Romania RO 40821590.38 52076342 11254751.62
Serbia RS 22551952.59 26547730.68 3995778.09
Sweden SE 1090092593 1331992227 241899634.8
Slovenia SI 42091435.37 52295940.15 10204504.78
Slovakia SK 28378943.84 37827483.33 9448539.49
Turkey TR 95630669.27 113579984.3 17949315.06
United Kingdom UK 4996690327 5782139736 785449408.2

218
Table 55 Total FP7 Other Funding
FP7 Other
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 178776 285013 106237
Austria AT 13395238.59 16749629.94 3354391.35
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA
Belgium BE 184789861.3 229400655.7 44610794.39
Bulgaria BG 4478666.03 6368533.69 1889867.66
Switzerland CH 48549863.84 84880395.78 36330531.94
Cyprus CY 1961112.15 2642226.18 681114.03
Czech Republic CZ 4669021.43 6023668.06 1354646.63
Germany DE 70383220.91 108795495.8 38412274.93
Denmark DK 28166250.08 41641253.61 13475003.53
Estonia EE 8431147.41 12609725.22 4178577.81
Greece EL 7432253.12 10202002.06 2769748.94
Spain ES 69252417.62 102922496.7 33670079.08
Finland FI 19234250.13 29829469.12 10595218.99
Faeroe Islands FO
France FR 348700376.1 422288651.3 73588275.17
Croatia HR 1044303.17 1348053 303749.83
Hungary HU 6239167.2 7820016.45 1580849.25
Ireland IE 10002188.13 13077624.67 3075436.54
Israel IL 4353028 5130810.2 777782.2
Iceland IS 1051897.75 1480757 428859.25
Italy IT 52357212.05 72378844.12 20021632.07
Liechtenstein LI
Lithuania LT 1732295.94 2124108.94 391813
Luxembourg LU 5613390.13 6988479.41 1375089.28
Latvia LV 1019343.81 1388884.98 369541.17
Moldova MD 519247.75 827561 308313.25
Montenegro ME 180882.24 209128.21 28245.97
Former Yugoslav Republic MK 536451.57 806659.34 270207.77
of Macedonia
Malta MT 480996.05 524503.88 43507.83
Netherlands NL 56904382.86 79813515.53 22909132.67
Norway NO 10462927.04 14549521.63 4086594.59
Poland PL 4812089.91 6459055.24 1646965.33
Portugal PT 12434402.91 16410949.29 3976546.38
Romania RO 2261985.98 4150484.38 1888498.4
Serbia RS 812810.28 1199941.76 387131.48
Sweden SE 7203366.51 11674540.98 4471174.47
Slovenia SI 3201077.13 3980494.05 779416.92
Slovakia SK 1545376.88 1989997.57 444620.69
Turkey TR 4579153.68 7229415.45 2650261.77
United Kingdom UK 63820299.11 83456320.11 19636021

219
Table 56 Total FP7 Research Organisation Funding
FP7 Research Organisation
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 285921.7 341208 55286.3
Austria AT 268944867.7 348727975.3 79783107.59
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 465911.81 598779.6 132867.79
Belgium BE 548541960 786089568.8 237547608.7
Bulgaria BG 30794924.43 38307930.05 7513005.62
Switzerland CH 340464435.2 496273058.5 155808623.4
Cyprus CY 4315520.94 5209125.07 893604.13
Czech Republic CZ 69156733.82 90379748.28 21223014.46
Germany DE 2398346718 3109740840 711394121.8
Denmark DK 105880211 139122093.5 33241882.48
Estonia EE 9641434.4 11670226.35 2028791.95
Greece EL 430252831.9 547657382.8 117404550.9
Spain ES 1334110064 1741431004 407320940.9
Finland FI 293471914.1 413698402 120226487.9
Faeroe Islands FO 423532.86 609228.09 185695.23
France FR 2645247990 3575647789 930399799
Croatia HR 19814034.2 24566800.73 4752766.53
Hungary HU 74440276.32 90506030.5 16065754.18
Ireland IE 30588710.48 43616646.31 13027935.83
Israel IL 22111298.61 28554077.77 6442779.16
Iceland IS 13371548.76 17009000.24 3637451.48
Italy IT 1062547354 1430212389 367665034.9
Liechtenstein LI
Lithuania LT 7207248.23 9351207.37 2143959.14
Luxembourg LU 7669723.46 9543613.86 1873890.4
Latvia LV 20440547.73 27114649.29 6674101.56
Moldova MD 1002274.16 1117083.77 114809.61
Montenegro ME 138204.16 158678.8 20474.64
Former Yugoslav Republic MK 3188099.1 4069919.2 881820.1
of Macedonia
Malta MT 1410569.42 1778994.13 368424.71
Netherlands NL 768910618.6 1030710206 261799587.4
Norway NO 307580320.8 419828821.9 112248501.2
Poland PL 145980750.3 190400083 44419332.62
Portugal PT 199099914.8 250198194.7 51098279.88
Romania RO 41369549.66 55193209.96 13823660.3
Serbia RS 21271855.29 27382196.74 6110341.45
Sweden SE 196963841.2 267421904.2 70458063.04
Slovenia SI 67295106.58 86785704.3 19490597.72
Slovakia SK 17566416.22 26120585.29 8554169.07
Turkey TR 28358131.57 45423891.44 17065759.87
United Kingdom UK 591279594.7 766894499 175614904.2

220
Table 57 Total FP7 Private for Profit SME Organisation Funding
FP7 Private for Profit SME Organisation
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 232432 391924.6 159492.6
Austria AT 137149896.8 196161770.7 59011873.98
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 604358 785170.1 180812.1
Belgium BE 203009984 277659039.8 74649055.83
Bulgaria BG 14666116.38 19433764.98 4767648.6
Switzerland CH 165780867.1 227672975.5 61892108.37
Cyprus CY 26110107.71 32566724.43 6456616.72
Czech Republic CZ 45991895.15 66013521.56 20021626.41
Germany DE 703459539.3 973371870.4 269912331.1
Denmark DK 135780376.3 198565065 62784688.7
Estonia EE 22429556.71 29948492.46 7518935.75
Greece EL 107241663 148681243.9 41439580.9
Spain ES 420696803.2 596660909.9 175964106.7
Finland FI 77893832.53 120274812.3 42380979.79
Faeroe Islands FO 1229090.26 1647927.6 418837.34
France FR 456228831.1 675698988 219470156.9
Croatia HR 14051320.96 18622625.51 4571304.55
Hungary HU 62335180.16 84487512.66 22152332.5
Ireland IE 111653640 146586076.6 34932436.54
Israel IL 73403035.53 103995512.4 30592476.84
Iceland IS 19027479.58 26619389.44 7591909.86
Italy IT 416797344.3 564449611.9 147652267.6
Liechtenstein LI 777757.14 1185816.49 408059.35
Lithuania LT 13401687.91 18884572.31 5482884.4
Luxembourg LU 8100731.28 12993933.92 4893202.64
Latvia LV 3922138.31 5241656.28 1319517.97
Moldova MD 769328.15 945454 176125.85
Montenegro ME
Former Yugoslav Republic MK 2732576.98 3708407.58 975830.6
of Macedonia
Malta MT 7224968.15 9270574.8 2045606.65
Netherlands NL 342783162.4 515657822.4 172874660.1
Norway NO 87461546.92 122325036.1 34863489.13
Poland PL 50025556.8 69311462.15 19285905.35
Portugal PT 82862032.33 112659088.6 29797056.27
Romania RO 26182280.47 36331988.65 10149708.18
Serbia RS 4315263.38 5664280.97 1349017.59
Sweden SE 189093107.9 286888301.9 97795193.97
Slovenia SI 27960311.23 39362964.91 11402653.68
Slovakia SK 16487351.86 22049287.72 5561935.86
Turkey TR 37292711.17 51817396.58 14524685.41
United Kingdom UK 611129195.4 849853984.1 238724788.7

221
Table 58 Total FP7 Private for Profit Non-SME Organisation Funding
FP7 Private for Profit Non-SME
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 73060 80600 7540
Austria AT 49618194.14 115236473.1 65618278.99
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 48640.06 54549.6 5909.54
Belgium BE 59523929.81 216157064.9 156633135.1
Bulgaria BG 1168594.85 1993429.53 824834.68
Switzerland CH 54467334.31 187448759.3 132981425
Cyprus CY 1636229.54 3229664.75 1593435.21
Czech Republic CZ 8940618.32 17302676.64 8362058.32
Germany DE 269056652.8 933551888.3 664495235.5
Denmark DK 52538292.97 134260571.1 81722278.14
Estonia EE 807843.75 1419849.5 612005.75
Greece EL 20302803.57 35582835 15280031.43
Spain ES 139566142.1 276218785.4 136652643.3
Finland FI 28141161.37 67401042.32 39259880.95
Faeroe Islands FO
France FR 256124044 686083316.2 429959272.2
Croatia HR 3149363.22 5964020.73 2814657.51
Hungary HU 2969844.05 5310576.53 2340732.48
Ireland IE 3555336.13 9982674.33 6427338.2
Israel IL 12132610.58 23512987.11 11380376.53
Iceland IS 6215693.41 10406823.64 4191130.23
Italy IT 281693468.5 595682445.9 313988977.4
Liechtenstein LI 3600 7200 3600
Lithuania LT 1025925.67 1814469.24 788543.57
Luxembourg LU 1567169.56 2237750.68 670581.12
Latvia LV 28513.08 57225.6 28712.52
Moldova MD
Montenegro ME
Former Yugoslav Republic MK 333812.03 631268.61 297456.58
of Macedonia
Malta MT 787303 4875480 4088177
Netherlands NL 99816181.6 330001640.9 230185459.3
Norway NO 16091392.11 31473886.89 15382494.78
Poland PL 9158806.68 16001809.22 6843002.54
Portugal PT 14039540.63 25809395.48 11769854.85
Romania RO 2078537.56 3713710.55 1635172.99
Serbia RS 843934.82 1332511.79 488576.97
Sweden SE 81730445.83 432513688.3 350783242.5
Slovenia SI 3178223.65 6053969.81 2875746.16
Slovakia SK 3301928.94 7853596.73 4551667.79
Turkey TR 7525934.15 14353206.43 6827272.28
United Kingdom UK 156810519.4 536927496.1 380116976.6

222
Table 59 Total FP7 Private for Profit SME Organisation Unknown Funding
FP7 Private for Profit SME Unknown
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 58219.32 65293.53 7074.21
Austria AT 174418612.8 363718926.8 189300314
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 47626 52176 4550
Belgium BE 167766460.4 306101402.8 138334942.4
Bulgaria BG 12710695.82 17616496.61 4905800.79
Switzerland CH 139542374.7 243286061.7 103743687.1
Cyprus CY 8793271.25 13291299.68 4498028.43
Czech Republic CZ 30685918.08 53339620.1 22653702.02
Germany DE 940866256.7 1890744531 949878274.7
Denmark DK 68727808.36 115179734.5 46451926.11
Estonia EE 11482000.8 13355664 1873663.2
Greece EL 112860586.9 179605065.9 66744479.04
Spain ES 442175357.5 741413566.8 299238209.3
Finland FI 61500400.2 143020595.3 81520195.06
Faeroe Islands FO
France FR 742655497.5 1943357611 1200702113
Croatia HR 5875130.43 9173386.2 3298255.77
Hungary HU 20277113.3 30649824.02 10372710.72
Ireland IE 48332412.7 81596465.67 33264052.97
Israel IL 122826314.5 312332130.8 189505816.4
Iceland IS 8515542.15 13339688.51 4824146.36
Italy IT 504702915.6 874354795.6 369651880
Liechtenstein LI 1469216 2790305 1321089
Lithuania LT 3072886.5 4137786 1064899.5
Luxembourg LU 16596898.99 26651683.95 10054784.96
Latvia LV 1903726.37 2576186 672459.63
Moldova MD 103810 108610 4800
Montenegro ME 22622.11 34214.4 11592.29
Former Yugoslav MK 507130.5 656508 149377.5
Republic of Macedonia
Malta MT 1514581.95 5310113.61 3795531.66
Netherlands NL 256345666 671721941 415376275
Norway NO 52857005.24 106691952.9 53834947.67
Poland PL 34472007.7 55973882.57 21501874.87
Portugal PT 55354446.73 90656208.95 35301762.22
Romania RO 13606435.35 23673178.35 10066743
Serbia RS 13241737.01 16549909.01 3308172
Sweden SE 120351976.5 224354778.1 104002801.6
Slovenia SI 19051364.03 29121910.21 10070546.18
Slovakia SK 6725285.73 9847958.19 3122672.46
Turkey TR 19181089.44 35209136.96 16028047.52
United Kingdom UK 493799626.2 881227610.8 387427984.6

223
Table 60 Horizon 2020 Total Funding
Horizon 2020 Total Funding
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 556508.75 556508.75 0
Austria AT 446646964.2 574326900.6 127679936.4
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 1425249.75 1441250.25 16000.5
Belgium BE 630760464.6 786912540.9 156152076.3
Bulgaria BG 22391307.81 24697616.41 2306308.6
Switzerland CH 282814774.2 611392323.4 328577549.2
Cyprus CY 48634357.86 55191903.98 6557546.12
Czech Republic CZ 101151211.2 119419882.1 18268670.95
Germany DE 2800336103 3643327722 842991619.1
Denmark DK 390020030.9 449306814.3 59286783.43
Estonia EE 56872405.97 66193819.14 9321413.17
Greece EL 321516731.4 341712698.9 20195967.49
Spain ES 1360901573 1584098050 223196476.3
Finland FI 316258981.3 372189252.7 55930271.37
Faeroe Islands FO 2000360 2022289 21929
France FR 1633640438 2037479179 403838741.7
Croatia HR 27448037.62 29193702.39 1745664.77
Hungary HU 86405975.58 100516607.7 14110632.16
Ireland IE 282767503.9 328594711.7 45827207.77
Israel IL 305113934.9 381993952.3 76880017.39
Iceland IS 31245387.03 44571270.2 13325883.17
Italy IT 1261317687 1480064442 218746755
Liechtenstein LI 0 0 0
Lithuania LT 17214381.9 20251813.84 3037431.94
Luxembourg LU 39320581.29 43341121.86 4020540.57
Latvia LV 17435942.9 22310295.56 4874352.66
Moldova MD 1168219.82 1489658 321438.18
Montenegro ME 221261.7 226265.16 5003.46
Former Yugoslav MK 1541013.75 1541013.75 0
Republic of Macedonia
Malta MT 9880703.84 10040466.48 159762.64
Netherlands NL 1266596800 1619489681 352892881.7
Norway NO 279995539.7 352671187.2 72675647.5
Poland PL 137293435.1 176462803.9 39169368.76
Portugal PT 268589794.4 301458808.7 32869014.3
Romania RO 60842657.62 77715381.26 16872723.64
Serbia RS 21817384.61 22997593.11 1180208.5
Sweden SE 511067398.6 598113159.2 87045760.66
Slovenia SI 83320259.26 97798598.2 14478338.94
Slovakia SK 40039833.85 52737438.44 12697604.59
Turkey TR 66293602.61 92275493.68 25981891.07
United Kingdom UK 2455319089 2668987734 213668645.7

224
Table 61 Horizon 2020 Public Body Funding
Horizon 2020 Public Body Funding
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 235671.25 235671.25 0
Austria AT 16364444.51 37794017.96 21429573.45
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 160375 160375 0
Belgium BE 16544855.18 31051926.78 14507071.6
Bulgaria BG 1811397.4 2251021.25 439623.85
Switzerland CH 1507953.52 24838918.27 23330964.75
Cyprus CY 1904952.17 1975487.79 70535.62
Czech Republic CZ 3343759.25 5194334.37 1850575.12
Germany DE 57794763.27 95854464.7 38059701.43
Denmark DK 37979230.27 63632328.65 25653098.38
Estonia EE 6268433 6735786.94 467353.94
Greece EL 7076494.38 8358804.75 1282310.37
Spain ES 73645369.21 108975969.3 35330600.11
Finland FI 8659561.25 15947474.48 7287913.23
Faeroe Islands FO 203750 203750 0
France FR 34972109.16 65521435.85 30549326.69
Croatia HR 2286457.72 2683394.63 396936.91
Hungary HU 4725606.81 5808164.25 1082557.44
Ireland IE 15038175.02 28826041.25 13787866.23
Israel IL 9761940.55 13992356.21 4230415.66
Iceland IS 1635551.68 2232043.72 596492.04
Italy IT 52403240.15 70926720.27 18523480.12
Liechtenstein LI
Lithuania LT 1963727.92 2882186.5 918458.58
Luxembourg LU 1252040.04 3165922.75 1913882.71
Latvia LV 1963500.3 4248441.25 2284940.95
Moldova MD 384676.07 706114.25 321438.18
Montenegro ME 51466.75 53466.75 2000
Former Yugoslav MK 204712.5 204712.5 0
Republic of Macedonia
Malta MT 2573436.65 2579456.4 6019.75
Netherlands NL 21483202.1 38887253.92 17404051.82
Norway NO 19340869.07 44112166.4 24771297.33
Poland PL 14440416.31 32525348.41 18084932.1
Portugal PT 19156585.91 30129552.12 10972966.21
Romania RO 4552817.99 5919341.8 1366523.81
Serbia RS 638781.25 640281.25 1500
Sweden SE 36609070.67 70361264.49 33752193.82
Slovenia SI 2466575.49 4839574.75 2372999.26
Slovakia SK 2400355.52 3246599.75 846244.23
Turkey TR 6255038.05 7342502.95 1087464.9
United Kingdom UK 82674244.55 119636495.1 36962250.59

225
Table 62 Horizon 2020 Higher or Secondary Education Funding
Horizon 2020 Higher or Secondary Education Funding
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 49200 49200 0
Austria AT 164565976 173467314.4 8901338.36
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 405574 405574.5 0.5
Belgium BE 221046697.5 225995261.2 4948563.75
Bulgaria BG 4690503.74 4724670.24 34166.5
Switzerland CH 196100103.4 328547394.3 132447290.9
Cyprus CY 20747299.52 21924897.77 1177598.25
Czech Republic CZ 48002658.9 50135324.71 2132665.81
Germany DE 888889798.6 926665198.8 37775400.12
Denmark DK 231512435.3 239555319.5 8042884.25
Estonia EE 28104303.09 30153100.84 2048797.75
Greece EL 96288192.91 96910156.11 621963.2
Spain ES 314145748.4 332491943.7 18346195.28
Finland FI 133047905.4 137636760.7 4588855.34
Faeroe Islands FO
France FR 263949563 275222324.1 11272761.13
Croatia HR 8097340.38 8123590.63 26250.25
Hungary HU 22710407.65 23473540.15 763132.5
Ireland IE 171030629.3 181628436.7 10597807.41
Israel IL 209002298.3 209461841.3 459543.01
Iceland IS 6988735.02 6988735.02 0
Italy IT 401508310.7 407968238.1 6459927.37
Liechtenstein LI 0 0 0
Lithuania LT 5278145.06 5441430.42 163285.36
Luxembourg LU 15674833.02 15733333.02 58500
Latvia LV 6806278.92 7419052.17 612773.25
Moldova MD
Montenegro ME 83019.15 83019.15 0
Former Yugoslav MK 414278.75 414278.75 0
Republic of Macedonia
Malta MT 3936412.94 3970412.94 34000
Netherlands NL 640535429.4 665162617.9 24627188.57
Norway NO 97790851.8 100236477.2 2445625.35
Poland PL 47187798.72 51073662.72 3885864
Portugal PT 67991957.14 72123528.8 4131571.66
Romania RO 12129823.23 12130324.23 501
Serbia RS 7182919.61 7277022.86 94103.25
Sweden SE 284708233.4 290676318.3 5968084.92
Slovenia SI 14662502.54 14733438.29 70935.75
Slovakia SK 6107694.34 7173546.09 1065851.75
Turkey TR 27351544.68 28386759.68 1035215
United Kingdom UK 1629628385 1645647827 16019442.58

226
Table 63 Horizon 2020 Other Funding
Horizon 2020 Other Funding
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 74562.5 74562.5 0
Austria AT 12874717.78 13496918.53 622200.75
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA
Belgium BE 80054241.75 81082369.77 1028128.02
Bulgaria BG 1586486.25 1589611.25 3125
Switzerland CH 1430925 7721431 6290506
Cyprus CY 4873764.33 7335232.83 2461468.5
Czech Republic CZ 2892862.5 2898613.25 5750.75
Germany DE 37021243.14 37564160.89 542917.75
Denmark DK 10177220.29 10436827.49 259607.2
Estonia EE 2613187.94 3579826.55 966638.61
Greece EL 5271202.25 5296420 25217.75
Spain ES 30491723.41 36441945.35 5950221.94
Finland FI 9680574.56 10779267.5 1098692.94
Faeroe Islands FO
France FR 37444221.55 40105030.76 2660809.21
Croatia HR 890099.5 890100 0.5
Hungary HU 2634139 2653376.13 19237.13
Ireland IE 3270725.65 3450193.15 179467.5
Israel IL 608550 608550 0
Iceland IS
Italy IT 23296600.28 24314388.92 1017788.64
Liechtenstein LI
Lithuania LT 1308106.52 1362856.52 54750
Luxembourg LU 2214782.09 2481985.59 267203.5
Latvia LV 726414.5 750790 24375.5
Moldova MD 115675 115675 0
Montenegro ME 72135.8 75139.26 3003.46
Former Yugoslav MK 103820 103820 0
Republic of Macedonia
Malta MT 171000 175000 4000
Netherlands NL 34113813.12 36913443.12 2799630
Norway NO 1704418.75 1711068.75 6650
Poland PL 2796617.5 3471617.75 675000.25
Portugal PT 6670606 6678856.25 8250.25
Romania RO 4345613.75 4365614.37 20000.62
Serbia RS 1074174.25 1077374.25 3200
Sweden SE 2763841 2763841 0
Slovenia SI 2957469.5 2957470 0.5
Slovakia SK 997911.25 1001961.25 4050
Turkey TR 2228298.75 2228298.75 0
United Kingdom UK 39671928.92 40505725.76 833796.84

227
Table 64 Horizon 2020 Research Organisation Funding
Horizon 2020 Research Organisation Funding
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 161075 161075 0
Austria AT 102961610.2 112675582.5 9713972.28
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 625835.75 625835.75 0
Belgium BE 174226123.6 257771401 83545277.41
Bulgaria BG 7852500.77 8207101.27 354600.5
Switzerland CH 73570613.2 122752967.5 49182354.26
Cyprus CY 2828194.8 3080811.3 252616.5
Czech Republic CZ 24399220.34 29376595.33 4977374.99
Germany DE 1082326650 1455100625 372773975
Denmark DK 32324363.4 33812012.75 1487649.35
Estonia EE 2471957.8 2473207.8 1250
Greece EL 125203911.7 129382227.4 4178315.74
Spain ES 502765147.6 538712630.4 35947482.78
Finland FI 75204848.43 85540955.23 10336106.8
Faeroe Islands FO 283700 283700 0
France FR 820164135.3 910156174 89992038.69
Croatia HR 11281506.64 11925859.13 644352.49
Hungary HU 25839990.26 27642354.05 1802363.79
Ireland IE 9128702.2 11682454.45 2553752.25
Israel IL 2938104.52 3015586.65 77482.13
Iceland IS 10650544.46 10851557.46 201013
Italy IT 340877222.4 399649351.3 58772128.9
Liechtenstein LI
Lithuania LT 2479431.4 2859748.15 380316.75
Luxembourg LU 5032081 5041381.25 9300.25
Latvia LV 2880164.55 4186021.39 1305856.84
Moldova MD 625868.75 625868.75 0
Montenegro ME 14640 14640 0
Former Yugoslav MK 547390 547390 0
Republic of Macedonia
Malta MT 405000 405000 0
Netherlands NL 220659027.8 257498306 36839278.25
Norway NO 80725554.66 83385469.41 2659914.75
Poland PL 39562087.16 52502979.92 12940892.76
Portugal PT 110176699.5 113439270.4 3262570.96
Romania RO 22296480.77 33908233.64 11611752.87
Serbia RS 5099541.75 5122411.75 22870
Sweden SE 62331172.91 65363993.18 3032820.27
Slovenia SI 23737253.06 26527483.43 2790230.37
Slovakia SK 4324947.1 6028740.96 1703793.86
Turkey TR 11243661.02 29575352.55 18331691.53
United Kingdom UK 233268008.3 273145566.7 39877558.45

228
Table 65 Horizon 2020 Private for Profit SME Organisation Funding
Horizon 2020 Private for Profit SME Organisation Funding
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL
Austria AT 60250608.77 70809675.34 10559066.57
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 124000 140000 16000
Belgium BE 70034517.66 90916058.96 20881541.3
Bulgaria BG 4078638.9 4621817.9 543179
Switzerland CH 1349941.82 46954572.39 45604630.57
Cyprus CY 15247584.54 17495286.79 2247702.25
Czech Republic CZ 11756569.06 14603522.73 2846953.67
Germany DE 273060215.5 335253840.2 62193624.64
Denmark DK 46596267.06 62123153.77 15526886.71
Estonia EE 15515756.08 20812511.08 5296755
Greece EL 60212501.26 70817300.19 10604798.93
Spain ES 235853122 305837382.2 69984260.28
Finland FI 62496997.35 85038499.99 22541502.64
Faeroe Islands FO 1512910 1534839 21929
France FR 205400093.4 292553483.9 87153390.44
Croatia HR 3390713.38 4004529.25 613815.87
Hungary HU 27137178.85 34262394.66 7125215.81
Ireland IE 53082926.28 63699155.35 10616229.07
Israel IL 40602697.18 53432370.55 12829673.37
Iceland IS 10377317.5 21535488 11158170.5
Italy IT 226352226.6 291505604.6 65153378.04
Liechtenstein LI
Lithuania LT 5132927.25 6445986 1313058.75
Luxembourg LU 7750372.13 8534813 784440.87
Latvia LV 3680510.75 3974334.5 293823.75
Moldova MD
Montenegro ME
Former Yugoslav MK 80625 80625 0
Republic of Macedonia
Malta MT 2515537.5 2563894.64 48357.14
Netherlands NL 178327938.2 232811772.6 54483834.44
Norway NO 21901843.18 28887018.72 6985175.54
Poland PL 23021400.89 25376998.36 2355597.47
Portugal PT 34926189.97 40733721.63 5807531.66
Romania RO 7261191.25 8736592.22 1475400.97
Serbia RS 5315024.25 5988691.25 673667
Sweden SE 63975013.54 82149364.46 18174350.92
Slovenia SI 22447358.37 29059844.37 6612486
Slovakia SK 10115955.3 12951577.18 2835621.88
Turkey TR 11995638.61 15524077.25 3528438.64
United Kingdom UK 283449674.8 370835109.6 87385434.86

229
Table 66 Horizon 2020 Private for Profit Non-SME Organisation Funding
Horizon 2020 Private for Profit Non-SME Organisation
Funding
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL
Austria AT 69954047.79 133383287.2 63429239.4
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA 109465 109465 0
Belgium BE 45579491.98 65970165.98 20390674
Bulgaria BG 1130429.38 1551361.5 420932.12
Switzerland CH 7849129.48 63937098.48 56087969
Cyprus CY 1608875 1819250 210375
Czech Republic CZ 4240367.81 8079354.23 3838986.42
Germany DE 344440231.7 591088477 246648245.4
Denmark DK 11792929.64 14202608.51 2409678.87
Estonia EE 788183.38 977851.25 189667.87
Greece EL 18681218.44 20681007.19 1999788.75
Spain ES 143620144.1 188210204.1 44590060.04
Finland FI 15810898.87 21345840.54 5534941.67
Faeroe Islands FO
France FR 165635137.6 252142119.8 86506982.21
Croatia HR 880712.5 881337.5 625
Hungary HU 2765117.38 5490648.5 2725531.12
Ireland IE 24448781.98 30389971.36 5941189.38
Israel IL 24860874.82 53409094.32 28548219.5
Iceland IS 968907.54 2008622.5 1039714.96
Italy IT 148777574.7 203785850.7 55008275.94
Liechtenstein LI
Lithuania LT 60545 60545 0
Luxembourg LU 2102200 2382268.75 280068.75
Latvia LV 249678.75 301228.75 51550
Moldova MD 42000 42000 0
Montenegro ME 0 0 0
Former Yugoslav MK
Republic of Macedonia
Malta MT 264316.75 326702.5 62385.75
Netherlands NL 94512925.37 160950386.3 66437460.93
Norway NO 39700427.51 63290640.54 23590213.03
Poland PL 5907852.07 6643785 735932.93
Portugal PT 19216435.63 25043151.03 5826715.4
Romania RO 7146288.88 8684373.75 1538084.87
Serbia RS 1213747.5 1264118.75 50371.25
Sweden SE 35813447.67 51906957.07 16093509.4
Slovenia SI 13998943.5 16102770 2103826.5
Slovakia SK 14659132.38 20670896.75 6011764.37
Turkey TR 3691102.75 4762385 1071282.25
United Kingdom UK 103205895.8 117903931.7 14698035.97

230
Table 67 Horizon 2020 Private for Profit SME Organisation Missing Funding
Horizon 2020 Private for Profit SME Organisation Missing
Funding
Country Abbreviation EC Funding Total Funding Total funding
(EC and national) (minus EC)
Albania AL 36000 36000 0
Austria AT 19675559.2 32700104.75 13024545.55
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA
Belgium BE 23274536.98 34125357.18 10850820.2
Bulgaria BG 1241351.37 1752033 510681.63
Switzerland CH 1006107.78 16639941.53 15633833.75
Cyprus CY 1423687.5 1560937.5 137250
Czech Republic CZ 6515773.29 9132137.48 2616364.19
Germany DE 116803200.6 201800955.5 84997754.84
Denmark DK 19637585 25544563.67 5906978.67
Estonia EE 1110584.68 1461534.68 350950
Greece EL 8783210.51 10266783.26 1483572.75
Spain ES 60380318.57 73427974.43 13047655.86
Finland FI 11358195.47 15900454.22 4542258.75
Faeroe Islands FO
France FR 106075177.5 201778610.9 95703433.35
Croatia HR 621207.5 684891.25 63683.75
Hungary HU 593535.63 1186130 592594.37
Ireland IE 6767563.49 8918459.42 2150895.93
Israel IL 17339469.55 48074153.27 30734683.72
Iceland IS 624330.83 954823.5 330492.67
Italy IT 68102512.07 81914288.02 13811775.95
Liechtenstein LI
Lithuania LT 991498.75 1199061.25 207562.5
Luxembourg LU 5294273.01 6001417.5 707144.49
Latvia LV 1129395.13 1430427.5 301032.37
Moldova MD
Montenegro ME
Former Yugoslav MK 190187.5 190187.5 0
Republic of Macedonia
Malta MT 15000 20000 5000
Netherlands NL 76964463.64 227265901.4 150301437.7
Norway NO 18831574.74 31048346.24 12216771.5
Poland PL 4377262.44 4868411.69 491149.25
Portugal PT 10451320.26 13310728.42 2859408.16
Romania RO 3110441.75 3970901.25 860459.5
Serbia RS 1293196 1627693 334497
Sweden SE 24866619.39 34891420.72 10024801.33
Slovenia SI 3050156.8 3578017.36 527860.56
Slovakia SK 1433837.96 1664116.46 230278.5
Turkey TR 3528318.75 4456117.5 927798.75
United Kingdom UK 83420951.54 101313078 17892126.45

231
ANNEX C INTERVIEW LIST

Country Name Role Organisation

University Politehnica
Bucharest, Faculty for
Romania Adina Florea Dean Automation
Project Manager
(Mirris- Mobilising
Institutional Reforms in
Research and
N/A Anita Tregner Mlinaric Innovation EBN
Co-author of RIO
Country Report, 2015
and Stairway to
Excellence Country
Lithuania Agnė Paliokaitė Report, Lithuania, 2015 Visionary Consulting
CNR – Consiglio Nazionale per
Italy Alberto Silvani General director le Ricerche
Trade & Economic Section
Research and Delegation of the European
Israel Alexandra MEIR Innovation Policy Officer Union to the State of Israel
Chief of department for
Bosnia and Science and State NCP Ministry of Civil affairs of
Herzegovina Ammar Mirascija coordinator Bosnia and Herzegovina
Project Manager, Cellule Université libre de Bruxelles
Belgium Anastasios Perimenis Europe (ULB)
Andrés Ubierna
Gorricho (chief of the
Studies and
Communication
Department)

Juan Antonio Tebar

Chumillas (Chief of the
UE Programmes
Division)

Guillermo Alvarez
Jimenez (Department
of Social Challenges)

Javier García Serrano

(Chief of Industrial CDTI (Centre for the
Leadership Development of Industrial
Spain Department) Policymaker Technology)
Former director of Institute of
Solid State Physics of
Latvia Andris Sternbergs expert University of Latvia
Scientist, Former
director of NCN 2011–
Poland Andrzej Jajszczyk 2015. Akademia Gorniczo-Hutnicz
Faeroe
Islands Annika Sølvará Director The Research Council
Malta Council for Science and
Anthea Fabri Technology

232
 Country Name Role Organisation
The Agency for Science,
Head of the Innovation and Technology
International (MITA) / Mokslo, inovacijų ir
Lithuania Anzelma Ūselienė Programmes Division technologijų agentūra
Norway Are Straume Counsellor for Research Norway Mission to the EU
Scientific secretary of Latvian
Latvia Arnis Kokorevics Expert Science Council
Former leader of national
Latvia Arnolds Ubelis Expert Contact Point
Microbial Genetics,
Assoc. Professor Institute of Bulgarian Academy of
Bulgaria Zlatka Alexieva Microbiology, BAS Sciences (BAS), Sofia
Representative
of the Academy
of Sciences delegated
for the interview by the
President of the
Academy on the basis of
an official request
required on 05.12.2016
and submitted
in writing on The Academy of Sciences of
Moldova Aurelia Hanganu 06.12.2016. Moldova
Directeur Programmes
fédéraux et
Belgium Baudouin Jambe internationaux DGO6, Wallonia
Faeroe
Islands Bogi Hansen Senior Scientist Havstovan
Montenegro Branka Zizic Senior Adviser Ministry of Science
Danish Agency for Science,
Denmark Christian Holstein Special Advisor Technology and Innovation
Directorate of Research and
Cyprus Christos Aspris Officer Lifelong Learning
DG European Programmes,
Director of European Coordination & Development-
Cyprus Costas Iacovou Funds CY
University Politehnica
Bucharest, Faculty for
Romania Cristina Orbeci Dean Industrial Chemistry
Innovation Centre of Eötvös
Hungary Daniel Magyar Director Loránd University
Slovak Liaison Office for
Slovakia Daniel Straka Head of Office Research and Development
University Politehnica
Bucharest, Faculty for
Professor, participant in Electronics,
Romania Daniela Faur FP6 and FP7 projects Telecommunications and IT
Programme
Coordinator, ARC Applied Research and
Consulting; Communications (ARC) Fund
Enterprise Europe Group
Bulgaria Daniela Tchonkova Network - Bulgaria (ARC Fund & ARC Consulting)

233
 Country Name Role Organisation
Romanian, national state
Researcher, project owned R&D&I institute for
Romania Diana Badea manager mechatronics INCDMTM
Programmes fédéraux
Belgium Didier Flagothier et internationaux DGO6, Wallonia
Head of Economic Union Wallonne des
Belgium Didier Paquot Affairs Entreprises (UWE)
Chief Expert at the
Transnational Scientific
Initiatives Department,
Science Directorate,
Ministry of Education Ministry of Education and
Bulgaria Dimitar Asenov and Science Science (MES)
Policy Officer Middle
Israel Dimitrova, T. East DG Research & Innovation
Head of Department of
Biotechnology,
University of Food
Technologies, Plovdiv
Dipl. Eng. Albert city,
Krastanov, Professor, FP7 project participant; University of Food
Bulgaria PhD, DSc Horizon 2020 applicant Technologies, Plovdiv city
Serbia Djura Kutlaca Senior Advisor Institute Mihajlo Pupin
The Research Council of
Dr. Aistė International Lithuania (Lietuvos mokslo
Lithuania Vilkanauskytė Programmes Division tarybos Mokslo fondo)
Dr. Caroline Coordinator
Switzerland Vandevyver International Funding EPFL
Ex FP6 coordinator in
the MoES, Ex-Head of
International Programs Actually at POLIS University
Albania Dr. Edmond Agolli at ARTI (Project Office)
Switzerland Dr. iur. Fritz Schiesser President ETH Board
Vice-Rector for
Serbia Dr. Ivanka Popovic International Relations University of Belgrade
Dr. Matthias Head of Research
Switzerland Gäumann, Affairs EPFL
Czech Senior Science &
Republic Dr. Otakar Fojt Innovation Adviser British Embassy Prague
Cyprus Dr. Sepou Kalypso Head of Unit Research Promotion Fund
Euresearch Contact
Switzerland Dr. Suzana Atanasoski Point ZHAW President's Office
Head of Research
Romania Dumitrescu-Silaghi Council University Babes-Bolyai, Cluj
Director Scientific and
Technical Information
Belgium Edward Ziarko Service BELSPO, Federal Government
Faeroe
Islands Eilif Gaard Director Havstovan
Member of the EU
Evalnet Network for Icelandic Centre for Research
Iceland Elisabet Andresdottir Iceland (Rannis)

234
 Country Name Role Organisation
Norwegian Ministry of
Norway Erik Yssen Senior advisor Knowledge
Erikur Smári
Iceland Sigudarson Director of Research University of Iceland
National Authority for
Head of Research Research, Development and
Romania Eugen Scarlat, Ph.D. Programs Innovation
Head of Unit- EU &
International Research
Funds, Research Université Catholique de
Belgium Fabienne Kinard Administration - ADRE Louvain (UCL)
Italy Fabrizio Cobis Director MIUR – Ministry of Education
Government, department for
National NCP national economy,
Liechtenstein Frank A. Heeb coordinator Liechtenstein
Former FP7 Project
Germany Frank Bösenberg Coordinator Silicon Saxony
Head of Transnational
Scientific Initiatives
Department, Science
Directorate, Ministry of Ministry of Education and
Bulgaria Genoveva Zhecheva Education and Science Science (MES)
Head of Transnational
Scientific Initiatives
Department, ‘Science’
Directorate, Ministry of
Education and Science,
NCP of H2020 and Ministry of Education and
Bulgaria Genoveva Zhecheva previous FPs Science (MES)
Cyprus Georgia Kleanthous Scientific Officer RPF
Vicepresident
Commission for
Engineering Sciences Executive unit for the
Gheorghe Brezeanu, for financing financing of universities and
Romania Ph.D. universities R&D&I
Former co-author of National Council for
Moldova Gheorghe Cuciureanu ERAWATCH Reports Accreditation and Attestation
Sweden Göran Melin Senior Consultant Technopolis Group
Head of EU Framework
Programmes The Scientific and
Department, National Technological Research
Turkey Hakan Karataş Coordinator Council Of Turkey, TUBITAK
Turkey Hatice Kocalp General Manager Lenis Global
Former integrated
expert to the Academy
Heinrich of Sciences (from
Moldova Pingel-Rollmann Germany)
Chairperson, University
Research Ethics
Committee
Head, Department of
Communication Therapy
Deputy Dean, Faculty of
Malta Helen Grech Health Sciences University of Malta

235
 Country Name Role Organisation
Head of Director´s Slovak Research and
Slovakia Ing. Alena Bokrošová Office Development Agency
Director of Department
of the Research,
Czech Development and
Republic Ing. Martin Štícha Innovation Ministry of Industry and Trade
Denmark Inie Nøhr Madsen Special Advisor Danish Universities
DG European Programmes,
Coordination & Development-
Cyprus Ioanna Cleanthous Director of Planning CY
The Academy of Sciences of
Moldova Ion Tighineanu Vice-President Moldova
Directrice Analyse
Belgium Isabelle Pierre financière DGO6, Wallonia
The President of the
Latvia Ivars Kalvins Council Institute of Organic Synthesis
Slovenia Iztok Lesjak CEO Ljubljana Technology Park
Director; Office of the
Slovakia Jambor Eduard General Manager Research Agency
International Institute of
Poland Janusz Bujnicki Professor, FP applicant Molecular and Cell Biology
Denmark Jens Haisler Chief Advisor DASTI
Professor, President of
Poland Jerzy Langer the Centre Wroclaw Research Centre EIT
Aarhus University, Research
Deputy University Support and External
Denmark John Westensee Director Relations
Gaia (Association of Electronic
and Information Technologies
Spain Jokin Garatea Industry in the Basque Country)
Head of Development,
Innovation policy, EU
and International
Cooperation Enterprise
and Innovation Ministry of Economic Affairs
Finland Jonna Lehtinen-Salo Department and Employment
CIP – Confederation of
Portugal José António Barros Ex-Vice President Portuguese Industry
Mosta (Research and Higher
Education Monitoring and
Lithuania Jurgita Petrauskienė Director Analysis Centre)
Professor of Research University of Tartu. Faculty of
Estonia Kadri Ukrainski and Innovation Economics
Faeroe Head of Environmental
Islands Karin Larsen Department Havstovan
Denmark Katrine Nissen Head of Division DASTI
Copenhagen University,
Denmark Kim Brinckman Director Research and Innovation

236
 Country Name Role Organisation
Head of division at
Research, Collaboration
and Innovation, and
Professor Emeritus in in
Sweden Klas Malmqvist Applied Nuclear Physics Lund University
International Director,
Director General and
Kristin Danielsen staff, International Unit Research Council of Norway
Iceland Kristján Kristjánsson Director Reykjavik University
Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, Centre for Energy
Hungary Krisztina Szakolczai Researcher Research
Director for
Poland Krzysztof Samp Development ITTI
Sunrise Valley (Science and
Lithuania Laima Kauspadiene CEO Technology Park)
FP6 coordinator, FP7 National Authority for
Romania Letitia Pavelescu contact point Scientific Research
Head of the Centre for Academy of Sciences of
Moldova Lidia Romanciuc International Projects Moldova
Head of department -
EU R&D relations VINNOVA (Sweden’s
Sweden Linda Bell department innovation agency)
Slovakia Lubos Slovak CEO GA Drilling
University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia Luka Juvančič Associate Professor Biotechnical Faculty
Head of
Internationalisation and Flanders Innovation &
Belgium Maarten Sileghem Strategy Entrepreneurship (VLAIO)
Portugal Manuel Carrondo Ex-Managing Director IBET (RTDO)
R&D evaluation -
Italy Marco Malgarini director ANVUR
Head of Department
Federal, interfederal
and international
Belgium Margarida Freire coordination BELSPO, Federal Government
Manager for School of Electrical
International and Engineering, University of
Serbia Marija Sola Spasic National Projects Belgrade
Full professor at Ss Cyril
Former and Methodius
Yugoslav University, Faculty of
Republic of Natural Sciences and Ss. Cyril and Methodius
Macedonia Marina Stefova Mathematics University
Vice-Director, Research
Services and Graduate
Finland Marita Niemelä School University of Vaasa
MENESR, Ministère de
l'Education nationale, de
National NCP l'Enseignement supérieur et
France Martine Roussel coordinator de la Recherche
Latvia Martins Rutkis Director Institute of Solid State Physics

237
 Country Name Role Organisation
Staatssekretariat für Bildung,
Switzerland Mascha Zurbriggen Policy Advisor Forschung und Innovation
Director- department of
Innovation and Ministry of Science and Higher
Poland Mateusz Gaczynski Development Education,
Cyprus Mathaios Spanos Scientific Officer A’ RPF
Trade & Economic Section,
Research and Delegation, European Union to
Israel Meir, A Innovation Policy Officer the State of Israel
Head of Department for
Horizon 2020; H2020
NCP Space; H2020 NCP
Spreading excellence
and widening Agency for Mobility and EU
Croatia Mirjana Vuk participation Programmes
Head of Department of
Research Infrastructure
and International
Slovenia Mojca Boc Cooperation Slovenian Research Agency
Monica van Division Knowledge
Belgium Langenhove Management EWI, Flanders
Flanders Innovation &
Belgium Nico Deblauwe NCP Advisor, Flanders Entrepreneurship (VLAIO)
Strategy and Co-
Belgium Niko Geerts ordination Division EWI, Flanders
MENESR, Ministère de
l'Education nationale, de
National NCP l'Enseignement supérieur et
France Olivier MARCO coordinator de la Recherche
Poland Pawel Poneta Head of the R&D Office TAURON
Pedro Guedes de
Portugal Oliveira Ex-Managing Director INESC PORTO (RTDO)
Portugal Pedro Noronha Pissara CEO BIOTECNOL (Industry)
Department of General
Microbiology,
Institute of
Microbiology, BAS Bulgarian Academy of
Bulgaria Penka Petrova, PhD FP7 project participant Sciences (BAS), Sofia
Coordinator
Belgium Peter Spyns International Policy EWI, Flanders
National Coordinator for Ministry of Education, Science
Slovenia Peter Volasko Horizon 2020 and Sport
Philippe Crosnier, Civil
Albania Engineer Construction Manager Coyne et Bellier
Union Wallonne des
Belgium Pierre Fiasse NCP Advisor, Wallonia Entreprises (UWE)
Prof. Dr. Gezim Dean of Polytechnic Actually at Canadian Institute
Albania Karapici University (2000-2004) of Technology (Dean)
EMPA (Eidgenössische
Prof. Dr. Gian-Luca Materialprüfungs- und
Switzerland Bona Director Forschungsanstalt)

238
 Country Name Role Organisation
Switzerland Prof. Dr. Joël Mesot Director PSI - Paul Scherrer Institute
Switzerland Prof. Dr. Lino Guzzella President ETH Zurich
H2020 NCP –
Prof. Dr. Luljeta Innovation & Actually at European
Albania Minxhozi Enterpreneurship University Tirana (Dean)
Switzerland Prof. Dr. Paul Herrling Vice-President ETH Board
Prof. Fazilet VARDAR
Turkey SUKAN Researcher Ege University
Member of the EU RTD
Evaluation Network
(EUevalnet);
Bioinformatics and
Prof. Stefan mathematical Modelling Bulgarian Academy of
Bulgaria Hadjitodorov, Ph.D. Section, BAS Sciences (BAS)
Bosnia and Prof. Tarik Kupusovic, Hydro-Engineering institute
Herzegovina Phd. Director of HEIS Sarajevo
United Professor Nick Talbot Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Kingdom FRS for Research University of Exeter
Head of Department,
Slovakia Radoslav Delina Faculty of Economics Technical University of Kosice
Researcher, project Romanian private R&D&I
Romania Radu Vasiu, Ph.D. manager institute Tehnomag SA
Innovation Consultant,
former team leader at
ARTI (agency for
Research Technology National Technical University
Albania Representative and Innovation of Athens
Professor at the
National Polytechnic
Albania Representative University of Tirana Independent expert
Senior expert former
staff of Institute of
Contemporary Studies
(main contributor at
The Global
Competitiveness Report
Albania Representative 2016-2017_FINAL Independent expert
Professor at the
National Technical National Technical University
Greece Representative University of Athens of Athens
Innovation Consultant,
former General
Secretary of Research
Greece Representative and Technology (GSRT) Independent expert
University Professor –
coordinator of many FP National Technical University
projects (from FP4 till of Athens – Department of
Greece Representative H2020) Chemical Engineering
Director EU funded Leading Greek ICT service
Greece Representative programmes provider

239
 Country Name Role Organisation
Innovation Consultant,
former General
Secretary of Research
Greece Representative and Technology (GSRT) Independent expert
Malta Representative MCST
Malta Representative Malta Enterprise
Malta Representative University of Malta
Denmark Richard Larsen Chief Consultant Federation of Danish Industry
Czech RNDr. Šárka Head of Unit of the Ministry of Education, Youth
Republic Brábníková European Research Area and Sports
Czech RNDr. Vladimír Technology Centre of the
Republic Albrecht, CSc. Senior consultant Academy of Sciences
Director - Economics
and Statistics
Italy Roberto Torrini Department Bank of Italy
University Politehnica
Professor, coordinator Bucharest, Faculty for
Romania Rodica Stanescu of FP7 project Industrial Chemistry
The Agency for Innovation
and Transfer of Technologies
Moldova Roman Chirca General Director (AITT)
Professor, participant in
FP7 projects, member
of National Council for
Innovation and
Romania Romeo Susan-Resiga Entrepreneurship Technical University Timisoara
Leader of Project Department
Latvia Sandra Vasilevka expert of Riga Technical Univeristy
Advisor European and
International Research
Projects, KU Leuven
Research & Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Belgium Sarah Malevé Development (KU Leuven)
Head The Technical University
Moldova Sergiu Zaporojan of Research Department of Moldova
Germany Stephanie Daimer Innovation Policy Expert Fraunhofer Institut
Head Of International
Funds, DOC - Research Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Belgium Stijn Delauré Coordination Office (KU Leuven)
Iceland Sveinn Margeirsson CEO Matis
Lithuania Tadas Juknevicius Research Policy Analyst Mosta
Head of the Science Ministry of Education and
Estonia Taivo Raud Department Research
Moldova Tatiana Badanova Senior Economist ELIRI Research Institute
Project Manager (former
project manager in the
Office for international
cooperation within the
University of
Montenegro Tatjana Knezevic Montenegro) Centre of Excellence

240
 Country Name Role Organisation
The interviewee did
not give his consent to
add his name and
Hungary position. PEMÜ Műanyagipari Zrt.
United Associate Director Biotechnology and Biological
Kingdom Tim Willis International Sciences Research Council
Head of the
International
Cooperation
Department, National
Coordinator for FP6,
FP7, Horison 2020 (SSH
Estonia Ülle Must NCP. INCO NCP), Estonian Research Council
Professor in
International
Economics, member of
Estonian Academy of University of Tartu. Faculty of
Estonia Urmas Varblane Science Economics
Professor in
International
Economics, member of
Estonian Academy of University of Tartu. Faculty of
Estonia Urmas Varblane Science Economics
Valeriu
PROHNITCHI, Ana
Moldova POPA Experts Expert Group
Ministry of Education, Science
Serbia Viktor Nedovic Assistant Minister and Education Development
Former
Yugoslav FP7 National
Republic of Coordinator, Senior Ministry of Education and
Macedonia Violeta Atanasovska Adviser, Science
Portugal Vitor Corado Simões Professor & researcher ISEG, Lisbon University
Romanian Academy, Institute
for Solid Mechanics –
Vladareanu Luigi, Nationale state owned R&D&I
Romania Ph.D. Head of unit, researcher institute
Tecnalia (Technology
Spain Xabier Larrucea RTO Corporation)
Senior research
associate; SmartEIZ
Croatia Zoran Aralica project leader Institute of Economics, Zagreb

241
ANNEX D FP COORDINATION AND PARTICIPATION DATA PER COUNTRY
% of % of
FP6 % of FP6 FP6 % of FP6 FP7 % of FP7 FP7 % of FP7 H2020 H2020
H2020 H2020
Country coordi- coordi- partici- partici- coordi- coordi- partici- coordi- coordi- partici-
coordi- partici-
nations nations pations pations nations nations pations nations nations pations
nations pations
UK 1,707 0.1712 3,342 0.09596 5,178 0.2039 6,590 0.1061 1,793 0.1982 1,644 0.1008
Spain 718 0.0720 2,376 0.06822 2,406 0.0948 4,893 0.0788 1,088 0.1203 1,376 0.0844
Germany 1,439 0.1443 3,728 0.10704 3,134 0.1234 6,999 0.1127 1,054 0.1165 1,808 0.1109
France 1,299 0.1303 3,000 0.08614 2,688 0.1059 5,300 0.0853 823 0.0910 1,332 0.0817
Italy 914 0.0917 2,795 0.08025 1,946 0.0766 5,225 0.0841 795 0.0879 1,419 0.0870
Netherlands 662 0.0664 2,064 0.05926 1,644 0.0648 3,914 0.0630 647 0.0715 1,016 0.0623
Belgium 470 0.0471 1,667 0.04786 940 0.0370 3,173 0.0511 287 0.0317 858 0.0526
Denmark 211 0.0212 993 0.02851 522 0.0206 1,617 0.0260 284 0.0314 407 0.0250
Sweden 329 0.0330 1,512 0.04341 734 0.0289 2,523 0.0406 225 0.0249 586 0.0359
Austria 285 0.0286 1142 0.03279 678 0.0267 1,940 0.0312 216 0.0239 586 0.0359
Ireland 171 0.0172 578 0.0166 461 0.0182 1,138 0.0183 211 0.0233 314 0.0193
Israel 118 0.0118 490 0.01407 792 0.0312 887 0.0143 204 0.0226 204 0.0125
Switzerland 208 0.0209 1,250 0.03589 1,051 0.0414 2,463 0.0397 187 0.0207 478 0.0293
Finland 155 0.0156 905 0.02598 355 0.0140 1,540 0.0248 169 0.0187 393 0.0241
Greece 347 0.0348 1,292 0.0371 678 0.0267 2,056 0.0331 163 0.0180 590 0.0362
Portugal 107 0.0107 762 0.02188 342 0.0135 1,428 0.0230 159 0.0176 456 0.0280
Norway 143 0.0143 760 0.02182 355 0.0140 1,281 0.0206 123 0.0136 305 0.0187
Poland 197 0.0198 1,235 0.03546 239 0.0094 1,527 0.0246 92 0.0102 371 0.0228
Hungary 111 0.0111 818 0.02349 211 0.0083 1,030 0.0166 69 0.0076 229 0.0141
Estonia 23 0.0023 315 0.00904 58 0.0023 422 0.0068 62 0.0069 116 0.0071
Turkey 66 0.0066 318 0.00913 284 0.0112 737 0.0119 60 0.0066 144 0.0088
Slovenia 31 0.0031 466 0.01338 58 0.0023 684 0.0110 60 0.0066 203 0.0125
Czech
38 0.0038 842 0.02418 122 0.0048 1,022 0.0165 43 0.0048 272 0.0167
Republic
Cyprus 25 0.0025 182 0.00523 77 0.0030 330 0.0053 38 0.0042 116 0.0071

242
 % of % of
FP6 % of FP6 FP6 % of FP6 FP7 % of FP7 FP7 % of FP7 H2020 H2020
H2020 H2020
Country coordi- coordi- partici- partici- coordi- coordi- partici- coordi- coordi- partici-
coordi- partici-
nations nations pations pations nations nations pations nations nations pations
nations pations
Romania 44 0.0044 435 0.01249 62 0.0024 797 0.0128 29 0.0032 217 0.0133
Slovakia 31 0.0031 335 0.00962 41 0.0016 353 0.0057 25 0.0028 116 0.0071
Luxembourg 14 0.0014 80 0.0023 32 0.0013 185 0.0030 22 0.0024 94 0.0058
Lithuania 21 0.0021 257 0.00738 28 0.0011 309 0.0050 22 0.0024 86 0.0053
Iceland 19 0.0019 85 0.00244 47 0.0019 180 0.0029 19 0.0021 45 0.0028
Serbia 0 0.0000 7 0.0002 42 0.0017 208 0.0034 17 0.0019 80 0.0049
Bulgaria 39 0.0039 332 0.00953 48 0.0019 497 0.0080 16 0.0018 130 0.0080
Croatia 9 0.0009 106 0.00304 42 0.0017 280 0.0045 16 0.0018 113 0.0069
Latvia 10 0.0010 185 0.00531 29 0.0011 213 0.0034 15 0.0017 85 0.0052
Malta 7 0.0007 110 0.00316 23 0.0009 138 0.0022 7 0.0008 40 0.0025
FYROM 0 0.0000 3 0.00009 14 0.0006 74 0.0012 2 0.0002 20 0.0012
Montenegro 0 0.0000 1 0.00003 9 0.0004 27 0.0004 2 0.0002 6 0.0004
B&H 1 0.0001 21 0.0006 5 0.0002 32 0.0005 2 0.0002 13 0.0008
Moldova 0 0.0000 15 0.00043 8 0.0003 40 0.0006 1 0.0001 14 0.0009
Faroe Islands 0 0.0000 2 0.00006 4 0.0002 13 0.0002 1 0.0001 5 0.0003
Liechtenstein 0 0.0000 5 0.00014 2 0.0001 11 0.0002 0 0.0000 1 0.0001
Albania 2 0.0002 17 0.00049 1 0.0000 25 0.0004 0 0.0000 16 0.0010

TOTAL 9971 1.0000 34828 1 25390 1.0000 62101 1.0000 9048 1.0000 16304 1.0000

243
ANNEX E WORKSHOP REPORT

244
 Evaluating the uptake and
impact of participation in
the European Framework
Programmes for Research in
Member States

Validation Workshop Report

CONTENTS

1. RTD NATIONAL IMPACTS WORKSHOP SUMMARY 247

1.1 Study context .................................................................................. 247
1.1.1 Validation workshop ........................................................................... 248
1.2 Session 1: General trends and patterns in MS/AC national research
and innovation landscape and policies during the past 15 years ....248
1.2.1 Key findings and discussion ................................................................ 248
1.3 Session 2: Evolution of participation patterns in Framework
Programmes in each MS/AC during the last 15 years ..................... 251
1.3.1 Key findings and discussion ................................................................ 251
1.4 Session 3: Longitudinal and cumulative impacts of FP participation
on Member States and Associated Countries .................................. 252
1.4.1 Key findings and discussion ................................................................ 252
1.5 Session 4: Validation of country reports and findings for study
overall ............................................................................................ 254
1.5.1 Key findings and discussion ................................................................ 255
1.6 Session 5: Concluding discussion – from findings to
recommendations ........................................................................... 255
1.6.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 255
1.6.2 Recommendations ............................................................................. 257

ANNEX F.1 WORKSHOP AGENDA 259

ANNEX F.2 PARTICIPATION LIST 261

246
1. RTD NATIONAL IMPACTS WORKSHOP SUMMARY
This document constitutes the draft report of the validation workshop organised in Brussels as part
of the DG RTD-commissioned study Evaluating the uptake and impact of participation in the
European Framework Programmes for Research in the Member States, carried out by CSES and
Oxford Research.

This report summarises the various presentations and subsequent discussions organised per
session. The final section provides an overview of the preliminary conclusions and
recommendations presented at the workshop.

1.1 Study context

This 18-month study is being carried out by CSES and Oxford Research from January 2016 to July
2017. The overarching objective study is to assess the uptake and impact of participation in the
European RTD Framework Programmes (“FPs”) in 28 EU Member States (“MS”) and 13 Associated
Countries (“AC”), i.e. a total of 41 countries.

The study has been commissioned to support the European Commission in better communicating
the European Added Value (EAV) of the Framework Programmes in each MS and AC. Secondly, the
study should help to further the European Commission’s understanding of the impact of the FPs
and facilitate the design of future EU RTD programmes so as to maximise their future impacts. It
will also feed in to the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020.

The main focus of the study is on the impacts achieved at national level through participation in
(and the uptake of research results from) the 6th and 7th Framework Programmes (2002-2006 and
2007-2013 respectively). However, the study also needs to consider the preceding FPs, as well as
the initial period of implementation of Horizon 2020 (up to October 31st 2016 as a data cut-off
point). The term uptake relates to the level of applications and participations in the programming
periods within scope.

The study is being implemented through five main Tasks:

• Task 1: Assessment of how the national research and innovation landscape and policies have
evolved during the past 15 years in each MS/AC
• Task 2: Assessment of the evolution of participation patterns in Framework Programmes in
each MS/AC during the past 15 years
• Task 3: Assessment and description of the quantitative and qualitative impact of FP
participation on each MS/AC based on the findings of Tasks 1 and 2
• Task 4: To present list of different forms of impact of FPs in MS/AC groupings and to assess
which general factors are conducive to generating lasting impact of the FPs in MS/AC
• Task 5: Organisation of a validation workshop 257

The final study report will set out the research results and findings. In particular, the study will:

1. Provide an analysis for each MS and AC of the national research and innovation (“R&I”)
landscape and policies during the past 15 years.
2. Provide an analysis of participation patterns in each MS and AC and participation trends in the
FPs, setting these in the wider context of national research capabilities and national research
orientations, policies, cross-border cooperation and structures.
3. Carry out an assessment of the added value of FP participation (beyond financial return on
investment) for each MS/AC and to establish what the additional impact of previous FP
participation has been in each MS and AC in quantitative and qualitative terms.
4. Present a taxonomy of factors conducive to generating lasting impact of the FPs in the MS and
AC. This will be derived using a theory-based approach, i.e. the study should increase
understanding as to ‘why particular factors have been conducive to generating last impact of
the FPs’.

257
It should be noted that in our methodology, the validation workshop is named “Task 5”, although it is not
referred to as a separate Task per se in the Tender Specifications.

247
The Final Report will also provide a coherent set of conclusions and recommendations relating to
these four objectives. In addition, it will include 41 country reports for each MS and AC outlining
and assessing the impacts that FPs have had in the particular EU MS or AC concerned.

1.1.1 Validation workshop

The validation workshop is one of five Tasks to be carried out during the study and was organised
at DG RTD’s premises in Brussels on 19th May 2017. The workshop agenda and participant list can
be found in Annexes 1 and 2 respectively. The workshop was divided up into five sessions,
corresponding to the evidence base gathered through Tasks 1 to 4. Each session was composed of
a formal presentation by the research team followed by a group discussion in which the
participants were invited to contribute.

Dr. Kim Møller (Oxford Research) introduced the workshop. Mike Coyne, Mark Whittle and Malin
Carlberg (CSES) presented each session to explain the work carried out during the study and to
outline the emerging findings. In the introductory opening of the workshop, the political context
was outlined, in particular the growing interest of MS/ AC in investigating their performance in
respect of participation rates and in assessing the impacts of participation through the
commissioning of national evaluations. The development of guidelines by the study team to
support the work of the ERAC expert group was also mentioned. The evolution in the programming
architecture over successive FPs was also highlighted, and the implications from an evaluability
perspective from a mixture of change and continuity were considered.

Sections 1.2 to 1.6 of this report present summaries of each respective workshop session.

1.2 Session 1: General trends and patterns in MS/AC national research and
innovation landscape and policies during the past 15 years

The key objective of the first session was to review the development of the national R&I landscape
and policies and to assess how these have evolved during the past 15 years in each Member
State/Associated Country. Session 1 was based on the findings derived from Task 1. This was an
important part of the study, as a central aim of the study is to map the inter-linkages between
developments in national and EU R&I policies and to develop a more systematic understanding as
to how these impact on FP uptake and participation – among countries, sectors and different types
of actors that have participated in FP6, FP7, and Horizon 2020 to date.

1.2.1 Key findings and discussion

In the presentation, key changes in national R&I systems were presented. The correlation in FP
participation performance between countries with a strong R&D&I system was noted. Issues
around the need for continuity in institutional arrangements and in funding for national R&I was
also raised as a critical success factor.

DG REGIO commented that many national and regional R&I systems have significantly evolved
over the past 15 years. It should also be recalled that the FPs often only account for a small
percentage of each country’s total GERD, with about €50-60 billion being expended annually
through non-FP sources i.e. national R&I programmes and European Structural and Investment
Funds. Their main interest in participating in the FPs appears to be driven by a need to
internationalise their research activities and to attract international researchers. It was noted that
a major frustration among some national authorities is that they have limited influence in shaping
the finalisation of the annual work programmes (AWPs) and the thematic selection of different
Calls.

Synergies between ESIF and the FPs: DG REGIO and several national experts commented on
the inter-relationship between ESIF and the FPs. REGIO noted that R&I measures funded through
the OPs are an important mechanism for strengthening R&I competitiveness and as such, a
conduit towards improving the chances of success in FP applications. Smart Specialisation has also
played an important role in the current period in strengthening competitiveness to be able to
participate in FP projects that deliver innovation.

Country researchers and experts pointed to a number of positive aspects. For instance, in some
EU-13 MS and former Soviet Union countries, ESIF have been used to modernise their R&I
infrastructure, laboratories and equipment and this was recognised as a precursor to strengthen
competitiveness before applying for FP funding. In some MS, the ESIF have also facilitated the

248
funding of ‘second chance’ R&I projects i.e. where project applications scored highly in FP
applications but narrowly missed out on funding.

However, other country researchers pointed to less positive impacts, such as the ESIF crowding
out the FPs in some EU-13 MS, since there was perceived to be considerably less competition when
applying for ESIF funding domestically compared with applying to the FPs. In some new MS, under
some calls, the success rate has been as low as 2% compared with up to 90% under ESIF. The
less positive impact of this is that the researchers did not access to FP trans-national research
networks and communities, but stayed with the ESIF funding confined within their own country.
Language considerations are also relevant since ESIF applications can be made in the national
language.

Synergies between the FPs and national R&I programmes: FI pointed to an increasingly
complex innovation maze, with different EU funding sources available (e.g. the FPs, PPPs, the role
of the EIT and the KICs). They also commented however that there is a funding continuum
between national R&I funding programmes as an initial source of funding and stepping stone
towards future FP participation, at least in stronger R&I capacity countries. However, it was
acknowledged that this is not the case in countries with lower capacity R&D&I systems. DK agreed
and mentioned that due to cuts in national R&I budgets following the crisis, the FPs were an
increasingly important funding source.

Although formally speaking, the FPs are not meant to replace national R&I programmes, it was
noted in CH that for some actors, namely companies, there are no direct sources of R&I funding
domestically.

Barriers to FP participation: a further factor deterring prospective applicants from applying to

the FPs is that since H2020, changes in the rules mean that national researchers can only be paid
a fixed % compared with their normal salary, which in EU-13 means that whilst working on H2020
projects, researchers from countries where salaries are low will earn significantly less than their
EU-15 counterparts on the same project. The multiple can be as high as four – six times a salary
differential which combined with low success rates is a disincentive (mentioned by LT, RO).

A number of countries, including AL and EL, also raised issues relating to quality of proposals as a
barrier. In Albania there is concern that researchers are pushed towards applying for FP funding
for the primary sake of bringing back funding rather than engaging in research.

In EL, quality of proposals were fundamental as the country lacks a support system which may
help researchers thinking more strategically about proposal writing. CY also pointed to the need of
improving support systems and ensuring that NCPs and other support staff have the appropriate
motivation and training to effectively support both researchers as well as SMEs.

Both CH and EE mentioned administrative costs as a possible deterrent. In the past institutions in
Switzerland were reluctant to apply because FP participation was seen as costly, but this has
changed, although to an extent IRP rules are still considered to be complicated.

In EE, FP participants avoid dealing with the administrative burden by making use of
consultancies. In MD, the economic context and delayed R&I reforms have been a deterrent factor.

Different types of incentives measures: The presenters outlined the heterogeneity of different
measures to promote greater participation in the FPs. Various points were raised in relation to
incentives measures and their relative effectiveness. Whilst it was acknowledged that
matchmaking and networking events can be important, an issue mentioned (HU, RO) was the
difficulty for newcomers in identifying suitable partners to join consortia. Many consortia are well-
established and the individual organisation may also participate in thematic ERA-NETs. It is
therefore quite difficult to enter into such consortia when its members may already be involved in
the second or third generation project in a particular scientific discipline.

Continuity in national R&I systems, policies and programmes: The problem in ensuring
adequate continuity over time at national level to maintain country competitiveness was alluded to
by a number of countries. DK pointed to discontinuity in national R&I funding, Serbia mentioned
that there was a lack of continuity in national support structures, since national support networks
had been discontinued for two years, although now a NCP structure has been put in place.

Continuity between FP programming periods: some countries have found it difficult to adapt
to the transition from a focus in the FPs on R&D to R&D&I. However, BG stated that SMEs and

249
industry were very positive about the focus on both research and innovation in H2020. As a result
of merging parts of the CIP with H2020, awareness about the FPs was estimated to have increased
10-fold compared with FP7.

Several countries agreed that in order to maximise continuity, there is a need to ensure that
H2020 puts a greater emphasis back on achieving the ERA and in particular the Barcelona targets
relating to country-specific GERD expenditure targets relative to the particular country’s baseline.
In B&H, the main challenge was identified as being the need to increase national GERD from its
current low level of 0.22% of GDP to the country’s target of 1% (as compared to the EU target of
3%). In Moldova, there is a similar concern. The country has not reached the target of 1% of GDP
as yet.

Impact of FPs on national R&I systems: some countries pointed to the FPs having had a
significant impact in shaping R&I systems (e.g. Serbia and Moldova other countries in South-
Eastern Europe. The FPs have helped in adjusting the Moldovan R&I system to the EU
requirements as the country aims at integrating into the European Research Area. The level of
impact appears to be much greater in associated countries and in EU-13 than in EU-15.

Impact of FPs on national R&I national policies and programmes: several countries agreed
that there are benefits from participating in the FPs, since these are highly competitive and
demand research actors to meet international standards of excellence. In some countries (e.g.
CH), this was viewed as having shaped the evolution of national R&I policies. Various comments
were made by individual countries:
• SI - taking part in the FPs represented a big cultural shift since before they didn’t need to
compete for R&I funding. Accordingly, taking part in the FPs represented a change in
approach to R&I. This influenced the development of the R&I system and national funding
arrangements.
• LT - there has been a transition in funding arrangements partly driven by the need to
compete for international research funding. More generally, there has been a transition to
supporting both fundamental and applied research. Formerly, the Lithuanian Research
Council didn’t used to fund any applied research, but now does so, although other
innovation agencies (e.g. MITA) provide support to encourage participation by industry/
SMEs.

The FPs have also been highly influential in determining the development of national R&I
strategies and programmes. In some cases, they provided a substitute for a national policy since
there were too many other economic restructuring challenges when particular countries began
participating in the FPs. Example:
• RO - copied the thematic priorities in FP6 directly as they needed a coherent model urgently
and were undergoing major economic changes, and the closure of some state industries and
the privatization of others.

Trends in terms of policy and programming alignment between the FPs and national R&I
programmes. Overall, there has been convergence between EU and national R&I policies and
programmes over the previous 15 years. Some evidence was identified of efforts at national level
in MS / AC to mirror FP priorities. There was a general consensus that the priorities in H2020 of
fostering scientific and research excellence and societal challenges appear to have had a greater
impact.

DK commented that although there were some similarities in national and EU R&I priorities and
between national R&I programmes and the FPs, in the past, these were either by coincidence or
because the FPs had followed the priorities defined in the national R&I programmes of leading
R&D&I countries. However, over time, the FPs have become more important in shaping policies
and strategies, especially among research actors themselves. For example, universities now take
EU policies into account whenever strategies are being developed.

Two countries (DK, FI) stated that there is a natural limit to the alignment. In some cases, it may
be inappropriate to ensure alignment between EU and national policies. In AT policymakers assess
national strengths when aligning national priorities with EU policy. For example, the Societal
Challenges approach existed in Austria for some time but was reinforced at national level when SC
were also taken up as a EU priority/theme in H2020.

250
1.3 Session 2: Evolution of participation patterns in Framework Programmes
in each MS/AC during the last 15 years

Session 2 looked at the evolution in participation patterns in the FPs over successive programming
periods (FP6, FP7 and H2020) across EU28 MS and the 13 ACs. This session was based on the
research undertaken as part of Task 2. Interlinkages between participation rates and the baseline
situation (Task 1) and with the assessment of impacts (Task 3) were emphasised. Data showing
the evolution in participation patterns by MS / AC longitudinally by FP was presented. Examples of
MS whose performance has improved, remained stable and declined were provided.

1.3.1 Key findings and discussion

Drivers of FP participation: Several country experts attested to the growing importance of

competitive R&I funding. DK mentioned the transition from block to competitive funding as a
driver towards higher levels of FP participation. DK would not have been able to make the leap to
taking part in the FPs had there been a lack of national R&I funding to help build capacity. If there
is a lack of international experience then harder if national funding taken away.

LT: There have been various attempts to persuade more Lithuanian researchers to apply to
participate in the FPs, however, despite the availability of a wide range of incentive measures,
interest among researchers is low. There are however a few success stories in niche areas such as
physics, life sciences, etc.

The willingness of the Moldovan researchers to be part of the European scientific community has
played a crucial role in Moldova’s participation.

Participation in the ERA Nets is an important mechanism to promote FP participation, but thematic
excellence networks tend to be difficult for newcomers to access.

Inhibitors of FP participation: The specific challenges faced by small countries vis-à-vis

participating in the FPs was mentioned. Firstly, there is an over-dependency on a small number of
research performers that account for a large percentage of total participations. Secondly, in
smaller countries, such as SI, the R&I community is very small so cooperation to achieve common
objectives has historically been more important than competition. Competing for FP funding has
required major cultural change in Moldova as well. Concerns were also expressed that weaker R&I
institutions may be weaned out, since in a competitive environment, the strong will get stronger
and the weak may no longer be able to fund their operations.

Salary imbalances jeopardises interest in EU-13 in international R&I collaboration.

Changes introduced in H2020 as to the rules on maximum salaries have had an impact on
participation levels. These have in turn impacted on the quality of participation (LT, RO). In
H2020, a further disincentive was that national researcher salaries increased a lot in RO. Since the
level of salary paid to participate in H2020 now has to be closely correlated with the national level
salary, this serves as a disincentive. Such salary constraints are not applicable in the case of SFs
which are very popular.

There were some comments about the focus on higher TRLs in two of the three H2020
pillars: BE stated that there is a need to maintain an appropriate balance between basic and
applied research and ‘close to the market’ research in the FPs, otherwise this may deter
participation. The transition to supporting projects of higher TRLs may be welcomed by industry
but may also raise concerns among universities, who tend to specialise in fundamental research.

Role of FP participation in strengthening R&I capacity and ability to compete for

international R&I funding. SI - there was low knowledge as to how to apply for the FPs in FP7.
It was difficult initially for research actors in some EU-13 countries to demonstrate sufficient
competitiveness to serve as the lead coordinators so they started out by gaining experience as
project partners. Over time, as the capacity of research actors develops, they anticipate playing a
more significant role on projects.

National funding availability and FP participation: National R&I funding has decreased in
some countries (e.g. EL, IT, ES, PT) due to the crisis. In Moldova, funding has been centralised
and continuously low. In addition, in other countries (FR, LT, SI), an explicit attempt has been
made to make the allocation of national R&I funding linked to whether the applicant has applied
for (or been successful in the application for) FP projects. For instance, in SI, bonus points are

251
awarded to research actors applying to national schemes if they have an EU track record. FR
recently introduced a similar system.

Quality of participation: The quality not only the quantity of participation was mentioned several
times (e.g. by EL, RO). This could be assessed by analysing e-Corda data in respect of the role
played by each participant (e.g. lead coordinator, consortium members) and by analysing whether
a given consortium member actually carried out research or was involved in WPs linked to other
activities such as communication and dissemination.

In RO, a driver of participation (FP6) was that the salaries of researchers at national level were low
and FP participation was therefore a means of attracting the most talented researchers to apply
who were attracted by higher salaries (no longer the case in H2020 – see earlier point). In FP7, EU
MS received SFs support which addressed R&I. In FP7, because of the lack of national funding,
many researchers attempted to participate in FPs wherever possible irrespective of their role, for
instance, when consortia led in Western Europe needed a partner from Central and Eastern
Europe. The consequence was that the quality of participations went down between periods i.e.
although RO participants were involved in consortia, they often had a minor role with very few
coordinators.

Brain drain. The mobility programme under FP6 was also a great success, but there was an issue
around brain drain with researchers not coming back to RO post-completion of a Marie-Curie
mobility period. There were also concerns in other EU-13 countries and in southern Europe about
the risk of brain drain when researchers benefit from mobility grants. Whilst recognising that the
experiences gained by researchers during these periods are invaluable, the importance of putting
in place policy measures or incentives schemes to attract researchers back was stressed.
However, the current salary differential approach within H2020 has made this more difficult since
salaries within FP projects are paid not according to the nationality of the researcher themselves
but the country in which they are undertaking research. Therefore, there is no incentive for a
researcher from a low salary country to return when they can continue doing researcher in a
Western European university and be paid significantly more.

Extent of MS/ AC interest in the level of country participation in the FPs: The presenters
highlighted the growing interest in FP participation and on levels of return on investment / country
as a percentage of the total. About 10 countries have undertaken national evaluations, in some
cases (FR, DE) to investigate why their performance has declined over successive FPs, but in other
cases to explore whether strong performance could be further improved.

SE noted that it is an outlier in terms of the baseline situation since it did not experience any
decline in national funding during the crisis. There is no great concern about a small decline in
participation rates between FPs, other than for politicians who look at the RoI.

IE was a good example of a country that has successfully strengthened its participation rates with
a marked increase in FP7 and H2020 compared with FP6. This shows the advantage of putting in
place a strategic plan to increase FP participation as a means of achieving internationalisation, and
attracting additional resources to support R&I. It was noted that in a small country context, the
FPs can be especially important in terms of attracting international researchers and fostering
capacity to deliver world-class, excellent science in niche areas. This would not have been possible
relying on domestic researchers alone.

1.4 Session 3: Longitudinal and cumulative impacts of FP participation on

Member States and Associated Countries

Session 3 covered an assessment of the added value and impact in the MS/AC of FP participation
in terms of a number of different types of impact – scientific, economic (including on innovation),
as well as the impacts on national research and innovation policies, policy-related impacts, and
wider societal impacts including social and environmental impacts. The preliminary country
groupings of the 41 countries were also discussed, based on R&I strengths, FP performance and
impacts observed as a result of FP participation.

1.4.1 Key findings and discussion

FP impact studies are a legal obligation at EU level but not all MS/AC carry out ex-post evaluations
of their participation or of the associated impacts. However, there are some signs that national
authorities are taking an increased interest in undertaking or commissioning FP studies to evaluate
the impacts of FP participation including their longitudinal dimension. This interest can partly be

252
attributed to increased pressure on MS/AC to demonstrate impacts of R&I expenditure through
FPs.

The presentation began by outlining the methodological challenges in measuring longitudinal

impact of R&I programmes in general, and in the FPs in particular.

A key challenge for this particular study is to evaluate the long-term impacts across multiple
programming periods (i.e. FP6, FP7 and H2020) and their cumulative dimension. The challenge is
on the one hand practical insofar as the design of the FPs and the data collected differs over time.
Moreover, there are also differences in the quality and quantity of data available at national level.

On the other hand, it is equally challenging to try and measure cumulative impacts (e.g. lack of
consistency in citations, a project-based approach with a lack of continuity in staffing for
longitudinal follow-up e.g. surveys), and then to assess the scale of these impacts. Having
identified the impacts, a further challenge according to the typology of impacts developed for this
study is to assess the degree of attribution to the FPs.

Session 3’s presentation and subsequent discussion focused on the impacts observed. Session 5
(section 1.6 in this report) furthermore sets out the study’s key findings and preliminary
conclusions and recommendations with regard to impacts.

In terms of scientific impacts, a key point was the ability of FP research to facilitate the
internationalisation of a country’s scientific community. Although this is a key impact in terms of
strengthening a country’s science and research base and in improving scientific quality and
competitiveness, it was equally acknowledged that low-capacity R&I countries are at a risk of
losing scientific talent as researchers may take up positions abroad (thanks to a more international
network and international experience), i.e. the ‘brain-drain’ phenomenon.

The country experts seem to overall agree that brain-drain is a challenge for the implementation
of the European Research Area and it was underlined that national R&I systems need to consider
putting in place effective support to encourage researchers working abroad to return to their home
country. Otherwise the FPs risk contributing to an overconcentration of support to the most
scientifically excellent regions in the EU, which would risk socioeconomic developments in regions
with weaker R&I capacity. Further points relating to proximate causes of brain-drain are
summarised in the section on participation (linked to changes in the salaries of national
researchers depending on their country).

A second key point for discussion was the selection and use of indicators for measuring science
outputs and impacts. The choice of indicators for measuring scientific impacts was considered to
be very important, as different indicators are important in order to fairly portray a broader picture
of FP participation and impact. Commonly cited important metrics were competitiveness and
quality of research and it was felt that FP data could not sufficiently comment on these two aspects
of the programmes.

A point then was made to ensure that the nature and capacity of a country’s FP
participation was considered by R&I policymakers when allocating (national) R&D resources.
In some countries (e.g. CH, AT), policymakers take a bottom-up approach to R&D allocations, i.e.
avoid setting too many call or thematic restrictions when considering funding applications. Within
the Swiss policy mix the FPs have become an important source of funding for pre-competitive
research (as oppose to the innovation side). Particular benefits of this specific ‘role’ of the FP
included internationalisation of activities, a high volume of ERC and MSCA grants. For Switzerland,
a key purpose of the FP participation is to ensure scientific exchange.

Hence, it was argued that it is for policymakers to set (an effective) agenda to try and avoid
national clashes to approaching R&I funding (i.e. promoting a policy and funding mix which is
ineffective in creating impacts).

The heterogeneity in the MS/AC R&I systems and their varying approach to the FPs was
also pointed out through the example of Israel. Israel is a strong FP performer but R&I and
especially innovation stems from cultural factors rather than an organised top-down strategy
(there is no innovation strategy in IL). R&I is also closely linked to military and defence aspects.
Israel has participated in the FPs since FP4. Formal FP participation was preceded by a national
discussion that concluded that the country ought to target FP participation in selected areas, an
approach which is considered to have been very successful.

253
With regard to economic impacts, the country expert for PL, NO and SK, (who has also had a
coordination role in reviewing wider country reports) noted that in many countries, there is a lack
of concrete evidence as to economic impacts. As for the limited evidence that is available,
challenges in measuring economic impacts, including attribution related issues was discussed. A
key problem is that whilst there are examples of impacts on employment and on new spin-off
firms created, those solely attributed to FP projects are difficult to identify. The discussion then
turned to whether or not such outcomes are explicit objectives of the FPs, since the focus is rather
on excellent science, industrial leadership/ strengthening industrial competitiveness and on
tackling societal challenges and on producing high-quality research outcomes. Employment
outcomes and economic spillovers from the commercialisation of research do occur, but these are
secondary impacts, sometimes of an indirect nature, and may take place after the completion of
the project.

The workshop discussion also covered impacts on innovation impacts. The selection of
indicators for measuring innovation end economic impacts was discussed, and it was suggested
that indicators should aim to capture impacts from the FPs in a more inclusive (broader) manner
than is currently the case.

It was agreed that innovation impact are challenging and the experts expressed a range of
opinions on the role of the FPs to create innovation at national level. Some experts considered
that innovation output and outcomes from FP projects to be disappointing (e.g. PL), citing the
comparatively few patent registrations that could be directly attributed to FP7 (and comparing this
number – 1,200 patents – with the total number of patents registered in Europe ever year, namely
50,000).

On the other hand, it was acknowledged by several experts that FP6 and FP7 were not explicitly
designed to support innovation, and that innovation was only brought in under H2020 in 2014. In
many regards, it is therefore too soon to assess impacts. Nor should the EU and countries
participating in the FPs expect that investment in research will always lead to innovation (example
- in the case of fundamental research, innovation is unlikely to occur). Indeed, it was also
suggested that the ‘fuzziness’ of the intervention logic of FP6 and FP7 in particular could not be
expected to produce clear innovation outputs.

Furthermore, one expert (RO) pointed out that measuring innovation through traditional indicators
such as ‘number of patents produced’ does not reveal anything about the quality of those patents,
nor does it measure the income derived from the registered patents in question. It was also
acknowledged that that FP produced important research, which could be applied in national
healthcare sectors but that this was not (sufficiently) measured in evaluations.

It was highlighted that if the FPs are to effectively support innovation, they will also need to put an
emphasis on exploration and to encourage participants to develop a positive outlook/culture in
terms of experimentation, innovation of the management of innovation. This would require softer
interventions, such as fostering effective collaborations between public and private actors, and
teaching innovation skills. Including covering IPR.

During the second half of Session 3, CSES presented the preliminary country groupings that
have been developed as part of the study. This presentation began with explaining some of the
data challenges involved in creating country groups (stemming from differences in national R&I
baselines, length and scope of FP participation and in difficulties in fairly assessing national
impacts derived from FP participation). A second challenge is the longitudinal aspect of the study,
which – along with the data challenges – have resulted in a fluidity between countries, i.e. one
could argue that several of the countries in the study could fit within more than one country group.

The presentation also highlighted that the key purpose of the country grouping was to develop
tailored conclusions and recommendations that could usefully be taken into account at national
level. The study does not aim to produce a league table of FP participation and impact.

The experts did not express any major disagreement with the archetypical characteristics of the
country groups presented, however provided some useful feedback including the importance of
linking different types of impacts to the country groupings (DK) as well as ensuring that policy
recommendations are adjusted to the different groups (CH).

1.5 Session 4: Validation of country reports and findings for study overall

Session 4 continued the discussion within the scope outlined under Session 3.

254
1.5.1 Key findings and discussion

The panel kept the presentation brief in order to allow the country experts to provide further
feedback on the material presented as part of Session 3.

A key topic for discussion for Session 4 concerned the potential selection of indicators to be
selected for measuring differences in between country group performance and related factors that
were important to be taken into account – such as differences in salary levels for FP participating
researchers, these would need to be considered if the country groupings were to measure
difference in monetary gains from the FPs.

Other comments on the choice of indicators included:

• The suggestion to include and measure a country’s proportion of research actors – institutions
and businesses – that have participated in the FPs over time.
• Differentiate between the share of businesses and researchers participating in the FPs over
time. This would probably show differences between the EU-13 and the EU-15, as it was
believed that many of the EU-13 companies were not mature enough to participate effectively.
• Another suggested metric was for the study team to assess how much manpower a country
had invested in in order to reach the current level of participation.
• It was suggested that indicators on cost and inputs could be included, however it was also
pointed out that indicators have a signalling effect to the R&I community as they respond to
the indicators given. Too much stress on input indicators can provide the ‘wrong’ incentive.
Rather it is important to stress desired outputs, such as spin-off companies.
• The study could consider including indicators for benchmarking comparison purposes with the
US and Asia.

Following the indicator discussion, the experts revisited the question of measuring impacts from
the FPs. It was suggested that many of the country reports describe (especially innovation)
impacts to be marginal, which could be interpreted as being disappointing given the level of
investment. On the other hand, experts also raised the importance of considering the overall
national funding mix when assessing FP impacts – and that one should not expect the FPs, or
other EU funding, to make a contribution in terms of the magnitude of impacts beyond the relative
size of the FPs in proportion to overall public R&I expenditure (GERD), taking into account the
national funding source mix.

The experts finally discussed the need for impact assessments to take into account what some
perceive as an ‘uneven playing field’ of smaller capacity countries, and the additional time needed
for these R&I systems to identify an effective role within the FPs, including ensuring that there is
adequate national capacity to compete. This was acknowledged to take time, resources and know-
how.

1.6 Session 5: Concluding discussion – from findings to recommendations

This session saw the panel present the study’s preliminary conclusions and recommendations. A
lack of time meant that there was no open discussion following the presentation of conclusions and
recommendations. However, we will now outline these in order to give the experts the
opportunity to provide feedback in writing should they wish to do so.

1.6.1 Conclusions

Participation rates in FP6-H2020 and enhancing participation in future

• The analysis of participation rates identified considerable variance in performance across MS/
AC between FPs. Some countries’ performance has improved, whilst others has declined or
remained stable.
• Lessons can be learned from studying high-performing MS /AC that have increased their
participation level (no. and volume in EUR of participations). Common characteristics for
MS/AC that improved performance over successive FPs:
- Strong national R&D&I capacity (including systems / structures)
- Strong performance on the European Innovation Scoreboard/ key R&D&I metrics.

255
 - Investment in, and professionalisation of support structures by universities and
PROs within their institutions to help project applicants to develop successful FP
applications
- Taking on board OECD innovation recommendations
- Good EN language skills (given the need to produce most written materials in EN)
• Lessons can be learnt by identifying / analysing characteristics of countries where FP
participation rates have declined over the past 15 years.
• Difficulties in enhancing participation include:
- Weak national R&D&I capacity (including systems / structures)
- Poor framework conditions
- Lack of integration of FP participation (and inter-sectoral mobility) in career
development structures of academics/ researchers.
- Poor preparedness to produce quality applications with a lack of formalised support
structures within universities and PROs
- Absence of training support measures to improve quality of FP applications
- Weaker EN language skills
• However, difficult to generalise and to develop a categorisation system that explains relative
success. Complex range of factors influences FP performance.
• Some MS have a strong R&D&I system and research infrastructure (FR) but have not been
that successful. Other factors apply – e.g. easier to apply for national or ESIF funding. In most
cases funding via FP is in competition with funding via national agencies. The applicants assess
their efforts needed for an application and their chances to succeed.
Impacts and maximising the impacts of the FPs at MS/ AC levels in future
• Assessment of impacts inherently dependent on i) national R&I baseline, ii) length and type of
participation, and iii) data availability at national and regional level.
• Therefore not possible to make direct comparisons. Categorisations of countries and impacts
are possible.
• Focus has been on scientific impacts, impacts on innovation, impacts relating to the overall
R&I systems, economic impacts, wider societal impacts, policy impacts, and – where applicable
– regional/ community impacts (NUTS2/NUTS3 level).
• However, in practice, many impacts are cross-cutting, i.e. cover more than one category
and/or component of the R&I system.
• Impacts can also be top-down or driven by changes from the bottom up.
• Many impacts are also interrelated and/or interdependent – for example Impact B is likely to
follow after Impact A has been observed, and/or Impact B is dependent on Impact A occurring
first.
• Example - R&I systems impacts (e.g. HES reforms) may follow after initial scientific impacts
have been made (e.g. raising excellence and collaborative behaviour among FP researchers,
which helps prompt call for change in the overall system).
• Scientific impacts: scientific impacts, tend to be one of the most immediate and, by far, the
type of impact most documented. Generally scientific impacts can also be attributed (at least
in part) to FP participation.
• Scientific impacts dependent on accumulated kind of FP participation, e.g.
- Participation of individual researchers in grant schemes such as the ERC, MSCA are
important for internationalisation of research and the mobility/ exchange of
knowledge.
- Coordination of (large) FP projects is strategically important both on a participant
level but the strategic benefits can stretch further in particular if the area of
research is in line with overall R&I priorities.
• R&I systems impacts can be traced back to EU policy initiatives as well as to national
organisational reforms. Pronounced outcome - strengthening cooperation between
universities, research institutions within countries, in the region and internationally. FP

256
 participation therefore also contributes to behavioural changes. An indirect impact can be
seen in agenda setting of national research activities. FP activities raise awareness of the
scientific community within a nation for particular issues or subjects, focus attention and
efforts and influence the allocation of national R&D-resources.
• Policy impacts - particularly prominent among countries that are preparing for close
association to the EU in general and the FPs specifically (as an Associated or Third Country)
Smaller capacity countries also tend to see stronger impacts in this regard.
• Economic impacts quite challenging to measure. Measuring Return on Investment can be
negative in the short- and even medium-term. Interesting evidence from selected countries
(e.g. DK) but largely an unexplored area of impact at national level.
• From a national perspective, economic impact is generally considered to be ‘marginal’ or
‘niche’ but not unimportant.
• FP participation can also lead to economic impacts indirectly/ in the longer-term. Successful
FP participation creates political incentives to allow for incremental increase in R&D spending
nationally, leading to more capacity and improved competitiveness.
• There is little evidence on impacts relating to standardisation (more was expected).
• Impacts on innovation are varied and sector-dependent.
• Societal impacts are particularly noticeable on improving the evidence base around
policymaking and on environmental awareness/processes and regulation.
• Focus on societal challenges in H2020 was considered strongly relevant and has impacted
evolution in national policy frameworks.
• For smaller R&I capacity countries, FP participation also important part of government reform
overall.

1.6.2 Recommendations

Overarching recommendations – national level

• Better align national strategies with FP pillars and thematic priority areas for intervention in
order to avoid overlap (intervention logic of FP participation) insofar that national funding can
be complementary to FP funding.
• Ensure sufficient national support to maximise participation in, and the impact of FP
participation – both strategic (e.g. capacity-building, ensuring appropriate framework
conditions), as well as national and localised support structures.
• Putting in place appropriate R&I strategies and support systems is also relevant at an
institutional and industry level (including on capacity issues, e.g. reversing brain drain).
• Incentives to promote internationalisation of R&I in general and FP participation in particular
should be integrated more systematically into the national R&I system.
• Existing cross-border collaboration platforms should be better utilised to facilitate a successful
transition towards participating in the FPs.
• As far as possible, national funding schemes should enhance FP funding not compete with FP
funding.
• Prioritise national resources and support measures by targeting researcher performers that are
presently under-represented. Also prioritise these actors in policies and strategies.
• National R&I actors need to activity engage with EU R&I policy In order to be informed what is
coming up such as calls or new subjects, and also in order to participate and influence
decisions about new subjects and programmes (smaller capacity countries can collaborate in
highlighting common themes).
• Some R&I strategies place an emphasis on strengthening framework conditions but more
needs to be done to systematise approaches.
• Carry out evaluation and monitoring of FP participation to assess progress (and mechanisms
behind progress).

257
Overarching recommendations – EU level

• Encourage MS to implement national recommendations (e.g. framework conditions, support

structures) using existing mechanisms (semester recommendations, ERAWATCH/ RIO reports)
• Enhance role of ERAC WG in spreading good practice, organise collective learning, exchange of
experiences between countries, and benchmark analysis in monitoring and evaluation of MS/
AC uptake and impact of FP participation
• Design of FP9 should consider all types of R&I capacity (focus on excellence but don’t exclude
those with weaker baseline position)
• Ensure outstanding barriers to FP participation that arise from programme design, application
procedures, administrative requirements and reporting and monitoring procedures are
addressed.
• Efficacy of administrative simplification measures already introduced in FP7 and H2020 should
be assessed. Further simplification could be considered. Overcome remaining challenges in
respect of “Time to Grant” which may deter SMEs/ industry applicants.
• Consider possibility of shorter cycle R&I projects targeted at SMEs and industry since there is
under-representation of these research actors in some MS/ AC.
• Commission could promote awareness of MS good practices to enhance FP participation e.g.:

- Developed effective incentives measures to promote FP participation

- Strengthened R&I framework conditions
- Taken proactive steps to address under-participation by particular types of
research performers
- Developed effective support structures
• Follow-up study to analyse longitudinal impacts of FP participation in selected countries from a
micro-level perspective.
Example/outline recommendations at the country group level

Leaders & Influencers

• Recommendation 1: improving industry/regional participation and collaboration

• Recommendation 2: improving collaboration with other country groupings (reversing brain
drain)

Central players

• Recommendation 1: using the FPs for internationalisation and R&I excellence

• Recommendation 2: improving R&I policy influence at EU level

Reformers and specialists

• Recommendation 1: developing a wider portfolio and broadening their scientific base /

capacity by strengthening their university system, improving their R&D infrastructure
• Recommendation 2: improving R&I policy influence at EU level

Support-focused and sporadic participation

• Recommendation 1: building on (isolated) scientific and R&I systems impacts focusing on

sustainability.
• Recommendation 2: reforms for improved participation (e.g. awareness and knowledge of the
FPs, reversing brain drain).

258
 ANNEX E.1 WORKSHOP AGENDA

Workshop Agenda, 19th May

9.30h – 16h30, Location, European Commission’s DG RTD Rue du Champ de Mars

21 (CDMA), 1050 Bruxelles

The workshop will be divided up into five sessions, corresponding to the evidence base gathered
through Tasks 1 to 4, with separate sessions to validate the country reports and to review the
overall synthesis findings. Each session will be composed of a formal presentation by the research
team followed by a group discussion in which the participants will be invited to contribute.

Dr. Kim Møller of Oxford Research (OR) will introduce the workshop. Mike Coyne, Malin Carlberg and
Mark Whittle (CSES) as well as Bart Romanov (OR) will make a number of presentations to explain
the work carried out during the study and to outline the emerging findings.

Your active input and participation in the group discussions will be welcome. Please note that there
will not be time to discuss each country report in detail and any detailed comments for individual
country reports can be submitted by email to the study team managers. The agenda is provided
below.

Validation workshop agenda

Validation Workshop, 19th May 2017 10.00h – 16.30h Draft Agenda

9:30 – 10:00 Registration and coffee

10:00 – Welcome and introduction

10:15
• Opening remarks from the European Commission’s DG RTD
Introduction by Mark Whittle, CSES and Kim Møller, Oxford Research
• Presentation of workshop agenda
• Study objectives
• Workshop objectives
10:15 – Session 1: General trends and patterns in MS/AC national research and
11:00 innovation landscape and policies during the past 15 years
Presented by: CSES
Introduction by Kim Møller, discussion facilitated by Malin Carlberg
• Changes in national R&I landscapes
• Changes in national R&I policy objectives
• Changes in national R&I funding
• Interaction between national and EU R&I policies and programmes
• Cross-border, transnational and international cooperation
11:00 – Session 2: Evolution of participation patterns in Framework Programmes
12:15 in each MS/AC during the last 15 years
Presented by: CSES
Discussion facilitated by Mark Whittle and Mike Coyne
• Participation patterns according to different criteria in the MS/AC
• Changes in the most active research fields within MS/AC in participating
FP’s
• Shifts in interests for thematic area/specific programmes/priority area
most popular within MS/AC
• The impact of changes from FP6 to FP7 and from FP7 to H2020 in the FP
structure on MS/AC

259
 Validation Workshop, 19th May 2017 10.00h – 16.30h Draft Agenda

• Factors influencing the participation of each MS/AC in FPs

• Measures to stimulate participation in the FP
• Influence on the structuring of the higher education and research system
• Influence on cross-border and transnational cooperation
12:15 – Lunch
13:15
13:15 – Session 3: Longitudinal and cumulative impacts of FP participation on
14:15 Member States and Associated Countries
Presented by: Malin Carlberg, CSES, Mark Whittle, CSES and Bart Romanov,
Oxford Research
Discussion facilitated by Mike Coyne, CSES
Task 3
• Assessment of the added value of FP participation for the MS/AC in FP6,
FP7 and H2020
• Quantitative and qualitative findings on additional impact previous FP
participation has had on the MS/AC
• Impact of FP participation on different groups of MS/AC’s and general
factors conducive to generating lasting impact of the FPs
Task 4
• Present country groupings - assessment of FP participation patterns and
their evolution and evolution of R&I policies
• Analysis of different types of impact of FPs in MS/AC’s within groupings
• Present factors conducive to generating lasting impact of the FPs in
MS/AC’s
14:15 – Coffee Break
14.30
14:30 – Session 3: Continuation of discussions on impacts
15.15
15.15 – Session 4: Validation of country reports and findings for study overall.
16.00
• Validation of country reports
• Relevance of national research and innovation landscape and policies
16.00 - 16:30 Session 5 concluding discussion: From findings to recommendations
Discussion facilitated by Kim Møller, Oxford Research and Mike Coyne, CSES
• Summarising sessions 1-4
• Country groupings and recommendations

260
ANNEX E.2 PARTICIPATION LIST

First Name SURNAME Country (nationality) Organisation

Aivars TIMOFEJEVS Latvia Oxford Research
Alexandros MICHAELIDES Cyprus RTD Talos
Antionio CORAL Spain IKEI
Antonio COIMBRA Portugal Tech Invest
Bart ROMANOW Poland Oxford Research
Bernardita CARDENAS Belgium New Frontier Service
Beat HOTZ-HART Switzerland University of Zurich
International Business School at
Erika VAIGINIENE Lithuania
Vilnius University
Francesco PITTON Italy VVA
Gabriela BAICU Romania Arete consulting
Harli ULJAS Estonia BDA Consulting
Hjalmar ERIKSSON Sweden Oxford Research
Hulda PROPPÉ Iceland University of Iceland
Iuri SKUHROVEC Czech Republic IES, Charles University Prague
Jacqueline SNIJDERS The Netherlands Panteia
Jan SMIT Israel CSES
Kim MØLLER Denmark Oxford Research
Ljiljana BOZOVIC Montenegro EEN
Malin CARLBERG Sweden CSES
Manuela MECE Albania Independent expert
Mark WHITTLE UK CSES
Mike COYNE UK CSES
Mila MARINKOVIC Serbia Independent expert
Milen BALTOV Bulgaria Burgas Free University
Mojca HRABAR Slovenia OIKOS
Morten LARSEN Denmark Oxford Research
Natalia VITIUC Moldova Independent expert
Odysseas CARTALOS Greece Logotech
Peter KAUFMANN Austria Austrian Institute for SME Research
Peter MOGYOROSI Hungary LC Innoconsult International
Riikka Irmeli PASSIKIVI Finland Spinverse Innovation Management
TC Ege University, Science &
Serdal TEMEL Turkey Technology Application & Research
Centre
Simone STRUSS Germany Independent expert
Zoran ERGARAC Bosnia & Herzegovina Independent expert

261
ANNEX F SURVEY ANALYSIS

262
Evaluation of impacts on MS and
AC derived from participation in
the FPs – survey for policy
makers

Final survey analysis

18 September 2017

263
Contents

1. Introduction 266
1.1 Survey recipients and responses ..................................................................................... 267

2. Participation in the Framework Programmes 269

2.1 Assessment of national participation in FP6, FP7 and H2020........................................... 269
2.2 Extent of support systems to aid FP participation............................................................ 273

3. Impacts of participation in the FPs at national level 276

3.1 Different types of impacts achieved ................................................................................ 276
3.2 Barriers and drivers to achieving impacts from FP participation ...................................... 283

4. The role of Framework Programmes at national level 287

4.1 National R&I funding mix and the role of the FP .............................................................. 287
4.2 Impact of the financial and economic crisis and recession............................................... 291

TABLES

Table 68 Values for calculation of country average answer ............................................................ 270

Table 69 Average answers per country: Has your country improved its performance in the
following aspects across FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 (n=42) q.7 ...................................... 270
Table 70 In the case of each of the following types of impacts, please indicate whether the
impacts of participation in the research projects tend to be of a greater or lesser
magnitude compared with national funded R&I projects? (n=27, multiple answers
possible) q.23 ..................................................................................................................... 286
Table 71 In general, to what extent are R&I performers in your country able to use
national/regional funding and FP funding as co-funding for their R&I activities?
(n=31) q.27 ........................................................................................................................ 288
Table 72 How would you rate the overall relevance of thematic and scientific funding priorities
supported through the EU RTD FPs in each period to your country’s R&I strengths?
(n=29) q.28 ........................................................................................................................ 288
Table 73 To what extent have your country’s R&I activities changed as a result of the economic
and financial crisis that began in 2008 and subsequent low economic growth?
(n=29) q.33 ........................................................................................................................ 292

264
FIGURES

Figure 36 Number of responses received per country (n=87) q.1 .................................................... 267
Figure 37 Types of organisations (n=115, multiple selection possible) q.2 ...................................... 268
Figure 38 Length of participation (n=83) q.3..................................................................................... 268
Figure 39 Assessment of country participation in FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 (n=42) q. 4-6 ........... 269
Figure 40 Performance in different aspects across FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020? (n=38) q.8 ........... 272
Figure 41 To what extent do you consider having an effective support system in place for
supporting FP applicants? (n=44) q.9 ................................................................................ 273
Figure 42 To what extent does your country currently support (potential) FP applicants through
any of the following means? (n=42) q. 10 ......................................................................... 274
Figure 43 Main types of impacts that have arisen at national or regional level through the
implementation of EU funded research projects through the FPs? (n=29, multiple
selection) q.12 ................................................................................................................... 276
Figure 44 What types of immediate and cumulative (long-term) scientific impacts can be
discerned which are linked to participation in multiple FP programming periods?
Please tick all that apply. (n=28, multiple answers possible) q.16 .................................... 277
Figure 45 What are the main impacts discernible as a result of participation in FP projects on
innovation in your country? (n=26) q.17........................................................................... 278
Figure 46 To what extent have there been any innovation spillovers at national and regional
level from FP projects? (n=27, multiple answers possible) q.18 ....................................... 279
Figure 47 What impact has participation in the FPs had in relation to national R&I policies in
your view? (n=27, multiple answers possible) q.19 .......................................................... 280
Figure 48 With regard to the impacts of the EU RTD FPs on national R&I systems and structures
over successive FPs, how far has the existence of the FPs influenced the following:
(n=27) q.20 ........................................................................................................................ 281
Figure 49 In your assessment, to what extent has national participation in the FPs over
successive programming periods had positive economic, social and environmental
impacts in your country? (n=26, multiple answers possible) q.21.................................... 282
Figure 50 Were there any particular national or regional barriers to achieving the anticipated
different types of impacts across different FP projects in your country? (n=32) q.13 ..... 283
Figure 51 To what extent, if at all, have one or more of the following factors negatively affected
your country’s FP participation? (n=33) q.14 .................................................................... 284
Figure 52 Conversely, in your assessment, to what extent have one or more of the following
factors positively affected your country’s FP participation? (n=30) q.15 ......................... 285
Figure 53 To what extent do your country’s researchers and scientists rely on the following
sources of funding for R&I project and infrastructure financing? (n=31) q.24 ................. 287
Figure 54 To what extent are your country’s/ region’s R&I funding programmes’ priorities and
FP priorities complementary? (n=29) q.30 ........................................................................ 289
Figure 55 To what extent has your country’s mix of funding sources changed since 2000? (n=29)
q.31 .................................................................................................................................... 290
Figure 56 To what extent do your country’s researchers and scientists also have access to R&I
cross-border or transnational funding (NOT including the Framework
Programmes)(n=29) q.26................................................................................................... 291
Figure 57 To what extent did the economic and financial crisis from 2008 have an impact on the
level of national / regional R&I funding available? (n=29) q.32 ........................................ 292

265
1. INTRODUCTION

This document contains a stand-alone final analysis of the survey sent out to national policymakers
as part of the study Evaluating the uptake and impact of participation in the European Framework
Programmes for Research in the Member States.

As agreed with DG RTD, this analysis will be incorporated into the Final report of the above-
mentioned study (to be delivered in the week by 25th of September 2017).

This document is divided into four sections. Section 1.1 below provides an overview of the survey
respondents’ profiles, and the length of which ‘their’ country has participated in the FPs.
Section 2 covers respondents’ assessment of national participation in the FPs, including the extent to
which an (effective) support system has been in place during the time of participation.
Section 3 analyses the responses covering (observed) impacts derived from FP participation, while
Section 4 focuses on the role of the FPs within the specific national R&I context.

266
1.1 Survey recipients and responses

The survey was launched on the 7th of July 2017 and remained open for responses until the 11th of
August. The survey was aimed at organisations engaged in the implementation of the EU Framework
Programmes, mostly in the role of National Contact Points. A total of 87 responses were received,
representing 32 countries (from the EU Member States and 6 Associated Countries). For most of the
countries several responses from different institutions have been received, however we are also
aware of a smaller number of countries that opted to submit one response that was coordinated
among a number of survey recipients in that country.

Figure 36 Number of responses received per country (n=87) q.1

Albania 3
Austria 1
Belgium 5
Bosnia & Herzegovina 2
Bulgaria 7
Cyprus 1
Czech Republic 3
Denmark 1
Estonia 3
Finland 3
France 6
FYR Macadonia 2
Germany 6
Greece 1
Ireland 4
Israel 3
Latvia 2
Lithuania 1
Malta 1
Netherlands 2
Norway 3
Poland 6
Portugal 3
Republic of Moldova 2
Romania 2
Slovakia 2
Slovenia 3
Spain 2
Sweden 1
Switzerland 2
Turkey 2
United Kingdom 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

267
The highest number of responses was received from Bulgaria (7), Poland (6), Germany (6), and
France (6). In general, most of the institutions represented the National Contact Points, followed by
respective ministries. Some of the organisations decided to choose two options from the list,
indicating that apart from their NCP role, they have for example status of Research and Technology
Organisation (RTO) or Research Council/funder (see Figure 2).

Figure 37 Types of organisations (n=115, multiple selection possible) q.2

Civil society organisations/NGOs/other not-for-

4
profit
Research and Technology Organisation (RTO) 5

Research Academy/funder 5

Research Council/funder 11

Innovation Agency/funder 12

Ministry/Government department 22

National Contact Point 56

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Question 3 asked “In which EU RTD Framework Programmes (hereafter “FPs”) did your country
formally begin to participate?” The responses show that great majority (80%) of institutions
responding to the survey is representing countries with a long history of participation.
However it should also be noted that not all respondents to this survey have a direct experience of
all FPs under consideration, which can be seen reflected in the responses to questions, which
require a long-term, high-level overview of the FPs and the national context.
Figure 38 Length of participation (n=83) q.3

8%
8%

4%

80%

We began participation during FP6 We began participation during FP7

We began participation during Horizon 2020 We have participated in FP5 and predecessors

268
2. PARTICIPATION IN THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

Section 2 looks at national participation trends in FP6, FP7 and H2020 and also covers the extent to
which there has been a support system in place to encourage and maximise FP participation from a
national perspective.

2.1 Assessment of national participation in FP6, FP7 and H2020

Expectations regarding participation of national actors in different parts of the Framework

Programmes differ between respondents, however some common trends can be observed. In
general, participation in FP7’s Cooperation Programme was rated higher than expected when
compared to all other programmes. It is significant that for all programmes in FP6 respondents had
much higher rate of “don’t know” answers (presumably as a significant length of time has passed
since FP6). All pillars of Horizon 2020 and the Ideas programme in FP7 have been significantly more
often rated as having “lower than expected” participation. Policy Support Facility (PSF) in Horizon
2020 programme seems to be the less known part of the programme, having the highest number of
“don’t know” answers.

Figure 39 Assessment of country participation in FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 (n=42) 258 q. 4-6

PSF 2 11 9 17

Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation 2 13 19 7

H2020 P3 4 16 20 2

H2020 P2 6 13 20 3

H2020 P1 6 14 20 1

FP7 Ideas Programme 2 7 23 7

FP7 Capacities Programme 4 12 16 7

FP7 People Programme 4 10 17 8

FP7 Cooperation programme 10 11 15 4

FP6 SP3 participation 3 9 12 12

FP6 SP2 participation 3 11 10 12

FP6 SP1 participation 3 12 12 9

Higher than expected participation Participation as expected

Lower than expected participation Don't know

An interesting perspective for the entire survey results appears when discussing the question “has
your country improved its performance in the following aspects across FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020?”.

258
FP6 Specific Programme 1 - "Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area”
FP6 Specific Programme 2 - "Structuring the European Research Area”
FP6 Specific Programme 3 - “Strengthening the foundations of ERA”
FP7 Cooperation programme
FP7 People Programme
FP7 Capacities Programme
FP7 Ideas Programme
Horizon 2020 Priority 1 - Excellent Science
Horizon 2020 Priority 2 - Industrial Leadership
Horizon 2020 Priority 3 - Societal Challenges
Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation
Policy Support Facility (PSF)

269
For this question, we received responses from 42 of the survey recipients. For countries with
multiple responses, the values differed, sometimes somewhat contradictory (presumably
respondents from within particular countries disagree about performance over time). In order to
present answers for this question, the responses were coded with numerical values, allowing us to
calculate an average response per country.

Table 68 Values for calculation of country average answer

Response given Value for calculation
Improved performance 2
Maintained performance 1
Not improved -2
Don't know 0

Table 69 Average answers per country: Has your country improved its performance in the
following aspects across FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 (n=42) q.7
Country Average of Average of Average of Average of Count of
Number of The ability to Individual Monetary answers per
projects participate grant value country
coordinated recipients
Albania 2 2 2 2 1
Belgium -0.5 -0.5 -1 0 2
B&H -0.5 1.5 0 0 2
Bulgaria -1 1.6 0 -0.5 5
Estonia -2 1 1 1 1
Finland -2 0 1.5 -0.5 2
France 1 1 1 -2 1
FYR Macedonia -2 1 -2 -2 1
Germany -1 1.3 0 -1 3
Ireland 1.5 2 1 2 2
Israel 1 1 1 1 1
Latvia 0 0 -2 -0.5 2
Lithuania -2 -2 1 -2 1
Malta -2 2 2 2 1
Netherlands 2 2 2 2 1
Norway 1.6 2 0 0 3
Poland -0.5 1.25 0.25 0.5 4
Portugal 0 1.5 1.5 0 2
Moldova 1 2 2 2 1
Romania 0 1 2 -2 1
Slovakia -2 -2 -2 -2 1
Slovenia 2 2 2 2 1
Spain 2 2 2 2 2
UK 1 0 0 0 1
Total -0.09524 1.119048 0.452381 0.121951 42

270
All countries represented with one answer clearly score high in the above calculation, while
countries with more nuanced or contradictory answers, produce a less clear picture. Generally, this
analysis shows that with a low number of answers received from the survey, it is difficult to make
any valid statistical statements per country. For subsequent questions this type of analysis is
abandoned and values are presented jointly for all the countries.

271
Figure 40 Performance in different aspects across FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020? (n=38) q.8

Collaboration (partnership) for sustainable development 4 24 7

Peace, justice and strong institutions 3 18 13

Ocean and/or Land ecosystem 5 18 13

Climate change and mitigation 7 22 6

Responsible consumption and production 1 22 11

Sustainable cities and communities 8 18 9

Inequalities 3 19 12

Industry, innovation and infrastructure 7 16 11

Employment and economic growth 2 20 13

Affordable and clean energy 12 18 5

Clean water and sanitation 9 20 6

Gender equality 8 18 9

Education quality 6 17 12

Health and well-being 7 20 8

End to poverty and/or hunger 4 14 16

Interdisciplinary themes 0 13 4

Arts 3 16 16

Humanities 3 18 15

Social sciences 3 20 13

Agricultural sciences 7 20 11

Medical and Health sciences 12 19 6

Engineering and technology 14 19 4

Natural sciences 7 25 4

Perform above expectations Perform in line with expectations Perform below expectations

All aspects of Framework Programmes participation that relate to ‘technical’ science received a
significantly higher number of top values (“perform above expectations”). This includes such areas as
engineering and technology, medical and health sciences, affordable and clean energy, clean water
and sanitation. From the social sciences area, there is one aspect that received a slightly better score
than all other social science aspects, the gender equality.

A small number of open responses were submitted to explain particular reasons underlying a
national performance that was considered to be below par:
• A Slovakian respondent suggested that a historically “poor performance” might be deterring
applicants from trying again.
• Another respondent suggested that the “closed” nature of the FPs made it difficult for
“newcomers” to be successful in applying.

272
2.2 Extent of support systems to aid FP participation

As can be seen from the Figure below, most of the policymakers responding to the survey rated their
national support systems as working effectively and considered it to be sophisticated. However, a
more detailed look suggests that respondents from the same countries at some instances provide
different opinions when answering this question, suggesting in reality there is a lack of consensus on
the state of support systems.

Figure 41 To what extent do you consider having an effective support system in place for
supporting FP applicants? (n=44) q.9

50

45
5
40 1 8

35
8
30 16
13
25
14
20

15
23 23
10
15
5

0
FP6 FP7 Horizon 2020

Not applicable (my country did not participate formally in this programme period)
An effective/sophisticated FP support system is lacking
Some mechanisms in place to support FP participants
Effective/sophisticated FP support system in place

In the responses to this question, there is a difference in attitude between the country groupings.

For Groups 1 (Leaders and influencers) and 2 (Core Countries), all responses indicate a satisfaction
with the national support systems in place. This also appears to be the conclusion for Group 3
(Reformers and specialists) although we only have four replies from this country group on this
particular question. However, if we look at Group 4 (Support-focused and sporadic participation)
responses are more mixed - roughly one-third of these countries express that the support system
could be improved (i.e. an effective/sophisticated FP support system is lacking.

The survey also asked more specifically which types of services are currently available in each of the
countries for supporting FP participation: “To what extent does your country currently support
(potential) FP applicants through any of the following means?”.

Three types of services seem to be significantly more common than others. These are:

• Information and guidance pertaining to the different types of programmes, awards etc. of the
FPs
• Workshops covering FP topic
• And Information days organised in tandem with specific FP calls for proposals

273
These three options received the largest number of “to a large extent” rates and a significant
number of “to some extent” rates.

Figure 42 To what extent does your country currently support (potential) FP applicants through
any of the following means? (n=42) q. 10

Availability of national funding for high-quality unsuccessful

2 8 18 3
FP applicants

Co-funding for successful FP applicants 5 7 14 4

Financial support for proposal writing 6 5 14 2

Support systems for businesses (e.g. located in chambers of

9 18 2 4
commerce etc)

Support systems at the institutional level (e.g. located in

14 17 2 1
research institutes, universities)

Support for individual applicants (ERC, MSCA) 19 13 3 2

Information days organised in tandem with specific FP calls

31 10 1
for proposals

Direct support / feedback on written proposals 13 17 6

Networking and partnering events 12 21 3

Workshops covering FP topic 29 10 2 1

Information and guidance pertaining to the different types of

35 4 1
programmes, awards etc of the FPs

To a large extent To some extent To a little extent Not all all Don't know

We received a number of open comments in response to the nature and quality of national FP
support systems. Some of these were descriptive in nature:

• “The main elements [of the national support system] are for public academic and institutional
researchers, i.e. financial support for coordinators preparing proposals and financial support for
researchers to travel to relevant conferences, events and meetings relevant to their proposal.”

• “Centralised and multi disciplinary NCP-office, strong cooperation with EU funding officers at
institutes and specialised support for SMEs.”

• “Support [is] based on individual consultations and contacts.”

274
• “Mainly general PR and info days for Calls and more individual help during Calls. Co-funding and
funding for hi-quality unsuccessful applications introduced in circa 2016 to relieve frustration to
H2020.”

Other comments were critically assessing the extent and quality of the national support available:

• “It is based on personal commitments by people working at supporting teams.”

• “The NCP network is neither organized nor motivated. Information flow is insufficient. The
activities depend entirely on the willingness of individuals to basically work pro bono.”

• “There is no organised support. National Contact Network is fully voluntary; the offered support
depends on the personal willingness [of the individual]. High [staff turnover] among NCPs. [There
are] no capacity building initiatives for NCPs.”

• “There is [a network of] NCPs, but it lacks resources. During FP7 there were ERDF supported
activities, which helped applicants to prepare proposals. But there is nothing for H2020 yet.”

Clearly – as indicated through the country reports and interviews – there seems to be a considerable
variety across countries in the capacity of support available, which may to some degree contribute
to an uneven playing field in terms of participation.

275
3. IMPACTS OF PARTICIPATION IN THE FPS AT NATIONAL LEVEL

In this section, views on the different types of impacts (e.g. scientific impacts, impacts on innovation)
that have materialised through national participation in the EU RTD FPs are explored. The impacts of
the FPs on national research and innovation policies, as well as systems and structures, are also
examined.

3.1 Different types of impacts achieved

The question: “Taking into account FP participation in the 2000-2015 period, please indicate which
were the main types of impacts that have arisen at national or regional level through the
implementation of EU funded research projects through the FPs?” allowed for multiple selection of
different types of impacts.

It seems that respondents consider FP derived impacts to be broad, as responses are spread fairly
equally between different kinds of impact, although scientific impacts are in the end somewhat
stronger. However, this question promoted a drop in the number of responses, in particular for FP6,
which suggests that there may be a gap in respondents’ knowledge when assessing events too far in
the past. One respondent also points out that “the necessary indicators are lacking in this question,
which would enable us to give a qualified answer.”

Another significant point is that impacts on innovation – the technological and other types of
innovation all together represent a big outcome. It should also be noted that the FPs is increasingly
having an influence on national research and innovation policies and behavioural changes. FP7 and
Horizon 2020 were also more often appreciated for their impact on national research and innovation
systems, including regulation of R&I systems and R&I governance.

Figure 43 Main types of impacts that have arisen at national or regional level through the
implementation of EU funded research projects through the FPs? (n=29, multiple selection) q.12

H2020 20 20 15 17 18 22

FP7 27 20 14 17 19 15

FP6 19 9 14 10 12 9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Scientific impacts
Impacts on innovation - technological
Innovation - other (e.g. product, process and organisational)
Wider societal impacts, including economic, social and environmental impacts
Impacts on national research and innovation systems (e.g. changes to legislation regulating R&I and R&I actors, governance of R&I)
Impacts on national research and innovation policies and behavioural changes

As for the greatest immediate and cumulative impacts linked to participation in multiple FPs, the
respondents indicated most of all the “greater mobility of highly skilled researchers”, followed

276
strongly by “strengthened scientific collaboration on international level and European level”.
Multiple participation is also said to strengthen the existing scientific knowledge in specific
disciplines, with a strong long-term impact.

Figure 44 What types of immediate and cumulative (long-term) scientific impacts can be discerned
which are linked to participation in multiple FP programming periods? Please tick all that apply.
(n=28, multiple answers possible) q.16

Strengthened ability to attract top researchers / global talent - 5 13 5 3 2 4

Strong (immediate) impacts

Strengthened ability of EU to participate in world-class science - 8 14 1 3 2 4

Strong (immediate) impacts

Strengthened bibliometric performance (e.g. citations) - Strong 5 8 3 6 2 4 2

(immediate) impacts

Greater mobility of highly-skilled researchers - Strong (immediate) 12 5 5 5 11 2

impacts

Greater availability of highly-skilled researchers - Strong (immediate) 7 10 4 6 3 1 3

impacts

Strengthened scientific collaboration at an international level - 9 15 3 1 3 2

Strong (immediate) impacts

Strengthened scientific collaboration at a European level - Strong 9 13 5 3 11

(immediate) impacts

The development and utilisation of new and innovative 5 8 1 9 2 3 2

methodologies - Strong (immediate) impacts

Contributions to the knowledge economy - Strong (immediate) 3 13 3 5 5 3 2

impacts

Strengthened training of existing researchers - Strong (immediate) 7 6 9 7 6 2

impacts

Strengthened training of young researchers - Strong (immediate) 4 8 7 10 11

impacts

The emergence of multi-disciplinary areas - Strong (immediate) 2 7 8 7 3 2 2

impacts

The emergence of new disciplinary areas - Strong (immediate) 3 9 6 7 3 1 2

impacts

Scientific impacts relating to addressing societal challenges - Strong 2 13 6 6 2 3

(immediate) impacts

Strengthening existing scientific knowledge in specific disciplines - 5 18 8 4 2

Strong (immediate) impacts

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Strong (immediate) impacts

Strong long-term impacts

Medium (immediate) impacts

Medium long-term impacts

Low (immediate) impacts

Low long-term impacts

Not applicable (not relevant to your country's participation)

The FPs positive impact on “enhancing innovation capacity” and “development of breakthrough
technologies” are among the two factors that were rated as having the largest share of high and
medium impact among all the possible types. “Exploration of IPR” and “uptake of innovation by end
users” are on the opposite end of scale.

277
It is also worth noting the strong positive response indicated for FP-related impacts on:

• Strengthening existing scientific knowledge in specific disciplines

• Strengthening scientific collaboration at international level
• Strengthened ability of the EU to participate in world-class science
• Strengthened ability to attract top researchers
• Strengthened scientific collaboration at a European level
• Contributions to the knowledge economy
• Scientific impacts relating to addressing societal challenges

Figure 45 What are the main impacts discernible as a result of participation in FP projects on
innovation in your country? (n=26) q.17

Greater take-up of innovation by end-users 3 8 8 4 2

Cross-fertilisation of innovation between sectors 4 5 8 6 2

Sectoral-wide innovations/ innovations in value-chains 5 9 7 3

Increased value creation (e.g. through enhanced labour

5 8 9 3
productivity)

Higher level of long-term investment in R&D activity 5 9 8 2 1

Attracting R&D investment from global businesses 5 9 8 2

Enhancing the organisational efficiency, performance and

6 7 9 2 2
sustainability of public sector organisations
Enhancing the organisational performance and sustainability
6 7 11 1 1
of businesses

Exploitation of IPR (e.g. patents and licenses) 4 7 11 2 1

Development of breakthrough/ disruptive technologies 3 14 6 2 1

Enhanced innovation capacity – products and services 7 10 8 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

High importance Medium importance Low importance No importance Not applicable

Unsurprisingly considering the FPs historical focus on research (rather than the application of
science), innovation impacts are considered to be comparatively less prominent. Although a not
insignificant number of respondents indicated there have been impacts of “high importance”, in
particular for the categories ‘enhanced innovation capacity – products and services’ and in relation
to the organisation of innovation.

Overall, respondents tended to consider innovation impacts to be of “medium” or “low importance”.

Some open comments provided some further context on this:

• “Scientific results are not implemented in this country (with few exceptions only). [There is a]
broken chain between science and business.”

• “Impact is negligible in Latvia. The only impact is wages for [a] few researchers.”

278
One comment also provided context to how recent innovation impacts had materialised:

“[The] H2020 SME Instrument coincided well with national efforts to alleviate academic youth
employment (large companies not hiring) through helping to create new companies with government
start-up funding. National R&I policies focus on science and SME's and depart from funding existing
companies' R&D (results came too slowly). “

Due to respondents leaving a significant number of response options blank for the questions
pertaining to impacts generally, it has been difficult to discern trends within the Country groupings
for these questions. The analysis cannot generally not point to any clear trends, but rather there is a
very mixed (or incomplete) picture. For example, the innovation-strong Group 1 countries do not
agree at all about the role of the FPs in creating innovation-related impacts in their respectively
countries.

We found a stronger consensus on the question of spillover effects. The Framework Programmes are
considered to have been a general positive influence on national R&I and FP projects have facilitated
the creation of (some) innovation spillovers both at national and at regional level (see Figure 11).

Figure 46 To what extent have there been any innovation spillovers at national and regional level
from FP projects? (n=27, multiple answers possible) q.18

35
30
25 15

20
Regional level
15
National level
10
5 17
3
5
6 5
0
There have been strong There have been some There have been no
innovation spillovers innovation spillovers innovation spillovers

The Figure below also shows that the FPs are seen as having had a strong impact on the realignment
of national R&I systems and structures with key EU policies. In fact, all three aspects listed in this
question received a significant positive answer with a large majority of answers in the “strong” and
“some impact” categories.

279
Figure 47 What impact has participation in the FPs had in relation to national R&I policies in your
view? (n=27, multiple answers possible) q.19

Strengthened national IPR legal framework (incl. through

EU regulatory developments plus the European Patent 4 8 9 1
Office)

Greater attention to the commercialisation of innovation

6 12 5
results (incl. technology transfer, clustering)

Greater attention to international cooperation in

8 11 4 1
research and scientific disciplines

Greater attention to transnational collaborative research 11 6 6 1

Realignment of thematic/ research / scientific priorities in

national R&I funding programmes with European funding 12 8 5 1
priorities

Strengthening the emphasis in policies on the

7 10 8 1
exploitation of research results

Strengthening innovation policy in EU and/or Associated

9 10 3 3
countries

Strengthening focus on Societal challenges 10 10 4

Excellent science through transnational cooperation 14 7 6

Development of a European Research Area (ERA) 13 4 6 1

Realignment of national R&I policies with European

11 12 2 1
policy priorities

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

High importance Medium importance Low importance No impact Not applicable

Participation in FPs have also led to impacts on national R&I policies, especially through a focus on
excellent science (in turn) through transnational cooperation. The FPs have also had a strong impact
on aligning national R&I policies with EU policy priorities. In particular, national programmes have
realigned their thematic priorities to match European funding priorities. To a lesser extent, the FPs
have also had an Influence of national IPR frameworks.

280
Figure 48 With regard to the impacts of the EU RTD FPs on national R&I systems and structures
over successive FPs, how far has the existence of the FPs influenced the following: (n=27) q.20

35

30 1 1 1
2
4 5
25 4

20 Not applicable
12 Negative impact
17
15 15 No impact
Some impact
10 Strong impact

12
5
8 8

0
Reform of national R&I systems Realignment of national R&I Further investment in
and structures systems and structures with key strengthening national research
EU priorities infrastructures

Another positive finding is that the FPs have also had considerable impact on the all of the three
following structuring impacts (all key areas of the European Research Area):

• Reform of national R&I systems and structure = 83% of respondents opted for ‘strong’ or ‘some’
impact.
• Realignment of national R&I systems and structures with key EU priorities = 80% of respondents
opted for ‘strong’ or ‘some’ impact.
• Further investment in strengthening national research infrastructures = 77% of respondents
opted for ‘strong’ or ‘some’ impact.

In terms of trends across the four country groupings, we found that Group 1 countries (Leaders and
Influencers) were rather split with one of the Group 1 countries (Germany) indicating that there had
been a negative impact on German national R&I reform and realignment from the FP, while other
Group 1 countries either not responding or suggesting ‘some impact’ from the FPs on the three
areas.

For Group 4 countries (Support-focused and sporadic participation, submitting 12 responses in total)
the strongest impact was seen to be on the realignment of the R&I system, followed by reform and
then by RI investment. One response indicated a negative impact on RI expenditure (Latvia).

Group 3 countries (Reformers and specialists) overall tended to suggest there had been some or
strong impact in the three areas, with the exception of Slovenia, suggesting no impact on RI
expenditure.

The strongest positive response came from Group 2 (Core countries) where nine responses indicated
strong or some impact on all areas. No negative impact was implied from Group 2.

281
Figure 49 In your assessment, to what extent has national participation in the FPs over successive
programming periods had positive economic, social and environmental impacts in your country?
(n=26, multiple answers possible) q.21

Improved environmental regulation/regulatory… 4 4 4 7 6 5 2

Enhanced technical and scientific capacity to address… 3 4 9 8 3 6
Increased public awareness and understanding about… 2 4 8 7 5 6 1
Contribution to environmental sustainability,… 2 3 6 11 5 6
Enhanced quality of life, health and well-being 2 2 5 8 5 5 2 2
Environmental impacts 2 3 2 5 4 2 3
Improved use of evidence-based policy making 3 2 5 5 8 6 21
Public understanding of science 2 1 7 8 6 4 2 2
Improved policy making 4 2 7 6 5 6 11
Strengthened capacity to tackle societal challenges (e.g.… 3 4 7 5 7 4 3
Social impacts 2 4 1 5 4 2 2
Strengthened ability of firms to access national R&I… 4 3 5 6 4 5 1 4
Strengthened ability of firms to access other types of… 2 3 6 7 5 7 11
Strengthened ability of firms to access FP funding 4 2 10 5 3 3 2
Strengthened firm competiveness 1 2 7 7 6 8 2
Active IPR management and exploitation 3 3 3 8 6 5 2
Strengthening of value chains 2 3 6 9 7 3 4
Strengthening of sectoral clusters 3 4 6 8 6 0 3 1
The commercialisation of research results 1 3 4 6 10 6 21
Employment creation across non-R&I sectors 1 4 3 5 6 8 3 1
Employment creation in the research and innovation… 1 3 9 5 10 3 11
Economic impacts 2 4 3 6 4 4 11
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Strong direct impact Strong indirect impact Medium direct impact Medium indirect impact
Low direct impact Low indirect impact No impact Not applicable

The above Figure – showing the absolute number of responses (multiple responses allowed) –
provides an overview of the responses for wider socioeconomic impacts. The impacts defined
broadly as “economic”, “social” and “environmental” overall received fewer responses than other
more defined scientific and innovation impacts, suggesting respondents may find them difficult to
gauge. In general, it is visible from figure above that “medium direct impact”, “medium indirect
impact” and “low direct impact” (being three categories in the middle of the scale of answers) have
all together formed the largest group for all types of impacts defined in this question.

There are some differences emerging between the country groupings, with Group 2 (Core countries)
suggesting overall strong or medium impact for employment creation (direct and indirect), which
contrasts to Group 4 (Support-focused and sporadic participation). This latter group tended to state
that direct and indirect impacts on employment creation have been low. Only Bulgaria suggested the
FPs had contributed to strong indirect impact on employment creation.

There were an insufficient number of responses from the small Group 1 (Leaders and influencers)
while Group 2 Core countries tended to consider there had been medium impacts on both
employment and the economy (counting both direct and indirect impact).

282
3.2 Barriers and drivers to achieving impacts from FP participation

The survey also posed questions about the nature of barriers and drivers to achieving impacts from
FP participation.

Responses to the question about barriers to achieving different impacts show that barriers have
been noted only by 23% of the respondents on average. Indeed, the great majority of respondents
does not consider there to be particular barriers to achieving impact or did not have any opinion.

Figure 50 Were there any particular national or regional barriers to achieving the anticipated
different types of impacts across different FP projects in your country? (n=32) q.13

Impacts on national research and

innovation policies and behavioural 9 12 11
changes

Impacts on national research and

innovation systems - regulation and 10 12 10
governance

Wider societal impacts, including

economic, social and environmental 7 15 9
impacts yes
no
Don't know
Innovation - other (e.g. product, process
6 16 9
and organisational)

Impacts on innovation - technological 8 16 8

Scientific impacts 5 18 8

The most serious negative barriers to participation, outlined in on the page overleaf, were
considered to be: “lack of funding to complement FP funding”, “lack of interest and motivation to
participate in the FPs”, “lack of human resource capacity” and “lack of effective R&I policy
coordination”. Lowest scoring factors having impact on participation are: “ineffective national
regulatory system” and “lack of knowledge of the FPs” followed by “lack of support system to aid FP
participants”.

283
Figure 51 To what extent, if at all, have one or more of the following factors negatively affected
your country’s FP participation? (n=33) q.14

Lack of IPR exploitation rights in cases when

5 14 12
particular partner brings IP to the project

Lack of co-funding to complement FP funding 11 12 9

Lack of support system to aid FP applicants 7 13 13

Lack of interest/motivation to participate in

10 14 8
the FPs

Lack of incentives for FP participation 8 15 10

Lack of thematic/policy networks 7 18 7 High negative impact

Medium negative impact

Lack of knowledge of the FPs 4 15 14 No impact

Lack of human resource capacity (e.g. ageing

10 13 9
R&I population, braindrain)

Low-capacity/fragmented R&I performers

9 15 9
(lack of international competiveness)

Lack of effective R&I strategies and

6 18 9
implementation plans

Lack of effective R&I policy coordination 10 13 10

An ineffective national regulatory system 4 14 14

The survey received a significant number of open comments in response to the question on barriers
to achieving impact. We outline a number of these here:
• “There is huge difference between national and regional level of implementation of strategies,
plans and programmes.”
• “Generally, the R&D culture is not mature yet to bridge research with particular implementation.
[Bureaucracy] and government support has to improve”
• “Both participation and success rates are low, so it is difficult to achieve impacts and visibility.”
• “Business environment does not favour industrial research and innovation (legislation and its
implementation).”
• “Missing links and willingness of government.”
• “The barrier is too nationalistic research (and business as shown in the demise of Nokia cell
phones) and thus the entities do not search for excellence on international level, some research
leaders and their teams choose to take part in FPs (when the leaders retire, the FP participation
usually diminishes). Main body of research has too few international links.”

284
• “There does not appear to be a clear direct link between successful research and innovation
outputs and the commercialisation of these outputs. There needs to be at least one partner in
each project who focuses on this.”
• “Low income country - low investments in science and support. Low visibility of researchers - lack
of funds for publishing high ranked journals or eminent conferences. Lack of extraordinary
references for researchers due to low visibility. Lack of scientific evaluation and statistics”.

In contrast to barriers, the Figure on the next page shows positive factors affecting country
participation in the FPs.

Figure 52 Conversely, in your assessment, to what extent have one or more of the
following factors positively affected your country’s FP participation? (n=30) q.15

Improvements within FP consortium

8 10 11
agreement to allow for IPR sharing and…

Administrative simplifications made to the

11 8 10
FPs (e.g. participant portal, grant…

Availability of co-funding to complement FP

7 5 16
funding

Support system to aid FP applicants 9 13 6

Interest/motivation in participation in the

12 12 5
FPs

Access to incentives for FP participation 9 10 9

High positive impact
Access to networks to ‘break into’ FP
16 8 6 Medium positive impact
consortia
No impact

Knowledge of the workings of the FPs 11 12 6

Capacity of R&I performers (influx of

9 14 7
researchers)

Internationally-competitive R&I performers 9 14 7

Effective R&I strategies and

8 9 11
implementation plans

Effective R&I policy coordination 6 8 13

An effective national regulatory system 7 7 14

Positive factors influencing countries’ participation are seen especially in participants’ “access to
networks to ‘break into’ FP consortia” (highly outstanding factor, comparing to other factors marked
with “high impact”). This is followed by Interest/motivation to participate in the FPs. The weakest
impact on participation is linked to the following factors: “availability of co-funding to complement
FP funding” (somehow contradicting previous answers) as well as “an effective national regulatory
system”.

285
When comparing FP-derived impacts with those achieved at national level, clearly national
policymakers recognise the important roles(s) of the FPs, in particular in achieving greater scientific
impacts than may be possible through national R&I. In total, 71.43% of respondents considered the
FPs to achieve greater scientific impacts than national programmes (although 3.57% considered
scientific impacts to be lesser).

Table 70 In the case of each of the following types of impacts, please indicate whether the impacts of
participation in the research projects tend to be of a greater or lesser magnitude compared with
national funded R&I projects? (n=27, multiple answers possible) q.23

Type of impact Greater Lesser About the Cannot say

same (equal impact)

Scientific impacts 71.43% 3.57% 25.00% 0%

Impacts on innovation 57.14% 14.29% 28.57% 0%

Impacts on national research and 42.86% 7.14% 46.43% 3.57%

innovation policies

Wider societal impacts including 48.15% 7.41% 33.33% 11.11%

economic, social and environmental
impacts

Over half (57.14%) of respondents also considered funding at European level to achieve greater
innovation related impacts. A greater proportion of respondents were also of the opinion that wider
societal impacts could be achieved to a greater extent through the FPs as compared to through
national instruments.

286
4. THE ROLE OF FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES AT NATIONAL
LEVEL

This section assesses about the role of the FPs at national level and how/to what extent EU funding
is used in combination with other funding sources for R&I activities.

4.1 National R&I funding mix and the role of the FP

The respondents indicated that the most popular source of funding for R&I projects and
infrastructure financing are still national funding programmes, followed by the FPs and the European
Structural and Investment Funds.

Figure 53 To what extent do your country’s researchers and scientists rely on the following sources
of funding for R&I project and infrastructure financing? (n=31) q.24

International sources, e.g.

UNESCO

Framework Programme funding

Funding from national

industry/businesses
Heavily reliant
EU (co-) funded programmes Somewhat reliant
available to Associated
Countries, e.g. Connecting… Rely on to a limited extent
Not applicable
Structural Funds/ ESIFs available
to EU Member States

Regional funding programmes

National funding programmes

0 10 20 30 40

In total, 61.29% of respondents consider their country’s researchers to be ‘heavily reliant’ on

national funding instruments compared to 38.71% for Framework Programme funding (more
respondents considered their R&I performers to be only relying on the FPs to a limited extent.
However, for Group 3 (Reformers and specialists) only two responses indicating heavy reliance on
national funding (heavy) and these countries were more likely to also suggest some/heavy reliance
on the FPs.

287
Over one-third (35.48%) of respondents considered their country’s researchers to be ‘heavily reliant’
on the European Structural and Investment Funds/ESIF; also a significant proportion when looking at
the bigger picture. Unsurprisingly, Group 4 countries the reliance on ESIF was more palpable – out of
17 responses for this group, nine suggested a heavy reliance on national funding, while 10 also
suggested a heavy reliance on ESIF. In contrast to this, Group 2 (Core countries) were generally
more reliant on national funding. Out of nine responses for Group 2, only one response indicated a
heavily reliance on ESIF, while seven out of nine reported a heavy reliance on FP.

In terms of co-funding potential between national funding and FP funding, the next table provides
the responses to the question: In general, to what extent are R&I performers in your country able to
use national/regional funding and FP funding as co-funding for their R&I activities?

Table 71 In general, to what extent are R&I performers in your country able to use
national/regional funding and FP funding as co-funding for their R&I activities? (n=31) q.27

Answer choices % of responses

Strong co-funding potential (R&I performers who need to access funding from 10.34%
several sources most often receive the funding required for ALL activities planned)

Some co-funding potential (R&I performers who need to access funding from 41.38%
several sources sometimes receive the funding required for ALL activities planned)

Little co-funding potential – mainly dependent on own resources (R&I performers 48.28%
who need to access funding from several sources do not tend to receive the
funding required for ALL activities planned)

As the responses show, in general there is limited scope for strong (effective) co-funding potential,
with only 10.34% considered instruments to be effectively paired, although if including ‘some co-
funding potential’, respondents are more positive.

However, in terms of relevance and complementarity, most respondents consider the FPs to have
some or strong relevance in terms of the thematic and scientific funding priorities; with FP7 and
H2020 scoring highest (88% of respondents suggesting that FP7 had strong or some relevance, while
the equivalent number were 79.3% for H2020 and 70% for FP6).

Table 72 How would you rate the overall relevance of thematic and scientific funding priorities
supported through the EU RTD FPs in each period to your country’s R&I strengths? (n=29) q.28

Answer choices FP6 FP7 H2020

Strong relevance
30% 36% 45%
Some relevance
41% 52% 34%
Little relevance
15% 6% 10%
No relevance
4% 3% 3%
Don't know/ unable to say
11% 3% 3%

288
Figure 54 To what extent are your country’s/ region’s R&I funding programmes’ priorities and FP
priorities complementary? (n=29) q.30

70%

62%
60%

50%
To what extent are your
country’s/ region’s R&I
funding programmes’
40% priorities and FP
priorities
complementary?
30%

21%
20% 17%

10%

0%
Strong complementarity Some complementarity Little complementarity

Question 30 asked “To what extent are your country’s/ region’s R&I funding programmes’ priorities
and FP priorities complementary?”

As the above figure suggests, respondents largely view the FPs as being complementary to national
and regional priorities. For Groups 1 (Leaders and influencers) and 2 (Core countries)
complementarity was particularly strong, with no response indicating little complementarity.

However, for Groups 3 (Reformers and specialists) and 4 (Support-focused and sporadic
participation), there was less consensus, with approximately one-thirds of respondents suggesting
there was little complementarity between their national priorities and H2020.

289
Figure 55 To what extent has your country’s mix of funding sources changed since 2000? (n=29)
q.31

Other European funding (e.g. COST)

EU-co-funded programmes administered at

cross-border level (e.g. Interreg funding)

Multilateral funding programmes (non-EU)

Bilateral funding programmes (non-EU)

International sources, e.g. UNESCO

More funding/ opportunities

Framework Programme funding

Some complementarity

Funding from international Less funding/fewer opportunities

industry/businesses

Not applicable
Funding from national industry/businesses

EU-co-funded programmes administered at

national/regional level (e.g. Structural
Funds)

Regional funding programmes

National funding programmes

0 10 20 30

The above figure illustrates the extent to which a country’s mix of funding sources has changed since
2000, which indicates that R&I funding growth have tended to come from the FPs and/or national
sources. However other countries have clearly experienced cuts in national R&I funding, as indicated
by the significant proportion of respondents indicating less funding. Other European programmes
(e.g. COST) also appear to have increased in importance – at least for a smaller number of
respondents.

Other findings worth noting here is the relatively small role of funding from industry/businesses and
the lack of access to international sources.

With regards to the issue of how different funding sources are used for different purposes, we
received a good number of open responses to this question, outlining some strong examples below:

• “International funding opportunities are still [not] consider a first priority by many research
groups due to the related difficulties (e.g. [bureaucracy], national regulation burden, lack of
government support, etc.).”
• “ESIF offer "more safe money" in comparison with FPs while national funding is insufficient for
the development and funding from industry is mostly negligible”

290
• “National funding for science infrastructure is very limited. Researchers got funded from FPs
practically up to 90%.”
• “Different instruments cater to different R&I needs, e.g. FP7 and H2020 R&I funds at lower TRL
levels than most National R&I funding.”

Figure 56 To what extent do your country’s researchers and scientists also have access to R&I
cross-border or transnational funding (NOT including the Framework Programmes)(n=29) q.26
60

50

40 EU co-funded programmes
administered at cross-border
level (e.g. Interreg funding)

30
Multilateral funding
programmes (non-EU), e.g.
transnational R&I agreements
between groups of countries
20
Bilateral funding programmes
(non-EU), e.g. cross-border R&I
agreements between two
10 countries

0
Easy access Some access Limited access Not applicable

We also asked respondents the extent to which their R&I performers have access to cross-border
and transnational funding, excluding the FPs. Clearly, access is relatively good, although it is worth
noting the rather high responses of ‘limited ‘access to bi- and multilateral funding programmes,
considering the increased emphasis on internationalisation in the last decade.

4.2 Impact of the financial and economic crisis and recession

The last set of survey questions explored the extent to which the economic and financial crisis from
2008 onwards have an impact on the level of national / regional R&I funding available.

As the responses to the question “To what extent did the economic and financial crisis from 2008
have an impact on the level of national / regional R&I funding available”, clearly the FP participating
countries have experienced some difficulties in funding R&I in the last decade.

291
Figure 57 To what extent did the economic and financial crisis from 2008 have an impact on the
level of national / regional R&I funding available? (n=29) q.32

The crisis did not affect our ability to

access RTD funding at national level
6 9

The economic and

financial crisis had an
The crisis made it more difficult to immediate impact
find the necessary co-financing (from
own funding) to participate in the
18 15
FPs The economic and
financial crisis have
The crisis made it more difficult to had a long-term
obtain the necessary co-financing impact
(from national public sources) to
14 11
participate in the FPs

The economic and financial crisis led

to a reduction in national / regional 15 17
R&I funding availability

0 10 20 30 40

Although (for a smaller number of respondents), the crisis did not affect access to funding at
national level, the general ‘squeeze’ on R&I funding nevertheless affected the overall portfolio of
funding, in particular making it more difficult to access co-funding sources and/or FP funding. For
65.22% of respondent and 73.91% of respondents the crisis led to an immediate and long-term
negative impact of national R&I funding respectively.

Table 73 To what extent have your country’s R&I activities changed as a result of the economic and
financial crisis that began in 2008 and subsequent low economic growth? (n=29) q.33

Type of impact To a large extent To a small extent Not at all

R&I performers in my country have 35.71% 42.86% 21.43%

postponed R&I activities

R&I performers in my country carry out fewer 29.63% 40.74% 29.63%

R&I activities than previously
R&I performers in my country have revised 28.57% 57.14% 14.29%
their strategy with regard to R&I activities
R&I performers in my country organisation 16.00% 28.00% 56.00%
have not been affected
R&I performers in my country now 25.93% 62.96% 11.11%
predominantly seek funding through the EU
RTD FPs

292
The lack of funding has in turn impacted on R&I activities, as illustrated in the below Table. Over half
(56%) of respondents indicate that R&I performers have been affected. Most notably, to a small
extent (62.96%) or large extent (25.93%) there has been a shift towards R&I performers
“predominantly seek funding through the EU RTD FPs”, with only 11.11% of respondents stating that
this is not the case. In tandem with this perceived shift in funding sources, a significant number of
respondents (28.57% + 57.14%) also suggest that R&I performers have revised their strategy with
regard to R&I activities. It also appears that R&I performers frequently postpone and/or carry out
fewer activities than compared to pre-2008.

293
Getting in touch with the EU

IN PERSON
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct Information centres.
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

ON THE PHONE OR BY EMAIL

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.
You can contact this service
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

Finding information about the EU

ONLINE
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at:
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

EU PUBLICATIONS
You can download or order free and priced EU publications at:
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained
by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en)

EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language versions,
go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

OPEN DATA FROM THE EU

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.
European Framework Programmes (FPs) are EU’s main instruments for investment in research and
innovation. This study presents an assessment of impacts achieved at the level of individual EU
Member States and Associated Countries during the fifteen years of investment between 2000 and
2015 (covering the 6th, 7th and the current 8th Framework Programme Horizon 2020). For a
considerable number of countries, the study is the first ever attempt to assess the extent and the
impacts of participation in the FPs at a country level. This study was launched by the European
Commission to better understand and communicate the impact of FPs and to further maximise its
European Added Value in the future.

Studies and reports