Measuring the integration and coordination dynamics of the ERA

1. Measuringtheintegration and coordinationdynamics of the ERA 2nd EU-SPRI Conference Karlsruhe, 12-13 June 2012 Rémi Barré (CNAM, Paris) Luisa Henriques (European Commission, JRC-IPTS, Sevilla) Dimitrios Pontikakis (NorthumbriaUniversity, Newcastle-upon-Tyne) K. Matthias Weber (AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna)

2. Overview • Background • Objectives • Conceptualframework • Macro-functions • Organisational relationships • RF Matrix • Historical perspectives • Key indicators • Main findings • Conclusions

3. Background • Howtomonitorprogresstowards „ERA“? • Howtocapturetheprocess of transforming research in Europe byway of meaningfulmeasurement and analysis? • Howtoconceptualize different models/modes of Europeanisation?

4. Objectives • Conceptual • Revisitstheoretical literature toconstruct a novelconceptualframework • Methodological • Based on theframework, devise a methodologytomonitor and measure • Substantive • Investigateempiricallytransformation of researchlandscape in Europe overthepasttwentyyears

5. Conceptualframework – macro-functions • Functions of research and innovationsystems cover macro-, meso- and micro-conditions for R&I • Focus on policydimensions of R&I systemfunction („macro-functions“) • Orientation • Programming and funding • Research performance

6. Conceptualframework – multi-levelgovernanceinstitutions • In the European multi-levelsystem, eachgovernancelevelcan in principlebeendowedwitheach of thesefunctions • European level • National level • Regional level • Research in European canthusbedescribedasthreesets of organisational realisations, one for each of thefunctionswith different balances for eachfunction

7. Conceptualframework – models of transformative change • Thisleadsultimatelytothree ideal-type models of transformative change of research in Europe, each model correspondingto different organisational relationshipsbetweentheinstitutionallevels • Transformation models • Integration • Coordination • Juxtaposition Europeanisation

8. RF-Matrix

9. Europeanisation • We call Europeanisation the increase of the relative budgetary weight of the columns for integration and coordination types of relationships. • This definition enriches the notion of Europeanisation on three grounds: • Coordination is considered as a possible form of Europeanisation, complementary to the restrictive vision of integration as the only Europeanisation modality, • Europeanisation is addressed in a more specific way, distinguishing the situation of the three functions, which may have different Europeanisation dynamics, • Beyond the dynamics of nations, Europeanisation refers here also to a dynamics of regions, which are accounted for in the framework.

10. Historical perspectives on Europeanisation • From the mid 1950s to the late 1970s: • Europeanisationas integration of programming and of performance functions in restricted areas • From the late 1970s to 2000: • Europeanisation as coordination of national entities and their performance function through European funding • since 2000: • Europeanisation as fostering coordination of national entities involved in the orientation and programming functions – beyond FP projects (the building of the ERA)

11. Key indicators • Indicatorsfocused on integration and coordination, and on programming and performance • Comparingtheyears 2000 and 2007 • Indices of • Integration (programming; performance) • Coordination (programming; performance) • Europeanisation (programming; performance; overall) • Modalities of Europeanisation (programming / (programming + performance); coordination / (coordination + integration))

12. Overviewof fundinginstruments in theRF-Matrix

13. The RF-Matrix in empiricalterms • Based on all datacollected on budget for eachinstrument in the RF-Matrix • Providesthebasis for thecalculation of the different indices

14. Main findings • Europeanisation • The level of Europeanisationhasincreasedby half • Europeanisation of programming hasbecomesignificantlymoreimportantthanEuropeanisation of performance, thusbecomingthemaincomponent and driver of Europeanisation • Integration vs. coordination • Integration was moredevelopedthancoordination in 2000, but coordinationhasclearlyovertakenintegration in 2007 • Coordination in terms of programming hasdevelopedparticularly fast

15. Main findings • The contribution of programming (vs. performance) and coordination (vs. integration • Relative importance of Europeanisation of programming ascomparedtoperformancehasgrownfrom half totwothirds • The same holds for the relative importance of Europeanisation of coordinationascomparedtointegration

16. Conclusions • The latestphase of evolution of Europeanisation of research (sinceabout 2000) ischaracterisedby a superposition of • Establishedbigscienceinfrastructures, • Performance coordinationthroughthe FPs, and • Coordinationof programmingas a novel, fast growing and nowitsmostsignificantelement. • As a consequence, Europeanisationisnomore limited bythefunding of FP and otherinfrastructures, but mobilizes also national funding

17. Conclusions (2) • Methodologydeveloped and testedrepresentthebasis for a comprehensive and refinedapproachto monitoring progresstowards ERA, but muchworkremainstobedone: • include indicators for the orientation functions; • include the funding by the regions; • compute values for year 1980 and possibly before; • develop national indicators of Europeanisation; and • develop sectoral/ thematic indicators of Europeanisation. • Comparison of benefits of Europeanisation with similar research work on US, Japan and China as a longer-term perspective

18. Thankyour for yourattention ! Contact: Matthias Weber Austrian Institute of Technology AIT Foresight & Policy Development Department Research, Technology and Innovation Policy matthias.weber@ait.ac.at