The Territorial Impact of EU R

1
The Territorial Impact of EU RD Policy

• ECOTEC Research and Consulting Taurus Institute
• Cardiff University MERIT Maastricht University
• MCRIT Politecnico di Milano
• Nijmegen
• 11th October 2004
• Co-financed by the INTERREG II ESPON Programme

2
Content

• Territorial strengths and weaknesses
• Territorial analysis of EU RD policies
• To what extent does EU RD Policy address
  identified spatial goals?
• Policy recommendations

3
Territorial strengths and weaknesses

• Research, innovation and high technology
  hotspots tend to be concentrated in core areas
  of North West Europe (D, Nl and parts of the UK
  and Fr), with other strong performers in
  Scandinavia
• There is a long tail of less RD and
  innovation-intensive areas, concentrated in
  Southern, Central and Eastern Europe.
• There is some evidence of regional catch-up, in
  that growth rates in lower performing regions
  tend to be higher.

4
Data for CZ, HU, SK and LU - year 2000 Data used
for IE and SE are from NUTS 1 Data used for BE,
CY, EE, LT, LV and RO are from NUTS 0 CH, MT and
NO no data
5
(No Transcript)
6
Spatial analysis

• Regions with exceptionally strong system of RD
  and innovation (Type 5)
• Regions with strong system of RD and innovation
  (Type 4)
• Regions with mixed fortunes in undertaking RD
  and innovation (Type 3)
• Regions with average strengths in RD and
  innovation (Type 2)
• Regions which are weak at undertaking RD and
  innovation (Type 1)

7
An initial spatial analysis of regional strengths
and weaknesses
8
Framework Programme Participation
9
Allowing for GDP

• On the whole we find that the distribution of
  Framework Programme partners is spread much more
  evenly across the European territory. This is
  particularly the case in FP 5 compared to FP 4.
• Traditionally strong participant regions fall out
  of the top quintile, whilst those which are less
  strong increase their visibility. The greatest
  shift occurs within the UK, with the number of
  regions in the top quintile halving.
• Organisations in the new Member States have
  significantly improved their propensity to lead
  projects between FP 4 and FP 5.
• On this basis regions that have lower levels of
  GDP do appear to benefit from the Framework
  Programmes.

10
Allowing for RD expenditure
11
SF activity
12
Spatial balance
13
At a regional scale

• Beneficiaries of SF and FPs vary
• Focus of support differs
• but some convergence
• Limited spillover through the FPs
• Extent of support for innovation understated

14
Spatial effects
15
Spatial policy goals

• Currently EU RD policy broadly supports
  convergence objectives
• although FPs do so on a relative basis
• Strong performance against ESDP goals
• networking amongst companies
• establishment of innovation centres and
  co-operation arrangements
• support for Objective 1 regions
• expansion of strategic role of major metropolitan
  centres

16

• But less success in supporting development of
  larger zones of economic integration in the EU.

17
Recommendations

• Co-ordination between EU policies
• co-funding FP projects in Objective 1 areas
• regional programming
• inter-regional activity
• Focus of activities
• trans-national programming
• Resources
• maintain increase in resources available
• minimum of 5 of all regional programmes

18
(No Transcript)
19
Spatial challenges for the future

• Development of Eastern European regions versus
  Southern European regions
• Focus on regions with strong HEI sectors
• Encouraging business engagement

20
NOTES TO SELF

• Although a tentative classification of regions
  using Macro/Meso/Micro classification is proposed
  in the main report, we are however reluctant to
  categorise regions according to this method, as
  we feel that it may undervalue activities that
  are ongoing within a particular region. Some
  regions may be international centres for
  particular types of specialised research, even
  though their overall RD base, in terms of
  overall statistics, might suggest a poorer
  general performance. Moreover, we feel that
  descriptions of regions as being of international
  significance compared to those that are more
  regionally orientated may not be helpful for
  policy purposes.
• Just under half of all planned expenditure is
  intended to support innovation and technology
  transfers, establishment of networks and
  partnerships between businesses and/or research
  institutes (FOI code 182). Support for research
  projects based in universities and other research
  institutes (FOI code 181) and the development of
  RTDI Infrastructure (FOI code 183) represent the
  other two main areas of activity. There is a much
  lower level of funds directed towards training
  for researchers (FOI code 184), although it
  constitutes a higher proportion of the value of
  those programmes which contain this field of
  intervention than do the other RTD fields.

21
From regression?????

• Overall, levels of human capital, output and
  industrial structure can partly explain the
  regional disparities in RD expenditure and, to a
  lesser extent, FP participation.
• Manufacturing regions are less likely to have
  high levels of RD expenditure, whilst regions
  with higher levels of higher order skills and
  employment are likely to have greater levels of
  RD expenditure.