The Governance of ERA A critical perspective

1
The Governance of ERAA critical perspective

• 6CP
• Patries Boekholt
• 30-31 October 2003
• www.technopolis-group.com

2
This presentation

• Why governance?
• The governance of ERA
• The regional dimension
• Some good practice lessons on governance in
  research and innovation
• Some discussion statements
• What next?

3
Governance a vague concept
European White Paper on Governance Governance
means rules processes and behaviour that affect
the way in which powers are exercised at European
level, particularly as regards openness,
participation, accountability, effectiveness and
coherence.
4
Functions of governance in research and
innovation

• Agenda setting and prioritisation
• Referee
• Horizontal co-ordination
• Co-ordination of knowledge production
• Intelligence
• Vertical steering
• Enhancing the profile of research and innovation

5
Need for greater coherence in STI policy making
along several dimensions

• The integration of knowledge creation (mostly
  basic research) and the use of knowledge for
  commercial exploitation
• The co-ordination and attuning of different
  societal and economic goals of research and
  innovation, thus integrating STI policies across
  sectoral departments.
• The combination of knowledge from different
  science disciplines to tackle interdisciplinary
  research needs (e.g. bio-technology) and
  overarching societal problems that need such an
  interdisciplinary approach (e.g. climate change)
• The co-ordination along geographical levels
  Global, European, National, Regional

6
ERAs governance structure

• ERA so far successful as platform launching
  ideas and opening debate on
• Reshaping the European research policy landscape
• Internal market in research
• Co-ordination of national research policies
• Introduction of new governance mechanisms
• Open Co-ordination Method
• Article 169
• ERA-Net
• Benchmarking , Mapping Excellence
• Key role to play for Member States
• Co-ordination is key but how and by whom?

7
Governance levels to be coordinated in ERA
Level 1 European Council
Level 2 European Commission
Other Policy Sectors
Other Policy Sectors
8
ERA progress in implementation

• Commission in October 2002 strengthening the
  momentum
• Progress fastest on issues where nations have set
  actions
• Examples
• Research Infrastructures co-ordination needs are
  evident
• Women in Science
• Asks for greater Member States involvement
• The 2002 Monitoring Report on ERA
• Hampered by insufficient participation of the
  Member States
• Article 169 cumbersome and complex
• Regions lack of awareness of ERA

9
The regional dimension of ERA

• The focus on research excellence alienates many
  regions
• The responsibility for research policy mainly at
  MS level
• Regions concerned with innovation and the role of
  research actors in the dissemination of knowledge
  
• ERA-NET another talk-club? Regions have better
  alternatives
• Linkages between ERA and Structural Funds
  hampered by many governance obstacles
• Be realistic about the role of regions in ERA

10
Good practice lessons from STI governance

• Strategic policy intelligence is necessary to
  make policy choices on a solid basis
• Reshaping the governance structure seems easiest
  when there is a severe crisis (e.g Finland in the
  early 1990s) or when there is a big carrot
• Empowering a change agent
• Making difficult choices requires a referee in
  the system
• Policy co-ordination is a cumbersome and
  long-term process which asks for
• Strong political support at highest levels
• Trust-building between people
• Creation of win-win situations

11
Some discussion statements

• The Member States will not be ready for ERA as
  long as they cant cope with reshaping their own
  National Research Areas
• Opportunities for a European Knowledge Society
  are missed due to the strong compartmentalisation
  of the European Commission and the MS
• The regions will have a bigger role to play if we
  create the European Innovation Area
• Policy co-ordination lessons from national
  governance show the importance of long-term
  trust-building, creating win-win situations,
  additional money, change agents and a referee.
  Most of these conditions are not (yet) present in
  the European arena

12
What to do next?

• Open co-ordination method too soft as approach?
• Empowering a change agent?
• Do we need a referee?
• Rely on self -organisation agencies, research
  performers and regions leapfrogging their
  national governments?
• Design new governance mechanisms?
• Or are we simply too impatient?