dr arie van der zwan directorate general research european commission brussels n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Dr. Arie van der Zwan Directorate General - Research European Commission Brussels PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Dr. Arie van der Zwan Directorate General - Research European Commission Brussels

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 26

Dr. Arie van der Zwan Directorate General - Research European Commission Brussels - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 362 Views
  • Uploaded on

Dr. Arie van der Zwan Directorate General - Research European Commission Brussels. Dr. Arie van der Zwan. European Commission (2002-Present) Ministry of Netherlands Economic Affairs (16 yrs) Directorate-General for Innovation DG for Economic Structure, Technology Policy

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Dr. Arie van der Zwan Directorate General - Research European Commission Brussels' - albert


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide2

Dr. Arie van der Zwan

  • European Commission (2002-Present)
  • Ministry of Netherlands Economic Affairs (16 yrs)
    • Directorate-General for Innovation
    • DG for Economic Structure, Technology Policy
    • DG for Industrial Policy
    • DG for Energy Policy
slide3

European Research PolicyKnowledge based society and EconomyArie van der ZwanEuropean Commission, DG Research Strategic and policy aspects; investment in researchInnovation and Competitiveness Workshop Istanbul, 19 April 2004

content
Europe’s technological (under) performance

Lisbon goals: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world

Important issues in Lisbon Process:

the Barcelona 3% objective and action plan

issues for new Member States

the open method of co-ordination (OMC)-cross-country dialogues to formulate strategies for research policies

Content
europe s sombre technological performance
Can be no denying Europe’s persistently poor technological performance

and the negative impact that has on the overall economy

Many indicators of this under-performance, e.g.

relative weakness of our high-technology and knowledge-intensive sectors

relative slowness to absorb new technologies

inferior rates of labour productivity growth

If Europe continues to under-perform this way, we will never achieve the Lisbon goals: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world

Europe’s sombre technological performance
why technological under performance
Many contributory causes

for example, Europe’s very different mix of industries

with a much smaller high technology sector

with many fewer large companies

Defence oriented R&D

But, a major cause has to be the deep-rooted structural weaknesses affecting our research and innovation systems

research inputs are too low

both financial and human

unfriendly environment for research and innovation

excessive fragmentation of public research

Why technological under-performance?
financial inputs
Europe substantially under-invests in research

less than 2% of GDP and stagnant

compared with nearly 3% in US (also ~3% in Japan and Korea)

EU-US R&D Gap growing from € 71.6 bn in 1995 to € 117 bn in 2000decreasing to € 111 bn in 2002

increasing public funding gap from € 17 bn (2000) to € 26 bn (2002)

decreasing business funding gap from € 104 bn (2000) to € 87 bn (2002)

An input gap of that magnitude cannot be bridged

by being more clever

nor by importing technology from others

because of our poor absorptive capacity

First policy conclusion: to be technologically competitive, Europe, particularly European business, must invest much more in research)

Financial inputs
human inputs
Research is particularly labour-intensive

If our goal is to increase investment substantially, we have to find large additional numbers of researchers

Europe’s career pipeline is however increasingly leaky and made worse by unfavourable demographics

so the future supply of European-trained researchers may be insufficient even to maintain the status quo

and could therefore impede attempts to increase investment in research

Second policy conclusion: as we cannot invest more without employing more, we must plug holes in the pipeline and make Europe much more attractive to (third country) researchers

Human inputs
unfriendly framework conditions
Regulatory shortcomings

incomplete internal market, ill-adapted IPR regimes, excessive costs of new company registration, outdated bankruptcy and insolvency laws, unfriendly standards, barriers to mobility of researchers …

Financial weaknesses

underdeveloped venture capital markets, particularly for early-stage finance, relatively weak fiscal incentives …

Networking failures

weak science-industry linkages, weak cross-linkages between innovation actors …

Unfriendly social environment

poor acceptance of new technologies, attitude of the young, weak culture of entrepreneurship …

Unfriendly framework conditions
unfriendly framework conditions cont d
Conditions vary from country to country, but, from an overall European perspective, these unfriendly framework conditions

seriously inhibit business investment in research

reduce absorptive capacity for new technologies, wherever generated

lead to ineffective exploitation of our public research base

(Third policy conclusion: it is urgent to improve the framework conditions, but this will require a wide portfolio of policy measures, many outside “research” policy)

Unfriendly framework conditions (cont’d)
fragmentation in public research
Majority of public research in Europe (>80%) is executed in a purely national frame

with rather low levels of co-operation between different countries at either the programming or policy levels

This combination (of fragmentation and compartmentalisation) often results in

much uncoordinated parallel work

wasteful duplication

insufficient competition always to ensure excellence

teams that lack critical mass

(Fourth policy conclusion: countries must co-operate more in their research policies and programmes, if we are to make effective use of limited public resources available for research)

Fragmentation in public research
3 action plan a systemic approach
Industry will invest more in R&D in Europe only if it can expect improved returns on investment

A drastic reappraisal of current policies and a major structural change towards more R&D intensive sectors + enhanced innovation in existing sectors

All factors affecting performance of R&I systems need to be addressed e.g. from research to the market place

A broad range of policies need to be mobilised in a coherent way e.g. R&D&I, internal market, competition, Regional, etc.

3 % Action Plan A Systemic Approach
3 objective what is at stake

Growth

Jobs

Productivity

Product

quality

0%

5%

10%

15%

2010

2030

‘3%’ ObjectiveWhat is at stake?

Long term gains : by 2010 and by 2030

EU-US R&D Gapgrowing from € 71.6 bn in 1995 to € 117 bn in 2000

decreasing to € 111 bn in 2002

  • increasing public funding gap from € 17 bn (2000) to € 26 bn (2002)
  • decreasing business funding gap from € 104 bn (2000) to € 87 bn (2002)

Estimated gainsif EU reaches 3% in 2010

  • Until 2010 :

+0.25% GDP (annual average)

+2 million jobs over 2004-2010

  • After 2010 :

+0.5% GDP every year

+400,000 net jobs every year

Gains from reaching 3% R&D by 2010 compared to statu quo

lisbon progress
(Spring Report 2004)

Undeniable progress after 4 years but insufficient implementation at MS level

“Improving investments in knowledge and networks” as key priority for 2004 (Growth Initiative)

Spring Council has seized opportunity of economic recovery and the coming enlargement to increase impetus

Lisbon progress
the impetus of enlargement
(Spring Report 2004)

Increased trade & investment opportunities

Good growth potential (av. 4 % p/a)

Experience of reform and commitment to the process in the new MS will increase EU momentum

Accession comes at a critical & timely moment – Mid-Term Lisbon Review [+First report on progress of 3 % Action Plan]

The impetus of Enlargement
issues and actions for new mss informal seminar brussels march 03
Promote R&D in domestic firms: raising their awareness of opportunities, improving their access to capital and raising their profile for investors.

Orientate FDI towards knowledge and R&D: accentuating spill over effects, innovation and capability transfer, linkages with local knowledge infrastructure, etc.

Counter the brain drain: improving the attractiveness of the research career accompanied by actions to address the demand for R&D and technology.

Issues and Actions for new MSs(Informal Seminar, Brussels, March ‘03)
issues and actions for new mss informal seminar brussels march 031
Upgrade research infrastructure and rebalance the distribution of large S&T facilities to the benefit of new MSs, to offer domestic opportunities for R&D teams.

Establish systemic innovation policies which aim at balanced progress on R&D capability, demand, diffusion and absorption factors, and stronger co-ordination between R&D, education, economic, and other relevant policies.

Issues and Actions for new MSs(Informal Seminar, Brussels, March ‘03)
new mss and the barcelona targets
(3 % Action Plan/ OMC Snapshot)

Politically committed to Barcelona objective (R&D intensity targets), but budgetary commitments difficult

Public investment decline reversed; many showing substantial growth;

New fiscal measures (HU, LV);

Participating in OMC 3%

Efforts must be sustained

New MSs and the Barcelona Targets
what do we mean by omc
OMC was introduced at the Lisbon Summit as a “soft” form of European governance

to fill the gap between simple cooperation at MS-level and full legislative integration at Union-level

for use particularly in fields where the prime responsibility for policy-making lies with MS

OMC offers an adaptable voluntary coordination framework that assists MS progressively to develop their own national policies

to tackle common challenges

with the aim of achieving collectively agreed Union-wide goals

What do we mean by OMC?
how does omc function
OMC functions through an iterative cycle, involving

at Union-level: the collective setting of Union-wide objectives and a timetable

at individual MS-level: the translation of these common objectives into national action plans and targets

MS collectively: regular multilateral monitoring and collective self-assessment

allowing the cycle to be closed and repeated with progressively increasing intensity

To be effective, the whole process needs support with operational tools

such as foresight, scoreboarding, benchmarking …

particularly to promote mutual learning and self-improvement

How does OMC function?
omc topics
Public research base and its links with industry

SMEs and research

Fiscal measures for research

IPR and research

Public research spending and policy mixes

Human resources and mobility

OMC-topics
conclusions
Absolute need for EU to invest more in R&D

Strategy and goals set by 3% action plan

Cross-country dialogue by OMC

Conclusions: