EUROPEAN UNION FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 7 BUILDING THE EUROPE OF KNOWLEDGE

I n March 2000, European heads of governments and of states agreed in Lisbon that by 2010, the European Union (EU) should become “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.”[*][1] To implement this objective, they agreed in Barcelona in 2002 to devote 3% of their gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010 to R&D and to foster common science policies in a “European Research Area,” as proposed by EU research commissioner Philippe Busquin. To meet these ambitious goals, the EU countries need to move beyond rhetoric and commit to substantial increases in their R&D spending. Several reports released in 2003 by the European Commission (the political and administrative arm of the EU) indicate that the EU countries invest much less in research than the United States or Japan (1.9% of GDP, compared with 2.8% for the United States and 3.0% for Japan in 2000).[†][2] Furthermore, although the EU countries produce the highest number of science graduates and postgraduates (2.14 million graduates in 2000, compared with 2.07 million in the United States) and publish more scientific papers (37% of global scientific papers, compared with 31% for the United States and 10% for Japan), they employ fewer researchers than the United States or Japan (5.4 researchers per 1000 workers, compared with 8.7 in the United States and 9.7 in Japan). In a recent action plan,[‡][3] the European Commission sets out how the EU can bridge the growing gap in research investment between Europe and the United States. According to the plan, a research investment of 3% of GDP would result in ∼0.5% of additional growth and 400,000 additional jobs every year after 2010. To reach this level of investment, the European research effort will have to grow by 8% per year; business funding for R&D will have to increase more (9%) than public funding (6%), because it lags far behind in most countries. Given the present trend in public budgets in Europe, these targets are very ambitious. To facilitate the 8% growth and better integrate and coordinate research activities, the EU aims to create a European Research Area, which would increase the efficiency and competitiveness of European research by avoiding dispersion of funding on subcritical programs. By pooling national and EU resources—such as those of the present Framework Program for R&D (3.5 billion euros per year)—the European Research Area could fund joint research programs, build and operate common research facilities (such as new x-ray sources), and promote the mobility of researchers across Europe. Furthermore, the creation of a European Research Council has been proposed by European scientists and is supported by heads of research organizations and the European Science Foundation.[§][4] The council would encompass all disciplines and complement national agencies and the Framework Program. It would, for example, provide grants and fellowships for individual researchers and groups, thereby facilitating better use of European research facilities. In the long term, the council could establish leading-edge research centers. Governments await a report on this proposal from a panel of science policy-makers chaired by Federico Mayor, former director general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and aim to make a decision in 2004. Additional funding is needed to meet these objectives and to support projects from young scientists. This can only be achieved if scientists apply strong pressure on EU governments. A complication, and a challenge, arises from the fact that at least 10 new countries will soon join the EU. Most of these countries have an old scientific tradition, but their scientific infrastructures must be renewed. Furthermore, public spending in EU countries is under severe constraints, because budget deficits must not exceed 3% of GDP. Governments and the European Commission have recently suggested that public investments for research and defense should be excluded from this 3% limit. Increased R&D is crucial for the future economic and social well-being of Europe. The commitment to increased public and private investment in research should be implemented soon by all EU countries. Several countries, including Sweden and Finland, have already met the Barcelona objective, but others are far from reaching it. This year, France even reduced public support for research and recruitment of researchers. We also have to move beyond rhetoric to implement the European Research Area. The draft European constitution defines research and technological development as a shared prerogative between individual countries and the EU. This is a positive step, but all these ambitious objectives require a strong political will, which has yet to be demonstrated by governments all over Europe. [1]: #fn-1 [2]: #fn-2 [3]: #fn-3 [4]: #fn-4

A new partnership between science and politics. European scientists ought to adapt to new research policy paradigms.

Europe's response to bioterrorism starts slowly but gathers pace

Globalize World demands to realize Higher Education for making most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Higher Education is an important factor in further enhancing research in underpinning Higher Education for the economic and cultural development of our societies and for social cohesion. The effort to introduce structural change and improve the quality of teaching should not detract from the effort to strengthen research and innovation. Ministers meeting in Berlin in September 2003 added an Action Line to the Bologna process entitled "European Higher Education Area and European Research Area "“ two pillars of the knowledge based society" that underlines the key role of research training in this context. Bergen Communique (2005) has chosen 3 priorities including quality assurance (internal/external quality assurance) and appealed to,, Strengthen research, innovation, emphasize the importance of research and research-training''. In London Communique (2007) is marked that,, Higher Education Institutions should continue to develop their internal system of quality assurance''. The task of Higher Medical Education everywhere is the provision of Health Care. Notwithstanding variations, there is a high degree of equivalence of structure, process, and product of medical school worldwide. Research is an integral part of Higher Medical Education: increasing the role and relevance of research to technological, social and cultural evolution and to the needs of Society.

Let's face it: The proposal for the sixth European R&D Framework Program by research Commissioner Philippe Busquin[*][1] could have been a lot worse. In fact, if it survives the scrutiny of the Council of Ministers and sails through the European Parliament without too much damage, it will offer substantial benefit for science policy in Europe. These are big ifs, admittedly. For one thing, industry and the business sector do not seem overenthusiastic because they see too much emphasis on basic research. The constituency in the science and engineering community that has become dependent on previous framework programs may feel left out in the cold, and the traditional peddlers of national interest may feel deprived of power to guide the commission in the “right direction.” If the history of the previous programs is any guide, all this may lead to substantial changes in the present proposal during the upcoming wrestling matches between special interest groups. But as it stands, the proposal delivers on the promise of Busquin's vision of a European Research Area (ERA).[†][2] The existing science system in Europe is a collection of jealously guarded national systems, resulting in a lot of waste and undue fragmentation. Europe should spend more public money on science to compete, but it must also use the available financial resources and talent much more effectively than it does now. In formulating the ERA, Busquin demonstrated the urgency of the problem and presented an outline for a solution. The new framework proposal aims to bring this ERA closer to reality. For example, collaboration between national R&D organizations is to be strengthened to overcome the competitive disadvantages of the science system in Europe. The objectives of the Framework Program will thus be reoriented from promoting collaboration among individual scientists to promoting collaboration among research organizations. The ideas are still vague and lack operational specificity, but the opportunity to build on these modest beginnings should be taken up. Collaboration between research councils can take various forms. For example, the European Science Foundation has introduced the EUROCORES mechanism, directed at joint planning and execution of bottom-up research programs.[‡][3] Such concepts should be expanded to include joint planning and investment in research infrastructure. The new plan offers European Union (EU) support for such activities. In doing so, it recognizes the limited ability of the EU's bureaucracy to micromanage programs. Such courageous recognition is a necessary condition for improvement. Industry and commerce should welcome the plan because it is directed at improving the European science system, which will lead to better science and better scientists and engineers. Europe's competitiveness depends on the effective transfer of ideas from generation to commercial application and exploitation in new and existing companies; this transfer in turn depends entirely on the quality of the people we educate and train in our higher education system. Especially in fast-moving areas of science, where the rate of discovery cannot be transmitted in the traditional education chain, it is vital that scientists and engineers have firsthand experience at these new frontiers. Creative and effective application of technology in new products and services must be supported by entrepreneurial skills in recognizing opportunities and marketing products. Science and technology policy, whether at the national or European level, should be directed at creating the conditions to achieve and sustain this dynamic. The present proposal shows that this has been recognized, as it emphasizes the need and promises to support collaboration between science and industry. At the Lisbon summit in March 2000, the EU government leaders requested from the European Commission a proposal for a program that can assist and stimulate the emergence of a creative and entrepreneurial spirit in the European research and innovation system. To achieve that, issues of mobility, patenting, taxation, competition, and collaboration will have to be tackled. Most of these issues are outside the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Research, but the present Framework Program proposal is a step in the right direction. The fate of the proposal in the coming months will be an interesting test of the political commitment to a change in European R&D policy. Let us see what remains by the end of this year. [1]: #fn-1 [2]: #fn-2 [3]: #fn-3

With the launching in December 2002 of the first calls of the “6th Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006)”, it is very timely to have a critical look at its reality and its potential impact on the European Research Area, in particular with respect to the social sciences. It is argued that it is by no means guaranteed that the Framework Programme will be able to mobilise the creative research potential within and outside the European Union and include the best European researchers. There is a significant danger that the Framework Programme will lead to a monopolisation of research activities within bureaucratic national research institutes (and within the networks they build) and greater political influence on research, especially by the member states and their National Research Institutes. This endangers the existing European Research Area as manifested in the open and flexible research networks that have proven their capacity in the 4th and 5th Framework Programmes. The article will start from the history of the 6th Framework Programme up to its first implementation, describe the First Call and its impacts on consortium building, and finally draw some preliminary conclusions.

Europe ramps up its research goals

The Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development (FP7) is the European Union’s main instrument for funding research in Europe. FP7, which applies to the years 2007-2013, is the natural successor to the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6), and is the result of years of consultation with the scientific community, research and policy making institutions, and other interested parties. Since their launch in 1984, the Framework Programmes have played a lead role in multidisciplinary research and cooperative activities in Europe and beyond. FP7 continues that task, and is both larger and more comprehensive than earlier Framework Programmes. Running from 2007 to 2013, the programme has a budget of 53.2 billion euros over the seven-year lifespan, the largest funding allocation yet for such programmes. FP7 has some key differences to earlier EU research programmes, including: Increased budget – the FP7 budget represents a 63% increase from FP6 at current prices, which means additional resources for European research. . Focus on themes – a strong focus on major research themes (e.g. health, ICTs, space, etc.) within the largest component of FP7 – Cooperation – makes the programme more flexible and responsive to the needs of industry. European Research Council (ERC) – the first pan-European agency for funding research, the newly created European Research Council, aims to fund more high-risk yet potentially high-gain European research at the scientific frontiers. The priorities in FP7 are contained within several specific programmes, as follows: Cooperation programme – the core of FP7 The core of FP7 and its largest component by far, the Cooperation programme fosters collaborative research across Europe and other partner countries, according to several key thematic areas. These themes are: health; food, agriculture and fisheries, and biotechnology; information and communications technologies; nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies; energy; environment (including climate change); transport (including aeronautics); socioeconomic sciences and the humanities; space and security. Special attention is also being paid to multi-disciplinary and cross-theme research, including joint calls for proposals between themes. Ideas programme – and the European Research Council (ERC) The Ideas programme is the first time an EU Framework research programme has funded pure, investigative research at the frontiers of science and technology, independently of thematic priorities. As well as bringing such research closer to the conceptual source, this flagship FP7 programme is a recognition of the value of basic research to society’s economic and social welfare. People programme – boosting European research careers The People programme provides significant support for research mobility and career development, both for researchers inside the European Union and externally. It is being implemented via a coherent set of Marie Curie actions, designed to help researchers build their skills and competences throughout their careers. The programme includes activities such as initial researcher training, support for lifelong training and development via transnational European fellowships and other actions, and industry/academia partnerships. An international dimension with partners outside the EU is to further develop the careers of EU researchers, by creating international outgoing and incoming fellowships to foster collaboration with research groups outside Europe. Proceedings 24th European Conference on Modelling and Simulation ©ECMS Andrzej Bargiela, Sayed Azam Ali David Crowley, Eugene J.H. Kerckhoffs (Editors) ISBN: 978-0-9564944-0-5 / ISBN: 978-0-9564944-1-2 (CD)

The paper is dedicated to the issues of Ukraine’s integration into the European Research Area (ERA) – a single research and innovation space open to the world and based on the internal market, which ensures the free exchange of researchers, scientific knowledge and technology. A comparative analysis of the institutional prerequisites for the creation of a single European research and innovation area has been conducted. The legislative basis of the European integration vector of Ukraine’s development in the science, technology and innovation sector is substantiated, while the flaws in the organisational and institutional support for euro-integrational reforms are identified. The idea and phases of ERA development are considered, the problems of implementing the Roadmap of Ukraine’s integration of into ERA are defined. The main European programs of scientific, technological and innovative cooperation are systematized and Ukraine’s participation in them is analysed. The case of cooperation between the Silesian Technological University «Silesian Polytechnic in Gliwice» and the Institute of Industrial Economics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine is considered as a positive example of establishing collaboration in research and development between Ukrainian and European partner organizations. The authors propose the framework for creating institutional conditions that would ensure proper functioning and cohesion of the scientific, technological and innovative sector of Ukraine, as well as its effective integration to ERA in compliance with the strategic interests of international cooperation.

Recent policy discourses in Europe strongly emphasise the need to build what is called an ‘inclusive information society’. With the current widespread diffusion and use of ICTs in all domains of everyday life, ICTs are increasingly considered a fundamental and necessary resource for every European citizen, the socio-economic effects of which will resonate across the continent. The strategic goal for Europe in 2010 – worded forcefully by the European Council in its Lisbon strategy – is: ‘… to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’ (European Council, 2000). While access to ICTs is considered crucial for participation in and enhancing the qualities of that society, there is, at the same time, an accompanying nervousness that it might sow the seeds for a new exclusion, a digital divide quite distanced from the dream of an all inclusive society.

In March 2000, the heads of the European Union countries proclaimed the aim of making Europe the “most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustaining economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” by 2010. To achieve this overall goal, a set of economic and social reforms called the “Lisbon Strategy” or the “Lisbon Agenda” to be undertaken was defined. Several objectives, grouped in five dimensions (employment, innovation and research, structural economic reforms, social cohesion, environment) were set up. It was agreed upon that the European Commission should annually prepare progress reports in order to evaluate the progress the Member States have made in achieving the Lisbon goals. In its mid-term review in 2005, the European Commission concluded that the implementation of reforms in line with the Lisbon Strategy had in many areas been too slow. In particular, the growth performance of the past five years had been disappointing, particularly as compared to other regions of the world economy such as the US and certain Asian economies. Therefore, the Lisbon Strategy was revised, focussing on growth and the creation of employment (European Commission, 2005 and 2006).KeywordsTotal Factor ProductivityEuro AreaTotal Factor Productivity GrowthLabour Market RegulationLabour Market InstitutionThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Since the beginnings of 1957, the European Union has always been aimed at promoting the development and cohesion of the Member States. Competitiveness as well as sustainable development have therefore long been focal points among strategic goals of the European Union. These goals were therefore documented in some strategies, namely European Single Market programme, the Lisbon Strategy and the Europe 2020. The Lisbon Strategy was aimed at turning the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion by 2010. However, it was obvious that the Lisbon goals have not been achieved and a new strategy, Europe 2020, was hence initiated. Many Lithuanian and foreign authors analyzed (Tamosiuniene et al., 2007; Daugeliene, 2008; Grybaite, Tvaronaviciene, 2008; Melnikas, 2008; Tvaronaviciene et al., 2008; Martinkus et al., 2009; Kirch, 2010; Balezentis et al., 2010) the situation of Lithuania and other Baltic states in a global economic system during the processes of globalization and European Union (EU) integration. However, the need for the evaluation of the Lisbon Strategy's outcomes and proposal of guidelines for ongoing strategy Europe 2020 is still topical. Hence this study focuses on the improvement of the open method of co­ordination and thus the implementation of strategy Europe 2020 by integrating quantitative methods with respect to the experience gained during the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. This study is aimed at proposing a framework for a strategic management model dedicated to successful implementation of the new strategy Europe 2020. This article is organized in four sections according to the following tasks defined in order to achieve the aim: 1) to overview main the strategies dedicated to promoting competitiveness of the European Union, namely the Lisbon Strategy and strategy Europe 2020; 2) to assess efforts of the EU Member States in seeking Lisbon goals applying multi-criteria evaluation method MULTIMOORA; 3) to evaluate reliability of selected structural indicators applying multiple correspondence analysis; and 4) to summarize the proposed guidelines for the new strategy Europe 2020 according to the results of this study and other works. The novelty of this study lies in the fact that it introduces the application of multi-criteria decision making methods in EU policy making procedures. Multi-criteria evaluation method MULTIMOORA as well as multiple correspondence analysis were the most important methods of the research. Analysis of EU Member States performance in the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy resulted in describing three groups of states and structural indicators: high performance group, medium performance group, and low performance group. Moreover, indicators of youth education attainment level, business investment and employment rate of older workers, are not highly correlated with economic performance of certain Member States and therefore can be regulated uniformly at the European level. These findings can be considered as the premises for successful EU-level targets translation into those for certain groups of countries. The synthesis of proposals for target-setting and transformation methodology resulted in framework for strategic management model dedicated to successful implementation of strategy Europe 2020. The model should encompass: 1) selection of targets for the EU, certain groups of states and separate Member States; 2) mutual learning enabling to transfer the best practice among member States; 3) development of appropriate structural indicators, equally identifying all dimensions of sustainable development; 4) benchmarking (selectonovation) principles applied for an effective distribution of EU support among Member States. Multi-criteria methods (e. g. MULTIMOORA) can be successfully applied in such benchmarking.http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.3.517

The Lisbon Strategy was launched in 2000 with a view to achieving the ten-year goal for the Union to ‘become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’ (European Council, 2000: par.5). This ambition was justified by the enthusiasm at the time for the booming high-tech market and a good EU economic performance. The resulting strategy was a wide-ranging programme combining policies in different domains (economic, social and environmental), to be adopted and implemented at different governance levels (European, national, regional) through a variety of policy tools (legislation, policy coordination, budgetary credits) (European Central Bank, 2005a). In breadth, scope and method the strategy does not compare to any programme of action launched by the EU in the past, like the single market project or the Maastricht process, which had a clearer focus and ‘harder’ tools at their disposal.

This study analyzes the innovative potential of the European Union in the context of the European Research Area (ERA). Literature related to the Systems of Innovation, network studies, Framework Programs and the European Research Area will be used to establish a theoretical framework for policy analysis. It forms a database from three different resources to establish a European Research and Innovation Network, which appears as a result of policy and program implementation at the European level. The evaluation of the European Union's innovative potential is discussed for developing policy recommendations, which are derived from theoretical arguments as well as analytical studies, based on network analysis and the notion of entropy. The implementation of a relatively simple rule by the European Commission, in addition to policies focusing on the development of countries' diversity and absorptive capacity, which are structural breakdowns, may make an important contribution to improving cohesion and competition within the European Research Area, as well innovation in the European Union.

Traditionally, the Framework Programme has been a synonym for European research policy. European governance of research was for decades based on competition between researchers, research organisations and industry for research funding that was more or less exclusively organised by the Framework Programme. With the introduction of the political concept and – subsequently – the normative goal of Article 179 TFEU of creating a European Research Area (ERA) in 2000, a second phase of research governance within the Union started. This also marked a shift in governance modes. This article focuses on the changing European governance of national research policies and research funding. It combines a legal analysis with theoretical insights of governance as an analytical perspective. The central assumption of the chapter is the emergence of a ‘European research administrative space’, drawing on observations made for the development of public administration in the multi-level system of the European Union in general. The shifting forms of executive governance in EU research policy oscillate between the persistence of the traditional modes of direct implementation and new forms of governance, which connect European and national actors in research policy and research funding. Thereby a ‘third layer’ between the European and the national level of governance is created. Within this framework, the governance structures used and established in order to integrate national actors in research policy and research funding in the ERA are analysed. The problems of legitimacy and accountability resulting from these new forms of governance are critically examined. The chapter thereby contributes to the analysis of new governance models emerging in the ERA as well as to the discussion on European governance in general.