3 EU’s Framework Programme for RTD in context
3.3 Major perspectives in EU’s framework programmes in relation to Norwegian RTD-
Assessment of the major perspectives in the EU FPs compared to Norwegian policy has to be on a general or strategic level, taking into account the fact that the FP perspectives have changed over time. In chapter 6, the question of synergies and interaction between
Norwegian policy and 5FP will be a major topic.
Summing up this development, it is fair to characterize the different FPs in the following way:
• 1FP and 2FP were oriented towards new industries and a framework for a dialogue with industry;
• 3FP was developed into support for technology platforms as generic support for industry
EU’s Framework Programme for RTD in context
Major perspectives in EU’s framework programmes in relation to Norwegian RTD-policy
• 4FP was conceived as enhancing the internal market and growth through technology
• 5FP was reconceptualized to support knowledge production to meet key social objectives (problem-solving)
• 6FP was again revised to support excellence and research capacity and the competitive position of the research community vis a vis US and Japan
The following key issues seem to form the baseline of FP perspectives compared to Norwegian R&D policy:
Generic areas vs national specialization
The EU FPs have in general been focussed on developing selected areas for technological development for the European industry. This has taken place through activities such as technology platforms, work on standardization etc. This means also that the priorities of the FPs over time have been based on the principle of the common denominator, i.e.
selecting areas in which the European Community have met identifiable challenges and needed concerted action to remain competitive. Although the process of prioritization is indeed one of negotiation, the outcomes should still be viewed as a set of priorities that are basically generic areas, i.e. areas for R&D that serve the function of joint knowledge bases.
Hence,areas of national specialization do not fit in to this pattern, like the Norwegian interest in petroleum research. The implication of this would be that in the communication of Norwegian priorities to the FP process, there should be a conscious distinction between those areas in which Norway will invest in a European context, and those areas where it is more rational to undertaken national research aimed at building national economic
specialisation, if possible in a bilateral or multilateral mode.
Level of integration between technological R&D and social science research
The Norwegian tradition has been to keep these quite separated, both institutionally and operationally. Having a national focus, the Norwegian investments in social sciences or socio-economic research are relatively higher than in the EU FP-system. The early FPs had virtually no socio-economic research, except for serving as support activities for
developing R&D policy. However, more recently, socio-economic research has gained in momentum, and serves not only to address key EU policy areas, but also inter- or
multidisciplinary problem areas across the FPs. This was especially the case in the 5FP, where socio-economic research was given high priority due to the legitimacy crisis created by the aftermath of the Maastricht treaty.
Both within the Commission as well as outside (e.g. in the Programme Committees), promoters of socio-economic research in the framework programmes managed to defend an important role for socio-economic research. First of all, although placed in a horizontal programme (Improving Human Potential), it received the status of key action. This meant that socio-economic research should be seen as an ordinary R&D activity together with the other key actions of the first line of the FP.
Major perspectives in EU’s framework programmes in relation to Norwegian RTD-policy
Socio-economic research has increasingly been recognized as important for the implementation of the other key actions that were often more technological in nature.
Hence, all other programme activities are encouraged to include significant elements of socio-economic research, and therefore help promote inter- or multi-discplinarity in the over all 5FP. Ranging from 2 to 35 % of the various key actions’ budget, the amount of socio-economic research in the thematic programmes was at one point in time assessed to be more than 400 MECU or Euro. The corresponding number for the horizontal
programmes was 379 MECU. In sum, socio-economic research activities were assessed to represent funding requirements of some 800 MECU, including the 165 MECU for
”Improving the Socio-economic Knowledge Base” (Remøe 1999). This also illustrates the increased priority given to multi-disciplinarity in the 5FP. On the other hand, it also illustrates how wider policy concerns were integrated into the 5FP on a broad basis, a process that called for contributions from socio-economic research. For Norwegian social science research, participation in the EU’s FP seems to have contributed to a higher degree of inter- and multidisciplinarity.
Trans-national collaboration and research types
A feature of major importance in the EU FPs has been trans-national research collaboration to help generate support for the internal market, in fact an internal knowledge market of the EU. Believing that this will promote dynamic knowledge flows, it serves the function of providing the network linkages with national R&D programmes and instruments. But trans-national research collaboration should be seen mostly as an innovation policy feature of the programmes, aimed at creating interactivity and links between innovators to the core of the FPs rationale.
This is different in Norway, as there is little attention to institutionalized systems of trans-national R&D collaboration outside the FPs. On the other hand, research collaboration has a key role in the Norwegian R&D policy through e.g. user oriented R&D, which contains incentives for collaboration in particular between firms and R&D institutions in Norway.
A related difference between the EU/FP and Norwegian orientations is EU’s attempts to integrate activities like basic research, technological development and innovation in coherent, multidisciplinary programmes related to key social or EU level priorities. As the priorities change over time, so do the objectives and rationales for the programmes. This is less so in the Norwegian context, where innovation is less coupled with basic research and where targeting and priority setting are weakly coupled with national, long term priorities for economic and social development (see also chapters 5 and 6).
Concentration and focus
Related to some of the points above it seems fair to say that while the EU FPs have gone through a development of concentration and tighter focus on selected areas of high priority, evident in key actions in the 5FP, the Norwegian R&D portfolio remains fragmented.
EU’s Framework Programme for RTD in context
Major perspectives in EU’s framework programmes in relation to Norwegian RTD-policy
Although it is true that concentration of themes in the 5FP sometimes implied relabeling than real concentration, a visible communication on priorities is still a key part of the FPs.
This comparison amplifies the need to critically assess to which extent the Norwegian policy is sufficiently prioritised and what should be prioritised in the participation in the FPs. This is all the more the case as the FP, and more generally the EU R&D policy, is about to change dramatically, implying a great need to reconfigure main priorities for Norwegian R&D policy and rationales for international collaboration. As this is currently going on in the context of a reorganisation of the research council, it is recommended to give serious attention to a double strategy:
• First, to develop a vigorous platform for collaboration in the generic research areas of the EU, and
• Second, do the same for those areas that reflect a national economic specialisation that the EU will not include directly.