The Israeli lobby for Research and Innovation in the European Union. An example of efficient cooperation in the European Neighbourhood? Bruges Political Research Papers 49/2015.

Israel figures among the world-leaders in R&D expenditure and has a high-performing scientific community. Since the 1990s it has been associated with the Scientific Policy of the European Union via the European Research Framework Programmes (FP). The cooperation between Israel and the EU in this domain has gradually increased and benefits the scientific communities on both sides. In 2014 the association of Israel to the latest and biggest European FP ever adopted (Horizon 2020) was renewed for the fourth time. Based on all the scientific evidence provided, the elaboration of a European Research Policy can be identified as a highly regulated domain, offering relevant ‘channels of influence’. These channels offer Israel the opportunity to act within the Research Policy system. Being a member of several formal EU bodies in charge of implementing EU Research Policy, Israel is able to introduce its positions effectively. This is accompanied by an outstanding level of activity by Israel in linking concrete EU Research Policy measures to the Israeli Scientific Community at the national level. To carry out this task, Israel relies on an effective organization, which remodels the provided EU structures: European ‘National Contact Points’ (NCPs) are concentrated within the ‘Europe Israel R&D Directorate’ (ISERD). ISERD connects efficiently all the relevant actors, forums and phases of EU-Israeli Research Policy. ISERD can be recognized as being at the heart of Israel's research cooperation with the EU, and its structure may be a source of in

A Roadmap for Strengthening International Collaboration in Research and Innovation under Horizon 2020. EU Center Singapore Background Brief No. 9, May 2013

This  background  brief  looks  into  the  new  research  and  innovation  strategy  introduced  by  the  European  Union  embodied in the Horizon 2020 funding programme. It focuses  on the  prospect  for  international  collaboration  in  Horizon  2020, and presents a roadmap for both European institutions  and  those  from  key  third  countries  to  get  ready  for  the  opportunities provided by this funding instrument to embark  on interesting research and innovation. The brief begins by  outlining the efforts by the EU to address issues of economic  competitiveness with a new growth strategy Europe 2020 in  response to the enormous challenges faced by Europe in the  midst of the debt  crisis. It looks at the introduction of the  Innovation Union  as  a  Europe 2020  initiative,  and  explains  how the  new  financial  instrument,  Horizon  2020,  may  be  used to support the primary goals   of more jobs, improved  lives,  better  society  and  the  global  competitiveness  of  Europe.  The  brief  also  outlines  the  major  differences  of  Horizon 2020 from the previous framework programmes, and  recommends close collaboration between the European and  the key third countries. The brief also proposes general and  priority‐specific  strategies  for  national  research  councils,  universities  and  research  institution  to  get  ready  to  participate in the Horizon 2020 programme.  

Matching research and innovation policies in EU countries. Bruegel Working Paper 2015/16, December 2015

The European Union has prioritised the pursuit of innovation based growth and targeting of resources to promote research and development, but performance on innovation remains weak.With the lack of results comes fatigue, waning interest and mounting criticism about policy. Should the EU abandon its ambition to become the most innovative region in the world?We examine EU member state research and innovation policies. We assess whether the deployment of innovation policy instruments in EU countries matches their innovation capacity performance relative to other EU countries.We find a relative homogeneity of policy mixes in EU countries, despite the fairly wide and stable differences in their innovation capacities.Our analysis therefore provides a rationale for a more comprehensive review of innovation policy mixes to assess their adequacy in addressing country specific innovation challenges.

The European Union’s growing innovation divide. Bruegel Policy Contribution Issue 2016/08 April 2016

There is a significant divide between the European Union countries with the greatest capacity to innovate, and those with the least capacity to innovate. The difficult convergence process has been proceeding only very slowly and unevenly, and more recently seems to have come to a halt. A particular weak spot for the EU is corporate investment in research; in this area, the intra-EU divide is growing. As the business sector is responsible for the persistent R&D intensity gap between the EU and the United States and Asia, the persistent failure of lagging EU countries to catch up in this area provides much of the explanation for the EU’s weak performance compared to other economies. The evidence shows that the deployment of public budgets and the mix of policies employed by EU member states have tended to aggravate the intra-EU divide. The EU needs to better understand its growing internal innovation divide if it is to achieve its ambition of becoming a world innovation leader.

Information Guide: Research and Development

A guide to the European Union’s R&D Policy, with hyperlinks to sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites

La Méditerranée en 2020 et son Rôle dans le Réseau Energétigue Européen, Résumé et conclusions. May 1994

None.

Strategic knowledge serendipity and arbitrage & intellectual venture capitalists: An emerging breed of knowledge entrepreneurs; and Part II: Global and Local (GloCal) knowledge logistics for innovation and competitiveness. ACES Working Papers, August 2009

Strategic Knowledge: While entrepreneurship may occur as a natural result of personal drive, it occurs most often, most robustly and is most sustainable in an environment designed to encourage it. Potential entrepreneurs become active entrepreneurs when the conditions are most supportive of their commercial opportunities and their business thus helping channel the two key qualities they exhibit as individuals obsessed maniacs and clairvoyant oracles (Carayannis, GWU Lectures, 2000-2005) and (Carayannis et at, 2003a) towards the generation of sustainable wealth. So far, entrepreneurial scholars who turn into intellectual venture capitalists by founding knowledge-driven companies remain one of the least explored specie in the territory of entrepreneurship. GloCal: The increasing engagement of firms within global knowledge and production networks and their ability to source knowledge globally as well as locally (GloCally), for the development of innovation capacities will shape the future of UK's knowledge resources and its role in the global economy. Practices such as off-shoring R&D activities are widely adopted, creating challenging, and not very well understood, issues related to cross-country and inter-firm knowledge and technology flows. We seek to address the internationalisation and networking of research and innovation activities, including the roles and strategies of enterprises, universities, research centres, governments in a cross-country and inter-sectoral way, to assess the impact and the implications for sustaining and enhancing the competitiveness of UK firms and other British knowledge producers and users.

Global and local (GloCal) knowledge logistics for innovation and competitiveness. ACES Working Papers, August 2010

The increasing engagement of firms within global knowledge and production networks and their ability to source knowledge globally as well as locally (GloCally), for the development of innovation capacities will shape the future of UK's knowledge resources and its role in the global economy. Practices such as off-shoring R&D activities are widely adopted, creating challenging, and not very well understood, issues related to cross-country and inter-firm knowledge and technology flows. We seek to address the internationalisation and networking of research and innovation activities, including the roles and strategies of enterprises, universities, research centres, governments in a cross-country and inter-sectoral way, to assess the impact and the implications for sustaining and enhancing the competitiveness of UK firms and other British knowledge producers and users.

Regulatory Gaps in the Global Governance of Synthetic Biology. IES Policy Brief Issue 2014/11 • December 2014

Summary. Synthetic biology is an emerging technology with potentially far-reaching benefits and risks. As a cross-cutting issue, different aspects of synthetic biology fall within the scope of different international agreements. Contemporary biosafety and biosecurity frameworks are characterized by important regulatory gaps which policy makers need to address to minimize risks that may arise in the future both from commercial use and weaponization. In some cases, this may require formal treaty amendments, whereas others can possibly be resolved at lower levels, for instance through interpretive statements of treaties’ decision-making bodies.

On Incentives in Technology Policymaking: What the EU Can Learn from U.S. Developments. CES Germany & Europe Working Papers, No. 07.7, 1997

This paper explores the incentives political and bureaucratic actors face in the institutional setting of EU technology policy. In examining the implications and assumptions of neoclassical and evolutionary theories of technological change, it tries to answer why certain theories do not obtain importance in the political wor1d. By focusing on the positive approach to policymaking, the paper examines why policy learning does not occur m certain institutional settings. In referring to EU technology programs, I show which conceptual and functional shortcomings limit the policies in question. As evaluation and oversight mechanisms have not been sufficiently developed and accepted within the institutional setting, there is much room for inefficiency. I discuss this setting within a simple agency model using two political actors and two firms performing R&D. It is easy to show that when asymmetric information applies, the firms receive positive rents and the political agent gains reputation. The outcome suggests changing the evaluation practices and embedding results in political decision making. Regarding this point, recent U.S. developments seem to have led to more efficiency. Moreover, the paper suggests delegating technology policy to other actors and discussing the empowerment of different principals on the political plane.

Getting the most from public R&D spending in times of budgetary austerity. Bruegel Working Paper 2016/01, February 2016

This working paper reviews the evidence on the impact of public R&D spending. The authors first look at the evidence from micro-analysis of the impact of public intervention on private R&D and innovation, with a focus on the latest results from crosscountry micro-research performed within SIMPATIC. To analyse the impact of public R&D on growth, the micro-results on private R&D investment effects are complemented with a macro-perspective. To this end, the authors look at how public R&D performs in affecting GDP growth and jobs in applied macro-models most commonly used in EU policy analysis. They focus particularly on the NEMESIS model in development within the SIMPATIC project. The authors conclude with some policy recommendations from the reviewed micro and macro SIMPATIC evidence for designing public R&D projects and programmes.