Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:38:11.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opening European Research to the World: Evidence from International Cooperation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2019

Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt
Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. Email: eks@ps.au.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, the European Union (EU) has intensified efforts to open European research programmes to the world. This paper focuses on the opening of European research to the world by studying the case of the FP7 international cooperation programme. It is based on a mixed-methods approach including analyses of quantitative data, documents and interviews with programme participants, policymakers and other stakeholders involved in 131 EU projects worldwide. The paper identifies features specific to the European international research cooperation scheme and contributes to our understanding of the supranational intervention and its impact on European research integration. Policymakers can use this piece of evidence to formulate enhanced strategies and better design and target activities both within the EU and globally, to achieve stronger, long-lasting research outcomes and effects.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 563 - 584
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References and Notes

Arnold, E. (2012) Understanding long-term impacts of R&D funding: The EU framework programme. Research Evaluation, 21(5), pp. 332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRICS countries are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.Google Scholar
European Commission (2000) Towards a European Research Area. Brussels: COM (2000) 6 final.Google Scholar
Edler, J. (2003) How do economic ideas become relevant in RTD policy making? Lessons from a European case study. In Biegelbauer, P.S. and Borrás, S. (Eds), Innovation Policies in Europe and the US: The New Agenda (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing), pp. 253–284.Google Scholar
Prange-Gstöhl, H. (Ed.) (2010) International Science and Technology Cooperation in a Globalised World: The External Dimension of the European Research Area (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edler, J. and James, A.D. (2015) Understanding the emergence of new science and technology policies: Policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European Framework Programme. Research Policy, 44(6), pp. 1252–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krige, J. and Guzzetti, L. (Eds) (1997) History of European Scientific and Technological Cooperation (Luxembourg: Office of the Official Publication of the European Communities)Google Scholar
Peterson, J. (1995) EU research policy: The politics of expertise. In Rhodes, C., and Mazey, S., (Eds), The State of the European Union, Vol. 3: Building a European Polity? (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner), pp. 391–412.Google Scholar
Grande, E. and Peschke, M. (1999) Transnational cooperation and policy networks in European science policy-making. Research Policy, 28(1), pp. 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citi, M. (2014) Revisiting creeping competences in the EU: The case of security R&D policy. Journal of European Integration, 36(2), pp. 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Princen, S. (2007) Agenda-setting in the European Union: A theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), pp. 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EAV is additional to the value created by actions of individual member states. It may result from different factors, e.g. coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities. It reflects broader European relevance and significance of an action with a view of presenting models and mechanisms which can be applied not only regionally or nationally, but also EU-wide. See http://ec.europa.eu/chafea/documents/health/hp-factsheets/added-value/factsheets-hp-av_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Lavenex, S. and Schimmelfennig, F. (2009) EU rules beyond EU borders: Theorizing external governance in European Politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), pp. 791–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. (1996) The European Union and a changing Europe: Establishing the boundaries of order. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(1), pp. 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayntz, R. (2005) Governance Theory als fortenwickelte Steuerungsttheorie? In Schuppert, G.F. (Ed.), Governance-Forschung: Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien (Baden-Baden: Nomos), pp. 11–20.Google Scholar
In this context, Mediterranean countries include Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestine, Tunisia and Turkey.Google Scholar
Eastern Partnership countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.Google Scholar
Abbott, K.W., Keohane, R.O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M. and Snidal, D. (2000) The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), pp. 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavenex, S., Lehmkuhl, D. and Wichmann, N. (2009) Modes of external governance: A cross-national and cross-sectoral comparison. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), pp. 813–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavenex, S. (2004) EU external governance in ‘wider Europe’. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), pp. 680–700.Google Scholar
Princen, S. (2011) Agenda-setting strategies in EU policy processes. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), pp. 927–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochefort, D.A. and Cobb, R.W. (Eds) (1994) The Politics of Problem Definition. Shaping the Policy Agenda (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas).Google Scholar
Vanhoonacker, S. and Pomorska, K. (2013) The European External Action Service and agenda-setting in European foreign policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9), pp. 1316–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Héritier, A. (2002) New modes of governance in Europe: Policy-making without legislating? In Héritier, A. (Ed.), Common Goods: Reinventing European and International Governance (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield), pp. 185–206.Google Scholar
Tallberg, J. (2003) The agenda-shaping powers of EU Council presidency. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(7), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Kelly, B.D. (2008) The emerging mental health strategy of the European Union: A multi-level work-in-progress. Health Policy, 85(1), pp. 60–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delaney, D. and Leitner, H. (1997) The political construction of scale. Political Geography, 16(2), pp. 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, 2nd edn (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications).Google Scholar
Bloch, C., Sørensen, M.P., Graversen, E.K., Schneider, J.W., Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., Aagaard, K. and Mejlgaard, N. (2014) Developing a methodology to assess the impact of research grant funding – a mixed methods approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 43, pp. 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, N.L. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2009) A typology of mixed methods research design. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), pp. 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2001) The International Dimension of ERA, Brussels: COM (2001) 346 final.Google Scholar
Arnold, E., Clark, J. and Muscio, A. (2005) What the evaluation record tells us about European Union Framework Programme performance. Science and Public Policy, 32(5), pp. 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2008) A Strategic European Framework for International Science and Technology Cooperation, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Brussels: COM (2008) 588 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2007) A new approach to International S&T Cooperation in the EU’s 7th Framework Programme (2007–2013). Brussels: SEC (2007) 47.Google Scholar
Industrialized countries are Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.Google Scholar
Vullings, W., Arnold, E., Boekholt, P., Horvat, M., Mostert, B., and Rijnders, M.-Nagle (Eds) (2014) European Added-Value of EU Science, Technology and Innovation Actions and EU-Member State Partnership in International Cooperation (Brussels: European Commission).Google Scholar
The INCONET activity supported bi-regional coordination with strategic regions that are key to EU foreign policy and external relations, including Africa, Latin and Central America, the ASEAN group, the Arab Gulf, the Pacific, and the Western Balkans. Similarly, the BILAT activity reflected ongoing scientific and political priorities in the engagement with individual countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Ukraine and the United States). The ERAWIDE activity enlisted participation with the European neighbouring countries central to EU foreign policy.Google Scholar
Stephenson, P.J. (2012) Image and venue as factors mediating latent spillover pressure for agenda-setting change. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(6), pp. 796–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2012) A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth. Brussels: COM (2012) 392 final.Google Scholar
Royal Society (2010) New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy. Negotiating the Changing Balance of Power (London: Royal Society).Google Scholar
Hormats, R.D. (2012) Science diplomacy and twenty-first century statecraft. Science & Diplomacy, 1(1). www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/science-diplomacy-and-twenty-first-century-statecraft Google Scholar
Leshner, A. (2014) The partnership of scientists and diplomats. Science & Diplomacy, 3(4). www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2014/partnership-scientists-and-diplomats Google Scholar
Turekian, V.C. and Wang, T.C. (2014) Educating for science diplomacy. Science & Diplomacy, 3(1). www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2014/educating-for-science-diplomacy Google Scholar
Holt, R. (2015) Scientific drivers for diplomacy. Science & Diplomacy, 4(2). www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2015/scientific-drivers-for-diplomacy Google Scholar
Turekian, V.C. (2015) Evolving institutions for twenty-first century (science) diplomacy. Science & Diplomacy, 4(2). www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2015/evolving-institutions-for-twenty-first-century-science-diplomacy Google Scholar
Richardson, J.J. (1996) Policy-making in the EU: Interests, ideas and garbage cans of primeval soup. In Richardson, J.J. (Ed.), European Union, Power and Policy-Making (London: Routledge), pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Borrás, S. (2009) The politics of the Lisbon Strategy: The changing role of the commission. West European Politics, 32(1), pp. 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M.W. (2008) Diffuse anxieties, deprived entrepreneurs: Commission reform and middle management. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5), pp. 691–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fikkers, D.J. and Horvat, M. (Eds) (2014) Basic Principles for effective International Science, Technology and Innovation Agreements (Brussels: European Commission).Google Scholar
Rosamond, B. (2000) Theories of European Integration (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, F. and Rittberger, B. (2006) Theories of European integration. Assumptions and hypotheses. In Richardson, J.J. (Ed.), European Union, Power and Policy-Making, 3rd edn (Abingdon: Routledge), pp. 74–95.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.J. (1994) EU water policy: Uncertain agendas, shifting networks and complex coalitions. Environmental Politics, 3(4), pp. 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radaelli, C.M. (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 2(2), pp. 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, P.J. (2010) Let’s get physical: The European Commission and cultivated spillover in completing the single market’s transport infrastructure. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(7), pp. 1039–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemann, A. and Schmitter, P.C. (2009) Neofunctionalism. In Wiener, A., and Diez, T. (Eds), European Integration Theory, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 45–66.Google Scholar
Bauer, M.W. (2006) Co-managing programme implementation: Conceptualizing the European Commission’s role in policy execution. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), pp. 717–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEVCO is the EC’s Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development responsible for designing European international cooperation and development policy and delivering aid.Google Scholar