Could targeting greater hub interconnectivity and a coherent tech monitoring assessment be the solution to Europe lagging behind in technological developments?
The first week of June saw an incredibly active Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: a series of publications focused, among other things, on the fragmented nature of the European research and innovation (R&I) landscape. While the findings suggest that the EU is lagging behind global players like the US and China in terms of technological developments, the publications provide valuable insights and recommendations on how the EU can (re)gain its competitive edge.
The paper ‘Divided we fall behind – Why a fragmented EU cannot compete in complex technologies‘ analyses the competitiveness costs of R&I fragmentation, using hub connectivity as a key metric. Using the number of joint research papers and patents produced to measure the degree to which major R&I centres collaborate and share knowledge, three crucial findings are revealed: (1) Europe’s R&I system is much more fragmented than the US one, “with major European hubs showing weaker interconnectivity than their US counterparts”; (2) hub connectivity is crucial for complex technologies, including AI, biotechnology, and quantum computing; and (3) the efficiency gap between the US and Europe is greatest in complex technologies, creating a substantial competitive disadvantage in strategic sectors for the EU. These findings thus demonstrate an urgent need for targeted interventions to enhance cross-regional R&I collaboration in complex technological domains, which should be reflected in European R&I policies and funding opportunities; it would be timely for policymakers to take this into account in the context of the ongoing framework programme (FP10) discussions. Furthermore, the empirical tool used in the study can support policymakers in monitoring the effectiveness of initiatives targeting cross-regional collaborations and developing strategies aimed at more cohesive R&I across regions. However, only engaging with the aforementioned policy implications of the findings is insufficient to maintain European competitiveness; deeper structural reforms are needed to successfully navigate an increasingly technological landscape.
Another contributor to the EU lagging behind the US and China in technological developments is the EU’s inability to anticipate and monitor technology effectively. The policy brief ‘Technology Monitoring and Assessment – Comparing EU, US and Chinese approaches‘ finds that while the EU currently lacks a systemic technology monitoring function comparable to the global players, there is still hope: the Brief provides insights into a strong technology and monitoring assessment (TMA) approach and recommendations on how to transform the EU TMA system into a distinct advantage in the competition for global innovation leadership.
The speed of technological evolutions necessitates an effective governance around technology monitoring and anticipation that allows for timely policy responses. An integrated and systematic TMA would be of great added value for anticipatory European policies, as demonstrated by the US and China. Not only can competitors be anticipated but such an approach also explains future innovation dynamics to policymakers, allows for policies in different areas to be aligned in a complementary manner, and enables entrepreneurship by, for example, recognising early breakthrough innovation or identifying good investment opportunities. However, for the aforementioned added value to be realised, certain features must be in place. The usability of TMA should, it is suggested, be maximised by providing decision makers with understandable interpretations of the gathered information, ensuring that these outputs will actually be used in policy making. Additionally, participation mechanisms for a diverse range of stakeholders should exist, so that social, economic, environmental, and ethical aspects of a technology emergence, development, or deployment are considered as well. Important also, is to ensure that TMA is done continuously over a prolonged period of time; potential impacts of emerging technologies may not be apparent in the short term, and it is thus critical to consider the medium- and long-term potential effects.
However, the EU’s approach currently faces structural and methodological challenges, primarily driven by fragmentation, hindering its ability to become a leader in emerging technological fields. For example, different initiatives exist within the Commission and Parliament, but these are neither centralised nor embedded within the EU’s policy cycles. In addition to incorporating the elements of a successful TMA, the EU should, therefore, collaborate with Member States to develop a coordinated, centralised TMA to anticipate future developments. Moreover, an organisational structure that is dedicated to collecting and analysing data and information, but also pushing TMA outputs into the EU’s policy cycles would increase the likelihood that developments will inform decision-making on topics such as the framework programmes, before the technologies fully emerge. However, for the benefits of this structural change to materialise, the EU must also address the current problem concerning who TMA outputs actually reach; while US and Chinese TMA structures directly inform policymakers at the highest level, the TMA audience in Europe is at the working or middle manager (hierarchical) level. This makes it particularly challenging to incorporate new knowledge into policy quickly. It is thus critical that any centralised structure has access to the highest level, and that information gathered forms part of the policy circuits.
Targeted interventions aimed at strategic hub integration and an efficient approach to anticipating and monitoring technology are crucial for Europe to compete with global players in technological developments. While the EU currently lags behind the US and China, addressing fragmentation in different areas of the R&I landscape will support the Union’s strategic goals of competitiveness, security, and sovereignty.