A working paper on knowledge networks in the framework programmes finds a persisting difference in participation between Widening and non-Widening countries.
International collaboration networks are important in the R&I sector as they have a positive impact on innovation and knowledge generation. A recent working paper from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD) examines how the knowledge networks of countries participating in the European Research Framework Programmes have evolved. The report specifically addresses how so-called ‘Widening countries’ collaborate internationally in comparison with their ‘non-Widening’ counterparts. The analysed data cover the current framework programme (Horizon Europe) as well as the previous two (FP7 and Horizon 2020). The paper complements a study on Excellent Science which was already published last year (see SwissCore article) and is part of the mid-term evaluation of Horizon Europe.
The category ‘Widening countries’ was introduced by the European Commission for countries with low participation rates in FP7 and Horizon 2020 (H2020). Among EU member states, the Widening countries include Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Luxembourg was part of the Widening group in FP7 but not in H2020, while Greece was added only in H2020. Additionally, all Associated Countries (in FP7) or all Associated Countries with equivalent characteristics in terms of R&I performance (in H2020), as well as the Outermost Regions (in H2020), are also considered to be Widening countries. The Widening category has now also been used by the authors of the paper to analyse the extent to which these countries were part of the knowledge networks that the framework programmes create. To do so, they used the available monitoring data. Some selected findings from the paper on how Widening and non-Widening countries participate in collaboration networks are highlighted in the following.
At a general level, the data shows that countries with lower participation in the framework programmes also participate less in the knowledge networks these programmes create. In contrast to this, there are big EU non-Widening countries, like Germany and Spain, that form constant, central ‘nodes’ within the network across all framework programmes. However, there are some Widening countries that show a noteworthy increase in network participation between FP7 and Horizon Europe. According to the authors, one explanation for this could be that the EU’s Widening participation policy has borne fruit. The aim of these policies was to improve research capacity in Widening countries. Such an increase between FP7 and Horizon Europe could be observed in Greece, Portugal and Slovenia. Nevertheless, there are Widening EU member states where no such significant upward trend can yet be observed, such as Bulgaria, Poland and Romania. For Hungary, there has even been a decrease in participation in collaborative networks. The authors see a potential to build on the trend of an increasing collaboration among Widening countries to also increase collaboration with non-Widening countries. For example, as an increase in collaboration between Bulgaria and Romania was observed, the report suggests that Greece might serve “as a bridge to the core of the network” which “could benefit all three countries”.
The report also asks how the properties of the collaboration networks have developed over the different framework programmes. As part of their network analysis, the authors were able to determine that the network as a whole has expanded in terms of its connectivity and collaborative activities. However, they were also able to observe that the data on the current framework programme, Horizon Europe, suggests a strengthening of regional collaboration patterns. Geographical distance thus seems to remain a relevant factor in collaboration – and therefore also a possible obstacle to strengthening collaboration between Widening and non-Widening countries. At the same time, the paper identifies the trend that the proportion of collaborations that non-Widening countries share with Widening countries has increased steadily over the years. This indicates an opening of non-Widening countries to Widening countries.
Network participation also seems to depend on political factors, as the example of the UK seems to suggest. For the UK, which was recently associated with Horizon Europe, the analysis shows a decrease in participation share across the three research programmes. Brexit and the resulting renegotiations for participation in the research framework programme could be an explanation for this, according to the authors.
The report also looked at how so-called hubs – organisations that are particularly influential in the network – are distributed between Widening and non-Widening countries. Hubs are not only connected with many other organisations, but also with organisations that are themselves influential and connected with many other organisations. Such network hubs therefore occupy a particularly influential position in the network. The analysis shows that the majority of hubs are located in Widening countries (with the following distribution of hubs for Widening compared to non-Widening countries: 67/414 for FP7, 88/504 for Horizon 2020, and 47/214 for Horizon Europe).
What form research funding specifically for R&I integration of Widening countries will take in the future, and how this funding will relate to other instruments of the framework programme, is currently up in the air. The publication of the proposal for the next framework programme, FP10, is expected for this year. It will show whether the European Commission will stick to its current Widening policy strategies. The interim evaluation of Horizon Europe will play a key role in this respect as it serves as a point of reference for the architecture of the coming framework programme. Against this background, the timing of the analyses presented in this supporting paper seems particularly relevant. Switzerland also supports the capacity building of newer members of the EU with dedicated instruments for research and innovation, such as MAPS and Promys (see SwissCore article).