Comparison of scientific and technological policies of the Community Member States

European Commission Directorate-General For The Information Society And Media Directorate-General For Research And Innovation

Informations

• Publié par: EUROPEAN-COMMISSION-DIRECTORATE-GENERAL-FOR-THE-INFORMATION-SOCIETY-AND-MEDIA-DI
• Nombre de lectures: 5
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Commission of the European Communities
CREST
Comparison of scientific and technological policies
of the Community Member States
The European scientific and
technological 'space' in the
international context.
Resources and conditions for
Community competitiveness
COPOL 88 Commission of the European Communities
CREST
Comparison of scientific and technological policies
of the Community Member States
The European scientific and
technological 'space' in the
international context.
Resources and conditions for
Community competitiveness
COPOL 88
Working paper prepared by
P. Bartoli
Contract No PSS*0008/F
PARÍ, rr ?. D;í»ioth.
Directorate-General *, c
Science, Research and Dev< lopmenţ
CL 7
1989 FUR 1­1879 PN, Published by the
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Directorate-General
Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation
Bâtiment Jean Monnet
L-2920 Luxembourg
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the Commission of the European Communities nor any person acting
on behalf of then is responsible for the use which might be made of
the following information
This publication is also available in the following language:
FR ISBN 92-825-9267-7
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1989
ISBN 92-825-9297-9 Catalogue number: CD-NA-11872-EN-C
© ECSC-EEC-EAEC, Brussels • Luxembourg, 1989
Printed in the FR of Germany SUMMARY
In preparation for the fifth COPOL meeting it was considered
that a comparative assessment of the S&T potentials of
Europe, the United States and Japan would be useful. In
addition to the quantitative aspect of the measures
implemented, this involves taking into account the
disadvantages of European political parcelling ande
progress made by our partners in increasing the efficiency of
SST systems, in order to determine the extent to which Member
States have been able, both individually and jointly, to
offset these disadvantages in international competition.
With regard to the quantitative aspect of the comparison of
potentials, it is evident that expenditure on R&D activities
in the Member States is still well below that in the United
States, while the lead over Japan has narrowed.
Furthermore, the dynamism of European R&D investment is
lower, as is the priority given to it in economic activity in
general. Lastly, industry's contribution is lower in Europe,
which is a disadvantage in view of the new conditions of S&T
development and the growing need to promote research and
spread technology.
In addition, it is necessary to adjust quantitative
comparisons to Europe's disadvantage on account of the
negative effects of political parcelling on the functioning
of the European S&T space. It is not homogeneous and is
therefore not as efficient as the national scientific and
technical spaces of Japan ande United States : there is
less fluidity in scientific exchanges, the actions of
companies come up against national barriers and there is only
partial synergy of public action. with foreign partners, and it should not be long before the
European S&T space is included in such operations if recent
initiatives are taken into account.
Finally, practices aimed at valorizing research and spreading
technology are developing rapidly in Japan and are one of the
US public authorities' main priorities and in both are
intended to strengthen the competitiveness of industry.
Faced with their oun disadvantages and the progress made by
their foreign partners, the Member States have taken
initiatives to improve the cohesion of the European S&T
space, ensure better coordination of their assistance and,
further down the line, increase the dynamism of S&T
activities close to the. market.
The organi zati f co ative actio n on large j oint basic on o oper
rese arch or olog devei opmen t projects d the an techn ical
crea tion of rks labora torie s through th F,e e ES netwo of
Coun cil of Eur COST grammes and, finally, t esults he r ope, pro
of t he "St imul " pr mmes ha ve he lped to achi better eve ation ogra
dity e flui in nges. Furt hermore, c oope rative S&T xcha
rammes comp prog of ive re searc h and the la unch ing of pre etit
Eureka the pro e ha een a g reat help in spr eadi ng the gramro ve b
tice prac of re eh thr ougho ut Europe, w here as the joint sear
e of p iona itiativ es is still limit except scop urei ed. y nat 1 in
feu M tes. in a embe r Sta
With regard to S&T activities close to the market, the
venture capital business has developed rapidly during recent
years; however, development is uneven, with the United
Kingdom dominating the market which is compartmentalized
through national limits. Community initiatives leading to the
creation of the EVCA and the drafting of financial
coordination programmes such as Eurotech Capital and Eurotech
Insure are helping to bring together the Measures to support
industrial research are, like the mechanisms to valorize
research and spread technology, numerous and diverse and the
scale and results obtained vary widely between the Member
States. Furthermore, their action is restricted within the
national borders. There is no Community initiative regarding
automatic financial support for industrial research; however,
the SPRINT programme has made it possible for national
organizations involved in the transfer of technology to be
brought together and for the first joint instruments giving
countries access to information on the results of research
and standards to be set up. However, the effect of this
action is limited in view of the need to spread S&T in the
European space.
IV the Community of The synergy of governmental actions in
amental research twelve has been centred on major joint fund
and technological development operations. I t has, moreover,
been intensified through the launching of Community
industrial research programmes and Eureka, It is, however,
absent from the vast domain of S&T activities in defence and
also in the development of national S&T pol icies, both with
regard to the systematic mutual provision o f information or
cooperation concerning the implementati on of specific
measures. INTRODUCTION
Like previous meetings Lhe fourth COPOL meeting entitled "Comparison of
Community and national science policies" gave rise to the preparation of a
positional statement comparing the scientific and technical potentials of
the European countries, the United States and Japan. But unlike previous
reports which were essentially a statistical analysis of the situation,
this one focuses on the qualitative aspects of the S&T systems.
It is not simply a question of changing our point of view to regenerate
interest in this area but we must realise that the organisation of S&T
policies in the member countries has changes since the start of the
1980's. On the one hand, new instruments and practices have been developed
by our partners and returned profits have increased the efficiency of the
S&T potentials.
On the other hand, greater sense of awareness has gradually come about as
to the damaging consequences which policy fragmentation has so far as the
construction of a genuine European S&T "action space" is concerned.
The Community members are currently engaged in a series of cooperative
actions with a view to improving the homogeneity and fluidity in the S&T
area and consequently it is hoped that we will be able to compete at the
same scientific and technical level as the Americans and the Japanese.
Above and beyond a purely quantitative aspects of comparing potentials, it
is necessary to take stock of these two questions.
Hence, the report will be set forth in 3 sections :
The first part consistes of a statistical comparison of potential. This is
deliberately limited to the main aspects and supplemented by a
consideration of the handicaps which arise due to the fragmentation of
Europe. The idea is to arrive at a better understanding of what makes the
European S&T "action space" stand out by comparison with the homogeneous
national entities represented by Japan and the US.
t
The second part is dedicated to a systematic analysis of new instruments
for S&T policies which have been developed in the United States and Japan.
These instruments are in 3 particular fields crucial to the development of
economic competition which is the principal objective of Governments
today: to strengthen the capacity of S&T entreprises, to increase
cooperation in research fields, and to enhance the means of valorizing and
diffusion science and technology.
Naturally, there is no question of claiming to the able to transpose in
any simplistic way mechanisms which were designed for use in differing S&T
systems. What we need to know is how best to learn from them.
The third part takes into account the handicaps incurred by the
fragmentation of Europe a