Matera Seminar ESPON 2.1.2 The territorial impacts of EU R&D policy ECOTEC, MERIT,Cardiff University, MCRIT, Taurus, Politecnico di Milano.

Matera Seminar

ESPON 2.1.2 The territorial impacts

of EU R&D policy

ECOTEC, MERIT,Cardiff University, MCRIT, Taurus, Politecnico di Milano

Structure

• Main findings– Typology of regions– Spatial distribution of Framework

Programmes– Spatial patterns of Structural Fund

activity

• First policy recommendations• Challenges for the next phase

Regional Indicators

• R&D indicators– Expenditure– Personnel

• Innovation indicators– Educational attainment– Workforce in high or medium tech

employment

R&D expenditure

Regional typology Type Description Type 1 High R&D capacity and high

innovation capacity Type 2 High R&D capacity but low or

medium innovation capacity Type 3 Low or medium R&D capacity but

high innovation capacity Type 4 Medium R&D capacity and

medium innovation capacity Type 5 Low R&D capacity and low

innovation capacity

Breakdown

Type Number of territories

%

Type 1 33 21 Type 2 18 11 Type 3 16 10 Type 4 47 29 Type 5 46 29

Regional distribution

Table 2 Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Austria 1 - - 2 6 Germany 12 4 8 13 - Spain 2 - 1 5 9 Finland 4 1 - - - France 4 3 - 9 5 Greece - - - 2 4 Italy - 1 1 4 13 Netherlands 2 5 1 1 3 Portugal - - - - 3 Sweden 3 1 - 1 - UK 4 - 3 5 -

Framework Programme participation

FP and the typology

Table 8.2 - FP5 Participation (per head) Quartiles (1 lowest, 4 highest), by Typlogy Groups

Total1 2 3 4

Type 1 3.0 9.1 21.2 66.7 100Type 2 22.2 5.6 27.8 44.4 100Type 3 31.3 18.8 43.8 6.3 100Type 4 19.6 37.0 32.6 10.9 100Type 5 44.4 35.6 13.3 6.7 100Total 24.5 25.2 25.2 25.2 100

157 Valid CasesPearsons Chi-Square: 0.000 (Significant relationship)

FP5 Participation Quartiles

Structural Funds and R&D

• Some 11bn euros in total planned (2000-2006)

• Varies from .75% (Nl) to 9.91% (L)• Varies by Objective

– Objective 1: 8%– Objective 2: 11%– Objective 3: 0.2%– Objective NA: 5.5%– Total: 8%

National variationsRegional balance of R&D support

Country rangeRegional average

Regional programmes containing FOI code 18

Total number of regional programmes

Belgium 3.9%-19.5% 14.5 6 8Denmark na 14.0 1 1Germany 2.6%-20.9% 6.8 15 17Greece 0.6%-3.7% 1.3 11 13Spain 0.5%-30.9% 4.5 17 19France 0.7%-22.3% 5.8 27 27Ireland na 1.2 1 2Italy 0.1%-8.7% 2.2 19 21Luxembourg na 22.0 1 1Netherlands 1.5%-5.2% 2.6 4 4Austria 7.8%-23.7% 14.5 9 9Portugal 0.6%-2.0% 1.3 7 7Finland 12.6%-16.4% 14.5 4 5Sweden 2.0%-20.5% 13.5 5 6United Kingdom 1.0%-10.7% 6.3 18 20

Next steps

• Complete Structural Funds assessment, through linking to typology

• Complete analysis of Case Study work to assess nature of EU supported R&D policy interventions

Conclusions• Regional disparities in R&D capacity clearly

exist• Participation in Framework programmes reflects

this capacity, although a small cohesion effect appears to be present

• A polycentric pattern can be described• Structural Funds reflect cohesion objectives, but

Objective 2 programmes favour R&D more• SF supporting projects aimed at improving R&D

and innovation capacity• There is a low level of support for institution

building

Emerging policy conclusions

• Support for regional innovation systems required if projects are not to merely benefit individual partners

• Participation in FP can avoid regional lock-in and should be encouraged

• No strong evidence of linkages between SF activity and FP participation at this stage – complementarities should be more strongly recognised and encouraged

• Hotspots of R&D and innovation activity present in all member states – provides a strong base on which to build