Countries, cities, regions

Asia-pacific (26)
Austria (131)
Brazil (5)
China (196)
Country (511)
Eu (475)
Germany (222)
Luxembourg (118)
Russia (105)
Spain (297)
Switzerland (95)
Usa (120)

Synopsis: Countries, cities, regions:

Introduction New horizons and challenges for future-oriented technology analysis The 2004 EU US seminarb Fabiana Scapolo European commission Directorate General Joint research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

(DG JRC-IPTS), E-41092 Seville, Spain Received 20 february 2005 The contribution included in this special issue builds on material presented to the first EU US Scientific Seminar

Forecasting and Assessment Methodst that was held in Seville on 13 14 may 2004, organised by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) of European commission's Directorate General Joint research Centre.

Scapolo@cec. eu. int Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1059 1063 The seminar was organised to encourage cross-fertilization along six key issues of relevance for FTA research:

Trends were appearing in terms of focus of countries at different stages of economic development with those countries with lower development levels favouring a socioeconomic focus while those with higher levels of economic development lean towards a techno-economic focus.

research, A-1220 Vienna, Austria Received 28 september 2006; received in revised form 14 march 2007; accepted 1 february 2008 Abstract Adaptive foresight has been developed at the crossroads of foresight and adaptive strategic planning.

At the end of a recent foresight and scenario development process in Austria, dealing with scenarios and options for establishing production consumption chains based on renewable resources,

A similarly linear perspective but from a different angle holds for the critical technologies"studies conducted in the US, in France and The netherlands.

and later on adopted by Germany and other countries are subsumed often under the‘foresight'heading. For our purposes,

however, the distinction between foresight and forecasting is useful. 4 See, for instance, the pioneering work by Best

in Germany in the context of the Futur process 13, and in Hungary 14.466 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 influenced by its results.

8 See in particular the online guide of the EU Forlearn project (http://forlearn. jrc. es/guide/0 home/index. htm),

the first two projects designed according to an embryonic version of the AF approach were ICTRANS16 and the Nordic Hydrogen Energy Foresight. 17 Also the priority-setting approach of the EU-project FISTERA adopted elements

Especially from the perspective of small countries the adaptive element is crucial for devising policy strategies.

and 2005 36.19 This approach was developed in the context of an EU-funded project SNM-T. See for instance 37,25,

38.20 Experiences with the approach of Transition Management have been made in Austria and in particular in The netherlands 39,26, 40.21 At the moment,

two projects are about to be finalised at national 41 and regional level 42 in Austria.

comparative analysis of other countries'practices can be instructive. 3. 2. 9. Phase 8: identification of individual objectives, roles and options As has been discussed above,

The AF approach as outlined in this paper is based on experience from small developed countries. But the basic argument, we contend,

nevertheless applies also to large countries. In a globalised and interdependent economy, not even the largest countries are in a position to fully dominate technoloogica development,

but need to be prepared to respond to unexpected developments. The notion of adaptivity seems also very relevant from the perspective of developing countries that strongly depend on foreign markets and technologies.

While the general process model outlined above may serve as an orientation, the question remains open of how to design AF processes that are in line with the specific situation of a country.

More specific and differentiated guidelines are needed that build on a broader range of practical experiences with the AF approach. 479 E. A. Eriksson,

Principles and general vision by countries), Econ. Ind. 341 (2001) 107 118.4 A. Tübke, K. Ducatel, J. P. Gavigan, P. Moncada-Paternò-Castello, Strategic policy intelligence:

Futur the German research dialogue, Res. Eval. 13 (3)( 2004) 143 153.14 PREST, Evaluation of the Hungarian technology foresight programme (TEP), Report of an International Panel, University of Manchester, Manchester, 2004.15 R. Slaughter, A new framework

A Practical Guide to Regional foresight, FOREN final report, IPTS, Sevilla, 2001.18 UNIDO (Ed.),Technology foresight Manual. vol. 1 & 2, UNIDO, Vienna, 2005.19 E

Experiences with Adaptive foresight in Austria, in: M. Munch Andersen, A. Tukker (Eds. Perspectives on Radical changes to Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP.

I. Oehme, H. Rohracher, P. Späth, Transition zu nachhaltigen Produktionssystemen (Transition to sustainable production systems), Research report, ARC systems research, Vienna, 2005.40 B

Strategic guidelines, Report to the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology BMVIT, Vienna, 2007.42 City of Vienna, Wiener Strategie für Forschung, Technologie und

Innovation Vienna Strategy for Research, Technology and Innovation, Vienna, 2007.43 K. M. Weber, A. Geyer, D. Schartinger, P. Wagner, Zukunft der Mobilität in Österreich.

I. Miles, L. Green, From Seville to success: IST success scenario and policy priorities, FISTERA Research report, PREST, Manchester, 2005.50 R. J. Lempert, S w. Popper, S. C. Bankes, Shaping The next

and project interrelations, Phd thesis, University of Technology Vienna, Vienna, 2007. Dr. E. Anders Eriksson received his Phd In operations Research from KTH in Stockholm in 1986.

, E-41092 Seville, Spain Received 28 september 2006; received in revised form 1 february 2007; accepted 1 february 2008 Abstract In this paper, we address challenges of organizing future-oriented consultation processes within European coordination tools for‘Open Method of Coordination'such as ERA NETS

, 1, 2), in the recognition that the engagement of stakeholders from several countries may help anticipate scientific, technological and societal developments, for example.

These and yet other complexities are amplified by the many administrative options that can be pursued in the implementation of shared research agendas, ranging from the relatively weak coordination of national 3 http://cordis. europa. eu/coordination/era net

ii) networking for mobilizing the RTD communities in different countries and iii) priority setting for formulating promising research themes and corresponding resource allocations.

Here, tentative interests in prospective collaboration can be probed by inviting stakeholders from different countries to explore what research themes should be pursued through international joint RTD activities

ERA NETS and other European coordination tools are indicative of the transformation of the EU innovation policy from financially oriented measures to the facilitation and monitoring of stakeholder processes

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 483 495 different countries in order to promote the competitiveness and sustainability of the European forest cluster.

the last one involves the deepest mode of collaboration as the 18 partners from eight countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden,

Because the Woodwisdom-Net program will involve RTD communities from eight countries this process was designed

The engagement of RTD stakeholders from all the countries was a prerequisite for identifying research issues that reflected relevant scientific and technological developments, on one hand,

the consultation processes had to recognize multiple interfaces among the RTD stakeholders from eight different countries.

In Woodwisdom-Net, scalability meant that the consultation process had to deal with varying amounts of contributions from large number of stakeholders in different countries.

In each country, the National Coordinator of the consultation process was responsible for effective communication. For example, he/she invited Researchers

Furthermore, the process engaged an extensive set of RTD stakeholders from eight countries, most notably Researchers and Industrial leaders:

from each participating country, prominent Researchers and Industrial leaders were invited to three interactive workshops to discuss

The main phases are summarized in Table 1. Over 400 stakeholders from all participating countries participated in the process.

In the first phase, National Coordinators invited Researchers in their respective countries to submit research issues through the Internet questionnaire. 8 These questionnaires were implemented by using Opinions-Online decision support tool9

In total, well over 200 Researchers from the participating countries submitted research issues. 3. 2. 2. 2. Assessment of research issues from the research perspective.

In each country, thenational Coordinators identified one representative from wood-material-based industry and one member of the research community and invited these to the workshops.

based on the quality of solicited research issues and the workshop discussions (approx. 1 h). Towards the end of the workshop, the results from these questionnaires were compiled separately for each country

Thus, the funding organizations could see how the results based on the representatives of their own country may have differed from those of all expert assessments.

we have discussed the use of decision support methodologies in the development of a shared research agenda inwoodwisdom-Net, an ERA NET on wood material research that is an example of the coordination tools for EU innovation policies.

Here, one of the benefits of a bottom up process is that the wealth of information generated can be made available to the participants from other countries.

for instance by encouraging the research groups to respond to calls for proposals in a full awareness of what other groups in other countries have shared interests.

From the administrative perspective, the geographical distances between participants from many countries make it impossible to organize participatory workshops for them all:

, participating countries, thematic sub-areas, levels of aggregation, modalities of research), which in turn leads to processual requirements such as modularity and scalability.

This is congruent with the ongoing transformation where the EU is seen increasingly as the facilitator of the international collaboration activities.

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Technical Report EUR-20137-EN, Seville, 2002.12 H. Prange, Technology and innovation policiers in the European systemofmulti-level

Totti Könnölä (M. Sc. 2001, D. Tech. 2006) is Researcher at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) in Seville.

Methodologies and selected applications Knut Blind Regulation and Innovation Competence Center Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research, Germany Berlin University of Technology, Faculty Economics and Management

D-10623 Berlin, Germany Received 28 september 2006; received in revised form 19 october 2007; accepted 1 february 2008 Abstract This paper on regulatory foresight addresses approaches which allow future fields for regulatory action to be identified.

D-10623 Berlin, Germany. Tel.:++49 30 314 76638,49 160 3676114 (Mob.;fax:++49 30 314 76628.

Among the OECD countries, regulatory impact assessment gained a certain momentum after the publication of the OECD report on best practices in impact assessment 2. The growing interest in RIA in other countries, especially in Europe 3

as well as the political capital invested in regulatory management systems now established in most OECD countries. Second, there is a growing interest in exploring how regulatory policies can be based more evidence

and are meanwhile also obligatory in the European union 5 and some other industrialised countries prior to the final release of new policy measures,

In some European countries, like Germany there has been a longer tradition of regulatory impact assessments in the context of technology assessment 6. A rather new

These indicators allow the creation of comparisons between scientific and technological fields, between countries, organisations, and over time.

For Germany, he was even able to show in time series models that the dynamics in patent applications is reflected in the output of standardisation documents 21.

We start with some studies performed in Germany or German-speaking countries. In a survey conducted in 1998 among companies of 12 manufacturing sectors in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, 2 Nevertheless,

the results of the surveys conducted within the framework of the Community Innovation Survey also contain information about regulations and standards as obstacles for innovation and sometimes their role as source for information.

A systematic and strategic approach to develop standards for the service sector was initiated in Germany in the year 2000 with a large project Service Standards for Global Markets funded by the German Ministry for Education and Research 34.

However, in other countries, like the United kingdom, France and The netherlands 31, the national SDOS set up similar agendas.

data formats and customer interaction are most important for the surveyed German service companies. This result reveals indirectly that there are strong expectations that those standards will obviously have a high positive impact to improve the former aspects.

of Germany's nanotechnology community Besides the examples reported above, we present another example of a survey,

Blind and Gauch 39 conducted a survey among the stakeholders of nanotechnology research and standardisation in Germany.

which was applied in Germany 44. Regulation was included in a set of possible obstacles, like lack of capital or human resources, for the development of science and technology.

In the following Sixth Japanese and Second German Delphi studies 45,46, all obstacle categories were changed into policy measures

In the first German Delphi survey, the field communication was characterised by the most negative values regarding the impact of the regulatory framework3 because of the former monopolistic structures in the telecommunication markets and the massive public intervention in the radio

but the liberalisation, especially of the communication markets in Germany, is reflected in the low need to readjust the regulatory framework in comparison to other fields,

In addition recycling of computers can be 4 Based on the results of the First German Delphi study 44, the Fifth Japanese Delphi study 45,

However, the sound experiences of the Japanese and German Delphi studies underline that foresight methodologies can be applied for the identification and setting priorities of future areas of regulation and therefore also of standardisation

countries and over time Little information about possible types of regulation Detailed analysis allows the identification of specific regulation-relevant content

A first approach was launched in Germany by a study to identify future themes for standardisation based on the negative experiences in the case of nanotechnology,

in which Germany did not leverage its excellent position in research and development into a leading position in setting the necessary framework conditions for future research and market introduction via standardisation 39.

Best Practices in OECD Countries, OECD Publications Service, Paris, 1997.3 R. E. Löfstedt, The Swing of the Regulatory Pendulum in Europe:

Analysis of Regulations Shaping New Markets, European commission DG Enterprise (ed.),Luxembourg,(2004. 9 B. R. Martin, Foresight in science and technology, Technol.

19 G. Fahrenkrog, W. Polt, J. Rojo, A. Tübke, K. Zinöcker, RTD Evaluation Toolbox Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact of RTD-Policies, Seville:

Evidence from G-7 Countries, Industry Canada, Ottawa, 2004.28 A. Bassanini, E. Ernst: Labour Market Institutions, Product Market Regulation, and Innovation:

in the interface between nanotechnology research and standardisation in Germany: explanations and solutions, EURAS Proceedings 2006, Wissenschaftsverlag Mainz, Aachen, 2006, pp. 61 70.40 T. J. Gordon, O. Helmer, Report on a Long-range Forecasting

but also in the fields of standards, regulation and intellectual property rights on behalf of the European commission and Ministries in Germany and other countries. 516 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516

'cf http://www. minacned. nl/nl/activiteiten/roadmap mnt food nutrition. php. 6 MANCEF is based the US Micro and Nanotechnology Commercialization and Education Foundation;

www. technology assessment. eu. 530 D. K. R. Robinson, T. Propp/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 517 538 but then proceeded to outsource the further development of product

significance, satisfaction and suggestions for further research perspectives from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, Strateg. Change 14 (2005) 1 13.16 R. Phaal, C. J. P. Farrukh, D. R. Probert, Technology roadmapping A planning framework for evolution and revolution, Technol.

Prerequisites and potential benefits for assessing Nanotechnology, EU US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 2004, pp. 13 14.28 T. Fleischer, M. Decker,

U. Fiedeler, Assessing Emerging technologies Methodical Challenges and the Case of Nanotechnologies, EU US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 2004, pp. 13 14.29 S. Kuhlmann, et al.

Improving Distributed intelligence in Complex Innovation systems, Final Report of the Advanced Science and Technology policy Planning Network (ASTPP.

Karlsruhe, June 1999.30 A. Rip, T. Propp, R. Williams, G. Spinardi, P. Laredo, A. Delemarle, NEST-SSA 508929‘Assessment Tools for New and Emerging science

Douglas K. R. Robinson obtained his undergraduate and master's degree in Physics and Space S&t at the University of Leicester (UK) and Universität Siegen (Germany.

In this paper, we argue that one higher level of reference is offered by a commonly agreed goal amongst the EU Member States

if emerging 2 Phd research will be complete by Jan. 2010.3 Strategic goal for 2010, set for Europe at the Lisbon European council March 2000 (http://www. europarl. europa. eu/summits

effectiveness, appropriateness, sustainability and additionality. 6. Understanding the dynamics of foresight systems in three countries A first attempt to understand the dynamics of foresight systems can be based on the evaluation of three foresight exercises;

Seen in the context of a transition economy and a political system under extreme pressure to embrace change during the EU pre-accession phase,

and offered an example to other countries embarking up the foresight learning curve. Based on the above findings, detail can be added to the two previous figures via the addition of elaborated sets of governing factors and design principles and criteria.

and b. 7. From the impact assessment framework to the logic model The above framework can be enriched further by findings from studies of other foresight exercises in different countries,

it is essential to complete the model with findings from other foresight exercises in different countries,

‘Futur the German research dialogue',Research Evaluation 13 (3)( 2004) 143 153.3 R. Barre, Synthesis of technology foresight, in:

4 in proceedings EU US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.10 A. Havas, Terminology and Methodology for Benchmarking Foresight programmes,

paper prepared for the Forsociety project, 2005.11 D. Rooney, et al.,Public policy in Knowledge-based Economies.

Theme 2 Anchor Paper prepared for the IPTS FTA Seminar, Seville,, Sept. 2006.15 L. Georghiou, M. Keenan, Towards a Typology for Evaluating Foresight exercises, Paper 2 in proceedings EU US Seminar:

New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.16 Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group, Technology Futures analysis:

toward integration of the field and new methods, Preliminary Briefing Paper in proceedings EU US Seminar:

New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.17 M. Ladikas, M. Decker, Assessing the Impact of future-Oriented Technology assessment, Paper 1 in proceedings EU

US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.18 Technopolis, et al. Using Logic models,

The results of a study exploring how logic models can be used to develop a methodological framework for the high-quality assessment of IST-RTD effects at the Strategic Objective level, Commission Contract No 29000,2006. 19 W. W. Powell, in:

B. M. Staw, L. L. Cummints (Eds. Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organisation, Research in Organisational Behavior, vol. 12,1990, pp. 295 336.20 L. Blatter, Beyond hierarchies and networks:

by the time of his departure in January 2000, had grown to be a leader in its field, with offices in Brighton, Amsterdam, Paris and Vienna.

using the case of EU universities as an example, to rectify these shortcomings. A set of‘cascading'visions are devised to demonstrate the close links between three levels.

First, alternative futures are developed for the EU by considering (i) the overall rationale of EU policies;

and (ii) the standing of the EU vis-à-vis the Triad. Second, the different directions are identified, in

Alternative futures for the EU; The European research and Innovation Area (ERIA) and universities; Trends and drivers for changes;

a striking example of that approach is the recent EU Green Paper on the European research area 3. Georghiou

but limited instances of clearly documented FTA3 activities (p. 2). Although the‘sponsors'of the reviewed exercises range from a single university to international organisations (the EU, OECD and UNESCO),

Second, a huge diversity can be observed among continents (note the differences among the broad models of higher education e g. in the US, Asia and Europe), across countries on the same continent,

and even inside countries concerning the performance, funding and governance models of their higher education organisations,

using the case of EU universities as an example, to rectify these shortcomings. As the above list of factors that shape the future of universities reveals,

the EU itself is still evolving; in part due to a number of internal factors e g. the recently initiated strategic processes and enlargement are the most visible ones,

The strategic responses of the EU would also determine the range and‘relative weight'of stakeholders to be involved in a participatory prospective analysis on the future of universities:

the role of university staff, students and the civil society at large, policy-makers or businesses might differ significantly in distinct‘futures'for the EU. Hence,

the starting point here is the EU, as the broadest socioeconomic context for universities, with its own science, technology and innovation (STI) policy tools,

and compete with other research actors active inside the EU. 6 Finally, futures are devised for universities. 4 The most visible ones are the so-called Bologna process, the regular meetings of education ministers,

Also indirectly and less manifestly the various EC funded projects and expert groups on higher education can also shape these policies. 5 ERIA is understood throughout this paper as the set of all relevant actors of RTDI processes in the EU

In other words,‘ERIA-policies'of the EU are just one element of ERIA, as it is composed of all other EU, national and regional policies affecting RTDI processes and performance, the activities of firms, various types of R&d units and institutes, higher education organisations, financial intermediaries,

as well as a host of supporting, bridging and service organisations, and most importantly the systemic features, i e. the interactions (competition, communication, networking, co-operation, etc.)

among these actors. 6 Non-EU universities and Business r&d units are already operating in the EU,

At the first level the overall rationale of EU policies, and its standing vis-à-vis the Triad regions are considered as major‘variables'of the alternative futures for the EU. At the second,

it is assumed that the European research and Innovation Area can evolve in different directions, depending on the main features of the EU to a significant extent,

but obviously having its own dynamics, too. 8 Finally, at the third level, the diversity of universities can be explored by devising futures for different ideal types of universities,

12 conducting various types of research. 13 Academies emerged in some countries as early as the end of the 16th century 1, pp. 5 6,

one should not overlook the significant diversity across the EU at least in three aspects: the balance of research activities between universities and other players;

As for the second one, suffice it to say that in some bigger EU countries e g. in Germany

or across countries, but then taking only universities belonging to the same‘league',e g. those aspiring world-class research and education,

with 30 48%of the relevant age cohort attending tertiary education in most OECD countries, we cannot speak of the same‘higher'education (HE) system.

as well as across EU countries, by taking into account the‘quality'and‘efficiency'of their research and education activities.

A recent, major attempt to analyse the performance of EU universities is 32.16 The term itself higher education clearly reflects this feature.

universities do play a leading role in a number of countries, while public labs have a non-negligible weight in several other countries. 18 Thus,

the role of these latter types of research organisations should not be ignored in policy discussions. 19 In sum,

a huge variety can be observed among the EU (and OECD) members both in terms of their‘pool'of researchers,

Yet, a clear finding is that the business enterprise sector is a dominant one in the majority of OECD (and EU) countries,

and especially that of the government sector, is higher in the less developed countries (Figs. 1 2). Third, output indicators, such as publications, citations,

does not reflect their significance. 18 The well-known examples are the institutes belonging to Max Planck Gesellschaft (Germany), CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France), CNR (Consiglio

Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy), CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Spain), Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft (Austria),

located in currently laggard countries likely emerge as major players. In other words, the number of the already existing types of research organisations can increase significantly,

A prime example of a potential major impact of public policies is the current initiative in several countries to‘strongly encourage'universities to patent their research results,

following the Bayh-Dole Act of the US. 24 These S&t, societal and economic factors coupled with various policies

Currently, postgraduate courses offered by US universities are particularly attractive for foreign students, including those from the EU. Nearly 60%of science

and engineering doctoral students coming from EU countries have firm plans to stay in the US upon the completion of their studies,

instead of returning to the EU. This proportion has risen notably over the past decade: from 44.5%at the beginning of the 1990s to 57.5%at the turn of the millennium (43, p. 57.

Competition for talents both intra-EU, and globally is likely not merely to continue, but intensify significantly. 2. Increasingly stronger international co-operation in research

(and innovation) projects at a global level and an EU level, as none of the Triad regions let alone individual countries can be self-sufficient.

A possible backlash against globalisation can slow down this trend, however, given a growing scepticism among the population regarding internationalisation 4. It can be fed by fears of terror attacks and wars, concerns about the increasing immigration, loss of national identity and pride.

That might lead to a much larger share of research classified by governments as military R&d. 23 A few decades ago no one would have thought of e g.

The overall rationale of ERIA, in which EU universities operate, is also likely to have an impact on devising evaluation criteria and methods.

The second refers to lists of priorities and proposed actions (for different stakeholders, in this case e g. university rectors and deans, regional, national and EU policy-makers, businesses and local communities as partners of universities), inputs

The use of the recommendations e g. strategy formation for a specific university, strategies for the higher education sector in a region, a country or the EU is up to the decision-makers.

and thus first visions are devised on the EU as a whole. Then the European research and Innovation Area (ERIA) is taken into account as a‘mezzo level'system.

The major underlying assumptions for building visions for EU universities should be spelt out before addressing the more detailed issues,

various EU polices under the label of the Lisbon Process, especially concerning the relative weight of competitiveness27 and cohesion objectives,

thriving EU can set aside resources to promote cohesion regions, while narrowing the gaps between advanced and laggard regions would enhance the competitiveness of the EU as a whole).

This paper takes the latter view, and thus attributes a great significance to innovation processes in the cohesion regions/countries,

as well as to the wide range of policies required to promote innovation. Fourth, cohesion is an issue for (a large,

advanced EU member states (given the significant differences among their regions),(b) for the four‘classic'cohesion countries,

Moreover, the forthcoming enlargement (s) would add more countries and regions to this list. Fifth, promoting RTDI efforts in cohesion regions via joint research projects (funded e g. by RTD Framework programmes) does not mean that scientific excellence is compromised 45.

and should not preclude competition among universities. 4. 1. Futures for the EU and ERIA The point of departure is a highly selective set of fundamental features of the EU:(

i) its main strategic intention/orientation in terms of putting the main emphasis on cohesion (societal issues) 26 The degree, to

but only subjective judgements could Table 1 Visions for the EU EU vs. Triad Internal strategy Cohesion (societal issues) Competitiveness(‘multi-speed EU')Successful EU A) Double success:

A carefully balanced development strategy of the EU, keeping the‘welfare'elements, too, at an EU level

but pursuing these cohesion/welfare policies in a more flexible way, and using more appropriate, refined policy tools a leads to an‘externally'successful and cohesive EU. B b) Successful multi-speed EU:

A number of the already successful EUREGIONS are promoted heavily by EUPOLICIES (funds) as‘engines of growth',making themeven stronger, leading to enhanced competitiveness of the EU vis-à-vis the Triad regions.

In the meantime, the gap between these successful EU regions and the less developed ones significantly widens, even inside the big,

advanced member states. c Laggard EU C) The EU development strategy is incapable of harmonising the requirements of competitiveness and cohesion;

policies meant to support the latter are not modernised, and thus take up too many resources, and hamper the processes required for an enhanced competitiveness.

D) Failed multi-speed EU: A multi-speed EU strategy in spite of ignoring cohesion fails to close the gap with other Triad regions,

while it widens the gap between the advanced and less developed EU regions. Ca) Shaky cohesion:

At least temporary achievements in terms of stronger cohesion (at the expense of external competitiveness, and thus being shaky).

e g. internal (inappropriate policies and/or poor implementation), external (improving EU performance, but an even quicker development of the other Triad regions).

In any case, it is highly likely that key players of strong EU regions would act together both at an intra-regional and an interregional level probably also with their counterparts outside of the EU. a The current success of Denmark,

or not a‘federal EU'.(See also two visions of the EUROPOLIS project, coined Federal Europe,

c Two types of EU behaviour can lead to this future state:(i) a conscious strategic choice to use available funds and other policy tools (e g. regulation) exclusively or excessively for boosting competitiveness,

In a radical scenario, not to be discussed here, the loss of most/all EU policy-making power to national, regional,

For a largely similar scenario, called Swiss Europe, see 18.29 Emerging countries, e g. China and India, might also become important competitors,

but a flexible interpretation of the Triad regions can easily include any relevant countries. 571 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 Table 2 Features of the ERIA in two

EU visions: Double success vs. Successful multi-speed EU ERIA EU Double success Successful multi-speed EU Rationale for EU RTDI policies Double-track:

tackle societal challenges, promote cohesion and enhance competitiveness Excessive emphasis on enhancing competitiveness Co-ordination of policies Intense and successful policy co-ordination among regions,

consciously supported by harmonised national and EU policies, with a specific aim to enhance competitiveness and advance cohesion‘Multi-speed'policy co-ordination:

intense and successful among advanced regions, supported by national and EU policies; ad hoc and weak co-ordination among laggard regions, between laggard and advanced regions, at best with halfhearted, reluctant EU efforts Location of major HE/R centres Widely distributed across the EU,

weaker centres are strengthened, and new ones are set up in laggard regions with a specific objective to promote cohesion Concentrated in already strong,

successful regions Research agenda An appropriate balance between societal and techno-economic issues Focus on techno-economic issues;

some (minimal) research efforts to tackle social challenges stemming from the widening gaps between flourishing and laggard EU regions Mobility of researchers, university staff and students Two-way traffic:

and competitiveness) and fostering cohesion Policy schemes aim at further strengthening strong regions via mobility grants Two-way traffic with strong Triad countries/regions Integration of RTDI

activities (across national borders) Widely occurring across the EU and globally; policies aimed at promoting the integration of RTDI activities have an explicit aim of fostering cohesion, too,

among other EU-wide issues Mainly among strong, successful regions across the Triad, driven by businesses,

EU funds earmarked for RTD infrastructure have an explicit aim of fostering cohesion, too Up-to-date equipment is concentrated in strong regions,

EU funds for RTD infrastructure do not pursue cohesion objectives Innovation systems, co-operation among key players a Strong, flexible innovation systems in a large number of regions (with their own specific strengths),

These different visions for the EU as a whole have strong implications for the ERIA, too. In principle therefore, different types of ERIAS can be derived from the above five visions. 30 In practice,

however, not Table 2 (continued) ERIA EU Double success Successful multi-speed EU Innovation systems, co-operation among key players a Intense communication among businesses, academia, policy-makers,

strong academia industry co-operation, mutually beneficial, intense links among large firms and SMES both inside and across flourishing regions Coordinated, joint efforts supported by EU funds

weak RTDI policy constituencies Insufficient, halfhearted EU-supported efforts at best to strengthen weaker innovation systems of laggard regions/countries RTDI services (information, consultancy, incubation, etc.

Widely distributed across the whole EU, sharing experience across stronger and weaker regions, geared towards specific needs not pursuing to diffuse‘one size fits all'type practices, supported by an appropriate, co-ordinatedmix of regional, national and EU

policies Mainly in the successful EU regions, sharing experience among themselves and with their partners in Triad regions, geared towards specific needs, supported by an appropriate, coordinated mix of regional, national and EU policies Financial infrastructure Conscious EU efforts (policies,

guidelines, networking, exchange of experience) to improve financial infrastructure across the EU No conscious EU efforts to improve financial infrastructure in the laggard regions Policy-preparation methods,

practices Conscious EU efforts (guidelines, networking, exchange of experience) to improve policymakkin practices across the EU No conscious EU efforts (guidelines,

networking, exchange of experience) to improve policy-making practices in the laggard regions a Co-operation with the relevant Triad partners is taken for granted,

i e. not discussed here as a distinguishing feature. 30 As already stressed, ERIA is understood throughout this paper as the set of all relevant actors of RTDI processes in the EU,

as well as their interactions. Therefore, by making a strong link between the EU structures and strategies on the one hand

and the ERIA, on the other, does not deny the possibility that‘ERIA policies'of the EU can enjoy some level of independence from the overall strategy of the EU. Yet,

it would go beyond the scope of this paper to discuss when this potential‘discrepancy'(or‘mismatch')can be seen as a‘healthy, creative'tension, i e.

Moreover, devising 10 15 visions for the ERIA (2 3 ERIA visions times 5 EU visions) would introduce an unmanageable complexity into this exercise.

A) Double success and B) Successful multi-speed EU. What sort of ERIA would be needed to support an‘externally'successful, cohesive EU (Double success?

What sorts of policies are needed to bring about that type of ERIA (EU vs. national policies; STI and other policies, co-ordination of these polices?

In other words, how to set in motion a virtuous circle of‘external'success (competitiveness) of the EU and RTDI efforts?

and eventually enhanced external competitiveness of the EU as whole; that is part of the Double success vision. 31 The alternative approach would favour using the EU funds exclusively

or excessively for boosting already successful EU regions, which would diminish, or even‘dry',the Structural Funds,

and that would lead to a Successful multi-speed EU. Not all of these questions can be discussed here as appropriate answers to them would require a dialogue among the key players,

i e. any individual effort to come up with relevant replies is bound to fail almost by definition,

but the main features of the types of ERIA‘fitting'to the broad visions of Double success and Successful multi-speed EU are presented in Table 2. 4. 2. Futures states of universities

whether the emphasis put on cohesion goals would convince laggard EU countries/regions to consider RTDI as an important enabler of more efficient and faster catching-up,

regional, national or EU (ERIA) policies, a much more refined set of ideal types should be developed, based on a thorough understanding of the main features of existing and hypothetical future universities.

'As already mentioned, visions for universities are built on alternative futures for the EU and ERIA, that is, Double success and Successful multi-speed EU, respectively.

the alternative futures devised at EU and ERIA levels. Thus, their impacts should be discussed separately. As for legitimisation and validation of knowledge

intense interactions with other players in (regional, national, sectoral, international) innovation systems and with the society Universities do not understand/take on their role in addressing societal issues New activities to promote cohesion among EU regions

and the societal and technoeconnomi requirements of an ERIA in the Double success EU Universities understand the societal and techno-economic requirements of an ERIA in the Double success EU,

competition for talents Only a few‘world-class'EU universities can attract talents from advanced Triad regions A large (r) number of EU universities become attractive for talents from advanced

Triad regions Inside the EU, mobility is mainly a‘one-way street':'brain-drain prevails from laggard regions to booming ones,

promoted by grants offered by universities located in the advanced regions Universities located in advanced and laggard regions of the EU actively cooperate in promoting‘two-way traffic':

and do not pay attention to attract talents from other countries, not even from the EU Integration of RTDI activities (across national borders) Only a few‘world-class'EU universities can join global networks at the forefront of RTDI activities Widely occurs across the EU and globally;

policies aimed at promoting the integration of RTDI activities have an explicit aim of fostering cohesion,

the full potential of multi-disciplinary research is exploited not Awidely used practice at universities across the EU;

which would also enhance their visibility and social esteem. 34 5. Conclusions This article considered alternative futures for EU universities.

Successful multi-speed EU Trends, driving forces Universities Largely unchanged universities Radically reformed universities The role/mission of universities The main emphasis is on teaching and‘basic research,

'not much interactionwith other players in innovation systems and with the society Excessive emphasis on enhancing the competitiveness of EU businesses;

competition for talents Same as in the Double success case A large (r) number of EU universities become attractive for talents from advanced Triad regions Conscious efforts on a‘one-way street'type

mobility inside the EU; brain-drain from laggard regions to flourishing ones, promoted by grants offered by universities located in the advanced regions Integration of RTDI activities (across national borders) Same as in the Double success case,

and supported by EU policies; laggards are left out Some EU universities actively participate in cross-border RTDI activities,

aimed at further enhancing the competitiveness of the advanced regions‘Elite'universities are active partners in these processes,

however, that universities are not predominant research performers in the developed OECD (and EU) countries. Not only several other players conduct research,

but in the advanced countries Business r&d units have even a bigger weight than universities. Further, as nowadays 30 40%of the relevant age group attend higher education courses, an ever larger number of higher education organisations offer mainly or only teaching.

54%of basic research expenditures are spent at universities in the OECD countries). Yet, the widely held consensus in the literature on the rationale for funding‘basic science'by public money still rests on the Humboldtian model:

considering different future states first for the EU and the European research and Innovation Area, and then for universities themselves.

The benefits of this proposed method are discussed by using the example of the EU, ERIA and EU universities.

as well as for decision-makers in general, a main advantage can be that major strategic decisions in our case on the overall rationale of the EU policies

without taking into account the‘broader picture'would shape the EU, as well as the ERIA. This‘muddling through'might seem to be preferable for those,

'What is striking in this respect is the sheer lack of alternative visions in the 2007 Green Paper on The European research area 3. A major benefit for policy-makers (at the EU,

by changing the various‘parameters',e g. the overall rationale of the EU or national policies (i e.‘

‘switching'between different EU futures), or the actual STI policy tools, as well as the links between STI policies, per se,

e g. exploring the impacts of given polices on the mobility of researchers and students inside the EU or globally.

EU policy-makers might also use this structured way of futures-building as one of the tools assisting their initiatives to align national policies;

too, operated either in the EU or other Triad regions. Given the importance of strategic thinking in this field,

Impact of fta Approaches on Policy and Decision-making, Seville, 28 29,september 2006 available at: http://forera. jrc. es/documents/papers/anchor/Higheredanchorpaper. pdf. 10 G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, L

Implications for Innovation policy, Office for Official Publications of the European communities, Luxembourg, 1999.580 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 15 OECD, New Rationale

Impact of fta Approaches on Policy and Decision-making, Seville, 28 29 september 2006, available at: http://forera. jrc. es/documents/papers/Futures%20of%20universities paper. pdf. 22 Richard R. Nelson, The market economy,

The European Challenge, HLEG report, DG Research, Office for Official Publications of the European communities, Luxembourg, 2005.24 OECD, Frascati Manual:

Towards a Knowledge-Based Economy, Office for Official Publications of the European communities, Luxembourg, 2003.39 OECD, Main Science and Technology indicators, OECD, Paris, 2006.40 M. Thorne (Ed.),Universities

in the future, Foresight, OST, London, 1999.41 B. Alesi, S. Bürger, B. Kehm, U. Teichler, Bachelor and Master Courses in Selected Countries Compared with Germany, Federal Ministry

Policy 35 (10)( 2006) 1450 1464.43 EC, Key Figures 2005, Towards a European research area, Office for Official Publications of the European communities, Luxembourg, 2005.44 EC Cohesion Policy

http://www. europa. eu. int/comm/regional policy/sources/docoffic/2007/osc/index en. htm. 581 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008

Policy 27 (6)( 1998) 569 588.46 K. Aiginger, Copying the US or developing a New European Model policy strategies of successful European countries in the nineties, paper presented at the UN

as well as on foresight and prospective analyses, been a member of several EU expert groups on foresight,

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011