Closed clubs: Network centrality and participation in Horizon 2020

Enger, Simen G.

doi:10.1093/scipol/scy029

Cited by 28 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature on participation in EU-FPs has identified different factors that affect HEIs' level of participation, including organizational size, reputation, and centrality in research collaboration networks (Lepori et al 2015b;Amoroso et al 2018;Enger 2018). In general, project participation is highly skewed (Geuna 1996) and generates what some scholars refer to as "oligarchic networks," a pattern that is highly stable and that has even strengthened over years, leading to a small circle of regular participation (Breschi and Cusmano 2004).…”

Section: Participation Of Heis and Non-eu Countries In Eu-fpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Expectedly, the number of acquired EU-FP projects is strongly associated with organizational size as measured by the number of academic staff (Lepori et al 2015b). Larger HEIs offer higher quality infrastructures and experienced support services, facilitating the acquisition of research grants, and also have greater access to resources and capabilities that reinforce an organization's centrality within European networks (Enger 2018).…”

Section: Participation Of Heis and Non-eu Countries In Eu-fpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Geske and Berzina (2017) demonstrated that greater R&D investments in EU old member states have widened their gap with new member states in terms of EU-FP participation. Regarding the participation of non-EU countries, most studies have not identified a significant correlation between the association status and participation in EU-FPs (e.g., Enger 2018;Lepori et al 2015b). Mataković and Novak (2013) showed that Croatia, which gained full access to EU-FP in the final year of FP6, had low participation in large research projects and a relatively small number of projects coordinated by Croatian participants in FP7.…”

Section: Participation Of Heis and Non-eu Countries In Eu-fpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…EU-FPs benefit from and contribute to the development of the European economic space and research area. The literature analyzing EU-FPs has revealed a convergence at the European level, where country effects are limited and EU-FP participation is highly correlated with organizational characteristics, such as reputation, size, and network centrality, as well as with national investment in R&D (Enger 2018;Lepori et al 2015b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, regardless of their associated or third country status, non-EU countries may, at times, face situations of uncertainty in which their eligibility for the next EU-FP is unclear. As EU-FPs require a large entry investment to join central R&D networks (Enger 2018), uncertainty about future conditions may discourage non-EU participation from both the non-EU participant and EU partners' perspectives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Institutional barriers to participation in EU framework programs: contrasting the Swiss and UK cases

Cavallaro

Lepori

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to examine how institutional barriers arising from policy decisions influence the level of participation of third-party countries in European Framework Programs (EU-FPs). To achieve this, we contrasted the effect of EU funding restrictions following Switzerland’s 2014 reclassification as a “third country” in Horizon 2020, and the political uncertainties resulting from the 2016 Brexit vote in the United Kingdom (UK). We compared the participation patterns of Swiss and UK higher education institutions (HEIs) with control groups of similar European HEIs over time and, complementarily, analyzed changes in the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Our results showed that the Brexit-induced uncertainty had stronger negative effects than the Swiss reclassification, which was, however, characterized by effective EU funding restrictions. In both cases, the negative impact of institutional barriers was stronger for the more central HEIs in EU-FP networks. These results suggest that the effect of institutional barriers is closely linked to consortium building mechanisms, where research collaboration requires stability and projection over the long term. Regarding individual grants, the impact was stronger for Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions than for European Research Council grants, suggesting that a researcher’s mobility is affected by political uncertainties. Finally, in the UK case, we observed a steep decrease in the participation of SMEs. Based on these results, we suggest that a stable framework of participation and a clear ruling on relationships with the EU for what concerns people’s mobility and economic relationships are key to fostering the participation of third-party countries.

show abstract

Section: Participation Of Heis and Non-eu Countries In Eu-fpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participation Of Heis and Non-eu Countries In Eu-fpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participation Of Heis and Non-eu Countries In Eu-fpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Institutional barriers to participation in EU framework programs: contrasting the Swiss and UK cases

Cavallaro

Lepori

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Is a European Recovery Possible Without High-Tech Public Corporations?

Archibugi

Mariella

2021

Intereconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pervasive new technologies associated with information and communication technologies and software are dominated by a restricted oligopoly of US-based corporations. The challengers are no longer European firms, but rather Japanese or Chinese companies. The actions taken by the EU to fill this technology gap, including the Framework Programmes for research and technological development, are beneficial but still insufficient in terms of the resources committed. This article argues that the EU urgently needs to add another economic policy instrument to defy these incumbent firms, namely to create a few publicly supported large corporations in the areas of greater scientific and technological opportunities. This will be complementary to the already ongoing mission-oriented innovation policies. While there are the political and economic difficulties of implementing such a strategy, one recalls the pioneering venture of Airbus, established more than 50 years ago that has successfully managed to challenge the dominant US-based passenger aircraft producers despite several economic and political controversies. Could similar attempts be replicated for green technologies, healthcare services and artificial intelligence?

show abstract

Brexit and higher education in Europe: the role of ideas in shaping internationalisation strategies in times of uncertainty

Courtois

Veiga

2019

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on thematic data analysis of reports from a qualitative crosscountry study, the article explores the perceptions of Brexit and collaborations with the UK in different EU countries through the lens of discursive institutionalism. We suggest that in the context of uncertainty characteristic of the post-Brexit referendum period, ideas related to economic concerns and strategic repositioning of national higher education systems subsume the values attached to the European dimension of higher education and research policies. The ideal of educational cooperation based on cultural diversity and national varieties is overridden by concerns expressed in terms of economic rationales. These findings corroborate research that argues that collaboration/cooperation has become a pragmatic and instrumental endeavour. In time, and if the current climate of uncertainty persists, this may further reconfigure institutional strategies and lead institutions to focus on problem solutions rather than the pursuit of the political ends of cooperation.

show abstract

Closed clubs: Network centrality and participation in Horizon 2020

Cited by 28 publications

References 50 publications

Institutional barriers to participation in EU framework programs: contrasting the Swiss and UK cases

Institutional barriers to participation in EU framework programs: contrasting the Swiss and UK cases

Is a European Recovery Possible Without High-Tech Public Corporations?

Brexit and higher education in Europe: the role of ideas in shaping internationalisation strategies in times of uncertainty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About