1
Doctoral School “Leonardo Fibonacci”
Section of Business Economics & Management XXVII Cycle
Department of Economics & Management
THESIS OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN BUSINESS ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT
Scientific area SECS – P07
PUBLIC-PRIVATE-PARTNERSHIPS IN RESEARCH &
INNOVATION: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCES OF CONTRACTUAL
PPPs IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Supervisor:
Ph.D student:
Prof. Luca Anselmi
David Ferroni
2
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” (Albert Einstein, 1879 - 1955)
3
Declaration of originality
I, David Ferroni, hereby declare that this thesis I have presented for examination for the Ph.D degree of the University of Pisa is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others, in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is identified in it. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis shall not be reproduced without my prior written consent.
I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party.
Acknowledgements
The completion of this PhD thesis would not have been possible without the help of my supervisor Prof. Luca Anselmi (Full Professor of Business Economics at University of Pisa), my colleague Ing. Andrea Gentili (Deputy Head of Unit DG RTD-H2-Aviation Transport, former Deputy Head of Unit of DG RTD-D2-Advanced Manufacturing Systems and Biotechnologies) and all other collaborators in DG Research & Innovation (DG RTD) with whom I had the privilege to interact, having the possibility to learn from their precious experience.
I am particularly thankful to my parents and the closest friends, their continuous support and encouragement were fundamental during all stages of this work.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this effort to the “spirit for research” which has always accompanied me since high school, and that I hope will provide useful implications for its intended purposes. I pray that God does not take away this great gift, nor to me neither to researchers of any noble disciplines.
Disclaimer
The views outlined in this publication are the views of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Commission on this matter.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
5
CHAPTER 1
CONTEXT OF THE STUDY & RESEARCH DESIGN
1.1 Research and Innovation as basis for competitiveness and growth 81.2 The socioeconomic context in EU, research and innovation in the EU2020 perspective 12
1.3 Traditional and new instruments of EU policy in research & innovation 18
1.4 Thesis methodology 31
CHAPETER 2 ANTECEDENTS AND LITERATURE RIVIEW
2.1 History and definition of PPP 332.2 Description and taxonomy of PPPs in different domains 41
2.3 The advantages and reasons for implementing 47
2.4 Disadvantages and critics 52
2.5 PPPs in the specific domain of Research & Innovation 55
2.6 PPPs in Research & Innovation in the European Union 59
2.6.1 Description and preliminary outcomes of the JTIs in FP7 66
2.7 The research question and the methodology approach 72
CHAPTER 3
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS & RESEARCH FINDINGS
3.1 Description and outcomes of the contractual “cPPPs” in FP7 and H2020 of DG RTD - Directorate D “Industrial Technologies”: FoF, EeB, Spire 3.1.1 FoF and EeB in FP7 between 2009 and 2013 773.1.2 FoF, EeB, Spire in FP7 and H2020 between 2014 and 2015 82
3.1.3 Success stories of cPPPs in FP7 with high impacts 114
3.2 Research findings: qualitative indicators of the cPPPs between 2009 and 2015 128
3.3 Answers to the research question and contribution to the literature 137
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
4.1 Resume of the previous chapters 1454.2 Limits, innovation and contribution for further research 147
4.3 Implications for the European Union public management and policy in R&I 151
5
ABSTRACT
The increasing scarcity of public funds, as well as the continued efforts in improving the quality and efficiency of public services, have made the public-private partnership a legal-economic scheme more attractive both for States and for industry stakeholders.
Indeed, PPPs, which were developed initially because of the public budgetary constraints, have subsequently proved its suitability in allowing the retrieval of additional resources to those strictly necessary for the basic realization of projects of general interest and to operate efficiencies of the system. From this point of view they can be considered an effect of economic globalization which identifies the increasing costs that systems must support to compete into a competitive economic arena.
EU Member State Governments do not seem to longer regard themselves as having a purely national dimension in an internationalized context where every entity is more inclined to act like a market player1, nevertheless citizens demand public services with higher quantity and quality despite being willing to pay for them a consistently lower price.
As detailed in this work, the European Union does not expressly provides a definition of public-private partnership, indeed all forms relate to the works, services, supplies, shall be "positively" included in the public procurement legislation.
In particular, the trend towards establishing PPPs in research & development occurred and increased in various contexts to address market failures and to benefit of different spillover effects. In comparison with other policy instruments pursuing similar goals, this one respond better to the latest trends in research and innovation processes, i.e. increased scientific content of technological
1
6 development, increasing dependency on external knowledge for innovation generation, changing business R&D strategies (e.g. open innovation) and rapidly evolving social needs2.
The cases analyzed, both the “JTIs” (Joint Technology Initiatives) and the “cPPPs” (Contractual Public Private Partnerships) constitute absolute specificities in the PPP general domain, first for the intrinsic characteristics of the scientific & technological research (long-term nature of returns and uncertainty of outcomes), secondly because the public operator does not act in order to obtain or provide public goods but for the pursuit of its institutional goals, such as public scientific research. They cannot be considered totally as public-private partnerships at least in terms of positive law, but our cases fall down in the atypical scheme as referred for the first time by the European Commission guidelines in 2003 when the different major categories were outlined involving more or less private sector involvement3. Moreover, the private component is identified, as in classic ppp cases, not by means of public evidence but on the basis of a political-strategic selection.
Original goals of this work is to make a useful reconstruction of all the European Commission PPPs in research & innovation, focusing on the behavior and performance of three cases of contractual PPPs under the framework program FP7 and Horizon 2020 managed by directorate D (Industrial Technologies) of DG Research & Innovation (RTD) in which I have been professionally involved as civil servant for the years 2014 and 2015.
Due to the fact that few of the projects funded have not yet been completed and the research outputs are not yet definitive, the analysis has been carried through a qualitative approach obtaining qualitative indicators extrapolated by the previous assessments done by the Commission, primary internal department sources and successful ended projects with high impact results, unstructured interviews. The research objective is to explain their ability to be attractive for the private sector
2 Guinet, J., (2005), ‘Public-Private Partnerships for Research and Innovation. The experience of OECD countries’,
Science and Technology Policy Division, OECD, Paris (unpublished paper).
7 and to be an effective tool to reach the EU policy targets compared to the “no PPP option”, for instance the standard framework programme (FP7 and Horizon 2020).
The aspect of the “attractiveness” in particular is missing in the literature of the research PPPs elaborated, therefore this work hopes to give a contribution, even if minimum, to the efforts currently in place in the academic and management community to design and configure and ideal PPP framework for effective interaction between public institutions and market players which shall feed the service of scientific and technological research targets established at European Union policy level.
8
CHAPTER 1
CONTEXT OF THE STUDY & RESEARCH DESIGN
1.1 Research and innovation as a basis for competitiveness and growth
In neo-classical economic theory, knowledge created by research is considered as an exogenous variable that affects productivity. Following the neo-classical growth approach4 and assumptions5, the growth pattern is determined by the increase of capital’s amount till the marginal productivity decreases. Under those circumstances, increasing investments becomes inefficient at a certain point. According to more recent endogenous growth theories, research activities that provide new knowledge are an important factor explaining competitiveness and growth6, technological change and innovation7 are the engines for economic progress and competitive advantages8.
In today’s world, high technological products and innovative methods are at the centre of the production process: modern industries and societies change at a high-speed pace, requiring therefore an even faster progress, adaptation capacity and responsiveness.
Some analysis showed even a stronger positive relationship between R&D and firm productivity in high-tech firms than in low-tech firms9.
4
R.M. SOLOW, “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70.1, 1956, pp. 65-99.
T.W SWAN, "Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation”, Economic Rec, November, 1956, pp. 334-361.
5
Namely: existence of perfect competition and information; maximising behaviour; absence of externalities; constant return to scale; diminishing return at marginal productivity; elasticity of substitution between input.
6 P. AGHION and P. HOWITT, “Endogenous Growth Theory”, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1998.
W. COHWN and D. LEVINTHAL, “Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D”, Economic Journal, 99, 1989, pp. 569-96.
M. GITTLEMAN and E.N. WOLFF, “R&D Activity and Economic Development”, International Journal of Public Administration, 24, 2001.
7 Innovation is the ability to take new ideas and translate them into commercial outcomes by using new processes,
products or services in a way that is better and faster than the competition, as defined by R. NEDIS and E. BYLER,
“Creating a National Innovation Framework”, Science Progress, April 2009.
8 P. ROMER, “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 1990, pp. 71-102. 9
Ortega-Argiles, Raquel; Potters, Lesley; Vivarelli, Marco (2011). "R&D and productivity: testing sectoral peculiarities using micro data". Empirical Economics. 41 (3): 817–839. doi:10.1007/s00181-010-0406-3
Ortega-Argiles, Raquel; Piva, Mariacristina; Vivarelli, Marco (2011). "Productivity Gains from R&D Investment: Are High-Tech Sectors Still Ahead?". IZA Discussion Papers. IZA (5975): 1–22
9 Often the development of new technologies and pioneering products and practises can be realized only thanks to advanced research, as it could led to knowledge, discoveries, improvements, and consequent new marketable items10.
Indeed scientific and technological research is not only finalised to itself but also to innovation. The ability to innovate is the key driver behind competitiveness, economic progress and wellbeing11, becoming consequently one of the main elements to address current and future challenges, to ensure economic prosperity and to sustain our society.
Therefore R&D investments are a key success factor to address the productivity issues and for the economic growth.
Nevertheless, economic theories explain the existence of markets failures resulting in an underinvestment or overinvestment of firms in the area12, furthermore empirical studies demonstrated that in the case of underinvestment the private sector invest even less than the theoretical optimal level13 cause of uncertainty or returns and capital market imperfections, leading to an overall loss of average returns to the society, which indeed are often higher compared to the private ones14.
All the aforementioned issues justify and open the possibility for public intervention in order to mitigate the underinvestment problems and enhance innovation.
Even if the correlation between research and development from one side and innovation and growth from the other is acknowledged, the return to investments need a favourable environment and framework to be effective.
10 B.BILBAO-OSORIO and A.RODRIGUEZ-POSE, “From R&D to Innovation and Economic Growth in the EU”,
Growth and Change, 35 (4), 2004, pp. 434-455.
11 D.B. AUDRETSCH and M.P. FELDMAN, “R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and
Production”, American Economic Review 86, 1996, pp. 630-640.
M.P. FELDMAN M.P. and R. FLORIDA, “The geographic sources of innovation – technological infrastructure and
product innovation”, in the US. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84(2), 1994, pp. 210-229.
12
Griliches (1992) for underinvestment, Reinganum (1998) for overinvestment
13 Jones and Williams, 1997 14
10 Building up a policy strategy to make the most from R&D requires achieving a critical mass, a long perspective timeframe, bringing together public and private resources and motivation, overrunning national boundaries and sectoral fragmentation.
This is the path the European Union is trying to follow since the creation of the EU Research policy in order to exploit the positive link between research, knowledge, innovation, growth.
The European Union is currently in good position to seize the opportunities for growth, thanks to its internal market that is the largest of the world, its financial instruments dedicated to research and innovation, the developed infrastructures and measures to support excellence in science15.
The EU research intends to overrun the fragmentation imposed by the national boundaries: the EU level ensures an important budget line16, deep transnational coordination, strong cooperation, full exploitation of networks and the exchange of human capital.
The EU Research and Innovation policy is at the heart of the European strategy to create an economy based on knowledge and innovation17. Through the Innovation Union Flagship and its financial instrument, Horizon 202018, Europe works to complete the European space for research
15
Innovation Union Competitiveness Report 2013, SWD(2013) 505.
16 EUR 50 521 million for Seventh Framework Programme (DECISION No 1982/2006/EC OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013).
EUR 77 028,3 million for H2020 (REGULATION (EU) No 1291/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC).
For Euratom 2007-2011: EUR 2 751 million (Council Decision 2006/970/Euratom of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011).
For Euratom 2014-2018: EUR 1 603,329 million (COUNCIL REGULATION (EURATOM) No 1314/2013 of 16 December 2013 on the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2014-2018) complementing the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation).
17 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION, EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth, COM(2010) 2020 final.
18 Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing
Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC
11 (ERA) to increase the excellence in science and to translate the findings and innovative ideas to the market19.
The full exploitation of infrastructures, networks and connection of ideas, the complementarity between the different levels, the contiguity and overlapping between research fields, has permitted to reach brilliant results for the European research, which can positively continue on this way20. Nevertheless, innovation and economic progress are by definition a never ending story: there will always be the need for innovative ideas, products, and methods, calling for further improvements in the research field. The EU needs therefore to maintain the focus, continuing to invest efforts and resources in this policy area21, as well as to find out the most effective way to reach results.
19
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, SEC(2010) 1161.
20 State of the Innovation Union - Taking stock 2010 – 2014, Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the
document: COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Research and innovation as sources of renewed growth COM(2014) 339.
21 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Research and innovation as sources of renewed growth, SWD(2014) 181.
12
1.2 The socioeconomic context in EU, research and innovation in the EU2020 perspective
The European Union has seen in the last twenty years many changes of its structure and composition, bringing an unavoidable need to fill the gap between the Member States and to deal with internal economic and social adjustments.
Moreover, the economic crisis that has hit Europe since 2007 and the priority to face new societal challenges have imposed a new accent on the Research and Innovation policy as engine for growth and sustainable development.
The enlargement22 to the Eastern European Countries has created new opportunities from an economic point of view. Nevertheless, it has also pushed the European leading class to think about how to create equal opportunities and wealth in the whole Union.
At the same time, the economic precarious situation of the Southern Countries and the last global economic crisis have led the EU leadership to take into account new ways to boost economy, to enhance internal market and to create better and homogenous living conditions.
From an historic point of view, the expansion of the EU boundaries with the new Member Countries in 200423 and 200724 has been a great opportunity to increase the variety of European society, to cope with the fall of dictatorship in Eastern Europe and to share a bigger space for peace. Those countries have been able to comply with EU laws, to establish a peaceful societal environment, to contribute to the whole political design of the Union25.
From an economic perspective, those enlargement waves have increased the size of the internal market, its competitiveness and strengthen the position of the European Union as economic global
22
The Enlargement of the European Union is considered as a set of policies involving different sectors, that are negotiated separately, as conditions of the common market, political representations of the new Members, reception of the acquis communataire.
23 Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. 24
Romania and Bulgaria 25
I. BACHE and G. STEPHEN, "Politics in the European Union", 20006 (2nd ed.). Oxford, Oxford University Press. N. NUGENT, "European Union Enlargement", 2004, Houndmills, Palgrave MacMillan.
13 player. The new Member Countries have generated an increase of economic activities, investments, trade, and contributed to the economic growth26. Today European Union internal market is the biggest in the world, 30 million businesses generate the EU’s GDP of €14 trillion, serving more than half a billion people27.
However, the process has also created new necessities: the living standard and income disparities between the Member States have been, and they continue to be, a priority on the political agenda of the EU. The necessity to tackle this challenge has become even more urgent in the last ten years, in conjunction with the global economic crisis that has strongly affected all the Member States. Indeed, it was not only necessary to fill the gap between the Member States, but also to ensure a sustainable and economic progress, that could be the basis of further improvements for the European society and economy.
The data concerning the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in purchasing power standards (PPS) and the growth rate in Member States show still in recent years a very heterogeneous situation.
In 2013, the average GDP per capita in the Member States was PPS 26.6 thousands that can be used to compare the situation of the different countries settling this average equal to 100. From this point, the highest valued was detained by Luxembourg, where GDP per capita in PPS was around 2.6 times the EU average; the lowest value has been registered by Bulgaria, where GDP per capita in PPS was less than half the EU average28.
Also the data concerning the growth rate in the Member States confirm consistent differences within the Union, whose average in 2014 was 1.3%. In the same year, the highest growth rates were recorded in Ireland (4.8 %), Hungary (3.6 %), Malta (3.5 %) and Poland (3.4 %), followed by Spain
26
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION, TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL, Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2006 – 2007 Including annexed special report on the EU's capacity to integrate new members, COM(2006) 649 final.
27
State of the Union report 2016
14 (1.4 %), Portugal (0.9 %) and Greece (0.8 %). Cyprus, Italy and Finland contracted for the third consecutive year in 2014 while in Croatia the run of consecutive annual falls in real GDP extended to six years29.
In 2013, 16.6 % of the EU-28 population was assessed to be at-risk-of-poverty30 after social transfers. This share, calculated as a weighted average of national results, hides considerable variations across the EU Member States. In five Member States, namely Greece (23.1 %), Romania (22.4 %), Bulgaria (21.0 %), Lithuania (20.6 %) and Spain (20.4 %), one fifth or more of the population was viewed as being poverty. The lowest proportions of persons at-risk-of-poverty were observed in the Netherlands (10.4 %) and the Czech Republic (8.6 %)31.
The European economic situation has been severely affected by the global financial crisis that spread out since 2007 and moved fast from the financial markets to all the economic sectors32. The following prolonged downturn has been the worse since the Second World War, putting in great danger the political objective already highlighted and proudly announced in March 2000 at the Lisbon Summit of the European Council. In that occasion, the new strategic goal for the EU was designated as “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion”33
.
The European social cohesion and the economic situation are not the solely matters the European Union has to deal with. In the last years, the priorities of the EU agenda have been reviewed giving a more important rank to some areas, as the ageing of the population, the shortage of natural resources, the energy sector and environment.
29
Eurostat: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/National_accounts_and_GDP
30 The at-risk-of-poverty rate is the share of people with an equalized disposable income (after social transfer) below the
at-risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60 % of the national median equalized disposable income after social transfers. This indicator does not measure wealth or poverty, but low income in comparison to other residents in that country, which does not necessarily imply a low standard of living.
31 Eurostat: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Income_distribution_statistics
32 European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, “Economic Crisis in Europe:
Causes, Consequences and Responses”, European Economy, 7/2009.
15 Those issues have always been part of the EU strategy and policy, however recently they have regained more impetus as they are interesting and investing Europe much more than before.
The population of the EU on 1 January 2014 was estimated at 506.8 million. Young people (0 to 14 years old) made up 15.6 % of the EU-28’s population, while persons considered to be of working age (15 to 64 years old) accounted for 65.8 % of the population. Older persons (aged 65 or over) had a 18.5 % share (an increase of 0.3 % compared with the previous year)34.
The figure on demography published every year by Eurostat, shows that population ageing is a long term trend, and this is due to a drop in the fertility rate and to the increase of the expectancy life. If from one side EU citizens are expected to live longer and healthier, from the other side this imply to review the European social model35 and protection system36, as well as coping with social exclusion37 and aging diseases38.
The other big challenges on the EU schedule concern intertwined areas, as scarcity of natural resources, climate change and energy. By 2013, emissions of greenhouse gases in the EU have fallen by 19.8%, compared with the levels in 1990; the share of renewable energy in gross final energy production in the EU increased from 10.5% in 2008 to 15.0% in 2013; by 2013, primary energy consumption in the EU dropped to 1567 million tonnes of oil equivalent, its lowest level since a decade and between 2008 and 2013 energy use fell by 7%39.
Those results are remarkable and very promising, however the Europe 2020 targets are very ambitious: 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 1990), 20% of renewable
34 Eurostat: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing
35 European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, ‘Joint report on
social protection and social inclusion 2008 — social inclusion, pensions, healthcare and long-term care’, 2008, Brussels.
36 Mainly the pension schemes, the welfare state, the healthcare system.
37 European Parliament and Council (2011), ‘Decision No 940/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 14 September 2011 on the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations (2012)’, OJ L246, 23.9.2011.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2010, ‘Strategy for equality between women and men, 2010–15’, COM(2010) 491 final, Brussels.
38
Mainly atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer's disease.
16 energy sources in energy consumption, 20% increase in energy efficiency40. Reaching those goals require therefore additional efforts, then customized and punctual policies.
Concerns of citizens in a challenging context can be addressed thanks to innovation, to multi-disciplinary cooperation, new achievements and disseminations.
The contiguity and interdependence between many fields encourage a multi-area approach to exploit the spill over effects of research and overlapping between sectors.
Research, findings, and applications in one field can be exploited in another one: the interconnections between areas are clear. Transport, energy, raw materials, environment, agriculture, climate change, food security, biotechnology, health and demography, human sciences: all sectors are connected. The social and natural sphere are mutually influencing and determining the style of life and the needs to be tackled.
The European Research and Innovation policy is focusing on bringing together knowledge and technologies from these different and interlinked disciplines, to better face the challenges of the current European society.
Both in the renewed Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs and in the Innovation Union, the central policy making and orientations place Research and Innovation policy as one of the main source for growth, to ensure sustainable development and to face all the already highlighted challenges. This witnesses the importance for the EU leaders and their willingness to boost R&I at the supranational level.
To have an effective Research and Innovation policy it is necessary to overrun the fragmentation imposed by national programmes and objectives, in favour of a coordinated and communitarian approach.
The interconnected elements and synergies characterizing and constituting the European Research and Innovation policy can be seen from a multi-area and multi-level perspective.
40
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION, EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 final.
17 The multi-area approach is aimed to maximize the research efforts in interrelated and contiguous fields to better exploit interdisciplinary skills, interdependence and spill over effects.
The multi-level approach develops and exploits the interaction between the European Union and the Member States and the European Union as public sector and the private sector.
The coordination of national and European research policies is essential to have harmonized programmes, to work together on agreed priorities and avoiding dispersion of resources.
This approach implies rationalized coordination and investments and it promotes overcoming of national barriers, encourages cross border projects and activities, and facilitates mobility for researchers.
The EU level seems to be the best place where to build up and make flourish an effective and results oriented research policy: the supranational environment ensures the reaching of the critical mass, interconnections between people and ideas, networks of infrastructures, cooperation and synchronization between the different governance levels, linkages between research areas are at the heart of a virtual pattern.
18
1.3 Traditional and new instruments of EU policy in research & innovation
At the beginning of the European integration process, the six founding Member States put the accent on the political objective, ensuring prosperity and peace, and on the basic raw material sectors, as steel and coal.
The integration pattern has gradually developed and inscribed on the political agenda the idea for a deeper integration and coordination in other sectors. As the European construction is an ongoing process, still today and probably for many years to come, the application of the communication method to policy areas arrived step by step, as result of reflections and replies to needs.
This can be easily seen in history of the European Research Policy that has emerged at the supranational level as a real policy only in the ‘80s. Nevertheless, already in the ‘50s has come up the idea of a research cooperation and integration: article 4 of the EURATOM Treaty gave the European Commission the responsibility to promote and help the nuclear research of Member States and consequently to integrate the single national instruments in a Community’s research scheme41. The same Treaty gave the Joint Research Centre a primary role in carrying out the task: as the Member States were not ready to replace their national research programmes with a European programme, it has been decided to integrate and enhance the capacity of existing national research centre42. Even if the role of the Commission43 was limited to the nuclear research and to coordinating and sponsoring role, it was already clear the importance of the supranational level. Of course, the destiny of the European integration and with it of the development of a coordinated and communitarian research policy has known many difficulties during the first decades due to the fear of the supranational decision making process, the attachment to national identities and priorities and the defence of national prerogatives.
41 European Union, The Euratom Treaty Consolidated Versions, 2010, Article 4.
42 The largest and most important centre was in Ispra (Italy): in 1959 the National Committee for Nuclear Research and
EURATOM signed the agreement for the “Europeanization” of the centre.
19 Even if the post war decades have been marked by a period of reconstruction, industrialization and economic growth, in the late ‘60s the technological gap and the different approach to innovation between Western Europe and the United States aroused clearly.
It was also clear that facing this challenge at the European level would have implied the overrun of the national positions and the subsequent difficulties; however, this choice would have bring to a better condition for mutual reinforcement, complementarity, sharing of knowledge and its maximisation.
Those elements were at the basis of the construction of a first nucleus of a European Research Policy, and they still are central motivations to foster and sustain it.
Indeed, in 1982 the Member States agreed to launch the European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in Information Technology (ESPRIT)44, which can be considered the cornerstone of the EU Research Policy, as the overall objectives were civilian and oriented towards industry.
The impetus for a real and effective European Research Policy arrived with the launch of the Framework Programmes45 in 1984. The approach was completely new: from one side it created a common supranational scheme; from the other side, it reorganized the different research and development activities under a unique umbrella. In addition, the reorganization was not only the rationalization of financial instruments and legal or administrative provisions; it touched also the scientific side of the programmes, strengthening their interactions and the exploitation of the spill over effects46.
The criteria at the core of all Framework Programmes since 1984 were mainly the larger scale setting and financial sources, the reaching of a critical mass, the utilisation of results from all
44 Official Journal (OJ), L 369, 29 December 1982.
45 The main financial instrument for Research and Development, organized in multiannual programmes and around
policy priorities.
46
Official Journal (OJ), C 208, 4 August 1983, Council resolution of 25 July 1983 on framework programmes for Community research, development and demonstration activities and a first framework programme 1984 to 1987.
20 Member States, complementarity and cohesion in science and technology, establishment of uniform laws and standards47.
The First Framework Programme (1984-1987) foreseen a budget of EUR 3.3 billion; the Second Framework Programme (1987-1991) had a financial allocation of EUR 5.4 billion; the Third Framework Programme (1990-1994) had EUR 6.6 billion; the Fourth Framework Programme(1994-1998) made available EUR 13.2 billion; the Fifth Framework Programme (1998-2002) accounted for EUR 14.9 billion; the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) had a budget of EUR 19.3 billion; the Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2014) arrived to EUR 55.9 billion; finally Horizon 2020 (the last Framework Programme for 2014-2020) reached the amount of EUR 80 billion48.
During thirty years, the financial resources and the involved areas have steadily expanded; however the real turning point was the Lisbon Strategy, that has inserted Research and Development in the panorama of key policy and it has given a political orientation to this domain.
With the Lisbon Strategy49 the Framework Programmes replaced the traditional project-driven approach aimed to boost transnational cooperation with a programmatic approach, a thematic content and a top-down European dynamics50.
The main new feature of the Framework Programme after the Lisbon European Council is represented by the launch of the European Research Area (ERA)51 where connection between researches and ideas can bring to high quality research52.
47 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, “A New Role for EU Research and
Innovation in the Benefit of Citizens: Towards and Open and Transformative R&I Policy”, June 2015.
48
Even if data are given in EUR, before January 2002 the ECU (European Currency Unit) was used.
49 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Towards an European Research Area, 18 January 2000, COM(2000)6 final.
50
D. ADREE, “Priority-setting in the European Research Framework Programmes”, 2009 http://www.vinnova.se/upload/EPiStorePDF/va09-17.pdf
51 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth, SWD(2012) 211 final, SWD(2012) 212 final.
21 Indeed, the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) was organised around three chapters: focusing and integrating Community Research, structuring the European Research Area, strengthening the foundation of the European Research Area53.
The concept of a European internal market for research, where researchers, technology and knowledge can freely circulate is at the heart of the launch and development of the ERA: the flow of competent scientists, with high levels of mobility between organizations, disciplines and countries, promotes the active knowledge sharing and the interconnections of potential innovative projects.
The main priorities of the ERA were listed as a more effective national research system, an open labour market for researchers, gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research, optimal transnational cooperation and competition, optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge. Additionally, a particular accent has been settled on removing the obstacle to mobility, enabling relocation of social security provisions and pension rights. The purpose was not only making possible the circulation of scientists, but also to encourage this circulation.
To testify the importance of the new political design of the European Research policy and the commitment of the Member States to the ERA, the Treaty on the European Union (Lisbon Treaty) makes a direct reference to ERA, thus legitimising the coordination of national researches at EU level, creating a single market for researchers and explicitly making Research a EU competency54. The Seventh Framework Programme55 (FP7) continued the strategy to innovate and making the EU Research Policy more effectual56: it has been built developing the existing positive arrangements
52
The first Commissioner to conceptualize a European space for free movement of researchers was Ralf Dahrendorf in the ‘70s.
53 Official Journal (OJ) L 232, 29 August 2002, Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 June 2002 concerning the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006).
54 Treaty on the Function of the European Union, article 179.
55 Official Journal (OJ), L 412, 30 December 2006, Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013).
22 and inserting many new features, as the Public-Public Partnership, the Public-Private Partnership, and the Joint Programming Initiatives.
The FP7 has focused on enhancing and boosting the ERA to create a space of excellence, to bring research to frontiers, to support the career of scientists, to attract young researchers in Europe. The instruments used to achieve those goals are not only financial tools, but also availability of infrastructures, networks and services.
In particular, it is useful to remind the creation of EURAXESS57, a pan-European initiative providing information and support services to help researchers to find jobs abroad.
The ERA has been then supported and potentiated concretely also by the development and improvement of Research Infrastructures (RIs), defined in the MERIL project58 as a facility or (virtual) platform that provides the scientific community with resources and services to conduct top-level research in their respective fields.
Research Infrastructures play a vital role in the knowledge triangle of research, education and innovation, building knowledge through research, disseminating it through education, and applying it through innovation. The existence and accessibility to high-quality RIs (as observatories, high tech instruments, functional laboratories, synchrotrons and accelerators, data banks, networks of computing facilities, high speed communication networks) are prerequisites to carry out serious scientific studies.
RIs can be single-sited59 or distributed60 or e-infrastructure61, they and can be part of a national or international network of facilities, or of interconnected scientific instrument networks. In any case,
56
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Putting knowledge into practice: A broad-based innovation strategy for the EU, COM(2006) 502 final.
57 www.euraxess.org 58
The Mapping of the European Research Infrastructure Landscape (MERIL) project (started in 2010) is a pan-European effort to produce a comprehensive inventory of research infrastructures of ‘more-than-national’ relevance across Europe (http://portal.meril.eu/converis-esf/publicweb/startpage?lang=1).
59 A single resource at a single location. 60
A network of distributed resources.
23 they are those critical services creating an extraordinary research environment, allowing top scientists to interact and perform their work, favouring the cooperation among universities, research organizations, and enterprises.
The importance and vitality of RIs has led in 2002 to the set-up of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (EFSRI)62: it brings together the EU Member States, the Associated Countries and the European Commission63, with the scope to elaborate a common pattern and maximize policies and activities favouring RIs.
Though the national governments continue to play an important role in funding and developing RIs, the supra national level provides the synergies and common vision for a stronger cooperation. The European Union facilitates RIs ensuring a common legal environment to override national peculiarities through the European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC)64 entered into force in 2009.
Within the fields of the EU interventions that can be done only with an EU budget where Member States pool their resources, the collaborative programs in research has been marked by both economic and Commission literature as bringing high EU added value which cannot be obtained through national programmes65, in terms of the international dimension66, research competition, quality, complexity and scale67, risk reduction and leverage effect on private funding, economic impact, achievement of pan-European standards and overcoming of European barriers, enabling
62
In June 2001, the Research Council invited "the Commission, in close collaboration with the Member States, to explore the establishment of new arrangements to support policies related to research infrastructures”.
63 The ESFRI delegates are nominated by the Research Ministers of the Member States and Associated Countries, and
include a representative of the European Commission.
64 Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research
Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC).
65
Fahrenkrog, 2002; Georghiou 2001; Georghiou et al., 2002; PREST et al., 2002
66 Kuhlmann and Edler, 2003 67
24 growth of innovative SMEs and critical mass, worldwide excellence and powerful research infrastructures, enhancement of dialogue with industry68.
Indeed, FP7 has been marked also by new legal arrangements aimed to introduce new forms of coordination and partnering, thus exploiting the interaction between the European Union and the Member States and the European Union as public sector and the private sectors.
The coordination of national and European research policies is essential to have harmonized programmes, to work together on agreed priorities and avoiding dispersion of resources.
This implies rationalized coordination and investments: partnering helps achieving effective results. In the European Research policy, Public-Public Partnerships for instance have been declined in different forms: ERA-Nets69 support networking structures and increase the benefits of individual calls and actions; the participation in Joint Programmes Initiatives (JPIs) between Member States; the involvement of the European Union in national research programmes (Art. 185)70.
The JPIs are built up on voluntary basis between Member States to efficiently use the Europe public research funds and to implement long term collaboration on common agreed priorities71.
This approach promotes the overcoming of national barriers, encourages cross border projects and activities, and facilitates mobility for researchers.
The European Union supports the JPIs with financing support, complementary measures and promoting the linkages and interconnections between the national, European and international spheres in the research field.
68
The added value of the EU budget, Accompanying the document Commission Communication A budget for Europe 2020, Brussels, 29.6.2011 SEC(2011) 867 final
69
Replacing ERA-Net, ERA-Net Plus, Inco-Net, Inno-net. 70
Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows the EU to take part in research programmes undertaken jointly by several Member States, including participation in the structures created for the execution of national programmes.
71
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Towards Joint Programming in Research: Working together to tackle common challenges more effectively, COM(2008) 468 final.
25 The FP7 recognizes the prominent role of the private sector in producing innovation: it is important to convey capitals towards key technologies, to attract private investment in research, to sustain innovative small and medium sized enterprises.
Nevertheless, the rising costs of research, the increasing interdependence of technologies and their fast evolution make necessary special arrangements to reinforce the link between research, industry and market.
The Commission started this path in 2003 with the development of European Technology Platforms (ETPs), but only a limited number of them offered the opportunity for significant technological advances in line with their Strategic Research Agendas, these needs were addressed through Public-Private Partnerships in the form of dedicated entity called Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) which were identified in 6 areas applying the following set of criteria:
contribution to Europe’s industrial competitiveness in strategic technologies;
fight against the existing market failures which prevent an optimum technology development as well as the research and industrial policy;
the necessity of a Community added value through more complementarity and leverage effect on both private and public investments and a long term commitment of the industry in order to reach a critical mass beyond the capacity of individual Member States;
the inadequacy of the existing instruments (the framework programme) to achieve the desired outcomes of the ETPs Strategic Research Agendas because of the insufficient synergies of other funding bodies, Member States and industry 7273.
72 Commission Staff Working Report, Report on European Technology Platforms and Joint Technology Initiatives:
Fostering Public-Private R&D Partnerships to Boost Europe’s Industrial Competitiveness, SEC(2005) 800. 73
The EC Treaty provides for the possibility to establish Joint Undertaking (Art 187 TFEU). The Joint Undertaking (JU) is the legal entity constituting the framework for the JTI activities.
26 One of the six areas was implemented not as a JTIs but through an agreement with the European Space Agency and research grants, on the basis of a decision taken after the launch of the framework programme.
The partnering with the private sector in the area of research was reinforced in the European Economic Recovery Plan of 2008 with the first PPPs structured directly within the seventh framework programme as a response to the financial and economic crisis to revitalize three key sectors74.
In the past the main purpose of PPPs was infrastructure projects, e.g. in the energy or medical sectors. The European Commission extended the field with the “GREEN PAPER ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY LAW ON PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND CONCESSIONS”75
defining them as “a form of cooperation between the public authorities and
economic operators. The primary aims of this cooperation are to fund, construct, renovate or operate an infrastructure or the provision of a service. PPPs are present in sectors such as transport, public health, education, national security, waste management, and water and energy distribution.”
In 2011 the Commission outlined again the general framework of the partnering both between “Public-Public” (P2P) and “Public-Private” (PPP) in research and innovation confirming somehow to have fully included in its strategic vision the Schumpeterian lesson that innovation is the engine of "competition that counts"76.
74 A European Economic Recovery Plan 26.11.2008 COM(2008) 800 final 75
GREEN PAPER ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY LAW ON PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND CONCESSIONS, COM(2004) 327 final
76
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Partnering in Research and Innovation, Brussels, 21.9.2011 COM(2011) 572 final
27 The term Public-Private Partnership77 (PPP) describes a relationship in which public and private resources are blended to achieve a goal or set of goals judged to be mutually beneficial both to the private entity and to the public.
PPPs in research are relatively novel in comparison with the traditional procurement–based public– private partnerships for public service delivery or for developing and operating infrastructures, which have existed for more than a decade. The latter type of PPP aims at producing concrete outputs by exploiting the advantages offered, notably in terms of access to additional finance and capitalising on private sector operational efficiencies to reduce costs and increase quality. In contrast, the outputs of PPPs in research may not be so tangible in the short term and, indeed, may be less predictable and quantifiable. This is primarily due to the uncertainties inherent in the field of research, which also makes it difficult to anticipate any specific rates of return on investments in the same way as in other sectors.
Industrial research was already named in the First Framework Programme, and it has always been a priority in the subsequent editions.
During the FP6 industry, public authorities and technology users came together as part of the new European Technology Platforms78, industry-led stakeholder forum recognized by the European Commission79 and established to operate across different areas such as manufacturing, construction, nanotechnologies and industrial safety80.
77
L. WITTERS, R. MAROM, K. STEINERT, “The Role of Public-Private Partnerships in Driving Innovation”, in INSEAD and the World Intellectual Property Organization, “The Global Innovation Index 2012: Stronger Innovation
linkages for Global Growth”, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, 2012.
78 Commission Communication of 11 December 2002 on industrial policy in an enlarged Europe, COM (2002) 714
final.
79 The role of the European Commission is: identify the key areas, providing bridges between the platforms and the EU
bodies and policies, re-orientation of appropriate funding instruments, foster coordination of public investments, sustaining the dialogue.
80
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, “Technology Platforms: from Definition to Implementation of a Common Research Agenda”, 2004.
28 However, it is with FP7 and the creation of PPPs at the European level that the industrial sector has gained a central position81, not only for being one of the recipient of the Framework Programme, but overall for being one of the principal actors.
FP7 new instruments, and in particular the PPPs have created a new place where the supply-side of the EU Research policy and demand-side of the industrial sector could meet82. The low capacity of European Union to transform knowledge into commercial products have pushed for creating a framework under which research community, financial sector, private enterprise and public sector could come together to reach concrete objectives83.
This innovative approach, included some novel tools introduced by FP7, has been followed and enhanced by H2020.
Through the Innovation Union Flagship and its financial instrument Horizon 202084, Europe works to complete the European space for research, to increase the excellence in science and to translate the findings and innovative ideas to the market85.
Indeed, Horizon 2020 is organised around three main areas already launched in the nucleus of FP7. Firstly, the European Research Area with “Priority 1 – Excellent Science”86
aiming to furnish concrete elements to favour infrastructures’ access, to facilitate knowledge transfer, and guarantee open access to results. Secondly, the focus on the industrial sector with “Priority 2 – Industrial
81 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Reviewing Community innovation policy in a changing world, COM(2009) 442 final.
82
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, “A New Role for EU Research and Innovation in the Benefit of Citizens: Towards and Open and Transformative R&I Policy”, June 2015.
83 Commission Staff Working Document, Report on European Technology Platforms and Joint Technology Initiatives:
Fostering Public-Private R&D Partnerships to Boost Europe’s Industrial Competitiveness, SEC(2005) 800.
84 Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing
Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC
85 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, SEC(2010) 1161.
86
Under H2020 “Priority 1 – Excellent Science” comprises the following actions:
Marie Curie Actions (3132 million euros on 2014-2020)
European Research Council (13095 million euros on 2014-2020)
Research Infrastructures (2488 million euros on 2014-2020)
29 Leadership”, where the role of the private sector is also prominent in producing innovation: H2020 conveys capitals towards key technologies, to attract private investment in research, to sustain innovative small and medium sized enterprises87. Finally, the cross cutting challenges driven design with “Priority 3 – Societal Challenges” to better address the societal needs in key areas as transport, energy, raw materials, environment, agriculture, climate change, food security, biotechnology, health and demography, human sciences88.
Horizon 2020 has enhanced and developed the use of PPPs in Research, assigning a fundamental role89 to response to market failures and achieve a socially optimum level of R&D.
Almost all the call for proposals under FP7 are closed and we entered already more than one year ago fully in H2020. It is necessary to make an assessment on the efficacy of the new instruments introduced by FP7, as the JTIs. They have been prolonged and potentiated in H2020, with starting point the results already achieved. Soon it will be time to start designing the next Framework Programme after 2020, where it will be crucial to concentrate resources and efforts on efficient instruments, to allow European Research to continue achieving good results and to strength the link between the knowledge, the innovation and the market90.
87 Under H2020 those actions are addressed thanks to “Priority 2 - Industrial Leadership”:
Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies - LEITs (13557 million euros on 2014-2020)
Access to risk finance (2842 million euros on 2014-2020)
Innovation in SMEs (616 million euros on 2014-2020, +20% of dedicated budget from other sources).
88 H2020 put in place instruments in many fields with “Priority 3 - Societal Challenges”: Health, demographic change and wellbeing (7472 million euros on 2014-2020)
Food security, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research & the Bioeconomy (3851 million euros on 2014-2020)
Secure, clean and efficient energy (5931 million euros on 2014-2020, expect nuclear security and safety)
Smart, green and integrated transport (6339 million euros on 2014-2020)
Climate action, resource efficiency and raw materials (3081 million euros on 2014-2020)
Inclusive and reflective societies (1309 million euros on 2014-2020)
Secure societies (1695 million euros on 2014-2020)
Science with and for society ( 462 million euros on 2014-2020)
Spreading excellence and widening participation (816 million euros on 2014-2020).
89 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Public-private partnerships in Horizon 2020: a powerful tool to deliver on innovation and growth in Europe, COM(2013) 494 final.
90 State of the Innovation Union - Taking stock 2010 – 2014, Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the
30 There will always be the need for innovative ideas, products, and methods, calling for further improvements in the research field. The EU needs therefore to maintain the focus and to ameliorate the existing mechanisms in this policy area91.
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Research and innovation as sources of renewed growth COM(2014) 339.
91
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Research and innovation as sources of renewed growth, SWD(2014) 181.
31
1.4 Thesis methodology
This current introductive chapter has highlighted the importance of the Research and Innovation policy as a key element to create innovation, to stimulate growth and to ensure a sustainable development within the European Union. Additionally, it provides a comprehensive historical and political background to understand better the evolution of this policy area in the last thirty years and therefore to look at the European dynamics in the research area with a critic attitude and tolerant eye at the same time.
The second chapter fully concerns the Public-Private Partnerships both in their classical configuration and in specific domain of research & innovation, to give the theoretical basis and notions to understand the subsequent analytical part of the work. This section presents the history and the relevant scientific literature announcing general common motivations, positive aspects and criticisms. The literature will be acquired through direct inquiry with research tools such “Scopus”, “Web of Science”, “Google Scholars”, “Elsevier”, “Emerald Insight”, “Springer Link”, “SSRN” for which my employer (the European Commission) has specific subscriptions with possibility to reach huge quantity of papers and articles. I will provide as well a systematic reconstruction of the European Union soft law legislation and a general description of the different forms of research PPPs within the EU, with a particular focus on the Joint Technology Initiatives and their preliminary outcomes.
Then a third chapter will concentrate the analysis the description, performance, quantitative and qualitative indicators of 3 cases studies of research PPPs in FP7 and Horizon 2020 adopting a qualitative approach, first reporting the outcomes from years 2009 to 2013, secondly extrapolating the outputs of unstructured interviews held in 2014 and 2015.
The choice for the PPP in the research is explained by my general interest in the public-private collaboration field and for my strategic position since December 2013 as officer within the
32 operational directorate D “Industrial Technologies” of the European Commission Directorate Research & Innovation (DG RTD) which is leading directorate for some of the new contractual public-private partnerships in that domain. Important input and information came as well from my participations to the conference in October 2013 in Antwerp “Global challenges in PPP: cross sectoral and cross disciplinary solutions ?” and to the workshop in November 2013 in Brussels “ PPP Procurement for Transport Infrastructure, from investment programme to project implementation” (hosted by the European Commission DG Mobility and Transport). In this section I will illustrate the gathered data and the methodology used to carry out the analysis, at the end I will present the research findings as well the answer to the research question.
The last fourth chapter will formulate critics on the findings and some policy recommendations based on the obtained results, giving some ideas and indications for the European Union public management and policy in the research & innovation.
33
CHAPTER 2
ANTECEDENTS AND LITERATURE RIVIEW
2.1 History and definition of PPP
The concept of partnering with the private sector is not new. Since the days of the Republic of Rome92 and, with more or less continuity, until the mid-seventeenth century, it was common practice for governments to grant private citizens concessions for the execution of public services of primary interest and, often, the realization of instrumental works object of the concession. In most cases, the explanation could be traced in the motivation that managing an efficient public administrative organization with a wide geographical coverage was politically and economically too expensive. The consolidation of the bureaucratic state, coinciding with the “Industrial Revolution” in different European countries, contributed with the shrinking of the private contribution to the public sphere. In more recent times, the idea of a greater and more substantial involvement of the private sector in the public coincided with the perception of a too heavy budget implementation. Traditionally public infrastructures and services have been provided and managed by the public sector. However, the rapid progress, the increase of demand facilities and the scarcity of available public funds have pushed the public sector to develop new features to involve the private sector for multiple motivations93.
In the 80s the governments, particularly in the United Kingdom, started to study different options to engage the private sector and two main tendencies emerged: the full privatization of public infrastructures and services from one side and the implementation of public-private partnerships on the other94. The first option implied the total shifting of responsibility from the public to the private
92
Merola (2001), Priks (2005), Cosgel and Miceli (2007)
93 Reasons for implementing PPP will be discussed in the subsequent section. 94
R. FORD and D. ZUSSMAN, “Alternative Service Delivery: Sharing Governance in Canada”, Institutes of Public Administration of Canada, 1997, Toronto.
