The latest additions to this webpage:
A closer look at the budget figures for Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe
Since the European commission presented its proposal for the next Framework Programme “Horizon Europe” for the period from 2021 to 2028, the proposed budget is a very controversial issue.
This paper is an attempt to put this debate on a more solid ground by trying to calculate truly comparable budget figures for the initial Horizon 2020 proposal from 2011, the actual Horizon 2020 regulation from 2013 and the new Horizon Europe proposal. The results show a somewhat different overall picture compared to the media coverage and public debate so far.
Article for the Online Version of "Research Europe"
Some thoughts about keywords for FP9
During the year 2017, the debate about the design of the next Framework Programme has evolved quite rapidly,
notably following the presentation of the Interim Evaluation Report for Horizon 2020. At this relatively early phase of the discussion the focus is not yet on detailed contents and concrete
figures, but rather on the broad concepts and key objectives for the European Research and Innovation Programme after 2020.
Against this background it seems timely and useful to shed some light at three keywords dominating the current debate:
Article in the 14.09.2017 edition of "Research Europe"
Monetary distribution effects of Horizon 2020 – An updated analysis (June 2017)
Following-up on a first analysis for Horizon 2020 (THINK Piece 1/2016), this paper looks at Horizon 2020 in terms of monetary redistribution between Member States for the period from 2014 up to May 2017. The paper is structured in four parts: Part one provides a description of the data used, whereas part two consists of a mainly descriptive overview on the key findings, for reasons of comparability presented in the same format as the previous analysis. The third part presents a closer look on how the “market shares” in FP funding have developed over the recent years for the six largest Member States. The final part presents just four simple conclusions from the analytical findings.
Splendor and misery – Some reflections on the role of Public Consultations in European Research Policy
Public Consultations are an important tool to make the shaping of European policies more transparent and to foster public participation. This paper presents a closer look at the use of Public Consultations for European Research Policy. Despite all good intentions and a remarkable mobilization of respondents from all over Europe, a closer analysis also highlights some important shortfalls of the current practice. The final chapter presents some reflections on how to tackle some of the problems identified and to achieve an adequate interpretation of the responses received.
Presentation at the Conference "Evaluation of Innovations and Innovations in Evaluation" in Vilnius/Lithuania
Presentation at the EARMA Annual Conference in La Valetta/Malta
Article in the 26.01.2017 edition of "Research Europe"
Presentation at the Conference "Interdisciplinary Futures" in Lisbon
Two-stage calls – A real improvement in times of low success rates?
The relatively low success rates for applicants in most parts of Horizon 2020 have been heavily and unanimously criticized by the stakeholders. In response, the European Commission introduced more generally a proposal evaluation in two stages, in order to ease the burden of unsuccessful applicants during the first stage. This approach received a very positive feedback from the scientific communities.
This paper presents a simple model to analyse the likely consequences of such a change and shows that, despite the general enthusiasm about the new approach, the net effects are rather nuanced. To make this approach a success, a very careful implementation will be required.
Article in the 20.10.2016 edition of "Research Europe"