University rectors from three countries have joined forces to raise the key issues facing research and higher education in the upcoming European elections. The aim is to encourage parties to offer voters a choice, and make the EU more accessible.
For all their differing ideologies, the parties competing in the upcoming European elections share some common goals. Everyone can agree on the need to secure Europe’s outstanding innovation capacity and competitiveness, and everyone can agree that research and education are fundamental to future economic success.
But despite the huge challenges facing the next European Commission, there is surprisingly little debate about how these goals should be achieved. How can lagging member states be strengthened without weakening the high performers? Should a one-size-fits-all approach be applied, even if it forces disruptive change on some nations? What are the different ways to build bridges between our 28 national research systems?
Indeed, much of the decision-making in the EU—the procedures to complete the European Research Area spring to mind—still seems to follow the model described by Jean-Claude Juncker, former prime minister of Luxembourg and the European People’s Party candidate to be next president of the Commission: “We decide on something, throw the results into the room, wait and see what happens. If we hear no outcries of protest—and we won’t because people outside Brussels have no idea what was decided—then we go on, step by step, until there is no turning back.”
Europe’s political groups should be offering its citizens a choice of alternative directions. Together with Jean-Loup Salzmann, president of France’s CPU rectors’ association, and Wiesław Banys, president of Poland’s Krasp group of rectors, I recently suggested a list of policy ‘touchstones’. These are aimed at encouraging the political groups to improve their policies in research, innovation and higher education. With the help of the European University Association, we plan to invite all national rectors’ associations to join our initiative.
In April last year, we called on the EU to exclude spending on higher education, research and innovation from the calculation of the deficit limit of 3 per cent of GDP. During the financial crisis, many national governments used EU deficit limits as a cheap excuse for cuts in this area. Our proposal received very positive feedback from some commissioners.
Prompted by this, one of our suggestions is for the economic criteria laid out in the Maastricht Treaty to be supplemented by a minimum national investment in research, education and innovation. If we want to ensure the future competitiveness of Europe—especially in times of crisis—we need to acknowledge expenditure on research and education as an investment.
Another priority is the ‘knowledge triangle’ of research, education and innovation, defined in the Lisbon Strategy of 2000 as the foundation of growth and development of a knowledge economy.
What are the results of this observation 14 years on? In Brussels, discussion of the knowledge triangle revolves around the European Institute of Innovation and Technology and its Knowledge and Innovation Communities. This is mistaking the cherry for the cake. The EIT is a nice bonus for European innovation. But universities, the most important actors in the knowledge triangle, are not strategically supported in their efforts to develop innovation ecosystems in their local areas.
A successful, innovation-oriented university fuses its roles in creating research and human capital, preparing the ground for successful innovation in its region. Most German universities, for example, are shaping their individual profiles and building excellence in areas where they see local, regional, national or even global business demand. German companies are extremely interested in basing their research, and even some of their production capacities, in science parks on university campuses.
If universities are to continue to develop a sense of the specific needs of their regions, their autonomy is essential and should be another policy priority. A university can only identify and meet demand—and assume its role as a hub in the knowledge triangle—if it is free to shape its profile and choose its specialisations in teaching, research and knowledge transfer.
It will be interesting to see what answers the political parties give to the policy challenges in our touchstones, and to hear their ideas on how to support universities and shape European education and research. The time is right for such debate: most parties competing in the elections are demanding more democratic participation and transparency in EU decision-making, and this is the first time candidates have been named to run for Commission president.
Maybe the EU will take this opportunity to become more open to ideas from people outside Brussels. Or maybe it will return to business as usual and elaborate further on the predetermined ERA priorities.
Something to add? Email comment@ResearchResearch.com
Horst Hippler is president of the HRK, Germany’s association of university rectors.