PSF 2.0 – taking stock and building European R&I reform for the future
date: 29/01/2018
Policy experts met in Brussels to debate how the PSF should adapt in future and made recommendations such as broadening its scope, intensifying follow-up through an “after sales service”, and improving implementation through synergies with other EU instruments and international initiatives.
Reforms are essential, but need time
To date, the PSF has been a very effective tool in supporting reforms and reinvigorating national R&I systems in many European countries, contributing to boosting growth and competitiveness, but reforms are complex and delicate. The Directorate-General for Research & Innovation organised a seminar on ‘Policy support to reforms of national research and innovation systems in Europe’ on 11 December 2017 to review PSF experience. The goal was to consider how the PSF approach could be tuned and more widely implemented in the future research and innovation framework programme.
In his opening address, Robert-Jan Smits, Director-General for Research & Innovation of the European Commission stressed the strategic importance of the PSF: “reforms are essential to drive effectiveness and efficiency in R&I investment,” and noted that the PSF had already made science, education and innovation policy more effective in many countries. However, he insisted that PSF output should “not just be output in paper, but output in practice.”
How to reinforce and build on PSF outputs was a key aspect of the debate. In a discussion document elaborated by independent research and innovation expert, Claire Nauwelaers, she emphasises that maximising impact of policy reform requires consistent follow-up and that there was a need to “clearly articulate the benefits” of the PSF process.
R&I reforms require time and trust. For Krzysztof Gulda, Chair of the PSF panel that carried out the Peer Review of Moldova, the essential message is to “take into account the historical context of the host country” and “understand the mind-set of the representatives you meet.” He advised PSF to “go beyond the usual people – meet others, not just government ministers” and to reach out to the users of the system. He also agreed that follow-up is a must, saying: “PSF is resource intensive, expensive. Just paper is not good enough; effective follow-up must be within the framework.”
A new role, with the ingredients for success
Keith Sequeira, Senior adviser at the Cabinet of the European Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, pointed out that the PSF represents a new role for the European Commission; beyond its traditional "regulator or funder" roles. The European Commission now acts as a facilitator and knowledge provider. Representatives of countries that already received PSF support particularly welcomed this new role, emphasising that it should continue, while keeping its best features: its voluntary, tailor-made and flexible approach.
“The quality of the PSF is a key parameter,” said Hans Chang, Chair of the PSF Peer Review of Ukraine. He outlined four success factors: the choice of rapporteur; the composition of the panel; the possibility of informal information exchanges during the programme; and the clarity of the concluding recommendations.
Kurt Vandenberghe, Director for Policy Development and Coordination at DG Research & Innovation, stressed the importance of the PSF approach and the need for effective implementation. He laid out a vision for the PSF to evolve from analysis to better understanding. He presented the key elements for success as “the four Fs”: framing, focus, flexibility (no 'one size fits all'), and follow-up. “The key question is how to do all of these better and more,” he concluded.
The first three of these elements were highlighted as key to reinforce the definition phase of any PSF exercise, which will ensure more focus and political commitment, the seminar participants concluded.
Luc Soete, Chair of the PSF Peer Review of Bulgaria agreed that “this was the moment to further enlarge PSF” and that “the link with cohesion funds was clear.” He called for the PSF to be extended to include university reform as a key element.
Building on success: PSF 2.0
The importance of extended follow-up after each PSF intervention was repeatedly emphasised during the seminar. Reinforcing the PSF implementation phase could take the form of an “after sales service”, ensuring ownership and trust from a wider set of stakeholders. Finding and creating synergies with other EC instruments, such as the European structural and investment funds (ESIF), and other international organisations, such as the OECD and World Bank, could be key to strengthening implementation.
Robert-Jan Smits reminded participants that the European Semester and the Structural Funds are key to implementing and following up on PSF recommendations and provide “a unique EU opportunity to move PSF from paper to implementation”.
Other approaches and models for policy support were also discussed in the seminar, with presentations from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), The World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank (IBD), Inco-Nets (an EU policy support instrument first established under FP7), and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). All these organisations have conducted exercises with broadly similar aims to PSF, but using different methods and acting under different frameworks.
A wide spectrum of views and good practice was described. Discussions highlighted the importance of capturing the new dynamics of innovation in Europe and globally in any future PSF and of working closely with other European Commission services, such as DG NEAR and DG REGIO, who can reinforce PSF actions for mutual advantage. As Luc Soete said, “In terms of PSF, we all play and we all benefit!”
The results from the seminar will feed back into future European Commission activities in support of R&I policy reforms – as will a second seminar in 2018 on building a platform for sustained policy exchange through mutual learning. Mr Vandenberghe looked forward to the outcomes of the seminars, which could help formulate a “PSF 2.0” that would play a key role in the next R&I framework programme.
For further information