We have now had a couple of weeks to digest the idea that, in the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework, the European Universities Initiative might find its home in the European Competitiveness Fund, the Commission’s planned all-purpose strategic and economic tool.
It is difficult to conceive of the EUI, which has so far spawned 65 international alliances of higher education institutions, removed from its current home in Erasmus+. Fostering strategic partnerships is one of that programme’s central features.
But it is also worth flipping the question: if alliances were to move to the ECF, what would be the advantages—and how could they be realised?
I see three rationales for policymakers to contemplate such a move. First, all alliances agree on their commitment to address Europe’s challenges and serve its societies at a critical time. Moving alliances to the ECF would move them closer to political attention—with the opportunities and risks that entails.
Second, moving to the ECF might give alliances more access to funding—a larger overall budget, and different sources of support for different activities.
Third, alliances have developed a remarkable breadth of activity on very little funding. Policymakers might see now as a good time to consider how to better concentrate efforts.
Build on past achievements
Would better-funded alliances within the ECF be preferable to continuing in Erasmus+ with less money? And would alliances be evaluated and funded on the same terms, in line with the ECF’s priorities? Given how little we know about the ECF, and the financial choices available, it’s impossible to be sure.
But if alliances were funded from within the ECF, several things, at a minimum, would be needed.
To begin with, Erasmus+ must continue to be an ambitious programme, supporting mobility and strategic partnerships. This is critical for alliances, universities and, crucially, students.
It’s not clear that a diminished Erasmus+ would be a price worth paying. The EU must continue to invest ambitiously in both mobility and strategic partnerships far beyond university alliances.
If alliances move to the ECF, any changes must build on their prior achievements and aspirations, not jettison them. The communities of professors, administrators and university leaders that have made alliances what they are must be supported, not undermined.
Admit multiple perspectives
Alliances have an expansive perspective on the problems facing Europe, of which economic competitiveness is only one. The ECF would clearly be enriched by incorporating alliances’ perspectives. But is the fund ready for this challenge? Is the Commission?
The Commission is creating the ECF to give it greater ‘agility’ and directionality to fund priority areas. The research and innovation to support this, including fundamental research, must come from competitive funding in the Horizon Europe programme. Europe will only make headway against tough global competition if it funds the best researchers and innovators; these are defined by their expertise, not their institutional affiliation.
Alliances have begun to build greater coherence in Europe’s higher education system, and this has clearly been a key ambition through teaching collaboration.
In research, what could be funded to support coherence, without rivalling the Framework Programme, is less clear. It is important to achieve clarity around what enabling funding for research collaboration is possible, and what it will achieve.
Alliances have attracted support beyond the EU, from Erasmus+ members such as Turkey to those beyond such as Switzerland and the UK. If alliances remain within Erasmus+, they will be automatically covered by the UK’s and Switzerland’s decisions to join the programme as a whole.
But would these governments be prepared to provide public money for their universities’ participation outside of Erasmus+, given that only a minority of universities benefit from the European universities initiative? Any move to the ECF must assure the status and funding of these nations’ universities.
Sustain political support
Perhaps the biggest challenge will be structural. How can we ensure that alliances retain the support of the EU’s Directorate General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, whose staff understand universities, their timelines and the complexities of their governance? We need safeguards that ensure those overseeing the ECF know and respect what alliances do.
To be sure, the ECF might deliver its promised single rules for participation across different activities, including research and education. This would make it easier for the EU to respond to emerging priorities; whether it simplifies life for applicants is entirely unclear. It would be critical that the EU gives alliances simplified administrative procedures that are fit for their purposes.
The EU would also need to give alliances means that are commensurate with its ambitions, with member states finally removing the remaining regulatory obstacles to trans-European collaboration.
Roxana Mînzatu, the Commission’s executive vice-president whose brief includes skills and human capital, clearly believes in the university sector. But her term only runs until late 2029, less than two years after the start of the next budget period.
How can we ensure that the new Commission will nurture alliances throughout the next MFF? Alliances need robust guardrails to protect them from (changing) expectations that they cannot meet.
The stakes are high—for the ideas, the dedication and the commitment that alliances have generated. If alliances move to the ECF, it is critical that they are enabled to address Europe’s challenges through their distinctive strengths, including the spirit of collaboration that Europe is built upon.
For this to happen, alliances could not be just another instrument in the ECF. Building on strong funding for mobility and partnerships for the whole sector through Erasmus+, alliances would need to be clearly ringfenced in their timelines, their capacity for bottom-up collaboration, the participation of universities outside the EU, and their exposure to short-term political and budgetary shifts.
This article was originally published in Research Professional.
Jan Palmowski
Secretary-General of The Guild – A contemporary historian, he started his career at the University of Oxford before moving to King’s College London where he taught European politics and EU integration. He was Pro-Vice-Chancellor at the University of Warwick from 2013 to 2017. In this blog space, Prof. Palmowski engages with some of the wider questions around research, education, innovation and the EU. The views expressed here are his and not those of The Guild.