A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents
the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website
or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.
Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40309-014-0055-4.pdf
Foresight in support of European research and innovation policies: The European Commission is preparing the funding of grand societal challenges
Eur J Futures Res
Foresight in support of European research and innovation policies: The European Commission is preparing the funding of grand societal challenges
Jean-Claude Burgelman 0
Jarka Chloupková 0
Werner Wobbe 0
0 J.<C. Burgelman
A foresight hub within the Directorate General Research and Innovation (DG RTD) of the European Commission will support the decision-making procedures of the EU Horizon 2020 research, technology, and innovation programme. Foresight in particular is seen as an instrument defining research priorities for European society's needs in support of the 'grand societal challenges'. The new initiative marks the recent success of the institutional and administrative application of foresight and derives from a long history of approaches to foresight taken by the European Commission. In fact, the Commission has been implementing measures to both internalise and externalise foresight during various periods since the 1970s. This paper outlines the various phases and approaches of foresight at the European Commission. It contextualises the new attempt of the foresight hub that is assumed to support the next European Commission's research and innovation policies.
European Commission; Horizon 2020; Administrative foresight; Good governance
-
The authors have worked in relation to foresight activities of the European
Commission over time. However, the views expressed in this article are
these of the authors and might not in any circumstances be regarded as
stating an official position of the European Commission. The authors are
grateful to Nikos Kastrinos and Rene von Schomberg for comments on
this article.
Introduction
The 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath could have
triggered the acceptance and the re-appearance of foresight in the
EU’s policy toolbox. Thus, instruments are needed to detect
early crisis phenomena and to identify sustainable ways to
overcome these.
Over time in DG Research and Innovation, foresight has
taken different forms in terms of approach, methodology and
operation. Originally more of an academic activity, it has
developed as an instrument for policy-making. However,
foresight has been informative in nature, focusing on
influencing policy thinking rather than policy making.1 Today,
foresight is accepted as a knowledge tool for decision-making on
R&I priorities.
The article will explain firstly the approach of foresight in
the context of good governance. Secondly it will outline the
new institutional and administrative approach of foresight in
the Commission. Thirdly it will look retrospectively at earlier
approaches and phases of foresight in the European
Commission. Then the article will describe the framework of the
‘grand societal challenges’ relevant for the operation of the
foresight hub before eventually concluding its reasoning.
Foresight and good governance
As latterly understood, foresight feeds not only into thinking
about and debating the future but also into shaping the future
by means of a structured process. Historically, it has
developed from pure technological and economic forecasting to a
policy instrument involving stakeholder participation. The
1 Rand Cooperation: Using foresight to improve the science-policy
relationship, Luxembourg 2006.
same has been observed outside the Commission. Foresight is
an enlightened approach to policy-making.
In one sense, the Commission’s mainstreaming of foresight
is a response to the challenge of improving its administration
and governance,2 as outlined in its White Paper on European
Governance.3 This paper sought to involve more people and
organisations in policy-making and called for more openness,
accountability and responsibility. In view of the diversity of
national institutions, the Commission announced that it
favoured policies based on framework directives and
coregulation in view of the diversity of national institutions. This
was to ensure smoother implementation instead of insisting on
more directives and other legislation. Consequently, the
Commission moved to the ‘open method of coordination’, which is
a ‘soft power’ approach to governance steered and
coordinated by the Commission itself.
When it comes to new initiatives in the field of economic
and social matters, the Commission seeks to lead the
European policy agenda. This is achieved through documents setting
out comparative information, results of Europe-wide
consultations with stakeholders in the field, and options for action
plans. The Member States then tend to reflect these policy
agendas in their own national policies. The Commission has
initiated Europe-wide debate on many policy issues.4 This
debate-based approach to policy leads to new forms of
cooperation between Member States and the Commission rather
than directives and executive decisions.
The Commission works on consensus-building in
interinstitutional fora, as well as with Member State
representatives in committees and through inter-governmental
cooperation in ord (...truncated)