European Research Programmes

Spaces of Knowledge or Economic Tool?


The contribution discusses the development of post-Second World War (WWII) European integration and its development of an extended research policy on supranational level. In the context of research on knowledge communities it follows the question of how a specific logic of knowledge community creation has unfolded in the context of the European integration process after WWII. By applying tools from multi-level governance analysis the contribution analyses the evolvement of European research policy from EURATOM to the recent development of a “European Research Area” and an “Innovation Union”. It traces the origin, direction and intention of attemps of community building in the context of European integration in order to critically discuss the hypothesis that (1) research is understood in the context of European integration as support tool for economic development, (2) that this understanding of research amplifies a specific way and quality of community building in focussing on market-relevant and exploitable research branches and (3) that the procedural guidelines for research communities delimit content, constellations and application of research outcomes. The result of the investigation supports the conjecture of a massive bias of European research policy towards economically exploitable resesarch, mainly from engeneering and natural sciences. It also proofs that community building in European research policy after WWII is mainly a top-down proactive process staged by the European Commission.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Banchoff, Thomas. 2002. Institutions, inertia and European Union research policy. Journal of Common Market Studies 40: 1–21.
  2. Bauer, Patricia. 1999. Europäische Integration und deutscher Föderalismus. Eine Untersuchung des europäischen Mehrebenenregierens im Bildungsbereich. Münster: agenda.Google Scholar
  3. Benz, Arthur. 2004. Multilevel Governance – Governance in Mehrebenensystemen. In Governance – Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen: Eine Einführung, ed. Arthur Benz, 125–146. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  4. Camagni, Roberto, and Roberta Capello. 2013. Regional innovation patterns and the EU regional policy reform: Toward smart innovation policies. Growth and Change 44: 355–389.
  5. Committee of the Regions (CoR). 2017. CoR – The Lisbon Strategy in short. Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform. Accessed July 18.
  6. Edler, Jakob, and Andrew D. James. 2015. Understanding the emergence of new science and technology policies: Policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European Framework Programme. Research Policy 44: 1252–1265.
  7. European Commission. 2000. Towards a European Research Area. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2000) 6. Brussels.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission. 2010a. Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Communication from the Commission COM(2010) 2020. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. 2010b. Regional Policy Contributing to smart growth in Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2010) 553. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. 2011. Horizon 2020: The framework programme for research and innovation. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2011) 808 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission GD Research and Innovation. 2017. Synergies with Structural Funds.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission, and High Representative. 2011. Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2010: Follow-up to the Joint communication on a partnership for democracy and shared prosperity with the southern Mediterranean. Joint Staff Working Paper SEC(2011) 638. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. European Council of Heads of States and Government. 2000. Presidency Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council. March 23.Google Scholar
  14. European Institute of Innovation and Technology. 2017. EIT – Making innovation happen. European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT). Accessed July 20.
  15. European Union. 2016. European Union – Research and Innovation. Text. European Union – European Commission. June 16.Google Scholar
  16. Gänzle, Stefan. 2009. EU governance and the European Neighbourhood Policy: A framework for analysis. Europe-Asia Studies 61: 1715–1734.
  17. Gläser, Jochen. 2012. Scientific communities. In Handbuch Wissenschaftssoziologie, 151–162. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  18. Grande, Edgar, and Anke Peschke. 1999. Transnational cooperation and policy networks in European science policy-making. Research Policy 28: 43–61.
  19. Guzzetti, Luca. 1995. A brief history of European Union research policy. European Commission Science Research and Development Studies 5. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  20. Haas, Ernst B. 1958. The uniting of Europe: Political, social and economic forces 1950–1957. London: Stevens.Google Scholar
  21. Haas, Ernst B. 1961. International integration: The European and the universal process. International Organization 15: 366–392.
  22. Haas, Ernst B. 1964. Beyond the nation-state: Functionalism and international organization. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  23. Haas, Ernst B., and Philippe C. Schmitter. 1964. Economics and differential patterns of political integration: Projections about unity in Latin America. International Organization 18: 705–737.
  24. Hallonsten, Olof. 2012. Continuity and change in the politics of European scientific collaboration. Journal of Contemporary European Research 8: 300‐319.Google Scholar
  25. Herman, Ros. 1986. The European scientific community. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  26. Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2001. Multi-level governance and European integration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  27. Keck, Wolfgang, and Peter Krause. 2006. How does EU enlargement affect social cohesion? Discussion papers 601. Berlin: German Institute for Economic Research, DIW.Google Scholar
  28. Kok, Wim. 2004. Facing the challenge: The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment. Report from the High Level Group. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  29. Korosteleva, Elena, Michal Natorski, and Licínia Simão, ed. 2014. EU policies in the Eastern neighbourhood: The practices perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kusch, Martin. 2002. Knowledge by agreement: The programme of communitarian epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lang, Achim, and Hubert Heinelt. 2011. Regional actor constellations in EU Cohesion Policy: Differentiation along the policy cycle. Central European Journal of Public Policy 5: 4–28.Google Scholar
  33. Lepori, Benedetto, Emanuela Reale, and Philippe Larédo. 2014. Logics of integration and actors’ strategies in European joint programs. Research Policy 43: 391–402.
  34. Lubenow, W. C. 2006. Knowledge communities in Europe from the Renaissance through the Cold War. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 31: 105–120.
  35. Lucian, Paul. 2015. From the Lisbon Strategy to Europe 2020. Studies in Business and Economics 10: 53–61.
  36. Magen, Amichai. 2006. The shadow of enlargement: Can the European Union Neighbourhood Policy achieve compliance? Columbia Journal of European Law 12: 495–538.Google Scholar
  37. Marks, Gary. 1993. Structural policy and multilevel governance in the EC. In The Maastricht debates and beyond, ed. Alan W. Cafruny and Glenda Rosenthal, 391–410. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  38. Moravcsik, Andrew. 1993. Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies 31: 473–524.
  39. Papon, Pierre. 2004. European scientific cooperation and research infrastructures: Past tendencies and future prospects. Minerva 42: 61–76.
  40. Praussello, Franco. 2006. Sustainable development and adjustment in the Mediterranean countries following the EU enlargement. Milano: F. Angeli.Google Scholar
  41. Puetter, Uwe. 2012. Europe’s deliberative intergovernmentalism: The role of the Council and European Council in EU economic governance. Journal of European Public Policy 19: 161–178.
  42. Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2001. The community trap: Liberal norms, rhetorical action and the eastern enlargement of the European Union. International Organization 55: 47–80.
  43. Stephanou, Constantine A., ed. 2006. Adjusting to EU enlargement: Recurring issues in a new setting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  44. Stone Sweet, Alec, and Wayne Sandholtz. 1997. European integration and supranational governance. Journal of European Public Policy 4: 297–317.
  45. Stone Sweet, Alec, and Wayne Sandholtz. 1998. Integration, supranational governance, and the institutionalization of the European polity. In European integration and supranational governance, ed. Wayne Sandholtz and Alec Stone Sweet, 1–26. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  46. Tamtik, Merli. 2016. Institutional change through policy learning: the case of the European Commission and research policy. Review of Policy Research 33: 5–21.
  47. Tocci, Nathalie. 2005. Does the ENP respond to the EU’s post-enlargement challenges? International Spectator 40: 21–32.
  48. Tulmets, Elsa. 2006. Adapting the experience of enlargement to the neighbourhood policy: The ENP as a substitute to enlargement? In The EU and its neighbourhood: Policies, problems, priorities, ed. Petr Kratochvíl, 29–57. Prague: Institute of International Relations.Google Scholar
  49. Tulmets, Elsa. 2007. Policy adaptation from the enlargement to the neighbourhood policy: A way to improve the EU’s external capabilities. In Sécurité extérieure de l’UE: Nouveaux territoires, nouveaux enjeux, ed. Sandra Lavenex and Frédéric Mérand, 55–80. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  50. Wandel, Jürgen. 2016. The role of government and markets in the strategy “Europe 2020” of the European Union: A robust political economy analysis. International Journal of Management and Economics 49: 7–33.
  51. Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization 46: 391–425.
  52. Zank, Wolfgang. 2005. The politics of eastern enlargement: Historical reconstruction and theoretical conclusions. Occasional Papers 38. Aalborg: European Research Unit, Aalborg University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SchiffweilerGermany

Personalised recommendations