Parallel Lobbying in EU Policymaking Explained

𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗴𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 Europe keeps asking the wrong question. It asks whether it can emulate #America in #AI, #China in #batteries or #Taiwan in #semiconductors. The question that matters is whether it can turn what it already has into the foundations of tomorrow's competitiveness: its industrial depth, its skilled individuals, its specialised supply chains and its world-class niches. In our new article in 𝘎𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴 & 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, Federico Bartalucci and I examine the #EU #Commission's proposed Multiannual Financial Framework for 2028–2034. The ambition to make #Europe more competitive, more secure and more strategically autonomous is necessary and legitimate. The architecture chosen to deliver it is not. It chases ghosts, while steering resources towards places already advantaged and hollowing out #Cohesion Policy, the one instrument that has historically reached Europe's most vulnerable #cities and #regions. The danger is not that Europe wants to invest in #competitiveness, #defence and #strategic autonomy. It must. The danger is that it confuses strategy with mimicry. Developing world-class sectors ex novo rarelly works. Transformation succeeds when it works with existing capabilities: recombining them, upgrading them and stretching them into adjacent fields. This is where #geography matters. Our maps show that the likely winners of the new agenda are, to a striking degree, the same regions: metropolitan areas, #innovation hubs, defence clusters and established industrial corridors. For them, the new budget is a cornucopia. For the regions facing industrial anxiety, weak innovation capacity or structural #decline, it offers next to nothing. That is not just unfair. It is economically inefficient. Europe cannot mobilise continent-sized ambition with archipelago-sized investment. There is a sharper irony still. By repatriating policy to national capitals and weakening the link between the EU and its regions, the reform echoes the very #Eurosceptic playbook it should be countering. It removes the billboards bearing EU flags across cities and towns: the visible proof that #Brussels delivers something for Europeans. To dismantle that at a moment of surging #nationalism is to hand Eurosceptics their largest victory yet. Competitiveness without cohesion is brittle. Security without solidarity is unstable. Autonomy that leaves a large share of Europe's citizens feeling abandoned will not survive its first serious electoral test. Europe does not face a choice between competitiveness and cohesion. It faces a choice between mobilising its full territorial potential and gambling with the Union's legitimacy and survival. For those interested in the full argument, the article is available (open access) here: https://lnkd.in/ei558ZQ5

📍It's finally here! We're thrilled to be joined by so many delegates this morning at our annual UPEN conference. This year, we're discussing the theme: 'In Evidence We Trust' through a series of keynotes, panel discussions and sessions with experts from across the academic-policy world. Before we get started this morning with a keynote from Professor Dame Juliet Gerrard, our co-chairs, Sarah Chaytor and Chris Hewson wanted to share some thoughts on this year's theme: "In the year since we chose our conference theme, debates on trust have become increasingly visible, not least in terms of how we collectively tackle misinformation and repair faith in public institutions. This represents a complex and fast-moving set of challenges for those of us working at the research-policy interface. They also act as a call to action: maintaining trust in evidence is a key societal challenge and an essential response to rising misinformation. We hope the next two days will help you to navigate this contested space, make new connections over the next two days, learn from one another's challenges, and carry new perspectives back into your work." Do you have thoughts on trust and its role in knowledge mobilisation? Come find our reflection walls and add your insights!

𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲'𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲 Europe appears to face an awkward dilemma: should it concentrate investment where it promises the greatest gains in #growth and #competitiveness, or promote opportunities across the whole of #Europe? A new open-access paper by Pablo Casas, Tryfonas Christou, Abián García Rodríguez, Nicholas Lazarou, Patrizio Lecca, Philippe Monfort and Simone Salottitti in JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies puts this tension under the microscope. The authors compare #place-based and #mission-led policies across all 235 EU regions on equal terms: the same €130 billion budget and the same implementation period. At their peak, both approaches add roughly 0.43% to EU #GDP. Thereafter, their paths diverge. Mission-led funding delivers the larger long-run GDP return: 0.22%, compared with 0.16% under the place-based approach. But place-based funding generates around 878,000 #jobs, or more than twice the 376,000 produced by the mission-led allocation. The territorial consequences are starker still. Place-based funding reduces regional #inequality relative to the benchmark by approximately 2%. Mission-led funding increases it by around 0.5%. The decisive factor is not primarily the type of intervention. It's #geography. Where the money goes matters more than the economic channel through which it is spent. The apparent policy dilemma is therefore real enough in the short term. Concentrating resources in Europe’s strongest innovation centres may maximise aggregate returns, but it risks reinforcing the very territorial divides that weaken Europe economically, socially and politically. Yet this is not, ultimately, a genuine choice. Europe cannot become more competitive by leaving large parts of the continent behind. Nor can it spread opportunity without the growth and productive capacity needed to sustain it. Competitiveness without #cohesion will prove brittle. Cohesion without competitiveness will lack the means to endure. Europe will achieve neither unless it pursues both and recognises that each is a condition for the other. The full article is freely accessible here: https://lnkd.in/e6i3T5rC

It has been a little quiet here. I stepped away for a moment and it was good to breathe before sharing what matters most to me. I am happy to return with something that has been at the core of my work for many years. It is a condensed overview of why I believe communities are one of the most future-ready tools we have for modern public services and organisational development. They help institutions stay close to where policy and practice actually meet. They hold the knowledge that never fits into reports. They create the trust that makes change possible. And they give people the space to act with purpose. The now available paper brings this main argument together. It explains why communities can serve as practical instruments for policy and organisational learning and how they help institutions see the real world more clearly and act with more integrity. It also outlines the opportunities - and the many challenges! - ahead, from better knowledge ecosystems to more grounded collaboration across roles and levels. The full text is attached. And as always, curious about your thoughts! Stephen Collins Jolita Butkevičienė David Mair Kjartan Björnsson Snezha Kazakova Kristian Krieger Eleni Zika, PhD Andrea Erdei Erica Bol Bruno Monteiro Helen Bevan Gayan Peiris Zarko Palankov Taco Potze Matthias Peitz June Holley Frédéric Williquet Tremeur Denigot Coralia Catana Marc Wilikens Valeria Napoli Erik Ballhausen Ivett Bene Yvonne Verwohlt Hansen Derek Alton Iris Kattinger Conor Galvin Joss Colchester Emilia Hogarth Sophie August Marta Kuljon Ventseslav Kozarev, MPP Mitch Ward Valentina Staveris Stephane Jacobzone Konstantinos Christodoulakis Claudio Nichele Georg Holzknecht Borut Cink

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 In theory, science is the ultimate passport-free profession: good ideas should travel better than people do. In practice, elite research still behaves like real estate. Location, location, location. Please check my new LSE Impact blog (https://lnkd.in/ecfnVBy5) with Leiboyu Xiang and Neil Lee on our recent 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘎𝘦𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 article. There, we map the location of the world’s “star #scientists” (using the #Stanford/ #Elsevier citation database) and build a Knowledge Generation Index that marries sheer concentration with influence. What emerges is less “global village” than “gilded archipelago.” In other words, a brutal on highly skewed #geography of global elite scientific #research: just four metro areas —#NewYork, #Boston, #London and the #SanFrancisco Bay Area— host an outsized share of the planet’s top scientific talent. This is reputational gravity at work. Prestige is not a brand name etched in stone. It is a living network, made of corridor conversations, lab osmosis, and the casual intellectual friction that remote work can’t quite reproduce. COVID turned science into a mass Zoom experiment, yet the hubs didn’t wither. They tightened their grip. The one serious geopolitical wrinkle is the #China exception. #Beijing’s ascent shows hierarchies can be shifted, but only with patience, deep pockets and an unembarrassed talent strategy. For most places, trying to manufacture a #Nobel factory —or even trying to get a piece of the pie in the form of high-impact scientists— can be a high-cost route to disappointment. So the policy challenge is not to pretend every region can become Boston. It is to widen access without breaking the agglomeration effects that make frontier science so productive: invest in bridges (mobility, joint institutes, shared infrastructure), not just buildings; and make sure that you create the conditions for a vibrant exchange of ideas. The full paper is open access in 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘎𝘦𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴. DOI: https://lnkd.in/e9B_xfqd

Arrêter d'investir dans la recherche sur la gouvernance de l'enseignement supérieur et la recherche, une bonne idée ? (English below) Je viens d'apprendre, incidemment, que la direction de Sciences Po aurait décidé de supprimer le budget que Richard Descoings, passionné par les questions d’enseignement supérieur, avait décidé de flécher sur le programme dédié à la gouvernance de l’ESR, mené au Centre de Sociologie des Organisations par un petit groupe auquel je participe encore et dont la visibilité nationale et internationale est avérée. Il y a certainement de très bonnes raisons à cette décision bien qu'elle n'ait donné lieu à aucune justification, ni été précédée d'une évaluation de ce programme. Mais est-il vraiment pertinent, aujourd'hui, de ne plus investir dans la production de connaissances sur la gouvernance de l’ESR ? N’est-ce pas laisser le champ libre aux jugements à l'emporte-pièce, qui ne reposent sur aucun fondement scientifique, à l'heure où la science et l'Université sont particulièrement malmenées et où la méconnaissance, les préjugés idéologiques, les analyses biaisées devraient plus que jamais être contredits par des faits, des réflexions et des résultats solidement étayés ? Is it a good idea to stop investing in research on the governance of higher education and research? I have just learned, incidentally, that the Sciences Po direction would cut the budget that Richard Descoings—who was passionate about issues in higher education—had earmarked for the program dedicated to the governance of higher education and research, run at the Center for the Sociology of Organizations by a small group in which I am still involved and which has a proven track record of national and international visibility. There are certainly very good reasons for this decision, even though no justification has been provided, nor was it preceded by an evaluation of the program. But is it really appropriate, today, to stop investing in the production of knowledge on the governance of higher education and research? Doesn't this leave the field open to sweeping judgments, which have no scientific basis, at a time when science and the university are under particular strain and when ignorance, ideological prejudices, and biased analyses should more than ever be countered by facts, reflections, and solidly supported findings?

📢 HERA responds to the European Research Area Act consultation! The proposed European Research Executive Agency (REA) Act aims to make Europe the most inclusive, welcoming, and secure place for researchers. In response to the public consultation, we shared a statement on why the Humanities must be fully recognised and integrated into this vision. As a network of national Humanities funding agencies across Europe, HERA- Humanities in the European Research Area supports the ERA Act’s ambition while calling for a broader, more inclusive view of innovation; one that recognises the essential role of the Humanities in tackling societal, cultural, technological, and democratic challenges. ▶️ Download our position paper to explore the key priorities highlighted in our statement: https://lnkd.in/ej-e7RwG Jaideep Gupte, Daniel Carey, Kristine Zaidi, PhD, Jenny Wüstenberg, Katarzyna Wincenciak, Phd, Dr Jamie Davies, Monika Brasser, ESF - European Science Foundation, Austrian Science Fund FWF, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (HAZU), Ministry of Higher Education and Science, Research Council of Finland | Suomen Akatemia, Rannís - The Icelandic Centre for Research, Valsts izglītības attīstības aģentūra/ State Education Development Agency Republic of Latvia, Research Council of Lithuania | Lietuvos mokslo taryba, Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR), NCN National Science Centre, Vetenskapsrådet / Swedish Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Research Foundation Flanders - FWO, ANR, the French National Research Agency 

One of our most deep-seated cultural assumptions is that at times of crisis, all that fluffy stuff about community and relationships needs to be put aside so that the grown-ups can take charge. That instinct is radically and catastrophically wrong. The difference between success and failure in a crisis is national mobilisation, not state capacity. Resilience is something to which we all contribute - or don’t. For generations, we have increasingly organised our politics around a consumer model: the state provides services and citizens receive them. But it is grounded in the assumption that citizens are passive recipients, and it sets an impossible standard for the state, which can never be the whole answer to everything. Politics of overpromising has allowed community capacity to atrophy, and a story of dependency to become prevalent instead of a story of inter-dependency. At a time of crisis, we need more community capacity-building, more focus on a cohesive national story, and more effort into relational public service design that can build social connections. This is not soft or nice-to-have. It's the capabilties on which our national resilience depend. More (and examples to prove the doubters wrong) in my latest piece - link in the comments.