Blog Post

The global race for innovation

Commissioner Moedas' speech at the Bruegel event "The new European research agenda".

By: Date: January 29, 2015 Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed guests,

First of all, it is a real pleasure to be here. Today’s discussion is one I’ve been looking forward to a great deal. I want to take this opportunity to tell you why I think Europe is well positioned in the global race for innovation and knowledge creation.

If there is one thing Europe does well it’s "pessimism". Pessimism always sells, even in politics. So let me instead focus on the strengths we have, not forgetting, of course, the many things we need to improve.

Innovation is much more than a technical process.

The first thing I want to tell you is, I am happy that now it is almost a truism, to state that innovation is much more than a technical process. Innovation reaches from fundamental research to business process and plans, to marketing and to design. The second thing I want to say, is that I believe in a more democratic paradigm of innovation.

We have moved from a world in which Schumpeter would say, and I quote, "The producer initiates the change and educates the user", to a world in which innovation is, in many cases, created by the user. Von Hippe, from MIT gives several examples:

  • Irrigation machines
  • The Heart lung machine

Harry Chesbourough has a good image for this: that the funnel between producer and users now has many holes.

Third, I believe that this evolution can open more opportunities for disruptive innovation. Disruptive innovation is and often quoted term, but sometimes, it is not used in its precise form. Disruptive innovation creates new markets by making something – a product or service – simpler, more affordable, and more accessible. This is the kind of innovation that creates solid growth, jobs and a sustainable future.

In Europe, we are better positioned than most people assume.

So, considering this more precise view on innovation, where does Europe stand? I will argue that we are better positioned than most people assume. Saying that we are well positioned is not saying that everything is great. On the contrary. What I am saying, is that we have tremendous untapped potential.  In Europe, many things are working. If we build on our strengths, on the things that make us who we are, our solutions will be legitimate, effective and sustainable.

And here I must thank Professor Reinhilde Veugelers for her thoughtful and insightful memo "To the Commissioner for Research". It makes many astute observations of our current situation, and is refreshingly frank in its recommendations.

It is true that some areas of the world are moving faster than Europe. Economic and political circumstances are rarely perfect. We overcome one challenge to face another. But there are ways to make our economies more resilient: our breakthroughs more socially and commercially valuable. Ways to lead global markets with European innovation.

We have almost limitless potential. The EU is the world’s largest trading block, with 500 million consumers looking for goods and services. The EU benefits from being one of the most open economies in the world. The kind of openness I want to see benefitting research, science and innovation.

Our global standing in these three arenas rests on the creative freedom of our scientists and researchers. On the people engaged in fundamental, curiosity-driven research. Research that will pay for itself in the long run.

There is one thing we certainly don’t have and that is a fully integrated market across the EU. We came a long way in our internal market and we can still achieve much more in several areas, including the European Research Area. But gaining from a more integrated European market.

Still, we have to accept that we will always be different from, say, the United States. Despite all our efforts, we will always have a more fragmented market. We have 28 governments, 28 science and innovation policies, 23 languages, and diverse cultural and historical experiences.

That fragmentation is an enemy of efficiency, it prevents some gains from scale  – no doubt about it.  But we should also embrace its benefits. The main one is "diversity". Diversity is a source of creativity and innovation. Linda Hill, at Harvard University, studies creativity in groups and she highlights the fact that diversity may slow thing does, but leads to more innovation and creativity. The thing is, that in Europe, we tend to focus on the negatives, on the fragmentation of our markets. In the EU we have the great advantage, and privilege, of a pool of talent from 28 member states, not to mention those who come from outside to work and study in our centres of excellence.

Each scientist brings their own outlook and expertise. Each researcher brings a different perspective to the table. Europe is an ideas factory for everyone within our shores.

The diversity of Europe creates challenges, but also a lot of potential.

So, for me the diversity of Europe creates challenges that we have to address – with policy responses, like ERA and other measures, to better coordinate science policies across Member States. But this diversity also creates a lot of potential. We need this fragmentation for healthy competition. And for that we need a rising tide of all Member States improving their incentives for research and innovation.

This is why addressing the knowledge divide is crucial! All European countries, even the most advanced, have to have an enlightened, self-interest approach in this: they will all benefit from a rising tide!

A second, often heard criticism of Europe in this area lies in cultural explanations. I really don’t agree with these kind of explanations, that statement that we are more risk averse, or more conformist. The great Venture Capitalist Marc Andresseen once said that his experience is that on average, European Entrepreneurs are better than Americans…adding "they have to be".

That is the crucial thing!

The problem is not our culture, it is the incentives we have. And it is true that we need a lot of work to improve the framework conditions for innovation and research. We have far too many barriers in our markets. This is why my first priority is precisely the reforms to lower these barriers.

So, what are we to do in the next 5 years?

In my hearing, I stated my three main priorities. In my view, these are the ones that will help tap into the huge potential I see in Europe.

First, create the framework conditions for a more productive exchange of research results, fundamental science and innovation. Things like:

  • Screen the regulatory framework in key sectors in order to remove bottlenecks
  • Accelerate the implementation of standardisation
  • Promote the  public procurement of innovation and innovation in the public sector
  • Promote a venture capital culture
  • Reduce bureaucracy in science and innovation systems

Second, is to consolidate fundamental research as the flagship for Europe. As the essential foundation for a knowledge-based society. Working towards a single, open market for knowledge though open science. Third: implement Horizon 2020 and the new Investment Plan to leverage the Europe economy towards a higher plane as a research and innovation-based area. Working towards a single, open market for knowledge though open science. It is better to focus on our potential than to dwell on illusions. We will always be different from other parts of the world. But that difference has many benefits!

We need to focus on these benefits; we need to have a rising tide, in which the full diversity of Europe works for us, not against us. We need to focus on incentives, not on convenient cultural explanations. Our scientists and entrepreneurs are world class. But they still face far too many barriers. Let’s focus on those. Let’s focus on reforms.

I look forward to debating this with you! And not just today!

Check Against Delivery.

Read more:

Undercutting the future? European research spending in times of fiscal consolidation


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read about event

Upcoming Event

Sep
4-5
08:30

Bruegel Annual Meetings 2019

Bruegel's 2019 Annual Meetings will be held on 4-5 September and feature the launch of Bruegel's Memos to the New European Commission.

Speakers: Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, Laurence Boone, Claire Bury, Vítor Constâncio, Zsolt Darvas, Jérôme Delpech, Kris Dekeyser, Maria Demertzis, Baroness Kishwer Falkner of Margravine, Alicia García-Herrero, Mikaela Gavas, Sven Giegold, José Manuel González-Páramo, Sylvie Goulard, Pierre Heilbronn, Mathew Heim, Jamie Heywood, Yi Huang, Danuta Hübner, Korbinian Ibel, Shada Islam, Kate Kalutkiewicz, Brigitte Knopf, Bernd Lange, Christian Leffler, Päivi Leino-Sandberg, Mark Leonard, Cecilia Malmström, Stefano Manservisi, J. Scott Marcus, Ann Mettler, Ashoka Mody, Reza Moghadam, Erik F. Nielsen, Jean Pisani-Ferry, Lapo Pistelli, Lucrezia Reichlin, Joakim Reiter, Victoria Roig, André Sapir, Olaf Scholz, Harriet Sena Siaw-Boateng, Philipp Steinberg, Alexander Stubb, Simone Tagliapietra, Jean-Claude Trichet, Laura Tyson, Nicolas Véron, Reinhilde Veugelers, Sabine Weyand, Thomas Wieser, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Palais des Academies, Rue Ducale 1, 1000 Brussels
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

European champion-ships: industrial champions and competition policy

This blog post investigates the debate on whether European competition rules should foster European industrial champions, or allow national champions to grow to a European scale. It explores the criteria that one would intuitively ascribe to industrial champions, illustrating the difficulties in defining either ‘European’ or ‘Champion’. It then conducts a brief look into whether EU Merger decisions have impeded the formation of ‘European Champions’.

By: Mathew Heim and Catarina Midoes Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 26, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Modernising European Competition Policy: A Brief Review of Member States’ Proposals

French, German and Polish governments have jointly proposed options for modernising EU competition policy. The debate to recalibrate European competition rules was already well underway. So, it is not surprising that proposals are consistent with other statements made by France and Germany. Yet, proposals do not address current issues weighing on the international competition community, such as conglomerate effects theory or algorithmic collusion.

By: Mathew Heim Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 24, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

How should the relationship between competition policy and industrial policy evolve in the European Union?

Competition policy aims to ensure that market practices and strategies do not reduce consumer welfare. Industrial policy, meanwhile, aims at securing framework conditions that are favourable to industrial competitiveness, and deals with (sector-specific) production rules as well as the direction of public funds and tax measures. But, how should competition policy and industrial policy interact? Is industrial policy contradicting the aims of competition policy by promoting specific industrial interests?

By: Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 15, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

AI, robots and platform workers: What future for European welfare states?

At this event, we launch the study, "Digitalisation and European welfare states", authored by Georgios Petropoulos, J. Scott Marcus, Nicolas Moës, and Enrico Bergamini.

Speakers: Michael Froman, J. Scott Marcus, Monika Queisser, Thiébaut Weber and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: France Stratégie, 20 avenue de Ségur Date: July 9, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Blueprint

Digitalisation and European welfare states

EU policymakers must find answers to pressing questions: if technology has a negative impact on labour income, how will the welfare state be funded? How can workers’ welfare rights be adequately secured? A team of Bruegel scholars, with the support of the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth, has taken on these questions.

By: Georgios Petropoulos, J. Scott Marcus, Nicolas Moës and Enrico Bergamini Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 9, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

External Publication

Liability: When Things Go Wrong in an Increasingly Interconnected and Autonomous World: A European View

In the following article, Scott Marcus first considers the sources of potential defects and what might be done to redress them. He then goes on to consider what constitutes a product defect as well as the associated liability in light of recent (and potential future) EU Directives.

By: J. Scott Marcus Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: June 6, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

Europe – the global centre for excellent research

This report, requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, analyses the EU’s potential to be a global centre of excellence for research as a driver of its future growth in a complex global S&T landscape, and how EU public resources can contribute to this.

By: Michael Baltensperger and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: May 22, 2019
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Book/Special report

Bruegel annual report 2018

The Bruegel annual report provides a broad overview of the organisation's work in the previous year.

By: Bruegel Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: May 16, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Is an electric car a cleaner car?

An article published by the Ifo Institute in Germany compares the carbon footprint of a battery-electric car to that of a diesel car, and argues a higher share of electric cars will not contribute to reducing German carbon dioxide emissions. Respondents rejected the authors’ calculations as unrealistic and biased, and pointed to a series of studies that conclude the opposite. We summarise the article and responses to it.

By: Michael Baltensperger Topic: Energy & Climate, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: May 13, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Spitzenkandidaten visions for the future of Europe's economy

What are the different political visions for the future of Europe’s economy? Bruegel and the Financial Times organised a debate series with lead candidates from six political parties in the run-up to the 2019 European elections.

By: Giuseppe Porcaro Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: May 8, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Breaking up big companies and market power concentration

Senator Elizabeth Warren proposes the break-up of big tech companies. A report for the UK government presents another approach for regulating the digital economy. And IMF research serves as a reminder that concentration of market power extends beyond digital. This blog reviews the debate.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: April 29, 2019
Load more posts