> Support from the European Union could come handy in helping Italian and Spanish entrepreneurs overcome the gap with more developed parts of Europe, both in terms of funding and networking opportunities. Indeed, as for the former, both nations are among the first beneficiaries, in the last two years, of the funds earmarked by the EU for innovation and technological research in the Horizon 2020 program.
> Such instruments, however, while helpful, are not by any means perfect. “I think there is a lot of European money getting lost in the process between the people who is getting the grants and the entrepreneurs,” the vice president of the Spanish Startups Association, Carmen Bermejo, says. “The ones who know how to apply and get the European grants are sometimes not the same ones that know how to help the startups and deliver value. This is even worse if we speak about the European funds for regional cohesion, that depend a lot on personal contacts and relationships,” she adds.
The effect of these ERA (European Research Agency) initiatives is zero.
EU likes to throw money at problems without following up; for an enlightening example one can look at the Marie Curie fellowship. Money thrown at researcher for 2 or 3 years of research in EU or outside of EU institutions with zero follow up at the end of the fellowship. As far as I know, the vast majority of MC fellows leave academia and research at the end of the fellowship.
It's the same in other fields. Eastern European countries currently suffer from a plague of politicians and special interests that funnel EU funds straight to either their own personal bank accounts or to close friends and companies. [0] [1]
In the example I was describing above, the money goes to researchers (I was one of the recipients), but since there are no follow-ups, such as some support for researchers that finish the fellowship and are looking for jobs, the downstream effect of the Marie Curie actions is close to 0. You would think that a change of action would swiftly follow the analysis of data, especially after ~ 20 years of Marie Curie actions, but the EU Soviet-style bureaucracies are just interested in their survival and the appearance of effective action.
Or Western companies. For instance, whenever a country in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) defies the EU, the affiliated pro-federalist media outlets immediately start to claim how these countries are large beneficiaries of EU funds (read: ungrateful). The funny thing is that the economies of these countries are heavily colonized by Western companies and conglomerates that often siphon EU funds back into Western hands. Furthermore, the legal systems in those countries are still reeling from Soviet control and need a serious overhaul. Western companies gladly exploit loopholes and make corrupt deals with post-communist elites to, for example, get at funds or avoid paying enormous amounts of taxes.
Certainly, CEE countries have improved a great deal since '89, but the West really doesn't appreciate how traumatic WWII was for these countries, how disruptive the Nazis and the Soviets were, how half a century of Soviet domination scarred them, and how much work needs to be done to undo the damage. It's little wonder Western elites worry when these countries try to address these issues. They (the Western elites) are the beneficiaries of these exploitative practices that gladly employ in what Piketty calls "foreign-owned countries".
A significant number of the major papers published over the last several years in the field I'm currently in have European co-authors. Having witnessed how EC funding works first hand, I'm willing to go to bat that it's a major reason behind the current renaissance in European university research.
EC grants have regular reporting requirements with metrics and dissemination plans that are used to inform future awards. They also intentionally hold back a large portion of the promised funding to enforce compliance, and hold regular audits.
I can't speak for the Marie Curie action awards first hand, but defections from academia to industry are prevalent across the board, and are generally a good thing (you want academia to inform industry, and vice versa). There are also a very limited number of open positions from post-doc on up.
ERA grants vary widely in prestige, money, and requirements. It is correct that they hold back money that is freed after audits are carried out. However, as in the case of the MC fellowship, which can amount to > 300k over three years (so not beer money), you can write whatever you want in the reports and never hear back from your liaison officer.
"Defections" from academia to industry are prevalent and logical, since for one there are many more jobs there than in academia. However, MC fellowships are explicitly meant to support researchers and their research, train them, and then bring back knowledge and talent to EU research Institutions. Having a very high percentage of MC fellows leave academia after the end of the fellowship defeats their purpose and waste money and talent.
