Brussels, 11/01/2013 (Agence Europe) - In high-tech development, the EU “has been continually running behind” and this is unlikely to change, despite the initiatives undertaken by the European Commission. Such a major weakness was noted in an opinion from the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) mid-December 2012, showing the EU's inability to “translate its knowledge base into goods and services”.
The EESC was approached by the Commission to give an opinion on a second Commission communication. The first, dating back to 2010, was on “European strategy for Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) - A bridge to growth and jobs”. The new strategy, presented on 26 June 2012, is based on three pillars which encompass the whole chain of production, from the design of a high-tech product to its final production: (1) the technological research pillar (research bodies); (2) the product development pillar (industrial consortia); and (3) the competitive manufacturing pillar.
Having a complete chain for the manufacture of KETs in Europe, using both European instruments (EIB, framework programme for research, Cohesion Funds) and national instruments (state aid) has thus become the main challenge facing the Commission with a view to allowing the creation of European high-tech companies, after the fashion of American firms such as Apple and Google.
The strategy proposed by the Commission nonetheless raises a number of problems. By wanting to support KETs with a three-pillar strategy, efforts could become too scattered, while R&D, as the EESC points out, should remain a priority. What is more, by proposing a European framework of governance, the Commission has failed to ensure that the modalities are clear “so that the programme may lack impetus”. This is a problem that also relates to the Commission's internal structure, as the EESC notess that up to six European commissioners may have to intervene on matters relating to KETs.
Without casting doubt on the importance of high technology, the EESC nonetheless has qualms about the effectiveness of a homogenous approach throughout the EU. “In an effort to establish a world class KET capability, it would be logical to tailor policies and programmes for each of these six groupings”, it states. Those groupings or “regions” would be composed of several states placed together according to a geographical criterion and coherence, including scientific qualifications and enterprise culture.
Since the EU “has only given birth to three global hi-tech companies” since 1957, it is difficult to hope that a strategy common to the whole of Europe would change the situation. As things stand, “this would appear to represent a compound failure of capitalism and entrepreneurialism”, the EESC states. Today there are quite simply too few European companies able to produce and market R&D pillar achievements and to then go on and impose their presence on the world scene. (JK/transl.jl)