Beyond any question, Erasmus is one of the key achievements of the European Union, one of the best-known and most widely accepted: the word alone generates a kind of enthusiasm everywhere. Sovereignists of all stripes and, in particular, their followers, ought to be well aware that the idea germinated within the services of the European Commission alone, the institution that they glibly accuse of all evils.
The story takes us back to the 1980s. The Delors Commission was hard at work. Education had no place in the EEC treaty, but young people were starting to aspire to study in other countries and innumerable cases of discrimination on grounds of nationality in access to education had been brought before the Court of Justice. Networks for the exchange of information and production of statistics were created, sparking a broader-based awareness of the European education system and, in particular, the countless different courses of study structured by the universities, each existing in its own bubble, at the time.
Student mobility butted up against deep-rooted administrative traditions, but the member states were not interested in any talk of European-level harmonisation. Furthermore, mobility of this kind is expensive and the country of neither origin nor destination was prepared to cover the costs, which were beyond the reach of most family budgets. If they could not legislate, could they not “prime the pump” out of the Community budget? The acronym for the future programme was decided upon: ERASMUS (European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students); it harks back to a famous European thinker, who was born in Rotterdam in the 16th century and died in Basel after having spent time in Italy, England, Louvain, Brussels…
It was therefore less in his role as the author of In Praise of Folly than as a great traveller, who himself called for mobility in education, that Erasmus was honoured by the Commission! In January 1986, it adopted a proposed decision of the Council with a view to establishing an action programme concerning student mobility (ERASMUS). Creating networks of universities, awarding Community grants to students for a study period in another member state (of between three and twelve months) and a pilot system for the recognition of university study periods are the three axes of the initiative that was tabled.
The Education Ministers, meeting in Council, discussed, quibbled, got bogged down, struggled to hide their lack of enthusiasm. Under the impetus of the Commissioner in charge, Manuel Marín, the Commission took an inspired gamble: it formally withdrew its proposal, leading to a public clash. President Mitterrand got involved personally, with repeated declarations in favour of European youth and its future. Tension mounted, in the run-up to a political summit: at its meeting in London (December 1986), the European Council, distanced itself from the ministers’ intransigence to make the case for the programme. The Commission then tabled a new proposal, which was formally adopted by the Council on 15 June 1987: hence the 30th anniversary of Erasmus celebrations in spring 2017.
With an annual budget of 20 million ECU (now euros), the programme was able to launch for three years. Success was not long in coming. But was this the end of the saga? No. The Commission based its proposal on article 128 EEC, on the vocational training policy, allowing it to be adopted by a majority. The Council took the view that article 235 EEC should in fact have been used, as it was a new initiative requiring the unanimous agreement of the ministers. Both legal bases ultimately ended up in the act adopted. The Delors Commission made the bold move of bringing the dispute before the Court of Justice. The ‘Commission vs. Council’ ‘judgment (case 242/87), commonly known as the ‘Erasmus judgment’, broke on 30 May 1989. It upheld the dual legal basis, but it gave the Council nothing more than a ‘Pyrrhic victory’, as the Court confirmed article 128 EEC as an applicable source for binding Community provisions in the field of vocational education, a field in which universities are recognised as playing a role (but not exclusively, as they are also conceptual and research institutes).
Certainly, the second Erasmus programme (1991-1995), with an annual envelope of 38 million euros, was adopted on the basis of article 128 EEC alone, but that article would be removed when the Maastricht treaty was negotiated. Under that treaty, in 1993, education made its debut in primary law (article 126 EC), quite separately from vocational training (article 127 EC). The Parliament obtained co-decision for the former immediately, but would have to wait until the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) for the latter.
The chaotic journey summed up here illustrates the utter importance of political courage. It provided nothing less than the springboard for a period in which education and training programmes flourished, on clear foundations, with growing budgetary resources and reaching more individuals. The primary and secondary networks, adult education, language-learning and distance learning also benefited. From 2003 onwards, Erasmus Mundus widened the geographic scope of the concept, for instance by means of joint postgraduate degrees and student and teacher exchanges between Europe and third countries. Then, 2007 saw the whole lot being brought within a mega-programme to run for seven years, with a budget of nearly €7 billion, covering lifelong education and training. Within this mega-programme, Erasmus was the big brother, alongside Comenius (schools), Leonardo da Vinci (vocational training), Grundtvig (ongoing education) and the Jean Monnet Chairs (financing the teaching of European Union studies at universities).
The Treaty of Lisbon (2009) kept in place the prohibition already laid down in Maastricht on any attempt to harmonise the legislative and regulatory provisions of the member states. However, this ill-thought-out prohibition was to be ‘circumvented’ by the Bologna Process, which launched in 1999, allowing universities to make their sensational entrance into European governance, suddenly becoming ‘political’ players in a convergence of higher education structures. Nothing of the kind, or the adaptation of administration systems that automatically followed the influx of non-national students, would have been possible without the system of transferring credits started by Erasmus.
This means that in the last 20 years or so, learning has become Europeanised at all levels and is now one of the great priorities of the EU. Specific objectives have been laid down. There have been multiple communications and recommendations, aiming at improving the performances of universities, the way they cooperate, how they adapt to the digital age, upholding comparable quality standards, etc.
It is, furthermore, the success and reputation of the Erasmus label that led decision-makers to name the new seven-year programme, which entered into force in 2017, ‘Erasmus+’. The internal breakdown now looks like this: Erasmus higher education (‘classic’ Erasmus), Erasmus higher education – international dimension (formerly Erasmus Mundus), Erasmus training (formerly Leonardo and Grundtvig), Erasmus Schools (formerly Comenius) and, finally, Erasmus youth participation (formerly Youth in Action). The global envelope has risen to €14.7 billion, which is less than the €19 billion called for by the Commission, but still an increase of 40%. The aim is to help 4 million beneficiaries.
Concretely, the EACEA Executive Agency coordinates the selection work and releases the funding. Its calls for projects are far broader than simply managing student mobility grants: they might cover partnerships between establishments or organisations (including universities, of course), improving the quality of training and capacities of the structures, initiatives to bring together young people from different countries, charity sports events, etc. There is at least one Erasmus agency in each member state to play an information and advisory role, but also, and more importantly, to take charge of calls for applications and the distribution of money channelled from the EACEA to the universities. At the start of each period of the programme, universities and research institutes must obtain an ‘Erasmus Charter’ and an identification code. They sign grant agreements, as the funding provided is calculated on the basis of the number of exchanges over the previous three years. (To be continued).
Renaud Denuit