Imagine a Europe where cutting-edge innovation thrives in every corner, not just in a select few powerhouse nations. But what if the very policies designed to boost Europe's global standing inadvertently widen the gap between its 'haves' and 'have-nots'? This is the core dilemma fueling a heated debate within the European Union, a battle between competitiveness and convergence, and the stakes are incredibly high.
Anna Taraczközi, a research fellow at the Europe Strategy Institute of the University of Public Service, originally highlighted this critical issue on the Five Minutes Europe blog of Ludovika.hu. Her analysis underscores a long-standing tension within the EU's research and innovation policy: how do you ensure Europe remains a global leader in innovation without leaving some Member States behind? It's a question that has resurfaced with renewed urgency as the EU prepares its next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the upcoming Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10).
The heart of the matter lies with the so-called 'widening countries' – those Member States whose research and innovation performance lags behind the EU average. Think Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. These nations are striving to catch up, but the path is proving to be fraught with challenges. The debate centers around the newly proposed European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) and whether geographical balancing mechanisms should be applied. Should funds be distributed solely based on merit and potential for high impact, potentially benefiting already advanced research centers? Or should there be measures in place to ensure that resources are also directed towards these widening countries, fostering growth and innovation across the entire continent? But here's where it gets controversial...
The term 'widening' became an official EU political category in the early 2010s, although the problem itself stretches back to the EU's eastern expansion in 2004 and 2007. The 'Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence' sub-programme, featured in Horizon 2020 and later in Horizon Europe, was specifically designed to address these disparities in research and development performance. Initiatives like Twinning, Teaming, and ERA Chairs were introduced to provide targeted support to widening countries.
However, the impact of these programs has been limited. Despite the efforts, widening countries received a mere 5% of the total funding under the Horizon 2020 programme. This stark statistic underscores the inherent tension between rewarding research excellence and achieving geographical balance. And this is the part most people miss... It highlights that even with dedicated programs, simply allocating funds isn't enough to bridge the gap. Systemic issues, access to networks, and pre-existing research infrastructure all play a crucial role.
This is the backdrop against which the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) was conceived. First proposed by the European Commission in July 2024 and officially presented on July 17, 2025, the ECF aims to bolster the EU's industrial and technological competitiveness. The idea is to create a streamlined, less bureaucratic funding instrument to support strategic sectors such as artificial intelligence, clean technologies, biotechnology, and space and defence. The Commission argues that previous programs were too fragmented, hindering the commercialization of research findings. The ECF proposes a 'one-stop shop' system, closely aligned with Horizon Europe and the future FP10 program, to guide projects from research to market entry.
The proposed budget for the ECF could reach around €400 billion for the 2028–2034 multiannual financial cycle, with €68 billion specifically allocated to research and innovation, closely tied to the Horizon programme. While the Commission emphasizes that the ECF will primarily focus on commercialization and industrial transfer, rather than directly funding research projects (which will remain under Horizon's purview), its influence on the innovation landscape is undeniable.
The proposal is currently under negotiation between the European Parliament and the Council. Industry players and business associations generally support the ECF, viewing it as a much-needed tool to help Europe compete with the US and China in key technologies. However, the research community and several Member States are raising concerns. They fear that the ECF will overemphasize industry-driven innovation at the expense of fundamental research. Central and Eastern European Member States, in particular, are advocating for geographical considerations to be factored into the ECF's allocation process. Without such safeguards, they argue, funds will continue to flow predominantly to established research centers, undermining the widening objectives.
The core of the debate, therefore, revolves around the feasibility of reconciling competitiveness and convergence. Northern and western Member States argue that the EU must prioritize regions where resources will generate the greatest return, ensuring Europe's competitiveness in the global technology arena. Southern and eastern countries, conversely, worry that a lack of geographical balance will exacerbate the research gap. Could this inadvertently create a two-tiered Europe, where some regions thrive while others struggle to keep pace?
This debate surrounding the European Competitiveness Fund highlights a fundamental dilemma for the widening countries: how to simultaneously accelerate excellence and maintain European cohesion. While the Commission envisions the ECF as a flagship initiative for strengthening European industry, the divisions among Member States indicate that competitiveness is no longer solely an economic issue; it's a deeply political one. The coming months will determine whether the ECF will usher in a new era of European innovation financing or simply perpetuate existing inequalities.
Ultimately, the question remains: Can Europe truly become a global innovation leader if some of its regions are left behind? Or is a focus on concentrated excellence the only path to competing with global powerhouses like the US and China, even if it means widening the existing gaps within the EU? What's your take? Should the ECF prioritize competitiveness above all else, or should it actively work to promote convergence and level the playing field? Share your thoughts in the comments below – let's get the conversation started!
