Universities embrace Europe’s competitiveness agenda, report shows

Universities are taking a pragmatic approach to the EU’s new focus on competitiveness, according to a report from the European University Association (EUA). They not only embrace the bloc’s new economic priorities, but see a chance to benefit, for example by emphasising strengths in defence-related R&D, where they have them.

The Universities and Competitiveness report builds on workshops and interviews with 45 university leaders and managers based in 21 countries. In particular, participants were asked to consider three theoretical scenarios for 2035, where political and economic foundations are strong, eroding or disappearing.

During this process, the participating universities proved to be at ease with the direction of travel in EU policy. “Although the competitiveness agenda has been formulated by the EU institutions in Brussels, the challenge is recognised and shared by universities,” the EUA says in the report. 

University leaders’ acknowledgement of the challenges that Europe faces was “clear, both in terms of the today’s context and the forecasts that were presented,” it goes on. “During the interviews, there was also a broad readiness to actively engage because the broader goal was shared: universities want a strong, independent and sustainable Europe.”

At the same time, they clearly feel the hand of Brussels attempting to align academia with political priorities, for instance through initiatives such as the European Research Area Act, Choose Europe and the Union of Skills. “While this does not mean detailed top-down steering of universities per se, these initiatives do set overall political goals and a direction for the sector, as well as making certain assumptions about the role of universities in society,” the report says.

There was also a sense that universities see opportunities in the competitiveness agenda, particularly in a context that is geopolitically and financially unstable. “Some of these [opportunities] are connected to the identity of the individual university and its missions,” the EUA says. 

“For instance, accepting that defence plays a larger role in such a geopolitically unstable environment can help connect the university to the industries and investments that come with a big defence sector,” it adds. “Recognising a university as part of the ‘military-industrial complex’ could be a way to safeguard basic research, making the strategic value of new knowledge clear.”

Scenario one: Europe’s resurrection

In the first scenario for 2035 presented by the EUA, the EU has closely followed the Draghi and Letta reports. It has strengthened its single market, invested massively in research and innovation, improved the framework for companies to raise capital, attracted foreign talent, set up a defence union and recovered economically. Ten years from now, politically mainstream parties have taken over the nationalist agenda by imposing strict migration and security rules, despite signs of a demographic decline. The EU has also become a frontrunner for green technologies, but has neglected to address the deeper drivers of climate change.

Most university leaders found this future promising, but underlined the risk that top-down decisions will steer funding into a few key areas. A strong integration of social sciences, arts and humanities will be critical to foster a human-centred approach to technology, they said. Meanwhile, universities will have to rethink their ties to the defence and military industry. “While such a move was long a taboo in many European countries, many now see it as unavoidable,” the report says.

Scenario two: tech oligarchy

In the second scenario, extreme nationalist parties have crept into power and joined forces with the “tech oligarchy,” leaving Europe fully dependent on US technology giants for critical infrastructure and services. Human rights have been restricted, artificial intelligence is widely favoured over people, climate control measures have been dropped and anti-immigration policies are not even letting highly skilled people come to Europe. As a result, universities cannot attract global talent and their leadership is strictly controlled by political and economic elites. 

In this scenario, university leaders said that they would have to ensure their institutions’ survival by both meeting immediate societal needs and trying to protect themselves from outside control. They were especially concerned about the lack of international cooperation and mobility restrictions for academics and students, which could damage the quality of university work.

The EUA’s analysis sees this creating a division among Europe’s universities, with some focusing on technologies most valued by the governing elites, while others could end up forming a kind of underground resistance.

Scenario three: fragmented society

In the third and final scenario, the EUA predicts a Europe marked by a lack of political and economic cohesion. “Neither democratic nor extreme forces manage to stay in government for long and when they do, they lack the majorities to lead,” the report says. Such fragmentation has produced new models of local self-governance and pushed volunteers to step in when governments fail to provide solutions, particularly when it comes to weak public social security systems and pensions.

One of the main worries for university leaders in this scenario pertains to low public funding for the higher education and research sector, which will have to turn to private companies or philanthropic organisations. Without the support of functioning state structures, universities would also lose their societal relevance and influence to only serve the few local communities that have the socio-economic capital to invest in higher education and skills development.

Related articles

• EU countries divided over geographical rules in Competitiveness Fund
• Viewpoint: Europe stands at a crossroads

Overall, the report concludes that universities must take the long view in determining how they can actively contribute to Europe’s competitiveness agenda. Whether they evolve in a democratic system that allows them to preserve their autonomy, are used to support an autocratic regime, or see their societal relevance restricted, their role must be defined on their own terms. 

“In times when things change quickly, plans are overtaken by the next crisis and often time to develop complex strategies is lacking,” the report says. “Here, values are key: how they are lived eventually defines what a university is and whom it serves.”