| Annotation |
The author examines to what extent national scientific research in Norway meets
the pan-European principles and priorities of scientific development. The success of
the interaction between European and national research efforts is a key condition for
improving the competitiveness and efficiency of research in Europe. As an associated
country, Norway does not have much influence on the allocation of funds from the
European budget for research, nevertheless, the country is involved in all projects
implemented within the framework of the European Research Area, financing and
receiving funding from the EU Framework Programs. The article examines the
structure of the scientific research complex, paying special attention to the main
documents and institutions that determine science policy. In addition, the author
studies budget formation in the scientific field in Norway, as well as the country’s
participation in the international scientific cooperation. Norway’s experience is useful
for understanding how nation states organize and coordinate their participation in
European programs, especially in terms of addressing current and future “great
challenges”. As a result of the analysis of the scientific policy carried out in Norway, the author comes to the conclusion that R&D institutions are directly adapted to the
priorities of the European level, while national authorities have limited influence on
the country’s European research portfolio. The purpose of the study is to analyze
the interaction of the European research policy with the national research system
of Norway. Research objectives: to analyze the formation of the structure and goals
of European programs; to identify changes in the instruments and goals of national
scientific policy; to determine the consequences of changes in scientific policy for
the Norwegian research complex; to assess the level of coincidence of the interests
and practices of the national scientific community with the interests and practices of
the European scientific community, which is being formed at the supranational level. |
| Key words |
European research area,science policy, EU FrameworkPrograms, European sciencecooperation, research policyof the EU, science policy in Norway,European commission,the concept of neoinstitutionalism,the principleof branch responsibility,Research council of Norway,Committee of the Europeaneconomic area, scientificcommunitiesin Norway |
| References |
1. Klavdienko V. P. EU Research and Development Framework programs: goals, priorities, implementation
mechanisms. Web. 23.05.2023. http://file:///C:/Users/lg-227/Downloads/ramochnye-programmy-issledovaniy-irazvitiya-
es-tseli-prioritety-mehanizmy-realizatsii.pdf. (In Rus.)
2. Lebedeva M. M. Actors in international relations and world politics. Modern science of international
relations abroad: in 3 vols. Moscow, vol. 2, 2015. (In Rus.)
3. Talagaeva D. A. Norway: state scientific policy. Polis. Political research, no. 1, pp. 155–165, 2014. (In
Rus.)
4. Talagaeva D. A. Formation of the European scientific space: approaches of the Scandinavian countries.
Abstract of Candidate of Political Sciences. Moscow: MGIMO, 2016. (In Rus.)
5. Audretsch D., Keilbach M. Resolving the knowledge paradox: knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship
and economic growth. Research Policy, vol. 37, pp. 1697–1705, 2008. (In Eng.)
6. Bonaccorsi A. Explaining poor performance of European science: institutions versus policies. Science
and Public Policy, vol. 34, pp. 303–316, 2007. (In Eng.)
7. Caracostas P., Muldur U. The emergence of a new EU research and innovation policy. Research and
Innovation Policies in the New Global Economy: An International Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham: Elgar,
2001. (In Eng.)
8. Georghiou L. Europe’s research system must change. Nature, vol. 452, pp. 935–936, 2008. (In Eng.)
9. Gornitzka A., Langfeldt L. Borderless knowledge: understanding the “New” internationalisation of
research and higher education in Norway. New York: Springer Dordrecht, 2008. (In Eng.)
10. Haas P. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International
Organization, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 23, 1992. (In Eng.)
11. Lavenex S. Switzerland in the European research area: integration without legislation. 2011. Swiss
Political Science Review, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 629–651, 2009. DOI: 10.1002/j.1662-6370.2009.tb00148.x (In
Eng.)
12. Мoe T. Political institutions: the neglected side of the story. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization,
vol. 6, pp. 213–253, 1990. (In Eng.)
13. Newman E. A Crisis of global institutions? Multilateralism and international security. London: Routledge,
2007. (In Eng.)
14. Stromquist N., O’Meara K. Faculty peer networks: role and relevance in advancing agency and gender
equity. Gender and Education, April, pp. 338–358, 2015. (In Eng.)
15. Trondal J. Unpacking international organisations. The Dynamcis of compound bureaucracies.
Manchester University Press, January, pp. 249–266, 2010. (In Eng.)
16. Wendt A. Collective identity formation and the international state. American Political Science Review,
vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 384–396, 1994. (In Eng.) |
