31.12.90 Official]oumal of the European Communities No C 332/135 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 89/118/EEC on a 
European stimulation plan for economic science (1989-1992) (SPES) 
(90/C 332/38) 
On 18 June 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 130Q(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 6 September 1990. The 
Rapporteur was Mr Velasco Mancebo. 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 September 1990), the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. In a Decision of 13 Eehruary 1989^, the 
Council adoptedaEuropean stimulation plan for econD 
omicscience^!9891992^SPES^ designed to set upa 
networlo of cooperation and exchange for economists 
of the highest calibre at Community level. 
1.2. The purpose of SPES is tcA 
— stimulatethemobility of Community economists 
and bootscooperationon jointresearchprojects 
or networlosby researchers from the EC member 
States, 
— improve training by encouraging doctoral students 
and researchers of the member States to continue 
their workinECuniversities or researchcentres 
outside their country of origin, 
— encourage young economists who have been workD 
ing for some time in centres of excellence in third 
countries to return to the Community, 
— favour or support the exchange of knowledge and 
information between economic science researchers 
ofEC member States. 
1.3. Under SPES, researchers and research teams can 
receive scholarships, research grants, grants formula 
national networks or joint research projects, and sub­
sides for high-level training courses. SPES should also 
facilitate thecarrying-outof surveys and studies, as 
well as access to data banks. 
^OJ^oL^tD^i^^^. l.^t. SPESisaneiqoerimentalprogramme withan 
initial budget of si^ millonEcu.lt represents the exten­
sion to the field of economic science of the objectives 
and measures enshrined in the SCIENCE plan to stimu­
late the international cooperation and interchanges 
needed by European research scientists.The SCIENCE 
programme, which was renewed on 29 June 1988^, at 
present concerns only the e^act and natural sciences. 
IBo. Theoverallaimoftheprogrammesistoenhance 
and make better use of Community scientific and tech­
nical potential for the benefit of all member States. 
The long-term objective is to createareal researchers^ 
Europe withinabarrier-free European area. 
1.^. The Committee Opinion of 28 September 
1988^welcomed SPES.lt considered that, despite the 
programme^slimited objectives, SPESshouldeventually 
help to boost Europe^s economic science potential by 
improving collaboration between the responsible bodi­
es. The Committee recognized ^the merits of the meas-
ures which the Commission is proposing to introducee 
1.^. The present proposal seeks to add four million 
ECU to the SPES budget, and to extend the research 
fields covered.The Commissions reasons for this are 
twofold^ 
— the inadeguate funding at the Community's dis­
posal, which has forced it to turn down a large 
number of applications considered by the Com­
mission to be of a high guality, 
— the insufficient (or even non-existent) account taken 
of certain research fields, more especially the econ­
omic impact of new technologies or economic 
relations between Western and Eastern Europe. 
(2) SCIENCE plan (1988-1992), OJ No L 206, 30. 7. 1988, p. 34. 
(3) OJ No C 318,12. 12. 1988, p. 23. 
No C 332/136 Official Journal of the European Communities 31.12. 90 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee reiterates its support for SPES 
and approves the present proposal, subject to the com­
ments which follow. 
2.2. By 31 May 1990 the SPES programme had led 
to the conclusion of contracts for 30 joint research 
projects and research networks, involving around two 
million ECU and 200 researchers. 14 research grants 
had also been made. 
2.3. The Committee realizes that it is too early to 
decide whether SPES has achieved its objectives. Nor 
should it prejudice the outcome of the review of the 
programme scheduled in the Council Decision to take 
place in 1991. However, the Committee would note 
that additional information it has received suggests a 
clear geographic imbalance in the contracts concluded. 
In view of the objectives of regional policy, it is of 
particular concern that this imbalance adversely affects, 
among others, the least avantage Member States. 
2.4. In particular, the Annex to the SPES Decision 
specifies that: 
'Where scientific and technical quality is compar­
able, particular attention will be given to projects 
likely to reduce scientific and technical development 
disparities between Member States and thereby to 
contribute to economic and social cohesion within 
the European Communities.' 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 2.5. The Committee recalls that the selection and 
assessment criteria for Community research activities 
and the specific programmes include the requirement 
that research should help strengthen the Community's 
economic and social cohesion. The Committee there­
fore urges the Commission to rectify this aspect of SPES 
implementation, and trusts that the additional four 
million ECU allocated to the programme will help to 
redress the geographical balance of contracts while 
also respecting the objective of scientific and technical 
quality. 
2.6. The Committee would repeat the suggestions it 
made in its earlier Opinion on SPES, emphasizing that 
the pilot phase of SPES should provide an opportunity 
to: 
— establish the criteria and funding requirements for 
taking stock of the resources available in the field 
of economic research in the Community. The most 
immediate effects would be to avoid duplication, to 
draw on the experience of others, and to give a 
boost to future cooperation, 
— encourage a Community-wide debate between all 
the relevant parties to discuss the EC's main socio­
economic problems. This should help to determine 
the most relevant lines of research and which sub­
jects should be studied at secondary and university 
level in all Member States. 
2.7. The Committee would again draw the Com­
mission's attention to these two points and ask it to 
indicate haw it has taken account of them when it 
reviews SPES and assesses the programme's results. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE