12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 131/57 
Opinion  on  the  proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  setting  up a European 
Community  Institute  for Economic  Analysis  and  Research 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 258  of 11 November  1975,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 20 October  1975,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at 
its 138th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 31 March  and  1 April  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made 
by the Council  of the European  Communities  on 
20 October  1975, 
Having  regard  to the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in par-
ticular  Article  198  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 28 October  1975,  instructing  the Section  for 
Economic  and  Financial  Questions  to draw  up an 
opinion  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by the 
rapporteur,  Mr De Ridder, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  adopted  by the 
Section  for Economic  and  Financial  Questions  at 
its meeting  on 2 March  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  at its 138th 
plenary  session  held  on 31 March  and  1 April 
1976  (meeting  of 31 March  1976), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Committee  endorses  and  supports  the 
proposal  to set up a European  Community  Insti-
tute for Economic  Research  and  Analysis,  on the 
basis  of the points  made  below.  Such  an institute 
would  be a scientific  tool  at the disposal  of all the 
Community  bodies. 
1.2. The  area  of activity  of the  proposed 
institute  is of direct  relevance  to the  Economic 
and Social  Committee.  The  Committee's  work 
cannot  fail  to benefit  from  systematic,  thorough-
going  and  objective  study  of the  economic  and 
social  problems  associated  with  European  inte-
gration. 
In its opinion  of 13  December  1973  on the 
communication  from  the  Commission  to the 
Council  on progress  achieved  in the first  stages  of 
economic  and  monetary  union,  on the allocation 
of powers  and  responsibilities  among  the Com-
munity  institutions  and  the Member  States  essen-
tial to the  proper  functioning  of economic  and 
monetary  union,  and  on the measures  to be taken 
in the  second  stage  of economic  and  monetary 
union  ('), the Committee  already  expressed  inter-
by a majority  with  two  votes  against  and  13 
abstentions: (') OJ No C 115,28.  9. 1974. 
No C 131/58 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
est in the establishment  of a research  institute  and 
asked  to be consulted  when  concrete  proposals 
were  submitted. 2.2. The  Committee  considers  that,  by and 
large,  the arguments  put forward  by the Commis-
sion are valid. 
1.3. The  institute  will  be principally  concerned 
with  economic  matters,  but  the  Committee  asks 
that it should  also  examine  the social  aspects  of 
the problems  it deals  with,  for the two  spheres 
are often  closely  linked. 
1.4. In  scientific  work  one  must  normally 
establish  the  relevant  facts  and  their  inter-
relationships  before  embarking  upon  analysis  and 
interpretation.  It would  therefore  be logical  to 
reverse  the order  of the institute's  activities,  as set 
out in its title:  research  would  come  first,  then 
analysis. 
We therefore  propose  that  the  institute's  official 
title should  be:  'the  European  Community  Insti-
tute for  Economic  and  Social  Research  and 
Analysis'. 
2. Comments  on the reasons  given  by the Com-
mission  for setting  up a research  institute 
2.1. The  Commission  has  put  forward  the 
following  arguments  in support  of the establish-
ment  of an economic  research  and  analysis  insti-
tute: 
(a) while  the problems  raised  by economic  inte-
gration  are  growing  in complexity  and  num-
ber, progress  in research  into  this  field  has not 
kept pace  (first  recital); 
(b) the European  Communities  do not  possess  a 
research  instrument  which  would  allow  a 
systematic  scientific  approach  to these  pro-
blems  (second  recital); 
(c) it is important  to establish  a scientific  basis 
for Community  economic  policy  measures  in 
furtherance  of  economic  integration.  A 
European  Community  institute,  whose 
activities  should  be based  on a concern  for 
the general  Community  interest,  would  seem 
appropriate  to  meet  these  requirements 
(second  recital). 2.2.1.  As  regards  the first  argument  (2.1  (a)), 
experience  gained  since  the Treaty  of Rome  came 
into force  has  clearly  shown  the  growing  com-
plexity  and  diversity  of the  obstacles  to integra-
tion and  even  to coordination  of the  economic 
and social  policies  pursued  by the Member  States. 
At Community  level  there  have  been  different 
structures  and  conceptions  from  the outset;  as the 
integration  process  advanced  incompatibilities 
arose  among  the measures  taken  by the Member 
States,  and  the scope  and  effectiveness  of certain 
traditional  instruments  of domestic  economic 
policy  gradually  decreased. 
2.2.2.  The  difficulties  to be overcome  have 
been  considerably  exacerbated  by the challenges 
which  recent  international  developments  have 
created  for the Community  economy. 
Radical  structural  changes  in the  Community 
economy  have  been  made  necessary  by  the 
disruption  of the  international  monetary  system, 
the energy  crisis,  the  changes  in the  raw 
materials/industrial  products  price  ratios,  and  the 
new relations  between  underdeveloped  and 
industrialized  nations.  These  difficulties  have 
been  compounded  by an economic  downturn  on 
a scale  that  was  thought  would  never  be seen 
again.  Never  before  has  the  Community  been 
faced  with  a combination  of unemployment, 
inflation  and  external  disequilibria  on the present 
formidable  scale.  In this  new  situation,  the 
conventional  wisdom  and  remedies  are  not 
always  effective. 
2.2.3.  Account  must  also  be taken  — and  this 
is perhaps  the  most  important  point  — of the 
sociologically  conditioned  changes  in ideas  and 
situations,  and  also  of the  new  pattern  of social 
relations  which  has emerged  in western  countries 
since  the Second  World  War.  In such  conditions 
it is not  surprising  that  analyses  and  forecasts 
compiled  in accordance  with  classical  methods 
and theories  have  frequently  (and  sometimes 
cruelly)  turned  out to be wrong. 
2.2.4.  In  recent  years,  all the  Member  States 
have  been  faced  with  the  same  fundamental 
problems.  At most  there  have  been  variations  in 
scale.  The  problems  are both  national  and  inter-
12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 131/59 
national  in  character.  It follows  that  pure 
research  and  applied  research  (i.e.  assumptions 
and consequences)  in the sphere  of economic  and 
social  policy  must  take  this  into  account. 2.3.2.  As  the  Commission  points  out,  most 
Member  States  have  research  institutes  which  are 
distinct  and  independent  from  their  administra-
tive departments. 
2.2.5.  This  indicates  the  scale  of the  studies 
that should  be  made  concerning  the  causes, 
nature  and  consequences  of the  changes  in the 
structure  and  workings  of the Community  econo-
my, in order  to provide  a scientific  basis  for  a 
coherent  Community  action  programme  for the 
short  and  medium  term.  It is not just  a question 
of ascertaining  the facts,  determining  their  inter-
relationships  and  extrapolating  future  trends; 
certain  basic  methods  of research  and  analysis 
will have  to be adapted  to the new  economic  and 
social  situation. 
2.2.6.  As  regards  the leeway  to be made  up in 
the scientific  study  of economic  and  social  pro-
blems  at Community  level,  the Committee  points 
out that  several  Member  States  already  have 
high-level  research  institutes  and  that  papers  are 
published  regularly  on certain  aspects  of econom-
ic integration.  It is however  fair  to say  that  the 
bulk  of the  work  to date  has  been  fragmentary 
and uncoordinated.  As yet  there  has  been  no 
systematic  investigation  of the  structure  and 
behaviour  patterns  of a complex  economic  area 
in the  process  of integration.  Existing  institutes 
and research  programmes  have  not  been  con-
ceived  with  the European  Communities  in mind 
or geared  to their  objectives.  There  is no Com-
munity  body  to coordinate  individual  research 
efforts. 2.3.3.  The  above  arguments  support  the  case 
for a research  institute  working  for the Commun-
ities.  However  useful  national  centres  may  be, 
they are  not  basically  Community  orientated. 
This  criticism  also  applies  to certain  international 
bodies  such  as the OECD  and  the ILO.  They  too 
undertake  very  interesting  research,  some  of 
which  is of relevance  to  the  Community. 
Nevertheless  their  work  also  lacks  a specific 
Community  approach.  Although  a certain  num-
ber of Community  studies  are  published  each 
year,  they  are not geared  to Community  needs  or 
coordinated  in the  light  of these  needs;  as a 
result,  there  are considerable  gaps. 
All this  brings  out  the  value  of a Community 
research  institute  which  will  seek  to: (a) stimulate 
and coordinate  the  work  of national  bodies  and 
individual  research  workers,  and  give  this  work  a 
more  European  slant;  and  (b) undertake  its own 
research  in areas  of the Community  economy  not 
covered  by existing  centres. 
2.4.1.  Turning  to the third  argument  (2.1  (c)), 
the Committee  agrees:  (i)  that  objective, 
economic  policy  measures  taken  in furtherance  of 
European  integration  should  have  a 'scientific 
basis';  and  (ii) that  the institute  can help  to create 
this basis.  The  Committee  considers  this  argu-
ment  to be of fundamental  importance. 
2.3.1.  The  Commission's  second  argument 
(2.1 (b))  is the inadequacy  of its own  research 
machinery.  It is true  that  the  staffs  of the 
European  Institutions  produce  a large  volume  of 
documentation  and  devote  considerable  time  to 
planning  Community  action.  Nevertheless  the 
bulk  of their  duties  are executive  and  technical. 
Moreover,  in most  cases  the officials  concerned 
have  neither  the time  nor the resources  needed  for 
an exclusively  scientific  approach  to the problem 
to be tackled.  To be fully  effective,  research  must 
be carried  out  by a specific  research  body.  At 
Community  level,  such  a body  must  be absolutely 
free to choose  its own  methods  and  must  possess 
the absolute  clarity  of judgment  needed  for the 
thorough-going,  objective,  research  necessary  in 
fields  of major  concern  to the Community  institu-
tions. 2.4.2.  There  can  be little  doubt  that  the failure 
— or at least  the  limited  impact  — of certain 
Community  measures  is due  to political  factors. 
The Committee  considers  that  a sharp  distinction 
must  be drawn  between:  (a)  data  yielded  by 
economic  research;  and  (b)  political  decisions 
which  may  or may  not  be taken  in the light  of 
this data.  But  despite  this  distinction,  the impor-
tance  of scientific  analysis  must  not  be underes-
timated.  The  Committee  is convinced  that  the 
unsatisfactory  results  obtained  so far  in some 
areas  of Community  policy,  particularly  econom-
ic integration,  are  due  in large  part  to:  (a) 
insufficient  knowledge  of the facts;  and (b) inade-
quate  forecasts.  In the absence  of proper  ground-
work  and  investigation,  and  because  of failure  to 
put forward  well  supported  arguments,  oppor-
No C 131/60 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
tunism  and  short-term  expediency  have  too often 
gained  the upper  hand. 
2.4.3.  The  slow  pace  of Community  progress 
in recent  years  has,  however,  shown  that  it is 
almost  impossible  to make  substantial  progress 
towards  economic  and  monetary  union  without  a 
minimum  of concerted  action,  based  on a clear 
picture  of:  (i) the  problems  involved;  (ii)  the 
targets  to be achieved;  and  (iii)  the most  appro-
priate  action.  Political  decisions  and  will  are of 
course  crucial  as regards  the  policies  to be 
adopted  and  the measures  to be taken.  By provid-
ing a sound,  objective  scientific  basis  for  such 
measures  and  any  variants  thereof,  a European 
economic  research  institute  can  make  a valuable 
contribution  to the integration  process.  Improved 
knowledge  of the  nature  and  implications  of 
Community  problems  would  undoubtedly  make 
it easier  to work  out  solutions  and  gain  accep-
tance  for them.  The  Committee  therefore  consi-
ders that  fundamental  research  must  be underta-
ken, as a matter  of urgency,  into  ways  of aligning 
the economic  policies  of the  Member  States. 
Comparative  studies,  conducted  within  the Mem-
ber States  under  the  auspices  of the  European 
institute,  could  be of considerable  value  in this 
connection,  and  each  Member  State,  when  fram-
ing its own  Community  policy,  could  benefit 
from  the shared  findings. 
3. The  relationship  between  the proposed  Com-
munity  research  institute  and  national  and 
international  institutes cooperate  with  research  centres  outside  the Com-
munity  and  participate  in the work  of individual 
research  workers.  All  these  contacts  should  be 
designed  mainly  to stimulate  research  in the field 
of integration. 
3.3. The  Committee  considers  that  the institute 
has a very  important  role  to play  in the  Com-
munity  as a stimulator,  coordinator  and  catalyst. 
The institute  will  thus  be doubly  useful:  not only 
will it give  a more  European  slant  to research,  but 
by facilitating  the exchange  of information,  both 
on analysis  techniques  and  on  the  results  of 
research  it will  obviate  duplication  of work,  fill 
gaps  and  in this  way  increase  efficiency  in an area 
where  cooperation  and  coordination  still  leave 
much  to be desired. 
3.4. In  each  Member  State,  national  research 
cannot  fail  to benefit  from  an overall  improve-
ment  in the organization  of work  at Community 
level.  To  this  end  the  institute's  management 
board,  on which  all the Member  States  are to be 
represented,  should  ensure  close  and  permanent 
liaison  between  national  centres  and  the institute 
itself. 
3.5. In  this  context,  one  thing  that,  among 
others,  would  be very  helpful  would  be  the 
institute's  keeping  a complete  and  systematic 
perpetual  inventory  of the scientific  potential  and 
the documentary  resources  existing  in the Mem-
ber States.  This  would  involve  a list of the main 
national  research  centres,  a description  of their 
structure,  objectives  and  current  research  pro-
jects,  and  a concise  analysis  of the  methods 
employed  and  the results  obtained. 
3.1. The  institute  is to be a specific,  indepen-
dent  research  body  working  for the Community. 
But it must  nevertheless  remain  flexible,  and  it 
must  not  ignore  other  scientific  or documentary 
sources  in the Community  or elsewhere. 
3.2. Article  3 (1) of the Commission  proposal 
states  'in carrying  out its task,  the institute  shall 
cooperate  as closely  as possible  with  the econom-
ic research  and  forecasting  bodies  in the Member 
States;  it shall  seek  to ensure  that  the services  of 
those  bodies  are  utilized  to the  best  possible 
advantage'.  The  institute  will  also  be able  to 3.6. In  its task  of giving  European  economic 
research  a Community  dimension,  the  institute 
must  make  optimum  use  of available  scientific 
capacity  by allocating  the  work  that  is to be 
performed  outside  the institute  or with  its assis-
tance,  to the various  national  centres  according  to 
their  capabilities  and  specializations.  The  institute 
must  not  monopolize  Community  research.  In 
any event,  it could  not  do so, with  its present 
limited  resources.  Farming  out work  would  be an 
effective  way  of promoting  cooperation  between 
the various  national  centres  and  would  give 
research  a more  Community  slant.  The  improved 
division  of labour  would  also  make  for greater 
efficiency. 
12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 131/61 
3.7. Choosing  the  cooperating  institutes  and 
allocating  work  according  to their  capabilities 
will certainly  be a delicate  matter.  Account  must 
also be taken  of the cost  of outside  work. 
Although  some  research  will  be best  performed 
by specialist  centres,  there  will  be large  areas 
where  this  will  not be possible.  The  institute  itself 
will have  to study  certain  specific  matters  of 
major  and  immediate  importance  to the  Com-
munity.  The  institute's  own  research  for  the 
Community  institutions  will,  therefore,  remain  an 
essential  aspect  of its European  task. 
4. The  institute's  task 
4.1. According  to Article  2 of the  Commis-
sion's  draft,  'the  institute's  task  shall  be to 
produce  studies  on the problems  connected  with 
the principal  economic  and  social  aspects  of the 
economic  integration  of the  Community,  as a 
contribution  to the  development  of scientific 
bases  for action  in the field  of economic  policy  in 
the Community'. 4.2. The  Committee  endorses  the definition  of 
the institute's  role  which  is given  in Articles  2 and 
3 of the proposal.  It also  agrees  with  the interpre-
tation  of this  role  which  is given  in the explana-
tory memorandum.  The  Committee  would, 
however,  raise  a number  of points.  It wishes 
to comment  on the  nature  and  scope  of the 
institute's  terms  of reference,  and  in particular  on 
the sort  of work  it should  do. 
4.2.1.  The  first  question  which  may  be asked  is 
whether  the  institute  should  concentrate  on:  (a) 
theoretical  and  methodological  studies;  or (b) 
applied  economic  research.  Though  it recognizes 
the value  of basic  research  and  agrees  that  the 
institute's  work  can  further  economic  knowledge, 
the Committee  considers  that  the institute  should 
concentrate  on the practical  problems  involved  in 
securing  the  economic  integration  of the  Com-
munity.  The  aim  of the institute's  research  should 
be to help,  through  its research  work,  obtain 
information  and  conclusions  that  will  bring  about 
a better  understanding  of these  problems  and  to 
make  it easier  to solve  them.  The  Committee 
considers  that  the  institute  should  adopt  a 
realistic  approach  and  keep  its eyes  firmly  fixed 
on its ultimate  aims.  This  implies,  for example, 
that,  although  the  institute  will  have  to use 
mathematical  techniques  in its economic  research, 
it should  not become  an econometrics  centre. 
4.1.1.  'The  institute  shall  pay  particular  atten-
tion to the  problems  of methodology  connected 
with  economic  forecasting  in an area  in the 
process  of integration  and  shall  undertake  studies 
concerning  the Community's  problems  and  shall 
relate  such  studies  to the  relevant  theoretical 
background.' 
4.1.2.  Article  3 of the Commission's  proposal 
states  that  the institute  is to promote  cooperation 
with  national  research  centres.  This  side  of the 
institute's  activities  has  been  dealt  with  in the 
previous  chapter,  and  the  following  comments 
apply  mainly  to the  work  done  directly  by the 
institute's  research  workers.  The  institute's  func-
tion does  not,  however,  lend  itself  to this  sort  of 
subdivision.  It will  often  be difficult,  and  even 
inappropriate,  to  make  a clear  distinction 
between  the two  types  of activity.  In many  cases 
the research  work  done  directly  by the institute 
will complement  studies  carried  out  by  the 
national  centres  (and  vice  versa). 4.2.2.  Another  question  which  arises  is whe-
ther the  institute  should  concentrate  on short-
term  problems  or medium-  and  long-term  pro-
blems. 
The draft  submitted  by the  Commission  is not 
very helpful  on this  point,  but since  it states  that 
the institute's  main  aim  is to study  questions 
connected  with  Community  integration  — which 
means  dealing  primarily  with  structural  questions 
— we must  expect  the institute  to concentrate  on 
medium-  and  long-term  matters,  which  are,  in 
fact,  the most  difficult  ones. 
In contrast,  the institute  will  probably  not be able 
to carry  out  very  much  useful,  original  work  in 
the short-term  field,  where  a large  number  of 
excellent  research  centres  are already  in operation 
and where  both  research  methods  and  methods  of 
intervention  are highly  developed.  It could,  how-
ever,  bring  about  a better  coordination  of analy-
ses and  forecasting  at Community  level. 
No C 131/62 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
4.2.3.  It  is, however,  difficult  to distinguish 
between  the  short,  medium  and  long  term.  Any 
rigid  separation  is almost  always  to some  extent 
arbitrary.  In most  cases  longer-term  problems  are 
closely  interlinked  with  short-term  problems, 
since  developments  are  shaped  by earlier  events 
and measures.  It is therefore  hard  to see how  the 
institute  could  exclude  longer-term  forecasting 
from  its programme.  This  being  so, other  projects 
currently  under  consideration  would  have  to be 
reviewed,  such  as the  'Europe  + 30'  project, 
which  is concerned  with  precisely  this  field  of 
forward  study  of structural  problems.  It seems 
from  point  6 of the  explanatory  memorandum 
that this  in fact  is the  direction  in which  the 
Commission  is moving.  And  indeed  what  would 
be the point  in setting  up another  body  to carry 
out long-term  research,  alongside  an institute  for 
medium-term  research? 
4.2.4.  The  institute  may  be regarded  first  of all 
as a scientific  information  and  research  centre  in 
the strict  sense.  As such  it will  devote  itself  to 
studying  economic  and  social  facts  and  patterns, 
the links  between  them  and  the  factors  which 
determine  the  way  in which  they  develop. 
Through  its own  research  and  its  role  as a 
coordinating  body,  the institute  should  also  help 
to improve  the methods  and  instruments  used  in 
economic  analysis  and  forecasting.  All  of this 
work  is absolutely  necessary  and  in itself  forms 
quite  a programme. 
4.2.5.  But  should  not  the  institute  be set  a 
higher  objective  than  simply  analysing  the current 
economic  and  social  situation  and  forecasting 
future  trends?  Experience  has  shown  that  the 
main  difficulties  hampering  the integration  of the 
Community  stem  from:  (i) an inadequate  know-
ledge  of the  problems  involved,  particularly  the 
longer-term  problems;  and  (ii)  the  incoherence, 
and even  incompatibility,  of the  economic 
measures  taken  by the  Member  States.  It has 
also been  proved  that  coordinated  action  at 
Community  level  is a prerequisite  for  sub-
stantial  progress  towards  economic  and  monetary 
union. 
In other  words,  the integration  and  development 
of the  European  economy  should  be planned  by 
the political  organs  with  the  participation  of 
socio-economic  circles  and,  more  especially,  the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee.  It will  be neces-
sary — in the light  of the  studies  performed  by 
the institute,  etc.  — to fix objectives  and  decide 
exactly  how  these  objectives  are to be attained.  In 
this connection  care  will  have  to be taken  to 
ensure  that  measures  are consistent,  that  the right choices  are made  and  that  essential  priorities  are 
indicated. 
4.2.6.  On  the basis  of its findings,  and  confin-
ing itself  strictly  to working  hypotheses,  with  the 
desired  variants  as regards  aims  and  means,  the 
institute  could  work  out  the  implications  of the 
choices  made,  particularly  with  respect  to the rate 
of expansion  of Community  resources  and  their 
distribution  and  use.  (It would  not  of course  be 
laying  down  any  hard  and  fast  lines  here).  The 
institute  could  thus  draw  conclusions  and  make 
suggestions  regarding  the  consistency  of the 
economic  and  social  policy  from  the process  of 
Community  integration  point  of view. 
The development  of an integrated  Community 
model  for  balanced  growth  would  of course  be 
desirable,  but such  a model  is not feasible  in the 
immediate  future  either  technically  or politically. 
But all the  same,  the  institute  should  align  its 
research  work,  from  the  outset,  on  progress 
toward  economic  and  monetary  union.  The  Com-
munity  will  benefit  considerably  from  the insti-
tute's  research  if the improvement  of methods  of 
analysis  and  forecasting,  and  the resulting  better 
knowledge  of the facts  and  trends  enable  greater 
progress  to be made  in harmonization  within  the 
Community. 
4.2.7.  In  connection  with  this  view  of the 
institute's  role  as a technological  tool  and  as 
providing  a theoretical  foundation  for a coordi-
nated  Community  policy,  it should  be stressed 
that the  institute's  work  should  be confined 
strictly  to scientific  research.  Decisions  regarding 
the objectives  of a coordinated  Community  policy 
and the  means  to be employed  will,  of course, 
still be taken  exclusively  by the  appropriate 
Community  institutions,  which  will  also  act as 
arbitrators  where  necessary.  The  institute  will 
confine  itself  to the options  and  means  of action 
chosen  by the  political  bodies  selected.  It will 
apply  modern  economic  knowledge  and  methods, 
and seek  to analyse  the  consequences  of the 
hypotheses  which  have  been  adopted  and  draw 
objective  and  independent  conclusions  as to the 
validity  of these  hypotheses  and  the compatibility 
of the  choices  which  have  been  made.  In doing 
so, it will  pay  due  regard  to facts  and  external 
constraints.  Undoubtedly  more  than  one  combin-
ation  of aims  and  means  may,  and  even  should, 
be considered  by the  institute.  But  it is not  the 
institute's  job  to say  what  should  be done  or 
what  cannot  be done. 
12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 131/63 
5. The  independence  of the institute 
5.1. The  Committee  would  stress  the need  for 
the institute  to be afforded  scientific  indepen-
dence  and  administrative  autonomy.  Scientific 
independence  is essential  in order  to maintain  the 
objectivity  of the institute's  work,  and  depends  to 
a large  extent  on administrative  autonomy.  The 
institute  must  be able  to carry  out  its research 
free from  any  constraints,  pressures  or restric-
tions.  The  institute  must  have  intellectual  free-
dom  of action  vis-a-vis  not  only  the  Member 
States  but also  the institutions  of the Community 
and any  other  outside  influences. technical  or  scientific  reasons  is normal,  it 
becomes  a very  much  more  delicate  issue,  when 
postponement  is proposed  for  political  reasons, 
whether  or not  they  are  openly  expressed.  It 
would  perhaps  be advisable  for  management 
board  decisions  on postponements  to be taken  by 
a qualified  majority.  Furthermore,  the  manage-
ment  board  is only  able  to act in such  matters  on 
a proposal  from  the director  of the institute,  who 
is himself  appointed  by the Commission.  In view 
of this,  the  members  of the  management  board 
should  also  be given  the  right  to propose  post-
ponements. 
5.2. The  matter  of how  the institute  is financed 
is very  relevant  to the  question  of its indepen-
dence.  The  Commission  proposes  an annual  sub-
sidy drawn  from  the  budget  of the  European 
Communities.  Consideration  could  be given  to 
alternative  or supplementary  arrangements.  Con-
sideration  could  be given  inter  alia  to the idea  of 
a foundation  funded  from  its own,  specially-ear-
marked  resources.  As a foundation,  the institute 
could  be financed  on a more  permanent  basis  (for 
five-year  periods  for instance). 
Income  from  studies  carried  out  on behalf  of 
third  parties  would  also  serve  to make  the 
institute  more  independent.  The  institute  must 
not, however,  take  on too  much  outside  work,  as 
this would  increase  the  risk  of pressure  being 
exerted  on it by such  third  parties.  The  Commis-
sion has  proposed  that  no more  than  20%  of the 
institute's  total  work  should  be external  work. 
This  figure  seems  reasonable,  but  a flexible 
approach  is called  for. 
5.3. The  desire  to maintain  the institute's  inde-
pendence  must  not,  however,  prevent  it from 
working  as closely  as possible  with  the  various 
directorates-general  at the Commission  and,  more 
especially,  with  the  Statistical  Office  of the 
European  Communities.  The  institute  must  also 
be free  to collaborate  with  other  Community 
bodies  and  services. 
5.4. It  is considered  that  every  care  should  be 
taken  to ensure  that  the possibility  of postponing 
publication  of certain  studies,  as provided  for 
under  Article  11,  does  not  constitute  a threat  to 
the independence  and  objectivity  of the institute's 
work.  Though  postponement  of publication  for 6. The  administration  of the institute 
6.1. According  to Articles  4 and  5 of the 
Commission's  proposal,  the  institute  would  be 
managed  by a director  and  a 12-member  manage-
ment  board.  The  Member  States  would  each 
provide  one  member  of the  board,  the Commis-
sion two  and  the European  Investment  Bank  one. 
It is rightly  stipulated  in the  proposal  that  the 
members  of the  board  are  to be chosen  'with 
regard  to  their  competence  in the  field  of 
economic  analysis  and  research'. 
6.2. This  latter  condition  may  be regarded  as 
making  for  impartiality.  The  Committee  also 
recognizes  the need  for the Member  States  to be 
directly  represented  on the  management  board. 
But a management  board  in which  the  national 
element  has  such  predominance  (it is proposed 
that nine  of the 12 members  be representatives  of 
the Member  States)  may  lead  to difficulties 
similar  to those  experienced  in other  Community 
bodies  and  spheres;  this  might  have  an adverse 
effect  on the efficiency  of the institute. 
6.3. The  Committee  notes  that  no provision  is 
made  for the Economic  and  Social  Committee  to 
be represented  on the  management  board,  even 
though  it has  a direct  interest  in the  institute's 
work  and  would  often  have  to work  in close 
collaboration  with  it. The  Commission's  proposal 
also does  not  provide  expressly  for any  direct  or 
indirect  involvement  of the  Committee  in the 
drawing-up  of the institute's  work  programme. 
No C 131/64 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
6.4. Article  9 of the  Commission's  proposal 
states  that  'on  the  basis  of a draft  submitted  by 
the director,  the management  board  shall  adopt 
the annual  work  programme.  The  programme 
shall  lay  down  the  scientific  and  administrative 
guidelines  and  directives  necessary  for the insti-
tute to operate  successfully.  The  programme  shall 
take into  account  the priority  needs  indicated  by 
the C6mmunity  institutions.' 
Point  5 of the explanatory  memorandum  elabor-
ates on this  as follows:  'the  studies  to be carried 
out ... will  originate  mainly  from  the  various 
Community  institutions,  who  will  be required  to 
submit  to the institute  each  year  a programme  of 
the work  they  would  wish  to entrust  to it\ 
'Any  arbitration  which  might  be necessary  will  be 
the responsibility  of the  institute's  management 
board.' 
6.5. Under  the Treaty  of Rome,  the Committee 
is not a Community  institution.  As the Commit-
tee will  also  not  be represented  on the institute's 
management  board,  it will  not  legally  be in a 
position  to take  part  in the  drawing-up  of the 
institute's  work  programme. 
6.6. The  Committee  would  emphasize  that,  if a 
Community  institute  of economic  and  social 
research  is to keep  in touch  with  economic  and 
social  realities,  a body  like  itself,  which  represents 
the main  organizations  and  currents  of opinion  in 
the economic  and  social  sphere,  should  be able  to 
make  its voice  heard  in one  way  or another. 
6.7. The  most  direct  way  of achieving  this  aim 
would  clearly  be by providing  for the Committee 
to be formally  represented  on the  management 
board.  Care  would  have  to be taken  here  to 
maintain  the balance  between  the various  groups 
which  make  up the Committee.  Formal  represen-
tation  of the  Committee  could,  however,  pose 
delicate  problems.  It should  also  be pointed  out 
that an in-depth  study  is currently  being  made  of 
the question  of the  Committee's  involvement  in 
other  Community  bodies  and  other  Community 
activities.  This  being  so, the  Committee  would 
prefer  to reserve  its position  on this  matter  for the 
time being. 
6.8. The  Committee  does,  however,  strongly 
insist  that  it should  be given  the opportunity  to 
make  known  its views  on the institute's  research 
programme.  The  Committee  should,  in 
particular,  be able  to submit  to the management 
board  each  year  a limited  number  of subjects 
which  it considers  to be important  and  which  it 
would  like  to see studied.  The  Committee  would 
list these  subjects  in order  of priority. 6.9. To  this  end,  Article  9 of the  proposal 
should  include  provision  for the Committee  to be 
consulted  on  the  institute's  draft  work  pro-
gramme  prepared  by  its director.  This  draft, 
amended  where  necessary,  to take  account  of the 
Committee's  comments  and  suggestions,  would 
subsequently  be submitted  to the  management 
board  for approval. 
6.10.  Though  it wishes  to reserve  its position 
for the time  being  with  regard  to representation 
of the  Committee  as such  on the  management 
board,  the Committee  nevertheless  considers  that 
the major  economic  and  social  groups  should 
participate  at the level  of their  European  associa-
tions  in the administration  of the  institute  from 
the very  beginning. 
6.11.  The  Committee  also  considers  that  the 
Community  institutions,  particularly  the  Com-
mission,  should  be more  strongly  represented  on 
the management  board. 
A stronger  representation  coupled  with  participa-
tion of the  major  economic  and  social  organiza-
tions  would  make  for a better  balance  within  the 
board. 
6.12.  The  Committee  does  not  understand 
why the  European  Investment  Bank  should  have 
a representative  on the  management  board.  The 
EIB is an executive  body  with  a clearly  defined 
technical  role,  whereas  the institute's  activities  are 
to be of a strictly  scientific  nature.  If the EIB  is to 
be represented,  other  Community  institutions  and 
bodies  could  make  out an equally  good  case  to be 
represented  as well. 
6.13.  In  the light  of the  above,  the institute's 
management  board  could  therefore  be composed 
as follows: 
— nine  members  representing  the Member  States 
(one per country); 
— three  members  representing  the Commission; 
— nine  members  representing  the organizations 
which  are  most  representative  of the  main 
economic  and  social  groups  in the  Com-
munity. 
Total:  21 members. 
7. Size  of the institute  and  its budget 
7.1. According  to the  Commission,  the  insti-
tute will  have  'about  20'  scientific  researchers 
when  fully  operational. 
12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 131/65 
It is difficult  to comment  at the present  stage  on 
the proposed  size  of the  institute's  staff.  Every-
thing  will  depend  upon  the scope  and  the nature 
of the research  undertaken  and  the way  in which 
Community  studies  are apportioned  between  the 
institute  and  the  national  centres.  If, as may  be 
expected,  the institute  devotes  itself  mainly  to the 
study  of medium-  and  long-term  structural  ques-
tions,  a field  where  research  is most  difficult  and 
time-consuming  and  where  methods  of investiga-
tion and  forecasting  are not  so advanced  as in 
short-term  analysis,  then  the size  of the institute's 
staff will  have  to be adopted  accordingly. 
7.2. For  an economic  and  social  research  body 
with  an international  task,  the proposed  number 
of staff  does  not,  at first  sight,  seem  very  large 
compared  with  the  staff  complement  of other 
research  units.  Since  the research  work  is usually 
done  in teams,  groups  of at least  three  or four 
researchers  will  have  to be assigned  to most  of 
the more  important  projects.  Thus,  with  only  20 
research  workers,  it may  not  be possible  to carry 
out much  more  than  four  or five  major  studies 
each  year,  which  is not  a lot when  measured 
against  the  number  and  complexity  of the  pro-
blems  thrown  up by European  integration.  The 
institute  will  have  to be fairly  rigorous  in select-
ing projects  and  fixing  priorities.  It may  also  be 
concluded  that  a considerable  amount  of work 
will have  to be either  performed  in collaboration 
with  other  institutes  or researchers  or farmed  out 
completely. 
7.3. The  Committee  wonders  why  the  Com-
mission  has  proposed  that  the  scientific  resear-
chers  be recruited  on temporary  contracts  (three 
two-year  periods,  making  a maximum  of six 
years).  It is true  that  a research  institute  should 
not become  ossified  and  should  avoid  bureaucra-
cy. But  will  the  institute  find  it easy  to recruit 
top-rate  research  workers,  if it can  only  offer 
such  precarious  employment?  Should  provision 
not be made  for  exceptions,  in order  to enable 
staff of the highest  quality  to make  their  career  at 
the institute? 
7.4. In  the  absence  of any  detailed  informa-
tion,  it is equally  as difficult  to assess  the 
expenditure  estimates  appended  to the proposal, 
viz. 1 158  916  units  of  account  for  1976, 
2 518  177  units  of  account  for  1977  and 
3 281  485  units  of account  for 1978. 
7.5. These  sums  do not appear  at first  sight  to 
be exorbitant  for  a big  research  institute  — far 
from  it. According  to information  provided  by the Commission,  a budget  of this  size  would  be 
about  10%  more  than  the  budgets  for  similar 
centres  in other  EEC  countries.  The  extra  10%  or 
so would  be justified  by the  institute's  interna-
tional  character.  In any  event,  the  institute's 
administrative  structure  should  be as flexible  as 
possible  so as not  to increase  its running  costs 
needlessly. 
7.6. If  the total  budget  proposed  appears  mod-
est, the  sum  proposed  for  'operational  expendi-
ture',  which  is to cover  work  done  for  the 
institute  by outside  research  bodies,  seems  high  in 
relation  to the total  budget.  In 1978,  the year  in 
which  the  institute  begins  working  to full 
capacity,  'operational  expenditure'  would  be 
900 000  units  of account,  or over  58%  of expen-
diture  on the institute's  own  staff,  both  technical 
and administrative  (1 544  345  units  of account). 
Here  again,  no definitive  stand  can  be taken  until 
the overall  pattern  of the institute's  activities  has 
become  clearer. 
8. Location  of the institute 
8.1. The  Commission  does  not  make  any 
suggestions  as to the location  of the  new  body, 
but leaves  this  matter  entirely  to the  Council. 
Although  it is natural  to assume  that  political 
considerations  will  have  a large  bearing  on the 
matter,  it is a pity  that  the Commission  has  not 
expressed  any  preferences  or given  any  criteria  of 
a technical  nature  on which  to base  the decision. 
8.2. The  Committee  does  not  wish  to put 
forward  any  specific  country  or place,  but  it 
considers  that  the  institute  should  be in the 
vicinity  of the  Community  bodies  most  directly 
involved  (the  Council,  the  Commission  and  its 
services  — in particular  the  Statistical  Office  — 
the Economic  and  Social  Committee,  and  the 
European  Parliament)  or in a place  within  quick 
and easy  striking  distance.  This  is necessary 
because  of the  need  for  permanent  close  links 
between  the  institute  and  the bodies  referred  to. 
Also,  the  location  chosen  will  have  to have 
adequate  scientific  facilities  (specialized  libraries, 
data-processing  facilities,  etc.).  Notwithstanding 
that which  has  been  stated  at the opening  of this 
paragraph,  the Committee  proposes  that,  should 
the Council  of Ministers  fail  to decide  on the 
location  of the institute  within  one  year,  it should 
be based  in Brussels. 
No C 131/66 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 12. 6. 76 
9. Specific  comments 
In accordance  with  the  views  expressed  in the 
previous  sections  of this  opinion,  the Committee 
proposes  that  the  Commission's  draft  proposal 
for a Council  Regulation  be amended  as follows: 
(a) Preamble 
The first  line  of the second  'Whereas'  should 
read: 
'Whereas  the European  Communities  do not 
possess  their  own  research  instrument 
which  ...' 
(b) Article  1(1) 
This  should  read: 
'A European  Communities'  Institute  for Eco-
nomic  and  Social  Research  and  Analysis, 
hereinafter  called  "the  institute",  is hereby  set 
up.' 
(c) Article  2 (2) 
The penultimate  line  should  read: 
'... of integration  and  shall  undertake  studies 
concerning  the  Community's  structural  pro-
blems  ...' 
(d) Article  3 (1) 
The third  line  should  read: 
the Member  States,  it shall  stimulate  work 
on European-oriented  studies,  and  seek  to ensure  that  the  services  of those  bodies  are 
utilized 
(e) Article  3 (2) 
In the first  line,  'Whenever  necessary'  should 
be deleted. 
(f) Article  5 (1) 
This  should  read: 
'The management  board  shall  consist  of 21 
members:  one  from  each  Member  State,  three 
from  the Commission,  nine  from  the  organi-
zations  representing  the  most  important 
economic  and  social  sectors  of the  Com-
munity.' 
(g) Article  9 
This  should  read: 
'The Economic  and  Social  Committee  shall  be 
asked  for  an  opinion  on  the  draft  work 
programme  drawn  up by the director  before 
the management  board  takes  a decision  on the 
matter.  The  programme  shall  lay down  the 
scientific  and  administrative  guidelines  and 
directives  necessary  for the institute  to operate 
successfully.  The  programme  shall  also  take 
into account  the  priority  needs  indicated  by 
the other  Community  institutions.' 
(h) Article  11 
The third  line  should  read: 
'... director,  or of one  of the members,  decide 
to postpone  publication.  Such  a decision  can 
only be taken  by a two-thirds  majority  of the 
members  of the board.' 
Done  at Brussels,  31 March  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
12. 6. 76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 131/67 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  in the course  of the discussions: 
Item  8.2 
Delete  the last  sentence,  which  reads: 
'Notwithstanding  that  which  has  been  stated  at the opening  of this  paragraph,  the section 
proposes  that,  should  the  Council  of Ministers  fail  to decide  on the  location  of the 
institute  within  one  year,  it should  be based  in Brussels.' 
Reasons 
1. Normally  the time  limit  should  begin  as from  the entry  into  force  of the Regulation,  as 
it is through  this  instrument  that  the Council  of Ministers  will  lay down  the location  of the 
institute  (Article  1 (3)).  It is, therefore,  difficult  to understand  what  is supposed  to be the 
meaning  of the sentence  whose  deletion  is sought. 
2. The  Community  is not a unitary  State.  Institutional  decentralization  is, therefore,  to be 
recommended,  to the  extent  that  it is compatible  with  the  smooth  functioning  of the 
Community.  It is sufficient  for the institute  to be situated  in a spot  which  fulfils  the criteria 
set out  at the  beginning  of the paragraph,  namely,  ease  of communication  with  the various 
Community  institutions  (including  the  Statistical  Office),  adequate  scientific  facilities  and 
data-processing  facilities. 
Voting 
For: 22, against:  26, abstentions:  31. 
Opinion  on the  communication  from  the  Commission  to the  Council  concerning 
the European  social  budget 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  not  been  published  in the  Official  Journal 
of the  European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 6 January  1976,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned  communication  to 
the Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the  European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at 
its 138th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 31 March  and  1 April  1976. 
The full  text  of the  opinion  is as follows: