LuLL88 Official ]onrnalof the EuropeanCommumties l^oC^18^ 
Opinion onadraft Council Decision uponaEuropean Stimulation Plan for economic science 
1989199^ SPES 
^88^C^18^1^ 
On^Apnl 1988 the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the Economic 
and Social Committee, under Article!^ C^^ of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community on the abo^ementioned draft Council Decision. 
The section for energy, nulcear questions and research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 9 September 1988. The 
rapporteur was ^virVelascoAiancebo. 
At its ^8th plenary session ^meeting of ^8 September 1988^ the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
The Committee approves the Commission proposal 
and inparticular the objectives of theprogramme. It 
considers, however, that an assessment of the needs of 
economic science in Europe is essential so as to a^oid 
duplication andawasteoffunds.lt is also particularly 
important that the ^iews of the relevant economic, 
social and academic groups be taken into account when 
the topics of research are selected. 
1. Introduction 
1.1, In its Opinion of l^December!98^^on the 
Commission SCIENCE plan proposals, the Com 
mitteeendorsed the idea of a similar measure in the 
field of economic science, with the same objectives, 
i.e. increasing mobility and cooperation within the 
research community in Europe in order to increase their 
professional performance'. 
1.^. Eor the purposes of this programmegeconomic 
science' must be understood to mean not only the 
fundamentalpnnciplesofeconomicsasascience,but 
also its practical applications in society,such as business 
economics, social economics, economicpolicy perse, 
etc. This is certainly how the Commission understands 
it too. 
1.^. The Committee reaffirms its support for the 
Commission'simtiati^e in proposing the present SPES 
Programme and approves its objectives. 
IBP The Committee notes, however, that the funds 
made available for the implementation of the frame 
work programme of community activities in the field of 
research and technological development ^198^1991^^ 
arenotsufficientatpresent forthede^elopmentof a 
similar programme for all human and sociaMsciences. 
^oi^e^,^^t^^^3 1.^. The Commission, which isawareofthissitu 
ation, should provide the funds necessary to launch 
such a programme when it carries out its planned 
revision of the framework programme. 
^. Ceneral comments 
^.1. Lhe Committee only partly shares the Com 
mission's^iew that its proposal is justified by the^rela 
timely weak performanceof economic science'm Europe 
which is ^wellbelowwhat might be expected'.Although 
the United States was the world'sleading producer of 
economic technology foralong time, this is no longer 
the case^ the reasons for this include the relative failure 
of the theoretical models developed in the United States 
and the difficulties they ha^e encountered in resolving 
the problems of their own economy ^budget and trade 
deficits, industrial producti^ity,controllmg the money 
supply, foreign debtP 
^. ^hile acknowledging the important contn 
butions of economic science as developed in the United 
States, Europe has nevertheless become aware of the 
need to develop its own theoretical and practical models 
whichtakeaccountof its ownparticular social,econ 
omic and cultural identity. 
^. In doing this,Europe'saim is not to produce an 
economic technology to compete with the United States, 
but to demise and put into practice the means for conD 
structing a macro and microeconomic technology 
which is geared to the needs of both European govern 
ments and firms and which, more generally, meets the 
needs of European society asawhole. 
^BP In particular these needs are linked to the de^el 
opment by the Community of concepts cohered by such 
terms as internal market, harmonization, economic and 
social integration, integrated programmes, critical 
masses, socialcosts, mimmumthresholds,etc., which 
No C 318/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 12. 88 
help to identify problems which cannot be solved prop­
erly by existing economic technology. Not until Europe 
has evolved such a technology will economic debate be 
able to play its full role in Community research. 
2.5. Bearing this objective in mind, the aims of the 
proposed programme would seem decidedly limited. 
Nevertheless, the Committee endorses the programme 
which should eventually help to boost Europe's econ­
omic science potential by improving collaboration 
between the responsible bodies. 
2.6. The Committee recognizes the merits of the 
measures which the Commission is proposing to intro­
duce and considers that this pilot phase of the pro­
gramme should also provide an opportunity to: 
2.6.1. Take stock of the resources available in the 
field of economic research in the Community. There is 
a lack of knowledge about the main specialists and 
research centres when the Community is. viewed as a 
whole (transport economics in the University of Leeds, 
sociology of labour and industrial economics in various 
Italian and English universities, regional economics at 
Valencia, etc.). The most immediate effects would be 
to avoid duplication, to draw on the experience of 
others and to give a boost to future cooperation. 
2.6.2. Encourage a Community-wide debate (univer­
sities, business, trade unions and consumers) on the 
main social and economic problems in the Community; 
this should help to determine the most relevant lines 
of research and which subjects should be studied at 
secondary and university level in all Member States. In 
short, make a start on the groundwork for the creation 
of a European economic technology. 
2.7. One of the reasons for the relatively weak per­
formance of economic science is the occasional inad­
equacy of the statistics available at European level. The 
Committee would ask the Commission to reflect on 
this and to come up with proposals as to how the 
Statistical Office of the European Communities could 
help to alleviate these shortcomings and thus become 
a reference point for all European economic science 
researchers. 
2.8. To achieve this it is vital to construct a statistical 
data bank on economic activities using criteria which 
can be applied and assessed uniformly in all the EC 
countries [components of gross domestic product 
(GDP), evaluation of the performance of foreign econ­omies, social balance-sheet, consumer price index, stat­
istics on the employment of the active population, etc.]. 
2.9. It should be remembered that the choice of what 
is included in the data and of how this information is 
presented implies a socio-economic assessment of what 
most needs to be known. It is essential that the defi­
nition of 'what it is desirable to know' be discussed as 
part of the work referred to in point 2.6.2. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Budget 
3.1.1. The Committee realizes that at this stage the 
programme is experimental, which may explain the 
modest level of funding allocated by the Commission. 
The Committee would once again warn the Com­
mission that the funds could be wasted by being spread 
too thinly over a large number of stimulation measures 
and research projects. 
3.1.2. Consequently the Commission is urged, in this 
experimental phase, to concentrate its efforts on provid­
ing opportunities for debate at European level (sem­
inars, conferences, associations of specialists in various 
fields, in cooperation with universities and relevant 
economic and social interest groups) and on the estab­
lishment of joint research networks by economic science 
researchers of the Member States. 
3.2. Criteria for selecting applications for financial 
support 
3.2.1. The Committee approves the criteria which 
the Commission intends to apply for selecting appli­
cations for financial support (scientific excellence, mul­
tinational European aspect, European interest of the 
substance of the research). 
3.2.2. It also supports the Commission's concern to 
give priority to those research topics which deal with 
specific social and economic problems in the Com­
munity and the development of Community policies 
(internal market, economic and social integration, coor­
dination of economic policies, tax harmonization, etc.) 
rather than pure economic theory. 
3.3. Composition and role of the Committee for the 
European development of science and technology 
(Codest) 
3.3.1. Article 4 of the draft Decision states that the 
Commission shall be assisted in the execution of the 
programme by Codest, in particular for the selection 
12. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 318/25 
of the measures, projects and researchers to receive 
financial support. 
3.3.2. The Committee doubts whether the compo­
sition of Codest is suited to this task. Nor does the 
wording of Article 4 seem to reflect the Commission's 
real intentions, namely to set up within Codest an ad 
hoc committee comprising an as yet unspecified number 
of highly qualified economists in addition to three mem­
bers of Codest. 
3.3.3. These intentions should be clear from the 
actual wording of the draft Decision, which the Com­
mittee could then approve, provided that the members 
of this committee were also representative not only of 
academic circles, but also of the socio-economic interest 
groups. 
3.3.4. This committee should also submit an annual 
report containing a list of applications for financial 
support and of the stimulation measures projects and/ 
or researchers receiving support. The report must be 
published. 
Done at Brussels, 28 September 1988. 3.4. Forwarding of the report reviewing the results 
of the programme to the Economic and Social 
Committee 
3.4.1. Article 5 of the draft Decision states that the 
Commission shall draw up a report reviewing the 
results of the programme and forward it to the Council 
and the European Parliament. Once again the Com­
mission omits all reference to its forwarding to the 
Economic and Social Committee. 
3.4.2. The Committee can only repeat its demand 
that express provision be made for it to receive the 
research programme reviews. Both for the Committee 
and the Council and the European Parliament these 
reports are particularly important in assessing the pro­
grammes launched by the Commission and in deciding 
not only whether its proposals for modification or 
prolongation are justified but also whether the funds 
allocated to these programmes are being used in an 
appropriate fashion. 
3.4.3. Naturally this demand applies equally to the 
forwarding of the report on the evaluation of the final 
results of the programme as provided for in 
Article 5 (2). 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT