Mid-term review of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions unit costs : final report.
Date: 2017-06-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture
Subjects: cost-benefit analysis, distribution of EU funding, education grant, organisation of research, postgraduate education, scientific profession, scientific research

Mid-term Review of  
Marie Skłodowska-Curie  
actions unit costs 

Final report 

17 February 2017 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 
Directorate C — Innovation, International Cooperation and Sport 
Unit C2 — Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 

Contact: Peter Whitten 

E-mail: EAC-MARIE-SKLODOWSKA-CURIE-ACTIONS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Mid-term Review of 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie 
actions unit costs 
Final report 

This report was produced by ICF in cooperation with CHEPS and La 
Rochelle Consulting 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 

2017 

Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Disclaimer 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission. However, it 
reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held 
responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-68825-6  doi 10.2766/304600 (catalogue) NC-01-17-464-EN-N 

© European Union, 2017 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

List of acronyms ............................................................................................... 7 

1 

Introduction ............................................................................................. 8 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

Background and purpose of the study .................................................. 8 

Overview of existing unit costs ............................................................ 9 

Structure of the report ..................................................................... 10 

2 

Approach to data collection ...................................................................... 11 

2.1 

2.2 

Scoping interviews .......................................................................... 11 

Collection of evidence of trends in researcher salaries .......................... 12 

2.3 
2.3.1  Approach to developing questionnaires 
2.3.2  Sampling strategy 
2.3.3  Overview of interviews conducted 

Interviews with MSCA coordinators and fellows ................................... 13 
13 
13 
15 

2.4 
Limitations of the study ................................................................... 18 
18 
2.4.1  Estimating trends in researcher salaries 
2.4.2  Review of adequacy of MSCA unit costs and updating of MSCA unit costs  19 

3 

Trends in researcher salaries .................................................................... 20 

3.1 
3.1.1  Salaries of academic researchers 
3.1.2  Salaries of non-academic researchers 

Extrapolation of trends in researcher salaries based on More2 data ........ 20 
20 
28 

3.2 

3.2.1 
3.2.2 

Identification of demand and supply factors that may affect trends in 
researcher salaries .......................................................................... 29 
29 
Indicators of the supply of researchers 
32 
Indicators of the demand of researchers 

3.3 
3.3.1  The implicit tax rate 
3.3.2  Supply and demand factors 

Analysis ......................................................................................... 35 
36 
36 

3.4 

3.5 

Triangulation with results of the survey of MSCA fellows and coordinators 39 

Conclusion ..................................................................................... 40 

4 

Review of the adequacy of current MSCA unit costs ..................................... 42 

4.1 
4.1.1  The frequency of topping up allowances 
4.1.2  The adequacy of the living allowance unit cost 
4.1.3  The adequacy of the correction coefficient 
4.1.4  The adequacy of the mobility allowance 
4.1.5  The adequacy of the family allowance 

Researcher unit costs ...................................................................... 42 
45 
48 
51 
53 
56 

4.2 
4.2.1  The adequacy of unit costs for research, training and networking (only IF, 

Institutional unit costs ..................................................................... 59 

ITN, RISE) 

4.2.2  The adequacy of unit costs for management and indirect costs 

59 
67 

4.3 

The desirability of a disability allowance ............................................. 70 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

6 

Implications of review of trends in researcher salaries and adequacy of MSCA 
unit costs for 2018-2020 MSCA unit costs .................................................. 72 

Testing of various methods for updating unit costs and identification of the best 
method ................................................................................................. 74 

6.1 

6.2 

Various methods for updating unit costs ............................................. 74 

Outcomes of the various updating methods and identification of the best 
method ......................................................................................... 76 

7 

Recommendations for the MSCA unit costs for the period 2018-2020 ............. 81 

Annex 1 

List of scoping interviews ................................................................. 82 

Annex 2 

Trends in researcher  salaries ........................................................... 83 

Annex 3  Overview of competing fellowships .................................................... 85 

Annex 4  Overview of responses from survey ................................................... 96 

A4.1 
A4.1.1  Living allowance top-up 
A4.1.2  Living allowance 
A4.1.3  Correction coefficient 
A4.1.4  Mobility allowance 
A4.1.5  Family allowance 

Rating of MSCA researcher allowances ............................................... 96 
96 
98 
100 
103 
106 

A4.2 
A4.2.1  Unit costs for research, training and networking 
A4.2.2  Unit costs for management and indirect costs 

Rating of the MSCA institutional unit costs ......................................... 109 
109 
114 

Annex 5  Questionnaires .............................................................................. 116 

A5.1 

A5.2 

A5.3 

A5.4 

A5.5 

A5.6 

Coordinators questionnaire COFUND ................................................. 116 

Coordinators questionnaire IF and ITN .............................................. 121 

Coordinators questionnaire RISE ...................................................... 127 

Fellows questionnaire COFUND ........................................................ 131 

Fellows questionnaire IF and ITN ...................................................... 135 

Fellows questionnaire RISE .............................................................. 140 

6 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
List of acronyms 

CHE 

Chemistry 

COFUND 

Co-funding of regional, national and international programmes 

EC 

ECO 

ENG 

ENV 

ESR 

ER 

HES 

IF 

ITN 

LIF 

MAT 

European Commission 

Economic Sciences  

Information Science and Engineering 

Environment and Geosciences 

Early Stage Researcher (up to 4 years o/f experience and no PhD) 

Experienced Researcher (PhD or more than 4 years of full-time 
equivalent research experience) 

Higher education institutions 

Individual Fellowship 

Innovative Training Networks 

Life Sciences 

Mathematics 

MSCA   

Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions 

PHY 

PRC 

PUB 

REC 

RISE 

SOC 

Physics 

Private for profit organisations 

Public bodies 

Research organisations 

Research and Innovation Staff Exchange 

Social Sciences and Humanities 

7 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

Introduction  

This report was commissioned by the European Commission, Directorate-General 
Education and Culture and Youth, Unit B3 Innovation, EIT and MSCA as part of the 
request for services EAC/02/2016 in the context of EAC-47-2014 Multiple Framework 
Service Contract to Carry out Studies Supporting European Cooperation in Education 
and Youth. The assignment was carried out between May 2016 and January 2017 by 
ICF in collaboration with the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) and 
La Rochelle Consult. 

1.1 

Background and purpose of the study 

On 27.11.2013, the Commission adopted Decision C(2013)81941 authorising the use 
of reimbursement on the basis of unit costs for Marie Skƚodowska-Curie Action (MSCA) 
under the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme. This Decision defines a unit cost 
model for all MSCA (except for Coordination and Support Actions) covering all cost 
categories. The methodology to derive at the various unit costs was developed on the 
basis of a statistically robust set of data. 

As a method of revision, the Commission Decision foresees a mid-term review of the 
adopted unit costs compared to real costs and researchers' salary development in 
Europe and beyond. 

ICF carried out this mid-term review between May 2016 and January 2017. Based on 
the information gathered, the study proposes some updates to the unit costs for the 
period 2018 to 2020.  

In order to collect data on real costs, 162 interviews were conducted with 83 MSCA 
fellows and 79 MSCA coordinators whose applications were successful in the 2014 
MSCA calls, covering all four actions and all cost categories. It is important to note 
that none of the projects had received their payment of the balance at the time of the 
study. 

In parallel, an analysis of trends in researchers' salaries was undertaken and was 
based on the More-22 study and international comparable data. 

The study team used the data collected to assess the current MSCA unit costs as 
regards their level and structure in order to determine the needs for updating. Against 
this background, the analysis was structured around the following research questions: 

  Are the MSCA allowances competitive compared to salaries offered to similar 

researchers in and outside of Europe, and compared to competing professions? 

  Are the MSCA allowances sufficient to motivate researchers to be mobile, including 

those with families? 

  Are the MSCA institutional unit costs sufficient to motivate institutions to 
participate in the programme and to ensure fellows have adequate (and 
competitive) working conditions? 

  Does the simplicity of the MSCA unit costs lead to situations whereby the 

institutional unit costs are higher than real costs incurred, to an extent that would 
make changes to the unit cost system necessary?  

1 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/legal/unit_costs/unit-costs_msca_en.pdf 

2 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/content/more2-study-mobility-patterns-and-career-paths-researchers-2013 

8 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                          
1.2 

Overview of existing unit costs 

The MSCA reimbursement system under H2020 is a system entirely based upon unit 
costs. The transition from a reimbursement system partially based on rates of real 
costs incurred applied under FP7 to a system entirely based upon unit costs was done 
to reduce the administrative burden on both beneficiaries and the Research Executive 
Agency (REA) as institutions no longer need to provide evidence for each cost 
incurred. 

There are currently four MSCA unit costs related to researchers and two unit costs 
related to the institutions hosting the researchers, not all of which apply to all the 
actions. 

  MSCA unit costs for the benefit of researchers consist of: 

-  A monthly living allowance, which is a basic, gross amount for the 

benefit of the fellow. The amount includes all compulsory deductions 
under national applicable legislation. For Individual Fellowships (IF) and 
Innovative Training Networks (ITN) the MSCA living allowance is 
adjusted through the application of a correction coefficient adjusting 
the living allowance to the cost of living in the country in which the 
recruiting host organisation3 is located. The correction coefficient 
attempts to ensure equal treatment and purchasing power parity of 
researchers working all over the world. The coefficient 100% is 
applicable to Belgium and Luxembourg and a proportion of that 
elsewhere according to the costs of living as established by Eurostat. 

-  A monthly mobility allowance payable to the individual researcher to 

cover additional mobility-related costs such as travel and 
accommodation; 

-  A monthly family allowance payable to the individual eligible researcher 

to reduce family-related obstacles to researcher mobility; 

-  A monthly top-up allowance to cover travel, accommodation and 

subsistence costs related to a secondment. 

  MSCA unit costs for the benefit of host-institutions consist of: 

-  A unit cost for research, training and networking for the costs related 
to the training and research expenses of researchers as well as to the 
costs related to the transfer of knowledge and networking. 

-  A unit cost for management and indirect costs for the costs related to 

managing the MSCA project and indirect costs incurred. 

Table 1.1 provides an overview of the current level of MSCA unit costs and the actions 
to which they apply. 

3 For IF Global Fellowships, there are two different country-specific correction coefficients: one for the 
outgoing phase: the coefficient of the country where the researcher is hosted (i.e. the country of the partner 
organisation) and one for the return phase: the coefficient of the country where the researcher returns to 
(i.e. the country of the beneficiary).  

9 

 
 
  
 
 
 
                                          
Table 1.1  Unit costs  applied in HORIZON 2020 

Costs of researchers/seconded staff member 

Institutional costs 

Unit cost 

Living allowance 
(all except RISE) 

Unit costs 
applied in 
HORIZON 
2020 

3110/4650 for 
early-stage/ 
experienced 
researcher 
 50% of 3710/ 
5250 for 
COFUND 

Mobility 
allowance 
(only 
IF&ITN) 

Family 
allowance 

Top-up 
allowance 

(only 
IF&ITN) 

(only RISE) 

Management 
and indirect 
costs 

Research, 
training and 
networking 
costs (all 
except 
COFUND) 

600 

500 

2000 

800 IF 

1800 ITN/ 
RISE 

1200 ITN   
650 IF 
700 RISE 
50% of 
650 
COFUND 

Source: Horizon 2020 MSCA Work Programme 2016-2017. 

For the period 2014-2017, the level of MSCA unit costs were derived from the seven 
year average rates paid to Experienced Researchers (ER) in FP7 individual-driven 
actions. The living allowance for Early-Stage Researchers (ESR) had been set based on 
findings from the MORE2 study, indicated that they average to 66.9% of the salaries 
of experienced researchers. Similarly, the applicable correction coefficient is the 7-
year average of the respective country-specific coefficient used between 2007 and 
2013 for the FP7 Marie Curie actions.4 

1.3 

Structure of the report 

The report has the following structure: Chapter 2 presents the approach to data 
collection of the two work packages that were carried out in parallel – the estimation 
of trends in researcher salaries and the survey of MSCA fellows and coordinators of 
the 2014 cohort. This chapter also draws out the limitations of the study. 

Chapter 3 then presents the analysis of trends in researcher salaries and Chapter 4 
reports the results of the survey regarding the adequacy of the various MSCA unit 
costs. The implications of the findings of Chapter 3 and 4 are then summarised in 
Chapter 5. 

Various methods for updating the MSCA unit costs and their outcomes are presented 
in Chapter 6, and recommendations for the updated unit costs for the period 2018-
2020 are provided in Chapter 7. 

4 C(2013) 8194 of 27.11.2013, page 8. 

10 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                          
2 

Approach to data collection 

The data collection was carried as two self-contained work packages. Data on the 
adequacy of the unit costs as well as on real costs incurred were collected through 
telephone interviews with fellows and coordinators. Trends in researcher salaries were 
estimated independently of the interviews on the basis of data collected as part of the 
More 2 study (2013) and internationally comparable data from international data 
bases. The approach to these tasks is described in this section.  

2.1 

Scoping interviews 

In preparation of the assignment and the development of the survey questionnaires, 
scoping interviews with five key informants were conducted between 22 June and 6 
July 2016. The list of interviewees is presented in Table A1.1 in Annex 1. 

The objective of the scoping interviews was to complement the information received 
from the steering group during the kick-off meeting and to establish first contact with 
organisations which may be consulted regularly throughout the study if necessary, to 
gather input for the analysis on recent trends regarding researcher wages and 
institutional costs, and to draw the study team’s attention to important issues to be 
addressed during the practical implementation of the study. 

The findings of the scoping interviews can be summarised as follows: 

  Stakeholders think that in general MSCA grants offer both attractive salaries and 

working conditions for fellows; 

  The attractiveness of MSCA grants varies across countries and the level of 

seniority: MSCA salaries are reported to be attractive for Early Stage Researchers 
(ESR/Ph.D. candidates) in the vast majority of countries (there are indications of 
lower attractiveness in Belgium-Flanders and Germany). For Experienced 
Researchers (ER/post-doc level), MSCA’s competition with national schemes may 
be higher in some countries with higher living costs, higher standard researcher 
salaries, or higher employer tax and social contributions (e.g. NL5); 

  The attractiveness of institutional unit costs is often reported to vary between 
research involving expensive equipment and materials, for example related to 
engineering, chemistry or life sciences, and less expensive research in the social 
sciences, economics or mathematics; 

  The attractiveness of institutional unit costs tends to vary across countries, as the 

correction coefficient does not apply; 

  Institutional unit costs are sometimes used to build/maintain capacity to support 

researchers with MSCA applications, substantially increasing their chances to win; 

  Some institutions are not fully aware of the flexibility implied by the system of 
institutional unit costs, for example that they may be used for topping up 
researcher salaries (even if this possibility is clearly explained in the annotated 
grant agreement); 

  Due to the obligation to co-finance the MSCA living allowance, COFUND is not 
much developed in countries with lower salaries such as Greece or central and 
eastern European countries; 

5 Employer’s tax and social contributions on employee’s salaries are included in the MSCA living allowance, 
thus reducing the gross salary available to the researcher. The institution may then decide to top up the 
researcher’s salary for reasons of attractiveness or legal requirements (i.e. to meet the wage agreements 
for the respective function/position in the country). See, e.g. 
http://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/Finances%20and%20Marie%20Curie%20allowances%20FP7%20nove
mber%202012.pdf, accessed 15 July 2016. 

11 

 
 
  
 
                                          
  RISE’s attractiveness for secondments to countries with high costs of living tends 

to be low due to the amount of the top up allowance; 

  The costs associated with Open Science – e.g. open access publication charges – 

are not sufficiently reflected in the unit costs for research, training and networking; 

  Reimbursement based on unit costs is by far easier than any other Horizon 2020 

reimbursement mechanisms and constitutes a clear efficiency advantage. 

  The correction coefficient used in the work programmes is not updated every year 
and does therefore not reflect short-term exchange-rate fluctuations (e.g. of the 
Swiss Franc). 

  The institutional unit costs system implies administrative simplification as the 

Commission’s audits only verify the existence of an employment contract and the 
fellows' implication in the project. In some countries institutions are still obliged to 
keep detailed records due to national legislation or internal practices, which is, 
however, not an area of responsibility of the European Commission. 

Insights from the scoping interviews fed into the development of the survey 
questionnaires and provided background information for the analysis of survey results 
in section 4 and 5. 

2.2 

Collection of evidence of trends in researcher salaries 

There are no international databases that have recent (trend) data on salaries of 
researchers. It was clear from the outset of the study that within the project’s time 
and budget constraints, the establishment of such a database was not possible. 
Therefore, it was proposed to use an alternative approach to estimate the current 
salaries of researchers. This alternative approach contained two main steps. 

The first step of the approach to estimate trends in researcher salaries is based on the 
assessment of the data on researchers’ salaries collected in the More2-project, 
published in 2013.6 The aim of the More2 study was to provide internationally 
comparable data, indicators and analysis of researcher salaries in order to support 
further evidence-based policy making regarding the research profession at European 
and national level. Work package 4 of this More2-study concerned the remuneration of 
researchers in 40 European countries and 10 non-European countries (including USA, 
Japan, China and Australia). The More2-study on remuneration was mainly focused on 
the university sector and to a far lesser extent the business sector. National experts 
gathered country specific information, using a template and questionnaires. One of the 
key indicators, useful for our study on trend in researcher salaries, was the gross 
annual salaries of researchers, presented in tables 3.2.2 to 3.2.5 in the More2-report.7 

The first step of our approach to estimate trends in researcher salaries was the 
establishment of a dataset of researchers’ salaries in 2010 and to extrapolate the 
salaries of academic and non-academic researchers from 2010 to salaries in 2015. In 
the More2-study, a distinction was made between researcher salaries in higher 
education (main focus) and researcher salaries in the non-academic sector, as a direct 
comparison of salaries between the two sectors was by and large impossible.8 In this 
report, for the same reasons we will also differentiate between the two sectors. 

In the second step, we identified main demand and supply factors that may have an 
impact on researcher salaries and mapped differences and changes in these factors, 

6 More2 (2013). Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning mobility patterns and career 
paths of researchers. Remuneration – Cross-country report (WP4). Brussels. 

7 See More2-study (2013), p. 39-46 

8 See More2-study (2013), p. 114 

12 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                          
and assessed their impact on researchers’ salaries in the various countries. Our 
presumption is that supply of and demand for researchers are the main determinants 
of the development of researchers’ salaries.  

2.3 

Interviews with MSCA coordinators and fellows 

2.3.1  Approach to developing questionnaires 

The development of the survey questionnaires was informed by the outcomes of the 
scoping interview and the discussion with the steering group during the kick-off 
meeting. 

Questionnaires used in the telephone survey followed a common structure in order to 
collect all issues relevant for the analysis: 

  Introduction/purpose of the study; 

  Rating of the adequacy of unit costs received by fellows; 

  Comparison of available income of fellows and similar researchers; 

  Existence of competing fellowships; 

  Trends in researcher salaries; 

  Rating of the adequacy of unit costs for research, training and networking costs 

  Rating of the adequacy of unit costs for management and indirect costs 

  Final remarks/suggestions for improvement 

Questionnaires were tailored to the type of respondent (fellow/coordinator) as well as 
the action. The same questions were asked to both fellows and coordinators to enable 
triangulation of evidence. An exception are the questions on research, training and 
networking costs, where coordinators were asked to provide a rating of the adequacy 
as well as real costs incurred and fellows were asked about the frequency of which 
their research has been negatively affected by a lack of funding for research, training 
or networking. 

Questionnaires can be found in Annex 5. 

While the survey followed a structured questionnaire, interviewers recorded narratives 
or rationales provided by respondents in addition to the standardized questions. This 
information was used as contextual information in the analysis.  

2.3.2  Sampling strategy 

The study aimed to sample 150 interviewees, 75 former/current MSCA fellows and 75 
former/current MSCA coordinators. Interviewees were sampled from the 2014 cohort 
as this cohort had been the first to have received grants under the unit cost system 
and were likely to have gathered sufficient experience in relation to the adequacy and 
use of the unit costs at the time the interviews were be conducted.  

The sampling strategy was based on a review of participant data for the 2014 MSCA 
cohort and had been guided by the following principles discussed during the kick-off 
meeting: 

  A focus on countries where changes have the largest impact (i.e. countries with the 

highest share of MSCA participation), for example the UK, Germany, the 
Netherlands, France, and several representative countries from other regions (e.g. 
Scandinavia, Central Eastern Europe).  

  A focus, though not exclusively, on scientific fields where changes have the largest 

impact (i.e. fields with the highest share of MSCA participation), for example 
Engineering, Chemistry, Life-Sciences and two other major fields. 

13 

 
 
  
 
2.3.2.1

  Sampling of coordinators 

The review of participation data showed that Germany, France and the UK account for 
approximately half of participants in all MSCA (the share is slightly lower in COFUND). 
The share of other countries is in many cases very small, making it necessary to group 
them into regions in order to arrive at a unit sufficiently populated for sampling. ICF 
therefore proposed the following geographical grouping of countries for sampling: 

  UK 

  France 

  Germany 

  East, consisting of the Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and 

Slovakia; 

  North, consisting of Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden; and 

  South, consisting of Italy, Spain and Portugal. 

The small overall sample of 75 coordinators in combination with the small share of 
coordinators from some regions and other dimensions of interest to the analysis (e.g. 
from the social science scientific panel) made proportionate stratified sampling – 
where the share of respondents in each strata is proportional to that of the total 
population – unsuitable. It was therefore proposed to attempt to sample 
approximately 10 respondents in each dimension of interest to allow for reliable 
breakdowns during analysis of responses. It was also proposed to reflect IF’s and 
ITN’s high share of the MSCA budget in the sampling strategy, increasing the 
robustness of results for these two important actions.  

The final sampling strategy was based on the following targets: 

  Of the 75 interviews with coordinators 25 will be allocated to ITN, 25 to IF, 13 to 

COFUND and 12 to RISE. 

  The overall sample should consist of approximately 50% coordinators of ESR and 

50% coordinators of ER. 

  To conduct approximately 10 interviews with coordinators in each of the six 

regions. 

In addition to these main strata, it was envisaged to interview at least 12 ITN and/or 
IF coordinators from the Social Sciences (SOC), Economic Sciences (ECO) and 
Mathematics (MAT) scientific panels as representatives of “relatively inexpensive” 
research.  

2.3.2.2

  Sampling of fellows 

A similar sampling strategy as for coordinators was applied to interviews with fellows: 

  Of the 75 interviews with fellows 25 will be allocated to ITN, 25 to IF, 13 to 

COFUND and 12 to RISE. 

  The overall sample should consist of approximately 50% ESR and 50% ER fellows. 

  For each of the six regions, the aim is to conduct at least 10 interviews with MSCA 

fellows with host-institution in this region. 

In addition to these main strata, it was envisaged to interview at least 12 ITN and/or 
IF fellows from the SOC/MAT/ECO scientific panels as representatives of “relatively 
inexpensive” research. It was also attempted to achieve a balance by gender and to 
interview two fellows of each of the BRIC countries, the US and Japan in order to 
gather information on competing fellowship programmes in these countries. 

14 

 
 
 
 
  
 
2.3.3  Overview of interviews conducted 

Within each of the actions, a random sample of twice the targeted sample size was 
taken. If response was insufficient to achieve the desired sample size within the time 
frame allocated to this task, additional random samples were taken.  

Overall, 529 fellows and coordinators were contacted to achieve the 162 interviews 
conducted, implying a response rate of 31%. Table 2.1 provides a detailed overview of 
the sampling and response rate by action. 

Table 2.1  Number of fellows and coordinators contacted and interviewed by action 

and response rate 

Fellows 

Coordinators 

Contacted 

Conducted 

Response 
rate 

Contacted 

Conducted 

Response 
rate 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

34 

90 

92 

44 

260 

13 

32 

26 

12 

83 

38% 

34 

36% 

108 

28% 

27% 

90 

37 

32% 

269 

11 

27 

28 

13 

79 

32% 

25% 

31% 

35% 

29% 

Table 2.2 presents an overview of the interviews conducted by action against the 
respective targets, showing that most of these targets have been achieved or 
outdone. 

Table 2.2  Number of interviews conducted against target 

Fellows 

Coordinators 

Target 

Conducted 

Number of 
missing or 
extra 
interviews 

Target 

Conducted 

Number of 
missing or 
extra 
interviews 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

13 

25 

25 

12 

75 

13 

32 

26 

12 

83 

0 

7 

1 

0 

8 

13 

25 

25 

12 

75 

11 

27 

28 

13 

79 

-2 

2 

3 

1 

4 

As alluded to above, apart from setting targets by action, the sampling strategy aimed 
also at balancing the following criteria:  

  Geographical coverage 

  Researcher category (ER/ ESR) for COFUND and RISE actions 

15 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  Scientific panels (expensive/ inexpensive) 

  Type of institution for Coordinators. 

Table 2.3 provides an overview of the Region/ country covered by the interviews. In 
few cases, the information on the region of the host-institution used for sampling did 
not correspond to the actual region in which interviewees are benefitting from MSCA 
fellowships. In order not to have to dismiss the valuable information collected through 
these interviews, these responses were added as “proxies” into the region sampling 
framework (countries of these interviewees shown in parentheses in Table 2.3).  

Table 2.3  Region/ country reference table 

Region/ Country 

East 

France 

Germany 

North 

South 

Countries (proxies) 

  Czech Republic 

  (Greece) 

  Hungary 

  Poland 

  Romania 

  France 

  Germany (Austria)  

  (Belgium) 

  Denmark 

  Finland 

  Netherlands 

  Norway 

  Sweden 

  (Switzerland) 

  Italy 

  Portugal 

  Spain 

United Kingdom 

  United Kingdom (Ireland) 

While overall a good balance was maintained with regard to the sampling criteria, 
sampling interviewees from the COFUND action was impacted by the following 
limitations: 

  Geographical coverage: there was a small number of available contacts for some 

regions/ countries. For fellows, this concerned in particular the Southern countries, 
France and the UK, and for coordinators this concerned Eastern countries, France 
and the South; 

  Researcher category: the contact information available at sampling stage did not 

include the researcher category which made sampling on the basis of this criterion 
impossible. 

The following tables report the number of interviews by various background variables. 

16 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Table 2.4  Interviews with fellows by region/ country and action 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Country 

East 

France 

Germany 

North 

South 

3 

1 

3 

6 

4 

6 

4 

4 

4 

10 

32 

2 

2 

8 

6 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

26 

12 

United Kingdom 

Total 

13 

Table 2.5  Interviews with coordinator by region/ country and action 

Country 

East 

France 

Germany 

North 

South 

United Kingdom 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

7 

4 

3 

4 

4 

5 

1 

3 

3 

1 

3 

1 

3 

4 

7 

7 

6 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Total 

11 

27 

28 

13 

Table 2.6  Interviews with fellows by research category and action 

Country 

ESR 

ER 

COFUND 

RISE 

10 

3 

4 

8 

Table 2.7  Interviews with coordinators by research category and action 

Country 

ESR 

ER 

COFUND 

RISE 

2 

9 

6 

7 

17 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.8  Interviews with fellows by Panel and action 

Country 

Expensive (CHE, ENG, ENV, LIF, PHY) 

Inexpensive (ECO, MAT, SOC) 

COFUND 

13 

0 

IF 

23 

9 

ITN 

23 

3 

RISE 

Total 

5 

7 

64 

19 

Table 2.9  Interviews with coordinators by Panel and action 

Country 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Expensive (CHE, ENG, ENV, LIF, PHY) 

Inexpensive (ECO, MAT, SOC) 

10 

1 

20 

7 

23 

5 

10 

3 

63 

16 

Table 2.10 Interviews with coordinators by type of institution and action 

Country 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Higher education institution (HES) 

Private research company (PRC) 

Public body (PUB) 

Research organisation (REC) 

6 

1 

4 

17 

21 

1 

10 

6 

9 

1 

3 

53 

2 

1 

23 

As regards international fellows, interviews were conducted with five fellows from 
Russia, five fellows from China, three fellows from India, one fellow from Brazil, three 
fellows from the US, and two fellows from Canada. 

2.4 

Limitations of the study 

2.4.1  Estimating trends in researcher salaries 

There is a lack of international databases on researchers’ salaries and the budget of 
this Mid-term Review of MSCA unit costs did not allow to produce an update of the 
More2 data for 2016. As a result, our approach relies on extrapolation, which requires 
making assumptions. In our case, the main assumption is that between 2010 and 
2015, researcher salaries mainly increased to compensate a loss of purchasing power.   

Moreover, the More2 data have a number of limitations. Apart from the limited 
availability of accurate data on researcher salaries, there is a huge variety in 
institutional contexts, such as tax systems, which lead to several problems in 
compiling a reliable data set for both academic and non-academic researchers (see 
More2 study for the details). Moreover, the More2-data on gross annual salaries 
between and within different career stages provide in many cases ranges of salaries, 
creating complications in comparing data. Where ranges were provided in the More2 
data, averages were used for the extrapolations.  

The More2 study only has data on gross annual salaries (and not on net salaries)9. 
This means that in this report on trends in researchers’ salaries we also will use gross 
annual salaries instead of net salaries. Moreover, for some countries data were not 

9 For an explanation, see p. 26 of the More2 study (2013). 

18 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
available. Initially, we selected for our trend study nineteen EU-countries (including 
Belgium, Luxembourg, France, the UK and Germany), two EFTA countries, and eight 
non-EU countries (Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, South Korea, USA, Russia and 
Turkey). However, not all these countries could be included throughout the trend 
study. For Luxembourg for instance the More2-dataset did not have data on 
researcher salaries. 

2.4.2  Review of adequacy of MSCA unit costs and updating of MSCA unit 

costs 

One of the main challenges of this study was to provide recommendations for a single 
set of updated unit costs for the period 2018-2020 that meet the needs of fellows and 
coordinators working in varying research fields and in many different countries. 
Fellows’ and coordinators’ perception of the adequacy of MSCA unit costs is largely 
dependent on, for example: 

  Large variations in the living costs, researcher salary levels and institutional costs 

between countries; 

  Variations in living costs within countries, for example the often mentioned 
contrast of living in London or Paris compared to the rest of the country; 

  The country’s tax rate and the tax regime applied to the mobility allowance; 

  Variations in the costs of doing research by discipline, topic or research method 

applied; 

  Variations in the extent to which institutions require researchers/departments to 

contribute to overhead costs. 

Notwithstanding these variations, the MSCA unit costs need to ensure sound financial 
management coupled with the need to remain competitive. Moreover, the 
sustainability of the overall MSCA budget needs to be kept in mind. 

19 

 
 
  
 
 
 
3 

Trends in researcher salaries 

3.1 

Extrapolation of trends in researcher salaries based on More2 
data 

3.1.1  Salaries of academic researchers 

We took the More2 data on academic researchers (around 2010)10 in national 
currencies. These data were presented in the More2 study in the tables 3.2.2 through 
3.2.5.11 With respect to academic researchers, data on gross annual salaries were 
collected for four different career stages: 

  R1: first stage researchers (up to the point of PhD) 

  R2: recognized researcher (PhD holders or equivalent who are not yet fully 

independent) 

  R3: established researcher: (researchers who have developed a level of 

independence) 

  R4: leading researcher (leading their research area or field) 

We only focused on gross annual salaries and did not take into account other factors 
such as stipends of PhD candidates, employment status, contract period, fringe 
benefits and bonuses. For some countries the More2-data show a range of the gross 
annual salaries: a minimum, average, and maximum gross annual salary. Whenever 
available the average value was used. In absence of an average, the unweighted 
average of minimum and maximum salaries was calculated. For three countries 
(Brazil, Hungary and Austria) minimum values sere available only, which leads to an 
underestimation of the salary levels.  

Next, to make the gross annual salaries comparable, we calculated the gross annual 
salaries of academic researchers in 2010 in USD based on PPP, using the USA as the 
country of reference. PPP is based on a standard basket of goods and services and 
indicates the exchange rates between countries when buying that basket. We used the 
PPP from the year as indicated in the More2-data. The More2-data on gross annual 
salaries refer the different years (ranging from 2008 to 2012). For example, the gross 
annual salaries in Australia (in AUD) have been adjusted by the PPP of 2010. For 
Austria, we used the PPP of the year 2011.  

In our study, the gross annual salaries are in USD and have been calculated for each 
of the four different career stages (to the extent data were available). 

Example: In Belgium, according to the More2 data, in 2012 the minimum and 
maximum gross annual salary of first stage researchers is respectively €37,737 and 
€63,879, leading to an average gross annual salary of €50,813. The 2012 PPP of 
Belgium is 0,835, leading to a gross annual salary for R1 of USD 61,196. 

In the Table 3.1, the gross annual salaries of researchers (‘around 2010’) in the four 
different career stages are depicted. 

10 The More2 data use different years of reference for the gross annual salaries. It varies from 2008 to 2012 
(as indicated in the tables). For reasons of readability we will refer to these salaries as ‘academic researcher 
salaries 2010’.  

11 More2 (2013), p. 39-46. 

20 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                          
Table 3.1  Gross annual academic researcher salaries (in PPP USD) in 2010, by 

country 

COUNTRY 

AU 

AT 

BE 

BG 

BR 

CH 

CN 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GB 

HU 

IT 

JP 

KR 

LU 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

RU 

SI 

SW 

TR 

US 

R1 

R2 

R3 

R4 

46,914 

64,250 

83,814 

41,195 

55,019 

55,940 

74,371 

61,196 

72,046 

84,956 

105,319 

8,654 

12,115 

15,577 

17,307 

65,854 

69,387 

96,629 

102,906 

42,582 

84,465 

95,983 

132,980 

22,131 

26,671 

32,629 

21,802 

26,678 

35,750 

51,707 

52,796 

59,343 

65,455 

80,280 

46,902 

53,692 

66,700 

87,173 

27,671 

38,866 

66,216 

82,915 

26,299 

44,927 

62,459 

20,403 

19,726 

43,390 

55,917 

21,557 

43,115 

57,486 

93,415 

15,893 

19,609 

25,801 

36,121 

53,173 

60,080 

79,705 

43,740 

55,838 

67,471 

82,361 

14,276 

28,552 

42,828 

85,567 

38,586 

60,928 

85,793 

112,185 

46,995 

63,264 

63,264 

78,703 

16,432 

25,788 

34,604 

46,439 

63,432 

68,807 

87,735 

10,795 

12,920 

14,006 

28,585 

35,539 

57,779 

66,096 

73,945 

34,089 

46,114 

52,181 

75,435 

16,959 

23,392 

43,129 

96,457 

42,408 

66,564 

78,565 

117,368 

The 2010 salaries, based on the More2-study, show great variety between countries 
and between career stages. For the first stage researchers (R1), gross annual salaries 
range from USD 8.654 in Bulgaria to USD 65.854 in Brazil. For recognized researchers 
(R2), it ranges from USD 12.115 in Bulgaria to USD 84.465 in Switzerland. For 
established researchers (R3), it ranges from USD 15.577 in Bulgaria to USD 96.629 in 
Brazil. And for leading researchers (R4), it ranges from USD 17.307 to USD 132.980 in 
Switzerland.  

21 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In some countries we see a rather steep growth in salaries between the career stages, 
for instance in Turkey (from USD 16.959 R1 to USD 96.457 R4), South Korea, Great 
Britain, and France. In many countries, it is particularly the last career step (from R3 
and R4) that makes a serious difference in earnings. There is a number of countries 
where the differences in gross annual salaries between the four career stages are 
more modest, such as in Germany, China, Portugal, and Norway. 

From a bird’s eye view, academic researchers are relatively well-paid in Belgium, 
Brazil, Switzerland, the Netherlands (for R3 and R4), and the USA (for R4). 
Researchers from Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and to a lesser extent China earn the 
least. 

Next, we estimated the 2015 gross academic researchers’ salaries. Our main criterion 
for the extrapolation was to preserve the purchasing power of researchers (meaning 
that a change in PPP affects the salary). When price levels change, salaries will be 
adjusted accordingly. Thus, we have estimated the gross annual salaries 2015 under 
the assumption that the gross annual salaries of the reference year (2010) were 
corrected for the difference in purchasing power in the period between the reference 
year and 2015. In addition, the US inflation rate, the reference country, has been 
taken into account. Otherwise gross annual salaries in the USA would be definition not 
change. 

This means that we calculated the 2015 salaries by taking the 2010 salaries (Table 
3.1) and the 2015 PPP (salaries in USD), and corrected for changes in prices in the 
USA. Since the USA is the reference country, we used the US price index (CPI) to 
calculate the gross annual researchers’ salaries in real terms (2011-2015, US inflation 
was 6.25%). The results are presented in the Table 3.2.  

Table 3.2  Extrapolated gross annual academic researcher salaries (in PPP USD) in 

2015 and change in salaries in the period 2010-2015, by country. 

R1 

R2 

R3 

R4 

CHANGE 

2010-2015 

COUNTRY 

AU 

AT 

BE 

BG 

BR 

CH 

CN 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GB 

HU 

IT 

49,338  67,570  88,146 

5.17% 

42,909  57,308  58,268  77,466 

4.16% 

64,573  76,022  89,645  111,131 

5.52% 

9,112  12,757  16,402  18,224 

5.30% 

83,093  87,551  121,925  129,845 

26.18% 

40,275  79,890  90,784  125,777 

-5.42% 

23,124  27,867  34,093 

4.49% 

21,890  26,787  35,896  51,917 

0.41% 

56,144  63,106  69,606  85,371 

6.34% 

49,131  56,243  69,870  91,316 

4.75% 

28,675  40,277  68,621  85,926 

3.63% 

28,506  48,698  67,702 

8.39% 

20,241  19,569  43,045  55,473 

-0.79% 

22,802  45,605  60,806  98,810 

5.78% 

17,782  21,939  28,867  40,414 

11.89% 

56,121  63,411  84,124 

5.54% 

22 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
R1 

R2 

R3 

R4 

CHANGE 

45,556  58,156  70,272  85,780 

4.15% 

16,083  32,166  48,248  96,396 

12.66% 

2010-2015 

40,274  63,594  89,547  117,092 

4.37% 

54,186  72,944  72,944  90,747 

15.30% 

17,215  27,018  36,254  48,653 

4.77% 

64,541  70,010  89,269 

1.75% 

12,271  14,687  15,921  32,494 

13.68% 

36,891  59,977  68,611  76,758 

3.80% 

37,371  50,555  57,205  82,699 

9.63% 

22,232  30,665  56,538  126,445 

31.09% 

45,059  70,724  83,475  124,704 

6.25% 

JP 

KR 

LU 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

RU 

SI 

SW 

TR 

US 

In every country the purchasing powers have changed in the last years (see Table 
A2.1 in the Appendix). It turns out that in 17 out of 26 countries the price level has 
dropped (in terms of PPP), particularly in Switzerland, Czech Republic, France and 
Portugal. In these 17 countries, we would assume that the researchers’ salaries will 
drop accordingly, if the data were not corrected for the reference country inflation rate 
of 6.25%. The strong decline in PPP in Switzerland and France means, that even after 
US inflation correction, researchers’ salaries are not supposed to increase (could even 
decrease), if purchasing power has to be preserved, and no other factors were taken 
into account. 

In all the other countries, 2015 gross annual salaries should increase if purchasing 
power is to be preserved. The growth in salaries varies from 0.41% in the Czech 
Republic to 31.09% in Turkey. The substantive growth in salaries to preserve 
purchasing power is high in those countries where the PPP has grown considerably 
(indicating more money is required to buy the same basket of goods). This is the case 
in Turkey, Brazil, Norway, Romania, South Korea and Hungary, where there should be 
increases in Gross Annual Salaries above 10%. 

Apart from France and Switzerland, we also project small gross annual salary growth 
in the Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal and Slovenia (all less than 4%). On the other 
countries, we foresee a growth between 4% and 10%.  

In summary, if purchasing power of researchers has to be preserved, the salaries of 
researchers should increase in almost every country, in some of them even 
considerably. 

This outcome (for recognized researchers (R2))12 is illustrated in Figure 3.1. The 
average salaries of recognized researchers in 2010 (calculated from the More2-data) 
are presented on the vertical axis and the estimated researchers’ salaries in 2015 are 
presented at the horizontal axis. In order to preserve purchasing power of academics, 
countries in the green zone are supposed to increase the salaries. The further a 
country is from the 45o demarcation line, the higher the salary increase should be. 

12 Illustrations of the other three career stages can be found in the Appendix. 

23 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
Figure 3.1

The average gross annual salaries of recognized researchers (R2) in 
2010 and 2015, by country. 

Finally, the calculations regarding the gross annual salaries have been in US dollars. 
Obviously, conversion to Euros is possible. The fluctuations in exchange rates however 
are big. In 2011, the exchange rate of the Euro to the US dollar was 1 : 1,392 (as 
used in the More2-data); this exchange rate for 2015 is 1 : 1,1097. It means a 
devaluation of about 20% of the Euro against the US dollar, and this has a significant 
impact on the outcomes. It would imply that the 2015 gross annual salaries should be 
significantly higher. 

Assessing gross and net salaries 

As explained in the More2-study, it is nearly impossible to provide accurate data on 
net salaries, as here are many contextual differences across countries that affect the 
difference between gross and net salaries. Nevertheless as a next step in the first part 
of our calculations, we assessed the differences between gross and net salaries, as 
well as the changes in those differences. These assessments have a tentative 
character as national tax systems, pension schemes and social security schemes are 
too complicated to cover in full width and detail. We decided to focus on two of the 
main characteristics, i.e. the implicit tax rate and contributions to social security 
schemes. 

The implicit tax rate on employed labour is defined by Eurostat as the sum of all direct 
and indirect taxes and employees' and employers' social contributions levied on 
employed labour income divided by the total compensation of employees working in 
the economic territory increased by taxes on wage bill and payroll. The implicit tax 
rate on labour is calculated for employed labour only (so excluding the tax burden 

24 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
falling on social transfers, including pensions). The implicit tax rate on labour should 
be seen as a summary measure that approximates an average effective tax burden on 
labour income in the economy. 

Changes in implicit tax rates affect disposal income of researchers, as it affects the 
difference in gross and net salaries. In countries with a high implicit tax rate and with 
a strong growth in implicit tax rates, the disposal income of researchers is under 
pressure and might be adjusted for (e.g. by increasing their gross annual salary). In 
countries with a relatively small gap between gross and net salaries (low implicit tax 
rate) and a small growth (or decline) of the tax burden, there is less reason to adjust 
salaries in order to preserve disposable income. 

In Figure 3.2, the implicit tax rate (2012) and the change in this rate in the period 
2008-2012 are depicted.  

Figure 3.2

The implicit tax rates on labour and their changes by country 

Source: Eurostat 

Countries in the upper right quadrant (Q1) have an implicit tax rate that in 2012 is 
higher than the median (vertical blue line) and has grown faster than the median 
growth (horizontal blue line). Researchers’ salaries in these countries are under 
pressure because of the large gap between gross and net salaries, a gap that has 
grown in recent years. Belgium, the Netherlands and France face such pressures on 
disposable income. 

Also countries in the upper left corner (Q4) demonstrate growth in the implicit tax 
rate, indicating that the difference in gross and net income has increased, which is 

25 

 
 
  
 
 
 
also an unfavourable development for researchers’ disposable income. Particularly 
Portugal and Poland face such a development. The difference with the countries in the 
Q1 quadrant is however that the implicit tax rate is relatively low (particularly in 
Portugal).  

Countries where the implicit tax rate is relatively low and in which growth has been 
rather limited can be found in the lower left quadrant (Q3). Seen from the difference 
between gross and net salaries based on tax pressure, there is less need compared to 
other countries to adjust researchers’ salaries. It concerns Great Britain, Slovenia and 
Denmark.  

In the lower right quadrant (Q2) we find countries that have relatively high implicit tax 
rates, but these rates have grown only to a rather small degree. To what extent 
salaries should be adjusted is not clear. 

If one intends to take change in tax burden into account (compensation for a loss in 
disposable income), then the estimated 2015 gross annual salaries, as presented in 
Table 3.2, should be adjusted in the Q1 and Q4 countries (in brackets you will find the 
change in gross annual salaries from Table 3.2). These countries are: Portugal 
(1,75%), Poland (4,77%), Luxembourg, Spain (3,63%), Norway (15,30%), the 
Netherlands (4,37%), France (-0,79%), and Belgium (5,52%). With the exception of 
Norway, it concerns countries where the increase in salaries is modest. It might 
therefore be considered to further increase these gross salaries, it one wishes to take 
the change in implicit tax rate into account. 

The second indicator to assess the differences between gross and net salaries is social 
security contribution. Social security contributions are compulsory payments paid to 
general government that confer entitlement to receive a (contingent) future social 
benefit. They include: unemployment insurance benefits and supplements, accident, 
injury and sickness benefits, old-age, disability and survivors' pensions, family 
allowances, reimbursements for medical and hospital expenses or provision of hospital 
or medical services. Contributions may be levied on both employees and employers. 
Such payments are usually earmarked to finance social benefits and are often paid to 
those institutions of general government that provide such benefits. This indicator 
relates to government as a whole (all government levels) and is measured in 
percentage both of GDP and of total taxation. 

We assume that for countries where gross researcher salaries are the same, the net 
researcher’s salaries in countries where the social contributions are high and have 
grown fast (quadrant I) are under pressure and adjustment should be considered. 
When the net researcher salaries in countries where the social contributions and tax 
rates are low and have grown slow (quadrant III) this is less, or not, the case. In 
Figure 3.3, we present the countries based on the net social contribution (2014) and 
the change in this contribution in the period 2008-2014. 

26 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Figure 3.3

Net social security contributions, 2008-2014 

Source: Eurostat 

In the upper right quadrant (Q1), we find countries with relatively high levels of net 
social contributions, contributions that have grown rather substantially. France, the 
Netherlands, Austria, and Slovenia are examples of countries where social 
contributions are high and have changed considerably.  

Also Turkey, South Korea, Portugal and Norway (Q4) have had a rather substantial 
increase in social contributions in the last years, putting pressure on researchers’ 
salaries. In Great Britain, the USA, Sweden and Spain (Q3) have been more stable in 
this respect. Increases in social contributions have been relatively small in these 
countries, and the net social contributions are relatively low. 

If one considers to adjust the 2015 gross annual salaries (Table 3.2) as the result of 
change in the net social security contribution, then this would be the case in the 
researchers’ salaries in Turkey, South Korea, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Austria, the 
Netherlands and France. For Turkey, South Korea, Norway we already estimated 
significant salary increases (resp. 31,09%, 12,66% and 15,30%); based on the 
changes in social security contributions this might increase even further. 

27 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
3.1.2  Salaries of non-academic researchers 

The MORE2 data provide not only an overview of researcher salaries in 2008/2010 for 
the academic sector, but also for the non-academic sector. The data on researcher 
salaries for the academic sector are based on a large scale survey, whereas the source 
on researcher salaries in the non-academic sector is much more limited. 13  

For an assessment of the salaries of researchers in the non-academic sector we copied 
the approach used in the More2 study for the analysis of remuneration patterns in the 
non-academic sector. 14 These More2-data were taken from Eurostat’s ‘Structure of 
Earnings Survey 2006’. Researchers have been defined as persons with tertiary 
education defined by the ISCED codes 5 and 6, who are employed in research 
occupations. From the OECD’s Frascati manual15 as research occupations are seen 
groups 2 (‘professionals’) and 3 (‘technicians and associate professionals’).16 

Using similar definitions of ‘researchers’, we collected data from the Eurostat Structure 
of Earnings Survey from 2006, 2010 and 2014. In Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5 we 
present the gross annual earnings of researchers in the non-academic sector, which 
show that for almost all countries the salaries of researchers have increased 
significantly. 

Figure 3.4

Annual earnings of non-academic researchers by country (in euro 2006, 
2010, 2014)  

Source: Eurostat SES 2006, 2010, 2014 

13 See More2-study (2013), p. 112 

14 See More2-study (2013), p. 121 

15 
http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/frascatimanualproposedstandardpracticeforsurveysonresearchandexperimenta
ldevelopment6thedition.htm 

16 “This means that we are focusing on a much larger number of persons than those working as researchers” 
(More2-study, 2013, p.121) 

28 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                          
Figure 3.5

Change of annual earnings of non-academic researchers by country (in 
%) 

Source: Eurostat SES 2006, 2010, 2014 

With the exception of Great Britain (a salary drop of nearly 13%), Switzerland (2010-
2014), Cyprus (2010-2014) and Portugal (2010-2014), the gross annual salaries of 
non-academic researchers have increased in all countries, with varying degrees. In the 
EU2817 the increase in the average gross annual earnings is just over 11% over 8 
years (2006-2014). In Bulgaria, Cyprus and Turkey researchers’ salaries (almost) 
doubled in this period. Also other East European countries show significance growth in 
gross annual salaries. In Western Europe, and to a lesser extent Scandinavia, growth 
in gross annual salaries is more modest. 

The data indicate that the growth in non-academic researchers’ salaries has mainly 
occurred in the period 2006-2010; in many countries the blue stacks (change in 2006-
2010) are higher than the orange stacks. 

3.2 

Identification of demand and supply factors that may affect 
trends in researcher salaries  

What has caused these changes in researchers’ salaries is a difficult and complex 
question to answer. Within the framework of this project we focus on the supply of 
and the demand for researchers as the main determinants of the price/salary of 
researchers. High demand and low supply are supposed to have an upward effect on 
researchers’ salaries. We select some core indicators for supply and demand and 
present data on differences and trends in these underlying indicators.  

3.2.1 

Indicators of the supply of researchers 

The basic assumption is that the salaries of researchers will slow down if the supply of 
researchers in a country is high. To assess supply we use two indicators: the number 
of researchers and the number of PhD graduates (as a percentage of the 24-64 
population). For the first indicator, we present the data for the business and higher 
education sector together as well as for each sector separately. Figure 3.6, Figure 3.7 
and Figure 3.8, in which we present the number of researchers of a percentage of the 

17 In 2006, it is the EU27. 

29 

 
 
  
 
 
 
                                          
population (2014) and the change in the percentage of researchers in the period 
2005-2014, are depicted below. The horizontal and vertical blue line represents the 
median score in the sample. 

Figure 3.6

Active researchers by country, as percentage of population, all sectors 

Source: Eurostat 

In the upper right quadrant (Q1) there are countries that have relatively many 
researchers and in the last decade the growth of the number of researchers has been 
strong. In these countries the supply of researchers is high, which is assumed to have 
a negative impact on their salaries. In other words, in these countries, we assume, the 
researchers’ salaries have not grown as strong as the salaries in the countries in the 
lower left quadrant (Q3). Countries with high supply are Denmark, South Korea, 
Austria and the Netherlands. At the other end of the spectrum, we find Romania, 
Spain, Russia and Poland: here the number of researcher is relatively low and growth 
has been modest. 

30 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Figure 3.7

Active researchers by country, as percentage of population, business 
sector 

Source: Eurostat 

Figure 3.8

Active researchers by country, as percentage of population, HE sector 

Source: Eurostat 

31 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
When we look at the supply per sector, it is interesting to observe that the balance 
between sectors where researchers are working, and where the change took place in 
the last decade, differs substantially between countries. If we look at the number of 
researchers, in South Korea, Japan and France relatively many researchers are to be 
found in the business sector (in Q1 and Q2 in business sector but not in higher 
education). In Great Britain and Portugal, there are relatively many researchers in the 
higher education sector.  In terms of change, we see that in Turkey, Hungary and 
Poland the number of researchers has grown in the business sector (compared to the 
higher education sector). Growth of the number of researchers in the higher education 
sector (and less in the business) took place in Denmark. 

The second indicator on the supply side concerns the number of PhDs. Figure 3.9 
shows the number of PhD graduates as percentage of the population (2014) and the 
change in the percentage of PhDs in the period 2005-2014. We assume that the 
higher (growth in) the number of PhD, the higher the supply of researchers, which has 
a downward effect on researchers’ salaries. 

Figure 3.9

Ph.D graduates by country, as percentage of the population 

Source: Eurostat 

High supply can be found in the upper right quadrant (Q1). Denmark, Slovenia, Great 
Britain, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands have relatively high numbers of PhDs 
and have had a relatively strong growth of PhDs in the last decade. Switzerland, 
Portugal, Sweden and Germany have a relatively large percentage of PhDs as well, but 
growth has been more modest (Q2). 

Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Hungary and Japan have relatively small numbers and 
small growth of PhDs. Here supply is assumed to be low. 

3.2.2 

Indicators of the demand of researchers 

The main indicator used for the demand for researchers is the gross expenditure on 
R&D (GERD). We assume that for countries where GERD is high and is growing fast, 

32 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
the demand for researchers will be relatively high. Next, we assume that in a situation 
of high demand it will be likely that salaries of researchers will be pushed upward. Also 
here we present the business and the higher education sector together as well as the 
two sectors separately. 

Figure 3.10

  GERD per inhabitant by country, all sectors (2014) 

Source: Eurostat 

It is interesting to see that we can find most of the countries in two opposite 
quadrants; the lower right (Q2) and the upper left (Q4) one. On the hand, we have 
the countries with a relatively high GERD but with a relatively small change in the past 
decade. This is the case in the Scandinavian countries, France and the Netherlands. If 
we would assume that, for salaries related to demand, growth in GERD is more 
important than its volume (for the development of salaries), then in these countries 
there is not much upward pressure on researchers’ salaries. On the other hand, we 
have countries with relatively small GERD’s but with serious growth in GERD over the 
last ten years. These ‘catching up’ countries are the East European countries. Growth 
in GERD (increased demand) could have an upward effect on researchers’ salaries.  

33 

 
 
  
 
 
Figure 3.11

  GERD per inhabitant by country, business sector (2014) 

Source: Eurostat 

34 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Figure 3.12

  GERD per inhabitant by country, HE sector (2014) 

Source: Eurostat 

If we divide (changes in) GERD between the business and higher education sector, 
then we can see that in Germany and Austria GERD is relatively strongly directed 
toward the business sector. If we look at the changes in GERD in the last ten years, 
then we see that Bulgaria and Hungary have a strong focus on the business sector.  

3.3 

Analysis 

In the previous section we presented information on a selection of variables, based on 
a rather basic model on how the interplay between demand and supply factors could 
influence the salaries (i.e. the price level of research activities).  

For sophisticated statistical analyses, the number of observations (countries) is too 
limited and the factors are too diverse (see also ‘limitations of the study’).  However, 
we would argue that there are other ways to come to tentative insights into the 
aforementioned interplay. In this section, we analyse the demand and supply factors 
by juxtaposition. We present the relative position of the countries (i.e. in which 
quadrant they are located, as presented in the previous sections) on the variables 
next to each other and look for patterns. Are there, for instance, countries in which 
many factors that are supposed to have an upward effect on researchers’ salaries? We 
used a number of rules of thumb in this analysis (as explained below).  

35 

 
 
  
 
 
3.3.1  The implicit tax rate  

We looked at the data to assess the distance between gross and net salaries. The 
larger the difference and the faster the growth of the difference, the higher the 
pressure will be to have higher gross salaries. If the implicit tax rate or the social 
contributions are high and growing fast, the difference is large and there will be a 
pressure for higher salaries (which is the case for countries in Q1). In terms of coding, 
we used a ‘traffic light’ system: ‘red’ means salaries are under pressure, ‘yellow’ 
means ambivalent, and ‘green’ means that salaries are not under pressure (see Table 
3.3). 

Table 3.3  Relative scores on factors with impact on difference gross net salaries 

Source: Eurostat

The difference between gross and net salaries is most likely to have a significant 
impact on researcher gross salaries in France and the Netherlands, where the distance 
is high, pushing the gross salaries up. In the United Kingdom, and to a lesser extent in 
Denmark, Germany, Spain and Finland, the distance is relatively smaller, limiting the 
upward push on gross salaries. Slovenia produces an ‘inconsistent’ result. 

3.3.2  Supply and demand factors 

Next, we looked into the supply factors. We assume that a high position and strong 
growth (Q1, red) is an indication that the salaries of researchers may be under 
pressure. If there are many researchers on the market, salaries may fall. And where 
researchers are scarce, salaries are supposed to go up (Q3, green).  

The next step is to look at the demand factors. If demand for researchers is high the 
market is willing to pay higher salaries compared to the situation where demand is low 
and decreasing (the latter applies to the countries in Q3, red). 

We also looked for consistencies between supply factors and between demand factors. 
In terms of colour-coded scores, we looked for ‘all red’ or ‘all green’ countries. Higher 
consistency implies a stronger indication for changes in researchers’ salaries. The 
same goes for consistency between supply and demand factors. If the positions of 
countries on demand and supply point into the same direction, it is more likely that 
the associated effect will be present than when demand and supply factors point at 
different directions.  

In addition to the tentative analyses based on juxtaposition, as described above, we 
calculated bivariate correlations between the main factors to check for (un)expected 
links between factors. 

The outcomes of these steps concerning demand and supply are presented in Table 
3.4. This overview in Table 3.4 shows a few countries where the supply factors are 
high and growing. Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, South Korea and to a lesser 
extent Germany and Norway are in that category. Based on our supply indicators, we 
assume that in these countries salaries may drop. In the opposite corner we find 
Romania, Spain, Poland, Russia, and China; here supply factors suggest that salaries 
may go up, since there is a relative low supply of researchers. 

36 

BECZDKDEESFRITLUHUNLATPLPTSIFISEGBNOCHTRUSJPKRsocial contributions22423124211441233434314implicit tax rate123341242124432234large difference between gross and net: major downward effect on net salariessmall difference between gross and net: minor downward effect on net salaries 
 
 
 
  
 
 
The number of ‘single colour-coded’ countries however is limited. In many countries 
the differences in scores hint at differences in orientation of the supply factors (e.g. 
business vs. higher education). An interesting country in this respect is Slovenia, 
where the situation in the business sector is quite opposite to that in the higher 
education sector. In such cases the effect on salaries cannot be estimated. 

As for the demand factors, Germany and Austria and to a lesser extent Belgium are 
the countries where a strong demand may push researchers’ salaries up. In Spain, 
Italy and to a lesser extent Great Britain, the demand factors may have a downward 
effect on the salaries of researchers.  There are inconsistencies within the demand 
factors in Belgium, Denmark, Slovenia and Sweden. 

When we look at the combination of supply and demand factors, the results are 
ambivalent. There is only one country where supply and demand factors point the 
same direction (Great Britain).  For France, Italy, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden 
and Norway, the scores are more or less consistent, but they are not very conclusive 
in terms of expected impact on researchers’ salaries (colour-codes orange and yellow). 
There are seven countries where supply and demand factors point at opposite 
directions (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Austria, Romania and Hungary), 
meaning that no firm conclusions can be drawn. 

If we assume that the labour market for researchers is segmented, it would make 
sense to look at the business sector and the higher education sector separately. In the 
HE-sector there are no all green or all red countries, except for Slovenia. For Norway 
and Belgium (downward effect), and for Sweden, Romania and Poland (upward effect) 
the scores on supply and demand in the HE-sector show minor inconsistencies.  

In the business sector, it is Slovenia again as the only all green country. There are 
some more countries with minor inconsistencies: Belgium and Germany (upward 
effect), as well as Denmark, France and Italy (downward effect). 

37 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Table 3.4  Scorecard supply and demand factors 

Given the outcomes of the analysis about the effects of demand and supply factors on 
researchers’ salaries, it is hard to be conclusive. In too many cases, the interplay of 
demand and supply (in general and per sector) is unclear. A more sophisticated model 
and more accurate data are required to link the labour market situation to 
researchers’ salaries more systematically, and likely more successfully.  

A number of additional observations however can be made. Based on the bivariate 
correlations between demand and supply indictors and researchers’ salaries (see Table 
3.5), we observe that there is a positive correlation between the number of 
researchers in the higher education sector and the number of PhD graduates. Next, 

38 

researchers in labourforce all sectorsresearchers in labourforce business sectorresearchers in labourforce HE- sectorPHD graduatesGERD allGERD businessGERD HE-sectorBE41112BG4444444CZ4444444DK1111221DE212111ES3334333FR2124223IT444333LU22221HU4433443NL1121242AT1112111PL3433444PT4412444RO3333434SI31413FI2222222SE2222221GB221332NO2211222CH2TR4444RU3332US3CN333JP2233KR1141BRsupplydemandsupply is high and  growing: major downward effect on salariessupply is low and growing: minor downward effect on salariessupply is high and slowly growing: minor upward effect on salariessupply is low and slowly growing: major upward effect on salariesdemand is low and slowly growing: major downward effect on salariesdemand is high and slowly growing: minor downward effect on salariesdemand is low and  growing: minor upward effect on salariesdemand is high and  growing: major upward effect on salaries 
 
 
 
  
 
 
there is a strong positive correlation between expenditure on R&D (GERD) and the 
number of researchers. Since we did not analyse long term longitudinal data, it is 
difficult to know whether more expenditure leads to more researchers or whether 
more researchers lead to more expenditure. The high correlation also raises the 
question whether the salaries of researchers are regulating the market for researchers 
or the amount of researchers (the high correlation suggests the latter). 

The level of researcher salaries in the academic sector correlates with the level of 
salaries in the non-academic sector. The change in salaries of researchers in the non-
academic sector correlates also strongly with the change in PPP. This suggests that 
using PPP as a core element of the extrapolation captures a large part of the change in 
researcher salaries found in the real world.  

Table 3.5  Bivariate correlations between demand and supply factors, and 

researchers' salaries 2015 

3.4 

Triangulation with results of the survey of MSCA fellows and 
coordinators 

As part of the research project, 162 interviews were held among coordinators and 
fellows participating in the Marie Skƚodowska-Curie programme. In these interviews, a 
few income-related issues were addressed in rather general terms. The original idea 
was to link potentially emerging patterns in the responses to these questions to the 
data-driven results presented above. To what extent are the views on trends in 
salaries of the coordinators and fellows of the different MSCAs consistent with the 
analyses of the trends in researchers’ salaries? 

The interviewees were asked also how researcher salaries have evolved over the past 
5 years. Respondents had difficulties in answering this question in an exact way but 
responses paint an overall picture of relatively flat salaries in most countries since the 

39 

 
 
  
 
 
financial crisis, and annual adjustments limited to adjust for inflation. This survey 
outcome supports the assumption made to extrapolate trends in researcher salaries 
from the 2010 More2 data, where it was assumed that increases in researcher salaries 
did not go beyond an adjustment for loss in purchasing power. 

3.5 

Conclusion 

This chapter aimed at providing an estimate of researchers’ salaries in 2015, based on 
extrapolating More2 data. The results, as shown in Table 3.2, are based on two central 
assumptions: purchasing power of researchers is constant over time and researcher 
salaries in real terms have not changed. In order to assess the adequacy of these 
assumptions, data on researchers’ salaries in the business sector was examined and a 
crude model of demand and supply factors that may affect researcher salaries was 
developed.  

Our preliminary analysis of supply and demand factors that may have an impact on 
researcher salaries is inconclusive: we did not find any clear, consistent patterns or 
correlations in the data on these supply and demand factors that would explain on 
how labour markets exactly affect salaries. This means that the assumptions about 
changes in researchers’ salaries in real terms cannot be corroborated by the results of 
this part of the analysis. 

In addition to this analysis, the assumptions made and estimates produces were 
compared to the trends in researcher salaries reported by the respondents of the 
survey carried out as part of this assignment. Responses from the MSCA fellows and 
coordinators interviewed suggest that in the vast majority of countries, researchers’ 
salaries have kept up with inflation but have not gained purchasing power. None of the 
statements on trends in researcher salaries in the past 5 years provided by 
interviewees dramatically contradict the results of the extrapolation model presented 
in Table 3.2.  

In conclusion, both the analysis of demand and supply factors, and the results of the 
survey do not challenge the basic assumptions underlying our extrapolation of 
researcher salaries. The results of the extrapolation as shown in Table 3.2 can 
therefore be considered as an adequate assessment of trends in researchers’ salaries 
in the public sector. Thus, if purchasing power of researchers has to be preserved, the 
salaries of researchers should increase in almost every country. In most countries an 
increase around 5% in gross annual salaries was estimated over the period of 2010 to 
2015. In a limited number of countries an increase of more than 10% was estimated. 
For comparison, in the same period, the MSCA annual living allowance of Early Stage 
Researchers (ESR) increased from EUR 36700 to EUR 37320 (1.7%) and that for 
Experienced Researchers (ER18)  decreased from 56400 EUR to EUR 55800 (-1.1%). 
The monthly mobility allowance increased from EUR 500 to EUR 600 (20%) between 
2010 and 2015, and the monthly family allowance from EUR 30019 to EUR 500 
(66.67%). 

18 In 2010, the living allowances differentiated between ER less and equal or more than 10 years of work 
experience, which is no longer the case. For the calculation, the less than 10 years of work experience living 
allowance was used, as this is the main group of beneficiaries of the MSCA. 

19 In 2010, there was no family allowance as such, but a mobility allowance with family of EUR 800 instead 
of EUR 500. 

40 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
41 

 
 
  
 
 
4 

Review of the adequacy of current MSCA unit 
costs 

This section presents the results from the interviews with MSCA fellows and 
coordinators on the adequacy and competitiveness of MSCA unit costs. Section 4.1 
presents the results regarding the researcher unit costs (living allowance, mobility 
allowance and family allowance). Section 4.2 assesses coordinators’ views on the 
adequacy of the institutional unit costs (unit costs for research, training and 
networking; and unit costs for management and indirect costs) triangulated with 
fellow’s perception of their working conditions regarding research, training and 
networking. For reasons of conciseness, only data with implications for the updating of 
the unit costs are presented in this chapter. A compendium of tables generated can be 
found in Annex 4. 

4.1 

Researcher unit costs 

The MSCA aim to be internationally competitive and attract talent from across the 
world. Notwithstanding the difficulties of comparing countries with (very) different 
salary levels, this study concludes that fellows’ overall monthly available income (i.e. 
net total income plus any additional benefits from the institution or public authorities) 
is largely competitive in the majority of countries and tends to be higher than that of 
comparable researchers at the same institution. Early-Stage Researchers (ESR) and 
their coordinators interviewed for this study reported an average monthly available 
income of about EUR 2,100 compared to EUR 1600 for similar researchers at their 
institution. Similarly, Experienced Researchers (ER) and their coordinators reported an 
average monthly available income of about EUR 3,100 compared to EUR 2,350 for 
similar researchers at their institution.   

While the overall ratio of fellows’ and similar researchers’ available income is 1.4 (i.e. 
MSCA fellows tend to earn 40% more than their counterparts), this ratio is higher for 
ESR than for ER, as shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 also shows that the ratio is highest 
in Eastern countries, and lowest in Northern countries and Germany. 

Table 4.1  Ratio of monthly available income of MSCA fellows versus similar 

researchers at the same institution, by region and type of respondent 

Region 

Overall combined 

Overall 

East20 

France 

Germany 

North21 

South22 

1.4 

ESR 

1.5 

3.3 

1.3 

1.3 

1.1 

1.7 

ER 

1.4 

2.2 

1.4 

1.0 

1.1 

1.4 

20 Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania 

21 Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland 

42 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                          
Region 

United Kingdom 

ESR 

1.4 

ER 

1.2 

Survey respondents were asked to compare the monthly available income of MSCA 
fellows with incomes of researchers working in professions for which researchers are 
often recruited. Of those respondents (coordinators and fellows) who stated that there 
are important competing professions outside of academia, 43% report the incomes 
these professions offer to be higher than those provided by the MSCA allowances. A 
further 19% responded that important competing professions pay similar incomes and 
15% responded that competing professions offered lower incomes. As shown in Table 
4.2, The financial attractiveness of fellows’ options outside academia does not seem to 
substantially differ across scientific panels, except for fellows in the Life Sciences, 
where only 25% report to have outside options with higher pay. These findings may 
reflect the general tendency for researchers in academia to have lower salaries than 
other similar professions. 

Table 4.2  Responses by scientific panel (fellows and coordinators): Are there 

important competing professions for which researchers in your field are 
often recruited? What is the monthly available income of these professions 
(Higher/Similar/Lower)? 

CHE 

ECO 

ENG 

ENV 

LIF 

MAT 

PHY 

SOC 

Total 

Rating of 
adequacy of 
living/top-
up 
allowance 

N  %  N  %  N  %  N  %  N  %  N  %  N  %  N  % 

N  % 

Higher 

7  44%  0  0%  9  50%  3  43%  4  25%  2  40%  5  40%  5  56%  36  43% 

Similar 

3  19%  0  0%  3  17%  2  29%  5  31%  0  0%  2  20%  1  11%  16  19% 

Lower 

3  19%  0  0%  2  11%  1  14%  3  19%  1  20%  0  0%  2  22%  12  15% 

Don’t know 

3  19%  0  0%  4  22%  1  14%  4  25%  2  40%  3  30%  1  11%  19  23% 

Total  

16 

0 

18 

7 

16 

5 

10 

9 

83  100% 

The study also explored the conditions of fellowships and grants that were mentioned 
by interviewees as competing with the MSCA for excellent researchers. Overall 10 
competing fellowships at the doctoral level and 27 competing fellowships at the post-

22 Italy, Portugal, Spain 

43 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                              
doctoral level were identified and assessed. No fellowships comparable to RISE or 
COFUND have been identified by respondents. 

In particular at the doctoral level, funding offered by competing fellowships is lower, 
many operating on the basis of stipends and none of them offering researcher unit 
costs and unit costs for research, training and networking as attractive as ITN 
fellowships. Examples of the most favourable alternatives to MSCA fellowships at the 
doctoral level are: 

  The Mobility Plus programme of the Polish Government (restricted to young 

scientists employed at Polish HE institutions or doing a PhD in Poland), offering 
living allowances23 around EUR 3,000 per month as well as travel expenses and 
partner and child benefits. 

  The Doc.Mobility programme of the Swiss National Science Foundation (restricted 

to Swiss nationals or foreigners employed in Swiss research organisations), 
offering living allowances around EUR 2,900 per month, travel expenses and 
partner and child benefits, as well as an annual research budget of approximately 
EUR 2,800. 

  The Research Talent programme of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific 

Research, offering a living allowance of around EUR 2,700 per month as well as an 
annual research budget of EUR 2,500. 

Competition becomes stronger at the post-doctoral level, where the MSCA Individual 
Fellowships still offer very attractive conditions in general, in particular when including 
the mobility and family allowance, but where competing fellowships exist, though few, 
which offer similar or even more attractive conditions, for example in terms of 
research budget or duration.  Examples of the most favourable alternatives to MSCA 
fellowships at the post-doctoral include: 

  The Elise Richter Programme of the Austrian Science Foundation, a highly 

competitive programme for excellent female researchers, offering a monthly living 
allowance of some EUR 5,600, a monthly child allowance of EUR 800 for children 
under the age of 3 and an annual research budget of EUR 15,000. 

  The Rubicon fellowship of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, 

which takes the conditions offered by MSCA Individual Fellowships as a reference 
point. 

  The Heisenberg Programme of the German Science Foundation (DFG), offering 

funding for up to five years with a monthly living allowance of approximately EUR 
4,450 and an annual research budget of EUR 3,000. 

  The Post-doctoral Fellowships in the Humanities at Universities and Research 

Institutes in the U.S. and Germany of the Volkswagen Stiftung, offering funding for 
up to 1.5 years with a monthly living allowance of approximately EUR 3,100 and a 
generous research budget of up to EUR 40,000 plus funding for the organisation of 
a workshop of EUR 10,000. 

In addition to fellowships that are similar in structure to MSCA fellowships in that they 
provide allowances and research budgets for individuals, interviewees mentioned 33 
lump sum grants at the post-doctoral level. As these usually involve the funding of 
entire projects and project teams, a like-for-like comparison with the MSCA fellowships 
is not possible.  

A detailed overview of all competing fellowships and grants identified and the 
conditions they offer can be found in Annex 3. 

23 All living allowances presented in the following paragraphs are corrected to be comparable to the MSCA 
allowances in Belgium/Luxemburg. 

44 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                          
While the above section considered the monthly available income of fellows as a 
whole, the study also explored each allowance separately in terms of its adequacy for 
fulfilling its purpose. The findings are presented in the sections below. 

4.1.1  The frequency of topping up allowances 

Coordinators were asked whether the host institution voluntarily tops up fellows’ 
living/top-up allowances.  Due to the different funding arrangements, the survey 
question differed by action as follows: 

  [ITN and IF]: Was/Is your institution topping up the living allowance of the Marie 
Skłodowska-Curie fellow(s), meaning that you contribute(d) to fellows’ living 
allowance on top of the Marie Curie living allowance? 

  [RISE]: Did/do you top up the top-up allowance of seconded researches, meaning 

that you voluntarily contribute(d) to fellows’ top-up allowance? 

  [COFUND]: Did/does your organisation […] voluntarily contributed/contribute to 

the living allowance(s) on top of what is required by the Marie Curie programme? 
Source: ICF 2016. 

Overall, one third of the coordinators (29%) stated that the host institution is topping-
up researchers’ allowances (living allowance for COFUND, IF, ITN; top-up allowance 
for RISE). There are substantial differences across actions: while 19% of IF 
coordinators and 14% of ITN top up fellows’ living allowance, this is 54% for RISE 
coordinators and 64% for COFUND coordinators, as shown in Table 4.3.  

Table 4.3  Responses by type of action (only coordinators): Is your institution 

topping-up the living allowance (RISE: top-up allowance) of the MSCA 
fellow?  

Is institution topping-
up living 
allowance/top-up 
allowance 

Yes 

No 

Don’t know 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

N 

7 

4 

0 

% 

N 

% 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

64% 

5 

19% 

4 

14% 

7 

54%  23  29% 

36% 

21 

78%  24  86% 

6 

46%  55  70% 

0% 

1 

4% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

1% 

Total 

11 

100% 

27  100%  28  100%  13  100  79  100% 

Note: The survey question differed by action as follows: [ITN and IF]: Was/Is your institution topping up the 
living allowance of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow(s), meaning that you contribute(d) to fellows’ living 
allowance on top of the Marie Curie living allowance? [RISE]: Did/do you top up the top-up allowance of 
seconded researches, meaning that you voluntarily contribute(d) to fellows’ top-up allowance? [COFUND]: 
Did/does your organisation […] voluntarily contributed/contribute to the living allowance(s) on top of what is 
required by the Marie Curie programme? Source: ICF 2016. 

Table 4.4 indicates that half (50%) of the host institutions in Northern European 
countries top-up fellows’ allowances. Examples of rates for particular countries include 
33% in Germany, and 30% in France. 

45 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Table 4.4  Is your institution topping-up the living allowance of the MSCA fellow? 

Responses by region of action (Only coordinators): 

Answer 
categories 

Yes 

No 

East24 

France  Germany25  North26 

South27 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

1 

9% 

3 

30%  4  33% 

8 

50%  3  21%  4  25%  23  29% 

10  91% 

7 

70%  8  67% 

7 

44%  11  79%  12  75%  55  70% 

Don’t know  0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

6% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

1% 

Total 

11  100%  10  100%  12  100%  16  100%  14  100%  16  100%  79  100% 

The living/top-up allowances are more frequently topped-up for Experienced 
Researchers than for Early Stage Researchers, as shown in Table 4.5. 

Table 4.5  Responses by researcher category (only coordinators): Is your institution 

topping-up the living allowance (RISE: top-up allowance) of the MSCA 
fellow? 

Is institution topping-up 
living allowance/top-up 
allowance 

ESR 

ER 

Total 

Yes 

No 

N 

7 

% 

19% 

29 

81% 

Don’t know 

0 

0% 

N 

16 

26 

1 

% 

N 

% 

37% 

23 

29% 

60% 

55 

70% 

2% 

1 

1% 

Total 

36 

100% 

43 

100% 

79 

100% 

The extent to which living allowances are topped-up by the host institution does not 
depend on the scientific panel. 

4.1.1.2

  The reasons for topping up allowances 

Organisations are topping-up living allowances (top-up allowance for RISE) in the 
following situations: 

  COFUND/IF/ITN: to respect the minimum salary set by national/sectoral 
agreements (e.g. Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway);  

  RISE: depending on costs for subsistence at the destination of the secondment.  

24 CZ, BG, EL, HU, PL, RO 

25 It includes one interview conducted with a coordinator in Austria as a proxy 

26 BE, CH, DK, NL, NO, SE 

27 ES, IT, PT 

46 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                          
Exchange rate fluctuations have an effect on host institutions’ need to top up 
allowances, this was mentioned with respect to the UK and Switzerland. 

47 

 
 
  
 
 
4.1.2  The adequacy of the living allowance unit cost 

4.1.2.1

  Views of fellows 

Overall, MSCA fellows seem satisfied with the level of the living allowance (top-up 
allowance for RISE).28 None of the fellows view the living allowance as overly 
generous. More than four out of five fellows rate the unit cost as generous (19%) or 
adequate (65%). 12% of the fellows perceive their living allowance to be insufficient 
and 4% find it by far insufficient.  

Fellows’ rating of the adequacy of the living allowance differs across actions exist as 
shown in Table 4.6. While none of the fellows in COFUND (10 of which are ESR) and 
ITN perceive their living allowance as too low, a quarter of IF fellows report it to be 
insufficient. This may point to a difference in the adequacy of the living allowance for 
ESR and ER.  

Four out of ten RISE fellows report the top-up allowance, which currently amounts to 
EUR 2000 per month, to be insufficient (17%) or by far insufficient (25%). 

Table 4.6  Responses by type of action (only fellows): How would you rate the 

adequacy of the living allowance (COFUND, IF, and ITN) / top-up allowance 
(RISE)? 

Rating of adequacy of 
living/top-up allowance 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

N  % 

N 

% 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

0 

8 

0% 

25% 

N 

0 

0 

% 

N  % 

N 

% 

0% 

3 

25% 

3 

4% 

0% 

2 

17%  10 

12% 

Adequate 

11  85% 

18 

56% 

18 

69% 

7 

58%  54 

65% 

Generous 

2 

15% 

6 

19% 

Overly Generous 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

8 

0 

31% 

0 

0% 

16 

19% 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Total 

13  100%  32 

100% 

26 

100%  12  100%  83  100% 

Differences in the adequacy of the living allowances also exist across regions, as 
presented in Table 4.7. While in all regions most fellows rate their living allowance as 
adequate or generous, a substantial share of fellows in the UK find that it is 
insufficient (31%) or by far insufficient (6%). Also in France around one quarter of 
fellows experience the living allowance as insufficient or by far insufficient (18% and 
9% respectively). Analysis of the adequacy of the correction coefficient applied to the 
living allowance indicates that this is more a capital/city effect than a country effect. 

28 Fellows were ask to rate the adequacy of the living allowance including potential top-ups by the host 
institution. 29% of coordinators state that they top-up fellows’ living allowance (top-up allowance for RISE). 

48 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                          
Table 4.7  Responses by region (only fellows): How would you rate the adequacy of 

the living allowance (COFUND, IF, and ITN) / top-up allowance (RISE)? 

Rating of 
adequacy of 
living/top-
up 
allowance 

By far 
insufficient 

East 

France 

Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N 

% 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

0 

0% 

1 

9% 

1 

6% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

6% 

3 

4% 

Insufficient 

1 

9% 

2 

18% 

0 

0% 

2 

11% 

0 

0% 

5 

31%  10  12% 

Adequate 

6 

55% 

4 

36% 

14  82%  14  78% 

8 

80% 

8 

50%  54  65% 

Generous 

4 

36% 

4 

36% 

2 

12% 

2 

11% 

2 

20% 

2 

13%  16  19% 

Overly 
generous 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Total 

11  100%  11  100%  17  100%  18  100%  10  100%  16  100%  83  100% 

Interviews also indicate that a higher share of fellows in the Social Sciences and 
Mathematics perceive the living allowance as insufficient or by far insufficient 
compared to fellows in the other scientific disciplines (see Table 4.8). 

Table 4.8  Responses by scientific panel (only coordinators): How would you rate the 

adequacy of the living allowance (COFUND, IF, and ITN) / top-up allowance 
(RISE)? 

Rating of the adequacy 
of living allowance 

SOC/MAT/ECO 

CHE/ENG/ENV/LIF/PHY 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly Generous 

N 

2 

4 

% 

11% 

21% 

10 

53% 

3 

0 

16% 

0% 

N 

1 

6 

44 

13 

0 

% 

2% 

9% 

69% 

20% 

0% 

N 

3 

% 

4% 

10 

12% 

54 

65% 

16 

19% 

0 

0% 

Total 

19 

100% 

64 

100% 

83 

100% 

4.1.2.2

  Views of coordinators 

In contrast to fellows, who reported on the adequacy of the living allowance after top-
up, coordinators were asked about their views on the adequacy of the European 
Commission’s contribution to the living allowances/top-up allowances.  

49 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Coordinators’ rating of the adequacy of the (EC contribution to the) living 
allowance/top-up allowance mostly matches fellows’ ratings.29 There are the following 
exceptions: 

  While none of the fellows rated their living allowance/top-up allowance as overly 

generous, 5% of coordinators did; 

  While none of the COFUND fellows rated their living allowance (after top-up) as 

insufficient or by far insufficient, 18% and 9% respectively of coordinators found 
the EC contribution to the living allowance too low. A similar contrast can be 
observed for Northern countries: while (only) 11% of fellows in Northern countries 
perceive the living allowance/top-up allowance as insufficient; 38% of coordinators 
in these countries rate the EC contribution as insufficient and 6% as by far 
insufficient. This is most likely a result of institutions having to provide a top-up 
(over and above the regular co-funding level for COFUND) to meet national 
standards. 

  While 37% of fellows in the UK perceive the living allowance/top-up allowance as 
insufficient (31%) or by far insufficient (6%), this is only 12% (6% and 6% 
respectively) for UK coordinators. This is mostly because UK fellows experience 
insufficiencies related to the high cost for accommodation and transport in the UK 
(and sometimes from exchange rate fluctuations), while UK coordinators find the 
allowance sufficiently high to attract the best researchers. 

4.1.2.3

  Reasons for reporting insufficiencies 

Dissatisfaction with the living allowance/top-up allowance is commonly related to the 
costs of living, which seems to affect fellows in the UK the most. However, many 
fellows interviewed expressed their disappointment with the level of the living 
allowance due to a lack of clear information: During the application and recruitment 
process, they were often informed about the European Commission’s contribution to 
the living allowance as expressed in the Work Programme, not the eventual net 
amount, which is considerably smaller in some countries.  

29 Please see Annex tables for details. 

50 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                          
4.1.3  The adequacy of the correction coefficient 

4.1.3.1

  Views of fellows 

The rating of the correction coefficient follows similar patterns as the rating of the 
living allowance, as both are interrelated. Overall, Table 4.9 indicates that ITN and IF 
MSCA fellows are satisfied with the level of the correction coefficient applied to their 
country. More than four out of five fellows rate the correction coefficient as adequate 
(71%) or too high (2%) while 27% perceived it as too low.  

The frequency of ITN fellows rating it as adequate (85%) was higher than that of IF 
fellows (53%). 

Table 4.9  Responses by type of action and researcher category (only fellows): For the 

country you work(ed) in as a Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow, how would 
you rate the coefficient?  

Rating of adequacy of correction 
coefficient for country of work 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

Too low 

Adequate 

Too high 

Don't know 

Total 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Not applicable (RISE) 

Total 

N 

% 

11 

34% 

N 

4 

% 

15% 

17 

53% 

22 

85% 

1 

3 

3% 

9% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

N 

15 

39 

1 

3 

% 

26% 

67% 

2% 

5% 

32 

100% 

26 

100% 

58 

100% 

13 

12 

83 

Half or more of fellows in all regions except the UK rated the correction coefficient 
applied to their living allowance as adequate or too high. The highest share of fellows 
perceiving the correction coefficient as too low can be found in Northern countries 
(40%) and the UK (43%), as shown in Table 4.10. 

Table 4.10 Responses by region (only fellows): For the country you work(ed) in as a 

Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow, how would you rate the coefficient?  

East 

France 

Germany  North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

Rating of 
adequacy of 
correction 
coefficient for 
country of 
work 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

Too low 

1  17% 

2  25% 

2 

17% 

4  40% 

0  0% 

6 

43%  15  26% 

Adequate 

4  67% 

5  63% 

10  83% 

6  60% 

8  100%  6 

43%  39  67% 

51 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
East 

France 

Germany  North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

Rating of 
adequacy of 
correction 
coefficient for 
country of 
work 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

Too high 

1  17% 

0  0% 

0 

0% 

0  0% 

0  0% 

0 

0%  1  2% 

Don't know 

0  0% 

1  13% 

0 

0% 

0  0% 

0  0% 

2 

14%  3  5% 

Total 

6  100%  8  100%  12  100%  10  100%  8  100%  14  100
% 

58  100% 

Not applicable 
(COFUND) 

Not applicable 
(RISE) 

Total 

13 

12 

83 

4.1.3.2

  Views of coordinators 

Coordinators’ views of the correction coefficient applied to their country are slightly 
more positive than those of fellows with 83% stating that the correction coefficient is 
too high or adequate. Similar to the rating of the living allowance, UK coordinators’ 
views do not match those of their fellows as none of them reports the correction 
coefficient to be too low (versus 43% of fellows). Also more coordinators than fellows 
of Northern countries consider the correction coefficient adequate (73% versus 60% 
respectively). In contrast to fellows, almost half of German coordinators (43%) feel 
disadvantaged by the correction coefficient applied to their country. Some German 
coordinators suggest computing the correction coefficient by region or cities, as prices 
for accommodation are very high in cities like Frankfurt, Munich, or Stuttgart. 

4.1.3.3

  Reasons for insufficiencies 

In general, fellows and coordinators have difficulties to exactly disentangle the 
adequacy of the correction coefficient from other factors influencing the standard of 
living, such as living allowance, the mobility allowance, and the family allowance, as 
combined they determine the net monthly available income. The costs of 
accommodation tends to be the main factor for being positive or negative about the 
correction coefficient. When accommodation is affordable then the correction 
coefficient tends to be judged as adequate or even too high in few cases. By contrast, 
fellows and coordinators tend to be dissatisfied with the correction coefficient if 
fellows’ income does not allow them to afford good accommodation at a reasonable 
distance from the place of work. Against this background, some respondents, both 
fellows and coordinators, felt that one correction coefficient for the whole country is 
too simplistic.  

Some fellows were worried about the cost of secondment, as the correction coefficient 
remains the one of the main host country. This can be challenging when, for example, 
moving from Germany to the UK.  

52 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.4  The adequacy of the mobility allowance 

4.1.4.1

  Views of fellows 

Overall, more MSCA fellows are satisfied with the mobility allowance than the living 
allowance or correction coefficient. 92% find it adequate or generous. None of the 
fellows consider the mobility allowance as by far insufficient. 

Early-Stage-Researchers more frequently perceive the mobility allowance as adequate 
or generous (96%) than Experienced Researchers (88%), as shown in Table 4.11.   

Table 4.11 Responses by type of action and researcher category (only fellows): How 

would you rate the adequacy of the mobility allowance?  

Rating of adequacy of mobility 
allowance 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

N 

0 

4 

% 

0% 

13% 

N 

0 

1 

% 

0% 

4% 

N 

0 

5 

% 

0% 

9% 

21 

66% 

24 

92% 

45 

78% 

7 

0 

22% 

0% 

1 

0 

4% 

0% 

8 

0 

14% 

0% 

Total 

32 

100% 

25 

100% 

58 

100% 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Not applicable (RISE) 

Total 

13 

12 

83 

Current unit cost: 

EUR 600 

EUR 600 

Table 4.12 seems to suggest that the adequacy of the mobility allowance differs by 
region, with the highest share of fellows perceiving it as insufficient in Southern 
countries (25%). However, regional differences in the adequacy of the mobility 
allowance cannot be confirmed by an analysis of the narratives recorded during the 
interviews as presented in section 4.1.4.3.   

Table 4.12 Responses by region (only fellows): How would you rate the adequacy of 

the mobility allowance?  

Rating of 
adequacy of 
mobility 
allowance 

By far 
insufficient 

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N 

% 

N  % 

N 

% 

N  % 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

53 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of 
adequacy of 
mobility 
allowance 

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N 

% 

N  % 

N 

% 

N  % 

Insufficient 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

8% 

1 

10%  2  25% 

1 

7% 

5 

9% 

Adequate 

4 

67%  6  75%  10  83% 

9 

90%  4  50%  12 

86%  45  78% 

Generous 

2 

33%  2  25% 

1 

8% 

Overly 
generous 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0 

0% 

2  25% 

1 

7% 

8 

14% 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Total 

6  100%  8  100%  12  100%  10  100%  8  100%  14  100%  58  100% 

Not applicable 
(COFUND) 

Not applicable 
(RISE) 

Total 

13 

12 

83 

The rating of the adequacy of the mobility allowance only slightly differs between 
female and male fellows (Table 4.13). A higher share of male fellows (21% than 
female fellows (7%) perceive it to be generous. 

Table 4.13 Responses by gender (only fellows): How would you rate the adequacy of 

the mobility allowance?  

Rating of adequacy of mobility 
allowance 

Female 

Male 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

N 

0 

3 

% 

0% 

10% 

N 

0 

2 

% 

0% 

7% 

Total 

N 

0 

5 

% 

0% 

9% 

24 

83% 

21 

72% 

45 

78% 

2 

0 

7% 

0% 

6 

0 

21% 

0% 

8 

0 

14% 

0% 

Total 

29 

100% 

29 

100% 

58 

100% 

Skipped as COFUND 

Skipped as RISE 

Total 

13 

12 

83 

54 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.4.2

  Views of coordinators 

Coordinators tend to rate the mobility allowance more positively than fellows. Almost 
one quarter (22%) of coordinators finds the mobility allowance generous (20%) or 
overly generous (2%), compared to 14% of fellows perceiving it as generous and none 
of the fellows considering it to be overly generous. 

4.1.4.3

  Reasons for insufficiencies 

The insufficiencies reported are linked to: 

  The cost of settling in the country of destination. Some fellows have experienced 

the high costs of settling in the host country as financially challenging, as costs for 
temporary accommodation during search for long-term accommodation, visa or 
residence permits and other paperwork can be substantial, and require the fellows 
to advance money; 

  The costs of travelling can be high due to distance or availability of cheap flights, 

as well as due to having a family; 

  Some fellows and coordinators express discontent that the mobility allowance is 

taxed or used for employers’ social security contributions in their 
country/institution. 

55 

 
 
  
 
 
 
4.1.5  The adequacy of the family allowance 

4.1.5.1

  Views of fellows 

Overall, MSCA fellows are satisfied with the family allowance. 3 out of 4 MSCA fellows, 
for whom it is relevant, find it adequate. None of the fellows finds this unit cost 
generous or overly generous. By contrast, 23% find it insufficient and 4% by far 
insufficient, as presented in Table 4.14. 

Table 4.14 Responses by type of action and researcher category (only fellows): How 

would you rate the adequacy of the family allowance?  

Rating of adequacy of family allowance 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

Total 

N 

0 

4 

% 

N 

% 

0% 

20% 

17% 

33% 

N 

1 

6 

% 

4% 

23% 

1 

2 

3 

0 

0 

6 

16 

80% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

20 

100% 

50% 

19 

73% 

0% 

0% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

100% 

26 

100% 

32 

13 

12 

83 

 Not applicable (not entitled to family 
allowance) 

12 

20 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Not applicable (RISE) 

Total 

Current unit cost: 

EUR 500 

EUR 500 

Although based on a small number of observations, Table 4.15 suggests that the 
incidence of satisfaction with the family allowance is somewhat lower in Northern 
countries and the UK (50% and 38% insufficient or by far insufficient respectively) 
compared to other regions. 

Table 4.15 Responses by region (only fellows): How would you rate the adequacy of 

the family allowance?  

Rating of 
adequacy of 
family 
allowance 

By far 
insufficient 

East 

France  Germany  North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  %  N  %  N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

0 

0% 

0 

0%  0  0%  1  25%  0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

4% 

56 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of 
adequacy of 
family 
allowance 

East 

France  Germany  North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  %  N  %  N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

Insufficient 

0 

0% 

0 

0%  1  25%  1  25%  1  25%  3  38%  6  23% 

Adequate 

3  100%  3  100%  3  75%  2  50%  3  75%  5  63%  19  73% 

Generous 

0 

0% 

0 

0%  0  0%  0  0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Overly 
generous 

0 

0% 

0 

0%  0  0%  0  0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Total 

3  100%  3  100%  4  100%  4  100%  4  100%  8  100%  26  100% 

Not applicable 
(not entitled to 
family 
allowance) 

Not applicable 
(COFUND) 

Not applicable 
(RISE) 

Total 

32 

13 

12 

83 

The rating of the adequacy of the family allowance does not differ by gender. 

4.1.5.2

  Views of coordinators 

Almost 8 out of 10 coordinators rate the family allowance as adequate or generous 
(79%) which is a slightly higher frequency than the fellows (73%). 9% of coordinators 
did not know. Coordinators point out that the family allowance tends to not cover all 
the costs associated with having children. This is reflected in the difference of 
coordinators’ rating of the adequacy the living allowance between ESR and ER. While 
only 4% of coordinators hosting ESR rate the family allowance as being insufficient or 
by far insufficient, this is 22% for coordinators hosting ER, a higher share of which has 
children. 

4.1.5.3

  Reasons for insufficiencies 

MSCA fellows perceive the family allowance as insufficient or by far insufficient for 
various reasons: 

  The family allowance does not fully cover the costs associated with the need for 

more living space and day care for children;  

  It does not fully compensate the loss in income by the partner. 

  The family allowance is taxed in some countries.  

One concern repeatedly brought forward by respondents is that the family allowance is 
provided based on the fellows’ status when the contract is signed. Changes to the 
marital status can occur during the fellowship (both getting married and separated), 

57 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and the first child born during the fellowship does not result in eligibility for family 
allowance. 

58 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
4.2 

Institutional unit costs 

Coordinators are less likely to report the institutional unit costs to be adequate or 
generous than fellows are likely to report the researcher unit costs to be adequate or 
generous. In many instances, research and management activities related to the 
MSCA fellowship have to be supported by other sources of funding in addition to the 
MSCA unit costs. Nevertheless, the collected data shows that the current MSCA 
institutional unit costs motivate institutions to participate in the programme and that 
they offer competitive working conditions to fellows. This is also supported by the fact 
that the number of applications for MSCA continues to grow. 

4.2.1  The adequacy of unit costs for research, training and networking 

(only IF, ITN, RISE) 

The assessment of the adequacy of the unit costs for research, training and 
networking is based on two types of information: Coordinators were asked directly to 
rate the adequacy of the European Commission’s contribution to research, training and 
networking costs. By contrast, fellows were asked how frequently their research was 
negatively impacted by a lack of funding for research equipment, raw materials, etc.; 
training or networking. This was done for two reasons. First, this approach was chosen 
as fellows may not have a sufficiently detailed overview of the costs involved in their 
research, training and networking activities. Second, this approach allows to assess 
whether insufficiencies in funding translate into negative research, training and 
networking outcomes, or whether other sources of funding are attracted to fill the 
gaps. 

4.2.1.1

  Views of coordinators 

More than half of the coordinators surveyed regard the unit costs for research, training 
and networking as adequate or generous, which is positive, but also implies that a 
substantial share of coordinators rate the unit costs as insufficient (38%) or by far 
insufficient (4%). As shown in Table 4.16, substantial differences in ratings exist along 
the lines of the level of the unit costs between ITN and RISE on the one hand, and IF 
on the other hand. 

Table 4.16 Responses by type of action (only coordinators): Overall, how would you 

rate the adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for research, training and 
networking?  

Rating of adequacy of unit costs for 
research, training, networking 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

N 

2 

% 

7% 

N 

0 

% 

N 

% 

0% 

8% 

N 

3 

% 

4% 

13 

48% 

10 

36% 

9 

3 

0 

33% 

18 

64% 

11% 

0% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

23% 

26 

38% 

46% 

33 

49% 

23% 

0% 

6 

0 

9% 

0% 

1 

3 

6 

3 

0 

Total 

27 

100%  28 

100%  13 

100%  68  100% 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Grand Total 

Current unit cost: 

800EUR 

1800 EUR 

1800 EUR 

11 

79 

59 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.17 shows that views on the adequacy of the unit costs for research, training 
and networking do not seem to be region specific. Although a relatively high share of 
coordinators in Eastern European countries reports the EC contribution to be 
generous, more than half of coordinators in this region find it insufficient. In the 
Southern countries and Germany, about half of respondents find the EC contribution 
adequate, and the other half perceives it to be insufficient. In France, almost three 
fourth think it is adequate and one fourth finds it insufficient. In Northern countries 
and the UK, the variance of responses is largest, ranging from generous to by far 
insufficient. 

Table 4.17 Responses by region (only coordinators): Overall, how would you rate the 

adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for research, training and networking?  

Rating of 
adequacy of 
unit costs for 
research, 
training, 
networking 

By far 
insufficient 

East 

France 

Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N 

% 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

8% 

0 

0% 

2 

15% 

3 

4% 

Insufficient 

6 

55%  2  22% 

5 

56% 

5 

38% 

6 

46% 

2 

15%  26  38% 

Adequate 

1 

9% 

7  78% 

4 

44% 

6 

46% 

7 

54% 

8 

62%  33  49% 

Generous 

4 

36%  0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

8% 

0 

0% 

1 

8% 

6 

9% 

Overly 
generous 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Total 

11  100%  9  100%  9 

100% 

13  100%  13  100%  13  100%  68  100% 

Not applicable 
(COFUND) 

Grand Total 

11 

79 

Interviews also suggest that insufficiencies are experienced more often by 
coordinators in fields of research which are often considered to be relatively 
expensive, such as lab-based research in Chemistry, Engineering or the Life Sciences.  
However, insufficiencies are not exclusively reported by coordinators of these fields of 
research, but also by coordinators of research projects in the Social Sciences or 
Economics, although less frequently, as shown in Table 4.18. 

Table 4.18 Responses by scientific panel (only coordinators) Overall, how would you 

rate the adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for research, training and 
networking?  

Rating of adequacy of unit costs for research, 
training, networking 

ECO/MAT/SOC  CHE/ENG/ENV/

Total 

LIF/PHY 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

60 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of adequacy of unit costs for research, 
training, networking 

ECO/MAT/SOC  CHE/ENG/ENV/

Total 

LIF/PHY 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

Total 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Grand Total 

4.2.1.2

  Reasons for inadequacies 

N 

% 

7% 

N 

2 

% 

4% 

N 

3 

% 

4% 

20% 

23 

43% 

26 

38% 

60% 

24 

45% 

33 

49% 

13% 

0% 

4 

0 

8% 

0% 

6 

0 

9% 

0% 

1 

3 

9 

2 

0 

15 

100% 

53 

100% 

68 

100% 

11 

79 

Overall, analysis of the justifications for the ratings provided by interviewees does not 
point to differences in research, training and networking costs across regions or the 
researcher category. Also, inadequacies of MSCA unit costs for research, training and 
networking are not foremost an issue of expensive, lab-based research versus less 
expensive, desk-based research. Rather, the main driver of costs seems to be the kind 
of activities carried out as part of the project. This refers to material and equipment 
necessary for conducting the research, but also whether large workshops or 
conferences are planned, or whether researchers go on secondments and need short-
term accommodation.  

The fact that the share of coordinators who report insufficiencies is higher among 
beneficiaries of IF than ITN/RISE does therefore not stem from differences in activities 
but most likely from differences in the level of the unit costs (800 EUR for IF compared 
to 1800 EUR for ITN/RISE).  

The interviews also show that many coordinators make use of the flexibility provided 
to them by the unit cost system. One coordinator reporting the unit costs for research, 
training, and networking to be insufficient explains that these are used for topping up 
the living allowance of the researcher, so that costs for research, training and 
networking are taken over by the institution (the unit costs would be adequate 
otherwise). Other coordinators propose the exact opposite, showing how different 
situations are: according to one coordinator, it should be possible to use the living 
allowance to top up the research, training and networking budget. 

A common strategy for closing gaps of funding seems to be the combination of MSCA 
unit costs with other sources of funding, which partly explains why fellows’ research 
tends not to be impacted by insufficient MSCA unit costs. For example, coordinators 
state: 

  “I work in the Earth and Environmental Sciences (ENV); the 800 EUR/month unit 
cost is great but slightly low in reality, which means that as supervisor I need to 
write additional proposals to pay for the science. A unit cost of 1200 EUR/month 
would solve the issue.” 

61 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  “They pay all researcher with the same salary at [organisation], and in order to 

have the same salary, they have to use all MSCA money towards the researcher's 
salary (research/training/networking). Then the [organisation] pays for 
research/training/networking costs on its own budget. If it did not go to the salary, 
it would be adequate.” 

  “I would suggest to move part of the resources for living allowance to research 

cost Combined with other sources, grants.” 

  “It is not enough for stem cell research.” 

  “The secondment is challenging to pay for a short term accommodation.” 

  “I really would like more money for this. Sometimes you cannot invite people from 

abroad and only people from Italy if you are organising a conference.” 

  “The money does not cover our costs to do experiments and therefore they are 

insufficient.” 

  “It depends on the activity, but there should be a budget for impact work. Because 
that is very expensive. Dissemination and impact is very important. We need to 
bring people over from all over Europe to come and speak and that costs a lot of 
money. It costs 6000 pounds for just one seminar. Next year, we have to plan two 
impact seminars, one in the UK and one in Spain with no budget. We need to look 
at other people/organizations to pay for this and this is very time consuming.” 

4.2.1.3

  Real costs for research, training and networking incurred by 

institutions 

This section presents estimates of the real costs for research, training and networking 
provided by MSCA coordinators in the framework of this study. It needs to be noted 
these amounts were largely not based on declarations of honour, that none of the 
projects had finished at the time of the study and that there might be problems of 
comparability due to different interpretations of what costs should be included. 

MSCA coordinators report the following real costs for research, training and 
networking 

  The median costs for research, training and networking incurred by the 18 IF 

coordinators who provided detailed estimates are EUR 1050.  

  The median costs for research, training and networking incurred by the 16 ITN 

coordinators who provided detailed estimates are EUR 1950.  

  The median costs for research, training and networking incurred by the 10 RISE 

coordinators who provided detailed estimates are EUR 1520.  

4.2.1.4

  The impact of lack of funding for research, training and networking on 

fellows’ research 

It could be argued that insufficiencies in MSCA funding are only a problem in terms of 
achieving the objectives of the programme if they impact researchers’ work. The 
interviews carried out as part of this study therefore assessed the frequency with 
which a lack of funding was felt by researchers and the magnitude of its impact on 
their research. 

Table 4.19 reports fellows’ answers to the question on how frequently their research 
was negatively impacted by a lack of funding during their MSCA fellowship (so far). 
Despite of the relatively high share of coordinators reporting the MSCA unit costs for 
research, training and networking to be insufficient or by far insufficient (42.6%) a 
broad majority of fellows report that they have never experienced a lack of resources 
for research activities during their fellowship. In particular for ITN, the insufficiencies 
reported by the coordinators are not felt by fellows. This is different for IF, where 

62 

 
 
 
 
  
 
almost a third of the fellows has experienced a negative impact from a lack of funding 
for research at some point during the fellowship.  

Table 4.19 Responses by type of action (only fellows): During your MSCA fellowship 

(so far), how frequently was your research negatively impacted by a lack of 
funding for research equipment, raw materials, etc.? 

Frequency of negative impact on 
research of lack of funding for 
research equipment, raw 
materials, etc.? 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Always 

Often 

Sometimes 

Rarely 

Never 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

0 

3 

5 

2 

0% 

9% 

16% 

6% 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0% 

4% 

0% 

0% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0 

4 

5 

2 

0% 

6% 

7% 

3% 

22 

69% 

25 

96% 

11 

92% 

58 

83% 

Don’t know 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

8% 

1 

1% 

Total 

32  100% 

26 

100% 

12 

100%  70  100% 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Total 

13 

83 

Of the 11 that experienced a negative impact due to lack of funding, 4 reported that 
the negative impact was minor, 6 stated it was moderate, and 1 stated it had a major 
impact. 

Analysis of the precise nature of and reasons for these negative impacts based on the 
qualitative information collected during the interviews suggests, however, that the 
overall impact of this lack of funding on research has most likely been small and in 
some cases cannot be attributed to the MSCA itself. Reasons for and nature of the lack 
of funding reported by fellows can be divided into the three categories presented 
below:  

  A negative impact on research associated with time and effort spent to apply for 

other funding: 
- 

“For my research we are building a waste water chemical reactor. We need to 
use other grants as well to fund it as the MSCA grant would not have been 
sufficient. However, we knew it beforehand.” 

- 

- 

- 

“My host institution had sufficient funding from other projects, so I didn't have 
problem. But the MSCA funding would not have been sufficient” 

“I am able to spend money from the university but otherwise it would not be 
sufficient.”  

“Although I am still very early in the fellowship, I already applied to two other 
grants for research funds. My experiments are very expensive.”   

63 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 

- 

“The negative impact [of the lack of funding] is not big because we 
nonetheless have the necessary equipment I intended to use when I applied.“  

“My host institution receives grants for equipment from other sources as well. 
But there are periods when money is not available: In France, they close the 
financial year quite early and open it very late. Also in July/August, almost 
everyone is on vacation. During these periods, it is difficult to get funding for 
equipment (either it happens very slowly or not at all). We would need 
something much faster, more Marie Curie funding would be great. “  

  A negative impact unrelated to the level of MSCA funding but associated with the 
fact that the funding cannot be directly accessed by the fellows and that internal 
procedures have to be followed.: 

-  “It is not really due to a lack of funding but more due to the bureaucracy 

involved. You cannot buy something directly, there is a procurement process 
and it makes thing more costly.” 

-  “I don’t have direct access to these funds. If I could use it to buy material it 

would more than sufficient. “  

  A lack of funding that is not compensated by funding from other sources, resulting 

in a constraint on activities that could be carried out: 

-  “I could do more with more funds for research. For example, I have very 
expensive equipment which I cannot use because of the small funds for 
research material.”  

-  “For small things (e.g. material) the funding is ok, but if you want to buy 
some equipment it is insufficient. However, we have all the machines we 
need, although they are not the best ones.” 

Fellows were asked a similar impact question with regard to training and networking 
costs. 

90% of fellows report to never have experienced a lack of funding for training (6% do 
not know). Of the three respondents who reported some impact, one ITN fellow 
reported that while all the training was fully funded by the network, he would have 
liked to take additional training. One IF fellow stated that there was originally a lack of 
funding for training he wanted to follow and that ultimately this funding was granted 
from other sources. A fellow under the RISE action felt that it would have been good 
to have training budget for some of the other persons participating in the research 
project. 

87% of fellows report to never have experienced a lack of funding for networking (3% 
don’t know), with some variation across actions (100% for ITN, 88% for IF and 58% 
for RISE fellows).  

Of the seven fellows who reported a negative impact, six reported a minor negative 
impact and one reported a moderate negative impact due to the large effort she had 
to go through to find funds, although she finally attended the conference she wanted 
to. The comments listed below show that the MSCA grant already allows for 
networking activities but that some fellows feel that it would be desirable to expand 
existing possibilities for networking: 

  "Every PhD candidate is allowed to attend an international conference once in the 4 
years and 1-2 in Europe. One international conference is not sufficient. It should be 
at least two.”  

  "There is a lack of funding for travel to conferences.”  

64 

 
 
 
 
  
 
  "Because of a lack of money I could only call other researchers/students. If we 

could visit people face to face and organize meetings in different places, we could 
meet the students in person and this would be better." 

  "My research training grant covered the conference costs, so my own research 
budget. If I did not have had my own research training grant, the money I 
received as a fellow would not have been enough to cover the travel costs for 
conferences. So if we did not have the money from elsewhere, the impact would 
have been negative.” [RISE]    

  “Funding for conferences was not covered in the grant. I needed to pay this from 

my own budget.” [RISE] 

4.2.1.5

  Fellow’s budget for research, training and networking compared to 

similar researchers at the institution 

Overall, the data shows that MSCA fellows often have higher budgets for research, 
training and networking than similar researchers at their institution: 

  33% of MSCA fellows have a higher research budget than similar researchers in the 
institution. In 57% of cases the budget is similar, and in 6% of cases it is lower 
(see Table 4.20). Coordinators stating that similar researchers have a higher 
budget refer to researchers with grants that allow for the charging of real costs or 
to researchers with grants with a higher budget for equipment. 

Table 4.20 Responses by type of action (only coordinators): How do these [MSCA 

fellows’ research] costs compare to the costs associated with comparable 
researchers in the institution? 

Research budget of MSCA fellows 
compared to research budget of 
similar researchers at the 
institution 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Higher 

Similar 

 Lower 

Don’t know 

Total 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

9 

35% 

N 

8 

29% 

13 

50% 

17 

60% 

3 

1 

12% 

4% 

1 

2 

4% 

7% 

5 

8 

0 

0 

38%  22 

33% 

62%  38 

57% 

0% 

0% 

4 

3 

6% 

4% 

27 

100% 

28 

100% 

13 

100%  66  100% 

  35% of coordinators report that MSCA fellows have access to more training 

opportunities than similar researchers in the institution (Table 4.21). 34% of MSCA 
fellows are reported to have access to similar training opportunities and 31% of 
coordinators do not know. None of the coordinators reports the MSCA fellows to be 
worse off than their peers with regard to access to various types of training. 
Differences across actions indicate that the access to training relative to similar 
researchers is highest for ITN fellows, of which 54% enjoy more training 
opportunities than similar researchers, followed by RISE fellows (39%). Only 15% 
of IF fellows have access to more training opportunities than their peers. 

65 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Table 4.21 Responses by type of action (only coordinators): How does this [MSCA 
fellows’ access to training] compare to the type of training comparable 
researchers in the institution have access to? 

MSCA fellows’ access to training 
compared to similar researchers 
at the institution 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

More 

Similar 

 Less 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N 

4 

15% 

15 

54% 

13 

48% 

0 

0% 

3 

0 

11% 

0% 

5 

7 

0 

1 

39%  24 

35% 

54%  23 

34% 

0% 

0 

0% 

7% 

21 

31% 

Don’t know 

10 

37% 

10 

35% 

Total 

27 

100% 

28 

100% 

13 

100%  66  100% 

  40% of MSCA fellows have access to more networking activities than similar 

researchers in the institution (Table 4.22). 22% of MSCA fellows are reported to 
have access to similar networking opportunities and 37% of coordinators do not 
know. None of the coordinators report the MSCA fellows to be worse off than 
similar researchers with regard to access to networking opportunities. Again, the 
share of fellows with more access to networking opportunities than their peers is 
highest for ITN (56%), closely followed by RISE (54%). Only 19% of coordinators 
of IF fellows state that their MSCA fellow has access to more networking activities 
than comparable researchers.  

Table 4.22 Responses by type of action (only coordinators): How does this [MSCA 

fellows’ access to networking opportunities] compare to the type of 
networking activities comparable researchers in the institution have access 
to?  

MSCA fellows’ access to 
training compared to similar 
researchers at the institution 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

More 

Similar 

 Less 

N 

5 

8 

0 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

19% 

15 

56% 

30% 

0% 

3 

0 

9 

11% 

0% 

33% 

7 

4 

0 

2 

54%  27 

40% 

31%  15 

23% 

0% 

0 

0% 

15%  25 

37% 

Don’t know 

14 

51% 

Total 

27 

100% 

28 

100% 

13 

100%  66  100% 

In addition, fellows were asked whether they had the feeling that the unit costs for 
research, training and funding were used by the institution to support the quality of 

66 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
their research and training. Scoping interviews suggested that there were cases where 
fellows felt that resources were diverted from their project to other projects in the 
institution. Responses from the interviews with fellows confirmed that these cases 
exist: 

  “The university was not granting me access to the funds. Only in the last 4 months 
was I able to have access. They wanted to use the money for another research 
project and were not willing to pay for a conference and they wanted to use the 
money on another research project.” 

Table 4.23 suggests, that the incidence of these cases is low: 

Table 4.23 Responses by type of action (only fellows): To what extent do you agree or 
disagree with the following statement: "My host institution has 
spent/spends the MSCA funding for research, training and networking costs 
to support the quality of my research and training"  

Strongly disagree 

Disagree 

Neutral 

Agree 

Strongly agree 

Don’t know 

Total 

Not applicable ( 
COFUND) 

Total 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

N 

1 

2 

0 

15 

14 

0 

% 

3% 

6% 

0% 

47% 

44% 

0% 

N 

0 

0 

2 

12 

12 

0 

% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

46% 

46% 

0% 

N 

0 

1 

0 

2 

7 

2 

% 

0% 

8% 

0% 

17% 

58% 

17% 

N 

1 

3 

2 

29 

33 

2 

% 

1% 

4% 

3% 

41% 

47% 

3% 

32 

100% 

26 

100% 

12 

100% 

70 

100% 

13 

83 

4.2.2  The adequacy of unit costs for management and indirect costs 

Almost two thirds of respondents consider the MSCA unit costs for management and 
indirect costs to be generous or adequate and one third rates them as being 
insufficient or by far insufficient, as shown in Table 4.24. For COFUND, this is the other 
way around, which is likely to be the result of the lower funding received by 
institutions, as only management costs, not indirect costs, are co-funded by the MSCA 
grant. 

Table 4.24 Responses by type of action (only coordinators): Overall, how would you 

rate the adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for management and indirect 
costs?  

Rating of adequacy of unit 
costs for research, training, 
networking 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N 

% 

By far insufficient 

1 

9% 

0 

0% 

1 

4% 

1 

8% 

N 

3 

% 

4% 

Insufficient 

6 

55% 

8 

30% 

8 

29% 

3 

23% 

25 

32% 

67 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of adequacy of unit 
costs for research, training, 
networking 

Adequate 

Generous 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

2 

18%  17  63%  19  68% 

7 

54% 

45 

57% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

2 

15% 

Overly generous 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Don't know 

2 

18% 

2 

8% 

0 

0% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

2 

0 

4 

3% 

0% 

5% 

Total 

11  100%  27  100%  28  100%  13  100%  79 

100% 

Current unit cost: 

325 EUR 

650 EUR 

1200 EUR 

700 EUR 

Reasons for rating the management and indirect costs as insufficient are commonly 
related to the level of management and indirect costs charged to the coordinators by 
the institution, which seem to be relatively high in Northern countries and the UK 
compared to other countries investigated in the study (Table 4.25) In ITN, the 
adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for management and indirect costs experienced by 
coordinators’ seems to depend on their ability to negotiate a higher share of the unit 
costs due to their coordinating role with network members. 

Table 4.25 Responses by region (only coordinators): Overall, how would you rate the 

adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for management and indirect costs?  

Rating of 
adequacy of 
unit costs for 
management 
and indirect 
costs 

By far 
insufficient 

East 

France  Germany  North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N 

% 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N 

% 

N  % 

N  % 

0 

0% 

0  0% 

0 

0% 

1 

6% 

0 

0% 

2 

13% 

3 

4% 

Insufficient 

3 

27%  0  0% 

3  25%  6  38%  4 

29% 

9 

56%  25 

32% 

Adequate 

6 

55%  8  80%  9  75%  8  50%  9 

64% 

5 

31%  45 

57% 

Generous 

1 

9% 

0  0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

7% 

0 

0% 

2 

3% 

Overly generous  0 

0% 

0  0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Don't know 

1 

9% 

2  20%  0 

0% 

1 

6% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

4 

5% 

Total 

11  100% 

1
0  100%  12  100%  16  100%  14  100%  16  100%  79  100% 

4.2.2.2

  Reasons for insufficiencies 

The unit cost is mainly used to pay for: 

  The management of the fellowship or the network,  

68 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  The institution overheads,  

  Meetings and accommodation/ trip to the meetings. 

Most of those respondents who indicated that the unit costs for management and 
indirect costs are insufficient explained in the interview that the host institution or 
other sources are co-financing these costs, for example: 

  “The lack of funding is compensated by funding from the ministries”. 

 

 "The MSCA unit costs cover about 23% of the management costs related to the 
COFUND-Programme.” 

  "[The MSCA unit costs cover] Half of the actual cost, the costs of library access 

alone is very high." 

  "The overhead should be at least 25%.” 

  “It should be about 30 to 40% of the total grant" 

  “The Institute require 57% of the grant for overhead. Therefore the department 

has to cover part of the overhead.” 

  "The institution is not paid for all expenses such as the overheads.” 

  "The institution is co-funding the project by paying half of the overheads. 

Overheads in Denmark are usually 40% of the project.” 

  "A manager for one day a week is not enough [ITN]. The institution pays an 

additional 50% from its own budget. 

  "The MSCA project does not allow to charge for the fees of student (i.e. 4000 

pounds). The network and collaborative aspects are fantastic but some of the cost 
are not covered.”  

  “Normal overheads are 36%" 

  "If we could have something more it would always be better, because we need a 

lot of people to manage the projects.”  

Interviews suggest that whether coordinators feel that the MSCA unit costs for 
management and indirect costs are inadequate mostly depend on the 
reimbursement/co-financing arrangements in place in their institutions. This may 
explain the relatively high share of respondents reporting insufficiencies in the UK and 
Northern countries, where internal arrangements based on real costs are more 
prevalent than elsewhere. Coordinators often report in these regions that they have a 
“special arrangement” for the MSCA because they would not be able to pay for the 
“normal” overheads of the institution. This also happen in other regions.  

Many networks employed a part-time manager for the network paid by a central pot 
collected from all participants to the network.  Apart from the level of the unit costs, 
negotiating the sharing of the funding amongst project participants is mentioned as 
something that creates unpleasant situations. Interviewees report a share of 30 to 
50% of the management cost going to the coordinators. Few coordinators also collect 
centrally a share of the research training and networking unit cost for organising 
training centrally.  

  "The EC should consider other parameters than the number of ESR, such as the 

coordinating role, or efforts for organizing a summer school, etc. It is unfair from 
the point of view of the coordinator, who has to negotiate a higher share due to 
the management cost.” 

  “It should be variable, for example much more for the manager of the project. The 
proposal is easy with the unit cost but it is unfair from the point of view of partners 
organizing conference because money is determined by the number of ESR." 

69 

 
 
  
 
  “We have to extract money from partners following a difficult negotiation. There 
should be a dedicated budget to avoid troubles, or the option for centralized or 
decentralised management." 

  The EC propose a bracket in the draft contract for the management cost of the 

network going to the coordinators, but one interviewee asked for the EC to make 
this a requirement (with some flexibility for specific cases).  

4.2.2.3

  Real costs for management and indirect costs incurred by institutions 

This section presents estimates of the real costs for management and indirect costs 
provided by MSCA coordinators in the framework of this study. It needs to be noted 
these amounts were largely not based on declarations of honour, that none of the 
projects had finished at the time of the study and that there might be problems of 
comparability due to different interpretations of what costs should be included. 
Moreover, the number of responses is low. 

MSCA coordinators report the following real management and indirect costs: 

  The median costs for management and indirect costs incurred by the 8 IF 

coordinators who provided detailed estimates are EUR 1370. 

  The median costs for management and indirect costs incurred by the 11 ITN 

coordinators who provided detailed estimates are EUR 1500.  

  The median costs for management and indirect costs incurred by the 6 RISE 

coordinators who provided detailed estimates are EUR 750.  

  The median costs for management costs incurred by COFUND coordinators are EUR 

1000 based on three responses. 

4.3 

The desirability of a disability allowance 

Apart from reviewing the adequacy of the current MSCA unit costs, fellows and 
coordinators were also asked about the desirability of a disability allowance. 

Overall, Table 4.26 shows that a majority of coordinators are in favour of introducing a 
disability allowance. Only 14% of the coordinators do not consider the introduction of 
a disability allowance as useful. Across actions, the share of coordinators not in favour 
of a disability allowance is higher for COFUND (36%) and RISE (31%) mainly out of 
fear of having to co-fund such an allowance and the introduction of additional 
complexity.  

70 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Table 4.26 How desirable or useful would be the introduction of a disability allowance? 

Responses by type of action (only coordinators):  

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Desirable/useful 

Somewhat 
desirable/useful 

Not desirable/useful 

No opinion 

N 

2 

4 

4 

1 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

18% 

13 

48% 

25 

89% 

7 

54% 

47 

59% 

36% 

9 

33% 

1 

4% 

2 

15% 

16 

20% 

36% 

1 

4% 

9% 

4 

15% 

2 

0 

7% 

4 

31% 

11 

14% 

0% 

0 

0% 

5 

6% 

Total 

11 

100%  27  100% 

28 

100%  13  100% 

79  100% 

Despite being generally in favour of the introduction of a disability allowance, 
interviewees point to the need to define clear and easy to administer eligibility criteria 
and to provide guidance on its use. The wide range of disabilities implies a wide range 
of individual needs which makes it difficult to estimate an adequate level of the 
allowance. Moreover, coordinators raise some concern that while some costs may be 
incurred by the fellow, such as assistance related to accommodation, traveling, or 
daily live, other costs are incurred by the institutions, such as making a laboratory 
suitable for researchers with hearing problems. The latter would not be covered by the 
allowance. Besides fear of additional costs and the complexity of a potential allowance, 
some coordinators do not find the introduction of a disability allowance desirable as 
their institutions are already providing good working conditions for disabled 
researchers and because in some countries (e.g. Denmark, Norway) some of the 
financial disadvantages incurred by disabled researchers are compensated through the 
health care system. 

71 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
5 

Implications of review of trends in researcher 
salaries and adequacy of MSCA unit costs for 
2018-2020 MSCA unit costs 

The evidence on the adequacy and competitiveness of the MSCA unit costs collected 
as part of this study has the following implications for the updating of the MSCA unit 
costs: 

  No significant changes are deemed necessary. However, as foreseen by 

Commission Decision C(2013) 8194, an adjustment to take account of changes in 
researchers’ salaries is proposed for the period beginning 2018. 

  MSCA researcher allowances have remained unchanged since the beginning of 
H2020 in 2014. The findings of this study suggest that the purchasing power of 
researcher salaries has remained constant since 2014. Meanwhile, the annual 
inflation rate for Belgium30 was 0.5% in 2014, 0.6% in 2015, 1.8% in 201631 and is 
estimated to attain 2.0% in 201732.  Together, this amounts to an inflation rate 
over the period 2014-2017 of 5%. 

  Generally-speaking MSCA living allowances offer good and competitive incomes for 
ER and ESRs. The study revealed some exceptions in countries in which competing 
national programmes also tend to provide, in particular ESRs, (very) good 
conditions to researchers (e.g. Northern countries, Germany, Austria, US).  

  According to the survey respondents, many of the cases in which insufficiencies 

occur could be helped if the correction coefficient was location specific, in particular 
with regard to capitals such as London and Paris, as well as stark regional 
differences in Germany. However, adjusting the correction coefficient for regional 
differences was to some extent done in the past, for example in Switzerland, and 
this created some confusion amongst beneficiaries, in particular in where the 
geographical boundaries lie. This is therefore unlikely to be a remedy for the 
problems reported by MSCA fellows and coordinators. 

  A reoccurring concern among fellows is the current system’s inability to take 
account of changes in status during the fellowship (eligibility for the family 
allowance is currently assessed at one point in time). There may be merit in 
allowing changes in status during fellowships. 

  Although a relatively high share of coordinators reporting insufficiencies in relation 
to unit costs for research, training, and networking, the majority of researchers are 
satisfied. In addition, the level seems to be competitive compared to the budgets 
available to similar researchers, in particular for ITN. Moreover, coordinators as 
well as fellows seem to be able to avoid any negative impact on their research by 
tapping into other sources of funding. The study’s findings in relation to the unit 
costs for management and indirect costs are similar: while not fully covering the 
real costs incurred, institutions seem to be successful in drawing from other 
funding sources and there is no evidence that the current level of the unit costs 
prohibits institutions from participating in the MSCA programme. Against this 
background, the study does not recommend any changes to the institutional costs. 

30 Belgium (and Luxembourg) are the reference countries for the construction of the correction coefficient. 
The application of the correction coefficient to the unit costs updated on the basis of Belgium inflation will 
then provide for the taking into account of different levels of inflation in other countries. 

31 HICP - inflation rate, Eurostat Table tec00118, accessed at 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tec00118&plugin=1 

32 https://www.nbb.be/en/publications-and-research/economic-and-financial-publications/economic-
projections-belgium; accessed 17 February 2017. 

72 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                          
  However, the study recommends that the EC should closely monitor the situation 
in the coming years to ensure rates remain sufficiently competitive, motivate 
excellent researchers to be mobile, and motivate excellent institutions to host 
them. Guaranteeing the attractiveness and competitiveness of the programme 
should also be taken into account in the allocation of budget to the post-H2020 
MSCA. 

  The majority of fellows and coordinators is in favour of the introduction of a 

disability allowance. However, interviewees point to the need to define clear and 
easy to administer eligibility criteria and to provide guidance on its use. The wide 
range of disabilities implies a wide range of individual needs which makes it difficult 
to estimate an adequate level of the allowance. Moreover, coordinators raise some 
concern that while some costs may be incurred by the fellow, such as assistance 
related to accommodation, traveling, or daily live, other costs are incurred by the 
institutions, such as making a laboratory suitable for researchers with hearing 
problems. The latter would not be covered by an allowance. Besides fear of 
additional costs and the complexity of a potential allowance, some coordinators do 
not find the introduction of a disability allowance desirable as their institutions are 
already providing good working conditions for disabled researchers and because in 
some countries (e.g. Denmark, Norway) some of the financial disadvantages 
incurred by disabled researchers are compensated through the health care system. 

73 

 
 
  
 
6 

Testing of various methods for updating unit 
costs and identification of the best method 

In this section, various methods for updating the unit costs are proposed. 
Subsequently, the outcomes of these methods for updating the MSCA unit costs are 
presented and the method most suited for addressing the findings of both the analysis 
of trends in researcher salaries (section 3) and the review of the adequacy of current 
MSCA unit costs (section 4) is identified. 

6.1 

Various methods for updating unit costs 

In view of ensuring the competitiveness of the MSCA unit costs, the following four 
methods were considered: 

  No change 

  Update on the basis of trends in researchers’ salaries 

  Update on the basis of the mean/median real costs reported by interviewees 

  Update to at least match the conditions of the most favourable competing 

fellowship 

However, 

  For the living allowance, we do not have data suitable to calculate mean/median 

real costs as many respondents answered the “what should the EC contribution to 
living allowance be” question in terms of net income, and some answered in terms 
of gross income after deduction of employer contribution to social security. An 
alternative updating method would be to estimate what the level of the MSCA 
living allowance must be to in order to be more attractive than standard researcher 
conditions in countries with already good researcher conditions (North region). 

  For the management and indirect costs, we do not have information from 

competing fellowships/grants.  

The below paragraphs describe alternative methods in more detail: 
-  Update on the basis of trends in researchers salaries 

Keeping the MSCA unit costs at their current nominal levels would mean a 
decrease of fellows’ purchasing power in real terms. The analysis of trends in 
researchers salaries carried out as part of this assignment found that while the 
purchasing power of researchers salaries did generally not increase, salary 
increases kept up with the inflation rate. The average rate of change in the 
Harmonised Indice of Consumer Prices (HCIP) for Belgium33 since 2014 could 
therefore be taken as the basis for adjusting the unit costs for the change in 
researchers’ salaries. Due to its method of construction, the HICP is most 
appropriate for the living allowance, but for reasons of simplicity could be applied 
to all other unit costs. 

The annual HCIP inflation rate for Belgium was 0.5% in 2014, 0.6% in 2015 and 
1.8% in 2016.34 For the updating of the unit costs for the period 2018 forward, 

33 Belgium (and Luxembourg) are the reference countries for the construction of the correction coefficient. 
The application of the correction coefficient to the unit costs updated on the basis of Belgium inflation will 
then provide for the taking into account of different levels of inflation in other countries. 

34 HICP - inflation rate, Eurostat Table tec00118, accessed at 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tec00118&plugin=1 

74 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                          
also the inflation rate 2017 should be taken into account – the National Bank of 
Belgium projects the 2017 inflation rate to be 2.0%35. 

The updated unit costs could be calculated by successively increasing the current 
MSCA unit costs by the inflation rates of the years 2014-2017: Current MSCA unit 
cost * 1.005*1.006*1.018*1.020, which is equivalent to Current MSCA unit 
cost*1.0498 and would imply an increase of the current MSCA unit costs of 
4.98%≈5.0%  

-  Update on the basis of the mean/median real costs reported by interviewees 

For the mobility and family allowance, the survey asked respondents about the 
adequacy of the current unit costs and, if they did not consider it adequate, what level 
respondents would consider adequate. This method proposes to take the mean value 
of these responses for updating. In order to calculate mean real costs, the missing 
responses from those respondents who reported the allowances to be adequate are 
assumed to be the current level of the unit costs. This implies, however, that it is not 
possible to get meaningful values for the median real costs (which would be preferable 
to the mean due to its lower sensitivity to outliers): the median would automatically 
return the current value, given that the vast majority reported the allowances to be 
adequate. 

Similarly, coordinators were asked to provide detailed information on the real costs for 
research, training and networking as well as management and indirect costs. It is 
proposed to take the median value of these responses (not taking the current unit 
costs as a value for those respondents who did not provide detailed information) for 
updating. 

In the absence of suitable data on real living costs, the living allowance could be 
updated to represent a premium of approximately 20% (i.e. a ratio of 1.2) even in 
countries with the lowest current ratios of available income of MSCA fellows and 
similar researchers at the same institution (see Table 4.1: North region for ESR, ratio 
of 1.1 (1.11 rounded to two decimals); Germany for ER, ratio of 1.0 (1.05 rounded to 
two decimals). To that end, the current MSCA living allowances would be updated 
according to the following formula: New ESR living allowance = Current ESR living 
allowance *1.2/1.11; and New ER living allowance = current ER living allowance * 
1.2/1.05. 

- 

Update to at least match the conditions of the most favourable competing 
fellowship 

The MSCA strive for offering very competitive funding conditions in comparison 
to other fellowships. Against this background, one proposed updating method is 
to look at the conditions other highly competitive fellowships offer and update 
the MSCA unit costs to at least match these. The conclusion was that the other 
fellowships could not easily be compared with MSCA.  

35 https://www.nbb.be/en/publications-and-research/economic-and-financial-publications/economic-
projections-belgium; accessed 17 February 2017. 

75 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                          
6.2 

Outcomes of the various updating methods and identification of 
the best method 

Table 6.1 presents the outcomes of the four updating methods presented in section 
6.1 for the researcher unit costs. The table presents the conditions offered by the 
three most favourable competing fellowships in order to be able to assess the extent 
to which the most favourable fellowship is an outlier.  

Table 6.1  Outcomes of various methods for updating MSCA researcher unit costs 

Updating 
method 

Living allowance 

Top-up 
allowance 

Mobility 
allowance 

Family 
allowance 

ESR 

ER 

3110 
EUR/month 

4650 
EUR/month 

2000 
EUR/month 

600 EUR/month  500 

EUR/month 

3266 
EUR/month 

4883 
EUR/month 

2100 
EUR/month 

630 EUR/month  525 

EUR/month 

3362 
EUR/month 

5314 
EUR/month 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

No 
change/current 
level 

Adjustment for 
trends in 
researchers’ 
salaries (proxied 
by inflation in 
Belgium since 
2014: 5.0%) 

Ratio of MSCA 
total available 
income to total 
available income 
of similar 
researchers at 
the same 
institution of 1.2 
in all regions 

2402 
EUR/month 

n/a 

Real costs 
(mean) 

n/a 

n/a 

Matching 
conditions of 
most favourable 
fellowship 

3,03436 
EUR/month 
(Mobility Plus 
Programme for 
staff and PhD 
candidates, 
Ministry of 
Sciences and 
Higher 
Education of 
Poland)  

6750 
EUR/month 
(Science & 
Technology 
Policy 
Fellowships,  
American 
Association for 
the 
Advancement 
of Science ) 

596 EUR/month  590 

EUR/month 

924 
EUR/month 
and child 
(fellowships 
of Swiss 
National 
Science 
Foundation) 

7000 EUR 
settling in 
allowance plus 
return flights 
(Standard 
Programme, 
Japan Society 
for the 
Promotion of 
Science) 

Matching 
conditions of 
second most 
favourable 

2,904 
EUR/month 
(Doc.Mobility, 
Swiss National 

5,615 
EUR/month 
(Elise Richter 
and Lise 

n/a 

6000 EUR 
settling in 
allowance 
(Prestige Post-

800 
EUR/month 
and child 
under the age 

36 May be increased by 30% for stays in OECD countries. The programme does not only target PhD 
candidates, however. 

76 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                          
Living allowance 

Top-up 
allowance 

Mobility 
allowance 

Family 
allowance 

Updating 
method 

fellowship 

Science 
Foundation) 

Meitner 
programme, 
Austrian 
Science Fund) 

Matching 
conditions of 
third most 
favourable 
fellowship 

n/a 

2685 
EUR/month 
(Research 
talent, 
Netherlands 
Organisation for 
Scientific 
Research) 

5,034 
EUR/month 
(Rubicon 
fellowship, 
Netherlands 
Organisation 
for Scientific 
Research)37 

doc 
programme, 
Campus 
France) 

3679 EUR 
(Science & 
Technology 
Policy 
Fellowships,  
American 
Association for 
the 
Advancement 
of Science ) 

of 3 (Elise 
Richter 
Programme, 
Austrian 
Science Fund) 

326 
EUR/month 
for partner 
plus 
240/month 
and child 
(Humboldt 
Research 
Fellowship for 
Postdoctoral 
Researchers) 

Note: Only respondents reporting allowances not to be adequate were asked to provide an estimate of what 
amount they would consider an adequate allowance (“real costs”). In order to calculate mean real costs, the 
missing responses from those respondents who reported the allowances to be adequate were assumed to be 
the current level of the unit costs. This implies, however, that it is not possible to get meaningful values for 
the median real costs, as this would automatically return the current value, given that the vast majority 
reported the allowances to be adequate. 

Comparing the outcomes of the various methods presented in Table 6.1, and taking 
into account the implications of the analysis presented in sections 3 and 4 and 
summarized in section 5, the following observations can be made, and the following 
conclusions for the updating of the researcher unit costs can be drawn: 

Living allowances (ESR/ER) and RISE top-up allowance 

  The survey of MSCA fellows and coordinators found that the living allowances for 
ESR and ER offer good and competitive incomes. However, an adjustment for 
trends in researcher salaries seems appropriate, and is, moreover, foreseen by 
Commission Decision C(2013) 8194. This can best be achieved by updating the 
living allowances on the basis of the Belgian inflation rate for the years 2014-2017. 
The same method for updating should be applied to the RISE top-up allowance as 
it is meant to cover the (additional) costs of living associated with secondments. 

  The recommended update on the basis of trends in researcher salaries (proxied by 
an adjustment for inflation) implies that the total available income of MSCA fellows 
will not be substantially higher than similar researchers in countries in which 
competing national programmes also tend to provide (very) good conditions to 
researchers (e.g. Northern countries, Germany, Austria, US).  There may be merit 
in taking these considerations into account when establishing the unit costs for the 
next framework programme. Two methods for establishing the level of unit costs 
based on such competitiveness considerations are presented in this section (the 
ratio of available income of MSCA fellows compared to similar researchers, and the 
comparison of MSCA unit costs with the conditions offered by competing 
fellowships). Any ratio estimates should, however, be based on a larger number of 
observations than what was possible using the survey data collected as part of this 
assignment. 

37 The Rubicon living allowance is based on the MSCA ER living allowance. See: 
http://www.nwo.nl/binaries/content/documents/nwo/algemeen/documentation/application/nwo/rubicon---
bepalingen/Rubicon-bepalingen+2016-3.pdf 

77 

 
 
  
 
 
                                          
Mobility allowance 

  The current level of the mobility allowance is considered insufficient by only 9% of 
IF and ITN fellows and coordinators, and considered generous by 14% of IF and 
ITN fellows and 22% of IF and ITN coordinators. It is therefore recommended to 
maintain the current level of the mobility allowance for the period 2018-2020.  

  Irrespective of these considerations, Table 6.1 shows that the current level of the 
mobility allowance corresponds to the mean real costs reported by fellows and is 
competitive compared to conditions offered by competing fellowships, in particular 
when taking into account that it is paid during the entire duration of the fellowship 
(i.e. 7200 EUR/year over two years).  

Family allowance 

  Three quarters of MSCA fellows and four out of five coordinators considered the 

family allowance adequate. 

  The survey showed that the sum of all allowances (total available income) is 

competitive and motivates researchers to be mobile in the framework of the MSCA 
programme. The family allowance, while intended to reduce some of the financial 
barriers for mobility of researchers with a family, does not have the objective to 
cover the full costs associated with having a family. 

  Against this background, it is recommended to maintain the current level of the 

family allowance for the period 2018-2020. 

Unit costs for research, training and networking (IF/ITN/RISE) 

Table 6.2 presents the outcomes of the four updating methods for the unit costs for 
research, training and networking.  

Table 6.2  Outcomes of various methods for updating MSCA unit costs for research, 

training, and networking 

Updating method 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

No change/current level 

n/a 

800 EUR/month  1800 

EUR/month 

Adjustment for trends in 
researchers’ salaries (proxied 
by inflation in Belgium since 
2014: 5.0%) 

n/a 

840 EUR/month  1890 

EUR/month 

1800 
EUR/month 

1890 
EUR/month 

Real costs (median) 

n/a 

1050 
EUR/month 

1950 
EUR/month 

1520 
EUR/month 

Matching conditions of most 
favourable fellowship 

n/a 

Matching conditions of 
second most favourable 
fellowship 

n/a 

Up to 4166 
EUR/month 
(Fellowship of 
the Volkswagen 
Stiftung) 

232 EUR/month 
(Doc.Mobility, 
Swiss National 
Science 
Foundation) 

570 EUR/month 
(Short-term 
programme, 
Japan Society 
for the 
Promotion of 
Science) 

1250 
EUR/month 
(Elise Richter 
programme, 833 
EUR/month Lise 
Meitner 

223 EUR/month 
(Research 
talent, 
Netherlands 
Organisation for 
Scientific 

n/a 

78 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Updating method 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Matching conditions of third 
most favourable fellowship 

n/a 

programme 
Austrian Science 
Fund) 

Research) 

n/a 

800 EUR/month 
(500 EUR/month 
for social 
sciences, 
Humboldt 
Research 
Fellowship for 
Postdoctoral 
Researchers) 

“Generous travel 
and research 
funds” 
(Lagrange 
Thesis 
fellowship, 
Sorbonne 
University) 

Note: In contrast to the allowances, the median real costs are based only on the data reported by the 
interviewees, without assuming that those who reported the unit costs to be adequate to have real costs 
equal to the current unit costs. This is method is preferred as in contrast to the allowances where real costs 
are a difficult concept38, additional efforts have been made to extract precise information on real costs for 
research, training and networking from all coordinators.39 These efforts resulted in a good response rate of 
18/27 for IF coordinators, 16/28 for ITN coordinators, and 10/13 for RISE coordinators. 

Comparing the outcomes of the various methods presented in Table 6.2, and taking 
into account the implications of the analysis presented in sections 3 and 4 and 
summarized in section 5, the following observations can be made, and the following 
conclusions for the updating of the researcher unit costs can be drawn: 

  The median real costs for research, training and networking reported by IF 

coordinators are 31% higher than the current level of the unit cost. The median 
real costs for research, training and networking reported by ITN coordinators are 
8% higher than the current level of the unit cost. The median real costs for 
research, training and networking reported by RISE coordinators are lower than 
the current level of the unit cost. It is understood that money is often transferred 
to meet additional costs that are not covered by the RISE top-up allowance. These 
can be substantial, depending on the destination of the secondment and the 
splitting up of secondment months. 

  While indicative of the level of real costs for research, training and networking, it is 

recommended not to use the median real costs reported by coordinators for 
updating the unit costs, because: 
-  Estimates are based on a number of observations insufficient to make a general 

statement about the real costs incurred by institutions; 

-  There are difficulties with comparability, i.e. what is included by each 

respondent in estimating the real costs; 

-  The insufficiencies reported by coordinators are not felt by fellows in terms of a 
lack of funding affecting the quality of their research. Institutions seem to be 
very successful in attracting funding from other sources to complement MSCA 
funding; 

-  The current level of the unit cost is lower than the research and travel budget 
available under the two most favourable competing post-doc fellowships 
(Fellowship in the Humanities of the Volkswagen Stiftung and the Elise Richter 

38 For example, applying the concept of real costs “punishes” fellows who decide to save part of their living 
allowance. 

39 After the interviews had been conducted, follow-up e-mails were sent to coordinators asking to check the 
values they had provided during the interviews and to revise them if inaccurate.  

79 

 
 
  
 
                                          
programme for “extremely well qualified female scientists” of the Austrian 
Science Foundation) but is much higher than the costs covered by most other 
competing fellowships identified (see Annex 3), in particular for ESR; 

-  The objective of the unit cost for research, training and network is to provide 
researchers with competitive working conditions, which it does, while covering 
up to 100% of the costs incurred by the institution. 

  Against this background, it is recommended to maintain the current level of the IF, 
ITN and RISE unit costs for research, training and networking for the period 2018-
2020.   

Unit costs for management and indirect costs (only management costs for 
COFUND) 

Table 6.3 presents the outcomes of the four updating methods for the unit costs for 
management and indirect costs.  

Table 6.3  Outcomes of various methods for updating MSCA unit costs for 

management and indirect costs (only management costs for COFUND) 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

No change/current level  325 EUR/month  650 EUR/month  1200 

700 EUR/month 

EUR/month 

Adjustment for trends in 
researchers’ salaries 
(proxied by inflation in 
Belgium since 2014) 

Real costs (median) 

341 EUR/month  683 EUR/month  1260 

735 EUR/month 

EUR/month 

1000 
EUR/month 

1370 
EUR/month 

1500 
EUR/month 

750 EUR/month 

Note: Following the example of the unit costs on research, training and networking, the median real costs 
are based only on the data reported by the interviewees, without assuming that those who reported the unit 
costs to be adequate to have real costs equal to the current unit costs. In general, it needs to be noted that 
coordinators had more difficulties in providing precise estimates of the management and indirect costs than 
of the costs for research, training and networking, resulting in a relatively low response rate of 8/27 for IF 
coordinators, 11/28 for ITN coordinators, 6/13 for RISE coordinators, and only 3/11 for COFUND 
coordinators. There is no comparable data available from competing fellowships. 

Table 6.3 indicates that for none of the actions the current unit cost covers the real 
costs incurred by host institutions, and that consequently institutions have to tap 
other funds to co-fund MSCA fellowships’ management and indirect costs. Despite this, 
6 out of 10 coordinators report the unit costs to be adequate or generous, indicating 
that overall the MSCA unit costs for management and indirect costs are relatively 
competitive and do not prohibit institutions to participate in the MSCA programme.  

In view of the difficulties coordinators had in providing precise estimates of the 
management and indirect costs, the low number of observations, and the lack of 
comparable data from competing fellowships, there is insufficient evidence for 
increasing the unit costs. It is therefore recommended to maintain the current level of 
unit costs for management and indirect costs (only management costs for COFUND) 
for all actions for the period 2018-2020. 

80 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
7 

Recommendations for the MSCA unit costs for the 
period 2018-2020 

Table 7.1 provides an overview of the updated MSCA unit costs for the period 2018-
2020 emerging from the analysis presented in section 6, rounded to the nearest ten. 

Table 7.1  Recommendations for the MSCA unit costs for the period 2018-2020 

Period/ 
unit cost 

2014-
2017 

2018-
2020 

Costs of researchers/seconded staff 

Institutional costs 

Living 
allowance 
(all except 
RISE)  

Mobility 
allowance 
(only 
IF&ITN) 

Family 
allowance 

Top-up 
allowance 

(only 
IF&ITN) 

(only RISE) 

600 
EUR/month 

500 
EUR/month 

2000 
EUR/month 

600 
EUR/month 

500 
EUR/month 

2100 
EUR/month 

3110 
EUR/month 
for ESR 

4650 
EUR/month 
for ER 

50% of 
3710 
EUR/month 
for ESR 
under 
COFUND 

50% of 
5250 
EUR/month 
for ER 
under 
COFUND 

3270 
EUR/month 
for ESR 

4880 
EUR/month 
for ER 

50% of 
3870 
EUR/month 
for ESR 
under 
COFUND 

50% of 
5480 
EUR/month 
for ER 
under 
COFUND 

Management 
and indirect 
costs 

Research, 
training and 
networking 
costs (all 
except 
COFUND) 

800 
EUR/month for 
IF 

650 
EUR/month 
for IF 

1800 
EUR/month for 
ITN 

1200 
EUR/month 
for ITN 

1800 
EUR/month for 
RISE 

700 
EUR/month 
for RISE 

325 
EUR/month 
under 
COFUND 

800 
EUR/month for 
IF 

650 
EUR/month 
for IF 

1800 
EUR/month for 
ITN 

1200 
EUR/month 
for ITN 

1800 
EUR/month for 
RISE 

700 
EUR/month 
for RISE 

325 
EUR/month 
under 
COFUND 

,  

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1 List of scoping interviews 

Table A1.1  List of scoping interviews 

Interviewees 

Date of 
interview 

Position 

Dr Louise 
Byrne 

22nd June 

REA - HoS A4 – Marie Skłodowska-Curie COFUND, 
Researchers’ Night and Individual Fellowships: Global 

Dr Juliane 
Sauer 

1st July 

Swiss NCP, Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions on skills, 
training and career development 

Coordinator NET4MOBILITY 

Mr Brito 
Ferreira 

5th July 

REA, HoS A3 – Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research 
Innovation Staff Exchange 

Ms Anna 
Wiśniewska 

Dr Jennifer 
Brennan 

5th July 

Polish NCP 

6th July 

Irish NCP 

82 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Annex 2 Trends in researcher  salaries 

Table A2.1  Change in correction coefficients (CCC) and purchasing power parities (PPP) 2010-2015 

CCC 2010 

CCC 2015 

PPP 2010 

PPP 2015 

AUS 

AUT 

BEL 

BGR 

BRA 

CHE 

CHN 

CZE 

DEU 

DNK 

ESP 

FIN 

FRA 

GBR 

108,5 

107,8 

100,0 

86,3 

95,5 

110,1 

74,6 

98,1 

98,9 

139,4 

101,6 

119,8 

115,5 

125,6 

105,0 

104,8 

100,0 

71,5 

92,0 

113,1 

85,0 

83,8 

98,8 

135,3 

78,3 

116,6 

111,0 

120,3 

1,50 

0,84 

0,85 

0,66 

1,39 

1,51 

3,31 

1,49 

0,82 

0,82 

0,69 

1,85 

1,28 

3,47 

13,94 

13,18 

0,80 

7,75 

0,72 

0,91 

0,86 

0,69 

0,79 

7,50 

0,67 

0,93 

0,82 

0,69 

83 

 
 
  
 
 
HUN 

ITA 

JPN 

KOR 

LUX 

NLD 

NOR 

POL 

PRT 

ROU 

RUS 

SLO 

SWE 

TUR 

USA 

94,0 

111,5 

105,0 

90,7 

100,0 

109,1 

125,6 

93,8 

91,7 

75,2 

121,8 

90,2 

115,3 

80,7 

88,3 

76,2 

106,7 

115,9 

105,2 

100,0 

104,3 

131,9 

76,4 

89,1 

68,3 

115,5 

86,1 

111,7 

86,6 

99,4 

125,37 

0,78 

111,63 

840,57 

0,92 

0,85 

9,01 

1,82 

0,63 

1,59 

133,86 

0,75 

105,33 

891,25 

0,90 

0,83 

9,80 

1,80 

0,59 

1,68 

15,82 

22,57 

0,64 

8,99 

0,94 

1,00 

0,60 

9,13 

1,27 

1,00 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3 Overview of competing fellowships 

As part of the survey, interviewees were asked to name fellowships similar to the MSCA, for example to which they had also applied 
for funding, and to describe the conditions they offer. As many respondents found it difficult to recall the exact conditions these 
fellowships offer, additional desk research was carried out in October/November 2016. The following tables present an overview of 
the competing fellowships identified by respondents. Overall 10 competing fellowships at the PhD candidate level, and 60 fellowships 
at the post-doctoral level were identified and assessed. 27 of the latter are comparable in structure to the MSCA fellowships (paying 
fixed unit costs) and 33 are lump sum grants for which an allocation of resources to various units must be proposed by the 
applicant.  

Table A3.1 presents an overview of fellowships competing with MSCA at the doctoral level, sorted by the level of the correction 
coefficient corrected living allowance. Note that in all overview tables, the living allowances paid under the various schemes have 
been multiplied by the inverse of the correction coefficient of the respective country to allow for comparison with the MSCA living 
allowance paid in Belgium/Luxemburg. 

Table A3.1  Overview of competing fellowships at the doctoral level, sorted by level of CCC corrected living allowance 

Country  Funding 

Name of fellowship 

organisation 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration  CCC 

Ministry of 
Sciences and 
Higher Education 
of Poland 

Mobility Plus 
Programme 

All 
disciplines 

6 months 
to 3 
years 

corrected 
monthly 
living 
allowance 

3,034 € 

Mobility 
allowance or 
equivalent 

Family 
allowance 

Annual budget 
for research, 
training and 
networking 

Management 
and indirect 
costs 

No 

No 

Travel 
expenses 
(including 
family) 

Partner: 
450€ 
/month 
Child: 225 
€/month 

Swiss National 
Science Fondation 
(SNSF) 

Doc.Mobility 

All 
disciplines 

6 months 
to 1.5 
years 

2,904 € 

Travel 
expenses 

927€/mont
h and child 

2,784 € 

No 

Netherlands 
Organisation for 
Scientific Research 
(NWO) 

Research Talent 

All 
disciplines 

4 years 

2,685 € 

No 

No 

2,500 € 

No 

85 

PL 

CH 

NL 

 
 
 
 
Country  Funding 

Name of fellowship 

organisation 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration  CCC 

corrected 
monthly 
living 
allowance 

Mobility 
allowance or 
equivalent 

Family 
allowance 

Annual budget 
for research, 
training and 
networking 

Management 
and indirect 
costs 

DE 

FR 

German Academic 
Exchange Service 
(DAAD) and 
national 
aeronautics and 
space research 
centre (DLR) 

Association 
Nationale 
Recherche 
Technologie 
(ANRT) 

ENG 

Research Fellowships in 
Space, Aeronautics, 
Energy and 
Transportation 
Research 

1379 € 

RT flight 

1 month 
to 3 
years 

1,224 € 

No 

Flatrate for 
travel and 
family 
allowance, 
amount 
not 
specified 

CIFRE - Conventions 
Industrielles de 
Formation par la 
REcherche 

All 
disciplines 

3 years 

1,763 € 

No 

No 

No 

No 

UK 

The Leverhulme 
Trust 

Study Abroad 
Studentships 

All 
disciplines 

1 to 2 
years 

1,625 € 

RT flight 

558 
€/month 
dependent 
partner 
allowance 

No 

As applied for by 
fellow and paid 
at the trust's 
discretion 

No 

No 

No 

Japan Society for 
the Promotion of 
Science 

Strategic Program  

All 
disciplines 

3 months 
to 1 year 

1,519 € 

Settling-in 
allowance 
1800€ and 
RT flight 

JP 

FR 

Fondation ARC 
pour la recherche 
sur le cancer 

Aides individuelles 
jeunes chercheurs 

LIF 

6 months 
to 2 
years 

1,518 € 

No 

No 

No 

No 

JP 

Japan Society for 

Short-term Program  

All 

1 month  1,402 € 

Settling-in 

No 

6,840 € 

No 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country  Funding 

Name of fellowship 

organisation 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration  CCC 

corrected 
monthly 
living 
allowance 

Mobility 
allowance or 
equivalent 

Family 
allowance 

Annual budget 
for research, 
training and 
networking 

Management 
and indirect 
costs 

the Promotion of 
Science 

disciplines 

to 1 year 

allowance 
3516€ and 
RT flight 

FR 

Institut Lagrange 
de Paris 

PhD Thesis Fellowships  PHY 

3 years 

1,261 € 

Travel 
expenses 

No 

“Generous travel 
and research 
funding” 

No 

Table A3.2 presents an overview of fellowships competing with MSCA at the post-doctoral level, sorted by the level of the correction 
coefficient corrected living allowance. 

Table A3.2  Overview of competing fellowships at the post-doctoral level (non-lump sum), sorted by level of CCC corrected living 

allowance 

Country  Funding 

Name of fellowship 

organisation 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration  CCC 

corrected 
living 
allowance 

Mobility 
allowance or 
equivalent 

Family 
allowance 

Annual budget 
for research, 
training and 
networking 

Management 
and indirect 
costs 

US 

American 
Association for the 
Advancement of 
Science (AAAS) 

AAAS Science & 
Technology Policy 
Fellowships (STPF)  

SOC 

1 year 

6,750 € 

3679 €  

No 

3,679 € 

No 

AT 

FWF (Austrian 
Science Fund) 

Elise Richter 
Programme 

All 
disciplines 

1 to 4 
years 

5,615 € 

No 

15,000 € 

No 

9,600 € 
annually 
for children 
under the 
age of 3. 

AT 

FWF (Austrian 

Lise Meitner 

All 

1 to 2 

5,615 € 

Travel 

1,500 € 

10,000 € 

No 

87 

 
 
 
 
Country  Funding 

Name of fellowship 

organisation 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration  CCC 

corrected 
living 
allowance 

Mobility 
allowance or 
equivalent 

Family 
allowance 

Annual budget 
for research, 
training and 
networking 

Management 
and indirect 
costs 

Science Fund) 

Programme 

disciplines  years 

expenses 

AT 

FWF (Austrian 
Science Fund) 

Hertha Firnberg 
Programme 

All 
disciplines 

3 to 6 
years 

5,108 € 

No 

annually/ 
child  

9,600 € 
annually 
for children 
under the 
age of 3. 

No  

10,000 € project 
specific costs and 
2,000 € personal 
development 

NL 

Netherlands 
Organisation for 
Scientific Research 
(NWO) 

US 

American Cancer 
Society (ACS)  

Rubicon fellowship 

All 
disciplines 

1 to 2 
years 

5,034 € 

1,375 € 

No 

2,760 € 

No 

Audrey Meyer Mars 
International 
Fellowships in Clinical 
Oncology 

LIF 

1 year 

4,631 € 

No 

No 

No 

No 

DE 

Deutsche 
Forschungsgemein
schaft (DFG) 

Heisenberg Programme  All 

disciplines 

3 to 5 
years 

4,453 € 

No 

DE 

Helmholtz 
Association 

Helmholtz Young 
Investigators Groups 

ENG 

5 to 6 
years 

4,200 € 

No 

3,000 € 

No 

No 

No 

German 
child 
allowance 
of 190 € / 
child per 
month 

German 
child 
allowance 
of 190 € / 
child per 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country  Funding 

Name of fellowship 

organisation 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration  CCC 

corrected 
living 
allowance 

Mobility 
allowance or 
equivalent 

Family 
allowance 

Annual budget 
for research, 
training and 
networking 

Management 
and indirect 
costs 

month 

US 

National Institutes 
of Health 

American 
Association for 
Cancer Research 
(AACR) 

Research 
Foundation - 
Flanders (FWO) 

Swiss National 
Science Fondation 
(SNSF) 

VolkswagenStiftun
g 

Ruth L. Kirschstein 
Postdoctoral Individual 
National Research 
Service Award 

AACR Basic Cancer 
Research Fellowships 

LIF 

1 year 

4,091 € 

No 

No 

No 

No 

LIF 

1 year 

4,050 € 

No 

No 

No 

No 

FWO post-doctoral 
fellowship 

All 
disciplines 

3 years 

3,776 € 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Advanced 
Postdoc.Mobility 

All 
disciplines 

1 to 3 
years 

3,245 € 

Yes 

2,784 € 

No 

927 
€/month 
per child 

Post-doctoral 
Fellowships in the 
Humanities at 
Universities and 
Research Institutes in 
the U.S. and Germany 

SOC 

9 months 
to 1.5 
years 

3,138 € 

2 RT flights  No 

Up to 40000 € 
plus 10000 € for 
workshop 

3000 €/year 

US 

BE 

CH 

DE 

CH 

Swiss National 
Science Fondation 
(SNSF) 

Early Postdoc.Mobility 

All 
disciplines 

1 to 1.5 
years 

3,040 € 

Yes 

2,784 € 

No 

927 
€/month 
per child 

89 

 
 
 
 
Country  Funding 

Name of fellowship 

organisation 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration  CCC 

corrected 
living 
allowance 

Mobility 
allowance or 
equivalent 

Family 
allowance 

Annual budget 
for research, 
training and 
networking 

Management 
and indirect 
costs 

FR 

Campus France 

PRESTIGE Postdoc 
program 

All 
disciplines 

6 months 
to 2 
years 

3,003 € 

6,000 € 

No 

4,720 € 

No 

JP 

FR 

JP 

DE 

Japan Society for 
the Promotion of 
Science 

Fondation ARC 
pour la recherche 
sur le cancer 

Japan Society for 
the Promotion of 
Science 

Pathway to University 
Positions in Japan  

All 
disciplines 

1 to 2 
years 

2,939 € 

RT flight 

No 

No 

Aides individuelles 
jeunes chercheurs 

LIF 

1 to 3 
years 

2,896 € 

No 

No 

No 

Standard Program  

All 
disciplines 

1 to 2 
years 

2,749 € 

7000 € and 
RT flight 

No 

No 

Alexander Von 
Humboldt 
Foundation 

Humboldt Research 
Fellowship for 
Postdoctoral 
Researchers 

All 
disciplines 

6 months 
to 2 
years 

2,682 € 

Travel 
expenses 

9600 € (6000€ 
humanities and 
social sciences) 

326 
€/month 
for partner 
and 
240€/mont
h per child 

CA 

Research Manitoba   Health Research Post-

LIF 

2 years 

2,442 € 

1,034 € 

No 

No 

doctoral Fellowships 

IT/ 
Europe 

European 
University Institute 

Jean Monnet 
Postdoctoral 
Fellowships 

SOC 

1 to 2 
years 

2,343 € 

1,200 € 

300 € 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country  Funding 

Name of fellowship 

organisation 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration  CCC 

corrected 
living 
allowance 

Mobility 
allowance or 
equivalent 

Family 
allowance 

Annual budget 
for research, 
training and 
networking 

Management 
and indirect 
costs 

Fondation ARC 
pour la recherche 
sur le cancer 

Aides individuelles 
jeunes chercheurs 
(Sejours a l'etranger) 

LIF 

1 year 

2,252 € 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Short-term Program  

All 
disciplines 

1 month 
to 1 year 

2,134 € 

3516 € and 
RT flight 

No 

6,840 € 

No 

Leibniz-DAAD Research 
Fellowships 

All 
disciplines 

1 year 

2,024 € 

No 

FR 

JP 

DE 

Japan Society for 
the Promotion of 
Science 

German Academic 
Exchange Service 
(DAAD) and 
national 
aeronautics and 
Leibniz Association 

IT/ 
Europe 

European 
University Institute 

Max Weber Programme  SOC 

1 to 3 
years 

1,874 € 

1,200 € 

IT/ 
Europe 

European 
University Institute 
and Canon 

Co-sponsored Research 
Fellowships 

SOC 

1 year 

1,874 € 

1,200 € 

460 € 

No 

1,000 € 

No 

No 

No 

German 
child 
allowance 
of 190 € / 
child per 
month 

300 
€/month 
for 
dependent 
partner 
and 200 
€/month 
per child 

300 
€/month 
for 
dependent 
partner 
and 200 
€/month 

91 

 
 
 
 
Country  Funding 

Name of fellowship 

organisation 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration  CCC 

corrected 
living 
allowance 

Mobility 
allowance or 
equivalent 

Family 
allowance 

Annual budget 
for research, 
training and 
networking 

Management 
and indirect 
costs 

per child 

UK 

ES 

The Leverhulme 
Trust 

Early Career 
Fellowships 

All 
disciplines 

3 years 

1,857 € 

No 

No 

6,707 € 

Spanish 
Government 

Ayudas Juan de la 
Cierva 

All 
disciplines 

2 years 

1,537 € 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A3.3 presents an overview of lump sum grants competing with MSCA at the post-doctoral level, sorted by the level of 
maximum funding. By comparison, the total value of a two-year MSCA Individual Fellowship is 160,800€ and the annual value 
amounts to 80,400€, excluding family allowance. It needs to be noted that large lump sum grants are usually not only to the benefit 
of a single researcher and institution, but provides funding for entire projects and teams. 

Table A3.3  Overview of competing lump sum grants at the post-doctoral level, sorted by maximum level of funding 

Country  Funding organisation 

Name of fellowship 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration 

Maximum budget  Annual budget (Max 
budget/max number 
of years 

EU 

European Research Council 

Advanced grants 

All disciplines  5 years 

€ 2,500,000 

 € 500,000  

DE 

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft 

Fraunhofer Attract 

All disciplines  5 years 

€ 2,500,000 

 € 500,000  

EU 

European Research Council 

Consolidator grants 

All disciplines  5 years 

€ 2,000,000 

 € 400,000  

DE 

Alexander von Humboldt 
Foundation 

Sofja Kovalevskaja Award 

All disciplines  5 years 

€ 1,650,000 

 € 330,000  

EU 

European Research Council 

Starting grants 

All disciplines  5 years 

€ 1,500,000 

 € 300,000  

FR 

Fondation ARC pour la recherche 
sur le cancer 

Leaders de demain en oncologie  LIF 

5 years 

€ 1,500,000 

 € 300,000  

DE 

VolkswagenStiftung 

Lichtenberg Professorships 

SOC 

5 to 8 years 

€ 1,500,000 

 € 187,500  

DE 

FR 

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 
(DFG) 

Reinhart Koselleck Projects 

All disciplines 

Human Frontier Science Program 
Organization (HFSPO) 

Human Frontier Science 
Program 

LIF 

5 years 

3 years 

€ 1,250,000 

 € 250,000  

€ 1,236,148 

 € 412,049  

UK 

Biotechnology and Biological 

David Phillips Fellowship 

LIF 

5 years 

€ 1,115,000 

 € 223,000  

93 

 
 
 
 
Country  Funding organisation 

Name of fellowship 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration 

Maximum budget  Annual budget (Max 
budget/max number 
of years 

Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) 

AT 

FWF (Austrian Science Fund) 

START Programme 

All disciplines  6 years 

€ 1,000,000 

 € 166,667  

CN 

Recruitment program of global 
experts 

The 1000 talents Plan 

All disciplines  2 to 5 years 

€ 1,000,000 

 € 200,000  

DE 

VolkswagenStiftung 

Freigeist' Fellowships 

All disciplines  5 years 

€ 1,000,000 

 € 200,000  

UK 

Wellcome Trust 

Europe and Global Challenges 

LIF 

4 years 

€ 824,365 

 € 206,091  

UK 

Wellcome Trust 

International Research Scholars 
Programme 

LIF 

5 years 

€ 650,000 

 € 130,000  

CH 

Society in Science 

The Branco Weiss Fellowship 

All disciplines  5 years 

€ 500,000 

 € 100,000  

FR 

FR 

UK 

Fondation ARC pour la recherche 
sur le cancer 

Programme Labellise Fondation 
Arc 

LIF 

3 years 

€ 450,000 

 € 150,000  

Fondation ARC pour la recherche 
sur le cancer 

Cancers professionnels 

LIF 

2 to 3 years 

€ 450,000 

 € 150,000  

Biotechnology and Biological 
Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) 

Future Leader Fellowship 

LIF 

UK 

Wellcome Trust 

Sir Henry Wellcome 
Postdoctoral Fellowships 

LIF 

3 years 

4 years 

€ 335,738 

 € 111,913  

€ 279,543 

 € 69,886  

PL 

Foundation for polish science (FNP)  Team 

All disciplines  3 to 5 years  € 269,721 

 € 53,944  

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country  Funding organisation 

Name of fellowship 

Scientific 
discipline 

Duration 

Maximum budget  Annual budget (Max 
budget/max number 
of years 

Netherlands Organisation for 
Scientific Research (NWO) 

Veni Grant 

Stroke Association 

Project grants 

Stroke Association 

Postdoctoral Fellowships 

The British Academy 

British Academy Mid-Career 
Fellowships 

All disciplines 

3 years 

€ 250,000 

 € 83,333  

LIF 

LIF 

SOC 

3 to 5 years  € 225,000 

 € 45,000  

3 to 5 years  € 205,000 

 € 41,000  

6 months to 
1 year 

€ 180,000 

 € 180,000  

Foundation for polish science (FNP)  First Team 

All disciplines  3 to 4 years  € 154,126 

 € 38,532  

European Research Council 

Proof of concept 

All disciplines  18 months 

€ 150,000 

 € 100,000  

AXA Research Fund 

Bourses Post-doctorales 

SOC 

1.5 to 2 
years 

€ 130,000 

 € 65,000  

Foundation for polish science (FNP)  Homing 

All disciplines  2 years 

€ 92,476 

 € 46,238  

Foundation for polish science (FNP)  Powroty / Reintegration 

All disciplines  2 years 

€ 92,476 

 € 46,238  

Politecnico di Milano 

Politecnico di Milano 
International Fellowships 
(POLIMI) 

Fondation ARC pour la recherche 
sur le cancer 

Projet Fondation ARC 

FR 

Fyssen Foundation 

Research Grants 

NL 

UK 

UK 

UK 

PL 

EU 

FR 

PL 

PL 

IT 

FR 

MAT 

LIF 

LIF 

2 years 

€ 70,000 

 € 35,000  

1 to 2 years 

€ 50,000 

 € 25,000  

1 year 

€ 35,000 

 € 35,000  

95 

 
 
 
 
Annex 4 Overview of responses from survey 

A4.1  Rating of MSCA researcher allowances 

A4.1.1  Living allowance top-up 

Table A4.1  Responses by type of action (only coordinators): Is your institution 

topping-up the living allowance (RISE: top-up allowance) of the MSCA 
fellow?  

Is institution topping-up 
living allowance/top-up 
allowance 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Yes 

No 

Don’t know 

N 

7 

4 

0 

% 

N  % 

N  % 

N  %  N  % 

64% 

5 

19%  4 

14%  7 

54%  23  29% 

36% 

21  78%  24  86%  6 

46%  55  70% 

0% 

1 

4% 

0 

0% 

0 

0%  1 

1% 

Total 

11 

100%  27  100%  28  100%  13  100  79  100% 

Note: The survey question differed by action as follows: [ITN and IF]: Was/Is your institution topping up the 
living allowance of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow(s), meaning that you contribute(d) to fellows’ living 
allowance on top of the Marie Curie living allowance? [RISE]: Did/do you top up the top-up allowance of 
seconded researches, meaning that you voluntarily contribute(d) to fellows’ top-up allowance? [COFUND]: 
Did/does your organisation […] voluntarily contributed/contribute to the living allowance(s) on top of what is 
required by the Marie Curie programme? 

Table A4.2  Responses by region (only coordinators): Is your institution topping-up 

the living allowance (RISE: top-up allowance) of the MSCA fellow? 

Is institution 
topping-up 
living 
allowance/top
-up allowance 

Yes 

No 

East40 

France  Germany

North42 

South43 

41 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

1 

9% 

3  30%  4  33%  8  50%  3  21%  4  25%  23  29% 

10  91%  7  70%  8  67%  7  44%  11  79%  12  75%  55  70% 

Don’t know 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

6% 

0  0%  0 

0% 

1  1% 

Total 

11  100 10  100%  12  100%  16  100%  14  100 16  100%  79  100

40 CZ, BG, EL, HU, PL, RO 

41 It includes one interview conducted with a coordinator in Austria as a proxy 

42 BE, CH, DK, NL, NO, SE 

43 ES, IT, PT 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
Is institution 
topping-up 
living 
allowance/top
-up allowance 

East40 

France  Germany

North42 

South43 

41 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

% 

% 

% 

Table A4.3  Responses by researcher category (only coordinators): Is your institution 

topping-up the living allowance (RISE: top-up allowance) of the MSCA 
fellow? 

Is institution topping-up living 
allowance/top-up allowance 

ESR 

ER 

Total 

Yes 

No 

Don’t know 

Total 

N 

7 

% 

19% 

29 

81% 

0 

0% 

N 

16 

26 

1 

% 

N 

% 

37% 

23 

29% 

60% 

55 

70% 

2% 

1 

1% 

36 

100% 

43 

100% 

79 

100% 

Table A4.4  Responses by scientific panel (only coordinators): Is your institution 

topping-up the living allowance (RISE: top-up allowance) of the MSCA 
fellow? 

Is institution topping-up 
living allowance/top-up 
allowance 

SOC/MAT/ECO 

CHE/ENG/ENV/LIF/PHY 

Total 

Yes 

No 

Do not know 

Total responses  

N 

4 

11 

1 

16 

% 

25% 

69% 

6% 

100% 

N 

19 

44 

0 

63 

% 

N 

% 

30% 

23 

29% 

70% 

55 

70% 

0% 

1 

1% 

100% 

79  100% 

Note: the categorisation of SOC/MAT/ECO versus CHE/ENG/ENV/LIF/PHY has been established on the basis 
of what are commonly considered non-lab (inexpensive) scientific disciplines and lab-based (expensive) 
scientific disciplines. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A4.1.2  Living allowance 

Table A4.5  Responses by type of action (only fellows): How would you rate the 

adequacy of the living allowance (COFUND, IF, and ITN) / top-up 
allowance (RISE)?  

Rating of the adequacy of 
living allowance 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly Generous 

N 

0 

0 

% 

N 

% 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

3 

25%  3 

4% 

0% 

8 

25% 

0 

0% 

2 

17%  10  12% 

11 

85%  18 

56% 

18  69% 

7 

58%  54  65% 

2 

0 

15% 

6 

19% 

8 

31% 

0 

0%  16  19% 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Total 

13 

100%  32  100%  26  100%  12  100%  83  100% 

Table A4.6  Responses by type of action (only coordinators): How would you rate the 

adequacy of the European Commission’s contribution to fellows’ living 
allowance (COFUND, IF, and ITN) / top-up allowance (RISE)?  

Rating of the adequacy 
of living allowance 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly Generous 

1 

2 

7 

1 

0 

9% 

18% 

1 

3 

4% 

0 

0% 

2 

15%  4 

5% 

11%  2 

7% 

3 

23%  10  13% 

64% 

14 

52%  21  75%  7 

54%  49  62% 

9% 

0% 

6 

3 

22%  4 

14%  1 

8% 

12  15% 

11%  1 

4% 

0 

0% 

4 

5% 

Total 

11 

100% 

27 

100%  28  100%  13  100%  79  100% 

Table A4.7  Responses by region (only fellows): How would you rate the adequacy of 
the living allowance (COFUND, IF, and ITN) / top-up allowance (RISE)?  

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

Rating of 
the 
adequacy 
of living 
allowance 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N 

% 

N  % 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N  % 

N 

% 

By far 
insufficient 

0 

0% 

1 

9% 

1 

6% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

6% 

3 

4% 

Insufficient  1 

9% 

2 

18% 

0 

0% 

2 

11% 

0 

0% 

5 

31% 

10 

12% 

Adequate 

6 

55% 

4 

36% 

14 

82% 

14  78% 

8 

80% 

8 

50% 

54 

65% 

Generous 

4 

36% 

4 

36% 

2 

12% 

2 

11% 

2 

20% 

2 

13% 

16 

19% 

Overly 
generous 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Total 

11  100%  11  100%  17  100%  18  100%  10  100%  16  100%  83  100% 

Table A4.8  Responses by region (only coordinators): How would you rate the 

adequacy of the European Commission’s contribution to fellows’ living 
allowance (COFUND, IF, and ITN) / top-up allowance (RISE)? 

East 

France 

Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

Rating of 
the 
adequacy 
of living 
allowance 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

By far 
insufficient  0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

8% 

1 

6% 

1 

7% 

1 

6% 

4 

5% 

Insufficient  0 

0% 

1  10%  2  17%  6  38% 

0 

0% 

1 

6% 

10  13% 

Adequate 

6  55%  7  70%  9  75%  8  50%  11  79% 

8 

50%  49  62% 

Generous 

3  27%  1  10%  0 

0% 

1 

6% 

1 

7% 

6 

38%  12  15% 

Overly 
generous 

2  18%  1  10%  0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

7% 

0 

0% 

4 

5% 

Total 

11  100% 

1
0  100%  12  100% 

1
6  100%  14  100%  16  100%  79  100% 

Table A4.9  Responses by researcher category (ESR/ER) (only fellows): How would 
you rate the adequacy of the living allowance (COFUND, IF, and ITN) / 
top-up allowance (RISE)?  

Rating of the adequacy of living 
allowance 

ESR 

ER 

Total 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N  % 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of the adequacy of living 
allowance 

ESR 

ER 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly Generous 

1 

0 

29 

10 

0 

3% 

2 

5% 

3 

4% 

0% 

10 

23% 

10 

12% 

73% 

25 

58% 

54 

65% 

25% 

0% 

6 

0 

14% 

16 

19% 

0% 

0 

0% 

Total 

40 

100% 

43 

100%  83  100% 

Table A4.10 Responses by researcher category (ESR/ER) (only coordinators): How 

would you rate the adequacy of the European Commission’s contribution 
to fellows’ living allowance (COFUND, IF, and ITN) / top-up allowance 
(RISE)? 

Rating of the adequacy of living 
allowance 

ESR 

ER 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly Generous 

N 

0 

3 

% 

0% 

8% 

N 

4 

7 

% 

N  % 

9% 

4 

5% 

16% 

10 

13% 

26 

72% 

23 

53% 

49 

62% 

6 

1 

17% 

3% 

6 

3 

14% 

12 

15% 

7% 

4 

5% 

Total 

36 

100% 

43 

100%  79  100% 

A4.1.3  Correction coefficient 

Table A4.11 Responses by type of action and researcher category (only fellows): For 

the country you work(ed) in as a Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow, how 
would you rate the coefficient?  

Rating of adequacy of correction 
coefficient for country of work 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

Too low 

N 

11 

% 

34% 

N 

4 

% 

N 

% 

15% 

15 

26% 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of adequacy of correction 
coefficient for country of work 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

Adequate 

Too high 

Don't know 

Total 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Not applicable (RISE) 

Total 

17 

53% 

22 

85% 

39 

67% 

1 

3 

3% 

9% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

1 

3 

2% 

5% 

32 

100% 

26 

100%  58 

100% 

13 

12 

83 

Table A4.12 Responses by type of action and researcher category (only coordinators): 
For the country you work(ed) in as a Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow, how 
would you rate the coefficient?  

Rating of adequacy of correction 
coefficient for country of work 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

Too low 

Adequate 

Too high 

Don't know 

Total 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Not applicable (RISE) 

Total 

N 

5 

% 

19% 

N 

4 

% 

N 

% 

14% 

9 

16% 

17 

63% 

24 

86% 

41 

75% 

3 

2 

11% 

7% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

3 

2 

5% 

4% 

27 

100% 

28 

100%  55 

100% 

11 

13 

79 

Table A4.13 Responses by region (only fellows): For the country you work(ed) in as a 

Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow, how would you rate the coefficient?  

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

Rating of 
adequacy of 
correction 
coefficient 
for country 
of work 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

Rating of 
adequacy of 
correction 
coefficient 
for country 
of work 

N  % 

N  % 

N 

% 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N 

% 

Too low 

1 

17% 

2 

25% 

2 

17% 

4 

40% 

0 

0% 

6  43% 

15 

26% 

Adequate 

4 

67% 

5 

63%  10  83% 

6 

60% 

8  100%  6  43% 

39 

67% 

Too high 

1 

17% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

2% 

Don't know 

0 

0% 

1 

13% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

2  14% 

3 

5% 

Total 

6  100%  8  100%  12  100%  10  100%  8  100%  14  100%  58  100% 

Not applicable 
(COFUND) 

Not applicable 
(RISE) 

Total 

13 

12 

83 

Table A4.14 Responses by region (only coordinators): For the country you work(ed) in 
as a Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow, how would you rate the coefficient?  

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

Rating of 
adequacy 
of 
correction 
coefficient 
for country 
of work 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

Too low 

1  13%  1  14%  3  43%  3  27%  1 

9% 

0 

0% 

9  16% 

Adequate 

5  63%  5  71%  4  57%  8  73%  9  82%  10  91%  41  75% 

Too high 

2  25%  0 

0%  0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

9% 

0 

0% 

3 

5% 

Don't 
know 

0 

0% 

1  14%  0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

9% 

2 

4% 

Total 

8  100%  7  100%  7  100%  11  100%  11  100%  11  100%  55  100% 

Not 
applicable 
(COFUND) 

11 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of 
adequacy 
of 
correction 
coefficient 
for country 
of work 

Not 
applicable 
(RISE) 

Total 

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

13 

79 

A4.1.4  Mobility allowance 

Table A4.15 Responses by type of action and researcher category (only fellows): How 

would you rate the adequacy of the mobility allowance?  

Rating of adequacy of mobility allowance 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

Total 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Not applicable (RISE) 

Total 

N 

0 

4 

% 

0% 

13% 

N 

0 

1 

% 

0% 

4% 

N 

0 

5 

% 

0% 

9% 

21 

66% 

24 

92% 

45 

78% 

7 

0 

22% 

0% 

1 

0 

4% 

0% 

8 

0 

14% 

0% 

32 

100% 

25 

100% 

58 

100% 

13 

12 

83 

Current unit cost: 

600 

600 

Table A4.16 Responses by type of action and researcher category (only coordinators): 
How would you rate the adequacy of the mobility allowance?  

Rating of adequacy of mobility allowance 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

N 

0 

3 

% 

0% 

11% 

N 

0 

2 

% 

0% 

7% 

N 

0 

5 

% 

0% 

9% 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of adequacy of mobility allowance 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

Total 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Not applicable (RISE) 

Total 

15 

56% 

23 

82% 

38 

69% 

8 

1 

30% 

3 

11% 

11 

20% 

4% 

0% 

1 

2% 

27 

100% 

28 

100% 

55 

100% 

11 

13 

79 

Current unit cost: 

600 

600 

Table A4.17 Responses by region (only fellows): How would you rate the adequacy of 

the mobility allowance?  

Rating of 
adequacy 
of 
mobility 
allowanc
e 

By far 
insufficient 

Insufficien
t 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly 
generous 

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N 

0 

% 

N  % 

N 

% 

N  % 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N  % 

0% 

0  0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0  0% 

1 

8% 

1 

10% 

2 

25% 

1 

7% 

5 

9% 

4 

2 

0 

67%  6  75% 

10 

83% 

9 

90% 

4 

50% 

12 

86%  45  78% 

33%  2  25% 

1 

8% 

0 

0% 

2 

25% 

1 

7% 

8 

14% 

0% 

0  0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Total 

6 

100%  8  100%  12  100%  10  100% 

8 

100%  14  100%  58  100% 

Not 
applicable 
(COFUND) 

Not 
applicable 
(RISE) 

Total 

13 

12 

83 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A4.18 Responses by region (only coordinators): How would you rate the 

adequacy of the mobility allowance?  

Rating of 
adequacy 
of mobility 
allowance 

East 

France  Germa

North 

South 

ny 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N 

% 

By far 
insufficient 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0  0% 

0 

0% 

Insufficient 

1 

13%  0 

0% 

2  29% 

1 

9% 

Adequate 

5 

63%  5  71%  4  57% 

8 

73% 

Generous 

2 

25%  1  14%  1  14% 

2 

18% 

Overly 
generous 

0 

0% 

1  14%  0  0% 

0 

0% 

N 

0 

1 

7 

3 

0 

% 

N 

% 

N  % 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

9% 

0 

0% 

5 

9% 

64% 

9 

82% 

38 

69% 

27% 

2 

18% 

11 

20% 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

2% 

Total 

8  100%  7  100%  7  100% 

11 

100% 

11 

100%  11  100% 

55  100% 

Not 
applicable 
(COFUND) 

Not 
applicable 
(RISE) 

Total 

11 

13 

79 

Table A4.19 Responses by gender (only fellows): How would you rate the adequacy of 

the mobility allowance?  

Rating of adequacy of mobility 
allowance 

Female 

Male 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

N 

0 

3 

% 

0% 

10% 

N 

0 

2 

% 

N 

% 

0% 

7% 

0 

5 

0% 

9% 

24 

83% 

21 

72% 

45 

78% 

2 

0 

7% 

0% 

6 

0 

21% 

0% 

8 

0 

14% 

0% 

Total 

29 

100% 

29 

100%  58 

100% 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of adequacy of mobility 
allowance 

Female 

Male 

Total 

Skipped as COFUND 

Skipped as RISE 

Total 

13 

12 

83 

A4.1.5  Family allowance 

Table A4.20 Responses by type of action and researcher category (only fellows): How 

would you rate the adequacy of the family allowance?  

Rating of adequacy of family allowance 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

Total 

 Not applicable (not entitled to family 
allowance) 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Not applicable (RISE) 

Total 

Current unit cost: 

N 

0 

4 

% 

0% 

20% 

16 

80% 

0% 

0% 

100% 

0 

0 

20 

12 

N 

1 

2 

3 

0 

0 

6 

20 

% 

17% 

33% 

N 

1 

6 

% 

4% 

23% 

50% 

19 

73% 

0% 

0% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

100% 

26 

100% 

32 

13 

12 

83 

500 

500 

Table A4.21 Responses by type of action and researcher category (only coordinators): 
How would you rate the adequacy of the family allowance?  

Rating of adequacy of family allowance 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

Don’t know 

N 

2 

4 

% 

7% 

15% 

N 

0 

1 

% 

0% 

4% 

N 

2 

5 

% 

4% 

9% 

17 

63% 

24 

86% 

41 

75% 

2 

0 

2 

7% 

0% 

7% 

0 

0 

3 

0% 

0% 

11% 

2 

0 

5 

4% 

0% 

9% 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of adequacy of family allowance 

IF (ER) 

ITN (ESR) 

Total 

Total 

27 

100% 

28 

100% 

55 

100% 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Not applicable (RISE) 

Total 

11 

13 

79 

Current unit cost: 

500 

500 

Table A4.22 Responses by region (only fellows): How would you rate the adequacy of 

the family allowance?  

Rating of 
adequacy of 
family 
allowance 

By far 
insufficient 

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

0  0% 

0  0% 

0  0% 

1  25%  0  0% 

0  0% 

1  4% 

Insufficient 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1  25%  1  25%  1  25%  3  38%  6  23% 

Adequate 

3  100%  3  100%  3  75%  2  50%  3  75%  5  63%  19  73% 

Generous 

Overly 
generous 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

0 

0 

0%  0  0% 

0%  0  0% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

Total 

3  100%  3  100%  4  100%  4  100%  4  100%  8  100%  26  100% 

Not applicable 
(not entitled to 
family 
allowance) 

Not applicable 
(COFUND) 

Not applicable 
(RISE) 

Total 

32 

13 

12 

83 

Table A4.23 Responses by region (only coordinators): How would you rate the 

adequacy of the family allowance?  

Rating of 
adequacy of 
family 
allowance 

By far 
insufficient 

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1  14%  1 

9% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

2 

4% 

Insufficient 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1  14%  1 

9% 

2  18%  1 

9% 

5 

9% 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of 
adequacy of 
family 
allowance 

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

Adequate 

7  88%  4  57%  5  71%  8  73%  8  73%  9  82%  41  75% 

Generous 

0 

0% 

1  14%  0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

9% 

0 

0% 

2 

4% 

Overly 
generous 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Don’t know 

1  13%  2  29%  0 

0% 

1 

9% 

0 

0% 

1 

9% 

5 

9% 

Total 

8  100%  7  100%  7  100%  11  100%  11  100%  11  100%  55  100% 

Not 
applicable 
(COFUND) 

Not 
applicable 
(RISE) 

Total 

11 

13 

79 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A4.2  Rating of the MSCA institutional unit costs 

A4.2.1  Unit costs for research, training and networking 

Table A4.24 Responses by type of action (only coordinators): Overall, how would you 

rate the adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for research, training and 
networking?  

Rating of adequacy of unit costs 
for research, training, networking 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

By far insufficient 

N 

2 

% 

7% 

N 

0 

0% 

% 

N 

% 

N  % 

Insufficient 

13 

48% 

10 

36% 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

9 

3 

0 

33% 

18 

64% 

11% 

0% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

1 

3 

6 

3 

0 

8% 

3 

4% 

23% 

26 

38% 

46% 

33 

49% 

23% 

0% 

6 

0 

9% 

0% 

Total 

27 

100% 

28 

100% 

13 

100%  68  100% 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Grand Total 

11 

79 

Current unit cost: 

800EUR 

1800 EUR 

1800 EUR 

Table A4.25 Responses by region (only coordinators): Overall, how would you rate the 

adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for research, training and networking?  

Rating of 
adequacy 
of unit 
costs for 
research, 
training, 
networking 

By far 
insufficient 

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

8% 

0 

0% 

2 

15%  3 

4% 

Insufficient  6 

55%  2  22%  5  56%  5  38% 

6 

46% 

2 

15%  26  38% 

Adequate 

1 

9% 

7  78%  4  44%  6  46% 

7 

54% 

8 

62%  33  49% 

Generous 

4 

36%  0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

8% 

0 

0% 

1 

8% 

6 

9% 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rating of 
adequacy 
of unit 
costs for 
research, 
training, 
networking 

Overly 
generous 

East 

France  Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Total 

11  100%  9  100%  9  100%  13  100%  13  100%  13  100%  68  100% 

Not 
applicable 
(COFUND) 

Grand 
Total 

11 

79 

Table A4.26 Responses by scientific panel (only coordinators) Overall, how would you 

rate the adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for research, training and 
networking?  

Rating of adequacy of unit costs for 
research, training, networking 

ECO/MAT/SOC 

CHE/ENG/ENV/LIF
/PHY 

Total 

By far insufficient 

Insufficient 

Adequate 

Generous 

Overly generous 

N 

1 

3 

9 

2 

0 

% 

7% 

N 

2 

% 

4% 

N 

3 

% 

4% 

20% 

23 

43% 

26 

38% 

60% 

24 

45% 

33 

49% 

13% 

0% 

4 

0 

8% 

0% 

6 

0 

9% 

0% 

Total 

15 

100% 

53 

100% 

68 

100% 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Grand Total 

11 

79 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A4.27 Responses by type of action (only fellows): During your MSCA fellowship 
(so far), how frequently was your research negatively impacted by a lack 
of funding for research equipment, raw materials, etc.? 

Frequency of negative 
impact on research of lack 
of funding for research 
equipment, raw materials, 
etc.? 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Always 

Often 

Sometimes 

Rarely 

Never 

N 

% 

0 

3 

5 

2 

0% 

9% 

16% 

6% 

N 

0 

1 

0 

0 

% 

0% 

4% 

0% 

0% 

N 

0 

0 

0 

0 

% 

N 

% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0 

4 

5 

2 

0% 

6% 

7% 

3% 

22 

69% 

25 

96% 

11 

92% 

58 

83% 

Don’t know 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

8% 

1 

1% 

Total 

32 

100% 

26 

100% 

12 

100% 

70 

100% 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Total 

13 

83 

Table A4.28 Responses by type of action (only fellows): During your MSCA fellowship 
(so far), how frequently was your research negatively impacted by a lack 
of funding for training? 

Frequency of negative 
impact on research of lack 
of funding for training 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Always 

Often 

Sometimes 

Rarely 

Never 

N 

0 

0 

1 

% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

0% 

N 

0 

0 

1 

% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

4% 

29 

91% 

25 

96% 

Don’t know 

2 

6% 

0% 

N 

0 

0 

1 

9 

2 

% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

N 

0 

0 

1 

2 

% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

3% 

75% 

63 

90% 

17% 

4 

6% 

Total 

32 

100% 

26 

100% 

12 

100% 

70 

100% 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Total 

13 

83 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A4.29 Responses by type of action (only fellows): During your MSCA fellowship 
(so far), how frequently was your research negatively impacted by a lack 
of funding for networking? 

Frequency of negative 
impact on research of lack 
of funding for training 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Always 

Often 

Sometimes 

Rarely 

Never 

N 

% 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0% 

0% 

6% 

6% 

N 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

28 

88% 

26 

100% 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

0 

0 

3 

0 

7 

2 

0% 

0% 

25% 

0% 

0 

0 

5 

2 

0% 

0% 

7% 

3% 

58% 

61 

87% 

17% 

2 

3% 

Don’t know 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Total 

32 

100% 

26 

100% 

12 

100% 

70 

100% 

Not applicable (COFUND) 

Total 

13 

83 

Table A4.30 Responses by type of action (only coordinators): How do these [MSCA 

fellows’ research] costs compare to the costs associated with comparable 
researchers in the institution? 

Research budget of MSCA 
fellows compared to research 
budget of similar researchers 
at the institution 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Higher 

Similar 

 Lower 

Don’t know 

% 

N 

% 

N  % 

N 

9 

% 

35% 

N 

8 

29% 

13 

50% 

17 

60% 

3 

1 

12% 

4% 

1 

2 

4% 

7% 

5 

8 

0 

0 

38% 

22 

33% 

62% 

38 

57% 

0% 

0% 

4 

3 

6% 

4% 

Total 

27 

100% 

28 

100% 

13 

100%  66  100% 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
More 

Similar 

 Less 

Table A4.31 Responses by type of action (only coordinators): How does this [MSCA 
fellows’ access to training] compare to the type of training comparable 
researchers in the institution have access to? 

MSCA fellows’ access to 
training compared to similar 
researchers at the institution 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N  % 

N 

4 

15% 

15 

54% 

13 

48% 

0 

0% 

3 

0 

11% 

0% 

5 

7 

0 

1 

39% 

24 

35% 

54% 

23 

34% 

0% 

0 

0% 

7% 

21 

31% 

Don’t know 

10 

37% 

10 

35% 

Total 

27 

100% 

28 

100% 

13 

100%  66  100% 

Table A4.32 Responses by type of action (only coordinators): How does this [MSCA 

fellows’ access to networking opportunities] compare to the type of 
networking activities comparable researchers in the institution have 
access to?  

MSCA fellows’ access to 
training compared to similar 
researchers at the institution 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

More 

Similar 

 Less 

N 

5 

8 

0 

% 

N 

% 

N 

% 

N  % 

19% 

15 

56% 

30% 

0% 

3 

0 

9 

11% 

0% 

33% 

7 

4 

0 

2 

54% 

27 

40% 

31% 

15 

23% 

0% 

0 

0% 

15% 

25 

37% 

Don’t know 

14 

51% 

Total 

27 

100% 

28 

100% 

13 

100%  66  100% 

Table A4.33 Responses by type of action (only fellows): To what extent do you agree 

or disagree with the following statement: "My host institution has 
spent/spends the MSCA funding for research, training and networking 
costs to support the quality of my research and training"  

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Strongly disagree 

N 

1 

% 

3% 

N 

0 

% 

0% 

N 

0 

% 

0% 

N 

1 

% 

1% 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

Disagree 

Neutral 

Agree 

2 

0 

6% 

0% 

0 

2 

0% 

8% 

15 

47% 

12 

46% 

Strongly agree 

14 

44% 

12 

46% 

Don’t know 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

0 

2 

7 

2 

8% 

0% 

3 

2 

4% 

3% 

17% 

29 

41% 

58% 

33 

47% 

17% 

2 

3% 

Total 

32 

100% 

26 

100% 

12 

100% 

70 

100% 

Not applicable ( 
COFUND) 

Total 

13 

83 

A4.2.2  Unit costs for management and indirect costs 

Table A4.34 Responses by type of action (only coordinators): Overall, how would you 

rate the adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for management and indirect 
costs?  

Rating of adequacy of unit costs 
for management and indirect 
costs 

COFUND 

IF 

ITN 

RISE 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N 

% 

N  % 

By far insufficient 

1 

9% 

0 

0% 

1 

4% 

1 

8% 

3 

4% 

Insufficient 

6 

55% 

8 

30% 

8 

29% 

3 

23%  25  32% 

Adequate 

Generous 

2 

18%  17  63%  19  68% 

7 

54%  45  57% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

2 

15% 

2 

3% 

Overly generous 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Don't know 

2 

18% 

2 

8% 

0 

0% 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

0 

4 

0% 

5% 

Total 

11  100%  27  100%  28  100%  13  100%  79  100% 

Current unit cost: 

325 EUR 

650 EUR 

1200 EUR 

700 EUR 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A4.35 Responses by region (only coordinators): Overall, how would you rate the 

adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for management and indirect costs?  

Rating of 
adequacy of 
unit costs for 
management 
and indirect 
costs 

By far 
insufficient 

East 

France 

Germany 

North 

South 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

N  % 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

6% 

0 

0% 

2  13%  3 

4% 

Insufficient 

3 

27%  0 

0% 

3 

25%  6  38%  4  29%  9  56%  25  32% 

Adequate 

6 

55%  8  80% 

9 

75%  8  50%  9  64%  5  31%  45  57% 

Generous 

1 

9% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

7% 

0 

0% 

2 

3% 

Overly 
generous 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

Don't know 

1 

9% 

2  20% 

0 

0% 

1 

6% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

4 

5% 

Total 

11  100%  10  100%  12  100%  16  100%  14  100%  16  100%  79  100% 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5 Questionnaires 

A5.1  Coordinators questionnaire COFUND 

Background information 

Date of the interview, time: 
_________________________________________________ 

Interviewer: _________________________________________________ 

Means (telephone/ face to face) - please delete not applicable: 
_____________________ 

Acronym of MSCA grant: 
_________________________________________________ 

Grant number: _________________________________________________ 

Type of MSCA (ITN, IF, RISE, COFUND): _________________________ 

Category of fellow related to MSCA grant (ESR, ER or both): ______________ 

Name of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Country of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Number of MSCA fellows hosted under this grant: ________________ 

Number of comparable researchers employed in the institution: __________________ 

Interviewee's name: Last, first: 
_________________________________________________ 

Role in the organisation (researcher, administrative staff, financial staff, etc.): 
___________ 

Role in the project (coordinator, supervisor, etc.): __________________ 

Scientific panel (Chemistry, Social and human sciences, Economic sciences, 
Information science and engineering, Environmental and geo-sciences, Life sciences, 
Mathematics, Physics): _________________________________________________ 

Phone number: _________________________________________________ 

Email: _________________________________________________ 

Comment(s): _________________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Introduction: 

Thank you for agreeing to have this interview. 

Before we start going through the questionnaire, let me briefly describe to you the 
purpose of this interview: 

In 2014, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie reimbursement system has been transformed 
from a system partly based on percentage rates, for example for management 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
activities, to a system entirely based on unit costs where a fixed amount is paid 
independent of the real costs incurred. As you may know, there are unit costs related 
to the researchers and unit costs related to the hosting organisation. 

The reimbursed unit costs related to the researcher are:  

• 

The living allowance  

The reimbursed unit costs related to hosting organisation are:  

• 

Management and indirect costs 

As we mentioned in the e-mail we sent to you asking for your agreement to have this 
interview, ICF on behalf of the European Commission is currently carrying out a study 
to assess the adequacy of the current unit costs with a view of updating them for 
future calls. This includes collecting information and opinions from MSCA beneficiary 
organisations and fellows. We are contacting you as you are part of the 2014 cohort 
which was the first under the new reimbursement system. Please let me emphasise 
that this interview IS NOT AN AUDIT. We are not checking the adequate use of 
resources received through the MSCA grant against legal requirements. We are only 
interested in an honest opinion of the adequacy of the level of financial support 
received in order to ensure the attractiveness but also the sustainability of the MSCA 
programme in the future. We assure anonymity of your responses and information will 
only be shared and published at an aggregate level using the data of all 150 
interviewees contacted as part of this study. It will not be possible to identify 
individual level responses from the data we share and publish in the final report.  

Adequacy of unit costs received by the fellow 

I will first ask you about the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding received by fellows. 
Please answer all questions in relation to the fellow(s) employed under the COFUND 
grant. 

1) Under COFUND, your organisation must contribute at least 50 percent to the living 
allowance of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow(s) (at least the same amount the 
European Commission contributes). Did/does your organisation contribute more than 
50 percent to the living allowance of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow(s), meaning 
that your organisation voluntarily contributed/contributes to the living allowance(s) on 
top of what is required by the Marie Curie programme? 

50% of living allowance would be: 

ESR:  

EURO  

Local currency 

ER: 

EURO  

Local currency 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

2) How would you rate the adequacy of the European Commission’s contribution to 
fellows’ living allowance? Would you say it is/was: 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

3) How desirable or useful would be the introduction of a disability allowance? Please 
explain. 

( ) Not desirable/useful 

 ( ) Somewhat desirable/useful 

 ( ) Desirable/useful 

4) What should the amount of the disability allowance be and on what basis? 

Euro/month: _________________________________________________ 

Euro/year: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/month: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/year: _________________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Available income of fellows and similar researchers  

5) Did/do fellows receive any monetary benefits in addition to the MSCA allowances, 
for example from your institution or from national agencies? Please notice that for 
COFUND grants the MSCA allowance refers to the whole grant amount and not only 
the one financed by the EC. 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

6) [If yes]: What for and how much did/do they amount to altogether per month? 

7) What was/is fellows’ monthly available income including all allowances and 
additional national benefits or benefits granted by the host institution? 

EURO/month: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/month: _________________________________________________ 

8) Does the level of the monthly available income for MSCA fellows have an impact on 
your ability to recruit the best researchers for the MSCA fellowships? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

9) [If yes]: Does it have a negative effect or a positive effect? Why? 

( ) Negative effect 

( ) Positive effect 

10) Does this effect differ by geographical area, seniority or subject area? 

11) What would be the monthly available income including all benefits of a researcher 
at your institution similar to fellows in terms of discipline, career stage and family 
situation but not funded under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme? [Multiple 
answers possible if under different employment contracts/grants]  

12) Are there any important competing professions for which researchers in your 
fellows’ field are often recruited? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
13) [If yes]: What is the name of this profession or these professions? 

14) [If yes]: What would be the monthly available income including all benefits of 
[Name of profession] similar to you in terms of discipline, career stage and family 
situation?  

15) [If higher than fellows’ monthly available income]: What effect do higher monthly 
available incomes of competing professions have on your ability to recruit the best 
researchers for the MSCA fellowships? Please explain. 

( ) No negative effect 

( ) Minor negative effect 

( ) Moderate negative effect 

( ) Major negative effect 

________________________________________ 

Existence of competing fellowships 

16) Are you aware of any national fellowship programmes similar to or competing with 
the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in your country? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

17) [if yes] What is the name of the programme and which costs do they cover? 

18) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme?  

19) Are you aware of any fellowship programmes similar to or competing with the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in other European countries or countries outside 
Europe? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

20) What is the name and country of the programme(s) and which costs do they 
cover? 

21) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme?  

________________________________________ 

Trends in researcher salaries 

22) What is the framework within which researcher salaries are determined in your 
country (e.g. national regulation, regional regulation, discretion of individual 
institution)? 

23) How have researcher salaries evolved over the past 5 years. Could you provide a 
percentage per year or over another period? 

24) Do you feel that MSCA unit costs have kept up with this development? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

119 

 
 
 
 
________________________________________ 

Adequacy of unit costs for research, training and networking costs and 
management and indirect costs  

I will now ask you about the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding received by your host 
institution for management and indirect costs. 

25) What type of management and indirect costs are associated with MSCA fellows in 
your project? 

26 How do these compare to the types of management and indirect costs associated 
with comparable researchers in the institution? 

27) Overall, how would you rate the adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for management 
and indirect costs? Would you say it is: 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

________________________________________ 

Comparison to past reimbursement system 

The next question refers to the transition of the MSCA reimbursement system from 
rates to unit costs for costs related to research, training, networking, management 
and indirect costs in 2014. 

28 Do you have experience with the MSCA reimbursement system based on rates? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

29) [If yes]: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: 
“The transition to a reimbursement system entirely based on unit costs was a good 
thing”. Please explain. 

( ) Strongly disagree  ( ) Disagree   ( ) Neutral 
( ) Not applicable 

 ( ) Agree 

 ( ) Strongly agree 

________________________________________ 

Final remarks 

30) What, if anything, would you modify regarding the MSCA unit costs? 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A5.2  Coordinators questionnaire IF and ITN 

Background information 

Date of the interview, time: 
_________________________________________________ 

Interviewer: _________________________________________________ 

Means (telephone/ face to face) - please delete not applicable: 
_____________________ 

Acronym of MSCA grant: 
_________________________________________________ 

Grant number: _________________________________________________ 

Type of MSCA (ITN, IF, RISE, COFUND): _________________________ 

Category of fellow related to MSCA grant (ESR, ER or both): ______________ 

Name of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Country of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Number of MSCA fellows hosted under this grant: ________________ 

Number of comparable researchers employed in the institution: __________________ 

Interviewee's name: Last, first: 
_________________________________________________ 

Role in the organisation (researcher, administrative staff, financial staff, etc.): 
___________ 

Role in the project (coordinator, supervisor, etc.): __________________ 

Scientific panel (Chemistry, Social and human sciences, Economic sciences, 
Information science and engineering, Environmental and geo-sciences, Life sciences, 
Mathematics, Physics): _________________________________________________ 

Phone number: _________________________________________________ 

Email: _________________________________________________ 

Comment(s): _________________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Introduction 

Thank you for agreeing to have this interview. 

Before we start going through the questionnaire, let me briefly describe to you the 
purpose of this interview: 

In 2014, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie reimbursement system has been transformed 
from a system partly based on percentage rates, for example for management 
activities, to a system entirely based on unit costs where a fixed amount is paid 

121 

 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
independent of the real costs incurred. As you may know, there are unit costs related 
to the researchers and unit costs related to the hosting organisation. 

The reimbursed unit costs related to the researcher are:  

• 

• 

• 

The living allowance 

The mobility allowance 

The family allowance 

The reimbursed unit costs related to hosting organisation are:  

• 

• 

Research, training and networking costs 

Management and indirect costs 

As we mentioned in the e-mail we sent to you asking for your agreement to have this 
interview, ICF on behalf of the European Commission is currently carrying out a study 
to assess the adequacy of the current unit costs with a view of updating them for 
future calls. This includes collecting information and opinions from MSCA beneficiary 
organisations and fellows. We are contacting you as you are part of the 2014 cohort 
which was the first under the new reimbursement system. Please let me emphasise 
that this interview IS NOT AN AUDIT. We are not checking the adequate use of 
resources received through the MSCA grant against legal requirements. We are only 
interested in an honest opinion of the adequacy of the level of financial support 
received in order to ensure the attractiveness but also the sustainability of the MSCA 
programme in the future. We assure anonymity of your responses and information will 
only be shared and published at an aggregate level using the data of all 150 
interviewees contacted as part of this study. It will not be possible to identify 
individual level responses from the data we share and publish in the final report. 

________________________________________ 

Adequacy of unit costs received by the fellow 

I will first ask you about the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding received by fellows. 
Please answer all questions in relation to the fellow(s) employed under the ITN/IF 
grant. 

1) [Only ITN and IF]: Was/Is your institution topping up the living allowance of the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow(s), meaning that you contribute(d) to fellows’ living 
allowance on top of the Marie Curie living allowance? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

2) [All except RISE]: How would you rate the adequacy of the European Commission’s 
contribution to fellows’ living allowance? Would you say it is/was: 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

3) [Only IF and ITN]: As you will know, the European Commission’s contribution to the 
living allowance is adjusted to the living costs of countries using a correction 
coefficient. The higher the coefficient, the higher the living allowance. For your 
country, is the coefficient too low, adequate, or too high? Please explain. 

( ) Too low 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Too high 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4) [Only IF and ITN]: How would you rate the adequacy of the mobility allowance? 
Would you say it is by far insufficient, insufficient, adequate, generous or overly 
generous? 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

5) [All except RISE and COFUND]: How would you rate the adequacy of the family 
allowance? Would you say it is by far insufficient, insufficient, adequate, generous or 
overly generous? 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

6) How desirable or useful would be the introduction of a disability allowance? Please 
explain. 

( ) Not desirable/useful 

 ( ) Somewhat desirable/useful 

 ( ) Desirable/useful 

7) What should the amount of the disability allowance be and on what basis? 

Euro/month: _________________________________________________ 

Euro/year: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/month: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/year: _________________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Available income of fellows and similar researchers  

8) Did/do fellows receive any monetary benefits in addition to the MSCA allowances, 
for example from your institution or from national agencies?  

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

9) [If yes]: What for and how much did/do they amount to altogether per month? 

10) What was/is fellows’ monthly available income including all allowances and 
additional national benefits or benefits granted by the host institution? 

EURO/month: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/month: _________________________________________________ 

11) Does the level of the monthly available income for MSCA fellows have an impact 
on your ability to recruit the best researchers for the MSCA fellowships? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

12) Does this effect differ by geographical area, seniority or subject area? 

13) What would be the monthly available income including all benefits of a researcher 
at your institution similar to fellows in terms of discipline, career stage and family 
situation but not funded under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme? [Multiple 
answers possible if under different employment contracts/grants]  

14) Are there any important competing professions for which researchers in your 
fellows’ field are often recruited? 

( ) Yes 

123 

 
 
 
 
( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

15) [If yes]: What is the name of this profession or these professions? 

16) [If yes]: What would be the monthly available income including all benefits of 
[Name of profession] similar to you in terms of discipline, career stage and family 
situation?  

________________________________________ 

Existence of competing fellowships 

17) Are you aware of any national fellowship programmes similar to or competing with 
the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in your country? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

18) [if yes] What is the name of the programme and which costs do they cover? 

19) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme?  

20) Are you aware of any fellowship programmes similar to or competing with the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in other European countries or countries outside 
Europe? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

21) [If yes]: What is the name and country of the programme(s) and which costs do 
they cover? 

22) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme?  

________________________________________ 

Trends in researcher salaries 

23) What is the framework within which researcher salaries are determined in your 
country (e.g. national regulation, regional regulation, discretion of individual 
institution)? 

24) How have researcher salaries evolved over the past 5 years. Could you provide a 
percentage per year or over another period? 

25) Do you feel that MSCA unit costs have kept up with this development? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know________________________________________ 

Adequacy of unit costs for research, training and networking costs and 
management and indirect costs  

I will now ask you about the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding received by your 
institution for research, training and networking costs, and management and indirect 
costs. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
26) What type of research costs are incurred for a Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow in 
your project and at what level per month? 

27) How do these costs compare to the costs associated with comparable researchers 
in the institution? Please explain. 

( ) Low 

( ) Similar 

( ) Higher 

28) What type of training do MSCA fellows in your project have access to? 

29) How does this compare to the type of training comparable researchers in the 
institution have access to? 

30) What are the costs associated with this training per month?  

31) Are the marginal costs for this training decreasing with the number of fellows? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

32) What type of networking activities have MSCA fellows in your project access to? 

33) How do these compare to the type of networking activities comparable 
researchers in the institution have access to? 

34) What are the costs associated with these networking activities per month?  

35) Overall, how would you rate the adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for research, 
training and networking? Would you say it is: 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

36) What type of management and indirect costs are associated with MSCA fellows in 
your project? 

37) How do these compare to the types of management and indirect costs associated 
with comparable researchers in the institution? 

38) Overall, how would you rate the adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for management 
and indirect costs? Would you say it is: 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

________________________________________ 

Comparison to past reimbursement system 

The next question refers to the transition of the MSCA reimbursement system from 
rates to unit costs for costs related to research, training, networking, management 
and indirect costs in 2014. 

39) Do you have experience with the MSCA reimbursement system based on rates? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

40) [If yes]: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: 
“The transition to a reimbursement system entirely based on unit costs was a good 
thing”. Please explain. 

125 

 
 
 
 
( ) Strongly disagree  ( ) Disagree   ( ) Neutral 
( ) Not applicable 

 ( ) Agree 

 ( ) Strongly agree 

________________________________________ 

Final remarks 

41) What, if anything, would you modify regarding the MSCA unit costs?  

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A5.3  Coordinators questionnaire RISE 

Background information 

Date of the interview, time: 
_________________________________________________ 

Interviewer: _________________________________________________ 

Means (telephone/ face to face) - please delete not applicable: 
_____________________ 

Acronym of MSCA grant: 
_________________________________________________ 

Grant number: _________________________________________________ 

Type of MSCA (ITN, IF, RISE, COFUND): _________________________ 

Category of fellow related to MSCA grant (ESR, ER or both): ______________ 

Name of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Country of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Number of MSCA fellows hosted under this grant: ________________ 

Number of comparable researchers employed in the institution: __________________ 

Interviewee's name: Last, first: 
_________________________________________________ 

Role in the organisation (researcher, administrative staff, financial staff, etc.): 
___________ 

Role in the project (coordinator, supervisor, etc.): __________________ 

Scientific panel (Chemistry, Social and human sciences, Economic sciences, 
Information science and engineering, Environmental and geo-sciences, Life sciences, 
Mathematics, Physics): _________________________________________________ 

Phone number: _________________________________________________ 

Email: _________________________________________________ 

Comment(s): _________________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Introduction: 

Thank you for agreeing to have this interview. 

Before we start going through the questionnaire, let me briefly describe to you the 
purpose of this interview: 

In 2014, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie reimbursement system has been transformed 
from a system partly based on percentage rates, for example for management 
activities, to a system entirely based on unit costs where a fixed amount is paid 

127 

 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
independent of the real costs incurred. As you may know, there are unit costs related 
to the researchers and unit costs related to the hosting organisation. 

The reimbursed unit costs related to the researcher are:  

• 

The top-up allowance  

The reimbursed unit costs related to hosting organisation are:  

• 

• 

Research, training and networking costs 

Management and indirect costs 

As we mentioned in the e-mail we sent to you asking for your agreement to have this 
interview, ICF on behalf of the European Commission is currently carrying out a study 
to assess the adequacy of the current unit costs with a view of updating them for 
future calls. This includes collecting information and opinions from MSCA beneficiary 
organisations and fellows. We are contacting you as you are part of the 2014 cohort 
which was the first under the new reimbursement system. Please let me emphasise 
that this interview IS NOT AN AUDIT. We are not checking the adequate use of 
resources received through the MSCA grant against legal requirements. We are only 
interested in an honest opinion of the adequacy of the level of financial support 
received in order to ensure the attractiveness but also the sustainability of the MSCA 
programme in the future. We assure anonymity of your responses and information will 
only be shared and published at an aggregate level using the data of all 150 
interviewees contacted as part of this study. It will not be possible to identify 
individual level responses from the data we share and publish in the final report.  

________________________________________ 

Adequacy of unit costs received by the fellow 

I will first ask you about the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding received by fellows. 
Please answer all questions in relation to the fellow(s) employed under the RISE grant. 

1) Did/do you top up the top-up allowance of seconded researchers, meaning that you 
voluntarily contribute(d) to fellows’ top-up allowance? 

2) How would you rate the adequacy of the European Commission’s contribution to the 
top-up allowance? Would you say it is by far insufficient, insufficient, adequate, 
generous or overly generous? 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

3) How desirable or useful would be the introduction of a disability allowance? Please 
explain. 

( ) Not desirable/useful 

 ( ) Somewhat desirable/useful 

 ( ) Desirable/useful 

4) What should the amount of the disability allowance be and on what basis? 

Euro/month: _________________________________________________ 

Euro/year: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/month: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/year: _________________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Existence of competing fellowships 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13) Are you aware of any national fellowship programmes similar to or competing with 
the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in your country? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

5) [if yes] What is the name of the programme and which costs do they cover? 

6) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme?  

7) Are you aware of any fellowship programmes similar to or competing with the Marie 
Skłodowska-Curie programme in other European countries or countries outside 
Europe? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

8) What is the name and country of the programme(s) and which costs do they cover? 

9) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme? 

________________________________________ 

Trends in researcher salaries 

10) What is the framework within which researcher salaries are determined in your 
country (e.g. national regulation, regional regulation, discretion of individual 
institution)? 

11) How have researcher salaries evolved over the past 5 years. Could you provide a 
percentage per year or over another period? 

12) Do you feel that MSCA unit costs have kept up with this development? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

________________________________________ 

Adequacy of unit costs for research, training and networking costs and 
management and indirect costs  

I will now ask you about the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding received by your 
institution for research, training and networking costs, and management and indirect 
costs. 

13) What type of research costs are incurred for a Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow in 
your project and at what level per month? 

14) How do these costs compare to the costs associated with comparable researchers 
in the institution? Please explain. 

( ) Lower 

( ) Similar 

( ) Higher 

15) What type of training do MSCA fellows in your project have access to? 

129 

 
 
 
 
16) How does this compare to the type of training comparable researchers in the 
institution have access to? 

17) What are the costs associated with this training per month?  

18) Are the marginal costs for this training decreasing with the number of fellows? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

19) What type of networking activities have MSCA fellows in your project access to? 

20) How do these compare to the type of networking activities comparable 
researchers in the institution have access to? 

21) What are the costs associated with these networking activities per month?  

22) Overall, how would you rate the adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for research, 
training and networking? Would you say it is: 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

23) What type of management and indirect costs are associated with MSCA fellows in 
your project? 

24) How do these compare to the types of management and indirect costs associated 
with comparable researchers in the institution? 

25) Overall, how would you rate the adequacy of the MSCA unit cost for management 
and indirect costs? Would you say it is: 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

________________________________________ 

Comparison to past reimbursement system 

The next question refers to the transition of the MSCA reimbursement system from 
rates to unit costs for costs related to research, training, networking, management 
and indirect costs in 2014. 

26) Do you have experience with the MSCA reimbursement system based on rates? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

27) [If yes]: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: 
“The transition to a reimbursement system entirely based on unit costs was a good 
thing”. Please explain. 

( ) Strongly disagree  ( ) Disagree   ( ) Neutral 
( ) Not applicable 

 ( ) Agree 

 ( ) Strongly agree 

________________________________________ 

Final remarks 

28) What, if anything, would you modify regarding the MSCA unit costs? 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A5.4  Fellows questionnaire COFUND 

Background information  

Date of the interview, time: 
_________________________________________________ 

Interviewer: _________________________________________________ 

Means (telephone/ face to face) - please delete not applicable: 
_____________________ 

Acronym of MSCA grant: 
_________________________________________________ 

Grant number: _________________________________________________ 

Type of MSCA (ITN, IF, RISE, COFUND): _______________ 

Researcher category (ESR, ER): ________________________ 

Name of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Country of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Fellow’s name: Last, first: 
_________________________________________________ 

Fellow’s first nationality: _________________________________________________ 

Fellow’s: Gender: _________________________________________________ 

Scientific panel (Chemistry, Social and human sciences, Economic sciences, 
Information science and engineering, Environmental and geo-sciences, Life sciences, 
Mathematics, Physics): _________________________________________________ 

Phone number: _________________________________________________ 

Email: _________________________________________________ 

Comment(s): _________________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Introduction 

Thank you for agreeing to have this interview. 

Before we start going through the questionnaire, let me briefly describe to you the 
purpose of this interview: 

In 2014, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie reimbursement system has been transformed 
from a system partly based on percentage rates, for example for management 
activities, to a system entirely based on unit costs where a fixed amount is paid 
independent of the real costs incurred. As you may know, there are unit costs related 
to the researchers and unit costs related to the hosting organisation. 

The reimbursed unit costs related to the researcher are:  

• 

The living allowance 

The reimbursed unit costs related to hosting organisation are:  

• 

Management and indirect costs 

131 

 
 
 
 
   
 
As we mentioned in our original e-mail, ICF on behalf of the European Commission is 
currently carrying out a study to assess the adequacy of the current unit costs with a 
view to updating them for future calls. This includes collecting information and 
opinions from MSCA beneficiary organisations and fellows. We are contacting you as 
you are part of the 2014 cohort which was the first under the new reimbursement 
system. Please let me emphasise that this interview IS NOT AN AUDIT. We are not 
checking the adequate use of resources received through the MSCA grant against legal 
requirements. We are only interested in an honest opinion of the adequacy of the level 
of financial support received in order to ensure the attractiveness but also the 
sustainability of the MSCA programme in the future. We assure anonymity of your 
responses and information will only be shared and published at an aggregate level 
using the data of all 150 interviewees contacted as part of this study. It will not be 
possible to identify individual level responses from the data we share and publish in 
the final report. 

_______________________________________ 

Adequacy of unit costs received by the fellow 

I will first ask you about the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding received by you as a 
fellow. 

1) Under COFUND, your host institution must contribute at least 50 percent to your 
living allowance (at least the same amount the European Commission contributes). 
Did/does your institution contribute more than 50 percent of your living allowance, 
meaning that your host institution voluntarily contributed/contributes to your living 
allowance on top of what is required by the Marie Curie programme? 

50% of living allowance would be: 

EURO:  

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

2) How would you rate the adequacy of the living allowance you receive(d) [including 
voluntary contribution of host or sending institution]? Would you say it is/was: 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

3) The European Commission’s monthly contribution to your living allowance, before 
deductions according to national regulations, amounted/amounts to   

EURO:  

How much should it have been/be in order to be adequate? Please explain.  

Euro/month: _________________________________________________ 

Euro/year: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/month: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/year: _________________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Available income of fellow and similar researchers 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4) Have/Do you receive(d) any other monetary benefits, for example from the host 
institution or from national agencies? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

5) [If yes]: What for and how much did/do they amount to altogether per month? 

Amount 

Purpose 

Euro/month 

Local currency/month 

6) What was/is your monthly available income including all allowances and additional 
national benefits or benefits granted by the host institution? 

Euro/month: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/month: _________________________________________________ 

7) How would you rate the adequacy of the overall monthly available income you 
receive(d)? Would you say it is: 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

8) What would be the monthly available income including all benefits of a researcher 
at your institution similar to you in terms of discipline, career stage and family 
situation but not funded under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme? [Multiple 
answers possible if under different employment contracts/grants]  

9) What would be the monthly available income including all benefits of a researcher 
similar to you in terms of discipline, career stage and family situation at an institution 
in the country of your nationality? [Multiple answers possible if under different 
employment contracts/grants]  

10) Are there any important competing professions for which researchers in your field 
are often recruited? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

11) [If yes]: What is the name of this profession or these professions? 

12) [If yes]: What would be the monthly available income including all benefits of 
[Name of profession] similar to you in terms of discipline, career stage and family 
situation? ________________________________________ 

Existence of competing fellowships 

13) Are you aware of any national fellowship programmes similar to or competing with 
the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in the country where you worked as a MSCA 
fellow? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

14) [if yes] What is the name of the programme and which costs do they cover? 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme?  

16) Are you aware of any fellowship programmes similar to or competing with the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in other European countries or countries outside 
Europe? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

17) What is the name and country of the programme(s) and which costs do they 
cover? 

18) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme? 
________________________________________ 

Trends in researcher salaries 

19) How have researcher salaries evolved over the past 5 years. Could you provide a 
percentage per year or over another period? 

________________________________________ 

Conditions regarding research, training and networking costs 

20) During your Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (so far), how frequently was your 
research negatively impacted by a lack of funding for research equipment, raw 
materials, etc.? Please explain. 

( ) Never 

 ( ) Rarely 

 ( ) Sometimes 

 ( ) Often 

 ( ) Always 

21) Overall, how negative was/will be the impact of a lack of funding for research 
equipment, raw materials, etc. on your final research outputs and outcomes? Did/will 
it have no negative impact, a minor negative impact, a moderate negative impact or a 
major negative impact? Please explain 

( ) A minor negative impact  ( ) A moderate negative impact 
impact 

 ( ) A major negative 

22) During your Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (so far), how frequently was your 
research negatively impacted by a lack of funding for training? Was this never, rarely, 
sometimes, often or always? Please explain. 

( ) Never 

 ( ) Rarely 

 ( ) Sometimes 

 ( ) Often 

 ( ) Always 

23) During your Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (so far), how frequently was your 
research negatively affected by a lack of funding for networking? Please explain.  

( ) Never 

 ( ) Rarely 

 ( ) Sometimes 

 ( ) Often 

 ( ) Always 

Final remarks 

24) What, if anything, would you modify regarding the MSCA unit costs? 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A5.5  Fellows questionnaire IF and ITN 

Background information 

Date of the interview, time: 
_________________________________________________ 

Interviewer: _________________________________________________ 

Means (telephone/ face to face) - please delete not applicable: 
_________________________________________________ 

Acronym of MSCA grant: 
_________________________________________________ 

Grant number: _________________________________________________ 

Type of MSCA (ITN, IF, RISE, COFUND): 
_________________________________________________ 

Researcher category (ESR, ER): 
_________________________________________________ 

Name of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Country of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Fellow’s name: Last, first: 
_________________________________________________ 

Fellow’s first nationality: _________________________________________________ 

Fellow’s: Gender: _________________________________________________ 

Scientific panel (Chemistry, Social and human sciences, Economic sciences, 
Information science and engineering, Environmental and geo-sciences, Life sciences, 
Mathematics, Physics): _________________________________________________ 

Phone number: _________________________________________________ 

Email: _________________________________________________ 

Comment(s): _________________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Introduction 

Thank you for agreeing to have this interview. 

Before we start going through the questionnaire, let me briefly describe to you the 
purpose of this interview: 

In 2014, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie reimbursement system has been transformed 
from a system partly based on percentage rates, for example for management 
activities, to a system entirely based on unit costs where a fixed amount is paid 
independent of the real costs incurred. As you may know, there are unit costs related 
to the researchers and unit costs related to the hosting organisation. 

The reimbursed unit costs related to the researcher are:  

• 

• 

The living allowance 

The mobility allowance 

135 

 
 
 
 
  
   
• 

The family allowance 

The reimbursed unit costs related to hosting organisation are:  

• 

• 

Research, training and networking costs 

Management and indirect costs 

As we mentioned in our original e-mail, ICF on behalf of the European Commission is 
currently carrying out a study to assess the adequacy of the current unit costs with a 
view to updating them for future calls. This includes collecting information and 
opinions from MSCA beneficiary organisations and fellows. We are contacting you as 
you are part of the 2014 cohort which was the first under the new reimbursement 
system. Please let me emphasise that this interview IS NOT AN AUDIT. We are not 
checking the adequate use of resources received through the MSCA grant against legal 
requirements. We are only interested in an honest opinion of the adequacy of the level 
of financial support received in order to ensure the attractiveness but also the 
sustainability of the MSCA programme in the future. We assure anonymity of your 
responses and information will only be shared and published at an aggregate level 
using the data of all 150 interviewees contacted as part of this study. It will not be 
possible to identify individual level responses from the data we share and publish in 
the final report. 

 ________________________________________ 

Adequacy of unit costs received by the fellow 

I will first ask you about the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding received by you as a 
fellow. 

1) Was/Is you living allowance topped up by your host-institution, meaning that your 
host institution voluntarily contributed/contributes to your living allowance on top of 
the Marie Curie living allowance? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

2) How would you rate the adequacy of the living allowance you receive(d) [including 
voluntary contribution of host or sending institution]? Would you say it is/was: 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

3) The European Commission’s monthly contribution to your living allowance, before 
deductions according to national regulations, amounted/amounts to   

EURO: 

How much should it have been/be in order to be adequate? Please explain.  

Euro/month: _________________________________________________ 

Euro/year: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/month: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/year: _________________________________________________ 

4) The European Commission contribution to fellow’s living allowance is adjusted to 
the living costs of countries using a correction coefficient. The higher the coefficient, 
the higher the living allowance.  For the country you work(ed) in as a Marie 
Skłodowska-Curie fellow, is the coefficient: 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ( ) Too low 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Too high 

5) How would you rate the adequacy of the mobility allowance? Would you say it is by 
far insufficient, insufficient, adequate, generous or overly generous? 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

6) Did/Do you receive a family allowance? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

7) [If yes]: How would you rate the adequacy of the family allowance? Would you say 
it is by far insufficient, insufficient, adequate, generous or overly generous? 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

________________________________________ 

Available income of fellow and similar researchers 

8) Have/Do you receive(d) any other monetary benefits, for example from the host 
institution or from national agencies? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

9) [If yes]: What for and how much did/do they amount to altogether per month? 

Amount 

Purpose 

Euro/month 

Local currency/month 

10) What was/is your monthly available income including all allowances and additional 
national benefits or benefits granted by the host institution? 

Euro/month: _________________________________________________ 

Local currency/month: _________________________________________________ 

11) How would you rate the adequacy of the overall monthly available income you 
receive(d)? Would you say it is: 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

12) What would be the monthly available income including all benefits of a researcher 
at your institution similar to you in terms of discipline, career stage and family 
situation but not funded under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme? [Multiple 
answers possible if under different employment contracts/grants]  

13) What would be the monthly available income including all benefits of a researcher 
similar to you in terms of discipline, career stage and family situation at an institution 
in the country of your nationality? [Multiple answers possible if under different 
employment contracts/grants]  

14) Are there any important competing professions for which researchers in your field 
are often recruited? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
( ) Don't know 

15) [If yes]: What is the name of this profession or these professions? 

16) [If yes]: What would be the monthly available income including all benefits of 
[Name of profession] similar to you in terms of discipline, career stage and family 
situation?  

________________________________________ 

Existence of competing fellowships 

17) Are you aware of any national fellowship programmes similar to or competing with 
the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in the country where you worked as a MSCA 
fellow? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

18) [if yes] What is the name of the programme and which costs do they cover? 

19) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme?  

20) Are you aware of any fellowship programmes similar to or competing with the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in other European countries or countries outside 
Europe? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

21) What is the name and country of the programme(s) and which costs do they 
cover? 

22) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme?  

________________________________________ 

Trends in researcher salaries 

23) How have researcher salaries evolved over the past 5 years. Could you provide a 
percentage per year or over another period? 

________________________________________ 

Adequacy of unit costs for research, training and networking costs 

I will now ask you about the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding received by your host 
institution for research, training and networking costs.  

24) During your Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (so far), how frequently was your 
research negatively impacted by a lack of funding for research equipment, raw 
materials, etc.? Please explain. 

( ) Never 

 ( ) Rarely 

 ( ) Sometimes 

 ( ) Often 

 ( ) Always 

25) Overall, how negative was/will be the impact of a lack of funding for research 
equipment, raw materials, etc. on your final research outputs and outcomes? Did/will 
it have no negative impact, a minor negative impact, a moderate negative impact or a 
major negative impact? Please explain 

( ) A minor negative impact  ( ) A moderate negative impact 
impact 

 ( ) A major negative 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
26) During your Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (so far), how frequently was your 
research negatively impacted by a lack of funding for training? Was this never, rarely, 
sometimes, often or always? Please explain. 

( ) Never 

 ( ) Rarely 

 ( ) Sometimes 

 ( ) Often 

 ( ) Always 

27) During your Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (so far), how frequently was your 
research negatively affected by a lack of funding for networking? Please explain.  

( ) Never 

 ( ) Rarely 

 ( ) Sometimes 

 ( ) Often 

 ( ) Always 

28) To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “My host 
institution has spent/spends the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding for research, training 
and networking costs to support the quality of my research and training”.  Please 
explain.  

( ) Strongly disagree  ( ) Disagree   ( ) Neutral 
( ) Not applicable 

 ( ) Agree 

 ( ) Strongly agree 

________________________________________ 

Final remarks 

29) What, if anything, would you modify regarding the MSCA unit costs? 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A5.6  Fellows questionnaire RISE 

Background information 

Date of the interview, time: 
_________________________________________________ 

Interviewer: _________________________________________________ 

Means (telephone/ face to face) - please delete not applicable: 
_________________________________________________ 

Acronym of MSCA grant: 
_________________________________________________ 

Grant number: _________________________________________________ 

Type of MSCA (ITN, IF, RISE, COFUND): 
_________________________________________________ 

Researcher category (ESR, ER): 
_________________________________________________ 

Name of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Country of host organisation: 
_________________________________________________ 

Fellow’s name: Last, first: 
_________________________________________________ 

Fellow’s first nationality: _________________________________________________ 

Fellow’s: Gender: _________________________________________________ 

Scientific panel (Chemistry, Social and human sciences, Economic sciences, 
Information science and engineering, Environmental and geo-sciences, Life sciences, 
Mathematics, Physics): _________________________________________________ 

Phone number: _________________________________________________ 

Email: _________________________________________________ 

Comment(s): _________________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Introduction 

Thank you for agreeing to have this interview. 

Before we start going through the questionnaire, let me briefly describe to you the 
purpose of this interview: 

In 2014, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie reimbursement system has been transformed 
from a system partly based on percentage rates, for example for management 
activities, to a system entirely based on unit costs where a fixed amount is paid 
independent of the real costs incurred. As you may know, there are unit costs related 
to the researchers and unit costs related to the hosting organisation. 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
The reimbursed unit costs related to the researcher are:  

• 

The top-up allowance 

The reimbursed unit costs related to hosting organisation are:  

• 

• 

Research, training and networking costs 

Management and indirect costs 

As we mentioned in our original e-mail, ICF on behalf of the European Commission is 
currently carrying out a study to assess the adequacy of the current unit costs with a 
view to updating them for future calls. This includes collecting information and 
opinions from MSCA beneficiary organisations and fellows. We are contacting you as 
you are part of the 2014 cohort which was the first under the new reimbursement 
system. Please let me emphasise that this interview IS NOT AN AUDIT. We are not 
checking the adequate use of resources received through the MSCA grant against legal 
requirements. We are only interested in an honest opinion of the adequacy of the level 
of financial support received in order to ensure the attractiveness but also the 
sustainability of the MSCA programme in the future. We assure anonymity of your 
responses and information will only be shared and published at an aggregate level 
using the data of all 150 interviewees contacted as part of this study. It will not be 
possible to identify individual level responses from the data we share and publish in 
the final report. 

________________________________________ 

Adequacy of unit costs received by the fellow 

I will first ask you about the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding received by you as a 
fellow. 

1) Was/Is your top-up allowance complemented by your host or sending institution, 
meaning that your host or sending institution voluntarily contributed/contributes to 
the top-up allowance you received on top of the Marie Curie top-up allowance? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

2) How would you rate the adequacy of the top-up allowance you receive(d) [including 
voluntary contribution of host or sending institution]? Would you say it is: 

( ) By far insufficient  ( ) Insufficient 
generous 

 ( ) Adequate   ( ) Generous  ( ) Overly 

________________________________________ 

Available income of fellow and similar researchers 

3) Are there any important competing professions for which researchers in your field 
are often recruited? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don't know 

4) [If yes]: What is the name of this profession or these professions? 

5) [If yes]: What would be the monthly available income including all benefits of 
[Name of profession] similar to you in terms of discipline, career stage and family 
situation?  

________________________________________ 

141 

 
 
 
 
Existence of competing fellowships 

6) Are you aware of any national fellowship programmes similar to or competing with 
the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme in the country where you worked as a MSCA 
fellow? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

7) [if yes] What is the name of the programme and which costs do they cover? 

8) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme?  

9) Are you aware of any fellowship programmes similar to or competing with the Marie 
Skłodowska-Curie programme in other European countries or countries outside 
Europe? 

( ) Yes 

( ) No 

( ) Don’t know 

10) [If yes]: What is the name and country of the programme(s) and which costs do 
they cover? 

11) [If yes]: How does the level of costs covered compare to the costs covered by the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme?  
________________________________________ 

Trends in researcher salaries 

12) How have researcher salaries evolved over the past 5 years. Could you provide a 
percentage per year or over another period? 

________________________________________ 

Adequacy of unit costs for research, training and networking costs 

I will now ask you about the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding received by your host 
institution for research, training and networking costs. 

13) During your Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (so far), how frequently was your 
research negatively impacted by a lack of funding for research equipment, raw 
materials, etc.? Please explain. 

( ) Never 

 ( ) Rarely 

 ( ) Sometimes 

 ( ) Often 

 ( ) Always 

14) Overall, how negative was/will be the impact of a lack of funding for research 
equipment, raw materials, etc. on your final research outputs and outcomes? Did/will 
it have no negative impact, a minor negative impact, a moderate negative impact or a 
major negative impact? Please explain 

( ) A minor negative impact  ( ) A moderate negative impact 
impact 

 ( ) A major negative 

15) During your Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (so far), how frequently was your 
research negatively impacted by a lack of funding for training? Was this never, rarely, 
sometimes, often or always? Please explain. 

( ) Never 

 ( ) Rarely 

 ( ) Sometimes 

 ( ) Often 

 ( ) Always 

16) During your Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (so far), how frequently was your 
research negatively affected by a lack of funding for networking? Please explain.  

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
( ) Never 

 ( ) Rarely 

 ( ) Sometimes 

 ( ) Often 

 ( ) Always 

17) To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “My host 
institution has spent/spends the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding for research, training 
and networking costs to support the quality of my research and training”.  Please 
explain.  

( ) Strongly disagree  ( ) Disagree   ( ) Neutral 
( ) Not applicable 

 ( ) Agree 

 ( ) Strongly agree 

________________________________________ 

Final remarks 

18) What, if anything, would you modify regarding the MSCA unit costs? 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 
  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations 
(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); 
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); 
by contacting the Europe Direct service 
(http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels 
may charge you). 

Priced publications: 
  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 
  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N
C
-
0
1
-
1
7
-
4
6
4
-
E
N
-
N

ISBN: 978-92-79-68825-6