The Fragmentation Trap in EU Research Funding: How Competitive Schemes Weaken Regional Strategies and Reinforce Academic Oligopolies

The Fragmentation Trap in EU Research Funding: How Competitive Schemes Weaken Regional Strategies and Reinforce Academic Oligopolies

Author: Monica Bianco, Ecosystems Cooperation advisor -CRF Italy

Abstract

The increasing reliance on competitive funding schemes in European research policy, particularly through programs such as Horizon Europe, has profound implications for the ability of regions and institutions to pursue coherent, long-term research and innovation strategies. While competition is often justified as a driver of excellence and inclusion, this article argues that current funding mechanisms paradoxically reinforce academic oligopolies, concentrate resources among leading institutions, and undermine the ideal of a free and diversified research system. By critically examining the structural weaknesses introduced by fragmented funding models, this work calls for a rethinking of funding strategies to foster genuine territorial development, institutional diversity, and systemic innovation.

Introduction

Over the past two decades, European research funding has increasingly shifted towards highly competitive, project-based allocations. Framework programs such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe promote competition among institutions to access limited resources, emphasizing short-term deliverables and high-visibility outputs. As Laredo notes, “project-based funding tends to produce fragmented research portfolios poorly aligned with long-term socio-economic needs” [1].

While competition is officially intended to foster excellence, its unintended consequence has been the fragmentation of research agendas, the erosion of institutional continuity, and the emergence of a closed elite of research actors.

Benner and Sandström argue that “competitive funding undermines the strategic autonomy of research organizations, pushing them into opportunistic project-hopping” [2].

In the European context, this has led to a concentration of leadership positions and financial flows within a narrow circle of top universities and research centers.

The Mechanics of Fragmentation and Oligopoly Formation

The core issue with European competitive funding lies in its prioritization of discrete, isolated projects over systemic regional strategies.

Research teams often chase thematic calls, aligning proposals with funding priorities rather than with territorial needs or long-term development missions. As Geuna and Martin highlight, “short-termism in research funding policies systematically discourages cumulative knowledge building and long-range exploration” [3].

Moreover, the evaluation criteria and project management complexities embedded in European calls favor institutions already equipped with sophisticated administrative structures and international networks. Merton’s Matthew Effect is clearly visible: “scientific prestige and resources become increasingly concentrated in a limited number of actors” [4].

This has produced a structural oligopoly: a small group of universities and research organizations dominate project coordination roles, while smaller universities and peripheral regions are relegated to subordinate, often tokenistic participation.

Whitley notes that “the proliferation of project-based funding reduces the incentives for researchers to engage in risky or interdisciplinary endeavors, favoring established paradigms” [5].

Thus, European funding mechanisms, instead of democratizing research and promoting widespread innovation, end up reinforcing existing hierarchies and reducing the plurality of scientific approaches.

Consequences for Regional Development and Scientific Diversity

The consolidation of academic oligopolies through European funding systems has several negative implications for territorial development and scientific freedom.

First, it alienates research from the regions and communities that finance it.Bornmann et al. observe that “societal needs are systematically underrepresented in metric-driven research portfolios” [6], with funding flows concentrating in already dominant territories.

Second, it undermines the building of local experimental infrastructures essential for sustainable innovation. Johnstone and Schot emphasize that “systemic transitions require robust, territorially embedded experimental platforms, not just excellence clusters” [7].

Third, it exacerbates geographical inequalities. European Commission reports admit that “Framework Programme participation remains concentrated in a few leading regions, with persistent underrepresentation of less developed areas” [8].

Finally, the concentration of resources and prestige within a closed elite threatens the legitimacy and inclusiveness of the European Research Area itself. Ryan argues that “short-term competitive logics promote exclusionary dynamics, leading to disillusionment among peripheral research actors” [9].

Thus, rather than creating an open and resilient European research system, current funding practices entrench structural divides and limit the transformative capacity of science.

Towards a More Inclusive and Mission-Oriented Research Funding System

Reversing the fragmentation and oligopoly effects requires a strategic rethinking of European funding policies. As Mazzucato stresses, “mission-oriented innovation policies should create stable, long-term frameworks that encourage cumulative learning, cross-sector collaboration, and systemic change” [10].

Such an approach would include:

• Prioritizing long-term regional missions over isolated project calls.
• Supporting consortia led by emerging universities and research centers, not only the established giants.
• Evaluating success based on cumulative societal impact, not just publications or short-term deliverables.
• Guaranteeing structural funding for research infrastructures, especially in underserved regions.

Moreover, as Schot and Steinmueller argue, “transformative innovation policy must align funding mechanisms with systemic change needs, rather than perpetuating fragmented competition detached from territorial regeneration” [11].

Only by breaking the oligopolistic dynamics and reinvesting in widespread territorial innovation can Europe build a research ecosystem capable of facing grand societal challenges.

Conclusion

The competitive, fragmented nature of European research funding, far from fostering widespread innovation and inclusion, has reinforced a closed system dominated by elite universities. This has led to the concentration of resources, prestige, and leadership, marginalizing smaller institutions and peripheral regions. Reclaiming the transformative role of science requires a profound reorientation of funding strategies: embracing mission-driven, territorially embedded, and inclusive approaches capable of regenerating both research systems and societies.

Only by dismantling the academic oligopolies and redistributing opportunities can Europe truly realize a resilient, free, and socially impactful research ecosystem.

References

1. Laredo, P. (2007). “Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities?” Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456.
2. Benner, M., & Sandström, U. (2000). “Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system.” Research Policy, 29(2), 291–301.
3. Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). “University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison.” Minerva, 41(4), 277–304.
4. Merton, R. K. (1968). “The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science, 159(3810), 56–63.
5. Whitley, R. (2003). “Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: The impact of institutional frameworks on the organization of academic science.” Research Policy, 32(6), 1015–1029.
6. Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Adams, J. (2018). “Do altmetrics assess societal impact?” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03977.
7. Johnstone, P., & Schot, J. (2023). “Shocks, institutional change, and sustainability transitions.” Research Policy, 52(1), 104–115.
8. European Commission (2021). “Framework Programme Participation Analysis.”
9. Ryan, B. (2015). “The Academic Profession: Changes, Challenges, and Consequences.” Higher Education Quarterly, 69(1), 91–111.
10. Mazzucato, M. (2018). “Mission-oriented research and innovation in the European Union: A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth.” European Commission, Policy Brief.
11. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). “Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change.” Research Policy, 47(9), 1554–1567.