Regional Integration in the Union for the Mediterranean 2025

Progress Report

Report

12 September 2025

Available in:

English
français

Download PDF

5. Research and Higher Education

Copy link to 5. Research and Higher Education

Abstract

The first part of this chapter presents the overall analysis of progress in collaboration for research and higher education since the 2021 Progress Report and introduces the policy recommendations. The second part presents the indicators that support the analysis and recommendations:

• R1. Government expenditure on tertiary education as a share of GDP

• R2. Gross expenditure on R&D as a share of GDP

• R3. Gross expenditure on R&D from abroad

• R4. Researchers and academic personnel

• R5. Co-publication

• R6. Co-patenting

• R7. Tertiary-level student mobility

• R8. Funding and participation in the Erasmus+ Programme

• R9. Learners and staff mobility supported by the Erasmus+ Programme

• R10. EU researcher mobility programmes

• R11. Funding and participation in Horizon programmes

Regional integration in higher education and research as a developmental strategy

Regional integration in higher education, research and innovation continues to play a pivotal role in fostering economic development, and mutual understanding across the Euro-Mediterranean region. This chapter of Regional Integration in the Union for the Mediterranean 2025 examines the state of integration in the region’s research and higher education systems, building upon the analysis presented in the inaugural report in 2021 to provide an updated and expanded analysis of regional integration efforts. It assesses the current research and higher education landscape, identifying key trends, persistent challenges, and emerging opportunities for co-operation and regional integration. A selected set of indicators have been chosen to monitor three key dimensions of integration in research and higher education:

National and International Resources, captured by public, private and foreign expenditure on higher education and research, as well as investment in the research and academic workforce.
International Collaboration, as expressed by the number of research, education and other projects, their results captured by data on co-publications and co-patenting.
International Mobility, as reflected in student degree mobility as well as short-term learning, teaching and research mobilities.

Taken together, these indicators provide a picture of the capacity of UfM countries to pursue regional and international collaboration and exchange in higher education and research and offer a basis for discussion of policy options and considerations. That said, they are not a direct measure of regional integration and should be interpreted with caution. In some cases, data are not available for all UfM countries or may not be fully comparable due to variations in definitions and methodologies across countries.

What we have observed since the 2021 report

Copy link to What we have observed since the 2021 report

Higher education and research have historically always had a global dimension because they involve flows of people and knowledge between countries. The more recent internationalisation in higher education and research still has global elements, but it has been concentrated in and among actors in particular regions of the globe, such as the European Union, North America and Southeast Asia.

In recent years, initiatives promoting the integration of research and higher education in the UfM region have served to demonstrate the value of regional cooperation in tackling challenges common to countries in the Mediterranean – including those created by climate change, such as desertification and water management.

At the same time, since the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, new global tensions have emerged related to trade conflicts, security and technological competition (including export control of technology) that are making research cooperation and student mobility more challenging, including in the Euro-Mediterranean region.

In this context, the disparities of integration between UfM subregions and countries remain largely dependent on factors such as the structure and openness of education and research systems, subregional positioning, and differences in GDP per capita.

The European Union still exhibits one of the most integrated higher education and research areas in the world, with legal, financial and institutional mechanisms designed to facilitate European integration in research (European Research Area) and higher education (European Education Area) supported by funding programmes like Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe. Parallel to these efforts, EU countries (alongside with number of other states, including the Western Balkans and Türkiye) are pursuing a series of treaties, agreements, shared guidelines and structures that have developed the European Higher Education Area. The financial support for, and harmonisation of, policies in the areas of study structure, credit accumulation and transfer systems, recognition, and quality assurance have facilitated unprecedented levels of individual mobility and co-operation.

Despite these extensive efforts, however, the integration level of higher education and research and development is unequal, with unbalanced student and staff mobility patterns and uneven distribution of research funding inside Europe.

Meanwhile, higher education and research systems in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are integrated neither with Europe nor among themselves, and the mobility is primarily outwards.

Further work is needed to promote research and higher education links within the Euro-Mediterranean region, especially to strengthen South-North links and connections among Northern African and Middle East countries. This will require actions to a) mobilise sufficient human and financial resources, b) support collaboration between organisations and individuals and c) further facilitate mobility in study, teaching and research.

Financial and human resources for research and higher education in the UfM countries

There are significant differences in the levels of public and private expenditure for research and development (R&D) and higher education among UfM countries. The level of investment affects the state of infrastructure and personnel, which in turn impacts potential for co-operation and integration. The level of funding for higher education and research from foreign governments and international funding programmes (e.g., Erasmus+, Horizon Europe) varies, but is especially lacking in some Southern Mediterranean countries.

Despite slight increases in funding for higher education and research, regional differences persist. Trends over the last decade show that while some UfM countries have steadily increased their investment, others have not kept pace. Southern Mediterranean and Western Balkan countries in the UfM generally invest far less compared to the EU-27 average. This is also closely correlated to the ability of countries to attract private and foreign funding for R&D. EU countries benefit greatly from significant Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe funding that supports international research, joint projects and mobilities. The Western Balkans and Türkiye are better connected to the EU programmes and are increasingly benefiting from them, while there remain barriers to more significant participation from Southern Mediterranean countries. These trends confirm the need to boost public funding for research and higher education, as well as need to pursue policies to attract more private and foreign investment. The EU should also consider opening its flagship funding programmes to deeper participation by non-EU UfM countries, while being mindful of reducing administrative and regulatory hurdles to participation.

The level of financial investment is also reflected in R&D and academic workforce. There are significant differences in the number of researchers and academics relative to the overall student population. It will be crucial to invest into education of future researchers and academics, and to expand a highly qualified workforce. Gender disparity among R&D and academic personnel is evident, with males generally outnumbering females, especially with increasing seniority. This disparity suggests a need for policies to promote diverse and inclusive working conditions and career progression in research and academia.

More broadly, the region is facing unequal levels of development of research and higher education in terms of infrastructure, support structures and personnel. Further regional integration will require investment in national capabilities in higher education and researcher training as well as the development of national policy-making capacities, evidence collection, and various public agencies.

International co‑operation of researchers and higher education institutions

While the Western Balkans and Türkiye are increasingly integrated with the EU in research and higher education, the participation of organisations from Southern Mediterranean countries is lacking. The participation of research organisations and higher education institutions in Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe varies. These programmes are primarily oriented towards European integration and more explicitly engaging Western Balkans as EU candidate states. Under both programmes, instruments like the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA) in Horizon Europe and third country participation in Erasmus+ remain relatively limited and result in unbalanced partnerships and mobilities. Greater effort should be considered to promote co-operation among Southern partners and balanced partnerships with EU countries.

Although the level of co-patenting and co-publication in UfM is relatively strong, there are significant gaps between EU members and other countries. Progress has been slow. Strengthening research infrastructure and investing in the research workforce could help to improve conditions for international collaboration. Some use of mobilities as well as institutional partnerships could help researchers to expand their international networks and facilitate future collaborations.

Research organisation, higher education institutions and individuals in them require capacity building to implement co-operation projects and to be internationally competitive. Even within the EU, there is a great variability in the institutional capacities across and within higher education and research systems. Many institutions would benefit from capacity-building initiatives designed to enhance internal capabilities for international outreach, facilitate applications for larger international projects, and build administrative capacity to manage and sustain ongoing international engagement. Capacity-building projects should have an ambition to develop more mutual partnerships rather than promoting dependency over time.

Study, teaching and research mobilities

The number of UfM students pursuing studies in another UfM country and elsewhere is growing. More countries are also emerging as major study destinations, with rapid growth in inbound mobility to Türkiye, Germany and the Netherlands. However, individual mobility flows have remained mostly asymmetrical. South-North student mobility dominates among UfM countries, with the largest flows going towards Western Europe (France, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany), whereas South-South mobility flows (between countries of the Southern Mediterranean) remain modest. While no longer a member state of the UfM, the United Kingdom remains the most frequent destination for students from the UfM countries.

UfM participation in Erasmus+ is increasing individual mobility, but with regional variance and imbalances. The share of Erasmus+ individual mobilities – in other words, learners and staff – involving higher-education institutions from non-EU UfM countries taken together has slightly increased in recent years. The increase was due mainly to larger participation of students and staff from Western Balkans and strong participation from Türkiye. Within the Erasmus+ mobility scheme, asymmetricity in mobility flows results partially from restrictions placed on outbound mobility of short-cycle, bachelor’s and master’s-level students towards institutions in countries not associated with the programme. In the context of the UfM, this concerns all countries in the Southern Mediterranean.

There have been some advancements towards greater female participation, in Erasmus+, and female learners and staff are sometimes even the majority. However, gender gaps remain, particularly in North African countries.

UfM and the broader MENA region. In the broader MENA region, the GCC countries stand out as economies based on natural resources whose governments have realised the importance of knowledge and technology in diversifying their economies. In this context, the indicators in this chapters highlight the expansion of existing networks and platforms for cooperation in research and mobility of students between GCC and UfM countries. In addition, international scientific co-publishing in fields related to the digital and green transitions has increased in both UfM and GCC countries.

Regarding international co-patenting, data show stagnation, due in part to industrial structure and legacy industries and weak capacity in GCC to commercialise domestic research and engage in international technology partnerships.

Looking forward, what policy action is needed?

Copy link to Looking forward, what policy action is needed?

In the UfM, the area of higher education and research has struggled to attract the political backing and commitment necessary to promote greater integration. The first UfM Ministerial Meeting on Research and Innovation took place in June 2022; a ministerial meeting on higher education was proposed to take place in the fall of 2023 but was postponed.

Despite the lack of political support and many challenges facing higher education and research in the region, improvements in co-operation and increased mobility are evident. However, even if co-operation in higher education is possible at the individual and institutional levels, the pursuit of regional integration will require continued efforts to remove barriers to co-operation, address the disparities in investment and capability among UfM countries, and support and strengthen linkages.

To that end, considerable potential remains for reforms that could stimulate closer co-operation and integration. A regional focus on policy for higher education, research and innovation should further the integration of the capital, labour, product and services markets in the UfM area and make it easier for higher education institutions, research organisation and companies to interact across borders, while also ensuring healthy competition.

The UfM and European Commission can make full use of both existing instruments (such as the actions of the Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe programmes), and existing institutions – such as EU representations in non-EU countries, national Erasmus+ offices, embassies of member countries, and offices of international co‑operation bodies, such as Campus France or the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).

Supporting national policy making and implementation

Many UfM countries also need to make reforms to consolidate and improve their higher education and research systems. The Western Balkan economies, through their EU accession processes, are implementing several reforms and harmonising their higher education and research systems with their EU peers. These efforts are supported by EU technical assistance and their participation in number of bodies.

Similar conditions are not present in the Southern Mediterranean countries. The UfM has here an important role in supporting national reforms. One of the main instruments is the meetings of the Senior Officials on Higher Education. Those meetings could help to bridge some of the smaller regulatory and technical differences between countries, and they could explore the possibility of convening further Ministerial meetings to secure political support for more intensive co-operation projects and larger policy changes. The Erasmus+ programme is already supporting the local Higher Education Reform Experts (HERE) networks in a number of these countries, which creates fertile ground for supporting policy reforms reflecting the local context.

An important policy assistance role is also played by international organisations (as exemplified by the OECD Review of Higher Education and OECD Review of Innovation Policies of Egypt) or by national development organisations such as DAAD, the German Academic Exchange Service.

Key findings	Policy recommendations
Mobilising financial and human resources for research and higher education
Despite slight increases of public funding for higher education and research in some countries, there is insufficient stability to further invest in higher education institutions and research organisations.	Provide a predictable and stable funding framework for investing in higher education and research.
The level of private and foreign contributions to R&D is very low in most non-EU UfM countries.	Create incentives for businesses and foreign partners to increase their investment in R&D.
The academic and research talent pool is insufficient in many UfM countries, limiting potential for future advancement.	Invest in doctoral education and young academics, strengthening research and the academic workforce.
The participation of women in research and academic careers seems to decrease with seniority.	Promote women’s careers in research and academia by creating suitable working conditions and career advancement process.
Supporting international co-operation between researchers and higher education institutions
Higher education institutions and research organisation have variable level of internal capacities to apply for and participate in complex international projects, which limits their international collaboration.	Provide capacity building for researchers and institutions in countries with low participation in international funding programmes to enhance their ability to apply for international projects and to effectively collaborate and to disseminate their work.
Organisations and individuals operating in a context of less developed infrastructures face difficulties in connecting with suitable partners for international co-operation.	Facilitate institutional and individual collaboration through networking of researchers and academics, using science and education diplomacy, liaison offices and other personnel.
Organisations outside the EU face additional requirements and limited available funding from existing EU funding mechanisms through Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe programmes.	Remove barriers to participation in and expand support for collaborative projects, especially with the Southern Mediterranean, through existing instruments in Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe. Consider developing a form of Erasmus+ accreditation, build on the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education, for higher education institutions in third countries. Such accreditation would allow to assess institutional capacities, financial management and alignment with Erasmus+ programme, and in exchange streamline participation.
Promoting more balanced study, teaching and research mobilities
Students and staff face burdensome visa requirements and processes in some countries, limiting mobility.	Streamline visa processes for students, teaching and research staff, working with higher education institutions to provide assistance to individuals.
The flow of students from EU towards Southern Mediterranean countries is low.	Consider removing restrictions on Erasmus+ student mobility towards third countries not associated with the programme
There is limited South-South study or research mobility.	Consider developing an alternative mobility scheme for study, teaching and research in the Southern Mediterranean. Explore opportunities to promote more virtual exchanges and short-term mobilities.
There are persistent challenges with recognition of acquired education between countries and unequal provision of information about higher education systems.	Adopt the Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education to improve recognition of qualifications and information sharing between UfM countries.

R1. Government expenditure on tertiary education as a share of GDP

Copy link to R1. Government expenditure on tertiary education as a share of GDP

Why this indicator?

Tertiary education includes both academic and advanced vocational education (ISCED levels 5 to 8) and is vital for developing specialised skills and knowledge.

This indicator does not directly reflect the level of regional integration. However, in general, higher education is positively correlated with higher incomes and the growth in the number of highly skilled workers contributes to improved research and development capabilities, as well as advancement in country’s productivity. These factors are expected to enhance a country's appeal to attract investment from foreign stakeholders (see indicator R3).

Strengthening higher education can make a country more attractive to international students and researchers, and equip its own students with the necessary skills to pursue higher education abroad. This is expected to improve the mobility of international students and researchers, as discussed in Indicators R7 and R8. Therefore, this indicator reflects the effort of each country to improve their potential for regional collaboration.

Key findings

This Indicator shows considerable variation for UfM countries (Figure ‎5.1). For example, Tunisia and Algeria seem to allocate a higher percentage of their GDP to tertiary education compared to other MENA UfM countries. Conversely, some countries in the region, such as Egypt and Lebanon, have lower investment levels, which may affect their ability to develop a skilled workforce and compete globally.

The trend from 2017 to 2021 shows that while some UfM countries have steadily increased their investment in tertiary education, others have not kept pace. This divergence underscores the need for targeted policy interventions to boost funding for tertiary education.

ln terms of regional comparison, MENA and Western Balkan UfM countries generally invest less in tertiary education compared to the EU-27 average (Figure ‎5.2). This investment gap can affect the region's overall competitiveness and integration efforts. Countries with better-resourced higher education institutions are in a better position to attract international students, compete for research grants and engage in cross-border educational collaborations. Conversely, countries with lower investment levels may find it difficult to provide competitive educational offerings and retain domestic talent.

The public investment gap in tertiary education among UfM countries presents challenges for regional integration in higher education. The variance in funding levels creates gaps between higher education institutions, which is a factor in outward mobility of student and staff and can make symmetrical collaboration between institutions challenging. Addressing these disparities can help to promote more-balanced student mobility and foster stronger educational and research collaborations across the region.

What policy action is needed?

Develop a long-term plan for educational investment. Strengthening higher education requires stable and predictable funding, so it is important to establish a strategy for sustained investment in education that is not limited by short-term fiscal conditions. Higher education institutions should have flexibility in allocating available resources, allowing them to respond to emerging priorities.
Promote collaboration between business and academia. Encouraging a greater contribution from the private sector towards education and research could expand the resources available to upgrade educational infrastructure and compete for best teaching staff. Furthermore, when companies and universities collaborate on educational programs and research projects, it can improve labour market outcomes for graduates as well as application of research.

Data limitation and developments

For some countries, the lack of recent data makes it difficult to observe changes in educational investment. Additionally, as the latest available data are from 2021, the extent to which they capture the impacts of COVID-19 on higher education remains uncertain. This report attempts to make estimates for countries without available international data by consulting government budget allocations.

Definitions

The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) is the reference classification for organizing education programmes and related qualifications by education levels and fields. For example, ISCED level 5 is equivalent to short-cycle tertiary education (which is typically designed to prepare students to enter the labour system), while ISCED level 8 is equivalent to a Doctoral level of education.

Source: ISCED 2011, https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf

R2. Gross expenditure on R&D as a share of GDP

Copy link to R2. Gross expenditure on R&D as a share of GDP

Why this indicator?

Gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) as a percentage of GDP measures a country’s commitment and effort to boost innovation and technological development.

Although this indicator does not directly reflect the level of regional integration, the degree of innovation development in a country is a crucial factor that influences foreign investment, collaborative R&D and the movement of people. Therefore, this indicator is also useful for measuring each country’s potential for regional integration.

Key findings

In 2023, Israel invested 6.35% of its GDP in R&D, significantly higher than other UfM countries. Sweden and Belgium followed with 3.60% and 3.32%, respectively. This indicates a robust focus on research and innovation in these countries (Figure ‎5.3).

From 2015 to 2023, countries like Israel and Belgium saw substantial increases in their R&D expenditure, reflecting a growing emphasis on innovation by the business sector which accounts for more than half of total R&D investments in most advanced economies. In contrast, countries like Bulgaria and Montenegro displayed relatively low and stagnant investment levels, with Bulgaria at around 0.79% and Montenegro at 0.49% of GDP in 2023. This disparity suggests that some UfM countries may struggle to compete globally due to limited R&D investments by the private sector as well as government.

The regional comparison for 2023 shows that the EU-27 median R&D expenditure was 1.58% of GDP, significantly higher than the median for MENA 0.68%, North Africa 0.66%, Levant 0.57% and Western Balkans 0.29% (Figure ‎5.4). This highlights a substantial investment gap that could impact the UfM region's overall innovation capacity and economic growth – particularly because in less advanced economies, businesses generally fund and perform a smaller share of R&D than the government sectors.

As shown in the Figure ‎5.4, while the Western Balkans exhibit low levels of GERD, it is highlighted the limited R&D expenditure from the private sector in this region (OECD, 2025[10]). Additionally, Western Balkans lacks infrastructure such as science parks and sufficient human resources, including researchers, which has been pointed out as a factor making it more difficult for R&D investments to translate into innovation compared to EU-27.

Investing in R&D is essential for fostering innovation, driving economic growth, and improving living standards. Countries with higher R&D expenditure are better positioned to develop new technologies and industries, creating high-quality jobs and supporting long-term economic development. For UfM countries, enhancing R&D investment is crucial for boosting regional competitiveness and fostering integration through collaborative research efforts.

What policy action is needed?

Increase government investment in R&D. This is the most fundamental and important policy, especially for upstream research in the public sector that would otherwise not be funded by the market. Key measures include expanding subsidies and grants on a competitive basis, and broadening low-interest loans for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to improve their access to finance for R&D.
Enhance business investment in R&D. Key policies in this regard include tax incentives for R&D investments, creating demand for pre-commercial technology development through public procurement, and promoting joint development with universities. Additionally, simplifying and increasing the transparency of administrative procedures, eliminating corruption in the business sector, and strengthening intellectual property enforcement (such as measures against counterfeiting) will create an environment where companies can invest with confidence, contributing to the long-term growth of R&D investment.
Enhance the absorption capacity of local businesses. Key initiatives include expanding investments in research infrastructure and human resources, as well as promoting the dissemination of advanced technologies through public-private partnerships (PPPs). These efforts will strengthen the absorption capacity of the private sector and enable effective utilisation of EU innovation and various international cooperation programs.

Data limitation and developments

Some UfM countries lack continuous data on which sectors supply GERD. Additionally, there are no comparable data across UfM countries on how GERD is allocated. If such data were available, it would be possible to conduct a detailed analysis of GERD trends according to each country's level of innovation. Such an analysis could provide valuable insights into the policies that should be adopted based on the economic development stage of each country.

Definitions

Gross domestic spending on research and development (R&D) is the total expenditure (current and capital) on R&D in a country. Research and development comprise both a) creative work undertaken on a systematic basis to increase the stock of knowledge and b) the use of this knowledge to devise new applications.

This indicator includes R&D carried out by all resident companies, research institutes, universities, and government laboratories. It includes R&D funded from abroad but excludes domestic funds for R&D performed outside the domestic economy.

Expressed as a percentage of GDP, this indicator is measured in 2015 USD constant prices and adjusted using purchasing power parities (PPPs).

Source: OECD (2015), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en.

R3. Gross expenditure on R&D from abroad

Copy link to R3. Gross expenditure on R&D from abroad

Why this indicator?

Gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) funded from abroad refers to the portion of a country’s R&D activities that is financially supported by international sources. This indicator reflects the degree of international collaboration and the ability of a country to attract foreign investment into its research and development sector. It is expressed as a percentage of the total GERD.

GERD financed from abroad is correlated with trade and value chain integration. The further apart countries are in trade, the less integrated they will be in terms of R&D financing.

Key findings

The data reveal significant variation among UfM countries in their reliance on foreign R&D funding. In 2021, Israel stands out with the highest proportion of GERD financed from abroad at 2.68%. This high percentage underscores Israel’s strong integration into the global research community and its ability to attract substantial international funding for its R&D activities.

Czechia and Austria also show high levels of foreign R&D funding, with 0.61% and 0.56% respectively. These countries have demonstrated an ability to draw significant international investment by connecting to global value chains, which in turn supports their domestic research initiatives and fosters innovation locally.

Between 2018 and 2021, several UfM countries experienced notable increases in the percentage of GERD funded from abroad (Figure ‎5.5). For instance, Slovenia's foreign R&D funding increased from 0.46% to 0.56%, and Finland saw an increase from 0.38% to 0.42%. These trends indicate a growing internationalization of research activities and enhanced global collaboration.

Conversely, countries like Türkiye have relatively low levels of foreign R&D funding, with only 0.02% of GERD financed from abroad in 2021. This suggests the need for policies aimed at promoting international R&D partnerships and attract more foreign investment into R&D intensive sectors.

Investing in R&D through international collaboration can yield significant benefits. Countries with higher foreign R&D funding often have more dynamic research environments, leading to greater innovation and technological advancements.

What policy action is needed?

Make the domestic environment more attractive to foreign investors. Macroeconomic stabilisation, including employment growth and price stability, is a fundamental prerequisite for gaining the trust of foreign stakeholders in the domestic environment. Furthermore, improved transparency of laws, regulations, and business practices (e.g. combating corruption, creating a highly competitive business environment, and ensuring fairness in the treatment of domestic and foreign companies) will enhance investors' predictability of the effects of R&D investment and give them a sense of security. In addition, the development of infrastructure to meet foreign companies’ needs and the enhancement of higher education to foster highly skilled human resources will increase the attractiveness of the country as an investment destination. Reducing barriers that specifically restrict R&D investment (e.g. regulations on importing scientific instruments) is also important.
Incorporate the results of such R&D investments into the global value chain. Reducing trade barriers and actively promoting technology transfer in the source country will help maximise the impact of R&D investments.

Data limitations

Data regarding GERD financed from abroad for non-OECD countries are extremely limited, with a significant number of UfM countries lacking available data.

Definitions

Gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) funded from abroad is the total expenditure (current and capital) on R&D in a country that is financed from abroad.

Source: OECD (2015), Frascati Manual 2015. Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en.

R4. Researchers and academic personnel

Copy link to R4. Researchers and academic personnel

Why this indicator?

Researchers are critical indicators of a country’s capacity for innovation and technological advancement. This measure reflects the total number of individuals engaged in R&D activities per million inhabitants, highlighting the human capital available for research and development.

Similarly, academic personnel are a key resource for quality higher education. The measure of number of students per academic staff is a proximate indication of academic workforce relative to the overall student population.

Key findings

In 2021, Sweden and Denmark led with 8,131 and 7,679 researchers per million inhabitants, respectively, indicating a robust research environment and strong investment in human capital for R&D. However, some countries still lag in R&D personnel numbers. For example, Türkiye had 2,270 R&D personnel per million inhabitants in 2021, a significant increase from 1,456 in 2017, but still low given the country’s population and the need for enhanced efforts to build human capital in research and development (Figure ‎5.6).

From 2017 to 2021, several UfM countries showed growth in R&D personnel. Portugal, for example, increased its researchers from 4,363 to 5,475 per million inhabitants, and Greece saw growth from 3,254 to 4,262 per million inhabitants. These trends indicate a positive movement in some countries towards strengthening research capacities and fostering a more dynamic research environment.

Gender disparity in researchers is evident, with males generally outnumbering females. For instance, in Sweden, Austria. Germany and Czechia, the number of male researchers significantly exceeds the number of females. This disparity suggests a need for policies aimed at promoting gender equality in the research sector to ensure a diverse and inclusive R&D workforce.

In a majority of UfM countries, the number of students per academic staff decreased between 2017 and 2022. However great variance remains, with Türkiye (44.9 students per academic), Greece (40.8), Morocco (34.7) and Jordan (32) having particularly high ratios, while Austria (6.8) and Germany (6.9) being on the low side (Figure ‎5.7).

When compared to Indicators R1 and R2, it can be observed that, with a few exceptions, countries that invest more in tertiary education and/or GERD tend to have a greater success in building a larger R&D and academic workforce. Therefore, to increase the R&D and academic talent pool, it is essential to increase investments in education - particularly higher education - to raise the general education level of the domestic labour force, as well as to boost investments in R&D and higher education.

What policy action is needed?

Provide financial aid to prevent dropouts among students and young researchers. By providing financial support to students who are forced to abandon their degree pursuits for economic reasons, as well as to early-career researchers and graduate students facing future financial insecurity, it is possible to prevent them from discontinuing their studies, academic or research careers.
Improve the current underrepresentation of women in the R&D and academic workforces. Efforts should focus on eliminating inequalities in treatment, increasing female participation in higher education, and promoting inclusivity in the R&D and academic workforce.

Data limitation and developments

This indicator is only about researchers, as in some member countries there is a lack of data on R&D personnel in detail, such as by sector (researchers, technicians, others), affiliation (educational institutions, businesses, government, others), degree, or gender. Such data would provide clearer insights into which policy areas should be prioritised.

The number of students per academic staff is only a proximate calculation based on headcounts of students and academic staff. The measure as used by OECD considers also that some students and academics are only part-time, but this is not the case in this indicator due to unavailable data.

Definitions

Researchers are professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems, as well as in the management of the projects concerned. This indicator is measured by the number of full-time equivalent researchers per one million inhabitants; data are available as a total and broken down by gender.

R&D personnel: The number of R&D personnel is provided in both headcounts and full-time equivalent on R&D.

Source: OECD (2015), Frascati Manual 2015, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en.

Academic staff: These are personnel whose primary role is teaching and/or research, and who hold academic rank (e.g. professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer). The count considers headcount or full-time equivalent.

Source: https://uis.unesco.org/en/glossary-term/number-classroom-teachers-and-academic-staff

Number of students per academic staff: Number of students in tertiary education over number of academic staff in given year.

R5. Co-publication

Copy link to R5. Co-publication

Why this indicator?

Co-publication refers to scientific articles authored collaboratively by researchers affiliated with institutions in different countries. This indicator highlights the extent of international collaboration and integration in scientific research.

Co-publication enhances research quality by combining expertise, resources, and perspectives from diverse researchers. It fosters innovation by facilitating the exchange of ideas and methodologies, leading to more robust and impactful research outcomes. For UfM countries, increasing co-publication rates can improve their global research standing, attract more international collaborations, and contribute to regional integration.

This indicator is closely associated with international collaboration in research within STEM fields; in other non-STEM fields (such as law), co-authorship is less commonly practiced.

Key findings

Figure ‎5.8 shows the diversity of international collaboration partners in each UfM member country. The United States stands out as one of the primary collaborators for many countries. In Francophone countries such as Morocco, Algeria and Lebanon, France emerges as the dominant partners. Meanwhile, Egypt and Tunisia maintain strong ties with Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, in the Western Balkans, there is a notable trend of robust international cooperation with neighbouring countries like Serbia and Croatia, which are relatively more developed and belong to the same language group than the four Western Balkans members of the UfM (except for Albania).

The fields of Environmental Science and Computer Science are particularly notable for international collaboration. A significant percentage of scientific publications in Environmental Science involve international collaboration, reflecting the global nature of environmental research (Figure ‎5.9 Panel A). Similarly, there are high levels of collaboration in Computer Science (Panel B), demonstrating the importance of cross-border co-operation in advancing technological research. In contrast, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE exhibit exceptionally high co-authorship rates across all fields compared to most of UfM countries, reflecting a strong overall inclination among researchers in both countries toward international collaboration.

What policy action is needed?

Ensure a sufficient pool of qualified researchers. Actions aimed at increasing the number of R&D personnel, particularly researchers as defined in the Frascati Manual 2015, are needed (see Indicator R4), as are efforts to promote international exchanges of researchers (R10). Other efforts include the development of domestic research facilities, hosting foreign researchers, supporting domestic students in obtaining degrees from overseas institutions, and harmonising the recognition of degrees.
Boost financial support for international collaborative research. Horizon Europe, discussed in Indicator R11, serves as a prime example, but introducing competitive funding for international collaboration at the national level would also be effective.
Set clear, transparent rules for IP and securing tech collaboration. It is crucial to establish transparent and clear rules regarding intellectual property management and the conduct of collaborative research on technologies with potential security implications, also to avoid excessive concerns over national technological sovereignty.

Data limitation and developments

Most information on co-publications is made available by fee-based commercial databases like the Scopus bibliographic database, which references and describes a list of scientific publications (authors, affiliations, identifiers, keywords, etc.). The Scopus database does not capture all research publications; rather, it focuses on English-language journal articles published in North America and Europe.

Definitions

Co-authorship of research publications provides a direct measure of collaboration in science. Research publications may have a single author or two or more co-authors. Co-authorship may involve researchers in the same institution, in the same country, or in two or more countries. These indicators help to understand how knowledge is created among researchers and how collaboration in science is changing.

Source: OECD Bibliometric indicators of international co-operation database

R6. Co-patenting

Copy link to R6. Co-patenting

Why this indicator?

Co-patenting refers to patents jointly filed by inventors from different countries. This indicator provides insights into international collaboration in innovation and the integration of research efforts across borders. It is measured by the number of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) co-applications, reflecting the extent of shared intellectual property between collaborating countries.

The number of patent applications should increase as a result of progress in innovation. Therefore, measures aimed solely at increasing the number of applications, such as reducing application fees, may improve this indicator, but they do not necessarily lead to more active innovation.

Key findings

On average, the collaboration on R&D activities between EU-27 countries and non-EU UfM countries remains stable from 2011 to 2020The number of PCT co-applications between 2011 and 2020 remained almost constant in both the first and second halves, which indicates that the co-operative relationship between the two parties is stable (Figure ‎5.10). France stands out as the primary partner by a significant margin, followed by collaborations with Germany, Sweden and Italy, playing a central role in the knowledge sharing among UfM. Considering that among the non-EU countries, Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia, which have relatively higher numbers of applications, are all Francophone, this suggests that linguistic proximity plays a substantial role in deepening collaborative research relationships. This robust collaboration underscores the strong research and development ties between European innovation hubs and Southern Mediterranean countries.

In the Southern shore, Israel and Türkiye are leading in collaboration with EU-27 countries, and Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt also demonstrate notable co-patenting activity (Figure ‎5.12). The amount of the applications generally corresponds to the GDP per capita of each country and is thought to reflect the level of research, the capacity for knowledge absorption and the attractiveness of the market.

The fact that this indicator remains unchanged indicates a stable cooperation between EU-27 and non-EU UfM partners, but it also implies that the pace of progress is slow. Co-patenting activities reflect the strategic partnerships between both regions in advancing technological innovation, which facilitate the transfer of knowledge, skills, and technologies and enhance the innovation ecosystems in both regions. For non-EU UfM countries, co-patenting with EU partners is crucial for accessing advanced technologies, improving research capabilities, and driving economic growth through shared intellectual property. Therefore, further policy measures are necessary to advance the evolution of the partnership.

In contrast to their high rates of co-authored publications shown in indicator R5, the number of international co-patent applications in the GCC countries remains largely comparable to that of UfM countries, with little to no growth observed over the past decade. While this may suggest that international collaboration in the GCC is progressing at the research level but lagging at the industrial or commercialisation level, the available data are insufficient to draw conclusions about the underlying causes.

What policy action is needed?

Establish a business environment that encourages industrial R&D, which leads to increased patent filings. This would involve:
- Measures to enhance competition between companies, such as relaxing the regulatory and administrative burdens that hinder the entry of new businesses and reducing preferential treatment for state-owned enterprises.
- Policies to promote R&D investments, such as financial support through government subsidies and the expansion of Government Venture Capital, as well as tax incentives for companies undertaking R&D activities.
- Reducing trade barriers and creating an environment that makes it easier for domestic research outcomes to enter international markets.
- Lowering patent fees for small firms and universities, and creating a business environment that encourages industries to engage in R&D and file patents.
Harmonise the domestic intellectual property system with global standards. This includes not only rules like protection scope and procedures, but also operational factors such as examination speed, quality, and enforcement against counterfeits. Such harmonisation increases the appeal of filing patents in the country.

Data limitation and developments

The date on the number of patent applications typically has a time lag of several years between filing and publication, so the effects of recent policies are not fully reflected. Moreover, data for several countries are not available from OECD Patent Statistics database.

Additionally, international applications are usually pursued only for obtaining patent rights in multiple countries. Therefore, R&D collaborations that are expected to focus on a few specific countries may not be captured by this indicator.

Finally, although the number of patents being filed is rising inexorably, patent quality has declined by 20% over the past twenty years, slowing the time to market for true innovations and reducing the potential for breakthrough inventions (OECD, STI Outlook 2023).

Definitions

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): PCT is a scheme that allows applicants to achieve the same effect as filing in multiple countries with a single application procedure. However, to obtain valid patent rights in each country, the applicant must complete the necessary procedures in each country within a specified period by submitting the required documents. As of November 2024, the PCT is available in 158 states.

Source: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/pct_contracting_states.html

R7. Tertiary-level student mobility

Copy link to R7. Tertiary-level student mobility

Why this indicator?

Tertiary-level student mobility is crucial for enhancing educational experiences and promoting cultural exchange, with the potential to promote wider international co-operation. For UfM countries, high student mobility supports regional integration by building networks of knowledge and facilitating the exchange of ideas and best practices.

Key findings

Increased intra-UfM student mobility. Between 2017 and 2022, the number of mobile students between UfM countries increased from 0.6 million to 0.77 million. In 2022, about 65% of all mobile students from UfM countries stayed within the UfM, primarily in EU countries (60%). Outside the UfM, the United Kingdom attracted about 11% of mobile students from the UfM, the United States 5% (data from 2021) and other countries combined 23%. Outbound mobility has particularly increased in the Southern Mediterranean countries and Türkiye (Figure ‎5.13).

Increasing inbound mobility towards UfM countries. Of 39 UfM countries with available data, in 34 inbound mobility of international students increased between 2017 and 2022. The average net flow ratio for UfM countries (inbound students less outbound students) remained positive, increasing from 1.8% to 2.8% of the tertiary student population; however, great variance remains (Figure ‎5.14). In the broader MENA region, United Arab Emirates and Qatar have the largest net flow ratios. Both countries have made it a policy priority to attract large numbers of international students.

A dominant pattern of South-to-North mobility within the UfM but increasing diversification of destinations. Within the UfM, France and the United Kingdom (before leaving EU) have historically been the most important destination countries for mobile students. But in recent years, Germany, the Netherlands and Türkiye have also seen the number of inbound students increase rapidly. 11 EU countries at least doubled and another five increased by at least 50% the number of mobile students coming from non-EU UfM countries between 2017 and 2022. Figure ‎5.15 shows the main destinations for mobile students from the non-EU UfM countries.

Similarly, while UNESCO lacks a country breakdown for students coming to the United Arab Emirates, the data on inbound students to Qatar and Saudi Arabia suggest that GCC countries are becoming an important destination for some MENA UfM countries, especially Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority (Figure ‎5.15).

The gender distribution among inbound mobile students shows a slight predominance of female students in majority of countries – a pattern that reflects the underlying tertiary education student population. Overall, about 48% of inbound mobile students are female in UfM countries with available data, while 56% of student enrolment in tertiary education is female. Predominantly in North African countries, the female share of inbound mobile students is below 40% (Figure ‎5.16).

Student mobility tends to be greater at the doctoral (PhD) level; in OECD countries, about one-quarter of all doctoral candidates are international (OECD, 2024[13]). This includes many EU UfM countries, which have high dependence on international PhDs. Many supply and demand factors at the individual, institutional, national and global levels drive patterns of international PhD mobility. These include personal research ambitions, lack of PhD programmes in the home country and funding opportunities abroad. This encapsulates some of the prevailing issues in MENA UfM countries.

What policy action is needed?

Streamline visa processes to enhance mobility. Establishing mutual recognition of qualifications and improving information sharing would facilitate student movement between UfM countries. In this regard, working towards wider adoption of the UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education could facilitate better recognition of qualifications. However, under current conditions the mobility towards EU remains primarily option for those with sufficient financial resources. Policy could also consider employing scholarship and loan schemes to equalise opportunities for students.
Promote gender equality in mobility via the implementation of initiatives to address gender disparities in international student flows, particularly in North African countries with lower female participation.

Data limitation and developments

The UNESCO dataset is the most complete measure of student degree mobility, but it has its limitations. Despite some countries having reported data up to 2023, only mobility data from 2022 are consistently reported with few exceptions noted. The total number of outbound mobilities is estimated by UNESCO. The presented figures should be understood as indicative of trends and estimated counts rather than precise headcounts of mobile students.

Figure ‎5.13 and Figure ‎5.15 rely on data reported about mobile students by country of origin. Algeria, Israel, Lebanon, Montenegro, Netherlands, and the Palestinian Authority do not report this information. Data for the Netherlands were added by the OECD from their national statistics. Data could not be located for other countries.

Definitions

Mobile students in international data are students who are either “international” or “foreign”.

Foreign students are those who are not citizens of the country in which they are enrolled and where the data are collected.

International students are those who left their country of origin (country of upper-secondary education or prior education, or usual residence) and moved to another country for the purpose of study.

R8. Funding and participation in the Erasmus+ Programme

Copy link to R8. Funding and participation in the Erasmus+ Programme

Why this indicator?

The Erasmus+ Programme is one of the EU’s most prominent policy initiatives and is playing an increasing important role in the EU’s external and neighbourhood policy.

Erasmus+ is the largest funding programme in the UfM area supporting international co-operation in higher education. The primary focus of the programme is to facilitate the mobility of individuals, students, and staff. Erasmus+ also offers other actions supporting co-operation between higher education institutions and other organisations.

The majority of Erasmus+ funding goes to organisations in the EU countries, and only a limited portion to non-EU countries formally associated to the programme (in the UfM, North Macedonia and Türkiye). The programme has about 8% of the total budget for the EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2021-2027 allocated for activities with third countries not associated with the programme. The whole Southern Mediterranean region (as defined by the European Commission) is allocated 17% of this budget for mobilities and 10% for capacity building in higher education. The Western Balkans receive 19% for individual mobilities and 12% for capacity building (European Commission, 2021[17]).

The increase of funding for, and participation from, Western Balkan countries can also be attributed to the greater emphasis on the region in EU external policy, as shown in the 2018 commitment to provide these countries with prospective EU accession and a doubling of Erasmus+ Programme funding for the region (2018[18]). Recently, Erasmus+ has been mentioned in the new Agenda for the Mediterranean and a number of bilateral agreements with the MENA UfM countries.

Key findings

Allocated funding for higher education Erasmus+ activities has slightly increased in the Western Balkans, while falling significantly in MENA UfM countries (Figure ‎5.17). The overall budget for the Erasmus+ Programme, including the budget dedicated for third countries, was increased in the EU MFF 2021-2027 compared to the previous funding period. However, the funds allocated, and the share of funding received, for activities in higher education in non-EU UfM countries declined in 2021-2023, when an average of 3.8% of allocated Erasmus+ funding went to non-EU UfM countries each year, compared to 5.3% in the previous MFF period, 2014-2020. The European Commission has clarified that some of the Erasmus+ resources previously allocated for higher education have been diverted towards activities in vocational education and training, as well as youth actions.

Strengthening participation from Türkiye, recovering participation from the Western Balkans and a decline in the MENA UfM countries. The Covid-19 pandemic and the start of the new MFF period influenced participation in the Erasmus+ programme in 2021 for organisations in countries not associated to the programme. Since then, participation from, and funding for, the Western Balkans seems to have recovered and increased in Türkiye. Participation from, and funding for, the MENA UfM countries in 2022 and 2023 halved compared to 2015-2020 (Figure ‎5.17).

Organisations from the Western Balkans are involved in an increasing number of proposed and selected projects. Organisations from Albania and Montenegro are participating in more projects in the new MFF period (2021-2027) compared to the previous MFF period (2014-2020). In the MENA UfM countries, meanwhile, the number of proposed projects in the current MFF is below the expected number based on previous MFF, and the number of selected projects dropped significantly. Only Jordanian and Palestinian organisations participated in proportionally more proposed projects than in the previous MFF period (Figure ‎5.18).

One of the primary Erasmus+ instruments in UfM countries is capacity-building projects. Nearly one-third of all capacity-building actions in higher education in the Erasmus+ programme included non-EU UfM countries (386 projects involving organisations from at least one of the non-EU UfM countries in the period 2014-2023). In the new MFF, this share appears to be decreasing slightly, as fewer selected projects include organisations from the MENA UfM countries.

What policy action is needed?

Strengthen relevant support structures. Participation in Erasmus+ actions require significant administrative and organisational capacity, as well as knowledge of the various actions. In the current MFF, a new action was introduced, Erasmus Mundus Design Measures, to support the development of an Erasmus Mundus Joint Master’s degree. Similar actions can be taken to support organisations in countries associated and not associated with the Erasmus+ programme. Further efforts could also be made to strengthen national support infrastructures (e.g. national Erasmus+ offices) in all UfM countries.
Give organisations easier access to the programme as they gain these organisational and administrative capabilities. One option is to develop a form of an Erasmus+ accreditation. This will offer higher education institutions simpler participation in Erasmus+ if they meet requirements on quality assurance, financial management and institutional transparency.
Continue to promote science and education diplomacy at the national level, using instruments like liaison offices and personnel to enable and facilitate institutional and individual collaboration.

Definitions

The net funding allocation and number of organisations participating in Erasmus+ programme includes projects on individual mobility, co-operation among organisations and institutions and Jean Monnet activities (aimed at promoting education and research in the field of European integration.

The participation refers to the number of proposed and selected projects in the area of higher education, Capacity building and Erasmus Mundus, by country associated with applying or implementing organisation.

R9. Learners and staff mobility supported by the Erasmus+ Programme

Copy link to R9. Learners and staff mobility supported by the Erasmus+ Programme

Why this indicator

Erasmus+ mobility initiatives allow both students and staff to gain experience from studying, teaching or training in another country, creating links between institutions.

Studies have indicated that a mobility experience can improve employment perspectives for participating students, especially the chance of working internationally, and participants from non-programme countries have reported a large impact on their academic development. For staff, mobilities improve their collaboration networks, and mobile staff have been found to use more innovative teaching methods (European Commission, 2018[21]).

Learners and staff mobility are the core activities within the Erasmus+ Programme, with nearly 70% of the budget for higher education being dedicated to supporting mobilities (European Commission, 2024[22]).

Key findings

More Erasmus+ mobilities involve non-EU UfM institutions than in past. In 2022, about 10.6% of all Erasmus+ higher education student and staff mobilities involved an institution from a non-EU UfM country, a slight increase from 7.9% in 2017. Türkiye is consistently the most frequent participant among these countries (6.9% of total Erasmus+ mobilities in 2022). The Western Balkans increased their share of participation from 0.8% in 2017 to 2% in 2022 and MENA UfM increased its share from 1% to 1.5% between 2017 and 2022 (Table ‎5.1).

Staff are more likely to participate in Erasmus+ mobilities involving a non-EU UfM country. While 77% of all mobilities in Erasmus+ are learners, most mobilities involved staff in the Western Balkans (71%) and MENA (61%) (Table ‎5.1). This is likely explained partly by restrictions placed on student mobilities towards countries not associated with the programme (only doctoral students are eligible for outbound mobility towards external countries besides Western Balkans).

The Western Balkans are benefitting from a closer association to the EU through increasing mobilities. The outbound mobility data captured in Figure ‎5.19 show a significant increase in mobilities involving the Western Balkans in the new MFF period (2021-2027).

Mobility patterns among UfM MENA countries are more varied (Table ‎5.1), with some countries matching their pre-2020 levels in terms of outbound Erasmus+ mobility (Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco) and Algeria and the Palestinian Authority even increasing modestly, while the rest have experienced declining numbers (Egypt, Israel, Tunisia). Relative to the total number of enrolled students in MENA UfM, the level of the participation from the region remains very limited.

Mobility varies by study fields. Compared to the student population overall, STEM students from the Southern Mediterranean and Türkiye are nearly twice as likely to participate in Erasmus+ mobility, while in the Western Balkans, a similar pattern is seen for ICT students. Students in fields linked to regulated professions (e.g., education, health and wellness), are the least likely to participate in mobility.

Greater female participation. Overall, more females than males participate in Erasmus+ mobilities (63% of mobile learners and 57% of staff in 2022 were females). No UfM country had fewer than 50% of females among outgoing students. Among staff, only four countries sent less than 40% females – the share considered for gender balance. On the receiving side, there are also more inbound females overall, with no UfM country receiving less than 40% females (Figure ‎5.20).

What policy action is needed?

The policy considerations discussed under Indicator R8 have already covered measures that could simplify organisational participation in the Erasmus+ programme. Under the current rules, the Erasmus+ mobility scheme has certain restrictions on the outbound mobility of short-cycle, bachelor’s and master’s-level students for institutions in countries not associated with the programme; in the context of the UfM, this concerns all MENA countries. It might be relevant to review these restrictions and their impact on the scope of possible participation in mobilities.
The Erasmus+ programme remains focused on EU mobility, however, which restricts its ability to adjust to the priorities of third countries. In addition to Erasmus+, countries around the Mediterranean could consider initiating a lean-management-based mobility scheme that would supplement the Erasmus+ programme, inspired by CEEPUS (Table ‎5.1). This scheme could promote more mobility between countries in Northern Africa, the Middle East and Southern Europe. The starting point for such a programme in the Mediterranean region could be existing networks of institutions, such as UNIMED, bringing together higher education institutions possessing the desire and capacity to participate. In the initial phases, the programme could focus on exchanges that do not require transfer of credits or recognition of education, and that take place outside the academic terms – for example, intensive courses such as winter and summer schools, training courses and meetings involving both staff and students.
Within both the Erasmus+ programme and more UfM-focused mobility schemes, countries could also explore virtual, fully online, hybrid or blended exchanges, as well as joint programmes and courses that would include digitally enabled components.

Definitions

A learner or student is a person who pursues mobility for the purpose of study or training.

The figures capture the number of individuals from institutions in the given non-EU UfM country or region that participated in Erasmus+ programme, in individual mobility (KA1) in the field of higher education.

The start of the new MFF period in 2021 resulted in more-limited funding allocations for higher education in third countries not associated with the programme. This has reduced funding for most non-EU UfM countries.

	2017	2019	2022
All mobilities	78 767		328 407		107 794		347 923		98 572		322 393
involving Türkiye	3 841	4.9%	20 159	6.1%	6 692	6.2%	22 660	6.5%	8 780	8.9%	20 381	6.3%
involving Western Balkans	1 863	2.4%	1 557	0.5%	3 262	3.0%	2 048	0.6%	6 023	6.1%	2 461	0.8%
involving MENA UfM	2044	4.9%	2081	0.6%	3919	6.2%	2776	0.8%	3938	4.0%	2472	0.8%
Involving Israel	892	2.4%	523	0.2%	1585	3.0%	714	0.2%	1370	1.4%	738	0.2%
involving non-EU UfM	8 408	10.7%	23 959	7.3%	14 852	13.8%	27 835	8.0%	18 908	19.2%	25 601	7.9%

Box 5.1. Central European Exchange Program for University Studies (CEEPUS)

Copy link to Box 5.1. Central European Exchange Program for University Studies (CEEPUS)

The CEEPUS programme was initiated by the group of government ministers in 1992, shortly after the fall of the Iron Curtain. The programme was intended to create a framework for multilateral academic co-operation, which was missing because, except for Austria, no countries were part of the EU and the early Erasmus programme. CEEPUS was founded by six countries – Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia – that were later joined by other countries in the region. Since 1995, more than 2 000 higher education institutions have participated in CEEPUS and more than 89 000 exchanges have been supported (2023 data). Even after three decades of existence, the number of applications is rising, as well as the number of awarded mobilities.

The objective was to create a programme that has lean management and allows for easy participation. The programme was established by multilateral agreement between countries, using a simple governance structure. Participation takes place through multilateral networks of institutions or of their constituent parts (e.g. faculty, department). Each country regularly publishes a list of eligible institutions; those institutions then need to guarantee exemption of CEEPUS students from tuition fees and mutual recognition of acquired education. There is no transfer of funds between institutions and countries, the “currency” that is being exchanged is one scholarship month. Each participating country pledges at least 100 scholarship-months per academic year and provides grants to incoming students and staff, with amounts adjusted to the local cost of living. There is small, central CEEPUS office in Vienna and national centres in each of the 15 member countries.

The programme has also evolved from primarily a student exchange to focusing more on teaching and doctoral-level mobilities. While most participating countries are also engaged in the Erasmus+ programme, CEEPUS remains relevant. It not only offers opportunities for study and teaching exchanges, but also facilitates connections between higher education institutions and supports various short-term mobilities.

Source: CEEPUS (2023[24]), Report 2023, https://www.ceepus.info/files/ceepus3/CEEPUS_Report_2023_V05.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2025); Sorantin (2020[25]), CEEPUS: Active Methods in Setting up a New Regional Academic Exchange Program. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2020-0132

Figure 5.19. Individual outbound mobility in the Erasmus+ Programme from non-EU UfM countries
Copy link to Figure 5.19. Individual outbound mobility in the Erasmus+ Programme from non-EU UfM countries

Total outbound mobility of learners and staff to another UfM country for the purpose of study, training or teaching, 2016-2023

Figure 5.20. Erasmus+ participants by gender, 2022
Copy link to Figure 5.20. Erasmus+ participants by gender, 2022

R10. EU researcher mobility programmes

Copy link to R10. EU researcher mobility programmes

Why this indicator?

Established in 1996, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) are the European Union’s flagship funding programme for doctoral education and postdoctoral training of researchers. The programme supports the mobility of researchers between countries, sectors and disciplines to acquire new knowledge, skills and competences. The analysis of researcher mobility programmes, particularly the MSCA, can reveal significant trends in researcher mobility between UfM countries.

Key findings

The data on research and innovation staff mobility between selected UfM members and other countries in the context of the MSCA provide valuable insights into mobility patterns. The destinations of researchers traveling from the selected UfM members are diverse (Figure ‎5.21 Panels A, C, E, G, I, K). France, Germany, Italy and Spain are the most popular destinations. Greece is often chosen as a destination by researchers from Algeria, Jordan and Tunisia. Although the total number of visitors over the timeframe analysed remains limited, it is evident that there is a relatively balanced exchange of researchers across the UfM region.

Analysis of incoming mobility to the selected countries reveals a different pattern (Figure ‎5.21 Panels B, D, F, H, J, L), with very low numbers of researchers from other countries. In the cases of Egypt and Jordan, ten times more researchers go abroad than come to the country (Panels D, F). This asymmetry further confirms the unbalanced nature of staff and student mobilities already observed in indicators R7 and R9, with net flows towards the EU. It is worth noting that, even if mobilities are not balanced, they still facilitate knowledge exchange and contribute to capacity building in both sending and receiving countries.

Moreover, in terms of incoming mobility, there is a tendency for movement to be concentrated from specific countries when compared to the opposite direction. For example, in Algeria, researchers from Tunisia account for more than half of the total incoming researchers (Panel B). Similar patterns are observed in Egypt with researchers from Lithuania (Panel D), in Morocco with researchers from Spain and France (Panel H), and in Tunisia with researchers from Algeria (Panel J). This may reflect geographical and cultural proximity, as well as the historical background of past international cooperation. While further developing these relationships, enhancing each country’s own research capabilities can make a country a more attractive partner for others, thereby contributing to greater diversity in international collaboration.

Finally, there is a considerable level of reciprocal researcher flow among Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia (Panels A, B, H, I, J), indicating that so-called South-South cooperation is also progressing to some extent.

What policy action is needed?

Strengthen R&D investment within each country. This would not only enhance local researchers’ capacity to absorb international knowledge, but also increase the attractiveness of domestic research institutions to foreign researchers.
Capacity building for non-EU UfM countries and their research organisations is necessary. Some efforts in this regard have already been made, according to the MSCAdvocacy website; however, these are not yet sufficient, and further action is required to achieve a more comprehensive approach.
Simplify administrative procedures. Streamlining the application process itself, including visa requirements, can lower the barriers to participation in international programmes.

Data limitation and developments

Available data are limited, and many participating countries of UfM do not have country-specific data on MSCAdvocacy. Moreover, while the Horizon Dashboard provides data at the research institution level, data at the individual researcher level are not available. The development of data that allows for cross-country comparisons would enable the identification of the necessary measures to promote the effective use of this initiative. Furthermore analysing these data in conjunction with indicators R5 and R6, would allow to assess the impact of utilising this initiative on outputs, such as publications and patents.

R11. Funding and participation in Horizon programmes

Copy link to R11. Funding and participation in Horizon programmes

Why this indicator?

This indicator measures the amount of funding from the Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe programmes received by associate and third countries as well as the number of countries participating in specific research co-operation programmes.

Key findings

There are significant differences between UfM countries in terms of funding and participation in the Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe programmes (Figure ‎5.22). In most countries, projects under Horizon Europe have been implemented at a faster pace than under Horizon 2020 in terms of both funding and participation, reflecting steady progress in regional collaboration. In terms of funding, Tunisia stands out with the highest level of funding, receiving over EUR 13.9 million, followed by North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (Panel A). Regarding signed grants and participations, North Macedonia ranks first, followed by Tunisia and Morocco (Panel B, C).

Due to structural differences in thematic classifications between Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, direct comparisons of participation trends over time are not possible. However, data show that participation levels vary significantly by thematic area across countries (Figure ‎5.23). In climate-related themes (Panel A), Morocco, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Tunisia show strong participation among non-EU UfM countries. For digital-related projects (Panel B), Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Morocco, Egypt, and Lebanon show high levels of participation among the non-EU participants.

The thematic distribution of participation reveals diverse research priorities across the region. While some countries like North Macedonia, Tunisia and Morocco show strong involvement across multiple themes, others such as Lebanon appear to have more focused areas of expertise. Overall, the varying levels of participation and funding also suggest opportunities for further enhancing research capacity and collaboration in some UfM countries.

Data on gender balance under Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, although not disaggregated by country, offer insights into the participation of women in the Framework Programme (FP) projects (Table ‎5.2). The proportion of female coordinators and researchers involved in FP projects has shown a slight upward trend over time, but significant room for further improvement remains.

As noted in Indicator R8, the variation in funding and participation highlighted by the data suggests differences in administrative and organisational capacities of higher education institutions and research organisations in each country.

What policy action is needed?

Capacity building for countries and organisation to participate more effectively in European programmes. This includes support for developing expertise in research fields eligible for funding, as well as guidance on the procedures for applying for international programmes.
The PRIMA programme is one example of the positive impact Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe have had on the Mediterranean region. PRIMA, which established a framework for collaboration between research organisations in the region (Box ‎5.2), has been successfully extended until 2027, and a new extension should be considered.
Focus on enhancing R&D capabilities in technical fields that address global challenges. Recipient countries should focus their resources on strategic technology fields, such as those related to the twin green and digital transitions, to be eligible for international collaborative projects. It is effective to strategically select the sectors for educational investment and R&D funding, as highlighted in Indicators R1 and R2.

Data limitation and developments

Horizon 2020 evolved into the subsequent Horizon Europe in 2021, and therefore, continued monitoring is necessary. Additionally, by aligning this with Indicators R5-6, it is expected that the outcomes generated by this funding can be analysed, allowing for the assessment of the impact on technology transfer and, ultimately, on regional integration.

Definitions

Horizon 2000 was the EU's research and innovation funding programme from 2014-2020, with a budget of nearly €80 billion. Its successor is Horizon Europe, whose funding for the period 2021-2027 is EUR 93.5 billion. Horizon Europe tackles climate change, helps to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and boosts the EU’s competitiveness and growth.

Source: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/strategic-plan_en

Indicator	Horizon 2020 (2014-20)	Horizon Europe (2021-)
	No.	%	No.	%
Women expert evaluators in evaluation panels	32 415	42%	13 947	45%
Women participating in expert groups	N/A	43%	112	51%
Women coordinators in FP projects	8 687	24%	5 009	31%
Women researchers in FP projects	417 230	37%	75 114	38%

Box 5.2. Catalysing regional scientific co-operation in the UfM: the example of PRIMA

Copy link to Box 5.2. Catalysing regional scientific co-operation in the UfM: the example of PRIMA

The Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA) (EU, n.d.[26]) programme aims to build research and innovation capacities through collaborative international research that focuses on developing innovative solutions to common problems in the Mediterranean area, notably sustainable water management, farming systems, and the food value chain. PRIMA's reach extends to 20 countries, encompassing both EU Member States and Southern Mediterranean countries. The EU Member States are Croatia, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Bulgaria (a newcomer). The Southern Mediterranean countries are Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and Türkiye. This diverse participation highlights the programme's inclusive approach, bringing together countries with varying levels of development to collaborate on shared challenges and opportunities.

In terms of funding, PRIMA has secured a total of EUR 700 million from 2018 to 2027. This substantial investment includes contributions from Horizon 2020 (EUR 220 million), Horizon Europe (EUR 105 million), and national funding agencies (EUR 374 million). The robust financial backing underscores the significant commitment from both European and national stakeholders to support PRIMA's mission of driving research excellence and sustainable development in the Mediterranean region.

Since its inception in 2018, the PRIMA programme has funded more than 230 research and innovation projects, and managed to invest EUR 350 million with the participation of 2 290 final beneficiaries (research organisations, universities, enterprises, NGOs, SMEs, and policymaking/governmental bodies). All those are co‑operating and co‑creating innovative and technological solutions to address the pressing demands of the Mediterranean states.

By involving stakeholders from different sectors and backgrounds, PRIMA projects leverage a wide range of expertise, resources, and perspectives. This collaborative approach not only enhances the quality of research and innovation but also fosters a sense of ownership and commitment among stakeholders, leading to more sustainable and long-lasting outcomes. PRIMA's commitment to stakeholder engagement is evident in its efforts to organise awareness and information events, involve local communities in project activities, and provide capacity-building opportunities for researchers and practitioners.

A key element of PRIMA is the involvement of the private sector, captured in the programme aim that 30% of the beneficiaries are small and medium-sized enterprises.

Source: OECD based on input from PRIMA.

References

[24] CEEPUS (2023), Report 2023, Central CEEPUS Office, Vienna, https://www.ceepus.info/files/ceepus3/CEEPUS_Report_2023_V05.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2025).

[26] EU (n.d.), Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA), https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/environment/prima_en.

[22] European Commission (2024), Commission Implementing Decision on the financing of Erasmus+: the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport and the adoption of the work programme for 2024, https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/document/2024-annual-work-programme (accessed on 4 October 2024).

[20] European Commission (2024), Erasmus+ 2023 country factsheets for higher education, https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/erasmus-plus/factsheets/2023/int2023.html (accessed on 25 July 2024).

[19] European Commission (2024), Erasmus+ Public Dashboard, https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/eacdashboard/sense/app/c553d9e9-c805-4f7a-90e4-103bd1658077 (accessed on 2 July 2024).

[23] European Commission (2023), Erasmus+ mobility data, European Commission, https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/resources-and-tools/factsheets-statistics-evaluations/statistics/for-researchers?facets__permanent%7Cfield_eac_topics=1998 (accessed on 13 May 2024).

[17] European Commission (2021), ERASMUS+ Multiannual Indicative Programme, Directorate-General for International Partnerships, Brussels, https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-technical-assistance/funding-instruments/global-europe-programming_en (accessed on 1 October 2024).

[21] European Commission (2018), Erasmus+ higher education impact study – Final report, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/162060 (accessed on 4 October 2024).

[18] European Union (2018), A credible enlargement perspective for and enhanced EU engagement with the Western Balkans, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0065 (accessed on 1 October 2024).

[5] Ministry of Finance (2023), Zakon o budžetu za 2023. godinu [Law on budget for year 2023], https://www.gov.me/en/documents/4e94903f-a74f-4915-a692-bcf8eb42622c (accessed on 13 May 2025).

[7] Ministry of Finance (2022), Budget Law 2022, Annual Budget Documents and Process, https://www.finance.gov.lb/en-us/Finance/BI (accessed on 13 May 2025).

[4] Ministry of Finance (2022), Budget of North Macedonia 2023-Part 1, Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia, https://finance.gov.mk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Buxet-2023-bilansi-ANGL_Part-1.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2025).

[15] Nuffic (2024), Countries of origin, Nuffic, https://www.nuffic.nl/en/subjects/facts-and-figures/countries-of-origin (accessed on 4 October 2024).

[10] OECD (2025), Economic Convergence Scoreboard for the Western Balkans 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc0babf3-en.

[13] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.

[6] OECD (forthcoming), Review of Higher Education in Egypt.

[3] Présidence du Gouvernement (2022), Décret-loi n° 2022-79 du 22 décembre 2022, portant loi de finances pour l’année 2023 (Decree-Law no. 2022-79 of 22 December 2022, enacting the Finance Act for 2023), Journal Officiel de la République Tunisienne.

[2] Secrétariat Général du Gouvernement (2022), Loi n° 22-24 du Aouel Joumada Ethania 1444 correspondant au 25 décembre 2022 portant loi de finances pour 2023 (Law No. 22-24 of Aouel Joumada Ethania 1444 corresponding to 25 December 2022 on the Finance Act for 2023), Journal Officiel de la Republique Algerienne, https://www.mf.gov.dz/images/pdf/loidefinancecomplementaire/F2022089.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2025).

[25] Sorantin, E. (2020), “CEEPUS: Active Methods in Setting up a New Regional Academic Exchange Program”, Open Education Studies, Vol. 2/1, pp. 280-284, https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2020-0132.

[9] The World Bank (2024), GDP (constant 2015 US$), World Bank Group, https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NY.GDP.MKTP.KD (accessed on 13 May 2025).

[8] UNESCO (2025), Government expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Paris, https://databrowser.uis.unesco.org/browser/EDUCATION/UIS-EducationOPRI/gov-exp-prc (accessed on 4 March 2025).

[11] UNESCO (2024), Enrolment by level of education, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, https://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3811 (accessed on 1 October 2024).

[14] UNESCO (2024), Inbound internationally mobile students by continent of origin, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, https://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3804 (accessed on 1 October 2024).

[12] UNESCO (2024), Number of teachers by teaching level of education, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Paris, https://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3800 (accessed on 10 January 2025).

[16] UNESCO (2024), Outbound internationally mobile students by host region, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, https://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3807 (accessed on 4 October 2024).

[1] World Bank Group (2024), GDP (current LCU), World Bank Group, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators/Series/NY.GDP.MKTP.CN (accessed on 13 May 2025).

	2017				2019				2022
	Staff (% of all)		Learner (% of all)		Staff (% of all)		Learner (% of all)		Staff (% of all)		Learner (% of all)
All mobilities	78 767		328 407		107 794		347 923		98 572		322 393
involving Türkiye	3 841	4.9%	20 159	6.1%	6 692	6.2%	22 660	6.5%	8 780	8.9%	20 381	6.3%
involving Western Balkans	1 863	2.4%	1 557	0.5%	3 262	3.0%	2 048	0.6%	6 023	6.1%	2 461	0.8%
involving MENA UfM	2044	4.9%	2081	0.6%	3919	6.2%	2776	0.8%	3938	4.0%	2472	0.8%
Involving Israel	892	2.4%	523	0.2%	1585	3.0%	714	0.2%	1370	1.4%	738	0.2%
involving non-EU UfM	8 408	10.7%	23 959	7.3%	14 852	13.8%	27 835	8.0%	18 908	19.2%	25 601	7.9%

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & events

News & events

Featured events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment