The Future of R&D&I Funding: From a Grant-Based Approach to an Investment-Based Approach

Petra Solská works at the Department of Strategic Studies at the Technology Center Prague as a Research, Development, and Innovation Manager, where she focuses on the sustainability of R&D&I funding. Does she view the Czech funding system as effective? Which country inspires her most on this topic? And where does she see the greatest shift in connection with the new Act No. 328/2025 Coll. on Research, Development, Innovation, and Knowledge Transfer?

Over the past year, you have been focusing on the sustainability of R&D&I funding after 2027. Why did you raise this topic right now?

It is advisable to address strategic topics in a timely manner, that is, at a time when there is still room to prepare for future changes and respond to them thoughtfully. Through the STRATIN+ project, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports is mapping out possible scenarios for future developments and seeking the basis for timely decisions. After 2027, the European multiannual financial framework will change, and with it the structure of related European programs and investment instruments; pressure on public budgets will increase, demands for system resilience will intensify, and at the same time, expectations will grow that research and innovation will deliver greater economic and social benefits. It was important to start this debate before it becomes an issue addressed under time and budget constraints.

Does this mean that the current R&D&I funding system in the Czech Republic isn’t working?

No. And that is precisely what is important to state right at the outset. The Czech system contains a number of high-quality and functional elements that make sense to build upon. The purpose of our work is not to question the system, but to better understand where it may be vulnerable in the coming years and where it will be necessary to strengthen its effectiveness, predictability, and strategic readiness, without abandoning what has proven effective over the long term.

What do you consider the greatest risk after 2027?

The greatest risk is not a single isolated problem, but the convergence of several pressures: a possible decline in cohesion funds, a real weakening of investment capacity, fragmented funding, and the continued limited mobilization of private capital. In other words: it is not enough to monitor how much funding will flow into the system. The key question is whether the Czech Republic will be able, under the new conditions, to fund excellence, develop talent, modernize infrastructure, support knowledge transfer, and attract private investment.

What should be the result of these efforts?

A shift from short-term grant-based logic to a longer-term investment approach. That is, a model that better integrates public, private, and foreign resources, strengthens strategic management, excellence, talent development, and the transfer of knowledge into practice. The SCI-PO 2025 conference and the follow-up materials demonstrated that this topic is not merely an analytical exercise but part of a broader expert debate on how to create a more predictable, strategic, and effective framework for funding Czech R&D&I.

Not just one text was produced on the topic, but four follow-up materials. How do they fit together, and what did each one contribute?

Each of these documents played a different role in the overall process. The Discussion Paper opened the expert debate and identified the main systemic risks. The Insight Paper captured the key outcomes of the SCI-PO 2025 conference and highlighted where a broader expert consensus is beginning to take shape. The Policy Brief transformed these findings into a more concentrated strategic framework for public policy. And the final Analysis of the Sustainability of R&D&I Funding after 2027 synthesizes the entire process and advances it toward a decision-making framework for the future R&D&I investment architecture.

It is clear from this entire approach that the issue of R&D&I funding sustainability cannot be narrowed down to just the volume of funds. Do you consider this an important shift?

Yes—I consider it very important. And in fact, it directly ties into what I mentioned a moment ago. This shifts the debate toward the design of the system—what behaviors it rewards and whether it can transform both public and private resources into long-term value. What is valuable about this approach is precisely that it links the budget debate with institutional design, legislation, financial instruments, and the state’s implementation capacity.

What is the conclusion of the Analysis of the Sustainability of R&D&I System Funding after 2027?

Everything we’ve discussed here is reflected in the analysis’s main conclusion. What matters is not just how much funding the system has, but also how it is structured. Even a relatively robust system can lose effectiveness if resources are too fragmented, unpredictable, and weakly linked to priorities, talent, and results. In addition to funding, other prerequisites are therefore crucial: strategic management, a culture of trust and risk management, high-quality people and organizations, effective evaluation, the capacity for knowledge transfer, and a professionalized public administration. This is precisely why the implementation framework addresses not only financial resources but also coordination, institutional profiling, research management, administrative simplification, the role of the state as the primary customer, knowledge transfer, and the mobilization of private capital. We intend to continue this debate at the next edition of the SCI-PO 2026 conference, which will focus on the development of human potential as one of the key prerequisites for excellent research, development, and innovation.

In the debate on the future financing of R&D&I, you also discussed financial instruments and international inspiration. Which innovation-driven economy has impressed you the most?

Singapore is an inspiration to me. A small economy with no natural resources, a limited domestic market, and no significant geopolitical backing, yet one that has transformed itself into one of the Four Asian Tigers over the course of a few decades. Its story shows that decisive resources do not necessarily lie in mineral wealth, but in people, institutions, and the state’s long-term ability to act consistently. Singapore did not build education, industry, technology, and public administration separately, but as a single interconnected system. It is precisely through this that it gradually established itself as a regional center for technology transfer and a global innovation hub. This is not a model isolated from the world—quite the opposite. Singapore systematically attracts foreign talent, enters into research partnerships with leading global universities such as MIT, and actively attracts global technology companies. It thus compensates for domestic resource shortages through openness and the ability to attract the best from abroad.

Can you cite any specific Singaporean initiatives?

A typical example is the Smart Nation initiative, launched in 2014, which demonstrates that technology in Singapore is not viewed merely as a tool for digitalization, but as  part of a broader model for managing the economy and the state. Another specific tool is Corporate Labs, which allow the costs and risks of research to be shared between the state and companies—here, the state does not act merely as a provider of subsidies, but as an active partner with clear expectations for results. Similarly, the Startup SG Equity program brings public capital into deep-tech projects alongside private investors. These initiatives are complemented by an emphasis on human capital development, the repatriation of know-how from abroad, scholarships tied to a commitment to work in Singapore, support for business growth, and the targeted attraction of talent and international partners. It is precisely this combination of financial, institutional, and human resources tools that demonstrates that Singapore does not view its development passively, but actively manages it.

The broader institutional and legislative framework is also closely linked to the issue of R&D&I funding sustainability. One of its key elements is the new Act No. 328/2025 Coll. on Research, Development, Innovation, and Knowledge Transfer. You were also involved in its preparation. In your view, what is the most significant change it brings?

The preparation of the new law was a team effort that combined legal, analytical, and policy perspectives.  It did not emerge as an isolated piece of legislation, but as part of a broader effort to modernize the Czech R&D&I system—making it more comprehensible, predictable, and better prepared for new conditions.

In my opinion, it brings three fundamental shifts. First, it restores the system’s internal logic: it consolidates rules, reduces legal uncertainty, and creates a clearer framework for decision-making on public support. Second, it shifts the emphasis from mere procedural correctness to effectiveness, quality, and measurable impact—the state is no longer merely to fund research, but to much more consciously create conditions for excellence to translate into social, economic, or strategic benefits. And third, the law captures the reality of today’s R&D&I much better: it enshrines knowledge transfer, ethics and scientific integrity, the protection of the state’s security interests, the development of human potential, and impact-driven work as integral parts of a modern system, not as mere add-ons.

What will determine whether the law’s ambitions are truly reflected in the functioning of Czech R&D&I?

Implementation will be the key factor. That is, whether the new logic of the law is actually reflected in the daily practices of providers, research organizations, and other actors in the system. That is where its true value will be revealed. After all, it is not just about individual rules, but also a broader message: public support for R&D&I is not merely a budget item, but an investment in future competitiveness, security, and prosperity. It captures the global direction of research, development, and innovation and provides the Czech system with the tools to effectively leverage this development. We will be addressing this in more detail in an upcoming article for ERGO magazine.

Thank you for the interview; as soon as the article is published in ERGO, we’d be happy to revisit the topic.

Petra Roštínská

Petra Solská works at the Department of Strategic Studies at the Technology Center Prague as a manager for research, development, and innovation. She studied psychology at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University and in recent years has focused on research, development, and innovation, digitalization, and new technologies. At the Ministry of Industry and Trade, she organized a series of specialized seminars focused on the digital economy and society (AI, HPC, Blockchain, Digital Innovation Hubs, Innovation Leadership, Design Thinking, and more). At the Office of the Government, she organized conferences on technology transfer and solutions to climate change and contributed to the drafting of Act No. 328/2025 Coll. on research, development, innovation, and knowledge transfer.