Academic literature on the topic 'Knowledge management – Government policy – European Union countries'

Since the migrant surge in 2015, social inclusion has become a crucial issue to be addressed effectively by the European Union, given that 39% of the population born outside of the EU member states faces the risk of poverty or social exclusion. Adding to that, the COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected migrant households worldwide, rendering migrant integration an urgent matter for national governments. Discrimination, racism, xenophobia, and radicalization are all societal threats emerging in periods of massive migrant flows and need appropriate policy measures to be employed in migrant host countries to tackle them. This paper suggests the integration of a multiple criteria decision analysis method, namely PROMETHEE, for policy making with regard to migrant social exclusion. In light of previous research findings and the recent release of the Migrant Integration Policy Index 2020, the authors argue that the method proposed could help policy makers to evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented policies, spot the discrepancies between policies and policy outcomes, and motivate knowledge sharing among the EU member states. The findings include a ten-year comparative list of the EU member states (2010–2019) driven by social inclusion indicators for the foreign-born (non-EU-born) population. The results are rather sensitive to changes in the data utilized but they provide an overall comparative picture of social inclusion policy effectiveness in the EU during the past decade.

This research looks at the main information sources supporting innovation in the public sector of Kosovo. This study is exploratory and a mixed methodology is used, while the findings are compared and contrasted with the current literature in the field of public sector innovation. Findings clearly indicate that visits to conferences, followed by ideas from management and examples of best practices by other governments were fundamental information sources supporting innovation in the public sector of Kosovo. Another important information source supporting innovation is the use of domestic sources of information and rarely information sources supporting innovation from events or organizations in European Union countries. Although, authors point out that gaining experience from public sector institutions in developed countries contributes in driving or supporting public sector innovation. In spite of that, public sector managers in Kosovo have failed to engage citizens or service users as information sources supporting innovation. The most recent literature provides evidence that citizens or service users knowledge and creativity is of paramount importance in enriching innovation. Henceforth, it is a prerequisite for public sector managers in Kosovo to be aware of the importance of co-creating and co-innovating with its service users. Conclusively, this study is a unique contribution to Kosovo's academics, administration practitioners and public policy makers.

PurposeUK higher education has faced an unprecedented period of change due to multiple UK governmental policies over a short period – coupled with demographic change and the vote to leave the European Union. This pressures universities to meet third mission aims by engaging effectively with society and business, generating income in the process to address reduced funding. Support from the UK Government includes over 20 years of funding for universities to develop entrepreneurial structures and processes, termed entrepreneurial architecture (EA). While the government regularly collects data on funds generated through third mission activities, less is known about how EA is perceived by those inside the university. The purpose of this paper is to meet that gap by exploring the perspectives of those employed specifically as part of EA implementation, as knowledge exchange intermediaries.Design/methodology/approachThe study takes a phenomenological approach to achieve deeper insights into those routines and norms resulting from the application of EA. This is a purposeful sample with what is reported to be an under-researched group (Hayter, 2016); those employed as internal knowledge intermediaries across 15 universities (two from each). These university employees are specifically charged with business engagement, knowledge exchange and research commercialization; their contracts are funded and designed as a part of the EA rather than for research or teaching. An initial pilot comprising four semi-structured interviews indicated suitable themes. This was followed up through a set of three interviews over 18 months with each participant and a mapping of EA components at each institution.FindingsDespite EA strategies, the picture emerging was that universities had embedded physical components to a greater or lesser degree without effective social architecture, shown by conflicts between stated and actual routines and norms and by consistent barriers to third mission work. Power and perceived power were critical as participants felt their own worth and status was embedded in their senior manager’s status and power, with practical difficulties for them when he or she lost ground due to internal politics.Research limitations/implicationsThe benefits of this study method and sample include deep insights into the perspectives of an under-reported group. The purposeful sample might be usefully expanded to include other countries, other staff or to look in depth at one institution. It is a qualitative study so brings with it the richness, insights and the potential lack of easy generalizability such an approach provides.Practical implicationsIn designing organizations to achieve third mission aims, EA is important. Even where the structures, strategies, systems, leadership and culture appear to be in place; however, the resulting routines and norms may act against organizational aims. Those designing and redesigning their institutions might look at the experience suggested here to understand how important it is to embed social architecture to ensure effective actions. Measuring cultures and having this as part of institutional targets might also support better results.Social implicationsGovernments in the UK have invested resources and funding and produced policy documents related to the third mission for over 20 years. However, the persistent gap in universities delivering on policy third mission aims is well documented. For this to change, universities will need to ensure their EA is founded on strong underlying supportive cultures. Knowledge sharing with business and community is unlikely when it does not happen in-house.Originality/valueThe study adds new knowledge about how EA is expressed at individual university level. The findings show the need for more research to understand those routines and norms which shape third mission progress in UK universities and how power relations impact in this context, given the pivotal role of the power exerted by the senior manager.

Dear editors, Rare diseases are considered as diseases or conditions of public health concern at European level, and a priority to be included in the context of the European Health Union [1]. The European definition of a rare medical disease or condition is established on the low prevalence, meaning less than five affected persons per 10,000 people (not more than one person per 2000 in the European population [2]. According to Orphanet, a European portal for rare diseases and orphan drugs, currently, there are over 6000 known rare diseases, most of them have a genetic background. Some rare diseases are caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Other rare diseases can be non-genetic - there are rare forms of infectious diseases (bacterial or viral), auto-immune diseases, toxic disorders, and rare cancers. In other cases, the cause of rare diseases is still unknown. At EU level has been established an appropriate public health policy and professional care on rare diseases. European Reference Networks (ERN) are part of this public health policy. ERNs are virtual networks involving healthcare providers across Europe. They aim to tackle complex or rare medical diseases or conditions that require highly specialised treatment and a concentration of knowledge and resources [3]. The fundamental principle of ERNs is share, care, and cure. ERNs use specific telemedicine tools and IT solutions, thus the medical knowledge, best practices, and clinical expertise travel rather than the patient. In the European Union, it is estimated that 30 million people are living with a complex, often chronic, and progressive, rare disease. If we are looking for statistics on rare diseases, it is obviously that individual diseases may be rare, but collectively are common. Moreover, a rare disease may be rare in one region, but common in another. The limited number of patients, widely geographically dispersed affected people, lack of scientific knowledge and medical expertise were barriers in providing quality healthcare services for people with rare diseases. The former European Commissioner for Health, and Food Safety, Vytenis Andriukaitis, considered that “no country alone has knowledge and capacity to treat all rare and complex conditions” [4]. So, in 2017, the European Reference Networks launched to enable the exchange of all the available knowledge and expertise on rare diseases between EU State Members. To date, there are 24 thematic networks working on a wide range of rare non-communicable conditions, such as ERN-BOND on bone disorders, ERN-CRANIO on craniofacial anomalies, EndoERN on endocrine conditions, EuroBloodNet on haematological diseases, ERN LUNG on respiratory diseases, etc. Information about all ERNs on rare diseases are available at: https://ec.europa.eu/ health/european-reference-networks/overview_en. The ERNs were developed by the EU and national governments to facilitate improvements in access to diagnosis, treatment, and provision of affordable, high-quality, and cost-effective healthcare for transforming the lives of all patients [4]. In 2020, it was published a study on the opportunity of setting a European Expert Network on Rare diseases linked to Mobility and Globalisation (EURaDMoG). The study funded by the EU aimed to improve healthcare provision with regards to “imported diseases” brought by a mobile population coming from tropical countries [5]. The list of rare communicable diseases linked to mobility and globalisation identified throughout the EURaDMoG study is available at https://op.europa. eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0606dc45-5c 3b-11ea-8b81-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (Annex 1, page 54) [5]. Imported diseases are not familiar to European health professionals. Population movements, such as global mobility related to tourism or trade, labour migration, family reunification, and refugees, are linked to the spread and control of communicable diseases. The field has recently been recognized as a new challenge as the rare communicable diseases have been found to be prevalent only in mobile populations coming from tropical countries [6]. Thus, Lindenmeyer et al., 2016, noted the need for additional work to improve the knowledge gap among different categories of health care providers [7]. EURaDMog study made a thorough and context-specific assessment on how successfully would be a European expert Network on rare diseases liked to mobility and globalization. The study considered different scenarios, conducted a comprehensive literature review in the field, organised a consultation workshop, and made an overall 364 feasibility assessment. It is important to acknowledge, that the study compared how diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases, both non-communicable and communicable, are covered by existing ERNs. The results of the study indicated that more than 130 infections were identified. They were considered rare conditions in the EU28 and EEA (European Economic Area) countries and were linked to mobility and globalisation. The study revealed that these rare conditions have no appropriate or widely available diagnostic techniques and treatments [5]. Moreover, rare non-communicable diseases linked to mobility and globalisation are covered by 24 different thematic networks. Focussing on rare communicable conditions, the study analysed the current European Network dealing with such conditions. In Europe, most of expert networks focussing on tropical medicine, travel medicine or parasitology organisations are mainly involved in research and training activities and do not provide health care services. Other networks with some focus on health care provision and patient care essentially improved through exchange of information, continuous education, and training of health professionals such as TROPNET (European Network for Tropical Medicine and Travel Health), EuroTravNet (European Travel and Tropical network of the International Society of travel Medicine), and EVDLabNet (European expert laboratory network for emerging viral diseases) do not cover all rare communicable diseases, are functioning with low resources, and most of them are private [8]. Additionally, most of them are not recognised by national health care systems. The study assessed the establishment of the network, thematic area to be covered, data registry, improving the health care provision, governance, coordination and management of the network, patient care, continuous education, training and development, research activities, multidisciplinary approach, networking and collaboration, funding sources and sustainability. This study concluded that, in EU and EEA, rare communicable diseases in the new context of mobility and globalisation are not sufficiently covered by existing expert networks. The new potential network should be complementary to the current existing networks. In no circumstances, it is not seen as a duplication of current network. The ERN can bring real added value to improve the health care provision of rare communicable diseases [5]. Recommendations of the study should be discussed with Member States policymakers.