National Information Centre for European Research
Participation of the V4 countries in Horizon Europe is converging, but unevenly. In aggregate, EU-13 countries are gradually catching up with EU-14 on key metrics; the pace, however, varies by thematic area. The fastest progress is visible in clusters oriented toward health and security (Health, Civil Security), while convergence is slower in the main consortial clusters of Pillar II—Digital/Industry & Space, Climate/Energy & Mobility, and Food/Bio. These clusters are precisely where funding volume and real programme impact are decided. For details, see the analysis “Convergence of EU-13 Countries in EU Framework Programmes: Trends, Differences and Limits.”
In the interpretation below, we draw on the R index (dynamics vs. the EU) and the C index (EU-13 convergence towards EU-14) and on the profile typology—widening-driven, people & excellence, and thematically driven—defined in the above analysis. The text that follows is not an exhaustive statistical report; it is a concise assessment illustrating how misleading cross-country comparisons can be when based on a single success-rate figure. The point is to look at structure (area × action type × size of the application base, plus the role of coordination and excellence), not just at the headline number.
The Czech Republic is gradually moving towards a people & excellence profile. Participation in MSCA (and to some extent ERC) is growing; research infrastructures remain a consistent strength; and compared with other V4 countries, the Czech Republic relies above average on project coordination, which can be a structural advantage when entering tougher calls. At the same time, Czech teams’ presence has relatively receded in some of the major Pillar II clusters (especially Digital/Industry & Space and Climate/Energy & Mobility), pointing to a need to translate excellence and human capital from MSCA/ERC more effectively into consortial international projects.
Poland is moving towards a balanced people & excellence mix. Its participation profile is relatively even across areas and rests on a broad institutional base. The limiting factor is a persistently lower intensity of proposal submissions relative to system capacity, which constrains the conversion of convergence trends into funded project volume. Policy-wise, it makes sense to raise proposal activity and systematically bridge outputs from MSCA/ERC into consortial projects, as in the Czech case.
Hungary fits a thematically driven profile, where growth is pulled more by thematic pillars than by Widening or ERC/MSCA. Participation in the period under review was significantly affected by European Commission restrictions. The decline in Hungary’s overall share from H2020 to HE therefore largely reflects political-administrative factors rather than shortcomings of Hungarian teams and institutions. As restrictions fade and alignment with EU policy tightens, a normalisation of the participation trajectory can be expected.
Slovakia is a textbook widening-driven country. Performance rests primarily on Widening and research infrastructures, with solid results also in European Innovation Ecosystems. It is weaker in ERC and MSCA-DN, and a narrower institutional base limits its breadth of participation across the programme. Trend-wise, Slovakia needs to build bridges from Widening into the key Pillar II clusters, develop coordinator capacity, and broaden the pool of institutions able to participate consistently in IA/RIA projects.
Success-rate overview. The headline participant success rates across V4 do not differ much (CZ ~20.3%, SK ~19.8%, HU ~18.8%, PL ~17.8%), but what really matters is the composition behind them: each country achieves results through a different mix of thematic areas and action types.
In simple terms: all four countries perform well in research infrastructures and coordination/support actions (CSA). Differences typically emerge where competition for projects, grants and funding is toughest. CZ ranks among the most successful V4 countries and is the strongest in ERC; it also converts performance into innovation-oriented IA somewhat better than into purely research-oriented RIA—pointing toward participation in larger consortia. For PL, the key is to increase proposal-preparation activity so that the balanced participation structure of Polish researchers and teams translates into a higher volume of successful, funded projects. HU has a success profile very similar to CZ (strong RI, solid CSA, IA > RIA) but, unlike CZ, shows higher success in MSCA-PF (individual research mobility), whereas CZ is stronger in ERC. SK stands primarily on CSA and RI; like CZ and PL, it has higher success in IA than in RIA, but it runs into ERC and MSCA-DN constraints.
A note on interpreting success. Success rate is not solely a “country outcome.” Most projects in HE are consortial, so success hinges on the ability to join high-quality consortia (the right partners, a strong coordinator, good thematic matching). In the individual schemes (ERC, MSCA-PF), success is driven by excellent individuals and teams. In short, V4 countries will succeed to the extent that they build ties to top-tier consortia, coordinate more projects themselves (i.e., invest in coordinator capacity), and cultivate their own excellence for individual grants.
Author: Daniel Frank, frank@tc.cz, Technology Centre Prague, 10 Nov 2025
Reproduction and distribution of this article (blog) or parts thereof, in Czech or any other language, is permitted only with proper attribution to the source and author in line with standard citation practices. Any changes or edits (beyond purely formal ones) may be made only with the author’s consent. The text has not undergone language proofreading.
02/12/2025
18/11/2025
18/11/2025
