There are a number of statements which highlight the importance and usefulness of the programme, particularly because this is the year when the events accompanying the anniversary of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes are held.
However, it is always exciting to analyse the deeper causes and identify the reasons behind success: have the initial expectations been met? To what extent were the target groups able to identify with the goals of the programme? Were the resources sufficient to meet the goals set? We were looking for answers to such and similar questions during the research closed this summer, justified not only by the need to summarise the experiences accumulated by the fourth year of the programme and to draw the relevant lessons; it was also an important strategic goal to look ahead and formulate the suggestions needed to prepare the programme phase to be launched in 2021.
Similarly to a number of other countries involved, in Hungary, too, the research serving as a basis for the national report on the implementation of the programme was conducted by an external expert, for which the relevant information was provided by a comprehensive questionnaire, covering all the winning applicants, as well as by personal and focus group interviews.
One of the main conclusions of the research report is that the Erasmus+ programme is well-known and very popular in Hungary; no other grant application opportunity in the field of education and training or youth programmes offers so many tools and support of such extent to gaining experience abroad. At the same time, it is essential that the programme has also induced regulatory level changes in the higher education sector with respect to the increased internationalisation of the institutions. The internationalisation of the organisations involved has clearly increased, and the goals of the programme have, in many cases, appeared in the strategic documents of the institutions.
The visibility of the programme has also improved, due to the amalgamation of the several minor predecessor programmes, as well as the integration of the objectives and the brand name. The standardisation, however, also had a price, as it narrowed down the opportunities to display sectoral and national characteristics.
The better engagement of disadvantaged applicant organisations and groups has remained a challenge: application still presents significant administrative burdens, despite the fact that the administration of the programme has been simplified compared to former ones, which both the applicants and the national office confirmed. The low level of organisational capacities, and the lack of proper expertise (e.g. a strategic approach, project management skills) are all disadvantages which will require more intensive work to be compensated for in the next programme phase. One of the obstacles to the further expansion of participation is unsatisfactory foreign language skills; the solution to this situation, however, goes beyond the limits of this programme.
One rather neglected area of the programme is the maintenance of the outcomes, at least at the level of the projects, in which, according to the recommendation, the applicants need to be strongly supported. Hopefully, the next programme will also provide proper tools for that.
Overapplication, that is, the need for funds which significantly exceed the available resources can be regarded general, although it shows some variation. In several sectors – mostly in the field of VET and youth mobilities – the upper limit for funding is quite high, due to the large number of high-quality applications, and therefore it was suggested that in the future, the allocation of funds among sectors should be revised and/or additional funding should be provided to sectors which significantly overapply, in order to help them reach their goals.
Although the study did not specifically seek to assess the performance of the implementing structures, it was a general opinion among respondents that the attitude and the activities of the national office responsible for executing the programme greatly helped the implementation of the projects. It was important positive feedback for Tempus Public Foundation, and we felt that our efforts in this respect were justified.
It was agreed not only among the applicants involved, but also among the national offices involved in the implementation, that when developing the successor programme, the structure of the Erasmus+ programme should be retained, and relying on the strength, the system should only be "fine-tuned". When specifying the funds, we should consider, on the one hand, the existing tensions arising from over-application, as well as the expectation that the new programme should further expand the opportunities of participation.
Last modified: --
