The study, launched by the Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture of the European Commission, aimed to understand how the MSCA can contribute to a more balanced brain circulation between countries and regions in the European Research Area. In line with the Commission’s policy priorities, the study’s final report provides a detailed analysis of the structure and determinants of researchers’ mobility flows under the MSCA and recommendations for a more balanced brain circulation across the European Research Area. The analysis of mobility trends reveals that inflows of MSCA researchers are concentrated in a handful of EU and Horizon 2020 associated countries, with 12 regions across Europe attracting 30% of all MSCA fellows. It also shows that MSCA mobility patterns resemble the general patterns in international scientific mobility, which suggests that the MSCA do not exacerbate the problem of imbalanced research mobility in Europe but merely reflects pre-existing trends. A large-scale survey of MSCA researchers found that the main individual determinants of researchers’ mobility are the opportunity to work with leading scientists, quality of research infrastructure and the training offered (the latter was particularly important for early-stage researchers, i.e., PhD students).

1. [Title]
Study on mobility flows of researchers in the context
of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Final Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation
16 May, 2022

2. [Title]
Conclusion
Country-level and regional-level mobility flows under
the MSCA largely mirror the overall pre-existing
researcher’s mobility flows.
The architecture of the MSCA programme does not in
itself contribute either to brain drain or brain gain but
reflects wider pre-existing mobility trends.
The overall quality of national and regional R&I
systems is the major explanatory pull factor, which
explains both the overall mobility trends and MSCA
mobility trends.

3. [Title]
MSCA mobility flows reveal an R&I divide in the EU
Balance of the long-term MSCA mobility flows in the EU and Associated
countries (IF, ITN, COFUND), H2020:

4. [Title]
There are 12 EU and Associated countries where IF, ITN
and COFUND fellows’ inflows are larger than outflows
Together, these countries hosted over 80% of all fellows in Horizon 2020.

5. [Title]
All other countries experienced either negative mobility
flows…
Countries with more
than 100 outgoing
fellows.
Countries with fewer
than 100 outgoing
fellows.
The widening countries are marked with *

6. [Title]
… or balanced mobility flows (only a few)

7. [Title]
High regional
concentration
of long-term
mobility: 12 EU
regions hosted
30% of fellows

8. [Title]
NUTS2 region Total number of
fellows hosted
Most prominent
cities
Examples of the most prominent
participant organisations
Catalonia (ES51) 1215 Barcelona  The Spanish National Research
Council
 The Autonomous University of
Barcelona
 University of Barcelona
Ile de France (FR10) 1119 Paris  The French National Centre for
Scientific Research
 Sorbonne University
Inner London – West
(UKI3)
718 London  Imperial College of Science
Technology and Medicine
 University College London
Hovedstaden (DK01) 687 Copenhagen  The Technical University of Denmark
 The University of Copenhagen
Oberbayern (DE21) 596 Munich  Ludwig Maximilian University of
Munich
 The Technical University of Munich
Madrid (ES30) 550 Madrid  The Complutense University of
Madrid
 The Spanish National Research
Council
South Holland (NL33) 535 Delft
Leiden
Rotterdam
 Delft University of Technology
 Leiden University
East Anglia (UKH1) 508 Cambridge  University of Cambridge
 Medical Research Council
Lake Geneva region
(CH01)
528 Geneva
Lausanne
 Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology Lausanne
 The University of Geneva
Eastern & Midland
Ireland (IE06)
444 Dublin  University College Dublin, National
University of Ireland
Flemish Brabant
(BE24)
436 Leuven  Catholic University of Leuven (KU
Leuven)
Gelderland (NL32) 415 Amsterdam  University of Amsterdam
 The Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
The level of concentration of fellows into a handful of regions and institutions has decreased in Horizon 2020 compared to FP7. In FP7, twelve
leading regions hosted around 39% of all MSCA fellows.
In FP7, five out of twelve of the most popular host destinations were located in the UK, while in H2020 the UK importance as a host country (and
regions, including such cities as London or Oxford) declined. Instead, regions in the Netherlands (with such cities as Delft, Leiden, Rotterdam and
Amsterdam), Ireland (Dublin) and Belgium (Leuven) gained more importance as MSCA host regions.
The 12 leading
MSCA regions
in Horizon
2020:

9. [Title]
Mobility flows under MSCA and under the overall
mobility of researchers (as revealed by MORE4 data) are
strikingly similar
Conclusion based on the charts above: architecture of the MSCA does not seem to strongly favour either more or less advanced R&I systems, as
researchers’ flows under MSCA largely mirror the overall researcher’s mobility flows.
There is, however, a very slight tendency that a somewhat higher share of early-stage researchers (~9 percentage points) and experienced
researchers (~3 percentage points) tend to go to advanced research systems under MCSA compared to the overall mobility of researchers.
87.0%
6.2%
0.3%
6.5%
77.8%
8.7%
0.9%
12.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Non-Widening Member
States + UK
Widening Member States Widening Associated
Countries
Non-Widening Associated
Countries
ITN and COFUND ESR MORE4 ESR, estimate
83.5%
5.3%
1.6%
9.6%
80.7%
8.6%
1.1%
9.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Non-Widening Member States +
UK
Widening Member States Widening Associated Countries Non-Widening Associated
Countries
IF and COFUND ER MORE4 ER, estimate
Destinations of early-stage researchers Destinations of experienced researchers

10. [Title]
Regression models
suggest that systemic
determinants can
explain around 70-90%
of the MSCA mobility
flows to the EU and
associated countries. The effect of systemic variables is even stronger for the widening countries. Such a result
implies that even where fellows choose to go to a widening country, they still prefer those
countries with stronger research systems.
Variable Model 1
Coefficients
(IRR)
Model 2
Coefficients
(IRR)
Model 3
Coefficients
(IRR)
GERD (in EUR million; Eurostat) 0.00*** (1)
R&D personnel (in FTE; Eurostat) 0.00*** (1)
Population size (Eurostat) 0.00*** (1)
New doctoral students (EIS score, 2021) 0.59*** (1.8) 0.53*** (1.7) 0.32*** (1.75)
Attractive research system (EIS score, 2021) 0.69*** (1.99)
International scientific co-publications (EIS score,
2021; number of publications)
-0.00*** (0.99)
Scientific publications among the top 10% most
cited (EIS score, 2021; percentage of all
publications)
3.26*** (26.22) 9.52*** (over 3
million)
Foreign doctoral students as a percentage of all
doctoral students (EIS, 2021)
0.00*** (1) 0.01*** (1.01)
Widening country (dummy of 0 and 1) -1.82*** (0.16) -1.75*** (0.17) -1.82*** (0.17)
Constant term 5.73*** (310.93) 5.66*** (288.93) 5.19*** (169.14)
(pseudo) R2 0.78 0.84 0.92
Number of observations 33 33 33

11. [Title]
Conclusion
Three main organisational and systemic factors
influence MSCA fellows’ choice of host location
(country, region and institution): working with leading
scientists, the quality of training offered, and the quality
of research infrastructure in the host country.

12. [Title]
Survey of MSCA fellows: to what extent did the following factors contribute to your choice of a
host country and host institution? (1) n = 4,398
70%
66%
57%
38% 38%
35%
27%
20% 19%
13%
24%
27%
32%
43%
37% 45%
47%
30%
19%
11%
7% 7%
10%
19%
25%
20%
25%
50%
62%
77%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Working with leading
scientists
Quality of training offered Research infrastructure in
the host country /
institution
Favorable social and
cultural conditions
Good career opportunities
in the host country
Level of remuneration Public infrastructure in the
host country
Proximity to the home
country
Familiarity / previous
experience in the host
country
Family ties with the host
country
To a large extent To some extent Did not contribute at all

13. [Title]
Survey of MSCA fellows: to what extent did the following factors contribute to your choice of a host country
and host institution? (2) Response = contributed to a large extent, n = 4,398
More
important for
experienced
researchers
More
important for
early-stage
researchers
70%
67%
58%
39% 39%
35%
27%
20%
19%
13%
77%
71% 70%
35%
45%
35% 36%
19%
12%
7%
56%
59%
36%
32%
17%
31%
15%
24%
20%
17%
52%
45%
32%
35%
19%
16% 16%
42%
32%
45%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Working with leading
scientists
Quality of training offered Research infrastructure in
the host country / institution
Favorable social and cultural
conditions
Good career opportunities in
the host country
Level of remuneration Public infrastructure in the
host country
Proximity to the home
country
Familiarity / previous
experience in the host
country
Family ties with the host
country
Non-Widening Member States + UK (n=3671) Non-Widening Associated countries (n=355) Widening Member States (n=299) Widening Associated countries (n=31)

14. [Title]
Recommendation 1
Member States (and especially widening countries) should
take the lead in implementing national level reforms that
enhance conditions to attract excellent researchers. This
should be done by using both national and EU-level
initiatives and funding.
National level reforms should especially target the following
aspects of R&I systems:
• Availability of a critical mass of excellent researchers
• Quality of doctoral training programmes
• Availability of high-quality research infrastructures

15. [Title]
Recommendation 2
At the same time, the European Commission should
more prominently steer the use of the policy and
funding tools at its disposal to support national and
regional level reforms of R&I systems, which would
contribute to enhancing the quality of the less
advanced R&I systems and in particular their capacity
to support more balanced flows of researchers (directly
related to the MSCA, when possible).

16. [Title]
Conclusion
The Widening Fellowships pilot provided significant
support to widening countries to balance their mobility
flows.

17. [Title]
The Widening Fellowships pilot contributed to cutting down the total negative brain circulation to
and from the widening Member States from minus 113 researchers to minus 24 researchers
10 10 9 2 2 1
-1 -3 -6 -12 -13
-16
-20
-30
-57
12
15
19
39
17
3
0
3
-2
-14
-10 -10
-17
-30
-51
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
Luxembourg
Slovenia
Cyprus
Portugal
Czechia
Latvia
Georgia
Malta
Estonia
Serbia
Croatia
Turkey
Hungary
Romania
Poland
IF-EF mobility balance IF-EF and WF mobility balance
Portugal, Czechia, and Cyprus are the primary beneficiaries of the Widening Fellowships pilot.

18. [Title]
Survey of widening fellows: to what extent have the following factors contributed to
the choice of a host country and a host institution?
54%
59%
46%
48%
33%
20% 20%
24%
37% 37%
37%
30%
43% 39%
46%
46% 46%
35%
20%
13%
9%
11% 11%
14%
22%
35% 35%
41%
43%
50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Research infrastructure Working with leading
scientists
Favorable social and
cultural conditions
Quality of training offered Good career opportunities
in the host country
Public infrastructure in the
host country
Level of remuneration Familiarity / previous
experience in the country
Proximity to the home
country
Family ties with the host
country
to a large extent to some extent did not contribute to my decision at all

19. [Title]
Sustainable impact of the Widening Fellowships
• Survey data shows that 59% of widening fellows are either planning to
stay or have stayed in the host country after the end of their fellowship.
• Out of the survey respondents, over half of the widening fellows said that
the existence of the Widening Fellowships affected their overall decision
to apply for the MSCA funding.
• Widening fellows are performing well on many measures. There is no
sign of a gap between the MSCA fellows and the Widening fellows when
assessing their performance and output. The pilot has supported the
spread of excellence in this regard.

20. [Title]
Publication patterns of IF-EF and Widening fellows (survey and follow-up
questionnaire data)
86%
67%
26%
76%
62%
43%
75%
38%
50%
88%
75%
38%
60%
80%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
International joint publication Another organisation in the same country Partner from another sector
IF All WF All WF-2018 WF-2019 WF-2020

21. [Title]
Main criticisms for the Widening
Fellowships pilot during the interview
programme
•Limited scope of the pilot
•The fact that the Widening Fellowship is not
considered an MSCA fellowship, which diminishes its
prestige

22. [Title]
% of MSCA fellows who are implementing their fellowship in a non-
Widening country, but considered applying to a Widening country,
by country of origin
21%
44%
36%
22%
17%
3%
28%
22%
12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
All (n=4073) Widening Associated
countries (n=181)
Widening Member
States (n=407)
Third countries
(n=1342)
Non-Widening Member
States + UK (n=2082)
Non-Widening
Associated countries
(n=61)
ITN (n=1948) COFUND (n=811) IF (n=1314)

23. [Title]
Recommendation 3
The European Commission should consider expanding
the funding available for the ERA Fellowships, since
the Widening Fellowships pilot showed an
unambiguous capacity to contribute to more balanced
flows of researchers to and from widening countries.

24. [Title]
Recommendation 4
The European Commission should consider
implementing a hop-on facility for MSCA Staff
Exchanges, allowing organisations from widening
countries to join already established successful MSCA
SE consortia.

25. [Title]
Conclusion
The MSCA already strongly contributes to the return
mobility of fellows by bringing them back to their
country of origin.

26. [Title]
12% of all fellows already use the MSCA to return to the country of
origin. This number is even higher for widening Member States (22%).
• Experienced researchers
participating in IF and COFUND are
most active to use the MSCA to
return to their country of origin
• 44% of IF fellows going to widening
Member States are citizens of the
country of host organisation,
whereas the figure is even higher for
widening Associated Countries
(91%!)
22% 20%
4% 4%
12%
44%
39%
7% 6%
22%
91%
47%
11%
0%
62%
5%
2% 2% 4% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
IF, n=8985 COFUND ER, n=2446 ITN, n=12317 COFUND ESR, n=1712 Total (IF, ITN,
COFUND), n=25460
Non-Widening Member States + UK (n=22014) Widening Member States (n=1464)
Widening Associated Countries (n=130) Non-Widening Associated Countries (n=1852)

27. [Title]
2-year follow-up questionnaire: many
fellows return after the fellowship
41% 42%
37%
40%
52%
33%
35% 36%
33%
44%
25%
35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
All fellows
(n=228)
Non-Widening
countries + UK
(n=177)
Widening
countries (n=51)
IF (n=77) COFUND (n=65) ITN (n=86)
Fellow in country of citizenship Fellow in country of host organisation
Share of fellows not hosted
by their country of
citizenship who returned to
their country of citizenship
or remained in the host
country, by country of
origin and action (IF,
COFUND, ITN)

28. [Title]
Recommendation 5
The study does not recommend establishing a return
grant scheme either under the MSCA or under the
WIDERA part of Horizon Europe.
Such a scheme may have a harmful effect for widening
countries and further reinforce the existing disparities
in mobility flows, as it is likely to benefit more fellows
from advanced research systems than fellows from
widening countries.

29. [Title]
Conclusion
MSCA has a high positive impact on retaining excellent
European talents in the EU, bringing talents back to the
EU, and attracting foreign researchers to the EU.

30. [Title]
74% of all IF fellows of any nationality were residing in the EU27+UK before the fellowship
92% of all IF fellows of any nationality were residing in the EU27+UK after the fellowship
This evidence allows concluding that the MSCA fellowship has managed to retain a substantial number of
European researchers in Europe while attracting both European and third-country researchers living abroad
(26% of all IF fellows).

31. [Title]
If we look at all fellows (ITN/IF/COFUND):
• The EU27+UK received 92% of total fellows, consisting of:
 74.6% in the EU27
 17.4% in the UK alone
as compared to
• 7.8 % in associated countries
• 0.2% (33 COFUND and 11 ITN fellows ending up in the US,
China, Japan)

32. [Title]
When you accepted the fellowship offer, did you have
already other offers/opportunities available to you
elsewhere?
38.6%
31.4%
4.7% 4.6%
70.0%
30.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Yes, in Europe Yes, in my country of origin Yes, in other third countries Yes, in the US Yes (total) No

33. [Title]
What was the second-best option which you considered
for your career if you would not receive an MSCA
fellowship?
37.3%
18.8%
9.4% 9.3%
7.6% 7.2%
3.5%
6.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Apply for other fellowships
in Europe
Stay at my current job Look for a research job
abroad in the private
sector
Look for a research job
abroad in the academia
Enroll into PhD programme
without a fellowship
Re-apply next year Apply for other fellowships
in the third countries
Other

34. [Title]
© European Union 2021
Unless otherwise noted the reuse of this presentation is authorised under the CC BY 4.0 license. For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the EU, permission may need to be sought directly from
the respective right holders. Image sources: iStockphoto.com/Unsplash
Thank you!
#MSCA #HorizonEU
@MSCActions
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/