Public debt, interest rates and the crowding‑out of private investment in the European Union: an Austrian‑economics reinterpretation

Author: Santiago Sainz

1. Introduction

Since the global financial crisis of 2008 and, especially, since the COVID‑19 pandemic, public debt ratios in the European Union have risen to structurally higher levels than those observed in previous decades. This process has been accompanied by a prolonged period of extraordinarily low, and at times negative, real interest rates, supported by large‑scale asset purchase programs by the European Central Bank (ECB) and other major central banks. The combination of high public indebtedness and exceptionally loose financial conditions has reshaped the investment environment for European firms and households, with far‑reaching implications for capital accumulation, innovation, and real purchasing power.

Recent empirical work has begun to document the existence of debt overhang effects in Europe, whereby high levels of public debt are associated with a significant reduction in private investment. In a panel study covering 28 EU countries between 1995 and 2016, an increase of 10 percentage points in the public‑debt‑to‑GDP ratio is estimated to reduce private investment by tens of billions of euros, and the effect is found to operate specifically through public, not private, indebtedness. At the same time, official reports highlight that, despite various stimulus programs, private investment in physical capital and research and development (R&D) in the EU has displayed weaker dynamism than in other advanced economies, especially in high‑technology sectors, suggesting the presence of more subtle crowding‑out mechanisms linked to the structure of financial incentives.

This paper offers an Austrian‑economics reinterpretation of these phenomena, focusing on the structure of capital, the coordinating role of interest rates, and the importance of genuine saving for productive investment. The central hypothesis is that rising public indebtedness, financed through credit expansion and supported by ultra‑expansionary monetary policies, has undermined private investment in capital goods and R&D, generating a crowding‑out effect that weakens innovative capacity and erodes the real purchasing power of European households. More specifically, three sub‑hypotheses are advanced: (i) high public debt generates a debt‑overhang effect that reduces private fixed investment; (ii) the combination of high indebtedness and distorted financial conditions contributes to the relatively weak dynamism of private R&D investment in the EU, particularly in frontier technology sectors, as documented by the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard; and (iii) the interaction of fiscal and monetary policy in a high‑debt environment constrains price stability, increasing the risk of inflationary episodes that erode purchasing power and discourage net saving.

From the perspective of international organizations, limited fiscal space, together with the simultaneous need to finance the green transition, defense, social policies, and innovation agendas, is seen as locking the European economy into a path of modest potential growth and rising vulnerabilities. Recent United Nations World Economic Situation and Prospects (WESP 2026) reports and IMF analyses warn that, absent reforms that credibly ensure debt sustainability, the region faces a fragile equilibrium in which monetary policy may come under pressure to accommodate fiscal deficits, with implications for price stability and the intergenerational distribution of the tax burden. These concerns are echoed in ECB work on the risks to price stability in times of high government debt, which emphasizes the importance of preserving monetary independence in the face of potential forms of fiscal dominance.

Against this backdrop, the contribution of the paper is twofold. First, it integrates recent empirical evidence on public debt, private investment, and debt‑overhang risks in the EU with an Austrian analytical framework that highlights the intertemporal structure of capital, the relative‑price distortions induced by fiscal and monetary policy, and the effects of these distortions on innovation and purchasing power. Second, it proposes an updated empirical assessment for the post‑pandemic period, using data from official European sources (Eurostat, ECB, European Commission, Joint Research Centre) and UN system bodies, in order to evaluate to what extent the crowding‑out mechanisms identified in the literature have intensified or changed in the new environment of positive interest rates and renewed fiscal conditionality.

2. Theoretical framework: debt, capital structure, and crowding‑out from an Austrian perspective

2.1 The Austrian view of interest rates and the capital structure

In the Austrian tradition, the market rate of interest plays a central role as the price that coordinates intertemporal decisions on saving and investment, reflecting individuals’ time preferences and the availability of resources for projects with different horizons. When monetary policy holds interest rates below the level consistent with genuine saving, it creates incentives to undertake investment projects that are not backed by real resources, producing an excessively elongated and fragile capital structure (malinvestment), prone to abrupt correction when financial conditions normalize. In this setting, credit expansion not grounded in prior saving distorts relative prices over time, altering both the sectoral and temporal allocation of resources.

Applied to public debt, this perspective suggests that prolonged periods of artificially low interest rates facilitate the accumulation of sovereign liabilities at seemingly low cost, encouraging spending programs that do not necessarily pass a rigorous test of intertemporal social profitability. Debt issued under such conditions competes for financial resources with the private sector and, at the same time, induces banks and other intermediaries to concentrate their portfolios in sovereign bonds that carry low regulatory risk, reinforcing the feedback loop between the state and the financial system. When monetary conditions tighten—as in the ECB’s post‑2021 hiking cycle following the inflation surge—the interest burden on outstanding debt rises, and the adjustment ultimately falls on public investment, the tax burden, and, indirectly, on private investment.

2.2 Public debt, debt overhang, and crowding‑out of private investment in the EU

Conventional literature has long debated whether public investment complements or crowds out private investment, with mixed empirical results depending on country, period, and methodology. More recent work focusing on the European Union has highlighted the existence of debt‑overhang effects linked to the accumulation of public debt that specifically affect private investment. Vanlaer and co‑authors, analyzing a panel of 28 EU countries from 1995 to 2016, estimate that a 10‑percentage‑point increase in the public‑debt‑to‑GDP ratio reduces private investment by economically significant amounts, and that this effect is driven by public, rather than private, debt. This finding supports the notion that, beyond the volume of public spending, the mode of financing and the level of indebtedness shape the relationship between the public and private sectors.

From an Austrian standpoint, these results can be interpreted in at least three complementary ways. First, high public debt absorbs a growing share of available saving and of the banking system’s lending capacity, so that resources that could finance long‑term private projects are instead channeled toward sovereign financing. Second, the perceived risk associated with high debt levels can increase sovereign risk premia, raising financing costs across the economy, thereby reducing expected returns on marginal private investment projects and discouraging capital accumulation. Third, expectations of higher future taxes or inflation used to manage the debt burden may weigh on investment decisions and create an environment of institutional uncertainty that is ill‑suited to entrepreneurship and innovation.

Taken together, these mechanisms imply that crowding‑out operates not only through the observable interest rate, but also via expectations channels, prudential regulation, and portfolio composition, which are not always captured by standard Keynesian or neoclassical models. The concentration of domestic sovereign bond holdings in the balance sheets of euro‑area banks and other regulated institutions reinforces this diagnosis, aligning the incentives of a large segment of the financial system with public‑debt sustainability, often at the expense of financing riskier, innovative private ventures.

2.3 Innovation, private R&D investment, and the capital structure in the EU

The European Union’s innovation performance provides a useful lens through which to assess the consequences of this environment for investment in an expanded notion of capital goods (physical capital plus knowledge). According to Eurostat, total R&D expenditure in the EU remains around 2.2–2.3% of GDP, below the long‑standing 3% target set in the Lisbon Strategy and the Europe 2020 agenda, and significantly behind economies such as the United States, Japan, or Korea. The gap is particularly pronounced in business‑sector R&D, where the EU displays a lower relative effort and slower growth than its main competitors.

The EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard, compiled by the JRC and the European Commission, shows that in 2024 EU‑headquartered companies increased their industrial R&D spending by roughly 2.9%, while US and non‑EU firms recorded growth rates above 7%. EU companies account for only about 16% of global corporate R&D, compared with almost half for US firms, and the increase in European R&D spending is heavily concentrated in a small group of large companies, especially in automotive, health, and energy. In frontier technology fields such as digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and some deep‑tech segments, investment and leadership indicators consistently show a lagging position for the EU.

From an Austrian‑economics perspective, the combination of high public indebtedness, regulatory biases favoring sovereign bond holdings, and a history of manipulated interest rates has helped shape an environment in which it is relatively more attractive to allocate resources to low‑risk, short‑term, sovereign‑linked assets than to finance long‑horizon, high‑risk R&D projects. This reallocation of resources affects both the quantity and the composition of investment, favoring protected or politically driven sectors and hampering the emergence of new activities at the technological frontier, where the need for patient capital and undistorted price signals is especially critical. Ultimately, this dynamic contributes to explaining part of the EU’s relative underperformance in total factor productivity and innovation, with direct consequences for real wage growth and households’ purchasing power.

3. Data and empirical strategy

3.1 Data sources and sample

The empirical analysis is based on an unbalanced panel of European Union member states covering the period 1999–2024, subject to data availability and consistency across sources. The core sample includes all countries that were EU members for most of this period; robustness checks will consider subsamples (euro‑area only; pre‑2004 versus post‑2004 entrants) to test whether the results are sensitive to integration and monetary‑regime differences.

Four primary data sources provide the backbone of the dataset. First, Eurostat (and, where needed, the European Commission’s AMECO database) supplies national accounts variables, including gross domestic product (GDP), gross fixed capital formation by institutional sector, and price indices, as well as total and business R&D expenditure. Second, the ECB Statistical Data Warehouse and related publications provide information on short‑ and long‑term interest rates, bank credit to the private sector, and sovereign bond yields and spreads. Third, the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard compiled by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the European Commission offers complementary firm‑level and sectoral indicators of corporate R&D investment, used to benchmark national‑level business‑R&D ratios and to characterize the sectoral composition of innovation. Fourth, UN DESA’s World Economic Situation and Prospects and IMF databases are used to cross‑check macroeconomic aggregates and provide global controls when needed.

The baseline frequency is annual, reflecting the availability of public‑debt and investment data. All nominal variables are transformed into real terms using appropriate deflators (GDP deflator or private‑investment deflator) and expressed either in constant prices or as ratios to GDP. To mitigate the influence of outliers and measurement noise, standard cleaning procedures are applied (winsorization of extreme values at the 1st and 99th percentiles, checks for structural breaks in national‑accounts reclassifications). Where series are revised substantially (for example, due to ESA 2010 implementation), pre‑ and post‑revision data are harmonized following Eurostat and European Commission guidance.

3.2 Variables and construction

The empirical strategy focuses on two sets of dependent variables. The first is private fixed investment, measured as the gross fixed capital formation of the private sector (households and non‑financial corporations) as a ratio to GDP, constructed from sectoral national accounts. The second is business‑sector innovation effort, proxied by business R&D expenditure as a share of GDP at the country level, supplemented by indicators from the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard on the R&D intensity of leading firms headquartered in each member state.

The key explanatory variable is public debt, measured as gross general‑government debt in percent of GDP, consistent with the Maastricht definition used in EU fiscal surveillance. To capture non‑linearities associated with debt overhang, alternative specifications will include squared terms and interaction terms (for example, interacting debt levels with dummies for periods of positive versus negative real interest rates). Following the existing literature, additional regressors capture financial conditions: the short‑term nominal policy rate and its ex‑post real counterpart; a term‑structure measure (long‑term sovereign yield minus short‑term rate); and the growth rate of real bank credit to the private sector.

A set of control variables accounts for other determinants of private investment and innovation. These include real GDP per capita and output‑gap proxies (to capture the business cycle), population growth and age‑dependency ratios (demographic structure), trade openness (exports plus imports over GDP), and, where feasible, indicators of institutional quality and regulatory intensity. For the innovation equations, controls also include the sectoral composition of the economy (share of manufacturing, information and communication, and high‑tech industries in value added), as inferred from Eurostat structural business statistics and the sectoral breakdown of the JRC Scoreboard.

All variables are transformed to ensure comparability across countries and over time. Ratios (such as investment‑to‑GDP or debt‑to‑GDP) are kept in levels, while interest rates and spreads are expressed in percentage points and credit variables in real growth rates. Logarithmic transformations are applied where appropriate to stabilize variance and interpret coefficients as elasticities.

3.3 Baseline econometric specification

The baseline econometric framework is a panel data model with country fixed effects and time dummies, designed to capture both cross‑sectional and time‑series variation while controlling for unobserved heterogeneity. For private investment, the core specification takes the form:

InvPrivit​=αi​+λt​+β1​Debtit​+β2​rit​+β3​Creditit​+γ′Xit​+εit​,

where denotes private fixed investment as a share of GDP in country and year ; is the public‑debt‑to‑GDP ratio; summarises monetary‑policy conditions (short‑term or real interest rate, and/or a term‑structure measure); captures real private‑credit growth; and is a vector of control variables as defined above. Country fixed effects absorb time‑invariant characteristics (such as legal and institutional traditions), while time dummies capture common shocks (for example, global financial crisis, euro‑area sovereign‑debt crisis, COVID‑19 shock).

For innovation, an analogous specification is estimated with business‑R&D intensity as the dependent variable:

RDit​=δi​+θt​+ϕ1​Debtit​+ϕ2​rit​+ϕ3​Creditit​+κ′Zit​+uit​,

where is business‑sector R&D expenditure in percent of GDP, and includes, in addition to the macro controls, measures of sectoral structure and, where feasible, public‑R&D spending and innovation‑policy indicators. The parameters of interest are and , which measure the marginal effect of higher public‑debt ratios on private investment and innovation, conditional on macroeconomic and financial conditions.

Estimation initially relies on fixed‑effects (within) regressions with heteroskedasticity‑ and autocorrelation‑robust standard errors clustered at the country level. Given the dynamic nature of investment and innovation, augmented specifications will include lagged dependent variables, which introduces a Nickell bias in short panels. To address this issue, the paper will employ system‑GMM and related dynamic‑panel estimators as robustness checks, following the approach in the existing European debt‑overhang literature.

3.4 Endogeneity, identification, and robustness

A key concern in assessing the impact of public debt on private investment and R&D is endogeneity. Causality may run both ways: weak private investment can worsen fiscal positions via lower tax revenues and higher social spending, while high debt may depress investment through the channels discussed above. In addition, omitted variables (such as unobserved institutional reforms) may affect both debt dynamics and investment.

To mitigate these problems, the empirical strategy combines several identification approaches. First, lagged values of public‑debt ratios and fiscal‑rule indicators (for example, dummies capturing periods when the Stability and Growth Pact constraints were effectively binding or suspended) are used as instruments in dynamic‑panel specifications, exploiting the institutional features of EU fiscal governance. Second, the analysis incorporates interaction terms and dummy variables for major regime shifts—most notably the pre‑ versus post‑2008 and pre‑ versus post‑2020 periods—to assess whether the marginal effect of debt on investment and R&D changed after the global financial crisis and the pandemic. Third, alternative measures of the fiscal stance (such as the cyclically adjusted primary balance) and of sovereign‑risk conditions (spreads over German Bunds) are used to test whether the results are robust to different proxies for fiscal stress.

Robustness checks will also examine the sensitivity of the results to sample composition (excluding small economies, focusing on the euro area, or separating high‑debt from low‑debt countries) and to alternative variable definitions (for example, using private‑investment volumes instead of ratios, or firm‑level R&D data from the JRC Scoreboard in place of aggregate business‑R&D intensity). Finally, the analysis will explore potential threshold effects by allowing the marginal impact of public debt to differ across ranges of the debt‑to‑GDP ratio (for instance, below and above 60–90% of GDP), in line with the debt‑sustainability literature for the EU. The combination of these strategies aims to provide a cautious yet informative assessment of whether, and to what extent, high public debt in the EU has crowded out private investment and innovation in the post‑euro, post‑crisis era.

4. Empirical results

4.1 Stylised facts: public debt, private investment, and business R&D in the EU

Eurostat national‑accounts data indicate that, over the period 2005–2024, the EU economy has been hit by a succession of major shocks—the global financial crisis, the euro‑area sovereign‑debt crisis, the COVID‑19 pandemic, and the subsequent energy and cost‑of‑living crisis—which have left both the level and the composition of aggregate demand significantly altered. While real GDP in 2024 stands above its pre‑pandemic level, the recovery in gross capital formation has been weaker and more volatile than that of consumption, underscoring the fragility of investment dynamics. Sector‑account statistics show that, in 2024, non‑financial corporations in the EU devoted roughly 22% of their gross value added to investment, with sizable cross‑country differences and no broad‑based return to the higher investment ratios observed before 2008.

At the same time, comparative price‑level indicators suggest that the relative price of investment goods—particularly machinery and equipment—remains elevated in a number of large EU economies, which may further discourage capital deepening. These patterns are observed against a backdrop of persistently high public‑debt ratios. IMF assessments document that European public debt, after rising sharply in response to the pandemic and energy shocks, has remained well above pre‑COVID levels, and baseline projections point to an upward drift under current policies. UN DESA’s World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 likewise stresses that limited fiscal space, modest potential growth, and rising spending needs on climate, defense, and social protection constrain governments’ ability to support investment without aggravating debt vulnerabilities.

On the innovation side, Eurostat and the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard show that total R&D expenditure in the EU has hovered around 2.2–2.3% of GDP, below the long‑standing 3% target and lagging behind leading innovation economies. The 2024 and 2025 editions of the Scoreboard reveal that EU‑headquartered firms increased their R&D spending by roughly 2.9% in 2024, compared with significantly higher growth rates for US and Asian firms, and that EU companies account for around 16% of global corporate R&D, versus nearly half for US companies. R&D investment is highly concentrated in a small number of large incumbents—especially in automotive, health, and energy—while digital and software‑intensive sectors remain comparatively underdeveloped.

4.2 Debt overhang and private fixed investment (H1)

The first hypothesis concerns the existence of a debt‑overhang effect whereby high public‑debt ratios depress private fixed investment. Vanlaer et al. (2021), using a panel of 28 EU countries over 1995–2016, find that a 10‑percentage‑point increase in the public‑debt‑to‑GDP ratio is associated with a reduction of approximately €18.3 billion in private investment at 2016 levels, and that this effect is driven specifically by public, not private, debt. Their identification strategy, which addresses endogeneity by instrumenting public debt, suggests a robust negative impact of public indebtedness on private capital formation.

Within the framework of this paper, updated fixed‑effects and dynamic‑panel regressions covering the post‑crisis and post‑pandemic years are expected to confirm a negative and statistically significant coefficient on the public‑debt‑to‑GDP ratio (β₁) in the private‑investment equation, particularly in high‑debt member states and in periods when real interest rates are positive or rising. Preliminary estimates from related European studies and policy reports already point in this direction, showing that high‑debt countries tend to display systematically lower private‑investment ratios once macro conditions and structural characteristics are controlled for. From an Austrian perspective, such results indicate that sustained public borrowing has progressively absorbed a larger share of available saving and bank balance‑sheet capacity, leaving less room for entrepreneurial projects that rely on genuine intertemporal coordination rather than on continued monetary accommodation.

4.3 Public debt, financial conditions, and business‑sector R&D (H2)

The second hypothesis focuses on the relationship between public debt, financial conditions, and business‑sector R&D intensity. Official data and recent analyses of the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard show that, although EU firms have in some years increased their R&D spending at a faster pace, the EU continues to lag behind the United States and parts of Asia in terms of both corporate R&D intensity and the development of frontier digital and software industries. The Scoreboard and independent assessments underline that European corporate R&D is heavily concentrated in a limited number of large corporations, while smaller firms and certain high‑tech sectors invest comparatively little in R&D.

In the empirical specification proposed in this paper, higher public‑debt ratios are expected to be associated with weaker business‑R&D intensity (φ₁ < 0) at the country level, after controlling for macroeconomic conditions, sectoral composition, and public‑R&D policies. Existing evidence on corporate debt overhang and investment in the euro area supports this expectation: ECB work on corporate investment and rollover risk shows that high leverage and heightened risk premia lead firms to cut back on long‑horizon, risky projects, especially in environments characterised by uncertainty over future policy settings. When combined with regulatory incentives favouring sovereign‑bond holdings and with a fiscal stance tilted toward current expenditure, high public debt can thus indirectly crowd out private R&D by diverting risk‑bearing capacity toward low‑risk public assets and by increasing uncertainty over future tax and inflation paths.

Under an Austrian interpretation, this pattern reflects a distortion of the capital structure: rather than facilitating the emergence of new knowledge‑intensive activities through undistorted interest‑rate signals and decentralized entrepreneurial discovery, the policy regime channels resources into politically driven uses and comparatively safe assets, constraining both the volume and the composition of innovation‑related investment.

4.4 Fiscal–monetary interactions, inflation, and purchasing power (H3)

The third hypothesis concerns the interaction between fiscal and monetary policy in a high‑debt environment and its implications for inflation and real incomes. IMF simulations for Europe highlight that, under baseline scenarios, public‑debt ratios are projected to remain elevated or drift upwards over the next 15 years, while maintaining price stability requires that monetary policy avoid prolonged periods of negative real interest rates. ECB work on risks to price stability in times of high government debt emphasises that large sovereign debt stocks increase the sensitivity of fiscal positions to interest‑rate movements and may create incentives for governments to favour accommodative monetary policies or financial repression.

In the empirical framework of this paper, these interactions can be explored by examining auxiliary regressions linking high‑debt regimes and monetary‑policy stances (for example, low or negative real policy rates, compressed term spreads) to inflation outcomes and real‑income growth. Stylised evidence from EU‑wide analyses of inflationary episodes suggests that periods combining high debt and accommodative monetary policy have often coincided with weaker growth in real wages and real disposable income per capita, particularly for lower‑income households that are more exposed to inflation and less able to hedge against it. If econometric results confirm that high‑debt, low‑real‑rate configurations are associated with higher inflation and weaker real‑income performance, this would support the Austrian contention that inflation acts as a de facto tax on money holdings and fixed‑income claims, eroding households’ purchasing power and discouraging genuine saving.

Taken together, the stylised facts and available empirical evidence are consistent with the three hypotheses advanced in this paper: high public debt in the EU is associated with weaker private fixed investment, lower business‑R&D intensity than would otherwise be expected, and fiscal–monetary interactions that heighten inflation risks and constrain real‑income growth. These patterns provide the empirical foundation for the Austrian‑economics interpretation developed in the subsequent discussion and for the policy implications drawn in the following section.

5. Discussion: interpreting the evidence through an Austrian lens

5.1 Debt overhang, malinvestment, and intertemporal misallocation

Viewed through an Austrian lens, the EU evidence points to a pattern in which sustained public borrowing and a prolonged period of unusually low interest rates have distorted the intertemporal allocation of capital rather than durably expanding productive capacity. The robust negative association between public‑debt ratios and private fixed investment, documented for 1995–2016 and echoed in more recent European policy work, suggests that crowding‑out in high‑debt member states is a structural feature of the current fiscal–monetary regime, not a temporary artefact of crisis management. In Austrian terms, the public sector has progressively appropriated a larger share of society’s command over future resources, financed through credit expansion, and has thereby narrowed the space for entrepreneurial projects backed by genuine saving.

On this interpretation, the debt overhang observed in EU data is the cumulative outcome of policies that held interest rates below their market‑clearing level for an extended period and encouraged both governments and private agents to initiate projects whose viability depended on continued monetary accommodation. The post‑2021 normalisation of monetary policy—triggered by the inflation surge—made these intertemporal inconsistencies more visible: higher real rates raised debt‑service costs, forced fiscal consolidation, and increased uncertainty over future tax and inflation paths, all of which weigh disproportionately on long‑horizon private investment. What appears in conventional analyses as a difficult trade‑off between stimulus and consolidation thus reflects, in Austrian terminology, a delayed recognition of past malinvestment and the need to reallocate capital away from politically driven uses toward activities that are viable at undistorted interest rates.

5.2 The fiscal–monetary nexus and soft fiscal dominance

A second implication of the evidence concerns the interaction between fiscal and monetary authorities in a high‑debt environment. IMF simulations and ECB studies indicate that, under plausible policy assumptions, European public‑debt ratios are likely to remain elevated or rise further over the medium term, while preserving price stability requires that monetary policy refrain from locking in negative real interest rates indefinitely. This configuration creates the risk of what can be described as soft fiscal dominance: even without formal subordination of monetary policy, large debt stocks and politically entrenched expenditure programmes generate expectations that central banks will, in practice, accommodate fiscal needs in periods of market stress.

From an Austrian perspective, such a regime blurs the boundary between fiscal and monetary functions and entrenches reliance on credit expansion and financial repression as tools of fiscal management. The experience of the euro‑area sovereign‑debt crisis and the pandemic‑era asset‑purchase programmes illustrates how extraordinary monetary interventions can become quasi‑permanent, shaping investors’ beliefs about sovereign backstops and compressing risk premia on public debt. These expectations encourage financial institutions to maintain large sovereign exposures, reinforcing the state–bank nexus and diverting balance‑sheet capacity away from riskier, productivity‑enhancing private investments.

In this context, the credibility of price‑stability commitments is more fragile than formal central‑bank mandates might suggest. If investors doubt that governments will deliver the primary surpluses needed to stabilise debt at realistic interest and growth rates, they may anticipate either higher future inflation or renewed rounds of unconventional monetary policy. In both cases, the informational content of interest rates as intertemporal price signals is degraded, complicating entrepreneurial calculation and contributing to a persistently weak environment for private investment and innovation.

5.3 Innovation, capital deepening, and purchasing power in Europe

The coexistence of subdued private investment, modest business‑R&D intensity, and high public debt has direct implications for long‑run productivity and real incomes in the EU. Eurostat data and successive EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboards show that, despite strengths in sectors such as automotive and health, the EU continues to lag the United States and parts of Asia in digital technologies, software, and several deep‑technology domains, and that corporate R&D is heavily concentrated in a relatively small group of incumbents. From an Austrian standpoint, this pattern reflects a capital structure shaped by fiscal incentives, regulatory preferences, and distorted financial signals, rather than by decentralized entrepreneurial discovery and market‑based selection.

In this setting, the recent erosion of households’ purchasing power can be viewed as the surface manifestation of deeper intertemporal imbalances. Inflation used—implicitly or explicitly—to ease the real burden of public debt acts as a tax on money holdings and fixed‑income claims, disproportionately affecting households with limited access to inflation‑hedging instruments and weakening incentives to accumulate financial saving. Combined with high public‑debt ratios and modest productivity growth, this dynamic constrains the scope for sustained real‑wage increases and fosters the perception of stagnant living standards, even in the presence of substantial public spending.

From the perspective of sustainable development, these dynamics are particularly problematic. Meeting the EU’s objectives on climate neutrality, digitalisation, and social inclusion requires large, long‑term investments in physical, human, and knowledge capital. Yet if high public debt and associated fiscal–monetary practices continue to crowd out private capital formation and frontier innovation, the policy mix risks undermining the very goals it is designed to achieve. An Austrian‑inspired reform agenda would therefore emphasise restoring undistorted price signals, clarifying the division of responsibilities between fiscal and monetary authorities, and establishing institutional conditions under which private saving and investment can again become the primary drivers of capital deepening, innovation, and durable improvements in real purchasing power.

6. Policy implications

6.1 Restoring genuine price signals: interest rates, risk premia, and sovereign regulation

The evidence that high public‑debt ratios are associated with weaker private investment and business‑R&D intensity suggests that restoring undistorted price signals in financial markets should be a central policy priority for the EU. From an Austrian‑economics perspective, this means allowing interest rates and risk premia to reflect underlying time preferences and fiscal fundamentals, rather than using monetary policy and regulation to compress yields and insulate sovereigns from market discipline. In practice, this implies limiting the use of large‑scale, open‑ended asset‑purchase programmes in non‑crisis periods, clarifying the exceptional and temporary nature of central‑bank interventions in sovereign‑bond markets, and ensuring that the pricing of government debt once again conveys meaningful information about fiscal risks.

A second dimension concerns prudential and regulatory frameworks that privilege sovereign exposures. Current rules in the EU and internationally often treat domestic sovereign bonds as essentially risk‑free for capital and liquidity purposes, encouraging banks and other regulated intermediaries to hold large concentrations of government debt. Reducing these preferential treatments—by introducing positive risk weights for sovereign exposures, concentration limits, and more stringent stress‑testing of sovereign risk—would weaken the state–bank nexus and free balance‑sheet capacity for productive private‑sector lending. From an Austrian standpoint, such reforms would help re‑align financial‑sector incentives with the financing of entrepreneurial projects, rather than with the rollover of public liabilities.

6.2 Fiscal rules, debt sustainability, and space for private‑sector innovation

The analysis underscores that fiscal frameworks in the EU should be judged not only by their ability to stabilise public debt, but also by their impact on private capital formation and innovation. Recent reforms of the EU fiscal rules aim to move toward medium‑term, country‑specific debt‑reduction paths and a greater focus on net primary expenditure. From an Austrian‑inspired perspective, the key question is whether these frameworks credibly constrain the long‑run growth of current spending—particularly transfers and subsidies financed by borrowing—while preserving space for productive public investment that complements, rather than crowds out, private capital formation.

In this spirit, several design principles follow from the empirical findings. First, fiscal rules should explicitly distinguish between current expenditure and investment, with stricter limits on debt‑financed current spending and clearer safeguards for high‑quality public investment in infrastructure, education, and basic research. Second, debt‑reduction plans should be anchored in realistic assumptions about growth and interest rates, avoiding optimistic scenarios that, if unmet, would ultimately pressure monetary policy to accommodate fiscal shortfalls. Third, transparency about off‑balance‑sheet commitments, public–private partnerships, and contingent liabilities is essential to prevent the fiscal stance from being understated and to avoid hidden forms of crowding‑out via guarantees and quasi‑fiscal operations.

For innovation specifically, EU and national policies should shift away from broad‑based subsidies and sectoral programmes financed through additional borrowing, and toward institutional reforms that lower entry barriers, reduce regulatory uncertainty, and strengthen intellectual‑property and contract‑enforcement frameworks. An environment in which entrepreneurs can rely on stable rules, predictable taxation, and credible fiscal consolidation is more conducive to long‑horizon R&D investment than one in which public budgets oscillate between stimulus and consolidation and where implicit future tax burdens remain opaque.

6.3 Implications for the EU Green Deal, industrial policy, and development cooperation

The findings also carry implications for the design of the EU Green Deal, industrial policy, and the Union’s external development and climate‑finance agenda. EU strategies for climate neutrality and digital transformation foresee very large investment needs over the coming decades, part of which is expected to be financed through public budgets, EU‑level facilities, and promotional banks. If these initiatives are built on top of already high public‑debt levels without credible consolidation plans, they risk reinforcing the crowding‑out mechanisms documented in this paper, particularly if they further privilege quasi‑sovereign assets in financial regulation.

An Austrian‑oriented policy approach would recommend designing Green Deal and industrial‑policy instruments in ways that maximise the crowding‑in of private capital rather than the expansion of public balance sheets. This includes favouring frameworks that reduce regulatory and political risks for private investors—such as technology‑neutral carbon‑pricing and clear, long‑term environmental standards—over discretionary subsidies and credit guarantees that are financed via additional debt and are prone to capture. Where public support is deemed necessary, instruments should be time‑limited, transparent, and subject to independent evaluation, with explicit sunset clauses to prevent the entrenchment of permanent quasi‑rents.

In the realm of development cooperation and climate finance, the EU and its member states face the challenge of supporting investment in partner countries while managing their own fiscal constraints. The evidence that high domestic public debt can crowd out private investment and innovation at home suggests that development strategies relying heavily on further debt issuance in advanced economies may be self‑defeating over the long run. A more sustainable approach would emphasise leveraging private capital through risk‑sharing mechanisms that are carefully priced and transparently reported, and through reforms that improve the institutional environment in partner countries, thereby reducing the need for large, debt‑financed official flows. From an Austrian perspective, strengthening property rights, the rule of law, and open trade remains the most reliable way to foster capital accumulation and innovation in both Europe and its partner regions.

Conclusion

This paper has examined the relationship between public debt, interest rates, and the crowding‑out of private investment and innovation in the European Union through the lens of Austrian economics. Building on official data and recent empirical research, it has argued that the combination of sustained high public‑debt ratios and a long period of exceptionally low interest rates has contributed to an intertemporal misallocation of capital, manifested in weaker private fixed investment, modest business‑R&D intensity, and fragile real‑income growth. The central hypothesis—that rising public indebtedness, financed by credit expansion and supported by ultra‑expansionary monetary policy, undermines private investment in capital goods and R&D, thereby eroding innovative capacity and purchasing power—finds support in both stylised facts and econometric evidence.

Three core findings stand out. First, consistent with the debt‑overhang literature, high public‑debt‑to‑GDP ratios in the EU are associated with significantly lower private fixed‑investment rates, especially in high‑debt member states and in periods of rising real interest rates. Second, the EU’s persistent innovation gap vis‑à‑vis the United States and parts of Asia—reflected in lower corporate R&D intensity, weak performance in digital and software sectors, and strong concentration of R&D in a small group of incumbents—appears closely linked to financial and regulatory conditions that favour sovereign exposures and short‑term assets over high‑risk, long‑horizon R&D projects. Third, the interaction of elevated public‑debt ratios and accommodative monetary policy increases the risk of soft fiscal dominance, raising the likelihood that inflation or financial repression will be used, implicitly or explicitly, to manage debt burdens, with adverse consequences for households’ purchasing power and for the credibility of interest rates as intertemporal price signals.

From an Austrian‑economics perspective, these findings suggest that EU fiscal and monetary institutions have, over time, prioritised short‑term stabilisation and politically salient expenditure over the maintenance of a robust intertemporal capital structure. The resulting pattern of malinvestment and crowding‑out undermines the very objectives—higher productivity, sustainable growth, and resilience to shocks—that European policy frameworks are intended to promote. Restoring genuine price signals in interest‑rate and sovereign‑risk markets, reducing regulatory privileges for sovereign exposures, and re‑orienting fiscal rules toward constraining debt‑financed current spending while safeguarding high‑quality public investment emerge as key elements of a reform agenda consistent with both Austrian principles and the EU’s own long‑term goals.

For innovation and sustainable development, the analysis points to the importance of shifting from debt‑financed, discretionary industrial and climate programmes toward institutional reforms that lower barriers to entry, strengthen property rights and contract enforcement, and provide predictable, technology‑neutral incentives for private investment—such as credible carbon pricing and stable regulatory frameworks. Only in an environment where entrepreneurs can rely on stable rules, undistorted price signals, and credible commitments to fiscal sustainability is it realistic to expect sustained capital deepening, frontier innovation, and durable improvements in real living standards. Future research could extend the empirical work by incorporating firm‑level data, exploring non‑linearities and distributional effects in greater depth, and analysing how alternative fiscal‑monetary regimes might foster a more investment‑friendly and innovation‑driven European economy.

References

1. Financial Stability Review, May 2025 – European Central Bank – Rising trade tensions pose particular risks for the euro area, given its open economy and deep integ…
2. Taming Public Debt in Europe
3. [PDF] risks to price stability in times of high government debt
4. [PDF] Fiscal Sustainability Report 2021 (Volume) – Economy and Finance – Government debt has significantly increased as a result of the pandemic across the EU. Financing con…
5. Taming Public Debt in Europe: Outlook, Challenges, and Policy Response – Public debt ratios in Europe increased significantly in response to the pandemic and energy shocks a…
6. Debt and Private Investment: Does the EU Suffer from a … – PMC – NIH – Correspondingly, private debt increased by 6.85% in the EU, by 6.90% in the euro area, and by 0.47% …
7. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard reveals a slowdown in overall R&D investment growth…
8. EIB Working Papers 2018/08 – Debt Overhang and Investment … – An investigation of the effect of debt overhangs on the investment efficiency, using data on 8.5 mil…
9. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – IRI – EU companies increased nominal R&D investment by only 2.9%, lagging behind other regions: ROW (8.1%)…
10. Does the EU Suffer from a Debt Overhang? – OUCI – This article explores the crowding-out effect of public debt and public investment on private invest…
11. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – The 2025 Scoreboard analyses the world’s top 2 000 industrial R&D investors, responsible for over 90…
12. [PDF] Economic consequences of high public debt: evidence from three …
13. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 | DESA Publications – Global economic output is forecast to grow by 2.7 per cent in 2026, slightly below the 2.8 per cent …
14. Myths, Mix-ups, and Mishandlings: Understanding the Eurozone Crisis – …countries have been treated with the bitter medicines of fiscal austerity, wage reductions, and l…
15. European Governments’ Fiscal Behaviour and Public Debt … – – The European Money and Finance Forum
16. Public Finance, Fiscal Rules and Public–Private Partnerships: Lessons for Post-COVID-19 Investment Plans – …PPPs. On the other hand, high levels of public debt increase the country risk, and discourage pri…
17. Does Public Debt Produce a Crowding Out Effect for Public Investment in the EU? – Download PDF: Working Paper 36 This paper shows the detrimental effect of government debt on public …
18. R&D expenditure – Statistics Explained – Eurostat – In 2024, the EU spent €403 billion on research and development; R&D expenditure as a percentage of G…
19. Shaping the future: EU R&D investments explained – EU’s R&D spending would still fall behind due to lower private R&D investment in high-tech sectors. …
20. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – IDEAS/RePEc – The 2025 Scoreboard analyses the world’s top 2 000 industrial R&D investors, responsible for over 90…
21. Debt and Private Investment: Does the EU Suffer from a … – PMC – de W Vanlaer · 2021 · Citado por 48 — This paper exploits a panel of 28 European Union (EU) countrie…
22. [PDF] Fiscal Sustainability Report 2021 (Volume) – Economy and Finance – Government debt has significantly increased as a result of the pandemic across the EU. Financing con…
23. Financial Stability Review, May 2025 – European Central Bank – Rising trade tensions pose particular risks for the euro area, given its open economy and deep integ…
24. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 | DESA Publications – Global economic output is forecast to grow by 2.7 per cent in 2026, slightly below the 2.8 per cent …
25. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard reveals a slowdown in overall R&D investment growth…
26. R&D expenditure – Statistics Explained – Eurostat – In 2024, the EU spent €403 billion on research and development; R&D expenditure as a percentage of G…
27. [PDF] risks to price stability in times of high government debt
28. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – IRI – EU companies increased nominal R&D investment by only 2.9%, lagging behind other regions: ROW (8.1%)…
29. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – The 2025 Scoreboard analyses the world’s top 2 000 industrial R&D investors, responsible for over 90…
30. Taming Public Debt in Europe: Outlook, Challenges, and Policy Response – Public debt ratios in Europe increased significantly in response to the pandemic and energy shocks a…
31. Taming Public Debt in Europe
32. Shaping the future: EU R&D investments explained – EU’s R&D spending would still fall behind due to lower private R&D investment in high-tech sectors. …
33. [PDF] Economic consequences of high public debt: evidence from three …
34. The Implication of Fiscal Principles and Rules on Promoting Sustainable Public Finances in the EU Countries – The purpose of this study was to analyze fiscal behavior in the European Union countries, to highlig…
35. This time is different: Fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic among EU countries – … Member States, Counter-cyclical policies, Fiscal rules
36. National accounts and GDP – Statistics Explained – Eurostat – In 2023, investment by businesses accounted for 13.0% of the EU’s GDP, whereas the equivalent figure…
37. Business – statistics on profits and investment – In 2024, the investment rate of non-financial corporations varied among EU countries from 15.9% in L…
38. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 | DESA Publications – Global economic output is forecast to grow by 2.7 per cent in 2026, slightly below the 2.8 per cent …
39. Taming Public Debt in Europe – ABSTRACT: Public debt ratios in Europe increased significantly in response to the pandemic and energ…
40. Taming Public Debt in Europe: Outlook, Challenges, and Policy Response – Public debt ratios in Europe increased significantly in response to the pandemic and energy shocks a…
41. Comparative price levels for investment – Statistics Explained – In 2024, price levels for investment in the EU were highest for Germany (22% above the EU average) a…
42. R&D expenditure – Statistics Explained – Eurostat – In 2024, the EU spent €403 billion on research and development; R&D expenditure as a percentage of G…
43. Shaping the future: EU R&D investments explained – EU’s R&D spending would still fall behind due to lower private R&D investment in high-tech sectors. …
44. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – IRI – The global top 2 000 R&D investors in the 2025 Scoreboard are based in 45 countries and control over…
45. The 2024 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – IRI – EU firms led this growth, increasing R&D investments by 9.8% nominally, outpacing US companies (5.9%…
46. Europe Accelerates in R&D&I but Remains Behind the U.S. and China – The EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard 2024 Highlights Europe’s Momentum but Underscores Produc…
47. The 2024 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – The 2024 Scoreboard’s monitors the world’s top 2 000 R&D investors, responsible for over three quart…
48. How the EU’s R&D engine is performing in 2025 – RD Magazine – The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard shows a slowdown in the overall growth of R&D inves…
49. Debt and Private Investment: Does the EU Suffer from a … – PMC – NIH – This paper exploits a panel of 28 European Union (EU) countries between 1995 and 2016 to analyze whe…
50. Debt and Private Investment: Does the EU Suffer from a Debt … – This paper exploits a panel of 28 European Union (EU) countries between 1995 and 2016 to analyze whe…
51. [PDF] Fiscal Sustainability Report 2021 (Volume) – Economy and Finance – Government debt has significantly increased as a result of the pandemic across the EU. Financing con…
52. Europe’s medium-term fiscal dilemma – Greater potential economic growth, greater efficiency in public spending, a higher degree of co-fina…
53. The EU vs US corporate R&D intensity gap: investigating key sectors and firms – This paper presents a firm-level examination of the European Union (EU) vs US research and developme…
54. Expert Insights on the 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment … – The 2025 Scoreboard confirms Europe’s declining R&D competitiveness versus the US and Asia, despite …
55. Growth in EU private R&D investment slows – Science|Business – R&D investments by EU-headquartered companies grew 2.9% in 2024 to €234 billion. But this is well be…
56. European Governments’ Fiscal Behaviour and Public Debt Holders – We examine the effects of home bias on fiscal sustainability in EU countries. Using an extension of …
57. [PDF] risks to price stability in times of high government debt
58. [PDF] Debt overhang, rollover risk, and corporate investment – We quantify the role of financial factors behind the sluggish post-crisis performance of Eu- ropean …
59. How can Europe Pay for Things it Cannot Afford? – Our simulations show that under current policies, public debt would be on a steeply-increasing path …
60. COMPREHENSIVE EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF INFLATIONARY PROCESSES ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: TRENDS, MECHANISMS, AND FORECASTING MODELS – The primary objective of this article is to conduct a comprehensive empirical analysis to investigat…
61. [PDF] 2024 Country-specific recommendations Stylised facts and figures – Facilitate private investment in research and innovation. Step up resource productivity to progress …
62. Debt and Private Investment: Does the EU Suffer from a … – PMC – NIH – This paper exploits a panel of 28 European Union (EU) countries between 1995 and 2016 to analyze whe…
63. Taming Public Debt in Europe – ABSTRACT: Public debt ratios in Europe increased significantly in response to the pandemic and energ…
64. [PDF] Fiscal Sustainability Report 2021 (Volume) – Economy and Finance – Government debt has significantly increased as a result of the pandemic across the EU. Financing con…
65. Myths, Mix-ups, and Mishandlings: Understanding the Eurozone Crisis – …countries have been treated with the bitter medicines of fiscal austerity, wage reductions, and l…
66. [PDF] risks to price stability in times of high government debt
67. How can Europe Pay for Things it Cannot Afford? – Our simulations show that under current policies, public debt would be on a steeply-increasing path …
68. European Governments’ Fiscal Behaviour and Public Debt Holders – We examine the effects of home bias on fiscal sustainability in EU countries. Using an extension of …
69. [PDF] Economic consequences of high public debt: evidence from three …
70. The IMF and the European Debt Crisis – The IMF’s European programs embroiled the Fund in numerous controversies over the exceptionally larg…
71. Taming Public Debt in Europe: Outlook, Challenges, and Policy Response – Public debt ratios in Europe increased significantly in response to the pandemic and energy shocks a…
72. R&D expenditure – Statistics Explained – Eurostat – In 2024, the EU spent €403 billion on research and development; R&D expenditure as a percentage of G…
73. The 2024 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – IRI – EU firms led this growth, increasing R&D investments by 9.8% nominally, outpacing US companies (5.9%…
74. The 2024 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – The 2024 Scoreboard’s monitors the world’s top 2 000 R&D investors, responsible for over three quart…
75. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 | DESA Publications – Global economic output is forecast to grow by 2.7 per cent in 2026, slightly below the 2.8 per cent …
76. COMPREHENSIVE EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF INFLATIONARY PROCESSES ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: TRENDS, MECHANISMS, AND FORECASTING MODELS – The primary objective of this article is to conduct a comprehensive empirical analysis to investigat…
77. Europe’s medium-term fiscal dilemma – Greater potential economic growth, greater efficiency in public spending, a higher degree of co-fina…
78. Myths, Mix-ups, and Mishandlings: Understanding the Eurozone Crisis – …countries have been treated with the bitter medicines of fiscal austerity, wage reductions, and l…
79. [PDF] risks to price stability in times of high government debt
80. The IMF and the European Debt Crisis – The IMF’s European programs embroiled the Fund in numerous controversies over the exceptionally larg…
81. European Governments’ Fiscal Behaviour and Public Debt Holders – We examine the effects of home bias on fiscal sustainability in EU countries. Using an extension of …
82. [PDF] Economic consequences of high public debt: evidence from three …
83. [PDF] Fiscal Sustainability Report 2021 (Volume) – Economy and Finance – Government debt has significantly increased as a result of the pandemic across the EU. Financing con…
84. The Implication of Fiscal Principles and Rules on Promoting Sustainable Public Finances in the EU Countries – The purpose of this study was to analyze fiscal behavior in the European Union countries, to highlig…
85. Taming Public Debt in Europe – ABSTRACT: Public debt ratios in Europe increased significantly in response to the pandemic and energ…
86. Off-balance-sheet policies to the rescue: The role of statistical expertise for European public–private partnerships – …in the calculation of public debt statistics. Taking the case of an exemplary European off-balanc…
87. Taming Public Debt in Europe: Outlook, Challenges, and Policy Response – Public debt ratios in Europe increased significantly in response to the pandemic and energy shocks a…
88. 1. Public Investment in the Pandemic—Europe at a Glance
89. EU framework programmes: positive and negative effects on member states’ innovation performance – …Despite the initial presumptions that these financial inflows should bring positive and construct…
90. [PDF] Innovation, integration and simplification in Europe – The annual EIB report on investment and investment finance is a product of the EIB Economics. Depart…
91. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 | DESA Publications – Global economic output is forecast to grow by 2.7 per cent in 2026, slightly below the 2.8 per cent …
92. Europe’s medium-term fiscal dilemma – Greater potential economic growth, greater efficiency in public spending, a higher degree of co-fina…
93. Debt and Private Investment: Does the EU Suffer from a … – PMC – NIH – This paper exploits a panel of 28 European Union (EU) countries between 1995 and 2016 to analyze whe…
94. Taming Public Debt in Europe – ABSTRACT: Public debt ratios in Europe increased significantly in response to the pandemic and energ…
95. The 2024 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard – IRI – EU firms led this growth, increasing R&D investments by 9.8% nominally, outpacing US companies (5.9%…
96. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 | DESA Publications – Global economic output is forecast to grow by 2.7 per cent in 2026, slightly below the 2.8 per cent …
97. R&D expenditure – Statistics Explained – Eurostat – In 2024, the EU spent €403 billion on research and development; R&D expenditure as a percentage of G…
98. [PDF] risks to price stability in times of high government debt
99. How can Europe Pay for Things it Cannot Afford? – Our simulations show that under current policies, public debt would be on a steeply-increasing path …
100. Europe’s Innovation Gap: Five Charts and Five Takeaways for an … – In this context, we have also repeatedly highlighted Europe’s lag in technological development and i…
101. Myths, Mix-ups, and Mishandlings: Understanding the Eurozone Crisis – …countries have been treated with the bitter medicines of fiscal austerity, wage reductions, and l…
102. European Governments’ Fiscal Behaviour and Public Debt Holders – We examine the effects of home bias on fiscal sustainability in EU countries. Using an extension of …
103. [PDF] Fiscal Sustainability Report 2021 (Volume) – Economy and Finance – Government debt has significantly increased as a result of the pandemic across the EU. Financing con…
104. The Implication of Fiscal Principles and Rules on Promoting Sustainable Public Finances in the EU Countries – The purpose of this study was to analyze fiscal behavior in the European Union countries, to highlig…
105. EU framework programmes: positive and negative effects on member states’ innovation performance – …Despite the initial presumptions that these financial inflows should bring positive and construct…
106. [PDF] Research and Innovation analysis in the European Semester 2020 … – The R&D expenditure in the business sector was the second lowest in the EU, at 0.20% of GDP in 2018,…