Order of European Inventors and Innovators
In one European ranking, Romania comes last. The figure that best explains why is not the one on the front page of the report.
The figures
In 2024 Romania spent 0.5% of GDP on research and development — the lowest level in the European Union, level with Malta, against a European average of 2.2%.
In the European Innovation Scoreboard 2025, Romania has an innovation index of 37.7% of the European average and ranks 27th out of 27.
But the figure that says the most is none of these. It is this one: on the indicator “SMEs introducing business process innovations”, Romania stands at 0% of the European average. On product innovations — 11.8%. Business sector R&D expenditure — 19.3%.
In other words: it is not only that little research is done. What research is done does not reach companies.
What proof of concept actually is
Between “it works in principle” and “it works, here, in a box I can show someone” there is a stage with a name of its own: proof of concept. It is not research — the theory is already done. It is not production — nothing is made in series. It is the demonstration that the thing can actually be built, with real-world materials and real-world costs.
It is also the most thankless stage. It produces no scientific papers, so it does not count academically. It produces no revenue, so it does not count commercially. It takes between three months and a year and usually costs under fifty thousand euros.
Precisely because it is small, there is nobody to fund it.
What the solution looks like where it exists
The European Research Council has a dedicated instrument: the ERC Proof of Concept grant — €150,000 over 18 months, for exactly this: carrying a research result towards an application. The sum is small by European standards, and that is the point: it is a crossing sum, not a development budget.
It has one important limit, though. Only researchers who already hold an ERC grant may apply. By construction, it is an instrument for an already-funded elite.
The inventor with a patent and no university behind them — the one who fills the halls of the invention fairs — has no equivalent.
What it would mean, concretely
We do not need a new national programme. We would need three modest things.
Small money, fast. Grants of five to fifty thousand euros, with an application a few pages long and a decision within six weeks. At this scale, a good technical assessor matters more than a thick set of rules.
Access to a workshop. A bench, a machine tool, a 3D printer, an oscilloscope. The universities already have them; what is missing is the legal form through which an inventor from outside can work there for six months.
A technical mentor, not a consultant. Someone who has taken a product from drawing to shelf before, and who looks over the inventor’s shoulder once a week.
Why it is the cheapest possible intervention
At 0.5% of GDP, Romania’s problem is not that the money is spent badly. It is that, without the crossing stage, what is spent turns into nothing visible. A proof-of-concept fund is, as an order of magnitude, budgetary small change — and it is the one point in the whole chain where a small sum changes the outcome.
The Order neither funds nor manufactures; its role is recognition, education and the network. But it is worth saying plainly where the chain breaks, because that is the place where a few people with modest resources could actually change something.
Sources: Eurostat — R&D expenditure in the EU, 2024; European Innovation Scoreboard 2025, country profile for Romania; European Research Council — Proof of Concept scheme.