The major European funding framework programs FP7 and Horizon 2020 were developed under very different political and economic conditions. The paper proposes to examine whether there is a shift in the type of administrative discourse by which policy problems and solutions are presented in the development of these two programs. An analytical framework using new public management, neo-Weberian bureaucracy and a network-based coordination model is used for this purpose. The paper is particularly interested in the diffusion of a neo-liberal based understanding of research policy and the extent to which that has come to dominate the policy discourse. Has that discourse become more pronounced and broadly accepted over the seven years separating the development of these two programs? Is it accepted by all member states in the same way? If there are differences, do those reflect distinct groupings of member states? The analysis is conducted through commission documents and the large number of position papers submitted by national governments, universities, and industry during the green paper consultation processes. In addition to examining general trends across the ERA, the paper provides a comparison on the participation patterns and policy ideas found in three distinct groups of member states: countries in crisis, new member states, and research leaders.
