A Governance Model Rooted in European Performance
Algeria's internationalization model is built on a structured approach, grounded in a comparative analysis of the most successful European systems. It draws on concrete data from the two leading reference programs, Horizon Europe and Erasmus+, which offer a particularly useful lens on cooperation, funding, and the structuring of higher education systems across Europe.
The findings are unambiguous: the highest-performing countries are not simply those with the greatest scientific capacity, but those that have put in place clear, coherent, and durable governance.
European Performance Confirms the Role of Governance
Under Horizon Europe (2021–2024), the main funding recipients are:
🇩🇪 Germany
🇫🇷 France
🇪🇸 Spain
🇳🇱 Netherlands
🇮🇹 Italy
These countries capture the bulk of European research and innovation funding, reflecting not only their scientific capacity but, above all, their organizational capacity. Meanwhile, the trajectory of so-called "widening" countries¹ is particularly telling: their share of funding rose from 9.5% under Horizon 2020 to 13.6% under Horizon Europe, a 43% increase. This significant growth shows that well-structured national systems allow historically less dominant countries to scale up quickly.
Erasmus+ data confirms this reading. In 2023, 427,670 mobility placements were recorded across European higher education, a 22% increase year-on-year. Flows remain heavily concentrated in a handful of well-organized countries: Spain (64,179 incoming mobilities), Italy (47,184), Germany (37,713), and France (33,895) are the leading destinations. Among countries of origin, France stands out with 57,418 outgoing mobilities, ahead of Germany and Spain. Here again, performance is explained as much by attractiveness as by the ability to organize, steer, and support mobility programs at scale.
A Shared Architecture Among High-Performing Systems
Beyond the numbers, a qualitative look at European models reveals a remarkable constant: despite their institutional differences, the highest-performing countries rely on very similar governance architectures.
In every case, the state plays a structuring role. It does not directly produce the projects, but it defines the framework, sets priorities, and ensures overall coherence. In Germany, for example, the model led by DAAD centralizes information and procedures, giving the system exceptional clarity. Sweden, by contrast, favors a strategic state that sets clear direction while granting universities strong autonomy, fostering agility and project quality. Despite these differences, the outcome is the same: a strong capacity to secure funding and coordinate European projects.
This national steering is systematically backed by solid local relays. In every country studied, universities have professionalized project units, integrated into their organizations and staffed with trained personnel. These units play a decisive role: monitoring opportunities, supporting project leaders, managing administrative and financial aspects, and above all capitalizing on experience. They turn individual initiatives into genuine institutional capacity.
Finally, a third factor proves decisive: the alignment between strategy, projects, and funding. In high-performing systems, projects are never disconnected from national or institutional priorities. They are designed as tools for strategic implementation, not merely as funding opportunities. This coherence not only raises success rates but also maximizes the impact of projects on higher education systems.
Varied Models, Strong Convergence
European models show important differences — a strong national agency in Germany, delegated steering in France, a multi-agency approach in Italy, a pragmatic model in Spain, greater autonomy in Sweden — yet they all converge on the same logic: multi-level governance, professionalized project functions, and strong national coordination.
This convergence is precisely what explains their collective performance.
The Algerian Model: A Structured and Adapted Approach
It is within this dynamic that the Algerian model takes shape. It adopts the structuring principles observed in Europe while adapting them to the national context. The architecture in place rests on a clear division between a national level, led by the DCEU, and a local level, embodied by internationalization units within universities.
At the national level, the DCEU is responsible for defining strategy, coordinating actions, producing shared tools, and capitalizing on results. At the institutional level, the RELEX units handle operational implementation: monitoring, project development, mobility management, and data reporting. This organization allows practices to be structured durably and strengthens the coherence of the system as a whole.
An Innovation: Moving from a Project-Based Logic to a Systems Logic
Beyond aligning with European models, the Algerian framework introduces a major shift. It does not simply replicate existing practices but aims to transform the system's functioning at a deeper level.
One of its most significant contributions is the shift from a project-based logic to a state-based logic. Skills developed within projects no longer disappear once the project ends: they are integrated, capitalized on, and reused. This is accompanied by the creation of genuine institutional memory, turning project outcomes into levers for public policy.
The model also favors flexible national pooling, built on a network of university units, shared tools, and a community of practice. This approach reconciles national coordination with local agility, without adding unnecessary weight to the system.
European data make it clear: performance in international programs depends not only on academic capacity but on the quality of organization.
Drawing on the lessons of Europe's most successful models, the Algerian model is on an ambitious path of convergence. It lays the groundwork for a more structured, more legible, and more effective system — one capable not just of taking part in international dynamics, but of playing a strategic role within them.
The challenge is no longer simply to have an international presence, but to establish one that is durable, coherent, and high-performing.
¹ "Widening" countries are those targeted by Horizon Europe's participation-widening actions, aimed at reducing research and innovation performance gaps between European countries and strengthening the participation of countries whose research and innovation systems are less integrated into European networks.