GrantWise
HORIZON EUROPE TOPIC · Cluster 2 · Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society

Development aid and democratic governance

HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-DEMOCRACY-05 — the expected outcomes as checkable statements, what evaluators look for in this topic, and the conditions that shape the proposal.

Get the free Part B working draft for this topic ↓

ForthcomingRIA · lump sumDeadline 23 September 2027EUR 3.5 million to EUR 4 million per project

GrantWise › Horizon Europe topics › HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-DEMOCRACY-05

TopicHORIZON-CL2-2027-01-DEMOCRACY-05
StatusForthcoming
CallHORIZON-CL2-2027-01 — Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society - 2027
DestinationInnovative Research on Democracy and Governance (2026-27)
Type of actionResearch and Innovation Actions · lump sum
Opening13 May 2027
Deadline23 September 2027
BudgetEUR 3.5 million to EUR 4 million per project · 3 projects expected · EUR 12 million in total
Part B page limit45 pages (standard application form; check your call)
TemplateWork Programme 2026–2027 application form

Expected outcomes

Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes. The topic says: “Projects should contribute to all of the following expected outcomes:”

  1. EO1 EU and national policymakers and development aid agencies are better equipped to deal with the complexities and challenges of the relations between the EU and low- and middle-income countries and increase their intelligence to develop EU strategies and policies that promote a more inclusive and equitable multilateralism.
  2. EO2 Organisations for development cooperation have enhanced capacity and solutions to support democratic institutions and address key global challenges, such as climate action, democracy and rule of law, human rights and gender equality.
  3. EO3 Strengthened multilateral partnerships between the EU as a donor of development aid and low- and middle-income countries in the field of development cooperation.

Expected impacts named in the destination

The wider, long-term effects the destination seeks. Your outcomes feed them; they are not project deliverables.

  1. EI1 Reinvigorating democratic governance by improving the independence, accountability, transparency, effectiveness and trustworthiness of institutions and policies based on rule of law, and through the expansion of active and inclusive citizens’ participation and engagement empowered by the safeguarding of fundamental rights.

What evaluators will look for in this topic

Expected outcomes

  • Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
  • For each outcome (EO1 to EO3), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
  • Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

  • “In this context, the role of other non-EU aid donors, including public, private, and philanthropic actors, must be understood.”
  • “Proposals should also seek to identify new opportunities to enhance the EU´s soft power and geopolitical influence across the Humanitarian-Development-Peace nexus, including through the development of dedicated diplomacies (e.g., climate diplomacy, water diplomacy, science diplomacy, etc.).”
  • “The actions should strive to include development aid civil society organisations in the activities.”
  • “Proposals should use a gender-sensitive and intersectional approach in their research.”
  • “Proposals are encouraged to identify other relevant EU-funded projects related to EU democracy support, civil society engagement, and international cooperation on sustainable peace and democratic governance, and to explore potential collaboration opportunities with them.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

  • Part B, sections 1–3: 45 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
  • Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.

Impact pathway and traps

  • The topic asks for social sciences and humanities (SSH) expertise. Evaluators look for SSH partners with a real role in the methodology, not a token task.
  • International cooperation is part of the scope. Explain what the non-EU partners add and how the cooperation is organised.
  • The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
  • Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
  • For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
  • Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
  • Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.
The scope, as published

The European Union's development aid efforts face significant challenges in promoting democracy and stability in third countries, despite substantial investments in development assistance. Many countries continue to face challenges related to democratic governance, and the relationship between aid and its impact on inequality reduction, poverty alleviation, sustainable peace and security, as well as the strengthening of democratic institutions and processes, remains unclear. The resurgence of authoritarianism and the erosion of democratic values globally pose considerable challenges to EU foreign policy, underscoring the need for more effective diplomatic, security and development cooperation frameworks and strategies. There is a pressing need for research (including by SSH disciplines) to elucidate the complex relationships between development aid, democratic governance, equality, security, and global challenges. This includes examining the effects of development aid on democratic institutions and processes, identifying gaps in funding for democratic governance, and exploring innovative approaches to supporting democratic governance and reducing inequality. In this context, the role of other non-EU aid donors, including public, private, and philanthropic actors, must be understood. This includes examining the influence of the EU's economic and geopolitical competitors, to see why their support may be more attractive to developing countries, and how they are filling vacuums left by cuts from traditional donors, creating new socio-economic dependencies and power relations. The scope of this research topic is broad, encompassing the interplay between development aid, security, and democratic governance, with a focus on reducing socio-economic and gender inequalities, fostering democratic resilience, and promoting inclusive governance. By investigating these dynamics, researchers can uncover new insights and strategies to align development assistance with democratic strengthening, ultimately contributing to more effective and sustainable development outcomes. Key areas of investigation include the impact of development aid on democratic institutions, the reduction of socio-economic and gender inequalities, and the identification of funding gaps for democratic governance initiatives, as well as the consequences of declining democratic trends on the effectiveness of global development strategies and the achievement of sustainable development goals. Proposals should also seek to identify new opportunities to enhance the EU´s soft power and geopolitical influence across the Humanitarian-Development-Peace nexus, including through the development of dedicated diplomacies (e.g., climate diplomacy, water diplomacy, science diplomacy, etc.). The actions should strive to include development aid civil society organisations in the activities. Proposals should use a gender-sensitive and intersectional approach in their research. Proposals are encouraged to identify other relevant EU-funded projects related to EU democracy support, civil society engagement, and international cooperation on sustainable peace and democratic governance, and to explore potential collaboration opportunities with them. Proposals may also incorporate participatory research approaches to enhance inclusivity and stakeholder engagement. The geographical scope of this research includes the EU Enlargement, Neighbourhood and low- and lower middle-income countries, with a focus on the relationship of these with the EU. Therefore, international cooperation is strongly encouraged. In the context of this call, the “EU Neighbourhood” is understood as the group of countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), which includes countries to the East (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine) and to the South (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia). For more information: https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/european-neighbourhood-policy_en and https://north-africa-middle-east-gulf.ec.europa.eu/what-we-do/southern-neighbourhood_en In the context of this call “low-income and low-middle income countries” are understood as the low to middle income non-associated third countries in the list of participating countries according to the Horizon Europe rules for participation and proposal procedure. Source: European Commission, “List of Participating Countries in Horizon Europe,” Version 5.3 (24.01.2024), p. 3. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/list-3rd-country-participation_horizon-euratom_en.pdf

Other topics in HORIZON-CL2-2027-01

Source and attribution

Topic text from the official topic page on the EU Funding & Tenders Portal, retrieved 19 October 2026. © European Union, reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (CC BY 4.0). Changes: the expected outcomes and impacts are split into numbered statements, long passages are shortened, and the evaluator checklist is GrantWise's own commentary. Your call and the Work Programme always win; check them before you submit. GrantWise is independent and not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of the European Commission.