Top-down and bottom-up: choosing the right approach for your European project

Top-down and bottom-up calls: let’s learn more about them so that we can choose the most suitable call for our project idea

From “shopping list” to project: top-down and bottom-up approach in European calls for proposals

A successful project starts with the choice of the call for proposals. The starting point is definitely to keep up to date with funding opportunities by following updates on the websites of the various European Union programs and other dedicated portals, such as our calls portal, which is updated monthly.

But knowing what calls are available is only the first step: the next step is to understand, among the many opportunities, which ones are most in line with our project idea. In this article we will discuss top-down and bottom-up approaches in European calls for proposals, how they determine the degree of flexibility of a call, and strategies for developing projects in line with each of the two approaches.

Comparing a notice to a “shopping list,” it is as if we were asked to buy “milk, bread, and eggs,” with the freedom to choose the brand of milk or the specific type of bread or perhaps, why not, to replace bread with crackers, as long as the goal of “eating breakfast” is achieved; or, if we were asked to buy a liter of milk of a specific brand, two ounces of rye bread, and six organic eggs. In one case (general directions) we are in a bottom-up, that is, bottom-up approach; in the other (more detailed list) we are in a top-down, that is, top-down mode.

There is no one way that is better than the other, because each shopping list, just like the top-down and bottom-up approaches, responds to different needs and methods: in one case, in the detailed list, one starts first with the big picture, such as the menu for the week, and then defines the individual ingredients upstream, while in the other, the primary goal, breakfast, is mainly considered, leaving more choice and the possibility of substituting one food for a similar one.

If we think of the person who wrote the shopping list as the funding body and the person who actually goes shopping as the organization/body presenting a project, we can easily guess what some of the consequences, limitations, and positive aspects of following one approach over the other may be.

Before delving into each of the two approaches, it is important to keep in mind that although top-down and bottom-up are often referred to in European policies, programs and calls, there is no commonly adopted official definition. Indeed, depending on the program and field of action (research, local development, education, etc.), different aspects and nuances are emphasized.

This is the case, for example, in the definition of the two approaches in APRE‘s Horizon Europe guide, where the characteristics of top-down and bottom-up are declined according to the specifics of the research and innovation sector. The bottom-up approach is also called “curiosity driven,” referring mainly to fundamental and frontier research.

In the Structural Funds(ESF+ and ERDF), the bottom-up approach is instead defined (rather than in terms of innovativeness), in terms of “participatory local development.” Defined in Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 (Articles 28 and 31-34), it is a method of planning, programming and implementation in which priorities, objectives and actions to be financed are identified, proposed and defined in a substantive way by local and regional actors (administrations, economic and social partners, civil society).

With this important premise in mind, we then go into more detail on each of the two approaches, providing a starting definition, identifying the positive and more challenging aspects, some tips and examples of European calls for reference.

The top-down approach

As we have seen, the top-down approach begins with the big picture, “the menu,” and then proceeds from the top down with an increasing level of detail. This means that in such a call, the following are identified:

• The objectives (general and specific) and the problem that the submitted projects are to help solve;
• A list of issues, topics, priorities, and target audiences for the intervention;
• a list of binding expected results (outputs and outcomes), in some cases with performance and impact indicators already outlined in the call;
• a more or less detailed list of fundable actions, sometimes associated with additional constraints (e.g., maximum budget per type of activity).

Positive aspects and limitations of the top-down approach

The top-down approach is present in most European calls for proposals. Indeed, it has a number of advantages:

• It fosters consistency between the projects being funded and the strategies of the European Union. The issues and problems that the project is to help solve are clearly defined, ensuring alignment;
• It allows greater control over expected results, thanks to the presence of specific monitoring indicators (KPIs). For this reason, too, it is a useful approach for effectively managing large-scale, complex projects in which there are many different actions and actors;
• It clearly defines what is expected of projects and what the requirements are, so proposing organizations can understand from the outset exactly what the expectations of the funding body are.

This approach also has limitations:

• A lack of flexibility, which may limit the degree of innovation in project proposals;
• The risk of losing touch with the local dimension and the challenges of individual local organisations;
• The risk that a given view of problems and solutions will turn out to be partly or totally inaccurate, producing poor results or negative externalities.

Approaching a top-down announcement

Approaching a top-down call involves a careful analysis of the adherence of the project idea to the requirements of the call. The following questions need to be asked:

• Are the objectives of my idea in line with or deviate (and to what extent) from the objectives of the call?
• Does the subject area of my proposal fall within what is defined in the call for proposals?
• Does my project contribute in a direct and measurable way to the expected results specified in the call for proposals? Will it be possible for my project to guarantee these results?
• Does my design idea fit the type of actions required?

A project is particularly suitable for top-down bidding if:

• The idea was conceived independently of the call for proposals, but its objectives, sector, and the results it pursues correspond with what the call for proposals requires. In this case, the work of adapting the project to the call will not lead to distorting the project idea;
• The idea is specific and takes the form of the types of actions required by the call;
• The proposing organization is able to construct a proposal that meets all the requirements and constraints, including formal ones (such as the number of partners to be involved, level of co-financing etc.) required by the call.

The bottom-up approach

In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, it is very clear what the overall objective of the call is, while more room for maneuver is left in defining how to achieve the objective. This means that such a call for proposals:

• provides an overall framework of strategic priorities and general objectives, but leaves more freedom and autonomy in defining the problem that is proposed to be solved and the specific objectives of the project;
• has a less circumscribed scope of intervention: it may provide for thematic macro-areas, but without indicating specific subtopics or topics. In some cases, it does not provide for any thematic constraints. The type of target audience is more broadly defined, with fewer restrictions;
• does not include a list of binding expected results, which it is up to the proponent to outline in a credible and measurable way, illustrating the specific impact and proposed indicators;
• grants much flexibility in defining activities and resources, limited only by consistency with the proposed objective, with few constraints in terms of budget and allowable costs.

Positive aspects and limitations of the bottom-up approach

The bottom-up approach is less present within European calls, but it is used in some areas, such as basic innovation, frontier research and civic participation, where it has some important advantages:

• The ability to gather transformative ideas and solutions and to unlock spontaneous innovation (aspects that cannot be planned “from above”);
• The greater possibility of adherence and relevance to local or more specific sector needs;
• The possibility of valuing excellence by funding projects with the highest degree of creativity, regardless of constraints of theme or approach;
• The greater degree of inclusiveness, with the ability to fund organizations, such as small and medium-sized enterprises, that often have more difficulty accessing top-down calls.

Even in the bottom-up approach there are some limitations and challenges:

• The risk of more difficult strategic alignment and consistency of projects with European policies;
• The difficulty of measuring the overall impact of a call, which can be more dispersed across different initiatives and thematic areas, with indicators for measuring impact that are not uniform;
• The increased complexity of evaluating project ideas, which can be very different from each other;
• greater effort required to define the problem, specific objectives and outcome indicators, elements that in top-down calls are largely already mapped out;
• The risk of very high competition, precisely because of the greater accessibility of calls that have less circumscribed thematic focuses.

Approaching a bottom-up call

Approaching a bottom-up call may seem easier only initially. In fact, the lesser presence of constraints is balanced by the emphasis on innovation and especially on the timely demonstration of how the project can actually contribute to solving the “problem” posed by the call. The following questions need to be asked:

• What exactly is the problem we want to address?
• Why has no one else been able to solve it so far?
• What is the innovative (or even breakthrough) element of my idea compared to the current state of the art?
• What are the risks associated with my innovation and how do I propose to manage them?
• Are the expected results credible, measurable, and achievable with the resources I have planned?

A project is particularly suitable for a bottom-up call if:

• The idea proposes a highly innovative solution to an existing problem that has not yet been formalized or tested;
• The idea identifies a specific problem that falls within the macro-area defined by the call;
• The project has high transformative and impactful potential, with the possibility of future scalability and replicability
• The proposing organization is able to develop a project that includes strategies for dealing with the risks associated with innovation, for example, with flexible activities and interim verification moments.

In the bottom-up approach, interdisciplinarity and intersectorality are often rewarded, i.e., the ability of a project to work synergistically across multiple policy areas to solve a common problem.

Examples of top-down and bottom-up approaches in European programs

It is not always easy to identify “typical cases” of top-down and bottom-up approaches within European programs: it is more often a “scale of nuance.” Here are some examples.

Next Generation EU, declined in Italy in a National Recovery and Resilience Plan, provides 7 missions with specific thematic areas, with the definition of targets, i.e., results expected from the interventions, quantified with measurable indicators and to be achieved within a given period of time. These are supplemented by a system of common European indicators, which apply to all member states and are constantly updated. The resulting calls are mostly very specific, and follow a top-down approach.

In contexts such as Erasmus+ (whose new guidance for the year 2026 was recently published), we find a hybrid approach: the general framework is top-down, with clearly defined objectives, priorities and cross-cutting aspects (we have discussed them here). However, some actions, particularly Key Action 1, include examples of bottom-up approaches. This is the case with the Action “Youth Participation Activities” (KA154), which puts young people at the center of the decision-making process, with the aim of supporting projects that aim to strengthen young people’s participation in democratic life at the local, regional, national and European levels. In this call, the projects themselves arise from the ideas, initiatives and dialogue of young people themselves. Youth workers and organizations act as facilitators, but the engine of the project is the participants. For this very reason, this action is open not only to organizations, but also to informal groups.

Another example of a hybrid approach can be found in Creative Europe, the European Union’s flagship program for funding projects in the arts and culture sector. In the calls for European cooperation projects (European cooperation projects), two major objectives related to artistic conception and creation, an objective for transnational creation and circulation, and the innovation objective are defined, but wide freedom is left with respect to the content and themes addressed by the projects. These calls are also organized into small, medium and large scale, with increasing participation requirements (number of partners, number of European countries involved, size of budget), to allow participation through the small scale even for smaller and less structured organizations (you can learn more about organizational capacity and access to European funds here and here).

It is possible to find calls very strongly oriented toward the bottom-up approach in research and innovation programs, such as Horizon Europe. A case in point is the EIC Pathfinder Open, a Horizon Europe call from the European Innovation Council (EIC), the EU’s lead body for identifying, developing and scaling up technologies and innovations. The call offers funding to multidisciplinary teams for research work with the potential to develop disruptive technologies. The EIC’s 2026 Work Plan, with information on all funded calls and expected deadlines for 2026, was recently published and publicly presented during the November 13, 2025 Infoday (a recording of the event is available here ).

We have reviewed both top-down and bottom-up approaches, and seen how both are critical within European calls for proposals. Each has strengths and challenges that require careful analysis by an organization interested in applying for a European project.The key to success, however, is the same for both: assessing that there is true alignment between our idea and the funding body’s goal. This is the only real guarantee to avoid going home … empty-handed.