Prague: The Erasmus+ programme has become one of the most widely recognised European policy instruments, with successive generations of students, trainees, teachers and youth workers having participated in mobility experiences that have shaped both individual trajectories and institutional cooperation. The current programming period has expanded participation and broadened the scope of supported activities, but the cost of living pressures across European cities have raised structural questions about the inclusion targets that the programme commits to deliver. Prague, as one of the most popular destinations for incoming students, illustrates several dimensions of this challenge.
The inclusion dimension of the programme has been progressively strengthened over successive cycles. The current framework explicitly targets students from disadvantaged backgrounds, those with disabilities, refugees and other groups that historically participated at lower rates. The supplementary financial support, the longer-term planning of inclusion measures and the integration of digital and blended formats have all expanded the operational toolbox. The participation numbers from these groups have grown but remain below the targets set at the start of the period, and the financial pressures of recent years have widened the gap between aspiration and outcome.
The cost dimension is the most visible. Average monthly costs for students in major university cities have risen substantially over the past five years, driven primarily by housing costs but also by food and transport inflation. The Erasmus+ grant levels have been adjusted, but the adjustment has not fully matched the increase in cost of living, particularly in the most popular destinations. Students from lower-income families, who depend more heavily on the grant as a primary source of funding, have faced sharper choices than those who can supplement with family resources. The pattern reinforces the existing socioeconomic distribution of mobility participation rather than countering it.
Prague’s profile illustrates the dual challenge. The city is among the most popular destinations because of its university quality, its central European location and historically affordable cost of living. The affordability advantage has eroded substantially in recent years, with private rental markets affected by general housing pressures and by short-term accommodation platforms that have reduced the supply of longer-term tenancies. Czech universities have expanded their dormitory capacity but the supply remains insufficient relative to the demand from both domestic and international students.
The policy responses operate on several timescales. In the immediate term, several member states have introduced complementary national grants for outbound and inbound mobility, with eligibility criteria targeted at lower-income students. The European Commission has worked with national agencies to streamline access to housing information and to encourage host institutions to expand their student accommodation offerings. The European Universities alliances have integrated student mobility into their collaborative structures, allowing planned mobility within consortia with simplified administrative procedures.
In the medium term, the programme is reflecting on whether the unit-based grant model remains the most appropriate instrument or whether a more progressive structure that varies with destination and household income would better serve inclusion objectives. The administrative simplicity of the current model has been an asset for accessibility, but its regressive aspects relative to need have been increasingly noted in evaluation studies. The redesign would need to balance simplicity, fairness and predictability for participants.
The strategic case for the programme remains strong. Mobility has measurable effects on language skills, employment outcomes and the formation of European identity that no other instrument delivers at comparable scale. The challenge for the next programming period is to ensure that these benefits are distributed more equitably and that the cost pressures of European cities do not erode the inclusive promise that the programme has made.
