A Defensive Budget in an Offensive Time

The Norwegian Draghi Report (Norwegian Competitiveness – The Road to Growth) warns that Europe—and Norway—are losing ground in technology, innovation, and strategic industrial development. The report calls for a more active industrial policy where investments in health, digitalization, and research are seen as fundamental to preparedness and value creation.

In this context, the 2026 national budget appears defensive. While the EU and our Nordic neighbors are mobilizing capital and industrial partnerships to strengthen competitiveness, Norway is, in practice, reducing its instruments for innovation and business development.

For Norway Health Tech, this confirms a major challenge for the Norwegian health industry: we do not lack ambition—but the ability to invest.

A toolbox without capital

The government follows up on its Entrepreneurship White Paper with structural measures—but no increase in funding. Pilot programs from 2023 and 2024 are now made permanent, such as the new Startup Grant 3 and mentor programs focused on scaling and capital strategy.

Innovation Norway is also expanding the definition of a “start-up company” to include businesses up to five years old. This gives growth companies a slightly longer support horizon, but no new equity funds or matching schemes are introduced. The government emphasizes that private capital should take a greater role, while the state contributes through structure and risk mitigation.

At the same time, the budget tightens Innovation Norway’s financial framework, cutting NOK 160 million in allocations. This includes reductions to general grant schemes, lower activity levels, and a clear signal that the agency must streamline operations and cut costs.

For entrepreneurs and growth companies, this means fewer funding opportunities and a narrower focus from the government—particularly on green transition, digitalization, and internationalization. For the health industry, this makes the competition for capital even tougher and pushes companies to seek international funding sources and EU programs such as EIC Accelerator and InvestEU—areas where Norway Health Tech already supports its members through dedicated advisory services.

“We see good initiatives toward a more professional and structured innovation system—that’s positive. But we miss concrete measures that help companies in the health industry grow faster and attract investors in an increasingly demanding capital market,” says Lena Nymo Helli, CEO of Norway Health Tech.

Ambitions without real commitment

Although health is highlighted as one of society’s most critical areas, this is not reflected in the budget figures: no new funding for the health technology scheme, no increase in hospital investments, and no targeted initiatives for pharmaceutical development.

Before the budget presentation, industry organizations such as Melanor proposed that parts of the Nansen Fund - earmarked for support and reconstruction in Ukraine - could be allocated to strengthen the Norwegian health industry, with up to NOK 70 million directed toward companies developing and delivering medical equipment. The proposal was not included in the final budget, but it underscores a growing need for targeted investments that connect health preparedness, industry, and international collaboration.

“Our concern is that the lack of investment willingness may weaken both preparedness and competitiveness,” says Helli.

A recent report from the Office of the Auditor General reinforces this concern. It shows that Norwegian hospitals make limited use of available technologies that could bring services closer to patients, despite proven solutions and documented gains. Digital home monitoring and collaboration between hospitals and municipalities remain underdeveloped, and the Auditor General describes the situation as “unsatisfactory.”

The barriers are not technological—but financial, organizational, and cultural. Many health institutions point out that current budget structures do not support cooperation with municipalities, and that weak municipal finances slow the development of more efficient patient pathways.

The report highlights the same gap left by the national budget: political ambitions for technology and collaboration, without the economic instruments to realize them.

In the budget, health is primarily treated as a welfare service—not as an industry with growth and export potential. The lack of investment in research and digital infrastructure risks leaving Norway behind the EU, where major initiatives are now directed toward biotechnology, data, and health preparedness.

“We are missing a more proactive strategy that matches the needs of the sector. Innovation and technology must be seen as investments in societal sustainability—not merely as costs,” Helli adds.

No boost for test infrastructure

For clusters and innovation facilitators, the 2026 budget allows only for maintaining the status quo—not for new growth.

A national Health Catapult has long been a shared priority among Norway Health Tech, Oslo Cancer Cluster, The Life Science Cluster, and the wider ecosystem. Yet, once again, no funding has been allocated to make this initiative a reality. The Norwegian Catapult program continues at current levels, with no room to establish new centers.

According to Helli, a Health Catapult would give Norwegian health and life science companies access to critical test infrastructure, regulatory guidance, and a faster path from idea to market—similar to the support that already exists in maritime, industrial, and digital technology.

“Without this, the ecosystem lacks a vital link between research, development, and commercialization,” she says.

Clusters under pressure

Stable financing is essential to maintain momentum in cluster work. When public support is reduced, organizations are forced to prioritize short-term projects over long-term development. This limits their ability to bring together partners and drive innovation across companies, academia, and the public sector.

“Without predictable funding and resources for further development, the cluster’s role as a catalyst in the health technology ecosystem is at risk,” says Helli. “As a mature cluster in an important growth industry for Norway, stable core funding would give us the necessary room to create value and predictability for the health industry over time.”

The 2026 budget offers predictability in some areas - but little new energy. The government continues to build systems and structure rather than inject new capital. That may improve coordination but provides limited immediate impact for companies seeking to grow in a challenging international market.

“In many ways, the budget mirrors a broader European challenge: we know where we’re going, but not how to finance the journey,” Helli concludes. “At Norway Health Tech, we will continue to build bridges between healthcare, business, and research—regardless of how many new measures come from the state. But if Norway truly wants to build a sustainable health industry, investments must follow ambition.”