IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v127y2019icp240-247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Street-level priority-setting: The role of discretion in implementation of research, development, and innovation priorities

Author

Listed:
  • Brattström, Erik
  • Hellström, Tomas

Abstract

Research on priority-setting for research, development, and innovation (RDI) often does not take into account the many challenges associated with translating priorities into RDI programs and projects. Such implementation challenges are typically handled by RDI program officers at funding agencies i.e. those officers that manage RDI programs and projects. To address this challenge, this paper utilizes a ‘street-level bureaucracy’ approach to understanding how RDI priority-setting is enacted by program officers in the course of translating general RDI priorities into actual funding. This is done through a study of how program officers at the Swedish Energy Agency exercise discretion in the course of implementing RDI priorities. The results suggest four general dimensions of program officer discretion in priority implementation, viz. (i) regulating inflow of new knowledge and ideas, (ii) interpreting the relationship between strategy and program design, (iii) tweaking and applying selection criteria, and (iv) determining the portfolio's balance between basic research and application/innovation. The results suggest that discretion can act as an important mechanism mediating between the formulation of RDI priorities and de facto RDI investments by funding agencies. By explicating some variations of this mechanism, the study contributes new insights into the governance of RDI funding processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Brattström, Erik & Hellström, Tomas, 2019. "Street-level priority-setting: The role of discretion in implementation of research, development, and innovation priorities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 240-247.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:127:y:2019:i:c:p:240-247
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518308024
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Van der Meulen, Barend, 1998. "Science policies as principal-agent games: Institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 397-414, August.
    2. Ahti Salo & Juuso Liesiö, 2006. "A Case Study In Participatory Priority Setting For A Scandinavian Research Program," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(01), pages 65-88.
    3. Rip, Arie & Nederhof, Anton J., 1986. "Between dirigism and laissez-faire: Effects of implementing the science policy priority for biotechnology in the Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 253-268, October.
    4. Moravcsik, Michael J., 1988. "The limits of science and the scientific method," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 293-299, October.
    5. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Research portfolios in science policy: moving from financial returns to societal benefits," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-10, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Tomas Hellström & Merle Jacob & Karolin Sjöö, 2017. "From thematic to organizational prioritization: the challenges of implementing RDI priorities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 599-608.
    7. Stewart, Jenny, 1995. "Models of priority-setting for public sector research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 115-126, January.
    8. Bosin, Morris Robert, 1992. "Priority setting in government : Beyond the magic bullet," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, January.
    9. Lars Tummers & Victor Bekkers, 2014. "Policy Implementation, Street-level Bureaucracy, and the Importance of Discretion," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 527-547, May.
    10. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    11. Susan S. Silbey & Ruthanne Huising & Salo V. Coslovsky, 2009. "The Sociological Citizen : Recognizing Relational Interdependence in Law and Organizations," Post-Print hal-02311931, HAL.
    12. Patrick Biernacki & Dan Waldorf, 1981. "Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 10(2), pages 141-163, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janzwood, Scott, 2021. "R&D priority-setting for global catastrophic risks: The case of the NASA planetary defense mission," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    2. Suzanne Rutz & Dinah Mathew & Paul Robben & Antoinette de Bont, 2017. "Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 81-94, March.
    3. Tomas Hellström & Merle Jacob & Karolin Sjöö, 2017. "From thematic to organizational prioritization: the challenges of implementing RDI priorities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 599-608.
    4. Alba Rocio Gutierrez Garzon & Pete Bettinger & Jacek Siry & Bin Mei & Jesse Abrams, 2019. "The Terms Foresters and Planners in the United States Use to Infer Sustainability in Forest Management Plans: A Survey Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Laura Good & Rae Cooper, 2016. "‘But It's Your Job To Be Friendly’: Employees Coping With and Contesting Sexual Harassment from Customers in the Service Sector," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(5), pages 447-469, September.
    6. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    7. Julian Kolev & Yuly Fuentes-Medel & Fiona Murray, 2019. "Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 25759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt-Padickakudy & Anna Strauss-Kollin, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, March.
    9. Sokolov, Alexander & Shashnov, Sergey & Kotsemir, Maxim & Grebenyuk, Anna, 2019. "Quantitative analysis for a better-focused international STI collaboration policy: A case of BRICS," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 221-242.
    10. Jeffrey L. Furman & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Automation, Research Technology, and Researchers’ Trajectories: Evidence from Computer Science and Electrical Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 330-354, March.
    11. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    12. Aurélie Hemonnet-Goujot & Delphine Manceau & Celine Abecassis-Moedas, 2019. "Drivers and Pathways of NPD Success in the Marketing-External Design Relationship," Post-Print hal-01883760, HAL.
    13. Nicolas Carayol & Emeric Henry & Marianne Lanoë, 2020. "Stimulating Peer Effects? Evidence from a Research Cluster Policy," Working Papers hal-03874261, HAL.
    14. Mohammed Salah Hassan & Raja Noriza Raja Ariffin & Norma Mansor & Hussam Al Halbusi, 2021. "An Examination of Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Discretion and the Moderating Role of Supervisory Support: Evidence from the Field," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, June.
    15. Jacqueline N. Lane & Ina Ganguli & Patrick Gaule & Eva Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2021. "Engineering serendipity: When does knowledge sharing lead to knowledge production?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1215-1244, June.
    16. Karen E Engel, 2016. "Talcahuano, Chile, in the wake of the 2010 disaster: A vulnerable middle?," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(2), pages 1057-1081, January.
    17. Andrew Shipilov & Frédéric C. Godart & Julien Clement, 2017. "Which boundaries? How mobility networks across countries and status groups affect the creative performance of organizations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 1232-1252, June.
    18. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    19. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    20. Felix A. Nandonde & Richard Adu-Gyamfi & Tinaye S. Mmusi & Herbert Wamalwa & Simplice A. Asongu & Johannes P. Opperman & Jeremiah R. Makindara, 2019. "Linkages and spillover effects of South African foreign direct investment in Botswana and Kenya," Working Papers of the African Governance and Development Institute. 19/039, African Governance and Development Institute..

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:127:y:2019:i:c:p:240-247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.