IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v30y2003i5p309-321.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lasting tensions in research policy-making — a delegation problem

Author

Listed:
  • Dietmar Braun

Abstract

A basic paradox in funding policy is that policy-makers want to guarantee maximum welfare benefits without violating the independence of scientists and their organisations. This article contends that this problem can be adequately conceptualised in terms of delegation and principal-agent theory. In the past, blind delegation and incentives were used to resolve the tension: more recently, efforts have been in quite a different direction. The ‘steady state’ succeeds in realising more society-oriented research but fails to reduce the tensions. ‘Delegation by contract’ and ‘delegation to networks’ attack the estimation of costs by scientists linked to the efforts in politically or user-inspired research and can thus reduce the likelihood of moral hazard by scientists. They are ‘opening up’ the scientific system to user systems by changing the functioning of the basic structures of science whilst embodying two very different solutions. ‘Delegation by contract’ maintains a strong belief in the rationalisation of funding policy and in political guidance, while ‘delegation to networks’ makes the state a ‘facilitator’ helping scientists and their institutions to self-organise networks of co-operation with user systems. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Dietmar Braun, 2003. "Lasting tensions in research policy-making — a delegation problem," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(5), pages 309-321, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:5:p:309-321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154303781780353
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Koen Jonkers & Thomas Zacharewicz, 2015. "Performance based funding: a comparative assessment of their use and nature in EU Member States – a working paper," JRC Research Reports JRC97684, Joint Research Centre.
    2. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2008. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-16, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised May 2008.
    3. Wang, Lili & Wang, Xianwen & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Philipsen, Niels, 2019. "The effect of public funding on scientific performance: A comparison between China and the EU," MERIT Working Papers 2019-045, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    4. Bianca Potì & Emanuela Reale, 2007. "Government R&D funding: new approaches in the allocation policies for public and private beneficiaries," CERIS Working Paper 200709, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    5. Lepori, Benedetto, 2011. "Coordination modes in public funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 355-367, April.
    6. Koen Jonkers & Thomas Zacharewicz, 2016. "Research Performance Based Funding Systems: a Comparative Assessment," JRC Research Reports JRC101043, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Kastrinos, Nikos & Weber, K. Matthias, 2020. "Sustainable development goals in the research and innovation policy of the European Union," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    8. Philip Lowe & Jeremy Phillipson, 2009. "Barriers to Research Collaboration across Disciplines: Scientific Paradigms and Institutional Practices," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(5), pages 1171-1184, May.
    9. Mosoniné Fried, Judit & Szunyogh, Zsuzsanna, 2008. "Kutatás és fejlesztés a közszférában [Research and development in the public sphere]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 60-79.
    10. Benedetto Lepori & Emanuela Reale & Stig Slipersaeter, 2011. "The Construction of New Indicators for Science and Innovation Policies: The Case of Project Funding Indicators," Chapters, in: Massimo G. Colombo & Luca Grilli & Lucia Piscitello & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra (ed.), Science and Innovation Policy for the New Knowledge Economy, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Talmar, Madis & Walrave, Bob & Raven, Rob & Romme, A. Georges L., 2022. "Dynamism in policy-affiliated transition intermediaries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    12. Laura De Dominicis & Susana Elena Pérez & Ana Fernández Zubieta, 2011. "European university funding and financial autonomy. A study on the degree of diversification of university budget and the share of competitive funding," JRC Research Reports JRC63682, Joint Research Centre, revised Mar 2011.
    13. Remo Fernández-Carro & Víctor Lapuente-Giné, 2016. "The Emperor’s clothes and the Pied Piper: Bureaucracy and scientific productivity," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(4), pages 546-561.
    14. Lepori, Benedetto & Reale, Emanuela & Larédo, Philippe, 2014. "Logics of integration and actors’ strategies in European joint programs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 391-402.
    15. Materia, V.C. & Pascucci, S. & Kolympiris, C., 2015. "Understanding the selection processes of public research projects in agriculture: The role of scientific merit," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 87-99.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:5:p:309-321. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.