IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v35y2008i3p183-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delegation of authority in research funding to networks: Experiences with a multiple goal boundary organization

Author

Listed:
  • Laurens Klerkx
  • Cees Leeuwis

Abstract

The delegation of authority in research funding to multi-actor networks that include users is seen as a way to make research more responsive to users' needs. This paper analyzes multi-actor networks for the planning and execution of agricultural research in The Netherlands. It shows that delegation of authority to networks also generates several tensions, and requires substantial role adjustments and institutional learning for the actors involved (government, researchers, intermediaries such as research councils, and user groups) in order to effectively operate in the network. The paper indicates that the principal-agent perspective often used for analyzing the science-policy relationship can be a useful tool for analyzing the multilateral relationships in networks, but needs to be complemented by theories that better capture the notion of co-production in such ‘webs of cross-cutting ties’. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurens Klerkx & Cees Leeuwis, 2008. "Delegation of authority in research funding to networks: Experiences with a multiple goal boundary organization," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 183-196, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:35:y:2008:i:3:p:183-196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234208X299053
    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. Laurens Klerkx & Andy Hall & Cees Leeuwis, 2009. "Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: are innovation brokers the answer?," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(5/6), pages 409-438.
    2. Omid Omidvar & Roman Kislov, 2016. "R&D Consortia As Boundary Organisations: Misalignment And Asymmetry Of Boundary Management," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Nicola Francesco Dotti & André Spithoven, 2017. "Spatial perspectives on knowledge brokers: Evidence from Brussels," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(10), pages 2203-2222, October.
    4. Lepori, Benedetto, 2011. "Coordination modes in public funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 355-367, April.
    5. Dentoni, Domenico & Klerkx, Laurens, 2015. "Co-managing public research in Australian fisheries through convergence–divergence processes," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 259-271.
    6. Arnott, James C., 2021. "Pens and purse strings: Exploring the opportunities and limits to funding actionable sustainability science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    7. Henrik Sternberg & Isidro Linan & Günter Prockl & Andreas Norrman, 2022. "Tragedy of the facilitated commons: A multiple‐case study of failure in systematic horizontal logistics collaboration," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 58(4), pages 30-57, October.
    8. Laurens Hessels & John Grin & Smits, 2010. "Stakeholder interactions in Dutch animal sciences," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 10-02, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised May 2010.
    9. Laurens Klerkx & José Guimón, 2017. "Attracting foreign R&D through international centres of excellence: early experiences from Chile," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(6), pages 763-774.
    10. Matthijs J Janssen & Joeri Wesseling & Jonas Torrens & K Matthias & Caetano Penna & Laurens Klerkx, 2023. "Missions as boundary objects for transformative change: understanding coordination across policy, research, and stakeholder communities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 398-415.

    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:35:y:2008:i:3:p:183-196. 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.