IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mit/sloanp/7404.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Does the Government (Want to) Fund Science? Politics, Lobbying and Academic Earmarks

Author

Listed:
  • de Figueiredo, John
  • Silverman, Brian

Abstract

This paper examines academic earmarks and its role in the funding of university research. It provides a summary and review of the evidence on the supply of earmarks by legislators. It then discusses the role of university lobbying for earmarks on the demand side. After a review of the literature of the impact of earmarks on research quantity and quality, the paper poses a number of public policy questions related to the funding of science.

Suggested Citation

  • de Figueiredo, John & Silverman, Brian, 2004. "How Does the Government (Want to) Fund Science? Politics, Lobbying and Academic Earmarks," Working papers 4484-04, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:mit:sloanp:7404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/7404
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A Abigail Payne, 2002. "Do US Congressional earmarks increase research output at universities?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(5), pages 314-330, October.
    2. La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 1999. "The Quality of Government," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 222-279, April.
    3. Kevin M. Murphy & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 2008. "Why Is Rent-Seeking So Costly to Growth?," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Kai A. Konrad & Arye L. Hillman (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 2, pages 213-218, Springer.
    4. Hall, Richard L. & Grofman, Bernard, 1990. "The Committee Assignment Process and the Conditional Nature of Committee Bias," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(4), pages 1149-1166, December.
    5. R. Arnold, 1981. "Legislators, bureaucrats, and locational decisions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 107-132, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    2. Gerald A. Carlino & Robert M. Hunt, 2009. "What explains the quantity and quality of local inventive activity?," Working Papers 09-12, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    3. Paula Stephan, 2014. "The Endless Frontier: Reaping What Bush Sowed?," NBER Chapters, in: The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, pages 321-366, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Eli Dourado & Alex Tabarrok, 2015. "Public choice perspectives on intellectual property," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 129-151, April.
    5. de Figueiredo, John M & Silverman, Brian S, 2006. "Academic Earmarks and the Returns to Lobbying," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(2), pages 597-625, October.

    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. John M. de Figueiredo & Brian S. Silverman, 2002. "Academic Earmarks and the Returns to Lobbying," NBER Working Papers 9064, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Kathy S. He & Randall Morck & Bernard Yeung, 2003. "Corporate Stability and Economic Growth," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 553, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    3. Joël Cariolle & Petros G Sekeris, 2021. "How export shocks corrupt: theory and evidence," Working Papers hal-03164648, HAL.
    4. Hans Pitlik & Björn Frank & Mathias Firchow, 2010. "The demand for transparency: An empirical note," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 177-195, June.
    5. Noel Johnson & William Ruger & Jason Sorens & Steven Yamarik, 2014. "Corruption, regulation, and growth: an empirical study of the United States," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 51-69, February.
    6. Liu, Tingting & Liu, Yu & Ullah, Barkat & Wei, Zuobao & Xu, Lixin Colin, 2021. "The dark side of transparency in developing countries: The link between financial reporting practices and corruption," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    7. Aidt, T. & Dutta, J. & Vania Sena, 2005. "Growth, Governance and Corruption in the Presence of Threshold Effects: Theory and Evidence," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0540, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    8. Jiang, Liangliang & Wang, Chong, 2024. "Lending corruption and bank loan contracting: Cross-Country evidence," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2).
    9. Alberto Alesina & George-Marios Angeletos, 2005. "Fairness and Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 960-980, September.
    10. Florian Neumeier, 2018. "Do Businessmen Make Good Governors?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(4), pages 2116-2136, October.
    11. Stanley Engerman & Kenneth L. Sokoloff, 2004. "Digging the Dirt at Public Expense: Governance in the Building of the Erie Canal and Other Public Works," NBER Working Papers 10965, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Randrianarisoa, Laingo Manitra & Bolduc, Denis & Choo, Yap Yin & Oum, Tae Hoon & Yan, Jia, 2015. "Effects of corruption on efficiency of the European airports," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 65-83.
    13. Cooray, Arusha & Dzhumashev, Ratbek & Schneider, Friedrich, 2017. "How Does Corruption Affect Public Debt? An Empirical Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 115-127.
    14. Philip Shaw & Marina‐Selini Katsaiti & Marius Jurgilas, 2011. "Corruption And Growth Under Weak Identification," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(1), pages 264-275, January.
    15. Fang, Hanming & Gu, Quanlin & Zhou, Li-An, 2019. "The gradients of power: Evidence from the Chinese housing market," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 32-52.
    16. Shuanglin Lin & Wei Zhang, 2009. "The effect of corruption on capital accumulation," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 67-93, May.
    17. Bin Dong & Benno Torgler, 2010. "The Consequences of Corruption: Evidence from China," Working Papers 2010.73, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    18. Trung V. Vu, 2022. "Does institutional quality foster economic complexity? The fundamental drivers of productive capabilities," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 1571-1604, September.
    19. Rock, Michael T. & Bonnett, Heidi, 2004. "The Comparative Politics of Corruption: Accounting for the East Asian Paradox in Empirical Studies of Corruption, Growth and Investment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 999-1017, June.
    20. Ayyagari, Meghana & Demirguc-Kunt, Asli & Maksimovic, Vojislav, 2012. "Financing of firms in developing countries : lessons from research," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6036, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Lobbying; Education; Political Economy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mit:sloanp:7404. 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: None (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssmitus.html .

    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.