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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. Albert Banal-Estañol & Qianshuo Liu & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    6. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt & Anna Strauss, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Khalid Mehmood & Yaser Iftikhar & Aamir Suhail & Adil Zia, 2024. "How high-involvement work practices, public service motivation, and employees’ commitment influence employees' proactive work behavior: evidence from China," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 55-81, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Arthur Huang & Efrén De la Mora Velasco & Adam Haney & Sergio Alvarez, 2022. "The Future of Destination Marketing Organizations in the Insight Era," Tourism and Hospitality, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-6, September.
    15. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    17. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Working Papers 26889, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    19. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    20. 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.

    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.