IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v10y2001i3p761-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn)

Author

Listed:
  • Pavitt, K

Abstract

The information-based theoretical model for public support of basic research, developed in the USA at the end of the 1950s, has held up well in political practice, in spite of its neglect of training benefits, of necessary prior investment in research infrastructure and of its consequently limited relevance outside the USA. At the same time, US practice in basic research has often been misinterpreted as being driven by short-term usefulness, whereas its key features are massive and pluralistic government funding, high academic quality, and the ability to invest in the long-term development of new (often multidisciplinary) fields. Challenges for the future include greater (and often ill-judged) pressures from governments for demonstrable usefulness of the basic research it supports, the entirely separate development of direct links to application in biomedical and software fields, and more complicated links between national basic research and application resulting from the changes in the internationalization of corporate R&D. And perhaps we can learn as much from successful practices in Scandinavia and Switzerland as from the USA. Copyright 2001 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Pavitt, K, 2001. "Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn)," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(3), pages 761-779, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:10:y:2001:i:3:p:761-79
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:indcch:v:10:y:2001:i:3:p:761-79. 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/icc .

    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.