IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v23y1996i4p229-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy

Author

Listed:
  • David H Guston

Abstract

The problem of science policy is the problem of delegation. How do nonscientists get scientists to do what we all, as citizens, have decided? An analytical framework known as principal-agent theory is introduced to examine the problents of delegation. A number of areas of empirical interest in science policy are highlighted and recast as problems specific to delegatory relationships. The implications of science as an agent of society are addressed. The conclusion is that none of the values of science, such as scientific autonomy or scientific truth, is threatened by taking a principal-agent perspective on science. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • David H Guston, 1996. "Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 229-240, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:23:y:1996:i:4:p:229-240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/spp/23.4.229
    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. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    2. Braun, Dietmar & Benninghoff, Martin, 2003. "Policy learning in Swiss research policy--the case of the National Centres of Competence in Research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1849-1863, December.
    3. Hayashi, Takayuki, 2003. "Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university-industry-government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1421-1442, September.
    4. Xavier Tezzo & Simon R. Bush & Peter Oosterveer & Ben Belton, 2021. "Food system perspective on fisheries and aquaculture development in Asia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 73-90, February.
    5. Cash, David & Clark, William, 2001. "From Science to Policy: Assessing the Assessment Process," Working Paper Series rwp01-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. Duncan Russel & John Turnpenny & Tim Rayner, 2013. "Reining in the Executive? Delegation, Evidence, and Parliamentary Influence on Environmental Public Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(4), pages 619-632, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Ouyang, Hongwu Sam, 2006. "Agency problem, institutions, and technology policy: Explaining Taiwan's semiconductor industry development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1314-1328, November.
    9. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    10. Ben R. Martin, 2015. "R&D Policy Instruments: A Critical Review of What We Do & Don't Know," Working Papers wp476, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    11. Avery Sen, 2017. "Island + Bridge: how transformative innovation is organized in the federal government," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 707-721.
    12. Arnott, James C., 2021. "Pens and purse strings: Exploring the opportunities and limits to funding actionable sustainability science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    13. Takayuki Hayashi, 2003. "Bibliometric analysis on additionality of Japanese R&D programmes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 301-316, March.
    14. Braun, Dietmar, 1998. "The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 807-821, December.
    15. Clark, William & Mitchell, Ronald & Cash, David & Alcock, Frank, 2002. "Information as Influence: How Institutions Mediate the Impact of Scientific Assessments on Global Environmental Affairs," Working Paper Series rwp02-044, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    16. Bae, Sung Joo & Lee, Hyeonsuh, 2020. "The role of government in fostering collaborative R&D projects: Empirical evidence from South Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    17. Fonseca, Paulo F.C. & Pereira, Tiago Santos, 2014. "The governance of nanotechnology in the Brazilian context: Entangling approaches," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 16-27.

    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:23:y:1996:i:4:p:229-240. 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.