IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i6p853-864..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why do Big Science projects exist? The role of social preferences
[A Positive Theory of Fiscal Deficits and Government Debt]

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Vincenzi

Abstract

Recent work has excluded sociocultural factors among the determinants of Big Science projects. This paper empirically tests the role of four different measures of social preferences, namely altruism, trust, negative reciprocity, and positive reciprocity, in increasing the likelihood of sustaining international cooperation in Big Science projects. Using a novel database of cross-sectional observations from seventy-six countries, this study finds evidence of a positive and statistically significant relationship between negative reciprocity and both time and risk preferences, namely patience and risk-taking. The science policy implication of this study is that a broader theory of clubs can guide meta-organizations in establishing, maintaining, or denying membership in Big Science projects based on the long-term orientation and reputation as a committed cooperator of a country.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Vincenzi, 2022. "Why do Big Science projects exist? The role of social preferences [A Positive Theory of Fiscal Deficits and Government Debt]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 853-864.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:6:p:853-864.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac033
    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.

    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:49:y:2022:i:6:p:853-864.. 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.