IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/csc/cerisp/200709.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Government R&D funding: new approaches in the allocation policies for public and private beneficiaries

Author

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to perform a first experiment of quantitative assessment on changes in allocation mechanisms and in their underlying delegation models, using the quantitative information and the descriptions of national funding systems produced in the PRIME project funding activity. Delegation has been explored through changes in instrument portfolios and in evaluation modes, as proofs of an evolution in research governance. Some common trends can be identified: the reinforcing of both priority setting and peer review processes. The general result of our analysis is that some change in delegation modes took place, but there is not a simple transition from one delegation regime to another, while a "contract" delegation model (the NPM reform) is not detectable through project funding analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Bianca Potì & Emanuela Reale, 2007. "Government R&D funding: new approaches in the allocation policies for public and private beneficiaries," CERIS Working Paper 200709, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    • Handle: RePEc:csc:cerisp:200709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.byterfly.eu/islandora/object/librib:352270
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Benedetto Lepori & Peter van den Besselaar & Michael Dinges & Barend van der Meulen & Bianca Potì & Emanuela Reale & Stig Slipersaeter & Jean Theves, 2007. "Indicators for comparative analysis of public project funding: concepts, implementation and evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 243-255, December.
    3. Chris Caswill, 2003. "Principals, agents and contracts," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(5), pages 337-346, October.
    4. Elizabeth Shove, 2003. "Principals, agents and research programmes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(5), pages 371-381, October.
    5. Benedetto Lepori, 2006. "Public research funding and research policy: a long-term analysis for the Swiss case," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 205-216, April.
    6. Bianca Potì & Emanuela Reale, 2000. "Convergence and differentiation in institutional change among European public research systems: the decreasing role of public research institutes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(6), pages 421-431, December.
    7. Leonhard Jörg, 2004. "Policy Profile Austria. Input Paper for the OECD NIS MONIT Network," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 25245, Juni.
    8. Dietmar Braun, 2003. "Lasting tensions in research policy-making — a delegation problem," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(5), pages 309-321, October.
    9. Paul A. David, 1999. "The Political Economy of Public Science," Working Papers 99022, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
    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. Lepori, Benedetto, 2011. "Coordination modes in public funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 355-367, April.
    2. Mosoniné Fried, Judit & Szunyogh, Zsuzsanna, 2008. "Kutatás és fejlesztés a közszférában [Research and development in the public sphere]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 60-79.
    3. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2008. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-16, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised May 2008.
    4. Kastrinos, Nikos & Weber, K. Matthias, 2020. "Sustainable development goals in the research and innovation policy of the European Union," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    5. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H., 2000. "Heart of darkness: modeling public-private funding interactions inside the R&D black box," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1165-1183, December.
    6. Paul A. David, 2005. "The Economic Logic of “Open Science” and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and," Development and Comp Systems 0502006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Yang, Hyeonchae & Jung, Woo-Sung, 2016. "Structural efficiency to manipulate public research institution networks," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 21-32.
    8. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    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. Tether, Bruce S. & Tajar, Abdelouahid, 2008. "Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1079-1095, July.
    11. Auranen, Otto & Nieminen, Mika, 2010. "University research funding and publication performance--An international comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 822-834, July.
    12. Benedetto Lepori & Emanuela Reale & Stig Slipersaeter, 2011. "The Construction of New Indicators for Science and Innovation Policies: The Case of Project Funding Indicators," Chapters, in: Massimo G. Colombo & Luca Grilli & Lucia Piscitello & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra (ed.), Science and Innovation Policy for the New Knowledge Economy, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Jean-Michel Dalle & Paul David, 2005. "The Allocation of Software Development Resources In ‘Open Source’ Production Mode," Industrial Organization 0502011, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Stanislav Zaichenko, 2018. "The human resource dimension of science-based technology transfer: lessons from Russian RTOs and innovative enterprises," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 368-388, April.
    15. Laura De Dominicis & Susana Elena Pérez & Ana Fernández Zubieta, 2011. "European university funding and financial autonomy. A study on the degree of diversification of university budget and the share of competitive funding," JRC Research Reports JRC63682, Joint Research Centre (Seville site), revised Mar 2011.
    16. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5019 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Andreassen, Hege K. & Kjekshus, Lars Erik & Tjora, Aksel, 2015. "Survival of the project: A case study of ICT innovation in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 62-69.
    18. Tanel Hirv, 2022. "The interplay of the size of the research system, ways of collaboration, level, and method of funding in determining bibliometric outputs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1295-1316, March.
    19. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, January.
    20. Cowan, Robin & Soete, Luc & Tchervonnava, Oxana, 2001. "Knowledge Transfer and the Services Sector in the Context of the New Economy," Research Memorandum 020, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    R/D funding; allocation policy; project funding; research governance; evaluation modes; delegation models;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H0 - Public Economics - - General
    • H5 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    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:csc:cerisp:200709. 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: Anna Perin or Giancarlo Birello (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cerisit.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.