Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Mandated science and the problem of neutral expertise: The case of governmental research agencies

Contents:

Author Info

  • Bach, Tobias
  • Döhler, Marian
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Wie können Wissenschaftsbehörden, die in den hierarchischen Staatsaufbau integriert sind, nach außen glaubwürdig darstellen, dass sie trotz ihrer Nähe zur Politik neutral bleiben und ihre Beratungsaufgabe allein nach wissenschaftlichen Kriterien erledigen? Im Fall der Ressortforschungseinrichtungen des Bundes scheint dies kein Problem darzustellen, da deren wissenschaftliche Glaubwürdigkeit genau damit begründet wird, dass sie Teil der Exekutive sind. Der Aufsatz nimmt dies zum Ausgangspunkt, um auf Grundlage der Unterscheidung zwischen den idealtypischen Akteurmodellen des Agenten und des Treuhänders die Rolle der Ressortforschung zu untersuchen. Zu diesem Zweck werden ein rechtsstaatlich-juristischer, ein wissenschaftspolitischer und sektorspezifische Expertendiskurse unterschieden. Es wird gezeigt, dass eine variierende Rollenzuweisung der Ressortforschung als Agent oder Treuhänder dazu beiträgt, konfligierende Wahrnehmungen und Zielvorstellungen zu harmonisieren. Dies wird dadurch ermöglicht, dass Ressortforschungseinrichtungen verschiedene Aufgaben gleichzeitig erfüllen, so dass sie sowohl als Agent wie auch als Treuhänder wahrgenommen werden können. Die schlichte Unterscheidung zwischen Agent und Treuhänder erweist sich damit bei multifunktionalen Organisationen als differenzierungsbedürftig. -- How can research agencies which are integrated into the hierarchical state apparatus provide credible expertise for policy-decisions? In the case of governmental research agencies (GRAs) in Germany, this does not seem to pose a major problem, as their scientific credibility is taken for granted precisely because they belong to the Federal Government. The article addresses this puzzle by drawing on insights from the literature on delegation relationships which distinguishes between agents and trustees as ideal types of delegates. These ideal types are used to analyze three dominating discourses regarding GRAs: a legal discourse, a science policy discourse, and sectoral expert discourses. We show that each discourse is characterized by different and often conflicting assumptions regarding the importance of scientific freedom and the legitimacy of hierarchical interventions. The paper suggests that GRAs may simultaneously be agents and trustees under the condition of heterogeneous tasks. The simple distinction between agent and trustee thus becomes problematic for analyzing multi-purpose organizations.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/62134/1/722181639.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB) in its series Discussion Papers, Research Group Science Policy Studies with number SP III 2012-602.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: 2012
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbsps:spiii2012602

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin, Germany
    Phone: ++49 - 30 - 25491 - 0
    Fax: ++49 - 30 - 25491 - 684
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.wzb.eu/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Manishi Prasad & Peter Wahlqvist & Rich Shikiar & Ya-Chen Tina Shih, 2004. "A," PharmacoEconomics, Springer Healthcare | Adis, vol. 22(4), pages 225-244.
    2. Pollitt, Christopher & Bouckaert, Geert, 2004. "Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199268498, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbsps:spiii2012602. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.