IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v66y2019icp68-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact assessment based sectoral balancing in public R&D project portfolio selection

Author

Listed:
  • Çağlar, Musa
  • Gürel, Sinan

Abstract

Government funding agencies spend significant amounts of R&D funds through funding programs. While allocating funds among sectors or scientific disciplines, the Decision Maker (DM) wants to maximize the total impact by supporting R&D activities in those sectors with higher scientific, social and economic return. On the other hand, the DM wants to balance the funding budget over sectors or disciplines. In this study, we incorporate the results of “sectoral impact assessments” into the public R&D project portfolio selection (RDPPS) problem. We develop a two-stage model. In the first stage, we make sectoral budget allocation decisions to maximize the total impact of the budget while ensuring a relative balance among sectors. In the second stage, we maximize the total score of supported projects under allocated sectoral budgets. We illustrate the proposed approach on an example problem. We show the value of the proposed approach by comparing our results with alternative policy options.

Suggested Citation

  • Çağlar, Musa & Gürel, Sinan, 2019. "Impact assessment based sectoral balancing in public R&D project portfolio selection," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 68-81.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:66:y:2019:i:c:p:68-81
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2018.07.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003801211730229X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2018.07.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    2. Mavrotas, G. & Diakoulaki, D. & Caloghirou, Y., 2006. "Project prioritization under policy restrictions. A combination of MCDA with 0-1 programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 296-308, May.
    3. Jaffe, Adam B, 1989. "Real Effects of Academic Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957-970, December.
    4. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2011. "The Price of Fairness," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 17-31, February.
    5. Karsu, Özlem & Morton, Alec, 2014. "Incorporating balance concerns in resource allocation decisions: A bi-criteria modelling approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 70-82.
    6. Wang, Jue & Xu, Wei & Ma, Jian & Wang, Shouyang, 2013. "A vague set based decision support approach for evaluating research funding programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 230(3), pages 656-665.
    7. George J. Beaujon & Samuel P. Marin & Gary C. McDonald, 2001. "Balancing and optimizing a portfolio of R&D projects," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 18-40, February.
    8. Lee, Hakyeon & Park, Yongtae & Choi, Hoogon, 2009. "Comparative evaluation of performance of national R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: A DEA approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(3), pages 847-855, August.
    9. Mansfield, Edwin, 1998. "Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 773-776, April.
    10. Wagstaff, Adam, 1991. "QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 21-41, May.
    11. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680, Decembrie.
    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. Mavrotas, George & Makryvelios, Evangelos, 2021. "Combining multiple criteria analysis, mathematical programming and Monte Carlo simulation to tackle uncertainty in Research and Development project portfolio selection: A case study from Greece," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 794-806.
    2. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    3. Castelnovo, Paolo & Florio, Massimo & Forte, Stefano & Rossi, Lucio & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2018. "The economic impact of technological procurement for large-scale research infrastructures: Evidence from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1853-1867.
    4. Hottenrott, Hanna & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2010. "Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-105, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    6. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    7. Vincett, P.S., 2010. "The economic impacts of academic spin-off companies, and their implications for public policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 736-747, July.
    8. Paolo Castelnovo & Martina Dal Molin, 2021. "The learning mechanisms through public procurement for innovation: The case of government‐funded basic research organizations," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(3), pages 411-446, September.
    9. Hongbo Li & Rui Chen & Xianchao Zhang, 2022. "Uncertain Public R&D Project Portfolio Selection Considering Sectoral Balancing and Project Failure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-13, November.
    10. Toole, Andrew A., 2012. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-12.
    11. Xiaojun Shan & Jun Zhuang, 2013. "Cost of Equity in Homeland Security Resource Allocation in the Face of a Strategic Attacker," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1083-1099, June.
    12. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    13. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2012. "On the Efficiency-Fairness Trade-off," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2234-2250, December.
    14. Leten, Bart & Landoni, Paolo & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from the proximity of universities?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1398-1412.
    15. Anthony Arundel & Aldo Geuna, 2001. "Does Proximity Matter for Knowledge Transfer from Public Institutes and Universities to Firms?," SPRU Working Paper Series 73, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    16. Fernández-Esquinas, Manuel & Pinto, Hugo & Yruela, Manuel Pérez & Pereira, Tiago Santos, 2016. "Tracing the flows of knowledge transfer: Latent dimensions and determinants of university–industry interactions in peripheral innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 113(PB), pages 266-279.
    17. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2004. "Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1201-1215, October.
    18. Toole, Andrew A., 2011. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-063, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, April.
    20. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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:eee:soceps:v:66:y:2019:i:c:p:68-81. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps .

    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.