IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Building Programme Evaluation into the Design of Public Research-Support Programmes

  • Adam B. Jaffe

There is wide agreement that the high social rate of return to research and innovation justifies government support for research. There is, however, only limited evidence on the effectiveness of different public research programmes. Reliable measurement of programme effectiveness is hampered by the 'selectivity' problem (public funding goes to proposals judged in advance to be likely to succeed) and the question of 'additivity' (whether public funding increases total spending on research or merely displaces funding from other sources). The selectivity problem can be mitigated by building evaluation into programme design, either by partial randomization of the grant process, or by recording the rankings used in grant evaluation and making this information available to researchers. The additivity question reflects the more fundamental problem that the ultimate objective of these programmes is to have long-term effects that are inherently very difficult to measure and attribute to particular programmes. Copyright 2002, Oxford University Press.

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Article provided by Oxford University Press in its journal Oxford Review of Economic Policy.

Volume (Year): 18 (2002)
Issue (Month): 1 (Spring)
Pages: 22-34

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:18:y:2002:i:1:p:22-34
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://oxrep.oupjournals.org/

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:18:y:2002:i:1:p:22-34. 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: (Oxford University Press)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.