IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam B. Jaffe, 2002. "Building Programme Evaluation into the Design of Public Research-Support Programmes," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 22-34, Spring.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:18:y:2002:i:1:p:22-34

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below 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.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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: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: . General contact details of provider: .

    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 or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.