IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v30y2003i1p13-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing and evaluating technology policy: A multicriteria approach

Author

Listed:
  • Lucio Biggiero
  • Domenico Laise

Abstract

The multicriteria nature of choosing and evaluating technology policy can be dealt with by outranking methods, enabling us to avoid weak approaches such as following rules or routines or imitating best practices on one hand, and fictitious multicriteria methods on the other. Outranking methods can strongly support policy makers and social scientists in choosing and evaluating technology policy. They are consistent with behavioral-evolutionary theory, and they allow us to maintain the variety and realism of problem solving in technology policy. Being based on formal and robust algorithms, they also represent a sound theoretical alternative to neo-classical approaches, both in their orthodox and hidden versions. The adoption of outranking methods has a number of theoretical and policy implications. A tutorial (and numerical) example shows how easily they can be applied. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucio Biggiero & Domenico Laise, 2003. "Choosing and evaluating technology policy: A multicriteria approach," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 13-23, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:1:p:13-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154303781780641
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amy Poh Ai Ling & Mohamad Nasir Saludin & Masao Mukaidono, 2012. "Deriving consensus rankings via multicriteria decision making methodology," Papers 1201.1604, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    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:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:1:p:13-23. 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.

    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 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.