IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v39y2012i4p416-428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Features of the current science policy regime: Viewed in historical perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Aant Elzinga

Abstract

This paper aims to throw into relief some of the general features in the development of the history of science policy by drawing attention to the continuation and deepening of old issues in new forms within the current science policy regime. The paper presents a typology which distinguishes different ways in which policy attempts to 'account' for public funding of science by showing how science contributes to wealth and prosperity. The paper concludes that the new forms of accounting place the focus of attention on what is 'produced' in science and that science policy itself has become dominated by the logic of globalism and new public management. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Aant Elzinga, 2012. "Features of the current science policy regime: Viewed in historical perspective," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 416-428, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:39:y:2012:i:4:p:416-428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scs046
    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. Leila Jabrane, 2022. "Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Christoph March & Ina Schieferdecker, 2021. "Technological Sovereignty as Ability, Not Autarky," CESifo Working Paper Series 9139, CESifo.
    3. Ben R. Martin, 2015. "R&D Policy Instruments: A Critical Review of What We Do & Don't Know," Working Papers wp476, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    4. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    5. Erik Aarden & Luca Marelli & Alessandro Blasimme, 2021. "The translational lag narrative in policy discourse in the United States and the European Union: a comparative study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Torregrosa-Hetland, Sara & Pelkonen, Antti & Oksanen, Juha & Kander, Astrid, 2019. "The prevalence of publicly stimulated innovations –A comparison of Finland and Sweden, 1970–2013," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1373-1384.
    7. Richard Heidler & Olof Hallonsten, 2015. "Qualifying the performance evaluation of Big Science beyond productivity, impact and costs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 295-312, July.
    8. Olof Hallonsten, 2014. "How expensive is Big Science? Consequences of using simple publication counts in performance assessment of large scientific facilities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 483-496, August.
    9. D’Ippolito, Beatrice & Rüling, Charles-Clemens, 2019. "Research collaboration in Large Scale Research Infrastructures: Collaboration types and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1282-1296.
    10. Olof Hallonsten, 2013. "Introducing ‘facilitymetrics’: a first review and analysis of commonly used measures of scientific leadership among synchrotron radiation facilities worldwide," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 497-513, August.

    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:39:y:2012:i:4:p:416-428. 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.