IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_12235.html

Science by Consensus: Eliciting Citizens’ and Experts’ R&D Spending Priorities

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Capozza
  • Krishna Srinivasan
  • Mattie Toma

Abstract

Research and development (R&D) is thought to be an important determinant of improvements in living standards, health, and economic security. Yet, U.S. govern- ment spending on R&D has fallen over time, with further cuts proposed. Two stan- dard rationalizations for such cuts are: (i) citizens support cuts, and (ii) the marginal social return from R&D is low. We test these using surveys with U.S. citizens and experts. Our evidence rejects both: most citizens favor increasing R&D, and most ex- perts judge marginal social returns to be high. Experts underestimate public support, indicating that they misperceive the political feasibility of increasing R&D spending.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Capozza & Krishna Srinivasan & Mattie Toma, 2025. "Science by Consensus: Eliciting Citizens’ and Experts’ R&D Spending Priorities," CESifo Working Paper Series 12235, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_12235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp12235.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toma, Mattie & Bell, Elizabeth, 2024. "Understanding and increasing policymakers’ sensitivity to program impact," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    2. Tania Babina & Alex Xi He & Sabrina T Howell & Elisabeth Ruth Perlman & Joseph Staudt, 2023. "Cutting the Innovation Engine: How Federal Funding Shocks Affect University Patenting, Entrepreneurship, and Publications," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 895-954.
    3. Alston, Julian M. & Chan-Kang, Connie & Marra, Michele C. & Pardey, Philip G. & Wyatt, T.J., 2000. "A Meta-Analysis Of Rates Of Return To Agricultural R & D: Ex Pede Herculem?," Research Reports 16535, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Robert M. Solow, 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.
    5. Edwin Mansfield & John Rapoport & Anthony Romeo & Samuel Wagner & George Beardsley, 1977. "Social and Private Rates of Return from Industrial Innovations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 91(2), pages 221-240.
    6. Thaler, Richard, 1981. "Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 201-207.
    7. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2019. "Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2855-2888, August.
    8. David Cutler & Angus Deaton & Adriana Lleras-Muney, 2006. "The Determinants of Mortality," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(3), pages 97-120, Summer.
    9. Simon Jäger & Christopher Roth & Nina Roussille & Benjamin Schoefer, 2024. "Worker Beliefs About Outside Options," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 139(3), pages 1505-1556.
    10. Jeff Tollefson & Dan Garisto & Heidi Ledford, 2025. "Will US science survive Trump 2.0?," Nature, Nature, vol. 641(8061), pages 26-30, May.
    11. Kyle R. Myers & Lauren Lanahan, 2022. "Estimating Spillovers from Publicly Funded R&D: Evidence from the US Department of Energy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(7), pages 2393-2423, July.
    12. Broockman, David E. & Skovron, Christopher, 2018. "Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion among Political Elites," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 542-563, August.
    13. Vivalt, Eva & Coville, Aidan, 2023. "How do policymakers update their beliefs?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    14. Felix J. Bierbrauer & Pierre C. Boyer & Andreas Peichl, 2021. "Politically Feasible Reforms of Nonlinear Tax Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(1), pages 153-191, January.
    15. Nathaniel Hendren & Ben Sprung-Keyser, 2020. "A Unified Welfare Analysis of Government Policies," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1209-1318.
    16. Jonathan de Quidt & Johannes Haushofer & Christopher Roth, 2018. "Measuring and Bounding Experimenter Demand," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(11), pages 3266-3302, November.
    17. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S Graff Zivin & Danielle Li & Bhaven N Sampat, 2019. "Public R&D Investments and Private-sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 117-152.
    18. Luis Sanz-Menéndez & Gregg G. Van Ryzin & Eloisa del Pino, 2014. "Citizens’ support for government spending on science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(5), pages 611-624.
    19. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Stefanie Stantcheva & Johannes Wohlfart, 2025. "Understanding Economic Behavior Using Open-Ended Survey Data," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 63(4), pages 1244-1280, December.
    20. Peter Diamond & Emmanuel Saez, 2011. "The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 165-190, Fall.
    21. Jonas Hjort & Diana Moreira & Gautam Rao & Juan Francisco Santini, 2021. "How Research Affects Policy: Experimental Evidence from 2,150 Brazilian Municipalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(5), pages 1442-1480, May.
    22. Mokyr, Joel, 1990. "Punctuated Equilibria and Technological Progress," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 350-354, May.
    23. Nicholas Bloom & Mark Schankerman & John Van Reenen, 2013. "Identifying Technology Spillovers and Product Market Rivalry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(4), pages 1347-1393, July.
    24. Björn Bartling & Krishna Srinivasan, 2025. "Paternalistic Interventions: Determinants of Demand and Supply," CESifo Working Paper Series 11886, CESifo.
    25. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    26. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    27. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    28. Stefano Carattini & Robert Dur & John List, 2024. "Policy evaluation and the causal analysis of public support," Natural Field Experiments 00798, The Field Experiments Website.
    29. Andre, Peter & Schirmer, Philipp & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2023. "Mental models of the stock market," SAFE Working Paper Series 406, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    30. Erzo F. P. Luttmer & Andrew A. Samwick, 2018. "The Welfare Cost of Perceived Policy Uncertainty: Evidence from Social Security," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 275-307, February.
    31. Viktoria Cologna & Niels G. Mede & Sebastian Berger & John Besley & Cameron Brick & Marina Joubert & Edward W. Maibach & Sabina Mihelj & Naomi Oreskes & Mike S. Schäfer & Sander Linden & Nor Izzatina , 2025. "Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(4), pages 713-730, April.
    32. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2021. "Understanding Tax Policy: How do People Reason?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2309-2369.
    33. Peter Andrebriq & Carlo Pizzinelli & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2022. "Subjective Models of the Macroeconomy: Evidence From Experts and Representative Samples," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(6), pages 2958-2991.
    34. Felix Chopra & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Andreas Stegmann, 2024. "The Null Result Penalty," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(657), pages 193-219.
    35. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    36. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-784, August.
    37. Björn Bartling & Krishna Srinivasan, 2025. "Paternalistic interventions: determinants of demand and supply," ECON - Working Papers 469, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    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. Capolupo, Rosa, 2009. "The New Growth Theories and Their Empirics after Twenty Years," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 3, pages 1-72.
    2. Parteka, Aleksandra & Kordalska, Aleksandra, 2023. "Artificial intelligence and productivity: global evidence from AI patent and bibliometric data," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    3. Callaghan, Christian William, 2021. "Growth contributions of technological change: Is there a burden of knowledge effect?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    4. Constantin Bürgi & Nisan Gorgulu, 2022. "The Impact of the Spatial Population Distribution on Economic Growth: Evidence from the United States," CESifo Working Paper Series 10008, CESifo.
    5. Teresa C. Fort & Nathan Goldschlag & Jack Liang & Peter K. Schott & Nikolas Zolas, 2025. "Growth is Getting Harder to Find, Not Ideas," Working Papers 25-21, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    6. Georgios A. Tritsaris, 2025. "Occupational Tasks, Automation, and Economic Growth: A Modeling and Simulation Approach," Papers 2512.16261, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2025.
    7. Thi Kim Cuong Pham & Ngoc-Sang Pham & Cuong Le Van & Tin Nguyen-Trong, 2025. "Endogenous Innovation in a Growth Model à la Solow," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-05388671, HAL.
    8. Burgi, Constantin & Gorgulu, Nisan, 2021. "The Impact of the Spatial Population Distribution on Economic Growth," Working Papers 17-2021, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    9. Bloom, Nick & Lucking, Brian & Van Reenen, John, 2018. "Have R&D spillovers changed?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 88699, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Ngoc-Sang Pham & Thi Kim Cuong Pham & Trong Tin Nguyen & Cuong Le Van, 2025. "Endogenous Innovation in a Growth Model à la Solow," EconomiX Working Papers 2025-46, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    11. Growiec, Jakub, 2022. "R&D capital: An engine of growth," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    12. Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Schnabel, Isabel & Truger, Achim & Wieland, Volker, 2019. "Den Strukturwandel meistern. Jahresgutachten 2019/20 [Dealing with Structural Change. Annual Report 2019/20]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201920.
    13. Jones, C.I., 2016. "The Facts of Economic Growth," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & Harald Uhlig (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 3-69, Elsevier.
    14. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    15. Ramesh Chandra Das & Sujata Mukherjee, 2020. "Do Spending on R&D Influence Income? An Enquiry on the World’s Leading Economies and Groups," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(4), pages 1295-1315, December.
    16. Adriana Di Liberto, 2007. "Convergence and Divergence in Neoclassical Growth Models with Human Capital," Economia politica, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 2, pages 289-322.
    17. Jeon, Heesang, 2015. "Knowledge and Contemporary Capitalism in Light of Marx's Value Theory," Thesis Commons g5njk, Center for Open Science.
    18. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Einiö, Elias & Martin, Ralf & Nguyen, Kieu-Trang & Reenen, John Van, 2016. "Do tax incentives for research increase firm innovation? An RD design for R&D, patents and spillovers," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 66428, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Bloom, David E. et.al., 2013. "Economic impact of non-communicable disease in China and India: Estimates, projections and comparisons," Working Papers 300, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.
    20. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Stefanie Stantcheva & Johannes Wohlfart, 2024. "Measuring What Is Top of Mind," CEBI working paper series 24-10, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
    • H5 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_12235. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.