IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_12235.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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. government spending on R&D has fallen over time, with further cuts proposed. Two standard rationalizations for such cuts are: (i) citizens support such 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: a large majority of citizens do not favor cuts and, on the contrary, prefer increasing R&D spending; and a large majority of experts judge the marginal social returns from increasing R&D spending to be high, with the average belief placing benefits at about $3 per dollar invested. 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
    ---><---

    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.

    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: 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.