IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipp/wpaper/1301.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Citizens’ support for government spending on Science and Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Luis Sanz-Menéndez
  • Gregg Van Ryzin
  • Eloísa Del Pino

Abstract

This paper analyses public support for government spending on science and technology (S&T) and its determinants. It constructs hypotheses based on previous findings from two streams of research: public preferences for government spending and public understanding of science. Using data from a large national survey in Spain, it develops multivariate models to test the relevance of various predictors of public support for government spending on S&T. Findings identify several variables that are clear and consistent predictors of public support for government spending on science and technology: the respondent’s educational level, interest and participation in science, knowledge of science, and positive values and views of science and technology. However, the effects of other variables also related with general attitudes toward science are less clearly associated with support for government spending on S&T.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis Sanz-Menéndez & Gregg Van Ryzin & Eloísa Del Pino, 2013. "Citizens’ support for government spending on Science and Technology," Working Papers 1301, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    • Handle: RePEc:ipp:wpaper:1301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://investigacion.cchs.csic.es/RePEc/ipp/wpaper/csic-ipp-wp-2013-01_sanz.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jerome S. Legge Jr. & Robert F. Durant, 2010. "Public Opinion, Risk Assessment, and Biotechnology: Lessons from Attitudes toward Genetically Modified Foods in the European Union," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(1), pages 59-76, January.
    2. Stefan Svallfors, 2003. "Welfare Regimes and Welfare Opinions: a Comparison of Eight Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 64(3), pages 495-520, December.
    3. Giulia Anichini & Suzanne de Cheveigné, 2012. "Overview of research related to science in society in Europe," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 701-709, December.
    4. Jerry Sheehan & Andrew Wyckoff, 2003. "Targeting R&D: Economic and Policy Implications of Increasing R&D Spending," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2003/8, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Liangliang Liu & Wenqing Zhang, 2022. "Vertical fiscal imbalance and government spending on science and technology in China," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 1953-1971, August.

    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. Liebig, Stefan & Schupp, Jürgen, 2008. "Leistungs- oder Bedarfsgerechtigkeit? Über einen normativen Zielkonflikt des Wohlfahrtsstaats und seiner Bedeutung für die Bewertung des eigenen Erwerbseinkommens," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(1), pages 7-30.
    2. Carl Hult & Jonas Edlund, 2008. "Age and labour market commitment in Germany, Denmark, Norway and Sweden," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 22(1), pages 109-128, March.
    3. Takanori Sumino, 2016. "Level or Concentration? A Cross-national Analysis of Public Attitudes Towards Taxation Policies," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 1115-1134, December.
    4. Franziska Disslbacher & Julia Hofmann, 2021. "Einstellungen zum Wohlfahrtsstaat und dessen Finanzierung in Österreich," Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - WuG, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik, vol. 47(3), pages 329-360.
    5. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello & Sara Amoroso & Michele Cincera, 0. "Corporate R&D intensity decomposition: different data, different results?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 458-473.
    6. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    7. Tosun, Jale & Schaub, Simon, 2015. "To mobilize or not: political attention and the regulation of GMOs," GMCC-15: Seventh GMCC, November 17-20, 2015, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 211493, International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM based Agricultural Supply Chains (GMCC).
    8. Levi, Sebastian, 2021. "Living standards shape individual attitudes on genetically modified food around the world," SocArXiv kqdje, Center for Open Science.
    9. Cem Baslevent & Hasan Kirmanoglu, 2015. "Quality of government, egalitarianism, and welfare state attitudes," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(4), pages 2877-2887.
    10. Brecard, Dorothee & Fougeyrollas, Arnaud & Le Mouel, Pierre & Lemiale, Lionel & Zagame, Paul, 2006. "Macro-economic consequences of European research policy: Prospects of the Nemesis model in the year 2030," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 910-924, September.
    11. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello & Nicola Grassano, 2022. "The EU vs US corporate R&D intensity gap: investigating key sectors and firms [A primer on innovation and growth]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 31(1), pages 19-38.
    12. Gelauff, George & Lejour, Arjan, 2006. "The new Lisbon Strategy: An estiamtion of the impact of reaching 5 Lisbon targets," MPRA Paper 16168, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Cunningham, James & Link, Albert, 2014. "Fostering University‐Industry R&D Collaborations in European Union Countries," UNCG Economics Working Papers 14-3, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    14. Jakobsson, Niklas & Kotsadam, Andreas, 2009. "Do attitudes toward gender equality really differ between Norway and Sweden?," Working Papers in Economics 352, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Athukorala, Prema-chandra & Kohpaiboon, Archanun, 2010. "Globalization of R&D by US-based multinational enterprises," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1335-1347, December.
    16. Isabel Grilo & Gert Koopman, 2006. "Productivity and Microeconomic Reforms: Strengthening EU Competitiveness," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 67-84, June.
    17. Busemeyer, Marius R. & Goerres, Achim & Weschle, Simon, 2008. "Demands for redistributive policies in an era of demographic aging: The rival pressures from age and class in 15 OECD countries," MPIfG Discussion Paper 08/3, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    18. Davis, Nick, 2006. "Business R&D, Innovation and Economic Growth: An Evidence-Based Synthesis of the Policy Issues," Occasional Papers 06/8, Ministry of Economic Development, New Zealand.
    19. George Gelauff & Arjan Lejour, 2006. "Five Lisbon highlights; the economic impact of reaching these targets," CPB Document 104.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    20. Robert Grafstein, 2015. "Public pensions and the intergenerational politics of aging societies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(3), pages 457-484, July.

    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:ipp:wpaper:1301. 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: Adelheid Holl (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ippcses.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.