The Mix of Policy Rationales in Science and Technology Policy

Abstract

Abstract During the last twenty years significant shifts in the use of science and technology policy instruments of OECD-countries have taken place. This article asks if we can discern any coherent pattern in the policy design guiding these shifts. In order to answer this question, the dynamics of the of science and technology policy making since the 1980s are analysed. The analysis suggests that today's mix in policy instruments is neither the outcome of one unifying paradigm nor a random choice. Instead, there are legitimising and transformative discourses on various discursive levels (technological innovation, knowledge production, global governance) that exercise an influence on the choice of policy instruments. One can nevertheless distinguish two more encompassing discursive clusters, a modern and a postmodern one, that reduce the complexity of the discursive space and contribute to some coherence between policy on the various discursive levels. Introduction If one looks at the latest OECD publications dealing with the governance of public sector research, (2) one finds an astonishing variety of changes in the use of policy instruments during the last two decades in the majority of OECD-countries. To mention just a few and in no particular order: a shift from institutional to competitive grants, more (inclusive) priority setting, increasing use of centres of excellence and public-private partnerships, the establishment of contracts with public sector research and funding institutions, and an increasing role of foresight mechanisms. Without a doubt, the change in the use of research policy instruments has been important. However, one wonders to what extent these changes have been the result of a change in the guiding principles or rationales (3) of science and technology (S&T) policy makers? Is there any coherence in the shift of instruments as well as in the tool box of instruments that policy makers can use today? Without applying any serious content analysis, one can discern a number of key terms that are used by the OECD to explain why the shifts have taken place. Here one finds in close association to each other: strategic thinking, learning, reflexivity, thinking in relational and systemic terms, competition, accountability, efficiency, control, autonomy, enhancement of economic and social benefits of research, responsiveness to the civil society, cooperation, trust building, the fostering of networks, and the sustainability of academic research. Even a cursory glance reveals that the co-existence of such key terms is unlikely to be the result of one unifying policy rationale that has taken control of the governance design in S&T policy making. It is my contention in this article that policy makers and administrators of S&T policies are subject to several and varying ideational influences that give rise to a mix of policy and instruments. A mix does not mean that it cannot work or that it is inefficient. My intention here is only to identify the various that may influence the governance design at a given point in time and reveal their impact on the creation of S&T policies. This paper will proceed as follows: the next section explains why a mix of policy working in the (4) is more likely than the predominance of one unifying rationale. It distinguishes between a horizontal dimension and a vertical dimension of the discursive space. The ensuing sections discuss the driving forces that have initiated a general revision of S&T policies at the beginning of the 1980s and the cognitive changes that have taken place in S&T policies since the 1980s. It will be demonstrated that the policy-mix of instruments we find today is the result of relatively autonomous but not always independent changes in policy on various discursive levels and the ideational struggle between two encompassing discursive clusters that have emerged since the 1980s. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.