Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:05:22.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Governs Intermediary Agencies? Principal-Agent Relations in Research Policy-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Dietmar Braun
Dietmar Braun
Affiliation:
Political Science, University of Heidelberg1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of semi-public intermediary institutions is underestimated in political research. This paper elaborates the dynamics of the interaction pattern of mission-agencies, promoting and conducting research in the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany. The principal-agent-model serves as the organizing theoretical concept. By stressing the role of the third party, usually neglected in the model, it is shown that intermediary agencies in policy-making are drawn into cooperative and almost symbiotic relationships with the recipients of programs. The use of intermediary agencies becomes a double-edged sword for policy-makers. While close relationships with the scientific community improve the acceptance of political research programs, the formulation of research policies becomes subject to compromise and coalition building within funding agencies.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 1993 , pp. 135 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, Kenneth J. (1985) The Economics of Agency. In Pratt, John W. and Zeckhauser, Richard J. (eds.), Principals and Agents. The Structure of Business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 37–51.Google Scholar
Bianco, William T. and Bates, Robert H. (1990) ‘Cooperation by Design: Leadership, Structure, and Collective Dilemmas’, American Political Science Review, 84, 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borst, Walter (1976) ‘Dezentralisiertes Management der Forschungsförderung: das System der Projekkträger’, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft 24, 1, pp. 14–18.Google Scholar
Braun, Dietmar (1991) Die Einfluβmöglichkeiten der Forschungsförderung auf Strukturprobleme der Gesundheitsforschunt in der Bundesrepublik. Schriftenreihe zum Programm der Bundesregierung Forschunt und Entwicklung im Dienste der Gesundheit. Band 15. Bonn: Wirtschaftsverlag NW.Google Scholar
Braun, Dietmar (1992) Probleme und Perspektiven der Gesundheitsforschung in den Vereinigten Staaten, Frankreich und England. Schriftenreihe zum Programm der Bundesregierung Forschung und Entwicklung im Dienste der Gesundheit. Band 23. Bonn: Wirtschaftsverlag NW.Google Scholar
Braun, Dietmar (1993) ‘Coping with Crisis: Biomedical Research in the United States and Great Britain’, Minerva. (forthcoming)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, James S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Deheuvels, Paul (1990) La Recherche Scientifique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Ewert, Paula and Lullies, Stefan (1985) Das Hochschulwesen in Frankreich – Geschichte, Strukturen und gegenwärtige Probleme im Vergleich. München: Bayerisches Staatsinstitut für Hochschulforschung und Hochschulplanung.Google Scholar
Geiger, Roger L. (1992) ‘Science, Universities, and National Defense, 1945–1970’. OSIRIS, 2nd series, 7, 94–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, Robert L. (1972) ‘Agencies of Research Support: Some Sociological Perspectives’. In Nagi, Saad Zaghloul (ed.), The social context of research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 193–227.Google Scholar
Hohn, Hans-Willy and Uwe, Schimank (1990) Konflikte und Gleichgewichte im Forschungssystem. Akteurkonstellationen und Entwicklungspfade in der staatlich finanzierten auβeruniversitären Forschung. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (1988) Priorities in Medical Research. Volume I. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Koch, Rudolf (1977) ‘Zur Diskussion: Projektträger’. Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft 25, 2, pp. 30–32.Google Scholar
Krauss, Gerhard (1991) ‘Die staatlich geförderte auβeruniversitäre Forschung in Frankreich’. Unpublished manuscript. Köln: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.Google Scholar
Lambright, Henry W. (1991) Governing Science and Technology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mayntz, Renate (1991) ‘Scientific research and political intervention – The structural development of publicly financed research in the Federal Republic of Germany’. In Battaglini, Andrea Orsi and Monaco, Fabio Roversi (eds.), The University within the research System – An international comparison. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 45–62.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary J. (1992) Managerial Dilemma. The Political Economy of Hierarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. (1984) ‘The New Economics of Organization’. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 4, pp. 739–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (1968) Reviews of National Science Policy: United States. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD (1972) The Research System. Comparative Survey of the Organisation and Financing of Fundamental Research. Volume 1: France, Germany, United Kindom. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD (1991) Choosing Priorities in Science and Technology. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Picard, Jean-Francois (1990) La république des savants. La recherche francaise et le CNRS. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Pratt, John W. and Zeckhauser, Richard J. (1985) Principals and Agents: an Overview. In Pratt, John W. and Zeckhauser, Richard J. (eds.), Principals and Agents. The Structure of Business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
Price, Don K. (1954) Government and Science. Their dynamic relation in American democracy. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz W. (1993) ‘Positive und negative Koordination in Verhandlungssystemen’. Discussion-Paper 93/1. Köln: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Bruce L. R. (1990) American Science Policy since World War II. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Sofsky, Wolfgang and Paris, Rainer (1991) Figurationen sozialer Macht. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strickland, Stephen P. (1972) Politics, Science and Dread Disease. A short history of United States medical research policy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, A. Landsborough (1987) Half a Century of Medical Research – Vol. 1. London: Medical Research Council.Google Scholar
Wainwright, Milton (1990) Miracle Cure. The Story of Penicillin and the Golden Age of Antibiotics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williamson, Oliver E. (1985) Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Zierold, Kurt (1968) Forschungsforderung in drei Epochen. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: Geschichte, Arbeitsweise, Kommentar. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar