Coping with environmental pressures: public research organisations responses to funding crises

Abstract The research system is highly dependent upon the resources provided by the political system. Rising costs of research projects and the emergence of financial problems in government have triggered a reduction in direct support to public research organisations (PROs). The aim of this paper is to analyse how a group of Spanish public research organisations affected by the reduction in direct transfers of State funds have reacted to this situation. By reviewing the PROs’ responses, an institutionalist argument is built up based on the degree and type of autonomy which the centres and researchers enjoy. Factors which explain the diversity in response of the centres in their funding strategies are: (a) the political autonomy of the PROs with respect to their tutelary ministries, and (b) the autonomy of the researchers within the organisation, the nature of the individual incentive programmes and their level of dependence on collective resources.

[1]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Do You Get What You Deserve? Factors Affecting the Relationship between Productivity and Pay. , 1990 .

[2]  Derek J. de Solla Price,et al.  "Little Science, Big Science", Derek J. de Solla Price, New York-London 1963 : [recenzja] / Janusz Thor. , 1964 .

[3]  U. Sandström,et al.  Inertia and change in Scandinavian public-sector research systems: the case of biotechnology , 2000 .

[4]  Etel Solingen.  Between markets and the state: scientists in comparative perspective , 1993 .

[5]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  A new typology for R&D laboratories: Implications for policy analysts , 1987 .

[6]  L. Sanz-Menéndez.  Research actors and the state: research evaluation and evaluation of science and technology policies in Spain , 1995 .

[7]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  The environments of U.S. R&D laboratories: political and market influences , 1990 .

[8]  AUTONOMÍA Y ADAPTACIÓN ORGANIZATIVA: LOS CENTROS DE INVESTIGACIÓN ANTE LOS CAMBIOS DEL ENTORNO , 2001 .

[9]  L. Georghiou,et al.  Administrative Reform of United Kingdom Government Research Establishments: Case studies of new organisational forms , 2001 .

[10]  D. Price,et al.  Little Science, Big Science and Beyond , 1986 .

[11]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  R&D laboratory classification and public policy: The effects of environmental context on laboratory behavior , 1987 .

[12]  B. Martin,et al.  Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners , 1984 .

[13]  Vincent Mangematin,et al.  Profile of public laboratories, industrial partnerships and organisation of R & D: the dynamics of industrial relationships in a large research organisation , 1996 .

[14]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[15]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. , 1979 .

[16]  R. Emerson.  Power-Dependence Relations , 1962, Power in Modern Societies.

[17]  Luis Sanz Menéndez,et al.  Explaining changes and continuity in EU technology policy: the politics of ideas , 2000 .

[18]  David McHugh,et al.  Organisations and environments , 1995 .

[19]  K. Knorr-Cetina.  The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science , 1985 .

[20]  Introduction to a special issue on changing organisation and structure of European public-sector research systems , 2000 .

[21]  U. Schimank,et al.  Coping with Trouble as a Complex Constellation of Political and Research Actors: Introducing a Theoretical Perspective , 1994 .

[22]  Andrew Jamison,et al.  Changing Policy Agendas in Science and Technology , 1995 .

[23]  Vololona Rabeharisoa,et al.  The Management and Evaluation of Technological Programs and the Dynamics of Techno-economic networks , 1992 .

[24]  S. Woolgar,et al.  The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science , 1982 .

[25]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Evaluating Government Technology Transfer: Early Impacts of the “Cooperative Technology Paradigm” , 1994 .

[26]  J. L. Facal,et al.  Los Organismos Públicos de Investigación (OPIS) , 1998 .

[27]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , 1995 .

[28]  Philippe Larédo,et al.  Laboratory Activity Profiles: An Exploratory Approach , 2004, Scientometrics.

[29]  B. Bozeman,et al.  R&D laboratories in the USA: Structure, capacity and context , 1991 .

[30]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[31]  Luis Sanz Menéndez.  Estado, ciencia y tecnología en España: 1939-1997 , 1997 .

[32]  A. Rip.  The republic of science in the 1990s , 1994 .

[33]  U. Schimank,et al.  A Theoretical Examination of the Cases: Why Coping is Often Difficult and Defective , 1994 .

[34]  Government Laboratories - Transition and Transformation , 2001 .

[35]  Luis Sanz Menéndez,et al.  The vicissitudes of Spanish science and technology policy: coordination and leadership , 1993 .