Abstract
This article outlines the evolution of a national research funding system over a timespan of more than 40 years and analyzes the development from a rather stable Humboldt-inspired floor funding model to a complex multi-tiered system where new mechanisms continually have been added on top of the system. Based on recent contributions to Historical Institutionalism it is shown how layering and displacement processes gradually have changed the funding system along a number of dimensions and thus how a series of minor adjustments over time has led to a transformation of the system as a whole. The analysis also highlights the remarkable resistance of the traditional academically oriented research council system towards restructuring. Due to this resistance the political system has, however, circumvented the research council system and implemented change through other channels of the funding system. For periods of time these strategies have marginalized the role of the councils.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In addition to the GRI’s, the Danish research and innovation system also comprises a network of nine independent research and technology organizations—the GTS institutes. The main function of the network is to disseminate new knowledge and technology to companies and public institutions in order to support innovation and development. The GTS institutes receive very limited public research funding.
Following a legislative amendment in 2008, the DNRF received an additional 3 billion DKK (approximately 402 million Euros). The annual level of distribution aims at an average of 400 million DKK (approximately 54 million Euros) corresponding to about two percent of total public research expenditure. Since its establishment, the DNRF has supported Danish research with 6.2 billion DKK (approximately 830 million Euros) primarily through its main funding instrument: the Centre of Excellence scheme (CoE) (Evaluation of the Danish National Research Foundation 2012).
Proposals from the three most research intensive Danish universities were eventually funded (two UNIK-centers at Copenhagen University, one at Aarhus University and one at the Technical University of Denmark). These universities received approximately 120 million DKK for each center (2009–2013).
References
Aagaard, Kaare. 2003. Forskningspolitik og tværdisciplinaritet. Rapport 2003/7. Analyseinstitut for Forskning.
Aagaard, Kaare. 2011. Kampen om basismidlerne. Historisk institutionel analyse af basisbevillingsmodellens udvikling på universitetsområdet i Danmark. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Political Science. Aarhus University.
Aagaard, Kaare, and Niels Mejlgaard (eds.). 2012. Dansk Forskningspolitik efter årtusindskiftet. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Aagaard, Kaare, and Tine Ravn. 2012. Forskningsrådssystemet—Tilføjelser og forskydninger. In Dansk Forskningspolitik efter årtusindskiftet (Chapter 8), eds. Kaare Aagaard, and Niels Mejlgaard. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Aagaard, Kaare, Hanne F. Hansen, and Jørgen G. Rasmussen. 2016. Mergers in Danish higher education: An overview over the changing landscape. In Mergers in higher education, eds. Romulo Pinheiro, Lars Geschwind, and Timo Aarrevaara, 73–88. Berlin: Springer.
Aagaard, Kaare, and Jesper W. Schneider. 2015. Research funding and national academic performance: Examination of a Danish success story. Science and Public Policy 43: 518–531. doi:10.1093/scipol/scv058.
Auranen, Otto, and Mika Nieminen. 2010. University research funding and publication performance: An international comparison. Research Policy 39(6): 822–834.
Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291–301.
Braun, Dietmar. 2003. Lasting tensions in research policy-making—a delegation problem. Science and Public Policy 30(5): 309–321.
Bush, Vannevar. 1945. Science, the endless frontier. A report to the President. Washington, DC: US Government Print Office.
Cohen, Wesley M., Richard R. Nelson, and John P. Walsh. 2002. Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48(1): 1–23.
Crespi, Gustavo A., and Aldo Geuna. 2008. An empirical study of scientific production: A cross country analysis, 1981–2002. Research Policy 37(4): 565–579.
Christiansen, Peter M., and Niels Christian Sidenius. 1988. Forsknings- og teknologipolitik i Danmark. Politica 20(3): 246–268.
The Danish Government. 2006. Progress, Innovation and Cohesion - The Danish Globalization Strategy. Copenhagen.
Edquist, Olle. 2003. Layered science and science policies. Minerva 41(3): 207–221.
Elzinga, Aant, and Andrew Jamison. 1995. Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In Handbook of science and technology studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald Markle, James Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, 572–597. London: Sage Publications.
Etzkowitz, Henry. 1999. Academia Agonistes: The ‘Triple Helix’ of Government-University-Industry Relationships in the United States. In Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view, eds. Dietmar Braun, and François-Xavier Merrien, 78–99. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy 29: 109–123.
Freeman, Christopher. 1987. Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London, UK: Pinter.
Hansen, Hanne Foss. 1996. Forskningsforvaltning og forskningspolitik: En diskussion af udviklingstendenser relateret til struktur, proces og indhold. Samfundsøkonomen 1996(3): 18–29.
Geuna, Aldo. 2001. The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues 35: 607–632.
Geuna, Aldo, and Ben R. Martin. 2003. University research evaluation and funding. Minerva 41: 277–304.
Gibbons, Michael, et al. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Godin, Benoit. 2005. Measurement and statistics on science and technology: 1920 to the present. London: Routledge.
Grønbæk, David. 2001. Mellem politik og Videnskab. Københavns Universitet.
Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932–950.
Guston, David H. 2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Irvine, John, Ben R. Martin, and P.A. Isard. 1990. Investing in the future: An international comparison of government funding of academic and related research. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
Hacker, Jacob S. 2004. Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. The American Political Science Review 98(2): 243–260.
Hicks, Diana. 2012. Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy 41(2): 251–261.
Hood, Christopher. 1995. The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20(2): 93–109.
Jensen, Bjarne L. 1996. Dansk forskningspolitik—fra finkultur til national strategi. Samfundsøkonomen 1996(3): 30–39.
Kline, Stephen J., and Nathan Rosenberg. 1986. An overview of innovation. In The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth, eds. Richard Landau, and Nathan Rosenberg, 275–306. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Laredo, Phillipe, and Phillipe Mustar. 2001. Research and innovation policies in the new global economy. An international comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lauridsen, Per Stig, and Ebbe Graversen. 2013. Forskning og udviklingsarbejde i den offentlige sektor 1967–2011. Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse. Aarhus Universitet.
Lepori, Benedetto. 2006. Public research funding and research policy: A long-term analysis for the Swiss case. Science and Public Policy 33(3): 205–216.
Lepori, Benedetto, et al. 2007. Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change? Science and Public Policy 34(6): 372–388.
Lundvall, Bengt Åke. 1992. National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Frances Pinter.
Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Thelen. 2010. Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, Ben R. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. Aldo Geuna, Ammon J. Salter, and W. Edward Steinmueller, 7–29. Edward Elgar.
Nelson, Richard R. (ed.). 1993. National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge creation company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Olesen Larsen, Peder. 1981. Forskningspolitik i et lille land. Rhodos.
Pavitt, Keith. 2001. Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (and what they should not learn). Industrial and Corporate Change 10(3): 761–779.
Potì, Bianca, and Emanuela Reale. 2007. Government and R&D allocation policies: An empirical exploration of changes in delegation and evaluation modes. Science and Public Policy 34(6): 417–430.
Rip, Arie. 1994. The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education 28: 3–23.
Schickler, Eric. 2001. Disjointed pluralism: Institutional innovation and the development of the US congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schneider, Jesper W., and Kaare Aagaard. 2012. Stor ståhej for ingenting. In Dansk Forskningspolitikefter årtusindskiftet (Chapter 8), eds. Kaare Aagaard, and Niels Mejlgaard. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Senker, J., et al. 1999. European comparison of public research systems. TSER Project No. SOE1-CT96-1036. Unpublished report.
Stehr, Nico. 1994. Knowledge societies. London: Sage.
Streeck, Wolfgang, and Kathleen Thelen. 2005. Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sörlin, Sverker. 2007. Funding diversity: Performance based funding regimes as drivers of differentiation in higher education systems. Higher Education Policy 20: 413–440.
Thelen, Kathleen. 2003. How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative Historical Analysis. In Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences, eds. James Mahoney, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, 208–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van der Meulen, Barend. 1998. Science policies as principal agent games: Institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science. Research Policy 27(4): 397–414.
Whitley, Richard, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall (eds.). 2010. Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ziman, John. 1994. Prometheus bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this article has been partly funded by the Norwegian Research Council through the ‘Center for Research Quality and Policy Impact Studies.’ Additional funding was provided by Aarhus Universitet (DK).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aagaard, K. The Evolution of a National Research Funding System: Transformative Change Through Layering and Displacement. Minerva 55, 279–297 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9317-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9317-1