Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Evolution of a National Research Funding System: Transformative Change Through Layering and Displacement

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Source: Lauridsen & Graversen (2013)

Fig. 2

Source: Lauridsen & Graversen (2013)

Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Source: Lauridsen & Graversen (2013)

Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auranen, Otto, and Mika Nieminen. 2010. University research funding and publication performance: An international comparison. Research Policy 39(6): 822–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, Dietmar. 2003. Lasting tensions in research policy-making—a delegation problem. Science and Public Policy 30(5): 309–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, Peter M., and Niels Christian Sidenius. 1988. Forsknings- og teknologipolitik i Danmark. Politica 20(3): 246–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Christopher. 1987. Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London, UK: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, Hanne Foss. 1996. Forskningsforvaltning og forskningspolitik: En diskussion af udviklingstendenser relateret til struktur, proces og indhold. Samfundsøkonomen 1996(3): 18–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, Aldo. 2001. The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues 35: 607–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, Aldo, and Ben R. Martin. 2003. University research evaluation and funding. Minerva 41: 277–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, Michael, et al. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, Benoit. 2005. Measurement and statistics on science and technology: 1920 to the present. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H. 2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, Diana. 2012. Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy 41(2): 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, Christopher. 1995. The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20(2): 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Bjarne L. 1996. Dansk forskningspolitik—fra finkultur til national strategi. Samfundsøkonomen 1996(3): 30–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laredo, Phillipe, and Phillipe Mustar. 2001. Research and innovation policies in the new global economy. An international comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepori, Benedetto, et al. 2007. Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change? Science and Public Policy 34(6): 372–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, Bengt Åke. 1992. National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Frances Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Thelen. 2010. Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge creation company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 1994. The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education 28: 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schickler, Eric. 2001. Disjointed pluralism: Institutional innovation and the development of the US congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, Wolfgang, and Kathleen Thelen. 2005. Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sörlin, Sverker. 2007. Funding diversity: Performance based funding regimes as drivers of differentiation in higher education systems. Higher Education Policy 20: 413–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, John. 1994. Prometheus bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Department of Political Science and Government, Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Building 1331, Room 025, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Kaare Aagaard

Authors
  1. Kaare Aagaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaare Aagaard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9317-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation