This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
There has been a small number of studies of the effects of research and development on economic growth and on the productivity of resources employed in production. See Terleckyj, Nestor E., “Estimates of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Industrial R & D on Economic Growth”, in Terleckyj, N. E. (ed.),The State of Science and Research: Some New Indicators (Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, 1977), pp. 123–146. See also Denison, Edward R.,The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us (New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1952) pp. 229–255.
The classification of scientific and technological effort into these categories is not done without difficulty and requires the exercise of judgement because the categorical definitions overlap. The published data on federal government expenditures for research vary among sources depending upon whether the classification of expenditures into categories of basic research, applied research, and development is done by the institutions performing the research or by the governmental agencies supporting the research. These definitions are drawn from National Science Foundation,Review of Data on Research and Development, (April 1962), p. 8, quoted in Kendrick, John W.,The Formation and Stocks of Total Capital. (New York and London; Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 8.
The conditions of optimality and the exposition of the logical processes by which they are produced can be found in more complete and sophisticated form in any standard and easily available text book in intermediate microeconomic theory. See, for example, Mansfield, Edwin,Microeconomics: Theory and Applications, 3rd edn. (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1979); Hirshleifer, Jack,Price Theory and Applications, 2nd edn. (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980).
Mansfield, E., p. 451.
National Science Foundation,The Five-Year Outlook: Problems, Opportunities, and Constraints in Science and Technology (2 vols., Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980).
,The Five-Year Outlook: Problems, Opportunities, and Constraints in Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), vol. II, p. 464.
,The Five-Year Outlook: Problems, Opportunities, and Constraints in Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980). p. 465.
,The Five-Year Outlook: Problems, Opportunities, and Constraints in Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980). p. 467.
,The Five-Year Outlook: Problems, Opportunities, and Constraints in Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 467.
,The Five-Year Outlook: Problems, Opportunities, and Constraints in Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 467.
,The Five-Year Outlook: Problems, Opportunities, and Constraints in Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 464.
Byatt, I. C. R. and Cohen, A. V.,An Attempt to Quantify the Economic Benefits of Scientific Research (Science Policy Studies No. 4), (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1969).
Robbins, Lionel,An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 2nd edn. (London: Macmillan, 1935), p. 17.
National Science Foundation,Science Indicators 1978: Report of the National Science Board 1979 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), p. 6.
National Science Foundation,National Patterns of Science and Technology 1980 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 29.
, pp. 26, 27, 28.
, p. 25.
, pp. 30, 31.
National Science Foundation, ).
). vol. II, pp. 325ff.
). pp. 371ff.
), p. 361ff.
), pp. 437ff.
National Science Foundation,Science and Technology: Annual Report to the Congress, June 1980 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980). See ch. VII, “Fundamental Considerations on the Government Role in the Development and Commercialization of Technology”, pp. 53–60.
), p. 55.
National Science Foundation,Federal Funds for Research and Development, Fiscal Years 1979, 1980, 1981 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 14.
Ibid., National Science Foundation,Federal Funds for Research and Development, Fiscal Years 1979, 1980, 1981, p. 63.
National Science Foundation,Federal R & D Funding by Budget Function, Fiscal Years 1979–81 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), pp. 22–23.
National Science Foundation,Federal Funds for Research and Development, Fiscal Years 1979, 1980, and 1981, ), p. 34.
), p. 137.
National Science Foundation,An Analysis of Federal R & D Funding by Function (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 4.
), p. 40 and National Science Foundation,Federal R & D Funding by Budget Function, Fiscal Years 1979–81, p. 38.
National Science Foundation,An Analysis of Federal R & D Funding by Functions, ), p. 35 and National Science Foundation,Federal R & D Funding by Budget Function, Fiscal Years 1979–81, p. 10.
National Science Foundation,An Analysis of Federal R & D Funding by Function, ), p. 37 and National Science Foundation,Federal R & D Funding by Budget Function, Fiscal Years 1979–81, p. 22.
A large literature has grown up on the political element in science policy in the United States. See, for example, Katz, James Everett,Presidential Politics and Science Policy (New York and London: Praeger, 1978); Penick, J. L., Jr.,et. al (eds.),The Politics of American Science: 1939 to the Present (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965); Strasser, Gabor and Simons, Eugene M., (eds.),Science and Technology Policies, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1973); Golden, William T., (ed.),Science Advice to the President (New York: Pergamon, 1980); Regan, Michael D.,Science and the Federal Patron (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969); Greenberg, Daniel S.,The Politics of Pure Science (New York: The New American Library, 1967); Primack, Joel and von Hippel, Frank,Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena (New York: Basic Books, 1974); Dupré, J. Stefan and Lakoff, Sanford A.,Science and the Nation: Policy and Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962); Piccard, Paul J., (ed.),Science and Policy Issues (Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock, 1969); Jachim, Anton G.,Science Policy Making in the United States and the Batavia Accelerator (Carbondale and Edwardsville, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1971). There is also an immense literature on this subject in various journals of political science and science policy.
Katz, J. E.,, p. 160.
, p. 161.
, p. 131.
, p. 198.
, p. 108.
, p. 112.
Greenberg, D., ;
Robinson, David V., “Politics in the Science Advising Process”, in Golden, W.T. (ed.), ; pp. 153–163.
Jachim, A.G.,, p. 91.
Robinson, David V., pp. 154–155. See also Piel, Gerard, “Federal Science Policy and Support of Autonomous Universities: A Modest Proposal”, in Golden, W.T. (ed.),op. cit., Science Advice to the President (New York: Pergamon, 1980), pp. 143–152.
Polanyi, Michael, “The Republic of Science”,Minerva, I (Autumn 1962), pp. 54–73.
, pp. 60–61.
For a suggestive identification of the distinguished universities, see Roose, Kenneth D. and Andersen, Charles J.,A Rating of Graduate Programs, (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1970). This publication reports the results of a survey of university teachers who were asked to rank American universities with regard to the quality of their graduate programmes for each of a large number of disciplines.
Weinberg, Alvin M., “Criteria for Scientific Choice”,Minerva, I (Winter 1963), pp. 159–171.
Weinberg, Alvin M., “Criteria for Scientific Choice II: The Two Cultures”,Minerva, III (Autumn 1964), pp. 3–14.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rottenberg, S. The economy of science: The proper role of government in the growth of science. Minerva 19, 43–71 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02192548
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02192548