The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 29–37 | Cite as

Red tape and technology transfer in US government laboratories

  • Barry Bozeman
  • Michael Maurice Crow
Research

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to gauge the effects of red tape and bureaucratization on the technology-transfer activities and effectiveness of government laboratories in the United States. Two central questions are addressed: Do laboratories involved significantly in technology transfer have more red tape than others? and Does the level of red tape have an effect on technology-transfer success? Objective and perceptual measures of red tape are used. Technologytransfer effectiveness is measured in terms of getting other organizations to adopt technology developed in the laboratory (“out the door” success) and of the commercial impact of transfers. Data are derived from questionnaire responses provided by directors of 276 federal- and state-government laboratories. Results indicate that laboratories involved in technology transfer do not have higher levels of red tape. Out-the-door technology-transfer success relates strongly to low degrees of perceived red tape, whereas high ratings for commercial impact are associated with actual low levels of red tape in acquiring project funding and lowcost equipment.

Keywords

United States Economic Growth Technology Transfer Industrial Organization Central Question 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bozeman, Barry, and Michael Crow (1988).The U.S. R&D Laboratory System: The Effect of Public and Market Influence. Report prepared for the National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bozeman, Barry, and Michael Crow (1990).The Environments of U.S. R&D Laboratories: Political and Market Influences. Policy Sciences, Vol. 23, pp. 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crow, Michael, and Barry Bozeman (September 1989).Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fesler, James, and D. Kettl (1991).The Politics of the Administrative Process. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaufman, Herbert (1977)Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses and Abuses. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dupree, H. G. (1986).Science and the Federal Government, second edition. Cambridge, MA: The Bollings Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bagur, J., and A. Guissinger (1987).Technology Transfer Legislation: An Overview. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 12, pp. 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De la Barre, D. (1985).Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1985. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 10, pp. 31–45.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rahm, D., B. Bozeman, and M. Crow (1988).Domestic Technology Transfer and Competitiveness: An Empirical Assessment of the Roles of University and Government R&D Laboratories. Public Administration Review, Vol. 48, pp. 969–978.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bozeman, B., and M. Fellows (1987).Technology Transfer at the U.S. National Laboratories: A Framework for Evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning Vol. 11, pp. 65–75.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bozeman, B. (June 1991)Evaluating Government Laboratories' Technology Transfer Effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Technology Transfer Society, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chandler, R.C., and J.C. Plano (1982).The Public Administration Dictionary. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blau, P.M., and W.R. Scott (1982).Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Merton, R.K. (1940).Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Forces, Vol. 17, pp. 560–68.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goulder, A.W. (1952).Red Tape as a Social Problem. In Robert Merton (ed.)Reader in Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    March, J., and H. Simon (1958).Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber, M. (1946).From Max Weber: Essays in sociology translated, edited, and with an introduction by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thompson, V. (1963).Modern Organizations. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibid. (1977).Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses and Abuses. Washington, DC: Brockings Institution, Kaufman, 5, p. 2.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodsell, C. (1985).The Case for Bureaucracy. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ibid., Kaufman, 5, p. 4.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ibid.Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31. Crow and Bozeman.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ibid., Bozeman and Crow (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibid.Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31, Crow and Bozeman.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ibid.Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31. Crow and Bozeman.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hall, R. (1963).The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment. American Society of Sociology, Vol. 69, pp. 32–40.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meyer, M., and M. Brown (1977).The Process of Bureaucratization. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 364–85.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meyer, M. (1972).Bureaucratic Structure and Authority: Coordination and Control in 254 Government Agencies. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., Goodsell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Technology Transfer Society 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry Bozeman
    • 1
  • Michael Maurice Crow
    • 1
  1. 1.Syracuse UniversitySyracaseUSA

Personalised recommendations