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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
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.
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.
Crow, Michael, and Barry Bozeman (September 1989).Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31.
Fesler, James, and D. Kettl (1991).The Politics of the Administrative Process. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishing.
Kaufman, Herbert (1977)Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses and Abuses. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Dupree, H. G. (1986).Science and the Federal Government, second edition. Cambridge, MA: The Bollings Press of Harvard University.
Bagur, J., and A. Guissinger (1987).Technology Transfer Legislation: An Overview. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 12, pp. 51–63.
De la Barre, D. (1985).Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1985. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 10, pp. 31–45.
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.
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.
Bozeman, B. (June 1991)Evaluating Government Laboratories' Technology Transfer Effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Technology Transfer Society, Denver, Colorado.
Chandler, R.C., and J.C. Plano (1982).The Public Administration Dictionary. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Blau, P.M., and W.R. Scott (1982).Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing.
Merton, R.K. (1940).Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Forces, Vol. 17, pp. 560–68.
Goulder, A.W. (1952).Red Tape as a Social Problem. In Robert Merton (ed.)Reader in Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.
March, J., and H. Simon (1958).Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
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.
Thompson, V. (1963).Modern Organizations. New York: Knopf.
Ibid. (1977).Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses and Abuses. Washington, DC: Brockings Institution, Kaufman, 5, p. 2.
Goodsell, C. (1985).The Case for Bureaucracy. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
Ibid., Kaufman, 5, p. 4.
Ibid.Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31. Crow and Bozeman.
Ibid., Bozeman and Crow (1990).
Ibid.Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31, Crow and Bozeman.
Ibid.Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31. Crow and Bozeman.
Hall, R. (1963).The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment. American Society of Sociology, Vol. 69, pp. 32–40.
Meyer, M., and M. Brown (1977).The Process of Bureaucratization. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 364–85.
Meyer, M. (1972).Bureaucratic Structure and Authority: Coordination and Control in 254 Government Agencies. New York: Harper and Row.
Ibid., Goodsell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Director of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs' Technology and Information Policy Program. His research on technology transfer and R&D policy has been published in a variety of journals and he has written such books asInvestments in Technology: Corporate Strategy and Public Policy (with Albert Link) andPublic Management Strategies (with Jeffrey Straussman). Bozeman received his Ph.D. in political science from Ohio State University in 1973.
Michael Maurice Crow is associate vice-provost for science and technology at Columbia University. Previously, at the time this paper was written, he was director of the Institute for Physical Research and Technology at Iowa State University. Crow has authored the bookSynthetic Fuels Technology Development in the U.S.: A Retrospective Assessment. He received a Ph.D. in science policy at Syracuse University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bozeman, B., Crow, M.M. Red tape and technology transfer in US government laboratories. J Technol Transfer 16, 29–37 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02371354
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02371354
Keywords
- United States
- Economic Growth
- Technology Transfer
- Industrial Organization
- Central Question