Skip to main content

Inequity in the distribution of science and technology outcomes: a conceptual model

Policy Sciences volume 44, pages 231–248 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

We propose a conceptual model to encourage systematic analysis of social equity issues of science policy. The model considers the relationships among several attributes of science and technology goods and services including the incidence of its impact, degree of concentration, and whether its consumption generates capacity for the individual or groups or is “hedonic,” that is, short term and diminishing rapidly in its effects. We discuss the implications of the model in terms of four quite different types of equity. We conclude by suggesting some respects in which the model could be employed to facilitate public policy and moral deliberations about the effects of science and technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. See their website at www.loka.org.

References

  • Acharya, T. (2007). Science and technology for wealth and health in developing countries. Global Public Health, 2(1), 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Angeletos, G. (2005). Fairness and redistribution. American Economic Review, 95(4), 950–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M., & Rosset, P. (1999). Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world. AgBioForum, 2, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Cancer Society. (2008). Breast cancer facts and figures, 2007–2008. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1971). A utilitarian approach to the concept of equality in public expenditures. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85(3), 409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A., & Jackman, R. W. (1985). Political democracy and the size distribution of income. American Sociological Review, 50(4), 438–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branscomb, L. M. (1992). Does America need a technology policy? Harvard Business Review, March–April, 24–31.

  • Caswill, C., & Shove, E. (2000). Introducing interactive social science. Science and Public Policy, 27(3), 154–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. S., & Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 217–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, S. E. (2007). Distributive justice in science and technology policy. Science and Public Policy, 34(2), 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, J. (2009). Finland makes broadband a legal right. PC World, October 14. http://www.pcworld.com/article/173691/.html. Accessed October 25, 2009.

  • Ellul, J. (1967). The technological society. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellul, J. (1992). Technology and democracy. In L. Winner (Ed.), Democracy in a technological society. Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (2000). Democracy, expertise, and AIDS treatment activism: science technology and democracy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, P. (1999). Infections and inequalities: the modern plagues. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielder, J. (1992). Autonomous technology, democracy, and the Nimbys. In L. Winner (Ed.), Democracy in a technological society. Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano, S., Buzdar, A., & Hortobagyi, G. (2002). Breast cancer in men. Annals of Internal Medicine, 137, 678–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, J. (1998). What is the role of science in developing countries? Science, 279(5354), 1140.

  • Goldin, K. (1977). Equal access vs. selective access: A critique of public goods theory. Public Choice, 29(1), 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. S. (1985). Basic human needs: The plateau curve. World Development, 13(5), 595–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (2006). Science and social inequality: Feminist and post-colonial issues. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsch, E. (2004). Agriculture: Africa’s engine for growth. Africa Recovery, 17(4), 13–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, F., Miller, N., Senker, P., & Wyatt, S. (2001). Technology and in/equality: Questioning the information society. New York: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, C. (2002). Genetic engineering, the farm crisis, and world hunger. BioScience, 52(6), 523–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kouzmin, A. (2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? A growing agenda for debate. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellog, W., & Mathur, A. (2003). Environmental justice and information technologies: overcoming the information-access paradox in urban communities. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 573–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbrell, A. (1998). Why biotechnology and high-tech agriculture cannot feed the world. The Ecologist, 28(5), September/October.

  • Kleinman, D. (2000). Science, technology, and democracy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, N., & Gross, P. (1994). The perils of democratizing science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B1, B2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lievrouw, L. A., & Farb, S. E. (2003). Information and equity. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 499–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, J. R. (1965). Against equality. Philosophy, 40(154), 297–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meeker, B. F., & Elliot, G. C. (1987). Counting the costs: Equity and the allocation of negative group products. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(1), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mookherjee, D., & Ray, D. (2003). Persistent inequality. Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 369–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, B. E., & Dixon, W. J. (1985). Politics, the state, and basic human needs: A cross-national study. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 661–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. D. (1979). Measuring the conditions of the world’s poor. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D. C. (1976). Public choice: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 14(2), 395–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council on Disability. (2001). The accessible future. Washington, DC. June 21.

  • Nelson, R. (1981). Research on productivity growth and productivity differences: Dead ends and new departures. Journal of Economic Literature, 19(3), 1029–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (2003). On the uneven evolution of human know-how. Research Policy, 32(6), 909–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, J. (2009). Has Apple produced too much of a good thing with its IPhone? Brisbane Courier/Mail. October 20. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26237576-8362,00.html. Accessed October 25, 2009.

  • Pazner, E. A., & Schmeidler, D. (1978). Egalitarian equivalent allocations: A new concept of economic equity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 92(4), 671–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persley, G. J., & Lantin, M. M. (1999). Agricultural biotechnology and the poor. DC: Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plough, A., & Krimsky, S. (1990). The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context. In T. Glickman & M. Gough (Eds.), Readings in risk. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portner, P. (2001). Economics of devices. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 71(3S), 199–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poynter, G., & De Miranda, A. (2000). Inequality, work, and technology in the services sector. New York: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radošević, S. (1999). International technology transfer and catch-up in economic development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raphael, D. D. (1946). Equality and equity. Philosophy, 21(79), 118–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, J. (2003). Will Frankenfood save the planet? Atlantic Monthly, October.

  • Reader, S. (2006). Does a basic needs approach need capabilities? Journal of Philosophy, 14(3), 337–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, J. J. (1755). Discourse on the origin and foundations of inequality among men Translated in 1992 by Donald Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruttan, V. (2001). Technology, growth and development. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (1993). The mother of necessity: Technology policy and social equity. Science and Public Policy, 20(6), 411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schensul, J. (2002). Democratizing science through social science research partnerships. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 22(3), 190–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, H. (1996). Information inequality: The deepening social crisis in America. London, UK: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sclove, R. (1992). The nuts and bolts of democracy. In L. Winner (Ed.), Democracy in a Technological Society. The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T., Matland, R., Michelbach, P., & Bornstein, B. (2001). Just deserts: An experimental study of distributive justice norms. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 749–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1973). Poverty, inequality, and unemployment: Some conceptual issues in measurement. Economic and Political Weekly, 8(31/33), 1457–1464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senker, P. (2003). Biotech and inequality. London: Department of Innovation Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the mind: Perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. (1999). Stolen harvest: The hijacking of the global food supply. Boston: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. A., & Daar, A. S. (2001). Harnessing genomics and biotechnology to improve global health equity. Science, 294(5540), 87–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. (1990). American science policy since World War II. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, G., Allen, N., & Resta, P. (2002). Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education. The United Kingdom: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stepan, N. (1978). The interplay between socio-economic factors and medical science: Yellow fever research, Cuba and the United States. Social Studies of Science, 8(4), 397–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesh, S. (1998). Hidden arguments: Political ideology and disease prevention policy. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesh, S. (2000). Uncertain hazards. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., & Wyatt, S. (2000). Access is not the only problem: Using and controlling the internet. New York: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2005). Emerging issues in science and technology for Africa’s development. New York: Economic Commission for Africa, Sustainable Development Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) Health People 2010. See http://www.healthypeople.gov/Publications/Cornerstone.pdf. Accessed 3-01-10.

  • Varian, H. (1975). Distributive justice, welfare economics, and the theory of fairness. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 4(3), 223–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachelder, J. (2003). Democratizing science: various routes and visions of Dutch science shops. Science, Technology and Human Values, 28(2), 244–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartofsky, M. (1992). Technology, power, and truth: Political and epistemological reflections on the fourth revolution. In L. Winner (Ed.), Democracy in a technological society. The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R., Crawford, M., & Farley, S. (2003) Strategic approaches to science and technology in development. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3026, April 2003.

  • Winner, L. (1992). Democracy in a technological society. The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, E., & Sarewit, D. (2007). Science policies for reducing societal inequities. Science and Public Policy, 34(2.1), 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wresch, W. (1996). Disconnected: Haves and have-nots in the information age. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, S., Henwood, F., et al. (2000). Technology and in/equality. New York, NY: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaal, R., & Leydesdorff, L. (1987). Amsterdam science shop and its influence on university research: The effects of ten years of dealing with non-academic questions. Science and Public Policy, 14(6), 310–316.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration and Policy, University of Georgia, 204 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA, 30602-1615, USA

    Barry Bozeman & Catherine P. Slade

  2. The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, 200 Eggers Hall, Syracuse, NY, 13244-1020, USA

    Paul Hirsch

Authors
  1. Barry Bozeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine P. Slade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Hirsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry Bozeman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bozeman, B., Slade, C.P. & Hirsch, P. Inequity in the distribution of science and technology outcomes: a conceptual model. Policy Sci 44, 231–248 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9132-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9132-8

Keywords

  • Science and technology policy
  • Equity
  • Public values