Policy Sciences

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 231–248 | Cite as

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

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.

Keywords

Science and technology policy Equity Public values 

References

  1. Acharya, T. (2007). Science and technology for wealth and health in developing countries. Global Public Health, 2(1), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., & Angeletos, G. (2005). Fairness and redistribution. American Economic Review, 95(4), 950–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. American Cancer Society. (2008). Breast cancer facts and figures, 2007–2008. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society.Google Scholar
  5. Arrow, K. J. (1971). A utilitarian approach to the concept of equality in public expenditures. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85(3), 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollen, K. A., & Jackman, R. W. (1985). Political democracy and the size distribution of income. American Sociological Review, 50(4), 438–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Branscomb, L. M. (1992). Does America need a technology policy? Harvard Business Review, MarchApril, 24–31.Google Scholar
  8. Caswill, C., & Shove, E. (2000). Introducing interactive social science. Science and Public Policy, 27(3), 154–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, K. S., & Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cozzens, S. E. (2007). Distributive justice in science and technology policy. Science and Public Policy, 34(2), 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cross, J. (2009). Finland makes broadband a legal right. PC World, October 14. http://www.pcworld.com/article/173691/.html. Accessed October 25, 2009.
  12. Ellul, J. (1967). The technological society. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  13. Ellul, J. (1992). Technology and democracy. In L. Winner (Ed.), Democracy in a technological society. Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Epstein, S. (2000). Democracy, expertise, and AIDS treatment activism: science technology and democracy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  15. Farmer, P. (1999). Infections and inequalities: the modern plagues. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fielder, J. (1992). Autonomous technology, democracy, and the Nimbys. In L. Winner (Ed.), Democracy in a technological society. Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Giordano, S., Buzdar, A., & Hortobagyi, G. (2002). Breast cancer in men. Annals of Internal Medicine, 137, 678–687.Google Scholar
  18. Goldenberg, J. (1998). What is the role of science in developing countries? Science, 279(5354), 1140.Google Scholar
  19. Goldin, K. (1977). Equal access vs. selective access: A critique of public goods theory. Public Choice, 29(1), 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldstein, J. S. (1985). Basic human needs: The plateau curve. World Development, 13(5), 595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harding, S. (2006). Science and social inequality: Feminist and post-colonial issues. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  22. Harsch, E. (2004). Agriculture: Africa’s engine for growth. Africa Recovery, 17(4), 13–15.Google Scholar
  23. Henwood, F., Miller, N., Senker, P., & Wyatt, S. (2001). Technology and in/equality: Questioning the information society. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jordan, C. (2002). Genetic engineering, the farm crisis, and world hunger. BioScience, 52(6), 523–529.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kimbrell, A. (1998). Why biotechnology and high-tech agriculture cannot feed the world. The Ecologist, 28(5), September/October.Google Scholar
  28. Kleinman, D. (2000). Science, technology, and democracy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  31. Levitt, N., & Gross, P. (1994). The perils of democratizing science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B1, B2.Google Scholar
  32. Lievrouw, L. A., & Farb, S. E. (2003). Information and equity. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 499–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lucas, J. R. (1965). Against equality. Philosophy, 40(154), 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mookherjee, D., & Ray, D. (2003). Persistent inequality. Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 369–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morris, M. D. (1979). Measuring the conditions of the world’s poor. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mueller, D. C. (1976). Public choice: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 14(2), 395–433.Google Scholar
  40. National Council on Disability. (2001). The accessible future. Washington, DC. June 21.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Nelson, R. (2003). On the uneven evolution of human know-how. Research Policy, 32(6), 909–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.
  44. Pazner, E. A., & Schmeidler, D. (1978). Egalitarian equivalent allocations: A new concept of economic equity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 92(4), 671–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Persley, G. J., & Lantin, M. M. (1999). Agricultural biotechnology and the poor. DC: Washington.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Portner, P. (2001). Economics of devices. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 71(3S), 199–204.Google Scholar
  48. Poynter, G., & De Miranda, A. (2000). Inequality, work, and technology in the services sector. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  49. Radošević, S. (1999). International technology transfer and catch-up in economic development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Raphael, D. D. (1946). Equality and equity. Philosophy, 21(79), 118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rauch, J. (2003). Will Frankenfood save the planet? Atlantic Monthly, October.Google Scholar
  52. Reader, S. (2006). Does a basic needs approach need capabilities? Journal of Philosophy, 14(3), 337–350.Google Scholar
  53. Rousseau, J. J. (1755). Discourse on the origin and foundations of inequality among men Translated in 1992 by Donald Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  54. Ruttan, V. (2001). Technology, growth and development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sarewitz, D. (1993). The mother of necessity: Technology policy and social equity. Science and Public Policy, 20(6), 411.Google Scholar
  56. Schensul, J. (2002). Democratizing science through social science research partnerships. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 22(3), 190–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schiller, H. (1996). Information inequality: The deepening social crisis in America. London, UK: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  58. Sclove, R. (1992). The nuts and bolts of democracy. In L. Winner (Ed.), Democracy in a Technological Society. The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sen, A. (1973). Poverty, inequality, and unemployment: Some conceptual issues in measurement. Economic and Political Weekly, 8(31/33), 1457–1464.Google Scholar
  61. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Senker, P. (2003). Biotech and inequality. London: Department of Innovation Studies.Google Scholar
  63. Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the mind: Perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  64. Shiva, V. (1999). Stolen harvest: The hijacking of the global food supply. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  65. Singer, P. A., & Daar, A. S. (2001). Harnessing genomics and biotechnology to improve global health equity. Science, 294(5540), 87–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith, B. (1990). American science policy since World War II. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  67. Solomon, G., Allen, N., & Resta, P. (2002). Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education. The United Kingdom: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tesh, S. (1998). Hidden arguments: Political ideology and disease prevention policy. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Tesh, S. (2000). Uncertain hazards. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Thomas, G., & Wyatt, S. (2000). Access is not the only problem: Using and controlling the internet. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  72. Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  73. United Nations. (2005). Emerging issues in science and technology for Africa’s development. New York: Economic Commission for Africa, Sustainable Development Division.Google Scholar
  74. United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) Health People 2010. See http://www.healthypeople.gov/Publications/Cornerstone.pdf. Accessed 3-01-10.
  75. Varian, H. (1975). Distributive justice, welfare economics, and the theory of fairness. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 4(3), 223–247.Google Scholar
  76. Wachelder, J. (2003). Democratizing science: various routes and visions of Dutch science shops. Science, Technology and Human Values, 28(2), 244–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Watson, R., Crawford, M., & Farley, S. (2003) Strategic approaches to science and technology in development. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3026, April 2003.Google Scholar
  80. Winner, L. (1992). Democracy in a technological society. The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  81. Woodhouse, E., & Sarewit, D. (2007). Science policies for reducing societal inequities. Science and Public Policy, 34(2.1), 139–150.Google Scholar
  82. Wresch, W. (1996). Disconnected: Haves and have-nots in the information age. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Wyatt, S., Henwood, F., et al. (2000). Technology and in/equality. New York, NY: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  84. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry Bozeman
    • 1
  • Catherine P. Slade
    • 1
  • Paul Hirsch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Public Administration and PolicyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations