the role of scientists in science and technology ......the role of scientists in science and...
Post on 29-Sep-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The Role of Scientists in Science and Technology Policymaking in China:
Based on 863 Program
Peng Ru
Research FellowEnergy Technology Innovation Policy GroupKennedy School of GovernmentHarvard University
Ph.D. CandidateSchool of Public Policy and ManagementTsinghua University
ETIP seminar series Dec. 4, 2007
2
“I want you to make sure you understand the reality of this situation. I’ve given you all the sincerity that I could give to you. But the reason you are here is not why you think you are here, OK?The reason you are here is to try to win a debatewith some industries in this country who are afraid to look forward to a new energy future for this nation. And the reason you are here is try to create doubt about whether this country should move forward with the new technological, clean-energy future, or whether we should remain addicted to fossil fuels. That’s the reason you are here.”——Words from Rep. Congressman Inslee to Edward Wegman, a
scientific witness of a hearing about global temperature record held by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, July 19th, 2006
Source: (Freese,2006)
3
The decline of scientists’ influence
In the U.S.:The role of science adviser was in decline from the moment that President Eisenhower tellingly rushed through Killian’s appointment ceremony in order to depart for an eagerly anticipated golf vacation in Augusta, Georgia.
Source: (Pielke,2007a)
In China:
Policy makers policy advisors
4
Questions
What are determinates of the scientists’influence in the S&T policymaking process?
What is driving the transition (decline) of scientists’ influence level in the S&T policymaking (in China)?
5
Outline
Scientists and (science) policy: Theories
Analytic framework
Case study: Scientists in the policymaking of National High Technology Development Program of China (863 Program)
Conclusions
6
Scientists and (science) policy: Theories
Why do scientists involve in public policy?Knowledge advantage in:
Knowledge in policy process (Knowledge of policy process) (Lasswell, 1954)
Science in policy , Policy for science (Brooks, 1964)
Are scientists influential in policy making?Powerless? (Fleagle, 1994)Important: (Greenwood, 1984)Influential:
by shaping policy discourse (Haas, 1990 ), by defining policy issues in scientific terms (Latour, 1987)
by manipulating the boundary between their domain and that of policy makers (Jasanoff,1990)
Source: (Keller,2001)
7
Scientists and (science) policy: Theories
What are determinates of scientists’ influence?
Source: (Shooler,1971)
Scientific Field or Fields Level of Visibility Degree of Specialization in Scientific Field
Level of Support in General Political Climate
Scientific Component of Policy or Policy-making Process Sense of Urgency
Hypothetical Character of Science Degree of Development of the Policy Arena
Difficulty in Comprehension of Science
Division or Indecision among Leadership of the Executive Branch Su
bsta
ntiv
e Ty
pes
Absence of Non-scientific Expertise Congeniality to Private Enterprise
Absence of Scientific Conflict among Scientists Absence of Hostile Vested Interests
Absence of Political Conflict among Scientists
Exog
enou
s Fac
tors
Orientation of Political Executives
Scientists’ Competence in Scientific Aspects of Policy Scientists’ Access Points
Power as a Value in Scientists’ Personalities Scientists’ Formal Positions
Endo
geno
us
Fact
ors
Beh
avio
ral T
ypes
Scientists’ Vested Interest Parti
cipa
tion
Fact
ors
Functional Stage of Scientists’ Participation
8
Scientists and (science) policy: Theories
What kind of roles do scientists play in the policy process?
Policy makers (Jasanoff, 1990)
Policy advisors (Smith, 1992)
Honest Broker ofPolicy AlternativeScience ArbiterSchatt-
schneider
Issue AdvocatePure ScientistMadisonViewof
Demo-cracy
Stakeholder modelLinear model
View of science
Source: (Pielke,2007b)
9
Scientists and (science) policy: Theories
What are determinates of the role of scientists?
Value consensus/conflicts
Uncertainty
Source: (Pielke,2007)
10
Analytic framework
Definition
Policymaking
Decision making throughout all stages of S&T policy process.
Scientists’ level of influence
The change in policy or the probability of a given policy induced by the presences of the scientist (s) and his (their) behavior in the policy process (Schooler, 1971)
11
Analytic framework
Scientists(Academic Culture )
Social capitalGoals/Interest
Knowledge capabilityKnowledge supply
KnowledgeDistribution
PowerDistribution
Institution(Rule)
Administration(Political Culture)
Organization structureGoals/Interest
Knowledge capabilityKnowledge demand
Politician(Political Culture)
Scientists’ Influence
Industry(Economic Culture)
The Public(Public Culture)
Policy process stage
Type of S&T activities
12
Determinates & Assumptions
Knowledge Distribution
Knowledge capability
Knowledge demand
Knowledge supply
Power Distribution
Organization structure
Authorization
Scientists’ social capital
Consensus of goals
(value & interest)
Institution
Rule-boundedness
Formality
Policy Stage
Problem and agenda setting
Goal setting and policy formation
Implementation
Type of S&T ActivityBasic research
Applied research
Key S&T Programs/ Projects
13
863 Program: Overview
What’s 863 Program
The National High Technology Research and Development Program
Proposed and approved in (19)86-3
Aiming: tracking international high-tech development, improving China's overall capability of R&D in high-tech
5 Civil Fields: Biotech, Information, Automatic Machinery, Energy, Material. (+ Marine, Environment and Resource, Agriculture, Transportation, Geographic Observation and Navigation )
2 Defense Fields
14
863 Program: Overview
Source: (MOST,1996; MOST, 2006)
Government Expenditure in Civil Fields of 863 Program
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Mill
ion
yuan
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
%
Expenditure % of total government S&T expenditure
15
863 Program: Overview
What kinds of decisions are making in 863 Program?
Launching and succession of 863 Program
Selection of technical fields, and expenditure allocation among these fields
Selection of experts panel members
Selection of technical direction within fields and expenditure allocation among these directions
Projects arrangement within fields/priorities
Selection of project undertakers
Research direction adjustment
16
863 Program: Overview
Why 863 Program as a study case?
One of the two earliest expert decision making and management systems in China. (The other one is NFSC)
The most typical and successful one
An apparent transition of scientists’ role
17
Scientists’ participation in 863 Program
The initial Stage(1986.3-1987.11)
The first Stage(1986.11-1992)
The second Stage(1992-2000)
The third Stage(2001-now)
18
The Initial Stage(1986.3-1986.11)
Launching of 863 Program
On March 3,1986, 4 famous scientists submitted to Deng Xiaoping a proposal to accelerate China’s high-tech development. (as a response to SDI)
On March 5, Deng personally approved the proposal and urged Premier Zhao Ziyang to be in charge of starting up 863 Program.
3 rounds of scientific and technological demonstration in the following 7 months, over 200 scientists participated.
Approval of the “Guideline for 863 Program” by CPC Political Bureau of the Central Committee (Oct. ), CPC Central Committee and State Council (Nov. 18)
10 billion yuan in 15 years (S&T expenditure in 1986: 11.3 billion yuan)
7 Fields, 15 Priorities
19
The 1st Stage(1986.11-1992)
Establishment of Expert Decision-making and Management System (EDMS):
Why EDMS?
Balancing and diminishing interest conflictsbetween research organizations across different sectors and ministries.
Attribute and need of high-tech development
How does EDMS runs? And who are in EDMS?
Field Expert Committee (FEC, 7-9 scientists)
Priority Expert Group (PEG, 5-7 scientists)
20
EDMS of 863 ProgramPolicy making, plan authorizing, coordinating, supervising
Chief Scientist7-9 committee members
“The FECs (PEGs) are organizations which are in command of technical and administrative issueswhen implementing the program within relative fields(priorities)”
Proposal review;Investigator selection;Funding distribution
Experts selection, plan drafting, expenditure allocating (between fields), achievement management
Implementation management;Process control
21
The 1st Stage: review
Scientists were influential and powerful in decision making and resource allocating, acting as decision (policy) makers.
Agenda-setting; Policy formationPolicy Process Stage
High-tech tracking, especially defense high-techType of S&T Activities
2-level EDMS;Scientists’ high reputation and good personal relationship to high-level officials and politicians;General consensus on both strategic and technical goals
Power Distribution
Scientists: profound scientific capability, willing to provide knowledgeOfficials: lack of enough knowledge, hence great knowledge demand and reliance to the expertise
Knowledge Distribution
Highly authorization to scientists;Ambiguity of detail rules
InstitutionFactors
22
The 1st Stage: Cases
Energy Field:
High level officials vs FEC
Roadmap selection between 3 directions
Scientists “won”
23
The 2nd Stage(1992-2000)
Program goals adjusted: from technology tracking to innovation, less defense tech and more high tech facing industrialization(1992)
End of cold war
More technology need from industries
Problems arose in the first 5 years
Interests coordinating among sectors
Ambiguity of responsibility (lack of definite rules)
Difficulties of experts’ administrative leading
24
The 2nd Stage : Institutionalization
Institutionalization (1992)
Revision of Management Provision of 863 Program
“The FECs (PEGs) are organizations which are in command of technical issues when implementing the program within their fields”.
A set of management rules
Coordinating Group (inter-ministry) and Evaluation and Supervision Group
25
The 2nd Stage : EDMS
DissolvedDissolved√√√Bio.
DissolvedDissolved√√√Material
√√Dissolved√Info.
Dissolved√√√Energy
√√Dissolved √√Auto.Mach.
PEG Office
PEGFECChief Scientist
Field Office
EDMS organization structures (1995)
26
The 2nd Stage : review
Scientists’ influence was in high level but getting declined. Administration became more powerful in goal setting and resource allocating. Scientists more and more acted as advisors rather than decision (policy) makers.
Goal setting; Plan and guidance making; Implementation
Policy Process Stage
More applied research(industrialization facing)Type of S&T
Activities
Variety in organization structure;Scientists’ high reputation and good personal relationship;General goal consensus with slight conflicts
Power Distribution
Scientists: profound scientific capability, moderate desire of providing knowledgeOfficials: growing knowledge; less knowledge demand; more confident to decide themselves
Knowledge Distribution
More formality; less authorization to scientistsInstitutionFactors
27
The 2nd Stage : Cases
Automatic Machinery Field:
“You can dismiss me. But once I’m appointed as a chief scientist, I must be the one who determines how to ‘do the cooking’”.
Material Field: Joint Meeting Mechanism
It doesn’t matter who finally signs the file. It matters who prepares the materials, who sets the agenda, and who’s leading the discussion.
28
The 3rd Stage (2001-now)
Great changes in 863 Program
From 15-year program to continuous program
Huge increase in government expenditure(22 billion in 5 years)
More emphasis on national strategic goals in program goal-setting
More needs of transparency and fairness
29
The 3rd Stage : EDMS
2001 Revison of Management Provision Detail rules on the decision making and implementation process
Clear definition of responsibility of FEC/PEG and the administration
Reform of grant management system
Affiliated centers as new actorsManagerial affairs centralized
Increasing influences
Non-FEC/PEG scientists as new actors
30
The 3rd Stage : EDMS
31
The 3rd Stage : review
Scientists’ influence was sharply decreased. Administration actually dominated the policymaking process of 863 Program, when scientists mainly acted as advisors to the govt.
Less in goal setting and resource allocating, more in implementation
Policy Process Stage
More “industrialization facing” projects, less defense high-tech projects
Type of S&T Activities
New actors; formalized decision making process; Selection of experts by admin.;Conflicts and games in goal setting
Power Distribution
Scientists: good scientific capability, declined desire of providing knowledgeOfficials: more knowledgeable (policy making and scientific); less knowledge demand
Knowledge Distribution
More formality; more authorization to admin.InstitutionFactors
32
The 3rd Stage : Cases
Material Field: LED (light emitting diode) project
Launched in 1998
By scientists, quick decision making
Expanded in 2002
By officials, long time persuading
33
Summary
High auth。to admin.
BalancingHigh auth. to scientists
Authorization by institution
★ ★★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★Influence level
More “indu-strializationfacing” and strategy facing
More “indu-strializationfacing”, less defense
High-tech tracking, esp. defense high-tech
S&T Type
More in implementation
Goal setting; Implementation
Goal setting Policy formation
Agenda settingPolicy formation
Policy Process Stage
2-level, Mgt. Ctr.Variety2-level Org. Structure
★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★Scientists’ social capital
★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★Goal consensusPower Distribution
★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★Official’s demand
★ ★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★★ ★Official’s capability
★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★Scientists’ supply
★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★ ★ ★Scientists’ capability Knowledge Distribution
★ ★ ★ ★★ ★ ★★ ★Institution (formality)
2001-NOW1992-20001986.11-19921986.3-1986.11
34
Conclusions
Knowledge DistributionKnowledge capabilityKnowledge demandKnowledge supply
Power DistributionOrganization structureAuthorization Scientists’ social capitalConsensus of goals(value & interest)
InstitutionRule-boundednessFormality
Policy Stage
Problem and agenda setting
Goal setting and policy formation
Implementation
Type of S&T ActivityBasic research
Applied research
Key S&T Programs/ Projects
Scientists’ influence level in S&T policy making
35
Conclusions
What is driving the decline of scientists’influence in the S&T policymaking in China?
Institutionalization (more formality)
More educated and experienced officials
Less authorization to scientists; more value and interest conflicts
Change of S&T activity types (industrialization facing)
Move of policy stage most participate in (from agenda setting to implementation)
36
Thank you!
Please send comments and questions to
Peng_ru@ksg.harvard.edu
top related