the role of scientists in science and technology ......the role of scientists in science and...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

[email protected]

the role of scientists in science and technology ......the role of scientists in science and...

Documents