Yearly journal of scientific articles “Pravova derzhava” Volume 32 (2021),
481-488 p.
Stoyko Olena. Science policy of the state: dirigismå or liberalism
The two approaches to science policy – the British-American and European (German, French) – are analyzed. They present liberal model, proposed by Adam Smith (no state support for research) and dirigisme model, proposed by Francis Bacon (state participation in funding science to minimize the shortcomings of a market economy, the establishment of science as public good). State funding guarantees stability and the ability to engage in basic research, which in decades will find its application in the daily lives of citizens. On the other hand, dependence on the state forces scientists to adhere to pro-state positions, to support the activities of public authorities. The financing the research and development (R&D) by the private sector makes it possible to concentrate significant resources to achieve practical results in a short time: to bring the product into mass production, to conquer new markets, and so on. At the same time, business is not interested in investing in those areas of science that cannot generate profit, but are important for social development (humanities) and the deepening of knowledge about the physical world. According to the performance of research institutions, each approach to the state's scientific policy, although never fully followed, has its advantages and disadvantages. So science policy should be the result of a balance between national context and long-term priorities of state development.
Key words: research and development, public good, academy, fundamental science.
References
1. Sokolovska A.M., Petrakov Ya.V. Zarubizhni modeli finansuvannia nauky. Finansy Ukrainy. 2018. ¹ 2. C. 48–71; Yehorov I.Yu. «Zakhidna» model orhanizatsii fundamentalnykh doslidzhen: suchasnyi dosvid okremykh krain. Natsionalna akademiia nauk Ukrainy: problemy rozvytku ta vkhodzhennia v yevropeiskyi naukovyi prostir. Kyiv : NBU im. V.I. Vernadskoho NAN Ukrainy, 2007. S. 44–65 ; Steen J. Modes of Public Funding of Research and Development: Towards Internationally Comparable Indicators. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers. 2012/04. URL : https://bit.ly/3cBfpUi. [ukr]. 2. Jonkers K., Zacharewicz T. Research Performance Based Funding Systems: À Comparative Assessment. European Commission, 2016. URL : rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/file/9514/download?token=-8JG6aKx; Reale E. Analysis of National Public Research Funding (PREF): Final Report. Ñontract ¹ 154321. Publications Office of the European Union, 2017. URL : https://bit.ly/39OiI9b. 3. Samuelson P.A. Ekonomika. Moskva : BYNOM; KnoRus, 1997. S. 338. [rus]. 4. Smyt A. Issledovanie o prirode i prichinakh bohatstva narodov. Sankt-Peterburg : Azbuka, Azbuka-Attikus, 2019. S. 20–21. [rus]. 5. Mansfield E. Academic Research and Industrial Innovation. Research Policy. 1991. Vol. 20. Ð. 1–12. 6. Michaels P.J., Kealey T., Burrus T. Scientocracy : The Tangled Web of Public Science and Public Policy. Cato Institute, 2019. 365 p. 7. Olson S. The National Academy of Sciences at 150. PNAS. 2014. ¹ 111 (Supplement 2). Ð. 9327–9364. 8. The provisions of Executive Order 2859 of May 11, 1918. URL : https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/02859.html 9. Kealey T. The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. London : Macmillan, 1996. Ð. 151. 10. Inklaar R., de Jong H., Bolt J., van Zanden J. Rebasing «Maddison»: new income comparisons and the shape of long-run economic development. GGDC Research Memorandum GD-174. Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen, 2018. 11. Nature Index. URL : https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2020/country/all.
<< Back
