Scientific advisory boards are frequently established to provide scientific insights and advice to policymakers. Advisory board appointing bodies often state that research excellence and scientific seniority are the main grounds on which advisory board members are selected. Many authors have pointed out that there is more to giving good scientific advice than just being an expert for a specific research field. The aim of this study is to analyse if and how research excellence correlates with the probability of being appointed as a scientific advisory board member. We collected data for scientific advisory boards from both the USA and Germany. We use logit regression models to analyse how research excellence correlates with the probability of appointment to a scientific advisory board. Our results suggest that research excellence is insignificant or even correlates negatively with the probability of being appointed to a scientific advisory board.
{"title":"Research excellence and scientific advisory boards","authors":"Maya Göser, S. Wimmer, Johannes Sauer","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad041","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Scientific advisory boards are frequently established to provide scientific insights and advice to policymakers. Advisory board appointing bodies often state that research excellence and scientific seniority are the main grounds on which advisory board members are selected. Many authors have pointed out that there is more to giving good scientific advice than just being an expert for a specific research field. The aim of this study is to analyse if and how research excellence correlates with the probability of being appointed as a scientific advisory board member. We collected data for scientific advisory boards from both the USA and Germany. We use logit regression models to analyse how research excellence correlates with the probability of appointment to a scientific advisory board. Our results suggest that research excellence is insignificant or even correlates negatively with the probability of being appointed to a scientific advisory board.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46287534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Callum J Gunn, Sevgi E Fruytier, Teresa Finlay, Lidewij Eva Vat, Teun Zuiderent-Jerak, Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar
Abstract Whilst patient engagement (PE) activities have become increasingly prevalent in development of medicines, collaborating actors have different perspectives on the goals of PE and its added value. In the production of PE standards and frameworks, the significance of these differences tends to be minimised. Boundary objects have been shown to mediate knowledge exchange between multiple social worlds, thereby playing an important role in participatory technology governance processes. In this article, we draw on boundary objects to learn from the process of co-designing a PE monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework within the Innovative Medicines Initiative–Patients Active in Research and Dialogues for an Improved Generation of Medicines (IMI-PARADIGM) consortium (2018–20). As facilitators of PARADIGM’s co-design process, we report on the challenges encountered in developing a practicable M&E framework that serves a variety of needs and interests. We argue these challenges of co-design reflect a negotiation of different frames throughout, thereby providing insight into how such work may contribute to addressing the challenge of knowledge integration in institutional medicines development settings.
{"title":"Co-design and its consequences: developing a shared patient engagement framework in the IMI-PARADIGM project","authors":"Callum J Gunn, Sevgi E Fruytier, Teresa Finlay, Lidewij Eva Vat, Teun Zuiderent-Jerak, Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad040","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Whilst patient engagement (PE) activities have become increasingly prevalent in development of medicines, collaborating actors have different perspectives on the goals of PE and its added value. In the production of PE standards and frameworks, the significance of these differences tends to be minimised. Boundary objects have been shown to mediate knowledge exchange between multiple social worlds, thereby playing an important role in participatory technology governance processes. In this article, we draw on boundary objects to learn from the process of co-designing a PE monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework within the Innovative Medicines Initiative–Patients Active in Research and Dialogues for an Improved Generation of Medicines (IMI-PARADIGM) consortium (2018–20). As facilitators of PARADIGM’s co-design process, we report on the challenges encountered in developing a practicable M&E framework that serves a variety of needs and interests. We argue these challenges of co-design reflect a negotiation of different frames throughout, thereby providing insight into how such work may contribute to addressing the challenge of knowledge integration in institutional medicines development settings.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135016315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper aims to improve the Regional Innovation Scoreboard as an instrument for policy-making. Dynamic slack–based models of data envelopment analysis to measure innovation output efficiency in 207 European regions demonstrate that the scale-based performance classification of the Scoreboard into ‘leader’, ‘strong’, ‘moderate’, and ‘modest’ innovator regions inadequately reflects differences in efficiency in transforming knowledge inputs into innovation outputs. We reveal a non-monotonic relation between scale-based and efficiency-based performance and substantial heterogeneity among the reasons for inefficiency among regions within each of the four scale-based performance classes of regions. Our findings argue for an extension of the current scale-based use of the Scoreboard by adding an efficiency-based measurement of the innovation process. Doing so addresses the tendency in policy design towards an increased focus on the efficient use of scarce resources in place-based policy approaches and strengthens the application of the Scoreboard as an informative decision-making tool.
{"title":"Improving the Regional Innovation Scoreboard for policy: how about innovation efficiency?","authors":"Peter Teirlinck, André Spithoven","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad043","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper aims to improve the Regional Innovation Scoreboard as an instrument for policy-making. Dynamic slack–based models of data envelopment analysis to measure innovation output efficiency in 207 European regions demonstrate that the scale-based performance classification of the Scoreboard into ‘leader’, ‘strong’, ‘moderate’, and ‘modest’ innovator regions inadequately reflects differences in efficiency in transforming knowledge inputs into innovation outputs. We reveal a non-monotonic relation between scale-based and efficiency-based performance and substantial heterogeneity among the reasons for inefficiency among regions within each of the four scale-based performance classes of regions. Our findings argue for an extension of the current scale-based use of the Scoreboard by adding an efficiency-based measurement of the innovation process. Doing so addresses the tendency in policy design towards an increased focus on the efficient use of scarce resources in place-based policy approaches and strengthens the application of the Scoreboard as an informative decision-making tool.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135444754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of government subsidies and private research and development (R&D) on global value chains position (GVCP) and the moderating role of task complexity in China. It utilizes regional data from official Chinese statistics and the Trade in Value Added 2018 database from the period of 2005–2016. The results indicate that different sources of R&D funds have different effects on GVCP. In particular, government subsidies promote GVCP, while private R&D impedes GVCP. Furthermore, the results indicate that task complexity positively moderates the relationship between private R&D and GVCP, and it negatively moderates the relationship between government subsidies and GVCP. Therefore, this study highlights the importance of task complexity for regional enterprises seeking to enhance their GVCP and provides policymakers with new insights into their subsidy policies.
{"title":"Government subsidies, private R&D, and global value chains position: the moderating role of task complexity","authors":"Furong Qian","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad042","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of government subsidies and private research and development (R&D) on global value chains position (GVCP) and the moderating role of task complexity in China. It utilizes regional data from official Chinese statistics and the Trade in Value Added 2018 database from the period of 2005–2016. The results indicate that different sources of R&D funds have different effects on GVCP. In particular, government subsidies promote GVCP, while private R&D impedes GVCP. Furthermore, the results indicate that task complexity positively moderates the relationship between private R&D and GVCP, and it negatively moderates the relationship between government subsidies and GVCP. Therefore, this study highlights the importance of task complexity for regional enterprises seeking to enhance their GVCP and provides policymakers with new insights into their subsidy policies.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139355287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
China’s government uses a variety of diplomatic tools to pursue its foreign policy aims including negotiating and signing formal bilateral science and technology agreements (STAs). These agreements have been signed with at least fifty-two countries. We identified agreements with an additional sixty-four countries with science and technology (S&T), among other topics such as education, as subjects for cooperation. The Ministry of Science and Technology reports having signed 115 intergovernmental science and technology agreements (STAs) and established ties with 161 countries and regions, although we were not able to identify all these agreements. The earliest of China’s STAs were signed in the 1950s with communist countries, but, in the late 1970s, China began signing agreements with scientifically-advanced nations, which opened opportunities for S&T cooperation. More recently, China has negotiated and signed scientific and technological cooperation agreements with dozens of middle- and lower-income countries, possibly to establish political goodwill. While building political ties clearly remains an important Chinese objective, access to the latest know-how in S&T has become a critical part of China’s priorities in establishing formal relationships.
{"title":"China’s use of formal science and technology agreements as a tool of diplomacy","authors":"C. Wagner, D. Simon","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 China’s government uses a variety of diplomatic tools to pursue its foreign policy aims including negotiating and signing formal bilateral science and technology agreements (STAs). These agreements have been signed with at least fifty-two countries. We identified agreements with an additional sixty-four countries with science and technology (S&T), among other topics such as education, as subjects for cooperation. The Ministry of Science and Technology reports having signed 115 intergovernmental science and technology agreements (STAs) and established ties with 161 countries and regions, although we were not able to identify all these agreements. The earliest of China’s STAs were signed in the 1950s with communist countries, but, in the late 1970s, China began signing agreements with scientifically-advanced nations, which opened opportunities for S&T cooperation. More recently, China has negotiated and signed scientific and technological cooperation agreements with dozens of middle- and lower-income countries, possibly to establish political goodwill. While building political ties clearly remains an important Chinese objective, access to the latest know-how in S&T has become a critical part of China’s priorities in establishing formal relationships.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49313426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
E. MacKillop, A. Connell, James Downe, Hannah Durrant
Knowledge-brokering organisations (KBOs) have multiplied in the evidence–policy landscape worldwide, changing how decision-makers are accessing evidence. Yet, we still know little about their emergence and roles. This research helps to understand KBOs and their place in evidence-based policymaking by highlighting the varied work that they do, the relationships they cultivate with policymakers, the complex knowledge-brokering processes they negotiate, and how they establish their credibility in different ways. We build on boundary organisation theory and the concept of policy entrepreneur (PE) (drawn from the multiple streams analysis) to develop a better understanding of KBOs who play multiple roles. By using the PE concept, we bring a greater focus on the politics of brokering. This duality involves them in seeking to provide ‘objective’ evidence while simultaneously determining what counts as evidence for policy and making recommendations for political decisions.
{"title":"Making sense of knowledge-brokering organisations: boundary organisations or policy entrepreneurs?","authors":"E. MacKillop, A. Connell, James Downe, Hannah Durrant","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Knowledge-brokering organisations (KBOs) have multiplied in the evidence–policy landscape worldwide, changing how decision-makers are accessing evidence. Yet, we still know little about their emergence and roles. This research helps to understand KBOs and their place in evidence-based policymaking by highlighting the varied work that they do, the relationships they cultivate with policymakers, the complex knowledge-brokering processes they negotiate, and how they establish their credibility in different ways. We build on boundary organisation theory and the concept of policy entrepreneur (PE) (drawn from the multiple streams analysis) to develop a better understanding of KBOs who play multiple roles. By using the PE concept, we bring a greater focus on the politics of brokering. This duality involves them in seeking to provide ‘objective’ evidence while simultaneously determining what counts as evidence for policy and making recommendations for political decisions.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46344009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Scientific evidence is just one of many sources of information for policymakers. Neglecting this evidence is, however, an important feature of unsuccessful policy-making. Recent UK governments’ ambitions to improve the nation’s health and tackle climate change are—to varying degrees—off course. These include halving childhood obesity by 2030 and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Evidence on the interventions most likely to achieve these is well summarised but largely neglected in the policies supporting these ambitions. Two sets of factors contribute to this neglect: first, incentive structures for politicians that favour setting ambitious policy goals while disfavouring the effective policies needed to achieve them; second, political ideologies and interests that conflict with effective policies. Two changes could mitigate these factors: first, engaging citizens more in policy-making so that their interests dominate; second, increasing the accountability of politicians through legally binding systems for all stages of policy-making.
{"title":"Evidence-neglect: addressing a barrier to UK health and climate policy ambitions","authors":"T. Marteau","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Scientific evidence is just one of many sources of information for policymakers. Neglecting this evidence is, however, an important feature of unsuccessful policy-making. Recent UK governments’ ambitions to improve the nation’s health and tackle climate change are—to varying degrees—off course. These include halving childhood obesity by 2030 and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Evidence on the interventions most likely to achieve these is well summarised but largely neglected in the policies supporting these ambitions. Two sets of factors contribute to this neglect: first, incentive structures for politicians that favour setting ambitious policy goals while disfavouring the effective policies needed to achieve them; second, political ideologies and interests that conflict with effective policies. Two changes could mitigate these factors: first, engaging citizens more in policy-making so that their interests dominate; second, increasing the accountability of politicians through legally binding systems for all stages of policy-making.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47343859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The offset agreement (OA) of the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) is a demand-side policy aiming to improve innovative capacities. However, it may be constrained by companies’ absorptive capacities, relationship features, and sectoral specificities. This study examines these issues in a small but representative sample of domestic beneficiary firms from the FAB’s OA. The model in the study by Zahra and George, along with contingent factors such as power relationship and social integration mechanisms, inspired the design of the research tools. The results point to similar and high firms’ absorptive capacities, regardless of the origins of capital. However, results show distinct benefit perceptions given by contingent factors, companies’ strategies, and sectoral specificities, which may denote distinct possibilities on cumulativeness and appropriability from technology transfer. We expect that these findings may improve the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustments of this demand-side policy, attracting attention to new studies on the theme.
{"title":"Brazilian Air Force acquisition policies: observing absorptive capacity and contingent factors in aeronautical beneficiary companies","authors":"T. Caliari, M. Bovo, L. Urbina, R. Scarpel","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad035","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The offset agreement (OA) of the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) is a demand-side policy aiming to improve innovative capacities. However, it may be constrained by companies’ absorptive capacities, relationship features, and sectoral specificities. This study examines these issues in a small but representative sample of domestic beneficiary firms from the FAB’s OA. The model in the study by Zahra and George, along with contingent factors such as power relationship and social integration mechanisms, inspired the design of the research tools. The results point to similar and high firms’ absorptive capacities, regardless of the origins of capital. However, results show distinct benefit perceptions given by contingent factors, companies’ strategies, and sectoral specificities, which may denote distinct possibilities on cumulativeness and appropriability from technology transfer. We expect that these findings may improve the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustments of this demand-side policy, attracting attention to new studies on the theme.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43018799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
North–South research funding dynamics have been progressively marked by the rise of project-based funding responding to agencies’ predefined research topics. Still, Southern researchers’ behaviour to cope with Northern agencies’ project frameworks remains an understudied question. This article addresses this gap by examining Southern applicants’ practices when preparing proposals for collaborative research for development projects in the social sciences, in particular their strategies to appropriate Northern donors’ frameworks. Findings single out that the appropriation process leads to the co-creation of a new cognitive framework accommodating both researchers’ and funders’ interests expressed in different agendas. This article also contributes to shedding light on Southern researchers’ active role in the face of asymmetric relationships. Finally, findings inform research management about the importance of defining relatively large frameworks that include applicants’ knowledge, competences, and contextual features to enhance local relevance while contributing to the policy debate on project-based funding impact on contemporary research.
{"title":"North–South research funding dynamics of collaborative projects: researchers’ appropriation strategies of agencies’ project frameworks","authors":"Montserrat Alom Bartrolí","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad036","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 North–South research funding dynamics have been progressively marked by the rise of project-based funding responding to agencies’ predefined research topics. Still, Southern researchers’ behaviour to cope with Northern agencies’ project frameworks remains an understudied question. This article addresses this gap by examining Southern applicants’ practices when preparing proposals for collaborative research for development projects in the social sciences, in particular their strategies to appropriate Northern donors’ frameworks. Findings single out that the appropriation process leads to the co-creation of a new cognitive framework accommodating both researchers’ and funders’ interests expressed in different agendas. This article also contributes to shedding light on Southern researchers’ active role in the face of asymmetric relationships. Finally, findings inform research management about the importance of defining relatively large frameworks that include applicants’ knowledge, competences, and contextual features to enhance local relevance while contributing to the policy debate on project-based funding impact on contemporary research.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61476519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jianfeng Guo, Xuemei Zhang, Fu Gu, Jiannan Zhu, Chao Deng, Xinze Zhao, Xiaohan Yang
Abstract Governments have proposed various policy responses to contain the spread of coronavirus disease 2019, but there is little available knowledge about how these policies are formulated. Here we quantify the herding effect in the pandemic containment policies issued by governments of different regions during the period of 18 January 2020 to 29 May 2020, using a modified Lakonishok–Shleifer–Vishny approach. The results show that all the policies exhibit some degree of herding, and the policy herding in the USA is significantly stronger than that of China but weaker than that of the rest of the world. Specifically, the overall herding intensity in the policy responses of the Northern China is greater than that of the Southern China. We believe that policy herding is linked with risk aversion, which is triggered by perceived uncertainty associated with significant risk events. This work highlights the significance of resource sufficiency and preparedness.
{"title":"Herding in policy responses to coronavirus disease 2019","authors":"Jianfeng Guo, Xuemei Zhang, Fu Gu, Jiannan Zhu, Chao Deng, Xinze Zhao, Xiaohan Yang","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad033","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Governments have proposed various policy responses to contain the spread of coronavirus disease 2019, but there is little available knowledge about how these policies are formulated. Here we quantify the herding effect in the pandemic containment policies issued by governments of different regions during the period of 18 January 2020 to 29 May 2020, using a modified Lakonishok–Shleifer–Vishny approach. The results show that all the policies exhibit some degree of herding, and the policy herding in the USA is significantly stronger than that of China but weaker than that of the rest of the world. Specifically, the overall herding intensity in the policy responses of the Northern China is greater than that of the Southern China. We believe that policy herding is linked with risk aversion, which is triggered by perceived uncertainty associated with significant risk events. This work highlights the significance of resource sufficiency and preparedness.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135471064","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：