Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-6
Broadening the Concept of Value in Science and Technology Innovation Policy: Reconsidering Cooperative Research and Development Agreements as an Expression of Public Value Governance
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) are one of several programs supporting federal investment in technological innovation. To date, CRADAs have been studied primarily through the lens of a market-oriented ideology focusing primarily on associated mechanisms and outcomes. That ideology, expressed most clearly in the New Public Management (NPM) movement, has become the predominant governance theory of the period. Other governance theories, including Public Value Governance (PVG), emerged in response and as alternatives to NPM’s perceived contextual and normative limitations. This article reexamines the structure and function of CRADAs through the lens of PVG, in combination with analysis of qualitative data on the perceptions and experiences of organizations that have been parties to CRADAs with the United States Air Force. Our examination suggests that CRADAs have the potential to respond more effectively to the emergent complexity of the current political-economy and to be more normatively inclusive in relation to growing socio-cultural diversity described by PVG, and potentially exceeding the narrower perspective of an economically focused NPM orientation.
AdamsJ. D.LinkA. N. (2018). The structure and performance of U.S. research joint ventures: Inferences and implications from the Advanced Technology Program. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27(5–6), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2017.1376169
2.
AlfordJ.DouglasS.GeuijenK.‘t HartP. (2017). Ventures in public value management: Introduction to the symposium. Public Management Review, 19(5), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192160
3.
AlkadryM. G.BlessettB. (2010). Aloofness or dirty hands? Administrative culpability in the making of the second Ghetto. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(4), 532–556. https://doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806320403
4.
AlkadryM. G.BlessettB.PattersonV. L. (2017). Public administration, diversity, and the ethic of getting things done. Administration & Society, 49(8), 1191–1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715581032
5.
AndrewsR.BoyneG.MostafaA. M. S. (2017). When bureaucracy matters for organizational performance: Exploring the benefits of administrative intensity in big and complex organizations. Public Administration, 95(1), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12305
6.
BanksR. D.HeatonG. R. (1995). An innovation-driven environmental policy. Issues in Science and Technology, 12(1), 43–51.
7.
BauerS. M.FlaggJ. L. (2010). Technology transfer and technology transfer intermediaries. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 6(1), 23.
8.
BenningtonJ.MooreM. H. (2011). Public value in complex and changing times. In BenningtonJ.MooreM. H. (Eds.), Public value: Theory and practice (pp. 1–30). Palgrave MacMillam.
9.
BerkowitzB. D. (1992). Can defense research revive U.S. industry?Issues in Science and Technology, 9(2), 6.
10.
BoardmanC.BozemanB. (2015). Academic faculty as intellectual property in university-industry research alliances. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 24(5), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2014.988499
11.
BozemanB. (2002). Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00165
12.
BozemanB. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press.
13.
BurkeA.OkrentA.HaleK. (2022). The state of U.S. science and engineering 2022 (NSB-202201). National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221
14.
CaiazzaR.AudretschD.VolpeT.Debra SingerJ. (2014). Policy and institutions facilitating entrepreneurial spin-offs: USA, Asia and Europe. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 3(2), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-04-2013-0013
15.
ChoudhryV.PonzioT. A. (2020). Modernizing federal technology transfer metrics. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(2), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-09713-w
16.
CookB. J. (2014). Bureaucracy and self-government: Reconsidering the role of public administration in American politics. JHU Press.
17.
DaceyG. C. (1995). The U.S. needs a national technology policy. Research Technology Management, 38(1), 9.
18.
DahlA.SossJ. (2014). Neoliberalism for the common good? Public value governance and the downsizing of democracy. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 496–504. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1111/puar.12191
19.
DenhardtJ. V.DenhardtR. B. (2015). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Routledge.
20.
FranzaR. M.GrantK. P. (2006). Improving federal to private sector technology transfer. Research Technology Management, 49(3), 36–40.
21.
FranzaR. M.GrantK. P.SpiveyW. A. (2012). Technology transfer contracts between R&D labs and commercial partners: Choose your words wisely. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 577–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9191-6
22.
FuglieK. O.TooleA. A. (2014). The evolving institutional structure of public and private agricultural research. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 96(3), 862–883. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aat107
23.
GeuijenK.MooreM.CederquistA.RonningR.van TwistM. (2017). Creating public value in global wicked problems. Public Management Review, 19(5), 621–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192163
24.
GoodsellC. T. (2004). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. CQ Press.
25.
HeckerS. S. (1994). Retargeting the weapons laboratories. Issues in Science and Technology, 10(3), 6.
26.
HedegaardJ.AhlH. (2013). The gender subtext of new public management-based work practices in Swedish health care. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151311324389
27.
HoodC. C. (1991). A public management for all season. Public Administration, 69, 3–19.
JanneyJ. J.Lakshmi DamarajuN.DessG. G. (2021). The role of corporate venture capital on returns to acquiring firms: Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Venture Capital, 23(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2021.1882722
KapucuN.OkhaiR.HuQ. (2022). Network governance for coordinated disaster response. Public Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.37808/paq.46.4.2
32.
KellerM. R.BlockF.NegoitaM. (2017). How does innovation work within the developmental network state? New data on public-private agreements in a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory. Sociologias, 19(46), 102–164. https://doi.org/10.1590/15174522-019004604
33.
KickertW. (1993). Complexity governance and dynamics: Conceptual explorations of public network management. In KooimanJ. (Ed.), Modern governance (pp. 191–204). Sage.
34.
LaveeE.KaplanA. (2022). Invisible work at work and the reproduction of gendered social service organizations. Gender, Work & Organization, 29(5), 1463–1480. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12839
35.
LeeJ.KimS.LeeJ. (2022). Public vs. public: Balancing the competing public values of participatory budgeting. Public Administration Quarterly46: 39–66. https://doi.org/10.37808/paq.46.1.3
36.
LinkA. N.MorrisC. A.van HasseltM. (2019). The impact of public R&D investments on patenting activity: Technology transfer at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 28(5), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2018.1542772
37.
MacLachlanA. (1995). Trusting outsiders to do your research: How does industry learn to do it?Research-Technology Management, 38(6), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1995.11674306
38.
MarkelH. (2013). Patents, profits, and the American people—The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. New England Journal of Medicine, 369(9), 794–796. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1306553
39.
MolinaA. D. (2015). Public administration, market values, & the public interest: A Kohlbergian perspective. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 426–452.
40.
MooreM. H. (2013). Recognizing public value. Harvard University Press.
41.
MoweryD. C. (1998). Collaborative R&D: How effective is it?Issues in Science and Technology, 15(1), 6.
42.
OsborneD.GaeblerT. (1993). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Plume.
PageS. B.StoneM. M.BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C. (2015). Public value creation by cross-sector collaborations: A framework and challenges of assessment: Public value creation by cross-sector collaborations. Public Administration, 93(3), 715–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12161
47.
PollittC. (1990). Managerialism and the public services: The Anglo-American experience. Basil Blackwell.
48.
PowellW. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In SrawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 295–336). JAI Press.
49.
RhodesR. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44, 652–667.
50.
RittelH. W.WebberM. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
51.
RoessnerJ. D. (1993). What companies want from the federal labs. Issues in Science and Technology, 10(1), 5.
52.
RoessnerJ. D.BeanA. S. (1993). Industry interaction with federal lab pays off. Research Technology Management, 36(5), 3.
53.
RunyaX.QiguiS.WeiS. (2015). The third wave of public administration: The new public governance. Canadian Social Science, 11(7), 11.
54.
SchoonmakerM. G.CarayannisE. G. (2010). Assessing the value of regional innovation networks. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-009-0004-9
55.
StokerG. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 155, 17–28.
56.
StokerG. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282583
57.
SurowieckiJ. (2005). The wisdom of crowds (Nachdr.). Anchor Books.
58.
TulumÖ.LazonickW. (2018). Financialized corporations in a national innovation system: The U.S. pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Political Economy, 47(3–4), 281–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911916.2018.1549842
Van NormanG. A.EisenkotR. (2017). Technology transfer: From the research bench to commercialization. JACC: Basic to Translational Science, 2(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2017.01.003
61.
VollstedtM.RezatS. (2019). An introduction to grounded theory with a special focus on axial coding and the coding paradigm. In KaiserG.PresmegN. (Eds.), Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education (pp. 81–100). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7_4
62.
WamsleyG. L.BracherR.GoodsellC. T.KronenbergP. S.RohrJ. A.StiversC. M.WhiteO. F.WolfJ. F. (1990). Refounding public administration. Sage.
63.
WhiteO. E.WolfJ. E. (1995a). Deming’s total quality management movement and the Baskin Robbins problem: Part 1: Is it time to go back to Vanilla?Administration & Society, 27(2), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539979502700202
64.
WhiteO. E.WolfJ. E. (1995b). Deming’s total quality management movement and the Baskin Robbins problem part 2: Is this ice cream American. Administration and Society, 27(3), 307–321.
