ABSTRACT

The study compares recent Estonian and Finnish research steering reforms. Both cases exhibit post- New Public Management (post-NPM)-style policy ideas that seek to enhance coordination over institutional boundaries but diverge in their horizontal and vertical configurations for coordination. This study combines perspectives on coordination from science policy and public administration with a historical institutionalist approach for understanding case divergence. This article argues that post-NPM reforms can involve rather diverse forms of coordination, which are affected by institutional legacies. We also argue that coordination efforts in science policy can involve a strengthened instrumentalization of research for policy-making, and, in such cases, they should be studied in close conjunction with public administration and its policy trends.

摘要

该研究比较了爱沙尼亚和芬兰最近的研究指导改革。这两个案例都展示了新公共管理后（post NPM）式的政策思想，这些思想试图加强机构边界上的协调，但在横向和纵向配置上存在分歧。这项研究将科学政策和公共行政协调方面的观点与历史制度主义方法相结合，以理解案件的分歧。本文认为，新国家预防机制后的改革可能涉及相当多种形式的协调，这受到机构遗产的影响。我们还认为，科学政策中的协调工作可以涉及为决策制定的研究手段的加强，在这种情况下，应与公共行政及其政策趋势紧密结合进行研究。