Abstract
The governance of science has assumed increasing outlines of a megaproject. The total funding, and its own formulaic funding, match the definition of megaprojects. Yet, the scientific and university systems, in most continental countries, are subject at least in part to the ability of academic bodies to influence the policies to which they are subject. Adopting multilevel governance, we argue that academic representative bodies have succeeded in influencing the implementation of regulations on one of the most strategic resources: career progression. By influencing accountability toward more autonomy and less tight control by ministerial and agencies’ regulations, we demonstrate a possible source of partial inefficacy within the overall governance. We use scientimetric data for ex-post analyses of such partial inefficacy. We contribute to the field of megaproject management by highlighting the delicate balance of governance that can lead to either greater or more diluted outcomes.