Reputation and Competence in Publicly Funded Science: Estimating the Effects on Research Group Productivity
This paper estimates the “production function” for scientific research publications in the field of biotechnology. It utilises an exceptionally rich and comprehensive data set pertaining to the universe of research groups that applied to a 1989–1993 research programme in biotechnology and bio-instrumentation, sponsored by the Italian National Research Council, CNR. A structural model of the resource allocation process in scientific research guides the selection of instruments in the econometric analysis, and controls for selectivity bias effects on estimates based on the performance of funded research units. The average elasticity of research output with respect to the research budget is estimated to be 0.6; but, for a small fraction of groups led by highly prestigious Pls this elasticity approaches 1. These estimates imply, conditional on the distribution of observed productivity, that a more unequal distribution of research funds would increase research output in the short-run. Past research publication performance is found to have an important effect on expected levels of grant funding, and hence on the unit’s current productivity in terms of (quality adjusted) publications. The results show that the productivity of aggregate resource expenditures supporting scientific research is critically dependent on the institutional mechanisms and criteria employed in the allocation of such resources.
KeywordsProduction Function Research Unit Research Output Marginal Product Past Performance
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Dasgupta, P., David, P. A. (1987). — “Information Disclosure and the Economics of Science and Technology”, in Feiwel, G. (ed.), Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory, New York University Press, New York, pp. 519–542.Google Scholar
- David, P. A. (1993). — “Knowledge, Property and the System Dynamics of Technological Change”, in Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics: 1992, Summers, L. and Shah, S. (ed.), Washington DC, March.Google Scholar
- David, P. A. (1994). — “Positive Feedbacks and Research Productivity in Science: Reopening Another Black Box”, in Granstrand, O. (ed.) Economics of Technology, North-Holland, Amsterdam and London.Google Scholar
- European Report on Science and Technology Indicators (The) (1994), European Commission, DG XII, EUR 15897 EN, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
- Jaffe, A. (1989). — “Real Effects of Academic Research”, American Economic Review, Vol. 79, (5), pp. 957–970.Google Scholar
- Levin, S., Stephan, P. (1991). — “Research Productivity over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists”, American Economic Review, Vol. 81, (1), pp. 114–132.Google Scholar
- Loka, A. (1926). — “The Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity”, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 16, (12), pp. 317–323.Google Scholar
- Nelson, R. (1986). — “Institutions Supporting Technical Advance in Industry”, American Economic Review Proceedings, Vol. 76, (2), pp. 186–189.Google Scholar
- OECD (1994). — Main Science and Technology Indicators, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
- Price, D. J. de Solla (1963). — Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Stephan, P., Levin, S. (1992). — Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place and Time, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Stephan, P. (1996). — “The Economics of Science”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 1199–1235.Google Scholar