Efficiency and technological change at US research universities

Abstract

This paper investigates the determinants of efficiency and technological progress at US research universities. It relies on a unique panel data set of multiple outputs and inputs from 92 universities covering the period 1981-1998. Over that time span, US universities experienced large increases in industry funding and in academic patenting activity. In this context, the directional distance function and a nonparametric representation of the underlying production technology are combined to obtain estimates of productivity growth and technical efficiency. A pooled-Tobit estimator is used to examine the determinants of technical efficiency and the rate of technological progress. The results show how changes in funding sources for U.S. research universities affects research performance.

Making Time for Agricultural and Life Science Research: Technical Change and Productivity Gains

“…The aggregate Land Grant university data from 1981 to 1998 used in Foltz et al (2011) show a 5% and statistically significant positive increase in relative citations rates per article that mirrors a similar increase from other major research universities.…”

“…For instance, the acceptance rate of Nature decreased by nearly a third in the last decade from 11.5% in 1997-99 to 7.6% (2009)(2010)(2011). 17 The authors own analysis from the data used in Foltz et al (2011). For a description of the Foltz et al relative citation methodology and data sources, please see Foltz et al (2011). for this type of analysis.…”

“…17 The authors own analysis from the data used in Foltz et al (2011). For a description of the Foltz et al relative citation methodology and data sources, please see Foltz et al (2011). for this type of analysis. Within our data, the sample mean (12.82) of journal articles is significantly lower than the variance (132.2), which could result from a long upper tail to the distribution caused by a small percentage of "star" faculty producing large numbers of publications.…”

“…Past aggregate level research has investigated the many influences and incentives affecting academic scientists' productivity (see, e.g., Foltz et al 2011;Stephan 2012); addressed the increase in incentives for faculty to compete for grants increasingly from National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and private sources rather than USDA (e.g., Huffman and Evenson 2006;Alston et al 2010); and explored the increase in commercial opportunities, which may be synergistic with, or detract from, time devoted to public science (e.g., Sampat 2006;Foltz, Kim, and Barham 2007;Thursby, Fuller, and Thursby 2009). Only Harter, Becker, and Watts (2011) have done something similar for academic economists, with more of an emphasis on the allocation of time across research and teaching activities than on the evolution of research productivity outcomes and how they relate to a broader suite of time measures.…”

Time substitution and network effects with an application to nanobiotechnology policy for US universities

“…Thus, the first year we have data for the three year moving average is 1992. Foltz et al [34] use a similar framework for defining the outputs of 98 research universities.…”