Influence of research funding and science policy on university research performance: a comparison of five countries

Abstract

The ability of universities to efficiently produce high-standard knowledge has become an important goal in science policies of many developed countries. Thus, many countries nowadays steer universities based on performance monitoring and competition. This article analyzes the connection between the competitiveness of the university funding environment and research performance in five OECD countries in 1987-2006. Besides funding, other science policy factors are analyzed using the framework of four state steering models. Results indicate that the university funding environment has become more competitive in all the compared countries, but the extent and pace of this development varies. Countries also differ in relation to steering models but all have employed policy elements typical of at least two models. In terms of competitive funding environment and research performance, there is no straightforward relationship between the two. With reference to the state steering models, the most traditional model which emphasizes university independence from the state seems to be the most beneficial to research performance. NOWLEDGE HAS BECOME an important resource for industry as an element of both products and production processes over the last couple of decades. This development is associated with the globalization of economy. The developed, industrialized countries have faced a challenge of maintaining their position in global economic competition. Universities have become key components of the economies of developed countries because they create knowledge and disseminate it to industry and wider society and provide the highest education to people. Because of the strategic significance of universities, their performance and costeffectiveness have become highly relevant issues to policy-makers (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997: 36-40).As a result, there is a strong science policy trend that emphasizes the research performance of the university sector. Competition for money and other financial incentives are often used as steering instruments, since funding is regard as having a strong impact on the behaviour of universities which are dependent on resources from other organizations such as state agencies (Hackett, 1990; Nieminen, 2005: 124-125). However, this development is not uniform across countries. Also the long-term usefulness for and impacts of funding incentives and competition on university research are still unclear.In this article, we analyze the connection between the funding and research performance of universities. In addition, we scrutinize the role of other K Laura Himanen, Otto Auranen (corresponding author) and Hanna-Mari Puuska are at

Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the U.S.

“…As we noted in the literature, the new accountability was not successful in the US context (e.g., Shin and Milton 2004;Volkwein and Tandberg 2008). Comparative studies also found that the new accountability did not contribute to institutional performance (e.g., Huisman and Currie 2004;Himanen et al 2009). For example, in their recent comparative study of five countries (Australia, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK) Himanen and associates (2009) found that the performance-based funding policy did not contribute to research productivity.…”

“…The emergence of the new accountability had both historical and theoretical bases. For instance, higher education scholars have long argued that higher education institutions will enhance institutional performance if they are autonomous (e.g., Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1982;Clark 1983;Himanen et al 2009;Volkwein 1987). Policymakers began to lessen regulations and empower campus leaders in the 1990s.…”

Driving factors of external funding and funding effects on academic innovation performance in university–industry–government linkages

“…In terms of the indications of Liu (2003) and Jongbloed (2008), policy-makers have to take either an ''input-oriented'' approach if the budgets are driven by the demography of an institution, an ''output-oriented'' approach if the budgets are tied to specific research outcomes of the institutions' activities, or both approaches in funding the defined intervention. To our knowledge, some studies regard input criterion as more commonly used (Kaiser et al 2001;Miroiu and Aligica 2003), whereas others believe that funding on the basis of output has increased because it contains more incentives for efficient behavior (Liu 2003;Jongbloed 2008;Himanen et al 2009). This discrepancy encourages us to ask whether government or industry funding is driven by university demography, benefits derived from innovation performance, or both?…”

“…However, the input criterion is dominant. The funding mechanism of Taiwan is still under development and is to be improved since the effects of increase output-orientation on several developed countries can be seen (Jongbloed 2008;Himanen et al 2009). Corresponding to the second question, we conclude that in addition to demography or innovation performance, industry funding is also stimulated by the amount of government funding.…”

Changing Funding Arrangements and the Production of Scientific Knowledge: Introduction to the Special Issue

“…A second research perspective targets the implementation and implications of performance-based funding systems for research work (Geuna and Martin 2003;Himanen et al 2009;Hicks 2012). In combination with research evaluation, performance-based funding made universities recognize the importance of research as a source of reputation and, more importantly, income (Whitley and Gläser 2007).…”