竞争还是稳定:国外科研经费资助方式和结构综述

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (7536 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要科研经费资助方式作为影响科研效率和科研行为的资源配置手段受到学界的日益关注。本文通过梳理现有国外公共科研经费资助方式和结构的有关文献,从竞争性与稳定性两种资助方式的视角出发,通过分析两种资助方式的特点、原则、发展动向等,比较其对科研效率、质量等方面的机制性影响,总结其各自的优劣势以及适用条件。在此基础上,提出国家科研公共资助体系应是符合国家特色的多种资助模式的灵活组合等结论,意在为中国科研经费管理研究提供参考。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	罗珵

关键词 ：科研经费资助方式, 竞争性资助, 稳定性资助

Abstract：As a mechanism of resource allocation which exerts influence on scientific research efficiency and behavior,the study of funding model for scientific research has gradually gained great attention from the academia.This paper reviews the study of public scientific research funding system and structure in foreign countries up to date,analyses the characteristics,the principle and development trend of funding model from the point of view of competitive as well as block funding.It also compares the two mechanisms in their effects on the scientific efficiency as well as quality of output,and summarizes their advantages,disadvantages and applicable conditions respectively.The paper thus concludes that the establishment of the public scientific research funding system in a country should be flexible combination and application of variable funding model that meets the national requirement.It hopes to provide reference for studying the scientific research funding model in China.

Key words： Funding model of scientific research and development Competitive funding Block funding

收稿日期: 2019-07-01

PACS:

F062.3

作者简介: 罗珵(1988-),女,山东青岛人,博士研究生;研究方向:科技财政、财政理论与政策。

引用本文:

罗珵. 竞争还是稳定:国外科研经费资助方式和结构综述[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2020(4): 19-29.
Luo Cheng. Competitive or block funding:a literature review of international scientific research funding model and structure. , 2020(4): 19-29.

链接本文:

http://www.zgkjlt.org.cn/CN/Y2020/I4/19

[1]LAUDEL G,GLÄSER J.Beyond breakthrough research:epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding[J].Research policy,2014,43:1204-1216.
[2]LEE Y N,WALSH J P,WANG J.Creativity in scientific teams:unpacking novelty and impact[J].Research policy,2015,44:684-697.
[3]SANDSTRÖM U,VAN DEN BESSELAAR P.Funding,evaluation,and the performance of national research systems[J].Journal of informetrics,2018,12:365-384.
[4]AURANEN O,NIEMINEN M.University research funding and publication performance-an international comparison[J].Research policy,2010,39:822-834.
[5]GEUNA A,MARTIN B R.University research evaluation and funding:an international comparison[J].Minerva,2003,41:277-304.
[6]STEEN J.Modes of public funding of research and development:toward internationally comparable indicators[R].OECD science,technology and industry working papers.Paris:OECD Publishing,2012.
[7]GEORGHIOU L.Effectiveness of national research systems[R].Brussels:Discussion paper for the 2013 ERAC mutual learning seminar on research and innovation policies,2013.
[8]OECD.Performance-based funding for public research in tertiary education institutions:workshop proceedings[M].Paris:OECD Publishing,2010.
[9]HIMANEN L,AURANEN O,PUUSKA H M,et al.Influence of research funding and science policy on university research performance:a comparison of five countries[J].Science and public policy,2009,36 (6):419-430.
[10]STREHL F,REISINGER S,KALATSCHAN M.Funding systems and their effects on higher education systems[R].OECD education working papers.Paris:OECD Publishing,2007.
[11]JACOB M.Research funding instruments and modalities:implication for developing countries[EB/OL].[2019-05-22].http://www.oecd.org/sti/Draft_Report_public_funding_instrument_final.pdf.
[12]GEUNA A,PIOLATTO M.Research assessment in the UK and Italy:costly and difficult,but probably worth it (at least for a while)[J].Research policy,2016,45:260-271.
[13]VAESEN K,KATZAV J.How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers[J/OL].PLoS ONE,2017,12 (9):e0183967.[2019-04-21].https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183967.
[14]SHIBAYAMA S.Distribution of academic research funds:a case of Japanese national research grant[J].Scientometrics,2011,88:43-60.
[15]BLOCH C,GRAVERSEN E K,PEDERSEN H S.Competitive research grants and their impact on career performance[J].Minerva,2014,52 (1):77-96.
[16]ABRAMO G,CICERO T,D′ANGELO C A.The dispersion of research performance within and between universities as a potential indicator of the competitive intensity in higher education systems[J].Journal of informetrics,2012,6:155-168.
[17]GERRITSEN S,PLUG E,WIEL K.Up or out? How individual research grants affect academic careers in the Netherlands[R].CPB discussion paper.CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis,2013.
[18]GUSH J,JAFFE A,LARSEN V,et al.The effect of public funding on research output:the New Zealand Marsden Fund[J].New Zealand economic papers,2018,52 (2):227-248.
[19]ARORA A,GAMBARDELLA A.The impact of NSF support for basic research in economics[J].Annales D′economie et de statistique,2005,79:91-117.
[20]CHUDNOYSKY D,LOPEZ A,ROSSI M A,et al.Money for science? The impact of research grants on academic output[J].Fiscal studies,2008,29 (1):75-87.
[21]INGWERSEN P,LARSEN B.Influence of a performance indicator on Danish research production and citation impact 2000-12[J].Scientometrics,2014,101:1325-1344.
[22]WANG J,LEE Y N,WALSH J P.Funding model and creativity in science:competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects[J].Research policy,2018,47:1070-1083.
[23]HEINZE T,SHAPIRA P,ROGERS J D,et al.Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research[J].Research policy,2009,38:610-623.
[24]SCHNEIDER S,NESS K K,ROCKWELL S,et al.2012 faculty workload survey:research report[R].Federal demonstration partnership,2014.
[25]HERBERT D L,BARNETT A G,CLARKE P,et al.On the time spent preparing grant proposals:an observational study of Australian researchers[J/OL].BMJ Open 2013,3:e002800.[2019-04-11].https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/5/e002800.
[26]BANAL-ESTANOL A,MACHO-STADLER I,PÉREZ-CASTRILLO D.Key success drivers in public research grants:funding the seeds of radical innovation in academia[R].CESifo working paper,2016.
[27]GRIMPE C.Extramural research grants and scientists funding strategies:beggars cannot be choosers[J]Research policy,2012,41 (8):1448-1460.
[28]LI D.Expertise versus bias in evaluation:evidence from the NIH[J].American economic journal,2017,9:60-92.
[29]ZACHAREWICZ T,LEPORI B,REALE E,et al.Performance-based research funding in EU member states-a comparative assessment[J].Science and public policy,2019,46:105-115.
[30]CAVE M,HANNEY S,HENKEL M,et al.The use of performance indicators in higher education[M].London:Jessica Kingsley Publishers,1997.
[31]LEWIS J M.Research policy as “carrots and sticks”:governance strategies in Australia,the United Kingdom and New Zealand[M]// CAPANO G,HOWLETT M,RAMESH M.Varieties of governance.London:Palgrave Macmillan,2015:131-150.
[32]SERRANO VELARDE K.The way we ask for money…The emergence and institutionalization of grant writing practices in academia[J].Minerva,2018,56:85-107.
[33]YOUNG M.Competitive funding,citation regimes and the diminishment of breakthrough research[J].Higher education,2015,69:421-434.
[34]OECD.Effective operation of competitive research funding systems[R].Paris:OECD Publishing,2018.
[35]AGHION P,DEWATRIPONT M,HOXBY C,et al.The governance and performance of universities:evidence from Europe and the US[J].Economic policy,2010,25:7-59.