Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of hybrid public and market-oriented financing mechanisms on the scientific portfolio and performances of public research labs: a scientometric analysis

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The scientific problem of this study is the analysis of the portfolio of outputs by public research labs in the presence of hybrid funding scheme based on public and market-oriented financing mechanisms. Research institutes are considered Decision Making Units, which produce two different kinds of scientific outputs using inputs. We consider some scientific outputs with more international visibility (High Visibility Outputs-HVOs) than others called Low Visibility Outputs (LVOs). We confront this problem by a scientometric approach applying models of the Directional Output Distance Function, which endeavours to measure and analyze the effects of hybrid financing of public research labs in terms of potential loss in high quality scientific outputs, in particular when the share of market-oriented funds is beyond a specific threshold. Results, considering R&D organizations of “hard sciences”, seem to show that a hybrid financing scheme, too market-oriented for supporting operation (and survival) of research labs, tends to affect scientific output portfolio by lowering scientific performances and HVOs. The study here also proposes a preliminary analysis of the optimal level of market financing in relation to total financial resources for a fruitful co-existence of market and public funding scheme to maximize the scientific output (publications) of R&D labs. The findings show main differences across scientific departments and some critical weaknesses points and threats by public research labs for production of scientific outputs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Strategic change involves an attempt to change current modes of cognition and action to enable the organization to take advantage of important opportunities or to cope with consequential environmental threats” (Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991, p. 433).

  2. These funds are allocated considering the past distribution, but they tend to be higher in case of a large laboratory or complex machinery.

  3. Institutes were grouped in 11 departments after the 2003 restructuring of CNR. We consider 9 departments, excluding social and humanistic institutes. Note that from 2013 onwards the 9 departments in natural and engineering sciences have been aggregated in 6 macro-departments.

  4. The necessary condition for the functions of one variable in order to have the solution x = x* to be a maximum or a minimum is:

    \( \frac{{{\text{d}}f(x)}}{{{\text{d}}x}} = 0\quad {\text{for}}\quad x = x^{*} \)

    In this case, x is a stationary point.

References

  • Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: A data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22(1), 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). A field-standardized application of DEA to national-scale research assessment of universities. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 659–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27(5), 306–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athanassopoulos, A., & Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative efficiency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 5(2), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). The exploitation of complementarities in scientific production process at the laboratory level. Technovation, 24(6), 455–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., & Färe, R. (1996). Benefit and distance function. Journal of Economic Theory, 70(2), 407–419.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., & Färe, R. (1998). Profit, directional distance function and Nerlovian efficiency. Journal of Optimisation Theory and Applications, 98(2), 351–364.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2001). A basic model for evaluating R&D performance: Theory and application in Italy. R&D Management, 31(4), 453–464.

  • Coccia, M. (2004). New models for measuring the R&D performance and identifying the productivity of public research institutes. R&D Management, 34(3), 267–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2005). A taxonomy of public research bodies: a systemic approach. Prometheus –The journal of issues in technological change, innovation, information economics, communications and science policy, 23(1), 63–82.

  • Coccia, M. (2008a). New organizational behaviour of public research institutions: Lessons learned from Italian case study. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 2(4), 402–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2008b). Measuring scientific performance of public research units for strategic change. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 183–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2009a). Research performance and bureaucratization within public research labs. Scientometrics, 79(1), 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2009b). Bureaucratization in public research institutions. Minerva, A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 47(1), 31–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2012). Organization and strategic change of public research institutions. In: L. Greenfeld (Ed.), The ideals of Joseph Ben-David (Ch. 5, pp. 73–96). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

  • Coccia, M., & Cadario, E. (2014). Organisational (un)learning of public research labs in turbulent context. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 15(2), 115–129.

  • Coccia, M., & Rolfo, S. (2002). Technology transfer analysis in the Italian National Research Council. Technovation, 22(5), 291–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Rolfo, S. (2007). How research policy changes can affect the organization and productivity of public research institutes. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Research and Practice, 9(3), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Rolfo, S. (2008). Strategic change of public research units in their scientific activity. Technovation, 28(8), 485–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Rolfo, S. (2009). Project management in public research organization: strategic change in complex scenarios. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 1(3), 235–252.

  • Coccia, M., & Rolfo, S. (2010). New entrepreneurial behaviour of public research organizations: Opportunities and threats of technological services supply. International Journal of Services, Technology and Management, 13(1/2), 134–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Rolfo, S. (2013). Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior of Public Research Institutions. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(4), 256–268.

  • Coelli, T., Prasada Rao, D. S., & Battese, G. E. (1989). An Introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Boston: Kluver Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design. Columbia University Press, New York: R&D Laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Hussinge, K., & Schneider, C. (2011). Commercializing Academic Research: The Quality of Faculty Patenting. Industrial and Corporate Change, Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), 1403–1437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., & Kraft, K. (2012). Spillovers of Innovation Activities and Their Profitability. Oxford Economic Papers, 64, 302–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., & Thorwarth, S. (2012). The contribution of in-house and external design activities on product market performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 878–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., & Toole, A. (2010). Is there a trade-off between academic research and faculty entrepreneurship? Evidence from US NIH supported biomedical researchers. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(5/6), 505–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falavigna, G., & Manello, A. (2014). External funding, efficiency and productivity growth in public research: The case of the Italian National Research Council. Research Evaluation, 23, 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2000). Theory and application of directional distance function. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 13(2), 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C. A. K., & Pasurka, C. (1989). Multilateral productivity comparison when some output are undesirable: A non parametric approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 90–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Pasurka, C. (2007). Environmental production function and environmental directional distance function. The International Journal, 32(7), 1055–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, J., Laudel, G., Hinze, S., & Butler, L. (2002). Impact of evaluation-based funding on the production of scientific knowledge: What to worry about, and how to find out. Karlsruhe, Germany: Fraunhofer ISI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, B. (2008). The Effect of Government Contracting on Academic Research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy, 37(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groot, T., & García-Valderrama, T. (2006). Research quality and efficiency. Analysis of assessments and management issues in Dutch economics and business research programs. Research Policy, 35(9), 1362–1376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, C., & Hung, H. T. (2008). Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study. The International Journal of Management Science (Omega), 36(4), 653–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2006). The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33(7), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepori, T. J., & Larédo, P. (2007). Changing patterns of public research funding in France. Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 389–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llerena, P., Matt, M., & Schaeffer, V. (2003). The evolution of French research policies and the impacts on the universities and public research organizations. In A. Geuna, A. J. Salter, & W. E. Steinmueller (Eds.), Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance (pp. 147–168). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsutaka, M., Yokota, S., Naito, K., & Itoh, J. (2010). Development of a model to estimate the economic impacts of R&D output of public research institutes. R&D Management, 40(1), 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. (2007). The transformation of academic work: Acts and analysis. Center for studies in higher education, No. 4. Berkeley: University of California.

  • Nagy, S. G., Kováts, G., & Németh, A. O. (2014). Governance and Funding of Higher Education–International Trends and Best Practices. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 180–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (2005). The limits of market organization. New York: Russel Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picazo-Tadeo, A. J., & Prior, D. (2009). Environmental externalities and efficiency measurement. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 90(11), 3332–3339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanz-Menéndez, L., & Cruz-Castro, L. (2003). Coping with environmental pressures: Public research organisations responses to funding crises. Research Policy, 32(8), 1293–1308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarrico, C. S., Teixeira, P. N., Rosa, M. J., & Cardoso, M. F. (2009). Subject mix and productivity in Portuguese universities. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(1), 287–295.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schuetze, H. G. (2007). Research universities and the spectre of academic capitalism. Minerva, XLV(4), 435–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD: and the Entrepreneurial University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2008). A structural analysis of publication profiles for the classification of European research institutes. Scientometrics, 74(2), 223–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, J. M., Dunlap, D. R., & Friar, J. H. (2012). The university entrepreneur: A census and survey of attributes and outcomes. R&D Management, 42(5), 401–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuzi, F. (2005). Useful science is good science: Empirical evidence from the Italian National Research Council. Technovation, 25(5), 505–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viale, R., & Etzkowitz, H. (2004) Third academic revolution: Polyvalent knowledge; the DNA of the triple helix, www.triplehelix5.com.

  • Washburn, J. (2005). University Inc.: The corporate corruption of higher education. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R. (1991). Changing control strategies in industrial R&D. R&D Management, 21(1), 43–53.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Council of Research of Italy, CNR-Ceris, via Real Collegio 30, 10024, Moncalieri, To, Italy

    Mario Coccia

  2. RAND Corporation Washington Office, RAND Corporation, 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA, USA

    Mario Coccia

  3. Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology, United Nations University, UNU-MERIT, Keizer Karelplein 19, 6211, TC, Maastricht, Netherlands

    Mario Coccia

  4. Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth (CNR-Ceris), National Council of Research of Italy, Via Real Collegio 30, 10024, Moncalieri, To, Italy

    Greta Falavigna & Alessandro Manello

Authors
  1. Mario Coccia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Greta Falavigna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessandro Manello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Coccia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coccia, M., Falavigna, G. & Manello, A. The impact of hybrid public and market-oriented financing mechanisms on the scientific portfolio and performances of public research labs: a scientometric analysis. Scientometrics 102, 151–168 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1427-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1427-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation