Fishing for complementarities: Research grants and research productivity

International Journal of Industrial Organization

Volumn 51, Issue , 2017, Pages 1-38

  Hottenrott, Hanna ^a,b,c   Lawson, Cornelia ^d,e  

^a TUM SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN ECONOMIC RESEARCH ZEW   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BATH   (United Kingdom)

^e BRICK   (Italy)

Author keywords

Research funding; Scientific productivity; University industry collaboration

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; FINANCE; PRODUCTIVITY; PUBLISHING;

APPLIED RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR; PUBLICATION RATES; RESEARCH FUNDING; RESEARCH ORIENTATIONS; RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY; UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION;

ENGINEERING RESEARCH;

EID: 85010460393     PISSN: 01677187     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2016.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Agrawal, A., Henderson, R., Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Manag. Sci. 48 (2002), 44–60.
2. Angrist, J.D., Estimating the labor market impact of voluntary military service using social security data. Econometrica 66 (1998), 249–288.
3. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., Stuart, T., The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output. J. Ind. Econ. 57:4 (2009), 637–676.
4. Banal-Estanol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., Lawson, C., The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Res. Policy 44:6 (2015), 1160–1175.
5. Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., Welsch, R.E., Regression Diagnostics. 1980, Wiley, New York.
6. Benner, M., Sandström, U., Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system. Res. Policy 29 (2000), 291–301.
7. Bertanha, M., Moser, P., Spatial Errors in Count Data Regressions, 2014 Working Paper No. 20374.
8. Bia, M., Mattei, A., A stata package for the estimation of the dose-response function through adjustment for the generalized propensity score. Stata J. 8:3 (2008), 354–373.
9. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E., Anderson, M., Causino, N., Seashore-Louis, K., Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. N. Engl. J. Med. 335 (1996), 1734–1739.
10. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E.G., Gokhale, M., Yucel, R., Clarridge, B., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N.A., Data withholding in genetics and other life sciences: Prevalences and practices. Acad. Med. 81:2 (2006), 137–145.
11. Blundell, R., Griffith, R., van Reenen, J., Individual effects and dynamics in count data models. J. Econom. 108 (2002), 113–131.
12. Blundell, R., Griffith, R., van Reenen, J., Dynamic count data models of technological innovation. Econ. J. 105:429 (1995), 333–344.
13. Bollen, K.A., Jackman, R.W., Regression diagnostics: an expository treatment of outliers and influential cases. Fox, John, Long, J.Scott, (eds.) Modern Methods of Data Analysis, 1990, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 257–291.
14. Cohen, W.M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., Walsh, J., Industry and the academy: uneasy partners in the cause of technical advance. Noll, R.G., (eds.) Challenges to Research Universities, 1998, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
15. Czarnitzki, D, Grimpe, C, Toole, A., Does industry sponsorship jeopardize disclosure of academic research?. Ind. Corp. Change 24:1 (2015), 251–279.
16. Czarnitzki, D, Grimpe, C, Pellens, M., Access to research inputs: open science versus the entrepreneurial university. J. Technol. Transf. 40:6 (2015), 1050–1063.
17. Dasgupta, P., David, P., Towards a new economics of science. Res. Policy 3 (1994), 487–521.
18. Dehejia, R.H., Wahba, S., Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 94 (1999), 1053–1062.
19. Ducor, P., Coauthorship and coinventorship. Science 289:5481 (2000), 873–875.
20. Frölich, M., Finite sample properties of propensity-score matching and weighting estimators. Rev. Econ. Stat. 86:1 (2004), 77–90.
21. Guardabascio, B., Ventura, M., Estimating the dose-response function through a generalized linear model approach. Stata J. 14:1 (2014), 141–158.
22. Garner, H.R., McIver, L.J., Waitzkin, M.B., Research funding: same work, twice the money. Nature 493:7434 (2013), 599–601.
23. Geuna, A., Nesta, L., University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence. Res. Policy 35 (2006), 790–807.
24. Gulbrandsen, M., Smeby, J.C., Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Res. Policy 34 (2005), 932–950.
25. Greene, W., Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models. Econ. Lett. 107 (2010), 291–296.
26. Heckman, J.J., Ichimura, H., Todd, P., Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training program. Rev. Econ. Stud. 64:4 (1997), 605–654.
27. Heckman, J.J., Ichimura, H., Todd, P., Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Rev. Econ. Stud. 65:2 (1998), 261–294.
28. Heckman, J.J., Ichimura, H., J. A., Smith, Todd, P., Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrics 66 (1998), 1017–1098.
29. Heckman, J.J., Lalonde, R.J., Smith, J.A., The economics and econometrics of active labour market programs. Aschenfelter, A., Card, D., (eds.) Handbook of Labour Economics, 3, 1999, Amsterdam, 1866–2097.
30. Hirano, K., Imbens, G., The propensity score with continuous treatment. Gelman, A., Meng, X.L., (eds.) Applied Bayesian Modelling and Causal Inference from Missing Data Perspectives, 2004, Wiley.
31. Hottenrott, H., Lawson, C., Research grants, sources of ideas and the effects on academic research. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 23:2 (2014), 109–133.
32. Hottenrott, H., Thorwarth, S., Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity. Kyklos 64:4 (2011), 534–555.
33. Imbens, G.W., The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 87:3 (2000), 706–710.
34. Imbens, G.W., Wooldridge, J.M., Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J. Econ. Lit. 47 (2009), 5–86.
35. Kelchtermans, S., Veugelers, R., The great divide in scientific productivity: why the average scientist does not exist. Ind. Corp. Change 20:1 (2011), 295–336.
36. Lawson, C., Academic patenting: The importance of industry support. J. Technol.Transf. 38:4 (2013), 509–535.
37. Lawson, C., Academic inventions outside the university: investigating patent ownership in the UK. Ind. Innov. 20:5 (2013), 385–398.
38. Lechner, M., Earnings and employment effects of continuous off-the-job in East Germany after reunification. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 17 (1999), 74–90.
39. Lechner, M., An evaluation of public sector sponsored continuous vocational training in East Germany. J. Hum. Resour. 35 (2000), 347–375.
40. Lechner, M., Identification and estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments under the conditional independence assumption. Lechner, M., Pfeiffer, F., (eds.) Econometric Evaluation of Labour Market Policies, 2001, Physica, Heidelberg, 43–58.
41. Lee, Y.S., The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. J. Technol. Transf. 25:2 (2000), 111–133.
42. Levin, S.G., Stephan, P.E., Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists. Amer. Econ. Rev. 81 (1991), 114–132.
43. Lewison, G., Dawson, G., The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research. Scientometrics 41:1–2 (1998), 17–27.
44. Lisee, C., Lariviere, V., Archambault, E., Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: a bibliometric analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59:11 (2008), 1776–1784.
45. Lissoni, F., Montobbio, F., Zirulia, L., Inventorship and authorship as attribution rights: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 95 (2013), 49–69.
46. Manjarres-Henriquez, L., Gutierrez-Gracia, A., Vega-Jurado, J., Coexistence of university-industry relations and academic research: Barrier to or incentive for scientific productivity. Scientometrics 76:3 (2008), 561–563.
47. Manjarres-Henriquez, L., Gutierrez-Gracia, A., Carrion-Garcia, A., Vega-Jurado, J., The effects of university–industry relationships and academic research on scientific performance: synergy or substitution?. Res. Higher Educ. 50:8 (2009), 795–811.
48. Mansfield, E., Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics, and financing. Rev. Econ. Stat. 77:1 (1995), 55–65.
49. Murray, F., Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering. Res. Policy 31:8–9 (2002), 1389–1403.
50. Murray, F., Stern, S., Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 63 (2007), 648–687.
51. Narin, F., Pinski, G., Gee, H., Structure of the biomedical literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 27:1 (1976), 25–45.
52. Perkmann, M., Walsh, K., The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Ind. Corp. Change 18:6 (2009), 1033–1065.
53. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M. et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations, Res. Policy 42, 423–442.
54. Ponomariov, B., Boardman, P.C., The effect of informal industry contacts on the time university scientists allocate to collaborative research with industry. J. Technol. Transf. 33 (2008), 301–313.
55. RCUK. Guidance on Best Practice in the Management of Research Data, 2015 Accessed 25 November 2015; Retrieved from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/RCUKCommonPrinciplesonDataPolicy.pdf.
56. Rentocchini, F., D'Este, P., Manjarres-Henriquez, L., Grimaldi, R., The relationship between academic consulting and research performance: evidence from five Spanish universities. Int. J. Ind Org. 32 (2014), 70–75.
57. Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B., The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrica 70 (1983), 41–55.
58. Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B., Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 79 (1984), 516–524.
59. Rosenberg, N., Chemical engineering as a general purpose technology. Helpman, E., (eds.) General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth, 1998, MIT Press, Cambridge, 167–192.
60. Shibayama, S., Walsh, J.P., Baba, Y., Academic entrepreneurship and exchange of scientific resources: material transfer in life and material sciences in Japanese universities. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77 (2012), 804–830.
61. Slaughter, S., Leslie, L.L., Academic Capitalism. 1997, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
62. Slaughter, S., Rhoades, G., Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. 2004, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
63. Smith, J.A., Todd, P.E., Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?. J. Econom. 125 (2005), 305–353.
64. Stephan, P.E., The economics of science. J. Econ. Lit. 34:3 (1996), 1199–1235.
65. Stephan, P.E., How Economics Shapes Science. 2012, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
66. Toole, A., Czarnitzki, D., Commercializing science: is there a university ‘braindrain’ from academic entrepreneurship?. Manag. Sci. 56:9 (2010), 1599–1614.
67. Wang, X., Liu, D., Ding, K., Wang, X., Science funding and research output: a study on 10 countries. Scientometrics 91:2 (2012), 591–599.
68. Williams, U., Williams, S.P., txttool: Utilities for text analysis in Stata. Stata J. 14:4 (2014), 817–829.
69. Wooldridge, J.M., Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 2002, MIT Press, Cambridge.
70. Zucker, L., Darby, M., Brewer, M., Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S., 1998, Biotechnology Enterprises, American Economic Review 88, 290–306.
71. Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93, 1996, 709–712.
72. Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Armstrong, J.S., Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Manag. Sci. 48:1 (2002), 138–153.