IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v78y2024ics0160791x24001623.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science and technology evaluation reform and universities’ innovation performance

Author

Listed:
  • Jiang, Chun
  • Li, Shihan
  • Shen, Qi

Abstract

Does science and technology evaluation (STE) policy reform improve universities' innovation performance? Research typically argues that more upstream R&D investment leads to more downstream innovation performance, but it is less clear what the trade-offs over time might be for targeted investments in universities influenced by STE reform. In 2013, China proposed STE reform measures focused on ‘innovation quality, efficiency, and contribution’. Using a difference-in-differences research design on a comprehensive longitudinal database of 62 universities spanning from 2009 to 2016, we show that this STE policy positively affects university basic research outputs and quality but weakens applied research outputs. This effect is pronounced in pilot universities with better resources. Empirical evidence suggests that the STE policy works mainly through mobilising the enthusiasm of human capital, improving R&D intensity in science and technology funds, and promoting industrialisation-oriented R&D projects. We consider the following possible perspectives on the mechanisms of change: knowledge asset development, economic competition, and a socio-political process. This analysis leads to theoretical developments about how basic versus applied science produces outputs in the Chinese context. The paper also shows that the STE policy promotes technology transfer in universities.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiang, Chun & Li, Shihan & Shen, Qi, 2024. "Science and technology evaluation reform and universities’ innovation performance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:78:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24001623
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X24001623
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102614?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Science and technology evaluation reform; University innovation; Basic research; Applied research; Difference in differences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H39 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Other
    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • O29 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Other
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:78:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24001623. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.