IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v112y2017i1d10.1007_s11192-017-2402-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Underestimating or overestimating the distribution inequality of research funding? The influence of funding sources and subdivision

Author

Listed:
  • Jianping Li

    (China Jiliang University
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Yongjia Xie

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Dengsheng Wu

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Yuanping Chen

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

Research funding is a significant support for the development of scientific research. The inequality of research funding is an intrinsic feature of science, and policy makers have realized the over-concentration of funding allocation. Previous studies have tried to use the Gini coefficient to measure this inequality; however, the phenomena of multiple funding sources and funding subdivision have not been deeply discussed and empirically studied due to limitations on data availability. This paper provides a more accurate analysis of the distribution inequality of research funding, and it considers all of the funding sources in the funding system and the subdivision of funding to junior researchers within research teams. We aim to determine the influence of these two aspects of the Gini results at the individual level. A dataset with 68,697 project records and 80,380 subproject records from the Chinese Academy of Sciences during the period from 2011 to 2015 is collected to validate the problem. The empirical results show that (1) the Gini coefficient for a single funding source is biased and may be overestimated or underestimated, and the most common data source, which is the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), causes the Gini coefficient to be underestimated; and (2) considering the subdivision of research funding lowers the inequality of research funding, with a smaller Gini coefficient, although the decrease is moderate.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianping Li & Yongjia Xie & Dengsheng Wu & Yuanping Chen, 2017. "Underestimating or overestimating the distribution inequality of research funding? The influence of funding sources and subdivision," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 55-74, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2402-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2402-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2402-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2402-2?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muscio, Alessandro & Quaglione, Davide & Vallanti, Giovanna, 2013. "Does government funding complement or substitute private research funding to universities?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 63-75.
    2. Qiang Zhi & Tianguang Meng, 2016. "Funding allocation, inequality, and scientific research output: an empirical study based on the life science sector of Natural Science Foundation of China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 603-628, February.
    3. Wu, Jiang, 2015. "Distributions of scientific funding across universities and research disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 183-196.
    4. Fedderke, J.W. & Goldschmidt, M., 2015. "Does massive funding support of researchers work?: Evaluating the impact of the South African research chair funding initiative," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 467-482.
    5. Auranen, Otto & Nieminen, Mika, 2010. "University research funding and publication performance--An international comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 822-834, July.
    6. Sotaro Shibayama, 2011. "Distribution of academic research funds: a case of Japanese national research grant," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 43-60, July.
    7. Corie Lok, 2010. "Science funding: Science for the masses," Nature, Nature, vol. 465(7297), pages 416-418, May.
    8. Jiang Wu & Miao Jin & Xiu-Hao Ding, 2015. "Diversity of individual research disciplines in scientific funding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 669-686, May.
    9. Wu, Yonghong, 2010. "Tackling undue concentration of federal research funding: An empirical assessment on NSF's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 835-841, July.
    10. Sten H. Vermund, 2008. "NIH: researchers lose out to war, not to each other," Nature, Nature, vol. 452(7189), pages 811-811, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Osinga, Sjoukje A. & Paudel, Dilli & Mouzakitis, Spiros A. & Athanasiadis, Ioannis N., 2022. "Big data in agriculture: Between opportunity and solution," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Qianqian Jin & Hongshu Chen & Ximeng Wang & Tingting Ma & Fei Xiong, 2022. "Exploring funding patterns with word embedding-enhanced organization–topic networks: a case study on big data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5415-5440, September.
    3. Wu, Dengsheng & Yuan, Lili & Li, Ruoyun & Li, Jianping, 2018. "Decomposing inequality in research funding by university-institute sub-group: A three-stage nested Theil index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1312-1326.
    4. Xiuwen Chen & Jianping Li & Xiaolei Sun & Dengsheng Wu, 2019. "Early identification of intellectual structure based on co-word analysis from research grants," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 349-369, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joonha Jeon & So Young Kim, 2018. "Is the gap widening among universities? On research output inequality and its measurement in the Korean higher education system," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 589-606, March.
    2. Wu, Dengsheng & Yuan, Lili & Li, Ruoyun & Li, Jianping, 2018. "Decomposing inequality in research funding by university-institute sub-group: A three-stage nested Theil index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1312-1326.
    3. Yu, Nannan & Dong, Yueyan & de Jong, Martin, 2022. "A helping hand from the government? How public research funding affects academic output in less-prestigious universities in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    4. Migheli, Matteo & Zotti, Roberto, 2020. "The strange case of the Matthew effect and beauty contests: Research evaluation and specialisation in Italian universities," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    5. Wu, Jiang, 2015. "Distributions of scientific funding across universities and research disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 183-196.
    6. Domenico A. Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo & Fiorenzo Franceschini, 2020. "Short-term effects of non-competitive funding to single academic researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1261-1280, June.
    7. Liao, Chien Hsiang, 2021. "The Matthew effect and the halo effect in research funding," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    8. Yuret, Tolga, 2017. "Do researchers pay attention to publication subsidies?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 423-434.
    9. Yumei Fu, 2023. "The impact of government funding on research innovation: An empirical analysis of Chinese universities," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(1), pages 285-296, January.
    10. Yin, Zhifeng & Liang, Zheng & Zhi, Qiang, 2018. "Does the concentration of scientific research funding in institutions promote knowledge output?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1146-1159.
    11. Byeongwoo Kang & Kazuyuki Motohashi, 2020. "Academic contribution to industrial innovation by funding type," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 169-193, July.
    12. Melanie Wiener & Daniela Maresch & Robert J. Breitenecker, 2020. "The shift towards entrepreneurial universities and the relevance of third-party funding of business and economics units in Austria: a research note," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 345-363, April.
    13. Daniele Rotolo & Michael Hopkins & Nicola Grassano, 2023. "Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 50-66, January.
    14. Xia Fan & Xiaowan Yang & Zhou Yu, 2021. "Effect of basic research and applied research on the universities’ innovation capabilities: the moderating role of private research funding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5387-5411, July.
    15. Selcuk Besir Demir, 2018. "Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2053-2068, September.
    16. Young-Hwan Lee, 2021. "Determinants of research productivity in Korean Universities: the role of research funding," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1462-1486, October.
    17. Huang, Ding-wei, 2018. "Optimal distribution of science funding," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 502(C), pages 613-618.
    18. Huňady Ján & Pisár Peter & Jošić Hrvoje & Žmuk Berislav & Bach Mirjana Pejić, 2023. "Government and Business Funding of Sources of Funds for R&D at Universities: Complements or Substitutes?," South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 18(2), pages 97-111, December.
    19. Yuret, Tolga, 2016. "Interfield equality: Journals versus researchers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1196-1206.
    20. Wang, Jian & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2018. "Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1070-1083.

    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:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2402-2. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.