IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/ipolec/doi10.1086-668238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Role of Science Philanthropy in American Research Universities

Author

Listed:
  • Fiona Murray

Abstract

Executive SummaryPhilanthropy plays a major role in university-based scientific, engineering, and medical research in the United States, contributing over $4 billion annually to operations, endowment, and buildings devoted to research. When combined with endowment income, university research funding from science philanthropy is $7 billion a year. This major contribution to US scientific competitiveness comes from private foundations as well as gifts from individuals. From the researcher's perspective, analysis in this paper demonstrates that science philanthropy provides almost 30% of the annual research funds of those in leading universities. And yet science philanthropy has been largely overshadowed by the massive rise of federal research funding and, to a lesser extent, industry funding. Government and industry funding have drawn intensive analysis, partly because their objectives are measurable: governments generally support broad national goals and basic research, while industry finances projects likely to contribute directly to useful products. In contrast, philanthropy's contribution to overall levels of scientific funding and, more importantly, the distribution of philanthropy across different types of research are poorly understood. To fill this gap, I provide the first empirical evaluation of the role of science philanthropy in American research universities. The documented extent of science philanthropy and its strong emphasis on translational medical research raises important questions for federal policy makers. In determining their own funding strategies, they must no longer assume that their funding is the only source in shaping some fields of research while recognizing that philanthropy may ignore other important fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Fiona Murray, 2013. "Evaluating the Role of Science Philanthropy in American Research Universities," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 23-60.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:ipolec:doi:10.1086/668238
    DOI: 10.1086/668238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668238
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668238
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/668238?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. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Jeremy C. Stein, 2008. "Academic freedom, private‐sector focus, and the process of innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 617-635, September.
    2. repec:ucp:bknber:9780226473062 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. David Paul A., 2008. "The Historical Origins of 'Open Science': An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 106-106, October.
    4. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    6. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    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. Tabakovic, Haris & Wollmann, Thomas G., 2019. "The impact of money on science: Evidence from unexpected NCAA football outcomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. Kyle, Margaret K. & Ridley, David B. & Zhang, Su, 2017. "Strategic interaction among governments in the provision of a global public good," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 185-199.
    3. Saud E. Al shammary & Rafat Zrieq & Usama M. Ibrahem & Ahmed B. Altamimi & Hanan M. Diab, 2021. "On the Celebration of the International Day of Women and Girls in Science: Assessment of the Factors Mediating Women’s Empowerment in Scientific Research in Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, February.
    4. Shuyi Deng & Yufeng Lai & Samuel L. Myers & Man Xu, 2021. "Foundation Giving and Economics Research Productivity at HBCUs: Empirical Evidence from the Koch Foundation," Journal of Economics, Race, and Policy, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 215-236, December.

    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. Bronwyn Hall & Alessandro Maffioli, 2008. "Evaluating the impact of technology development funds in emerging economies: evidence from Latin America," The European Journal of Development Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 172-198.
    2. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    3. Tom Broekel & Lars Mewes, 2017. "Analyzing the impact of R&D policy on regional diversification," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1726, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Sep 2017.
    4. Dimos, Christos & Pugh, Geoff & Hisarciklilar, Mehtap & Talam, Ema & Jackson, Ian, 2022. "The relative effectiveness of R&D tax credits and R&D subsidies: A comparative meta-regression analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    5. Bronwyn Hall, 2004. "The financing of research and development," Chapters, in: Anthony Bartzokas & Sunil Mani (ed.), Financial Systems, Corporate Investment in Innovation, and Venture Capital, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Dirk Czarnitzki & Cindy Lopes-Bento, 2014. "Innovation Subsidies: Does the Funding Source Matter for Innovation Intensity and Performance? Empirical Evidence from Germany," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 380-409, July.
    7. Charles Delmotte, 2021. "Simple rules and the Political Economy of Income Taxation: the strengths of a uniform expense rule," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 323-339, December.
    8. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2017. "Incorporating innovation subsidies in the CDM framework: empirical evidence from Belgium," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 78-92, February.
    9. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2015. "R&D policies for young SMEs: input and output effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 465-485, October.
    10. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    11. Becker Wolfgang & Peters Jürgen, 2005. "Innovation Effects of Science-Related Technological Opportunities / Innovationseffekte von technologischen Möglichkeiten aus dem Wissenschaftsbereich: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 225(2), pages 130-150, April.
    12. Ivano D'Antonio & Alessandro De Iudicibus & Giuseppe Piroli & Francesco Savoia, 2014. "Ricerca e innovazione in campania: una valutazione controfattuale della politica di coesione," STUDI ECONOMICI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(113), pages 61-87.
    13. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Lerner, Josh, 2010. "The Financing of R&D and Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 609-639, Elsevier.
    14. Hanna Hottenrott & Bettina Peters, 2012. "Innovative Capability and Financing Constraints for Innovation: More Money, More Innovation?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(4), pages 1126-1142, November.
    15. Boeing, Philipp, 2016. "The allocation and effectiveness of China’s R&D subsidies - Evidence from listed firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1774-1789.
    16. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Lopes-Bento, Cindy, 2013. "Value for money? New microeconometric evidence on public R&D grants in Flanders," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 76-89.
    17. Ben-David, Dan, 2008. "Brain Drained: A Tale of Two Countries," CEPR Discussion Papers 6717, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Hu, Shan & Yu, Yongze & Fei, Qingyu, 2023. "Social credit and patent quality: Evidence from China," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    19. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref & Solomon, Edna, 2015. "UK and EU subsidies and private R&D investment: Is there input additionality?," MPRA Paper 68009, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 16 Nov 2015.
    20. Gianluca Pallante & Emanuele Russo & Andrea Roventini, 2020. "Does mission-oriented funding stimulate private R&D? Evidence from military R&D for US states," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-04097530, HAL.

    More about this item

    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:ucp:ipolec:doi:10.1086/668238. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/IPE .

    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.