IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/wfo/wstudy/61664.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Jürgen Janger
  • Nicole Schmidt

    (WIFO)

  • Anna Strauss

    (WIFO)

Abstract

Using a structured systematic comparative approach, this study analyses differences in (basic) research grant funding between the main academic research funding agency of Germany (DFG) and the main agencies of five other countries (FWF in Austria, SNSF in Switzerland, NWO in the Netherlands, UKRI in the UK, NIH and NSF in the USA). A systematic survey of the literature was used to identify differences in research grant funding which may impact on research outcomes, among them overall funding levels, funding portfolio, success rates, differences in grant design such as lot size and grant duration, the amount of overheads paid as well as differences in review criteria. There is little causally robust empirical literature on the impact of competitive research grant funding, other than that its share in overall funding and grant design matter. There are major differences between the grant funding agencies, both in terms of funding levels or success rates, but also in terms of grant design and peer review, which are likely to impact on research outcomes. Overall, the Swiss SNSF is the most generous funding agency in terms of success rates and funding levels while the Austrian FWF shows the lowest funding levels. NSF and NIH feature the lowest success rates. The Swiss, German and Austrian agencies put little emphasis on the economic impact of the research they fund by contrast with the Anglo-Saxon and Dutch ones. Overheads paid vary from none paid at all (FWF, NWO) to full reimbursement (NIH, NSF). Differences in overheads paid together with senior researchers being able to have their salary funded by grant funding (to buy out their teaching time) may lead to different dynamics in the growth of the scientific enterprise in a country.

Suggested Citation

  • Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt & Anna Strauss, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, Juni.
  • Handle: RePEc:wfo:wstudy:61664
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/61664
    File Function: abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sampat, Bhaven N., 2012. "Mission-oriented biomedical research at the NIH," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1729-1741.
    2. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Lawson, Cornelia, 2015. "The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1160-1175.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Caroline Hoxby & Andreu Mas-Colell & André Sapir, 2010. "The governance and performance of universities: evidence from Europe and the US [Distance to frontier, selection, and economic growth]," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 25(61), pages 7-59.
    4. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    5. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Martin, Ben R., 2010. "Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won't work)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1011-1023, October.
    6. Jürgen Janger & Anna Strauss & David Campbell, 2013. "Academic Careers: A Cross-country Perspective. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 37," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46923, December.
    7. Rajshree Agarwal & Atsushi Ohyama, 2013. "Industry or Academia, Basic or Applied? Career Choices and Earnings Trajectories of Scientists," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 950-970, April.
    8. Janger, Jürgen & Nowotny, Klaus, 2016. "Job choice in academia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1672-1683.
    9. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    10. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    11. David Bailey & Lisa de Propris & Jürgen Janger, 2015. "New Industrial Policy for More Inclusive and Sustainable Growth. WWWforEurope Policy Brief No. 9," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58555, December.
    12. Albert Banal-Estañol & Mireia Jofre-Bonet & Cornelia Meissner, 2008. "Theimpact of industry collaboration on research: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK," Economics Working Papers 1190, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Aug 2010.
    13. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & David Irwin & Caitlin D McPartland & Joseph Travis & Sofie Reynders & Lisa A Thompson & Scott R Glisson, 2014. "The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-9, September.
    14. Lindell Bromham & Russell Dinnage & Xia Hua, 2016. "Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success," Nature, Nature, vol. 534(7609), pages 684-687, June.
    15. Ronald G. Ehrenberg & Michael J. Rizzo & George H. Jakubson, 2003. "Who Bears the Growing Cost of Science at Universities?," NBER Working Papers 9627, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. 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.
    17. Meurer, Petra & Schulze, Nicole, 2010. "Overheadkosten für Drittmittelprojekte in Hochschulen und außeruniversitären Forschungseinrichtungen," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 18-2010, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    18. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    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. Jürgen Janger, 2019. "Projektbasierte Grundlagenforschungsförderung im internationalen Vergleich. Implikationen für eine Exzellenzinitiative in Österreich," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 92(3), pages 159-172, March.
    2. Jürgen Janger & Thomas König, 2020. "Forschungspolitik in Österreich. Zentrale Ansatzpunkte für eine Leistungssteigerung in der Grundlagenforschung," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 66625, December.
    3. Diane Coyle, 2021. "The idea of productivity," Working Papers 003, The Productivity Institute.

    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. Blandinieres, Florence & Pellens, Maikel, 2021. "Scientist's industry engagement and the research agenda: Evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    3. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    4. Albert Banal-Estañol & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castillo, 2019. "Funding academic research: grant application, partnership, award, and output," Economics Working Papers 1658, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    5. Albert Banal-Estañol & Ines Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2016. "Key Success Drivers in Public Research Grants: Funding the Seeds of Radical Innovation in Academia?," CESifo Working Paper Series 5852, CESifo.
    6. Jürgen Janger, 2015. "Business Science Links For a New Growth Path. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 107," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58413, December.
    7. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    8. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    9. Stephen A Gallo & Joanne H Sullivan & Scott R Glisson, 2016. "The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    10. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lawson, Cornelia, 2013. "Fishing for Complementarities: Competitive Research Funding and Research Productivity," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201318, University of Turin.
    11. Broström, Anders, 2019. "Academic breeding grounds: Home department conditions and early career performance of academic researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1647-1665.
    12. Funk, Russell J. & Glennon, Britta & Lane, Julia & Murciano-Goroff, Raviv & Ross, Matthew B., 2019. "Money for Something: Braided Funding and the Structure and Output of Research Groups," IZA Discussion Papers 12762, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Albert Banal-Estañol & Qianshuo Liu & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    14. Quentin Plantec & Benjamin Cabanes & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2021. "Market-Pull Or Research Push? Effects Of Research Orientations On University-Industry Collaborative Ph.D. Projects' Performances," Post-Print halshs-03190142, HAL.
    15. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    17. 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).
    18. Kyle Myers & Wei Yang Tham, 2023. "Money, Time, and Grant Design," Papers 2312.06479, arXiv.org.
    19. Albert Banal-Estañol & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2018. "Endogenous Matching in University-Industry Collaboration: Theory and Empirical Evidence from the United Kingdom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1591-1608, April.
    20. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lawson, Cornelia, 2017. "Fishing for complementarities: Research grants and research productivity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-38.

    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:wfo:wstudy:61664. 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: Florian Mayr (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wifooat.html .

    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.