IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v40y2011i9p1295-1306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A functionalist framework to compare research systems applied to an analysis of the transformation of the Chinese research system

Author

Listed:
  • Jonkers, Koen

Abstract

This paper presents an analytical framework for the comparative analysis of National Research Systems. We follow evolutionary accounts of the research system in combination with insights from functionalist economics of innovation and organisational theorists. We also illustrate the potential use of this framework by applying it to an analysis of the Chinese research system's transformation between 1980 and 2005. During this period, this system is considered to have gradually changed from a centrally planned system to a mixed model. This implies a move in the direction of a ‘perfect market ideal type’. The increased performance of the overarching functions of the research system can be partially explained by these institutional changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonkers, Koen, 2011. "A functionalist framework to compare research systems applied to an analysis of the transformation of the Chinese research system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1295-1306.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:9:p:1295-1306
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311001120
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Carlsson, B & Stankiewicz, R, 1991. "On the Nature, Function and Composition of Technological Systems," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 93-118, April.
    2. Whitley, Richard, 2003. "Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1015-1029, June.
    3. van der Meulen, Barend & Rip, Arie, 1998. "Mediation in the Dutch science system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 757-769, December.
    4. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2006. "The emergence of China as a leading nation in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 83-104, February.
    5. Koen Jonkers & Laura Cruz-Castro, 2010. "The internationalisation of public sector research through international joint laboratories," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(8), pages 559-570, October.
    6. Bozeman, Barry & Mangematin, Vincent, 2004. "Editor's introduction: building and deploying scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 565-568, May.
    7. Bihui Jin & Ronald Rousseau & Xiaoxing Sun, 2005. "Key labs and open labs in the Chinese scientific research system: qualitative and quantitative evaluation indicators," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 103-109, August.
    8. Liu, Xielin & White, Steven, 2001. "Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application to China's transitional context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1091-1114, August.
    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. Karaulova, Maria & Shackleton, Oliver & Liu, Weishu & Gök, Abdullah & Shapira, Philip, 2017. "Institutional change and innovation system transformation: A tale of two academies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 196-207.
    2. Yi Zhang & Kaihua Chen & Guilong Zhu & Richard C. M. Yam & Jiancheng Guan, 2016. "Inter-organizational scientific collaborations and policy effects: an ego-network evolutionary perspective of the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1383-1415, September.

    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:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:9:p:1295-1306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.