IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v29y2002i5p314-330.html

Do US Congressional earmarks increase research output at universities?

Author

Listed:
  • A Abigail Payne

Abstract

For 20 years US universities have been able to bypass peer-reviewed research competition for federal funding and seek a direct appropriation of funding from Congress. Proponents of this earmarking claim it helps a university to build the infrastructure needed to be able to compete for peer-reviewed funding. Opponents claim this funding is used poorly and is less productive than peer-reviewed funding. Using two panel data sets that span 1980 to 1998, incorporating university and year fixed effects, and using an instrumental variables estimation, this paper shows that while the number of articles published increases, the number of citations per article decreases. In general, the study suggests that earmarked funding may increase the quantity of publications but may decrease their quality. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • A Abigail Payne, 2002. "Do US Congressional earmarks increase research output at universities?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(5), pages 314-330, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:29:y:2002:i:5:p:314-330
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154302781780822
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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).
    2. Gerald A. Carlino & Robert M. Hunt, 2009. "What explains the quantity and quality of local inventive activity?," Working Papers 09-12, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    3. de Figueiredo, John & Silverman, Brian, 2004. "How Does the Government (Want to) Fund Science? Politics, Lobbying and Academic Earmarks," Working papers 4484-04, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Carayol, Nicolas & Maublanc, François, 2025. "Can money buy scientific leadership? The impact of excellence programs on German and French universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(2).
    5. Henry Ergas, 2010. "New policies create a new politics: issues of institutional design in climate change policy," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(2), pages 143-164, April.
    6. Rachel Heyard & Hanna Hottenrott, 2020. "The Impact of Research Funding on Knowledge Creation and Dissemination: A study of SNSF Research Grants," Papers 2011.11274, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    7. Brach, Ann & Wachs, Martin, 2005. "Earmarking in the US Department of Transportation Research Programs," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 501-521, July.
    8. Bozeman, Barry & Jung, Jiwon, 2017. "Bureaucratization in Academic Research Policy: What Causes It?," Annals of Science and Technology Policy, now publishers, vol. 1(2), pages 133-214, May.
    9. Rachel Heyard & Hanna Hottenrott, 2021. "The value of research funding for knowledge creation and dissemination: A study of SNSF Research Grants," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Daghbashyan, Zara, 2009. "Do university units differ in the efficiency of resource utilization?," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 176, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, revised 17 Dec 2012.
    11. Bo Zhao, 2018. "State disinvestment in higher education: the impact on public research universities' patent applications," Working Papers 19-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    12. Ergas, Henry, 2010. "New policies create a new politics: issues of institutional design in climate change policy," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(2), pages 1-22.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H3 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods

    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:oup:scippl:v:29:y:2002:i:5:p:314-330. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.