The Consequences of Private and Public Funding of Science
Paper Session
Monday, Jan. 4, 2021 3:45 PM - 5:45 PM (EST)
- Chair: Tania Babina, Columbia University
The Color of Money: Federal vs. Industry Funding of University Research
Abstract
U.S. universities have experienced a shift in research funding away from federal and towards private industry sources. This paper evaluates whether the source of funding – federal or private industry – is relevant for commercialization of research outputs. We link person-level grant data from 22 universities to patent and career outcomes (including IRS W-2 records). To identify a causal effect, we exploit individual-level variation in exposure to narrow federal R&D programs stemming from pre-existing field specialization. We instrument for the researcher's funding sources with aggregate supply shocks to federal funding within these narrow fields. The results show that a higher share of federal funding reduces patenting and the chances of joining an incumbent firm, while increasing the chances of high-tech entrepreneurship and of remaining employed in academia. A decline in the federal share of funding is offset by an increase in the private share of funding, which has opposite effects. We conclude that the incentives of private funders to appropriate research outputs have important implications for the trajectory of university researcher careers and intellectual property.Research Funding and Collaboration
Abstract
We analyse whether research funding contests promote co-authorship. Our analysis combines Scopus publication records with data on applications to the Marsden Fund, the premier source of funding for basic research in New Zealand. On average, and after controlling for observable and unobservable heterogeneity, applicant pairs were 13.8 percentage points more likely to co-author in a given year if they co-proposed during the previous ten years than if they did not. This co-authorship rate was not significantly higher among funded pairs. However, when we increase post-proposal publication lags towards the length of a typical award, we find that funding, rather than participation, promotes co-authorship.The Rise of American Corporate Science
Abstract
Corporate science in America emerged in the interwar period, as some companies set up state-of-the-art corporate laboratories, employed highly-skilled scientists, and conducted basic research of the kind we would associate today with academic institutions. Using a newly-assembled data set on both publicly-traded and private US companies between 1926 and 1940 with information on corporate ownership, corporate organization (diversifi cation and business group affiliation) and corporate research (publications, patents and their citations and market values), we attempt to explain the historical rise of corporate quasi-academic research. We argue that this phenomenon was driven by companies trying to make up for institutional voids, in this case, the weakness of academic research, which made access to science in certain fields costly for US firms. Measuring institutional voids, or scientifi c backwardness, on the basis of publications by US-based and European scientists, we find that large and diversifi ed corporations, especially those relatively close to the technological frontier, were the ones prone to internalize the provision of this public good and invest in basic research. We also fi nd that corporate research was positively correlated with stock market valuation and with "homerun" patents. These findings indicate that, during our sample period, corporate science and academic research were substitutes. The results also highlight the link between corporate organization and corporate science and, in particular, the possible role of large firms and diversi fied business groups in advancing science in less-than-fully-developed economies.Who Loses When Public Funding Declines?
Abstract
In the current funding environment, academic scientists face choices in seeking external funding for their research from either government or foundation sources. We elicit scientists’ preferences between foundation and government funders over a number of dimensions related to the process of applying for, and using the grants requested, as well as in regard to possible implications for their research careers. Our analysis centered on three issues: researchers’ grant experiences, researchers’ perceptions of government and foundation funding bodies, and an experiment in which we randomly assigned respondents to make choices between potential research sponsors, under three scenarios which each had varied expected success rates. We provide evidence on the possible trade-offs made by scientists, and their responsiveness to changes in the availability of government funding.Discussant(s)
Benjamin Jones
,
Northwestern University
Danielle Li
,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Bruce Weinberg
,
Ohio State University
Bhaven Sampat
,
Columbia University
Claudia Steinwender
,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JEL Classifications
- O3 - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
- I1 - Health