Skip to main content
Log in

Some incentives and constraints of scientific performance in departments of economics

Part I. Predictor-criterion relations

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to explore why publication records differ among Dutch departments of economics. The results of a large scale performance evaluations have been used for classifying research units in subsamples of high and low performers. After collecting data on organizational characteristics of economics research units, univariate and multivariate statistics have been applied to test hypotheses regarding determinants of scientific productivity in economics.

“The extreme clannishness, not to say xenophobia, of the Econ makes life among them difficult and perhaps even somewhat dangerous for the outsider. This probably accounts for the fact that the Econ have so far not been systematically studied (...) More research on this interesting tribe is badly needed”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Verkenningscommissie Economische Wetenschappen (VEW), Academisch economisch onderzoek in Nederland: productie, productiviteit en profilering. Endrapport van de VEW, s-Gravenhage; Staatsuitgeverij, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  2. P.E. Graves, J.R. Marchand, R. Thompson, Economics Departmental Rankings: Research Incentives, Constraints, and Efficiency,American Economic Review, 5, 1982 1131–41.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S.J. Liebowitz, J.P. Palmer, Assessing the Relative Impacts of Economic Journals,Journal of Economic Literature, 77–88.

  4. J.S. Cramer, Een academische verkenning van het universitaire economische onderzoek,ESB, 8, 1986 838–40.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J.S. Cramer, De productiviteit van Economische Vakgroepen nader bezien,Kwantitatieve Methoden, 29, 1988 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Pen, Prioriteiten in het economisch onderzoek. In:Visies op onderzoek in enkele sociale wetenschappen,A.D. Wolff-Albers, H.F.M. Crombag, Preadviezen ten behoeve van de beleidsnota Maatschappij-en Gedragswetenschappen, 's-Gravenhage, 1982, pp. 25–40.

  7. P. Nukamp (Ed.),Naar een meet-en monitoringsysteem van productiviteit/kwaliteit van het onderzoek in de Economische Faculteiten, Rapport Ad Hoc Commissie Voorzitters Vaste Commissie Wetenschapsbeoefening, Utrecht: VSNU.

  8. D. Pelz, F.M. Andrews,Scientists in Organizations. Prodictuve Climates for Research and Development, New York, London, and Sydney; John Wiley, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Th. Allen,Managing the Flow of Technology, Boston; MIT Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  10. F.M. Andrews (Ed.),Scientific Productivity. The Effectiveness of Research Groups in Six Countries, Cambridge and Paris; Cambridge University Press/UNESCO, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R.T. Keller, Predictions of the Performance of Project Groups in R&D Organizations,Academy of Management Journal, 4, (1986) 715–26.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R.K. Bresser, R.L.M. Dunbar, Context, Structure, and Academic Effectiveness: Evidence from West Germany,Organization Studies, 1, (1986) 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Y.W. Bally, J.F.A. Spangenberg, R. Starmans,Achtergrouden van de kwaliteit van het patientgebonden onderzoek in Nederland, s-Gravenhage; Staatsuitgeverij, 1987.

  14. J.F.A. Sangenberg,Competitive Advantages and Scientific Productivity, Mimeo, Maastricht, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  15. G.J. Stigler, The Economics of Scale,Journal of Law and Economics, 1 (1958) 54–71.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P.A. Samuelson,Economics, McGraw-Hill, Tokyo, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  17. O.E. Williamson,Markets and Hierarchies. Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York; Free Press, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  18. T.J. Peters, R.H. Waterman,In Search for Excellence: Lessons from America's Best Run's Companies, New York; Harper & Row, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  19. W. Baumol, J.C. Panzar, R.D. Willig,Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure, New York; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. Van Cayseele, Spillovers and the Cost of Multiproject R & D,Managerial and Decision Economics, 7, 1986 133–39.

    Google Scholar 

  21. F. Prakke,The Management of the R & D-Marketing Interface and Its Effect on Successful Technological Innovation in Large Industrial Innovations, Ph.D. Thesis, Boston; MIT, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  22. G.H. Hofstede,Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Beverly Hills; Sage, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  23. A.H. Van De Ven, D.C. Ferry,Measuring and Assessing Organizations, New York; John Wiley.

  24. P. Kunst,An Operationalization of Control in Organizational Research, Working paper 86-10, Maastricht; Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  25. F.J.N. Nujhuis, J.F.A. Spangenberg,The Impact of Interdisciplinarity on Research Performance. Mimeo, Maastricht; Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spangenberg, J.F.A., Buijink, W. & Alfenaar, W. Some incentives and constraints of scientific performance in departments of economics. Scientometrics 18, 241–268 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017764

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017764

Keywords

Navigation