Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance-based funding and university research productivity: the moderating effect of university legitimacy

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The introduction of competitive funding mechanisms in higher education is found to generally increase research productivity. However, the diversity within higher education systems may lead universities to behave in substantially different ways in response to the adoption of competitive funding criteria. In particular, we argue that the legitimacy of universities, defined as their level of recognition based on the adherence to socially accepted norms and expectations, is crucial in shaping their reaction. This paper investigates the change in research productivity experienced by Italian universities following the introduction of the first Performance-based Research Funding System (PRFS) in 2003, focusing on the moderating effect of university legitimacy. Using a sample of 75 universities observed during the period 1999–2011, we find that the introduction of PRFS leads to an increase in research productivity, and this increase is significantly more pronounced among more legitimate universities.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a detailed review, see Djokovic and Souitaris (2008).

  2. In order to guarantee homogeneity we exclude 6 doctoral universities, 11 long distance learning institutions, and 3 universities for foreigners from the population of 96 Italian universities.

  3. For instance, the University of Milan is reported in three different ways: Università degli Studi di Milano, University of Milan, Università di Milano.

  4. The correlation matrix of the variables employed in our analysis is reported in Table 7 in “Appendix”.

  5. The test for autocorrelation fails to reject the null hypothesis that average auto-covariance in residuals of order 2 is zero (z = 1.48; p = 0.139 for the baseline specification), thus suggesting that it is safe to restrict the instrument set to up to 2 lags. The Sargan test for over identifying restrictions is valid all over our specifications.

References

  • Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. (2012). Revisiting size effects in higher education research productivity. Higher Education, 63(6), 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. (2011a). Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 87(3), 499–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011b). National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level. Scientometrics, 86(2), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Hülsbeck, M., & Lehmann, E. E. (2012). Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and entrepreneurial activity. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 587–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., Lehmann, E., & Wright, M. (2014). Technology transfer in a global economy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 301–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance: An international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backes-Gellner, U., & Werner, A. (2007). Entrepreneurial signaling via education: A success factor in innovative start-ups. Small Business Economics, 29(1–2), 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). University specialization and new firm creation across industries. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 837–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonardo, D., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2010). The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 141–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonardo, D., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2011). Valuing university-based firms: The effects of academic affiliation on IPO performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 755–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. (2003). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications: The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassia, L., De Massis, A., Meoli, M., & Minola, T. (2013). Entrepreneurship research centers around the world: Research orientation, knowledge transfer and performance. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2013, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2014). Cross-border M&As of biotech firms affiliated with internationalized universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–25. doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9349-8.

  • De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of Governance in Research Organizations (pp. 137–152). New York: Springer.

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, V. M. (2008). Constrained growth: How experience, legitimacy, and age influence risk taking in organizations. Organization Science, 19(4), 594–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donina, D., Meoli, M., & Paleari, S. (2014). Higher education reform in Italy: Tightening regulation instead of steering at a distance. Higher Education Policy. doi:10.1057/hep.2014.6.

  • Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 607–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Aamoucke, R. (2013). Regional public research, higher education, and innovative start-ups: An empirical investigation. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 865–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Interorganizational relations. Annual Review of Sociology, 11(1), 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, I., Bordons, M., Fernández, M., & Morillo, F. (2009). Structure and research performance of Spanish universities. Scientometrics, 79(1), 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, M. (2007). Financing public universities. Higher Education Dynamics (Vol. 18). New York: Springer.

  • Hicks, D. (2009). Evolving regimes of multi-university research evaluation. Higher Education, 57(4), 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H., Dautel, V., & Veloso, F. M. (2012). An output perspective on the teaching-research nexus: An analysis focusing on the United States higher education system. Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 171–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huyghe, A., & Knockaert, M. (2014). The influence of organizational culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9333-3.

  • Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. The Rand Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisyte, L., & Kizniene, D. (2006). New public management in Lithuania’s higher education. Higher Education Policy, 19(3), 377–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lejpras, A. (2014). How innovative are spin-offs at later stages of development? Comparing innovativeness of established research spin-offs and otherwise created firms. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 327–351.

  • Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46(4), 469–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López, M. J. G. (2006). Towards decentralized and goal-oriented models of institutional resource allocation: The Spanish case. Higher Education, 51(4), 589–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melkers, J., & Xiao, F. (2012). Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: Determinants of funding success for academic scientists. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(3), 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meoli, M., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2013). Completing the technology transfer process: M&As of science-based IPOs. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 227–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minelli, E., Rebora, G., & Turri, M. (2012). Waiting for the market: Where is the Italian university system heading? Higher Education Policy, 25(1), 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2008). UK research assessment exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74(1), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (2005). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Netherlands: Springer.

  • OECD. (2013). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.

  • Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, D., Jaeger, M., & Schwarzenberger, A. (2007). Performance-based funding as an instrument of competition in German higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osuna, C., Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance. Scientometrics, 86(3), 575–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebora, G., & Turri, M. (2013). The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face. Research Policy, 42(9), 1657–1666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichert, S. (2009). Institutional diversity in European higher education. Brussels: EUA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strehl, F., Reisinger, S., & Kalatschan, M. (2007). Funding systems and their effects on higher education systems. OECD Education Working Papers. doi:10.1787/220244801417.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Fondazione Cariplo under Grant 2010-1106. We thank Davide Donina and Stefano Paleari for useful discussions and helpful comments as well as two referees for their stimulating suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Technology Management, University of Bergamo, Via Pasubio 7b, 24044, Dalmine, BG, Italy

    Mattia Cattaneo, Michele Meoli & Andrea Signori

  2. CISAlpino Institute for Comparative Studies in Europe (CCSE), University of Bergamo, Dalmine, Italy

    Mattia Cattaneo, Michele Meoli & Andrea Signori

  3. University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

    Mattia Cattaneo, Michele Meoli & Andrea Signori

Authors
  1. Mattia Cattaneo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michele Meoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Signori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mattia Cattaneo.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 7.

Table 7 Correlation matrix
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M. & Signori, A. Performance-based funding and university research productivity: the moderating effect of university legitimacy. J Technol Transf 41, 85–104 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9379-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9379-2

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation