Abstract
In restructuring environmental research organisations, smaller sites generally disappear and larger sites are created. These decisions are based on the economic principle, ‘economies of scale’, whereby the average cost of each unit produced falls as output increases. We show that this principle does not apply to the scientific performance of environmental research institutes, as productivity per scientist decreased with increasing size of a research site. The results are best explained by the principle ‘diseconomies of scale’, whereby powerful social factors limit the productivity of larger groupings. These findings should be considered when restructuring environmental science organisations to maximise their quality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
G. J. Stigler, The economies of scale, Journal of Law and Economics, 1 (1958) 54–71.
O. E. Williamson, Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York, Free Press, 1975.
M. McCarthy, Driven to extinction, Independent, 9 (2006) 1–2 (9 Jan).
J. Giles, Plans to pare down climate centre anger UK ecologists, Nature, 439 (2006) 770–771, doi:10.1038/439770b.
R. Coase, The nature of the firm, Economica, 4 (1937) 386–405.
E. G. Furubotn, The new institutional economics and the theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 45 (2001) 133–153.
R. P. McAffee, J. Mcmillan, Organizational diseconomies of scale, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 4 (1995) 399–426.
M. A. Mcfadyen, A. Cannella, A social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships, Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2004) 735–746.
E. Canton, Power of incentives in public organizations when employees are intrinsically motivated, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 161 (2005) 664–680.
H. S. Jr. James, Why did you do that? An economic examination of the effect of extrinsic compensation on intrinsic motivation and performance, Journal of Economic Psychology, 26 (2005) 549–566.
T. J. Madden, P. S. Ellen, I. Ajzen, A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and theory of reasoned action, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 (1992) 3–9.
D. Bunce, K. S. Birdi, The theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour as a function of job control, British Journal of Health Psychology, 3 (1998) 265–275.
D. W. Rees, C. L. Cooper, The occupational stress indicator locus of control scale — should this be regarded as a state rather than trait measure, Work and Stress, 6 (1992) 45–48.
O. E. Williamson, The economics of organization — the transaction cost approach, American Journal of Sociology, 87 (1981) 548–577.
C. N. Parkinson, Parkinson’s Law. London, John Murray, 1958.
R. Moss, An empirical test of Parkinson’s Law, Nature, 273 (1978) 184.
R. Moss, Expanding on Parkinson’s Law, Nature, 285 (1980) 9.
O. E. Williamson, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, Free Press, New York, 1985.
J. Flux, Increasing efficiency in science — a bad thing? In: W. Green (Ed.), Focus on Social Responsibility in Science, 1979, pp.147–162 (New Zealand Association of Scientists).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van der Wal, R., Fischer, A., Marquiss, M. et al. Is bigger necessarily better for environmental research?. Scientometrics 78, 317–322 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2017-0
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2017-0