, Volume 106, Issue 2, pp 603–628 | Cite as

Funding allocation, inequality, and scientific research output: an empirical study based on the life science sector of Natural Science Foundation of China

  • Qiang ZhiEmail author
  • Tianguang Meng


Scientific research activity produces the “Matthew Effect” on resource allocation. Based on a data set in the life sciences field from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) during the 11th Five-Year-Plan (2006–2010), this paper makes an empirical study on how the Matthew Effect of funding allocation at the institutional level and city level impact scientific research activity output. With Gini coefficient evaluation, descriptive statistic analysis, and the Poisson regression model, we found that there has been a rapid increase in the concentration degree of funding allocation among institutions and cities. Within a period of 5 years, the Gini coefficients of total funding of institutions and cities as the units of measurement have increased from 0.61 and 0.74 to 0.67 and 0.79 respectively. However, this concentration in funding allocation did not result in significant additional benefits. Institutions awarded with more funding did not produce the expected positive spillover effect on their scientific research activity output. Instead, an “inverted U-shape” pattern of decreasing returns to scale was discovered, under which there was a negative effect on internal scientific research activity in the majority of institutions with concentrated funding allocation. Meanwhile, the result shows that Young Scholars projects under the NFSC produced high-level output. We conclude the study by discussing the possible reasons of the inverted U-shape pattern and its policy implications.


Funding allocation Scientific research Matthew effect Inequality Poisson regression 



This paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No: 71503291 and No: L1524030), General research for Humanities and Social Sciences from Chinese Ministry of Education (Grant Number: 14YJC630209), and the 121 Talent Projects for Young Doctors of Central University of Finance and Economics (Grant Number: QBJ1430). We wish to thank Ming Lu, Xiangtao Zhou, Ying Yang, Xinyi Zhu, Yanran Geye and Jipeng Fei for their valuable suggestions and support regarding our work. We also appreciate the valuable comments of the two anonymous reviewers. All remaining errors remain the sole responsibility of the authors.


  1. Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1996). Reputation and competence in publicly funded scientific research (No. 9605002). EconWPA.Google Scholar
  2. Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1997). Public policy towards science: Picking stars or spreading the wealth? Revue D Économie Industrielle, 79(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blank, D. M., & Stigler, G. J. (1957). The demand and supply of scientific personnel. Cambridge: NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, General Series.Google Scholar
  4. Bloch, C., & Sørensen, M. P. (2014). The size of research funding: Trends and implications. Science and Public Policy, 42(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron, A. C., & Pravin, K. T. (1998). Regression analysis of count data. New York: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowell, F. A. (2000). Measurement of inequality. Handbook of Income Distribution, 1, 87–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freeman, R. B. (1975). Supply and salary adjustments to the changing science manpower market: Physics, 1948–1973. The American Economic Review, 65(1), 27–39.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Halffman, W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Is inequality among universities increasing? Gini coefficients and the elusive rise of elite universities. Minerva, 48(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haughton, D., & Haughton, J. (2011). Living standards analytics: Development through the lens of household survey data. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. He, G., Zhao, Y., & Yang, Q. (2014). Inequality in allocation of R&D resources in China: An analysis on the concentration of R&D funds among Chinese researchers. China Soft Science, 2014(6), 58–66. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  11. Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 79(5), 957–970.Google Scholar
  12. Kenneth, A. J., & Capron, W. M. (1959). Dynamic shortages and price rises: The engineer-scientist case. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 73(2), 292–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 81(1), 114–132.Google Scholar
  14. Li, X., & Zhou, Z. (2014). Should research funds be means or purpose? Science and Society, 2014(3), 29–35. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  15. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station: Stata Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(3), 606–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Merton, R. K., & Sztompka, P. (Eds.). (1996). On social structure and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. NSF. (2014). Science and engineering indicators 2014, Chapter 5.Google Scholar
  21. NSFC. (2011). Annual report of National Natural Science Foundation of China 2011.
  22. Partha, D., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Price, D. D. S. (1963). Big science, little science (pp. 119–119). New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenberg, N. (1986). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Boston: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Shen, H. F., Liao, X. Y., Chen, J. F., & Wang, L. (2008). A study on the disequilibrium of agriculture science research investment—Calculation and decomposition of Gini coefficient of agriculture science research investment. Soft Science, 12, 012. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  26. Si, K. (2014). “Unequal” view of science, Issue 7. World Science. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  27. Statistical Yearbook of China. (2013–2014).
  28. Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1235.Google Scholar
  29. Stephan, P. E. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place, and time. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sun, J., Liu, D., Wang, X., & Hou, H. (2013). Science funding and SCI papers output: A comparative analysis on 10 countries. Studies in Science of Science, 31(1), 36–42. (in Chinese).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., & Callaert, J. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, Y., Wu, Y., Pan, Y., Ma, Z., & Rousseau, R. (2005). Scientific collaboration in China as reflected in co-authorship. Scientometrics, 62(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. World Development Indicators. (2014). Research and development expenditure.
  35. Wooldridge, J. (2012). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  36. Wu, Jiang. (2015). Distributions of scientific funding across universities and research disciplines. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wu, Y., & Su, J. (2011). Basic research funding and the research output: 1991–2008. Study of Higher Education, 11, 03. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  38. Xie, Yu. (2014). Undemocracy”: Inequalities in science. Science, 344, 809–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xue, B., Li, M., & Wang, S. (2004). A comparison between Chinese and American governments in financing the scientific research in higher educational institutes. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 25(6), 54–59. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  40. Yu, J., Tong, H., Huang, M., & Chen, D. (2012). Imbalanced phenomenon of regional research output in Mainland China: Comparison from the angle of ESI. Science and Technology Management Research, 12, 019.Google Scholar
  41. Zhang, J. (2011). Peer review in American higher education peer review. China Higher Education Research, 2011(10), 40–42. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  42. Zheng, M. A., Zheng-lu, Y. U., Jun-peng, Y. U. A. N., Cheng, S. U., Zhi-yu, H. U., Yun-tao, P. A. N., et al. (2009). Using Gini coefficient to reflect the inequality degree of S&T publications in China and other countries. Studies in Science of Science, 3, 006. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  43. Zhi, Q., Su, J., Ru, P., & Anadon, L. D. (2013). The evolution of China’s National Energy RD&D Programs: The role of scientists in science and technology decision making. Energy Policy, 61, 1568–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhu, L. (2013). Matthew effect in Germany excellent program. Journal of Heilongjiang College of Education, 2013(5), 176–177. (in Chinese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central University of Finance and EconomicsBeijingChina
  2. 2.Tsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations