Advertisement

New Public Management in Science and Incentive-Compatible Resource-Allocation Based on Indicators

  • Torben SchubertEmail author
  • Ulrich Schmoch
Chapter
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 32)

Abstract

The chapter analyses the question whether scientific performance can be measured appropriately and if the measurement may create suitable performance incentives for the research units. For this purpose, the outcome of a large dataset including different scientific fields is examined in detail. A major point of investigation is to show the effect of specific instruments of New Public Management (NPM) on scientific performance. Although not all NPM instruments contribute to increased research efficiency – some even have a negative effect on it – the effects are rather positive. A further result of the investigation is the multidimensionality of scientific performance. As a consequence, the usual surveys including only a small number of indicators are an insufficient measuring device. This is especially important because a positive efficiency effect of NPM mechanisms at the microlevel might be counteracted by a negative effect at the macrolevel if its functional balance is disturbed. The chapter therefore shows how the different dimensions can be analysed appropriately, maintaining also the functional balance. Furthermore, it is shown which indicators are relevant for an appropriate measurement. On the basis of the broad available dataset, it is possible to analyse all these topics empirically.

Keywords

Scientific Production Indicator System Graduate Teaching Scientific Output Advisory Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, J., Griliches, Z. (1996). Research Productivity in a System of Universities. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 5833. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchanan, J. (1984). Die Grenzen der Freiheit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  3. Crespi, G., Geuna, A. (2006). The Productivity of UK Universities. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, No. 147. Brighton: University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  4. Dasgupta, P., David, P. (1994). Toward a New Economics of Science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Boer, H., Enders, J., Leiðytë, L. (2007a). Public Sector Reform in Dutch Higher Education: The Organizational Transformation of the University. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Boer, H., Enders, J., Schimank, U. (2007b). 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. Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration (pp. 137–152).Google Scholar
  7. Deprins, D., Simar, L., Tulkens, H. (1984). Measuring Labor Inefficiency in Post Offices. In M. Marhand, P. Pestieau, H. Tulkens (Eds.), The Performance of Public Enterprises: Concepts and Measurement (pp. 243–267). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Frohlich, N. (2005). Implementation of New Public Management in Norwegian Universities. European Journal of Education, 40(2), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmstrom, B. (1979). Moral Hazard and Observability. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 74–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Häyrinen-Alestalo, M., Peltola, U. (2006). The Problem of Market Oriented University. Higher Education, 52(2), 251–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jansen, D., Wald, A., Franke, K., Schmoch, U., Schubert, T. (2007). Drittmittel als Performanzindikator der wissenschaftlichen Forschung: Zum Einfluss von Rahmenbedingungen auf Forschungsleistung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59(1), 125–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jensen, M., Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnes, J. (2006). Data Envelopment Analysis and its Application to the Measure of Efficiency in Higher Education. Economics of Education Review 25(3) 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lange, S., Schimank, U. (2007). Zwischen Konvergenz und Pfadabhängigkeit: New Public Management in den Hochschulsystemen fünf ausgewählter OECD-Länder. In K. Holzinger, H. Joergens, C. Knill (Eds.), Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken, Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderheft 38 (pp. 522–548). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  15. Luhmann, N. (1990). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  16. Merton, R. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Merton, R. (1973). The Sociology of Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Meyer, L. (2007). Collegial Participation in University Governance: A Case Study of Institutional Change. Studies in Higher Education, 32(2), 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Münch, R. (2008). Stratification by Evaluation: Mechanisms of Constructing Status Hierarchies in Research. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 37(1), 60–80.Google Scholar
  20. Nagpaul, P., Roy, S. (2003). Constructing a Multi-objective Measure of Research Performance. Scientometrics, 56(3), 383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Naschold, F., Bogumil, J. (2000). Modernisierung des Staates. New Public Management und Verwaltungsreform. 2nd ed. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance Management in Practice: A Comparative Study of Executive Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pollitt, C., Ferlie, E., Lynn, L.E. (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rousseau, S., Rousseau, R. (1997). Data Envelopment Analysis as a Tool for Constructing Scientometric Indicators. Scientometrics, 40(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmoch, U., Schubert, T. (2008). Nachhaltigkeit von Anreizen für exzellente Forschung. In S. Hornbostel, D. Simon (Eds.), Exzellente Wissenschaft. Das Problem, der Diskurs, das Programm und die Folgen. iFQ-Working Paper 4 (pp. 39–49). Bonn: iFQ.Google Scholar
  26. Schubert, T. (2008a). Wissenschaftsfreiheitsgesetz: Richtiger Weg. Wirtschaftsdienst – Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, 88(8), S. 490.Google Scholar
  27. Schubert, T. (2008b). New Public Management an deutschen Hochschulen – Strukturen, Verbreitung und Effekt. Dissertation Thesis. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Schubert, T. (2008c). Are there Increasing Returns to Scale in Scientific Production? DIME-BRICK Workshop, Torino, July 2008.Google Scholar
  29. Schubert, T. (2009). Empirical Observations on New Public Management to Increase Efficiency in Public Research – Boon or Bane? Research Policy, 38, 1225–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schubert, T., Schmoch, U. (2008). How Lazy are University Professors Really: A not so Seriously Meant Note on Observations Made During an Online-Inquiry. Soziale Welt, 59(1), 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simar, L., Wilson, P. (2007). Estimation and Inference in Two-Stage, Semiparametric Models of Production Processes. Journal of Econometrics, 136(1), 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, D. (2004). A Decade of Doing Things Differently: Universities and Public-sector Reform in Manitoba. Canadian Public Administration, 47(3), 280–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Warning, J. (2004). Performance Differences in German Higher Education: Empirical Analysis of Strategic Groups. Review of Industrial Organization, 24(4), 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of Bibliometrics upon the Science System, Inadvertent Consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation ResearchKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations