[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/14589.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stimulating Peer Effects? Evidence from a Research Cluster Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Carayol, Nicolas
  • Lanoe, Marianne
Abstract
Production of knowledge relies on peer effects and interactions between researchers. However, little is known on how much policies may stimulate these peer effects. In this paper we shed light on this question, and show how a public "research cluster" policy, which funds local networks of researchers working on a common theme, affects the organization of research within these clusters and the productivity of its members. Using data from a large scale financing program in France, and relying on an identification strategy based on grades awarded by reviewers, we show that members of financed clusters increase by up to 30% the research collaborations they have with other members of the cluster, compared to researchers of non selected proposals. This very large reorganization of the research network translates into a more modest positive effect on research productivity. Paradoxically, those who benefit the most from the financing, are those who were not at the core of the research topic, i.e. were not cited in the bibliography of the research proposal, who significantly increase their links with core members and their total publication counts. Consistently, the policy reduces inequality in publication outcomes within the cluster. It stimulates peer effects to the benefit of periphery members.

Suggested Citation

  • Carayol, Nicolas & Lanoe, Marianne, 2020. "Stimulating Peer Effects? Evidence from a Research Cluster Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 14589, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:14589
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP14589
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    2. Fabian Waldinger, 2012. "Peer Effects in Science: Evidence from the Dismissal of Scientists in Nazi Germany," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(2), pages 838-861.
    3. George J. Borjas & Kirk B. Doran, 2015. "Which Peers Matter? The Relative Impacts of Collaborators, Colleagues, and Competitors," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1104-1117, December.
    4. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    5. Danielle Li, 2017. "Expertise versus Bias in Evaluation: Evidence from the NIH," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 60-92, April.
    6. Alessandro Iaria & Carlo Schwarz & Fabian Waldinger, 2018. "Frontier Knowledge and Scientific Production: Evidence from the Collapse of International Science," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(2), pages 927-991.
    7. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    8. Torger Möller & Marion Schmidt & Stefan Hornbostel, 2016. "Assessing the effects of the German Excellence Initiative with bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2217-2239, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Albert Banal-Estañol & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castillo, 2019. "Funding academic research: grant application, partnership, award, and output," Economics Working Papers 1658, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    3. Blandinieres, Florence & Pellens, Maikel, 2021. "Scientist's industry engagement and the research agenda: Evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Albert Banal-Estañol & Qianshuo Liu & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    5. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    6. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Working Papers 26889, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    8. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    9. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    10. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    11. Asier Minondo, 2022. "Comments are welcome," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1565-1582, March.
    12. Antonin Bergeaud & Arthur Guillouzouic & Emeric Henry & Clement Malgouyres, 2022. "From public labs to private firms: magnitude and channels of R&D spillovers," POID Working Papers 041, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    13. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    14. Cristelli, Gabriele & Lissoni, Francesco, 2020. "Free movement of inventors: open-border policy and innovation in Switzerland," MPRA Paper 107433, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Massimiliano Coda-Zabetta & Francesco Lissoni & Ernest Miguelez, 2024. "Star recruitment and internationalization effects: an analysis of the alexander von humboldt professorship programme," Post-Print hal-04648037, HAL.
    16. Jay Bhattacharya & Mikko Packalen, 2020. "Stagnation and Scientific Incentives," NBER Working Papers 26752, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Ina Ganguli & Fabian Waldinger, 2024. "War and Science in Ukraine," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(1), pages 165-188.
    18. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    19. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 117-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Myra Mohnen, 2022. "Stars and Brokers: Knowledge Spillovers Among Medical Scientists," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2513-2532, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Peer effects; Research funding; Cluster policy; Economics of science;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:14589. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.