EEA Survey on Research Funding in Economics in … Survey on Research Funding in Economics in Europe...

EEASurveyonResearchFundinginEconomicsinEurope:PreliminaryResults

RamonMarimon,EuropeanUniversityInstitute&UPF‐BarcelonaGSE

IgorGuardiancich,MikeMariathasanandEvaRossi,EuropeanUniversityInstitute

25thMeetingoftheEuropeanEconomicAssociation

Glasgow,August26th2010

Theinitiative

EuropeanEconomicAssociationStandingCommitteesonResearch

&AcademicCareersObservatory,MaxWeberProgramme(EUI)

Thesample

Theunionoftwosamples(May2009):1. RePEcEuropeaneconomists:top12.5%union

top25%ofeveryEuropeancountry.2. EEAmembers.

Totalnumberofeconomistsinvited: 5416Totalnumberofvalidresponses: 2385Websupport:LimeServicePeriod:June21sttoJuly15th,2010

Theresponserates

Response rates

48.5%

39.4%

53.4%

44.0%

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

EEA

REPEC

REPEC-EEA

Total

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Total Valid responses

Valid responses 902 1172 311 2385

Total 1861 2973 582 5416

Percentage 48.5% 39.4% 53.4% 44.0%

EEA REPEC REPEC-EEA Total

TherespondentsResidents

Applicants

GE 414 17.4 410 17.2

IT 336 14.1 314 13.2

UK 327 13.7 317 13.2

FR 238 10.0 247 10.4

SP 228 9.6 221 9.3

Other Cont. 224 9.4 242 10.1

Other An-Sa 218 9.1 221 9.3

Scandinavia 176 7.4 186 7.8

CEE 137 5.7 134 5.6

Other 47 2.0 55 2.3

TK 40 1.7 38 1.6

Total 2385 100.0 2385 100.0

Thegroupingofcountries

Theexperience

Theprofessionalpro[ile

byageandgender

Age profile of respondents

28.8

32.6

40.4

36.0

36.0

42.1

43.6

50.2

41.8

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

PhD

Post-doc

Researcher

AssProf

TenAssProf

AscProf

TenAscProf

Full Prof

Total

Gender profile of respondents

40.1%

36.1%

23.0%

27.4%

26.3%

22.9%

30.1%

13.5%

23.6%

59.9%

63.9%

77.0%

72.6%

73.7%

77.1%

69.9%

86.5%

76.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

PhD

Post-doc

Researcher

AssProf

TenAssProf

AscProf

TenAscProf

Full Prof

Total

Women Men

Theprofessionalpro[ilebyyearsfromPhD

Years from PhD graduation

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

PhD

Post-doc

Researcher

AssProf

TenAssProf

AscProf

TenAscProf

Full Prof

Total

Unfinished/not relevant <5 5-9 10-20 >20

Theagedistribution

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

22-30 31-37 38-44 45-51 52-58 59-65 >65

Age class

CEE FR GE IT Other Anglo-Sax

Other Continent Scandinavian SP TK UK

Thejobenvironment

Occupational profile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CEE

Fran

ce

German

yItaly

Anglo-

Saxo

n

Cont

inen

tal

Scan

dina

vian

Spain

Turkey U

K

Total

University Research Institute Central Bank Government International Organization Private Sector EU Other

Research environment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CEE

Turkey

Italy

Cont

inen

tal

Fran

ce

German

y

Spain

Scan

dina

vian

Anglo-

Saxo

n UK

Total

Integrated research Single effort Some individual research Sporadic

TheresearchenvironmentbypositionandtimefromPhD

Research environment on graduation year

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unfinished

<5

5-9

10-20

>20

Total


Research environment on position

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

AssProf

TenAscProf

AscProf

TenAssProf

Researcher

PhD

Full Prof

Post-doc

Total


Theworkingtime

Distribution of working time

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

PhD

Post-doc

Researcher

AssProf

TenAssProf

AscProf

TenAscProf

Full Prof

Total

Research Act Teaching/Advising Admin Tasks Fund-raising Consulting Act Residual

Theworkingtimebygenderandage

Working time and age profile

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

22-30

31-37

38-44

45-51

52-58

59-65

>65

Total


Working time and gender

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Women

Men

Total


Thefundingsources

Sources of budget funding by country of residence

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Anglo-Saxon

Germany

Scandinavian

France

UK

Total

Italy

CEE

Continental

Turkey

Spain

OwnInst NatPublic NatPrivate RegPublic RegPrivate ERC FP Prizes Consultancy

Thefunding[lowsApplication inflows (>1% of total who applied at least once) N=784

.0%

.0%

.0%

6.4%

9.1%

9.1%

12.0%

13.0%

16.7%

16.7%

18.2%

18.6%

26.5%

26.7%

28.2%

48.0%

56.0%

69.2%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

IE

TK

RO

IT

GR

PT

SP

GE

DK

SW

FI

UK

NL

CH

FR

BE

AT

US

% of applicants who work in a different country

Application outflows (>1% of people who applied at least once) N=784

.0%

9.1%

9.1%

10.0%

12.5%

13.0%

14.7%

16.7%

17.6%

19.4%

20.6%

21.4%

21.4%

22.1%

23.3%

43.5%

50.0%

69.2%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

DK

GR

SW

FI

TK

PT

GE

RO

FR

NL

SP

CH

AT

IT

UK

BE

IE

US

% of resident applicants who apply to a different country

Funding outflows (>1% of those whose budget source is national funding) N=669

.0%

7.0%

11.1%

12.0%

12.5%

14.3%

14.3%

17.4%

17.6%

20.0%

23.1%

25.0%

30.3%

30.8%

46.2%

54.5%

62.5%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

RO

IT

SP

GE

GR

DK

PT

SW

UK

FI

CH

IE

FR

NL

BE

AT

US

% of funded applicants who work in a different country

Funding inflows (>1% of those whose budget source is national funding) N=669

.0%

9.5%

10.0%

11.1%

12.5%

15.1%

19.2%

19.3%

21.6%

23.1%

23.5%

25.0%

27.8%

28.6%

33.3%

57.1%

60.0%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

DK

SW

PT

FI

GR

GE

SP

FR

IT

CH

RO

NL

UK

AT

BE

IE

US

% of funded resident applicants who get funds from a different country

The reportedfundingsizedistributions

Annual Budget: National Public

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4,00

12,00

30,00

70,00

200,00

800,00

2000,00

3500,00

4500,00

5500,00

7500,00

9000,00

12350,00

15000,00

19000,00

25000,00

40000,00

60000,00

80000,00

100000,00

140000,00

200000,00

1000000,00

4000000,00

Annual Budget FP (not ERC)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10,00

30,00

100,00

500,00

2000,00

3000,00

5000,00

7000,00

10000,00

15000,00

24000,00

28000,00

34500,00

40000,00

51000,00

70000,00

85000,00

120000,00

200000,00

375000,00

800000,00

Annual Budget ERC

0

1

2

3

4

5

10,00

150,00

800,00

2500,00

5000,00

7600,00

15000,00

24000,00

70000,00

95000,00

150000,00

260000,00

4000000,00

Thedifferencesonfundingbycountryofresidence

GE FR IT SPOtherCont. UK

Other An-Sa Scnd. CEE TK Total

National Public

Mean 35899 20732 10456 15186 25772 171522 244983 51119 34055 4700 68308

Median 16500 10000 4000 5000 10000 30000 20000 30000 7500 6000 12000

Std 55189 32657 26827 36805 43136 563840 679549 69988 96028 3354 413615

Own Institution

Mean 22710 73087 6427 47157 71033 8827 99718 20829 6877 10333 32761

Median 15000 3000 3000 3000 5000 4000 4000 5000 4000 8000 4000

Std 36495 428936 16414 250535 303907 20371 292521 30734 9831 7134 229574

Theallocationofresearchfunds:Nationalpublic

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

NatPu

Free usage Free if necessity is proven Difficult to allocate freely Fixed usage

Theallocationofresearchfunds:FrameworkProgramme(notERC)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

FP


Theallocationofresearchfunds:ERC

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

ERC


Theperceptionsofstability:Nationalpublic

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

NatPu

Calls & Grants are stable and predictable. Calls are infrequent but assigned grants are stable.

Nature of available grants changes frequently. Very unstable & grants might be terminated prematurely.

Theperceptionsofstability:FP(notERC)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

Framw



Theperceptionsofstability:ERC

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

ERC



Theapplicationtime:Nationalpublic

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

NatPu

Unnecessarily Long Long, but reasonable Appropriate Very Short Never applied

Theapplicationtime:FP(notERC)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

Framw


Theapplicationtime:ERC

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

ERC


Thereasonstoapply:Nationalpublic

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

NatPu

Total size of the grant Very well suited design of the scheme

Very low procedural & logistical costs Specially targeted to my area of research

Other reasons

Thereasonstoapply:ERC

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

ERC



Other reasons

Thereasonstoapply:FrameworkProgramme(notERC)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

Framw



Other reasons

ThereasonsNOTtoapply:Nationalpublic

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

NatPu

No coverage of my research Low success probability of application

Lack of confidence in evaluation procedures Too high procedural & logistical costs

Grant too small or too difficult to use for own research Incompatibility with my existing research funding

Other reasons

ThereasonsNOTtoapply:ERC

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

ERC




Other reasons

ThereasonsNOTtoapply:FrameworkProgramme(notERC)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

Framw




Other reasons

Theperceivedmanagementofnationalagencies

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

[VeryW] [WellM] [NotW]

Thesatisfactionwithgrantingschemes:Nationalpublic

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

[NatPu] Very much [NatPu] Yes [NatPu] Mostly [NatPu] No

Thesatisfactionwithgrantingschemes:FrameworkProgramme(notERC)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

[Framw] Very much [Framw] Yes [Framw] Mostly [Framw] No

Thesatisfactionwithgrantingschemes:EuropeanResearchCouncil

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CEE

FR

GE

IT

Other Anglo-Saxon

Other Continental

Scandinavian

SP

TK

UK

[ERC] Very much [ERC] Yes [ERC] Mostly [ERC] No

Thesatisfactionwithgrantingschemesconditionalonapplicationsuccess

37 Satisfaction [NatPu]

Very much Yes Mostly No

Mean Row N % Mean Row N % Mean Row N % Mean Row N %

25 App Success Rate [NatPu] 78 4.2% 79 21.6% 70 36.0% 47 38.1%

37 Satisfaction [Framw]



25 App Success Rate [Framw] 76 1.0% 61 17.5% 47 38.4% 30 43.1%

37 Satisfaction [ERC]



25 App Success Rate [ERC] 70 5.0% 50 18.2% 27 28.9% 9 47.8%

Satisfaction [NatPu]

No. Appl Very much Yes Mostly No

last 10 yrs Count Row N % Count Row N % Count Row N % Count Row N %

Never 0 0.0% 1 8.3% 4 33.3% 7 58.3%

1-2 times 5 2.8% 48 27.0% 63 35.4% 62 34.8%

3-5 times 17 5.6% 66 21.8% 100 33.0% 120 39.6%

6-10 times 3 3.1% 20 20.6% 39 40.2% 35 36.1%

>10 times 3 7.5% 6 15.0% 18 45.0% 13 32.5%

Satisfaction [FP (notERC)]



Never 0 0.0% 4 11.4% 10 28.6% 21 60.0%

1-2 times 3 1.7% 36 20.6% 66 37.7% 70 40.0%

3-5 times 1 1.0% 20 19.4% 48 46.6% 34 33.0%

6-10 times 0 0.0% 3 15.0% 9 45.0% 8 40.0%

>10 times 0 0.0% 1 8.3% 8 66.7% 3 25.0%

Satisfaction [ERC]



Never 3 3.9% 16 20.8% 16 20.8% 42 54.5%

1-2 times 11 9.2% 28 23.5% 34 28.6% 46 38.7%

3-5 times 0 0.0% 1 6.7% 8 53.3% 6 40.0%

6-10 times 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 1 33.3%

>10 times 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0%

Thesatisfactionwithgrantingschemesconditionalonnumberofapplications

37 Satisfaction [NatPu]


Available grants suitable? Count

RowN %

Count

RowN %

Count

RowN %

Count

RowN %

Yes 26 8.6% 107 35.2% 121 39.8% 50 16.4%

No, grants are often insufficient. 1 0.4% 19 7.0% 89 32.7% 163 59.9%

No, the funds are often redundant,given the specific needs of theproject.

0 0.0% 4 19.0% 6 28.6% 11 52.4%

37 Satisfaction [Framw]



RowN %

Count

RowN %

Count

RowN %

Count

RowN %

Yes 4 2.5% 47 29.2% 85 52.8% 25 15.5%



0 0.0% 1 5.6% 5 27.8% 12 66.7%

37 Satisfaction [ERC]



RowN %

Count

RowN %

Count

RowN %

Count

RowN %

Yes 13 14.1% 31 33.7% 31 33.7% 17 18.5%



0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 50.0% 3 50.0%

Thesatisfactionwithgrantingschemes

conditionalongrantsatisfaction

The10mostdesirable,oftenmissing,elementsinEuropeanResearchFundinginEconomics1. Flexibility(156outof702comments)2. Competentandtransparentevaluation(85)3. Simpli[icationofapplicationandprocedures(73)4. Adequatefunding(64)5. Stabilityandregularityofcallsandfunding(45)6. Teachingbuyoutsandsalarycomplements(44=27+17)7. Opentopics(44)8. Accentonexcellence(41)9. Grantsforallstagesofthecareer,speciallyforyoung

researchers(20)10. Supporttoinnovativeideas(18)

Thecutsahead

Yes, and it is likely toaffect my fundingpossibilities 66.8%Yes, but it is unlikely toaffect my fundingpossibilities 13.8%No 10.2%Don’t know 9.3%

Doyouexpectbudgetcutsinnational,orregional,researchfundingineconomics?(659resp.)

Theprovisionalconclusions• Auniquesurvey,nothingsimilarinothersciencesinEurope,orineconomicsinotherregions.

• Manythingswekneworsuspected,butneededtobedocumented.

• Andsomesurprises…• Surveyerrordoesnotdisappear,evenwhenresearcheconomistsaretherespondents,butthesampleislarge.

• Aninformationalsourcefor:researcheconomistsapplyingforfunds,fundingagenciesallocatingfunds,researchonresearchcareersandresearchfunding.

• AvaluableinstrumentfortheEEA.

Theprovisionalconclusions• Provisionalandpreliminary:wehavejuststarteddiggingintothisrichdataset(e.g.regionaldatanotstudiedyet).

• InterestingnewdataonthesociologyoftheeconomicsprofessioninEurope.

• Wecanalreadyseethepersistencyof‘thegenderscissorsproblem’,theagingthroughouttheacademiccareer,thepreponderanceofuniversitypositionsandtheirheterogeneityintermsofinternationalization…

• Theallocationoftimeshowshowresearchisadominantactivity,withoutgendergap,butwithdecayingintensitythroughouttheprofession,exceptattheend(someover‐reporting?).

Theprovisionalconclusions• Themainfundingsourceisnational,althoughthebalancebetweenNationalPublic,andOwnInstitutional,fundingisfairlyheterogeneousacrosscountries.Thesumofbothsourcesislessthan60%onlyinItaly,TurkeyandCEE.

• Funding[lowsacrosscountriesarenotverylargebutrelevant,showingopennessofsomenationalsystems(Austria,Netherlands),andalsoaneedtosubstitutedomesticweaknesses(Italy).

• Reportedresearchbudgetsalsoshowtheheterogeneityacrosscountries,butalsoamongbene[iciaries(withfatlowertailsandsomeoutliers(?)intheuppertails).

• Theallocationoffundsisperceivedasbeingmore[lexiblewithNationalandinstitutionalgrants,thanwithFrameworkProgramme(notERC)grants.

Theprovisionalconclusions

• Reasonstoapplyandnottoapplytodifferentgrantinginstitutionsareconsistent,andconsistentwiththeelementsthatareperceivedtobemoredesirable(Suf[icientfunding,lowadministrativecosts,chancesofsuccessand,toalesserextent,grantstargetedtotheresearcharea)

• Lackofcon[idenceintheevaluationprocessisanimportantreasonnottoapplytoNationalPublicgrantsand,toalesserextent,FP(notERC).

• ProceduralcostsareamaindetrimenttoapplytoFP(notERC),butalsotoERC!

• RegardingthestabilityofcallsERCisperceivedasthemoststable,followedbymanypublicnationalschemes.

Theprovisionalconclusions• Intermsof‘applicationtime’FP(notERC)isperceivedasbeingmoreunnecessarilylongthanERCorothernationalgrantingschemes.

• Heterogeneityonhowdifferentnationalagenciesaremanaged(withUK,Scandinavia,GEandTKatthetopandItalyatthebottom)

• Similarheterogeneityamongcountriesintheglobalassessmentofsatisfaction,althoughtherearerelevantdifferenceswiththemanagementranking(UK,Spain,etc.)

• TheFP(notERC)ranksamongthelesssatisfactoryschemes,althoughsatisfactionishigherforresidentsincountrieswithlowsatisfactionfortheiragencies(e.g.Italy).

Theprovisionalconclusions

• Ontheoverallsample,ERCisalsolowinthesatisfactionranking(withsomestrongsupporters).

• ERCsatisfactionissubstantiallyhigheramongsuccessfulcandidates.

• Evenamongsuccessfulcandidates,andthosewhohaveappliedrepeatedly,thereisafairamountofdissatisfactionwithsomenationalschemesandFP(nonERC).

• Ef[iciencyissuesbecomeevenmorepressingintimesof[inancialrestraint…

• Atthetopofthe10mostdesirable,oftenmissing,elementsinEuropeanResearchFundinginEconomicswehave:

“Trusttheresearcher”

Thethankstoall2385respondents!

EEA Survey on Research Funding in Economics in … Survey on Research Funding in Economics in Europe...

Documents

Transcript of EEA Survey on Research Funding in Economics in … Survey on Research Funding in Economics in Europe...