Regional Scientific Production and Specialization in Europe: The Role of HERD

Abstract

This paper analyses the effects of R&D expenditure in the higher education sector on the scientific production across regions in Europe 15. Our research questions relate to the regional production of science and the role of academic R&D expenditures on regional scientific output. The results show that money affects the production of scientific results in regions. On average, we found different impacts and lags of R&D expenditure according to the level of regional development. Our findings also suggest that scientific specialization is a significant factor affecting scientific outputs, although its effects differ across disciplines and regions.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Robert Tijssen of the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University for providing the updated classifications of scientific disciplines. Early versions of this paper were presented at the following conferences: 50th European Congress of the Regional Science Association International (ERSA 2010), 2011 ENID/STI Conference and DRUID Society Conference 2011 and 2012. The authors would like to thank the conference participants for their helpful comments. The authors are grateful to Rodrigo Costas (CWTS) and Harro van Lente (Utrecht University) for their helpful insights in two seminars held at CWTS and Utrecht University in 2011. They also wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their positive and constructive comments, which significantly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of the paper. Support for this research was provided in part from the Junta de Andalucía (Grant P08-SEJ-03981).

Notes

1. A stream of literature focused on the individual productivity of researchers has sometimes considered R&D funding as an “environmental attribute”, along with other personal characteristics (researcher sex, age, education, etc.) and institutional attributes of the institutions for which those researchers work (see, for instance, Arora et al., 1998; Carayol & Matt, 2006; Cesaroni & Gambardella, 2003). However, this growing literature differs from the viewpoint followed in our paper.

2. In a fractional count, the credit for a publication is divided equally among all authors. In contrast, in a full count, each author is credited with one publication. For a review and comparison of publication counts obtained using different methods, see Gauffriau et al. (2008).

3. The classification was established by the CWTS at Leiden University (see Tijssen & van Leeuwen, 2003). For categories not included in the CWTS 2003 classification, we used an updated (but unpublished) classification provided kindly by the CWTS.

4. Note that in the case of Denmark, the NUTS II level is equal to the NUTS 0 level, i.e. the country level.