“985工程”实施效率及影响因素研究
|
摘要
在21世纪来临前后,世界上多个国家或地区纷纷推出了各自的高等教育重点建设计划,有选择地重点建设一批世界一流大学和高水平研究型大学与学科,以提高本国或本地区高等教育的国际竞争力。1999年1月13日,国务院批准教育部发布《面向21世纪教育振兴行动计划》,标志着我国建设高水平大学计划(即“985工程”)正式启动。在“985工程”一期、二期建设的十年中,各高校在拔尖创新人才培养、科技创新能力建设、服务国家经济与社会发展、自身体制机制改革探索等方面取得了显著成效,但所暴露出的问题也备受关注,如管理运行机制不健全、资金配置及使用效率低、国际交流项目缺乏完善的监督机制,其效率与质量无法保证等。基于此,本文对高等教育资源配置效率、高校生产效率以及“公派研究生项目”实施效率等问题进行实证分析,进而探寻影响“985工程”实施效率与绩效的关键因素。
首先,本文清晰地界定高校资源配置效率及生产效率的基本内涵,并在此基础上介绍“985工程”建设的基本情况,特别是工程二期开始推行的科技创新平台与哲学社会科学创新基地建设,及“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目”开展的基本情况。接着,分别对韩国“21世纪智慧韩国工程”、日本“21世纪卓越基地COE项目”以及德国“卓越计划”的启动与具体实施以及存在的问题和相关改革经验进行了系统的比较分析。针对我国“985工程”一期、二期建设中暴露出的问题,并借鉴上述有益的国际经验,指出“985工程”后续建设的可行性方向。
其次,从经济学角度提出考察我国“985工程”资源配置效率的新思路,应用动态权重分析方法,分别将2001-2007年间“985”高校与非“985”高校的科研与教学生产效率增长分解为3个部分,即“高校内”、“协方差”及“高校间”部分。研究发现,“985”高校从规模到生产效率方面的各项指标普遍优于非“985”高校,尤其是获得了更多的教育事业经费和政府R&D拨款的支持。虽然高校自身生产力的增长是高等教育整体发展的主要源动力,但提高资源配置效率带来的整体效率提升也不能忽视。研究表明,我国高等教育的科研资源配置正在向合理方向转移,但仍未能通过合理配置资源实现科研生产效率的最大化。
再次,在回顾高校生产效率研究的理论基础及其发展现状的基础上,推导出高等教育领域的科研与教学生产方程,并运用最小二乘回归及固定效应模型对生产方程的参数进行估算,且分别对高校科研与教学生产效率的增长要素进行系统的分析。研究表明,相对于其他教师来说,青年教师对高校科研生产效率的增长具有显著促进作用;“985”高校博士生对论文产出的贡献作用要显著高于非“985”高校的博士生。从经费资助来源来看,“985”高校在研究生项目的教学中,主要依靠科学与研发经费的资金支持,而非“985”高校体现出对国家教育事业经费拨款的依赖。由此可见,在研究生培养中,“985”高校更注重以科研为导向、以课程教学为辅助的培养机制。
再其次,本文对“985工程”中重要的国际合作项目——“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目”的开展情况及实施效率问题进行较深入的实证分析。根据项目实施中关键的择校环节,构造了需求—供给模型,并创造性的构建了特殊的数据集,进而应用GLS模型和截断数据模型对影响择校成功率的主要因素进行了拟合。实证研究显示,在出国留学信息膨胀、搜索及筛选成本提高的背景下,社会关系等非传统因素显著影响着高校与学生之间的双向选择,成为左右“公派研究生项目”实施效率的关键因素,在项目后续实施中的需要引起足够的重视,并加以正确的引导。
最后,从构建科学高效的管理体制、创新平台与基地建设、以及加强国际合作三个方面,提出提升“985工程”绩效的政策建议并总结全文。
Around the twenty first century, governments from lots of different countries in the world established plans on major construction of higher education respectively, which aims to set up some top-ranking universities, high level research universities and academic subjects; and to increases the international competition level of national or regional higher education as well. On the January 13th, 1999, Ministry of Education of the PRC issued“the plan for the revitalization of the 21st century of Education”, which indicated the“985 Project”had started up formally. During the first decade of“985 Project”, that is first and second phases, the universities under this project have achieved prominent success in plenty of aspects, like the cultivation of top-notch innovative talents, the forming of technological innovative capabilities, the service on national economic and social development, and the reform on self-institutional operation, etc. However, the undressed problems are still receiving much attention, including the un-sound administrative operation mechanisms, low-efficient capital allocation and application, imperfect supervisory mechanisms and un-ensured efficiency & quality of the international exchange programs, etc. Based on these shortages above, this paper makes empirical analysis on the resource allocative efficiency of higher education, the productive efficiency of Chinese universities, the operation efficiency of GSJT program, and explores the key elements affect the“985 Project”operation efficiency and performance.
Firstly, this paper clearly elaborates the connotation of resource allocation and productive efficiency of the higher education. And based on that, generally introduces the proceeding information about the“985 Project”, containing especially the construction of scientific technology innovation platforms and social science innovation centers in the second phase of“985 Project”, and the operation situation of the ongoing GSJT program. Then, it takes all-around comparative analysis on the startup, implementing, and existing problems and reform experience of“Brain Korea 21 Project”,“Japanese21st Century Center of Excellence Program”and“German Universities Excellence Initiative”. Aimed at the main problems emerged in the first and second phases of“985 Project”, and learning from the instructive international experience, the paper aims to point out a feasible direction for this ongoing project.
Secondly, from the economic angle, it examines the resource allocation efficiency of“985 Project”, and uses a shift-share analysis to decompose research and teaching productivity growth of universities under”985 project”or not during 2001-2007 into within, between, and covariance three components. The result finds that not only on the scale but also in many aspects of the productive efficiency, especially the obtaining of nation educational expenditure input and government R&D fund, the universities under the“985 Project”always exceed the universities which are not under it but belonging to the Ministry of Education. Though, the university self-productivity growth is the headstream of the development of the higher education sector, we still can not ignore enhancing the fund allocation efficiency which can also advance the whole productive efficiency. At present, though the research resource allocation of Chinese higher education is shifting to a viable direction, we still can not realize the research productive efficiency maximum by allocating fund reasonably.
Thirdly, after reviewing the theory basis and current development of the university productive efficiency, the paper infers research and instructions production equations of higher education, and afterward estimates the parameters of the equation by OLS regression and fixed effects models. The study indicates, comparing to other faculties, young faculties have made more promoting contribution to the increase of the university research productive efficiency. Meanwhile, the PHD candidates from the universities under the“985 Project”have higher significant effect on the paper production than the one not under it. For the fund which supports the instruction of master program, the universities under“985 Project”primarily relies on R&D fund, but the universities not under the“985 Project”on the national education expenditure input. Obviously, in the process of master cultivation, the universities under the“985 Project”are more interested in the mechanism mainly focusing on the scientific research, and supplemented by curriculum instruction.
Fourthly, this paper carries through an in-depth empirical analysis on the operating situation and implementing efficiency of GSJT program which is a significant important international cooperating program under the“985 Project”. For the key phase of this program, students choosing school abroad, we built a demand and supply model and use a unique data set on Chinese visiting students in the US, investigate some non-traditional determinants, such as social networks/connections, on the number of Chinese students hosted in American universities. Applying truncated, OLS, and GLS estimation, we find that social networks/connections have a strong positive and significant effect given the potentially larger cost in searching for information in a foreign country. Such connections become even more important in the context of studying abroad, especially become the essential factor influencing the implementing efficiency of GSJT program, and should be given adequate regards and correct guidance in the future.
Lastly, the paper puts forward the policy suggestions on building efficient management system, constructing scientific technology innovation platforms and social science innovation centers, and enstrengthing international cooperation, to enhance the performance of“985 Project”and summarizes all of the chapters.
首先,本文清晰地界定高校资源配置效率及生产效率的基本内涵,并在此基础上介绍“985工程”建设的基本情况,特别是工程二期开始推行的科技创新平台与哲学社会科学创新基地建设,及“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目”开展的基本情况。接着,分别对韩国“21世纪智慧韩国工程”、日本“21世纪卓越基地COE项目”以及德国“卓越计划”的启动与具体实施以及存在的问题和相关改革经验进行了系统的比较分析。针对我国“985工程”一期、二期建设中暴露出的问题,并借鉴上述有益的国际经验,指出“985工程”后续建设的可行性方向。
其次,从经济学角度提出考察我国“985工程”资源配置效率的新思路,应用动态权重分析方法,分别将2001-2007年间“985”高校与非“985”高校的科研与教学生产效率增长分解为3个部分,即“高校内”、“协方差”及“高校间”部分。研究发现,“985”高校从规模到生产效率方面的各项指标普遍优于非“985”高校,尤其是获得了更多的教育事业经费和政府R&D拨款的支持。虽然高校自身生产力的增长是高等教育整体发展的主要源动力,但提高资源配置效率带来的整体效率提升也不能忽视。研究表明,我国高等教育的科研资源配置正在向合理方向转移,但仍未能通过合理配置资源实现科研生产效率的最大化。
再次,在回顾高校生产效率研究的理论基础及其发展现状的基础上,推导出高等教育领域的科研与教学生产方程,并运用最小二乘回归及固定效应模型对生产方程的参数进行估算,且分别对高校科研与教学生产效率的增长要素进行系统的分析。研究表明,相对于其他教师来说,青年教师对高校科研生产效率的增长具有显著促进作用;“985”高校博士生对论文产出的贡献作用要显著高于非“985”高校的博士生。从经费资助来源来看,“985”高校在研究生项目的教学中,主要依靠科学与研发经费的资金支持,而非“985”高校体现出对国家教育事业经费拨款的依赖。由此可见,在研究生培养中,“985”高校更注重以科研为导向、以课程教学为辅助的培养机制。
再其次,本文对“985工程”中重要的国际合作项目——“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目”的开展情况及实施效率问题进行较深入的实证分析。根据项目实施中关键的择校环节,构造了需求—供给模型,并创造性的构建了特殊的数据集,进而应用GLS模型和截断数据模型对影响择校成功率的主要因素进行了拟合。实证研究显示,在出国留学信息膨胀、搜索及筛选成本提高的背景下,社会关系等非传统因素显著影响着高校与学生之间的双向选择,成为左右“公派研究生项目”实施效率的关键因素,在项目后续实施中的需要引起足够的重视,并加以正确的引导。
最后,从构建科学高效的管理体制、创新平台与基地建设、以及加强国际合作三个方面,提出提升“985工程”绩效的政策建议并总结全文。
Around the twenty first century, governments from lots of different countries in the world established plans on major construction of higher education respectively, which aims to set up some top-ranking universities, high level research universities and academic subjects; and to increases the international competition level of national or regional higher education as well. On the January 13th, 1999, Ministry of Education of the PRC issued“the plan for the revitalization of the 21st century of Education”, which indicated the“985 Project”had started up formally. During the first decade of“985 Project”, that is first and second phases, the universities under this project have achieved prominent success in plenty of aspects, like the cultivation of top-notch innovative talents, the forming of technological innovative capabilities, the service on national economic and social development, and the reform on self-institutional operation, etc. However, the undressed problems are still receiving much attention, including the un-sound administrative operation mechanisms, low-efficient capital allocation and application, imperfect supervisory mechanisms and un-ensured efficiency & quality of the international exchange programs, etc. Based on these shortages above, this paper makes empirical analysis on the resource allocative efficiency of higher education, the productive efficiency of Chinese universities, the operation efficiency of GSJT program, and explores the key elements affect the“985 Project”operation efficiency and performance.
Firstly, this paper clearly elaborates the connotation of resource allocation and productive efficiency of the higher education. And based on that, generally introduces the proceeding information about the“985 Project”, containing especially the construction of scientific technology innovation platforms and social science innovation centers in the second phase of“985 Project”, and the operation situation of the ongoing GSJT program. Then, it takes all-around comparative analysis on the startup, implementing, and existing problems and reform experience of“Brain Korea 21 Project”,“Japanese21st Century Center of Excellence Program”and“German Universities Excellence Initiative”. Aimed at the main problems emerged in the first and second phases of“985 Project”, and learning from the instructive international experience, the paper aims to point out a feasible direction for this ongoing project.
Secondly, from the economic angle, it examines the resource allocation efficiency of“985 Project”, and uses a shift-share analysis to decompose research and teaching productivity growth of universities under”985 project”or not during 2001-2007 into within, between, and covariance three components. The result finds that not only on the scale but also in many aspects of the productive efficiency, especially the obtaining of nation educational expenditure input and government R&D fund, the universities under the“985 Project”always exceed the universities which are not under it but belonging to the Ministry of Education. Though, the university self-productivity growth is the headstream of the development of the higher education sector, we still can not ignore enhancing the fund allocation efficiency which can also advance the whole productive efficiency. At present, though the research resource allocation of Chinese higher education is shifting to a viable direction, we still can not realize the research productive efficiency maximum by allocating fund reasonably.
Thirdly, after reviewing the theory basis and current development of the university productive efficiency, the paper infers research and instructions production equations of higher education, and afterward estimates the parameters of the equation by OLS regression and fixed effects models. The study indicates, comparing to other faculties, young faculties have made more promoting contribution to the increase of the university research productive efficiency. Meanwhile, the PHD candidates from the universities under the“985 Project”have higher significant effect on the paper production than the one not under it. For the fund which supports the instruction of master program, the universities under“985 Project”primarily relies on R&D fund, but the universities not under the“985 Project”on the national education expenditure input. Obviously, in the process of master cultivation, the universities under the“985 Project”are more interested in the mechanism mainly focusing on the scientific research, and supplemented by curriculum instruction.
Fourthly, this paper carries through an in-depth empirical analysis on the operating situation and implementing efficiency of GSJT program which is a significant important international cooperating program under the“985 Project”. For the key phase of this program, students choosing school abroad, we built a demand and supply model and use a unique data set on Chinese visiting students in the US, investigate some non-traditional determinants, such as social networks/connections, on the number of Chinese students hosted in American universities. Applying truncated, OLS, and GLS estimation, we find that social networks/connections have a strong positive and significant effect given the potentially larger cost in searching for information in a foreign country. Such connections become even more important in the context of studying abroad, especially become the essential factor influencing the implementing efficiency of GSJT program, and should be given adequate regards and correct guidance in the future.
Lastly, the paper puts forward the policy suggestions on building efficient management system, constructing scientific technology innovation platforms and social science innovation centers, and enstrengthing international cooperation, to enhance the performance of“985 Project”and summarizes all of the chapters.
引文
[1] Educational exchange between the United States and China. An IIE Briefing Paper: 2008
[2] Li H Z. Higher education in China: Complement or competition to U.S. universities? In: Clotfelter C T, editor. American Universities in a Global Market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010, 269-304
[3] Weisbrod B A. The health care quadrilemma: an essay on technological change, insurance, quality of care and cost containment. Journal of Economic Literature. 1991, 29(2): 525-552
[4] Mensah Y M, Werner R. Cost efficiency and financial flexibility in institutions of higher education. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 2003, 22(4): 293-323
[5] Hashimoto K, Cohn E. Economies of scale and scope in Japanese private universities. Educational Economics. 1997, 5: 107-116
[6] Koshal R K, Koshal M. Economies of scale and scope in higher education: a case of comprehensive universities. Economics of Education Review. 1999, 18(2): 269-277
[7] Robst J. Do state appropriations influence cost efficiency in public higher education? Applied Economic Letters. 2000, 7: 776-794
[8] Athanassopoulos A D, Shale E. Assessing the comparative efficiency of educational institutions in the UK by means of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics. 1997, 5(2): 117-134
[9] Johnes J. Data envelopment analysis and Its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review. 2006, 25(3): 273-288
[10] Lin H-T. Efficiency measurement and ranking of the tutorial system using IDEA. Expert Systems with Applications. 2009, 36(8): 11233-11239
[11] Chen J-K, Chen I S. Inno-Qual efficiency of higher education: Empirical testing using data envelopment analysis. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011, 38(3): 1823-1834
[12] Kuah C T, Wong K Y. Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis. Procedia Computer Science. 2011, 3: 499-506
[13] Bergstrom T C, Roberts J A, Rubinfeld D L, et al. A test for efficiency in thesupply of public education. Journal of Public Economics. 1988, 35(3): 289-307
[14]刘念才,刘莉,程莹, et al.实施“985工程”追赶世界一流大学——从世界名牌大学学术排行变化说起.中国高等教育. 2003, (17): 22-24
[15]王耀刚.高等学校教师资源优化配置研究: [天津大学博士学位论文].天津:天津大学, 2006
[16]朱军文.基于SCIE论文的我国研究型大学基础研究产出表现研究:1978-2007: [上海交通大学博士学位论文].上海:上海交通大学高等教育研究院, 2009
[17]朱军文,刘念才.我国研究型大学科研产出的计量学分析.高等教育研究. 2009, 30(2): 30-35
[18]罗尧成.我国高校博士课程设置现状分析及改革建议——基于三所“985工程”高校调查问卷的统计.高等工程教育研究. 2009, (5): 149-154
[19]刘莉,刘念才.我国大陆高校SSCI论文定量分析: 1978-2007.清华大学教育研究. 2009, 30(6): 41-45, 78
[20]侯光明,晋琳琳. DEA方法在研究型大学建设绩效评价中的应用.高教发展与评估. 2005, 21(5): 25-29
[21]陈琼娣.教育部直属985工程院校科研效率的实证分析.科技进步与对策. 2010, 27(8): 145-148
[22]戚巍,陈晓剑,张岩, et al.基于TOPSIS的中国研究型大学学术绩效评价方法研究.中国高教研究. 2010, (1): 15-19
[23]李平,吴庆文.一流大学师资队伍建设的着力点.中国地质大学学报(社会科学版). 2010, 10(1): 8-12
[24]“985工程”. http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/985%E5%B7%A5%E7%A8%8B#cite_ note-0. 2011-03-01
[25]张晓玲.加强“211工程”三期重点学科建设的几点思考.中国高教研究. 2008, (9): 28-30
[26]教育部. http://moe.eol.cn/edoas/website18/85/info1216619366572585.htm. 2008-07-21
[27]教育部财政部.教育部财政部关于继续实施“985工程”建设项目的意见(2004-06-02). http://202.205.177.9/edoas/website18/20/info5120.htm. 2011-03 -01
[28]国家留学基金管理委员会.国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目选拔简章(2010-09-27). http://www.csc.edu.cn/Chuguo/2cdca04a4c6047b7b114e5eca6bfe d0b.shtml. 2011-03-01
[29] BK21工程. http://bnc.krf.or.kr/home/eng/bk21/aboutbk21.jsp. 2011-02-27
[30]付艳.“21世纪智慧韩国工程”研究: [西南大学硕士学位论文].重庆:西南大学教育学院, 2009
[31] Moon M, Kim K-S. A case of Korean higher education reform: The Brain Korea 21 Project. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2001, 2(2): 96-105
[32]徐小洲,郑英蓓.韩国的世界一流大学发展计划:BK21工程.高等工程教育研究. 2006, (6): 99-104
[33]杨栋梁.日本推行高等教育改革的新举措——《21世纪COE计划》评述.日本学刊. 2003, (5): 120-129
[34]朱相丽.日本建设优秀研究中心的若干举措.全球科技经济瞭望. 2009, 24(1): 13-18
[35]孔捷.从平等到卓越——德国大学卓越计划评析.现代大学教育. 2010, (3): 52-57
[36]孙华.德国“卓越大学计划”及其对我国“985工程”的启示.黑龙江高教研究. 2010, (5): 9-11
[37]张帆.德国大学“卓越计划”评述.比较教育研究. 2007, (12): 66-70
[38]王晓娜.我国高校教育基金会研究: [吉林大学硕士学位论文].长春:吉林大学高等教育研究所, 2008
[39]吴伟,刘志民,郭霞.我国高等教育财政经费拨款机制与模式的改革方向探索.高教经济. 2005, (4): 49-51
[40]曾小彬,刘芳.论高等教育资源的类别及其配置结构.天津师范大学学报(社会科学版). 2007, (4): 67-69
[41]常晓宁.高等教育资源配置的现状及实现优化配置的途径.中山大学学报(自然科学版). 2004, 43(增刊): 251-253
[42] Badunenko O, Fritsch M, Stephan A. Allocative efficiency measurement revisited--Do we really need input prices? Economic Modelling. 2008, 25(5): 1093-1109
[43] Alvarez R, Crespi G. Determinants of technical efficiency in small firms. Small Business Economics. 2003, 20(3): 233-244
[44] Gumbau-Albert M, Maudos J. The determinants of efficiency: the case of the Spanish industry. Applied Economics. 2002, 34(15): 1941-1948
[45] Greene W. Frontier production functions. In: Pesaran M H, Schmidt P, editors. Handbook of Applied Econometrics Volume II: Microeconomics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997. p. 81-166
[46] Brissimis S N, Delis M D, Tsionas E G. Technical and allocative efficiency in European banking. European Journal of Operational Research. 2010, 204(1):153-163
[47] Topuz J C, Darrat A F, Shelor. R M. Technical, allocative and scale efficiencies of REITs: an empirical inquiry. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. 2005, 32(9-10): 1961-1994
[48] Chavas J-P, Petrie R, Roth M. Farm household production efficiency: evidence from the Gambia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2005, 81(1): 160-179
[49] Grazhdaninova M, Zvi L. Allocative and technical efficiency of corporate farms in Russia. Comparative Economic Studies. 2005, 47(1): 200-213
[50] Kumbhakar S C, Wang H-J. Pitfalls in the estimation of a cost function that ignores allocative inefficiency: a Monte Carlo analysis. Journal of Econometrics. 2006, 134(2): 317-340
[51] Raa T T. Aggregation of productivity indices: the allocative efficiency correction. Journal of Productivity Analysis. 2005, 24(2): 203-209
[52] Giménez V M, Martínez J L. Cost efficiency in the university: A departmental evaluation model. Economics of Education Review. 2006, 25(5): 543-553
[53] Adams J D, Clemmons J R. The growing allocative inefficiency of the U.S. higher education sector. In: Freeman R B, Goroff D L, editors. Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An Analysis of Markets and Employment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009, 349-382
[54] Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Krizan C J. Aggregate productivity growth: Lessons from microeconomic evidence. In: Hulten C R, Dean E R, Harper M J, editors. New Developments in Productivity Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, 303-372
[55] Lindsay A W. Institutional performance in higher education: The efficiency dimension. Review of Educational Research. 1982, 52(2): 175-199
[56] Kuo J-S, Ho Y-C. The cost efficiency impact of the university operation fund on public universities in Taiwan. Economics of Education Review. 2008, 27(5): 603-612
[57]李文利,由由.对高等学校办学效率的实证方法和计量分析技术的探讨.教育与经济. 2007, (2): 36-40
[58] Charnes A, Cooper W W, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research. 1978, 2(6): 429-444
[59] Johnes J. Measuring teaching efficiency in higher education: An application of data envelopment analysis to Economics graduates from UK universities.European Journal of Operational Research. 2006, 174(1): 443-456
[60] Worthington A C, Lee B L. Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998-2003. Economics of Education Review. 2008, 27(3): 285-298
[61] Kao C, Hung H-T. Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study. Omega. 2008, 36(4): 653-664
[62] Johnes J, Yu L. Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions using data envelopment analysis. China Economic Review. 2008, 19(4): 679-696
[63] Hsu F-M, Hsueh C-C. Measuring relative efficiency of government-sponsored R&D projects: A three-stage approach. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2009, 32(2): 178-186
[64] NG Y C, Li S-k. Efficiency and productivity growth in Chinese universities during the post-reform period. China Economic Review. 2009, 20(2): 183-192
[65] Cherchye L, De Witte K, Ooghe E, et al. Efficiency and equity in private and public education: A nonparametric comparison. European Journal of Operational Research. 2010, 202(2): 563-573
[66] Jiménez-Sáez F, Zabala-Iturriagagoitia J M, Zofío J L, et al. Evaluating research efficiency within National R&D Programmes. Research Policy. 2011, 40(2): 230-241
[67] Horne J, Hu B. Estimation of cost efficiency of Australian universities. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. 2008, 78(2-3): 266-275
[68] Izadi H, Johnes G, Oskrochi R, et al. Stochastic frontier estimation of a CES cost function: the case of higher education in Britain. Economics of Education Review. 2002, 21(1): 63-71
[69] Koshal R K, Koshal M, Gupta A. Multi-product total cost function for higher education: a case of bible colleges. Economics of Education Review. 2001, 20(3): 297-303
[70] Hou L, Li F, Min W. Multi-product total cost functions for higher education: The case of Chinese research universities. Economics of Education Review. 2009, 28(4): 505-511
[71] Belfield C R, Fielding A. Measuring the relationship between resources and outcomes in higher education in the UK. Economics of Education Review. 2001, 20(6): 589-602
[72]吕艳,孟宪青,王红丽.从“985”部属院校情况看研究型大学师资队伍建设.高教发展与评估. 2009, 25(2): 63-67
[73]赵红军,魏欢.“985工程”张力的扩展.求索. 2008, (4): 157-158
[74]彭子成.实施“985工程”不能削弱本科教学.中国高等教育. 2005, (17): 26-27
[75]王莉华.我国高等教育的绩效专项经费改革及完善思路——以“211工程”和“985工程”为例.中国高教研究. 2008, (9): 35-38
[76] Vlaardingerbroek B. A market outcomes approach to the external efficiency of education: A Papua New Guinea local study. International Journal of Educational Development. 1996, 16(2): 141-146
[77] Burney N A, Mohammed O E. The efficiency of the public education system in Kuwait. The Social Science Journal. 2002, 39(2): 277-286
[78] Yang T D. Education and allocative efficiency: household income growth during rural reforms in China. Journal of Development Economics. 2004, 74(1): 137-162
[79] Fazackerley A, Worthington P. British universities in China: The reality beyond the rhetoric. An Agora Discussion Paper: 2007
[80] Wetzel J, O'Toole D, Peterson S. An analysis of student enrollment demand. Economics of Education Review. 1998, 17(1): 47-54
[81] Avery C, Hoxby C M. Do and should financial aid packages affect students' college choices? In: Hoxby C M, editor. College Choices: The Economics of Where to Go, When to Go, and How to Pay For It. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 239-302
[82] Ding L, Li H. Social networks and study abroad -- The case of Chinese visiting students in the US. China Economic Review. In Press, Corrected Proof:
[83] Scott J P. Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd edition). London: Sage Publications Ltd. 2000
[84] Stigler G J. Information in the labor market. Journal of Political Economy. 1962, 70(5): 94-105
[85] Vishwanath T. Information flow, job search, and migration. Journal of Development Economics. 1991, 36(2): 313-335
[86] Breiger R L. The social class structure of occupational mobility. American Journal of Sociology. 1981, 87(3): 578-611
[87] Breiger R L. Social mobility and social structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990
[88] Lovett S, Simmons L C, Kali R. Guanxi versus the market: Ethics and efficiency. Journal of International Business Studies. 1999, 30(2): 231-247
[89] Zhang X, Li G. Does guanxi matter to nonfarm employment? Journal of Comparative Economics. 2003, 31(2): 315-331
[90]丁岚,李海峥.赴美联合培养博士生择校问题分析.高等教育研究. 2010, 31(10): 28-37
[91] Kim E H, Zhu M. Universities as firms: The case of U.S. overseas programs. In: Clotfelter C T, editor. American Universities in a Global Market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010, 163-201
[92] Park B U, Simar L, Zelenyuk V. Local likelihood estimation of truncated regression and its partial derivatives: Theory and application. Journal of Econometrics. 2008, 146(1): 185-198
[93] Li H. Symmetrically censored GMM estimation for Tobit models with endogenous regressors. Unpublished Mimeo. School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology. 2003
[94] Drewes T, Michael C. How do students choose a university? An analysis of applications to universities in Ontario, Canada. Research in Higher Education. 2006, 47(7): 781-800
[95]中美联合公报(北京, 2009). www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/us-china- joint-statement. 2011-03-01
[2] Li H Z. Higher education in China: Complement or competition to U.S. universities? In: Clotfelter C T, editor. American Universities in a Global Market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010, 269-304
[3] Weisbrod B A. The health care quadrilemma: an essay on technological change, insurance, quality of care and cost containment. Journal of Economic Literature. 1991, 29(2): 525-552
[4] Mensah Y M, Werner R. Cost efficiency and financial flexibility in institutions of higher education. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 2003, 22(4): 293-323
[5] Hashimoto K, Cohn E. Economies of scale and scope in Japanese private universities. Educational Economics. 1997, 5: 107-116
[6] Koshal R K, Koshal M. Economies of scale and scope in higher education: a case of comprehensive universities. Economics of Education Review. 1999, 18(2): 269-277
[7] Robst J. Do state appropriations influence cost efficiency in public higher education? Applied Economic Letters. 2000, 7: 776-794
[8] Athanassopoulos A D, Shale E. Assessing the comparative efficiency of educational institutions in the UK by means of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics. 1997, 5(2): 117-134
[9] Johnes J. Data envelopment analysis and Its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review. 2006, 25(3): 273-288
[10] Lin H-T. Efficiency measurement and ranking of the tutorial system using IDEA. Expert Systems with Applications. 2009, 36(8): 11233-11239
[11] Chen J-K, Chen I S. Inno-Qual efficiency of higher education: Empirical testing using data envelopment analysis. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011, 38(3): 1823-1834
[12] Kuah C T, Wong K Y. Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis. Procedia Computer Science. 2011, 3: 499-506
[13] Bergstrom T C, Roberts J A, Rubinfeld D L, et al. A test for efficiency in thesupply of public education. Journal of Public Economics. 1988, 35(3): 289-307
[14]刘念才,刘莉,程莹, et al.实施“985工程”追赶世界一流大学——从世界名牌大学学术排行变化说起.中国高等教育. 2003, (17): 22-24
[15]王耀刚.高等学校教师资源优化配置研究: [天津大学博士学位论文].天津:天津大学, 2006
[16]朱军文.基于SCIE论文的我国研究型大学基础研究产出表现研究:1978-2007: [上海交通大学博士学位论文].上海:上海交通大学高等教育研究院, 2009
[17]朱军文,刘念才.我国研究型大学科研产出的计量学分析.高等教育研究. 2009, 30(2): 30-35
[18]罗尧成.我国高校博士课程设置现状分析及改革建议——基于三所“985工程”高校调查问卷的统计.高等工程教育研究. 2009, (5): 149-154
[19]刘莉,刘念才.我国大陆高校SSCI论文定量分析: 1978-2007.清华大学教育研究. 2009, 30(6): 41-45, 78
[20]侯光明,晋琳琳. DEA方法在研究型大学建设绩效评价中的应用.高教发展与评估. 2005, 21(5): 25-29
[21]陈琼娣.教育部直属985工程院校科研效率的实证分析.科技进步与对策. 2010, 27(8): 145-148
[22]戚巍,陈晓剑,张岩, et al.基于TOPSIS的中国研究型大学学术绩效评价方法研究.中国高教研究. 2010, (1): 15-19
[23]李平,吴庆文.一流大学师资队伍建设的着力点.中国地质大学学报(社会科学版). 2010, 10(1): 8-12
[24]“985工程”. http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/985%E5%B7%A5%E7%A8%8B#cite_ note-0. 2011-03-01
[25]张晓玲.加强“211工程”三期重点学科建设的几点思考.中国高教研究. 2008, (9): 28-30
[26]教育部. http://moe.eol.cn/edoas/website18/85/info1216619366572585.htm. 2008-07-21
[27]教育部财政部.教育部财政部关于继续实施“985工程”建设项目的意见(2004-06-02). http://202.205.177.9/edoas/website18/20/info5120.htm. 2011-03 -01
[28]国家留学基金管理委员会.国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目选拔简章(2010-09-27). http://www.csc.edu.cn/Chuguo/2cdca04a4c6047b7b114e5eca6bfe d0b.shtml. 2011-03-01
[29] BK21工程. http://bnc.krf.or.kr/home/eng/bk21/aboutbk21.jsp. 2011-02-27
[30]付艳.“21世纪智慧韩国工程”研究: [西南大学硕士学位论文].重庆:西南大学教育学院, 2009
[31] Moon M, Kim K-S. A case of Korean higher education reform: The Brain Korea 21 Project. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2001, 2(2): 96-105
[32]徐小洲,郑英蓓.韩国的世界一流大学发展计划:BK21工程.高等工程教育研究. 2006, (6): 99-104
[33]杨栋梁.日本推行高等教育改革的新举措——《21世纪COE计划》评述.日本学刊. 2003, (5): 120-129
[34]朱相丽.日本建设优秀研究中心的若干举措.全球科技经济瞭望. 2009, 24(1): 13-18
[35]孔捷.从平等到卓越——德国大学卓越计划评析.现代大学教育. 2010, (3): 52-57
[36]孙华.德国“卓越大学计划”及其对我国“985工程”的启示.黑龙江高教研究. 2010, (5): 9-11
[37]张帆.德国大学“卓越计划”评述.比较教育研究. 2007, (12): 66-70
[38]王晓娜.我国高校教育基金会研究: [吉林大学硕士学位论文].长春:吉林大学高等教育研究所, 2008
[39]吴伟,刘志民,郭霞.我国高等教育财政经费拨款机制与模式的改革方向探索.高教经济. 2005, (4): 49-51
[40]曾小彬,刘芳.论高等教育资源的类别及其配置结构.天津师范大学学报(社会科学版). 2007, (4): 67-69
[41]常晓宁.高等教育资源配置的现状及实现优化配置的途径.中山大学学报(自然科学版). 2004, 43(增刊): 251-253
[42] Badunenko O, Fritsch M, Stephan A. Allocative efficiency measurement revisited--Do we really need input prices? Economic Modelling. 2008, 25(5): 1093-1109
[43] Alvarez R, Crespi G. Determinants of technical efficiency in small firms. Small Business Economics. 2003, 20(3): 233-244
[44] Gumbau-Albert M, Maudos J. The determinants of efficiency: the case of the Spanish industry. Applied Economics. 2002, 34(15): 1941-1948
[45] Greene W. Frontier production functions. In: Pesaran M H, Schmidt P, editors. Handbook of Applied Econometrics Volume II: Microeconomics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997. p. 81-166
[46] Brissimis S N, Delis M D, Tsionas E G. Technical and allocative efficiency in European banking. European Journal of Operational Research. 2010, 204(1):153-163
[47] Topuz J C, Darrat A F, Shelor. R M. Technical, allocative and scale efficiencies of REITs: an empirical inquiry. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. 2005, 32(9-10): 1961-1994
[48] Chavas J-P, Petrie R, Roth M. Farm household production efficiency: evidence from the Gambia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2005, 81(1): 160-179
[49] Grazhdaninova M, Zvi L. Allocative and technical efficiency of corporate farms in Russia. Comparative Economic Studies. 2005, 47(1): 200-213
[50] Kumbhakar S C, Wang H-J. Pitfalls in the estimation of a cost function that ignores allocative inefficiency: a Monte Carlo analysis. Journal of Econometrics. 2006, 134(2): 317-340
[51] Raa T T. Aggregation of productivity indices: the allocative efficiency correction. Journal of Productivity Analysis. 2005, 24(2): 203-209
[52] Giménez V M, Martínez J L. Cost efficiency in the university: A departmental evaluation model. Economics of Education Review. 2006, 25(5): 543-553
[53] Adams J D, Clemmons J R. The growing allocative inefficiency of the U.S. higher education sector. In: Freeman R B, Goroff D L, editors. Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An Analysis of Markets and Employment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009, 349-382
[54] Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Krizan C J. Aggregate productivity growth: Lessons from microeconomic evidence. In: Hulten C R, Dean E R, Harper M J, editors. New Developments in Productivity Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, 303-372
[55] Lindsay A W. Institutional performance in higher education: The efficiency dimension. Review of Educational Research. 1982, 52(2): 175-199
[56] Kuo J-S, Ho Y-C. The cost efficiency impact of the university operation fund on public universities in Taiwan. Economics of Education Review. 2008, 27(5): 603-612
[57]李文利,由由.对高等学校办学效率的实证方法和计量分析技术的探讨.教育与经济. 2007, (2): 36-40
[58] Charnes A, Cooper W W, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research. 1978, 2(6): 429-444
[59] Johnes J. Measuring teaching efficiency in higher education: An application of data envelopment analysis to Economics graduates from UK universities.European Journal of Operational Research. 2006, 174(1): 443-456
[60] Worthington A C, Lee B L. Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998-2003. Economics of Education Review. 2008, 27(3): 285-298
[61] Kao C, Hung H-T. Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study. Omega. 2008, 36(4): 653-664
[62] Johnes J, Yu L. Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions using data envelopment analysis. China Economic Review. 2008, 19(4): 679-696
[63] Hsu F-M, Hsueh C-C. Measuring relative efficiency of government-sponsored R&D projects: A three-stage approach. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2009, 32(2): 178-186
[64] NG Y C, Li S-k. Efficiency and productivity growth in Chinese universities during the post-reform period. China Economic Review. 2009, 20(2): 183-192
[65] Cherchye L, De Witte K, Ooghe E, et al. Efficiency and equity in private and public education: A nonparametric comparison. European Journal of Operational Research. 2010, 202(2): 563-573
[66] Jiménez-Sáez F, Zabala-Iturriagagoitia J M, Zofío J L, et al. Evaluating research efficiency within National R&D Programmes. Research Policy. 2011, 40(2): 230-241
[67] Horne J, Hu B. Estimation of cost efficiency of Australian universities. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. 2008, 78(2-3): 266-275
[68] Izadi H, Johnes G, Oskrochi R, et al. Stochastic frontier estimation of a CES cost function: the case of higher education in Britain. Economics of Education Review. 2002, 21(1): 63-71
[69] Koshal R K, Koshal M, Gupta A. Multi-product total cost function for higher education: a case of bible colleges. Economics of Education Review. 2001, 20(3): 297-303
[70] Hou L, Li F, Min W. Multi-product total cost functions for higher education: The case of Chinese research universities. Economics of Education Review. 2009, 28(4): 505-511
[71] Belfield C R, Fielding A. Measuring the relationship between resources and outcomes in higher education in the UK. Economics of Education Review. 2001, 20(6): 589-602
[72]吕艳,孟宪青,王红丽.从“985”部属院校情况看研究型大学师资队伍建设.高教发展与评估. 2009, 25(2): 63-67
[73]赵红军,魏欢.“985工程”张力的扩展.求索. 2008, (4): 157-158
[74]彭子成.实施“985工程”不能削弱本科教学.中国高等教育. 2005, (17): 26-27
[75]王莉华.我国高等教育的绩效专项经费改革及完善思路——以“211工程”和“985工程”为例.中国高教研究. 2008, (9): 35-38
[76] Vlaardingerbroek B. A market outcomes approach to the external efficiency of education: A Papua New Guinea local study. International Journal of Educational Development. 1996, 16(2): 141-146
[77] Burney N A, Mohammed O E. The efficiency of the public education system in Kuwait. The Social Science Journal. 2002, 39(2): 277-286
[78] Yang T D. Education and allocative efficiency: household income growth during rural reforms in China. Journal of Development Economics. 2004, 74(1): 137-162
[79] Fazackerley A, Worthington P. British universities in China: The reality beyond the rhetoric. An Agora Discussion Paper: 2007
[80] Wetzel J, O'Toole D, Peterson S. An analysis of student enrollment demand. Economics of Education Review. 1998, 17(1): 47-54
[81] Avery C, Hoxby C M. Do and should financial aid packages affect students' college choices? In: Hoxby C M, editor. College Choices: The Economics of Where to Go, When to Go, and How to Pay For It. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 239-302
[82] Ding L, Li H. Social networks and study abroad -- The case of Chinese visiting students in the US. China Economic Review. In Press, Corrected Proof:
[83] Scott J P. Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd edition). London: Sage Publications Ltd. 2000
[84] Stigler G J. Information in the labor market. Journal of Political Economy. 1962, 70(5): 94-105
[85] Vishwanath T. Information flow, job search, and migration. Journal of Development Economics. 1991, 36(2): 313-335
[86] Breiger R L. The social class structure of occupational mobility. American Journal of Sociology. 1981, 87(3): 578-611
[87] Breiger R L. Social mobility and social structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990
[88] Lovett S, Simmons L C, Kali R. Guanxi versus the market: Ethics and efficiency. Journal of International Business Studies. 1999, 30(2): 231-247
[89] Zhang X, Li G. Does guanxi matter to nonfarm employment? Journal of Comparative Economics. 2003, 31(2): 315-331
[90]丁岚,李海峥.赴美联合培养博士生择校问题分析.高等教育研究. 2010, 31(10): 28-37
[91] Kim E H, Zhu M. Universities as firms: The case of U.S. overseas programs. In: Clotfelter C T, editor. American Universities in a Global Market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010, 163-201
[92] Park B U, Simar L, Zelenyuk V. Local likelihood estimation of truncated regression and its partial derivatives: Theory and application. Journal of Econometrics. 2008, 146(1): 185-198
[93] Li H. Symmetrically censored GMM estimation for Tobit models with endogenous regressors. Unpublished Mimeo. School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology. 2003
[94] Drewes T, Michael C. How do students choose a university? An analysis of applications to universities in Ontario, Canada. Research in Higher Education. 2006, 47(7): 781-800
[95]中美联合公报(北京, 2009). www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/us-china- joint-statement. 2011-03-01