我国省域基础研究影响因素与空间分布研究
|
摘要
基础研究是整个科技创新活动的基础和源泉,对于一个国家的长远发展至关重要。作为我国支持基础研究的主要渠道之一,国家自然科学基金面向全国所有的基础研究队伍,鼓励和支持科学家自由探索。其依靠科学家、尊重科学自主性的民主管理机制,与“平等竞争、激励创新”的运行机制,使得其经费的投入效率高于其它方式(周寄中,2008)。综合考虑定位倾斜、投入规模、资助范围和数据准确性等因素,国家自然科学基金资助情况和申请情况更能全面、真实地反映我国基础研究的研究水平和活跃程度。
上世纪90年代以来,我国早期的基础研究资源行政性布局发生了较大改变,省域基础研究发展水平出现明显的非均衡布局。在这个过程中,哪些因素影响了各省市基础研究活跃程度和研究水平的变化?我国基础研究呈现怎样的空间布局?是否会出现研究资源过度集中而形成空间集群?在不断加大投入的同时,我国基础研究经费在省域间应该如何分配?对上述问题的研究,不但能从理论上加深对基础研究投入特点的认识,更能为我国基础研究经费投入政策制定提供依据。现有文献中,对基础研究的考察主要还集中在其投入强度、产出绩效评价等方面,对基础研究经费分配影响因素的定量研究还相对较少,没有从省域层面对我国基础研究的空间分布问题进行过定量研究。
本文选取国家自然科学基金视角,运用定性和定量研究相结合的方法,对上述问题进行了深入研究。本文首先介绍了我国基础研究发展历程和现有的管理和计划体系,分析了近年来我国基础研究取得的成效。其次分析了我国基础研究的投入渠道、投入特点及存在的问题。再次,以国家自然科学基金为例,对影响我国省级基础研究活跃程度和水平的主要因素进行计量研究。最后,从国家自然科学基金视角,探讨了我国省域基础研究的空间相关性问题。与现有研究相比,本文创新工作主要体现在以下几个方面:
①从省域层面,对影响我国基础研究活跃程度和研究水平的主要因素进行计量研究。国内关于基础研究竞争性科研经费分配方面的文献主要集中在学科布局方面的定性研究,少数的定量研究中则主要以高校为对象进行分析,而从省域的角度尚无相关文献就此问题进行过研究。本文采用1998-2007年国家自然科学基金面上项目的申请和资助活动面板数据,对影响我国省域基础研究活跃程度和研究水平的主要因素进行计量分析。结果显示,知识存量、科研人力资本和经济发展质量对省域基础研究活跃程度和研究水平有显著的影响,与省域申请活动和资助活动呈显著的正向关系。省域总量经济规模并不必然促进基础研究活动的增加。
②引入空间统计方法,对我国省域基础研究活动空间相关性进行了定量研究。现有文献在考察国家自然科学基金地域分布时,都只采用了传统统计方法分析其静态特点,没有对分布变化情况进行过动态研究,得出的结论相对简单,对科学基金申请和资助活动在省域之间的空间相关性研究尚属空白,国家自然科学基金资助活动不均衡分布是否会导致项目在空间分布上的集聚等一系列问题尚需进一步探讨。本文首先从理论上探讨了基础研究的空间集群效应,接着采用国家自然科学基金1998至2010年的相关数据,运用前沿空间统计方法,从空间距离的角度全面考察了国家自然科学基金面上项目申请与资助活动的空间分布特征,并比较了国家自然科学基金资助活动区别于应用技术和经济发展的动态发展趋势,最后着重分析了面上项目在不同省域之间的空间相关性。结果表明,国家自然科学基金面上项目申请活动已经表现出显著的空间集聚效应,空间依赖性将持续增加。面上项目资助活动的空间相关性呈现逐年增强趋势,并有可能在2015年左右出现显著的空间集聚现象。
③引入空间统计方法,对国家自然科学基金中地区科学基金实施效果进行了定量分析。从世界经验来看,设立专项基金支持科研相对薄弱地区的科学研究是实现区域之间的均衡、协调与可持续发展的必要措施之一。现有文献对地区科学基金的讨论绝大多数都是针对基金管理问题的定性研究。受传统统计方法的限制,对科学基金非均衡空间分布情况下地区科学基金实施效果的分析尚不够深入。本文全面分析了地区科学基金在扶持边远地区基础研究发展方面的效果,并运用前沿空间统计方法着重分析了地区科学基金在缓解基础研究空间集群现象中的作用。结果显示,地区科学基金有效影响了全国基础研究的空间分布,一定程度上缓解了基础研究资源过分向少数基础研究实力强的地区集中。但是由于地区科学基金现有规模有限,其作用正在弱化,有必要加大力度或采取新的措施予以加强。
Basic research is the base and fountainhead of the general technological innovation activities, thus it is critical to a nation’s long-term development. As one of the main channels that support basic research of our country, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) supports and encourages all scientists in the field of basic research to conduct free exploration. Its democratic management mechanism of relying on scientists and respecting scientific autonomy , combined with the operating mechanism of“fair competition and encouragement of innovation" enable its funding input more efficient compared to other mechanisms. Considering its orientation, scale of investment, financing scope, accuracy of the data and other factors, the funding and application status of NSFC can fully and truly reflect the level and activity of basic research in China.
Since the 1990s, the administrative distribution of resources in basic research has changed dramatically. The development of basic research across provinces and municipalities shows a style of non- equilibrium distribution. In this process, what factors affect the activity and research level of basic research in difference provinces and municipalities? What’s the geographical distribution of basic research in our country? Will it be a geographical cluster due to the excessive concentration of research resources? As the increasing of investment, how should the funding for basic research be allocated among provinces and municipalities? Research on these issues can not only help us learn more about the characteristics of the basic research input theoretically, but also provide policy basis for the our country's basic research investment. In the existing literatures, the study of basic research has been focused on input intensity, output performance evaluation and so on. It is relatively rare to see quantitative study on the affecting factors to the basic research. There is no quantitative study on the geographical distribution of basic research from provincial perspective.
From the perspective of NSFC, this paper studies the issues mentioned above by combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. This paper first introduces the development history and the current management and planning system of our country’s basic research ,and analyses the performance of our country’s basic research in recent years. Secondly the paper investigates the invest channel, investing characteristics and existing problems of basic research in our country. Thirdly, taking NSFC as an example, the paper studies the main factors that affect the degree and level of provincial basic research using empirical method. Lastly, the paper discusses the geographical correlation issue of provincial basic from an NSFC perspective. The main innovation of this paper is as following compared to the existing research:
①It quantitatively studies the main factors that affect the degree and level of basic research in our country form a provincial perspective. The Chinese literature of competitive scientific funds distribution is mainly concentrated on the qualitative research of subject arrangement. A minority of quantitative research is mainly focused on the analyzing of universities. No literature is available on this issue from a provincial perspective. This paper quantitatively analyzes the main factors that affect the degree and level of basic research in our country by using a dynamic panel data of the application and funding of the General Projects of NSFC from 1998 to 2007. The results show that knowledge, scientific human capital and quality of economic development have significant effects on the activity and research level of provincial basic research, and also have positive relationship to the provincial application and funding activities. Provincial total economic scale doesn't necessarily promote basic research activities.
②It quantitatively studies the geographical correlation of provincial basic research by employing spatial statistic method. In examining the regional distribution of the application and funding of NSFC projects, the conclusions of the existing literature are relatively simple due to the usage of only traditional statistic method and analysis of on its static characteristics with no dynamical analysis on its distribution condition. The study on the correlation of geographical distribution to the applying and funding activities of NSFC is still in blank. Whether the non-equilibrium distribution of NSFC funding activity will lead to a series of problems such as cluster needs is to be further discussed. Firstly, this paper discuses the space cluster effect of basic research theoretically. Then, it investigates the spatial distribution characteristic of the applying and funding activities of NSFC from the angle of space distance comprehensively by employing frontier spatial statistical methods and using the data of NSFC from 1998 to 2010. And it also compares the dynamic development trend of NSFC that differs from application technology and economic development. Finally, it focuses on analyzing geographical correlation of general projects among provinces and municipalities. The result shows that the applying activities of NSFC have shown a significant geographical agglomeration effects, and the geographical dependence will continue to increase. The geographical correlation of funding activities is increasing year by year. And it will probably show a significant geographical agglomeration effects around 2015.
③It employs geographical statistical methods to quantitatively analyze the outcome of the implementation of the Fund for Less Developed Regions (FLDR) supported by the NSFC. Worldwide experiences reveal that it is a necessary practice to establish special funds for scientific research in less developed regions, in order to achieve balanced development coordination and sustainable development among regions. The extant researches on FLDR are mostly qualitative. Subject to the limitations of traditional statistical methods, analyses of the effect of FLDR under non-equilibrium geographical distribution have not been deep enough. This work comprehensively explores the results of FLDR in support of the development of basic research in remote areas, and thoroughly studies the role of the Funds in mitigating the geographical clustering phenomenon of basic research by using the recently developed spatial statistical methods. The results show that FLDR effectively balanced the geographical distribution of basic research across the country, namely to some extent they eased the regional concentration of basic research resources towards leading regions. Nonetheless, with the weakening of the role of FLDR, it is necessary to increase the intensity of support or adopt other new measures to reverse this undesired decline.
上世纪90年代以来,我国早期的基础研究资源行政性布局发生了较大改变,省域基础研究发展水平出现明显的非均衡布局。在这个过程中,哪些因素影响了各省市基础研究活跃程度和研究水平的变化?我国基础研究呈现怎样的空间布局?是否会出现研究资源过度集中而形成空间集群?在不断加大投入的同时,我国基础研究经费在省域间应该如何分配?对上述问题的研究,不但能从理论上加深对基础研究投入特点的认识,更能为我国基础研究经费投入政策制定提供依据。现有文献中,对基础研究的考察主要还集中在其投入强度、产出绩效评价等方面,对基础研究经费分配影响因素的定量研究还相对较少,没有从省域层面对我国基础研究的空间分布问题进行过定量研究。
本文选取国家自然科学基金视角,运用定性和定量研究相结合的方法,对上述问题进行了深入研究。本文首先介绍了我国基础研究发展历程和现有的管理和计划体系,分析了近年来我国基础研究取得的成效。其次分析了我国基础研究的投入渠道、投入特点及存在的问题。再次,以国家自然科学基金为例,对影响我国省级基础研究活跃程度和水平的主要因素进行计量研究。最后,从国家自然科学基金视角,探讨了我国省域基础研究的空间相关性问题。与现有研究相比,本文创新工作主要体现在以下几个方面:
①从省域层面,对影响我国基础研究活跃程度和研究水平的主要因素进行计量研究。国内关于基础研究竞争性科研经费分配方面的文献主要集中在学科布局方面的定性研究,少数的定量研究中则主要以高校为对象进行分析,而从省域的角度尚无相关文献就此问题进行过研究。本文采用1998-2007年国家自然科学基金面上项目的申请和资助活动面板数据,对影响我国省域基础研究活跃程度和研究水平的主要因素进行计量分析。结果显示,知识存量、科研人力资本和经济发展质量对省域基础研究活跃程度和研究水平有显著的影响,与省域申请活动和资助活动呈显著的正向关系。省域总量经济规模并不必然促进基础研究活动的增加。
②引入空间统计方法,对我国省域基础研究活动空间相关性进行了定量研究。现有文献在考察国家自然科学基金地域分布时,都只采用了传统统计方法分析其静态特点,没有对分布变化情况进行过动态研究,得出的结论相对简单,对科学基金申请和资助活动在省域之间的空间相关性研究尚属空白,国家自然科学基金资助活动不均衡分布是否会导致项目在空间分布上的集聚等一系列问题尚需进一步探讨。本文首先从理论上探讨了基础研究的空间集群效应,接着采用国家自然科学基金1998至2010年的相关数据,运用前沿空间统计方法,从空间距离的角度全面考察了国家自然科学基金面上项目申请与资助活动的空间分布特征,并比较了国家自然科学基金资助活动区别于应用技术和经济发展的动态发展趋势,最后着重分析了面上项目在不同省域之间的空间相关性。结果表明,国家自然科学基金面上项目申请活动已经表现出显著的空间集聚效应,空间依赖性将持续增加。面上项目资助活动的空间相关性呈现逐年增强趋势,并有可能在2015年左右出现显著的空间集聚现象。
③引入空间统计方法,对国家自然科学基金中地区科学基金实施效果进行了定量分析。从世界经验来看,设立专项基金支持科研相对薄弱地区的科学研究是实现区域之间的均衡、协调与可持续发展的必要措施之一。现有文献对地区科学基金的讨论绝大多数都是针对基金管理问题的定性研究。受传统统计方法的限制,对科学基金非均衡空间分布情况下地区科学基金实施效果的分析尚不够深入。本文全面分析了地区科学基金在扶持边远地区基础研究发展方面的效果,并运用前沿空间统计方法着重分析了地区科学基金在缓解基础研究空间集群现象中的作用。结果显示,地区科学基金有效影响了全国基础研究的空间分布,一定程度上缓解了基础研究资源过分向少数基础研究实力强的地区集中。但是由于地区科学基金现有规模有限,其作用正在弱化,有必要加大力度或采取新的措施予以加强。
Basic research is the base and fountainhead of the general technological innovation activities, thus it is critical to a nation’s long-term development. As one of the main channels that support basic research of our country, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) supports and encourages all scientists in the field of basic research to conduct free exploration. Its democratic management mechanism of relying on scientists and respecting scientific autonomy , combined with the operating mechanism of“fair competition and encouragement of innovation" enable its funding input more efficient compared to other mechanisms. Considering its orientation, scale of investment, financing scope, accuracy of the data and other factors, the funding and application status of NSFC can fully and truly reflect the level and activity of basic research in China.
Since the 1990s, the administrative distribution of resources in basic research has changed dramatically. The development of basic research across provinces and municipalities shows a style of non- equilibrium distribution. In this process, what factors affect the activity and research level of basic research in difference provinces and municipalities? What’s the geographical distribution of basic research in our country? Will it be a geographical cluster due to the excessive concentration of research resources? As the increasing of investment, how should the funding for basic research be allocated among provinces and municipalities? Research on these issues can not only help us learn more about the characteristics of the basic research input theoretically, but also provide policy basis for the our country's basic research investment. In the existing literatures, the study of basic research has been focused on input intensity, output performance evaluation and so on. It is relatively rare to see quantitative study on the affecting factors to the basic research. There is no quantitative study on the geographical distribution of basic research from provincial perspective.
From the perspective of NSFC, this paper studies the issues mentioned above by combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. This paper first introduces the development history and the current management and planning system of our country’s basic research ,and analyses the performance of our country’s basic research in recent years. Secondly the paper investigates the invest channel, investing characteristics and existing problems of basic research in our country. Thirdly, taking NSFC as an example, the paper studies the main factors that affect the degree and level of provincial basic research using empirical method. Lastly, the paper discusses the geographical correlation issue of provincial basic from an NSFC perspective. The main innovation of this paper is as following compared to the existing research:
①It quantitatively studies the main factors that affect the degree and level of basic research in our country form a provincial perspective. The Chinese literature of competitive scientific funds distribution is mainly concentrated on the qualitative research of subject arrangement. A minority of quantitative research is mainly focused on the analyzing of universities. No literature is available on this issue from a provincial perspective. This paper quantitatively analyzes the main factors that affect the degree and level of basic research in our country by using a dynamic panel data of the application and funding of the General Projects of NSFC from 1998 to 2007. The results show that knowledge, scientific human capital and quality of economic development have significant effects on the activity and research level of provincial basic research, and also have positive relationship to the provincial application and funding activities. Provincial total economic scale doesn't necessarily promote basic research activities.
②It quantitatively studies the geographical correlation of provincial basic research by employing spatial statistic method. In examining the regional distribution of the application and funding of NSFC projects, the conclusions of the existing literature are relatively simple due to the usage of only traditional statistic method and analysis of on its static characteristics with no dynamical analysis on its distribution condition. The study on the correlation of geographical distribution to the applying and funding activities of NSFC is still in blank. Whether the non-equilibrium distribution of NSFC funding activity will lead to a series of problems such as cluster needs is to be further discussed. Firstly, this paper discuses the space cluster effect of basic research theoretically. Then, it investigates the spatial distribution characteristic of the applying and funding activities of NSFC from the angle of space distance comprehensively by employing frontier spatial statistical methods and using the data of NSFC from 1998 to 2010. And it also compares the dynamic development trend of NSFC that differs from application technology and economic development. Finally, it focuses on analyzing geographical correlation of general projects among provinces and municipalities. The result shows that the applying activities of NSFC have shown a significant geographical agglomeration effects, and the geographical dependence will continue to increase. The geographical correlation of funding activities is increasing year by year. And it will probably show a significant geographical agglomeration effects around 2015.
③It employs geographical statistical methods to quantitatively analyze the outcome of the implementation of the Fund for Less Developed Regions (FLDR) supported by the NSFC. Worldwide experiences reveal that it is a necessary practice to establish special funds for scientific research in less developed regions, in order to achieve balanced development coordination and sustainable development among regions. The extant researches on FLDR are mostly qualitative. Subject to the limitations of traditional statistical methods, analyses of the effect of FLDR under non-equilibrium geographical distribution have not been deep enough. This work comprehensively explores the results of FLDR in support of the development of basic research in remote areas, and thoroughly studies the role of the Funds in mitigating the geographical clustering phenomenon of basic research by using the recently developed spatial statistical methods. The results show that FLDR effectively balanced the geographical distribution of basic research across the country, namely to some extent they eased the regional concentration of basic research resources towards leading regions. Nonetheless, with the weakening of the role of FLDR, it is necessary to increase the intensity of support or adopt other new measures to reverse this undesired decline.
引文
蔡兵.自主创新能力不足与自主创新的文化、制度障碍[J]学术研究, 2006(2): 46-51
戴立信,金碧辉,化学领域重要研究方向发展态势分析[J]中国基础科学, 2005.7(3)
丁娟.创新理论的发展演变[J].现代经济探讨, 2002(6): 28-29
龚旭夏文莉,美国联邦政府开展的基础研究绩效评估及其启示[J]科研管理,2003(2)
蒋颖阳宁晖等.我国国家自然科学基金的地区分布研究[J]科学学与科学技术管理, 2003(3):5-10
蒋岳祥,胡方茜,蒋绍忠.高校科研经费的影响因素分析[J].浙江大学学报(社会科学版), 1998, 28(1): 48-52
李序颖,顾岚.空间自回归模型及其估计[J]统计研究, 2004(6):48-51
李主其.基础研究——综合国力之源[M]北京高等教育出版社, 2007
梁启华,何晓红.空间集聚:隐性知识转移与共享机理与途径[J]管理世界, 2006(3):146-147
林光平,龙志和,吴梅.我国地区经济收敛的空间计量实证分析: 1978-2002[J]经济学季刊, 2006
宋建元,王德禄,区域重新系统中的政府职能分析[J]科学学与科学技术管理, 2001(11): 51-53
孙建国,李晓轩,王敬泽.科研机构创新文化建设评价方法研究与思考[J]科学学研究, 2006(2): 172-177
孙绍荣,廖燕玲.我国基础研究的区域分布特点及规律[J]软科学, 2004(6):5-7
王锐淇,张宗益.区域创新能力影响因素的空间面板数据分析[J].科研管理, 2010(3):17-26
吴善超,陈敬全,韩宇等.地区科学基金资助政策研究[J].科研管理, 2009(3):166-171.
吴玉鸣,中国区域研发、知识溢出与创新的空间计量经济研究[M]人民出版社, 2007:37-50
邢怀滨,苏竣,技术创新微观机制的网络分析[J]科学学研究, 2004(3)
徐杰,李正风,陈敬全.国家自然科学基金面上项目资助额的地区分布规律[J].中国基础研究, 2007(4):43-45
殷尹,梁梁.区域技术创新能力短期评估[J]中国软科学, 2001(1): 71-74
袁立科,张宗益.创新系统的区域可达性研究[J].科研管理, 2007, 28(1): 16?
袁立科.中国省域技术创新产出的空间外溢和收敛分析,重庆大学;技术经济及管理(专业)博士论文2007
张光,江依妮,张建影.重成果还是重名望—高校竞争性自然科学基金研究经费分配决定因素分析[J].科技管理研究, 2007, (4): 114-116
周寄中.创新的基础和源泉:基础研究的投入、评估和协调[M].北京:科学出版社, 2008. 393-394
周元,王海燕,赵刚等编著.中国区域自主创新研究报告(2006-2007),知识产权出版社, 2008
Anselin, L, Raymond J.G., Florax, Rey S.J, Advances in Spatial Econometrics: Methodology, Toolsand Applications[M]. Berlin:Springer-Verlag.2004
Anselin, L., GeoDa 0.9 user’s guide. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Spatial Analysis Laboratory[M], University of Illinois. 2003
Anselin, L., Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.1988
Anselin, L., Varga, A. and Acs, Z., Geographic Spillovers and University Research: a Spatial Econometric Perspective[J], Growth and Change, 2000,31(Fall): 501-516
Anselin, L., Varga, A. and Acs, Z.,Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations[J],Journal of Urban Economics 1997,42:422–48.
Audretsch D B, Bozeman B, Combs K L, et al. The economics of science and technology [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2002(27):155-?203
Audretsch, D. B. and M. P. Feldman, R&D Spillovers and Geography of Innovation and Production[J], The American Economic Review, 1996(86), 630-641
Barro, R. J. Economic growth in a cross-section of countries[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991(106):407–44.
Bernstein J, and Nadiri, M., Research and Development and Intra-industry Spillover[J].Review of Economics Studies, 1989(56):249-269.
Breandan, and Timothy, Spatial convergence and spillovers in American invention[R]Annuals of the Association of American Geographers, 2005(4):66-886.
Breschi S, Lissoni F. Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey [J].Industrial and Corporate Change, 2001(4):975-1005
Brown, M. and Conrad, A., The Influence of Research and Education on CES Production Relations, in M. Brown(ed.), The Theory and Empirical Analysis of Production[M].Columbia University Press for NBER.,1967
Bush V. Science-The Endless Frontier[M]. Washington,D.C.:NSF,1960.
Cliff, A. D. and Ord, J. K., Spatial Processes: Models and Applications[M]. Pion, London,1981
Cockburn I, Herderson R. Publicly funded science and the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry [R]. NBER Conference on Science and Public Policy. Washington DC, 2000
Cozzarin B P. Performance measures for the socio-economic impact of government spending on R&D [J]. Scientometrics, 2006(1): 5695?96
Dasgupta, P. and David, P., Toward a New Economics of Science[J].Research Policy 1994(23):487-521.
Englmann,F.C.,Walz,U., Industrial Centers and Regional Growth in the Presence of Local Inputs, [J]. Journal of Regional Science, 1995,35,3-27
Fritsch M and Slavtchev V, Universities and Innovation in Space[J] Industry and Innovation,2007(14):201-218
Godin B, DoréC. Measuring the Impacts of Science: Beyond the Economic Dimension [R]. CSIIC Working paper, 2003
Griliches Z. Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth [J]. Bell Journal of Economics,1979, 10(1): 92-116
Griliches, Z., Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change, [J].Econometrica, October,1957(25):501.
Guellec D, van Pottelsberghe B. The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D [J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2003, 12(3): 2252?44
Jaffe A B.,Real effects of academic research [J]. The American Economic Review , 1989(79): 957-970.
Katz J.S, Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration [J] Scent metrics, 1994(1):31-43
Kitschelt, H., Industrial Governance Structures, Innovation Strategies and the Case of Japan: Sectoral or Cross-national Comparative Analysis[J].International Organization 1991:45(4), Autumn: 453-493.
Kline S and Rosenberg N,“An Overview of Innovation”,The Positive Sum Strategy, Harnessing Technology for Economics Growth Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1986, 275-305.
Koschatzky, H., Marianne, K. and Zenker, A., Innovation Networks: Concepts and Challenges in the European Perspective[M]. Heidelberg:Physica-Verlag.2001
Kubo,Y.. Scale Economies, Regional Externalities, and the Possibility of Uneven Development. [J]Journal of Regional Science, 1995(35):29-42 Leonard, W., Research and Development in Industrial Growth[J].Journal of Political Economy, March
and April, 1971(79):232. Lerner, J., The Government as Venture Capitalist: the Long Run Impact of the SBIR Program, [J]Journal of Business, 1999(72):285-318
Liebert R J. Productivity, favor, and grants among scholars [J]. The American Journal of Sociology, 1976, 81(3): 6646?73
Liebert R J. Research-Grant getting and scholar productivity among scholar, Recent National Patterns of Competition and Favor [J]. The Journal of Higher Education, 1977, 81(2): 1641?92
Lundvall, B.A. and B. Johnson, The Learning Economy[J].Journal of Industry Studies, 1994,1(2).
Mansfield E. Academic research and industrial iinnovation: An update of empirical findings [J]. Research Policy,1998, 26(7/8):776-779
Mansfield, E., Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Characteristics, and Financing[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1995,LXXVII:55-65.
Mark Dodgson, Roy Rothwell,The handbook of Industrial Innovation. [M].Published by Edward Elgar.1994
Martin S.,The relationship between basic research and economic performance[M].Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, U.K., for TM Treasury.1996:26-278.
Martin,P.,Ottaviano,G.I.P., Growing Locations: Industry Location in a Model of Endogenous Growth[J]. European Economic Review, 1999(43)281-302
Monjon S and Waelbroeck P. Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: Evidence from French firm-level data [J] International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2003(9):1255-1270
Nadiri M.J., Innovation and Technological Spillovers[R].Working Paper No.4423, MA:NBER.1993
Nelson G., Richard S., The simple economics of R&D[J].American Economic Review.1959(5):25-37.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1982
Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation [J]. Organization Science, 1994(1):14-37.
Norman G. and Pepall L, Knowledge Spillovers, Mergers and Public Policy in Economic Clusters [J] Review of Industrial Organization, 2004(2):155-174
OECD ,Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2003.
OECD ,Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2004.
Rosenberg, N., Critical Issues in Science Policy Research[J]. Science and Public Policy, 1991 (96):335-346.
Rosenberg, N., Science, Innovation and Economic Growth, Economic Journal, 1974:84(333), March: 90-108.
Rothwell R, Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990’s[J].R&D Management, 1992, 22 (3): 221-240
Rothwell,R., Freeman, C., Horlsey,A., Jervis,V.T.P., Roberston, A.B. and Towensed, J., SAPPHO Updated-Project SAPPHO Phase II[J]. Research Policy,1974(6):258-291.
Rubenstein K D, Heisey P W, Klotz-Ngram C, et al. Competitive grants and the funding of agricultural research in the United States [J]. Review of American Agricultural Economics, 2003, 25(2):352-368
Salter A J, Martin B R. The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review [J]. Research Policy, 2001, 30(3):5095?32
Scherer,F., Inter-industry Technology Flows in the United States[J]. Research Policy,1982(11). Smith K ,Economic Returns to R&D: Method, Results, and challenges. [J].Science Policy Support Group Review Paper No.3,London. 1991
Teece, J.D., Profiting From Technological Innovation: Implication for Integration, Collaboration, [J].Licensing and Public Policy, Research Policy, 1986(15):285-305.
Utterback, J., and Abernathy, W., A Dynamic Model of Process and Product Innovation, [J].Omega, 1975(6):639-656.
Zellner C. The economic effects of basic research: Evidence for embodied knowledge transfer via scientists’migration [J]. Research Policy, 2003, 32(10): 1881-1895
Zuker, L.G., and M.R. Darby., Star Scientists and Institutional Transformation: Patterns of Invention and Innovation in the Formation of the Biotechnology Industry[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1996(93)709-716
戴立信,金碧辉,化学领域重要研究方向发展态势分析[J]中国基础科学, 2005.7(3)
丁娟.创新理论的发展演变[J].现代经济探讨, 2002(6): 28-29
龚旭夏文莉,美国联邦政府开展的基础研究绩效评估及其启示[J]科研管理,2003(2)
蒋颖阳宁晖等.我国国家自然科学基金的地区分布研究[J]科学学与科学技术管理, 2003(3):5-10
蒋岳祥,胡方茜,蒋绍忠.高校科研经费的影响因素分析[J].浙江大学学报(社会科学版), 1998, 28(1): 48-52
李序颖,顾岚.空间自回归模型及其估计[J]统计研究, 2004(6):48-51
李主其.基础研究——综合国力之源[M]北京高等教育出版社, 2007
梁启华,何晓红.空间集聚:隐性知识转移与共享机理与途径[J]管理世界, 2006(3):146-147
林光平,龙志和,吴梅.我国地区经济收敛的空间计量实证分析: 1978-2002[J]经济学季刊, 2006
宋建元,王德禄,区域重新系统中的政府职能分析[J]科学学与科学技术管理, 2001(11): 51-53
孙建国,李晓轩,王敬泽.科研机构创新文化建设评价方法研究与思考[J]科学学研究, 2006(2): 172-177
孙绍荣,廖燕玲.我国基础研究的区域分布特点及规律[J]软科学, 2004(6):5-7
王锐淇,张宗益.区域创新能力影响因素的空间面板数据分析[J].科研管理, 2010(3):17-26
吴善超,陈敬全,韩宇等.地区科学基金资助政策研究[J].科研管理, 2009(3):166-171.
吴玉鸣,中国区域研发、知识溢出与创新的空间计量经济研究[M]人民出版社, 2007:37-50
邢怀滨,苏竣,技术创新微观机制的网络分析[J]科学学研究, 2004(3)
徐杰,李正风,陈敬全.国家自然科学基金面上项目资助额的地区分布规律[J].中国基础研究, 2007(4):43-45
殷尹,梁梁.区域技术创新能力短期评估[J]中国软科学, 2001(1): 71-74
袁立科,张宗益.创新系统的区域可达性研究[J].科研管理, 2007, 28(1): 16?
袁立科.中国省域技术创新产出的空间外溢和收敛分析,重庆大学;技术经济及管理(专业)博士论文2007
张光,江依妮,张建影.重成果还是重名望—高校竞争性自然科学基金研究经费分配决定因素分析[J].科技管理研究, 2007, (4): 114-116
周寄中.创新的基础和源泉:基础研究的投入、评估和协调[M].北京:科学出版社, 2008. 393-394
周元,王海燕,赵刚等编著.中国区域自主创新研究报告(2006-2007),知识产权出版社, 2008
Anselin, L, Raymond J.G., Florax, Rey S.J, Advances in Spatial Econometrics: Methodology, Toolsand Applications[M]. Berlin:Springer-Verlag.2004
Anselin, L., GeoDa 0.9 user’s guide. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Spatial Analysis Laboratory[M], University of Illinois. 2003
Anselin, L., Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.1988
Anselin, L., Varga, A. and Acs, Z., Geographic Spillovers and University Research: a Spatial Econometric Perspective[J], Growth and Change, 2000,31(Fall): 501-516
Anselin, L., Varga, A. and Acs, Z.,Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations[J],Journal of Urban Economics 1997,42:422–48.
Audretsch D B, Bozeman B, Combs K L, et al. The economics of science and technology [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2002(27):155-?203
Audretsch, D. B. and M. P. Feldman, R&D Spillovers and Geography of Innovation and Production[J], The American Economic Review, 1996(86), 630-641
Barro, R. J. Economic growth in a cross-section of countries[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991(106):407–44.
Bernstein J, and Nadiri, M., Research and Development and Intra-industry Spillover[J].Review of Economics Studies, 1989(56):249-269.
Breandan, and Timothy, Spatial convergence and spillovers in American invention[R]Annuals of the Association of American Geographers, 2005(4):66-886.
Breschi S, Lissoni F. Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey [J].Industrial and Corporate Change, 2001(4):975-1005
Brown, M. and Conrad, A., The Influence of Research and Education on CES Production Relations, in M. Brown(ed.), The Theory and Empirical Analysis of Production[M].Columbia University Press for NBER.,1967
Bush V. Science-The Endless Frontier[M]. Washington,D.C.:NSF,1960.
Cliff, A. D. and Ord, J. K., Spatial Processes: Models and Applications[M]. Pion, London,1981
Cockburn I, Herderson R. Publicly funded science and the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry [R]. NBER Conference on Science and Public Policy. Washington DC, 2000
Cozzarin B P. Performance measures for the socio-economic impact of government spending on R&D [J]. Scientometrics, 2006(1): 5695?96
Dasgupta, P. and David, P., Toward a New Economics of Science[J].Research Policy 1994(23):487-521.
Englmann,F.C.,Walz,U., Industrial Centers and Regional Growth in the Presence of Local Inputs, [J]. Journal of Regional Science, 1995,35,3-27
Fritsch M and Slavtchev V, Universities and Innovation in Space[J] Industry and Innovation,2007(14):201-218
Godin B, DoréC. Measuring the Impacts of Science: Beyond the Economic Dimension [R]. CSIIC Working paper, 2003
Griliches Z. Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth [J]. Bell Journal of Economics,1979, 10(1): 92-116
Griliches, Z., Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change, [J].Econometrica, October,1957(25):501.
Guellec D, van Pottelsberghe B. The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D [J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2003, 12(3): 2252?44
Jaffe A B.,Real effects of academic research [J]. The American Economic Review , 1989(79): 957-970.
Katz J.S, Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration [J] Scent metrics, 1994(1):31-43
Kitschelt, H., Industrial Governance Structures, Innovation Strategies and the Case of Japan: Sectoral or Cross-national Comparative Analysis[J].International Organization 1991:45(4), Autumn: 453-493.
Kline S and Rosenberg N,“An Overview of Innovation”,The Positive Sum Strategy, Harnessing Technology for Economics Growth Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1986, 275-305.
Koschatzky, H., Marianne, K. and Zenker, A., Innovation Networks: Concepts and Challenges in the European Perspective[M]. Heidelberg:Physica-Verlag.2001
Kubo,Y.. Scale Economies, Regional Externalities, and the Possibility of Uneven Development. [J]Journal of Regional Science, 1995(35):29-42 Leonard, W., Research and Development in Industrial Growth[J].Journal of Political Economy, March
and April, 1971(79):232. Lerner, J., The Government as Venture Capitalist: the Long Run Impact of the SBIR Program, [J]Journal of Business, 1999(72):285-318
Liebert R J. Productivity, favor, and grants among scholars [J]. The American Journal of Sociology, 1976, 81(3): 6646?73
Liebert R J. Research-Grant getting and scholar productivity among scholar, Recent National Patterns of Competition and Favor [J]. The Journal of Higher Education, 1977, 81(2): 1641?92
Lundvall, B.A. and B. Johnson, The Learning Economy[J].Journal of Industry Studies, 1994,1(2).
Mansfield E. Academic research and industrial iinnovation: An update of empirical findings [J]. Research Policy,1998, 26(7/8):776-779
Mansfield, E., Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Characteristics, and Financing[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1995,LXXVII:55-65.
Mark Dodgson, Roy Rothwell,The handbook of Industrial Innovation. [M].Published by Edward Elgar.1994
Martin S.,The relationship between basic research and economic performance[M].Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, U.K., for TM Treasury.1996:26-278.
Martin,P.,Ottaviano,G.I.P., Growing Locations: Industry Location in a Model of Endogenous Growth[J]. European Economic Review, 1999(43)281-302
Monjon S and Waelbroeck P. Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: Evidence from French firm-level data [J] International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2003(9):1255-1270
Nadiri M.J., Innovation and Technological Spillovers[R].Working Paper No.4423, MA:NBER.1993
Nelson G., Richard S., The simple economics of R&D[J].American Economic Review.1959(5):25-37.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1982
Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation [J]. Organization Science, 1994(1):14-37.
Norman G. and Pepall L, Knowledge Spillovers, Mergers and Public Policy in Economic Clusters [J] Review of Industrial Organization, 2004(2):155-174
OECD ,Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2003.
OECD ,Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2004.
Rosenberg, N., Critical Issues in Science Policy Research[J]. Science and Public Policy, 1991 (96):335-346.
Rosenberg, N., Science, Innovation and Economic Growth, Economic Journal, 1974:84(333), March: 90-108.
Rothwell R, Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990’s[J].R&D Management, 1992, 22 (3): 221-240
Rothwell,R., Freeman, C., Horlsey,A., Jervis,V.T.P., Roberston, A.B. and Towensed, J., SAPPHO Updated-Project SAPPHO Phase II[J]. Research Policy,1974(6):258-291.
Rubenstein K D, Heisey P W, Klotz-Ngram C, et al. Competitive grants and the funding of agricultural research in the United States [J]. Review of American Agricultural Economics, 2003, 25(2):352-368
Salter A J, Martin B R. The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review [J]. Research Policy, 2001, 30(3):5095?32
Scherer,F., Inter-industry Technology Flows in the United States[J]. Research Policy,1982(11). Smith K ,Economic Returns to R&D: Method, Results, and challenges. [J].Science Policy Support Group Review Paper No.3,London. 1991
Teece, J.D., Profiting From Technological Innovation: Implication for Integration, Collaboration, [J].Licensing and Public Policy, Research Policy, 1986(15):285-305.
Utterback, J., and Abernathy, W., A Dynamic Model of Process and Product Innovation, [J].Omega, 1975(6):639-656.
Zellner C. The economic effects of basic research: Evidence for embodied knowledge transfer via scientists’migration [J]. Research Policy, 2003, 32(10): 1881-1895
Zuker, L.G., and M.R. Darby., Star Scientists and Institutional Transformation: Patterns of Invention and Innovation in the Formation of the Biotechnology Industry[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1996(93)709-716