We examine the impact of the Texas Research Incentive Program (TRIP), a state policy that offers matching funds to incentivize private-sector donations to certain public universities. We use a national dataset and employ a generalized difference-in-differences approach with matching procedures to estimate the treatment effect of TRIP on revenues at eligible institutions. Results show that TRIP is associated with increases in revenue from private gifts and state grants/contracts, which suggests that policymakers can leverage public investment to incentivize private donations. We do not detect a statistically significant relationship between TRIP and endowments, so donations are likely used for short-term funding and do not create long-term dividends. We consider potential social consequences of selecting certain universities to benefit from incentive policies.
AndreoniJ.PayneA. A. (2003). Do government grants to private charities crowd out giving or fund-raising?American Economic Review, 93(3), 792–812. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322157098
3.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400829828
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927
6.
BelascoA. S.RosingerK. O.HearnJ. C. (2015). The test-optional movement at America’s selective liberal arts colleges: A boon for equity or something else?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714537350
7.
BertrandM.DufloE.MullainathanS. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839588
Blume-KohoutM. E.KumarK. B.SoodN. (2009). Federal life sciences funding and university R&D (Working Paper No. 15146). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w15146
10.
Blume-KohoutM. E.KumarK. B.SoodN. (2014). University R&D funding strategies in a changing federal funding environment. Science and Public Policy, 42(3), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu054
BurroughB. (2009). The big rich: The rise and fall of the greatest Texas oil fortunes. Penguin Books.
13.
CantwellB.TaylorB. J. (2013). Global status, intra-institutional stratification and organizational segmentation: A time-dynamic Tobit analysis of ARWU position among US universities. Minerva, 51(2), 195–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9228-8
CheslockJ. J.GianneschiM. (2008). Replacing state appropriations with alternative revenue sources: The case of voluntary support. Journal of Higher Education, 79(2), 208–229. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2008.0012
16.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
17.
ConnollyL. S. (1997). Does external funding of academic research crowd out institutional support?Journal of Public Economics, 64(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(96)01626-X
18.
CookT. D.ShadishW. R.WongV. C. (2008). Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study comparisons. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 724–750. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20375
19.
Daun-BarnettN.St. JohnE. P. (2012). Constrained curriculum in high schools: The changing math standards and student achievement, high school graduation and college continuation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v20n5.2012
FuY.-C. (2017). Does the Project of World Class University (phase I) spur scientific productivity in STEM fields? A study of policy impact in Taiwan [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Pennsylvania State University.
22.
FuY.-C.BakerD. P.ZhangL. (2020). Engineering a world class university? The impact of Taiwan’s World Class University Project on scientific productivity. Higher Education Policy, 33(3), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0110-z
23.
FurquimF.CorralD.HillmanN. (2020). A primer for interpreting and designing difference-in-differences studies in higher education research. In PernaL. W. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 35, pp. 1–58). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11743-6_5-1
24.
GándaraD.RutherfordA. (2018). Mitigating unintended impacts? The effects of premiums for underserved populations in performance-funding policies for higher education. Research in Higher Education, 59(6), 681–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9483-x
Goodman-BaconA. (2018). Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing (Working Paper No. 25018). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25018
27.
GottfriedM. A. (2008). College crowd-in: How private donations positively affect alumni giving. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 8(2), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1057/ijea.2008.8
28.
HalffmanW.LeydesdorffL. (2010). Is inequality among universities increasing? Gini coefficients and the elusive rise of elite universities. Minerva, 48(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9141-3
29.
HillmanN. W.TandbergD. A.FryarA. H. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of “new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714560224
30.
HillmanN. W.TandbergD. A.GrossJ. P. (2014). Performance funding in higher education: Do financial incentives impact college completions?Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 826–857. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2014.0031
31.
HoD. E.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15(3), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl013
32.
HuX.VillarrealP. (2019). Public tuition on the rise: Estimating the effects of Louisiana’s performance-based funding policy on institutional tuition levels. Research in Higher Education, 60(5), 636–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9526-y
33.
HuntJ. M.TandbergD. A.ParkT. J. (2019). Presidential compensation and institutional revenues: Testing the return on investment for public university presidents. Review of Higher Education, 42(2), 619–640. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0009
34.
HustedT. A.KenneyL. W. (2018). The effect of reduced support from state government on research in state universities. Journal of Education Finance, 44(2), 164–174. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/721604
35.
IacusS. M.KingG.PorroG. (2009). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University.
36.
JaquetteO.ParraE. E. (2014). Using IPEDS data for panel analyses: Core concepts, data challenges, and empirical applications. In PaulsenM. B. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 29, pp. 467–533). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8005-6_11
37.
KennedyP. E. (1981). Estimation with correctly interpreted dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. American Economic Review, 71(4), 801.
38.
KingG.NielsenR. (2019). Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Political Analysis, 27(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11
39.
KingmaB. R. (1989). An accurate measurement of the crowd-out effect, income effect, and price effect for charitable contributions. Journal of Political Economy, 97(5), 1197–1207. https://doi.org/10.1086/261649
40.
KivistöJ. (2008). An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the government– university relationship. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800802383018
KramerD. A.OrtagusJ. C.LacyT. A. (2018). Tuition-setting authority and broad-based merit aid: The effect of policy intersection on pricing strategies. Research in Higher Education, 59(4), 489–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9475-x
43.
LeydesdorffL. (2018). Synergy in knowledge-based innovation systems at national and regional levels: The Triple-Helix model and the Fourth industrial revolution. Journal of Open Innovation, 4(2), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc4020016
44.
LeydesdorffL.MeyerM. (2006). Triple helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 35(10), 1441–1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.016
45.
MertonR. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
46.
MertonR. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1086/354848
47.
MettlerS. (2016). The policyscape and the challenges of contemporary politics to policy maintenance. Perspectives on Politics, 14(2), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592716000074
MincerJ. (1974). Schooling, experience, and earnings. Columbia University Press.
50.
MoeT. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110997
51.
MorphewC. C.BakerB. D. (2004). The cost of prestige: Do new Research I universities incur higher administrative costs?Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0005
52.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Endowment funds of the 120 degree-granting postsecondary institutions with the largest endowments, by rank order: Fiscal year 2015 (Table 333.90). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_333.90.asp
53.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Number of educational institutions, by level and control of institution: Selected years, 1980-81 through 2015-16 (Table 105.50). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_105.50.asp
54.
O’MearaK. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 121–179). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5666-6_3
55.
OrtagusJ. C.HuX. (2019). The price of mission complexity: A national study of the impact of community college baccalaureate adoption on tuition and fees. Educational Researcher, 48(8), 504–520. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19872494
56.
OsterS. M. (2001). The effect of university endowment growth on giving: Is there evidence of crowding out? (Working Paper No. 10). Yale School of Management.
57.
PayneA. A. (2001). Measuring the effect of federal research funding on private donations at research universities: Is federal research funding more than a substitute for private donations?International Tax and Public Finance, 8(5–6), 731–751. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012843227003
58.
PernaL. W.FinneyJ. E. (2014). The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education. JHU Press.
59.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
60.
PosseltJ. R.JaquetteO.BielbyR.BastedoM. N. (2012). Access without equity: Longitudinal analyses of institutional stratification by race and ethnicity, 1972–2004. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1074–1111. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212439456
61.
RichardsonS. R. (2005). Oil, power, and universities: Political struggle and academic advancement at the University of Texas and Texas A&M, 1876-1965 (UMI No. 3261919) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1984.10478078
64.
RosingerK. O.BelascoA. S.HearnJ. C. (2019). A boost for the middle class: An evaluation of no-loan policies and elite private college enrollment. Journal of Higher Education, 90(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1484222
65.
RubinD. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037350
66.
SantosJ. L. (2007). Resource allocation in public research universities. Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0077
ShavitY.ArumR.GamoranA. (2007). Stratification in higher education: A comparative study. Stanford University Press.
69.
SherlockM. F.GravelleJ. G.Crandall-HollickM. L.HughesJ. S. (2018). College and university endowments: Overview and tax policy options. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44293.pdf
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2010). A study of research expenditure definitions and terms for use by Research University Development Fund. http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/2100.PDF
UmbrichtM. R.FernandezF.OrtagusJ. C. (2017). An examination of the (un)intended consequences of performance funding in higher education. Educational Policy, 31(5), 643–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815614398
Van LooyB.RangaM.CallaertJ.DebackereK.ZimmermannE. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.004
82.
ZhangH.PattonD.KenneyM. (2013). Building global-class universities: Assessing the impact of the 985 Project. Research Policy, 42(3), 765–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.003
83.
ZhangL.BaoW.SunL. (2016). Resources and research production in higher education: A longitudinal analysis of Chinese universities, 2000–2010. Research in Higher Education, 57(7), 869–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9410-6
84.
ZhangL.SunL.BaoW. (2017). The rise of higher education and science in China. In PowellJ. J. W.BakerD. P.FernandezF. (Eds.), The century of science: The global triumph of the research university (pp. 141–172). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920170000033008
85.
ZhaoB. (2019). State disinvestment in higher education: the impact on public research universities’ patent applications (Working Paper No. 19-2). The Federal Reserve Bank. https://doi.org/10.29412/res.wp.2019.02
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
