sustainable growth in research capacity and innovation capability. This phe-
nomenon is highly consistent with our estimations by Malmquist-TFP index and its
decomposition. According to ourfinal estimations, TC is the primary driver of
research productivity growth for 211NEAM disciplines in the phase of 2006–2010.
In other words, the TFP betterment of 211Us in NEAM disciplines is mainly relied
on the technical change. And the improvement of SC and TEC is also important in
the long term, however, they are under poor performance during 2006–2010.
5.1.2 Overall Research Productivity Change of 211HSS
Disciplines
Table5.2lists the average Malmquist-TFP score and its decomposition of 211Us in
HSS disciplines, and Fig.5.2further presents their trends in line chart.
Taking a glance at the changes of Malmquist-TFP of 211Us in HSS disciplines
from 2006 to 2010, the results show that the research TFP of these 105 universities
is basically not improved in thesefive years, with thefive-year average annual
growth rate of 0%. From the perspective of growth stages, TFP is increased by 6.6
and 3.5% in 2006–2007, 2009–2010, but decreased by 6.8 and 2.9% separately in
2007 – 2008, 2008–2009. Therefore, the TFP of HSS disciplines in 211Us has
Table 5.1 Research
productivity and its
decomposition of 211Us
(NEAM)
Period TFP TC TEC PTEC SEC
2006 – 2007 1.039 1.007 1.032 1.022 1.01
2007 – 2008 1.029 1.054 0.976 1.006 0.97
2008 – 2009 1.167 1.136 1.027 1.007 1.02
2009 – 2010 1.062 1.032 1.029 1.018 1.011
Average 1.073 1.056 1.016 1.013 1.0020.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
TFP TEC TC PTEC SEC
Fig. 5.1 Research productivity and its decomposition of 211Us (NEAM)
5.1 Change of Research Productivity in 211Us 223