operation scales of universities, in order to avoid SEC inefficiency becoming the
burden of TFP improvement.
Third, compared with poor performances of SEC indexes, PTEC indexes seem
to be better. The PTEC indexes of most groups are in an improving trend with
moderate growth rates, reflecting obvious catch-up effects. Among eastern, central
and western 211Us, annual PTEC growth rate of eastern and central 211Us are both
1.6%. The annual PTEC growth rate of western 211Us is much smaller, merely
0.3%. By subdividing eastern 211Us into JUs, SHZUs and OUs, we canfind that
PTEC index of HSZUs increases more profoundly than the average of eastern
211Us, with an annual growth rate of 5.2%. The second place is taken by OUs, with
the annual growth rate of 1.6%. JUs come the last, with the annual growth rate of
only 0.5%, just slightly larger than western 211Us.
Forth, owing to the impact of poor SEC index, the TEC indexes in other groups
are hardly improved at all, especially the western 211Us even experience certain
declines with an annual reduction rate of 0.3%.
5.3.1.2 Cumulative Changes of Research Productivity Relative to Base
Year 2006
In order to further explore the differences on the cumulative effect caused by yearly
research productivity changes, we analyze and compare the cumulative changes
(2006–2010) of TFP index and its decomposition of 211Us in NEAM research
among the different regions categorized above, so 2006 is the base year.
In Fig.5.11, we plot cumulative TFP index changes of NEAM research in
211Us by region relative to base year. From thefigure, we can see that the TFP
indexes of most groups except the western 211Us, all in the cumulatively growing
trend. Particularly, the central 211Us and HSZUs obtain strong TFP growth all the
way, and their cumulative growth rates relative to base year are much larger than
other groups. Throughfive years of improvements, the TFP growth rate of HSZUs
is cumulatively increased by 59% relative to the base year, and that of central
211Us is cumulatively increased by 50% relative to the base year.
In the condition of steady TFP growth of other groups, the western 211Us
undergo a struggling time, with moderate or low growth rate. Though the TFP
index of western 211Us goes up relative to the base year before 2008, there is a
plunge after 2008. So, their TFP index is cumulatively increased by merely 1%
during thefive years.
In the next step, we analyze the cumulative changes of TEC index, TC index,
PTEC index and SEC index in the same way, aiming for clarifying the main sources
of cumulative changes of TFP index of different groups. The results are plotted in
Fig.5.12.
From 2006 to 2010, to 211Us located in all regions, only growth effect, mea-
sured by TC index, is consistent with a cumulative growth trend. Other indexes like
TEC, PTEC and SEC, all have different trends of cumulative changes between
different groups. This reflects that growth effect is of great importance to steady
236 5 Dynamic Evaluation on Research Productivity...