Characteristic facts and policy needs of Chinese enterprises to conduct basic research: An analysis based on a questionnaire survey of 763 enterprises

Abstract

Abstract: Although the lack of investment in enterprise basic research has become a general consensus, the structural characteristics of heterogeneous enterprise basic research are rarely discussed, which restricts the effectiveness of China's enterprise basic research policy. Based on the questionnaire survey, this paper studies the typical characteristics of basic research of Chinese enterprises from the aspects of investment and development mode, internal driving factors and obstacles, and policy demands. It is found that under the appearance of low investment in basic research in China, there are differences in the heterogeneity of basic research of enterprises: First, scientific based industrial enterprises and larger enterprises show stronger enthusiasm for basic research; Second, "independent development" is the main way of enterprise basic research, private enterprises are more inclined to independent basic research than state-owned enterprises; Third, the goal of basic research in science-based industrial enterprises mainly focuses on improving the exploratory innovation ability, while the basic research in engineering and technology-intensive industrial enterprises focuses on developing the exploitative innovation ability. Fourthly, lack of talents and funds and high risk are the three major factors that hinder enterprises from carrying out basic research. Among them, lack of talents and funds is the main obstacle that restricts scientific and engineering technology-intensive industrial enterprises from carrying out basic research, while "lack of talents" is the key pain point of basic research in private enterprises. Fifth, the existing basic research support policies for enterprises generally have the problems of low benefits and low effectiveness, and the capital subsidy and talent support policies have uneven resource distribution between state-owned enterprises and private enterprises. This paper can be used as a reference for understanding the current situation and problems of Chinese enterprise basic research, and can also provide some inspiration for the government to formulate targeted policies for enterprise basic research.

摘要： 尽管企业基础研究投入不足已成为普遍共识，但对异质企业基础研究的结构性特征还鲜有探讨，制约了我国企业基础研究政策的有效性。本文基于问卷调查，从投入与开展方式、内在驱动因素与障碍堵点、政策诉求等方面研究了我国企业基础研究的典型特征。研究发现，在我国基础研究低投入的表象下隐藏着企业基础研究异质性的差异：第一，科学基础型产业企业、更大规模的企业表现出更强的基础研究积极性；第二，“独立开展”是企业基础研究的主要方式，民营企业比国有企业更倾向于独立开展基础研究；第三，科学基础型产业企业开展基础研究的目标多侧重于提升探索式创新能力，工程技术密集型产业企业基础研究侧重于发展利用式创新能力；第四，人才和资金缺乏、高风险是阻碍企业开展基础研究的三大因素，其中，人才、资金的缺乏是限制科学基础型产业企业和工程技术密集型产业企业开展基础研究的主要障碍，而“人才缺乏”是民营企业基础研究的关键痛点；第五，现有企业基础研究支持政策普遍存在惠及度不高和有效性低的问题，资金补助和人才支持政策在国有企业和民营企业间资源分配不均衡。本文对深刻认识中国企业基础研究的现状和问题具有借鉴意义，同时对政府针对性地制定面向企业基础研究的政策有一定的启发。

贺俊陶思宇李伟江鸿吴海军. 中国企业开展基础研究的特征事实与政策需求———基于 763 家企业的问卷调查分析[J]. 科学学研究, 2025, 43(3): 477-487.

References

[1] ROSENBERG, N. Why Do Firms Do Basic Research with Their Own Money[J]. Research Policy, 1990, 19(2): 165-174. [2] 吕薇,马名杰,戴建军,熊鸿儒. 转型期我国创新发展的现状、问题及政策建议[J]. 中国软科学, 2018, 03. Lyu W，Ma M J，Dai J J，Xiong H R. Research on Present Situation，Problems and Policy Suggestions of China’s Innovation Development in the Context of Transition[J]. China Soft Science，2018, 03. [3] 柳卸林,常馨之,杨培培. 加强企业基础研究能力,弥补国家创新体系短板[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2023, 38(6)：853-862. Liu X L, Chang X Z, Yang P P. Strengthen basic research capacity of enterprises and make up for shortcoming of national innovation system[J]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2023, 38(6): 853-862. [4] 徐晓丹,柳卸林. 大企业为什么要重视基础研究？[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2020, 41(09). Xu X D, Liu X L，Why Should Big Enterprises Attach Importance To Basic Research？[J]. Studies in Science of Science，2020, 41(09). [5] OECD. Frascati manual 2015[R]. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2015. [6] STOKES D E. Pasteur's quadrant[J]. Brookings Institutio,1997, 17(4):734-736. [7] TISSEN, R. J. W., BUTER, R. K., & VAN LEEUWEN, TH. N. Technological Relevance of Science: An Assessment of Citation Linkages between Patents and Research Papers[J]. Scientometrics, 2000, 47: 389–412. [8] NELSON, R. R. The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. Journal of Political Economy, 1959, 67: 297–306. [9] ZAHRA, S. A., GEORGE, G. Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2002, 27(2): 185-203. [10] DAVID P A, HALL B H, TOOLE A A. Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence[J]. Research Policy, 2000, 29:497-529. [11] CALLON, M. Is Science a Public Good? Science Technology and Human Values, 1994, 19: 347–424. [12] ARORA, A., ATHREYE, S., HUANG, C. The Paradox of Openness Revisited: Collaborative Innovation and Patenting by UK Innovators [J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45(7): 1352-1361. [13] ARORA A, SHARON BELENZON & LIA SHEER. Back to Basics: Why do Firms Invest in Research?. NBER Working paper, 2017. [14] UN C, A RODRíGUEZ. Learning from R&D Outsourcing VS. Learning by R&D Outsourcing[J]. Technovation, 2018, 72–73:24-33. [15] YU, F. Government R&D subsidies, political relations and technological SMEs innovation transformation [J]. iBusiness, 2013, 5(3): 104-109. [16] BELDERBOS, R., CARREE, M. A., LOKSHIN, B. Cooperative R&D and Firm Performance [J]. Research Policy, 2004, 33(10): 1477-1492. [17] 林志帆,龙小宁. 社会资本能否支撑中国民营企业高质量发展？[J]. 管理世界, 2021, 37(10). Lin Z F, Long X L. Can Social Capital Support the High-Quality Development of Private Firms in China？[J]. Management World，2021, 37(10). [18] ARORA A, BELENZON S, PATACCONI A. The decline of science in corporate R&D[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2017, 39(1): 03-32. [19] CATTANI, G. Technological Pre-Adaptation, Speciation, and Emergence of New Technologies: How Corning Invented and Developed Fiber Optics [J]. Industrial & Corporate Change, 2006, 15(2): 285-318. [20] ARROW, K.J. Economic Welfare and The Allocation of Resources for Invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity, ed. R.R. Nelson, 609–25. Princeton, NJ: 1962, Princeton University Press. [21] KIRA R. FABRIZIO. Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation [J]. Research Policy, 2009, 38. [22] FABRIZIO K. Absorptive Capacity and The Search For Innovation[J]. Research policy, 2009, 38(2):255-267. [23] XIANGYU ZHU, ZHIZHEN GUO AND YANG YANG. Basic Research, Technological Innovation, and Firm Performance:The Empirical Analysis from Huawei Data[J]. Journal of Systems Science and Information, 2022, 10(1):84-102. [24] BASTIAN KRIEGER, MAIKEL PELLENS AND KNUT BLIND. Are firms withdrawing from basic research? An analysis of firm-level publication behaviour in Germany [J]. Papers in Innovation Studies, 2020, 13. [25] KEITH PAVITT. What makes basic research economically useful? [J], Research Policy, 1990, 20:109~119. [26] HICKS, D. Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of The Public/Private Character of Knowledge [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1995, 4(2):401–424. [27] BUSH, V. Science and the endless frontier. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. [28] COHEN W M, LEVINTHAL D A. Absorptive capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(1):128-152. [29] QUEVENDO J G. Do Public Subsidies Complement Business R&D? A meta‐analysis of the econometric evidence[J]. Kyklos, 2004, 57(1):87-102. [30] GRILICHES, Z. Productivity, R&D and Basic Research at the Firm Level in the 1970s[J]. American Economic Review, 1986, 76(1): 141-54.