This paper studies the publication productivity of inbreds and non-inbreds among Russian academics. Existing literature provides ambiguous results on the relationship between inbred status and productivity. This may be explained by the use of different indicators for measuring publication productivity. We use data, which include indicators of both current publication productivity (at a certain point of time) and cumulative productivity (throughout the career) to identify whether inbreds and non-inbreds differ in their productivity. We did not find any difference in current publication productivity of inbreds and non-inbreds. We found, however, a difference in their cumulative publication productivity: non-inbreds are being more productive on an individual level throughout their careers. Although the conclusions are based on the Russian data, the analysis provides an explanation for existing contradictory results on the relationship between academic inbreeding and productivity in general.
The literature on the consequences of academic inbreeding shows ambiguous results: some papers show that inbreeding positively influences research productivity measured by the quantity and quality of publications, while others demonstrate the opposite effect. There are contradictory results both in the studies of different countries and within countries. This variety of results makes it impossible to transfer the findings from one academic system to another, and in Russia this problem has been under-explored. This paper focuses on the relationship between inbreeding and publication activity among Russian faculty. The research was conducted using data from the ‘Monitoring of Educational Markets and Organizations’ survey. The results show that there is no significant effect of academic inbreeding on publication productivity: no substantial and robust differences in publication activity between inbreds and non-inbreds have been found. The paper finishes with a discussion of possible explanations inherent in the Russian academic system.
In the chapter concerning inbreeding in Russian universities the authors draw data from several sources (studies of higher educational sector in Russia and statistics from the Ministry of education and science and Russian Statistical Agency) to estimate consequences of inbreeding on micro and macro levels.
Institutions affect investment decisions, including investments in human capital. Hence institutions are relevant for the allocation of talent. Good market-supporting institutions attract talent to productive value-creating activities, whereas poor ones raise the appeal of rent-seeking. We propose a theoretical model that predicts that more talented individuals are particularly sensitive in their career choices to the quality of institutions, and test these predictions on a sample of around 95 countries of the world. We find a strong positive association between the quality of institutions and graduation of college and university students in science, and an even stronger negative correlation with graduation in law. Our findings are robust to various specifications of empirical models, including smaller samples of former colonies and transition countries. The quality of human capital makes the distinction between educational choices under strong and weak institutions particularly sharp. We show that the allocation of talent is an important link between institutions and growth.