Research

Abstract

Hong Kong presents a paradox that demands empirical investigation. The city hosts five universities ranked in the global top 100, receives approximately HK$1.18 billion annually in competitive research funding from the Research Grants Council, and sustains some of the highest rates of international collaboration in Asia. Yet its scientific competitiveness has weakened steadily since the early 2000s.

This study provides a scholar-level causal evaluation of how RGC funding shapes STEM scholar research productivity in Hong Kong. It uses propensity score matching, two-way panel fixed effects, seemingly unrelated regression and event-study analysis to separate the marginal impact of funding from the selection bias that directs grants towards already productive scholars.

The findings identify a quality–quantity trade-off: grant receipt increases publication volume and short-term field-normalised citation impact whilst reducing the share of publications placed in Q1 journals and average journal prestige. The paper argues that continued public investment in competitive grants is justified, while portfolio diversification and field-calibrated accountability are the reforms most likely to maximise returns.