From Principles to Design: Linking Research Assessment and Funding in National Systems from Nine Countries

Few instruments of research policy are as consequential, or as intensely discussed, as those linking the assessment of research to its funding. When public funds follow measured performance, a government does more than distribute resources: it defines what counts as good research and signals where a system should direct effort. As the international agenda shifts from the refinement of metrics toward responsible assessment, national evaluation systems face a distinctive tension: broadening what counts as good research while relying in some cases on funding mechanisms designed to reward what is easiest to measure. This presentation introduces a forthcoming monograph that asks how different design choices for R&D funding systems shape institutional behaviour and research practices; when does linking evaluation to funding improves performance and when does it distort incentives; and whether PBRF systems can credibly support responsible research assessment (RRA), open science and societal impact. Drawing on in-depth case studies of national systems from nine countries, including the Nordic systems from Norway, Finland and Sweden, alongside the UK, Portugal, Poland, Belgium (Flanders), Austria and the Netherlands, we treat the assessment-funding link as a set of design choices: what is evaluated, at what level, by peers or by using metrics, with what consequences, and how tightly evaluation is coupled to funding. Compared with one another and enriched by interviews with international experts who have either worked within or studied these systems, these cases reveal the trade-offs that recur regardless of national context, and the safeguards that prove effective across different systems.