International experience and reference in the management of funds for national research institutions: A case study of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan

National research institutions are strategic scientific and technological organizations that exemplify national will, fulfill national missions, and represent national standards. Moreover, the management of funds is the fundamental guarantee for their efficient operation and the enhancement of their innovation capabilities. This article aims to provide theoretical and practical guidance to enhance the funding guarantees and management levels of national research institutions in China, thereby achieving the goal of becoming a strong country in science and technology.

This article reviews and summarizes the fund management experience of national research institutions in the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, and Japan. This study combines the data characteristics of typical laboratories in these four countries to extract the key mechanisms of internationally mature fund management: fund allocation, fund structure, fund supply, and evaluation feedback.

First, drawing on the financial management experience of the US Department of Energy's national laboratories and focusing on national strategic tasks, a financial allocation method centered on strategic priorities should be established, with differentiated support for various scientific research activities. Second, informed by the financial management experience of the UK National Physical Laboratory and the German Fraunhofer Society, a diversified financial support structure should be explored that fully demonstrates the institutional advantages of China's "national system" of concentrating resources to achieve significant goals. Third, building on the financial management experience of the German Max Planck Society and the Japanese Industrial Technology Comprehensive Research Institute, funds should be allocated with the goal of "talent" cultivation, so as to conduct research on the innovation of scientific research systems and mechanisms, maximize the release of research vitality, and innovate the system of financial supply and use. Fourth, with reference to the financial management experience of the US national laboratories, the German Fraunhofer Society, and the German Max Planck Society, the performance evaluation system, evaluation indicators, and result feedback should be further improved to strengthen the effectiveness of financial performance evaluation and result feedback.

This study compares international experiences and proposes the establishment of a "task-resources-talent-performance" funding management model to develop a scientific, standardized, and dynamically optimized funding management system in China's national-level research institutions. First, in the "task" aspect, institutions should establish the funding allocation principle of "prioritizing national strategies" and allocate funds accordingly. They should ensure that the funding is highly aligned with the mission of the tasks, and improve the strategic supporting effectiveness and classified support functions of fiscal funds. Second, in the "resources" aspect, institutions should coordinate central appropriations, local investments, and social capital. They should also explore a diversified funding structure based on central fiscal resources, supplemented by local and industry resources, and flexible expansion through industry-university-research cooperation. Third, in the "talent" aspect, institutions should grant project leaders a specific scope of authority for budget coordination and resource allocation. They should also explore a package-based funding system, along with other funding models focused on the capabilities and strategic contributions of scientific research teams, and promote a funding environment that attracts top talent and stimulates innovation. Finally, in the "performance" aspect, institutions should improve the funding evaluation and feedback mechanism, and perfect the evaluation system, evaluation indicators, and feedback on funding use. They should also strengthen the link between performance evaluation feedback and dynamic allocation of funds and form a virtuous cycle of "promoting use through evaluation and promoting effectiveness through use."