基础研究对于一国的科技进步和社会发展具有重要意义。在我国，高等院校是开展基础研究的重要基地，为科技创新提供源源不断的人才支持与智力储备，是创新型国家建设等一系列国家重大战略的重要支撑。 本文从投入—产出的视角来考察高校基础研究活动，基于高校获得国家自然科学基金的历年资助数据，探讨高校的基础研究经费投入及其产出，具体包括以下几个方面： 第一，高校基础研究的来源结构与经费投入。首先探讨了我国的基础研究资助体系，描述了基础研究经费投入规模及其在主要执行主体之间的配置，发现高校的人均基础研究经费仅达到中科院以及国家和地方科研机构人均基础研究经费的一半左右，仍然处于较低的投入水平。其次，将高校的基础研究经费分为稳定性和竞争性两大类。高等教育领域的重点建设专项经费是高校稳定性基础研究经费的重要来源，自20世纪90年代以来，重点建设专项经费在教育经费拨款中的占比越来越大，在某些高校教育经费拨款中的占比甚至超过50%。国家自然科学基金是高校竞争性基础研究经费的重要来源。在国家自然科学基金的各类资助工具中，面上项目、青年基金、重点项目和地区基金的资助经费占比相对较大，分别约为50%、16%、7%、5%。 第二，高校竞争性基础研究经费的差异分析。综合利用描述统计、基尼系数、基尼系数分解等方法分析了以国家自然科学基金为代表的竞争性基础研究经费在不同层次高校的分布情况。研究发现：较之于不同科学领域的经费结构安排，竞争性基础研究经费的项目类型设置与经费结构安排，是高校竞争性基础研究经费差异的重要来源。高校的基金资助经费基尼系数，始终保持在0.76以上，并呈小幅攀升的趋势，从2000年的0.76小幅度增至2015年的0.79。高校的基金资助经费差异约49%源自于面上项目，17%源自于高端研究项目（包括重点项目、重大项目、研究计划项目、科研仪器研制项目），13%源自于青年基金，9%源自于高端人才项目（包括杰青项目、优青项目、创新群体项目），2%源自于地区基金，10%源自于其他项目。总体而言，面上项目、高端研究、高端人才项目经费的提升将进一步推升高校获资助经费的基尼系数，而青年基金、地区基金经费的提升将会降低高校获资助经费的基尼系数。 第三，高校的基础研究论文产出与成本分析。2009-2016年，不同层次高校获国家自然科学基金资助发表的论文数，在SCI论文上，非985的211高校发表论文的年均增长率最高，普通高校发表论文的占比提升最大；在高水平论文上，非985的211高校发表论文的年均增长率最高、论文占比提升最大；在顶尖论文上，985高校发表顶尖论文的年均增长率最高、占比提升最大。论文研究了不同层次高校基金论文产出的篇均成本，发现重点建设高校的各类论文篇均成本均低于其他高校；在重点建设高校内部，非985的211高校的SCI论文篇均成本更低，而985高校的高水平论文篇均成本更低。比较了不同类型项目的基金论文产出，发现青年基金的篇均成本最低，大幅低于国家自然科学基金总体的篇均成本，面上项目的篇均成本也低于总体的篇均成本。随着国家自然科学基金资助经费快速增加，青年基金不同质量论文的篇均成本呈现出持续下降的趋势，重点项目的高水平论文和顶尖论文的篇均成本呈小幅下降趋势。 第四，高校的基础研究科技人才培养分析。论文分析了基础研究后备科技人才的变化趋势，后备科技人才主要指博士生、硕士生，发现参与国家自然科学基金各类型项目的博士生、硕士生人数均持续上升，且人数增幅高于资助项数增幅。基于高校的各类人才项目数据，分析了不同层次高校的科技人才规模与变化，发现普通高校的青年基金资助项数最多、增幅最大，近期仍然保持较快增速；985高校在优秀青年、杰出青年、创新研究群体项目上获得资助项数最多，并保持绝对领先的优势。还研究了最初起点大致接近、身处不同层次高校的青年学者，在数十年后的学术发展差距，发现即便在面上项目上，不同层次高校学者之间的差距正逐渐拉开，在杰青以及其他高端项目上，非重点建设高校学者获得的可能性越来越低。 基于上述研究发现，在高校的基础研究经费投入方面，本文提出如下政策建议：（1）在基础研究经费投入总量上，应当加大基础研究的经费投入，提升基础研究在研究与发展（R&D）经费中的占比，尤其是加大对高等院校的基础研究经费投入；（2）加强和推进重点学科、重点实验室的建设与发展，这对于促进基础研究水平的提升具有显著作用，应当成为增量经费投入的主要方向；（3）提升青年基金经费占比，有助于提高基础研究的参与度，全面提升基础研究的论文产出数量，提升重点项目经费占比，有助于提升高水平的论文产出数量；（4）加强共用共享平台建设，为科研设条件和设备不足的高校提供科研设施支持，为这类高校的学者开展高水平的科研工作提供资源支持；（5）对非重点建设高校的学者予以一定关照，在同等情形下，优先扶持非重点建设高校的学者；在资助体系中，可以参照地区基金，设立一类项目专门面向非重点建设高校的学者，这将改善非重点建设高校对于优秀人才的吸引力。

Basic research plays important role in science advance and social deveopment for a nation. In China, Higher education insitutions (HEIs) are the important base of conducting basic research, and provide talent support and intellectual storage for science and technology innovations, and thus the essential support of a series of national strategies such as building innovative countries. This dissertation examines the basic research activities in HEIs from the perspective of input and output. Based on the history data of HEIs’funded projects from National Science Foundation China, this dissertation explores the financial input and its outputs in HEIs. The main research contents and conclusions can be made as follow. First, the funding resources and its scale in basic research in HEIs. This part first discusses the funding system of basic research in China, illustrates the scale of financial input in basic research and its allocation amond different actors. Then, the total basic research funds are classified into two types as block funds and competitive funds. Basic research with block funds refers to those key construction special funds related to HEIs. This type of funds is mainly concentrated on key universities and key disciplines. Basic research with competitive funds are mainly focused on NSFC. The research of this part shows that: the per capita basic research funds of HEIs is only the half of China Academy of Sciences and other national and local research instiutions, demonstrating a relatively low level in HEIs. Key construction special funds are the important resources of block-funded basic research in HEIs. Since the 1990’s, the share of special funds in total education grants is enlarging, and even exceeds 50% in some universities. Among all the funding resources of competitively-funded basic research, NSFC is the institution with the largest scale and broadest scope, and its annual growth of funds exceeds 20%. In the list of various funding instruments in NSFC, four kinds of projects take relatively large shares, namely the general projects of 50%, young projects of 16%, key projects of 7%, and regional projects of 5%. Second, the analysis of imbalance in competitive basic research funds in HEIs. This part uses descriptive statistics, Gini coefficient, and decomposition of Gini coefficient to analyze the distribution of competitive basic research funds from NSFC among HEIs at different levels. The research in this part found that: the type and structure of projects in competitive basic research are the major factors of the imbalance in fundings in HEIs. The Gini coefficient of total funds obtained by HEIs is kept at above 0.76 with small but steady growth, from 0.76 in 2000 to 0.79 in 2015. The contribution of the differences in total funds is 49% from general projects, 17% from advanced projects (e.g., key projects, great project, research plan projects, science equipment projects), 13% from young project, and 10% from other projects. Overall, the rising shares of general projects, advanced projects and advanced talent projects would increase the Gini coefficient of funds allocation among HEIs, while the rising shares of young projects and regional projects would decrease the Gini coefficient of funds allocation among HEIs. Third, article output and its cost analysis on basic research in HEIs. Concerning the articles published by reseachers from HEIs funded by NSFC from 2009 to 2016, the per SCI article cost of 211 universities without 985 title is lower than 985 univesities, the per highly-cited article cost of 985 universities is the lowest. Concerning the general and young project, 985 universities have the lowest per article cost in all type of articles. Concerning the regional project, those 211 universities without 985 title have the lowest per article cost. Concerning the key project, those 211 universities without 985 title have the lowest per SCI cost, while 985 universities have the lowest per article cost in producing highly-cited papers and top papers. This dissertation also discusses the per article cost of different funding instruments in NSFC. The young project has the lowest per article cost, much lower than the per article cost of total funds. The per article cost of general project is also lower than that of total funds. Concerning the article output with different quality under total funds in HEIs at different levels, the per article cost of key contruction unviersities is lower than other universities. Inside the key construction universities, the per SCI article cost of 211 universities without 985 title is lower than 985 univesities, the per highly-cited article cost of 985 universities is the lowest. Concerning the general and young project, 985 universities have the lowest per article cost in all type of articles. Concerning the regional project, those 211 universities without 985 title have the lowest per article cost. Concerning the key project, those 211 universities without 985 title have the lowest per SCI cost, while 985 universities have the lowest per article cost in producing highly-cited papers and top papers. Forth, analysis on the talent cultivation of basic reseach in HEIs. Based on the data of talent projects obtained by HEIs from NSFC, this part of research analyzes the talent cultivation of basic research in HEIs, including the size and change of potential researchers, young researchers, excellent young researchers, top young talent researchers, and compare the differences on academic development of young talents in differential HEIs. The main research findings are: the number of doctoral and master students who participated in NFSC projects are increasing steadily, the growth of their numbers is higher than the growth of numbers of projects. Concerning the young projects, ordinary unviersities have the largest number and the fastest growth rates till much recent. Concerning excellent young projects, top young talent projects, innovative group projects, 985 universities have the largest number, and keep their absolute advantage. For those young researchers with very close starting point, their gaps on academic development might become obvious after a couple of years, as they are located in HEIs at different levels. Even in the general project, the gaps between scholars from differential universities are becoming large, and those scholars not from key construction universities would have lower probability to win highly competitive projects like top young talent project. Based on the research findings above, this dissertation proposes several policy suggestions as below: (1) Concerning the scale of basic research funds, we should increase the funding of basic research and enhance the proportion of basic research in the research and development (R&D) funds, especially the investment in basic research funds for universities. (2) Strengthening and promoting the construction and development of key disciplines, key laboratories and public disciplines platform, which plays a significant role in promoting the improvement of basic research level, and should be the main direction of the incremental funding. (3) Strengthening the construction of sharing and sharing platform to help the disadvantaged organizations to reduce and overcome the disadvantage of equal competition because of the lack of scientific research equipment and conditions, and to give full play to the creative space and support for the scholars in the vulnerable colleges and universities. (4) Improving the ratio of the funds for the youth fund will help to improve the participation of the basic research, improve the quantity of the article output of the basic research, improve the proportion of the funds of the key projects, and improve the quantity of the high level of the paper output. At the same time, it also needs to control the cost ratio of the advanced projects, which will help to ease the imbalance of the funding allocation. Concerning the funding system, we can take reference from regional projects, and set up a special project with orientation to those scholars not from key construction universities. (5) Giving consideration to scholars who are relatively disadvantaged in the competition, and give priority to supporting scholars from disadvantaged institutions under the same circumstances.