Indirect Cost Recovery Rates: Why Do They Differ?

Michael McPherson, Morton Schapiro and Ian Smith
Additional contact information
Michael McPherson: Williams College
Morton Schapiro: University of Southern California
Ian Smith: Williams College

Eastern Economic Journal, 1996, vol. 22, issue 2, 205-214

Abstract: This paper reviews the history of the federal government's indirect cost recovery system and empirically examines the determinants of IRC rates. We find that, ceteris paribas schools in the Northeast have higher ICR rates, as do schools with high administrative expenses, a disproportionate number of graduate students, and larger expenditures on physical plant. Private research universities have higher ICR rates than do public research universities, but other factors turn out to explain most of this difference. Institutional characteristics relating to the mix of operations, financial characteristics, and location all play an important role in the determination of this rate, implying that there are good economic reasons for much of the observed variation in ICR rates both between and within sectors.

JEL-codes: I22 I28 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1996
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://web.holycross.edu/RePEc/eej/Archive/Volume22/V22N2P205_214.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eej:eeconj:v:22:y:1996:i:2:p:205-214

Access Statistics for this article

Eastern Economic Journal is currently edited by Cynthia A. Bansak, St. Lawrence University and Allan A. Zebedee, Clarkson University

More articles in Eastern Economic Journal from Eastern Economic Association Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Victor Matheson, College of the Holy Cross ().