ABSTRACT Purpose Examining the alignment (or “fit”) of China’s science and technology talent policies provides valuable insights into the challenges and shortcomings in supporting talent development, thereby offering a foundation for enhanced policy design and support. Design/methodology/approach This study introduces a policy fit analysis framework, which decomposes policy fit into three dimensions: consistency fit, embeddedness fit, and compensatory fit. By employing quantitative research methods, the study conducts a multidimensional analysis of China’s science and technology talent policies over the period from 2014 to 2023. Findings The findings indicate that, after a decade of evolution, China’s policy system for science and technology talent has largely matured into a relatively stable framework, with policy fit demonstrating an upward trend over time. However, several challenges persist. For instance, the policy system places a disproportionate emphasis on talent cultivation and development, while comparatively fewer policies address the introduction, aggregation, and strategic planning of talent. Additionally, there are observable gaps between policy objectives and actual outcomes, as well as a misalignment between policy supply and the demands of talent development. Research limitations The framework of policy fit analysis proposed by the study can only analyze policies at the same level, but it cannot conduct cross-level analysis. In the empirical analysis, the policy texts analyzed were limited to publicly available documents. Practical implications The findings provide new perspectives and methodologies for policy evaluation, expanding the scope of existing policy analysis, and also offer meaningful guidance for policymakers and relevant administrative personnel. Originality/value This paper introduces, for the first time, a policy fit analysis framework, addressing a gap in the study of policy alignment.
Wang et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: