Nordic University/HE Funding Policies Higher Education Funding Seminar ACUP, Barcelona 13 June, 2012 Peter Maassen, University of Oslo.

Nordic University/HE Funding Policies

Higher Education Funding Seminar

ACUP, Barcelona

13 June, 2012

Peter Maassen, University of Oslo

Background & Underlying Starting-points of Public HE Funding in the Nordic Countries (focus on Denmark, Finland, Norway)

Public Funding of Nordic Universities: Organisation/Models, Indicators and Figures

Policy Debates on HE Funding in Nordic Countries

Final Reflections

Background: Nordic HE Systems and their Performance

Nordic countries:Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden; 25 million inhabitants

Around 150 HEIs

“Shanghai ranking”:7 Nordic universities in top 100; (23 in top 500)

European Research Council (ERC), first 2500 grants:Nordic researchers: 208 Grants (= 8-9%) FP7 Cooperation:At least 1 Nordic partner in almost 50% of all selected projects

Research Production/Impact: all Nordic countries among most productive and highest impact countries

Year Norway DK Sweden Finland OECD EU15

R&D resources

R& D expenditure as part of GDP (%)

2009 1.81 3.02 3.62 3.96 2.33 2.05

R&D expenditure per capita NOK

2009 8 675 10 070 11 890 12 360 6 905 6 275

Public R&D expenditure as % of total R&D expenditure

2009 47 28 27 24 28 34

Industry R&D expenditure as % of total R&D expenditure

2009 44 60 59 68 64 55

R&D expenditure in HE sector as % of total R&D expenditure

2009 32 30 25 19 17 24

R&D data Nordic countries, OECD, EU15

Traditional Policy Starting-Points of Public HE Funding in the Nordic Countries

1. High Trust in Public Sector and State2. Stability in Funding3. Equality of Chances and Opportunities (Social Dimension)4. Institutional Equality (Taboo wrt Setting Up Elite Units/Institutions)5. Principle of ’Free’ Higher Education: no tuition fees for national (and Nordic/EU students)

New Policy Issues wrt Public Funding of HE in the Nordic Countries

1. Global Economic Competitiveness2. Impact of HE on Society, and esp. on Innovation and Economic Development, incl. Regional Development3. HE System Effectiveness: Cooperation, Division of Labour, Concentration4. Lifelong Learning

Resource Allocation Mechanisms wrt Public Funding of HE (Albrecht & Ziderman 1992; Jongbloed 2000)

1.Negotiated funding2.Input-based funding3.Output-based funding4.Student-based funding

Nordic Public HE funding: shift towards output-based funding

Nature of output-based funding models

Norway: Goal-oriented steering and funding of universities & colleges

Denmark: Agreement-based steering and funding of universities

Finland: Contract-based steering and funding of universities and polytechnics

Public Funding of Universities & Colleges: Norway

Organisation of Public Funding Stable/increasing public funding basis for HE No need for formal agreements/contracts Funding/steering organised around sector goals, activity goals and steering parameters, e.g.

Sector goal 1: • Universities and colleges shall offer education of high international quality based on the forefront in R&DActivity goal 1.1:• Universities and colleges shall educate candidates with high competence that is relevant from the perspective of society’s needsSteering parameter 1.1:• The number of quality first priority applicants per study place

Public Funding of Universities & Colleges: Norway (cont.)

Funding components and indicators:

Lump sum to universities60% basic grant (education and research; historically determined)25% education performance (open system)

Indicators: 1. number of produced ECTS credit points2. number of incoming and outgoing exchange students

15% research performance (closed system)Indicators:1. PhD graduates2. Research funding from EU (esp. FP7)3. Research funding from Norwegian Research Council4. Scientific publications

Public Funding of Universities & Colleges: Finland

Starting-point: Decreasing public funding basis for HE; stable funding basis for univ. Formal contracts Proposal to move from negotiated targets to indicators-based funding Funding/steering organised around indicators in 3 main parts: education, research and science policy objectives:

From 2013 on:Education (41% of lump sum)15% Master degrees awarded by university9% Bachelor degrees awarded by university11% number of students completing a minimum of 55 ECTS2% credits completed in open university and non-degree studies1% number of degrees awarded to foreigners by the university2% incoming and outgoing international exchanges in the university1% number of jobholding graduates

Public Funding of Universities & Colleges: Finland (cont.)

Funding/steering organised around indicators in 3 main parts: education, research and science policy objectives (cont.):

From 2013 on:Research (34% of lump sum)9% Doctoral degrees awarded by university13% Publications (of which 10% international referred publications)9% Competed research funding (of which 3% international)

1% doctoral degrees awarded to foreigners by the university2% foreign teaching and research personnel

Other education and science policy objectives (25% of lump sum)10% strategy-based funding8% field-specific funding (2.75% arts univ & fields of art; 1.5% natural sciences; 1.5% technology; 2.25% medical sciences)7% funding for assigned national tasks

Public Funding of Universities & Colleges: Denmark

Starting-point: Stable public funding basis for universities; however, shift from lump sum to competitive funding Formal agreements that are direction-giving, instead of contracts Lump sum in two parts: performance-based education part and basic research component

Education (39% of lump sum) Taximeter allocation for bachelor and master student credit point production Bonus for norm students Exchange students Allocation for small academic areas Stipends for non-EU students Funds from globalisation strategy for new educational forms Taximeter allocation for part-time students

Public Funding of Universities & Colleges: Denmark (cont.)

Lump sum in two parts: performance-based education part and basic research component

Research (61% of lump sum) Basic lump sum for research, incl. PhD programmes Research-based government services Other purposes

University lump sum funding: sector figures

NorwayUniversity sector: Nok 14.483 billion = € 1.919 billion

(2011/ 7 universities) Nok 15.377 billion = € 2.038 billion(2012/ 8 universities)

DenmarkUniversity sector: Dkr 16.588 billion = € 2.231 billion

(2011/ 8 universities)Dkr 16.009 billion = € 2.154 billion(2012/ 8 universities)

FinlandUniversity sector: € 1.839 billion (2011/ 17 universities)

€ 1.855 billion (2012/ 17 universities)

University lump sum funding: institutional figures

NorwayUniversity of Oslo: Total budget 2011 Nok 6.6 billion = € 874 million(27,500 students) Government lump sum Nok 4.298 billion = € 570 million

(65%)

DenmarkUniversity of Copenhagen: Total budget Dkr 7.745 billion = € 1.042 billion(38,000 students) Government lump sum Dkr 5,113 billion = € 688 million

(66%)

FinlandUniversity of Helsinki: Total budget (2010) around € 601 million(37,000 students) Government lump sum around € 370 million (62%)

Total budget (2011) = € 648 millionGovernment lump sum (2011) = € 387 million

HE Funding Policy Debates

1. Impact (on society/economic development) of public investments in HE/universities

2. Balance between strategic and ’free’ public funding

3. Increasing performance-based components in public funding of higher education institutions (both education and research performance)

4. Move away from contracts and targets, to agreements and indicators

Final reflections

1. Continuous high trust in public steering and funding of HE.

2. Increasing HE and R&D public budgets in Denmark and Norway, decreasing budgets (esp. for polytechnic sector) in Finland

3. Performance and impact have become important components in public funding of HE in the Nordic countries, but (for the time being) the emphasis is still on academic performance

4. International components have become more important in public funding of HE

5. Nordic governments want their top universities to be worldclass. Each of the Nordic countries is taking different funding measures for realizing this. Despite the differences, one of the common consequences is the growing concentration of public R&D funding in limited nr. of universities