The Performance-based Funding Scheme of Universities
AbstractThe purpose of this study is to analyse the effectiveness of the performance-based funding scheme of the Finnish universities that was adopted at the beginning of 2013. The political decision-makers expect that the funding scheme will create incentives for the universities to improve performance, but these funding schemes have largely failed in many other countries, primarily because public funding is only a small share of the total funding of universities. This study is interesting because Finnish universities have no tuition fees, unlike in many other countries, and the state allocates funding based on the objectives achieved. The empirical evidence of the graduation rates indicates that graduation rates increased when a new scheme was adopted, especially among male students, who have more room for improvement than female students. The new performance-based funding scheme allocates the funding according to the output-based indicators and limits the scope of strategic planning and the autonomy of the university. The performance-based funding scheme is transformed to the strategy map of the balanced scorecard. The new funding scheme steers universities in many respects but leaves the research and teaching skills to the discretion of the universities. The new scheme has also diminished the importance of the performance agreements between the university and the Ministry. The scheme increases the incentives for universities to improve the processes and structures in order to attain as much public funding as possible. It is optimal for the central administration of the university to allocate resources to faculties and other organisational units following the criteria of the performance-based funding scheme. The new funding scheme has made the universities compete with each other, because the total funding to the universities is allocated to each university according to the funding scheme. There is a tendency that the funding schemes are occasionally improved. The findings of this study are useful for those who wish to modify the funding scheme in the future.
Alexander, F.K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411-431.
Barr, N. (2005). Financing higher education. Finance & Development, 42(2), 34-37.
Barr, N. (2009). Financing higher education: Lessons from economic theory and reform in England. Higher Education in Europe, 34(2), 201-209.
Brătianu, C. (2015). Developing strategic thinking in business education. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 3(3), 409-429.
Bryman, A., and E. Bell (2011). Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burke, J.C. (2002). Funding Public Colleges and Universities for Performance: Popularity, Problems, and Prospects. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
Chapman, B. (2006). Income Contingent Loans for Higher Education: International reforms. In Hanushek, E.A., and Welch, F. (Eds.). Handbook on the Economics of Education (pp.1435-1503). Amsterdam: North Holland.
de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Benneworth, P., Cremonini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A. Lemmens-Krug, K., and Vossensteyn, H. (2015). Performance-Based Funding and Performance Agreements in Fourteen Higher Education Systems: Report for the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Enchede: Universiteit Twente.
Del Rey, E., and Racionero, M. (2010). Financing schemes for higher education. European Journal of Political Economy, 26(1), 104-113.
Dougherty, K.J., and Reddy, V. (2013). Performance Funding for Higher Education: What Are the Mechanisms? What are the Impacts? ASHE Higher Education Report, 39(2). Retrieved from http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aehe.v39.2/issuetoc.
Dougherty, K.J., Natow, R.S., and Vega, B.E. (2012). Popular but unstable: Explaining why state performance funding systems in the United States often do not persist. Teachers College Record, 114(3), 1-42.
Dunn, D.D. (2003). Accountability, democratic theory, and higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 60-79.
García-Peñalosa, C., and Wälde, K. (2000). Efficiency and equity effects of subsidies to higher education. Oxford Economic Papers, 52(4), 702-722.
Herbst, M. (2007). Financing Public Universities: The Case of Performance Funding. Berlin: Springer.
Holm, A., and Jaeger, M.M. (2008). Does relative risk aversion explain educational inequality? A dynamic choice approach. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 26(3), 199-219.
Huisman, J., and Currie, J (2004). Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled water? Higher Education, 48(4), 529-551.
Johnstone, D.B. (2004). The Economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: Comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 403-410.
Kaplan, R., and Norton, D. (2001). The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R., and Norton, D. (2004). Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kettunen, J. (2008). A conceptual framework to help evaluate the quality of institutional performance. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(4), 322-332.
Kettunen, J. (2011). Strategy and quality maps in higher education. US-China Education Review, 8(2), 149-156.
Kettunen, J. (2015). Stakeholder relationships in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(1), 56-65.
Lane, J.E. (2007). The spider web of oversight: An analysis of external oversight of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(6), 615-644.
Layzell, D.T. (1999). Linking performance to funding outcomes at the state level for public institutions of higher education: Past, present, and future. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 233-246.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications.
McLendon, M.K., Hearn, J.C., and Deaton, S.R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1-24.
Melin, G., Zuijdam, F., Good, B., Angelis, J., Enberg, J., Fikkers, D.J., Puukka, J., Swenning, A., Kosk, K., Lastunen, J., and Zegel, S. (2015). Towards a Future Proof System for Higher Education and Research in Finland. Publications of the Ministry on Education and Culture, Finland 2015:11. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Julkaisut/2015/higher_education .html?lang=en.
Nicolae, M., and Vițelar, A. (2013). Knowledge transfer in Romanian higher education. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 1(1), 87-99.
Nisar, M. (2015). Higher education governance and performance based funding as an ecology of games. Higher Education, 69(2), 289-302.
Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage Publications.
Vandenberghe,V., and Debande, O. (2008). Refinancing Europe's higher education through deferred and income-contingent fees: An empirical assessment using Belgian, German and UK data. European Journal of Political Economy, 24(2), 364-386.
Volkwein, J., and Tandberg, D. (2008). Measuring up: Examining the connections among state structural characteristics, regulatory practices, and performance. Research in Higher Education, 49(2), 180-197.
Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
How to Cite
Under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) with the condition to attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor. They may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.