1. Research funding models and their structural effects Anders Malmberg Professor Economic Geography, Prorector, Uppsala University, Sweden Rectors’ Roundtable, Tartu University 25 August, 2014

2. Theme of discussion Trends in university financing, different governance models and strategic planning in the increasingly competitive R&D financing framework Prioritisation: Can there be a genuine "division of tasks" among universities? Start out with some current trends in Sweden End up with some general remarks

3. Research and higher education in Sweden – some key features 40 universities and University Colleges –Six broad research universities (UU, LU, GU, SU, UmU, LiU) –Six specialised research universities (CTH, KTH, KI, LuTU, SLU, SSE) –Four new universities with limited research funds (MU, ÖU, KaU, LnU) –20+ smaller higher education institutions Recurring debate: need for consolidation?

4. The Swedish model for Research funding 4% of GDP (R&D, downward trend) –3% private (mainly “D”, downward trend) –1% public (mainly “R”, stable) Started at a high level 1990 but since then sliding back (cf Denmark, Finland, Norway, UK) Some recovery since 2008 1994-2008: expansion of higher education Pattern of political priorities: –Social democrates expand education –Centre right coalitions expand research

5. University Research Funding ≈ 35 billion SEK to universities –16 billion SEK direct funding –12 billion SEK through research councils and public authorities –7 bn SEK from other external sources (private foundations, EU etc) 1 Euro ≈ 9 SEK

6. Main policy trends Performance based funding (20%) –Indicators/metrics –Peer review –(Collaboration, societal impact) Promoting excellence: –Strong milieus –Star scientists –Coming stars –International recruitment Strategic research areas (SFO 1,2 bn) Research + Collaboration = innovation & growth

7. Greater autonomy? Political wish: university research strategies with more focus = increased division of labour between universities Big debate on institutional form (public authority vs other forms) Less ear-marked research money (block grants) Less regulated internal organization (role of collegiate governance systems etc) More ear-marked education funding Clearer national strategy for research infrastructures (SciLifeLab, Max Lab, ESS)

8. Conclusions and questions Top-down decisions on research priorities: neither feasible nor desirable Broad/comprehensive universities should remain broad But … –Performance based resource allocation gives incentive for successful specialization –Excellence initiatives promote specialization –Strategic research policy promotes specialization

9. Effects? Somewhat decreased diversity in publication patterns