Statement by the Union Meeting of the Union of Research Professionals 22 May 2026
Higher education institutions are of central significance to the educational, scientific and economic development of Finnish society. High-quality education, freedom of research and the social impact of higher education institutions necessitate funding that supports long-term operations, strategic development and personnel wellbeing. These objectives cannot be achieved with the current system of funding, which steers operations primarily through short-term performance indicators.
The Ministry of Education and Culture’s funding models for universities and universities of applied sciences consist mainly of performance and indicator-based funding, complemented by strategic funding. In international comparison, Finland’s models are among the world’s most performance-oriented ones.
Funding is the most significant steering instrument for higher education institutions, and its impact is much more far-reaching than that of steering by information or auditing. In practice, indicator-based funding steers the internal decision-making of higher education institutions by replicating the performance-based approach for the internal allocation of funds.
Higher education institutions operate under conflicting steering signals: the Ministry calls for cooperation and specialisation, while financial steering stresses competition. OECD’s research groups have also expressed concern about the excessive performance-based nature of higher education funding after interviewing Finnish stakeholders. This has not prompted a reaction in Finland.
Different studies demonstrate that indicator-based steering produces unwanted effects as well.
For example, an increase in publication numbers does not necessarily mean an improvement in quality. In addition, the Publication Forum classification, which is part of the university funding model, steers researchers to publish in international publications with a high JUFO classification, while marginalising smaller fields and Finnish-language scientific publications. For universities of applied sciences, the model places a much greater weight on external RDI funding than on RDI activity output, which may lead to emphasising quantity over quality.
It is challenging for higher education institutions to autonomously develop their operations in a situation where the vast majority of funding is determined based on measurable output. Research Professionals has repeatedly called for the strengthening of the share of core funding in higher education funding models. This would strengthen higher education institutions’ autonomy and opportunities for profiling in their areas of strength.
Research Professionals’ Vision for higher education and research for the 2040s sees core funding as a key facilitator for high-quality education and research. It is a political value judgement whether to guarantee higher education institutions adequate resources using public funds or to steer the operations even more through competitive performance-based funding.
The Government confirms the funding model principles for four years at a time. In addition, the amount of public funding for higher education institutions varies based on the focal points of each Government term and the annual Budget. The constant uncertainty about the direction of the funding weakens the opportunities of higher education institutions to plan their operations in the long term.
It is the view of Research Professionals that we need a parliamentary consensus spanning across election terms concerning the financing of higher education institutions. This would significantly increase the possibilities of higher education institutions to anticipate the amount of funding as well as improve stability and working conditions.
As we see it, the higher education funding model should be developed based on the following principles:
- The time span for changing funding models should be extended across election terms, so that higher education institutions can concentrate on their core tasks in peace.
- The number of funding indicators should be cut down and the share of core funding strengthened in both universities and universities of applied sciences.
- The funding models should promote the possibilities of higher education institutions to concentrate on their core tasks and areas of strength. The models should reduce competition between higher education institutions and strengthen the sensibility of mutual cooperation.
The tasks of higher education institutions are of such significance for society that their steering should not be based primarily on competition and a zero-sum game. Quality, renewability and impact are born out of stable operating conditions, trust and true autonomy.
Additional information: Vice President Paula Silvén, paula.silven@tieteentekijat.fi, tel. p. +358 50 4655 376
Aarnikoivu, M., Mathies, C., & Piattoeva, N. (2024). JUFOn vaikutus yliopistoissa työskentelevien tutkijoiden julkaisukanavia koskeviin päätöksiin. https://doi.org/10.58957/tp.142821
de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Benneworth, P., Cremonini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A., & Vossensteyn, H. (2015). Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente.
Kallio, T. J., Kallio, K.-M., & Blomberg, A. (2020). From professional bureaucracy to competitive bureaucracy: Redefining universities’ organization principles, performance measurement criteria, and reason for being. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 17(1), 82–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-10-2019-0111
Kivistö, J., Pekkola, E., Berg, L. N., Hansen, H. F., Geschwind, L., & Lyytinen, A. (2019). Performance in higher education institutions and its variations in Nordic policy. In Reforms, Organizational Change and Performance in Higher Education (pp. 37–). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11738-2_2
Kivistö, J., Pekkola, E., & Kujala, E. (2021). Selvitys yliopistojen sisäisistä rahoitusmalleista. Osa 1: Yliopistojen sisäiset rahoitusmallit. Finnish Union of University Professors. https://www.professoriliitto.fi/app/uploads/2023/11/Yliopistojen_sisaaiset_rahoitusmallit_osa1-1.pdf
OECD. (2017). OECD reviews of innovation policy: Finland 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276369-en
OECD. (2021). Reducing the precarity of academic research careers. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 113. Paris: OECD.
Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., Hansen, H. F., & Pulkkinen, K. (Eds.). (2019). Reforms, organizational change and performance in higher education: A comparative account from the Nordic countries. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11738-2
Silvén, P., Poutanen, M. & Tervasmäki, T. (Forthcoming). Academic freedom contingent on funding: Vertical and horizontal critical evaluations of performance-based funding models. Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences