THE FINANCIAL AUTONOMY OF UNIVERSITIES AND THE NATIONAL INNOVATION PERFORMANCE IN EUROPE: POSSIBLE LINKAGES IN FINLAND AND OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
In Europe the usefulness of science to society and competitiveness through innovation are very topical higher education policies. From this viewpoint, financial autonomy is seen as a powerful lever to promote competitiveness. However, we do not know much about the financial autonomy of universities or about its linkages to innovation economy. In Finland, the new frames for the financial autonomy of universities were introduced five years ago using extensive national university reform. This paper considers the levels of different dimensions of financial autonomy of universities and national input innovation performance in Finland and other European countries. In addition, this paper investigated linkages between input and output innovation performance. This trial suggests that the average level of financial autonomy yielded statistical differences between countries’ input innovation performance. However, these differences existed only related to the type of public funding and the establishment of degree programmes. Moreover, two European countries – having low financial autonomy in these elements – are successful in their input innovation performance. The latest trends to act independent legal and financial entities seemed not to generate innovation success. Several countries that have high financial autonomy in some other dimensions, ranked weaker in their input innovation performance. Innovation input and output performance are strongly interrelated in Europe. However, it is research and development and linkages between innovation actors rather than higher education students or graduates that were important to countries’ success in their innovation output performance.
2. Amaral, A., Tavares, O., and Santos, C. (2013) ‘Higher Education Reform in Portugal: A Historical and Comparative Perspective of the New Legal Framework for Public Universities’, Higher Education Policy26(1): 5-24. doi:10.1057/hep.2012.29
3. Capaldi, E. D. (2009) ‘Intellectual Transformation and Budgetary Savings Through Academic Reorganisation’, Change41(4): 18–27.
4. Cazenave, P. (1982) ‘Financing of Institutions’, in B. R. Clark and G. R. Neave (eds). The Encylopedia of Higher Education, Analytical Perspectives, Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd, pp. 1367–1376.
5. Christensen, T. (2011) ‘University governance reforms: potential problems of more autonomy?’ Higher Education 62(4): 503–517. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 19, 2014).
6. Clark, B.R. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.
7. deDominicis, L., Pérez, S.E. and Fernández-Zubieta, A. (2011) European university funding and financial autonomy – A study on the degree of diversification of university budget and the share of competitive funding. European Commission. http://er- awatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/export/sites/default/galleries/ generic_files/JRC63682.pdf
8. Dutta, S. and Lanvin, B. (2013) Global Innovation Index 2013 – The Local Dynamics of Innovation. http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/content.aspx?page=data-analysis
9. Enders, J., Boer, H., and Weyer, E. (2013) ‘Regulatory autonomy and performance: The reform of higher education re-visited’, Higher Education 65: 5-23. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9578-4
10. European Commission (2013) Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ ius-2013_en.pdf
11. European Commission (2012) European Commission website.
12. European Commission (2011) Communication from the Commission. Supporting growth and jobs – an agenda for the modernization of Europe’s higher education systems. COM (2011) 567 final. Brussels: EC.
13. European Commission (2010) Europe 2020 – A European Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication from the Commission. Brussels: EC. http://ec.europa.eu/ eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20
14. European Commission (2007) Communication from the Commission A coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training COM(2007) 61 final. Brussels: EC.
15. European Commission (2006) Delivering on the modernization agenda for the universities.COM/2006/0208 final. Brussels: EC.
16. Estermann,T. and Bennetot, P.E. (2011) Financially sustainable universities II. European universities diversifying income streams. Brussels: EUA Publications. http://www.eua.be/Pubs/ Financially%20Sustainable%20Universities%20II.pdf
17. Estermann, T., Nokkala, T. and Steinel, M. (2011) University Autonomy in Europe II.The Scorecard. Brussels: EUA.
18. Global Innovation Index Edition 2014. https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/content.aspx?page=GII-Home Hazelkorn,
E. (2005) ‘University Research Management – Developing Research in New Institutions’, Paris: OECD.
19. Hoareau, C., Ritzen, J. and Marconi, G. (2012) The State of University Policy for Progress in Europe – Policy Report, United Nations University.
20. Hood, C. and Peters, G. (2004). The middle age of new public management: Into the age of paradoc, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267–282.
21. Huisman, J. (2007) The Anatomy of Autonomy. Higher Education Policy, 20: 219–221.
22. Jongbloed, B., Boer, H., Enders, J. And File, J. (2010) Funding reform. Progress in higher education reform across Europe. Volume I: Executive summary and main report. Enschede. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies. http://www.utwente.nl/mb/ cheps/publications/Publications%202010/Funding%20Reform/ FUN%20Vol%201%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
23. Jongbloed, B. (2010). Funding Higher Education: A view across Europe. http://www.utwente.nl/mb/cheps/publications/ Publications%202010/MODERN_Funding_Report.pdf. Brussels: ESMU (European Centre for Strategic Management of Unіversities).
24. Kotiranta, Annu and Nikulainen, Tuomo and Tahvanainen, Antti-Jussi and Deschryvere, Matthias and Pajarinen, Mika, 2009.
«Evaluating National Innovation Systems – Key Insights from the Finnish Innoeval Survey,» Discussion Papers 1196, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
25. Lavoie, M. (2009) ‘Harmonizing Higher Education and Innovation Policies: Canada from an International Perspective’. Higher Education Quarterly 63 (1): 3–28. doi:10.1111/j.14682273.2008.00406.x
26. Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.) (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter Publishers: London.
27. Luoma, P., Raivio, T., Tommila, P., Lunabba, J., Halme, K., Viljamaa, K. and Lahtinen, H. (2011) Better results, more value – A framework for analysing the societal impact of Research and Innovation. Tekes Review 288/2011. http://www.tekes.fi/julkai- sut/better_results_more_value.pdf
28. McDaniel, O.C. (1996) ‘The Paradigms of governance in higher education systems’, Higher Education Policy 9(2), pp. 137–158.
29. McKelvey and Holmén, (2009) Learning to compete in European universities – From social institution to knowledge business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
30. Ministry of Education, (2007) ’Yliopistojen taloudellisen ja hallinnollisen aseman uudistaminen’ [Reform of financial and administrative autonomy of universities]. Opetusministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä 2007:2, Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
31. Ministry of Education (2009) ‘Steering and funding of universities from year 2010 forward’. Retrieved from http://www. minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Koulutus/yliopistokoulutus/ hallinto_ohjaus_ja_rahoitus/yliopistojen_tulossopimukset/Sopimukset_2010_-_2012/ohjeet_/RV_14102009_OPMa_muistio. pdf
32. Ministry of Education and Culture (2011) Development Plan for Education and Research 2011-2016. Retrieved from http:// www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2012/liitteet/ okm01.pdf?lang=fi
33. Ministry of Employment and the Economy.(2009) Evaluation of the Finnish National Innovation System. (2009). http://www. tem.fi/files/24929/InnoEvalFi_FULL_Report_28_Oct_2009.pdf OECD. (2009) OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education: Finland, Paris: OECD Publishing.
34. Park, S., and Lee, S. (2005) ‘The national and regional innovation systems in Finland: from the path dependency to the path creation approach’. AI and Society, 19(2):180-195. doi:10.1007/ s00146-004-0305-2.
35. Piironen, O. (2013) The Transnational Idea of University Autonomy and the Reform of the Finnish Universities Act. Higher Education Policy, 26(1): 127-146. doi:10.1057/hep.2012.22
36. Ritsilä, J., Nieminen, M., Sotarauta, M., and Lahtonen, J. (2008) ‘Societal and Economic Engagement of Universities in Finland: An Evaluation Model’, Higher Education Management and Policy, 20 (2): 165-176.
37. Salmi, J. J. (2007) ‘Autonomy from the state vs responsiveness to markets’, Higher Education Policy, 20(3): 223–242.
38. Vogt, W. Paul. (2011) SAGE quantitative research methods, London: SAGE.
39. Volkwein, J.F. and Malik, S.M. (1997) ‘State Regulation and Administrative Flexibility at Public Universities’, Research In Higher Education 38(1): 17–42. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 19, 2014).
40. Van Vught, F. (2009) ‘The EU Innovation Agenda: Challenges for European Higher Education and Research’, Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(2): 13–34.
41. Wieczorek, A. J., and Hekkert, M. P. (2012) ’Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars’, Science and Public Policy (SPP), 39 (1): 74–87. doi:10.1093/scipol/scr008
Abstract views: 161 PDF Downloads: 137