Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung - European University Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

24 Thomas Estermann, Enora Bennetot Pruvot This issue is all the more relevant as there is a strong link between the frequency of co-funding and the degree of diversification. Additional income sources rarely fund activities on a full cost basis. Universities that have been very successful in attracting additional funds through competitive research funding schemes face major problems as a result. Thus, co- funding has become a risk associated with income diversification which needs to be solved through appropriate funding schemes. European funding schemes The European Union offers non-negligible income to many universities, who widely expect to receive more income from this source in the future, although substantial increases of the amounts available are unlikely to occur in the coming years. Compe- tition among universities for this funding will therefore become more acute, in a context where traditional income sources are expected to stagnate or decrease. European funding schemes are important, but also among the most complex funding programmes available to universities. European structural funds and the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation are the two main sources of European funds for higher education institutions and present similar characteristics. The diversity of instruments and associated rules, the heavy administrative processes and accountabil- ity requirements, and finally the systematic use of co-funding deter a growing number of universities from participating in these programmes. However, in a context of stagnating national funding, not many universities can afford to disregard such schemes, even under unattractive funding models. This, in turn, will broaden the funding gap of their research activities. In some countries, public authorities have developed mechanisms to support universities applying to European funding programmes, for instance funding the preparation phase of a project or by providing the missing part of the funding. However, if such schemes are not coordinated among member states, they may contribute to creating an unlevel playing field for universities across Europe, with some countries providing more comprehensive support than others. Simplification of rules and procedures and moving towards funding on a full cost basis of these schemes appears as the only sustainable solution in the long run. Impact of the economic crisis EUA has been monitoring the evolution of the economic crisis and its effects on higher education systems in Europe since its onset in 2008. The continuous feedback from various sources provided up-to-date reports of the situation and highlighted the evolving nature of the effects the crisis has had on higher education across Europe. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 33. Jahrgang, 2/2011
Overview of the study One should note that the varying availability of data, the different ways in which it is calculated and communicated, and the constantly changing situation are significant challenges to this comparative exercise. However, trends can be identified. Figure 3: Impact of the economic crisis on public funding for higher education in Ireland 2011: 2009: Europe* –7% –9,4% Netherlands 2011: –10% France 2011:+4,7 billion € PT ES IE IS GB** FR NL BE CH DK DE NO Italy by 2013: –20% Major cuts (> 10%) Substantial cuts (5–10%) Indirect/moderate cuts (
Page 1: IHF Beiträge zur Bayerisches Staat
Page 4 and 5: Impressum Beiträge zur Hochschulfo
Page 6 and 7: 2 Orientation, themes and target au
Page 8 and 9: 4 Editorial Obwohl Hochschulen als
Page 10 and 11: 6 We would like to warmly thank the
Page 12 and 13: 8 Abstracts Partnerschaften und die
Page 14 and 15: 10 Abstracts Mark Lammerts: Challen
Page 16 and 17: 12 Jean-Marc Rapp An introduction t
Page 18 and 19: 14 Jean-Marc Rapp long-term financi
Page 20 and 21: 16 Jean-Marc Rapp The European Unio
Page 22 and 23: 18 Thomas Estermann, Enora Bennetot
Page 44 and 45: 40 Nigel Thrift Income diversificat
Page 46 and 47: 42 Nigel Thrift that, on average in
Page 48 and 49: 44 Nigel Thrift relationships with
Page 50 and 51: 46 Nigel Thrift South Africa and Ta
Page 52 and 53: 48 Mark Lammerts Challenges of univ
Page 54 and 55: 50 Mark Lammerts Graph 3: Increasin
Page 56 and 57: 52 Mark Lammerts Joining forces wit
Page 58 and 59: 54 Mark Lammerts strategy building,
Page 60 and 61: 56 Mark Lammerts When talking to me
Page 62 and 63: 58 Joanna Motion, Adrian Beney Inco
Page 64 and 65: 60 Joanna Motion, Adrian Beney 3 Lo
Page 66 and 67: 62 Joanna Motion, Adrian Beney Ther
Page 68 and 69: 64 Joanna Motion, Adrian Beney able
Page 70 and 71: 66 Joanna Motion, Adrian Beney a lo
Page 72 and 73: 68 Sheila Gupta Professionalisation
Page 74 and 75: 70 Sheila Gupta ment structures. Go
Page 76 and 77: 72 Sheila Gupta institutions are of
Page 78 and 79:
74 Sheila Gupta ■ Delivering new
Page 80 and 81:
76 Michael Jansen Funding condition
Page 82 and 83:
78 Michael Jansen This is in partic
Page 84 and 85:
80 Michael Jansen 2012. This notabl
Page 86 and 87:
82 Michael Jansen which can only be
Page 88 and 89:
84 Michael Jansen ing the strategy
Page 90 and 91:
86 Thomas Estermann, Monika Steinel
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
92 Bibliography Bibliography Aartse
Page 98 and 99:
94 Hinweise für Autoren Hinweise f
Page 100 and 101:
IHF Bayerisches Staatsinstitut für
show all

Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung - European University Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?