{"id":197043,"date":"2026-03-31T17:01:46","date_gmt":"2026-03-31T15:01:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=197043"},"modified":"2026-04-01T10:13:24","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T08:13:24","slug":"knelpunten-in-financiering-hoger-onderwijs-gaan-ze-veranderen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2026\/03\/31\/knelpunten-in-financiering-hoger-onderwijs-gaan-ze-veranderen\/","title":{"rendered":"Bottlenecks in higher education funding: will they change?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Politicians want to adjust the funding of higher education, but how? The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) has already published the bottlenecks of the current system online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJosine Henneken<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Each year, the Ministry of Education distributes billions of euros to universities of applied sciences and universities, partly based on the number of students. More students mean more funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That works well during growth, but what do you do in times of decline? Higher education has been grappling with this question for several years, as student numbers are falling. Can higher education handle a period of contraction after years of rapid expansion?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In The Hague, some political parties are alarmed by the first consequences. Institutions are laying off staff, cutting small programmes, and dismantling research groups \u2013 and the decline has only just begun.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is this caused by the funding system? What are its pitfalls? And will politicians resolve the problems?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) has produced an analysis of the bottlenecks in funding, ahead of advice<\/a> expected later this year. The analysis shows that changing the system will be challenging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Historical arbitrariness<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Sometimes the system is hard to follow. Universities, for example, receive a so-called \u201cfixed share\u201d. Part of the nationally available budget is distributed to institutions according to fixed percentages. TU Delft receives 14 percent, Wageningen 7.9 percent, and Maastricht 4.8 percent. The KNAW has been unable to determine where these percentages come from.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similar fixed-share percentages are set in law for universities of applied sciences. There are twice as many of these institutions, so the percentages are lower, but they also vary widely: Fontys receives almost 9 percent, the universities of applied sciences in Rotterdam and Groningen 6 percent, and Avans 5 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t

Will politicians change this?<\/strong><\/em> The KNAW has not yet issued advice, but it seems unlikely that the system will be altered. This distribution of the \u201cfixed share\u201d dates back to before the 1980s. You could overhaul these percentages, but that would create a lot of disputes between institutions, and no one is likely to want that.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\n

2. More students, the same research funding<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Education and scientific research are intertwined, say the KNAW and the universities: you want students to be taught by active researchers. Their reasoning is that if there are more students, the research budget should also increase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that is not happening: while the number of students and awarded degrees has grown significantly in recent years, the research budget for universities has not increased accordingly. The education budget, however, has kept pace.<\/p>\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t

Will politicians change this?<\/em><\/strong> That would require a substantial increase in research funding, so it seems unlikely. Moreover, basing research funding on student numbers would overlook<\/a> the value of research independent of education. Politics will probably steer clear of this issue.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\n

3. International students<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Conspicuously absent from the KNAW analysis are the budgetary effects of the growing group of international students. Over the past decades, they have brought universities significant income and, due to their large numbers, have become a factor in their own right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2010, there were around 24,000 international students in university education. By 2024, that number had quadrupled to 93,000, more than a quarter of the university student population. This brings advantages for the institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

European students are funded by the government, just like Dutch students. They also tend to graduate faster, which is financially beneficial. Non-European students pay a high \u201cinstitutional fee\u201d, so the institutions do not incur a loss on them either.<\/p>\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t

Will politicians change this?<\/strong><\/em> The previous cabinet wanted to curb the influx of international students, particularly in bachelor\u2019s programmes. The new cabinet is breaking with that approach, but it is unclear what will happen in the future. The cold truth: whether there are more or fewer international students is likely to have a much greater impact on higher education than any change to the funding system.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\n

4. The role of administrators<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The authors of the KNAW analysis write that the funding system has \u201cadverse effects\u201d for programmes with many slow-progress students or dual-enrolled students, as these students do not generate additional funding. Small programmes would also struggle under the current system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this can be nuanced. No matter how flawed the system is, institutions ultimately receive a single large sum, which they can then allocate across their programmes themselves. There is therefore a buffer between the government and the programmes: the executive board of the university or university of applied sciences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Administrators can decide, for example, to allocate enough funding to a large programme to keep a few small but important programmes running. Or they can choose to close a small programme, even if politicians consider that a shame.<\/p>\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t

Will this change?<\/em> <\/strong>Politics has shown that, for example, a Frisian chair can be arranged \u2013 there is now a separate budget for it. But should every small programme be defended individually in the House of Representatives? No one has time for that. It is quite possible that the new cabinet will set up a \u201csmall programmes\u201d committee to decide on such matters nationally.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\n

5. The goal was growth<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The KNAW raises the question of what purpose the funding system actually serves. Originally, the aim was to get many more people into higher education, both from the Netherlands and abroad. In that context, a system that encourages growth makes quite a bit of sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t

Will this goal change?<\/strong> <\/em>Growth is no longer the only priority in politics. \u201cHigher\u201d is not always better \u2013 that is the new mantra. During his time as D66 Minister of Education, former KNAW president Robbert Dijkgraaf introduced the \u201cfan\u201d idea: vocational education (mbo), universities of applied sciences (hbo), and universities (wo) do not form a ladder, but a fan. One is not superior to the other. The Netherlands also needs many skilled workers from vocational education.<\/p>\n

It seems only a matter of time before this \u201cfan\u201d concept affects higher education funding. Politics may want to take a stronger role here: how many theoretically trained graduates do we actually need? Perhaps, in exchange for more stable funding, maximum student numbers could be set for various programmes, as is currently the case for degrees like medicine.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\n

6. Accessibility and selection<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Paying for a certain \u201ccapacity\u201d of students? Universities are somewhat in favour of so-called \u201ccapacity-based funding\u201d or \u201cmission-based funding\u201d, even though it has not yet been fully developed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We will have to wait for the final advice, but the KNAW is currently less enthusiastic. In the Netherlands, anyone with a havo or vwo diploma can enrol in higher vocational education (hbo) or university (wo). Introducing a maximum would require large-scale selection. In the United Kingdom, this is normal, meaning a portion of young people each year cannot find a place. A previous working group already described<\/a> this as \u201cundesirable\u201d, the KNAW notes.<\/p>\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t

Will accessibility change?<\/strong><\/em> In politics, there are strong proponents of selection in higher education, while others warn of unequal opportunities. This will undoubtedly play a role: who will be allowed to study in the future and who will not? And how much funding will be available then? There is still a long way to go before a decision is made on this.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\n

7. Workload<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

At universities, as well as at universities of applied sciences, workload is a problem. Early-career researchers in particular often move from one temporary contract to another and have to compete for research grants. But even experienced researchers spend a lot of time writing research proposals, the vast majority of which are rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t

Will politicians change this?<\/em><\/strong> Most grants are distributed by the research funding organisation NWO. Politics is unlikely to interfere much: it is a way to allocate money to the \u201cbest\u201d researchers or the most \u201crelevant\u201d topics. That is likely to remain the case. In fact, politicians repeatedly create a science agenda, key area, top sector, or growth fund, directing temporary funding accordingly.<\/p>\n

Moreover, science is a kind of pyramid: there are few positions at the top, so many researchers have to work extremely hard to reach it. This is also unlikely to change under a new system.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\n

8. Auton<\/strong>omy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Who holds the power? The core issue is not only how much money should go to higher education and research, but also who decides how it is distributed. At present, that responsibility lies, in principle, with the institution\u2019s executive board.<\/p>\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t

Will politicians change this?<\/strong><\/em> The government is always tinkering with the autonomy of higher education, for better or worse. Time and again, it wants to impose new rules, for example that students should graduate faster (slow-progress penalty) or that collaboration is important (sector plans).<\/p>\n

Stable funding sounds appealing, but what is the trade-off? Will the government increasingly dictate what institutions must do? That is a real possibility.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Read more<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t