Kari Raivio
Chancellor

Back to spring issue 2006

The mood within the European political establishment is decidedly gloomy. In the year 2000, the EU heads of state launched the so-called Lisbon strategy, with the goal of becoming the leading knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. Interim high-level evaluation has shown that the goal is getting more distant, since the United States is clearly contributing more to the knowledge base and consequently doing better economically. Furthermore, dynamic Asian economies are catching up on the old continent. European universities, with a few exceptions, have not done well in global rankings, which are dom-inated by American universities.

European leaders have decided upon six priority areas that need to be developed, if Europe is to successfully cope with globalisation and maintain its competitiveness. One of these is universities, the others being innovation, demographic change, energy, migration, and secur-ity. Thus it is clear that high hopes and expectations are placed upon academia, not only to fulfil its traditional mission of research and education, but also to promote economic development through new discoveries and their exploitation. In order to achieve these goals, the higher education system has to be more flexible and responsive, which requires more autonomy and improved leadership. Better collaboration with industry plus an expanded funding base to include private sources are also needed. Universities are expected to compete globally on the higher education and innovation market.

The European Union has a very limit-ed mandate on education and research, which are mainly national responsibil-ities. Thus, in these matters, the EU is playing its usual role of making lofty proclamations and setting targets, which the Member States then fail to achieve. One example is that, with the exception of Sweden and Finland, European countries have not reached the level of spending in research and development, 3% of the gross domestic product, that was jointly agreed.

The competitive edge of American universities is not due to superior intelligence or better training of researchers. It is mainly explained by a huge difference in funding, but also by a more dynamic and competitive atmosphere. Most countries are squeezed by a shrinking tax base and increased demands on their health and social security budgets, caused by an aging population. There is a statistical correlation between national economic performance and public plus private spending on research and development. For most countries, this has not been a sufficiently convincing argument to make them invest more in universities, with exceptions such as Canada, Australia, China, and Singapore.

In Finland, knowledge-based economy and information society have become national catchwords. Industry has accused the university system of being too fragmented, which has led to scattering of resources and poor performance in international comparisons. Several committees and individuals have prepared plans for reform, but state officials and politicians seem content to keep a tight rein on universities, instead of granting them more autonomy and operating flexi-bility. With a pressing need to attract more international teachers and students, Finnish universities will face real difficulties in the global higher education market.

Both at the European and the national level, research and higher education have a huge potential to contribute to economic success and cultural development. Universities are ready to assume the responsibility. They should be granted the freedom and the means to do it.