The Ministry of Education and Research has launched a plan to reform the way higher education and research are funded in Estonia, moving from a project-based system toward more stable block funding. According to Deputy Secretary General Renno Veinthal, the current system is too fragmented across different instruments, which limits the state's ability to steer strategically and places a heavy administrative burden on universities.

Under the proposed model, funding for teaching, research and strategic development would be combined into a single institutional grant. The goal is to create a more stable system in which researchers' work would not rely so heavily on ad hoc project grants. According to Veinthal, funding gaps currently have a direct impact on working conditions for researchers and hinder the implementation of long-term plans.

Recommendations of the Estonian Academy of Sciences

The Academy of Sciences' Committee on Science and Higher Education reviewed the ministry's plans and issued eight key recommendations aimed at mitigating risks. First, the committee advises moving from a fragmented system toward integrated block funding that would combine teaching, research and strategic financing. This would enable stronger strategic governance and reinforce the substantive link between teaching and research.

However, as its second recommendation, the committee strongly emphasized that implementing the new model must not be limited to reallocating existing resources; it must include a real increase in funding. Without additional funds, the reform could intensify competition between institutions, turning it into a zero-sum game where one university's gain becomes another's loss. In such a scenario, the state's strategic goals may ultimately prove unattainable.

Third, the committee stressed the importance of designing the funding system with at least a 10-year perspective. Frequent, poorly planned changes create uncertainty. Fourth, the system should increase universities' autonomy in setting internal priorities and reduce their administrative burden. The national model should provide only a general framework, within which universities can use simpler and more stable allocation mechanisms.

Fifth, the committee advises against overemphasizing quantitative indicators such as graduation speed and the number of publications. Disciplinary differences must be taken into account to ensure that the humanities, social sciences and creative fields are not placed at a disadvantage.

As a sixth point, the committee underlined the need to reduce the instability caused by project-based funding and to increase the share of base funding. This is essential for career security, academic continuity and the pursuit of long-term scientific goals.

The committee also highlighted the national responsibilities universities often fulfill. These include managing research libraries, museums and nationally significant data collections — functions that cannot be measured by standard performance indicators and require dedicated funding.

In light of these concerns, the committee recommends that the reform not be rushed and that sufficient time be taken for meaningful discussions. The preparation process should involve all stakeholders systematically — including universities, research institutions and students — to prevent unintended side effects and reduce implementation risks. However, under the current timeline, the ministry aims to bring the draft legislation to the Riigikogu in the first half of the new year.

The cautionary example of Finland

The experiences of neighboring countries have played a key role in discussions around the reform. Kaarle Hämeri, chancellor of the University of Helsinki, presented the Finnish model to the committee where funding is largely tied to measurable outcomes, such as the number of degrees awarded and scientific publications produced.

While Finland's system has improved efficiency, it also has drawbacks. Hämeri acknowledged that because the overall funding pool is fixed, the model functions as a zero-sum game — one university's success comes at the relative expense of others. He also noted that the model is vulnerable to political influence through strategic funding, which the government can allocate based on regional or political considerations.

The committee stressed the importance of learning from neighboring countries' experiences and avoiding a situation where excessive emphasis on performance metrics begins to limit university autonomy or jeopardize the sustainability of certain research fields.

The Academy of Sciences' Committee on Science and Higher Education includes not only members of the academy but also representatives from institutions and organizations connected to the sector. Among them are the Ministry of Education and Research, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, the Riigikogu Cultural Affairs Committee, the Rectors' Conference and the Estonian Research Council. The committee also includes representatives from the Estonian Young Academy of Sciences and the private sector.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!