This text has been translated from Norwegian with the assistance of GPT UiO.
As many are aware, the Ministry of Education and Research amended its funding model for universities and colleges in 2023, effective from 2025. In October 2024, the university board followed up by adopting an adjusted allocation model for the University of Oslo (UiO), which will apply from the 2026 distribution onwards. Consequently, it was natural for the faculty to review its own allocation model, and just before Christmas 2024, the dean appointed a working group tasked with drafting a proposal for an adjusted allocation model for the Faculty of Social Sciences.
The working group's mandate was to devise a proposal for an allocation model that was incentive-driven and took into account the ministry's and UiO's desire for students to earn even more credits. Further stipulations of the mandate included ensuring predictability in financial conditions at the basic units, simplicity, transparency, and flexibility to accommodate new initiatives. Crucially, the model should also continue the principle of framework management, meaning our departments and centres would remain responsible for prioritising resources within the allocated funds, based on guidance from the faculty and directives from UiO.
The working group received input from heads of departments and office managers through several rounds, and a preliminary draft was discussed at the faculty board meeting in June this year. The working group delivered a consensus proposal for a new model ahead of the faculty board meeting, and the faculty board chose to adopt this proposal. At the same meeting, the faculty board decided on the 2026 allocation for departments and centres, as well as common services and faculty administration, in accordance with the new model.
The faculty's previous allocation model closely mirrored the former UiO model, and the new faculty allocation model similarly aligns with the new UiO model. UiO introduced the new model in a budget-neutral manner, meaning the introduction of the new model should not inherently have redistributive effects. Likewise, the faculty's model is introduced in a budget-neutral way, ensuring the introduction of the new allocation model at the faculty itself won't have redistributive consequences. This is addressed via an adjustment mechanism.
The faculty has several common services, which, along with the faculty administration and faculty board initiatives, will continue to be funded by withholding an equivalent amount from UiO's grant. Another important aspect retained in the new allocation model is that all revenue types (both external revenue and UiO grants) contribute proportionately to the funding of our common services. The faculty has been successful with applications for externally funded research projects, and external funding is crucial for the overall academic activities at the faculty. However, external revenues also draw on common services and faculty administration, and therefore ought to contribute to funding these services.
The grant provided by UiO to the faculty is divided into basic funds, results, and initiatives, and the faculty's new model incorporates the same result indicators as the UiO model, specifically credits, PhDs, and research funding from the EU. The basic units capable of encouraging students to take more exams and thereby increase credit production will receive increased funding in the future. Similarly, units that boost the number of completed PhDs and/or secure more research funding from the EU will also see increased allocation. Conversely, reductions in credits, PhDs, or research funding from the EU will lead to decreased funding. The faculty model continues to use 100% of the rates employed by UiO to determine the financial implications of changes in credits, PhDs, and research funding from the EU. This means a unit that, for instance, increases credit production or PhD numbers retains the entire benefit of such an increase. Conversely, a unit where credit production or PhD numbers decrease bears all the costs of this reduction. Recognising that there are fluctuations in all outcomes, the model uses three-year averages to calculate the basic units' result revenues. This approach mitigates the risk of substantial economic impacts due to fluctuations and random variations, fostering greater stability and predictability at the department and centre level, while maintaining incentives effectively.
The faculty's basic allocation is the portion of funding left after earmarked allocations and the basic units' result revenues have been distributed. While the previous basic allocation for our faculty was specified in terms of study place income under various funding categories and funds for recruitment positions, the basic allocation now arrives as an unspecified cash amount. This underscores the considerable degree of autonomy the faculty and basic units have in utilising the allocation.
How will the basic allocation be distributed under the new model? The answer is that it will be distributed according to a fixed percentage or distribution key, where the basis for this key is the programme admission quotas (as per the previous funding categories), recruitment positions, and the accrued outcomes on result indicators that are no longer part of the UiO model (exchange students, graduated candidates, Research Council of Norway revenue, other externally funded project revenue, and publication points). The old faculty model employed admission quotas as a primary factor, and the new model therefore takes into account a broader aspect of academic activity in allocating the basic funding to the basic units, and hence in their dimensioning, than the previous model did.
The faculty board wishes for the new allocation model to be evaluated within five years at the latest. If unintended consequences are discovered, adjustments can be made before five years have passed. I hope and believe that the faculty's new allocation model strikes a good balance between ensuring stability and encouraging excellent results.