Performance agreements for clearer institutional profiles and better division of labour

  • Ingvild Marheim LarsenEmail author
  • Mai-Lin Hofsøy
  • Zheng Ørvim Yuan
  • Petter Aasen
Original Paper


Performance agreements in higher education are seen as a promising steering tool in many countries, including Norway. The aims of the performance agreements in Norwegian higher education are to enhance quality and diversity through clearer institutional profiles and better division of labour between institutions. An expert group that carried out an assessment of the funding system recommended the Norwegian Ministry of Education & Research to implement institutional multi-year performance agreements to enhance quality, diversity and cooperation. In 2016–17 the Ministry implemented an incremental process covering initially five plus other five pilot institutions. This article gives an overview of the context, process and framework of performance agreements at the national level as well as how this new steering tool is being handled in one of the pilot institutions. It focuses on the implementation process and is based on qualitative observations and written communication between the Ministry and the pilot institutions. Although, it is still too early to evaluate the results and the impact of performance agreements in Norwegian higher education, the experience so far indicates that it seems to be possible through negotiations between the Ministry and the institutions to strengthen the institutional profile by prioritizing goals and measures. The content in the pilot agreements differ and no obligatory indicators are part of the agreements. The incremental implementation process has limited the discussion on complementarity. Even though actions towards the division of labour between institutions are an important part of some of the agreements, this seems to be a more challenging task than profiling.


Diversity Governance Higher education policy/development Institutional performance measures Strategic planning 



  1. Binderkrantz, A. S., & Christensen, J. G. (2009). Governing Danish Agencies by Contract: From Negotiated Freedom to the Shadow of Hierarchy. Journal of Public Policy, 29, 55–78. Scholar
  2. Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Bouckaert, G., Peters G., & Verhoest, K. (2010). The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations. Shifting Patterns of Public Management. Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
  4. de Boer, H., & Jongbloed, B. (2014). Reflections on performance agreements in higher education. Report for the Expert Group of the Ministry of Education and Research in Norway. Twente, the Netherlands: CHEPS..Google Scholar
  5. de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Benneworth, P., Cremonini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A., Lemmens-Krug, K., & Vossensteyn, H. (2015). Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems. Twente: CHEPS .Google Scholar
  6. Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2017). Higher education governance in France, Germany and Italy: Change and variation in the impact of transnational soft governance. Policy and Society, 36(1).
  7. Elken, M., Frølich, N., & Reymert, I. (2016). Steering approaches in higher education. Comparing Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and UK (England). Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU) Report 2016:35.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission (2011). Supporting growth and jobs – an agenda for the modernisation of Europe's higher education systems. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions. Brussels, 20.9.2011.Google Scholar
  9. Goedegebuure, L. C. J., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P. A. M., Meek, V. L., van Vught, F. A., & de Weert, E. (1994). International perspectives on trends and issues in higher education policy. In L. C. J. Goedegebuure, F. Kaiser, P. A. M. Maassen, V. L. Meek, F. A. van Vught, & E. de Weert (Eds.), Higher Education Policy. An International Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hægeland, T., Ervik, A. O., Foss Hansen, H., Hervik, A., Lommerud, K. E., Ringdal, O., Sahlin, K., Steinveg, B. E., & Stensaker, B. (2015). Finansiering for kvalitet, mangfold og samspill. Nytt finansieringssystem for universiteter og høyskoler. Forslag fra ekspertgruppe oppnevnt av Kunnskapsdepartementet 8. april 2014..Google Scholar
  11. Hanssen, G. S., Mydske, P. K., & Dahle, E. (2013). Multi-level coordination of climate change adaption: by national hierarchical steering or by regional network governance? Local environment, 18(8), 869–887. Scholar
  12. Hood, C. (1983). The tools of government. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huisman, J. (1998). Differentiation and diversity in higher education systems in Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Huisman, J., Meek, L., & Wood, F. (2007). Institutional diversity in higher education: a cross-national and longitudinal analysis. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(4), 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jongbloed, B., Kaiser, F., van Vught, F., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2018). Performance Agreements in Higher Education: A New Approach to Higher Education Funding. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies (pp. 671–687). Scholar
  16. Kyvik, S. & Lepori, B. (2010): The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions outside the University Sector. Higher Education Dynamics, 31.Google Scholar
  17. Maassen, P., & Olsen, J. P. (Eds.). (2007). University dynamics and European integration. Dordrecht: Spinger.Google Scholar
  18. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, L., & Huisman, J. (2000). Understanding diversity and differentiation in higher education: an overview, Higher Education Policy, 13.Google Scholar
  19. OECD (2017). Reviews of Innovation Policy: Norway.Google Scholar
  20. Olsen, J. P. (2002). Konstitusjonsdebatt og reformer: Europeiske eksperimenter og norsk nøling (Constitutional 16 debate and reforms: European experiments and Norwegian hesitation). Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift, 18, 91–116.Google Scholar
  21. Prøitz, T., & Aasen, P. (2017). Making and Re-making the Nordic Model of Education. In P. Nedergaard & A. Wivel (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Scandinavian Politics. London: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Reichert, S. (2009). Institutional Diversity in European Higher Education: Tensions and Challenges for Policy Makers and Institutional Leaders. Brussels: EAU.Google Scholar
  23. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games Real Actors Play: Actor-centered Institutionalism In Policy Research, Boulder (Colo) by Westview press.Google Scholar
  24. Trow, M. (1979). Elite and mass higher education: American models and European realities. Research into Higher Education: Process and Structures. Stockholm: National Board of Universities and Colleges.Google Scholar
  25. van Vught, F. (2009). Diversity and Differentiation in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics, 1–16.Google Scholar
  26. White Paper (Meld. St. 18 (2014–2015)). Konsentrasjon for kvalitet — Strukturreform i universitets- og høyskolesektoren. Kunnskapsdepartementet.Google Scholar
  27. White Paper (Meld. St. 7 (2014–2015)). Long-term plan for research and higher education 2015–2024, Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.Google Scholar
  28. White Paper (Meld. St. 25 (2016–2017). The Humanities in Norway, Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research Summary in English.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Higher Education Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Ministry of Education & ResearchOsloNorway
  2. 2.University of South-Eastern NorwayKongsbergNorway

Personalised recommendations