Author:   H. Polianovkyi, PhD Student, ORCID iD 0000-0001-5664-7207,
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine

The article focuses on a specific reform in the Ukrainian higher education sector that has taken place in recent years. The
reform is aimed at changing the funding model for higher education institutions. The previous outdated Soviet-era funding
model inherited by Ukraine in the 90s has been criticized greatly in the last decades. Hence, the current implementation of
performance-based funding in Ukraine is considered a significant move toward better public sector management. This paper
starts with an overview of existing funding models in the higher education sector, analyzing their advantages and
disadvantages. Then it examines current trends in change of funding mechanisms in the higher education sector.

Finally, it discovers a considerable reshaping of the higher education funding in Ukraine that has shifted from the Soviet-era funding
mechanism to modern performance-based funding. The reform is a logical consequence of a broader international reform
agenda of higher education funding and adherence of Ukraine to the European path. The reform in the Ukrainian higher
education system resulted from new liberal economic and political agenda that replaced Soviet-era ideas, combined with the
impact of European Union accession conditions. Therefore, the Ukrainian higher education system, as well as the other
Ukrainian public sector systems, should be harmonized with European Union’s recommendations. Currently, it is difficult to
reach a definitive conclusion on whether the PBF is a sufficient mechanism for funding higher education sector or not. To obtain
a complete picture, it is crucial to analyze the PBF in different contexts. Despite the debatable nature of performance-based
funding, no funding model can fit all contexts and institutional landscapes. Hence, it may always be essential to adjust and
keep a funding mechanism up to date by the institutional demands and modern trends and analyze the intended and unintended
effects of evolving funding mechanisms, particularly in the post-Soviet landscape because it is recognized as a new call for
researchers in examining higher education sector reforms.

Keywords:   higher education sector, higher education funding, performance-based funding, reforming higher education
funding, Ukraine.

Received: 19/04/2022
1st Revision: 02/05/2022
Accepted: 20/05/2022


1. Dobbins, M. and Knill, C., 2014. Higher education governance and policy change in Western Europe: International challenges to historical institutions. Springer.
2. Frost, J., Hattke, F. and Reihlen, M., 2016. Multi-level governance in universities: Strategy, structure, control. In Multi-Level Governance in Universities (pp. 1-15). Springer, Cham.
3. Gornitzka, Å. and Maassen, P., 2000. Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European higher education. Higher education policy, 13(3),
4. Pollitt, C., 2009. Bureaucracies remember, post‐bureaucratic organizations forget?. Public Administration, 87(2), pp.198-218.
5. Deem, R., 2001. Globalisation, New Managerialism, Academic Capitalism and Entrepreneurialism in Universities: is the local dimension still important?. Comparative education, 37(1), pp.7-20.
6. Hood, C., 1991. A public management for all seasons?. Public administration, 69(1), pp.3-19.
7. Jongbloed, B. and Vossensteyn, H., 2016. University funding and student funding: International comparisons. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
32(4), pp.576-595.
8. Estermann, T., Pruvot, E.B. and Claeys-Kulik, A.L., 2013. Designing strategies for efficient funding of higher education in Europe. DEFINE interim
9. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament No. 2011/0567 supporting growth and jobs – an agenda for the modernisation
of Europe’s higher education systems. [Online]. [Accessed 01 February 2022]. Available at:
celex %3A52011DC0567
10. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament No.2017/0247 on a renewed EU agenda for higher education. [Online].
[Accessed 01 February 2022]. Available at: %3A52017DC0247
11. Kärreman, D., Sveningsson, S. and Alvesson, M., 2002. The return of the machine bureaucracy?-Management control in the work settings of professionals. International Studies of Management & Organization, 32(2), pp.70-92.
12. Dako Dakowska, D. and Harmsen, R., 2015. Laboratories of reform? The Europeanization and internationalization of higher education in Central
and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(1), pp.4-17.
13. Hlib, P., Zatonatska, T. and Liutyi, I., 2019, December. Utilization of Information Technologies in Higher Education. In 2019 IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Trends in Information Theory (ATIT) (pp. 349-354). IEEE.
14. Lepori, B., Benninghoff, M., Jongbloed, B., Salerno, C. and Slipersaeter, S., 2007. Changing models and patterns of higher education funding:
Some empirical evidence. Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Specialization and performance in Europe, pp.85-111.
15. OECD, UIS, Eurostat, 2021. Table C3.1. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes. [Online]. [Accessed 01 February
2022]. Available at:
16. Jongbloed, B., 2008. Funding higher education: a view from Europe. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, p.6.
17. Pruvot, E.B., Claeys-Kulik, A.L. and Estermann, T., 2015. Strategies for efficient funding of universities in Europe. In The European Higher Education Area (pp. 153-168). Springer, Cham.
18. Curristine, T., Lonti, Z. and Joumard, I., 2007. Improving public sector efficiency: Challenges and opportunities. OECD journal on budgeting,
7(1), pp.1-41.
19. Salmi, J. and Hauptman, A., 2006. Resource allocation mechanisms in tertiary education: A typology and an assessment.
20. Budding, T., Grossi, G. and Tagesson, T. eds., 2014. Public sector accounting. Routledge.
21. Archer, L., Hutchings, M. and Ross, A., 2002. Higher education and social class. RoutledgeFalmer.
22. World Bank. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management, 1998. Public expenditure management handbook. World Bank Publications.
23. Jongbloed, B., 2001. Performance-based Funding in Higher Education: an international survey. Clayton, Australia: CEET, Monash University.
24. Burke, J.C., 2002. Funding public colleges and universities for performance: Popularity, problems, and prospects. SUNY Press.
25. Curristine, T., 2006. Performance information in the budget process: Results of the OECD 2005 questionnaire. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2),
26. Joyce, P.G., Kamensky, J.M. and Morales, A., 2003. Linking performance and budgeting: Opportunities in the federal budget process. Integrating
performance and budgets: The budget office of tomorrow.
27. Edgar, F. and Geare, A., 2013. Factors influencing university research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), pp.774-792.
28. Barnetson, B. and Cutright, M., 2000. Performance indicators as conceptual technologies. Higher education, 40(3), pp.277-292.
29. Auranen, O. and Nieminen, M., 2010. University research funding and publication performance – an international comparison. Research policy,
39(6), pp.822-834.
30. Koelman, J. and Venniker, R., 2001. Public funding of academic research: the Research Assessment Exercise of the UK. Higher education reform:
Getting the incentives right, pp.101-117.
31. Kivistö, J. and Kohtamäki, V., 2016. Does Performance-Based Funding Work?: Reviewing the Impacts of Performance-Based Funding on Higher Education Institutions. In positioning higher education institutions (pp. 215-226). Brill Sense.
32. Hillman, N.W., Tandberg, D.A. and Fryar, A.H., 2015. Evaluating the impacts of “new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), pp.501-519.
33. Hillman, N.W., Tandberg, D.A. and Gross, J.P., 2014. Performance funding in higher education: Do financial incentives impact college completions? The journal of higher education, 85(6), pp.826-857.
34. Dougherty, K.J. and Reddy, V.T., 2011. The impacts of state performance funding systems on higher education institutions: Research literature
review and policy recommendations.
35. Kall Kallio, K.M., Kallio, T.J. and Grossi, G., 2017. Performance measurement in universities: Ambiguities in the use of quality versus quantity
in performance indicators. Public Money & Management, 37(4), pp.293-300.
36. Frølich, N., Schmidt, E.K. and Rosa, M.J., 2010. Funding systems for higher education and their impacts on institutional strategies and academia:
A comparative perspective. International Journal of Educational Management.
37. Kallio, K.M. and Kallio, T.J., 2014. Management-by-results and performance measurement in universities–implications for work motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), pp.574-589.
38. Jongbloed, B., Kaiser, F., Vught, F.V. and Westerheijden, D.F., 2018. Performance agreements in higher education: A new approach to
higher education funding. In European higher education area: The impact of past and future policies (pp. 671-687). Springer, Cham.
39. Van Vught, F., 2008. Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), pp.151-174.
40. Parker, L.D., 2012. From privatised to hybrid-corporatised higher education: A global financial management discourse. Financial Accountability & Management, 28(3), pp.247-268.
41. Athena, 2015. University Autonomy in Ukraine: Analysis & Roadmap 2012–2015. [Online]. [Accessed 01 February 2022]. Available
at: %20analysis %20and %20roadmap %20for %20UKRAINE.pdf.
42. Degtyarova, I., Hryhorash, O. and Chentsov, V., 2018. The mechanism of higher education funding in Ukraine: nationwide and local perspective.
Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 15(3), pp.223-236.
43. Stadny, Y., 2016. Conceptual Model of Performance-Based Funding of Higher Education Institutions in Ukraine. [Online]. [Accessed 01 February
2022]. Available at:
44. Bogolib, T., 2016. The role of the state in creating world-class universities. University Economic Bulletin, (28/1), 15-26.
45. Liutyi, I., Beliavskaiya, O. and Polianovskyi, H., 2020. Financial autonomy of universities: a historical overview and international experience. Scientific Notes of Ostroh Academy National University,” Economics” Series, (18 (46)), pp.68-78.
46. Polianovskyi, H., 2019. Strategic Guidelines to Improve the Financing of State Higher Education Institutions in Ukraine. Business Inform,
(5 (496)).
47. Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1146 on the distribution of state budget expenditures between higher education institutions
on the basis of indicators of their educational, scientific and international activities. [Online]. [Accessed 01 February 2022]. Available at: %D0 %BF#n18
48. Suspitsin, D., 2007. Between the state and the market: sources of sponsorship and legitimacy in Russian nonstate higher education. In Private
higher education in post-communist Europe (pp. 157-178). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.