Employee funds  were used in the early 1990s when two higher education institutions, Jönköping University and Chalmers University of Technology, were transformed into foundations. The issue was then examined as part of the Alliance government’s reform agenda around 2010. After a largely negative consultation process, none of the proposals put forward at the time to create a special form of authority for higher education institutions were implemented. It was back again in the mid-2010s, but then the proposals for the transformation of foundations were not even put out to consultation, but were scrapped after an internal departmental review.

Here we are in 2025 and the government, this time with a liberal education minister, is again launching an inquiry into the governance of higher education institutions. It is not really clear what direction the government has in mind, nor is it clear whether there are any particular challenges or problems that the inquiry should focus on this time.

But the inquiry is important. We need to get out of the sometimes overly restrictive clothes we are wearing now. This can include regulations for government agencies that bind us in ways that are not appropriate, and difficulties in acting fully in academic collaborations, nationally and internationally. So I thought I would take the liberty of suggesting some possible directions for the forthcoming inquiry.

An important starting point might be that not all higher education institutions need to change in the same way at the same time. Let us say that the government takes this opportunity to clearly articulate the different roles and missions of different institutions in the higher education landscape, which may require different forms of association. The most important thing is not to automatically assume that ‘one size fits all’, but to seriously try to link the form of association to the role in the higher education landscape and for Sweden.

There should also be money involved. We are talking about much more than a few billion kronor, but from the government’s point of view it is not a cost but an investment in the foundation’s balance sheet, which the institution must manage while maintaining its purchasing power.

Inspiration may be found in Finland, where higher education institutions received so-called matching funds in their foundations: for every euro the university received in donations, the state added a few euros to the university’s endowment. A new form of authority could also be a way of dismantling our model for the provision of premises, for example by transferring the property portfolio to foundations or companies controlled by the university.

Finally, I hope that the inquiry will be conducted in interaction and perhaps cooperation with both higher education institutions and political representatives. If there are good ideas, it would be good if they were discussed widely and intensively along the way, rather than having a consultation round that effectively kills any ambitions for change, because we need change.

Before Christmas, the newspaper Dagens Industri started a series of articles on this topic. Under the headline “Researcher drain hits industry hard”, the article discusses the fact that many doctoral students at Swedish universities come from other countries and move abroad after graduation. This is known as the ‘brain drain’ and the consequence is that Swedish industry has less access to qualified, research-trained personnel.

 In 2023, there were 17,500 doctoral students in Sweden, 36 percent of whom will be from other countries, compared to 13 percent in 2000. In engineering, the figures are 54 and 18 percent respectively. The trend is clear. Doctoral education has become much more international in the 2000’s, as have other categories of performance and student groups. Since the total number of doctoral students is now about the same as it was 20 years ago, this means that the number of Swedish doctoral students has fallen by the same amount.

We also know that many foreign doctoral students leave Sweden after their studies. Among those who graduated in 2010, 38 percent remained in Sweden three years after graduation. Among those who graduated in 2015, the figure was 54 percent. The proportion staying has therefore increased. All figures are taken from UKÄ’s reports or statistical database.

It is easy to conclude that the supply of doctoral graduates in Sweden has decreased in line with increased internationalization. It is then natural to question internationalization as such, not least because doctoral education in Sweden is paid for by the taxpayer. Moreover, the times are such that internationalization can be seen as a problem for many different reasons.

So let me take the opposite view. Internationalization is essential if we want to maintain research of the highest quality, and it is only natural that graduates from Swedish universities seek careers both in Sweden and abroad. It becomes a problem when graduates in other countries do not see Sweden as a possible country for further careers. If Sweden only ‘exports’ skills to other countries, but is not able to ‘import’ graduates from other countries, internationalization will be one-sided and problematic for the Swedish supply of skills.

I have not seen any figures that shed light on the situation on the labour market in general, but I would like to rephrase the basic question: It is not just a question of how many people graduate from Swedish universities and then choose to stay and work in Sweden, but also how many people with doctorates work in the Swedish labour market, how this number has developed over time, how many people who come have Swedish or foreign doctorates, and how this corresponds to the needs of the labour market.

Questions about the attractiveness of the Swedish labour market and how easy or difficult it is to establish oneself in the Swedish labour market are therefore questions that should be included if the discussion about the ‘brain drain’ is to be used as a basis for change and measures.Such measures should therefore be aimed at strengthening the attractiveness of the Swedish labour market, regardless of where the doctoral degree was obtained.

This includes a basic understanding that the solution to the problems of supplying doctoral graduates is not less internationalization, but a better ability to attract talent in an international or global competition.

From time to time, attention is also drawn to the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems. The question is whether the resources spent on control are commensurate with what is achieved in terms of improved quality or resource efficiency.

In addition to the activities to be carried out within each authority, the state also wants to achieve general objectives related to things like environmental sustainability, gender equality, permanent archive management, zero tolerance of victimisation or discrimination, GDPR, security protection, etc. These are all legitimate objectives and, for one reason or another, necessary values to uphold.

In recent years, the consequences of this layered governance have been problematized, including in reports by the SUHF. In addition, the relevant minister has expressed ambitions to reduce bureaucratic micromanagement, and the Swedish Agency for Public Management has consequently been tasked with examining the consequences for higher education institutions in particular.

In addition to the control, oversight or audit mechanisms that result from the above, each authority, including universities, needs to ensure that the organisation makes decisions in the right way, deals with different issues in a legally sound way, or ensures that different requirements are dealt with in accordance with the applicable regulations. This gives rise to policies, procedures and other governing documents that either refine externally imposed requirements or add new locally defined requirements.

The SUHF report published earlier this year by Ahlbäck Öberg and Boberg states on the last page that “…university managers should take greater responsibility for pointing out the excessive demands that the current state control entails, and that they should also ensure that their own university is not overburdened with administrative tasks that crowd out core activities.

In other words, it is high time to do two things.

First, the overburdening of universities in the form of burdens, controls and requirements of all kinds needs to be recognised (and reduced). When all is said and done, the result is not a more efficient operation with higher quality, but a heavier bureaucracy that risks reducing the amount of resources that actually go to core activities. This is wrong!

Second, the universities themselves need to look at how governance is organised.

What needs to be governed should be governed in a sensible way. Where things need to be done equally, they should be done equally. But there are also times when the level of detail in governance is too high, and the arrangements that are decided locally become overly complicated and resource-intensive, and tend to contribute to more bureaucracy rather than more quality in the organisation. This is also wrong!

Removing a rule, reducing the level of detail or cutting back on reporting also means that there is confidence that the organization is doing the right thing.

Our staff work hard to apply for money, follow up and report on grants to a variety of funders with different requirements for follow-up, different rules for how the money can be used, different rules for covering overheads and requirements for co-financing. We are good at this!

However, a challenging consequence of the funding system is that it is difficult for universities to be really good employers. Although we know with a fair degree of certainty that funding will come to the university through external funders, it is difficult to know in advance exactly what we will be funded for and on what terms.

At the same time, there is a strong expectation that universities will provide secure conditions and predictable career paths for our academic staff. In other words, the combination of a lot of sometimes short-term external funding and the need for long-term favourable conditions for our academic staff is not the easiest to solve.

During the year, KTH has investigated how we should structure our career system and also how different categories of academic employment outside the career system should be described.

The aim is to be able to offer clear conditions for all our academic positions and to take long-term financial responsibility for the positions we offer. Not everyone can have everything, but everyone can know what applies to the category to which they belong.

Universities also offer a large number of fixed-term positions in the form of PhD studentships, post-docs and assistant professorships. It is generally accepted that academic careers are built on such positions, which eventually lead to tenure. However, even with fixed-term contracts, it is important that the terms and conditions are clear.

Universities have a great deal of freedom in shaping the career system, although there are some legal and regulatory constraints. This freedom also brings with it a great deal of responsibility and, as I said, the somewhat challenging question of how to combine a high proportion of external funding with secure and predictable employment conditions. One of KTH’s goals is to create an attractive, inclusive and equal working environment. The career system is an important part of achieving this.

But at the same time, there are both possible and necessary actions to reverse the trend, where investment in research, innovation and new technologies can form the basis for a future leading position for Europe.

According to the Draghi report published in September, Europe’s competitiveness situation is precarious.

Increasing the pace of innovation, lowering energy prices and reducing dependency in an unstable environment are key elements of the analysis. It calls for strong investment in innovation and new technologies, as well as a reform of the EU’s Horizon Europe research programme, which runs until 2027.

Among other things, it is proposed that the research programme should focus on fewer areas and prioritise them, better coordinate research and development investments through a common Research and Innovation Union, and improve funding and facilitate start-ups and scale-ups in the European market.

Another proposal mentioned in a report on the EU’s market published this spring is for a fifth freedom, i.e. in addition to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people, the freedom to conduct research, knowledge, innovation and education across borders.

This is also highlighted as an important way to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness in the report of the European Commission’s Expert Group for the Evaluation of EU Research Programme. Sykvia Schwaag Serger, Professor and CEO of IVA, is the lead author.

The report proposes a number of measures, including doubling the budget for future EU research programmes to €220 billion over seven years.

The report’s authors also call for a “coherent chain” that supports research and innovation results at every stage, from early research to market introduction, so that good ideas can be brought to market more quickly. In an opinion piece, they write: “Strengthening the EU Framework Programme is, in our view, the best investment we can make in the future of our continent, for competitiveness, for security and for sustainability”.

At the European level, KTH is part of the CESAER network, which focused on these issues at its recent meeting in Glasgow. The network brings together some 50 technical universities from 26 countries to discuss how our part of society can best contribute. It was clear from these discussions that the picture painted by Draghi and others is shared by many countries and universities. It is crucial that European programmes are based on this kind of analysis and are able to prioritise research and innovation.

But how can KTH contribute specifically and how can Sweden’s space and contribution to a strong Europe be formulated?

First and foremost, some muscle is needed at the national level to be able to coordinate coordinated investments in cutting-edge research and innovation in selected critical technology areas. Hopefully, future legislation and government initiatives will learn from the many recent policy reports.

Larger, coherent and long-term initiatives would be preferable to many small and scattered ones. A concerted use of different instruments is needed, from graduate schools and research infrastructure to venture capital and scale-up opportunities for new technologies.

As one of Europe’s leading higher education institutions, we are not only important for Sweden and Europe to make a change, we are also a necessary part of the conversation about how best to do it.