The immediate and obvious measure would be either to introduce a cost-based rental model and exempt Akademiska Hus from yield requirements, or to return the distributed funds to the higher education sector. However, other measures are also conceivable. When the model was introduced 30 years ago, it was one of many reforms carried out over a few years in the early 1990s with the aim of increasing market governance, commercialisation of public services and deregulation. It was done in a number of areas.

For higher education institutions, we got a strictly market-based model for the provision of premises. This means that commercial property companies own the premises, which are then leased to universities. The market is good, but one concern is that it is only the market at one end of our profit and loss account.

Every business in the city – ICA, Vattenfall, the dry cleaner on the corner, Ericsson, for example – that lives under commercial conditions has to constantly balance its costs and income. If costs spiral out of control, for example due to a sharp increase in premises costs, management must assess whether this can be passed on to customers in the form of higher prices or, alternatively, whether it can be managed to some extent through lower profits or increased internal efficiency.

In the model under which universities operate, costs are spiralling and we are forced to reduce our costs and increase efficiency.
However, we have no influence on the details of the prices we charge our customers. The state, which receives the surplus profits from Akademiska Hus, has full control over the prices we can charge our customers in the form of the per-student price list decided in the budget bill, and these prices do not increase at all in line with costs.

If it is to be a free market, it is conceivable that educational institutions would be given the right to raise prices to compensate for increased costs: it would simply be more expensive for the buyer, in this case the state, to buy education from universities if costs rise sharply.
This is not an unreasonable model if you want a market model for what we do.

The problem now is that there is a market at the end where the costs increase, but government planning at the end where the revenue is generated. And even though it’s the government at both ends, there doesn’t seem to be an understanding that one hand is creating unreasonable consequences that the other hand is not compensating for.

Of course, we would have to maintain the requirements for constant efficiency improvements, but it’s not possible to conjure up the consequences of a nearly 20 percent increase in the cost of premises in two years through efficiency improvements.We just have to raise prices too!

At the same time, given the current geopolitical situation, there is a need for effective border control and rules that prevent permits to study or work in Sweden from being misused for criminal purposes and for illegal immigration into the country and Europe.

Over time, various regulations have been tightened to curb abuse, not least with regard to the rules for study permits. At times, there has been considerable frustration at universities about long processing times, and students have sometimes been unable to obtain residence permits in time for the start of the semester, despite having been admitted.

It is important to ensure that the right students, who have what is known as an intention to study, are properly admitted and can also go through the process of obtaining a residence permit. In recent years, the universities, through the SUHF, and the Swedish Migration Agency have worked intensively to jointly define problems and shortcomings and to address some obvious weaknesses in the system.

Recently, the universities and the Migration Agency have reached an agreement whereby the educational centres undertake to report interruptions in studies to the Migration Agency in a systematic and quality-assured manner. On this basis, the Migration Agency can now issue two-year residence permits to students instead of the previous one-year permits.This will reduce the number of cases and processing times, while giving students greater security during their studies.

This is very positive. At the same time, a number of other measures are being considered to improve opportunities for foreign students and workers. These include measures relating to the higher education sector and more general investigations into the immigration of skilled workers.

Another important area for foreign students is to have a reasonable chance of establishing themselves in the Swedish labour market after their studies. This requires both that companies and organisations recruit talent from this group of graduates and that regulations do not force graduates to leave too quickly.

If Sweden is to manage the supply of skills in the long term, we must be able to attract foreign students and employees to Sweden and not lose talent abroad. This is what internationalisation is all about!This is very positive. At the same time, investigations are under way into several other measures to improve opportunities for foreign students and employees. These include measures affecting the university sector and more generally oriented investigations into skilled labour immigration.

Another important area for foreign students is to have a reasonable opportunity to establish themselves in the Swedish labour market after their studies. This requires both that companies and organisations recruit talent from this group of graduates and that the regulations do not force graduates to leave too quickly.

If Sweden is to manage the supply of skills in the long term, we must be able to attract foreign students and employees to Sweden and not lose talent abroad. This is internationalisation for real!

Trust-based governance is often seen as the antithesis of New Public Management (NPM) as a fundamentally different governance philosophy. I think this is both right and wrong. NPM is about governing by setting goals and measuring results and less by providing detailed definitions of how resources should be used. The warnings perhaps have most to do with the fact that excessive measurement of results can lead to the building up of both a control machinery and detailed management through excessively precise instructions and guidelines.

KTH as a university wants to continue to manage with goals and continue to be able to control results. That is almost self-evident. But in a trust-based system, employees are given a greater degree of independence when it comes to interpreting how work is best organised in individual cases or areas. However, this requires an ability to take a holistic view and a knowledge of what best contributes to the organisation as a whole.

Sometimes it is not appropriate to do things in many different ways. Procedures for security work, for invoicing, for recruitment or for procurement should probably be standardized to a large extent. But at the same time, it is necessary to trust that employees can actually do this in their daily work without overloading the organisation with detailed instructions.

At the same time, the methods of research, the pedagogy in the classroom or online, the way of interacting with business partners, or the skills needs of different research teams can take many different forms.

In other words, work can be carried out in different ways without needing to be managed at a more detailed level as long as we rely on staff to take overall responsibility for the whole and for delivering good results.

The question is whether, for example, it is enough to say that travel should be carried out in a way that minimizes costs and the climate footprint, or whether detailed descriptions are needed of exactly over what distances flights can be allowed and when people can use their own cars instead of public transport?

Is it possible to require research supervisors to have termly conversations with all doctoral students about the progress of the projects relative to learning objectives, etc. without it being documented with more than a note that such a conversation took place. Or do we need to ensure the content of such conversations through checklists of all topics that must be reviewed?

I realize that one can argue for both detailed and more trust-based governance. But, the important thing is that in reviewing our own bureaucracy, we constantly ask whether the level of detail in governance is proportionate to what we are achieving.

Fewer guidelines, less bureaucracy and more trust paired with greater accountability and sense of ownership of the whole. If nothing else, that should be our compass as we build the university for the future.