Non-state Funding

Non-state funding (derde or, if purely charitable, vierde geldstroom) amounts to a little less than a quarter of all research funding for HEIs provided almost equally by the third sector, the private sector and international sources.[1] The importance of such funding has grown over the last decades and government policy encourages the utilisation of these sources and steers collaborations towards government priorities.[2]

With regards to the third sector, it is mainly medical charities that cooperate with HEIs. Many of them have joint forces in the Samenwerkende GezondheidsFondsen (Cooperative Health Funds) which is ‘selecting thematic areas (based on societal needs) and aligning her funding programs with NWO and the Top Sector Life Sciences & Health’.[3] In international funding the EU plays an especially important role, but Dutch researchers are also active in a variety of bilateral collaborations within and beyond the EU. To encourage cross-border collaboration, the NWO has specific funding options.[4]

As in England, collaboration with the private sector can take a variety of forms such as research co-operations between HEIs and the private sector, often taking the institutionalised public-private partnership (PPP) form of one of the collaborative research organisations mentioned above.[5] HEIs also undertake contract research and consultancy work which is sometimes internally rewarded.[6] Exploitation of IPRs has increased in recent years. Whilst HEIs usually own IPRs developed by their employees, in co-operations, it is often the private sector partner who receives IPRs, or they are jointly owned. However, there is no general policy on this and HEIs sometimes let the researcher receive some of the income generated. Some HEIs have recently introduced special ‘valorisation centres’ or technology transfer offices for the exploitation of IPRs and exchange of best practices. Occasionally, IPR valorisation is conducted by private holding companies established by the HEI or an HEI might create spin-offs for the purpose of exploiting IPRs.[7]

Start-ups, whether as IPR related spin-offs or beyond, are usually partly owned by the HEI and often managed through the mentioned technology-transfer units or through holding companies which themselves might also collaborate further with the private sector. To encourage entrepreneurship HEIs increasingly offer courses for staff and students in this respect. HEIs might equally collaborate with the private sector in science parks (also referred to as innovation campuses (innovatiecampussen)). Here, as in England, HEIs, private sector partners and, potentially, other research institutions all work in one geographical location, which is often at least partly owned by the HEI, in order to create synergies and encourage collaboration and entrepreneurship.[8] Finally, there are staff exchanges and more informal ways to collaborate, such as research networks or private sector representatives sitting on supervisory or executive boards of HEIs.[9]

  • [1] Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek 2016. For on overview of the significance of this fundingsource in the different universities see Chiong Meza 2012, p. 14 seq.
  • [2] Braun 2006, p. 6 seq; Becker 2009, p. 159; Jongbloed 2010, pp. 294, 306; Leisyte 2011, pp.439, 441; Chiong Meza 2012, pp. 8, 27; den Hertog et al. 2012, p. 16; Mostert 2012, pp. 12, 19seq; VSNU 2012, p. 24 seq, 89 seq, Rathenau Instituut (n 108) section ‘Policy and structure—Science policy and innovation policy’.
  • [3] Matthijs et al. 2016, p. 43.
  • [4] Chiong Meza 2012, pp. 19, 23, 26 seq; den Hertog et al. 2012, p. 30 seq, 99 seq; Mostert2012, p. 21 seq; Matthijs et al. 2016, p. 50, Rathenau Instituut (n 108) section ‘Investments—Funding and performance of R&D in the Netherlands’, ‘Investments—Government funding ofR&D’.
  • [5] Braun 2006, pp. 6, 10; Jongbloed 2010, p. 307 seq, 323, 327 seq; Leisyte 2011, p. 445;Directie Kennis 2012, p. 106; Mostert 2012, p. 19 seq; VSNU 2012, pp. 25, 91, RathenauInstituut (n 108) section ‘Process—Collaboration in R&D’.
  • [6] Jongbloed 2010, pp. 294, 309, 323 seq; Leisyte 2011, p. 446; Matthijs et al. 2016, p. 18.
  • [7] Jongbloed 2010, pp. 294, 307, 318; Leisyte 2011, p. 442 seq; Mostert 2012, p. 1, 15 seq, 20;VSNU 2012, p. 89; Matthijs et al. 2016, pp. 82, 88 seq. For an example of a university policyon IPR exploitation and spin-offs see the case study of the University of Twente in Arnold et al.2006, p. 44 seq.
  • [8] On start-ups and science parks see Jongbloed 2010, p. 323; VSNU 2012, p. 24 seq, 90. Seefor an example of a university policy on science parks and entrepreneurship the case study of theUniversity of Twente in Arnold et al. 2006, p. 44 seq; Leisyte 2011, p. 443.
  • [9] Braun 2006, p. 4 seq, 7, 10; Jongbloed 2010, p. 323 seq; Leisyte 2011, pp. 444, 447; denHertog et al. 2012, p. 30 seq, 53; Directie Kennis 2012, p. 111; Mostert 2012, p. 20.
 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >