檢視競爭性經費對大學發展的影響

Examining the Impact of Competitive Funding on University's Development

10.7038/JETP.201212.0103

范麗雪(Li-Hsueh Fan)

競爭性經費 ； 績效導向 ； 大學發展 ； competitive funding ； erformance-oriented ； university's development

教育理論與實踐學刊

26期（2012 / 12 / 01）

103 - 123

繁體中文

在有限的高等教育經費下，大學的績效責任備受重視，績效導向的競爭性經費也成為各國政府用以提升大學競爭力的方法。本研究首先以文獻探討競爭性經費的背景、分配方式與其對大學發展的影響，並以實際訪談政府單位、大學校長與大學學者三方面對於競爭性經費對大學發展之影響的看法。本文主要的研究發現有四：一、競爭性經費是激勵大學回應全球性競爭的一種方法，二、競爭性經費為大學帶來聲望並形成良性循環，三、競爭性經費讓大學回應政府目標並產生引導效果，四、競爭性經費讓大學在回應政府目標過程中產生負面效應。本研究認為競爭性經費是提升大學競爭力的一種工具，但優質的學術人員才是大學長期發展的關鍵成功因素。

With the limited higher education funding, accountability of universities become the important issue. Competitive funding is an instrument used by government to improve the university's competitiveness. This study firstly analyzes competitive funding by literature review. Secondly, this paper interviews the government department, principals of university and university scholars to understand their experience and opinions about the impact of competitive funding on university's development. The four main results are as follows: 1. competitive funding is the means to respond the global competition of higher education, 2. competitive funding brings the reputation and create positive circle, 3. competitive funding enforce universities to follow governmental goals, 4. competitive funding arise the side effect in the behavior of faculty and the university's development. The main argument of this paper is that competitive funding is merely a tool of improving the university's competitiveness, faculty qualifications is the key factor for university's long term development.

1. Albrecht, D., & Ziderman, A. (1992, December 2), Funding mechanisms for higher education: Financing for stability, efficiency and responsiveness, World Bank Discussion Papers 153, Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/
2. Hauptman, A. (2006, April 6). Performance-Based Funding in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.sheeo.org
3. Kaiser, F., Vossensteyn, H., & Koelman, J. (2001, December 8). Public funding of higher education: A comparative study of funding mechanisms in ten countries. Retrieved from http://www.utwente.nl
4. Harnisch, T. (2011). Performance-based Funding: A Re-Emerging Strategy in Public Higher Education Financing. Retrieved from http://www.congressweb.com/aascu/docfiles/Performance_Funding_AASCU_June2011.pdf
5. 教育部（2005 年 6 月 17 日）。發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫。取自http://www.edu.tw/high/index.aspx
6. Eurydice (2008). Higher education governance in Europe: policies, structures, funding and academic staff. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/ portal/Eurydice
7. Jongbloed, B. (2010, May 18). Funding higher education: A view across Europe. Retrieved from http://www.utwente.nl
8. 監察院（2010 年 3 月 8 日）。糾正案文。取自 http://www.cy.gov.tw
9. Frølich, N.,Strøm, B.(2008).Higher education funding and incentives: Evidence from the norwegian funding reform.European Journal of Education,43(4),563-576.
10. Jongbloed, B.,Vossensteyn, H.(2001).Keeping up performance: An international survey of performance-based funding in higher education.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,23(2),129-145.
11. Layzell, D.(1998).Linking performance to funding outcomes for public institutions of higher education: The US experience.European Journal of Education,33(1),103-111.
12. Liefner, I.(2003).Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems.Higher Education,46,469-489.
13. Mok, K.,Chan, Y.(2008).International benchmarking with the best universities: Policy and practice in Mainland China and Taiwan.Higher Education Policy,21,469-486.
14. Nkrumah-Young, K.,Powell, P.(2008).Resource allocation models and accountability: A Jamaican case study.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,30(3),245-259.
15. Orr, D.(2005).Can performance-based funding and quality assurance solve the state vs market conundrum?.Higher Education Policy,18,31-50.
16. Orr, D.,Jaeger, M.,Schwarzenberger, A.(2007).Performance-based funding as an instrument of competition in German higher education.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,29(1),3-23.
17. Shin, J.(2010).Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the U.S.Higher Education,60,47-68.
18. Sörlin, S.(2007).Funding diversity: Performance-based funding regimes as drivers of differentiation in Higher Education Systems.Higher Education Policy,20(4),413-440.
19. 范麗雪(2010)。歐洲高等教育經費分配機制之現況、發展趨勢與啟示。教育研究與發展，6(1)，173-198。
20. 教育部(2009)。,未出版
21. 陳振遠、樊國恕、蘇國偉、何希慧、侯永祺、陳振宇、許文瑞(2011)。發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫之評估研析。研考雙月刊，35(3)，84-95。
22. 蓋浙生(2008)。教育經濟與財政新論。臺北市:高等教育。
23. 劉阿榮(2009)。競爭型經費對高等教育發展的影響。第五屆兩岸高等教育論壇─人文、管理與高等教育
24. 戴曉霞(2006)。世界一流大學之卓越與創新。臺北市:高等教育。

1. 陳盈宏(2014)。競爭性經費分配機制之探討―以獎勵大學教學卓越計畫為例。學校行政，93，170-184。
2. 劉秀曦、楊瑩(2017)。析論英國高等教育研究經費分配機制之運作及其對我國的啟示。當代教育研究季刊，25(2)，77-112。
3. 唐揆,唐揆(2022)。漫談學術生涯：機會、創新與滿意度。管理學報，39(3)，265-287。
4. (2014)。InnoSchool特優獎得獎校長經費資源取得之個案研究。教育學刊，43，77-114。
5. (2020)。以大學校務公開資訊探究高教深耕計畫經費核配影響因素。教育政策論壇，23(1)，1-28。