Premium
The Merging of the PCFC and the UFC: Probable, Desirable or Inevitable?
Author(s) -
Ball Christopher
Publication year - 1991
Publication title -
higher education quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.976
H-Index - 42
eISSN - 1468-2273
pISSN - 0951-5224
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2273.1991.tb01561.x
Subject(s) - incentive , equity (law) , politics , context (archaeology) , legislation , political science , public administration , economics , economic policy , business , finance , economic growth , market economy , law , paleontology , biology
Post‐war growth of higher education has attracted the interest of national governments. They are properly concerned with higher education's contribution to economic success and equity, and the efficient and effective use of public funds. They can intervene by means of legislation (which is unwieldy), exhortation (which is ineffective), or funding incentives. Funding councils must operate within a social and political context which determines the balance between planning and the market, central and local direction, public and private funding. They have only four strategies to choose from: deficiency‐, formula‐, contract‐, and core‐funding. The first was nearly fatal; the last is the preferred option for the future. There are two issues: the merging of the two funding councils (PCFC and UFC), and the ending of the binary system. The first could produce a welcome single guiding intelligence for UK higher education, and economies of scale. The second raises the question of the funding of fundamental research. The merging of PCFC and UFC and the reorganisation of research‐funding is a two‐headed nettle. It must be grasped soon.