Barr and Crawford (2005) argue that “the era of centralized planning is over” and explain that a mass higher education system requires greater differentiation and dependence on markets. In her view, the role of government is to mediate. The idea is that greater institutional autonomy will lead to a higher level of quality, diversity and efficiency, as a more diverse level of higher education institutions will better meet the needs of students and the needs of society. Competition and prestige research by universities will improve educational and research performance, as well as different education and research profiles. However, the question is whether greater autonomy, combined with more market-based approaches, will actually lead to greater diversity and better performance. Performance agreements are taken more seriously by all parties and have a greater impact if financial consequences are ongoing. They should include a reward mechanism for “over-performance” and not focus solely on budget cuts because indicator-based objectives are not being met. Around the conclusion of the performance agreements (in the second half of 2016), the indicators of Figures 1 and 2 received the greatest attention in the broad-pressure press and among the relevant players in higher education. This was only natural, as the financial sanctions associated with performance agreements were strongly linked to the realization by an institution of its agreed ambitions for the seven mandatory indicators, among which the conclusion and rupture proved extremely demanding.
if the aim is not only to enhance performance, it is also objectives such as encouraging companies to be aware of their particular mission and strength, what are the characteristics of performance contracts (or performance agreements)? On the one hand, it is ex ante funding. Formula-based funding agreements are retrograde, with formula indicators referring to the recent past (ex post funding). In performance contracts, the funds are based on a bilateral agreement between the funding authority and the university, which includes benefits that an institution promises to provide in the future (near) and the budget that the university will receive. In this case, the HeI`s budget is (in part) based on a specification of its objectives for the future (ex ante funding). In order to assess aspects of diversity, the Review Committee analyzed three characteristics of a heI profile that overlap in part: (1) the offer of a heI program to determine whether it expands the scope of its programs and covers more or less disciplinary areas, (2) whether a heI focuses on certain programs in its programming area and (3) the market share of programs made available by the HeI.