A few months ago, there was an election in the Netherlands, one in which the most seats went to was the anti-immigration Party for Freedom, or PVV led by Geert Wilders.  After a few months of coalition negotiations between parties (something that is largely unknown in the anglosphere but is pretty common in Europe), a new governing majority was created that collectively agreed to a new set of priorities.  One of those priorities?  Cutting the living daylights out of funding to higher education, on the order of a billion euros, or roughly equivalent to one universities of spending.

Now, it’s not as though higher education in the Netherlands has been a gravy train these past few years.  For most of the decade and a half since 2008 per-student funding to research universities and universities of applied sciences.  And while a recent government initiative promised to put hundreds of millions of euros back into universities’ pocket, the decision last year to force institutions to reduce their intake of international students – a reaction to skyrocketing housing prices – certainly put a hole in many institutions budget.  In any event, this very familiar-sounding (to some Canadians, anyway) one-two punch of lower international student numbers plus a massive cut in government funding, has put the fear of God into Dutch universities, who have responded with threat of protest marches and lawsuits to try and forestall the changes.

Joining me on the show today to discuss all of this is Marijk van der Wende.  She is the Distinguished Faculty Professor of Higher Education at Utrecht University’s Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance, formerly President of the OECD’s programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE) and also the Founding Dean of Amsterdam University College.  She generously agreed not only to give us not just a read on how the situation was affecting institutions (hint: differentially, based on status and geography), but also a basic lesson in Dutch civics.  Her take essentially is that things are going to be bad: there isn’t a lot that institutions will realistically be able to do to cushion the coming cut to income.  But perhaps her more interesting speculation came when she questioned whether the crisis was truly a national one or a continental one.  Her view was that a European Union confronted with wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and tensions in the South China Sea while at the same time dealing with potential EU expansion in the Balkans and Eastern Europe might collectively shatter the already-fragile consensus on free movement within Europe, which would have enormous effects on higher education from one end of the continent to the other.

But enough from me, let’s hear from Marijk.

---

The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 3.6 | Dutch Higher Education at a Crossroads: Coalition Politics and University Futures with Marijk van der Wende

Transcript

Alex Usher (AU): Marijk, thanks for joining us. We’re talking about the higher education policies of the new government in the Netherlands. Now, Dutch governments are always coalitions, and coalition negotiations can take quite a long time. Could you walk us through how governments in the Netherlands are formed and how the “horse trading” about budgets takes place?

Marijk van der Wende (MvdW): Thanks, Alex. Good to see you. Well, that’s a great question, but not an easy one. Let me try. The Netherlands has a multi-party-political landscape. In the most recent elections last November, 26 parties were allowed to participate which was not the all-time high. Fifteen of them made it into parliament, though this number can vary from election to election—2020, for instance, saw 37 parties on the ballot. The reason for this is that the Netherlands doesn’t have an electoral threshold like, for instance, Germany. However, you still need about 70,000 votes to win a seat in parliament.

Forming a government starts after the election results are finalized, and it’s led by the winning party with the most votes. The process is coordinated by parliament, though until recently, it was the king who performed this role. In the 2023 election, the Party for Freedom (PVV)—a right-wing populist party—won for the first time, gaining 37 seats, or about 25% of the 150-seat parliament. It took seven months, which is not excessive in this country, to form a four-party government led by the PVV, alongside the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), New Social Contract, and the Farmers Party (BBB).

Two of these parties—New Social Contract and the Farmers Party— are new parties and had never been in government before. Together, they hold a strong majority in parliament with 88 seats but don’t have a majority in the senate. What’s unusual this time is that the coalition is led by a “neutral” prime minister, a non-elected official who was formerly the chief of security services. The leaders of all four parties chose to stay in parliament, which created this so-called “extra-parliamentary cabinet.” It’s a very unique and somewhat awkward situation.

AU: You mentioned the PVV is a far-right party. What caused the far-right to do so well in the last election, and how did that affect the government formation process? Was the choice of a non-elected prime minister linked to the fact that it was a new party in government?

MvdW: Well, the idea of a far-right party winning needs to be viewed in a European perspective. The PVV won about 25% of the seats, but that’s not much more than before. What happened was that all the other parties shrunk. If you add the seats from another far-right party, Freedom for Democracy, together they still only hold around 26%, far from a majority.

This mirrors what happened in the European Parliament elections, where fears of a far-right takeover didn’t materialize. Across Europe, far-right populist parties hold around 26% of the seats, but they’re scattered across different political families and don’t work together well. The center still holds the majority of votes.

So, why did this happen in the Netherlands? The PVV was largely helped by the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), a center-right party led for 14 years by Mark Rutte, the longest-serving prime minister. After his government collapsed over immigration policy, the VVD’s new leader opened the door to collaborating with the PVV, making immigration their key issue. Immigration, combined with other long-term challenges like inequality, housing, and environmental issues, has become a strong card for populist parties across Europe. Immigrants often become the scapegoat for these problems.

In this round, immigration concerns extended to international students, who were suddenly labeled as “study immigrants” and included in the overall immigrant numbers. This mirrors what happened in the UK before Brexit and in Denmark. Most of our international students come from within the EU, with about 25,000 German students. So, it’s not a new phenomenon, but when they’re added to the immigration statistics, it stirs up public concern. I warned back in 2018 that this situation would become unsustainable for taxpayers.

AU: Interesting. Let’s talk about what was happening to higher education before this election. I’ve been tracking Dutch government spending for a long time, and it seemed like, from around 2011-2012 onwards, there was a steady decline. But the last Rutte government promised a significant increase in funding for universities. What exactly was promised, and how was it received by the universities?

MvdW: Yes, you’re right. For a long time, the budget didn’t keep pace with the increase in student numbers, especially at research universities. The previous government, which fell after two years, did reinvest significantly in R&D, aiming to correct the imbalance between teaching and research. They committed around 1 billion euros across various national funds, including direct rolling grants for junior faculty. To put that in perspective, the total higher education budget is around 11 billion euros, so universities were excited about this boost.

But this increase in funding also came at a time when research university student numbers had surged. Many of our top-100 global universities now have over 40,000 students, with the University of Amsterdam nearing 50,000. This growth was largely driven by international students, who now make up about 40% of freshmen at research universities, more than double what it was and most primarily from the EU. This led to headlines about housing shortages and overcrowded classrooms.

Another trend is that more high school graduates are choosing to enroll in research universities over universities of applied sciences. So, teaching loads at research universities increased significantly. But the question remains—should this be addressed with more research funding assuming that all teaching faculty should be doing research, or should we be regulating student admissions better, especially when EU students must be treated equally to Dutch students? That’s a complicated issue.

AU: Let’s talk about the current government. One of the outcomes of the coalition negotiations wasn’t just a reversal of the previous government’s commitment to increase investment in universities, but also an additional cut to research funding. Why did they do this? Was it a fiscal conservative move to save money, or was it more of a cultural conservative move, as we’ve seen elsewhere in Europe and North America, aimed at punishing perceived “woke” institutions?

MvdW: Well, I wasn’t in the room, but my sense is that both factors played a role. As I mentioned earlier, the government and universities missed an opportunity to address the issue of regulating admissions. Universities asked for better tools to select students, but the proposed regulation was controversial and delayed by the former minister, and the universities didn’t fully use the tools that were available. They continued to compete for student numbers, knowing this wasn’t a sustainable strategy. This allowed populists to capitalize on issues like housing shortages and language concerns for their gain.

Some of the anticipated cuts are expected to come from a reduction in the number of international students, who will likely be discouraged by new legislation requiring universities to return to teaching in Dutch rather than English. As for the cuts to research funding, many see this as politically motivated—a kind of clawback driven by resentment. Beyond higher education, the cultural sector is also facing significant cuts. This government doesn’t seem to have much affection for education or culture, and recent student protests and occupations probably didn’t help either.

AU: Marijk, you mentioned housing prices earlier, which is an issue affecting many countries, like Ireland, Australia, and Canada. Even before this new government took power, there were attempts to limit international student numbers, and one of the most consequential proposals was limiting the ability of universities to teach in English at the undergraduate level. This is a big deal, especially for institutions like Maastricht University, which had shifted largely to English by the mid-2010s. What kind of impact did this have on institutional finances? Were some institutions more affected than others?

MvdW: So far, the impact has been minimal because the legislation hasn’t been implemented yet. It’s been announced, and in a sort of soft-law manner, the government has agreed with universities to tone down their international recruitment efforts. As a result, the flow of international students has only slightly decreased, but bigger changes are expected once the legislation takes effect.

The effects will vary across sectors and regions. STEM fields—science, technology, engineering, and math—are likely to be spared because those sectors rely heavily on highly skilled workers. For example, in Brainport Eindhoven, where ASML, a major semiconductor machine manufacturer, is based, the demand for scientists and engineers is so high that the Technical University of Eindhoven has to double in size. Delft also plans to grow substantially.

On the other hand, I expect a negative impact in fields like social sciences, particularly psychology, where the stay rates of international students are relatively low. Universities like Maastricht and Amsterdam may be more affected than others.

It’s important to note that this legislation will mostly impact undergraduate programs. Graduate programs—master’s and PhDs—are unlikely to be affected, and many of those programs are taught in English. So, in a way, this could reshape universities in a positive direction, making them more focused on graduate-level education. Being Europe’s “graduate school” might be more attractive than being Europe’s polytechnic, especially since funding for high-tech industries is more about public and corporate support than student fees. That’s a key difference compared to countries like Australia or Canada.

And finally, switching to Dutch as the language of instruction won’t be easy. Over 40% of university faculty members are international.

AU: You’ve implied that this new government is more skeptical of immigration than the previous one. Do you think there are further policy changes coming that might affect international students? Is this just the first step?

MvdW: To be honest, I’m holding my breath. Right now, the Dutch government is trying to pass crisis legislation that would allow them to bypass both Parliament and Senate on immigration matters, citing an “asylum crisis.” France and Germany are increasing border controls, so we have to think about this in a broader European context.

The big question is, where is the EU going? Most of our international students come from within the EU, and studying in another member state is a right for EU citizens. That can’t be taken away without changing the EU treaty. So, we need to rethink how we manage this open system. Using language restrictions as a way to limit international students is a poor tool and easily veers into nationalistic territory.

Universities need to gain more control over their size, for quality reasons as well. But within an open system, we must treat EU and Dutch students equally, applying the same admission criteria.

AU: That would be a big shift. When universities can’t rely on government funding or international students, they sometimes turn to raising domestic student fees. Is this likely to happen in the Netherlands? Do universities have that option?

MvdW: No, Dutch universities aren’t autonomous in that respect. They can only set fees for non-EU students, which are usually already at full cost. So far, there are no signs of domestic fees increasing, but in the long run, it’s possible that we’ll see changes, particularly for master’s programs. It’s not a given that these will always be fully funded by public money for EU students, as is the case now.

AU: So that leaves cost-cutting as a way for universities to balance their budgets. But about a decade ago, there was a wave of student protests in the Netherlands against managerialism and central control in universities. How does that attitude limit the options for today’s university managers?

MvdW: Well, first of all, universities can look to generate more income by increasing lifelong learning opportunities, like executive education and private courses. Many are already doing this and will likely intensify those efforts.

But regarding protests, we’re already seeing some early signs of unrest. Before the summer, student unions and university leaders were protesting together against the government’s plans. But shortly after, those same groups turned against the university leaders, accusing them of accepting the government’s cuts.

The higher education budget hasn’t been fully discussed yet, but we’re expecting more demonstrations and strikes in the fall, led by the activist faculty group, WOinActie. Students are likely to join as well, so it’s going to get complex and messy.

AU: Just because those groups are united against the government doesn’t mean they’ll agree on how to handle budget cuts within the institutions. How difficult could this get for university managers if labor unions and students refuse to accept cuts, both from the government and within the universities?

MvdW: It’s going to be tough. My chair focuses on higher education systems, and I would describe this as a system shock. We’ve gone from a period of large budget increases to significant cuts in a very short time. You could call it a system stress test. How the system resets after this will be crucial, and I predict the Dutch higher education landscape will come out of this looking very different.

Some institutions may become stronger, while others may weaken. Universities with medical schools or strong engineering programs will have more leverage than smaller institutions or those focused on social sciences and humanities. Regional support will also play a role, in terms of both political lobbying and economic backing.

I’m particularly worried about the universities of applied sciences, which have already been declining. The lack of system steering from the ministry has made it difficult to address these issues, and self-steering within the university system has its limitations.

Lastly, there’s the question of how long this government will last? Even if it falls, the damage to trust between the sector and the government will take time to repair.

And we can’t forget the broader European context. Where is the EU going? We’ve lost Russia from the European Higher Education Area, and Israel’s role in the European Research Area is uncertain. At the same time, the EU is considering expanding to include countries like Ukraine, bringing in millions of new EU citizens. This will have implications for higher education, especially in countries like the Netherlands, which are already popular destinations for international students.

Universities need to be part of the solution, not seen as part of the problem. It’s a challenging time to be a university leader, and we need courageous and wise leaders who understand the importance of maintaining our values as an open society and continuing to educate the next generation. Despite the challenges, we have to remain optimistic.

AU: So, you’ve outlined some of the stresses that you think the system’s going to go through in the next few years. What’s the best-case scenario for Dutch universities? What are the reasons for optimism in the sector?

MvdW: Well, I think the best-case scenario is building on collaboration, which Dutch universities are working on. We’ve historically been very good at competition—Dutch universities have been extremely successful in winning European grants, excelling in international research collaborations, publications, and impact scores. But now, we’re working on strengthening collaboration within the sector, and that’s where the hope lies.

There are two dividing lines in the Dutch system that we’re trying to bridge. One is between the technical universities and the general universities—this is an important gap to bridge through alliances. The other divide is between research universities and universities of applied sciences. That bridge has weakened over the last decade, but I think it’s crucial that we rebuild it. I started in a university of applied sciences and then moved into research, so I know firsthand how important it is that students can start anywhere in the system and find their way through it. Strengthening that connection is essential for the future of our higher education system.

AU: That’s a great note to end on. Marijk, thank you so much for joining us.

MvdW: Thank you, Alex.

AU: And just before we go, I want to thank our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan, and of course, you, our listeners. If you have any questions or comments on today’s show, please get in touch at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Don’t forget to subscribe to the World of Higher Education YouTube channel so you never miss an episode. Next week, our guest will be Pennsylvania State University Professor David Baker, who’ll be talking about his new co-authored book Global Mega-Science: Universities, Research Collaborations, and Knowledge Production. See you then.

*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.