Foreign students and research funding face ‘shocking’ cuts

The Dutch right-wing coalition platform’s recently published outline agreement promises to scrap research funding schemes, slash research spending by billions of euros and reduce the number of foreign students in the Netherlands. Experts describe it as bad news for higher education innovation and internationalisation.

After six months of negotiations, Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid) and two centre-right parties, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie) and the New Social Contract, as well as the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BoerBurgerBeweging or BBB) have reached an outline coalition agreement.

The 26-page coalition agreement report published on 16 May, which is titled “Hope, Courage and Pride”, calls for cutting taxes, investing in housing and increased support for farmers, and promises to curb labour migration.

On immigration it states that it will implement “the strictest asylum regime” ever by a Dutch government. “An opt-out clause for European asylum and migration policies will be submitted as soon as possible to the European Commission,” the agreement states.

The report also states that admittance of foreign students to Dutch universities will become stricter and details what higher education stakeholders are seeing as problematic cuts in research, innovation and environmental funding.

As ScienceInsider reported on 24 May, the right-wing coalition’s proposal to cut research, innovation and environmental protections is seen as “bad news for scientists”.

Scrapping research funding schemes

The planned scrapping of the final two rounds of the National Growth Fund, a five-year scheme launched in 2021 by then minister of education, culture and science Robert Dijkgraaf to boost innovation and economic growth by allocating a total of €20 billion (US$21.7 billion) to a consortium of research organisations and companies, means that €6.8 billion in research funding will be lost to dozens of projects including innovation in education.

Quoted in ScienceInsider, chemist and 2016 Nobel Prize winner Ben Feringa of the University of Groningen, who sits on the fund’s advisory council, stated that the cut is “shocking, because it will hurt the country’s potential for innovation. It’s not a very smart strategy if you think about the problems we have to solve as a society.”

The agreement also consigns to the scrap heap the Sector Plans – a scheme launched in 2023 by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science that spends €200 million annually to reduce academic workloads, provide jobs at universities and academic medical centres, and structure the division of labour between institutes.

As ScienceInsider also reported, the coalition parties agreed to cut €150 million annually from a $500 million fund to advance basic research.

Substantial cuts in education and research

A press release issued by Universities of the Netherlands on 16 May addressed concerns regarding the coalition proposal: “Today the forming parties presented their main lines agreement. Universities are shocked by the cuts in education, research and innovation. These plans damage the future of young people and the Netherlands.”

Jouke de Vries, interim chairman of Universities of the Netherlands – an association of 14 universities – stated: “The cutbacks in education and science are a blow to our students and staff, who are already under enormous pressure.

“Together with the drastic intervention in the international character of universities, these cutbacks are damaging our good education and research. This is not in line with the ambition of the forming parties to strengthen the knowledge economy and the earning capacity of the Netherlands. In doing so, we are putting the future of young people in our country at risk.”

The Universities of the Netherlands press release detailed the nature of the planned proposal: “The structural damage caused by the cuts in this main agreement amounts to more than €500 million. The forming parties are making structural cuts of €215 million on the higher education and science sector plans, among other things.”

It added: “This puts the position of 1,200 scientists at risk, while they are desperately needed to limit the demonstrably high workload and keep education and research up to standard. They are also cutting back on the fund for research and science by a total of €1.1 billion and billions for innovation will disappear due to the scrapping of the National Growth Fund.

“A late study fine of €3,000 per year will significantly increase the pressure on our students. This can increase the threshold for (further) study, especially for young people from low-income families.

“These cuts will have far-reaching consequences for the Netherlands: overburdened teachers, less time and freedom for students and researchers, and a deterioration of the Dutch knowledge economy”.

Internationalisation under pressure

The coalition parties also want universities to offer far fewer bachelor programmes in English, a cap on the number of foreign students, higher tuition fees for people from outside the European Union, and to increase the requirements for knowledge workers, including that students should adhere to ‘Dutch values’.

“These measures destroy the ‘international character’ of higher education. This has major consequences for the availability of talent for science and the labour market. On 8 February the universities themselves published a robust package of measures. This shows that we can manage a sustainable balance of international students and maintain the added value for the Netherlands,” de Vries stated in the Universities of the Netherlands press release.

When asked for comment De Vries told University World News: “I agree with the new coalition that we have to improve basic skills [such] as language and calculation. I agree with the coalition that international students and employees should learn Dutch. We worked on a proposal with [former science] minister [Robert] Dijkgraaf about self-regulation. It led to an agreement. It is easy for a new minister to implement that proposal.”

When asked for comment Hans de Wit, professor emeritus and distinguished fellow at the Boston College Center for International Higher Education in the United States, told University World News: “What shall I say!? On the one hand, the agreements on higher education and on international students did not come as a surprise.

“The only surprise was the €3,000 fee for students graduating late. What is also not a surprise is that the measures are not written in hard stone. On the €3,000 fee, for instance, one of the parties already indicated that there might be exceptions for students who are active in boards and committees and for students with long term illness.”

He noted: “On the reduction of international students, a senator of the farmers party BBB, a professor emeritus in veterinary science at Utrecht University, expressed his warm support for international students and teaching in English, and this party is the biggest in the senate.”

De Wit explained further: “In other words, yes the cuts are severe and not good at all for Dutch research and education, and the dependence on private funding will become more important. AMSL, the chip company in Eindhoven, already has provided TU Eindhoven with millions of euros in research and training funding. But one can doubt if private funding is enough and in particular humanities and social sciences will be in severe danger.

“Chaos and unpredictability are probably the most important words to describe the current agreement, certainly as long as there is not a prime minister and a minister of education, culture and science, who have to work out the details.”

When asked for comment, Assistant Professor Benjamin Leruth, a political sociologist at the University of Groningen, told University World News: “The proposed government agreement will not come as a surprise to the Dutch higher education community and reflects most policies advocated by all four parties who crafted it: less internationalisation, Dutch (as a language) first, and less funding for institutions.”

Leruth noted: “As it stands, the agreement is worrying but remains quite vague, for instance regarding which programmes and courses will only be delivered in Dutch. There is therefore some (but little) leeway to influence policy on such matters. This will require extremely efficient and relentless lobbying from the Universities of the Netherlands as well as the unions.

“The Danish precedent, with such a policy being reverted only after a few years due to its ineffectiveness, should serve as clear-cut evidence that a wide-ranging rollback on internationalisation would be more damaging than productive, especially in tackling structural problems such as the housing crisis.

It would be short-sighted and damage the reputation of Dutch universities as powerhouses for teaching and research,” Leruth warned.