国立総合大学の内部資源配分に関する現状調査の結果と総括

This paper presents an analysis and overview of the actual allocation of departmental budgets in national universities as of 2022, based on the results of interview surveys conducted with 12 national universities and questionnaire surveys conducted with 22 national universities. The main findings are as follows:
In the initial budgeting process, departmental involvement is limited, and the allocation to departments is generally determined under central leadership. The categorization of expenses is becoming more comprehensive without detailed breakdowns. Approximately 70% of universities calculate the required amount by multiplying unit prices by the number of students or faculty members. However, relatively larger universities tend to adjust by multiplying unit prices only by the year-to-year difference in budget, rather than starting from a zero-based approach. Moreover, it is common for universities to apply reduction coefficients based on those used in the Operating Grants to adjust the departmental allocation budget. Smaller universities tend to apply larger coefficients, taking into account the internal fund balance.
However, when it comes to budget execution, departments have discretion, and central intervention in expenditure purposes is minimal. While rolling over budgets within departments is generally not allowed, there are two universities that have introduced systems allowing carryovers and advance withdrawals. These universities offer valuable insights for efficient and effective budget execution.
Allocation of budgets to departments using performance indicators is practiced in all universities. Regarding the methods of skewed allocation, two types are recognized: 1) addition to departmental discretionary expenses using the president's discretionary budget, and 2) redistribution of a fixed percentage (amount) of the departmental budget. Many universities use seven or more indicators for allocation, considering both education and research. Relatively larger universities appear to adopt more advanced approaches, incorporating cost information and growth rate indicators. However, around half of the universities changed their allocation methods using performance indicators from the third to the fourth management period, suggesting a transitional phase in system design.
Finally, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was employed to conduct a factor analysis of about 40% of universities that perceive a positive impact on educational and research activities through budget allocation to departments using performance indicators. Results indicate that universities with proactive intentions, striving for transparency and rationality, tend to have a favorable perception. Additionally, universities with relatively high research capabilities tend to perceive benefits more readily.