CARDIOVASCULAR JOURNAL OF AFRICA • Vol 23, No 8, September 2012
AFRICA
425
•
two authors affiliated to one South African higher educational
institution and two authors affiliated to another South African
higher educational institution: 2 × 0.25 = 0.5 unit to each
South African higher educational institution.
•
two authors affiliated to one South African higher educa-
tional institution and two authors affiliated to one non-South
African higher educational institution: 2
×
0.25
=
0.5
unit to
the South African higher educational institution.
Bearing in mind the above examples, it is clear that the NFF
does not encourage collaboration with researchers who are not
affiliated to a South African higher educational institution.
21,26
Percentage public expenditure on higher
education as a percentage of GDP and the
financial value of research units
Over the past decade (2001–2009) the public expenditure on
higher education as a percentage of GDP has increased in most
countries [e.g. Argentina: 0.8% in 2001 to 0.9% in 2005 to 1.1%
in 2009; Brazil: 0.7% in 2001 to 0.8% in 2005 to 0.8% in 2009;
Finland: 1.6% in 2001 to 1.7% in 2005 to 1.8% in 2009; France:
0.9%
in 2001 to 1.1% in 2005 to 1.2% in 2009; Ghana: 0.8%
in 2001 to 1.1% in 2005 to 1.3% in 2009; Rwanda (values for
2001
not available): 0.6% in 2005 to 1.1% in 2009; Spain: 0.9%
in 2001 to 0.9% in 2005 to 1.0% in 2009; New Zealand: 0.9%
in 2001 to 0.9% in 2005 to 1.1% in 2009; USA: 0.9% in 2001
to 1.0% in 2005 to 1.0% in 2009],
17
although it has declined in
some [Botswana (values for 2001 not available): 1.0% in 2005
to 0.9% in 2009; South Africa: 0.8% in 2001 to 0.8% in 2005 to
0.6%
in 2009; United Kingdom: 0.8% in 2001 to 0.9% in 2005
to 0.4% in 2009].
17
More specifically, in South Africa, the percentage of public
expenditure on higher education as a percentage of GDP
declined from 0.86% in 1987 to a value of 0.64% in 2008,
with the greatest decline occurring between 1999 (0.80%)
and 2002 (0.68%).
15
Although similar declines have occurred
in other countries (Australia: 1.50% in 1974/75 to 0.89% in
1997/98
to 0.8% in 2009; United Kingdom: 0.8% in 2001 to
0.4%
in 2009),
3,17
in South Africa the value of 0.74% in 2001
was well below the averages of 0.81% for a total of 84 countries
worldwide; 0.85% for 15 other countries in Africa; 0.85% for
six countries in South America; 0.88% for 13 countries in North
America; and 0.95% for 21 countries in Europe.
15
Moreover, the value in South Africa of 0.65% in 2007 was
well below the percentages spent in sub-Saharan countries
such as Botswana, Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Ruanda,
Senegal and Swaziland, where the values range up to 2.1% of
GDP.
31
Although the percentages in South Africa were predicted
to increase to 0.68% in 2008/9, 0.71% in 2009/10 and 0.74% in
2010/11,
20
the values recorded by UNESCO were 0.6% in 2007
and 0.6% 2009.
17
The main impact of the decrease in government resources
to higher educational institutions has been an increase in the
number of students and an increase in tuition fees as a means
of enhancing income generation.
15
In most circumstances the
increase in student numbers has not been accompanied by an
increase in staff numbers; hence resulting in increments in the
student-to-staff ratios and a consequent decline in research
productivity. Indeed in South Africa, the rise in student-to-staff
ratios from 12.7 in 1986 to 18.0 in 2003
15
was accompanied by
an ~15% decline in publications from 1997 to 2003.
15
In the
historically advantaged institutions, the percentage decline in
publications was even higher (20%).
15
Comparable changes occurred at Australian universities when
faced with a decrease in governmental financial support to
higher education from 1.50% in 1974/75 to 0.89% in 1997/98.
3
The student-to-staff ratios rose from 12.81 in 1990 to 17.81 in
1999.
32
However, despite the increased demands placed on staff,
the publication output increased by 25% over this time period.
3
The unexpected increment in publication output was primarily
attributed to the introduction of a system to distribute funds to
higher educational institutions in Australia based on publication
outputs.
3
However, the negative impact of this system was a
decline in the quality of the publications (see section titled
‘
Quantity versus quality’).
Financial value of research outputs
Between 1987 and 2003, when the SAPSE formula was in use,
the government subsidy awarded per publication unit was on
average ~R22 000.
21
With the introduction of the NFF in 2005,
the block grants awarded to higher educational institutions for
research were stopped; hence resulting in ~R1.5 billion becoming
available for rewarding research output on a competitive basis.
21
Consequently, the value of one research output unit rose from
R77 606 in 2005 to R85 023 in 2007,
19,21
and then to R102 604
in 2009.
21
However, the value appears to have stabilised in more
recent years, R110 000 in 2011
33
and currently R119 331, hence
lending some credit to the criticism that the awarding of research
funding using the NFF is a ‘zero-sum’ game.
21,22
In comparison, inAustralia the monetary value of a publication
increased from A$761 (R6 664.31) to A$1 089 (R9 536.71)
between 1995 and 2000.
13
Furthermore, as a consequence of
increases in the total amounts to be distributed by government,
this value subsequently increased to A$3 000 (R26 271.94) in
2002.
13
Other examples (obtained online) of the financial value
of publications include:
•
Qatar University: for publications in journals with an impact
factor
>
1.0,
QR3 000 (R6 995.53) is awarded (40% to main
author and 60% divided equally among co-authors including
the main author) for each impact factor.
•
University of South Pacific, Fiji: F$4 000 (R18 915.48) for A*
(
top) journals, F$3 000 (R14 186.61) for A journals, F$2000
(
R9 457.74) for B journals and F$1 000 (R4 728.87) for C
journals. The A, B, C, D ranking is according to the Australian
Business Deans Council’s rankings, which is used in prefer-
ence to the journal impact factors in order to account for the
variation in impact factors across disciplines. The awards are
given as part of the researchers’ salary and are taxed.
•
Universities in Finland: FIM80 000 (R161 862.08) per impact
factor is awarded to the institution rather than the individual.
Distribution of Department of Higher Education
and Training research subsidy within higher
educational institutions in South Africa
Financial reward of individuals versus institution
As the extent of governmental subsidy to higher educational
institutions depends on the subsidy granted by the Department
of Higher Education and Training for publications in accredited
