Tõnis Saarts recently noted that the underfunding of higher education is not, at least for now, a sufficiently “hot” topic for politicians or perhaps for the wider public. This is surprising, because Estonian-language higher education should also be viewed as an important deterrence measure against hostile actors.

For example, rapidly developing and increasingly complex military technology inevitably requires greater human capability to operate high-tech systems. The ongoing COVID-19 crisis has also vividly demonstrated the necessity of a skilled workforce. The continuity of the healthcare system has not been endangered by a lack of space or equipment, but rather by a shortage of personnel who know how to use that equipment and provide life-saving care.

Even if tomorrow we filled all our primary defence capability gaps with all the necessary and missing equipment, the limits of its usability would still depend on us. Every new (and more advanced) weapons system and every additional capability (such as medium-range air defence, unmanned naval and land vehicles, etc.), and any unit expected to fight using these systems, requires trained specialists with above-average engineering and technical thinking.

This point has also been underscored by the Commander of the Navy, highlighting in particular the importance of the natural sciences. Terms such as “cybersecurity” or “hybrid warfare” alone should be enough to show that having people capable of solving complex problems is becoming critically important — especially in the current security environment.

We should value the position of higher education and its potential with national defence in mind. 

When we talk about defence funding, we recognise that for a long time no one has questioned the minimum of 2+ percent of GDP allocated to the sector. In fact, even that is less than what is needed. Yet in education, there is not even similar agreement or consensus on a baseline level of funding. This speaks more broadly to how the outputs of higher education and academic research are perceived in our society. For universities to continue contributing to Estonia’s success story, the education sector needs the same stability that defence enjoys — especially in financing, which requires a gradual increase in investment.

Following the example of national defence, higher education funding must also be predictable. In the 23 March parliamentary debate on the sustainable development of Estonia’s military defence, it was noted that the then defence spending level of 2.3 percent of GDP was, due to the economic downturn, practically equivalent to the pre-crisis two percent — a level that allows only for the maintenance of existing defence capability.

The situation in higher education funding is exactly the same: greater capability cannot be achieved with stagnant budgets, and even less with budget cuts — especially at a time when technological development is advancing at an unprecedented pace. Investing in education is the best thing a state can do for its people and for its own competitiveness: according to UNESCO, every dollar invested in education can generate 10–15 dollars in economic growth.

Again, a parallel with defence is appropriate: invested resources function as the best deterrent by making an attack on Estonia unacceptably costly. A wise nation and state understands and feels the importance of education. We should value the position of higher education — and its potential — with national defence in mind. Therefore we need a shared understanding of a baseline level of funding; we could agree here as well that two percent should be the absolute minimum for a set period, ensuring sustained investment in higher education.

This op-ed (Hannes Nagel) was published in the print edition of Postimees on April 1, (No. 64/7694, p. 13).