The State of University Policy for Progress in Europe

The State of University Policy for Progress in Europe. HOAREAU, Cecile; RITZEN, Jo & MARCONI, Gabriele. 2012. Maastricht: Empowering European Universities Publications.
This report analyzes the contribution of higher education policies to higher education performance and economic innovation. Furthermore, it measures and compares the role and involvement of national governments’ policies to foster such contribution across Europe. The publication summarizes the main findings in a policy report, explains used data and method in a technical report, and provides a glimpse into each one of the 32 countries in a country report. For more information, follow this link.
Abstract
Higher education contributes to economic innovation. This study measures and compares the extent to which national governments’ policies foster this contribution across Europe. The study stresses the relevance of policies which are ‘empowering’ for higher education institutions, or in other words provide them with appropriate resources and regulatory environments.
The assessment relies on quantitative scores, based on the contribution of policies regarding funding and autonomy to higher education performance in education, research and economic innovation, using non-arbitrary weights and eighteen policy indicators across 32 European countries. A large number of countries belong to a ‘middle group’ in our overall assessment, indicating a relative cohesion in Europe. Yet, substantial variations exist in terms of higher education policy in Europe, each European country having room for policy improvement...
6. Recommendations.
University policy matters a great deal when it comes to the impact of university education and research on innovation. This became apparent in the preceding, however fuzzy many of our indicators and how simplified our framework were. The analysis leads to the following policy recommendations.
6.1. Innovation.
Governments are increasingly including higher education in their innovation strategies. This inclusion does not only take the form of funding, but is also represented by changes in governance structures. Eight Governments have integrated higher education with innovation in a single ministry to facilitate common policies. For example, Denmark has now a Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education, the UK has established a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills while Slovenia had a Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology (until March 2012).
We have recorded five Governments who actively encourage interministerial cooperation between education ministers and other ministries on innovation matters, where the responsibility for innovation is split. For example in Norway the Ministry for Trade and Industry and the Ministry for Education and Research have established closer relations to stimulate innovation. More Governments could adopt integrated or coordinated governance structures to promote a coherent strategy between higher education and innovation, if they want higher education to work for innovation.
6.2. Autonomy.
On the autonomy side we see that Governments seem to have two spirits in one body (zwei Seelen in einem Brust). They know how important autonomy is, but are not so sure whether universities are always able to use the autonomy with which universities are entrusted well (i.e. for societal purposes). There are cases in countries with a high degree of autonomy, where this autonomy is not always used well (in the perception of the Government). This is not surprising as universities are run by professionals who constantly make trade-offs between their contribution to society and their own self- interests, if the two are conflicting.
The ideal world would be one in which the contribution of universities to the learning of students would be well measured and visible, so that student demand could focus universities on the societal track. Yet in the absence of such measures, funding based on performance indicators could provide incentives for institutions to serve the social purposes. “Incentives” take various forms across countries, like contracts, funding per student, funding a minimum level of student places, or funding based on the number of graduates. We could not find a significant impact of funding incentives on innovation which is not surprising given our rather fuzzy indicator for incentives in funding.
Policy autonomy translates into relatively high levels of graduation and employment. Managerial autonomy is important for the research attractiveness and research productivity, but less important for graduation and employment.
There is no reason for any country not to engage in achieving the autonomy of universities (which includes academic and staffing autonomy), provided sufficient quality incentives in funding exist.
One could very well imagine that the degree of managerial autonomy be differentiat in differentiated systems of higher education. It is clear that research universities perform better with managerial autonomy, but it is less clear whether this also applies for non-research universities. There is special case to be made for more policy autonomy with respect to accreditation and quality control. Most European countries require that national criteria apply. “Only in four countries (Austria, Switzerland, the Cyprus and Iceland) are universities able to select their quality assurance mechanisms freely and according to their needs” (Estermann et al, 2010). The great advantage of more policy autonomy is in this case –besides the competition which arises in the quality of accreditation organizations- that the administrative burden for institutions decreases, and that it becomes so much easier to have joint degrees across
European countries. The same should be applied to accreditation on a programme basis: there is no reason to limit university policy autonomy to national accredition for degree programs. Institutional accreditation or institutional auditing for quality assurance is a different matter. This has to be national (as is the case in Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Norway and the UK).
6.3 Funding.
Universities largely rely on public funding in Europe (even if funding is being diversified). It is clear from our research that governmental effort in funding is related to a higher university performance. Funding was not considered in absolute amounts, but rather in terms of effort so as to control for the country’s GDP.
Countries with a more modest economic performance can invest in a competitive way in higher education.
The less economically developed EU countries can use structural and cohesion funds to develop their human capital, as has been, for example, the case in Poland.
The use of structural and cohesion funds to upgrade universities could improve the performance of higher education in less economically developed regions.
Financial aid to students was equally important as funding effort. In this respect many countries have not yet their act together. Substantial amounts of Government support (in the form of tax credits or child allowances) support parents rather than students, and tend to benefit an already comfortable upper and middle class, reducing funds available for loans and grants for students who cannot participate in higher education because of financial constraints.
Governments should redirect Government support for students to effectively increasing equality of opportunity.
6.4 Policy continuity.
Government policy is the subject of political decisions. From the country correspondents a picture emerges of politics which do not always provide the necessary continuity and predictability. The translation of a new policy in the practice of university performance takes at least 5-10 years. If policies change with a greater frequency then they are bound to be ineffective. Several European countries have had in the recent past average durations of Government shorter than the announced length of their mandates, with every new Government often coming up with new university reforms, sometimes reinforcing each other, but sometimes also contradicting each other. This is not in the interest of students, universities and innovation.
Politicians should look for a broad political support in enacting new Government regulations (with support beyond the ruling party or the ruling coalition). One way of doing this is by agreeing to a new social contract between universities, politicians and stakeholders.
6.5 Quality in universities.
The major recommendation to universities is to be aware of the need to earn the trust of society for the autonomy and funding they receive and to create the organizational conditions to do so. Part of the conditions is also to focus on the quality of staff recruitment, staff promotion and staff support. Yet,
Trust is primarily earned by universities by showing dedication and responsibility with respect to the throughput and employability of the graduates.
6.6 Inter-country dialogue.
An urban legend tells us that when Jean Monnet led the first meeting on Europe he said that he would like to see education and culture to be the main pillar of the then European Community for Coal and Steel.
However, history took its turn and excluded education and culture from the EU responsibility. This exclusion of education from the different treaties has led to insufficient attention for country comparisons of educational policy with the aim to draw lessons from them. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 brought the necessary correction and gave education a distinct but still modest position in the Treaty, providing in retrospect a more suitable legal basis for the Erasmus programme founded in 1987. The European Commission has embarked upon a series of studies and comparisons, applying soft 'naming and shaming', through what is called the 'open method of coordination'. The Bologna process subsequently led to an unprecedented intercountry dialogue across Europe.
The Bologna process with EU support should go further to enrich the effectiveness of university policies in each of the EU countries, by tackling key issues of relevance to higher education, even if politically difficult.
6.7 Incentives at the European level.
Incentives in funding universities for higher performance are a surrogate for competitive mechanisms. Universities which do well, according to the incentivized goals and parameters, will receive financial rewards for this. Most European Governments have implemented some form of incentive structure in funding universities. However, on the European level such surrogate competition is absent. This defect should be mended in view of the increasing flow of EU students between countries which contributes to the productivity of graduates on the labour market.
In this respect one could think of a new sub-program of the Erasmus exchange for full time studies abroad (within the EU). In this subprogram students are free to choose where they want to study, while the financial conditions (tuition fee and financial aid) are the same as if they would study in their home country. Subsequently, universities which are good at attracting students are rewarded by funding the receiving university from EU funds on a per student basis. Like national incentives, this international incentive would upgrade the quality of university education. As the same time it would greatly increase student mobility, a possible motor of European growth.
At the European level an incentive should be created for universities to attract full-time students from other EU countries.
There are serious problems with joint degrees across European countries centering round the legal status of a national degree. So long as degrees are embedded in national legal systems, the problem will not go away. However far reaching: it would be a great advantage for the quality of higher education in Europe if degrees could be embedded in European legislation.
Download The State of University Policy for Progress in Europe.