Brussels, 17/06/2008 (Agence Europe) - Eurydice, the education information network has published a European Commission supported study on higher education governance. The study examines the question by looking at different aspects: structures, grants and public funding inspections mechanisms, autonomy in the collection and use of private funding and academic staff management. Improvement of governance is part, with quality imperatives and grown in funding, of the important challenges facing higher education as it strives to create a genuine European higher education area. Commissioner Jan Figel, responsible for education, training, culture and youth welcomed the study, which “enriches our knowledge of governance processes in higher education and is original in its geographical coverage”. Thirty countries (the 27 member states and three EFTA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) are involved. This provides a wider vision of the situation in Europe.
The analyses demonstrate that there are clear differences in European countries in a wide range of areas where different modes exist (state regulator or supervisory body at state level, internal models of governance, managerial kinds of governance or business university model at education establishment levels). The European network, however, points to several very different national situations, which more largely adhere to different models. There is broad consensus in Europe on a level of targets on the need to develop a long term policy and most countries have adopted or are on the point of adopting specific policy documents to ensure financial viability in their teaching establishments. In the medium-term, common targets are being developed to: increase funding for higher education, grant greater autonomy to education institutions in the management of their financial resources, to establish direct links between the results attained and the volume of public funding granted, to encourage diversification of financial sources and the setting up of partnerships with research institutes, business and regional authorities.
The main characteristics illustrated by the 2006-07 study are: 1) increased participation of external actors: the executive head of the institution is generally responsible for the education institution's strategic planning, development, organisation, management and monitoring. In most cases the executive head is selected by stakeholders with the education institution, although in about one third of the countries, final appointments are made by an external authority. Education institutions in most countries have now introduced a supervisory body composed of external stakeholders to ensure that the institution complies with national laws and regulations. Greece and Romania are the only countries which do not include external stakeholders in institutional governance bodies; 2) Financial autonomy of higher education institutions (HEIs): only five countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Cyprus and Latvia) allocate public funding to institutions according to budget headings which must be strictly adhered to. Elsewhere, block grants exist but in a certain number of central and eastern European countries, as well as in Belgium and France, institutions must adhere to their own budget headings which have been approved by the public authorities; 3) Private funding: the main sources of authorised private funding are donations and legacies from private entities, partnerships established in the framework of research contracts between HEIs and private contractors, and fees from service provision. In five countries (Czech Republic, Greece, Netherlands, Slovenia and United Kingdom), HEIs have a very high level of autonomy in crating companies, making financial investments and borrowing money. However, Bulgaria, Slovakia and the Nordic countries (apart from Denmark) are relatively strict as regards these three ways of generating private funding. The vast majority of European countries have implemented incentives to support HEIs in their search for private funding. Tax allowances for donors and private partners are the most common incentives; 4) Academic staff: the regulatory state model is seen in most countries with respect to the definition of categories of staff and their respective eligibility criteria. On the other hand, the definition of other stages of recruitment appears to be within the remit of the institutions. Only in five countries (Czech Republic, Greece, Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom) is the situation marked by a high level of institutional autonomy throughout the whole process. The study is available in English at: http: //http://www.eurydice.org . (I.L./trans.r.h.)