Europe’s universities lack ‘genuine autonomy’ from state control – EUA

A new study (published - 30 November) analysing and comparing university autonomy and governance across 33 European countries highlights that universities still lack genuine autonomy.

While many governments, the university sector and indeed the European Commission have recognised that increased autonomy for universities will be a crucial step towards modernising universities in the 21st century, the new report by the European University Association (EUA) highlights that in practice public authorities still play too central a role in the regulation of the higher education system and, in a large number of countries, still exert direct control.

Despite the fact that public authorities in a number of European countries have moved away from direct state control towards more ‘indirect’ steering mechanisms, universities generally still lack autonomy in many crucial areas, in particular in terms of managing finances. At a time when the overall levels of public funding in education are stagnating across Europe, and universities are increasingly being asked to look for alternative funding sources, EUA believes this lack of autonomy is a real threat for the sustainability of Europe’s universities.

The study focuses on more than 30 different indicators in four key areas of autonomy: organisational autonomy (e.g. academic and administrative structures leadership, governance) academic autonomy (e.g. defining study fields, student numbers, student selection, and structure/content of degrees) financial autonomy (e.g. ability to raise funds, own buildings, borrow money) staffing autonomy (e.g. the ability to independently recruit, promote and develop academic and non academic staff).

These are just a small selection of the key findings from the study (please see notes for editors for more detailed list of findings):

Flexibility to use public funding. In the majority of systems (26), public funding is allocated as block grants (lump sums), increasingly based on performance criteria. In a few countries however (including Bulgaria, Turkey, Latvia, Lithuania, and some German “Länder”), universities are still faced with line-item budgets preventing them from moving funding between different activities. Even block-grant funding does not mean, however, that universities can necessarily use funding as they wish (for example restrictions can prevent shifting finances between broad categories).

In only half the countries surveyed do universities have the right to own their buildings, which is important for being an independent financial actor. Furthermore, even those universities which own their real estate are not always free to sell without supervision of the Ministry. The majority of systems (22) allow universities to borrow money. However, legilsation (particularly in northern Europe) can restrict the overall amount borrowed and universities may need prior authorisation from the relevant Ministry. Less than one-third of the countries (11) surveyed allow universities to invest in stocks and shares.

In some countries, universities are gaining a greater flexibility in terms of human resources management; staff are increasingly directly paid and/or employed by the university rather than the government. However, universities clearly have less freedom to manage individual salary costs. A number of countries reported restrictions which include prescribed salary ‘bands’ or the ability to set salaries of only certain staff categories. In addition, in almost half of the countries all or the majority of staff have civil servant status, which is a less flexible form of employment.

Governance: In the majority of cases (29) the framework for university decision-making bodies is stipulated in the law (however with varying levels of autonomy for the university regarding selection and number of board members).

The study highlights that external members (from outside the university) are increasingly involved in university governance. Their selection is either controlled by the university or the state or jointly (in the majority of countries). There are varying degrees to which these members are implicated in the university’s governance, ranging from full strategic involvement to mere advisory capacity.

University leadership:  regulations about the university leadership are generally strongly shaped by national legislation. For example, the university leader’s (rector, vice chancellor) term of office is determined by law in two-thirds (24) of countries. In the same number of countries the Rector’s required qualifications are defined by law and not by the university. The shift towards ‘Chief Executive Officer’ (CEO)-type rectors in certain western European countries appears to go hand in hand with a greater autonomy in management and structure design.

Report author Thomas Estermann, explains: “This report underlines that while there is broad agreement between stakeholders on the importance of university autonomy, there has been much less success in transforming this from rhetoric into reality. Particularly where financial issues are concerned, if universities are not free to act in the interest of their students and staff, then the other dimensions of autonomy may as well only exist in theory.”

This report by EUA will form the first basis of a new two-year project to develop a scorecard that will benchmark university autonomy (on the national level) across Europe. The  Autonomy Scorecard will be a major tool both at the national level and at the individual institutional level, serving as a reference for national governments wishing to benchmark their progress on governance reforms vis-ŕ-vis other systems, whilst also helping to raise awareness among universities of the differences that exist in Europe. The launch of the Scorecard is due to take place at the end of the project in the winter of 2011.

Download the full report for more information.


Post to Social Links

Other News Stories

Careers and Recruitment

Global MBA Trends for 2006

Further News