Live fast, die young : an evaluation of the new/old governance structure in Greek Universities in comparison with the EU Michel Zouboulakis Professor of Economics Vice President of the University of Thessaly Council Former Vice-rector of Economic & Student Affairs
Why university governance is so important? Some hot issues: 1. What is the mission of a governing body to manage an institution or to manage change? 2. What is the role of the Board in a system where academic staff is in charge of education and research to reach excellence is there any room left for a governing body with external members? 3. How can we replace excess regulation and micromanagement by Governments with internal mechanisms for effective resource allocation? 4. How do we find a productive balance between the Board/Council on the one hand and the Rector/ Chancellor on the other hand? [Source: Larsson 2009] Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 2
The evolution of West European Universities in the 20 th cent The three epochs 1) The elitist University till the 1960 s: full autonomy from the state and the market 2) The post 1968 popularization of the University: autonomy with democratization of governance (from 15% to 50% of ages 18-24) 3) The competitive University of the last 30 years: less autonomous, underfunded by the State, competition from outsourcing, with new internal governance arrangements Sources: Tapper & Salter 1995, Henard & Mitterle 2009, van Ginkel 2011 Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 3
The post-1980 s competitive University A. The pressure of the State 1) Need for efficiency: input/output or value for money underfunding 2) Accreditation: mechanisms of quality assurance 3) New governance arrangements: relative autonomy / corporate governance-new Public Mgt / framed autonomy Sources: Aghion et al. 2009, Henard & Mitterle 2009, St Aubyn et al. 2009 Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 4
The post-1980 s competitive University B. The pressure of the market & society 1) The economy asks for specific skills and competencies 2) The families ask for high quality studies 3) Rankings and National Quality Assurance increase national competition 4) More international competition with deregulation after1991: multiplication of private providers of tertiary education and external priorities for research 177 m. students in the world / 4,1 m. abroad in 2010 (OECD) Sources: Bennich 2007, Henard & Mitterle 2009, van Ginkel 2011, Sursock 2015 Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 5
New challenges for the future Autonomy of Universities is strongly connected with academic performance Autonomy means academic, financial and organizational independence from the state and the market. Autonomy means that the University is free to accomplish its fundamental role: center of knowledge and of excellence in teaching and research Institutional freedom and academic performance- Braganca 22/10/2013 6
EUA Criteria of Autonomy Academic: freedom to define the U mission and profile /to create & to terminate a program / to define the curriculum, language and methods of teaching and assessment / to choose the areas, scope, and methods of research / to decide on the numb of students and their admission process Financial: length and type of public funding (block grant or line-item budget) / freedom to decide on tuition fees policy /ability to invest surplus in financial markets /ability to borrow money from the market /ability to own and sell real estate / freedom to raise and allocate private funds Staffing: freedom to decide on the recruitment procedures of personnel at all levels / capacity to negotiate the terms of their employment and salary / capacity to decide on dismissals and promotions Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 7
EUA Criteria of Organizational Autonomy freedom to establish U governing bodies (senates, boards and councils) and their members (internal / external) freedom to set U structures (academic and administrative) and statutes capacity to create independent legal entities freedom to establish the selection procedure, criteria and term of office of the executive head Sources: Estermann & Nokkala (2009), Estermann, Nokkala & Steinel (2011) Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 8
Who is at the Head of a HEI? Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 9
External members at the governance Estermann, Nokkala & Steinel (2011) Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 10
Who is deciding about externals? Estermann, Nokkala & Steinel (2011) Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 11
Participation of stakeholders in QA 222 HEI s in 36 countries Source: Loukkola & Zhang 2010 Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 12
The institutional frame in Greek HEI s before the reform of 2011 One major text (1268/1982) far too many minor reforms (2083/92, 2517/97, 2530/97, 3369/07, 3549/07, 3685/08 + ~30 presidential decrees) 1. Public only HEI s with academic & staffing freedom 2. Excessive financial dependence from the state 3. Relative organizational autonomy with democratic governance = representation of all components (profs, staff & students) both in the decisive bodies (Senate & Depts.) and the election of the Heads 4. Problems: bureaucracy + dependence from the state + internal autocracy (eventual) + lack of meritocracy + flawed student participation + lack of social control Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 13
The HEI map of Greece in 2013 24 Universities with 269 Dep s 16 Technol. HEI with 211 Dep s in 65 cities & islands 14
The 2011 Institutional Reform in Greece (law 4009/11) A drastic break in the Hellenic HE history Introducing a new governance body, the Council: 15 members (8 internal professors + 6 external members + 1 student) Mainly strategic, inspective and financial functions /no academic: 1. To monitor the implementation of the Law 2. To trace the strategic plan of the University 3. To set the University statutes 4. To select the 3 most qualified candidate Rectors /Deans 5. To ratify the Budget and final statement of accounts Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 15
The 2011 Institutional Reform in Greece (law 4009/11) More power to the executive: the Rector acts like a CEO /elected only by his peers Smaller and more flexible Senate: 15 to 25 members (instead of 31 to 99 members) with all the academic and administrative functions More authoritative Deans: decisive power over the recruitment procedures of academic personnel + new -fast track- procedures Less power to the students Introduction of a new funding mechanism: a private law legal entity, to raise and allocate private funds Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 16
After the reform: a new reform! 1. We needed 8 more laws to apply the law: 4076/12, 4115/13, 4132/13, 4142/13, 4186/13, 4203/13, 4235/14, 4264/14 and many decrees 2. The already defective initial law became inoperative 3. Lack of will to implement the law no enforcement mechanism 4. A strong ideological reaction against the Councils, despite their composition: 80 /102 external members were academics, vs.14 from the market 5. Lack of cooperation between the Council, the Rector and the Senate Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 17
Conclusions University reforms should always preserve their fundamental role while adapting to a changing environment U s should learn to behave more autonomously making more for less (less public funds for more academic performance) A necessary condition: protect the Ethos of the University as independent (from the state and the market) center of production and transmission of knowledge Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 18
Selected Recent Bibliography Aghion, Ph., M. Dewatripont, C. Hoxby, A. Mas-Colell, and A. Sapir (2008) Higher aspirations: An agenda for reforming European universities, Bruegel Blueprint Series, Brussels. Bennich-Bjorkman, Li (2007) Has academic freedom survived? A interview study of the conditions for researchers in an era of paradigmatic change, Higher Education Quarterly, 61 (3): 334-361. Ergüder, U. et al. (2011) Academic freedom and Institutional Autonomy within the context of accreditation, quality assurance and rankings, Magna Charta Observatory, Bologna, 220 p. Estermann, T., & Nokkala, T. (2009) University Autonomy in Europe I- Exploratory Study, EUA, Brussels, 48 p. Estermann, T., Nokkala, T. & Steinel, M. (2011) University Autonomy in Europe II-The Scorecard, EUA, Brussels, 81 p. Estermann, T & Bennetot -Pruvot, E. (2011) Financially Sustainable Universities II, EUA, Brussels, 96 p. Henard F. and Mitterle (2009) Governance and quality guidelines in Higher Education IMHE-OECD Larsson, A. (2009) Governing bodies of higher education institutions: Roles and responsibilities-key note lecture, IMHE-OECD Loukkola, T. & Zhang, T. (2010) Examining quality culture: Part 1 QA processes in HEI s, EUA, Brussels, 50 p. OECD (2012) Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing Reichert, S. (2009) Institutional Diversity in Higher Education, EUA, Brussels, 164 p. St Aubyn, M. et al. (2009) Study on the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending in tertiary education, EU Economic Papers, no 390, 148 p. Schoffield, A. (2009) What is an effective and high performing governing body in higher education? Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, London 168p. Sursock, A. (2015) Trends 2015: Learning and Teaching in European Universities, EUA, Brussels, 133 p. Tapper, E.R. and Salter, B.G. (1995) The changing idea of University Autonomy, Studies in Higher Education, 20 (1): 59-71. Zouboulakis: An evaluation of HEI's governance structures- Yerevan 19/6/2015 19