University Autonomy and Financing:
How to Provide Equitable High Quality
Higher Education
D. Bruce Johnstone
Good University Governance Practices Center for Mediterranean Integration
Introduction
• My background (scholar, administrator, World Bank consultant on h. ed. finance and governance • Founding Dir. International Comparative Higher
Education Finance and Accessibility Project • Interest in international comparative H Ed.
Finance, governance, management, leadership, the making of higher educational policy
• Some work in MENA region: Morocco, UAR, Egypt, along with my own conferences in Dar es Salaam, Arusha, Nairobi, Prague, Moscow, and
Autonomy
• Suggests freedom from government: or a devolution of governmental authority from: • Either a ministry, or a parliament, or a
governmental bureaucracy – or from all ?? • But then a devolution to what?
– The senior faculty oligarchy (Senates)?
– A politicized council representing students, labor, faculty, and citizens?
– A governing board ala US: representing the institution and not “interests”?
In a special context:
1. very different histories, institutional structures, cultures, economies, dominant political
ideologies, wealth, and H Ed. Priorities (e.g., expansion of access, or raising sc scholarly prominence
2. Rapidly increasing costs and revenue needs – beyond capability of taxes to meet
Context
4. Rapidly expanding enrollments not just
more, but different students
5. Rapidly changing knowledge: fueled by
universities, but also demanding more
from faculty and curricula
6. Rapidly changing employment needs –
public and private
--Calling upon changes in governance
and management:
Governance concerned with:
1. Institutional mission, nature of faculty (teaching – research), level of programs (undergrad. / first degree, short cycle, advanced professional, grad. & doctoral
2. Array of programs
3. Basis for faculty appointment, promotion, expectations, and rewards
Management concerned with:
1. The curriculum (provence of faculty)
2. The provision of instruction (mainly faculty) 3. The aptmnt. & prom. of academic staff
4. Setting (negotiating) terms, conditions, and compensation of staff
5. The selection of students 6. The allocation of resources
Distinctions ?
• No Point in stressing distinctions among
governance, management, leadership, or the
making of policy.
• Leadership requires the ability to manage:
institution must be managed as well as
The parties or actors in governance
& management
Government Management
Executive Ownership
Legislative Board
Faculty Oligarchy Market
Professional Client
Influence Influence
Historical Roots of Modern University
(implications for governance,
management, and autonomy)
• German
• French (Napoleonic)
• British
German Roots
Humboldt: ever-expanding knowledge: primacy of research
Institutional – meaning faculty -- autonomy
Scientific Inquiry: truth, objectivity, verifiability, replicability,
Principles of Lehrnfreheit & Lehrfreheit
Students: as adults, free, political, elite
Unity of teaching and scholarship
French Roots
Central State Authority: The primacy of the
ministry
State control of degrees by examinations
Professorate to be civil servants
Separation of teaching and research
Separation of universitaires & grandes
écoles:
British Roots
Undergraduate, student-centered
Both intellect & moral character
Residential living: the “Colleges”
Separation of teaching and examining
Service as aristocratic obligation
Crown charters to universities: autonomy
The American Roots
Responsibility of states (no central ministry)
Importance
& sanctity of private institutions
Lay governing boards (private & public)
Utilitarian, democratic, non-selective, free
to aspire (no binary line) strong
non-university sectors
Degrees by accumulation of course credits
American Roots (continued)
Separation of Baccalaureate from graduate &
advanced professional (maintains non-university sector)
Reliance on non-governmental revenue from tuition and philanthropy
Massification, Competition and “
Autonomy seen in context of:
• The interplay of authority and influence
• Great influence of faculty: individually, or
in the faculty senate (or in a civil service /
political union)
• Authority increasingly being shifted from
government to management
• Trend is toward devolution from government to: • \but to what to devolve??
• And how to counter the tendency of universities – whether faculty senates, academic staff unions, or rectors/ presidents – to serve self or institutional interests rather than interests of society, economy, or students?
• Two Trends: (1) corporatization, and (2)
governing boards
1. Corporatization
• Shift from government agency to public corporation:
1. Hire, promote, and establish terms & conditions of employment (as opposed to civil service)
2. Establish contracts (& able to contract out) 3. Incur debt and hole assets (Invest)
4. Sue and be sued
5. Most important: ability to allocate (& reallocate) funds, including public finds –right to terminate
• But how does government insure the public
interest is served (e.g. wide access, new
2. New Lay (Voluntary)
Governing Boards
• Modeled on private boards of trustees of
corporations
• A “buffer” between government and
university: insulation from government
• Representation: government (or public) to
university, and university to government
• Need to respect role of board: authority
Role of Governing Board (US):
1. Appoint, support, protect, and if necessary remove CEO
2. Assure financial integrity (trustee) 3. Help raise private resources
4. Represent and advocate for university 5. Act a final mediator in disputes
Separation of Administrative
Authority from Faculty Influence
• Administrative Authority formal to:
Appoint (deans, other vice presidents, etc)
Approve (appointments, programs, etc)
Request budget (from the government)
Allocate / reallocate budget
• Administrative Authority informal to:
Set agenda
Execute: i.e. command, reward, promote, etc.
Faculty exert influence by:
• Law (more European than US) • Tradition
• Expertise
• Nature of production (teaching & research):
In isolation, little supervision
Multiple and largely immeasurable tasks • Primacy of faculty prestige (+ mobility)
Shared Governance:
• De facto mutual vetoes (ponderous, conservative) • Much deference to tradition & ritual
• Contested terrain (especially over curriculum and allocation / reallocation of resources)
• High political & ideological content
• Faculty: critical & resistant to supervision • Few uncontestable answers
Conflicting Expectations
• Politicians: less cost; contented students and
parents (voters), no disruptions
• Business community: well-trained workers
• Students: good teaching, independence,
financial support (from taxpayers), and jobs
• Faculty: decent pay, job protection, good
