I argue that the respective understanding of value discriminates between two forms of ‘strong university leadership’: one that is incompatible with academic freedom, one that is compatible with, if not necessary for it. The structural evolution of modern science implies that present-day sciences understand their path of knowledge creation in terms of the enhancement of measurable functional control over effects with regard to problems of life. Consequently, measures, parameters, quanta – in short: values – are a condition of ‘scientific progress’. If we understand academic freedom as the openness to a fundamental transformation of knowledge, in the domain of value-driven science, the scope of freedom is therefore structurally narrow. However, a particularly pernicious threat to academic freedom arises when scientific practice is controlled by a-scientific values. Once a-scientific metrics gain the upper hand over scientific values, academic freedom is out of play. University leaders who cannot discriminate between scientific ‘thinking in values’ and a-scientific ‘evaluating’, will likely adhere to the latter. ‘Strong university leadership’ will then merely consist of the authority to exercise an indiscriminate, arbitrary prerogative in deciding the ‘what’ and ‘who’ of scientific research and education. The effects on academic freedom of such ‘strong leadership’ can only be detrimental.

Everywhere in the world, higher education is in crisis, and institutional autonomy and academic freedom are under threat. In this article, I propose a continuum of university autonomy in relation to academic freedom, with ‘little or no autonomy’ on one end, followed by ‘low autonomy’, ‘somewhat-balanced autonomy’, and with ‘balanced autonomy’ on the other end. Then I analyse the role of the government in influencing institutional autonomy and academic freedom. My conclusion is that the government plays a key role in determining what kind of autonomy a university enjoys, and balanced autonomy can be achieved if higher education is operated as a federation where different actors, including the government, the board of trustees, the president, faculty and students, work together, one way or the other, as partners. Only then can the university as a public good rightfully fulfil its aims and purposes for the benefit of all humanity.

Authoritarian populism can be defined by anti-establishment attitudes, exclusionary identity politics and anti-pluralism. It denies and derides diverging opinions. Authoritarian populism rejects the legitimacy of opponents, both political and academic, and is susceptible to post-truth politics often steered by tropes and conspiracy theories. It poses a real danger to academic freedom and scientific standards. This article supports this assertion and describes higher education under the authoritarian populist government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. He has centralized the authority over higher education, and has in effect created a deep state, nurturing not just cronyism, but efforts to reorient the mindset of a generation of young Hungarians in an attempt to guarantee the populist and traditionalist ideological legacy of his regime. The article notes that forms of hierarchal political control over the universities and research institutes are falsely presented under the facade of the global process of marketizing universities. However, even in authoritarian Hungary, prompted by dissonance and commitments to academic freedom and scientific standards, there have been progressive counter-movements. These counter-movements provide insights into alternative visions of higher education that seek to preserve the integrity of academic standards, deliberation and intellectual plurality.

Academic freedom is widely accepted both as a fundamental value of present-day higher education and as a prerequisite for well-functioning democratic societies. Yet, in recent years, major concerns about the state of academic freedom in Europe have been raised by higher education stakeholders, including policymakers and members of the academic community. In response to these concerns, the European Parliament launched in 2022 its Academic Freedom Forum. The studies undertaken for the Forum show that academic freedom is eroding in practically all EU Member States. In this article we will discuss these studies and, on the basis of their findings, introduce six categories of threats to academic freedom in Europe. These categories allow for more structured studies on academic freedom in Europe and can contribute to a better understanding of differences and similarities in academic freedom trends among European countries.

Agricultural exports influence ecological outcomes by promoting sustainable farming and eco-friendly technologies, aligning with international standards, and contributing to decarbonization and environmental sustainability. Türkiye has seen considerable growth in agricultural exports, but this rapid expansion raises concerns about its environmental consequences, especially regarding carbon emissions and overall ecological sustainability. This article investigates the impact of agricultural exports on environmental sustainability within the context of trade liberalization policies during Türkiye’s export-oriented agricultural expansion from 1990 to 2015, utilizing the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bounds testing approach. The findings demonstrate that agricultural exports significantly reduce environmental degradation over the long term. This is further validated by the Conditional Error Correction (CEC) model, which confirms that agricultural exports enhance ecological quality by lowering carbon emissions. Additionally, renewable energy consumption supports environmental sustainability by reducing carbon emissions. This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by presenting empirical evidence on the interplay between agricultural exports and environmental sustainability in Türkiye. This article suggests that policymakers focus on an export-oriented agricultural extension strategy to address environmental challenges. Such a strategy should be aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and integrate agricultural exports as a key component of Türkiye’s long-term environmental sustainability plan.

The Optimal Currency Area (OCA) theory is utilized to evaluate if Brexit is supported in the context of economic integration. In brief, the greater the conformity to the criteria motivated by the OCA model, the greater the feasibility of a monetary integration between the UK and the EU. Logically, if conditions are conducive for a monetary integration, Brexit – which is a disintegration – is thus unsupported. On the other hand, if circumstances are unfavourable for monetary integration, further economic integration with the current customs union of the EU is not indicated, hence Brexit is not contradicted.