Part II - Country University Governance Profiles

3 Armenia

Peter D. Eckel

3.1 The National and Higher Education Contexts

The National Context

Armenia is a country of approximately three million people that gained independence in 1991. It is in the South Caucuses, on the edge of the former Soviet empire, with Turkey to its west, Georgia to its north, Azerbaijan to its east, and Iran and Azerbaijan to its south. Armenian is the national language, with Russian spoken in many smaller towns. The capital is Yerevan, with a population of approximately 1.1 million.

Armenia’s population is in slight decline, at 2,998,600 in 2016, down from 3,018,90 in 2011, and from 3.5 million in 1990 (World Bank, 2019a). The percent of citizens over the age of 55 is more than twice that (27 percent) of those aged 15–24 (12 percent) the school-going proportion of the population; however, the youngest portion (0–14) make up 19 percent of the population. (CIA, 2020b). So, while demands on the current higher education sector are not great in terms of population growth, there are anticipated demands on education as the youth population ages. That said, Armenia also has one of the highest old-age dependency ratios in the region, at 21.3 percent, which threatens to create a burden on the economy. Its per capita income is $4,020, approximately one-third that of Kazakhstan, for example. Its poverty headcount ratio is 32 percent (Capannelli & Kanbur, 2019).

In the spring of 2018, peaceful street protests, dubbed the Velvet Revolution, led to the ouster of the country’s long-time leader when he tried to extend his rule. Although this revolution reportedly was a surprise, there was long simmering dissatisfaction with the government (World Bank, 2019a). In 2018, The Economist named Armenia as country of the year for its transition to democracy and commitment to effective governance (The Economist, 2018). In 2020, the country entered a militarized conflict with Azerbaijan over the disputed region Nagorno-Karabakh.

Until the 2008–2009 financial crisis, the country’s economy was, as noted by the World Bank, “an important success story among the transition economies” (World Bank, 2017, p. ix). Its first two decades of post-Soviet independence was defined by high growth and economic stability, including falling poverty rates and narrowing income gaps. It had low inflation and modest deficits and external debt.

However, since the 2009 recession, the economy has been a different story with low economic growth, stagnated poverty reduction, and increasing economic disparities. Before 2009, the average growth per capita was 12.3 percent, and after the recession growth was 3.2 percent (World Bank, 2017). The pre-recession drivers – private and public transfers, including remittances and pensions, and low-skilled employment mostly in non-trade construction – that reduced poverty and led to growth are proving ineffective growth strategies over the long term (World Bank, 2017).

Its economic interdependence with Russia furthermore negatively affected the country during the 2014 Russian financial crisis. Since that time, the economic transformation of Armenia continues, however at a much slower pace. The country is transitioning away from agriculture and toward services, including IT and high-tech sectors that typically require higher education levels. Half of GDP and employment was in the services sector in 2016 as compared to 37 percent in 2000 (World Bank, 2017). Correspondingly, agricultural employment declined by 9 percent and industrial employment also declined by 3 percent (World Bank, 2017). Hidden within these larger trends are growth in specific areas, with an increase in tourism, ICT, and agriculture focused on beverages and tobacco. Remittances make up a sizeable 19.7 percent of the GDP (Capannelli & Kanbur, 2019) in 2013, up from 4.6 percent in 2000.

The shifts in the economy may well increase the relevance for productive post-secondary education. The World Bank notes that a near-term government goal should be to “ensure the education and workforce development system provides skills relevant to the market” (2017, p. xii). Regardless of need, the economy seems insufficiently robust to support such development. There is a lack of vibrancy in the private sector, resulting in a poor labor market even though the state-owned sector is limited and comparably so to its peer former Soviet countries (World Bank, 2017). Few jobs for college graduates exist, although the areas of economic growth such as IT and high-tech sectors (World Bank, 2017) may yield a demand for a more educated workforce, albeit slowly.

The government has a limited ability to invest further in education as it is constrained in the ways it can raise income (World Bank, 2017); and at the same time its aging population threatens significant financial pressure on the government through rising health care needs and costs with a projected 40 percent increase in health care spending in the next ten years.

The economic disparities within the country have grown since the 2008–2009 recession, countering a trend in which the poverty rate declined from 53.5 percent to 27.6 percent between 2004 and 2008. After the recession, the poverty rate started to increase, reaching 29.8 percent in 2015 (World Bank 2017) and continuing to 32 percent (Capannelli & Kanbur, 2019). The bottom 40 percent of earners has averaged less than 1 percent in growth per year. The current economy offers few opportunities for those individuals to gain via economic growth.

The World Bank (2017) identifies three constraints related to the supply side of the labor market: (1) labor market relevance of the education system, (2) matching workers to jobs that meet qualifications, and (3) demographics of a shrinking and aging population. Economic progress is set against the challenge of finding future workers and talent production being a responsibility of higher education. Between 2005–2006 and 2010–2011, general education enrollment declined by 22 percent, meaning that there are less individuals in the schooling pipeline and few who will eventually enter the workforce.

It can be helpful to further contextualize the economy and the ways that higher education can contribute. The Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks Armenia 58th out of 141 countries regarding public sector performance with a score of 53.0 out of 100 and the burden of regulations ranked 28th with a score of 51.7 for 2018–2019 (Schwab, 2019).¹ It scored the future orientation of the government at 54.9, ranked 74th. For the Skills pillar, most closely related to higher education quality, WEF scored Armenia 44.5 out of 100 for the skillset of graduates and a score of 50.5 on the ease of finding skilled employees indicators. This ranked the country 100th and 85th respectively on those indicators out of a total of 141. Regarding corporate governance, which arguably is different from public University governance, WEF ranked Armenia 55th with a score of 62.7. Therefore, universities find themselves in an environment that is conducive in terms of burden of regulation and with a moderate level of public sector capacity. However, the future orientation of the country and its ease of finding needed graduates is comparatively weak, suggesting that higher education can and should be doing more, particularly since the context seems favorable.

Furthermore, University governance takes place within a larger country public sector governing context. According to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators project, except for regulatory quality and government effectiveness, the country falls below the 50th percentile across the indicators. Voice and accountability as well as control of corruption have moved the most in a positive direction, but political stability and government effectiveness have fallen backwards (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Armenia

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

Armenian higher education consists of sixty-one universities, twenty-four of which are public, including sixteen universities, twelve foundations,² and four state noncommercial organizations (WB, 2019). There are thirty-nine private universities in the country (Tsaturyan, Fljyan, Gharibyan, & Hayrapetyan, 2017).³ Private universities were allowed to open in 1995 (World Bank, 2019a).

Tertiary education enrollment stands at 52.9 percent (World Bank, 2017) compared to 91.6 percent enrollment in general education. Rural citizens have the lowest levels of general educational attainment (50 percent) compared to their peers in the large and secondary urban areas (World Bank, 2017). There were 78,747 students enrolled in higher education in 2018, a decline of approximately 30 percent, from a high of 114,629 in 2009 (World Bank, 2019a). The World Bank estimates there are 1.5 women for every man enrolled in tertiary education, however, only 60 percent of women participate in the labor market.

During Soviet times, public universities were under ideological and administrative control of the state (Dobbins & Khachatryan, 2015; World Bank, 2019a), although Armenian higher education has centuries-old roots (Karakhanyan, 2018). One key legacy of the Soviet University system is the separation of universities and scientific research institutes (Karakhanay, 2018; World Bank, 2013) which has delayed the development of university-driven research and continues to be a challenge (Smith & Hamilton, 2015).

The government funds public universities based on enrollments. In the two decades starting in 1996, the government almost doubled its support for public universities, from 5.3 billion AMD (approximately USD12.2 million) to 10.2 billion AMD (approximately USD21.6 million). (Tsaturyan, Fljyan, Gharibyan, & Hayrapetyan, 2017).

Higher Education Governing Context

Public universities operate under a variety of laws, including the 1999 Law on Education, the 2004 Law on Higher Education and Post Graduate Education, the Law on State Non-Commercial Organizations 2002–2003 (SNCO), and the Law on Foundations (2002), which applies to some universities. Different laws pertain to different public universities depending on their classification. For example, four universities define themselves as foundations thus falling under that relevant law. However, that law was created before universities were classified this way meaning that not all aspects of that law apply appropriately to universities (World Bank, 2019a).

The higher education law was anticipated to be revisited in 2019 (World Bank, 2019a); but because of the Covid pandemic, revisions have not been acted upon. The current laws contain contradictory elements that result in confusion around University governance. For example, the Law on Foundations provides more financial flexibility to pursue revenue-generating activities and retain revenue, as compared to SNCO requirements that revenue return to the government, impacting budgeting flexibility and planning. For those universities falling under the Law on Foundations, the boards have the authority to fire the rector at any time with sufficient votes. This matter is not regulated at those institutions falling under the Law on Higher Education (World Bank, 2019a). Even the names of the highest governing body differ depending on whether the University falls under the Foundation or SNCO laws, with the former being called Board of Trustees and the latter identified as HEI Councils (Alcala & Markosyan, 2017). According to the World Bank (2013), the unclear and contradictory legal framework “sends HEIs mixed and contradictory signals on institutional governance” (p. 6).

Regarding autonomy, Armenian public universities have the freedom to set their own tuition fees, although the government set caps related to accreditation results and level of degrees offered. The majority of students pay tuition fees; only 15.7 percent receive state scholarships (2012–2013), providing revenue to institutions (Tsaturyan, Fljyan, Gharibyan, & Hayrapetyan, 2017). Yet, universities have limited autonomy even though the state provides approximately 25 percent of revenue (Dobbins & Khachatryan, 2015). Depending on under which laws a University falls, public universities may pursue economic and commercial activities and they have some degree of autonomy regarding property, although most is owned by the State. The Ministry of Education and Sciences monitors finances and public universities have to pass internal and external audits. (Tsaturyan, Fljyan, Gharibyan, & Hayrapetyan, 2017). Universities have staffing autonomy to hire and promote individuals, as well as set salaries. However, because of financial constraints, most do not have the financial capacity to do so (World Bank, 2019a). The state determines admissions requirements and controls licensing and accreditation processes (Dobbins & Khachatryan, 2015).

The country’s public universities can introduce new academic programs but only from an approved list of Professions and Qualifications without gaining special governmental approval. Universities can only cancel programs with governmental approval (World Bank, 2019a). Universities do not have the ability to fully decide the number of students admitted; the state allocates a limited number of slots, even for fee-paying students (World Bank, 2019a).

Even though the various laws relating to higher education seem to support autonomy to some degree across them, as the Word Bank (2013) notes, “the Law on Higher Education of 2004 and the Law on Education of 1999 define the overall governance framework for higher education in detail, but with ambiguity in favor of the government’s control” (pp. 8–9). As the World Bank in that same report notes “conflicting laws [such as SNCO and Foundations as well as Higher Education laws] allow the MOES to interfere” (p. 24). International experts suggest that the county needs to consolidate the laws pertaining to higher education to add consistency, uniformity, and clarity. One result could be less governmental interference with higher education.

A word about corruption. Armenia as undertaking a concerted effort to address corruption, including in higher education, with a focus on increasing transparency and accountability. A 2007 survey identified education as the most corrupt area, ahead of judicial and health care (World Bank, 2013). In another study, more than one-third of students reported corruption in entrance examinations as well as corruption ongoing throughout their University experience (World Bank, 2013). In 2015–2017, the government undertook a project funded by the European Union and the Council of Europe, The Strengthening Integrity and Combating Corruption in Higher Education in Armenia. Central to these efforts are improving University governance as a means to strengthening transparency and accountability.

In addition to an analysis to increase transparency and accountability, the anti-corruption effort produced a tool kit focusing on enhancing transparency and accountability with an explicit focus on governance and with questions targeted toward governing boards. The Governance Transparency and Accountability framework in the toolkit specifically asks questions related to governing boards (Alcala & Markosyan, 2017). For example:

Are the following members of the highest Governing Board of your institution (e.g., Board of Trustees) elected by secret ballot?

• Representatives from professional staff

• Student representatives

For each of the following groups, please report the ratio of proposed candidates to available seats on the Board.

• Professional Staff

• Student Representatives

Is there a publicly, disclosed, open, and/or competitive process for nomination and appointment of the following groups? Non-elected (e.g., individuals properly appointed by the Prime Minster or delegated Minister) of the highest Governing Board (yes/no). If yes, please describe the selection process.

However, even with the high-level and international attention to this topic and resources widely available to improve transparency and accountability, efforts to curtail corruption in higher education have not been as the World Bank notes, “very effective” (2019a, p. 18).

3.2 Governing Body Profile

The 2005 Law on Higher and Postgraduate Professional Education introduced University boards as the main governing bodies for public universities (World Bank, 2019a). The boards are designed to be representative with members including government employees, academic staff, students, and renown individuals (Karakhanyan, 2018). According to the Law, the board is a collegial management body, established for a period of five years and in accordance with the Charter of the institution. The charter specifies the number of members, with at least twenty.

For daily University management, the rector is responsible and elected in an open competition to a five-year term. Individuals can serve two terms as rector. Universities also have Academic Councils and rector advisory bodies.

Governing boards of private universities are unregulated and vary. For example, the board at the American University of Armenia consists of seven members but can be as larger as twenty-five (World Bank, 2019a), including two appointed by the government. The Russian-Armenian University has nineteen board members, including fourteen members from the Russian Federation (World Bank, 2013).

Body Structure

Boards of public universities in Armenia, according to the Law on Higher and Postgraduate Education, should consist of at least twenty individuals. They tend to range from twenty to thirty-two people (World Bank, 2013).

Membership and Appointment Process

According to the Regulation on Formation of Public University Boards, 25 percent of board members should be appointed state officials; 25 percent should be well-known people from the fields of education, science, culture, and business nominated by the founder (private institutions) or authorized state body (public universities); 25 percent students; and 25 percent University staff.

What this framework does not account for is the other criteria for board membership. For example, an investigation by the European Union and Council of Europe into corruption and influence found that the student members must be members of the ruling political party and be approved by the government (Dobbins & Khachatryan, 2015; Smith & Hamilton, 2015). And the quarter of members who are people of note are appointed by state officials or are themselves high-level government officials, compromising University independence (World Bank, 2019a).

Chair Appointment Processes

The Law on Higher and Postgraduate Education stipulates that the chair or president of the board is elected from within the board (excluding students) by the board members (World Bank, 2013). However, most public University boards end up being chaired by high-level government officials (World Bank 2013, 2019a). Fifty percent of the voting members are put on the board by the prime minster or Education Ministry and student members (another 25 percent) who support the government.

The Word Bank identified board chairs as an area of concern in its 2013 study. Those who lead the board were mostly senior government officials. Titles, for example, included the president of Armenia, the head of the Presidential Administration, prime minister, former ambassador to Russia, mayor, governor, and the minister of Education and Science (World Bank, 2013). A counterargument related to University boards being chaired by high-level government officials was offered by a ministerial official in one of the anti-corruption reports (Smith & Hamilton, 2015), who noted that such government involvement is “not as a means of control, but as a way of demonstrating the importance of HE.” (p. 21).

Board Accountability

Given the high percentage of government officials and government appointees on the boards, boards are highly accountable to governmental wishes. Furthermore, given the focus on transparency and accountability of governing boards in the EU project, the transparency toolkit asks boards to report on a set of questions intended to strengthening board accountability. These include:

• the percentage of agenda items proposed for consideration that were not adopted;

• the extent to which elected members of each governing body report or provide feedback to units or bodies that elect them; and

• requests to summarize the major decisions of the board not including the adoption of the strategic plan, annual activity plan, budget, and implementation reports.

Scope of Work

The Law on Higher and Postgraduate Education stipulates that boards do the following:

• approve budget and strategic programs of the institution;

• assess the annual report, presented by the rector, and approve the next year’s budget;

• elect the rector through an open competition; however, the election results must be approved by the founder, which, for public universities, is the Ministry; and

• make proposals to change or supplement the University charter.

However, given that Armenia’s public universities have a low level of autonomy (World Bank, 2019a), the scope of board work is limited. As discussed above, public universities do not have the authority to introduce new academic programs (although they can cancel existing ones) (World Bank, 2019a). They can only offer degree programs on the approved list of Professions and Qualifications (approved 2014). They cannot determine the numbers of students admitted each year. Only those universities that are classified as foundations have the ability to retain revenue, as noted above.

Commentary

The overall environment and the current state of higher education suggest that more is needed from the sector, both in terms of participation rates but also in degree relevance. The shift in the economy toward more knowledge-dependent sectors means more expectations on higher education to produce. The public sector and level of national competitiveness remain challenges negatively impacting higher education responsiveness. Issues such as constrained autonomy and corruption are likely to limit the University sector to change and grow.

Although boards are intended to be self-management mechanisms and thus distinct from government, according to the country’s law, boards as currently constituted favor and invite governmental influence. “While democratic in nature, an absent preparatory phase enabling the meaningful participation of such key stakeholders combined with negligence of contextualization later resulted in decision-making manipulation” (Karakhanyan, 2018, p. 83). These boards, with up to 25 percent of their members consisting of state officials, are highly politicized bodies (World Bank, 2019a). Even student members – 25 percent of the boards – are political party members who must be approved by the government (Smith & Hamilton, 2015). The political nature of these boards is further reinforced by the fact that political leaders became the heads of University boards (Smith & Hamilton, 2015; World Bank, 2019a).

This lack of higher education independence furthermore was a factor identified in the EU supported anti-corruption efforts. That said, the high level of direct government influence has been countered with the argument that such involvement is actually a signal of the importance of higher education to the country (Smith & Hamilton, 2015). In 2018, following the Velvet Revolution, the board leadership was changed slightly, as high-level political leaders could serve but not serve as heads of boards (World Bank, 2019a). These are incremental changes, but more can be done.

What is unclear is what the 2018 change in government and the pending higher education law might mean for University governance. A government able to garner accolades from The Economist, for instance, regarding reforms may be willing and capable to address the shortcomings of the current governance approach. International attention and pressure to address corruption in higher education may further add to governance reform efforts. That said, as can be seen in this country brief, a structure intended to be broad and inclusive can be actualized for different aims based on how the structure operates and the intentions of policy makers.

4 Azerbaijan

Merey Mussabayeva and Serik Ivatov

4.1 The National and Higher Education Contexts

National Context

Azerbaijan is an upper-middle-income country with a population of about ten million people (Azerbaijan Statistical Information Service, n.d.-a). Located in the South Caucasus region of Eurasia, it is bordered by Russia to the north, Iran and Turkey to the south, Georgia to the northwest, Armenia to the west, and is bound by the Caspian Sea to the east. It holds membership in many international organizations, including the United Nations, the OSCE, the Bologna Process, and the European Higher Education Area (since 2005).

According to its constitution, Azerbaijan is a democratic, secular, unitary republic. Since its independence, Azerbaijan experienced economic problems similar to other post-Soviet countries: the transition to a market economy, economic resource scarcity, and the dependence of its market on the socialist republics. In addition, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and political instability from 1991 to 1995 hindered the formulation and implementation of reform-oriented economic policies. It should be noted that after the period of peace that lasted for about twenty years, there were additional military clashes in the Nagorno-Karabakh region in 2016, 2020, 2021, and 2022. After 1995, Azerbaijan managed to revamp its economy, becoming a leading economic player in the post-Soviet space. Azerbaijan used its oil reserves to rebuild its economy after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and as a foreign policy instrument in international relations (Cornell, 2011). For instance, the oil sector was projected to generate 54.2 percent of the state budget revenues for 2021 fall, while the non-oil sector was projected to generate 45.8 percent of the revenues (Center for Economic and Social Development, 2020).

One of the drawbacks of a resource-based economy is its vulnerability to external shocks “arising from sharp falls in the prices of countries’ main export commodities” (Ahrend, 2006, p. 8). Also, the booming resource sector can draw capital and labor away from other sectors, leaving them underinvested. Therefore, although Azerbaijan intended to diversify its economy by strengthening its non-oil sector as noted in Azerbaijan 2020: Look into the Future (Government of Azerbaijan, 2012) many investments go to the oil sector (OECD, 2019).

The service sector also contributes to GDP but on a smaller scale. For instance, trade (repair of transport means) generated 11.5 percent of GDP in 2020. Although the climate of Azerbaijan is favorable for the development of agriculture, the share of agriculture in the economy is one of the lowest in the post-Soviet region (World Bank, 2018a). In 2020, agriculture, forestry, and fishing generated 6.9 percent of GDP (Azerbaijan Statistical Information Service, n.d.-b). Overall, the extraction and production of raw materials remain a dominant economic activity in Azerbaijan. The shape of the country’s economy is consistent, thus calling for steady output from its universities in terms of workforce development.

Although Azerbaijan demonstrated economic growth, there was a decline in public spending on education. Educational funding dropped from 4.2 percent to 2.4 percent of GDP between 1998 and 2017 (World Bank, n.d.-d). Government expenditure allocated to higher education accounts for less than 0.5 percent of GDP. In 2018, the government allocated 3 percent of GDP to education, with 0.3 percent of GDP (or 10 percent of government expenditure allocated to education in general) going to higher education (World Bank, 2018a). The lack of resources resulted in low-quality education, corrupt practices, the introduction of tuition fees, and the emergence of private corrupt higher education institutions (HEIs) (Isakhanli & Pashayeva, 2018). However, interest exists in advancing higher education particularly from external agencies. International organizations such as the European Union, the World Bank, UNICEF, IREX, the Soros Foundation, and the Eurasian Foundation have supported the development of higher education in Azerbaijan by offering grants and credits and assistance in developing academic programs.

The Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks Azerbaijan 23rd out of 141 countries regarding public sector performance with a score of 66.8 out of 100 and the burden of regulations ranked 3rd with a score of 72.1 for 2018–2019 (Schwab, 2019). It scored the future orientation of the government at 55.3, ranked 70th. For the Skills pillar, most closely related to higher education quality, WEF scored Azerbaijan 57 out of 100 for the skillset of graduates and a score of 63.2 on the indicator of ease of finding skilled employees. This ranked the country 45th and 29th respectively on those indicators out of a total of 141. Regarding corporate governance, which arguably is different from public University governance, WEF ranked the country 9th with a score of 76.6. Therefore, the country is somewhat challenged in making policy choices for the future.

The national governing context according to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators project is as follows. Its control of corruption declined over the past decade as did its rule of law and governance effectiveness. The country saw an increase in its political stability and a slight increase in voice and accountability. Nevertheless, all of these governance indicators are below the 45th percentile (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Azerbaijan

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

The higher education system in Azerbaijan, like in other post-Soviet countries, has been greatly shaped by the Soviet Union’s centralized economy, ideological system, and alignment with industry. The higher education system developed and expanded under the Soviet Union. The number of HEIs increased drastically from one state University (Baku State University) to seventeen HEIs between 1919 and 1990 (Isakhanli & Pashayeva, 2018). In response to the needs of industrialization and the national planned economy, specialized HEIs were established by the government. Examples of such institutions include the Petroleum Institute (opened in 1920), the Agrarian Institute (1929), and the Polytechnic Institute (1950) (see Isakhanli & Pashayeva, 2018). In terms of mode of study, HEIs were mainly offering evening and part-time classes to create a highly qualified workforce. Universities were centers for professional training, whereas research institutes (e.g., the Academy of Science) became centers of research.

After its independence, Azerbaijan started reforming its higher education system so that it is aligned with the new economic and political structure. Because of the economic decline and resource scarcity, Azerbaijan then implemented reforms that advocate for market privatization and liberalization. The reforms were supported by legislation. For example, the Law on Education (in 1992) introduced tertiary education, tuition fees, and permission to establish private universities and privatize institutions. The number of HEIs skyrocketed from seventeen to fifty-three between 1990 and 2014 (Isakhanli & Pashayeva, 2018). Also, the Law on Education classifies HEIs based on the degrees they award (Isakhanli & Pashayeva, 2018). Institutions that offer only bachelor’s programs are one-tier institutions. Two-tier institutions offer bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral programs.

In 2019, the higher education landscape consisted of forty state and twelve non-state HEIs (State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan, n.d.). State universities had been subsidized by the government, while private universities had not received any public funding (Isakhanli, 2005). In 2010, the government adopted a decree on financing HEIs. According to the decree, all HEIs can receive per capita student payments regardless of their type of ownership. In other words, this decree allowed non-state institutes to educate students whose higher education is subsidized by the government through grants. Students are admitted to state HEIs based on the results of the national admission test (UNESCO, 2011). The number of students in state and non-state HEIs increased dramatically from 119,683 to 176,723 between 2000/2001 and 2018/2019 (State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan, n.d.). Similarly, the number of foreign students studying in state and non-state HEIs increased from 1,870 to 4,262 between 2000/2001 and 2018/2019 (State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan, n.d.).

Higher Education Governing Context

Although Azerbaijan implemented policies to reform the HE system in the early 1990s, the system remains centralized, “with all policies and reforms decided and very often imposed by the Cabinet of Ministers and the MoE [Ministry of Education]” (Isakhanli & Pashayeva, 2018, p. 110). One such example was the enactment of the Law on Education in October 1992. The law reflected the national agenda regarding the modernization of the HE system in accordance with international standards (e.g., the shift to three-stage postsecondary education), the unification of education and science within HEIs, the diversification of revenues for institutions, and the privatization of institutions.

According to the 2009 Law on Education, two main system-level governing bodies exist in Azerbaijan: the Cabinet of Ministers and the Ministry of Education (MoE). The Cabinet of Ministers is a supreme governing body that exercises control over the implementation of the Law on Education, various legislative acts, and documents; shapes the higher education system; develops and implements local and international programs for the development of education; and establishes standards for financing education and employment. The MoE is the central executive body that governs the education system and is accountable to the Cabinet of Ministers. It takes part in the development of state education policies, ensures the implementation of policies; exercises control over the execution of the legislation on education; and shapes curricula, teaching methodologies, and course priorities through state-level higher education standards.

Six HEIs have a relatively higher degree of autonomy (see Isakhanli & Pashayeva, 2018) that enable them to define the educational content, develop admission plans, and award academic degrees and titles. In addition, these institutions receive funding directly from the Ministry of Finances and are not governed by any other governmental bodies. One such institution is Baku State University, which is a flagship University in the country. Although these institutions have a relative degree of academic autonomy, all HEIs are obliged to follow state standards. State standards define curriculum, teaching methodologies, quality assurance processes, and the structure of HEIs. There are also ten institutions that operate under the “auspices of other ministries, state companies and other affiliated institutions” (Isakhanli & Pashayeva, 2018, p. 110). Examples of such institutions are the University of Management and Tourism, the Azerbaijan Medical University, and the State Academy of Sports. Private HEIs can operate under governance of their Boards of Trustees and partnerships with industry.

Similarly, HEIs in Azerbaijan enjoy a limited degree of financial autonomy (see Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2017). The Ministry of Finances controls public and private institutions’ spending of public funds. Since 2010, private HEIs are allowed to receive students whose education is subsidized by the government (grants). In addition, public and private institutions can be funded from tuition fees, national and international projects, real estate, and other sources not prohibited by the state legislation. Institutions can control the spending of this type of funds.

4.2 Governing Body Profile

The governance structure of HEIs varies in Azerbaijan. The structure of the governing board depends on the type of HEIs. Today, Azerbaijani HEIs are classified as universities, institutes, academies, and conservatories. Universities are diversified HEIs that provide a wide range of education at all degree levels of higher education and conduct fundamental and applied scientific research. Institutions are either independent or a structural unit of the universities, which provide the training of specialists at a higher education level on specific specialties. Academies introduce higher training programs as well as carrying out fundamental and applied scientific research. Conservatories train specialists in music at a higher education level (EACEA, 2017).

Some HEIs have only the governing board and the rector, such as Azerbaijani Diplomatic Academy (ADA University), which was originally established based on a US model, and Baku Engineering University, which was “restructured” from a Turkish foundation-owned private University to a state one, while the others have an extensive structure, also including a Senate and committees. The number of committees is unregulated and flexible and depends on the size and scope of the institution. As a rule, bigger universities such as Baku State University or ADA University tend to have an extensive governing structure due to their larger student and faculty body.

The general administration of HEIs is carried out by Scientific or Academic Councils. The formation and responsibilities of the Academic Council are determined based on the statute approved by the relevant executive authority and the charter of the education institution. The jurisdiction of the Academic Council consists in making and discussing proposals on the budget and funds as well as on the development and implementation of the state policy for education. The recommendations go to the rector and vice-rectors (Ibadoghlu, 2019).

Rectors of public HEIs are appointed by the president of the Republic of Azerbaijan upon recommendation by the Ministry of Education. Private HEIs are led by a rector appointed by the Board of Founders, the members of which may include the founders and trustees of the institution. The rector is the highest official of the University, functions in its name, and represents it. The rector is involved in recruitment and disciplinary, economic, and position assignments (e.g., promotions).

As for the latest legal initiative, the State Program to Increase the International Competitiveness of the Higher Education System in the Republic of Azerbaijan in 2019–2023 (approved by a decree of the president of the Republic of Azerbaijan on November 16, 2018), both public and private universities are advised to have a Board of Trustees, which is an advisory body to the rector. It should consist of accomplished and influential leaders that come from the University, state institutions, government bodies, and industry. Based on the compositions of some boards, it seems that there is always someone who represents the state on the board even though advisory in focus. For instance, the minister of education chairs the Board of Trustees of Baku State University and is a board member of ADA University. The Board of Trustees of ADA University also includes the minister of foreign affairs. Generally, it is expected to be involved in strategic planning, institutional fundraising, and advisory matters.

However, the Academic Council remains the main governing body in public universities. Some private Azerbaijani universities have a Board of Founders or Board of Trustees, which serve as an advisory body to the rector. For example, the Board of Trustees of ADA is “comprised of accomplished and influential leaders who come from government and private sectors. The permanent and elected members oversee the University’s mission and guide and steer its operations. The board advises on the best trends and practices in the field of education, supports fundraising activities and promotes the University brand” (ADA University, n.d.-a).

Body Structure

The Academic Council of public universities in Azerbaijan, according to the decrees and orders of the president of the Republic of Azerbaijan, regulations on public universities, decrees, and orders of public University rectors, consists of fifteen to twenty individuals. For example, the Academic Council of Baku State University consists of seventeen members.

Membership and Appointment Process

According to the Statute on the Academic Council of the Higher Education Institution approved by the order of the minister of education of November 10, 1997 (article 2), the general management of the HEIs is carried out by the Academic Council. The Academic Council is chaired by the rector of the HEI and consists of the vice-rector for academic affairs, vice-rectors, academic secretaries, deans, directors of research institutes operating within the institution, the chair of collegiums (employees and students), department heads, and the chair of the Student Academic Society. About 3–10 percent of members are presented by professors and teachers of HEI. This number is determined by the rector, depending on the number of professors and teachers. Candidates for the Academic Council are elected by secret voting by the faculty members and professors from each school. Moreover, up to 10 percent of the Academic Council’s members may be appointed by the rector of the institution.

Rectors, vice-rectors, and deans are permanent and non-elected members of the Academic Council. The term of the mandate is three years. Student representatives in the Academic Council can be appointed for one year with the possibility of renewing their mandate.

Chair Appointment Processes

In both public and private universities, the rector chairs the Academic Council. Rectors of public universities are appointed by the president of the Republic of Azerbaijan upon recommendation by the Ministry of Education. The rector of a private University is appointed and dismissed by the founder or the Board of Founders (EACEA, 2017). In those universities, predominantly private, where the Board of Trustees is active, the chairman is appointed by the founder of the University.

Board Accountability

The Academic Council in public universities is accountable to the rector. The rector identifies and regulates the scope of problems addressed by the Academic Council. Typically, the Academic Council takes an active part in determining the University’s scientific, educational-methodological, financial, and administrative issues. For example, the Academic Council of the Baku State University participates actively “in the determination of University’s position in education, quality and effectiveness of scientific researchers, the international relations and image of the University, participation in discussion of crucial issues and determination of points of view of our Republic” (Baku State University, n.d.).

Scope of Work

According to the Statute on the Academic Council of the Higher Education Institution approved by the order of the minister of education (1997)¹, the Academic Council operates in the following areas:

• approving various directions of educational and scientific activity;

• defining the annual budget of the University;

• holding listening on the annual financial report of the University;

• confirming the statutes of regulations, instructions, and other official documentation;

• supervising the preparation and provision of educational programs; and

• participating in the development and improvement of the state educational standards.

Although the latest law – State Program to Increase the International Competitiveness of the Higher Education System in the Republic of Azerbaijan in 2019–2023 – seeks to establish a transparent approach to education including organizational autonomy, a legal analysis shows that Academic Councils play more of an advisory role in reforming educational programs and regulations without actual participation in the decision-making process (World Bank, 2019c).

Azerbaijani Diplomatic Academy (ADA University)

To give an example of how the governing process may be organized in Azerbaijani higher education, this section will cover the governing board profile of ADA University. The University is a state HEI established under a presidential decree in 2014. Because ADA University is considered a world-class University, the profile of the University may not reflect the governing context of all Azerbaijani HEIs. The description of the governing structures of ADA University is based on its institutional policies (ADA University, n.d.-b). The University governance is executed through six components: (1) the Board of Trustees, (2) the rector, (3) vice-rector for academic affairs, (4) the University Senate, (5) Deans Council, and (6) Committee on Faculty Affairs.

The Board of Trustees is the highest advisory body for the institution. It is comprises prominent and renowned leaders (local and international) who come from the government and private sectors. There are at least nine members in the body. The board includes permanent and elected members. Permanent members are the minister of external affairs, the minister of education, the rector, and the first lady who is also the vice-president. Other members are elected for two years at the annual meeting of the board. It advises the institution on strategic matters, hears the institution’s annual budget report and annual audit results, gives suggestions for the investment of the institution’s resources, promotes the University’s brand locally and internationally, and takes the initiative for the incorporation of best practices. Given these responsibilities, it appears that the board plays an advisory role in the governance of the institution.

The rector is the chief executive officer in the institution. The rector is assigned and dismissed by the president of the country. The rector approves the institution’s statutes and structure; issues orders, decrees, and directions; represents the University in relation to state and local organizations; approves the University Senate’s decisions, presents annual reports to the Senate, and hires employees. Currently, it is governed by the deputy minister of foreign affairs, who founded the University.

The University Senate is the supreme governing body. It oversees and steers the general and academic-related activities of the University. It has control over the specification of academic, research, and international activities; the approval of strategic and annual plans; scholarship allocations; and the awarding of academic degrees and titles. It includes permanent, appointed, and elected members. Permanent members of the Senate are the rector, vice-rectors, deans, the director of enrollment management, and the director of library. The rector may appoint two members of the Senate. Elected members include two faculty members from each school elected by their peers. The term of service of the Senate is two years. The Senate is chaired by the rector.

The vice-rector of academic affairs is the chief academic officer who facilitates the communication between the institution’s bodies and the rector and the Senate. The vice-rector is an ex-officio member of all academic committees and a member of the Senate.

The Deans Council is an executive committee of the Senate. It discusses and gives recommendations regarding the planning and management of all activities of the University.

The Committee on Faculty Affairs is a standing committee of the Senate. It is responsible for the recruitment, appointment, and development of the faculty and matters of academic integrity and honesty. All recommendations that the committee gives are then submitted to the Deans Council for consideration.

Commentary

Azerbaijan, like other post-Soviet republics, experienced similar challenges such as the dependence of its economy on the market and labor of other republics and the need to shift to a market economy. In addition to these challenges, Azerbaijan faced political instability and difficulties associated with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijan managed to recover from the crisis following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and to demonstrate the economic growth because of its rich oil reserves. Although there were improvements in Azerbaijan’s economy, the country’s HE system experienced underinvestment (World Bank, 2018a). The underinvestment resulted in the introduction of tuition fees, the rise of corrupt practices in HEIs, lower quality at all levels of education, and the emergence of corrupt private institutions (Isakhanli & Pashayeva, 2018).

Azerbaijan made some limited progress toward liberalizing its University system when it started to reform its HE system in accordance with international standards. It signed on to the Bologna Process and joined the European Higher Education Area in 2005. As a result, the country became committed to maintaining the principles and objectives of the Bologna process, such as autonomous HEIs, student participation in the HE governance, international student mobility, and public responsibility for HE. Some manifestations of this commitment include the rise in the number of international students, the emergence of completely autonomous universities (e.g., Baku State University), and the expanded governing structure in universities.

However, these manifestations are not system wide. Isakhanli and Pashayeva (2018) note that only some universities focus on internationalization (e.g., attracting international students). International students tend to concentrate in autonomous HEIs that were initially based on the Western educational model. The Cabinet of Ministers and the MoE that oversee HEIs play a significant governance role in this structure. There is little to no autonomy, except for a handful of institutions in the country.

Even with select outward-looking universities and alignment with the Bologna Process, the University system is tightly state controlled. Its governance is predominantly driven by the MoE and other elements of government. Public and private HEIs have some financial autonomy but this seems to be linked to the need for additional financing rather than management independence. The MoE controls only the institution’s spending of public funds (e.g., per capita student payments). It does not control the other funds generated by institutions. Institutions can generate revenues from tuition fees, real estate, and other sources not prohibited by the legislation. Also, the academic autonomy of HEIs in Azerbaijan is limited by the state because institutions are obliged to follow the state educational standards. The state policy of higher education is fully controlled by the MoE and the Cabinet of Ministers. However, with the initiatives of the State Program for Education Development 2025, which was approved in 2013, more measures were implemented for increasing the autonomy of universities. For instance, HEIs have more rights to design their academic programs, which should cohere with the respective state legislation.

It is expected that the further implementation of this state program will give more freedom of action to the governing boards such as the Board of Trustees and the Senate. However, it is also contradictory that the state is enforcing the establishment of the boards of trustees to contribute to their autonomy, while having high-rank officials from the MoE and the state in general, in these boards.

The active supervisory role, as compared to an advisory role, of these governing bodies is currently observed only in some private universities, where, for example, the Board of Founders plays an advisory role to the rector and the Academic Council. In addition, the state program seems to focus on addressing corrupt practices in the HE system. Specifically, the program aims to address corruption by strengthening the centralized management of the HEIs and increasing the spending on the education system (Ibadoghlu, 2019). The first measure aims to address corrupt practices in the management of human resources (e.g., bribing and nepotism in recruitment, promotion and dismission) at Azerbaijani HEIs, whereas the second measure seeks to address corruption among faculty members. Interestingly, the state program seems to have a negative effect on the autonomy of institutions. According to Ibadoghlu (2019), the centralization measures appear to diminish the autonomy of HEIs, as the management of human resources is becoming centralized.

5 Belarus

Peter D. Eckel

5.1 The National and Higher Education Contexts

National Context

Belarus is a country of approximately 9.5 million people (CIA, 2019a), of which close to 10 percent are between the ages of 15–24 years old. The country is aging, with the number of citizens above the age of 60 increasing by 14 percent in the next decade (World Bank, 2018e). There will be a corresponding decline in the country’s student-age population. The University sector is facing a contracting pool of potential students.

The country borders Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia. It is becoming increasingly urbanized, with an 8 percent increase in the last ten years (from 67 percent to 75 percenet), which is approximately one million people moving from the countryside to cities (World Bank, 2018e). Most universities also are located in and around the capital of Minsk.

The country is facing ongoing political tensions. The long-serving president, Alexander Lukashenko, in September 2020 faced a series of protests and pressure from Western governments regarding his credibility and contested elections. He has continued support from Russia. The country was one of the staging areas for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Lukashenko government has been in power since 1994. The government has kept in place many of the Soviet policies, including state ownership (SOE) over much of the economy.

As late as 2016, approximately half of the workforce was employed by SOEs (World Bank, 2018e). This government-controlled economic approach initially served the country well post-independence, adding needed economic stability. Until the global financial recession of 2008, the country’s economy grew at rates between 6.3 and 8.3 percent, surpassing others in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (7.1 percent) and countries in Europe and Central Asia (5.7 percent). The year 2008 marked a turning point for its centralized economy, with growth averaging 3 percent between 2009–2014; and the Republic faced a recession in 2015–2016 (World Bank 2018e). The government is again working to reform the economy, slowly shifting its role away from direct to indirect economic involvement and supporting private sector development (World Bank, 2018e).

The strength of the private sector is limited to select parts of the economy – IT, domestic trade, wood processing, plastics and rubber production, real estate, accounting and audit, advocacy, advertising and marketing, and ground transportation. SOEs, on the other hand, dominate key economic sectors including agriculture, the chemical industry, machinery and equipment, construction materials, food processing, hotels, and architecture and urban planning (World Bank, 2018e).

To support continuing economic growth, the state will need to further change its role from a producer of goods and services to a regulator, moving away from its traditions of command and control rules and procedures (World Bank, 2018e). The government faces challenges in doing this, including a noted lack of commitment to reforms, frequent legislative changes, and a lack of policies and coordination across levels of government (World Bank, 2018e). Furthermore, such economic shifts have the potential to disrupt the expected social contract in ways that lead to societal fractions and disenfranchisement, particularly within the college-age and youth population, and lead to an increased vulnerability within the middle class (Bussolo, Davalos, Peragine & Sundaram, 2019).

Other profiles in this book include World Economic Forum indicators. None exist for this country.

The national governing context according to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators¹ project is as follows in terms of governance. These figures are intended to show trends over time associated with a set of country-level data. The governing context scores are low, particularly for voice and accountability, but also for rule of law and regulatory quality. Although many of the World Bank’s governance indicators are trending toward improved governance, all prior to the 2020 conflicts, as a set they are weak, except for political stability. Voice and accountability are very low. Both of which reflect the undemocratic political context. The context in which universities operate is one of strong governmental control, low participation, and an economy controlled by the state. Furthermore, its population is aging, with the fastest growing segments well beyond traditional higher education and school age (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Belarus

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

The Belarusian higher education system includes fifty-one higher education institutions (HEIs) of which forty-two are public or state and nine private or non-state (Belsat, 2019a). The overwhelming majority of the 268,100 students are enrolled in public universities. Private universities enroll only 6.8 percent of students. Enrollment has declined from its high of approximately 445,600 in 2011–2012 to approximately 268,100 in 2018–2019, a 40 percent reduction in just seven years. Current enrollment is at its lowest level in two decades (Belsat, 2019b). Half of public universities and eight of nine private universities are located in the capital of Minsk.

Of the public HEIs, thirty-one are universities offering a range of degree programs; nine are academies or conservatories offering a limited number of disciplinary programs; and two are institutes offering an even more limited range of programs (National Statistical Committee, 2017), a legacy of the Soviet model. Half of the public universities fall under the direct jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education (MoE) with the others operating under other ministries, although the MoE has continued influence over these universities as well.

There is a mismatch between graduate output and economic needs with an estimated 68 percent of students studying social sciences and humanities (World Bank, 2018e). An International Finance Corporation study in 2013 noted that 20 percent of employers report skills gaps of graduates as a top barrier for them (World Bank, 2018e). The higher education system seems to be out of step with economic needs and lacks capacity to produce a needed workforce.

Furthermore, universities and students have become a target of politically motivated state actions. Following the 2020 election, police detained students and their universities expelled them for their participation in protests (O’Malley, 2021).

Higher Education Governing Context

The University sector is strongly controlled by the State, similar to other economic sectors. There is very low autonomy, if any. For instance, 65 percent of the undergraduate curriculum is a “national component,” as is 30 percent of master’s degree program curricula and newly introduced undergraduate programs have only a 50 percent requirement (World Bank, 2020d). The president of the Republic is directly involved in certain aspects of University governance (World Bank, 2020d). He approves the appointment of the rectors of public universities and develops aspects of the legal framework governing universities. For example, he replaced rectors at three universities during the 2020 civil unrest. At Minsk State Linguistic University, he elevated the head of the German Language department, and at The Belarusian State University of Culture and Art, he appointed the former deputy minister of culture (Belsat, 2020). Both of these universities had student protests. This governmental reach continues into private universities as well. For instance, rectors of private (non-state) universities are appointed by the minister of education based upon a recommendation from the University founders.

Some students pay fees, and those that do pay comparatively low fees of EUR600–1,370. Institutions are allowed to generate revenue and use this at their discretion (MoE, 2011), allowing some financial autonomy. However, this highly controlled sector operating in an economy that is significantly state owned, means that there is little actual institutional autonomy. The president of the country appoints rectors, and those rectors are the most influential individuals on campus (World Bank ,2020d).

5.2 Governing Body Profile

Body Structure

The primary governance body is the University Council. Universities also have management or administrative Councils. Most Belarusian universities have this single governance body. However, some universities have parallel bodies related to research and scientific inquiry, such as at Yanka Kupala State University of Grodno. The Councils meet as few as five times per year and as frequently as monthly.

Membership

Membership of the Council is internal to the University, including the rector, vice rectors, heads of institutes and academic staff, students (25 percent), and non-academic staff, including representatives from trade unions. Some Councils include representatives of public organizations that are affiliated with the University. These individuals seem to be few in number – between three and five, depending on the University – if they exist at all.

The size of the Councils varies as set forth in each University’s charter or as determined by the rector. At Belarus State University, membership is limited to 100 people. At Francisk Skorina Gomel State University, the Council is 48 members.

Member Appointment Processes

Members of the Academic Council are elected, and the rector approves their appointment. Membership tends to be limited to five-year terms.

Chair Appointment Processes

The rector chairs the Academic Council. The rector is appointed and dismissed by the president of the Republic or the Ministry of Education depending on the University. It is not uncommon for Republican presidential involvement in the rector selection process.

Board Accountability

The Council is accountable to the rector, who approves or accepts its decisions. The rector also determines the scope of the Council’s work by developing the regulations of the Council. At some universities, such as Belarus State University (BSU), a Council decision rejected by the rector may be reviewed again and passed with a two-thirds Council majority. However, another provision in the BSU charter states that “If it is necessary the Rector of the BSU can issue instructions to pass the Academic Council decisions.” (Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus 06.16.1999 N 334, 1999)

Scope of Work

Under the direction of the rector, Academic Councils make recommendations regarding the strategic, financial, personnel, and organizational issues of the University. They undertake decisions such as creating and closing faculties, departments, and institutes; discuss curricular reform and revisions; suggest staff appointments and hold elections for professorships and chairs; and review annual reports. In some instances, they review and make budget recommendations, as well.

For example, the Academic Council at Belarus State University (Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus 06.16.1999 N 334, 1999):

• reviews University’s strategic development and economic development plans;

• reviews and approves key educational, research, and international activities;

• makes proposals on improvement of the BSU structure;

• approves the BSU budget and reviews the annual report on the BSU budget execution;

• nominates staff for key Republican awards such as candidates for the State Prize of the Republic of Belarus, for election into the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, and grants tittles of honor, established by the BSU;

• is responsible for holding the elections for positions of professors, chair heads, and chief research workers; and

• solves other problems envisaged by this Statute.

Commentary

University enrollment and the university-aged population in general are decreasing. The economy is controlled by the government via SOEs. So too does the government control the universities, with the government determining curriculum as well as leadership appointments. There seems to be little pressure on universities to perform well beyond preparing students for positions in government and state enterprises. The University governance structure reflects a centralized approach to the country’s government. The rector is appointed in some cases directly by the president of Belarus and in other cases by the Ministry. University governance and its supreme body for all intents and purposes are managerial-focused. University governance is a government responsibility. The Ministry is responsible for policy and strategy as well as staffing, program development, and quality assurance. The primary players in campus-level governance are internal University staff, including academic staff as well as University executives. There is some opportunity for external voices, but the numbers of non-university staff are small. The rector is positioned to control and direct the Academic Council given that he or she must approve Council decisions.

The country’s context is consistent with the governance structure of its universities. The World Bank governance indicators note low voice and participation, rule of law, and control of corruption. The comparatively high level of government stability means that universities have a predictable policy context in which to work. But this is little comfort given the economy, declining demographics, and the place of the country in the geopolitical and economic region. The country does not seem to have the capacity or want the capacity to have a robust higher education sector beyond accountability to government priorities.

6 Estonia

Rita Kaša

6.1 The National and Higher Education Contexts

National Context

Estonia is one of the Baltic countries in Northern Europe. The Baltic Sea to its north, and shares a maritime border with Finland; it borders Russia to its East and Latvia to its South. The Estonian language, which is the official language in Estonia, belongs to the Finno-Ugric group of languages unlike Latvian and Lithuanian, which are two Baltic languages that belong to the group of Indo-European languages. Since 2004, Estonia has been a member of European Union (EU) and NATO. Estonia was the first of the three Baltic countries to become a member of OECD in 2010 and to join the Euro zone in 2011.

Estonia is a high-income country (World Bank, 2020c). The percentage of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion was slightly below 25 percent of population in 2019 (Eurostat, 2020). It is above the average poverty level in the EU (21 percent). Trade in goods and services contribute 73 percent of Estonian GDP (OECD, 2020). Estonia is one of the most digitally advanced countries in the world in e-government services (OECD, 2019b).

Every four years, Estonian citizens, using conventional as well as e-voting, elect their parliament, called the Riigikogu (Aichholzer & Rose, 2020). Estonia has a multiparty system and parties elected to the parliament approve the prime minister, who is the head of the government. The parliament also elects the president of the country. As Estonia is a parliamentary republic, the president serves as the highest representative of the state with limited participation and veto rights in the legislative process.

The Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks Estonia 26th out of 141 countries regarding public sector performance with a score of 66.3 out of 100 and the burden of regulations ranked 24th with a score of 52 for 2018–2019¹ (Schwab, 2019). It scored the future orientation of the government at 67.2, ranked 23rd. Related to corporate governance, WEF indicated a score of 62.8 and a comparative rank of 54th. For the Skills pillar, most closely related to higher education quality, WEF scored Estonia 76.7 out of 100 for the skillset of graduates and a score of 42.2 on the ease of finding skilled employees indicators. This ranked the country 15th and 122nd respectively on those indicators out of a total of 141.

University governance takes place within a larger country governing context. According to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators project that context is as follows, showing trends over time associated with a set of country-level data. The country compares very favorably in the global context across all five dimensions. It has stability within each dimension as well (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Estonia

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

The Higher Education Act (Riigikogu, 2020) in Estonia distinguishes between universities and professional higher education institutions. Universities offer study programs, including doctoral level studies. Professional higher education institutions include study programs of higher and also vocational education. There are nineteen public and private universities and professional higher education institutions in Estonia. Six are public universities; one is a privately owned University; seven are professional higher education institutions; and five are private professional higher education institutions (Ministry of Education and Research, 2020; studyinestonia.ee, 2020).

The total number of students in Estonia has been declining for the past ten years due to negative birth rates as well as emigration and Estonians pursuing higher education abroad. In 2019, there were slightly more than 45,000 students pursuing higher education in Estonia (HaridusSlim, 2020). About 20 percent pay tuition fees while 80 percent study free of charge (HaridusSlim, 2020; Platonova, 2018).

Higher Education Governing Context

The management structure is set out by a laws governing each public University (Riigikogu, 2020). Thus, each public University in Estonia is governed by its own special law, passed by the national parliament. The parliament decides the foundation, merger, division, and closure of a public University. University of Tartu is the oldest and the largest University in Estonia. It was the first University to have its own law (Saar & Roosalu, 2018). The laws of other major public universities were adopted later on. Laws on the University of Tartu, Tallinn University, and Tallinn University of Technology inform the general description of the University governance in Estonia.

Estonia scores highly in the European University Association’s (2016) University Autonomy Scorecard. It ranks fifth in organizational autonomy, which refers to a University’s capacity to determine its internal organization and decision-making processes; fourth in terms of financial autonomy, which refers to a University’s ability to manage its funds and allocate its budget independently; first in staffing autonomy, which refers to a University’s ability to recruit and manage its human resources as it sees fit; and first in academic autonomy, which refers to a University’s capacity to manage its internal academic affairs independently.

6.2 Governing Body Profile

Governance Overview

The law of each University defines the mission of the higher education institution in question. In the mission statements, the laws refer to the historic legacy of each University, since their beginnings date back to the early twentieth century and in the case of the University of Tartu to seventeenth century (Riigikogu, 1995, 2014, 2019). The management bodies of all these public universities are the University Council, the Senate, and the rector.

The University Council

The University Council is responsible for the long-term and sustainable development of the University as well as for making important economic, financial, and assets-related decisions, ensuring the achievement of the objectives of the University. It consists of eleven members where five are appointed by the University Senate according to the statutes of the University, one is appointed by the Estonian Academy of Sciences, and five are appointed by the minister of education and research from qualified candidates with expertise in the area of the University’s focus, economy, or entrepreneurship. These Council members appointed by the minister contribute by linking the University to society, that is, by contributing to the social relevance of the University’s activities. These members cannot be affiliated with this or some other University. The law of Tallinn University of Technology (Riigikogu, 2014) states that members of professional associations need to be represented among those nominated by the minister. The members of the Council are appointed for five years by the government of Estonia based on the proposal of the minister of education and research. In case the Council member resigns or is recalled on some justified bases, a new Council member needs to be appointed for the remaining duration.

The University Council is responsible for adopting the development plan and budget of the University. It weights in on the adoption of the statutes of the University. There are some variations on how the laws of these different universities stipulate the veto powers of the Council in its interactions with the decisions passed by the Senate. In each case, these norms represent a model of checks and balances in strategic decision-making at the University.

The Senate

The Senate is the academic decision-making body of the University. The Senate is responsible for all academic activities, which include research and teaching, ensuring that these activities meet high quality standards. The members of the Senate include the rector, who is the chairman of the Senate, vice-rectors, and other members of the University among which at least one-fifth are students. The specific procedures of electing the Senate are specified by the statutes of each University. Responsibilities of the Senate include adopting the statutes of the University and weighing in on the decisions of the Council.

The Rector

The rector is the head of the University and directs the everyday activity of the University based on the development plan, budget, and other strategic documents of the University. The rector is elected for a term of up to five years. The exact procedure of the election is stipulated in the statutes of each University but in all instances only individuals at the rank of professor can apply for the position of rector; and it is the chairman of the University Council who signs the contract with the rector. This contract sets out the rights and obligations of the rector, the remuneration payable to the rector, and stipulates other relevant conditions. The contract specifies the term until which the rector will stay in the position. The position can be terminated prior to the date set in the contract if the rector resigns from the office or is asked to resign. Once the appointment is terminated, the rector has the right to return to the position he or she occupied at the University prior to becoming rector.

The Case of the University of Tartu

The University of Tartu is governed by the statutes of the University (Senate of the University of Tartu, 2014) adopted by the University Senate. To adopt the statutes at least two-thirds of the twenty-two Senate members need to vote in favor of this move. Once the Senate has voted in favor of the statutes, the University Council must either approve the corresponding resolution or exercise its right of veto within thirty days from the Senate’s decision. To approve the statutes in the Council, at least six of eleven Council members must vote in favor. If the Council decides to veto the statutes, it must state its reasons for doing so. The veto is effective only if at least two-thirds of the Council members vote for it. In the case of the Council’s veto, the Senate must, within thirty days after the declaration of the veto, pass a new resolution regarding the adoption of the University statutes. The statutes become effective upon their approval in the Council unless a later date is specified. These statutes stipulate the governance procedures at the University of Tartu presented further in this chapter.

The University Council

As mentioned before, the University Council is the highest decision-making body of the University. In addition to its responsibility for the long-term development of the University and ensuring that the objectives of the University are achieved, the Council determines the procedures of electing the rector of the University of Tartu.

Eleven members of the Council are selected by the University and through appointments from the Estonian Academy of Sciences and the minister of education and research as earlier described. The five Council members from the University are nominated in the following procedure. There are four faculties or schools at the University of Tartu and the Council of each school nominates a candidate for the seat on the University Council. The candidate nominated by each school needs to have the support of at least one more school. Members of the University Senate put forward candidates for the fifth University seat on the Council. The five representatives of the University on its Council are nominated via secret ballot with a separate competition for the nomination of each of the five Council members. A Council member nominated by the Senate may not hold the position of the rector or vice rector, director of the area of studies, dean, head of an institute, director of a college or director of an institution, or serve as a Senate member. If a Council member nominated by the Senate is elected or appointed to any of the positions incompatible with the status of a Council member, the Senate recommends the government to revoke this member’s mandate to the Council and nominates a new Council member through the aforementioned procedure.

The Council is chaired by the chair who is elected from among the members of the Council. The chair convenes the sessions of the Council either on his own initiative or based on a motion brought by at least six Council members or by the Senate. The Council meets at least four times a year in regular sessions and may hold extraordinary sessions as well. At least once a year, the Council needs to hold a joint session with the Senate. While students do not elect a member to the Council, the president of the student body may request the permission to participate in the sessions of the Council with the right to speak. The Council members are entitled to receive any information necessary for carrying out their duties from the rector, vice rectors, and area directors. The work of the Council members is compensated on a monthly basis. For members, it is one-third and for the chair it is one-half of the average monthly salary at the University for the previous calendar year.

The Senate

The work of the Senate at the University of Tartu as in other universities concerns academic and research matters. The Senate determines the University’s academic structure, determines curriculum, sets student admission policies, and other teaching and research process related procedures. The Senate is responsible for approving the action plan for addressing shortcomings described in the assessment report for the institutional accreditation. The Senate weighs in on the decisions of the University Council in various ways. It has a single right of veto on the Council’s decision to adopt the budget of the University. The Senate also forms an opinion on candidates to the position of the rector and on other matters raised by the Council.

The Senate at the University of Tartu consists of the rector as its chair, sixteen members elected by the University’s academic staff and five representatives from among its students. The representatives of the University’s academic staff are elected for a term of three years; four members from each school. Candidates to the Senate are nominated by faculty from among full-time academic staff. In each school, a candidate to the Senate must be endorsed by at least ten voting members of the school’s academic staff. A voting member who can vote for the nominees to the Senate is any staff whose academic workload at the University is at least twenty hours per week. Elections are held by a secret ballot and each voter may vote for any candidate, regardless of the school from which the candidate has been nominated. The four candidates per each school who receive the largest number of votes are elected to the Senate. Student representatives to the Senate are appointed by the Student Council for a term of one year, ensuring the representation of students from all schools and of all levels of study.

The University of Tartu Senate meets at least ten times a year in regular sessions and may also hold extraordinary sessions. The meeting is called either by the rector, who is also the chair of the Senate, on a motion brought by at least twelve Senate members, or by the Council. If the Senate chair is absent, the vice rector acting for the rector serves as acting chair. The Senate is competent to act if at least fifteen Senate members attend the session. Decisions in the Senate are passed by a simple majority vote of 50 percent +1, unless the decision requires a larger majority vote. The Senate may convene standing committees or ad hoc committees and its members are entitled to receive any information necessary for carrying out their duties from the rector, vice rectors, and area directors.

The Rector

According to the law and statutes of the University of Tartu, the rector is the head of the University who is responsible for the lawful and expedient use of the assets of the University and who, within their competence and pursuant to the resolutions of the University Council and of the Senate, exercises the highest administrative and disciplinary authority at the University. The rector reports to the Council and the Senate, ensures the drafting and implementation of the University budget, establishes the University of Tartu Work Rules, Internal Accounting Rules, and other operations. The rector approves the Statutes of the Student Body, decides on the number of student places per curriculum, and sets the rates of tuition fees in degree studies. In accordance with the principles established by the Council, the rector decides on the acquisition, encumbrance with limited real right, and transfer of immovable property. The rector may set up a think tank as an advisory body to discuss and analyze matters regarding the development of the University, may repeal any decision made by a dean, head of an institute, director of a college or director of an institution or the Council of a faculty, institute, college or institution that breaches the law or is harmful to the University. In these instances, the rector refers the decision for a review back to the official or body who adopted it.

The Council of the Tartu University is in charge of organizing the election of the rector. It must adopt the procedures of the election at least six months before the end of the term of the incumbent rector. The election procedures are carried out by an election committee formed by the Council. The chair of this election committee publicly announces the upcoming election of the rector in at least two major Estonian daily newspapers at least four months before the end of the term of office of the incumbent rector. Councils of schools at the University of Tartu and other Estonian universities, the board of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, a group of fifteen professors, and the Student Council of the University of Tartu can all nominate candidates for the position of the rector at University of Tartu. The elections take place at least three months before the end of the term of office of the incumbent rector. The rector is elected for a term of five years by an Electoral College, which consists of the members of the University Council, Senate, school Councils, the Student Council, and all professors and research professors whose workload at the University is at least twenty hours per week.

The elections of the rector take place in an election meeting. The election meeting can hold a vote if more than 50 percent of the members of the Electoral College is present. The election meeting is chaired by the chair of the election committee. The rector is elected with a simple majority of votes, that is, a candidate who receives the votes of more than 50 percent of the members of the Electoral College is elected rector. The rector can be elected for no more than two consecutive terms. If no candidate is elected, the term of office of the incumbent rector is extended by one year. If no candidate is elected again and the office of the rector is vacant at the time of the election, the Senate appoints an acting rector for a term of up to one year.

The University of Tartu statutes stipulate a procedure for a motion of no confidence in the rector on the basis of breaching the law or the statutes of the University. The motion of no confidence can be initiated by a joint declaration of the Councils of at least two schools. To express no confidence in the rector, a two-thirds majority of the members of both the University Council and the Senate must support this decision. This decision takes place in the session of the Senate chaired by the most senior Senate member. If the Council and the Senate pass a no confidence vote, the rector is relieved of their duties before the term in office ends.

Commentary

University governance structure in Estonia reflects the position that the engagement with the external environment is important for the University’s development. This point is demonstrated through the composition of the University Council, where 45 percent of the members need to be experts in the areas of the University’s focus, economy, or entrepreneurship, and who should work in organizations that are not higher education institutions. These members of the University Council are appointed externally by the government based on the recommendation of the minister of education and research. They are not identified by academics from the University. The Estonian Academy of Sciences, another actor external to the University, appoints its one member to the Council of the University. The remaining Council members are appointed by the University Senate through a university-initiated process.

Each University has its own procedure for electing the Senate, the body responsible for all academic activities. However, in all cases, the Senate needs to include student representatives, faculty members, and the rector. In fact, the University Senate and the rector in Estonia are conjoined because the rector is also the chair of the Senate.

There are clear checks and balances in decision-making between the University Council, the Senate, and the rector and other units at the University. For instance, the rector may repeal any decision made by a University unit if it breaches the law or harms the University. The Senate has a single right of veto on the Council’s decision on budget. The Council, on the other hand, can veto decisions passed by the Senate. All in all, the University governance in Estonia acknowledges the possibility of decisions that need to be reviewed and provides a process for doing that in transparent ways, enabling organizational learning.

7 Georgia

Leah Shapiro

7.1 National and Higher Education Context

National Context

Georgia is a country of approximately 3,716,900 people (National Statistics Office of Georgia, 2020) with an aging population; only 10.9 percent of its citizens are 15–24 years old (Central Intelligence Agency, 2020a). Nearly 32 percent of the population lives in Tbilisi, the capital city. Georgia is bordered to the north by Russia, to the south by Turkey and Armenia, to the southeast by Azerbaijan, and to the west by the Black Sea. The country contains two disputed breakaway territories, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which have been occupied by Russian forces since the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 (Goryashko, 2018).

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Georgia experienced an economic collapse unprecedented among its fellow former Soviet states (World Bank Group, 2018c). However, Georgia has done well economically in the past decade, demonstrating a strong commitment to economic reform. In 2020, Georgia was ranked the seventh most business-friendly country globally by the World Bank (World Bank, n.d.-g). Its GDP grew at an average rate of 4.8 percent per year from 2010–2019, and the poverty rate decreased from 37.4 percent in 2007 to 20.1 percent in 2018. Despite these gains, economic inequity is a challenge. Rural areas experience higher rates of poverty than urban areas, and ethnic minorities remain economically disadvantaged compared to ethnic Georgians (OECD, 2019a).

The youth unemployment rate is 30.8 percent (International Labour Organization, n.d.). To address misalignment between the skills of tertiary education graduates and the needs of the job market, the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport has reformed and promoted vocational education and training (OECD, 2019a).

Since the 2003 Rose Revolution, Georgia has positioned itself as a “pro-Western” country. In 2014, Georgia signed an Association Agreement with the European Union, and the country has repeatedly declared its intention of becoming an EU member. This Western orientation is reflected in the country’s market-oriented higher education policies (Dobbins & Khachatryan, 2014).

The Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks Georgia 55th out of 141 countries regarding public sector performance with a score of 54.0 out of 100 and the burden of regulations ranked 11th with a score of 60.8 for 2018–2019(Schwab, 2019).¹ It scored the future orientation of the government at 51.7, ranked 83rd. Related to corporate governance, WEF indicated a score of 73.2 and a comparative rank of 18. For the Skills pillar, WEF scored Georgia 69.8 out of 100 for the skillset of graduates and a score of 42.7 on the ease of finding skilled employees indicators. This ranked the country 46th and 120th respectively on those indicators out of a total of 141. So, although the country has favorable governance conditions, its future orientation and ability to find needed employees is relatively low. Although the government has some favorable conditions for higher education, it faces significant challenges regarding finding skilled workers and the skillsets of those individuals.

The World Bank Governance Indicators demonstrate that governance in the country is improving. Georgia is particularly strong in control of corruption, which measures the extent to which public power is used for private gain, and regulatory quality, which measures the extent to which government policies promote private sector development. Over a ten-year window, Georgia’s governance context improved, and in some cases significantly. Its control of corruption increased to the 75th percentile from the 55th. Its rule of law score increased almost as much comparatively (Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Georgia

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

There are sixty-four higher education institutions in Georgia, nineteen of which are public. Georgian HEIs are classified as one of three types: research universities, teaching universities, and colleges. Research universities are authorized to award bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. Teaching universities do not perform significant academic research and award first and second-cycle degrees but not doctoral degrees. Colleges only award bachelor’s degrees. In October of 2016, there were a total of 190,057 students enrolled in HEIs in Georgia (Earasmus Plus, 2019). In 2019, the tertiary gross enrollment rate was 64 percent (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2019).

The Unified National Examinations (UNEs), standardized entrance examinations, were introduced in 2005 to combat corruption in higher education admissions and to improve access for disadvantaged students (Chakhaia & Bregvadze, 2018). Students are awarded state study grants of 100 percent, 70 percent, or 50 percent of tuition based on their UNE scores. Students at both private and public institutions are eligible for state study grants.

Tuition fees, which are capped at the maximum state study grant amount, account for 90 percent of the total income of public HEIs (Erasmus Plus, 2019). Additional funding comes from private grants and donations, competitive state research grants, and the ministries of relevant fields.

Higher Education Governing Context

Higher education in Georgia is regulated by two main laws: On Higher Education (2004) and On Educational Quality Enhancement (2010).

The 2004 Law On Higher Education grants autonomy to public HEIs, allowing them to develop their own study and research policies, elect management bodies and officials, and manage their finances. This law, adapted from British-inspired steering approaches, provides rectors with increased financial and budgetary responsibility (Dobbins & Khachatryan 2015) However, the implementation of the law is limited by the granted autonomy. Curriculum is the responsibility of the academics working in collaboration with University administrators. However, the curricula require approval by the Ministry of Education (Dobbins & Khachatryan 2015. Gibbs et. al. (2022) give the example of institutional and program accreditation as evidence. The mechanisms of monitoring are such that they limit autonomy. Dobbins and Krhachatryan (2015), in their study of governance in Georgia and Armenia, argue that the shift to market mechanisms in Georgian higher education only extend to the point where the state is not undermined in its control.

The law also works to promote transparency in management by making the decisions, reports, and legal acts of HEI’s managerial bodies accessible to all interested persons. Furthermore, academic personnel and students must be involved in decision-making. The law also defines a three-cycle higher education system consisting of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees, bringing Georgia’s system in line with the Bologna Process, which it joined as a full member in 2005.

Both public and private HEIs are monitored by the National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement, which is responsible for quality assurance, authorization of education institutions, management of the accreditation process, and promotion of integration into the European Higher Education Area. It was established by the 2010 Law On Educational Quality Enhancement. The director of the Center is appointed by the minister of education, science, culture and sports in coordination with the prime minister.

7.2 Governing Body Profile

Body Structure

According to the Law on Education, the highest governing body of public HEIs is the Academic Council. Public higher education institutions are also governed by a Council of Representatives (Senate), rector, chancellor, and Quality Assurance Service.

Membership

Each basic educational unit has an equal number of representatives on the Academic Council. This number is defined by the institution. Representatives can be full or associate professors. Institutions may also allow independent research units to participate in the Academic Council. For example, Tbilisi State University’s Academic Council has three representatives from each faculty and one representative from each independent scientific research unit. Akai Tsereteli State University has two representatives from each faculty on its Academic Council. Most public universities have between one and three representatives from each faculty on the Academic Council.

The Council of Representatives consists of student and academic personnel representatives from each of the institution’s basic educational units. The membership of the Council of Representatives must be at least double the membership of the Academic Council, and students must comprise one-third of the body. Members of the Academic Council cannot be elected to the Council of Representatives.

Each basic educational unit must have their own Quality Assurance Service composed of professors and associate professors from the respective units.

Member Appointment Process

Academic Council and Council of Representative members are elected via secret ballot by student representatives and all members of the academic staff of the basic educational units.

Chair Appointment Process

The rector, the head of a higher education institution, is the chairperson of the Academic Council. They are elected via secret ballot by members of the Academic Council. The rector cannot be elected for more than two consecutive four-year terms of office. The chancellor is responsible for the administration of the institution, including financial and economic transactions. This position is elected by the Academic Council whose recommendation is verified by the Council of Representatives.

One member of the Council of Representatives is elected to be speaker of the Senate. The head of Quality Assurance Service is nominated by the Academic Council and approved by the Council of Representatives.

Board Accountability

Given that the Academic Council is elected by the University academic staff and students and the ministry has no direct involvement in its daily work, this body seems accountable to its electorate and to the rector who chairs the body. However, as noted above the ministry is highly influential in University efforts, including approval of curriculum and setting the financial and competitive context for the University (Dobbins & Khachatryan 2015).

Scope of Work

The Academic Council drafts and approves the institution’s strategic development plan, approves study and research programs, and promotes integration into the European Higher Education Area. The Academic Council also nominates a chancellor for approval by the Council of Representatives.

The Council of Representatives has the authority to approve the chancellor’s budget, approve the Academic Council’s nominee for chancellor, and terminate the chancellor.

The rector is the head of a higher education institution. He or she represents the institution’s academic and research interests.

The Quality Assurance Services within each basic educational unit promote high quality teaching, learning, and evaluation. They are overseen by the institution’s head of Quality Assurance Service.

Commentary

The Rose Revolution and the Saakashvili government-initiated reforms spurred a series of market-oriented changes in Georgia that are reflected in the evolution of its higher education system and its governance structure. Although maximum tuition is set by the state, higher education institutions are able to manage their own finances; their leaders set and manage budgets. They are able to recruit students, creating an increasingly competitive context. They also elect their own leaders and management bodies and develop their own study and research policies. The state encourages competition among institutions through its funding mechanisms, combats corruption, and sets quality assurance standards. As Dobbins and Khachatryan (2015) argue, Georgia higher education is pressured both by market forces and by governmental ones. “All in all, a unique model of governance has evolved … which seemingly deliberately mix market-based and authoritarian elements” (p. 205).

The country’s economy and political situation, trends in demographics, and the uncertainty in the region mean that universities are under stress. The challenges may suggest stronger alignment of the sector with external needs in terms of relevance but also funding, via tuition fees. However, even with the external demands on universities, there are no direct external voices in Georgian public higher education governance; all members of the governing bodies come from within the universities and the supreme governing body is chaired by the rector, who also is elected from within the University by the Academic Council. State steering is done through other mechanisms. The country a decade ago seemed to have comparatively high levels of a governance capacity context. However, it saw declines per the World Bank indictors, suggesting that it had capacity, but without continued attention that capacity has eroded.

8 Kazakhstan

Peter D. Eckel and Darkhan Bilyalov

8.1 The National Context

The Republic of Kazakhstan is a land-locked country approximately twice the size of Western Europe but with only 18.8 million inhabits (Bureau of National Statistics RK, 2021). It is one of the least geographically dense countries in the world. Its two main cities are Astana (briefly called Nur-Sultan) and Almaty, the current and former capitals respectively.

Kazakhstan is a demographically, ethnically, and linguistically diverse country. Its current population consists of over 100 different ethnic groups, including Kazakhs, ethnic Russians, as well as Uzbeks, Ukrainians, Uighurs, Tajiks, Tatars, and Koreans. The country has a tri-lingual education policy according to which students learn and are taught in Kazakh, Russian, and English. Following independence, the country faced a baby-bust and then a boom before leveling off that has impacted school and University enrollments. The decline in birth rates existed from the 1990s through 2005. However, between 2005 and 2010, the trend shifted to a baby boom. Birth rates leveled off in 2010, creating a demographic bubble that is moving through the school system. The World Bank predicts the Kazakhstani labor force will peak in 2030 (2018d), with a population at approximately 22.5 million by 2050 (OECD, 2017b).

As the World Bank bluntly states, “Kazakhstan has gone through massive political, economic, and structural changes in a short period.” (2018d, p. 3). Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan faced drastic economic downturns (OECD, 2017a). Between independence in 1991 and 1995, the economy contracted by a third, created by a turn away from the Soviet centralized economy and complicated further by skilled workers leaving the country (World Bank, 2018d), often moving back to Russia and other post-Soviet States. Oil, gas, and mining sectors led the economic recovery, replacing the Soviet-era manufacturing sector (World Bank, 2018d). Oil and natural resources remain economically important to the country, but their market fluctuations suggest the need to further diversify the economy.

Since 2001, Kazakhstan has made significant economic gains in growing a middle class and reducing poverty (OECD, 2017a). Over the course of ten years the poverty rate fell from 55 percent of the population to 20 percent (2006 to 2015) (World Bank, 2018d). The middle class grew from 10 percent to 25 percent in this same time period. The poorest 20 percent of households saw earnings grow by 90 percent (World Bank, 2018d). However, there exist discrepancies between rural and urban areas, with the poverty rate at 25 percent in rural areas, compared to 8 percent in the largest cities of Astana and Almaty. Those two cities have middle classes of close to half (45 percent) the population compared to 18 percent in rural areas (World Bank, 2018d).

The economic challenges facing the country are focused on the regions away from the capital and rural areas. The January 2022 social conflict focused on the imbalance between urban and rural areas and the economic disparity between them.

An important contributor to the economic growth has been the addition of 1.1 million jobs for a labor force of 9 million. The sectors with the largest job growth were education, health, social services, construction, and transportation and storage (World Bank, 2018d). Given that Kazakhstan is an important hub on China’s Belt and Road Initiative, some of these areas are likely to demand workers. That said, the employment growth in the past few years has been in the public sector, including in State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) with their large holdings in gas, transportation, mobile services and electricity, and in small businesses (independent enterprise), which is different from self-employment, along with the modest growth in the private sector (World Bank, 2018d). SOEs have been and continue to be important, comprising 30–40 percent of GDP and playing a stronger role in the country’s economy compared to SOEs in the respective economies of neighboring China, Russia, and Turkey (World Bank, 2018d).

Since independence, the oil sector has been the largest and most important area of the economy. However, oil prices have been volatile since 2014. Therefore, the country has undertaken recent economic structural reforms. The government has identified four pillars for economic reform, which include lessening state intervention and diversifying beyond oil, strengthening the private sector and developing nonbank financial institutions, enhancing trade, and building human capital and improving natural resource management.

The Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks Kazakhstan 36th out of 141 countries regarding public sector performance with a score of 61.3 out of 100 and the burden of regulations ranked 34th with a score of 49.4 for 2018–2019 (Schwab, 2019).¹ It scored the future orientation of the government at 55.1, ranked 73rd. For the Skills pillar, most closely related to higher education quality, WEF scored Kazakhstan 46 out of 100 for the skillset of graduates and a score of 51 on the ease of finding skilled employees indicators. This ranked the country 95th and 81st respectively on those indicators out of a total of 141. Regarding corporate governance, which arguably is different from public University governance, WEF ranked the country 12th with a score of 74.6. Therefore, the country is somewhat challenged in making policy choices for the future. Overall, it seems that the context should be supportive of higher education and the role that it can play and an effective governance context exists at least in the corporate setting. The country struggles on the quality and output of its education system per these indicators.

The national governing context according to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators project is as follows: the control of corruption and regulatory quality across the country has declined. However, political stability increased through 2019. Most indicators hover around or below the 50th percentile rank (Figure 8.1).

Figure 8.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan is a unique country in geographic terms. The country is the ninth largest in land mass but with a relatively small population. It has 6 people per square kilometer compared to a world average of 55 and an OECD average of 36 people per square kilometer (World Bank, 2018d). Its primary urban areas housing the political and economic hubs are separated by thousands of kilometers and its extreme continental climate make linkages and synergies between these economic and cultural centers challenging. These factors contribute to meaningful regional differences. In fact, the government is implementing the Serpin Program that provides University scholarships to students in population-rich southern regions to study in the universities in the less populated northern, eastern, and western regions of the country (Government of Kazakhstan, 2016).

For the most part, Kazakhstan has avoided the ethnic and economic strife common to some neighboring Central Asian states. However, the two-sided challenge of an economic downturn and restructuring that the country is facing has amplified social conflict among youth and in rural areas, creating additional social and political pressure (Bussolo, Davalos, Peragine & Sundaram, 2019). The result was the January 2022 unrest in the Almaty and western regions. The country also has seen an increase in radicalization in rural areas, particularly in the west where there are greater economic disparities; yet the extent of the threat is debated (Stronski, 2016). Furthermore, some citizens have showed increasing frustration with the government and what they perceived as economic and social stagnation out (Stronski, 2009). Protests are infrequent and highly monitored and controlled.

From independence in 1991 through March 2019, Kazakhstan has been led by Nursultan Nazarbayev, the longest-serving leader in Central Asia. Even though he stepped down from the presidency and was succeeded by his successor Kassymzhomart Tokayev (who won approximately 70 percent of the vote in presidential election). The long-serving first president prevented instability common to other post-Soviet States and allowed long-standing policy frameworks to take root, the most recent being the “100 Concrete Steps.” However, this past election saw an increase in demonstrations and calls for more open and fair elections. To date, Tokayev’s presidency has been marked by the introduction and popularization of the idea of a “Listening state” to improve communication between the government and its citizens as well as by the creation of the civil National Council of Public Trust (Tokayev, 2019).

8.2 The Higher Education Context

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

The Kazakhstani higher education sector is large, diverse, and undergoing change, if not transformation, particularly compared to its Central Asian neighbors. With independence, the Republic inherited fifty-five universities from Soviet times. Only one of these would be considered classical with multiple faculties across a range of disciplines and fields; the majority were pedagogical or engineering focused (Ahn, Dixon & Chekmareva, 2018). In general, the post-independence period could be clustered into three distinctive periods: “1) the decade of massification and growth of private higher education (1995–2005), 2) the decade of enrollment decline and University closures (2006–2015), and 3) the decade of projected enrollment growth (2016–2026)” (Bilyalov, 2020, p. 9).

In 2018, the total number of students in Kazakhstan’s universities was 512,677 with 93 percent studying at the undergraduate level. Enrollment peaked in 2005–2006 with 775,762 students. Much of the downturn is tied to the declining birthrates as noted above. That said, the country has seen an increase in the share of youth with a general secondary education increasing from 32 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2015 (World Bank, 2018d). As the result, the enrollment rates are showing slow but gradual growth in the last two years to 604,000 students enrolled in 2019–2020 academic year (Bilyalov, 2020).

As of 2020, there are 129 higher education institutions (HEIs). Eight are classified as national universities, twenty-seven as state institutions, fourteen non-civic institutions (mainly law enforcement), one autonomous institution (Nazarbayev University, see below), one international (Kazakh-Turkish University), and seventeen institutions in the form of privately and publicly held joint stock companies (JSCs) (such as Kazakh-British Technical University and KIMEP). The seventeen JSCs created before 2019 are jointly owned and operate in limited ways like privately owned corporations in certain areas such as finances, but the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) still maintains a strong hand in questions related to choosing institutional leaders and determining human resource policies. The remaining institutions are private.² The private sector has been highly volatile as most of the closures in the past decade have been private universities.

Higher Education Governing Context

Following the trajectory of other former Soviet states, higher education post-independence was strongly government controlled through the MoES and other ministries that oversaw the universities in their respective sectors, such as agriculture and medicine. The Law on Education and the Law of State Property centralized authority firmly in the hands of government and away from institutions, including private universities and those in the form of joint stock companies. Rectors and vice-rectors were appointed by the ministries, and the rectors of the nine national universities were appointed by the president of the country. MoES set 70 percent of the undergraduate curriculum. The range of programs they could offer as well as the number and types of students admitted was government dictated. Universities did not control their budgets and thus could not generate revenue or make investments. Their use of state-owned buildings and property was restricted.

In 2010, the Republic created a new University, Nazarbayev University (NU), in the capital, Astana. This University was created through a legal framework unique to it. The framework granted unprecedented levels of autonomy to NU and insulated it from direct MoES oversight. This status is something that differentiates NU from prior attempts to create internationally recognized Kazakhstani research universities (Ruby, 2018). In fact, Nazarbayev University has a separate law and the unique mission to spearhead higher education reform in the country and serve as a knowledge and innovation hub in the capital city of Nur-Sultan (Bilyalov, 2017). In addition to being a research-intensive University and educating the country’s academically talented, one of its objectives is to build national higher education capacity by serving as a model for new ways of operating. The University receives at least 38 percent of the higher education budget (Canning, 2018), with other estimates even higher if research funding is included. The majority of students do not pay tuition or fees at either the undergraduate or graduate levels. Some programmatic exceptions exist in which students do pay fees.

In July 2018, a new pivotal law has been approved in Kazakhstan (namely the Law of July 8, 2018 “On amendments and additions to some legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the expansion of the academic and managerial autonomy of higher education institutions”). In October 2019, the public University sector completed the important final transition when the government changed the legal status of twenty-five additional public universities to noncommercial JSCs status. This final set completed the transition of all state and national universities being converted to this status. Meanwhile, the government is making provisions to reverse the privatization of thirty-seven public universities that already hold joint-stock company status, thus effectively converting their full ownership to the state (Informburo, 2021), under the management of the Ministry of Education and Science.

These regulations have changed the legal status of the public universities and transformed them into noncommercial joint stock companies completing the transition toward autonomy started by NU. HEIs were given increased autonomy in determining admissions criteria, establishing teacher-student ratio, determining the structure and content of educational programs, and establishing and operating endowment funds. Additionally, the universities through their boards were given authority over setting tuition levels of undergraduate and postgraduate programs, admissions requirements, establishment and dissolution of academic units, creating legal entities, issuing their own diplomas since 2021, determining qualification requirements and staffing procedures for faculty, creation and liquidation of academic structural units, and approving development plans.

While NU from its beginning has had the freedom to develop its own curriculum and degree programs, other public universities’ curricula and degree programs were traditionally controlled by the ministry. With autonomy, the degree of state control of the curriculum at other universities waned so that universities currently define 70 percent of what is taught at undergraduate and master’s level and 90 percent at the PhD level. While given such increased freedom, not many colleges take advantage of it and a few adhere to the traditionally run curriculum with minor alterations (Hartley, et al., 2018). Kazakhstan was also the first Central Asian country to sign on to the Bologna Process in 2010 and align its higher education system to European standards (Ahn, Dixon & Chekmareva, 2018).

The financing of Kazakhstani public universities is a mix of government support and student paid tuition fees. Approximately half of students at public universities are self-financed (OECD, 2017b). However, the majority of public University revenue comes from the government, which is a mix of student state grants (vouchers) and direct funding. An important exception is NU in which most if not all domestic students are government supported along with an increasing number of international students.

With the move toward autonomy, public universities gained the independence to set and modify their budgets, generate revenue, and set up and manage investment accounts. The Law on State Property that used to govern the majority of public universities limited flexibility regarding how resources could be developed and used and ways that facilities could be leveraged for revenue generation such as through rentals. The Law also placed personal punishments on rectors for ineffective and invalid use of funds, leading to much conservatism related to University expenditures. Compliance not strategy drove the use of resources. The move toward making public universities noncommercial joint stock companies has been a helpful step in providing institutions financial flexibility.

Even with the changes in autonomy, most public universities remain under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES). However, other ministries, such as the Ministry of Healthcare, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Defense oversee a group of universities with specific missions. This situation is not unusual among former Soviet countries (see Russia, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan cases).

8.3 Governing Body Profile

The governance description that follows focuses on public universities in the Republic. It additionally gives special attention to NU given that it was created as a model for the rest of Kazakhstani higher education and given special autonomous status.

Body Structure

In addition to various governing bodies as discussed below, universities are led by the rector, and they have management Councils composed of University executives and academic Councils that are responsible for curriculum, teaching and learning, and other academic matters. The Academic Council (known as Ucheniy Sovet across the post-Soviet contexts) has traditionally been the main collective governing body of the University. The Academic Council consists of up to fifty-one members that meet at least monthly and include both faculty and students along with senior management and administrators. Despite the Academic Council having the powers over academic matters, in many cases it is dominated by the rector and the senior leadership team when it comes to important decision-making, particularly in administrative and financial matters (Bilyalov, 2016).

As part of the autonomy efforts of the 2011 State Program for Education Development, different types of governance bodies were created for different types of universities that fall under the jurisdiction of MoES. (Universities that are part of other ministries such as agriculture or health are following different paths.) The specific nomenclature below indicates a particular type of governing structure for a specific type of University with differing governing parameters and responsibilities, something that is not true across other countries, such as the United States.

• Board of Overseers. Originally created for the nine national universities and NU,³ these bodies are supreme supervisory bodies and have the most authority granted, including the power to select and dismiss the rector; approve budgets; define institutional strategy; and decide on admissions criteria, faculty hiring, and setting senior leadership salaries.

• Board of Trustees. Created originally for most regional public universities; they are advisory and do not have decision-making authority.

• Board of Directors of JSC. These governing bodies were for joint stock companies (JSCs), operate similarly to Boards of Overseers acting as the supreme governing board with the ability to appoint the rector, approve budget and initiatives, and sign off on the institution’s strategic plan.

• Boards of Directors of noncommercial JSC. This is the new predominant form of governance that gradually replaced the Boards of Overseers as the converted public institutions establish their new governing structures following the 2018 law.

The Board of Directors now act as the main governing body of the public universities. The Board of Directors are constituted of not less than five members and 30 percent of those members must be independent directors. By law, the boards meet at least once a quarter.

The Board of Directors are external to the institution and are made up by the representatives of the ministry, industry representatives, public figures, politicians, and representatives of other educational institutions. Despite the boards having the main fiduciary responsibility for the institution, the regulations still posit that the rector “carries the personal responsibility for the operations of the University.” Meanwhile, the Academic Council (Uchenyi Sovet) continues to exist, but the bylaws suggest that the Academic Council is considered a collegial advisory body.

For most universities, the single shareholder is typically the Ministry of Education and Science, but it can be another ministry based on whether the University falls under the authority of another ministry such as the Ministry of Healthcare for medical academies. The ministry makes the final appointment of the rector, who is also the chair of the president’s office (pravlenie, which could literally be translated as governance). An interesting feature of Kazakhstan is the appointment process of the rector. The Board of Directors develops the program for development of the higher education institution and interviews the candidates based on the priorities of the document. This document acts as the proposal to highlight the vision for the potential University leader.

The Board of Directors sign off on the regulations on appointment and selection of the University rector, corporate secretary, internal audit, and the board committees. It also approves the strategic development plans, operational plans, organizational structure, the number of personnel, admissions criteria, tuition fees, education grant distribution of the University internal grant money, the plan of the board work, the tax policy, the auditing policies, risk management, and other aspects of University governance.

Because the boards of public universities as noncommercial joint stock companies are new, they are still developing their structures. There are only three committees that we found typical for the Board of Directors. These are the committee on personnel and remuneration, the committee on strategic planning, and the committee on audit. In fact, it appears that these committees are the required standing committees for all such boards. The number of board members in each committee varies. For example, each committee in the Eastern Kazakhstan Technical University consists of four members.

At the moment, it is difficult to estimate the average number of Board of Directors at public universities. Because they are at the early stage of creation, the numbers vary, with some universities (such as the Eastern Kazakhstan Technical University) having up to fifteen members, while other institutions, such as the Toraigyrov University (formerly Pavlodar State University), appointed its eight board members in fall of 2020.

From a survey conducted in 2017, before the final round of policy changes, the average size of public University boards is thirteen.⁴ The membership varies from a small board of three individuals to the largest board of thirty-five individuals. The size of the board at that time likely depended on whether the board was a one of overseers, directors, or trustees.

Because of the phased transitions, some boards have been operating longer than others. Thus, some of the national University boards have more robust committee structures. For example, Taraz State University named after Dulati, has eight committees – four standing and four temporary. Those standing committees are as follows: (1) executive, (2) finance and property management, (3) academic, and (4) strategic development. The temporary committees focus on the following areas: (1) employment of graduates and training at the request of employers, (2) financial support and the strength of the material and technical base of the University, (3) international cooperation, and (4) students from socially vulnerable groups of the population.

NU as a legislatively independent University was established with a unique two-tiered governance structure. The University has its own Board of Trustees and a Supreme Board of Trustees that governs three entities – NU, the Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools, and the Nazarbayev Fund, an endowment that supports the other two entities.

The NU Supreme Board consists of nine members, including the president of the Republic. The NU Board has thirteen members and can range from seven to twenty-one members according to its by-laws. The bylaws of NU’s Board of Trustees allow it to create committees as it sees fit, depending on the needs of the University. Its 2019 committees include: audit; strategy and operations; internationalization; and faculty, student life, and human resources.

Membership

The membership of governing boards of public universities is external to the University (non-staff) with the exception of the rector. The individuals serving tend to include representatives from government, such as local or regional governments, corporations and NGOs of local significance to the University, academics from other universities, and alumni.

For NU, its members, except for the rector, are external to the University. They are an intentional mix of Kazakhstani nationals as well as international participants. They come from ministries and other senior government positions, the private sector, and NGOs (Nazarbayev University, n.d.).

Member Appointment Processes

Board members for most universities are appointed by the responsible ministry. The candidates for board membership should have at least ten years of experience of working in education or healthcare.⁵ While nonprofit experience may be advantageous, it also limits participation of business and industry representatives. Board members serve for three- or four-year terms, which are renewable. There are no term limits for board members.

For NU, the Supreme Board of Trustees appoints and removes individuals to the NU Board. Board members serve for a three-year term, which is renewable.

Chair Appointment Processes

Board chairs mostly are elected by the board itself. In some cases, the rector or the ministry appoints the board chair. Typical board chair service is three to four years (58 percent) with 18 percent of board members serving single-year terms, and 11 percent serving either two-year or five- to seven-year terms.

At NU, the board elects its own board chair. However, according to the bylaws, “The Chair of the Board may be appointed or relieved from his/her office by the decision of the First Chairman of the Supreme Board of Trustees without complying with the provisions of the first part of this clause.”

Board Accountability

The board of public universities is accountable to the Ministry of Education and Science or to the ministries responsible for the University. Each board member is evaluated yearly by the commission created by the ministry.⁶ In some cases, high performing board members receive a modest honorarium. It is yet unknown how the independent directors in the newly created Boards of Directors are remunerated for their services.

The NU Board is accountable to the Supreme Board of Trustees, which is chaired by the first president of the Republic.

Scope of Work

For NU, the Supreme Board is responsible for the following: approval of the long-term development strategy and the charter of the University, intellectual schools, and the fund; approval of the procedure for asset management; composition of the Boards of Trustees of the University, intellectual Schools, and the fund; and decisions on reorganization or liquidation of the University, intellectual schools, and the fund.⁷

The NU Board of Trustees is responsible for the following activities: approving the strategic and development plans; electing and dismissing the president and setting the terms of employment; determining the members of the Managing Council (University’s administrative body) with the president’s consent and its bylaws; approving salary ranges of University executives; nominating members to the board (with approval of the Supreme body); approving budgets, budget rules, accounting policies, and approving financial statements, including audits; approving procurement rules; setting tuition; certifying degrees; approving major transactions; managing board and management conflicts of interest; making decisions related to creating other entities, liquidating or reorganizing University entities, and acquiring or liquidating shared in other legal entities; approving criteria for partnerships; and reviewing its own performance, that of its members, and its committees.

The responsibilities of Kazakhstani public University boards have varied with the type of body and institution until the most recent changes in the law. Boards of trustees were advisory. Whereas, Boards of Overseers and Boards of Directors (JSCs) have authority and oversight responsibilities. These boards are responsible for hiring the rector, approving the strategic direction and strategic plans of the University, approving budgets and overseeing investment strategies, and making linkages with local business and industry.

Commentary

The evolution of governing universities in Kazakhstan is interesting to note for three reasons. First, Kazakhstan is completing a transition if not outright transformation in its approach to governing universities through the creating and empowerment of independent governing boards as part of its autonomy reform efforts. This is no small change from the ministerial oversight approach that was carried over from Soviet times. Furthermore, NU is a grand experiment, not only in governance but in how internationally competitive research universities are structured, managed and led, funded and supported. Its approach to governance through an independent Board of Trustees is part of the larger innovative ecosystem surrounding the organizational structure of NU. In some ways, the approach is very international, if not Anglophone (UK, American, Australian, and Canadian) with an independent board with far-reaching authority and accountability. That said, the composition, responsibilities, and authority of NU’s Supreme Board still retains government contact when wanted, given that the chairmanship of that body is the first president and the heavy participation of senior government officials. This seems like a mash-up of Kazak and Western ideals and structures rather than a full-scale turn to the West.

Second, the other public universities are facing two transitions related to the governance reform because, unlike NU, as a new University they have histories, policies, practices, and habits already established. The first transition is that they must develop new capacities and structures at the institutional board and administrative levels as well as within the ministry to support and benefit from independent governance (Eckel, 2019a). This is about doing new things. Second, they must overcome the past, both in terms of old structures and mechanisms (such as attestation and compliance-based performance) and develop new mindsets and ways of thinking. They must create the new and abandon the old and they must manage structures and cultures (Hartley, Gopaul, Sagintayeva & Apergenova, 2015) And all of this has to be done without the ample resources enjoyed by Nazarbayev University.

Moreover, the reform is ongoing, with all public universities recently converted into a new legal form of a noncommercial joint-stock company. The new boards, the Boards of Directors, are being established and populated. This poses multiple opportunities for autonomous governance of the institutions while the older corporate governance structures (Boards of Overseers) disappear. At the same time, there may be a lack of continuity in board composition with the members of older boards who have gained experience in governance no longer being the members of the newly formed boards.

Relatedly, the role of the MoES must also change. The MoES is moving from direct to indirect steering and giving universities a great deal more freedom. They may lose some influence to market forces as universities set their own strategies and pursue mission-related revenue. They too must put in place new structures and processes and adopt new mindsets, which depart from operational involvement in institutional decision-making and arrives at establishing the mechanisms that allows good governance to happen at universities and simultaneously maintains the necessary level of accountability.

Finally, University and ministerial leaders will face forging a uniquely Kazakh approach to University governance. Independent boards like the ones being created in Kazakhstan are predominately found in countries such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, but with a Kazakh approach. These are countries with long histories and traditions of democratic or citizen engagement. Such ways of thought and the values that support them are inconsistent with Kazakhstan’s recent history. “Academic [University] leaders in Kazakhstan are being asked to implement reforms that emphasize institutional autonomy and shared governance that do not rest easily with existing norms and values” (Sagintayeva et al., 2018, p. 21). To ensure that this new structure works in this context and at this point in time, the Republic likely cannot simply transfer approaches from one cultural context into their own. Instead, they will have to forge their own way forward in a uniquely Kazakh way.

9 Kyrgyzstan

Zumrad Kataeva and Ali Ait Si Mhamed

9.1 National Higher Education Context

The Kyrgyz Republic, also called Kyrgyzstan, is a small, mountainous, landlocked country bordering Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and China. Kyrgyzstan is a former Soviet republic that proclaimed its independence in 1991. As of January 1, 2020, the population of the Kyrgyz Republic is 6,500,000, with almost 35 percent of the population under fifteen years of age (National Statistics Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic, 2000). The ethnic distribution of the country consists of Kyrgyz (73.5 percent ), Uzbek (14.7 percent), Russian (5.5 percent), Dungan (1.1 percent), and other (5.2 percent), which includes Uyghur, Tajik, Turk, Kazakh, Tatar, Ukrainian, Korean, and German (CIA Factbook, 2019). The country is rural, with only one-third of the population living in urban areas.

At the time of independence, more than 60 percent of the population was employed by collective farms placed to produce for the Soviet Union. In addition, the industry sector, accounting for more than 30 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), was also geared toward serving the Soviet industrial complex (Asian Development Bank, 2015). Like other former Soviet republics, the economy of Kyrgyzstan has faced an economic and financial crisis after the collapse of the Soviet Union. For instance, GDP per capita declined by almost 50 percent, from $1,096 in 1990 to $535 in 1995, and recovered to the 1990 level only in 2018 (Krawchenko et. al, 2021). In addition, 78 percent of the population lived below the poverty rate ($3.20 per day) in 2000; however, it dropped by 20 percent in 2017 (World Bank 2020). As a result, the country’s Human Development Index value for 2019 is 0.697, placing it in the medium human development category (United Nations Development Program, 2020).

The national governing context according to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators is as follows: Across the indicators, none cross the 50th percentile. Only regulatory quality approaches the mean. That said, the trends across the other indicators are for the most part positive. Those making the most progress – again from a relatively low base – are control of corruption, rule of law, government effectiveness, and voice and accountability. This suggests that the national context of governance is improving, but is still low comparatively (Figure 9.1).

Figure 9.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Kyrgyzstan

Regarding the economic competitiveness, the Global Competitive Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks Kyrgyzstan 89th out of 141 countries regarding public sector performance with a score of 47.2 out of 100 and the burden of regulations ranked 82nd with a score of 39.2 for 2018–2019(Schwab, 2019).¹ It scored the future orientation of the government at 37.1, ranked 129th. For the Skills pillar, most closely related to higher education quality, WEF scored the country 36.8 out of 100 for the skillset of graduates and a score of 34.1 on the ease of finding skilled employees indicators. This ranked the country 130th and 119th respectively on those indicators out of a total of 141. Regarding corporate governance, which arguably is different from public University governance, WEF ranked Kyrgyz Republic with a score of 58.3 (raked 78th). None bode well for higher education governance. The burden of regulation is high, the future orientation of the government is low, and the current educational system is underperforming.

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

In terms of higher education, the enrollments witnessed rapid growth after independence due to the expansion of the higher education system and rapid growth of youth enrollment due to various reasons (see DeYoung, 2011). The Law on Education adopted in 1992 created conditions for diversification and expansion of the system, resulting in growth from twelve HEIs in 1991 to fifty-seven in 2020. However, there were fluctuations within these years as new institutions opened and then quickly closed (Shadymanova & Amsler, 2018). The diversification of the system emerged due to the creation of new institutions in all regions and the establishment of new branches, departments, and educational centers within existing institutions and the reorganization of vocational institutions (technikums) into higher education institutions to offer market-oriented programs (Shadymanova & Amsler, 2018). Nevertheless, similar to other Central Asian countries, universities in Kyrgyzstan continue to produce graduates in fields that are not relevant to the demands of the labor market, and those in relevant areas are so poorly trained that they are unemployable without significant retraining (Krawchenko et al., 2021).

According to the government website, higher education in Kyrgyzstan represents a very diversified system with thirty-three public and forty private educational institutions as of 2020 (edu.gov.kg), including two jointly sponsored HEIs (sponsored by government agreement with Turkey (Manas] and Russia [Slavic]), American University of Central Asia (AUCA), the Ala-Too International University, and International University of Kyrgyzstan. In addition, higher education became more linguistically diverse after independence. Therefore, improving the quality of education in both the national language (Kyrgyz) and English and Russian became a focus of educational policy. Although the state law on language promoted Kyrgyz as a national language, the lack of adequate textbooks, dictionaries, and teaching materials in Kyrgyz hindered the implementation of this policy (Shadymanova & Amsler, 2018). In addition, some universities have started programs in English, particularly medical universities, that attract students from South Asia. International HEIs such as the American University of Central Asia and the Kyrgyz–Turkish Manas University, in turn, offer programs in English or Turkish and have degrees recognized jointly by both governments (Merrill et. al., 2021).

As part of educational reforms, Kyrgyzstan aims to promote the principles of the Bologna Process. In August 2011, the government issued a decree requiring all universities to implement bachelor’s and master’s degrees, using credit hours, by the following fall (Merrill & Ryskulova, 2012; Ministry of Education and Science of the Kyrgyz Republic, 2011). According to the 2011 decree, bachelor’s degrees in Kyrgyzstan were four years and a master’s two, except for medical degrees, conservatory degrees, and a few other specializations. The transition took place in year-by-year phases (Merrill et al., 2021). First, in 2012, all first-year entering students pursued bachelor’s degrees, while those who had entered a year earlier continued in five-year specialist diploma programs. The transition continued until 2016 when the first bachelor’s degree and the last specialist diploma recipients graduated simultaneously (Merrill et al, 2021). The PhD programs were introduced first in some specialties, which also were piloted in six universities. The PhD programs now have a duration of three years with 180 credits; however, some of the PhD programs are longer, such as medical programs with six years and 360 credits.

Kyrgyzstan was the first state in Central Asia to introduce a merit-based national University admission exam or General Republication Test (Obshee Respulikanskoe Testirovanie [ORT]) with the funding of USAID and by the initiation of the former Minister of Education Camilla Sharshekeeva to combat corruption in University admissions (Drummond, 2020). By introducing the ORT, the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) attempted to ensure equal access to higher education and support for rural youth. In addition, the ORT aimed to achieve an independent, objective, merit-based selection of secondary school graduates to study in higher educational institutions based on government scholarships (Shamatov & Bahry, 2020).

As mentioned above, Kyrgyzstan’s 1992 Law on Education introduced tuition fees for students to study in higher education (Brunner & Tillet, 2007). It meant that in addition to allocations from state budgets at state universities, “contract” or fee-paying places for students were introduced. Currently, a significant part of higher education institutions’ budgets is based on students’ tuition fees. Every year, the government of Kyrgyzstan allocates around 5,000 budget places based on the country’s needs for different specialists. Priority is given to teaching specialties, and about half of the budget grants are for “future teachers.” However, due to low salaries, lowering status, limited future opportunities, and hardships of the work demanded from the profession, studying to be a teacher is in less demand (Shamatov & Bahry, 2020).

Higher Education Governing Context

The amended 2021 Law on Education proclaims that the governance of the education system is carried out by the government of the Kyrgyz Republic, central and regional government education authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic, and local government bodies. The structure of the education system is developed and approved by the government of the Kyrgyz Republic within the powers assigned to it by law. In addition, the governance of educational organizations is based on the principles of democratization, decentralization, independence, and self-government. The Ministry of Education and Science is the primary organization setting and approving the organization and governance of education. However, some specialized higher education institutions are also affiliated with the other ministries in the country. For instance, the Academy of Management is established under the president of the Kyrgyz Republic, MIA Academy under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Kyrgyz State Medical Academy under the Ministry of Health, the Diplomatic Academy under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Bishkek Higher Military School under the Ministry of Defense, and the Osh Pedagogical Institute is accounted to the Local Regional State Administration (Erasmus Plus, 2017).

As a part of the Bologna Process reforms, Kyrgyzstan established independent accreditation of academic programs to assure the public about the quality of higher education programs. To achieve quality assurance of higher education institutions, the working group, including the Ministry of Education and Science (MEoS), developed specific regulations approved by the Kyrgyz government that created the legal basis to start independent accreditation of University academic programs in September 2016 (Ryskulova, 2019). According to the Law on Education, the National Accreditation Council (NAC) is a body that recognizes or denies the activities of independent accreditation agencies based on the regulations established by the government of the Kyrgyz Republic. The National Accreditation Council (NAC) chair is the minister of education, and NAC functions on a pro bono basis. Although the accreditation system is under the control of the MoES, and while the relationship between the MoES and newly established independent accreditation agencies is not clear, accreditation of higher education institutions is nevertheless a requirement for granting University degrees (Ryskulova, 2019).

9.2 Governing Body Profile

The governance of higher education institutions varies based on the status of universities – public, private, or universities established based on international treaties/agreements. For instance, the governance of Turkish Manas University is significantly different from Kyrgyz–Russian Slavic University. Likewise, private universities have different approaches to University governance structures. However, the governance of public/state universities is outlined in the Law on Education. This chapter describes the governance of public universities that are prevalent in the Kyrgyzstan higher education system.

Body Structure

Most public higher education institutions are governed by the Academic Councils and headed by rectors of universities. For instance, the republic’s largest University, Kyrgyz National University (KNU), named after Jusup Balasagyn in 2002, is a national University in Kyrgyzstan. It is located in the capital city of Bishkek. KNU is the oldest University in Kyrgyzstan as it was founded in 1925, first as a Kyrgyz Institute of Education with an affiliate campus in Osh. As a prominent University in the country, it has more than twenty faculties with various specialties in social sciences, linguistics, medicine, business, law, teacher education, engineering, and computer science. The main governing body of this University is the Academic Council; however, the rector of this only national University is appointed by the president of the country.

Membership

Members of the public higher education institutions’ Academic Councils consist by default of rector, vice-rectors, deans, department heads, and senior faculty. The size of this body consists of up to twenty to thirty members.

Member Appointment Processes

Not all members of the Academic Councils are elected. They consist of the rector (who also serves as chairman of the Council), vice-rectors, deans of faculties, heads of specialized departments, heads of various scientific and pedagogical departments, and representatives from trade unions and student nongovernmental organizations. This contingent should not exceed 50 percent of the total number of Academic Council members. Other Council members include representatives of faculties and other educational structural units such as research institutes, professors, and associate professors. These individuals are appointed. Members of the Academic Council may include the heads of scientific and research institutions, significant scientists, artists, and cultural workers with a specialist training profile who are not employed in the specific institutions. Still, they may be either well-known figures in education or alumni.

The rector approves the composition of the Academic Council of a higher educational institution for a period of two years in agreement with the Ministry of Education and Science.

Chair Appointment Processes

According to the 2021 amended Law on Education,

the head (Rector) of a state higher educational institution, except for the leaders of specialized state higher educational institutions such as internal affairs, foreign affairs, and defense, is elected at a general conference of the faculty and staff of a state higher educational institution from among specialists who have academic degree, as well as the relevant qualifications, by secret ballot with a simple majority of votes. The nomination of candidates for the position of the head of a state higher educational institution is carried out by its educational and other structural subdivisions or in the order of self-nomination. Elections of the head of a state higher educational institution are held and considered valid if more than half of the total staff of the state higher educational institution took part in them.”

(Law on Education 2003 last amended in 2021)

Further, the Law states that

a candidate is considered elected if they receive more than 50% percent of the votes from the number of those who took part in the election. If none of the candidates has received the required number of votes, a repeat voting is held, in which the two candidates with the largest number of votes participate. A candidate who has received more than 50% percent of the votes from the number of those who took part in the repeated voting is considered elected. The elected candidate is approved in the position of the head of the state higher educational institution within ten days from the date of the elections by the head of the authorized state body in the field of education.

(Ministry of Education and Science)

Therefore, while the University community elects the rector, the final appointment lies with the ministry.

The head of a state higher education institution is elected and approved for the position for five years. However, the same person cannot be elected and approved for the role of the head of a state higher educational institution for more than two consecutive terms. Regular elections of a new head of a state higher educational institution are held no later than thirty calendar days from the date of termination of the powers of the current leader. The head of a state higher educational institution shall exercise powers until the newly elected head of this higher educational institution takes office. The composition and procedure for forming the organizing committee for the conduct of elections are determined by the Academic Council of the higher educational institution and approved by the “authorized state body” in the field of education of the Kyrgyz Republic (The Republic of Kyrgyzstan, 2003).

The recall of the head of a state higher education institution may be initiated by at least two-thirds of the votes of the total number of members of the Academic Council of a state higher education institution. The decision to recall the head of a state higher educational institution is made at a general meeting of the staff of a state higher educational institution by a simple majority of votes and approved by the prime minister of the Kyrgyz Republic. The approval of the decision on the early termination of powers entails the dismissal of the head of a state higher educational institution from office.

In the event of early termination of the powers of the head of a state higher educational institution, the “authorized state body” (The Republic of Kyrgyzstan, 2003) in the field of education of the Kyrgyz Republic shall appoint an acting head of the state higher educational institution before the election of the head of the state higher educational institution. The interim head of a state higher education institution shall not have the right to admit new employees to the collective of a state higher education institution. The election of a new head of a state higher education institution must be held no later than sixty days from the early date.

Scope of Work

The scope of work of Academic Councils is outlined in the regulation of the government of Kyrgyzstan on Academic Councils (Polojenie ob uchenom sovete visshego uchebnogo zavedeniya Kyrgyzskoy Respubliki, May 29, 2012, #346) and is of a recommendatory nature; decisions of the Academic Council on the issues of selection and dismissal of personnel and financial and economic activities are also recommendatory to the rector.

According to the same regulation, the main functions and tasks of the Academic Council of a higher educational institution include approval of annual and long-term plans for the development of higher education institutions; consideration of structural changes within faculties, departments, and other units; approval of reports from academic and administrative units; and approval of curricula, timetables, and teaching technologies. The Academic Council also considers and determines financial resources for research and evaluation of the effectiveness of resources. Members of Academic Councils consider faculty promotion applications, doctoral students’ progress, issues of awarding personal and state scholarships established for students and postgraduates, and the nomination of scientific and pedagogical personnel of a higher educational institution for government awards.

Commentary

The overall context for University governance seems comparatively weak, given the World Bank assessment and WEF indicators. The country performs at a low level across factors that would seem to matter to University governance, such as rule of law, control of corruption, and voice and accountability. Similarly, factors such as a future-oriented government and the quality of graduates are also comparatively low. These create contextual challenges for University governance.

Similar to other post-Soviet countries, Kyrgyzstan’s higher education system went through a significant transformation, increasing the number of HEIs. Several adopted policies allowed the establishment of new higher education institutions, including private and international universities. As a result, Kyrgyzstan higher education represents one of the most diverse systems in Central Asia, given the scale of the country, and includes universities such as the American University of Central Asia, Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University, and Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University. The governance of HEIs depends on the status of universities – public, private, or international. The Law on Education allows public universities to elect rectors; however, the scope of work of a governing body, such as the Academic Council, is outlined by the governmental regulation and is only of recommendatory nature. In addition, the president of the country appoints the rector of the only national University in Kyrgyzstan. In sum, although Kyrgyzstan’s higher education institutions have autonomy and decision-making power in terms of the election of heads (rectors) of universities, the candidate still needs to be approved by the government bodies along with the members of Academic Councils.

10 Latvia

Rita Kaša

10.1 The National and Higher Education Contexts

The National Context

Latvia, a country of almost two million people, is in northern Europe by the Baltic Sea and is one of the Baltic countries. Latvia’s neighboring country to the north is Estonia; to the east, Russia and Belarus; and to the South, Lithuania. Since 2004, Latvia has been a member of European Union (EU) and NATO. In 2014, it joined the Euro zone and in 2016 became a member of OECD.

Latvia is a high-income country (World Bank, 2019b). The percentage of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion decreased from 2008 to 2016 from slightly above to slightly below 30 percent of population (Eurostat, 2018). This percentage, however, is one of the highest country poverty levels in EU. Today the service sector dominates the economy. In 2017, services contributed about 74 percent, agriculture about 5 percent, and industry about 22 percent of the country’s GDP (CIA, 2019d). Top service fields include retail, transportation, and construction (Central Statistics Bureau, 2020).

A substantial risk for economic development of the country is population decline (LSM, 2019). There was 17 percent population decline between 2000 and 2013; one-third of this was caused by declining birth rates and two-thirds by emigration (Hazans, 2016). Latvia remains a country with the highest expected migration potential in the EU.

Latvia is a parliamentary democracy where 100 members of the parliament are elected every four years in direct general elections. All recent Cabinets of Ministers, the highest executive body in the country formed by political parties elected to the parliament, have been coalition governments typically representing more than three political forces. Parties not represented in the government form political opposition (Kažoka, 2010; Pabriks & Štokenberga, 2006). Every four years, the parliament elects the president of the country who is the head of state and commander-in-chief, with high representative and more limited legislative and veto powers.

The national legislation defines governance structures and processes, which have been evolving since regaining the country’s independence. The World Bank Governance Indicators provide a summary view on the characteristics of this national governing context. The trend suggests an improving governance context over time. Except for political stability, all of the governance indicators were above the 50th percentile in 2008. Over the next ten years, all of the indicators for the most part have grown stronger, with regulatory quality, rule of law, and voice and accountability – all factors important to higher education – above the 75th percentile (Figure 10.1).

Figure 10.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Latvia

The Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding public sector performance ranks Latvia 79th out of 141 countries with a score of 47.0 out of 100 and the burden of regulations ranked 67th for 2018–2019 (Schwab, 2019). It scored the future orientation of the government at 59, ranked 50th. For the Skills pillar, most closely related to higher education quality, WEF scored Latvia 53.9 out of 100 for the skillset of graduates and a score of 48.7 on the ease of finding skilled employees indicators. This ranked the country 58th and 100th respectively on those indicators out of a total of 141. Regarding corporate governance, which arguably is different from public University governance, WEF ranked Armenia 49th with a score of 64. Given the population decline, one can see the challenges related to finding skilled employees. Public sector performance is approximately at the median as is the future orientation of the government. While the governance capacity seems high, the economic competitive indices are middling. Thus, there may be significant governance capacity in the system, but with some constraints that permit it to underperform.

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

Prior to 2021, the higher education sector in Latvia consisted of six universities, twenty-one non-university type institutions offering bachelor’s degrees, two branch institutions of foreign HEIs, and twenty-five colleges that offered first-level or short-cycle higher education (Ministry of Education and Science, 2021). Of all higher education providers, 60 percent were public institutions and 40 percent were private. In total, the higher education sector enrolled almost 76,000 students. Of all students acquiring bachelor’s degree and higher, 84 percent attended public HEIs. In the college sector, public institutions enrolled 62 percent of students (Ministry of Education and Science, 2021). Two public universities – University of Latvia and Riga Technical University – enrolled 42 percent of all students pursuing higher education beyond college level; 14,769 and 13,535 students respectively (Ministry of Education and Science, 2021). Enrollments nationally declined by about 40 percent from 2005 (131,072 students) to 2020 (76,282) due to low birth rates and emigration, including for the purpose of education (Kaša, 2015).

In 2020, approximately 60 percent of enrolled students paid tuition fees. In public higher education, there is a dual track tuition policy (Johnstone, 2006) where students are admitted to publicly funded or tuition-free institutions based on their average grade, while other students are admitted to tuition-funded institutions (Ait Si Mhamed, Vārpiņa, Dedze & Kaša, 2018). Fully publicly funded study places are available only to students at public institutions of higher education. Students at private institutions pay tuition unless there are institutional grants available.

In 2021, amendments to the Law on Higher Education Establishments (Saeima, 1995) came into effect, stipulating a new typology of higher education institutions and distinguishing between research universities, universities of arts and culture, universities of applied sciences, and non-university types of institutions of applied sciences. The type of institution is identified by the founder based on the characteristics of the institution. The Law stipulated that research universities need to specialize in at least three areas of sciences and offer doctoral level study programs. While changes in the higher education sector due to the new law were not observed at the time of writing, such changes might occur in a longer period of time.

Higher Education Governing Context

Latvia had a well-developed higher education system prior to Soviet occupation in 1941. After Soviet rule was imposed, the country’s higher education system was reorganized to reflect the tenets of the Soviet-style centralized higher education system. When Latvia regained its independence in 1990, the higher education system consisted of ten state higher education institutions. Five were under the supervision of the Ministry of Education, and others were operating under the auspices of the ministries of healthcare, culture, and agriculture (Ait Si Mhamed et al, 2018).

Liberalization, democratization, and modernization were processes that ensued after 1990, generating reforms in the higher education sector as well. The national political priority of integration into European structures provided the direction for higher education reforms. Accession to the EU and acquired global openness strengthened the Europeanization and internationalization of higher education in Latvia (Kaša & Ait Si Mhamed, 2013). Latvia became a strong supporter of the Bologna Process started in 1999, aimed at creating a European Higher Education Area. In addition to its European orientation, a liberal market perspective dominated the underlying steering philosophy of Latvia’s post-independence higher education reforms, leading to one of the largest private higher education sectors in the region and public universities with rather high levels of institutional autonomy (Ait Si Mhamed et al., 2018).

In its evaluation of University autonomy by the European Universities Association (2017), Latvia was ranked 22nd in organizational autonomy (medium low at 56 percent) across the twenty-six countries evaluated. It was 2nd in financial autonomy (high at 93 percent); 7th in staffing autonomy (high at 89 percent); and 23rd in academic autonomy (medium low at 50 percent). The report on Latvia notes that universities “operate in a legal framework that gives them significant autonomy in financial and staffing matters. However, there are considerable limitations in practice in these two dimensions” due to financial constraints (EUA, 2017, p. 119).

Even though the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) is responsible for higher education policy in the country, reminiscent of the Soviet era, several universities and colleges remain under the supervision of other ministries. The Law on Higher Education Establishments (Saeima, 1995) stipulates that a higher education institution has the right to:

1. (1) develop and adopt its constitution;

2. (2) develop and adopt its development strategy;

3. (3) determine directions for its scientific and artistically creative work, in the case of universities for arts and culture;

4. (4) independently decide on the content and form of study programs;

5. (5) determine organizational and governance structure of the HEI;

6. (6) build human resources at the HEI;

7. (7) public HEIs have the right to develop and adopt their annual budget;

8. (8) use HEI’s non-financial and financial resources to achieve goals stipulated in its development strategy;

9. (9) engage in other activities which do not contradict the principles for higher education institution’s operations set by its establisher and the Law on Higher Education Establishments. (Saeima, 1995)

This country case focuses on the governance structure and procedures at higher education institutions, excluding colleges. The current case study presents only the description of the national legislative framework at the time of publication, public universities in Latvia were rewriting their institutional governing documents to fit with the new higher education governance structure introduced in the country in 2021.

10.2 Governing Body Profile

Governance Overview

Amendments to the Law on Higher Education Establishments (Saeima, 1995) of 2021 introduced boards as the primary authoritative body at HEIs. According to the new stipulation, a board became one of the HEI’s governing bodies along with the Senate, rector, and, if established by the constitution of the HEI, the Constitutional Assembly and Academic Arbitration Court. The new law especially outlined the role of boards at public HEIs. Given the prevalence of the public higher education sector in Latvia, the governance structure at public HEIs will be the main focus of this country case description.

Before proceeding, it is relevant to mention the important role of the constitution of the HEI in the legal governance framework of HEIs. Each HEI in Latvia needs to develop a founding document – a constitution – which lays out the name of the HEI, its judicial status, profile, procedures of determining the structure of the HEI, and procedures for selecting and electing its leadership, as well as stipulating its approach to addressing other questions at the organization. Amendments to the HEI’s constitution can be proposed by the Board, the Senate, the rector, at least 10 percent of all members of the Constitutional Assembly of the HEI, an academic department, and the student government. The first instance of review of these amendments is within the Senate. Upon the Senate’s approval of the amendments, they are reviewed by the Board. If the HEI also has a Constitutional Assembly, the amendments to the constitution, after they are approved by the Board, need to be approved by this collective decision-making body. The final say, however, about approving amendments to a public HEI’s constitution rests with the Ministry of Education and Sciences and is contingent upon the compliance of the amendments with the national legislation.

The Constitutional Assembly

The largest governing body at a public HEI is its Constitutional Assembly. The number of its representatives is allowed to reach 200 people. Its representatives need to be elected every three years from among employees and students of the HEI. Whether an HEI has this governing body or not is determined by the constitution of the HEI. While the constitution of the HEI will stipulate the exact terms of office for the members of the assembly as well as their election procedures, the national law stipulates that at least 60 percent of all assembly’s members need to be faculty and at least 20 percent must be students.

The Constitutional Assembly elects its chairperson, one or more vice-chairpersons, and a secretary. The Constitutional Assembly is convened by its chairperson. The assembly’s meetings can also be initiated by one-third of its members, the Senate, or the rector. In a newly founded institution of higher education, the Constitutional Assembly is convened by the acting rector. It is the Constitutional Assembly that elects and removes the rector of the institution; the rector reports to this body of the University. The Constitutional Assembly also elects the Senate and the Academic Arbitration Court.

The Board

The Board is the highest decision-making body at a public HEI. It is responsible for the HEI’s sustainable development, the strategic and financial supervision of the institution, and ensures that the HEI works toward its strategic development goals. The HEI Board is expected by law to respect and defend academic freedom. The order of business for the Board is determined by its bylaws and the HEI’s constitution. The Board’s representation varied by the type of the HEI.

The Board of a research University consists of eleven members. Five of them are internal staff nominated by the Senate. The president of the country nominates one representative with excellent academic credentials who is not linked to the respective University. The remaining five members of the Board are external (not University employees) nominated by the Ministry of Education and Science based on input from alumni of the University, professional associations, employers, and other public stakeholders. The government provides the final nomination of these remaining Board members at a research University. The goal is to achieve that the majority of Board members hold a PhD.

The Board at a University for arts and culture consists of five members. Two are from the University nominated by the Senate. The president of the country nominates one outstanding professional in arts and culture. The remaining two board members, who are external, are selected by the ministry overseeing the HEI in the process of societal engagement representing alumni, professional associations, internationally renowned artists, and other stakeholders.

The Board at the University of applied sciences consists of seven members where three are internally nominated by the Senate. One representative of the sector who is not linked to the University is nominated by the president of the country. Three members to the Board who are external are nominated by the ministry overseeing the HEI following the recommendations from societal stakeholders representing academic, industry, and public sector.

The Board at the non-university type of applied sciences HEI consists of five members. Two are internally nominated by the Senate, one by the president of the country, and two external members, based on the societal recommendation, are selected the ministry overseeing the HEI and nominated by the government.

The external candidates to the Boards nominated by the government are vetted by a special committee for their reputation, professional credentials, competencies in the areas of risk management, strategic development, international collaboration, and the like. The goal is to establish a Board that represents competencies essential for a strategic leadership of the HEI.

The law stipulates that the nominee to the board should not have at least a year prior to the appointment to the board been an elected member of the parliament or the government (Saeima, 1995). While the Board members nominated by the HEI’s Senate can be affiliated with the respective University, those nominated by the State president and the government should not have been employed at the HEI for at least one year prior to the nomination. While on the Board, those nominated by the Senate cannot fulfill the duties of the member in the Senate, be a rector, a pro-rector, a dean, or a vice-dean at the HEI. The Board members can be appointed for no more than two four-year terms. The Board member can be recalled by its nominating body in the case of the loss of confidence.

The Board chairperson is elected from among the members of this body. According to the law, when convening for the first time, the Board chair needs to be elected from among those nominated by the State president and the government (Saeima, 1995). The chair of the Board is elected for up to four years and no more than twice. The Board members are compensated for their work in the amount of the monthly average wage of academic personnel nationally. The chair of the Board receives salary 50 percent hight than other Board members.

The Board has a broad range of tasks. It approves the constitution of the HEI and its amendments, it sets the strategic development plan of the HEI and oversees its implementation, it approves the HEI’s annual budget and oversees all financial matters, approves HEI’s governance policies, and, based on the rector’s suggestion, the Board makes decisions about the structure of the HEI and other governance-related questions. The Board nominates candidates for the rector’s position, sets the procedure for the elections, and elects the rector if there is no Constitutional Assembly at the HEI. The Board can initiate the removal of a sitting rector. In decisions that concern tuition fees, directions of studies, and stipends, the Board needs to request a statement on the position of the student government at the HEI.

Senate

The Senate of a HEI is a collegial decision-making body composed by the staff and students of the HEI. The mission of the Senate is to protect the academic freedom of students and staff. The size of the Senate cannot exceed fifty people at research universities and twenty-five people at universities of arts and culture and applied universities. Of these representatives, at least 75 percent need to be faculty and at least 20 percent must be students. The election process of senators is stipulated by the constitution of the HEI. A senator can be elected for the maximum term of three years. Student representatives to the Senate are elected by the student self-governance body at a HEI.

The Senate is responsible for ensuring that the constitution of the HEI corresponds to the directions of institutional development as well as other legislative documents. It recommends to the Board which study directions need to be developed. Based on the suggestions from the rector, the Senate decides about opening new and closing existing study programs, sets the criteria for academic ranks at the HEI, and establishes academic ethics standards. The Senate nominates representatives to the Board and can initiate recalling the rector. The Senate’s approval is required for documents related to the HEIs development and management prior to their approval by the Board. If the Senate does not agree with some of the documents for more than one month, the Board makes the final decision, reviewing the Senate’s objections.

The Advisory Convention

The Advisory Convention is an optional institutional body. If created, its purpose is to consult the Board, the Senate, and the rector in strategic matters of an HEI’s development. The Advisory Convention may recommend issues for a discussion at the Board and the Senate. Creation of the Advisory Convention can be initiated by a joint decision of the Board and the Senate of a HEI. Decisions of this advisory body have only consultative function to the HEI.

The Rector

The rector is the highest official at an HEI. The Constitutional Assembly or the Board, if there is no Constitutional Assembly, elects the rector for a maximum term of five years. The same rector can be elected for the maximum of two consecutive terms. At research universities, universities of applied sciences, and non-university types of applied sciences institutions, the rector needs to hold a PhD degree. At other universities for arts and culture, a Rector can hold a PhD, professional doctoral degree in arts, or be an elected professor of arts in Latvia or abroad.

The rector is responsible for leading the HEI and implementing steps toward achieving the goals for the HEI’s strategic development, including advancing successful personnel policies. The rector appoints pro-rectors and determines their scope of work. The head of the HEI is responsible for developing the plan for the development of research and studies and the overall institutional strategy and submitting these documents for the approval to the Senate and the Board.

The Academic Arbitration Court

The Academic Arbitration Court reviews complaints from students and faculty regarding infringement of academic freedoms stipulated in the constitution of an HEI. It reviews disputes between administrators or structures of an HEI, rules of an HEI, and it may address other questions as stipulated in the constitution of the HEI. Decisions of this court are binding on the administration of the HEI. Representatives of a HEI administration are not allowed to serve in the arbitration court. Members of this court can only be faculty who are elected by the Constitutional Assembly in a secret ballot. The representation of students in this court needs to be at least 20 percent. These representatives are elected by the student self-governance body at an HEI. Members of the Academic Arbitration Court report to the Constitutional Assembly.

Commentary

The 2021 amendments to the Law on Higher Education Establishments (Saeima, 1995) shifted the decision-making power balance at public institutions of higher education from the HEI-based structure of insiders, such as the Constitutional Assembly, to the Board, a body composed mostly by members nominated from the outside of the HEI. While the current system of public HEI governance still allows for some variation in the institutional structure, for example, by deciding to have a Constitutional Assembly or not, the law has assigned the decision-making powers relevant for institutional development to the Board. It stipulates the structure and conditions for the selection of the Board for each type of HEI.

The governance structure of higher education established in 2021 has removed the principle of checks and balances between the rector and the Senate within the institution, where the rector used to not chair the Senate and the Senate had veto rights over the rector’s decisions. Now the final decisions on all strategic questions regarding the institutional development rests with the Board. Although the Senate retains its role at the HEI, the Board, which is designed to also represent broader societal interests in higher education, has become the pivotal decision-making body at the institution.

The role of the Ministry of Education and Science now is defined in relation to organizing the negotiations with societal stakeholders for the nomination of 40 percent of the Boards members at an HEI. The government’s formal influence does not extend beyond that of organizing the process for selecting societal representatives to the Board. Prior to 2021, universities would appoint their rectors and the government would need to appoint this elected rector to the post to formally assume the duties. Now the government is not involved in the matters of appointing rectors. All these decisions rest with the boards of public HEIs.

As the new University governance structure will root itself in the public sector of higher education, it will be important to examine the impact it has had on the environment of academic work and outcomes.

11 Lithuania

Rita Kaša and Ali Ait Si Mhamed

11.1 The National and Higher Education Contexts

National Context

Lithuania is the largest and the southern most of the three Baltic countries. To the north, it shares a border with Latvia; Belarus is to the east and Poland to the south, and the enclave of Kaliningrad which belongs to Russia, is located in the west on the shore of the Baltic Sea. Since 2004, Lithuania has been a member of European Union (EU) and NATO. In 2015, it joined the Euro zone and in 2018 became a member of OECD.

Lithuania is a high-income country (World Bank, 2020b). The percentage of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion was about 27 percent of the population in 2019, which is above the average of 21 percent at poverty level in the EU (Eurostat, 2020). Trade in goods and services similar to the other two Baltic countries contribute about three-quarters of Lithuanian GDP, with industry contributing 26 percent and agriculture 3 percent (World Bank, 2020b).

Even though Lithuania is the most populous of the Baltic countries, the size of its population has decreased over the past three decades by about one million to 2.8 million people in 2018 (World Bank, 2020b). Reasons for such population decline are the same as those for its neighbors – negative birth rates and emigration (Hazans, 2016). These negative demographic trends are projected to put at risk the very development of higher education systems in the countries of the 2004 EU accession round, including Lithuania (Mizikaci, 2007).

In terms of the political system, Lithuania is unitary semi-presidential representative multiparty democracy. It is the only of Baltic countries where the state president is elected in a popular vote (Auers, 2015). The president is elected for five years and can serve no more than two consecutive terms. While the president of Lithuania has more domestic powers than the Estonian and Latvian counterparts, their main domain of influence is in foreign affairs. Presidential powers in Lithuania are countervailed by the powers of the parliament called Seimas, which is elected every four years. The president appoints the prime minister, who is the head of the government. The prime minister needs to be confirmed in the parliament and then he or she can nominate the government ministers for the presidential appointment.

The national governing context according to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators project is described below. Not just as compared to other countries in the post-Soviet context, but globally, its governance indicators are very high, all above the 70th percentile. However, it has seen its percentile drop across the complete set of indicators, including by approximately 10 percentiles for control of corruption and the rule of law (Figure 11.1).

Figure 11.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Lithuania

The Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding public sector performance ranks Lithuania 49th out of 141 countries with a score of 56.1 out of 100. Its burden of regulations ranking was 85th in 2018–2019 (Schwab, 2019). The future orientation of the government is ranked 37th. The Skills pillar is ranked 82nd, with a score of 48.5 out of 100 for the skillset of graduates and ranking of 124th on the ease of finding skilled employees indicators. Regarding corporate governance, which arguably is different from public University governance, WEF ranked Lithuania 37th. Taken together, the context for University governance, while strong overall, is (1) slipping downward and (2) seems to struggle with the output of its education for workforce needs. This is likely related to the population decline more than to the quality of education.

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

In 2020, there were nineteen universities and twenty-two colleges in Lithuania enrolling 104,000 students (Statistics Lithuania, 2022). There was a change compared to earlier years when the University sector consisted of fourteen public and eight private universities that offered bachelor’s degrees and higher, and thirteen public and eleven private colleges that awarded professional bachelor’s degrees, enrolling about 150,000 students in total (Leisyte, Rose & Schimmelpfenning, 2018).

Similar to many other countries of the region, Lithuania has a dual track tuition policy (Johnstone, 2006) where students are admitted to publicly funded or tuition-free places based on the results in their University entrance exams, while other students are admitted to tuition funded places (Eurydice, 2019). The grades received during studies determine whether the student continues to receive free higher education. In addition to this approach in distributing funding to students, there are also targeted grants for specialties demanded in the labor market but with limited interest among students, state subsidized student loans, merit-based scholarships to excelling students who have not been admitted to the state-funded places at universities, and social scholarships for various groups of students such as students with disabilities or students who have lost a guardian parent.

The largest University in Lithuania is Vilnius University. It is also one of the oldest universities in Europe, dating back to the sixteenth century. Other major public universities are Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Kaunas University of Technology, and Vytautas Magnus University.

Higher Education Governing Context

Based on political agreements between Soviet Moscow and Germany – the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact – Lithuania together with the other two Baltic countries was annexed by Soviet forces in 1940. This commenced the restructuring of the universities according to the Soviet vision for the sector (Leisyte, Rose & Schimmelpfenning, 2018). It included separating teaching and research activities into two different institutional domains and redesigning higher education institutions to align the social fabric of higher education with the tenets and needs of the Soviet state, which aimed to control all dimensions of higher education activity. In this process, academic freedom and autonomy were eliminated.

By 1990, Lithuania had one University and twelve other specialized higher education institutions. At this time, however, the sector of higher education had already begun to change due to democratic currents seeking to weaken the totalitarian state. A highly visible testimony to this process was the reopening of a liberal arts Vytautas Magnus University, previously eliminated by the Soviet regime. The regaining of national independence in 1990 brought next major transformations of higher education sector in Lithuania.

The first decade of this development was marked by the focus on reestablishing institutional autonomy. The state retained two steering instruments – the funding of higher education and the demand for a certain type and number of graduates (Leisyte, Rose & Schimmelpfenning, 2018). Simultaneously, the higher education sector was expanding, creating debates about the recognition of newly established private universities, some of which eventually became part of the system. The decade that followed 2009 was marked by an increasing shift toward market-based University management. Nevertheless, academic elites have still retained considerable influence in University governance decisions.

The contemporary Lithuanian higher education system is characterized by a state supervision model (Leisyte, Rose & Schimmelpfenning, 2018), where universities enjoy a high degree of organizational autonomy. The European Universities Association (2017) has ranked Lithuania 5th in organizational autonomy (high at 82 percent), 14th in financial autonomy (medium high at 73 percent); 10th in staffing autonomy (high at 83 percent); and 23rd in academic autonomy (medium low at 44 percent).

11.2 Governing Body Profile

Governance Overview

The Law on Higher Education and Research (Seimas, 2009) stipulates that a University leadership structure includes the Council, the Senate, and the rector. According to the law, a University may establish additional management bodies as necessary in a procedure stipulated by the statutes of the University.

The Council approves the procedure for organizing the election of the rector of the University, which needs to take place in an open competition, and decides about the appointment and dismissal of the rector. The Council is in charge of assessing administrative staff and other University’s employees, approving the internal rules of universities. The Council can rule only if two-thirds of the members of the Council are present. The University rector can participate in the meetings in an advisory capacity. In most questions, the Council needs to consider the input from University Senate.

The law stipulates that the University Council should consist of nine or eleven members. One member is nominated by students. Three or four members of the Council are nominated by the academic staff. Four or five members who are not affiliated with the University are selected in the procedure laid down by the Senate. From these candidates, one is selected, appointed, and recalled in accordance with the procedure laid down by the representation of students. The remaining three or four members are selected through an open competition. The members of the Council, except those selected by students, are elected separately taking into account the different interests of the University. The chairman of the Senate announces the final composition of the Council.

The Council is elected for five-year term at least one month prior to the end of the term of the incumbent Council. When assuming the duties, newly elected members of the Council are expected to sign a pledge that they will work in the interests of the University and the public and pursue this work in good faith. The new Council elects its chair from the members by a simple majority vote. The chairman can be elected only from among the Council members not appointed by students or University staff. The Council members are paid for their work in this capacity according to the University’s statutes.

The University Senate governs University’s academic affairs and is regulated by its own rules and procedures. It determines the procedures of studies, approves new study and research programs, and submits proposals to the rector for financing these programs and adjusting the University structures as necessary. The Senate evaluates the implementation results of new research programs, approves the internal study quality assurance system, and controls its implementation. The Senate establishes qualification requirements for the positions of lecturers and researchers. It also convenes meetings of the academic community at the University to discuss important issues stipulated in the statutes of the University. The Senate offers its perspective to the Council on the candidates for the University rector’s position and on the range of other questions concerning the management of the University decided by the Council. Based on the recommendation from the rector, the Senate sets the amount of tuition. The Senate also determines the total number of student places, taking into account the possibilities to ensure the quality of studies, research, and art activities.

A term on the Senate lasts for up to five years. Members of the Senate are representatives of the University’s academic staff. University’s administration representatives participate in the Senate ex officio. Student-appointed representatives in the Senate must comprise at least 20 percent of the Senate membership. Student representatives are appointed to the Senate by the student representation body at the University. Also, at least 20 percent of the Senate needs to be senior academic staff with the rank of professor and chief researcher; 20 percent need to be associate professors and senior researchers. Up to 10 percent of Senate members can be representatives of other higher education and research institutions; they have an ex officio role in the Senate. The rector of the University is also an ex officio member in the Senate.

The Rector represents the University and acts on its behalf. The rector manages and organizes the activities of the University and implements the strategic plan of the University. The rector plays a role in hiring University personnel and signing off on matriculating students. The rector is responsible for managing University finances and setting fees that are not directly related to the implementation of a study programs. The rector publishes the annual University activity report approved by the Council and submits to the Senate and the Council the University’s strategic development plans.

The election of the rector is stipulated in the procedure established by the University’s Council. The Council announces a public competition for the position of the rector. The rector is elected if at least three-fifths of all members of the Council vote for them. The Law on Higher Education and Research (Seimas, 2009) stipulates that the rector must be a person of impeccable reputation and pedagogical and managerial experience, who holds a doctoral degree or is a recognized artist. On behalf of the University, the chairman of the Council signs the employment agreement with the rector. The rector is elected for five years for a maximum of two consecutive terms. The rector can be removed from the office by at least two-thirds vote if a majority of the Council does not approve the annual activity report of the University submitted by the rector.

The Case of Vilnius University

Vilnius University is governed by the Senate, the Council, and the rector (Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania, 1990). A member of the Senate cannot simultaneously be a member of the Council, and vice versa. They need to resign from one of these bodies if they are elected or appointed to the other one.

The Vilnius University Senate is responsible for ensuring academic freedom at the University and is tasked with the supervision of the Council and the rector. The Senate rules by issuing resolutions to the University. The powers of Vilnius University Senate are in line with those described in the Law on Higher Education and Research (Seimas, 2009). The statues of Vilnius University also stipulate the power of the Senate, with a two-thirds majority of the votes of all Senate members, to pass a vote of no-confidence in the rector. The final decision on the recall of the rector rests with the Council not later than within two months from the no-confidence vote in the Senate.

The Vilnius University Senate is elected for four-year terms and consists of no more than fifty-one members, excluding the rector; the number of Senate members needs to be divided by five. Two-fifths of the Senate members shall consist of persons representing the areas of biomedical, physical, and technological sciences; two-fifths shall be persons representing the areas of social and humanitarian sciences and arts; and one-fifth will be representatives of the University’s students. The student representative to the Senate is appointed or elected under the procedure established by the students’ representation organization at the University. Other Senate members are elected by the University’s academic staff by a process of secret voting. Schools of the University need to elect their senators according to the representation quotas, but not less than one Senate member each. At least half of the elected Senate members need to be professors or chief researchers and at least one-fifth need to have the rank of associate professor and senior researcher. Elections at schools are considered to have been held if at least two-thirds of its personnel eligible to vote have participated in the election of senators. To be elected to the Senate, candidates need to receive the majority of votes of at least half of the voters participating in the elections. In the event where several candidates receive an equal number of votes, the eldest candidates are elected.

The first meeting of the newly elected Senate is chaired by the eldest Senate member participating, who is presented by the chairman of the Central Electoral Commission that organized the election of the Senate. During this meeting, the permanent new chair of the Senate is elected in a secret ballot with a majority of votes. The chairman of the Council, vice-rector, pro-rectors, chancellor, and heads of core academic units and the University branch offices are entitled to participate at Senate meetings with the right of advisory vote. Resolutions of the Senate are adopted by a simple majority of the participating Senate members, except in cases when two-thirds to make a decision are required. In the event of a tie, the Senate member chairing the meeting shall have the casting vote. At the request of at least one-fifth of all Senate members, voting by secret ballot may be called.

The Vilnius University Council, together with the Senate, is responsible for ensuring the autonomy of the University and monitors the compliance of the University’s activity with the University mission, objectives, tasks and principles of activity, general academic interests, and requirements for openness and accountability to society. In line with the national regulations, Vilnius University Council is responsible for electing the rector. Also in line with the law (Seimas, 2009), based on a proposal from the rector and after consulting the opinion of the Senate, the Council submits to the government its decision concerning any changes in the University assets that are owned by the state; making management decisions on other assets based on the rector’s proposal and in consultation with the Senate. In the same manner, based on a proposal from the rector and after consulting the opinion of the Senate, the Council approves the tuition and other fees charged by the University, as well as the total number of students at the University, taking into account the capacity to ensure the quality of studies, research, and artistic activity. These procedures are well in line with the version of the Law on Education and Research (2009) prior to 2016, when the law was amended giving this decision-making power to the Senate. The University has significant autonomy across a range of domains.

Vilnius University Council members are elected for five years and consists of eleven members. The composition of the Council corresponds to the stipulation in the Law on Education and Research (2009) presented earlier. Candidates to the Council need to be of good repute, show good understanding of the mission of the University in their work, foster the values of the University, and promote the quality of the institution. Neither the president of the Republic of Lithuania, members of Seimas and the government, nor civil servants of political (personal) confidence may stand for election or be elected to the Council. Each member can serve in the Council for no more than two consecutive terms. No member of the Council is eligible for candidacy for the position of the rector at Vilnius University. The first meeting of the newly elected Council is chaired by the eldest Council member participating, who is presented by the chairman of the Central Electoral Commission. The chairman of the Council is elected from Council members in the first meeting by the majority of all Council members voting by secret ballot.

The work of Vilnius University Council members is compensated based on the actual hours worked and applying coefficients applied to the official hourly salary of the rector. The hourly rate for the chairman of the Council equals that of the rector, the deputy chairman of the Council receives 85 percent and a Council member 50 percent of the rector’s hourly salary.

The Vilnius University rector is the head of the University and shall be officially addressed as “Your Magnificence” (Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania, 1990). The rector acts on behalf of the University and represents it, is responsible for the implementation of the mission and objectives of the University, and manages the University’s finances and assets. The rector participates in the Council meetings with the right of advisory vote and submits proposals to the Senate and the Council concerning the management of the University. Competencies of the Vilnius University rector align with those stipulated in the Law on Higher Education and Research (2009). The rector is elected for five years for no more than two consecutive terms. A candidate for election to the Vilnius University rector position needs to have a degree in science or art, managerial experience, impeccable reputation, and at least for five years out of the last ten be elected as full professor at a University. Candidates not employed at Vilnius University at the time of their nomination have the right to stand for election to the position of the rector. The election takes place as an open competition in the procedure established by the University’s Council. Once candidates are nominated, the chairman of the Central Electoral Commission submits the application documents of all these registered candidates to be discussed by the Senate. After discussing the candidates, the Senate presents its conclusions on their suitability to take the post of the rector and only then the Council votes by secret ballot to elect the rector of the University. The Rector is elected if at least seven out of eleven Council members vote in favor. If there are several candidates and votes split, voting is held in several rounds for candidates who have received the majority votes. The rector, once elected, appoints their leadership team consisting of pro-rectors and a chancellor.

Commentary

Although the University governance model in Lithuania represents the balancing of power between the academic oligarchy (Clark, 1983) and stakeholders outside the ivory tower of academia, the majority of power remains with the representatives of academia.

The rector of a University does not have to come from the academic circles of the specific University. However, the rector must demonstrate highly esteemed academic credentials to be considered for the post. When appointed, the rector needs to lead the University toward achieving its strategic goals while balancing the interests of all parties at the organization. The rector reports to the University Council, which is the institutional governance body in charge of hiring and firing the rector. The University Senate is also a body to which the rector needs to be sensitive given that the Senate presents its own evaluation of the rector’s performance to the Council.

The Senate is a University governance body composed of the representatives of the academic community. The Senate members can come not just from its own University but also from other educational or research institutions. The Senate members external to the University have their posts ex officio. The rules that regulate the procedures of how the Senate members are elected are likely to vary across higher education institutions. Yet, in all cases, this body needs to represent the diversity of academic ranks, with an emphasis on more senior members of this community, and also includes students. The Senate, thus, represents the arm of academic oligarchy, although its members may come from not one single institution.

The Council is a collegial University governance body that includes members of the University and other stakeholders not affiliated with the University. The profile of about 40 percent of the Council’s members selected from outside the University will depend on their selection procedure set by the University’s Senate. Thus, the academic community of the University has the final word in determining the diversity of perspectives in the Council.

12 Moldova

Peter D. Eckel

12.1 The National Context

Moldova is a country of approximately 3.55 million people, not including the breakaway region of Transnistria. It is in southeast Europe and shares its longest boarders with Ukraine to the east and Romania to the west. The population has been shrinking since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. From 1990 to 2015, it lost 21 percent of its population (United Nations, 2015). The United Nations predicts that, given current trends of emigration by youth, declining fertility rates, and limited progress on life expectancy gains, its population might decline by another 1.2 million people by 2060 (United Nations, 2015).

Its geographic position places the country between the political pull of the East and the West. It joined the Bologna agreement in 2005. The government of Moldova entered negotiations with the European Union (EU) signing agreements in 2014 for visa-free mobility in the Schengen area. Since that time, political parties that lean to the West and Europe and to the East and Russia have been in tension (Orenstein & Locoman, 2019). The country has also battled corruption and state capture at its highest levels. In June of 2019, the republic faced a government crisis when the Democratic Party, which had been in power, would not recognize the newly formed anti-corruption coalition government that brought together both West- and Russian-leaning parties. The country also has a breakaway region, Transnistria bordering the Ukraine. This area has its separate currency and government but is not recognized internationally.

Moldova is a lower middle–income country making it one of the poorest in Europe; its poverty rate has fallen from 22 percent in 2011 to 9.6 percent in 2015 (Teixeira & Nikolaev (2020). However, following the global financial crisis in 2008–2009, its economy was one of the fastest growing in the region averaging 4.5 percent growth from 2010 to 2017 (World Development Indicators, 2018). Today, the service sector dominates the economy – 70 percent in 2016, up from 49 percent in 2000. Agriculture, the second largest sector, declined during that same period from 29 percent to 14 percent of the economy.

The Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks Moldova 56th out of 141 countries regarding public sector performance with a score of 51.8 out of 100. Regarding the burden of regulations, it ranked the country 76th with a score of 40.2 for 2018–2019 (Schwab, 2019). It scored the future orientation of the government at 44.2, ranked 114th. For the Skills pillar, most closely related to higher education quality, WEF scored Moldova 43.5 out of 100 for the skillset of graduates and a score of 36.7 on the ease of finding skilled employees indicators. This ranked the country 106th and 136th respectively on those indicators out of a total of 141. Regarding corporate governance, which arguably is different from public University governance, WEF ranked Moldova 51st with a score of 63.5.

The national governing context according to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators project is as follows by percentile rank. These figures are intended to show trends over time associated with a set of country-level data that may impact University governance. By percentile, its overall governing context is below the 50th percentile in all areas except for regulatory quality. Voice and accountability and government effectiveness have improved the most in the past decade. Regulatory quality and rule of law have improved slightly. However, the scores across all indicators remain low as compared to international thresholds. The implications are that the context for universities is challenging. The system seems to lack capacity regarding governance and is not effective at producing graduates for workforce needs or focusing on the future (Figure 12.1).

Figure 12.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Moldova

12.2 The Higher Education Context

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

The University sector in Moldova consists of nineteen public and ten private universities (NSB, 2018). They enroll 55,700 students and 9,800 students respectively (65,543 total) (NSB, 2018). The average enrollment is less than 2,000 students for all but two of the public universities; Moldovan State University and Moldovan Technical University each enroll approximately 10,000 students. Enrollments nationally have declined by almost 20 percent in the past two years. Emigration, falling birth rates, and aggressive recruitment and scholarships from nearby Russian and Romanian universities have contributed to the steep decline. Public funding for universities has also declined the past ten years; however, because of enrollment declines, per student funding is on the rise (World Bank, 2018b). The Ministry of Education, Culture and Research (MoECR) is undertaking an optimization process to reduce the number of universities and pedagogical colleges during the 2019–2020 academic year.

Approximately 65 percent of enrolled students pay some level of tuition fees. Of the 65,543 students enrolled in 2018/19, 23,260 received State government scholarships, which are offered in terms of merit and need. Government funding proved insufficient, and universities created contract education and charged these students tuition fees to enroll (Bischof & Tofan, 2018).

Higher Education Governing Context

Its Soviet history has had a strong impact on the structure and shape of Moldovan higher education. All but one University and all of the institutes were created during the Soviet period, at which the University structure, curriculum, and even academic staff were imported by the USSR with the Soviet model being replicated in Moldova (Bischof & Tofan, 2018). The structure of the higher education system during Soviet times consisted mostly of special focused institutes – pedagogical, medical, technical, art, agricultural – and a conservatory. There was a single comprehensive University. Furthermore, most of these Soviet-style institutes and the University did not have active research agendas; research was conducted by the Academy of Sciences and its University (Bischof & Tofan, 2018). The University system during this period was highly centralized, which in turn meant that the curriculum was unresponsive to local economic needs (Smolentseva, 2012).

A series of reform laws aimed at modernizing Moldovan higher education occurred following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. During the initial wave of reforms, institutes added diversified curricula and transitioned into universities. A second set of reforms occurred in the early 1990s, which included the emergence of private universities (Bischof & Tofan, 2018). In 2005, Moldova joined the Bologna Process, further spurring reforms such as aligned degree structures, new forms of quality assurance, and a focus on degree relevance. The most recent legislative reforms were implemented with the adoption of the current Education Code in 2014.

As part of the 2014 reforms, the MoECR granted autonomy to Moldovan universities. The Code defines University autonomy as “the right of the University community for organization and self-management, exercising the academic freedoms without any ideological, political or religious interferences, assuming a set of competences and obligations in line with the national strategies and policies for the development of higher education” (MoECR, 2014, p. 41). The granted autonomy gives universities the rights and responsibilities related to

• research;

• the curriculum (although aligned with state education standards);

• admissions;

• hiring and promoting personnel;

• establishing management bodies;

• addressing student and staff social and discipline problems;

• overseeing finances and budgets, including seeking additional sources of income and keeping accumulated income and developing material resources; and

• administrating property to advance University mission/charter.

Along with this autonomy, the Education Code puts forth a set of guiding principles of (1) public responsibility, (2) strategic leadership, and (3) efficient and transparent management. However, the Code states that higher education management shall be performed at two levels: at the national level by the MoECR and at the institutional level. This dual responsibility signals that the Ministry continues to play a meaningful if not direct role. To that point, the functional level of University autonomy is debatable according to World Bank (Teixeira & Nikolaev, 2020), with the Ministry exerting continued control directly and indirectly over the shape of the system and at the University level. Although the possibility and structure for institutional control exists given the autonomy framework and the fact that that Moldovan universities charge tuition to two-thirds of their students and thus need to be market responsive.

12.3 Governing Body Profile

The primary governing body of Moldovan universities is the Senate, which is codified in national statute as that which represents the supreme management body (MoECR, 2014). It operates on a five-year mandate that coincides with that of the elected rector of the University.

There is a second governing body, the Strategic and Institutional Development Council (SIDC), that on some organizational charts appears on the same level as the Senate and has some authority over the rector (see, for example, Universității De Stat “Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu” Din Cahul, 2015). Although the Code of Education identifies the Senate as the supreme body, there are powers of the SIDC that extend beyond the reach of the Senate, as will be explained below. However, most SIDC decisions need to be approved by the Senate. Thus, there are two bodies that are created to work in concert with each other and as checks and balances on institutionally relevant decisions.

The final body of note is the Administrative Council, however, based on the terms and definitions of this book, it is considered as a management rather than governance body and thus falls outside the focus of this discussion.

Appendix 1 at the end of this chapter summarizes the ensuing discussion and compares Senates and SIDCs. This information was collected through Ministerial document and web analysis of Moldovan universities with available websites that describe elements of their governance structures.

Body Structure

The size of the Senates seems to range from a low of 36 members to a high of 101 members. The SIDC size is determined by statute and set at 9.

Committees

Committees vary across institutions. The Technical University of Moldova lists its standing committees on its website. This Senate is the largest one of those described consisting of 101 members and the only one with publicly specified committees. These committees include:

• Competition Commission;

• Education and Quality Assurance Commission;

• Scientific Research and Student Creativity Commission;

• Budget, Finance and Resource Optimization Commission;

• Internationalization, Cooperation and Partnership Commission;

• Social Problems, Students’ Extracurricular Activities Commission;

• Prizes Awarding Commission;

• Discipline, Integrity and Ethics Commission; and

• Control of Enforcing The Senate Decisions Committee.

This University’s Senate also has ad hoc committees and an executive committee.

Membership

The membership of University Senates is internal to the University. It includes the rector and prorectors, deans and directors of research and centers, elected academic staff, trade union representatives, and elected students. Stated in the Education Code is the student right to “be elected in the governing structures of the educational institutions” (MoECR, 2014, p. 81).

Membership of the SIDC consists of both University staff as well as outside, independent members. According to statute, SIDC membership includes the rector, pro-rector of finance, five non-university or community members, and two teaching staff who are not members of Senate. Independent members of SIDC (who are not University employees) are compensated in their role and the chair is compensated at twice the level of members.

Member Appointment Processes

Membership for the Senate is elected by secret ballot by members from the University for five-year terms. These terms coincide with the elected term of the rector.

For SIDC membership, the Senate selects two teaching staff and two external experts (non-staff) for four of the nine posts. Ministries of Education, Finance, and Competence each select one external member and these individuals cannot be employed by Ministries. The rector serves as part of his/her appointment as does the pro-rector for financial matters. The Code suggest that members include economists and lawyers. SIDC members serve five-year terms.

The rector is elected to five-year terms that are renewable once for ten years. However, many rectors serve multiple terms beyond that. They are elected by secret ballot of the General Assembly of teaching and research staff and by the student representatives serving on the Senate and faculty Councils. The SIDC starts the process by publishing a notice and reviewing candidate dossiers to ensure they meet minimum qualifications. The SIDC or the majority of the Senate may dismiss a rector before the term is completed with the confirmation of the majority of the General Assembly and student representatives to the Senate and faculty Councils.

Chair Appointment Processes

The elected rector serves as chair of the Senate. The chair of the SIDC is voted upon by its members and must be one of the external members of that body, not employed by the University.

Board Accountability

The Senate and SIDC are accountable to the Ministry of Education. Moldova also has a quality assurance schema, but it is unclear if that body includes governance as part of its quality review process.

Scope of Work

The Education Code sets out a range of responsibilities for the Senate, and from that framework, universities develop a list of Senate tasks. These lists vary but tend to focus on the following categories of work:

• Strategy. Ensure principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy; develop and approve the University charter; approve rectors’ annual report; approve strategic development plan that is created by SIDC; nominate staff and confirms SIDC members; confirm SIDC recommendations on creating and terminating academic programs and SIDC recommendations engaging in consortia, entrepreneurial activities, and public-private partnerships.

• Organization and Administration. Elect deans and academic heads; determine University structure.

• Finance. Approve budget that is created by SIDC; approve project budgets; approve ways of obtaining revenue, donations, and of settling debts.

• Staffing/Human Resources. Approve the methodologies and regulations for the recruitment, employment, and evaluation of the scientific, didactic, scientific, and didactic staff; elect and reelect University professors, in some universities.

• Academic, Curriculum, Research. Develop and approve admissions framework; approve research strategy; approve institutional educational plans; approve the results of admissions and license exams.

The SIDC has responsibilities as noted above in the Senate work description and requires approval by the Senate. The scope of SIDC’s responsibilities include:

• Strategy. Coordinate the Strategic and Institutional Plan and submit it for final approval to Senate; ensure intellectual property and tech transfer; and make decisions about entrepreneurial activities, public-private partnerships, and consortia; develop remuneration methodology.

• Organization and Administration. Organize rector election; develop physical plant.

• Finance. Draft budget for Senate approval and monitor finances; approve model-study contract and tuition fees.

• Academic, Curriculum, Research. Approve launch and close of study programs with approval of Senate.

The governance structure is created to have two bodies with shared responsibilities and approval mechanisms, particularly related to the budget and strategy of the University.

Commentary

The Senate is the supreme governing body as dictated in the Education Code and seemingly in practice. However, the governing powers are divided between the Senate and the SIDC, at least on paper. Although the Senate is the supreme body and as the Academy of Economic Science’s website indicated, it “has the right to debate any issues related to the educational process and scientific research as well as management, socio-economic and financial activity” (Academy of Economic Science, n.d.).

The SIDC has the potential to be a meaningful governance actor because the scope of its work focuses on key strategic topics. These include budget development and tuition setting, the monitoring role related to the efficient use of financial resources, the development of the strategic plan, the development and consolidation of the institution’s patrimony, and decisions related to launching and closing study programs. Budget and financial oversight, study programs, and physical plant and land use are fundamental strategic issues that a mix of University insiders (including the rector) and outsiders govern. All of that said, the SIDC decisions require Senate final approval, thus providing leverage for the Senate and constraining the authority and impact of this body. The Senate also appoints four of the nine members to that body, exerting both direct and indirect influence over SIDC work.

Through investigation of documents and websites for this brief, Senates are presented more often and in greater detail than the SIDC. While websites have great limits, the variations are striking between the public depictions of Senates and SIDCs and their relationship to each other. One can begin to speculate where the real power lies at each institution.

The SIDC structure has the potential to keep direct ministerial influence to a minimum, given that although ministries can appoint members of SIDC, they cannot be members of ministerial staff. That said, members of other ministries are appointed to SIDC, opening the doors for direct governmental influence. The broad sweep of fiscal and curricular powers, and the fact that the rector is elected by the University, also have the potential to lessen ministerial influence. Given the low scores in the WEF’s Global Competitiveness index related to the future orientation of the government, ranked 114th out of 141 countries, and the low scores associated with higher education’s performance – skillset of graduates ranked 106th and ease of finding skilled employees ranked 136th, and coupled with a disproportionately strong record of corporate governance, ranked 51st, using the structure of the SIDC more effectively and with less government influence – direct or indirect – seems to have strong potential as a tool for effective University governance. Unlike other countries that do not have such a structure in place that allows for more distance from direct government control and opens lines of influence with corporate and other nongovernmental leaders, Moldova has such a structure but seems to be underutilizing it.

Finally, it is important to note the role and position of the rector in the Moldovan University governance structure. The rector, elected by the University and an institutional insider, not only chairs the Senate but also leads the Administrative Council, and this individual sits on SIDC. In addition to the rector, the pro-rectors and the deans sit on the Senate, and the pro-rector for finance additionally sits on SIDC. Therefore, one must consider the administrative authority present in governance. Serving with the elected mandate of the University and its academic staff and positioned structurally in key authoritative positions in both the Senate and SIDC and as a bridge between them, the rector likely has strong say in the governance of the University.

13 The Russian Federation

Zumrad Kataeva

13.1 The National and Higher Education Context

The Russian Federation is located both on the European and Asian continents, with the dividing line of the Ural Mountains between the two. The country’s land area is 17,075,400 km², with 78 percent of the population living west of the Ural Mountains. The country’s population is more than 146 million, three-quarters of which live in cities, making for an urban nation. Russia has one of the world’s most diverse societies, with as many as 160 ethnic groups. The two major cities are the capital Moscow, with over twelve million people, and St. Petersburg, with over four million.

The Russian Federation is a federal presidential republic with the president being the head of the state. According to the constitution, the president is elected for six years. Government duties are split between several ministries, some of which, in turn, have federal services and federal agencies. The head of the government, the prime minister, is appointed by the president and approved by the State Duma (lower chamber of the parliament). Russia has a two-chamber legislative power. The parliament, the Federal Assembly, is composed of the Council of the Federation (upper chamber), with 170 seats, whose members are appointed by the regional governors and legislative institutions for a four-year term of office, and the State Duma (lower chamber), which has 450 seats elected by direct election for a four-year term.

The country is grouped into seven federal districts; however, federal districts are not established by the country’s constitution and are not the constituent units but exist for federal government agencies’ convenience of governing and operation. Each district includes several federal subjects, and each federal district has a presidential representative. According to the constitution, the federation is divided into the federal subjects, or areas, of Russia. Since March 18, 2014, the Russian Federation constitutionally consists of eighty-five federal subjects.

According to the WEF Global Competitiveness Index, the Russian Federation ranks 43rd out of 141 countries. As of the burden of regulations, it ranks 90th with a score of 37.0 for 2018–2019 (Schwab, 2019). Russia has increased the quality of its research institutions and R&D expenditures (1.1 percent of GDP, ranking 34th). In terms of skillset, Russia ranks 54th among 141 countries with a score of 68.3 out of 100. Regarding the skillset of graduates and ease of finding skilled employees, Russian ranks 77th with the score of 50.1 and 47th with scores of 58.7, respectively. In the past year, Russia revised down its assessment of the skillset of secondary education graduates by 0.1 points, indicating that the quality of education is not keeping up with the needs of a modern economy (Schwab, 2019). Regarding corporate governance, which arguably is different from public University governance, WEF ranked Russia 75th with a score of 59.2.

According to the World Bank Governance Indicators, Russia’s ranks are all below the 50th percentile, except for government effectiveness. The rule of law, voice and accountability, and regulatory quality have dropped over the five-year period of 2013 to 2018 and are in less than the 20th percentile. These indicators suggest that Russia does not have a robust context for University governance and has a high burden of regulation (Figure 13.1).

Figure 13.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Russia

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

The collapse of the Soviet Union has significantly impacted the economy of Russia. From 1990 to 2002, key sectors of the economy lost up to one-third of the total number of employees: the industrial sector (about 36 percent), agriculture (20 percent), construction (23 percent), and transport and communications (16 percent) (Platonova et al., 2019). These changes in the labor market resulted in reducing the demand for natural science training with higher education and have led to a decrease in the popularity of engineering universities. At the same time, the social and financial sectors of the economy increased significantly. For example, employment in the trade sector increased by 85 percent, in the financial sector by 103 percent, and in public administration by 85 percent (Platonova et al., 2019).

As of 2018–2019, the higher education system consists of 741 higher education institutions – 496 state universities, including 10 federal universities, 29 national research universities, and 247 non-state and private universities. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian higher education experienced substantial growth in the number of universities between 1991 to 2011. In addition, the legislation adopted in 1992 allowed the establishment of private HEIs (the Law on Education). The number of private HEIs grew to 358, an eight-fold increase, although only 7 percent of students were enrolled in the private sector (Platonova & Semyonov, 2018). In addition, the system witnessed the establishment of HEI branch campuses that allowed wider access to higher education in the regions.

After a relative decline in the mid-1990s, the number of students has grown every year. In 2000, the number of students per 10,000 was 327, significantly higher than in 1995 at 189 students per 10,000 population (Platonova et al., 2019). As of 2020, the total number of students is 4.7 million. The age cohort participation among 17 to 25-year-olds in higher education is about 32 percent. The tertiary enrolment rate among 20 to 24-year-olds increased from 28.8 percent to 30.3 percent between 2005 and 2014 (Platonova et al., 2019). Russian universities train specialists in more than 350 specialties. The number of faculty of state universities includes 265,000 people, of which 153,000 people are highly qualified specialists (candidates and doctors of sciences). Non-state universities employ over 42,000 faculty.

From federal and regional budgets, governmental support for higher education is approximately 55 percent of the total cost (as of 2012). However, 97 percent comes from federal funding and only 3 percent from regional budgets. The regions do not receive funds from the federal budget for the organization or provision of higher education, since seventy out of eighty-five areas are subsidized and federal subsidies cannot be spent on higher education. The legislation does not clearly regulate this issue; there are actually no incentives for regions to interfere in the University sector (Froumin & Leshukov, 2015). According to Froumin and Leshukov, “Under such circumstances, market mechanisms of higher education organization are virtually absent in some regions” (Froumin & Leshukov, 2015, p. 6).

Higher Education Governing Context

The First Law of the Russian Federation “On Education” (1992) provided the legal foundation for new funding mechanisms. Institutions were granted the right to carry out financial and economic activities independently. State universities received the right to attract extrabudgetary funding, predominantly through students’ tuition fees. The system was introduced under which the state funds student places in state universities, but these universities can enroll additional students via privately funded places. Most students with tuition fees choose popular programs and areas, such as economics, management, information technology, and Law (Platonova & Semyonov, 2018).

Starting in 2000, higher education became a priority for the government. New policies aiming at transforming the higher education system were introduced, including the Unified Entrance Examinations for the universities. In addition, Russia signed the Bologna Declaration in 2003 and introduced bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD degrees. For instance, Moscow State University and Saint Petersburg State University have the right to award their own PhD degrees instead of the centralized Higher Attestation Committee of the country. The government also encouraged a so-called new type of University, which aimed to become centers for attracting talented youth and contributing to the development of Russian regions. Many universities since then have been merged and transformed into federal universities.

Another project initiated by the government was creating the network of universities having the status of national research universities. Following the current Law on Education, these universities have a special status granting them the right to establish educational programs without ministerial approval. Additionally, the Lomonosov Moscow State University and St. Petersburg State University were recognized in 2009 as the leading universities by a special law allowing targeted funding and further developing new academic programs outside of traditional regulatory mechanisms.

To increase the international competitiveness of leading Russian universities, the government launched an effort known as the Project 5-100. Its goal was to ensure that at least five Russian universities are included in the top one hundred leading world rankings by 2020. The project was based on a competitive procedure for selecting programs to improve the competitiveness of universities. The first round of competition with fifty-four universities was held in 2013, in which fifteen universities were recognized as winners. In 2015, another six universities were selected for the program. However, the project did not include Moscow State University and St. Petersburg State University because of their already granted special status. In total, twenty-nine universities participating in Project 5-100 received targeted funding for increased research output from the government (Gryaznova, 2018).

According to the Law on Education, the governance of higher education in Russia is carried out at three levels: federal, regional, and municipal. At the federal level, governance is carried out by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. The functions of the ministry include approval of federal state educational standards, licensing, state accreditation and liquidation of educational institutions, development, and implementation of state and international programs and other regulatory functions. However, Platonova and Semyonov argue that in reality, at the level of regional and municipal levels, higher education is basically not included in the authority of these government agencies (Platonova & Semyonov, 2018).

HEIs report directly to the various bodies of executive power. By the end of Soviet times, twenty-eight different ministries were supervising other HEIs. Today, twenty-one different bodies, including the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES), govern most of higher education, which enroll approximately 60 percent of all students. The two other major ministries are the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health and Social Development (medical HEIs) that oversee HEIs offering degrees in their areas of responsibility. Although Russia is a federal state, there is little decentralization of state authority regarding higher education, as was mentioned earlier (Platonova & Semynov, 2018).

The current higher education governance model in Russia results from the chaotic transformation period of the entire higher education system following the dissolution of the Soviet system (Froumin & Leshukov, 2015). The ratio of regional and federal universities has actually remained unchanged over twenty years. Only one-third of all regions have subordinate universities; most of them only have one such University, and 20 percent of those regional universities are arts universities rather than comprehensive ones (Froumin & Leshukov, 2015).

According to Froumin and Leshukov

the current federalism organization in higher education almost completely coincides with the model characteristic of the Soviet socialist state, which was supported by absolutely different principles – the state character of higher education, job placement system, economic planning, etc. The real regionalization of higher education that is currently supported by many stakeholders has never taken place in the country.

Comparison to comparable large countries (the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany, Brazil, India, China) demonstrates that Russia is characterized by the most centralized management model in higher education.

(2015 , p. 15)

13.2 Governing Body Profile

The Russian higher education system illustrates a multifaceted example of governing models of higher education institutions. There are three governing models: one for state universities; another for ‘‘flagship universities’’ that include autonomous and national universities; and a third for two universities of special status, Moscow State University, named after MV Lomonosov, and St. Petersburg State University (Table 13.1)*.

The Law on Education states that the governance of universities is harmonized throughout the country and is described in detail in each University charter. Overall, one of the essential parts of the Russian University governance is the General Conference, composed of elected researchers, teaching staff, and students. The General Conference approves the internal regulations of the University and elects a labor dispute commission. Conference delegates are elected among faculty, administrators, and students. The representation of scientific and pedagogical workers (faculty/academic staff), following the charter of the University, should be at least 80 percent of the total number of delegates to the conference. The election of conference delegates is made by a simple majority of votes by open or secret ballot with at least 50 percent of the number of employees or students of the respective units participating in the vote. The voting results are drawn up in a protocol that is submitted to the Election Committee.

One of the tasks of the General Conference is electing the Academic Council. In turn, this governing body is responsible for setting the main directions for University development, including its educational and research activities, and approves financial and economic plans. In addition, the Academic Councils in Russian higher education institutions regulate specific operational issues, such as approval of rectors’ annual reports, the setting of the University’s educational standards and requirements, the hiring of professors, and the establishment of faculty workloads. The Academic Council is always headed by the University’s rector, who is also responsible for the direct administration of the University. Thus, while the General Conference makes collective decisions about the main direction of universities, Academic Councils are responsible for and are in charge of daily decision-making and strategic priorities of universities. The members of the Academic Council of the University should not exceed 50 percent of the total number of General Conference delegates.

Delving deeply into the Russian higher education landscape and types of governing structures, we tried to identify the main governing models:

First, Moscow State University, named after MV Lomonosov, and St. Petersburg State University, have special status according to the Law on Education. The rectors of these two universities are appointed by the president of the Russian Federation and not elected by the Academic Councils. The main governing body of these universities are also Academic Councils elected by the General Conference.

These two universities also have advisory Boards of Trustees (Popechitelskiy Soviet) appointed by the Academic Councils headed by the rectors. The Boards of Trustees consist of representatives of the government and state businesses of the country. For example, the current chair of the Lomonosov University Board of Trustees is the president of Russia. The current chair of St. Petersburg State University (SPSU) is a deputy chair of the Security Council and a former prime minister who is a graduate of SPSU.

The second category includes flagship universities that consist of autonomous universities comprising of ten federal universities and the recently added Crimea Federal University, making in total eleven, and the twenty-one national research universities participating in 5-100 projects as well as leading higher education institutions in the regions. One of the features of these universities is the Board of Overseers (Nablyudatelniy Soviet) that operates in addition to the General Conference and Academic Council. The legal status of an autonomous organization was introduced by the federal law “On Autonomous Organizations” (2006) to increase the quality of services of public institutions and the efficiency of public spending through the easing of specific excessive state control mechanisms in the areas of daily financial management, procurement, and budgeting (Gryaznova, 2018). This reduction of the bureaucratic burden was accompanied by the introduction of new forms of University governance, based on more autonomy, involvement of various external stakeholders through involvement in governance, continuous monitoring of the key performance indicators, and competitive financing (Gryaznova, 2018). The Law requires each autonomous organization to have a Board of Overseers in its governing structures. Boards of Overseers consider the proposals of head of organizations (in this case rectors of universities) related to changes to the charter of organizations, their restructuring, and financial matters of organizations. The Law indicates explicitly that some of the issues proposed by the rectors can be supported/declined by the Board of Overseers, but the rector can still make the final decision. However, significant financial transactions, transactions in which there is a financial benefit, the auditing of the annual financial statements, and approving the selection of audit organizations are final decisions that rest with the Board of Overseers.

Rectors of autonomous universities such as the Financial University under the government of the Russian Federation, the Russian Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture Ilya Glazunov, as well as the Higher National Research University School of Economics are appointed by the government of the Russian Federation (The Government Decree No. 33 of January 16, 2014 “On the Procedure for Appointing Rectors of Educational Organizations Subordinate to the Government of the Russian Federation”). However, recently the minister of Science and Higher Education announced that the Board of Overseers should elect the rectors of national research universities participating in 5-100 projects. Boards of Overseers will be the primary entity responsible for the overall governance and election of rectors. This was announced as a pilot project, and the Ministry is deciding whether it should be required to select rectors by Boards of Overseers at other autonomous institutions.

As indicated on their websites, several autonomous universities and national research universities have both a Board of Trustees and a Board of Overseers in the governing structures. For instance, in the case of National Research University Higher School of Economics, the governing bodies consist of the Board of Overseers, the Conference of Employees and Students of the University (General Conference), the Academic Council of the University, the Presidium of the Academic Council, the rector of the University, and the Board of Trustees.

The third category is Russian State universities. Most of these universities have budgetary (not autonomous) status, but there is a competitive program where state universities can compete for autonomous status. The Federal Law on Higher and Professional Education requires all state budgetary accredited universities to establish a Board of Trustees consisting of academics and students in addition to General Conferences and Academic Councils.

The appointment of rectors of state universities involves several stages. First, they include getting an attestation from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education confirming their abilities to be nominated and elected. Next, their candidacy is nominated for election by the General Conference, and the winning candidate must get approval from the Academic Council. Then the University submits its election results to governments of cities, regions, and the federal government for approval. The final step is receiving final approval from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

Body Structure and Membership

According to the Law on Autonomous organizations, the Board of Overseers should consist of five to eleven members. The specific structure of the board is defined by the institution’s founder (i.e., MoES, the Russian government, or the regional or municipal authorities). According to the Law, each board should include representatives of the Russian government, the Federal Agency of State Property Management, and civil society, including individuals with proven records in related content and professional areas, such as health or agriculture. Institutions have the right to nominate their own representatives for board membership where the Ministry of Education and Science finalizes and approves/disapproves nominations.

Members of the Boards of Overseers are appointed by the institution’s founder (the Ministry of Science and Higher Education). As the founder of federal and national HEIs is the government, the members of these organizations, in most cases, are appointed by the government. The term of the Board of Overseers is established by the charter of the autonomous institution but cannot be more than five years. A person may serve as a member of the board for an unlimited number of terms. The rector of an autonomous institution and his deputies cannot be members of the Board of Overseers. The rector of an autonomous institution participates in meetings of the Board of Overseers with an advisory vote.

The number of members of the Board of Trustees varies from institution to institution. The Board may include employees of the higher educational institution and students, representatives of the founder of the higher educational institution, representatives of employers, executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local government bodies, and, following the charter of the higher educational institution, representatives of other organizations. The Law specifies that the procedure for the formation of the Board of Trustees, its term of office, competence, and process for its activities should be determined by the charter of the higher educational institution.

Member Appointment Processes

The chair and members of the Boards of Overseers of autonomous organizations are appointed by the founder (Ministry of Science and Higher Education or the government). Usually, the chair of the Board is the governor of the region or ministers of sectoral ministries, or other high-profile public officials. However, the ministerial decree states that during the appointment of the chair and members of the Board, the ministry will take into account nominations provided by the Academic Council of HEIs.

Under the Russian legislation, the head/rector of the HEI can either be elected by

1. (1) the general Conference of the HEI (subject to approval by the founder of the HEI), or

2. (2) appointed by the founder of the HEI,

3. (3) the president of the Russian Federation, or

4. (4) the Government (Law on Education 2012).

According to the Law, the Board of Trustees includes employees of a higher educational institution and students, representatives of the founder of the higher educational institution, representatives of employers, executive authorities of the constituent units of the Russian Federation, local government bodies, and, following the charter of the higher educational institution, representatives of other organizations. The procedure for forming the Board of Trustees, its term of office, competence, and process for its activities are determined by the charter of the higher educational institution. For instance, the charter of Voronezh State University states that the members of its Board of Trustees are approved by the Academic Council nominated by the rector and approved by the decree of the rector of the University.

Chair Appointment Processes

The members of Boards of Overseers elect the chair; however, it should be approved by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Typically, the chair of the Board of Overseers is the governor of the region or ministers of sectoral ministries or other high-profile public officials.

The members elect the chair of the Board of Trustees at the first session of the newly formed Board of Trustees.

Board Accountability

As mentioned earlier, Boards of Overseers of autonomous universities are accountable to the founder of the higher education institutions that are either the government, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, or other relevant ministries. However, the recent reforms of giving more power to the Board of Overseers may shift accountability.

Academic Councils headed by the rector are accountable to the Board of Overseers and the founder of the institution (the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, government)

Boards of Trustees are accountable to the Academic Council headed by the rector.

Scope of Work

According to the Law on Autonomous Organizations, the Board of Overseers of autonomous organizations considers proposals of the founder of the head of the autonomous institution regarding organizational, financial, and administrative issues. As mentioned earlier, some of the problems proposed by the rectors can be supported/declined by the Board of Overseers, but the rector makes the final decision; however, items 9, 10, and 12 of Article 11 state that the decisions made by the Board of Overseers are mandatory for rectors. These items include activities related to proposals of the head of the autonomous institution on the conclusion of significant financial transactions, transactions in which there is a financial interest for the institution, and issues of auditing of the annual financial statements of an autonomous institution approving selecting audit organizations.

The scope of work of Boards of Trustees (Law on Higher and Postgraduate Education), while advisory, is to assist institutions in solving current and future problems of the development of a higher educational institution; to attract financial resources to ensure the activities and development of a higher educational institution, as well as to control the use of funds; and to participate in the development of educational programs of higher and postgraduate vocational education implemented by a higher educational institution and to ensure that these programs take into account the requirements of interested employers. In addition, the Boards of Trustees work in close contact with the University administration and its founder.

Commentary

For the past decades, Russian higher education has experienced many transformations – including several reforms to build a quality and competitive higher education system. Significant policy changes resulted in mergers and the creation of federal and national research universities. The government also launched Project 5-100 to ensure that at least five Russian universities are included in the top hundred leading world rankings by 2020. The project was based on a competitive procedure for selecting programs to improve the competitiveness of universities. Selected universities received direct funding from the government for restructuring, building research capacity, publications, and other concerns.

The University governance structure in Russia presents a multilayered example of University governance that is regulated by several laws and depends on the status of universities. For instance, Moscow State University and St. Petersburg State University have special status regulated by a separate law. The president of the Russian Federation appoints the rectors. Federal autonomous universities and national research universities having autonomous status must have Boards of Overseers in their governing structures consisting primarily of external stakeholders. State-accredited universities must have a Board of Trustees. The general conferences and Academic Councils are parts of governing structures in all universities.

In our observation, the Russian government created multiple avenues to regulate and oversee higher education governance. Although Russia continues its attempts to move toward decentralization and autonomy of higher education and more HEIs will be granted the status of autonomous organizations moving toward having Boards of Overseers and Boards of Trustees, the Russian higher education system still reflects a centralized model of University governance.

This chapter was written before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the University rectors’ statement uniting behind the president and his actions, whereas students and academics are risking much to speak against the war. In addition, Russia has suspended its membership in the Bologna Process arguing there has been a lack of positive changes in the education system.

14 Tajikistan

Zumrad Kataeva

14.1 The National and Higher Education Contexts

National Context

The Republic of Tajikistan is a small landlocked country located in southeastern Central Asia and borders Kyrgyzstan to the north, the Xinjiang region of China to the east, Afghanistan to the south, and Uzbekistan to the west. The territory of Tajikistan is 144,100 square kilometers, with 93 percent of the territory covered by mountains. The country shares the most extensive border with Afghanistan through the rugged, mountainous area. About 6 percent of the country is suitable for agriculture, and the remainder is in the mountain valleys.

In terms of its size and population, Tajikistan is one of the most rapidly growing countries. According to the last census of 2020, the population of Tajikistan is 9.12 million, comprising 49.5 percent men and 50.5 percent women (Agency on Statistics, 2020). Approximately 74 percent of the population lives in rural areas. The people of Tajikistan are relatively young, and 18 percent are of preschool age, reflecting previously high fertility rates. Life expectancy at birth is 71.1 for men and 74.6 for women. According to the latest 2019 Census, 85 percent of the population is Tajik, 13 percent is Uzbek, 0.8 percent is Kyrgyz, 0.5 percent is Russian, 0.2 percent is Turkmen, and the remaining 2 percent comprise other nationalities. Many ethnic minorities live in rural areas, especially along the international borders with neighboring countries such as Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

The Constitution of the Republic of Tajikistan was adopted on November 6, 1994, and amended two times, on September 26, 1999, and June 22, 2003. The constitution has the highest legal power, direct application, and supremacy over the whole territory of Tajikistan. The constitution proclaims the establishment of a democratic, legal, secular, and unitary State (Constitution, Article 1), where the State power is based on the principle of separation of powers (Article 9). As the fundamental law of the State, the constitution defines the structure of the government; the fundamental rights, liberties, and responsibilities of its citizens; and the powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Within the presidential system of the government, the president of Tajikistan appoints the government and the prime minister – with the agreement of parliament. Thus, the president also serves as the head of the state. The parliament, consisting of the Upper House (Majlisi Milli) and the Lower House (Majlisi Namoyandagon), is responsible for legislation; jurisdiction rests with the Supreme Court.

As with other former republics of the Soviet Union, Tajikistan has undergone an economic and financial crisis. During the civil war of 1992–1997, the country lost thousands of people, and hundreds of thousands more were displaced. The civil war destroyed the economy and much of the educational infrastructure. Even though the share of state budget resources and other investments in education is gradually increasing, the economy’s competitiveness remains low. The economy is heavily dependent on labor migration to Russia and remittances, which affects the demand for labor, including the domestic demand for professional skills, competencies, and knowledge, and employment opportunities for University graduates (NSED, 2020). The national currency depreciated by about 130 percent from 2000–2013, though per-capita growth averaged 5.6 percent in the same period, and wages grew substantially compared to the 2000 level. Even with a real overall GDP growth rate of 5 percent per annum, Tajikistan would require another fifteen years to reach pre-independence levels of its GDP per capita (World Bank, 2018).

Nevertheless, Tajikistan has achieved rapid poverty reduction for the past decade, mainly due to a favorable external environment. The absolute poverty in the country decreased from 72 percent in 2003 to 37.4 percent in 2012 and further down to 27.4 percent in 2018. Extreme poverty declined from 42 percent in 2003 to 17 percent in 2018 (NSED, 2020).

According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index, Tajikistan ranks 104th out of 141 countries. As for the burden of regulations, it ranked the country 69th with a score of 51.0 for 2018–2019 (Schwab, 2019). In terms of Skillset, Tajikistan ranks 71st among 141 countries with a score of 53.1 out of 100. In terms of the skillset of graduates and ease of finding skilled employees, Tajikistan ranks 60th with a score of 53.7 and 70th with a score of 53.7, respectively. Regarding corporate governance, which arguably is different from public University governance, WEF ranked Tajikistan 53rd with a score of 60.0.

According to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators project, the national governing context is as follows. Figure 14.1 is intended to show trends over time associated with a set of country-level data. All of the indicators are below the 20th percentile, with only political stability reaching that level in 2018. Even from low starting points in 2008, control of corruption and voice and accountability dropped, as did regulatory quality. Together these indicate a low capacity for effective governing contexts and little likely ability to bring about meaningful change.

Figure 14.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Tajikistan

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

The Tajikistan education system inherited a highly centralized and unified system of education that required substantial reforms and adaptation of new policies. The latest National Strategy of Educational Development 2020 recognizes the creation of an effective education system that provides inclusive and equal opportunities and the improvement of the general well-being of the population of the Republic of Tajikistan. However, the quality of education remains low. The NSED 2020 highlights the insufficient growth in the number of preschool institutions, the poor quality of school infrastructure in the regions, and the low qualifications of teachers. In addition, low attendance rates; inadequate access to improved sanitation and water supply in rural schools; physical, financial, and cultural barriers to overcoming social exclusion; and gender inequality in terms of access to education at all levels create obstacles to building quality inclusive education system.

The transition from the planned to the market economy has led to several significant higher educational policy decisions, resulting in the quadrupling of the number of higher education institutions (HEIs) since 1990. By 2018–2019, 40 state higher education institutions enrolled 209,800 students, with 69 percent enrolled in full-time programs and 30.1 percent in part-time correspondence programs. The system employs 11,693 faculty members. Students enrolled in universities in Tajikistan are either funded by the state budget or pay tuition fees, a dual track tuition model. In 2018–2019, the overall percentage of students paying tuition fees at HEIs was almost 68 percent. Tuition fees consist of around 68 percent of University budgets and are the primary funding source for higher education. As with most of the students enrolled in education and humanities programs, the lack of student enrollment in science, engineering, and technology is of great concern to the government (ADB, 2015).

The gender distribution of higher education institutions remains a primary concern. For example, in the 1991–1992 academic year, the percentage of female students was 34 percent, whereas, in the 2018–2019 academic year, the proportion of females increased only slightly and amounted to 36.4 percent. In this regard, state policy in higher professional education aims to increase the access and enrollment of women with higher education (see Kataeva & DeYoung, 2017).

The government of Tajikistan is striving to integrate its higher education system into European higher education and actively pursuing the Bologna Declaration. Since 2007, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Tajikistan has implemented reforms such as introducing a three-tier education system and implementing the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). The Soviet-type of specialist diploma was gradually changed to bachelor’s and master’s degrees, except for some medical specialties. Some larger institutions have opened PhD programs. However, creating a consistent quality assurance system and a national qualification system have yet to be developed, approved, and implemented. Thus, the NSED 2020 recognizes the need to continue governance, quality assurance, teaching, training, and assessment reforms.

In December 2013, Tajikistan opened the National Testing Center (NTC) to increase transparency and access to higher education. The NTC was created by the president of the Republic of Tajikistan and was funded by the World Bank, the Russian Federation, and the Open Society Institute – Assistance Foundation (OSI–AF). During the first year of NTC’s activities, from 2013 to 2014, the admission of girls to HEIs increased by 8 percent, and from 2010 to 2016, the growth in admissions equaled 29 percent (NSED, 2021). Similar to other Central Asian countries, higher education in Tajikistan lacks graduates who can meet the changing requirements of the labor market. There is a lack of engineering and technology graduates for industry and small- and medium-sized enterprises.

In 2016, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and Science, the World Bank launched a project to develop mechanisms that improve and monitor higher education’s quality and labor-market relevance. The project aims to enhance institutional level operations, enhance quality assurance and curriculum reforms, and improve the assessment of higher education financing. The final component supports the overall project management, communication, training, monitoring and evaluation, and the audit of the Project (World Bank, 2016).

Higher Education Governing Context

Although the civil war delayed the beginning of the reforms and transition to a market economy, even during the turmoil the Law on Education (1993) was adopted, which brought about several changes in education. Private education institutions were legally allowed, and some were established, but the higher education sector eventually closed in the 2000s. The National Strategy for Educational Development of Tajikistan (NSED) adopted in 2001 acknowledges that the public management system of education is a legacy of a highly centralized and planned system of the former Soviet Union and remains unreformed to a considerable extent (NSED, 2021). Thus, the NSED 2021 priorities include the expansion of the autonomy of HEIs and the reduction of state intervention in HEIs’ activities, creation of supervisory boards in state-owned HEIs, and the creation of conditions for HEIs to independently form and design their development strategies for decision-making with regard to internal administration and financial management.

The Law on Higher and Professional Education (Law on HPE) clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the body responsible for the management of higher education in the country, the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) as well as the institutions of higher education (Tajikistan, 2003). The Law on Higher Education determines the framework for “operational management” of all higher education institutions, but no separate provisions exist for governance and management of these institutions. In terms of University autonomy, the Law on Higher Education defines it as “University autonomy is the highest form of the learning process and academic activities, determining the state responsibility of the institutions of higher professional education before their founder” (Law on Higher Education, 2009). However, in the context of Tajikistan, “the founder” of HEI is always “the government” as the rectors of universities are still appointed and discharged by the decree of the government (Law of HPE, 2009, article 14; DeYoung et al., 2018).

Although the Law on HPE states that the teaching staff, researchers, and students of institutions of higher professional education, including teachers of the institution of higher professional education, are provided with academic freedom in the presentation of the curriculum, the academic standards and draft curriculum provide the framework within which the higher education institutions must operate, limiting curricular autonomy (ADB, 2015). While the institutions may propose changes to the academic curricula, as curricula are strongly controlled by MoES (ADB, 2015). The autonomy of higher education institutions students, financial, staffing, and educational matters requires a University to operate within the budget approved by the MOES and Ministry of Finance, with staffing levels also defined by the budget.

14.2 Governing Body Profile

Body Structure

The country’s universities have limited autonomy from direct governmental oversight. Looking into universities’ websites and governance profiles, higher education institutions in Tajikistan have Academic Councils (Ucheniy Soviet) as the primary governing body, led by the University’s rector. The heads of the Academic Councils are rectors of higher education institutions appointed by the country’s government.

Membership

The University Academic Council consists of the rector (chairman), vice-rectors, deans and directors of structural units, heads of basic units, and other scientific and pedagogical staff. The rector of the University may, if necessary, change the composition and number of members of the Academic Council. The direct organization of the activities of the University Academic Council is assigned to its secretary. The secretary of the Academic Council is appointed and dismissed from the list of members of the Academic Council by the rector of the University. The meeting of the Academic Council is valid if it is attended by two-thirds of the members of the Academic Council. Decisions of the Academic Council meeting are valid if more than half of the members of the Academic Council attended the meeting and voted for a resolution.

The Academic Council in Tajikistan, as in the Moldovan case, seems to range in size among the universities.

Membership Appointment Processes

The membership of the Academic Council of universities is elected by open vote and approved, provided that two-thirds of the members of the Academic Council are present and more than half of the members of the functioning composition of the Academic Council have positively voted for the new composition. In case of early termination of membership of one of the members of the Academic Council, the replacement of the Academic Council is carried out at the beginning of the academic year, in the order of the formation of the Academic Council. In the event of termination of a member of the Academic Council, their membership in the Academic Council is also suspended. Membership for the Academic Council is defined by the position of a member, that is, vice-rector, deans, department chairs, etc. The government appoints the rector. Therefore, the rector has the authority to change who serves on the Academic Council. The members of the Academic Council are elected by open vote, provided that two-thirds of the members of the Academic Council are present and more than half of the members of the functioning Academic Council have positively voted for the new members. The rector of the University can also change the composition and number of members of the Academic Council.

Chair Appointment Process

The rector, appointed by the president of the country’s government, chairs the Academic Council as part of their responsibilities.

Scope of Work

According to the Law on HPE, the exclusive powers of the higher body of an institution, that is, Academic Councils include (a) approval and amendment of the charter of the institution and change in the size of its authorized capital; (b) the establishment of the executive body, the appointment of its head, and his dismissal; (c) approval of the annual report and balance sheet of the institution of higher professional education; (d) deciding on the reorganization, transformation, and liquidation of the institution of higher professional education.

In addition, the charters of universities may outline more details of the scope of work of each Academic Council, mainly regarding the improvement of the management and structure of the University, including the creation and liquidation of centers, laboratories, faculties, departments, departments, sectors, and other educational, scientific, industrial and service structures; approval of the regulations of the structural divisions of the University; and promotion and doctoral students’ issues.

Commentary

The higher education system has almost quadrupled since 1991 with the increased number of higher education institutions and enrolled students, consisting of 40 higher education institutions and more than 200,000 students. The primary concerns for higher education remain the low quality of education and discrepancies between the graduates’ skills and the demands of the labor market and low enrollment of female students to higher education, among others. Currently, only about 34 percent of the total number of students are females. Tajikistan strives to build its education system according to the Bologna principles.

In terms of governance of the system and institutions, Tajikistan higher education represents a very centralized model with limited opportunities for institutional autonomy and weak participation of faculty and students in the governing process. The heads (rectors) of the higher education institutions are appointed by the government. Although the main governing body within higher education institutions is the Academic Council, the rector may discontinue the membership of Council members. Tajikistan remains among few countries with no private institutions.

15 Turkmenistan

Serik Ivatov and Darkhan Bilyalov

15.1 The National and Higher Education Contexts

National Context

Turkmenistan, like other post-Soviet republics, has implemented a series of reforms to transform its social and political institutions so that they will be able to accommodate its national agenda. Upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Turkmenistan did not abandon the centralized management style but reemphasized the major role of the state in guiding the country’s transition from the Soviet model to a new model. Although this centralized approach may have yielded some positive results, such as free water, electricity, subsidized gasoline, and public transportation (Pomfret, 2001; Stronski, 2017) during the first two decades of independence, it also made the economic sectors, including the higher education sector, rigid and unable to react quickly to changes in the market. In addition, the country has focused on reducing foreign influences in the process of social and political transformation, thus increasing the country’s degree of isolation from the outside world. In 1995, Turkmenistan gained the status of a permanently neutral state unanimously supported by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The country does not hold a membership with many international organizations, coalitions, and unions, including the World Trade Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the Bologna Process.

Turkmenistan is one of the Central Asia countries situated on the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea. It borders Iran, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. It has an area of 492,200 km² (approximately 305,838 mi²), 80 percent of which is desert. Despite its large territory, the population of Turkmenistan is approximately six million people, which is twice that of Moldova but less than a third of Kazakhstan.

Although the process of changing the political system of Turkmenistan from the Soviet-type to democracy started in 1991, it is moving slowly. First, to date, there are three officially registered parties, namely, the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan (since 1991), the Party of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (since 2012), and the Agrarian Party of Turkmenistan (since 2014). However, only one party (the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan) dominates the political field at all levels of government. Previously, the country had been a single-party state until it adopted a new constitution in 2008 that enabled the formation of multiple political parties. Second, in Turkmenistan, the president still has a high degree of authority and is the main driver of transformations in the country (Clement & Kataeva, 2018). Since independence, that office has been held by two people, Saparmurat Niyazov (1990–2006) and Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow (2007–present).

Turkmenistan is an upper-middle-income country, with its economic growth mainly driven by hydrocarbon exports (Gyulumyan, 2014). There was a dramatic increase in the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) from $3.2 billion to $43.5 billion between 1991 and 2014, followed by a fall to about $35.8 billion in 2015 (World Bank, n.d.-b). In 2015, Turkmenistan experienced an economic crisis caused by the collapse in gas and oil prices. Its export markets include petroleum gas (83 percent of exports), refined petroleum (5.6 percent), pure cotton yarn (2.2 percent), and raw cotton (2.1 perent) (OECD, 2019d). Turkmenistan exports the vast majority of goods to China (83 percent) and Turkey (6 percent). According to OECD (2019d), the country’s economy relies mainly on industry (57 percent), while service sector and agriculture account for 28.1 percent and 9.3 percent respectively.

Because of the centralized market philosophy, there has been a slow liberalization process of the economy, making the country’s economic system unable to adjust quickly to changing conditions. The government exercises tight administrative control over its key sectors, resulting in the dominance of state-owned monopolies in the economy and hindering the development of private sectors. In turn, that makes the system vulnerable to economic crises. The centrally planned economy and the abundance of hydrocarbon resources (the world’s fourth-largest holder of natural gas) helped Turkmenistan more or less address the challenges following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Examples of current economic challenges include a low level of industrialization and transportation and the natural gas dependency on the market of the former Soviet republics (Pomfret, 2001).

The country’s centralized approach also slowed down the liberalization process of the education sector. Upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Turkmenistan inherited a successful education system in terms of a high level of literacy and primary and secondary enrollments (Brunner & Tillet, 2007). The higher education system had been absent during the pre-Soviet era (Clement & Kataeva, 2018). The country has shaped the education system as a means to promote nation-building and to produce specialists required for the economy. The government implemented a series of radical and disruptive educational reforms (Hofmann, 2018), some of which might be questioned by international standards. Examples of such reforms include the replacement of the Cyrillic-based alphabet with a Latin-based script (in 1993); a decrease in years of schooling in Turkmen-medium schools and years of University education from ten to nine years (in 1999) and five to four years, respectively; the elimination of all postgraduate programs (Hofmann, 2018); and full or partial replacement of courses on history, geography, philosophy, and social studies with courses on Rukhnama, a book written by President Niyazov (Clement & Kataeva, 2018). Rukhnama comprises the president’s collected thoughts on morality, culture, and history. When Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow took office in 2007, the government reversed many of the reforms, including the restoration of postgraduate programs, increasing years of schooling, and years of University education (see Clement & Kataeva, 2018; Merril, 2009).

The national governing context according to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators project is as follows: The country has high political stability, but its corresponding other areas of governance are low. The voice and accountability indicator is below the second percentile, and none of the other domains are higher than the fifth percentile. The country is tightly controlled centrally and there are few freedoms and incentives for broader participation within government. The missing profile of global competitiveness by the World Economic Forum is telling in and of itself (Figure 15.1).

Figure 15.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Turkmenistan

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

In terms of shape and structure, the higher education system of Turkmenistan shares some features with other former Soviet republics, but it also has some peculiar characteristics. The major role of state and political leaders, as well as underinvestment related to country wealth, are the reasons for the slow modernization of the system. In 2012, public expenditures on education accounted for 3 percent of GDP (World Bank, n.d.-b), which is low compared to international indicators.

The country’s higher education institutions (HEI) can be divided into the following types: University, academy, institute, and conservatory. Universities offer a wide range of programs, including graduate programs. Academies offer graduate programs in special fields, whereas institutes provide graduate programs in specific professions. Of twenty-four HEIs, there are six universities, one academy, sixteen institutes, and one conservatory (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2017). Clement and Kataeva (2018) propose another classification of institutions in terms of educational activities, majors, and specialties. According to this classification, there is one national flagship University, three large state and specialized universities, two international universities, fifteen small and specialized institutes located in the capital, and three regional specialized institutes. Over the course of the last several years, Turkmenistan has created new institutions such as the International University for Humanities and Development in 2014, Oguzkhan University of Engineering and Technologies in 2016, and the Institute of Public Utilities in 2017 (centralasia.news, 2019).

According to the 2014 UNESCO data (the latest available data; UNESCO, n.d.) there are low college-going rates (7.95 percent of the age group), particularly for women (6.2 percent), with 36 percent lower female enrollment than in 2016 (Babayeva & Bilyalov, 2020). With a sizeable share of youth in the country, college admission is modest yet growing, with more than 12,000 students admitted in the 2019–2020 academic year (Babayeva & Bilyalov, 2020). The latest trend in the country is the shift from state-funded study to tuition fee education. As such, the number of fee-paying students has increased by 33 percent, while state-funded education has seen a 14 percent decrease (Turkmen HEIs increased enrollment; “Turkmenskie vuzy uvelichili nabor studentov i rasshirili perechen napravlenij podgotovki,” 2020).

Another similarity to other post-Soviet countries is that Turkmenistan is taking steps to transition to a three-cycle degree system. However, the transition started later and slower in Turkmenistan as compared to its former Soviet counterparts, with the change still far from being adopted system wide. Only two universities, the International University for Humanities and Development and the Oguzkhan University of Engineering and Technologies, offer first cycle and second cycle programs that are in accordance with the Bologna structure (European Commission, 2017a). Regarding third cycle programs, they are not fully following the Bologna standards. Since the restoration of the Academy of Science in 2007, many HEIs have launched three-year doctoral programs (aspirantura), but the structure of the programs is not aligned with the Bologna requirements. A distinguishing feature of Turkmen postgraduate education is that the Academy of Science continues to play a major role in training doctoral students.

The number of HEIs has increased from nine to twenty-four institutions since independence (Clement & Kataeva, 2018). Although the Law of Turkmenistan on Education adopted in 2009 allows the establishment of private HEIs, all institutions are state-owned. Overall, the modernization process of the higher education system according to international standards has been slow over three decades of independence. One of the possible explanations for this is that the educational reforms of the Niyazov administration hindered the modernization process (Clement & Kataeva, 2018; Merrill, 2009). The educational reforms of the Berdimuhamedov administration such as the Law on Education (in 2009) and a 2007 decree “On improvement of education system in Turkmenistan” resumed the modernization process. For instance, the current legislation allows conducting additional income-generating activities that does not affect their public funding, which depends on the number of students. In addition, the two new universities mentioned above charge tuition fees (EACEA, 2017).

Another peculiarity of the HE system is that all HEIs, except three institutions, are situated in Ashgabat, the country’s capital.

Higher Education Governing Context

The governance of the higher education system is centralized, as the state plays the major role in regulating and governing the vast majority of HEIs’ activities. Concurrently, HEIs have strictly limited autonomy. First, the institutions have constrained financial autonomy. In the current legislation, they have the right to conduct income-generating activities under the legislation and to use the available extra-budgetary resources for their purposes. For instance, they can use them to provide support for students in need. As for public money, the institutions do not have the control over these funds. Specifically, they do not have the flexibility to reallocate resources to different budget priorities. Also, the institutions do not have authority to set salary schemes. It is the state that approves the schemes for HEIs.

Second, the institutions have limited autonomy to shape academic structure and course content. The state sets state educational standards that HEIs follow and develops guiding documents concerning the organization of education.

Third, the vast majority of HEIs are not entitled to set admission standards and the size of student enrollment. Admission to HE is regulated by a presidential decree, whereas the quotas are set based on the applications from the sectoral ministries and departments.

Lastly, the institutions do not have autonomy to cooperate internationally with other organizations. The Cabinet of Ministers of Turkmenistan (CMT) is responsible for maintaining international relations. Thus, HEIs follow a comprehensive state-control model, with little to no market orientation because the core decision-making unit regarding main activities remains with the State.

In terms of accountability, the governing structure of the HE system can be characterized as a hierarchical governmental-led model. The CMT is the highest governing body that designs and implements state educational policies, strategies and state educational standards, coordinates the activities of HEIs, and sets models of funding, quality assurance, licensing, and accreditation. The Ministry of Education is the highest governing body after the CMT that controls information as well as sets policy. Interestingly, the ministry did not have a website until recently (Berdyeva, 2020; National Information Center, n.d.). It organizes the activities of the institutions, designs normative acts on the organization of professional development programs, elaborates the procedures for student enrollment and the standard statutes for HEIs, and approves a salary-related scheme.

The rector is the highest ranking official who is responsible for the direct management of an institution. The rector’s powers and responsibilities are specified by the institution’s policies. Rectors are appointed by the government.

15.2 Governing Body Profile

A challenge exists in finding relevant information to describe the university-level structure to governing. The lack of public information and documentation is illustrative of the types of control and oversight provided by the government. The presented governing structure is not exhaustive because of the scarcity of information. The profile focuses on one of the new universities, which might be organized differently from the older universities or different types of HEIs. Other details beyond this instance are not readily available.

The Case of the International University for Humanities and Development

The International University for Humanities and Development is perhaps the most modernized and certainly the most internationalized University in the country. Established in 2014 in the country’s capital, the University uses the English language as the medium of instruction. The University has six schools and a foundation-year program to help students acquire academic study skills and improve their English language proficiency. Although it is not clear what scholarships exist to study at the University, the yearly announcements on student admission to the University only mention the fee-paying option.¹

The University has five faculties, enrolling more than 1,600 students. The focus of the University is on humanities and social sciences with a computer science department according to its website (https://iuhd.edu.tm). Two recently opened master’s programs were designed according to the Bologna requirements.

In terms of its governing body, the University’s major decision-making lies with the Academic Council chaired by the University rector. Similar to the standard Soviet structure of Academic Councils (Uchenyi Sovet), the IUHD Council includes the rector, vice-rectors, heads of structural units and research centers, and deans.

According to the University’s website (https://iuhd.edu.tm/academic-council), the Academic Council has the following functions:

• − make amendments to the institution’s charter;

• − approve the composition and decisions of the Academic Council and changes in the structure of the University;

• − consider the development of research work, accept reports on the work accomplished, and also contemplate implementation of research work objectives into production;

• − accept reports from the senior and middle leadership teams and make relevant proposals.

• − considers issues related to the institution’s main activities and international cooperation.

The Academic Council meetings are held once a month on a certain day of the week and are open to the public.

Commentary

Turkmenistan has strongly pursed a centralized approach after independence, from revamping the country’s economy sectors to structuring its higher education sector. To date, this state-driven approach expanded enrollment, and there are considerable internationalization efforts taken by some institutions. Market forces exert minor but growing influence over the system with the declining state-funded admissions and the increase in fee-paying students. However, the country’s centralized approach slowed down the pace of the modernization process in accordance with the international standards. Nevertheless, Bologna preparations are underway, though they may still take substantial time and effort to elevate Turkmenistan higher education following the requirements of this integrative process.

The country’s tight administrative control has also affected the governing structure of HEIs. The governance structure is still very centralized with strong government control over institutional decision-making. The lack of transparency is evidence of this point. The universities tend to follow the traditional Soviet-style governance approach with the central role of the University rector and the Academic Council. The country context seems to be unfavorable to University governance, per the World Bank governance indicators. Low percentile ranks in the governance indicators (rule of law, control of corruption, voice and accountability) appear to directly or indirectly affect universities and their governance and management.

16 Ukraine*

Ali Ait Si Mhamed and Serik Ivatov

16.1 The National and Higher Education Contexts

National Context

After gaining its independence in 1991 from the Soviet Union, Ukraine, like other post-Soviet republics, has implemented liberalization and modernization reforms. However, these reforms have been affected by demographic, economic, and political challenges. Its population of 51.9 million has fallen significantly to 41.5 million between 1990 and 2021 (State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2021a) and it is projected to fall further to 35.1 million in 2050 (United Nations, 2015). The population has been declining in recent years due to falling fertility rates and emigration (OECD, 2017c).

The country has an important strategic geopolitical position as it is on the crossroads of major transportation routes from West to East. With an area of 603,628 km² (approximately 233,062 mi²), Ukraine is about the same geographic size as France. It borders Russia to the northeast, Belarus to the north, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary to the west, and Romania and Moldova to the south. It holds membership in the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, and since 2005 the Bologna Process.

During the first decade of its independence, Ukraine underwent a fundamental transformation from totalitarian government toward a democracy and from command economy to market oriented one. The changes have impacted the role of individuals who became active actors and participants in national and local development. All this led to concurrent changes in the country’s priorities, of which education became one of the most important. More specifically, due to its significant role in facilitating the transition to an information economy, higher education (HE) became a substantial realm of social change. In other words, younger generations who acquired higher education in Ukraine have played major roles in instrumental social and economic reforms.

Ukraine has not shown steady economic growth because the country failed to enact key structural economic and institutional reforms, curb corruption, and decrease its dependency on external resources (OECD, 2017). Ukraine used to be one of the post-Soviet republics with the highest gross domestic product (GDP) but has become one of the republics with the lowest GDP (World Bank, 2021a) after independence. Currently, Ukraine’s per capita GDP is approximately USD3,659 (World Bank, 2021a) and it is classified as a lower-middle-income country (World Bank, 2021b). After more than six years of political and economic tension, the Ukrainian economy has shown signs of stabilization since 2016. Based on the data from IMF, Ukraine recorded a growth of 3.2 percent of its GDP in 2019, slightly down from growth of 3.3 percent in 2018. Ukrainian GDP is still driven by domestic demand and household consumption representing about 70 percent of GDP.

The country has been in continual conflict with Russia, which has had an ongoing and negative impact on the economy. The budget deficit in 2019 was –2.7 percent and it was estimated to continue in 2020 and 2021 remaining at –2.5 percent (IMF, 2020). However, the country continues to undertake various economic reforms aimed at strengthening household consumption and consolidating public finances along other fiscal, monetary, and exchange rate reforms. The budget adopted for 2020 puts priority on security and defense to restore peace in the eastern part of the country. Other priorities include health, education, and infrastructure development.

Ukraine has an industrialized economy. Its main industries include coal, electric power, machinery and transport equipment, ferrous and nonferrous metals, food processing, and chemicals. The economy of Ukraine depends mainly on the services sector rather than on the industry and agriculture sectors. For instance, in 2017, services contributed about 60 percent, agriculture about 12.2 percent, and industry about 28.6 percent of the country’s GDP (CIA, 2021). The country has fertile soil, it used to be known as the “breadbasket of the Soviet Union.”

Although Ukraine faced some political challenges such as the Orange Revolution (see Kuzio, 2010) and the Maidan events (see Diuk, 2014), it achieved some successes on its way to democracy. Ukraine has elected five presidents, showing some key elements of democracy. The constitutional reforms following the presidential election in 2004 gave greater authority to the prime minister and the parliament, making Ukraine a semi-presidential republic. Also, the country is a multiparty democracy. At least eight parties are being presented in the parliament. Most of these parties are either center, center-right, or right. At least three of these parties are pro-Russian. Like its Moldovan neighbor, the country is in a constant negotiation of moving toward the West or toward Russia.

The president is the head of the state elected for five years. He is the commander in chief. He appoints the prime minister. The executive power is shared between the president and the prime minister. The latter is the head of the government and can form his government except for the minister of defence and the minister of foreign affairs who are appointed by the president. The legislative power is the parliament consists of 450 seats chosen on a proportional basis from parties that gain 3 percent or more of the national electoral vote. The president has the power to dissolve the parliament.

Fundamental transformations in the economic and social arenas have surfaced significant distrust between the population and the government. This distressed climate is fueled by an increase in corruption and a decrease in serious reforms. However, the presidential election of 2019, which led Volodymyr Zelensky to the presidency with more than 73 percent of popular vote has changed the political environment in the country. With the former president Petro Poroshenko being harshly criticized for his poor record of reforms mandated by IMF and less or no effort to combat corruption, Zelensky has had an ample opportunity to change the country’s trajectory. Many developments took place after Zelensky’s election. The issue of Russia–Ukraine tension was mediated by Germany and France leading to the meeting of the Russian and Ukrainian presidents to meet and discuss tensions over the Donbass. The tripartite meeting of Russia, Ukraine, and the European Union (EU) in Minsk led to solving the riddle of renewing the contract of governing gas control to EU from Russia via Ukraine with approximately 3 billion dollars pledged to the gas company in Ukraine in this deal. The impeachment of US president Trump has also marked the success of Ukrainian government capacity to deal with complex foreign issues and the ability of the current Ukrainian government to deal with abuse of power and obstruction of justice. Hence, the Ukrainian government drew on the priority of restoring peace in Donbass and avoiding being drawn into American partisan politics.

The national governing context according to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators project is high on political stability (at approximately the 60th percentile). Its control of corruption and governance effectiveness, while below the international median, both improved continually over the decade between 2008 and 2018. Voice and accountability remain low (less than the 10th percentile) (Figure 16.1).

Figure 16.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Ukraine

The Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks Ukraine 72nd out of 141 countries regarding public sector performance. The burden of regulations ranked 68th with a score of 43.9 for 2018–2019 (Schwab, 2019). It scored the future orientation of the government at 48.7 out of 100, which ranked it 94th. Its Skills pillar scored 54.5 for the skillset of graduates and a rank of 54th. WEF granted a score of 56.7 on the ease of finding skilled employees indicators, which ranked it 53rd. WEF’s corporate governance score was ranked 91st. Overall, the governance context is challenging given its low scores by the World Bank as well as by WEF. The burden of regulations is middling comparatively, as is its education outcomes indicators, however, its corporate governance score, while not the same as higher education, was low on a global scale.

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

Ukraine implemented several market-oriented reforms to align its higher education sector with the national needs. These reforms resulted in the expansion of public HE and the emergence of private HEIs, the introduction of tuition fees, and the diversified HE system.

Ukraine expanded its HE sector in response to the rising demand for higher education. There was an increase in the number of tertiary enrollments by 185 percent between 2000 and 2009, as well as in the enrollment percentage of the eligible age group from 47 percent to 79 percent between 1999 and 2008 (Shaw, Chapman & Rumyantseva, 2011). Consequently, the number of universities, academies, and institutes that offer long-cycle degree programs increased from 149 to 281 between 1990–1991 and 2019–2020, while the number of other tertiary institutions (secondary specialized educational institutions that offer short-cycle degree programs) decreased from 742 to 338 during the same period (SSSU, 2021c). Approximately 75 percent of students study at universities, academies, and institutes, while 25 percent of students receive education at specialized educational institutions (World Bank, 2021b). As for the private institutions, they account for more than 20 percent of all the HEIs. For instance, there were 162 operating private institutions in the 2015–2016 academic year (Rumyantseva & Logvynenko, 2018).

Apart from being state or private (non-state), Ukrainian tertiary institutions can be classified based on their level of accreditation at one of four levels. Ukraine merged some elements of vocational education with higher education (Rumyantseva & Logvynenko, 2018). As a result, secondary specialized educational institutions (colleges, technical and vocational schools) became part of tertiary education and were reclassified as HEIs of I and II levels of accreditation. More established HEIs (universities, academies, and institutes) received III and IV levels of accreditation. HEIs of I and II levels of accreditation appear to be equivalent to the short cycle higher education (e.g., community college in the United States) because they award junior specialist degrees to students, prepare them for jobs, or to transfer to level III and IV institutions. HEIs of I and II levels of accreditation offer undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral programs.

Also, Ukrainian institutions can be classified based on their status, focus, and range of programs. Given that, institutions can be comprehensive and specialized. The former has higher status, focuses on teaching and research, and offers a wide range of programs, whereas the latter focuses mainly on teaching within their chosen fields. Another feature of the specialized HEIs is that they are accountable not only to the Ministry of Education like their counterparts but also to the corresponding sectoral ministry (e.g., Ministry of Healthcare). Within this classification, HEIs can be classified further. Specifically, there are flagship universities, national and regional universities, academies, and institutes (see Rumyantseva & Logvynenko, 2018).

In response to the scarceness of public funds, both state and non-state HEIs are allowed to diversify their funding sources. HEIs generate revenue mainly through student tuition fees and the public budget. Students at state HEIs are either funded by the state through state grants or self-funded via tuition fees. Statistics have shown a somewhat steady rate of 50 percent of students who pay tuition for studies in public universities (Rumyantseva & Logvynenko, 2018). Private HEIs do not receive any direct or indirect public funding. Hence, all students in these HEIs are expected to pay tuition fees that are overall higher than those in public HEIs. This funding arrangement provides private HEIs with absolute financial autonomy and control of the resources without any intervention of the state. That said, private HEIs that wish to grow the culture of research activity need to autonomously provide funds for these activities as well as educational activities.

Public HEIs are primarily funded from the State budget. The financing of higher education is within the responsibility of the Ministry of Education and Science. Other ministries, such as the Ministry of Health and Culture, etc., to which some HEIs are attached, allocate funds directly to the public higher education institutions and control their budgets. Public University funding is input-based, which means that the allocation of funds is based on the real costs of the institution in relation to the number of students due to be enrolled in the next academic year and the number and structure of the academic staff. In addition to the public funding, universities generate resources from tuition fees, projects (national and international), real estate, endowments, grants, consultancy services, and other diversified revenue similar sources. The Law of Higher Education (2014) has entitled funding to public universities that covers building and infrastructure, salaries, purchase of equipment, library and information systems, scientific research, international cooperation, publishing, students’ extracurricular activities, and special needs programs.

The public funding is mainly provided through line-item budgets, while other diversified sources of income are at the discretion of the institution’s spending according to its strategic goals. Although the ratio between the self-provided income and the public budget differs from one institution to another, on average no budget allocated for public HE from the State exceeds 50 percent of the total budget. Moreover, it is important to note that the diversified revenue that HEIs are free to generate from multiple sources must follow the Budget Code of Ukraine and the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2017). Such laws and regulations define how self-generated revenues are to be spent and the State treasury is in control of assuring HEIs follow those defined procedures.

Higher Education Governing Context

Although Ukraine implemented market-oriented reforms to revamp its HE system, it is still in the process of transitioning from a highly centralized system to a more democratic and self-governing one. During the Soviet Union, HEIs in Ukraine were characterized as institutions with ”weak University self-governance” and high “strong state control” (Osipian, 2008, p. 15). For instance, the main top managers, such as the rector, the vice-rector and the chief accountant, were all appointed by the Ministry of Education of the Soviet Union. Strong state regulations prevented the development of managerial self-governance, which qualified top leadership of the universities to perform primarily administrative functions. All these realities of governance in Soviet Ukraine did not leave any room for academic self-governance.

After joining the Bologna Process in 2005, Ukraine committed to an effort to align its higher education governance system with the international standards. Consequently, the government introduced several changes such as the creation of Supervisory Boards, the election of the rector, increased levels of University autonomy, and the establishment of autonomous universities (flagship universities). However, these changes are not systemwide and the majority of HEIs in Ukraine adhere to a state-centered model (Shaw, Chapman & Rumyantseva, 2013). These HEIs do not enjoy a high level of autonomy over their financial and academic activities or their structure (Shaw et al., 2013). Only some autonomous state universities (e.g., Kiyv National University of Taras) enjoy a higher level of autonomy over their budgets and educational programs.

HEIs are still dependent on the state in relation to the management of administrative, academic research, and financial activities. The government aims to increase the degree of financial autonomy of institutions. It revised the legislation on higher education funding to implement performance-based funding. However, HEIs submit their budget to their “parent” ministries for approval. As for administrative activities, institutions have the right to interact with external bodies (e.g., foreign universities) and shape their structure and the structure of the governing bodies (e.g., Academic Board). The composition of the governing bodies still needs to be approved by the ministry. Regarding the academic activities, HEIs are entitled to choose the directions of programs and modify them to some extent. All changes must be in accordance with the national legislation and programs must include some obligatory components. Also, Ukraine seems to retain the divide between higher education and research. The vast majority of HEIs focuses on teaching, whereas academies of science produce most research and scientific innovation (World Bank, 2021b). This divided structure may limit the ability of HEIs to improve the quality and relevance of their programs.

The state still plays a major role in the governance of HE. It is represented by the Ministry of Education, the Cabinet of Ministers, and the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance (NAHEQA). To operate, the governance structure in Ukraine “requires Parliament to set legislation, the Cabinet of Ministers to develop secondary legislation and implement policy, and other ministries and agencies to oversee their subordinated HEIs” (World Bank, 2021b, p. 4). As for NAHEQA, it is an autonomous body that accredits HEIs and certifies the quality of their programs. The state determines the curriculum and regulates the admission procedures, limiting the institutions’ academic autonomy. It plays different roles for state and non-state HEIs regarding funding. As the latter does not receive direct or indirect public funding, non-state HEIs appear to enjoy a higher level of financial autonomy than their counterparts. All HEIs are accountable to the Ministry of Education (also to the corresponding sectoral ministry if it is a specialized institution).

16.2 Governing Body Profile

Structure-wise, both state and non-state HEIs seem to have a similar governance structure. It comprises the rector, Academic Board, Supervisory Board, the General Meeting (Conference) of Labor Collective, and student government. The focus of this discussion is on the two primary decision making bodies, a bi-cameral approach.

The two authoritative bodies in public universities are the Academic Board, a collegial body of an HEI set up every five years. It is involved in all key aspects of institutional management. The Supervisory Board exists to oversee the institution’s assets management and adherence to its original purpose.

The rector is the highest official of the University, who is elected by the General Meeting of Labor Collective every five years (for no more than two terms) by secret ballot. Then, the Ministry of Education or HEI’s founder contracts with the elected rector depending on the University’s type of ownership (public or private). Sometimes, this position is called the president. It is expected to function in its name and represents it in relation to other actors. The rector is involved in recruitment and disciplinary, economic, and position assignments (e.g., promotions). The rector of an HEI in Ukraine is accountable for the development of educational activities, financial management, and maintenance. In exercising these activities, the rector relies on the Academic Board, which consists of the heads of the institutional subdivisions, outstanding members of its teaching and research staff, and representatives of the student community.

Each University also has a General Meeting (Conference) of Labor Collective, which is the supreme collegial body of public self-governance of an HEI. The final body is student government, which constitutes an inseparable part of public self-governance of a HEI. It comprises all students of the institution and is responsible for addressing academic issues, the protection of rights, and interests of students.

Body Structure

The two primary decision-making bodies described below are the Academic Board and the Supervisory Board.

The Academic Board includes the chair, the rector, vice-rectors, deans, director of the library, chief accountant, heads of self-government bodies, elected representatives from trade union organizations, faculty members, students, and representatives from industry. The Board must include at least 75 percent faculty members and 10 percent students. The quotas are determined by the institution’s charter.

The Supervisory Board is composed of a chairman, deputy chairman, the rector, and representatives of state bodies and industry. It shall not include employees of the institution except for the rector.

Scope of Work

The Academic Board has the following functions:

1. (1) The Board determines development strategies for the educational, scientific and innovative activities of the institution.

2. (2) It approves the changes in the institution’s structure.

3. (3) It develops and submits the charter of the institution to the highest collegial body of public self-governance (Conference of Labor Collective).

4. (4) The Board adopts the financial plan and annual financial statements of the institution of higher education.

5. (5) It also defines the system and the procedures for internal quality assurance, approves the academic programs and curricula, makes decisions on the organization of the educational process, determines the academic programs’ duration, and approves diploma templates.

6. (6) The Board evaluates the educational and scientific activity of the institution’s units. It confers the academic titles (professor, associate professor, and senior researcher) and submits respective decisions for approval by the certification board of the central executive authority in the field of education and science.

7. (7) It has the right to submit a proposal for the recall of the head of the HEI in accordance with the legislation, the institution’s charter, and a contract. The proposal is considered by the highest collegial body of public self-government of the institution.

8. (8) It makes the final decision on the recognition of documents on higher education issued by foreign and local religious HEIs.

The Supervisory Board has the following functions:

1. (1) to ensure effective interaction between the institution and external actors such as state organizations, research community,

2. (2) to oversee the institution’s assets management,

3. (3) to exercise public control over the institution’s activities,

4. (4) to attract additional financial sources of funding,

5. (5) to contribute to the development of the institution,

6. (6) to submit a proposal to recall the head of the institution on the grounds specified by the laws and the charter of the institution,

7. (7) to participate in the work of the General Meeting of Labor Collective and make suggestions, and

8. (8) to exercise other rights determined by the charter of the institution.

Membership and Appointment Process

The Academic Board includes permanent and elected members. Examples of permanent members are the rector, vice-rectors, and deans. Examples of elected members are representatives from faculty members and students. The representatives elected from among faculty members are approved by the supreme collegial body of public self-governance. As for the student representatives, they are elected by secret ballot by students. The election process starts thirty calendar days before the end of the term of the previous Board. The composition of the Board is approved by the order of the institution’s head within five working days from the end of the term of the previous Board.

The Supervisory Board is formed and approved by the Ministry of Education on the proposal of University’s senior leadership for five years. Members of the Supervisory Board perform their duties on a voluntary basis.

Chair Appointment and Process

The Academic Board is governed by a chair who is elected by secret ballot from the members of the Board for the duration of the Academic Board, which is five years. To qualify for the position, the candidate must have a research degree and/or academic (honorary) title.

The chairman of the Supervisory Board is appointed and approved by the Ministry of Education based on the proposal of institution for five years.

Board Accountability

The Academic Board is accountable to the supreme collegial body of public self-governance (the General Meeting of Labor Collective). The charter of the institution specifies the accountability of the Supervisory Board.

National Technical University of Ukraine Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute

To describe the governing process of HEIs in Ukraine, we selected National Technical University of Ukraine Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute as an example. With its history that goes back to the late nineteenth century, the institution has a strong reputation for its dedication to knowledge, science, and education. It is the largest institution of higher education in Ukraine and it is well known for its preparation of engineering and scientific personnel. Due to that vital role, it was elevated from being Kyiv Polytechnic Institute to the status of National Technical University of Ukraine in 1995. Further status was allocated to the University in 2007 by the Committee of the Board of Education as a research University. It was named after its former student, Igor Sikorsky, who became an outstanding aircraft designer of the twentieth century. The Institution gained its autonomous status through policy reforms in the early 2000s. The section below will cover the structure of the University. Description in this section stems from the statute of the University (National Technical University of Ukraine, n.d.).

The Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine is the central executive body whose authority is determined by law and the statute. It has the authority (1) to approve the University’s statute, (2) to conclude and terminate a labor contract with the rector through competition, (3) to supervise the financial activities of the institution, and (4) to delegate some of its powers to the rector.

The rector is the chief executive officer of the University. They are responsible for (1) direct management of the University according to law and statute; (2) representation of the University in relations with both local and international, state, and non-state actors; (3) issuing orders, decrees, and directions; (4) the recruitment and dismissal of employees; (5) management of funds and assets; and (6) organization and monitoring of the implementation of curricula and programs. The rector is elected via a secret ballot for five years and can be dismissed by the ministry. One candidate can be elected as rector for no more than two terms.

The Academic Board is the collegial body of the institution formed for a five-year period. Its composition is approved by the rector. The chairman of the Board is elected by secret ballot from its members who have a research degree or an academic (honorary) title. The Academic Board includes permanent members such as the rector, vice-rectors, deans, heads of institutes, librarian, chief accountant, the chair of trade union, the head of student trade union, and two heads of student government. It may also include elected members such as representatives from faculties (one per faculty), ten representatives from other staff, two delegates from graduate students, and representatives from students (one per school). Delegates from teaching and research staff are elected at the meeting of the General Conference of Labor Collective, drawing on the proposals from units. Representatives from the student body are elected by secret ballot. The Academic Board includes at least 75 percent teaching and research staff and 10 percent student representatives. It may also include representatives from industry upon the decision of the Academic Board.

Its main responsibilities are to (1) determine the strategic direction of academic and research activities of the universities, (2) approve the financial and annual reports of the institution, (3) shape the University’s internal quality assurance mechanisms, (4) approve changes by the rector in the structure of the University, (5) approve the content of education provided, (6) approve and evaluate the activities of the University, (7) award academic titles, (8) submit a proposal for the recall of the rector, and (9) determine the staff recruitment procedures.

The Supervisory Board is approved by the ministry and may not include the employees of the University. The members of the Board are appointed for five years on a voluntary basis. The body has the authority (1) to consider the ways of future development on strategic matters, (2) to consider the financing of the University, (3) to make proposals regarding different activities of the institution, (4) to oversee the management of the University, (5) to attract additional financial sources of funding, (6) to assist in the development of the institution, and (7) to facilitate the interaction of the institution with external actors such as state and local authorities, research institutes and industry. In its activities, the Supervisory Board is guided by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law on Higher Education (2014). The Board exercises its activities guided by the principles of collegiality and publicity in decision making.

The General Meeting (Conference) of Labor Collective is the highest collegial body of public self-governance. It must represent all groups of participants. The meeting includes the rector, vice-rectors, heads of institutes, deans, chief accountant, and heads from trade union and student trade union. It is also comprises at least 75 percent delegates from teaching and research staff and at least 15 percent student representatives and other staff. Delegates from teaching and research staff are elected at the meetings of trade unions and units. Student representatives are elected by secret ballot. This body has the following functions: (1) agrees to amendments (additions) to the institution’s charter, (2) hears the rector’s annual report, (3) creates a commission to solve labor disputes, (4) considers the proposals of Academic Board or Supervisory Board for the recall of the rector, (5) approves the internal regulations of the institution, and (6) considers other issues.

Commentary

Although Ukraine implemented changes to its HE system to meet the international standards, these changes are not systemwide and limited and institutional governance culture is not fully established. HEIs were given a greater degree of academic and financial autonomy (EACEA, 2017; World Bank, b). The current legislative framework allows HEIs to align some elements (e.g., electives, major specializations) of their programs in accordance with the international standards and labor market needs. However, all changes to programs are regulated by the state. Also, all academic programs must have obligatory courses prescribed by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. As for financial autonomy, private institutions appear to have greater degree of freedom than public institutions. Non-state institutions do not receive direct or indirect public funding, whereas state institutions receive public funding up to 50 percent of their total budget. In addition, many HEIs are not well-equipped to operate according to a more autonomous set-up and Ukraine lacks “the means in terms of information and steering mechanisms to orient newly autonomous HEIs towards competitiveness and performance” (World Bank, 2021b, p. 4).

Also, the governance structure of HEIs has changed in response to the degree of academic and financial autonomy they have. The structure comprises the rector, the Academic Board, the Supervisory Board, and the General Meeting of Labor Collective. The Academic Board seems to be the most important decision-making body that focuses mainly on academic issues. As for financial issues, they are concern of the Supervisory Board. Based on the descriptions of the functions of these bodies, there is still room for increasing the degree of their autonomy.

The funding system requires a huge reform because the existing model of cost distribution spreads out the funds around many HEIs employees and students, which leaves faculty with small uncompetitive salaries. Even worse, the current funding system does not allow any upgrades in infrastructure, equipment, and resources to keep the quality on a proper level. The current funding model allows for covering minimum expenditures leaving a large share of cost to be borne by HEIs through cost sharing via tuition fees paid by students and families. Compared to per-student cost, even tuition fees earnings are not enough to close the funding problems because the tuition fees are low.

Hence, Ukraine needs urgent governance reforms that take quality enhancement seriously and decrease corruptive acts that have been one of the main hurdles toward the prosperity of HEIs institutions. With boards and some autonomy in place, Ukraine is taking the right step toward fixing higher education challenges, but that requires serious steps in increasing governance reform and decreasing the level of centralization.

17 Uzbekistan

Ali Ait Si Mhamed and Serik Ivatov

17.1 Uzbekistan National and Higher Education Context

Uzbekistan is a lower-middle-income country (World Bank, n.d.-a) with a population of more than 33 million people (Wolrdmeters, n.d.). It is a doubly landlocked country located in Central Asia. It shares borders with Afghanistan to the south, Turkmenistan to the southwest, Tajikistan to the southeast, Kazakhstan to the north, and Kyrgyzstan to the northeast. Uzbekistan is made up of twelve provinces and the autonomous republic of Karakalpakstan located in the northwest part of the country. Uzbekistan is a member of many international organizations, including the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) since 1992.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union affected Uzbekistan, producing challenges similar to other post-Soviet republics, such as the dependence of its market on the socialist republics, economic resource scarcity, and the transition to a market economy. Uzbekistan transitioned gradually to a market economy (Ruziev, Ghosh, & Dow, 2007). Because of this, Uzbekistan’s economy was more resilient to external shocks than other post-Soviet countries. Specifically, during the early period of transition, Uzbekistan experienced lower output loss compared to other transition economies, followed by positive and steady economic growth. This performance is known in the literature as the “Uzbek Puzzle” (Pomfret, 2000). Researchers (Pomfret, 2000; Ruziev et al., 2007) argue that several factors, such as specialization in agriculture, for example, being the seventh-largest producer of cotton in the world; natural resource endowment, including being the world’s seventh-largest producer of gold; and the centralized management of the economy, help to explain the puzzle.

Uzbekistan’s slow approach helped to facilitate industrialization and ensured economic growth. During the Soviet period and the first years of independence, agriculture and services were the primary sectors of the economy, whereas industry was a poorly developed sector (Ruziev et al., 2007). Currently, services and industry are the main contributors to the gross domestic product (GDP). For instance, in 2017, services contributed about 48.5 percent, agriculture about 17.9 percent, and industry about 33.7 percent of the country’s GDP (CIA, n.d.-b). There has been an increase in the GDP between 1990 (13.361 billion USD) and 2016 (81.847 billion USD), followed by a significant fall between 2017 (81.779 billion USD) and 2019 (57.921 billion USD) (World Bank, n.d.-c).

Although the pragmatic and gradual approach to transition produced many economic and political benefits, it also produced some disadvantages. In terms of the management of some sectors of the economy, Uzbekistan did not reject centralized planning in favor of decentralized planning. Hence, Uzbekistan has been dedicated to implanting market-oriented reforms (e.g., privatization) only in some sectors (e.g., small-scale enterprise and retail sectors). The government has maintained “complete control over the ‘commanding heights of the economy,’ including the HE sector as well as the transport, communications and media industries and the financial, agricultural and extractive sectors” (Ruziev & Burkhanov, 2020). Currently, the government is working on developing and implementing comprehensive market-oriented reforms so that its institutions will be able to operate in the global commercial environment (Asian Development Bank, 2010).

Although, since independence, the education sector of Uzbekistan has also faced challenges, human capital development is a high priority item on the national agenda. Public spending on education decreased from 7.284 percent to 5.281 percent of GDP between 2013 and 2017 (World Bank, n.d.-c). There was a need for horizontal and vertical changes in the structure of education in Uzbekistan. The government implemented several initiatives to promote human capital development. Examples of such initiatives include the National Program for Personnel Training (NPPT) in 1997, the National Program for Basic Education Development (NPBED) in 2004, and the Welfare Improvement Strategy Paper (WISP) in 2007.

Transition to a market economy also required sociopolitical reforms. Uzbekistan moved from a single-party system to a multiparty system and replaced communist ideology with a national ideology. According to its constitution, Uzbekistan is a secular, unitary, and presidential constitutional republic whereby the president is the head of state. Uzbekistan’s government is divided into three branches: a legislature (Oliy Majilis), an executive (the Cabinet of Ministers), and a judiciary (Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, and Higher Economic Court). In the literature, the interpretations of politics in Uzbekistan are mixed (Weidman & Yoder, 2010). Some sources (Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan) characterize Uzbekistan as a democratic country, whereas the others describe it as an authoritarian state (CIA, n.d.-c; Shmitz, 2020). Thus, it seems that Uzbekistan is still debating its political liberalization.

The governing context according to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators project is as follows: across the set of indicators, the country scores low, all below the 37th percentile. The voice and accountability indicator in 2018 is at the 6th percentile. The country has made notable progress on political stability and government effectiveness in the ten years between 2008 and 2018, improving from less than the 20th percentile for both to close to the 35th percentile. Its control of corruption and rule of law are both low and remain unchanged after ten years. Uzbekistan is not included in the World Economic Forum’s competitiveness indicators (Figure 17.1).

Figure 17.1 Worldwide governance indicators for Uzbekistan

Shape and Structure of Higher Education

The foundations of the higher education system in Uzbekistan were laid before becoming part of the Soviet Union. In 1918, Turkistan National University was established. Similar to other former Soviet Republics, the system was revamped to meet the highly centralized system of the Soviet Union. The higher education institutions mainly focused on producing a highly qualified workforce to meet the demands of the Soviet economy. As a result, the higher education sector was comprised mainly of forty specialized institutes, with a focus on specific fields such as agriculture, medicine, and three comprehensive universities, offering a wider range of disciplines (Ruziev & Burkhanov, 2018). The majority of institutions were located in the country’s major cities such as Tashkent, Samarkand, and Nukus.

After gaining its independence in 1991, Uzbekistan introduced reforms to the higher education system to shift from a centralized economy to a market-based economy. In 1992, Uzbekistan enacted the Law on Education. Part of this policy reform shifted the cost of education from the government to students and parents. The government introduced a dual-track tuition policy. Students can either win a government-funded merit-based scholarship or pay tuition fees. Although there were private higher education institutions in the 1990s, they were not able to obtain an official license. To date, all higher education institutions are publicly owned (Ruziev & Burkhanov, 2020).

The country has gone through both vertical and horizontal changes in the structure of its HEIs. Generally speaking, the HE system is comprises three types of institutes: universities, institutes, and academies. Universities offer a wide range of bachelor’s and master’s programs, as well as professional training programs. Academies also offer two-level programs but with a focus on specific fields and are mainly responsible for conducting top graduate studies, making their status more superior compared to universities and institutes. Institutes offer bachelor’s, master’s, and postgraduate programs in specific fields. They focus on producing various specialists in different fields such as agriculture and law. In 2017, the government introduced an interim level of education, which is PhD degree, between master’s degree and Doktor Nauk (Doctor of Science).

There are thirty-two universities (twenty public universities and their six regional branches, and six branches of foreign universities), six academies, and forty-four institutes (thirty-six public institutes and their seven regional branches), and one branch of foreign University (European Commission, 2017b). In 2019, an American University, Webster University, received a decree from the president of Uzbekistan to operate jointly with the Ministry of Higher and Specialized Education. The HEIs in Uzbekistan can also be classified into six types: comprehensive universities, specialized universities, institutes, regional branches of domestic HEIs with the purpose to improve access in the regions, academies, and branches of foreign HEIs (Ruziev & Burkhanov, 2018). Regional HEIs do not offer doctoral studies programs.

Since its independence and the introduction of reforms and programs above, the number of HEIs and students has increased significantly. For instance, there was an increase in the number of institutions from 43 to 78 and full-time students from 180,000 to 250,000 between 1989 and 2015 (Ruziev & Burkhanov, 2018). There are three modes of learning available in the country: full-time and part-time learning, distance learning, and evening learning.

Higher Education Governing Context

Given the centralized management described in the first section, the approach to governance in the HE sector can be described as top-down and centralized (Ruziev & Burkhanov, 2018; Weidman & Yoder, 2010). The structure of the HE system is multilayered in terms of accountability, resulting in the duplication of administrative control and limiting the capacity of the Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education (MHSSE) to manage the HE system (Ruziev & Burkhanov, 2018; Weidman & Yoder, 2010). The Cabinet of Ministers is the supreme governing body in the HE system that is in charge of key decisions (e.g., state educational standards, funding, accreditation, licensing). As for the MHSSE, it plays a complementary role (e.g., supervision, guidance, organization of the academic year). Also, the capacity of the MHSSE is weakened by the fact that HEIs can be accountable to other ministries or state committees similar to the ministerial structure during the Soviet era (Weidman & Yoder, 2010). As a result, seventy-eight HEIs are regulated by the Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education (MHSSE), whereas twenty-seven institutes are supervised by other ministries, such as the Ministry of Health (Ruziev & Burkhanov, 2018). As for branches of foreign HEIs, they operate as public-private partnerships and still have some degree of ministerial oversight and direction.

17.2 Governing Body Profile

Governance Overview

As mentioned above, Uzbekistan’s approach to governance in the HE system can be characterized as top-down and centralized. The governance of the HE system is exercised by the following bodies: the Cabinet of Ministers, the MHSSE, the rector, the Academic Board, and the Boards of Trustees.

The Cabinet of Ministers is the supreme governing body in the HE system. It is responsible for the implementation of state education-related policies and setting the procedures for attestation, accreditation, licensing, student transfer, institution rankings, staff in-service training, staff recruitment, and evaluation. In addition, it appoints rectors of the state HEIs and determines the templates of education documents (e.g., diploma) and the procedures for issuing education documents. The Cabinet of Ministers is accountable to the president of the state and Oliy Majilis.

The MHSSE is the highest governing body that manages the HE system. It has the capacity to develop and implement state education-related policies. It is responsible for the organization, coordination, and methodological guidance of the educational process and student assessment procedures. Also, it participates in the development of regulatory legal acts and submits proposals on the appointment of rectors to the Cabinet of Ministers. The MHSSE is accountable to the Cabinet of Ministers.

The rector is the highest official of the HEI. The rector of the state HEI is appointed solely at the discretion of the Cabinet of Ministers, whereas the rector of the non-state institution is appointed by a founder or founders. The rector is responsible for the organization of the education process, as well as for controlling and guiding academic lyceums or professional colleges (technical and vocational education) established under the institution. The rector issues decrees and orders, hires and dismisses employees, recommends candidates for promotion, directs and regulates the work of departments and schools, and determines the structure of a University. The rector is not allowed to work part-time in other organizations.

Body Structure

The Academic Board and the Board of Trustees are advising bodies of the HEI. They are established at every HEI regardless of its type of ownership. The boards are not legal entities and carry out their activities on a voluntary basis. They are responsible for the consideration of key management issues and the quality of education.

Membership and Appointment Process

The membership and appointment process of the Academic Board and the Board of Trustees are regulated by the respective charters of the institution.

In terms of composition, it includes the rector, the rector deputies, leading scholars and experts of Uzbekistan and foreign countries, heads of educational and scientific units, as well as institutions and organizations (academic lyceums and professional colleges) established under the HEI.

Regarding the composition of the Board of Trustees, it includes the representatives of founding shareholders, local authorities, line ministries and institutions, other educational institutions, enterprises and organizations, public organizations, foundations, and sponsors. The composition of the Board of the state HEI is approved by the ministry and institutions that have the HEI in their jurisdiction. As for the composition of the Board of the non-state HEI, it is approved by the founders of the HEI. The Board of the institution can be dismissed by the decision of line ministry or institution.

Interestingly, as outlined in the state regulation on the Board of Trustees, the composition of the Board shall be approved by the respective ministry or institution, or founding shareholders, whereas the composition of the Academic Board seems to be approved by the HEI.

Chair Appointment Process

The chair of the Academic Board is the rector by default, whereas the chair of the Board of Trustees is elected at the first meeting of the board, which is chaired by the rector. The state regulation of the Board of Trustees does not specify procedures for chair appointments. This process as well as the term of office of both chairs (Academic Board and the Board of Trustees) are regulated by the respective charter of the institution.

Board Accountability

It is difficult to identify the accountability of both boards, as state regulations appear not to provide clear descriptions of the relationship between the rector, the Academic Board, and the Board of Trustees (World Bank, 2014). However, given that both boards’ are consultive bodies, it seems that they are accountable to the rector. According to the World Bank (2014), these boards do not have real authority in the decision-making process. The rector who is elected at the discretion of the Cabinet of Ministers (at state HEIs) or founders (at non-state HEIs) has final decision-making authority in the institution.

Scope of Work

The Academic Board and the Board of Trustees operate in accordance with the legislation and respective charters of the institutions approved by line ministry or institution.

The Board of Trustees has the authority to develop and to submit proposals for amendments and additions to the regulation of the board and for the development of the institution. Also, it has the capacity to participate in the discussion of the institution’s plans, programs, and other documents, and to manage the board’s fund.

Unlike the Board of Trustees, the Academic Board seems to have no specific state regulation that outlines its scope of work. The Academic Board makes decisions on the organization of the educational and research activities. It has the capacity to solicit for the conferment of academic titles and degrees (e.g., PhD degrees), to discuss scientific and methodological reports, and to recommend scholarly works for publication. Also, the board has the authority to make decisions on teacher in-service training and cooperation with partner institutions. The decisions of the Academic Board come into effect upon the rector’s approval.

The Case of Tashkent University of Information Technologies named after Muhammad Al-Khwarizmi (TUIT)

As an example, the governing process at Tashkent University of Information Technologies named after Muhammad Al-Khwarizmi (TUIT) is described in this section. The description stems from the official website of the University and respective documents (e.g., charter).

The rector is the highest official of the HEI and is appointed by the Cabinet of Ministry. The rector is responsible for the University’s activities and property, as well as the internal affairs of the University. The rector represents the University and signs contracts on behalf of the University, issues order, hires and dismisses employees, determines the institutional structure, sets the tasks for units and approves their regulations, and regulates the economic, academic, and research activities of the University.

The Academic Board is an advising body of TUIT established in accordance with the Regulation on Higher Education. The main goals of this body are to implement state programs and enhance the educational and research processes of the institution. It is comprises the rector (the chair), vice-rectors, local and foreign scholars and experts, heads of schools and departments, as well as institutions affiliated with the University (e.g., academic lyceum). It may also include representatives of line institutions, trade union organizations, and local and foreign HEIs. Other members (e.g., students and faculty members) are elected by secret ballot at the general meeting (conference). At the beginning of each academic year, new members are elected if previous members are expelled for various reasons. The composition of the board is approved by the rector. The number of members is regulated by the University’s charter.

The Board of Trustees is an advisory body of TUIT established by the decision of the Academic Board in 2002 in accordance with respective legislation. The main goals of the Board are to assist in the statuary activities of the University, provide advice on the urgent problems related to the University’s development, and ensure the competitiveness of the institution locally and globally. In terms of composition, the Board includes the rector, the representatives of legislative and executive authorities, the media, public organizations, legal entities, as well as citizens who have a desire to become a member of the Board. All members have equal rights and responsibilities and work on a voluntary basis. The chair of the Board is elected. The chair appointment process, as well as term of office of the Board, is not specified in the charter.

Commentary

Uzbekistan’s approach to its transition to a market economy is more or less similar to other post-Socialist republics. Uzbekistan, like other republics, has prioritized the role of human capital in the development of its economy. Unlike some post-Soviet republics (e.g., Russia), Uzbekistan decided not to immediately reject centralized planning in favor of a market-based economy (Ruziev et al., 2007). The State has played a key role in the development of Uzbekistan. Although this decision and favorable economic conditions (cotton and gold) helped Uzbekistan show a good performance during the early period of transition (Pomfret, 2000), these factors have limited the capacity of institutions, including HEIs, to operate in a global commercial environment (ADB, 2010). Currently, Uzbekistan has become dedicated to developing and implementing comprehensive market-oriented reforms in all sectors (ADB, 2010; Ruziev et al., 2007).

Uzbekistan introduced a range of policies to reform its HE system such as Law on Education, NPPT, NPBED, and WISP. These policies have resulted in the transition to the three-cycle HE system, the diversification of the HE landscape (e.g., state, private, and foreign HEIs), and the introduction of tuition fee programs. However, Uzbekistan’s centralized management model makes the current structure of HE management rigidly tied to the needs of the labor market (Ruzieva & Burkhanov, 2020). For instance, universities do not have the authority to develop and implement curricula. Also, governance-related policies implemented in the HE system in Uzbekistan seem to be implemented partially.

Governance bodies such as the Academic Board and the Board of Trustees seem to have less authority than their counterparts in the European Higher Education Area. According to the World Bank (2014), these bodies “should be accorded greater authority to set a greater share of the curriculum within the University or HEI … to differentiate themselves from other HEIs and to respond to evolving local needs and demand” (p. 90). Thus, the governance structure of the HE system also requires further comprehensive reforms.