Changes in University Governance in Austria:

a Ministry Perspective

“Tempus Regional Seminar on University Governance

in Eastern European Countries”

Kiev, March 01 – 02, 2010

by Sigurd Höllinger

1

Contents

1. Brief history of the major reform

2. Reform 2002: the new relationship between state and university

3. Problems and misunderstandings

4. Recommendations for the road to success

2

1. Brief history of the major reform

1.1 Situation at the end of 20th century

1.2 Reform initiatives by the government 1990 – 2002

1.3 Positive experiences with partial autonomy and persistent criticism

2. Reform 2002: the new relationship between state and university 2.1 The reform 2002 – the most sweeping reform in 150 years2.2 The principles of the reform 20022.3 The instruments of the reform 20022.4 The tools for directing university development2.5 Performance agreement2.6 Where a performance agreement cannot be reached2.7 Autonomy in staff matters for each university 2.8 The role of parliament2.9 The ministry’s loss of power and influence2.10 The duties of the ministry, old and new2.11 The effects on ministry staff and organisation

3

4

3. Problems and misunderstandings

3.1 Resistance to change in the universities and in the ministry

3.2 Clearing up misunderstandings

3.3 Mistakes in the ministry

5

4. Recommendations for the path to success 4.1 Own ministry for HE and research

4.1.1 comprehensive representation of the sciences and the humanities and their institutions

4.1.2 Securing financing4.1.3 Steering in the interest of the state4.1.4 Responsibilities in the area of controlling4.1.5 Legal supervision4.1.6 Facilitator and motor of the development of the system of sciences4.1.7 Observation of real developments and preparation of legislative exceptions to autonomy

4.2 Staff development of the ministry – urgent and in good time 4.3 Code regulating the behaviour of the ministry towards the universities

6

1. Brief history of the major reform

1.1 Situation at the end of 20th century

1.2 Reform initiatives by the government 1990 – 2002

1.3 Positive experiences with partial autonomy and persistent criticism

7

1.1 Situation at the end of 20th century

• State regulation – stalking horse

• Powerful forces of conservatism in the universities

• State regulation – bemoaned as “over-regulation” although advantageous to academic establishment

• Lack of international competitiveness

8

1.2 Reform initiatives by the government

1990 – 2002 (1)

The aim: a mass-knowledge society

The policy: to improve the contribution of the universities by: (1) enhanced research and teaching performance(2) improved use of financial resources

9

Reform initiatives by the government

1990 – 2002 (2)

• More independence in individual areas• Criticism and resistance from the universities:

the state wishes to withdraw and hand over responsibility

• Many compromises• Politicians did not really want to let go,

universities feared autonomy• Responsibility for deficiencies in the universities’

performance remained with the state • Dense system of rules and regulations remained

10

1.3 Positive experiences with partial autonomy and persistent criticism

• Unclear solution regarding areas of competence and responsibilities

• Willingness to accept a major solution grows but remains a minority attitude– in the universities– among politicians– in the ministry

11

2. Reform 2002: the new relationship between state and university

2.1 The reform 2002 – the most sweeping reform in 150 years2.2 The principles of the reform 20022.3 The instruments of the reform 20022.4 The tools for steering university development2.5 Performance agreement2.6 Where performance agreement cannot be reached2.7 Autonomy in staff matters for every university 2.8 The role of parliament2.9 The ministry’s loss of power and influence2.10 The duties of the ministry, old and new2.11 The effects on staff and organisation of the ministry

12

2.1 The reform 2002 – the most sweeping reform in 150 years

• Autonomous universities perform better than state directed universities

• Traditional sovereign control of the state – collaborative model

– universities – full legal entities– the state’s statutory obligation to fund its

universities

13

2.2 Principles of the reform 2002 (1)

(1) Further development of the 200 year old administration tradition

– the state retains a significant role– universities obtain full legal capacity

(there also exist other solutions: e.g. buffer organisation)

(2) State and university are equals in legal terms

14

Principles of the reform 2002 (2)

(3) Universities become business-like organisations but not businesses

(4) Instead of innumerable detailed regulations – own decision making and responsibility

(5) Traditional academic freedom of research and teaching is preserved

(6) No-one may be forced to research or teach against his conscience

(7) State regulations should be reduced to a minimum

(8) European and international concepts and experiences should be heeded

15

2.3 The instruments of the reform

Legislation regulates the following:

• Conditions for the existence of autonomous universities

• Transition from traditional /partly autonomous university to fully autonomous

• Concrete organisation of the autonomous university is transferred to the university itself – through the new governance

16

2.4 The tools for directing university development

• Parliament passes the overall budget for the universities

• The state decides by law on the following :– tuition fees (at present abolished for the most par by

exemptions)– admission to study courses

• Decisions on major investments (buildings, large laboratories) are reserved for the minister

• Everything else: agreement between the ministry and the university (“performance agreement”)

17

2.5 Performance agreement (1)

(1) Requirements for proper functioning

– Participation with responsibility on both sides

– Communication as equals at the legal level– Communication as equals at the social level– Consistency of approaches and behaviour– Reliability, mutual trust– Transparency

18

Performance agreement (2)

(2) Elements of the contract:

– public law contract– three-year term– services of the university– government money– drafted by the university– basis in the university‘s development plan– recommendations of the “Austrian Science

Board” and the minister’s strategic issues to be taken into consideration

19

Performance agreement (3)

(3) Role of the ministry

• Money continues to come from tax-payers• State has a guiding role as a partner –

does not dictate

20

2.6 Where a performance agreement is not reached

• Strong reasons for arriving at an agreement – on both sides

• Arbitration procedure (a judge and the same number of nominees by the university and by the ministry)

• If the arbitration procedure fails: action in the Administrative Court

• In the period before a contract is signed: university’s budget must not be reduced by more the 2% of the figure for the previous year

21

2.7 Autonomy in matters of staff for every university

• New recruits – employees of the universities are no longer civil servants

• Civil servant already on the staff– retain all their rights– positions abolished when civil servants leave– are made available to the university by the state

22

2.8 The role of the parliament

• Detail steering by means of legislation disappears

• Passing overall budget for the universities

• Previous dominance of input-orientation is expanded: new report system (performance, balance sheets) allows control and criticism of the universities’ performance

23

2.9 The ministry’s loss of power and influence

• Prestige of status as an authority

• Authority over employees

• Many detail rules and control over their observance

• Decrees on what is to be taught and researched

• Favourable treatment as the result of individual intervention

24

2.10The duties of the ministry, old and new• The political “voice of the sciences and the

humanities”• Representative of the interests of the academic

system– within the state – in the EU– internationally

• Financing state academic institutions - planning, preparation and implementation

• Harmonisation with other political areas• Development of national strategies• Location policy• Facilitator of academic development• Motor for improvements• Partnership with the universities• Support and consultation• Evaluating the universities’ performance• Legal supervision

25

2.11Effects on the staff and organisation of the ministry

• Fewer staff • Fewer legal professionals• No further administration of the universities’ staff• New qualifications required

– strategy development– assessment of development plans– study of balance sheets– negotiations conducted as equals

• Proportionately more people with higher qualifications

• Organisation predominantly task-oriented• Elements of the university orientation are

retained

26

3. Problems and misunderstandings

3.1 Resistance to change in the universities and in the

ministry

3.2 Clarifying misunderstandings

3.3 Mistakes in the ministry

27

3.1 Resistance to change at the universities and in the ministry

• Is greater and more open at the universities• Usually: change creates uncertainty• Ministry: abolition of regulations in laws,

decrees and edicts – loss of certainty– security of the status of public administration staff– security of regulations as guides to operating

procedures– disappearance of familiar, often routine, work– fear of unfamiliar duties

• Fear of reductions to staff numbers• Exclusion from planning of the reform• Lack of understanding for the reform

28

3.2 Clearing up misunderstandings (1)

• The state does not abdicate, does not shirk its responsibilities but takes on new duties

• The cost-effectiveness of the university does not mean “economisation” of research and teaching

• A well-managed university allows undisputed work

• University tradition alone is not sufficient to carry out its responsibilities

• Self-referential subculture misunderstanding of autonomy is anti-social and expensive

• Leadership by the rector and vice-rectors does not mean authoritarian rule, is not undemocratic

29

Clearing up misunderstandings (2)

• Calling for autonomy is easier than practicing it

• The mistakes of autonomous universities are not dramatic

• Cultural change – from authority to partnership – requires time

• The role of the ministry must be redefined, it does not mean being condemned to inactivity on account of the universities’ autonomy

30

3.3 Mistakes in the ministry (1)

• Changes take place without due planning• Too many staff

– in particular less qualified staff– look for (unnecessary) work

• Required qualifications are lacking – strategy development – thinking in structures (instead of in individual

cases, as previously)– communication– negotiation– dealing with statistics, reading balance sheets

• Uncertainty caused by abolition of regulations is not addressed

31

Mistakes in the ministry (2)

• Inadequate further education – starts too late – concentrated on skills – neglects changing attitudes

• Role of ministry remains unclear for too long

• Universities not regarded as capable of handling autonomy

• Cynically awaiting the failure of autonomy

32

Mistakes in the ministry (3)

• Attempt to avoid changes by

– informal partial negotiations with the universities– proposals for amendments to the autonomy law

2002 which would mean a backward development– reserving an unacceptably large amount of the

budget allows financing outside of the performance agreement

– operative detail regulations in the performance agreement

33

Mistakes in the ministry (4)

• Structure of the ministry is not consistently built-up according to the principle of areas of responsibility

• The new “Academic Council” is regarded more as an aid to argumentation, less as an independent critical body

34

4. Recommendations for the path to success 4.1 Own ministry for HE and research

4.1.1 comprehensive representation of the sciences and the humanities and their institutions

4.1.2 Securing financing4.1.3 Steering in the interest of the state4.1.4 Responsibilities in the area of controlling4.1.5 Legal supervision4.1.6 Facilitator and motor of the development of the system of sciences4.1.7 Observation of real developments and preparation of legislative exceptions to autonomy

4.2 Staff development of the ministry – urgent and in good time 4.3 Code regulating the behaviour of the ministry towards the universities

35

4.1 Own ministry for HE and research

• New responsibilities instead of the earlier ones• “Voice for the sciences and the humanities”

– for the sciences and the humanities in general– for higher education– for pure research – for all academic disciplines

• Other solutions: e.g. UK – Ministry of EconomicsDK – HE, technology, innovations systems

• Studying pros and cons• Weak representation of the sciences

strengthens the finance ministry

36

4.1.1 Comprehensive representation of the sciences and the humanities and their institutions

• As “voice”, “advocate”, “patron”• In addressing the public• In addressing other areas of politics in the

government, in parliament• In addressing political parties and lobbies• In addressing the EU and international

organisations (e.g. UNESCO, OECD)• In addressing the business sector• In addressing private groups

37

4.1.2 Securing financing

• In the government, in parliament, in public

• Obtaining relevant tax and foundation law agendas

• Operating the system of state grants

• Facilitating communication between universities and investors

38

4.1.3 Steering in line with the interests of the state

• Competition between the universities alone is not sufficient

• Securing national supply of scientific performance• Defining the capacities required• Location policy• Decisions on major investments• Presenting focal points and diversity for discussion• Ensuring fair competition with private universities • Determining the politically desirable study

admission procedure and state grants

39

4.1.4 Controlling duties

• Continuous observation of performance of the universities with regard to the agreed goals

• Continuous observation of performance with regard to expenditure

• Criticism of performance and initiatives to ensure development of quality

40

4.1.5 Legal supervision

• Intervention in cases where universities infringe the law

• Securing basic rights– freedom of research and teaching– freeing from any obligation to teach and

research against individual conscience– equality of opportunity with regard to gender,

religion, ethnic origin, political beliefs

4.1.6 Facilitator and motor of the development of the academic system

• Systematic observer of national development of the sciences in the European and international context

• Primarily initiatives from scientific disciplines

• As an active motor: with declared goals and processes that can be discussed

41

42

4.1.7 Observation of actual developments and preparation of legal exceptions to autonomy

• Exceptions must have convincing legal justification

• Continuous observation of current conditions and effects

• Up-to-date initiatives: in the autonomy of established universities the rational organisation of tuition fees and admission procedures is transferable

43

4.2 Staff development in the ministry urgently and in good time (1)

• Investment in staff pays off• Start of transferring competences to the universities• Staff should be convinced to actively involve

themselves in helping decide upon the changes• Changes of attitudes are as important as new

qualifications • Openly planned and implemented staff reductions

with social support• Favour staff transfer from ministry to the

universities• Organise ongoing rotation of staff between ministry

and universities

44

Staff development in the ministry urgently and in good time (2)

• Qualification in change management

– new duties, structures, processes, behaviour

– joint initiatives for ministry and university staff

45

4.3 Code defining behaviour of ministry towards the universities during the transition period (1)

• Institutionalised communication with the universities

• Communication as equals, the power of the funding provider should be rarely exercised

• No informal parallel negotiations with the universities

• Allow universities to solve their problems themselves, but indicate inadequacies and the responsibility for dealing with them

46

Code defining behaviour of ministry towards the universities during the transition period (2)

• No negotiations with lower levels of the university organisation structure (e.g. faculties)

• No interference in selection of management• Serious examination of performance reports

and balance sheets • Counter attempts by the universities to be

integrated in responsibility in the traditional way – prevent development of mixed responsibility

• Positions must be transparent• Positions must be consistent

Code defining behaviour of ministry towards the universities during the transition period (3)

• No concealed “subliminal” attempts at steering

• Do not answer parliamentary questions that concern the self-administered sphere of a university independently, but present them as the requested report of the body of the university responsible, with added comment

• Adhere to state performance with regard to performance agreements: deviations only where necessitated by state emergency

47