International Trends in Governance Reforms

International Trends in Governance Reforms

Jamil Salmi

Global Tertiary Education Expert

Sofia, 19 March 2012

natural lab experiment:

U. of Malaya vs. NUS

• early 1960s: 2 branches of University of Malaya

• today, stark difference:

• THES: NUS # 34, UoM not in top 200

• SJTU: NUS 101- 151, UoM not in top 500

3

4

outline of the presentation...

• importance of good governance

• system-wide dimensions

• oversight at institutional level

• institutional autonomy

5

why does governance matter?

what do we know about good governance?

6

7

2007 comparison of US and European universities

• European universities suffer from– poor governance– insufficient autonomy– perverse incentives

U. Of Malaya vs. NUS

– appointment of VC highly political in Malaysia: 10 VCs until 2008 (Prime Minister statement)

– more professional in Singapore (5 VCs)

– UM: restricted by government regulations and control, unable to hire top foreign professors

– NUS: status of a private corporation, able to attract world-class foreign researchers

– 52% of professors (9% from Malaysia)

– 79% of researchers (11% from Malaysia)

8

creating the Solar Energy Institute

9

10




11

role of the State

from

central planning

to

steering at a distance

12

system-wide guidance and policy-making

• principal functions at national level

– vision about the future of tertiary education

– policy-making

– regulating and monitoring

13

do we really need accountability?

14

accountability

in return for increased autonomy, governments expect accountability in:

• adherence to national goals and policies

• maintaining academic quality

• financial honesty and value for money

• good governance and management

15

accountability mechanisms

• legal

• information

• governance

• funding allocation

• quality assurance

16

legal mechanisms

• regulatory framework

• financial audits

• public disclosure law

• annual performance report

• presentation before Parliament

17

information mechanisms

• student engagement surveys

• rankings

– national rankings

– integrity rankings

– international rankings

• labor market observatories

18

financial mechanisms

• linking resources and performance (supply-side)

• demand-side funding (grants, student loans, vouchers)

19





20

guidance & oversight

from

inward looking

to

outward looking

21

guidance and oversight at institutional level

• composition and role of Board– independent with outside representation

• selection of institutional leader– democratic or professional criteria?

22

governance in the autonomous university

the Board:• appoints the U leader and monitors

his/her performance• approves the mission and strategic plan,

budget and performance indicators• assesses performance against the

strategy and plan• establishes and monitors control and risk

management systems

23

effective Boards

• Board = interface between society and universities

• learning to work together: U leadership and Board

• need for capacity building

• clear boundaries

24

code of conduct for Boards

• elaborated in consensus-based mode and voluntary adherence

• areas covered– role of Board– structure and processes– effectiveness and performance review– responsibilities of members– conduct of business

• pioneers: Australia, Ireland, UK

25

governance mechanisms (international advisory Board)

• experienced practitioners

• constructive criticism and guidance

26

appointment of university leader

• mode of appointment– government appointment– democratic election (faculty, administration,

students, alumni)– competitive appointment (Board, govt,

electorate)

27

appointment of university leader (II)

• eligibility- only faculty member- only from the university- from outside

• duration of appointment- one or more mandate- from 4 years to 4 ever

28





• institutional autonomy

29

2008 Aghion study

• research performance positively linked to degree of autonomy of universities in the sample, especially with regard to:

– budget management

– ability to hire faculty and staff, and

– freedom to set salaries

30

international trends

• general move to granting greater autonomy (Denmark, Japan, Thailand, Germany, France)

• freedom from civil service rules (human resources, procurement, financial management)

• growth in scale and intrusiveness of monitoring by governments

31

flexibility

• good feedback mechanisms

• strategic planning to orient change

• ability to react and adapt rapidly

results framework

32

33

effective decision-making?

• possibility to consider reforms

• speed in making decisions

• ownership / consensus for smooth implementation

34

efficient management?

• academic management

• human resources management

• procurement

• financial management

international trends

• State devolving increased autonomy

• accountability through independent Board with outside representation

• selection of leadership team with professional criteria

• flexibility and responsiveness with power to act

37

International Trends in Governance Reforms

Documents

Transcript of International Trends in Governance Reforms