Capacity building as an EU policy instrument: the case of the Tempus program

Antigoni Papadimitriou & Bjørn Stensaker

10th International Workshop on Higher Education Reform University of Ljubljana,  Faculty of Education

October 3 2013

2

Content

• Objectives of the presentation• The Tempus Program• Conceptual Framework• Research Design, Data and Methods• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

• Assess the potential role of Tempus as a policy instrument by analyzing how Tempus projects have influenced university governance and management practices in the Western Balkans:Serbia (SE), Croatia (CR), Montenegro (MO), Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH), the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Albania (AL), and Kosovo (KO)

Objectives

The Tempus Program• Tempus has contributed to promoting cooperation

between higher education institutions by emphasizing capacity building activities (EACEA, 2012: 7)

• Since 1990, the EU has donated over 1.4 billion EUR to Tempus activities, funding more than 3800 cooperation projects

• Currently 60 to 70 projects are selected annually, based on consortia of EU and Partner Country universities and using a total budget of approximately 60 Million EUR

4

The Tempus Program1990-1993 Tempus I ‘Assistance Program’,

not only for Central and Eastern European Countries, but also targeting a 3rd group the ´Western Countries´1994-2000 Tempus II ‘Transition Program’ extended to certain countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia2000-2006 Tempus III ‘Modernization Program’extended to cover North Africa and the Middle East 2007-2013 Tempus IV as a ‘partner country supporting national reforms’

5

Tempus Program

• 3 core activities of Tempus programs over that past 23 years remained stable:

1. Joint European Projects (JEPs)a) JEPs for curriculum developmentb) JEPs for university management, c) JEPs for training courses

2. Structural and Complementary Measures (SCM)

3. Individual Mobility Grants (IMGs)

6

*Data until 2010

Tempus program in WBCTempus by

countryType of projects

Tempus I &II (1990-1999)

Tempus III 2000-2006

Tempus IV 2007-2012

Total

Albania 1992

JEP

SMC

50

21

40

7

21

2

111

30Bosnia and Herzegovina 1996

JEP

SMC

18

7

54

22

31

12

103

41

Croatia 2000

JEP

SMC

-

-

68

17

13 *

2*

81

19FYR Macedonia 1996

JEP

SMC

25

11

68

26

26*

7*

119

44Kosovo 2001

JEP

SMC

-

-

19

10

25

3

44

13Montenegro 2001

JEP

SMC

-

-

15

10

22

8

37

18Serbia 2001

JEP

SMC

-

-

81

22

55

11

136

33 Total 132 459 238 829

8

Conceptual Framework

Two dimensions emphasized: •The policy instrument (Tempus characteristics) •The targets of the policy instrument (Universities, and what characterize them as organizations)

Capacity building as a policy instrument

• Have some characteristics that overlap with instruments such as information and learning tools, symbolic tools and even organizational tools (Salamon 2002, Hood and Margetts 2007)

• Generally considered to be an indirect policy tool, in the sense that building capacity in itself will not necessarily lead to direct effects such as new standards, rules and regulations

9

10

• Due to the emphasis on building administrative capacity in universities in Central and Eastern European countries through interconnected institutions, the latest versions of the Tempus program also resemble what is currently labeled as the ‘twinning’ instrument, which also aims to build capacity at the central administrative level in the targeted countries

(Tomolová and Tulmets 2007, Borrás and Jacobsson 2004: 189)

Universities as change agents – between inertia and innovation

• Universities are often seen as institutions which enjoy considerable autonomy with respect to their core functions (Clark 1983), although in recent decades they have been exposed to a number of reforms which aim to change the ways in which universities are governed and led.

• Studies have shown that many European universities have changed their governance and management structures (Amaral et al. 2003), although this does not necessarily imply changes in their core activities related to teaching and research (Musselin 2005, Huisman 2009, Stensaker et al. 2012)

11

Research Design• Capacity building is an instrument where identifying

direct effects can be expected to pose a methodological challenge

due to this• Quasi-experimental approach:

comparing universities deeply involved and engaged in the Tempus program with

universities with little of or no involvement in Tempus projects within the same region - the Western Balkans

12

Assumptions• The basic assumption is that universities deeply involved and

engaged in Tempus governance projects should have a higher level of governance capacity than universities not involved with the Tempus program (A1).

• An alternative assumption is that – due to the spread and acceptance of modern governance ideas in higher education – both universities with high and no involvement with Tempus have a high level of governance capacity (A2).

• A third assumption is that – due to cultural resistance and lack of organizational capacity – both universities with high or no involvement with Tempus have a low level of governance capacity (A3).

13

Assumptions (2)• Final assumption is that there might be differences in the perceived

validity of various governance instruments, and that governance activities related to benchmarking might be more attractive than other instruments among those universities with a high involvement with the Tempus program (A4).

• Based on the belief that national legislation and regulation may impact on the governance capacity of universities, an assumption is that the effects of the Tempus program will vary between countries (B1).

• An alternative assumption is that EU funded projects may be seen as attractive and so override national legislation and regulations, leading to no national differences in the governance capacity of universities (B2).

14

Data collection

• 1st data set derived from the EACEA’s website:– information on all Tempus projects (2000 – 2012)

(http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/tempus/).

• 2nd data set originated from a survey among 51 Western Balkan universities

15

Methods: Content analysis and Survey

Content analysis: Tempus projects

2000-2012 WB participated in 697 Tempus projects (459 T₃ & 238 T₄ )

From 697 projects, 37 projects (17 T₃ projects and 20 T₄ projects) met our criteria and were chosen for further analysis

16

Survey• Questionnaire was derived from the U.S Malcolm

Baldrige National Quality Award for Performance Excellence in Education– strategic planning, performance management, and

benchmarking

• 112 universities sampled, 51 responded (November 2012- January 2013) response rate: – public universities 62%, private universities 35%

• Data from content analysis revealed that 41 (mostly public) universities were involved in Tempus activities. Data from our survey illustrated that 29 of these 41 Tempus universities replied (a response rate 71%)

17

Respondents by country and ownership

18

Country PublicMB

Public% Private

MB Private

%

Albania 13 6 46,15 34 10 32,35B&H 8 7 87,5 16 5 31,25Croatia 7 5 71,42 0 0  Kosovo 2 1 50 3 1 33,33Montenegro 1 1 100 2 2 100FYROM 5 2 40 8 3 37,5Serbia 6 4 66,7 7 4 57,1

Total  42 27 64,28 70 25 35,71

Results and Discussion

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

High T₃+T₄ Low T₃+T₄ Zero T₃+T₄  Mean score

Strat. Plan. Impl.

Perf. Manag. Impl.

Benchmarking  Impl.

Distribution of institutional governance capacity within Tempus and non-Tempus groups (scale from 1 = no implementation to 10 = fully implemented)

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

High T₃+T₄ Low T₃+T₄ Zero T₃+T₄  Mean score

Strat. Plan. Import.

Perf. Manag. Import.

Benchmarking  Import.

Distribution of beliefs concerning the importance of institutional governance capacity within Tempus and non-Tempus groups (scale from 1 = not important to 10 very important).

21Influence of national regulations on institutional governance capacity (scale between 1 = no implementation and 10 = fully implemented)

Conclusion

• The current study is not an “evaluation” of Tempus – but can be useful in a discussion about policy tools and their relevance

• How to explain the lack of effects?- capacity building has limits regarding its potential effectiveness and efficiency- capacity building may be an instrument with strong symbolic power- capacity building – an alternative funding mechanism?

22

Some further reflections•Has a program that used to be a pure capacity building tool been turned into a more blurred policy instrument, where symbolic dimensions and resource driven needs have the upper hand?•Compared to the Open Method of Coordination the problem faced with capacity building is that strong mutual commitment between the various actors involved is lacking, and that intergovernmental engagement is quite weak.•These elements are generally considered to be important in making soft law instruments work well, and without them it may be that Tempus is an illustration of fragmented and diverse actions being taken by the EU to stimulate administrative reforms in the Central and Eastern Europe (see also (Heidbreder 2011)

23

• it would be interesting to study the driving forces behind the development of governance capacity in those universities not supported by the Tempus program.

To be continued …..

24