Download - International Trends in Governance Reforms
International Trends in Governance Reforms
Jamil Salmi
Global Tertiary Education Expert
Sofia, 19 March 2012
2
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
outline of the presentation...
• importance of good governance
• system-wide dimensions
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
outline of the presentation...
• importance of good governance
• system-wide dimensions
• oversight at institutional level
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
outline of the presentation...
• importance of good governance
• system-wide dimensions
• oversight at institutional level
• 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
36
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
??
40