Trends in University Autonomy in Europe and Ireland

2. Trends inUniversity Autonomy in Europe and Ireland • Thomas Estermann • Director Governance, Funding and Public Policy Development • Dublin • 29.09.2014

3. 850 members in 43 countries

4. Structure Whyuniversity autonomy Thestate of university autonomy in Europe/Ireland: data – trends – scorecards Staffing autonomy Financial autonomy Organisational autonomy Academic autonomy

5. Why university autonomy? • Positive correlations exist between autonomy and: • performance • quality • degrees of income diversification • internationalisation • efficiency and effectiveness • Institutional autonomy: • allows universities to decide on strategic priorities according to their strengths; • does not automatically lead to better performance, but it is an important prerequisite.

6. Challenges • Institutional autonomy: • is a complex concept that consists of various interconnected elements • is contingent on the diverse cultural, political, legal and historical backgrounds of Europe’s HE systems • cannot be measured objectively • There are diverse systems, even within countries • There is not just one model – context is very important • The Autonomy Scorecard: • had to take into account constantly changing legislative frameworks and at times contradictory policy developments • had to simplify complex situations

7. Methodology of the Autonomy Scorecard • The scoring system: • is based on deductions → restrictions on institutional autonomy are assigned a deduction value based on how restrictive a particular regulation is seen to be; • produces percentage scores for each indicator; • calculates the score for one autonomy dimension as an average of the scores for all indicators making up that dimension.

9. Staffing autonomy - trends • Recruitment procedures are less prescribed than before. • In most systems, restrictions still apply to staff salaries, although these are less likely to be due to the civil servant status of university staff. • Staff dismissals and promotions remain restricted in more than half of the systems studied. • The financial crisishas affected staffing policies in some countries.

10. Staffing autonomy – the scorecard

11. Staffingautonomy issues now • The financial crisis has affected institutional autonomy • The Employment Control Framework has reduced staffing autonomy in all indicators and effects other dimensions as well • Salary bands are prescribed at central level • Additional restrictions and lower salaries at entry level for new staff • Reductions in salary through between 6-14% gross • Increased taxation, larger pension contributions, and other social charges impacts on salaries

12. Staffingautonomy 2014

13. Financial autonomy – trends • Universities generally receive their public funding as a block grant, although its allocation may be restricted. • Surpluses can be kept and money borrowed in a majority of systems, but in practice, various limitations still apply. • Universities in most systems are able to own their buildings, but often require external permission to sell them. • The situation is complex, but universities tend to be more free to set tuition feesfor MA and non-EU students.

14. Financial autonomy – the scorecard 2012

15. Financialautonomyissues now • Earmarking of parts of the block grant for specific purposes should be kept to minimum as well as top slicing • Institutions should be able to keep a surplus • Funding linked to student numbers requires reflection • Capacity to borrow money could be more flexible • Universities should have a longer funding period • Discussion on fees for national and EU students at Bachelor level

16. Financial autonomy 2014

17. Organisational autonomy - trends • External membersare now included in university governing bodies in a majority of systems, though external authorities often remain involved in their selection. • Universities in nearly all systems are free to create legal entities and decide on academic structures. • Rectors are always chosen by the universities, although external authorities often have to confirm the appointment.

18. Organisationalautonomy – the scorecard 2012

19. Organisationalautonomy issues 2014 • Organisationalautonomy in IE is advanced but: • more advanced countries have more flexibility in composition of governing bodies and smaller bodies • Threats to academic structure if legislation over staff numbers is implemented • Regulation on employment in legal entities should be made more flexible.

20. Organisationalautonomy 2014

21. Academic autonomy - trends • Overall student numbers are limited in nearly all systems. • Universities in Europe still have little freedom in choosing QA mechanisms. • Accreditation is still compulsory for BA/MA programmes in a majority of systems. • The language of instructioncan be chosen freely in approx. 2/3 of all systems. Ireland is the most autonomous system evaluated in the Scorecard. => No change in 2014

22. Academic autonomy – the scorecard 2014

24. Otherautonomy issues 2014 • Universities Act in principle strong framework for autonomy – but danger of reduction through additional legislation or threats of emergency legislation to force compliance. • General direction of state policy towards increasing control of universities has intensified. • Declining public budget and increasing state control in relation to staffing • Draft legislation regarding ministerial directives, national labour agreements has the capacity to significantly impact on university autonomy • Binding decisions of the Labour Court have an impact on institutions without their involvement.

25. Otherautonomy issues II • Strategic dialogue and performance contracts should not be taken out of the core funding • These apply for the first time for 2014/2015 and funding was held back by the HEA on that basis • Public servicereforms (e.g. shared services initiatives, central procurement, employment control framework, etc.) have an impact on universities' ability to manage their own affairs (individually and/or collectively) • The introduction of a National Research PrioritisationExercise that orients competitive research funding towards 14 priority areas reduces scope for internal strategic decision-making.

26. 9-10 October 2014, Bergamo, Italy www.eua.be/eua-funding-forum-bergamo http://www.eua.be/eua-funding-forum-bergamo.aspx Strategies for sustainable funding of universities

27. Thank you for your attention! For further information, please contact thomas.estermann@eua.be Follow on Twitter: @thomasestermann @euatweets