Research project: Higher education system dynamics in post-Soviet countries

Outline• 14 former post-Soviet republics (15 in near perspective)• More than 45 participants• Editor board: Anna Smolentseva, Isak Froumin, Jeroen Huisman• Double-stage design:

– Deep investigation of core transformations in higher education in each country

– Analysis of institution landscape in each country

• Coordinating by Institute of education, NRU HSE with support of the World Bank

Post-Soviet systems of higher education

• Soviet higher education

system – one of the world

largest: unique project (30s)

• USSR collapse 15 different

paths of national systems

• Fresh transformation

experience

• Lack of comparative studies

• Existing academic discussion on post-

Soviet space

– Privatization

– Academic profession

– Internationalization (Bologna process)

– Europeanization, regionalization and

nationalization

– Mobility (student, academic)

• Project: from national level to the regional

level

• Focus on system structure (institutional

landscape)

States Faces Market: Implication from Russian Case Study

Dmitry SemyonovIsak Froumin

Daria PlatonovaInstitute of Education, HSE University, Moscow

The State meets the market

Simplification:

– The State lose its power with introduction of market the higher education systems

OR

– Market gain the ground due to new economic contexts, international trends in policy and higher education

Higher education systems' changes in post-Soviet countries

The State and Market

Clark’s triangle

the State is a coordinator and initiator of marketization (Jongbloen, 2003) marketization level depends on purposes

The State-steering models: the state control model and the state-supervising model (Neave & van Vught, 1991)

the sovereign, rationality-bounded steering model;the institutional steering model; the corporate-pluralist steering model; the supermarket steering model (Gornitzka & Maassen, 2000)

Higher education regimes*

Laissez-faire Central-planningMarket-competitive• the state has little

regard for market mechanizms and institutions (e.g. private institutions) as important means of achieving its higher education policy objectives

• central planning is a dominant actor education planning and management, even in ‘marketized’ spheres

• the state uses the market for achieving its higher education policy goals, but through various signals and long-run mechanisms.

* “policy postures” Zumeta, W. 1996, Pachuashvily 2011

What is Marketization?

Liberalizationnon-state HE sector

Decentralization of incomesTuition fees

Privatization of public HEIs

Competitive basiscompetition for students

R&D

General tendency within FSR: increase of relative government expenditure on tertiary

education

Azerbaij

an

Belarus

Estonia

Kazakh

stan

Kyrgyzs

tanLa

tvia

Lithuan

ia

Russian

Federa

tion

Tajik

istan

Ukraine

0.2

1.4

1.1

0.4

0.9 0.9

1.4

0.7

0.3

1.8

0.4

0.8

1.3

0.4

0.91.0

1.5

0.9

0.3

2.1

Government expenditure on tertiary education as % of GDP (%)

2002 2011

Privatization of HE Share of students

paying tuition fees in public HEIs and

students in private HEIs, %

Share of students paying tuition fees in

public HEIs, %

Armenia 87% 85%Kyrgyz Republic 85% 84%

Georgia* 80% 59%Kazakhstan 79% 57%Moldova 73% 66%Uzbekistan 68% 67%Ukraine 67% 63%Belarus 66% 61%Azerbaijan 65% 60%Latvia 63% naRussia 62% 55%Tajikistan 60% 60%

Lithuania 50% na

Estonia 45% 40%

In most cases non-government HEIs become legitimate

Cost-sharing model by introduction of tuition fees

Early 1990sFirst (independent) Laws on

Education

Central-planning features?Lithuania – • first non-state HEI in 1999• Stringent licensing and high standards (restrict the entry of HEIs not

having solid financial assistance from religious or international donors) • the highly centralized accreditation process• Out of four private universities that existed in Lithuania by 2001, three

were established by religious organizations and only one – the International School of Management – with foreign involvement (Higher Education in Lithuania 2001).

• ~12% students in private HEIs

Other examples of direct control over market:

Overall Limitation - Uzbekistan – legitimation of private sector in 1997 (first private HEI in 2004)

Expansion of state control - Azerbaijan – till 2015 government approved enrollment plan for private sector as well

Market-competitive features?

Estonia – tuition fees was introduced in 1993 and prohibited in 2012

Student and grant systems:

Latvia – from 1997 – State guaranteed commercial bank loans apply to any tuition-paying student enrolled at state- accredited institutions, which are free to determine both the number of students to be admitted and the amount of tuition charged

Kazakhstan, Georgia – shifting from direct distribution of budget funds among HEIs to the student education grant system.

Privatization of ownership:

Kazakhstan – some public HEIs have been resolutely privatized at the level of ownership (OECD 2007).

Laissez-faire features?

Lax approach in enforcing licensing requirements:

no examples of a license being denied to an institution in Georgia untill 2003 (Pachuashvily 2011)

Rapid expansion of private sector without financial support from the government – Georgia (untill 2003), Russia

In the absence of quality and other control mechanisms, well-established and still more legitimate public institutions provided students with better assurance than newly-emerged, undifferentiated private institutions.

Russian Higher Education: 25 years of marketization/expansion of privateness in higher education

Introduction of non-state sector Dual tuition fee track system

Public HEIs, education funding:46% - public funds54% - household funds

Students in private HEIs 3 Students, paying tuition

fees in public HEIs (61%)

New units: 402 non-state HEIs 476 branches of non-state HEIs (satellite HEIs)

1. The State “empowerment” – privateness limitation

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130.00

1,000.00

2,000.00

3,000.00

4,000.00

5,000.00

6,000.00

7,000.00

8,000.00

State funded students Students in public HEIs paying tuition feesStudents in private HEIs

Private HEIs have come under threat of closing as soon as quality is becoming a major governmental concern

By 2015 53 private HEIs and 59 private satellites have been closed, 44 private HEIs are at the stage of reorganization

%

2. Market “empowerment” – forcing competition

Allocation public funds – competition basis:• Every year public and private HEIs prepare

application for the number of students that they are planning to attract.

• Better HEIs get more budgetary-funded student numbers

“New licensing” Monitoring of HEIs’ performance• Transparent data• Niches’ building (development milestones)• Competitive environment building

DiscussionWhat determines higher education regimes?

• Socio-cultural context• Political-economic factors• Political conjuncture

References• Clark, B.R. 1983. The Higher Education System. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of

California Press.• Gornitzka, A., & Maassen, P. 2000. Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European

higher education. Higher Education Policy, 13(3), 267-268.• Jongbloed, B. 2003. Marketisation in higher education, Clark’s triangle and the essential

ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly 57(2): 110–35.• Zumeta, W. 1996. Meeting the Demand for Higher Education Without Breaking the Bank: A

Framework for the Design of State Higher Education Policies for an Era of Increasing Demand. The Journal of Higher Education 67(4)

• Pachuashvili, Marie. ‘Governmental Policies and Their Impact on Private Higher Education Development in Post-Communist Countries: Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Georgia, 1990–2005.’ Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 13, no. 4 (August 2011): 397–410. doi:10.1080/13876988.2011.583108.

DataSource: Statistics CIS (http://www.cisstat.com/); Latvia: Pgrskats par Latvijas augstgko izglrtrbu 2004.gadg (skait[i, fakti, tendences); Central Statistical Bureau database (http://data.csb.gov.lv/); Lithuania: Statistics Lithuania (http://osp.stat.gov.lt/); Estonia: Ministry of Education and Research, HaridusSilm (http://www.haridussilm.ee/); Georgia: National Statistics Office of Georgia (http://www.geostat.ge).

20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 101000Tel.: +7 (495) 628-8829, Fax: +7 (495) 628-7931

www.hse.ru

Thank you!