From Micromanagement to Macromanagement: Principal-Agent Relationships in Higher Education Isak Froumin, Mikhail Lisyutkin, Igor Chirikov Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics

Excellence initiatives around the globe 1989-2004 – 13; 2005-2015 – 37 Whole universities and centers of excellence Most whole universities initiatives – $20-100 mln for support Impact – not much on ranking Some initiatives just set targets but most of them push for changes in the way how universities operate (Salmi, 2016; Froumin, Lisyutkin, 2013) self-acting while remaining the principal – while remaining goal-setter

From demonizing to understanding State involvement in higher education is often described as having negative impact Universities’ autonomy is considered as absolute good Could we look objectively on the state-university interaction? self-acting while remaining the principal – while remaining goal-setter

Focus on the relationships between the universities and the state Scope of the study Focus on the relationships between the universities and the state Desk analysis of the excellence initiatives In-depth analysis of the Russian excellence initiative (incl. interviews) Historical analysis of the relationships between the state and universities in Soviet and post-Soviet time Special meeting of the leaders of the Excellence Initiatives (9 countries) – St-Petersburg, June 2016 self-acting while remaining the principal – while remaining goal-setter

Excellence Initiatives - “pushing” universities for changes Убрать про ньютона Governments are not happy with slow evolution of the higher education institutions Push universities to compete internationally by offering them additional funding and setting targets

Main questions External force (government) changes the speed of the development and gives “acceleration” to the universities. What is the theoretical framework to understand these relationships? Could the push also lead to the development of universities’ capacity for independent actions and goal-setting? Is favorable environment sufficient for the universities to develop the capacity for independent decisions and goals-setting? The relationships dynamic could be better understood in fast changing environment (including non-Western countries). self-acting while remaining the principal – while remaining goal-setter

Organizational actorhood (Krucken) Possible theoretical approach – actorhood 1 Organizational actorhood (Krucken) Universities are becoming organizations: accountability, defining their “own” goals (“as opposed to centrally imposed tasks or assigned societal functions”), the elaboration of formal structure, professionalization of the management (2006) The actor is a goal oriented, bounded, integrated, technically effective entity that is nevertheless not fully autonomous decision-maker (Meyer 2009, Krucken 2013); Organizational actorhood of the universities is being displayed through their relations with the governments and with each other (competition) (2013); This notion helps to understand how the universities respond to the competition Meier нет через организационные структуры

Possible theoretical approach - actorhood 2 This approach does not take into account the dynamics of the relationships with the state in terms of goal-setting The state is considered as the part of the passive environment In reality the goals set by the universities themselves contradict to the goals set by the governments, the dynamics of these interaction is quite complex and can not be grasped by the notion of the organizational actorhood This notion also can not be used to explain how the governments dictate organizational innovations to universities to make them more independent and competitive Meier нет через организационные структуры

Possible theoretical approach – corporate actor Corporate actor combines two functions - the object self (principal) and the acting self (agent)(Coleman, 1974, 1990) Distribution of the goal-setting function (principal) between the government and university is a process with complex dynamics. The principal could transfer the goal-setting function to an agent The state could be considered as mega-corporate actor

University as a principal Agent-principal pendulum University as an agent University as a principal The dynamics of the allocation of the principal functions between the universities and the government during last forty years in Russia could be presented as a pendulum.

Last Soviet period (1980s-1991) During the Soviet years universities were fully state-controlled and the market was completely absent. All the goals for the universities’ development were made by the government. The decisions concerning universities’ activities were made by the government mostly also: Limited and state-defined admission; Part-time evening programs only for those who work; Administrative control of R&D and professional practice; Standards and rules for opening of new HEI and new educational programs; Rigid system-wide uniform educational standards.

Early Russian (post-Soviet) period (1991-2008) After the collapse of the Soviet Union the situation has changed. The universities got much more autonomy in making decisions and goal-setting: Private higher education institutions were allowed to be created; Opportunity to accept fee-paying students; Elections of the universities’ rectors; Introduction of (1) more market-oriented and (2) part-time educational programs; Развитие организаций Independent personnel policy (including international recruitment); Autonomy in defining priorities for research and development activities; *At the same while becoming more and more independent in the goal-setting and decision-making early post-Soviet universities started leaving “public purposes” beyond their activities.

Modern Russian period (2010s) Recent higher education policy in Russia pushes the principal-agency pendulum back to the government which is taking more and more principal functions. It is proved by the design and the implementation of the recent projects on universities’ development (overall conditions for universities activity remained the same generally): Monitoring for universities effectiveness defining particular indicators for their education, research, international and financial activities; Flagship universities project promoting mergers of the higher education institutions and greater regional involvement; Russian excellence initiative (Project 5 to 100)

Russian excellence initiative The government: sets research and development priorities (by assessing particular research centers – “strategic academic units”); forces universities to attract foreign students, researchers and teachers; promotes model of Strategic academic units develop detailed criteria for universities performance and monitor their progress; Introduces new model of training and research – integration of education and research Basic goals are being set and critical decisions are being made outside the universities (by the government). Examples of other direct interventions within the EIs: Merger of leading French universities with the research organizatons Transforming graduate education within German excellence initiative Hiring international faculty in Chinese 985 program

Is "Leviathan" growing? Recent higher education policy in many countries represents transition to the situation when the principal (goal-setting) functions are taken by the government; Government actions are contradictory: while introducing elements of the competition, the state determines the directions of the development of universities; Big coporation of higher education State intervenes in the management of universities. At the same time the government explicitly demands initiative and entrepreneurial behavior fro universities State is impatient

Conclusion The challenge for the governments is to find the right instruments to ensure that enough principal functions are being performed by the universities (not “usurped” by the government). New theoretical model is needed to consider the development of universities’ capacity for independent goal-setting and decision-making in dynamic perspective. It could be based on the idea of corporate actor. Questions for further research: What are the particular characteristics of the environment favorable for the universities’ capacity for independent goal-setting and self-acting development? Does the idea of “pushing” work for building strong corporate actorhood? What policy mechanisms and instruments should be implemented to “stimulate” universities to gaining such capacity?