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 Semyonov Isak Froumin Daria Platonova Institute 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-planning Market-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? Liberalization non-state HE sector Decentralization of incomes Tuition fees Privatization of public HEIs Competitive basis competition for students R&D

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

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%na Russia 62%55% Tajikistan 60% Lithuania 50%na Estonia 45%40% In most cases non- government HEIs become legitimate Cost-sharing model by introduction of tuition fees Early 1990s First (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 funds 54% - 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 Private HEIs have come under threat of closing as soon as quality is becoming a major governmental concern By 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

Discussion What determines higher education regimes? Socio-cultural context Political-economic factors Political conjuncture

References Clark, B.R The Higher Education System. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Gornitzka, A., & Maassen, P Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European higher education. Higher Education Policy, 13(3), Jongbloed, B Marketisation in higher education, Clark’s triangle and the essential ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly 57(2): 110–35. Zumeta, W 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: / Data Source: Statistics CIS ( Latvia: Pgrskats par Latvijas augstgko izglrtrbu 2004.gadg (skait[i, fakti, tendences); Central Statistical Bureau database ( Lithuania: Statistics Lithuania ( Estonia: Ministry of Education and Research, HaridusSilm ( Georgia: National Statistics Office of Georgia (

20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, Tel.: +7 (495) , Fax: +7 (495) Thank you!