1. 19 May 2019 CGHE Seminar Series Michael Shattock and Aniko Horvath
Decentralising government: the impact of devolution on the governance of UK higher education
19 May 2019
CGHE Seminar Series
Michael Shattock and Aniko Horvath

2. Some questions
What effect does decentralisation have on UK national HE policy?
What impact might regional interests have on universities previously part of a national system?
Does the retention of research policies in the UK system provide an adequate central control mechanism? And is it necessary?
Does the decentralisation described go far enough? Should it be applied in England—to London? To the Northern Powerhouse? To the West Midlands?

3. Basic Facts 1.
Population: England 55.4m, Scotland 5.5m, Wales 3m, NI 1.8m (For comparison Sweden 10m, Finland 5.5m, Norway 5.2m, Latvia 1.9m)
GDP: England and Scotland comparable; Wales and NI 75% of the European average
No. of universities: England 136, Scotland 19, Wales 6, NI 2

4. Basic Facts 2.
Share of UK student numbers: England 83%, Scotland 8.9%, Wales 5.4%, NI 2%
BUT while only 6% of Scottish students study out of Scotland 27% of Welsh students do and 56% of students studying in Wales are from England. 26% of NI students study outside NI, 90% of international students in NI come from the Irish Republic

5. Basic Facts 3. The devolution process
: national uniform system managed by UGC/UFC with, in NI, Sec of State advised by UGC/UFC
1992: creation of HEFCE in England and of separate Funding Councils in Scotland and Wales
1998: devolution of social, economic and health functions to Scottish Parliament and Govt, Welsh Assembly and Govt and NI Assembly and Executive

6. Basic Facts 4. Revised structure of HE governance
Research: UKRI and Research Councils remain UK govt responsibilities with REF handled through Research England, a subsidiary of UKRI. Distribution of REF QR funding devolved to Funding Councils
Student funding: England—£9250 fees, no cap on student numbers (a market); Scotland –block grant funding, no tuition fees, numbers capped (English students in Scotland pay English tuition fees); Wales--£9000 fees; NI--£4000 fees, numbers capped by universities themselves.
Scotland and Wales retain Funding Councils; England abolishes HEFCE and replaces by Office for Students

7. Methodology of research
Interviews with policy-makers at UK/ England level and two interviews each with policy- makers in Scotland and Wales, one from government and one from Funding Council. One interview with NI Office in NI
Interviews with six universities in England and two each in Scotland, Wales and NI covering Russell group, pre-1992, post-1992, post-post and for-profit institution

8. Differing political cultures: Scotland
‘It’s not because we want to be different, it (Scotland) just is different and it’s (England) that’s got decreasing relevance to how we see things up here’ (senior official)
‘the rocks will melt with the sun before I will allow tuition fees to be imposed on Scotland’s students’ (Alex Salmon, party leader of SNP)
The SNP is ‘a profoundly socialist government’ (chair, governing body); universities were seen as ‘big secondary schools’ by some ministers and officials (another chair of governing body)

9. Differing political cultures: Wales and NI
Wales: non-ideological, middle of the road, Labour Government; decision-making by consensus; traditional belief in universities’ role in the alleviation of poverty
Northern Ireland: Assembly and Executive suspended over a dispute between Sinn Fein and the DUP over the promotion of the Irish language; ‘generally government policy does’nt influence us too much…we are a very autonomous institution’ (senior university officer); inflow of students from the Irish Republic (e.g at Ulster University)

10. Differences in HE policies: Wales
‘you can get the whole of Welsh higher education round a table…which means there are conversations you can have and…a closeness of working relationships which you really could’nt operate in a sector the size of England…and I think that provides opportunities and certain dis-benefits as well (senior Welsh official)
Govt adoption of a tertiary education policy—mergers to reduce numbers of institutions and incorporation into universities of FE colleges
50% of HE funding goes to its one Russell Group university (Cardiff)
Problem of close integration with England

11. Differences in HE policies: Scotland
Intimacy of govt/university relations: ‘that obviously has two sides, the closeness of government has a good side…we have immediate access…we don’t have to go through junior ministers or civil servants, we speak directly to the First Minister or Deputy First Minister or they pick up the phone and speak to us. Now that has positives and negatives.’ (senior university figure)
Govt emphasis on universities’ economic contribution
Govt belief that all universities must be research active
Accountability—Outcome Agreements
Legislation (2016) to make university governing bodies more ‘democratic’

12. Differences in HE policies: NI
Stalemate
No agreement on tuition fees so frozen at levels plus inflation
NI civil servants agree that universities should reduce student numbers to match 2% p.a in unit of resource

13. 'Government' and 'market' - in the four nations (frequency of mentions in our 95+ interviews) [WordSmith]

14. ‘Government’
England: the most frequent descriptors university actors attached to government were ‘financer’, ‘regulator’, ‘ideological’ and ‘lack of trust’.
Scotland: the same descriptors were ‘dominant’, ‘regulator’, ‘financer’ and ‘customer’ (meaning government being the ‘customer’ of universities, directly requesting educational services from universities to serve its needs and/or adjust for inequalities in the existing provision).
Wales: the main descriptors were ‘partner’, ‘steerer’, ‘manager’, ‘financer’, ‘regulator’ and ‘trust’ (of the government).
Northern Ireland, the most frequent descriptors were ‘broken partnership’ and ‘(lack of) finance(er)’.

15. 'GOVERNMENT' AND 'MARKET' BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION IN THE FOUR NATIONS

16. Frequency of mentions of 'marketing' in the four nations

17. Some conclusions
The cultural and economic importance of recognising regional diversity
The value of the decentralisation of some decision-making
The dangers of parochialism/politicisation
The research component—national direction versus local priorities
England the outlier—emphasis on market, entrenchment of institutional hierarchy
Comparison of institutional wellbeing

18. Some questions
What effect does decentralisation have on UK national HE policy?
What impact might regional interests have on universities previously part of a national system?
Does the retention of research policies in the UK system provide an adequate central control mechanism? And is it necessary?
Does the decentralisation described go far enough? Should it be applied in England—to London? To the Northern Powerhouse? To the West Midlands?