1. On Accessibility and Equity, Market Forces, and Entrepreneurship: Developments in Higher Education in Central and Eastern Europe Institute of Education, University of London, December 5, 2006 Professor Marek Kwiek Center for Public Policy Poznan University, Poznan, Poland kwiekm@amu.edu.pl www.cpp.amu.edu.pl

2. (1) Introduction Developments seen from the perspective of 4 interrelated issues: –(1) Access and equity: Poland as a „success story” –(2) Market-driven private HE: its role and legitimacy –(3) Higher education and reforming the public sector in general: increasing competition for scarce resources –(4) Entrepreneurialism of the emergent private sector (reflections from the EUEREK project) Introduction, sections (1) – (4), conclusions

3. (2) Equity and Access CEE countries facing a combination of specific challenges: an unprecedented passage from elite to mass HE under conditions of permanent financial austerity, and economic transformations toward market economies Efforts to achieve equitable, accessible HE in most transition countries have NOT been succesful The enrollment gap Western OECD/transition economies has NOT diminished in 1990-2005

4. (2) Equity and Access Question: how to substantially widen access to HE in a relatively equitable manner under conditions of permanent financial austerity? Why Poland, in contrast to most other transition countries, represents a significant decrease in inequality of access, both type I access (how many) and type II access (who)? Success data: from 400,000 to 2,000,000 students and from 2 percent to 20 percent of those from disadvantaged (rural) families (1990 to 2005)

5. (2) Equity and Access Why success in Poland? Accessibility has increased because of the market forces in HE, academic entrepreneurialism (and individual academic entrepreneurs) and the competiton (private-private, public-private, public-public). Since 2000s, new students increasingly come from disadvantaged social bacgrounds Rate of success: 5 times more students, 10 times more students previously underrepresented in HE

6. (2) Equity and Access The key positive factors in Poland: -the liberal attitude of the state and its agencies („the policy of non-policy”) -The liberal quality assurance mechanisms and licensing and accreditation procedures -Growing social legitimacy and public recognition of the private sector (no state subsidies, though) -Teaching-oriented entrepreneurialism of publ.HE -The structural reform of all levels of education (1997)

7. (2) Equity and Access 1989-1999, the decade of biggest changes in enrollments in CEE countries. –Starting point, gross enrollment rates 1989 below 10 percent: Albania and Romania 10-15: Slovakia, Hungary, post-Soviet Central Asian republics 15-20: the Czech Republic, Poland, Croatia, Macedonia, Moldova, (Armenia and Georgia) 20-25: Slovenia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine Highest: Lithuania (28 percent) and Estonia (36 percent) –Gross enrollment rates 1999: often over 40 percent (Lithuania (40), Poland (43), Estonia (45), Latvia (46), Slovenia (51)

8. (2) Equity and Access The trend continues in 2000s, the highest growth in enrollments in Europe 1998-2002 was in CEE: Romania 61 percent Poland60 percent Three Baltics40-57 percent The Czech R., Slovakia and Hungary 32-46 percent EU-25 average16 percent

9. (2) Equity and Access The radical expansion of HE accompanied by financial austerity, the emergence of market mechanisms in public institutions (previously immune to market forces) and the arrival of new, private providers (Poland, Romania) Public revenues (and willingness of gov.) too scarce to accomodate the needs of expanding public systems: partial „cost-sharing” mechanisms

10. (3) Private HE: Role and Legitimacy PHE in Western Europe, in general, marginal Enrollments in PHE in CEEs: –Exceeds 10 percent in Belarus, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Ukraine –Exceeds 20 percent in Latvia, Moldova, Romania –Exceeds 30 percent in Estonia and Poland –700 PHE institutins in CEEs in 2004 (300 in Poland, 200 in Ukraine, 70 in Romania)

11. (3) Private HE: Role and Legitimacy Poland –Full state control of HE until 1989 –3 PHEIs in 1991, 250 in 2002, 301 in 2005 –Smooth development, increasing state supervision –Grappling for legitimacy –Parallel expansion of public HE, and fee-paying mode at public HEIs

12. (3) Private HE: Role and Legitimacy HE as an affordable product for previously under- represented segments of society In an elite fully public system – marginalization, social exclusion, being cut off from HE PHE in CEEs – no state subsidies, mostly a teaching sector The role of PHE is bound to grow: the need for the massification of HE under severe resource constraints (and under current preferences for national priorities in social spending)

13. (4) HE and competition for resources Public spending for HE in CEEs per student is three times lower than in biggest EU-15 economies; much worse in R&D spending –France, Italy, Germany, the UK 8-10 (per student in PPS in thousand EUR) –For most CEES – 3 (Poland 3.9, Latvia 3.0, Lithuania 3.1, Bulgaria 3.2, Romania 3.4) –Highest in Slovakia (4.9), the Czech R. (5.2), and Hungary (7.0)

14. (4) HE and competition for resources A zero-sum game for goverments in transition economies: current politics vs. long-term policies Universities in CEEs – weakest priority Social policy in CEEs – almost the last place in priorities (declarations vs. spending patterns) Competition between state-funded programs Taxes shall not be raised PHE in CEEs – a realistic option available if (1) chronic underfunding of public HE and (2) structural inability of public HE to accomodate new students cannot be overcome

15. (4) HE and competition for resources The capacities (infrastructure, staff) of public HEIs have not changed much Pressures on welfare state provision: theoretical and practical impact (shift more in thinking about public services); towards new legislation, and reforms: multi-pillar pensions, semi-privatized health care, decentralization of funding in lower- level education)

16. (5) Entrepreneurship of private HE E. of new pivates vs. that of old-style unreformed public institutions: islands of E. in public HE, and almost exlusively teaching-related E. in private HE But no immediate negative impact on equitable access to private HE PHE views itself as less entrepreneurial

17. (5) Entrepreneurship of private HE Access to research funds – limited Major concern – to survive, heavy dependence on student fees No major academic risks taken No diversified funding base (no third-stream income and no „university-generated” income reported) No major top-slicing or cross-subsidization Definitely strenghtened steering core, reduced collegiality (managerial styles)

18. (5) Entrepreneurship of private HE The marginal role of „extended developental peripheries”, no major roles for new academic and administrative units (as opposed to public institutions) No changes in the balance of power in management by new peripheral research (or teaching) units Marginal involvement in research Major area of competition: students and their fees

19. (6) Tentative conclusions Huge diversification of HE systems: CE, EE, Western and Eastern Balkans: diferent solutions of the access/equity issue Success stories of increased and equitable access (Poland, Romania): powerful private sector, off- loading the state, charging customers/students Higher private R&D spending (in contrast to private education spendings) hard to achieve Growing gap: increasingly teaching-oriented HE in most CEEs vs. increasingly knowledge- intensive, research-funded HE in Western Europe

20. (6) Tentative conclusions If the idea of „Europe of Knowledge” is to be taken seriously, prospects for HE in CEEs seem bleak indeed But at least from an access/equity perspective, things are changing rapidly and in a very good direction! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!