E     I     P
		University Autonomy in Twenty Countries
		98/3 Don Anderson Richard Johnson Centre for Continuing Education The Australian National University April 1998
		Evaluations and Investigations Program Higher Education Division Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs

©Commonwealth of Australia 1998

ISBN 0 642 23759 X

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without permission from AusInfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Legislative Services, AusInfo, GPO Box 84, Canberra ACT 2601.

This report is funded under the Evaluation and Investigations Programme of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Executive Summary

This project uses experts’ perceptions to describe and compare the salient features of the governance of the higher education systems in a range of countries relevant to Australia’s situation. The emphasis is on the relationships between the national government (or, where appropriate, also state and regional governments) and higher education institutions—in particular the extent of government influence on university operations

The countries are analysed in three groups each with a different tradition of university autonomy: an Anglo-American group, which includes Australia; a European group, mostly West European but including Russia; and an Asian group. The study asked two questions: whether governments have legal authority to intervene in a number of aspects of university management, and the extent to which governments actually exercise influence in these aspects, whether legally empowered to intervene or not.

The study proceeded by questionnaire administered to government officials of the target countries and, wherever possible, to individuals within those countries known to be expert on the topic. Reliability was very high, there rarely being any large variations in the answers among respondents from the one country. In the few cases where there were, additional information was sought.

On average, in our sample of 20 countries, it is the Anglo-American group where governments are reported to have less authority to intervene and to be less inclined to exert influence. The European group occupies a middle position ahead of the Asian group. There are exceptions, however, particularly with respect to actual government influence.

Australia is seen by the expert respondents consulted in this survey as belonging to the Anglo-American group where governments have relatively little authority to intervene but in the middle of the range when it comes to actually exerting influence.

The judgements of the experts are not dissimilar to the perceptions of academics, who, in a survey of 12 countries conducted by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT) (Glassick 1997), placed Australia second only to Korea, when asked whether ‘there is too much government interference in important academic policies’. In that survey Australian academics, compared with others, typically thought that the government should have less responsibility to define academic policies and should interfere less.

Another international study, made by the Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service (CHEMS) (Richardson & Fielden 1997), examined relations with government by approaching a sample of institutions in Commonwealth countries. Vice-chancellors of Australian universities perceived autonomy to be less than that reported by vice-chancellors in Caribbean countries, but much the same as in United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand.

Within the overall results from the present study there are topics where Australia is notably above the average. These are Students and Governance in the case of authority to intervene; and Students, Governance, and Research and Publication in the case of actually exerting influence.

Nearly all countries reported that their university systems are undergoing reform. Although the direction of change is generally towards greater deregulation and exposure to market competition, respondents are by no means certain that this will result in greater autonomy. Australia has experienced a longer period of reform than most countries, involving as it has fundamental changes to student charges, amalgamations of institutions, quality audits and profile negotiations between institutions and government. In such a context the findings from this survey should not be unexpected.

[Return to top] [Download Full Report]