Ayenachew Assefa Woldegiyorgis
Abstract
The emergence of New Public Management (NPM) in the 1980s and its popularization through the 1990s has resulted in massive reforms in the public sector of many western countries. Privatization and structural reforms became common practice; marketization, market-like, new approaches of governance, ‘network governance’, ‘evaluative state’, state supervision, accountability (Boer & File, 2009, p.9), decentralization and autonomy came to be key words in everyday language. In the meantime, in developing countries, like Ethiopia, political instability and power struggle did not give enough space for reforms to take place in the public sector. Until recently, and even currently, in most developing countries, the public sector, in general and the Higher Education (HE) sector in particular, is under the heavy hands of the state.
This paper attempts to draw a general picture of the changes that have taken place in the past decade and the likely future of the higher education sector in Ethiopia by taking the perspective of NPM as analytical framework. It specifically relies, as analytical tool, on what is called “the governance equalizer” by Boer, Enders and Schimank (2007, p.4) which focuses on the five dimensions of NPM: state regulation, stakeholder guidance, academic self-governance, managerial self-governance and competition. The paper begins by introducing the Ethiopian higher education sector, gives a short description of the methods used and the corresponding methodological limitations encountered, discusses analysis of the governance equalizer, and concludes with assessment of strengths and weaknesses of changes in the sector based on the equalizer as criteria.
1. Introduction
Before proceeding to the discussion of the status of the Ethiopian higher education in terms of the governance equalizer, it will be extremely important to take a brief look at the peculiar characteristics of higher education in Ethiopia. By looking at these points and establishing the background we will be able not only to better understand but also to justify some of the issues to be discussed in the later part of this paper. In doing so it is important to look at how long the Ethiopian higher education has existed, what the major area of emphasis has been in the past two decades and its relationship with politics [and state].
A) Having short history:
Modern higher education in Ethiopia has a history of only a little more than sixty years. The founding of the first higher education institution, the University College of Addis Ababa, in 1950, marked the beginning of modern higher education in the country (ICHEFP, n.d.). Later promoted to Hailesillassie I University in 1960, and renamed Addis Ababa University in 1974, remained the only university until the establishment of Alemaya University in 1985 (elevated to university status from Alemaya Agricultural College as part of Addis Ababa University). No graduate program was offered until mid 1979 (Araia, 2004). Until the government launched a set of new universities by the end of 1990s, there were only two universities and more than fifteen affiliated higher education institutions of different kind. In their academic organization, these institutions were somewhat more American and less British than higher education systems in the former British colonies of East Africa. Many of these institutions hosted an educational culture that was heavily influenced by its long informal association with the Orthodox Church (Wagaw, 1990).
It is very important to note that though higher education has a short history in its modern (secular) sense, Ethiopia possesses a more-than 1,700 year tradition of elite education linked to the Orthodox Church (Saint, 2004, p.84). While the elementary religious teaching was the basic education that everyone was expected to attend, many of which end in church services as deacons and priests, the equivalent of higher education was reserved for students who intended to advance themselves to becoming debtera or liq. This was a very small elite group of scholars. Advanced courses were only offered at special centers located in northern region of the country (Education Encyclopedia, n.d.). As the Ethiopian Orthodox Church assumed the exclusive task of designing and propagating the education system during this time, the central subjects were the religious beliefs, values, and practices of the Church. Nonetheless, in addition to religious instruction, the teaching had a secular component that dealt with Ethiopia’s history and socio-political organization (Pankhurst, 1955). Therefore higher education of this period can be notably characterized by small number of students (elite), and content largely focused on Ethiopia (Ethio-centered).
This in general implies that the Ethiopian higher education system, having such a short history, cannot be on the same ground for evaluation, in terms of reforms pertinent to the governance equalizer, compared to the higher education systems of European countries where the only reforms have lasted for more than thirty years.
B) Massive Expansion
Another typical character of the Ethiopian higher education for the past fifteen years is the massive expansion underway. Expansion of the education sector in general was the agenda of both the Imperial and Dergue eras. However the expansion process in both cases was highly focused on primary and to some extent on secondary education. The current government however, against all the criticisms, has been successful in the expansion of education at all levels. The expansion in the tertiary level, in recent years, is rather remarkable. The amount of investment in the massification of higher education is estimated to have reached as high as 4.2% of the gross domestic product (Ashcroft, 2010a).
The Ministry of Education (MoE) launched five new universities by the turn of the century (by upgrading junior level institutions) marking the beginning of this aggressive massification program. By the year 2014/15 Ethiopia will have 33 full-fledged universities compared to only two by the end of the 1990s. Total enrollment has increased from 42,132 in 1996/97 to 192,165 in 2004/05 (MoE, 2005, p.12) quadrupling in less than a decade. The annual enrolment growth rate of 50.86 per cent was possibly the highest in the world during this period (Waweru &Abate, 2011). It further reached 319,217 in 2010/11 and is targeted at 467,445 by 2014/15(MoE, 2010, p. 62 - 64).
Yet the massification process is not without a problem, the biggest of which is related to quality and proper management. As Yizengaw (2005, p.5) puts it “tertiary education remains underdeveloped, access is still very low and the quality and relevance of the education and research activities of the institutions are not up to expected standards and levels”. In some cases, the opening of new universities is considerably politically motivated. Some of the universities are opened in areas where there is chronic shortage of infrastructures and where qualified academic and administrative staffs, and even students, are not willing to go. This in itself leads to improper organization of the universities as they are there only for satisfying quota. Above all, with all the attention and resources devoted to the overarching issue of massification, the Ethiopian higher education had very little chance of sustainably enjoying the necessary reforms it needed.
C) Higher education and Politics
Higher education and state (the political power) have always had a precarious relationship in Ethiopia. This two way relationship works in such a manner that each supplies the other but remains suspicious of the same. On the supply side, the higher education system contributes to the always elitist government and policy making system (Abebe, 2011) while the institutions are fully funded and controlled by the state. On the other hand, the university has always been a source of resistance, protest, revolution and even a starting point of an armed struggle. In return all the three regimes [the imperial, the Dergue and the EPRDF regimes] have been, at one time or another, brutally repressive to the university (Balsvik, 2007). The government therefore has all the justification to look at the higher education system as a potential source of resistance to power and to use all the possibilities to keep it under a close supervision, and manipulative maneuver when necessary. With interest to look at the current state of higher education in Ethiopia it is important to consider the profound impact of the 2005 election (Abbink, 2006); how stringent measures are taken by the government that affected every single higher education institution in terms of its management practices, academic freedom and governance – a setback in almost every aspect of institutional autonomy.
2. Methodology of the paper and limitations
The construction of this paper relied on two major forms of data: secondary data of literature, and interview. First, existing literature on Ethiopian higher education: researches, reports, statistical abstract, commentaries, official documents…etc are used as major source of information. Second a skype interview with an expert has been undertaken as a way of supplementing the secondary source of data.
Yet it is worth to mention the methodological limitations encountered in the process. The first thing is, as in all other areas in Ethiopia, there is lack of properly organized data. The MoE web site does not have relevant data accumulation. It does not even have the annual reports which the ministry prepares every year and present to the House of Peoples Representatives (HPR), even though this is normally assumed to be a public information. The educational statistics abstract are not consistent in timing; some year data are not available. One of the directly concerned institutions, the Higher Education Strategy Center (HESC) does not even have an online presence (as of October 19, 2012).
The second problem was the existence of extreme views on the subject leading to the questioning of the reliability of information. Mainly because of the high degree of politicization of education in Ethiopia, what the government reports and what the opposition parties, independent media and civic organizations claim are quite different sometimes both in direction and magnitude. This polarization of views is also reflected in the writings of the academics. For instance while Yizengaw (former vice minister of Education) and Ashcroft (advisor to the MOE) write about the remarkable success achieved in the higher education sector (Yizengaw 2003, 2005; Ashcroft 2004, 2010a, 2010b), on the contrary, scholars like Bishaw, Negash and Telila write about crisis and collapse of the same (Bishaw, 2002; Negash, 2006; Telila, 2010). This polarization makes it difficult to get a clear picture of what actually is happening, or which direction the Ethiopian HE is going.
3. The Governance Equalizer
What is the governance equalizer? Boer, Enders & Schimank use the analogy of the equalizer which is an electronic device that allows attenuation or emphasis of selected frequencies in an audio spectrum. ‘It can be used to alter the relative balance of frequencies to produce desired tonal characteristics in sounds. Assuming that a configuration of governance is made up of a specific mixture of the five dimensions at a particular point of time, in the equalizer model each of the five governance dimensions can be turned up or down independently from each other’(2007, p.3-4). These dimensions of higher education governance are:
State regulation: refers to the traditional notion of top-down authority the state is endowed with, and with which it regulates through directives. The government provides for detailed expected behavior of institutions.
Stakeholder guidance: refers to the idea of directing universities with the advice and participation of stakeholders. Even though government is a very important stakeholder for public universities, it is not necessarily the only one. Powers of the government over the universities may be delegated to a lower level governance body usually in a form of board, which in turn is composed of representatives of concerned parties such as industry, intermediaries and society.
Academic self-governance: refers to the institutionalization of collegial decision-making within universities and the peer review-based self-steering of academic communities, for instance in decisions of funding agencies.
Managerial self-governance: refers to the role of university leaders at the top and middle level in goal setting, regulation, and decision-making. It is concerned with what universities look like, as organizations, in terms of internal hierarchies.
Competition: refers to the race within and between universities for scarce resources – money, personnel, and prestige. These competitions do not necessarily take place in “real” markets but mostly in “quasimarkets” where performance evaluations by peers substitute the demand pull from customers.
4. Governance equalizer of the Ethiopian Higher Educaiton
Now let us turn to looking at what the Ethiopian higher education system looks like in terms of each of the five dimensions of the governance equalizer. This part is divided in to two: the first looks back at changes that happened in the past fifteen years while the second attempts to look in to the future.
4.1. The Past
While the 1994 Education and Training Policy [of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia] is still in force, since the end of the 90s a number of reform agendas have been pursued. The 2003 Higher Education Proclamation no.351 was a significant outcome of the reform process. The proclamation, for the first time, came up with a comprehensive legal framework to govern issues of higher education. In 2009 this proclamation was replaced by a new one (proclamation650/2009) which has introduced certain changes. However for both of the proclamations key issues were left for further regulation by the Ministry of Education and both lack far behind in terms of effective implementation.
A) State regulation
The Ministry of Education, [along with its institutions], is the federal government body mandated for oversight and regulatory provisions of the education sector in general (Yizengaw, 2003). In the public higher education state control appears to be very strong and can be explained in different ways.
Budget dependence: Ethiopian public universities are generally funded by the state. This situation gives the government the prerogative of giving detailed instructions as to what it wants from the universities, and has put the universities in a weak position to negotiate with the government on the directions they intend to pursue. The 2009 proclamation (650/2009) indeed stipulates block grant method of budgeting. Article 62 (1) states that “public institutions shall be funded by the federal government or states through block grant system based on strategic plan agreements”. This, which theoretically could have given better bargaining power for the HEIs, has not so far come in to practical effect. As witnessed by Ashcroft and Rayner (2011), ‘the problem is compounded by an inflexible system of line budget negotiation between government and institutions that encourages universities to cling to the status quo as far as the expenditure is concerned, to overstate their needs and to spend to the limit’.
Appointment of the board and the president: Since the board is the highest governing body of a university, another way government control can be seen is in how the board members and the president of a university are appointed and by examining their affiliation with the government. In this regard while the 2003 law goes unclear about how board members are appointed or elected, the 2009 proclamation (650/2009), making the board accountable to the ministry (Article 42(2)), states that four out of the seven voting board members, including the chairperson, are directly appointed by the minister, and the remaining three are appointed by the minister, upon the recommendation of the president who in turn is appointed by the minister himself (Article 45(2),(3); Article 52(1)). In other words, all the board members and the president of all universities are one way or another appointed by the minister. This being so, it is very unrealistic to expect the university governance to be independent of state influence. Besides, the ministry reserves the right to reform the board fully or partially (Proc. 650/2009, Article 47(5)).
Dictation of strategies and reforms: Mehari (2010, p.87) observed that reforms in universities are dictated by the state. The universities have no opportunity to resist the change that comes in a unidirectional flow from the center. Moreover, since the launch of the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) in 2010, every public institution is required to revise its policies and strategies in conformity to the GTP. That in deed extends even to academic programs and curriculum of universities. Though [theoretically] universities have the right to open, close and to determine the content and structure of academic programs, that can be done only as per the interest of MoE regardless of the interest and readiness of the universities (ibid, p.75).
Staffing of [new] universities: The government centrally hires and assigns graduate assistants mostly to the new universities, thereby denying them the right to hire the person they want. Besides the vice presidents of universities are appointed by the board which simply is an indirect appointment by the government.
The 70-30 policy: The government has recently launched a policy that 70% of students in higher education have to go to fields of natural sciences and technology, while the remaining 30% go to the social sciences and humanities (MoE, 2010, p.63). This is done in each university without any discretion left for the universities - whether or not they have the interest and the capacity.
B) Stakeholder Guidance
The involvement of various stakeholders in the governance affairs of universities is another dimension of governance to consider. In this regard, reports in general suggest that the Ethiopian higher education has the state to be the most significant stakeholder in all areas. Contrary to this, Ashcroft (2010b) argues that higher education has become adapted to government objectives, donor agendas, internal stakeholders and the operation of differential power among stakeholders. More student involvement in matter such as evaluation and governance are promoted. Points that can help show the stakeholder involvement include:
General Objectives:One of the objectives of higher education in general is set to ensure participation of key stakeholders in governance of institutions (Proc.650/2009, Article 4(6)). Yet there are no details provided as to how that can be realized, in effect, the objective of stakeholder involvement remains rhetorical.
C) Academic self governance
To what extent do academics participate in the various affairs of the university? How much collegial decision making is exercised? Considering the following points gives a mixed picture of the situation where contending views prevail.
Participation of the Academic Staff: On one hand, there is a significant difference between the old/established and the newly emerging universities- generally it is observed that in the old universities the role and /or influence of the academics in the decision making is significant; more of a collegial approach is used; while in the new universities the academics is under a vertical authority of the management giving the earlier less chance to influence decisions (personal communication, October 2012). On the other hand, from the perspective of the law, academic staff are not only allowed but also have the duty of participating in various committees, in their respective departments and colleges, dealing with academic matters. Besides, the HE proclamation requires that academic staff be included in the senate and university council (Article 50 (2); Article 57(1)). On the contrary, Mehari (2010, p.87) argues that the bureaucratic nature of the governance model influences the academic community not to fully participate in the university affairs. But it is important to note that there is no clear distinction between academic and managerial responsibilities. In all universities most managerial positions are assumed by academic staff, not by purely managerial professionals. A person with a managerial position also assumes teaching duties.
Overall Academic freedom: the prevalence of academic freedom in general reflects the extent to which academic staff can decide on various matters including, but not limited to, academic affairs. Various human right reports (Human Rights Watch, 2003; US State Department, 2010) and researches by independent institutions/scholars (Teferra, 2005; Forum For Social Studies, 2007; Areaya, 2010) report that there exists a gross violation of academic freedom in Ethiopian public universities.
D) Managerial Self governance
As far back as 2003 the government claims that ‘In order to improve efficiency, there is a push towards decentralization of management to the level of departments, which at the moment is only at the level of faculties in only few universities. To revitalize institutional governance, new board structures were put in place. Board members include regional government representatives (to assist local networking and close working relations with the community)’ (Yizengaw, 2003, p.12). It further says that ‘accountability to the institution’s community (students, staff, etc.) and the public at large is also an issue addressed by the reform. Accountability involves transparency, participatory management, and efficiency. The fundamental question of accountability revolves around who is to be held accountable, for what, to whom, through what means, and with what consequences. Putting in place mechanisms of accountability helps avoid arbitrary and corrupt power’ (ibid, p.13).
Yet it is important to note that what is referred to as ‘reform’ in this context is the changes that were incorporated in the 2003 higher education proclamation, the realization of these changes was far away from reality. On the contrary even in recent years studies suggest otherwise. For instance Ashkroft (2010b) describes the internal management situation of public universities as filled with tension ‘control versus autonomy, modernization versus 'government knows best', democracy versus the need to control dissident voices. Dilemmas arise within institutions themselves because of these tensions and the need for managers to work out the hidden as well as overt agendas’. Mostly related with the degree of state regulation, the extent to which universities enjoy autonomy in determining their internal affairs can generally be reflected in the following points.
Financial Autonomy: Though the HE law provides for financial autonomy of universities to receive their budget in block grant form, and determine their own ways of utilization, it has not been practically realized yet (Mehari, 2010; Ashcroft & Rayner, 2011).
Setting of Vision and Mission: the setting of vision and mission is the starting point for any institution to determine what it pursues and how. Though universities are allowed to set their own vision and mission, due to the state influence the vision and mission of all universities is closely similar to that of the MoE itself (Mehari, 2010). This is because even though universities may develop their own vision and mission in quite independent manner from that of the ministry, practically they have to follow the directions of the ministry and their vision and mission would have to be shaped accordingly.
Staffing Autonomy: Mehari observed that because budget cannot be administered the way the universities determine and because all employees of universities have to be administered in a centrally determined manner, universities do not have the chance to compete in the labor market and attract excellence (ibid, p.85).
Centralized decision: Though the HE proclamation has created the room for a more decentralized structure, practically universities still have tall organizational structure and decisions are pushed down from the top. There exists trust issue between university managers and presidents on one side and the government on the other. The government does not have confidence on the competence of the management while the later have the fear of their decisions being overruled by the earlier (Ashcroft, 2010a).
E) Competition
Taking consideration of the above discussed issues i.e. absence of financial autonomy, lack of staffing autonomy, complete dependence on government budget, centralized direction and decisions etc. it is impractical to imagine competition among the Ethiopian public universities. Students up on completion of secondary school are assigned by MoE not only to the different universities but also to the field of study they will study. Therefore competition for students is nonexistent. The only possible kind of competition available is competition for reputation or good will. Two years ago MoE has launched annual competition and ranking of universities based on overall performance. Though the competition does not have a clear structure and guideline known to all, it takes a number of issues in to account e.g number of programs, research engagement, community services, conformity to quality standards, etc. Even this lacks proper communication not only to the general public but also to the competing universities themselves (personal communication, October 2012).Without the results well publicized, the competition does not make any difference on the image of the universities and the institutions also will have no motivation to participate and to endeavor to a better rank.
4.2. The Future
Higher Education in Ethiopia has always been a derivative of the political situation. There has never been a long term plan that could stand political changes. That makes it difficult for anyone to make a reasonable forecast about the future of higher education in the country. Currently the longest plan the government has set out for the sector is the Education Sector Development Program (ESDP) IV. This is the continuation of the previous three similar plans each covering five years plan of the government in all levels of the education sector. The current plan, ESDP IV, covers the years 2010/11 to 2014/15. Therefore this particular section of the paper is based on this official document of the MoE and can extend as far as only three years in to the future. Moreover, the forecast that are made are on the basis of expectation that the 2009 higher education proclamation would be effectively implemented and the ESDP IV plans shall be realized in practice. Later on, whether that became a reality or not is a question that requires a study. Taking these points in consideration lets go back to the dimensions of the equalizer to see what we can possibly think of the Ethiopian higher education in the future.
A) State regulation:
State regulation is likely to continue strong for the coming years as the government has made it clear that it needs to keep its control over certain sectors to ensure the effective implementation of the GTP. This can be understood by looking at the ESDP IV plans and how detailed the MoE responsibilities are for the higher education targets to be achieved by 2014/15 (MoE, 2010, p.62-68). The kind of mistrust that exists between the political power and professionals (discussed in previous sections) indicates that the government wants to continue its control over higher education for the years to come.
This can also be viewed in the general framework of the political ideology of the government, the revolutionary democracy or developmental state, which entails detailed state control over major sectors like education, communication and finance. Therefore as long as this ideological inclination stays valid, one can safely stipulate that state regulation in the higher education sector will remain the same.
B) Stakeholders guidance
It has been realized in the past few years that the inclination to attach to and work with industry has increased at institutional level particularly in fields like engineering and agriculture. Besides, community based education and professional practices and apprenticeship are gaining more recognition in the older universities which indirectly allows stakeholders to involve in university matters. The ESDP IV put a target to achieve higher degree of stakeholder consideration in the management and research activities of universities by 2015 (MoE, 2010). However, there are no details with regard to how this is going to take effect. With respect to stakeholder involvement in the governance system of universities, the 2009 proclamation generally goes positive. But, again, this has to be viewed with the government’s interest to keep its hands in the daily business of the universities. The more is the stakeholder participation, the less will be the direct control of the government, which the later does not seem willing to trade.
C) Academic self governance
The new universities are more populated with young academics mostly with just a first degree. The chance that academics may have strong influence in the decision making process remains doubtful for reasons of lack of experience and comprehensive understanding of the higher education landscape in the country. In the meantime it is important to note that assignment of the young academics is done more on the basis of political commitment to the ruling party than competence (personal communication, October 2012). This coupled with the contradicting ideas between the legal requirement and observations of the practical aspect (c.f. Mehari, 2010) in general suggests that the academic self governance appears to continue with its current state as long as a major reform is not taking place in this particular regard, which at this point in time is not implied in any way.
D) Managerial self governance
The government, along with donors, has recently initiated capacity building programs directed to administrative and academic staff of universities as well as their institutional systems (MoE, 2010). On the other hand there has been a growing tendency towards more financial autonomy, which in turn, requires the desired level of capacity on the side of the universities. It has been proposed that the budgeting system of universities change to a block grant form that base on performance of the institutions. However this could not be realized because of lack of institutional capacity. Further, institutional self-assessment of their own strengths and weaknesses is expected to lead institutions to seek and implement improvements (Ashcroft, 2010b). From these one would fairly expect that the government will give more autonomy in decision making for universities and their respective academic units once the desired level of capacity is achieved.
E) Competition
While currently universities are entirely dependent on government budget, there is a plan to promote more income generating activities. ESDP IV accentuates this target of ‘building the capacity of the universities in generating sufficient income i.e. 5% of the budget shall be their internal income that can enable them to strengthen the relevance and quality of their training’ (MoE, 2010, p.65). This possibly promotes the competition in different areas of income generation including distance education, consultancy services, trainings, research, and sale of other products and services. However, this is, to some extent, challenged by the fact that the universities operate in different geographic areas and their target market usually lies in their respective region. On the other hand if block grant form of budgeting takes effect, universities will compete in various forms for resources.
5. Concluding remarks
Considering the move to NPM in higher education as a general framework (normative scenario) and specifically using the governance equalizer as a tool or criteria for evaluation, it can be said that, overall, the Ethiopian higher education is far away from having NPM driven reforms realized. State regulation is excessively high, leaving institutional autonomy for universities at a very low level. This indeed has been worsened since the 2005 political upheaval which demonstrated strong power resistance in universities and in return to which the government further strengthened its tight control (Personal communication, October 2012). The government not only sets detailed regulations and appoints all the important decision makers, but it also goes all the way interfering in the day to day activities of the universities. An important factor explaining the process of reform implementation in Ethiopian public universities is the MoE’s excessive intervention and control, rather than steering and supervision. The Ministry has become unnecessarily busy by involving itself in to the day-to-day routine activities of public universities (Areaya, 2010). A typical example of the government’s position, in this regard, can be seen in Yizengaw’s (former vice minister of Education) remark: “with universities being public institutions but seeking to free themselves from certain common orientation and guidelines, it has become increasingly difficult for the regulatory body (the Ministry) to monitor and supervise the institutions under its purview” (Yizengaw, 2003, p.3). This has also resulted in the enforcement of uniformity across all universities rather than encouraging institutional diversity by letting them follow their own directions and build their own culture.
Lack of trust between the government and the management of universities has resulted in the absence of institutional autonomy in the aspects of financial management, staffing and internal administrative affairs. It is indeed a positive move that the block grant budgeting was proposed in 2003, and it is included in the 2009 legislation. However even after such a long time it has not come in to practical effect for reasons of lack of capacity by the universities, as claimed by the government, or lack of the government’s will to let things go out of its tight hand, as critics point out. In fact even in the first case the question goes back to the government as it is inherently its responsibility to build the capacity of the universities and to enable them function autonomously.
The attempted top-down reforms keep producing no significant result because of the government’s absolute ownership of the reform agenda that does not give enough space for the participation of the academics and other internal and external stake holders. This reduced the required support of stakeholders for the implementation of the reforms. Therefore, by practically encouraging stakeholder participation in the governance system, the government has to ensure that the reform agenda is set through the consultation of, and is mutually owned by, all concerned bodies inside and around the universities.
It is to be noted that the aggressive massification process in the past fifteen years has achieved remarkable success in terms of enrollment. But there is no point of agreement as to its impact on quality of education and efficient resources management. Areaya notes that it has now become ‘clear that there has been a growing mismatch between the expansion of higher education and availability and management of resources and facilities, leading to declining standards in the quality of instruction and research in Ethiopian public universities’ (Areaya, 2010, p.114). While efforts are made to make universities corporate-like by adopting business models to their organizational and administrative aspects, it is also observed that these changes are turning public universities into simple corporate institutions that treat students as clients. This point may deceitfully look like the exercise of NPM reforms in the universities. But, in fact, it is typically where the whole thing could go wrong. The reinforcement of market principles coupled with the practices of bureaucratic authoritarianism, undermines collegiality on one hand, and encourages managerial efficiency and accountability to the government on the other (Aronowitz, 2000). In effect, the general purpose of education will be undermined and universities degenerate in to knowledge factories.
The alternative is, in general, for the government to rethink its reform efforts in the higher education sector. State control should be relaxed and universities should be endowed with real autonomy by building up their capacity. The overall policy of the government should shift from direct control to facilitation and supervision, from concern with process to concern with outcomes, from directing each institution to creating a competitive environment. Similarly, the optimum parity has to be identified between concern for efficiency and concern for quality. Importing the business principles in to higher education does not necessarily guarantee competition; rather institutional autonomy, academic freedom and professional competence of top management play pivotal role. A proper study should back up the massification program to ensure the balanced match between the expansion and availability of resources and facilities. By promoting all rounded stakeholder participation, internally as well as externally, it is possible to create a sense of belongingness that ensures the commitment of all to contribute for the effective implementation of reforms.
References:
Abbink, J. (2006). Discomfiture of Democracy? The 2005 Election Crisis in Ethiopia and Its Aftermath. African Affairs, 105(419), 173–199.
Abebe, M. (2011). The Quest For A Shift From Users To Makers And Shapers Of Policies: A Review Of Policymaking in the Education Sector in Ethiopia, 1991-2004. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 13(1), 261–277.
Araia, G. (2004). Reflections on the Development of Higher Education in Ethiopia, http://www.africanidea.org/reflections.html (retrieved on 21/6/2011)
Areaya, S. (2010). Tension between Massification and Intensification Reforms and Implications for Teaching and Learning in Ethiopian Public Universities. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 8(2), 93–115.
Aronowitz, S. (2000). The Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the Corporate University and Creating True Higher Learning, Boston: Beacon Press.
Ashcroft, K. & Rayner, P. (2011). An Analysis of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Ethiopian Higher Education, http://www.wes.org/ewenr/PF/11aug/pffeature.htm (retrieved on 09/09/2012)
Ashcroft, K. (2004). The massification of higher education: a comparison of the UK experience and the emerging Ethiopian response. Ethiopian Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 1–20.
Ashcroft, K. (2010a). Ethiopia: Dilemmas of Higher Education Massification. Discussion Paper Issue: 0061. www.hieredu.et (retrieved on 7/2/2011)
Ashcroft, K. (2010b). Ethiopia: Expanding and improving higher education http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100820150903137 (retrieved on 09/09/2012)
Balsvik, R. (2007). The Quest for Expression: State and the University in Ethiopia Under Three Regimes, 1952 – 2000. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press.
Bishaw, M. (2002). Ethiopian Higher Education in Crisis, http://chora.virtualave.net/mekonen-education-crisis.htm (retrieved on 09/09/2012)
Boer, H. D., & File, J. (2009). Higher education governance reforms across Europe. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:HigHer+education + governance+ reforms+across+europe#0 (retrieved on 18/09/2012)
Boer, H. D., Enders, J. & Schimank, U. (2007). On the Way towards New Public Management? The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In Jansen, D. (ed.), New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations: Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration (pp. 135-152). Dordrecht: Springer.
Education Encyclopedia (n.d.) Ethiopia: Higher education. http://education.stateuniversity.com/ pages/458/Ethiopia-HIGHER-EDUCATION.html#ixzz1PxuYqtmo (retrieved on 21/6/2011)
Ethiopian Ministry of Education (2005). Education Sector Development Program III. Addis Ababa: Author.
Ethiopian Ministry of Education (2010). Education Sector Development Program IV. Addis Ababa: Author.
Forum for Social Studies (2007). Recommendation of the National Conference on Academic Freedom in Ethiopian Higher Education Institutions. http://www.fssethiopia.org.et/ recommendation_of_the_national_c.htm (retrieved on 09/09/2012)
Government of Ethiopia (2003). Higher Education Proclamation No. 351/2003, Negarit Gazeta Vol. 9, No. 72 Addis Ababa
Government of Ethiopia (2009). Higher Education Proclamation No. 650/2009, Negarit Gazeta Vol. 15 No. 64, Addis Ababa
Human Rights Watch (2003). Lessons in Repression: Violations of Academic Freedom in Ethiopia, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3f4f59533.html (retrieved on 08/09/2012)
International Comparative Higher Education and Finance Project (n.d.). Higher Education Finance and Cost-Sharing country profile: Ethiopia http://gse.buffalo.edu/org/ inthigheredfinance/files/Country_Profiles/Africa/Ethiopia.pdf (retrieved on 16/10/2012)
Mehari, Y. (2010). Governance in Ethiopian Higher Education System: State-Higher Education Institutions Relationship, the case of Mekelle University (unpublished Master’s Thesis). Department of Management Studies, Tampere University, Tampere.
Negash, T. (2006). Education in Ethiopia: From Crisis to the Brink of Collapse, Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
Pankhurst, S. (1955). Ethiopia: a cultural history. London: Woodford Green Lalibela House.
Saint, W. (2004). Higher Education in Ethiopia: The Vision and its Challenges. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 2(3), 83–113.
Teferra, D. (2005). Academic Freedom, the Academy and Politics in Ethiopia,
https://www2.bc.edu/~teferra/Academic-Freedom.html (retrieved on 09/09/2012)
Telila, L. (2010). Review of some recent literature: Identifying Factors that Affect Ethiopia’s Education Crisis. Ethiopian E-Journal for Research and Innovation Foresight, 2(2), 56–68.
US State department (2010). Human Rights Reports: Ethiopia http://www.state.gov/j/ drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/af/154346.htm# (retrieved on 08/09/2012)
Wagaw, T. G. (1990). The Development of Higher Education and Social Change: The Ethiopian Experience. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Waweru, K. M. & Abate, S. (2011). Higher Education Financing in Ethiopia: Revenue Diversification Strategies http://mku.ac.ke/journals/images/journaldocuments/sample%20 paper.pdf (retrieved on 18/10/2012)
Yizengaw, T. (2003). Transformations in Higher Education: Experiences with Reform and Expansion in Ethiopian Higher Education System. Keynote paper for a Regional Training Conference on Improving Tertiary Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Things That Work! Accra, September 23–25.
Yizengaw, T. (2005). Policy Development in Higher Education in Ethiopia and the Role of Donors and Development Partners. Paper presented at the International Expert Meeting ‘Formulas that work: Making Higher education Support More effective’ The Hague, The Netherlands, May, 23–24.
There has been error in communication with Booktype server. Not sure right now where is the problem.
You should refresh this page.