• Introduction
• Romania by Mihut
• Romania by Calugareanu
• Austria by Nestorowicz
• Serbia by Holubek and Milutinović
• A comparative case of Slovenia, Romania, Serbia and Macedonia in the context of EU membership status
• Vietnam by Nguyen
• China by Zheng
• New Zealand by Traveller
• Ethiopia by Woldegiyorgis

 

Romania

Simona Calugareanu

 

Abstract

The concept of governance has been under debate for more than thirty years now, and many countries changed their perspective in running the public sector on the background of a more and more complex sociopolitical and economical environment, due to the globalization and internationalization factors that are questioning the efficiency of the traditional ways. The need of more efficient and qualitative services to cope with the new competitive market led to a governance configuration that enhanced more and more elements from the private sector, and adapt them to the public one. Universities have not been left aside from all this changes and developments, and the new ways of public management have brought a specific configuration of governance that makes changes in five principal mechanisms of co-ordination or collective control - external regulation, external guidance, academic self-governance, management self-governance and competition - that are relevant for the university sector. Boer, Enders and Schimank have also created a tool by putting these mechanisms together in a “governance equalizer” to illustrate the combination that characterize a particular higher education system of governance in a moment in time, and what is the future tendency of its evolution within that system.

This paper is divided in two main parts. In the first one, will be explained the concepts of governance and New Public Management (NPM) and how they influence higher education institutions, also the way the “governance equalizer” works,  as well as the two models identified by the authors, the traditional one and the entrepreneurial one, with the differences between them. In the second part, the focus will be on the Romanian higher education system, analyzed using the governance equalizer as a tool to identify the position of each one of the five dimensions as they are reflected by it, and their position according to the traditional and entrepreneurial models. In order to give a better understanding of the development of Romanian higher education system, the first section from the paper’s second part will give an overview of the history of higher education in Romania; the second one will be dedicated to the analysis of Romanian higher education system by applying governance equalizer, while the third section regards the strengths and weaknesses of the Romanian higher education.

Keywords: governance, Management, New Public Management, Governance Equalizer

 

The concept of governance and New Public Management expressed in “the governance equalizer” in university systems

The concept of governance reveals a great debate among scholars, going from political philosophy to organizational psychology, but all agreed upon the fact that the term expresses an old phenomenon that exists for “as long as ships are crossing the sea”, implying the “steering the boat” phenomenon, ‘steering’ being the Anglophone word for ‘governance’, which can also be traced back in the classical Latin and ancient Greek words (Kohler, Huber, 2006, p. 79). When talking about the concept of governance, other words with an important role have been identified like ‘leadership’, ‘stakeholder’ or ‘ownership’ that show the broad variety of areas and contexts that the term incorporates and the difficulty in defining it.

In the past two decades, the concept started to receive more and more attention, appreciation and recognition because of all the changes, transformations and reforms that are characterizing the world today are leading towards rethinking the governance strategies in better coping with the growing complexity of the sociopolitical and economical environment and the new trends in development like globalization, internationalization or Europeanization, that have “powerful actors in the scene” (Boer, Enders, Schimank, 2005, p. 2) like European Union, the World Bank, the World Trade Association or the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that are putting to question the traditional ways of governance and their efficiency.

The concept has its roots in the word ‘govern’, but the meaning is much broader, accounting for governing processes that go beyond the actions of ‘governors’ or ‘governments’ and into the state and private institutions and voluntary sectors, three main characteristics being identified by Kohler and Huner (2006): one is governance as regulation, steerage and control in the social, political, economic and institutional contexts; the second is ”a set of practices whereby independent political and/or economic actors coordinate and/or hierarchically control their activities and interactions” (Kohler, Huber, 2006, p. 82); and the third is enhance or promote the legitimacy and efficiency of the social system through setting standards, monitoring processes, reducing conflict or performing allocation functions and organizing negotiation processes. Governance is referring to more areas like corporate governance, good governance, governance as NPM, global governance, economic governance, institutional management, etc... The notion regards a decentralized system with focus on the way authority relations are structured under laws, the rules that articulates the rights and responsibilities and how they interact in different institutions and contexts.  In the public domain, for example, governance regards the rules and mechanisms by which various stakeholders can have decision-making power and also to hold those responsible accountable.

Universities have not been left out from all this changes and developments, and the most important debate has been focused on the notions of autonomy and academic freedom, the responsibility towards society and the accountability towards stakeholders on the ground of wide social changes like increased student demand for higher education and a decrease in public funding for the institutions, a diversification in the financial resources, a growing national and international competitiveness among universities, the introduction of quality assurance measures and a performance based allocation of funds, changes that are affecting universities in the entire world. On this background, universities have to rethink and redesign their governance strategies, and a more and more entrepreneurial approach has been identified; going towards a managerial way of governance, that rearrange the internal organization of the universities around the idea of a modern service enterprise makes the university more aware of the market needs, requests accountability towards stakeholders and transparence, and also the capability of developing strategic goals adjusted according to the people that universities are serving (Kohler, Huber, 2006, p. 85).

A more managerial focus in the governance strategy of universities, the orientation towards market changes and requests, students` needs and the efficiency of the service provided, in search for excellence, but also decentralization of the system leads the way to enhancing NPM in the governance configuration of the universities. NPM has “less state” and “more market” (Boer, Enders, Schimank, 2005, p. 1) as key words for its description and brings a new set of practices from the private domain that can be adapted to the particular needs of higher education institutions. According to the OECD report from 1998, NPM is characterized by a focus on results in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, quality of service; a decentralized management environment which better matches authority and responsibility; a greater client focus and a competitive environment that provides more choice opportunities; the flexibility to explore more cost effective alternatives for provision or regulation, the accountability for results and for establishing due process rather than compliance with a particular set of rules and a related change from risk avoidance to risk management (Pollitt, Dan, 2011, p. 4-5).

NPM brings one specific configuration of governance to higher education institutions that can be described in terms of “relative weight of particular mechanisms” (Boer, Enders, Schimank, 2005, p. 3) with important role in decision-making. There had been identified five principal mechanisms (Kohler, Huber, 2006, p. 85) of co-ordination or collective control relevant for the steering of the university sector:

• External regulation that regards the state authority in setting the policies and rules by which universities have to operate, a top-down approach. Strict regulations by directive prescribed by the state and monitored through certain mechanisms of control.

• External guidance concerns directing universities by negotiation actions and goal-setting which can be done by different stakeholders like the relevant state authorities (government being usually an important stakeholder) but also by other actors like intermediary bodies or representative of industry in the academic boards.

• Academic self-governance concerns collegial decision-making power and the role of professional communities in the university system which leads to the values of egalitarianism and academic meritocracy as their operating principles.

• Managerial self-governance concerns the role of leadership and management of the institution (rector/president, dean) in the goal-setting, regulations and decision-making process.

• Competition for resources (money, staff, prestige and infrastructure) within and between universities that take place on the “quasi-markets” where some form of competitive mechanism introduces a strong layer of management into the governance discourse.

 

Configurations of different ways of governance are made by a specific mixture of all these five dimensions at a particular point in time. These dimensions are “abstractions”, “analytical categories” (Kohler, Huber, 2006, p. 86) that are clearing out the diverse reality of interactions of the governance dimensions, and can be helpful in identifying trends and developments in governance patterns from different perspectives. Using these five dimensions, Boer, Enders and Schimank, in their article “On the way towards New Public Management? The governance of University system in England, the Netherlands, Austria and Germany” created a tool for representing them in a moment in time, in a particular system, and their future tendency within that system. The tool is named “the governance equalizer” (Boer, Enders, Schimank, 2005, p. 4), an equalizer being an electronic device that allows attenuation or emphasis of selected frequencies in a sound system to produce specific sounds, and in this case, the frequencies are represented by the five governance dimensions that can be moved up and down independently from each other. To show how this tool works, the authors illustrated a comparison between how the dimensions are positioned in a traditional model of governance and an entrepreneurial one, based on NPM model of governance:

 

Figure 1. The Governance Equalizer (Kohler, Huber, 2006, p. 87)

As the equalizer illustrates, the traditional model of governance is more characterized by a high influence from the state and the academic self-governance with a very low managerial influence and also scarce stakeholder involvement and on the background of a minimal competition. All this illustrates a model of top-down governance where the state is exercising complete authority in regulating the academic activity. In contrast, the entrepreneurial model characterized by NPM governance, that is more and more influent in the past twenty years mostly in the western European countries, comes with a new arrangement of the dimensions in the equalizer. The role of the state is shifted from a state controlled system to a state supervised one, attenuating the power of command from the top to co-ordination, negotiation processes and ruling from a distance, being more concerned with goal setting. Also the power of academics is lowered, their focus being reduced more to the discovery and transmission of knowledge, and in the same time, the other three dimensions take the lead; stakeholder guidance is more important in orienting the university in creating a good strategy to cope with the high competition that is turning the emphasis from input control to output control regarding post evaluation and performance, increased efficiency in the service delivery and lowering costs. To achieve all this, universities need good managers that can apply different techniques also from the private sector which reflects a high position of the managerial self-governance dimension.

Although, the “governance equalizer” is a good tool in analyzing governance changes because it provides a clear picture of the similarities and differences of systems in time or across countries, it has also its limits, showing rather a subjective image because of the lack of concrete indicators that would permit to operationalize each dimension. Different aspects and forms are included in every dimension’s composition and if taken into consideration, can influence the position in the equalizer (Boer, Enders, Schimank, 2005, p. 15). 

 

Using governance equalizer in analyzing higher education system in Romania

This part of the paper will analyze the Romanian higher education system using “the governance equalizer” as a tool to identify the position of each one of the five dimensions as they are reflected in the Romanian system and their position according to the traditional and entrepreneurial models explain above. But in order to do so, first we have to comprehend how the system developed in Romanian space and what main factors influence it during time.

 

An overview upon the Romanian higher education development

In Romanian context, higher education has a rich tradition dating back over 370 years with the establishment of the first institute of higher education, Academia Vasiliana, (1640), founded by Prince Vasile Lupu in Iasi, as a higher school for Latin and Slavonic languages. The Academy of Bucharest was founded at the end of the 17th Century by Prince Constantin Brancoveanu with a program committed to the promotion of science in Romania by providing academic and professional study programs, followed by the foundation in 1835 of Academia Mihaileana by the Prince Mihail Sturza, aiming for progress and meeting European standards in areas like administration, justice and education. The first university though, was established in Romania at 26 October 1860 in Iasi by Prince Alexandru Ioan Cuza, one year after the declaration of the independent Romanian state. A year later, Academia Mihaileana received also the rank and title of university and in 1864 University of Bucharest was established. In the second half of the 19th century emerged most institutional forms of higher education in Romania. Universities, colleges and research institutions were designed after the French system of specialized institutions and professional schools, combining in their educational philosophy humanistic concepts with advanced professional training in the polytechnic institute (Pierson, Odsliv, 2012, p. 6). During the interwar period there were 16 institutions of higher education in Romania, from which 4 were universities in Iasi, Bucharest, Cluj and Cernauti (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 21-23).

The development of Romanian higher education system had a smooth trajectory from its beginnings till the Second World War. During this time there was a growing demand for higher education and a permanent concern regarding its improvement and organization. The main laws that governed Romanian higher education system were Spiru Haret Law that stimulated the development of the research sector, the Educational Code and the Law on the Organization of University Education which make Romanian universities autonomous state institutions, each faculty being able to have its own internal regulations and the teachers had academic freedom in organizing their teaching and research. The Grand University Council for the supervision of the activity of the universities had a board formed by representative of each university. The funding was coming from the state, but the universities were the ones who managed and distributed according to their needs and aims. At that time, universities were being viewed as centers of culture, destined to stimulate knowledge and creativity where the discipline was the dominant force in the lives of academics (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 25-26).

After the Second World War, the communist regime brought big changes in the higher educational system in Romania, which became state-controlled and based mainly on the Soviet educational concepts. Policies and practices were regulated by the Educational Reform Act of August 1948 with the purpose of creating a centralized system of education that would link higher education with the needs of the centrally planned economy, and commonly referred as the division between the old “bourgeois education” and the new “socialist education” (Pierson, Odsliv, 2012, p. 6).  During this time, there were many changes in the administration, content and structure of the higher educational system, especially the establishment of technical faculties and the forced closing of law and humanities faculties. Universities were market transformed because of the development of the industry, being placed under the coordination of state-owned enterprises that led to a highly specialized vocational and technical training, the introduction of part-time studies like evening and correspondence classes that aimed to increase the supply of working-class origin graduates. The number of students in the fields like medicine, economics, and teacher training was limited by the communist officials, and by 1980 more than 70% (Pierson, Odsliv, 2012, p. 6) of the student population was enrolled in engineering and agriculture.

The most striking feature of the Communist modernization policy was the strong centralization of the educational institutions and an anti-intellectual attitude that reduced many higher education institutions to vocational training centers. Every educational institution that had views that “conflicted with Communist ideology was disciplined or eliminated by government officials” (Pierson, Odsliv, 2012, p. 7).

With the fall of the communist regime in 1989, a difficult process of reorganizing the Romanian higher education begin, with focus on a “depolitisation” (Zaharia, et al., 2011, p. 17) of the system and bringing back the faculties and higher education institutions which had been eliminated by the communist regime, in order to establish again the diversity of teaching and research and academic freedom, restructuring the higher education system to meet the new economic, social and political needs. By 1993 the autonomy of higher education institutions was better defined, with a considerable number of academic programs designed and implemented locally and with no ministerial intervention, as long as they were accredited under the provisions and terms of the Law 88/1993 of Accreditation. During 1998 and 2000 the reform of higher education focused on new approaches in management, financial autonomy and curriculum development, the goal was to raise the quality as a result of decentralization, institutional autonomy and external evaluation through accreditation.

After 1990 two important changes took place in the higher education landscape: the demand of higher education increased considerably, the system witnessing the beginning of the massification of higher education and, the appearance, as a consequence, of the first private universities offering programs of study especially in the economic field (Dragorescu, 2013, p. 28). The number of institutions of higher education including both public and private increased from 56 to 106 from the 1991-1992 to 2008-2009 academic years, and the number of students increased from 215,226 to 891,098 during the same period (Pierson, Odsliv, 2012, p. 11). To deal with the emergence of a diversified system, based on the coexistence of the state and private institutions for higher education, a new independent organization named by the Parliament has been set up for the evaluation and accreditation of higher education institutions named National Council for Academic Evaluation and Accreditation (CNEAA), whose procedures are not able to be interfered with by any state agency (Zaharia, et al., 2011, p. 18).

On the 19th of June 1999 Romania signed the Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education in Bologna, and committed to the coordination of national higher education policies and to the implementation of the first actions leading to the gradual development of the European Higher Education Area (Zaharia, et al., 2011, p. 18). With the 2005/2006 cohort, the Bologna System was implemented by the Law 88/2004 that introduced the three-tiered higher education structure – Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree and PhD, a curricular reform, especially by the introduction of elective courses and of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) which measures the workload and the student work time at the European level, making easier the inter-institutional and international cooperation and student mobility.

Today, the Romanian higher education system has developed in both public and private, and includes universities (56 public universities, 36 private accredited universities, 21 provisionally authorized private universities and 5 private universities undergoing accreditation), institutes, study academies, schools of higher education and other similar establishments. Higher education institutions (HEI’s) can be state owned, private or confessional, non-profit, apolitical in nature, focused on the public interest (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 36) and have to be accredited by the Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ARACIS) established in 2005, also full member of European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) since 2007 and registered in European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR). All higher education institutions provide about 330 first cycle programs (Bachelor) within 74 study fields, and all accredited institutions also provide second cycle (Master) programs, estimated to a number of 2570 study programs of 3-4 semesters (90 to 120 ECTS). In order to provide third cycle programs (doctoral studies), public and private accredited universities must apply to the National Council for the Attestation of University Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates – CNATDCU, which together with ARACIS, perform an evaluation of the institutional capacity and of the scientific performance before granting the right to organize doctoral studies. During the 2009-2010 academic year, 57 universities and the Romania Academy were granted the right to develop doctoral study programs (Zaharia, et al., 2011, p. 21).

Admission to a higher education programs is based on open competition to all successful graduates of the previous educational cycle, according to the graduation diploma awarded by a legally recognized public or private institution and also passing an interview organized by the faculty according to its own internal regulations. Public universities have tuition free places in different study programs offered for the students who are part of the enrolment quota officially approved by the Government and also an amount established by the university senate of places for students paying a tuition fee.

In February 2011 the new Law on National Education no. 1/2011 was adopted to give a better and clear support for the evolution of higher education towards meeting the European goals of developing the knowledge society, achieving a competitive system on the international scale by providing quality programs and research, and a better connection with the market needs in enhancing employment rate. According to the new Law, universities will be ranked into education-centered universities, education and research universities / or education and artistic creation universities, and education and research advanced universities; also university programs will be ranked into five main groups (A,B,C,D,E) by established quality assurance indicators and evaluated by a consortium made of ARACIS, student representatives, the National Research Council (CNCS), CNATDCU and an international competent quality assurance agency, member EQAR (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 45). The Law on Education 1/2011 also states reforming human resources policies, promoting student-centered university, modernizing institutional governance and management, achieving differential and flexible financing system for universities, increasing the public responsibility of higher education institutions, increasing relevance and quality assurance in higher education, reorganizing the research-development-innovation system (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 45), bringing important changes to the Romanian higher education system.

 

Governance equalizer analysis

The governance equalizer illustrates the current state of the Romanian higher education system on each of the five dimensions highlighted by its authors Boer, Enders and Schimank, and the future tendency of their evolution. Referring to the systems of governance identified by the authors, the Traditional and the Entrepreneurial one, described and illustrated (Figure 1, p. 9) in the first part of this paper, we can clearly observe, that the Romanian higher education system of governance evolved from a highly regulated by the state system, more similar with the traditional one, and it’s rapidly heading towards embracing more and more entrepreneurial and NPM ways of governance, gaining more freedom from the state and being more oriented towards market’s needs. Romanian higher education system has witnessed during the past twenty years an impressive expansion, diversification and transformation that continues even today expressed in the attempt to cope with the new trends in the international higher education established by the European Union through Bologna Declaration and in reaching Lisbon 2020 Strategy goals.

The next part of this paper will analyze every dimension of the equalizer as it is reflected in the Romanian higher education system.

 

State Regulations

Since the fall of the communist regime where the state was the supreme authority and coordinated all that happened in higher education institutions, the universities regained their autonomy through the 1991 Constitution of Romania (Zaharia, et al., 2011, p. 24), and the state regulations diminished to a supervision function. Since then, universities are having the freedom to define their own mission, institutional strategy, structure, activities, organization and operation, to spend the budget according to their needs and necessities, to select and hire the administrative and academic staff and to deal with personnel matters. Also, the universities have the responsibility to establish their study programs, curriculum content, their research priorities and to decide on the number of students that they want to enroll, having to go through an accreditation process which ensures that they meet the quality criteria done by the autonomous and a-political agency ARACIS. The status of each higher education institution is given by law and it concerns the specific institution in fulfilling specific criteria like the provision of at least three distinct academic programs that meet the accreditation and quality criteria evaluated also by ARACIS, with the proof of the existence of qualified staff, student base and material resources (European Commission, 2012, p. 6).

By giving more freedom to universities, the tasks of the Ministry of Education, Research, Youth and Sports (MECTS) remained the development and implementation of educational policies in Romania; according to the new Law on National Education no. 1/2011 Art. 121 has the power to look over the enforcement of the rules and regulations in higher education, supervise how the universities exercise their autonomy and with the extension of the European dimension in education, MECTS will gain the status of “regular observer with OECD Education Commission” (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 65, 74). The Ministry collaborate with different advisory bodies that work according to their own regulations approved by the Ministry, have their own income and expenditure bodies and they have to report annually to the MECTS – The National Council for Statistics and Prognosis in Education; The National Council for Attestation of University Titles, Diplomas and Certificates; The National Council for Scientific Research in Higher Education Institutions; The National Council for Financing Higher Education (CNFIS); The National Council for University Qualifications and also it consults with the National Council of Rectors, composed of the rectors of accredited higher education institutions, Educational Staff Associations and with the National Alliance of Romanian Students’ Organizations (ANOSR) (Federatia Educatiei Nationale, 2011, p. 77).

The funding of public higher education institutions is divided in government funding approximately 64% and own raised funds from fees and different other activities like consultancy, scientific research, external projects, micro production, student accommodation, for the other 36%. Higher education funding shifted from an input-based system to a complex mixture of both per capita and quality-based financing, methodology developed by CNFIS that also gathers all data from the universities and forwards it to METCS for the following fiscal year (Florea, Wells, 2011, p.79). Universities can access different segments of financing like base (core) funding, complementary funding that are mostly based on the number of students, personnel and infrastructure expenditures, supplementary funding representing at least 30% of the core one if the universities meet the quality requirements set by CNFIS and also institutional development funds and social inclusion funds granted only on competitive basis (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 82). The allocation mechanisms set by the Law on National Education no. 1/2011 are correlated with the study programs and university ranking results, taking into account institutional performance levels and high quality educational services, in this way stimulating overall performance.

 

Academic self-governance

As regards the academic self-governance role within the university, the legislation leaves it in the hands of the individual institutions to set their own relations, composition and the tasks of the governing bodies, regulated usually by the University Act; it stipulates though the level of certified competence and number of years of experience a person must have in order to fill in a specific academic position and also outlines the evaluation and examination procedures with respect to every academic title (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 119). The academic staff has freedom of expression, participating actively in the life of the departments by having, besides teaching where they are free to organize and propose new courses or master programs, academic research and innovation activities, also administrative tasks. They can apply to national and international grants, activate in governance bodies, committees or boards of the university, and if elected they can become heads of departments, faculty deans, vice-rectors or rectors. The vacant positions with their associated theoretical background have to be made public at least with two months in advance of the official opening of the public contest, but most of the times, the universities prefer to select their teaching assistants, lecturers, research assistants or researchers from their students or former students.  

Collegial decision-making is still significant within the university, academics being involved in all main management structures like The Doctoral School Councils, The Department Councils, The Faculty Councils and The University Senate. All these councils participate in the decision-making process supervising and approving, according to the level in which they operate, the activity of professors in teaching and research, deans and rectors, the interrelations between departments and faculties within the institution and also at national and international levels (Eurydice, 2008, p. 33-36). The appointment of the candidates for the public contest for the dean position is made by the Faculty Council, the pro-dean is named by the dean with the approval of the Faculty Council and the Senate, the rector is selected from the members of the University Senate and the pro-rectors are appointed by the rector with the approval of the University Senate. The overall system of governance inside universities is a top-down one where the University Senate is the highest decision-making body, headed by a president, and the regulations and decisions adopted by it are required for all members of the academic institution (Ministry of Education and Research, 2001, p.4).

 

Stakeholder guidance

The government is the main stakeholder in the higher education system in Romania and has an important influence on the university development as previously mentioned, mostly by setting the size of the university budgets according to performance evaluations, accountability measures, shifting its focus from input to output control. The Law on Education no. 1/2011 is promoting a high level of self-organization within the sector by result oriented management and inviting universities to develop their own strategic plan, by giving more decision-making power to rectors and deans, also is supporting universities in fostering partnerships and strategic alliances in finding external funds for study and research (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 46).

National independent, apolitical and non-profit councils and associations have been set up to assess universities and their overall teaching and research performance, taking a big part of Ministry’s duties and with which MECTS works in partnership for establishing university future development. An important role in the national policy making and in collaboration with the Ministry it has the National Rectors’ Council that includes the heads of public and private accredited universities, the President of the Commission on Education in the Parliament, the Secretary of State for Higher Education, and occasionally the Minister of Education himself, headed by an elected body called “the permanent bureau” (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 68) that has a president and twelve vice-presidents. The sessions are each time organized by another university, and its main duties are submitting proposals for higher education development strategy, analyzing the problems of the universities and the challenges in higher education and promoting solutions and initiatives for the development of the Romanian higher education system.

A big influence it has also the educational staff associations like The Romanian Teachers’ Association which represents and protects the rights of pre-academic and academic staff responding to their cultural, professional and social needs and also 24 professional associations which include academics as members and have with more specific goals according to their focus area like The Society for Philological Sciences, The Mathematical Society or The Romanian Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 69).

Students are also involved in both national and institutional levels of decision-making and quality assurance in higher education. The National Alliance of Romanian Students Organizations (ANOSR) is the most important non-governmental and apolitical student federation that incorporates most of the student associations within the country and is recognized and represented also at European level. Its main objective is the representation of students’ common interests being involved in the development of educational youth policies and offering support in their application at local level (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 70). At the institutional level, students are involved in the process of evaluation and quality assurance taking part as members in the department council that is in charge with the evaluation and accreditation of the department and areas of specialization. Although students represent an important stakeholder of the higher education and also the main resource for universities, their voice is not always taken into consideration as much as it should, their number in the decision making faculty councils and university senates is rather small and their presence mostly formal. Law on Education no. 1/2011 brings important changes in this regard by stipulating the need of increasing student representation within university as partners in all academic processes (Federatia Educatiei Nationale, 2011, p. 68).

 

Managerial self-governance

With the decentralization of the higher education system and with the autonomy of the universities, many of the non-academic matters once in the power of the state, especially in the communist period, now no longer require final decision from the Ministry, but are delegated to the top level of the universities. The decision-making power of rectors and deans has been increased, being responsible for both academic and non-academic matters, with more responsibilities and competences assigned to the central levels. In most universities these positions are still held by academic personalities mostly elected from the ones within the university, not always having a managerial background.

According to the Law on Education no. 1/2011(Federatia Educatiei Nationale, 2011, p. 73) rectors in both public and private universities can be elected in two ways at their choice, one through organizing a public contest where can participate national and international scientific and academic personalities, or by universal and secret vote of all academic professors and the student representative from University Senate and Faculty Councils. The method has to be declared with minimum six months before the selection takes place, by secret and universal vote. Even though universities have autonomy from the state, the appointment of the new rector has to be confirmed also by the Ministry in order to be able to legally represent the university and to sign the management contract with the University Senate. Once elected and approved by the Ministry, rector’s main tasks are to elaborate the main organizational documents like the university statute, the development plan, the organizational plan, the running of the Administration Council, the establishment of the annual budget and also the annual reports of the overall university.

The faculties are represented and managed by the deans selected through a public contest organized by the rector and approved by the University Senate where can participate the candidates appointed by the Faculty Council through members vote. The elected dean is also the head of the Faculty Council and has the task to organize and run its meetings. The main attributions of the deans they are stated by the Law on Education no. 1/2011 (Federatia Educatiei Nationale, 2011, p. 75) are the implementation of the rector, administrative council and university senate’s decisions at faculty level and also other tasks established by each faculty’s internal regulations.

 

Competition

The competitive pressure has increased in the last years between higher education institutions for attracting national and international students by adapting to the market requirements with new educational programs also in English language or other languages like French or German and display more market-type behavior in advertizing their specific profiles, for attracting different types of funding from the government, European framework program grants, and third party funds from research projects with the industry or other customers, all on the background of major changes in the political and economic area like signing the Bologna Declaration in 1999, and becoming a member of European Union in 2007 that broth big changes in legislation and major student and labor movement. Competition starts to become more visible in the higher education landscape also because of the decreasing number of students comparing to previous years due to declining numbers of high school graduates and migration factors on the background on economical crisis (Dragoescu, 2013, p. 32).

The state, by the new Law on Education no. 1/2011 is aiming to enhance even more the European regulations within Romanian higher education system and increase its quality making it more competitive at international level. To achieve this objective, it has introduced an internal ranking system for universities, dividing them in universities focused on education, education and research universities / or education and artistic creation universities, and education and research advanced universities, and also for university programs that will be ranked into five main groups (A,B,C,D,E) according to established quality assurance indicators that will differentiate the amount of funding received and the access to specific types of funds like institutional development and social inclusion ones granted on competitive basis only (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 81). In this sense, universities have to define their profiles for better attracting specific categories of funding available from the state. Accountability mechanisms are being set up for more transparency and internal audit division is required in every university.

 

Strengths and weaknesses of Romanian higher education system

Even though the regulations of the state decreased in the past years aiming for just a position as regular observer, the Ministry still interfere with some aspects of human resources recruitment within universities, like the approval of the new selected rector that can’t exercise the legal tasks without this recognition which can be more a detrimental thing, most of the time leading to favoring some candidates that have political influence and in promoting specific interests within the university; also the Ministry regulates the number of vacant positions for university teaching staff that a university is allowed to put forward and decide their salaries.

A strength of the system is the high qualification of most of the academic staff (a PhD being required for professor positions and for teaching assistant position the candidate must be at least in the process of pursuing a PhD as full-time doctoral student (Florea, Wells, 2011, p. 108)), and also the teaching load that depends on the level of qualification of each teacher, ranging from a minimum of 11 hours/week for teaching assistants to a minimum of 4 hours/week for a professor in order to give the possibility for academic staff to do research on national and international projects or other activities like mentoring, but because of relatively low wages and an underdeveloped system of incentives, academics tend to take extra teaching hours that can be detrimental for other important activities in research and innovation, leading also to a purer quality and performance in both areas. To overcome this issue, a new internal ranking system of the universities has been set up as mentioned before, that will better differentiate the focus of academic staff and their tasks within the university, will bring major clarity for future students in their choice according to their interest in research, mobility or insertion in the labor market, and also easier access for specific funding according to each university profile.

Other strength of higher education system is the introduction of a consortium made of ARACIS, student representatives, CNCS, CNATDCU and an international competent quality assurance agency, member EQAR with experience in research for the quality assurance process. The introduction of an external organization gives impartiality to the process because it doesn’t have direct connections with academic oligarchy and can bring a more objective view of the quality level achieved. Also the introduction of a performance-based funding represents a strength that will increase competition between universities and enhance the quality of the services provided, the teaching and research.

A weakness of the system still remains a low internationalization process of universities, the balance of attraction of foreign students to study in Romania being still negative. As a result of bilateral agreements the number of foreign students is insignificant and the Erasmus students coming in the country is four time lower than the number of Romanian students going abroad in the year 2009 (Nicolescu, Pricopie, Popescu, 2009, p. 983). The programs in another language like English, French and German are in small number, mostly in economy, management and medicine tracks, mostly due to the low language skills of the teaching staff; the number of foreign students enrolled being approximately 1.5% from total students. In this sense, some universities took the initiative to develop special language training programs for teachers that intend to teach in international programs, financing these programs from their own resources (UEFISCDI, 2013, p. 65).

 

Conclusions

Governance equalizer is a good tool in analyzing the factors that compose, at a particular moment in time and in a specific system, the governance model because it provides a clear picture of it; it has also its limits though, showing rather a subjective image because of the lack of concrete indicators.

By applying this tool in Romanian higher education we can easily observe that the governance model it’s still more similar to the traditional one, but the tendency of its future evolution is heading towards the entrepreneurial one. This fact can be easily explained when looking at its history, and in particular at the almost fifty years of communism regime that brought strong centralization of the higher education institutions and an anti-intellectual attitude that reduced many higher education institutions to vocational training centers during that time.

Since the fall of the communist regime in 1989, higher education made big progress in regaining its autonomy from the state. In its efforts to cope with European standards by signing Bologna Declaration and participating in reaching Lisbon 2020 Strategy goals, Romanian higher education system went through important changes like the introduction of the three-tiered higher education structure, a curricular reform, especially by the introduction of elective courses, the ECTS, bilingual Diploma Supplement, and by adopting the new Law on Education 1/2011 a national university ranking system and a performance-based funding method were developed that aimed to establish specific profiles for universities, increase competition for resources and raised quality of services in teaching and research. State regulations have diminished almost to a supervision function, a big part of Ministry’s duties being taken by national independent, apolitical and non-profit councils and associations that have been set up to assess universities, and with which MECTS works in partnership. Regarding the internal regulations, universities have the freedom to organize their academic and non-academic matters according to their own necessities. Academic self-governance has an important position, academics being involved in all main management structures like The Doctoral School Councils, The Department Councils, The Faculty Councils and The University Senate. The government is the main stakeholder in the higher education system in Romania, but also educational staff associations have a big influence and students are more involved in both national and institutional levels of decision-making and quality assurance in higher education. The connection with the industry and market is still not very prominent, but on the background of economical crisis and unemployment issues, universities have to develop more market oriented programs for attracting the students. In the managerial matters, the decision-making power of rectors and deans has increased, the elaboration of strategic plans for the future development of the universities being one of their major tasks.

 

References:

Boer, Harry, Enters, Jürgen, Schimank, Uwe (2005). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria and Germany. In D. Jansen (ed.). New Forms of Governance in Research  Organisations. Dordrecht: Springer 137-152.

Ciotaus, S., Florian, B., Hancean, M., Miroiu, A., Paunescu, M., Rusu, R., … Voicu, B. (2011). Calitatea invatamantului superior din Romania. O analiza institutional a tendintelor actuale. Bucuresti: POLIROM.

Dragoescu, R. M. (2013). Changes in Romanian higher education After 1990. Bucharest: Romanian Statistical Review, 3, 28-36.

Duguleana, L., Duguleana, C. (2012). Some statistical aspects of higher education in Romania in 2012. Brasov: Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 5(54), 2, 107-112.

European Comission (2012). Efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure on tertiary education in the EU, Annex: Country Fiche Romania, Joint Report by the Economic Policy Committee (Quality of Public Finances) and the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs.

Eurydice (2008). Higher education governance in Europe. Policies, structures, funding and academic staff. Brussels: Europe Unit.

UEFISCDI, (2013). The status-quo of Romanian national policies on internationalization of education – Draft –. Bucharest: Guvernul Romaniei.

Federatia Educatiei Nationale (2011). Legea educatiei nationale. Legea nr. 1 din 5 ianuarie 2011. Bucuresti: ROMPRINT.

Florea, S., Wells, P. J. (2011). Monographs on higher education in Romania. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.

Kohler, J., Huber, J. (2006). Higher education governance between democratic culture, academic aspirations and market force. Strasburg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Ministry of Education and Research (2001). The Romanian education system. The national report. Bucharest. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE/natrap/Romania.pdf

Nicolescu, L., Pricopie, R., Popescu I. (2009). Country differences in the internationalization of higher education – how can countries lagging behind diminish the gap. Review of International Comparative Management, 10 / 5, 976-989.

Petrisor, A. I. (2011). Higher Romanian education post-Bologna: required changes, instruments and ethical issues. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 4 / 2-3, 39-46.

Pierson, C., Odsliv, M. (2012). Perspectives and trends on education in Romania: a country in transformation. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2, 5-13.

Pollitt, C., Dan, S. (2011). The impact of the new public management in Europe: a meta-analysis. COCOPS. Retrived from http://www.cocops.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/WP1_Deliverable1_Meta-analysis_Final.pdf

Popovici, A. (2012). Important challenges of the Romanian higher education in European context during the post-communist era. Annals of the “Constantin Brancusi” University of Targu Jiu, Economy Series, 3,190-197.

Stefan, V., Chivu, M. (2011). Romanian higher education reform and adaptation between the requirements of the knowledge society. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 13(2), 604-611.

Zaharia, S., Barlea, G., Korka, M., Mocanu, M., Murgescu, B., Potolea, D., Toma, S. (2011). Self-certification report. Verification of compatibility of the Romanian national qualifications framework for higher education with the framework for qualifications for the European higher education area. Bucharest: National Qualifications Authority.