Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Financial Autonomy and Challenges to Being A Regionally Responsive Higher Education Institution

  • 26 Accesses

Abstract

This paper discusses some current problems and challenges of the Finnish AMKs (polytechnic institutions), and whether financial autonomy could contribute to finding solutions for some of these problems. It provides an overview of the current status of financial autonomy of polytechnics in 6 European countries, and finally attempts to find links from financial autonomy to the AMKs' role as regional ‘boosters’. The AMKs are still faced with some administrative and cultural traditions related more or less to secondary level vocational institutions. The new Polytechnic Act (2003), 351/2003, guarantees self-governance for the AMKs as regards with their internal issues. At the same time, the Act stipulates that budget power and strategic steering belongs to their public or private maintainers. This raises the question of to what extent institutions actually are autonomous. The essence of autonomy rests on independent decision-making processes. The study shows that the Finnish maintenance system reflects strongly on the area of financial autonomy compared with the similar institutions in other European countries. Financial autonomy may be a factor that strengthens a higher education institution in becoming an organisationally uniform, responsive and flexible entity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

REFERENCES

  1. Act on Polytechnics (2003). 351/2003.

  2. Ashby, E. (1966).Universities: British, Indian and African. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

  3. Charles, D., Dawley, S., Benneworth, P. & Conway, C. (2003). The Regional Missionof Higher Education in Northern Ireland. A report for the Department forEmployment and Learning. Northern Ireland, Curds.

  4. Clark, B. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization inCross-National Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  5. Clark, B. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.

  6. De Wit, K. & Verhoeven, J.C. (2002). Stakeholders in Universities and Colleges in Flanders. European Journal of Education 35(4), 421–437.

  7. Eurydice (2000). Two decades of reform in higher education in Europe: 1980 onwards. Brussels: EURYDICE.

  8. Frazier, M. (1997). Report on the Modalities of External Evaluation of HigherEducation in Europe: 1995:1997. Higher Education in Europe XXII, 349–401.

  9. Goedegebuure, L., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek L., van Vught, F. & De Weert, E. (1993). International Perspectives on Trends and Issues in Higher Education Policy. In L. Goedegebuure, F. Kaiser, P. Maassen, L. Mee, F. Van Vught & E. De Weert (eds.), Higher Education Policy, An International Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 315–348.

  10. Gornitzka, Å. & Maassen, P. (2000). Hybrid Steering Approaches with Respect to European Higher Education. Higher Education Policy 13, 267–285.

  11. Huisman, J. (1997). New Study Programs and Specializations: The Effect of Governmental Funding and Paradigmatic Development. Research in Higher Education38(4), 399–417.

  12. Hölttä, S. (1995). Towards the self-regulative university. Joensuun yliopistonyhteiskuntatieteellisiäjulkaisuja No: 23, Joensuun yliopisto, Joensuu.

  13. Kohtamäki, V. (2004). Financial autonomy of professional higher education institutions. University of Tampere. The serie of C 19. Department of AdministrativeSciences. Tempere: Yliopistopaino.

  14. Lyytinen, A., Kuusinen, R.& Niemonen, H. (2003). Näkökulmia ammattikorkeakoulunrooliin innovaatiojärjestelmässä. Tampereen yliopisto, Yhteiskuntatieteiden tutkimuslaitos,työelämän tutkimuskeskus, Työraportteja 66/2003. Tampere: Yliopistopaino.

  15. Maassen, P. (ed.) (2000). European Journal of Education 35(4), 377–383.

  16. Neave, G. (1998). On Being Economical with University Autonomy: Being Accountof the Retropective Joys of a Written Constitutions. In Malcolm Tight (ed.),Academic Freedom and Responsibility 31–48.

  17. OECD (1999). The Response of Higher Education Institutions to Regional Needs.Paris: OECD.

  18. OECD (2002). Review of Education Policy in Finland: The Polytechnic Sector. Examiner's report 23 May 2002.

  19. Raivola, R., Kekkonen, K., Tulkki, P. & Lyytinen, A. (2001). Producing Competenciesfor Learning Economy. Sitra Reports series 9. Helsinki: Hakapaino.

  20. Rajakylä, M. (2002). Rajakylä, M. (2003). Ministry of Education, Finland. Luentomoniste. Uuden ammattikorkeakoululainsäädännön keskeiset kohdat. (Lecture“The main issues in the New Polytechnic Act”).

  21. Sporn, B. (1999). Towards More Adaptive Universities: Trends of InstitutionalReform in Europe. Higher Education in Europe XXIV (1), 23–33.

  22. UNESCO (2003). Report on Trends and Developments in Higher Education in Europe. Meeting of Higher Education Partners 23–25 June 2003.

  23. Van Vught, F. (1994). Autonomy and Accountability in Government/University Relationships. In J. Salmi, & A. M. Verspoor, (eds.), Revitalizing Higher Education. Pergamon.

  24. Volkwein, J.F. & Malik, S.M. (1997). State Regulation and Administrative Flexibilityat Public Universities. Research in Higher Education 38(1), 17–42.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kohtamäki, V., Lyytinen, A. Financial Autonomy and Challenges to Being A Regionally Responsive Higher Education Institution. Tertiary Education and Management 10, 319–336 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-004-3104-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • High Education
  • European Country
  • Education Research
  • Education Institution
  • High Education Institution