Advertisement

Governance of Arab Universities: Why Does It Matter?

  • John WaterburyEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

There are many facets to university governance, but they are not of equal importance. The two facets that are most important are also in tension with each other: accountability and autonomy. Accountability almost always circumscribes autonomy. Autonomy may reduce accountability.

The university, or institution of higher learning (IHL) is “owned” by someone or some authority. The owners generally finance the IHL. They demand from the managers of the IHL accountability for all aspects of the mission to which owners (principals) and managers (agents) have agreed. Some parts of the mission are fully visible but others are hidden. Managers may lose their jobs for neglecting hidden as well as visible goals. It is hard for the owners to know what their agents are doing. They may proliferate oversight bodies and cumbersome reporting mechanisms or even deploy spies to find out. These efforts generate high monitoring costs and may create an atmosphere of mutual suspicion between owners and managers.

In the Arab world, publically-owned IHLs are the norm although privately-owned IHLs are increasing rapidly. Private IHLs tend to enjoy greater degrees of administrative autonomy than public. They are accountable to boards specific to the institution. The public sector model, pioneered by Egypt in the 1950s and 1960s, is highly centralized. The owners exercise their power through supreme councils and often directly interfere in the affairs of individual IHLs. In theory it is the taxpayers who are the ultimate owners of the IHL, but because they are represented by weak and ineffectual legislatures, taxpayers have no meaningful impact on higher education (or any public education).

It is widely recognized that institutional autonomy is at the heart of the governance dilemma in the Arab world, but why is this seen as so critical? There are two models of governance at war. One is the prevailing model of a highly-centralized system that provides a uniform quality of education to students of roughly equivalent abilities (as determined by the thanawiyya ‘amma, tawjihi, etc.), taught by professors of roughly equal talent who receive roughly the same level of pay and who are, in fact, civil servants.

The counter-model, almost unheard of in the public sector, is an autonomous university, “owned” legally by a board of trustees and responsible for setting university priorities and policies, above all in:
  1. 1.

    Curriculum content and structure

     
  2. 2.

    Admission criteria and numbers admitted

     
  3. 3.

    Student evaluation criteria

     
  4. 4.

    Recruitment and promotion of academic staff

     
  5. 5.

    Recruitment and promotion of non-academic staff

     
  6. 6.

    Setting levels of compensation for all university employees

     
  7. 7.

    Setting tuition levels

     
  8. 8.

    Setting research foci and incentives

     
  9. 9.

    Responsibility for university finances, including endowments and fund-raising

     

This kind of autonomy is not intrinsically good. It is not an end in itself. Indeed, it may foster complacency and nepotism. It is good only in systems premised on competition. Competition for what? Competition for the best students, the best faculty, the best research programs, and, ultimately, competition for the resources to make all this possible. If that is not the goal, then autonomy may be relatively meaningless.

Keywords

Academic freedom Accountability Admissions Autonomy Communities of practice Compensation Competition Curriculum Leadership selection Political interference Promotion Rankings Trilemma University finances University Governance 

References

  1. AHDR (Arab Human Development Report) (2003) Building a knowledge society. UNDP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbalan A, Ergüder Ü, Gürüz K (2008) Higher education in Turkey: institutional autonomy and responsibility in a modernising society, policy recommendations in a historical perspective, Observatory for Fundamental University Values and Rights. Bologna, Italy. Bononia University Press, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechir L (ed) (2010) Towards an Arab Higher Education Space: International Challenges And Societal Responsibilities. Arab regional conference on Higher Education Cairo 31 May, 1–2 JuneGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjelloun W (2010) Training Tomorrow’s leaders today: strategic plan of Mohammed V University-Agdal 2011–14. RabatGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhandari R, al-Amine A (2011) Classifying higher education institutions in the Middle East and North Africa: a pilot study. IIE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Connelly J, Grüttner M (eds) (2005) Universities under dictatorship. Penn State University Press, University Park PAGoogle Scholar
  7. Geer B (2013) Autonomy and symbolic Capital in an Academic Social Movement: the March 9 Group in Egypt. European Journal of Turkish Studies, v 17 (http://ejts.revues.org/4780#quotation)
  8. Hammoud R (2010) Admission policies and procedures in Arab Universities. In: Bechir L (ed) Towards an Arab Higher Education Space: International challenges and societal responsibilities. Arab Regional conference on higher education, Cairo. 31 May – 2 JuneGoogle Scholar
  9. Human Rights Watch (2005) Reading between the “Red Lines” The Repression of Academic Freedom in Egyptian Universities, vol 17, No. 6 (E)Google Scholar
  10. Jaramillo A et al. (2012) Universities through the looking glass: benchmarking university governance to enable higher education modernization in MENA. World Bank and CMI, no place, MarchGoogle Scholar
  11. Kapur D (2011) Addressing the Trilemma of higher education. Seminar 617(January):87–92Google Scholar
  12. Kapur D, Perry E (2015) Higher education reform in China and India: the role of the state. Harvard-Yenching Institute working papers series, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  13. Lindsey U (2013) The March 9 movement faces new challenges. al Fanar, Feb 14Google Scholar
  14. Melonio T, Mezouaghi M (2015) Financing higher education in the Mediterranean region: the case of Egypt, Lebanon and Tunisia. Agence Française de Développement, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Mezue B, Christensen C, van Bever D (2015) The Power of Market Creation. Foreign Affairs v.94, n.1 Jan/Feb, pp 69–76Google Scholar
  16. Rafiq, Abd al-Karim (2004) The history of the Syrian university: the beginning and growth, 1901–1946. Maktabat Nubil, Damascus (in Arabic)Google Scholar
  17. Reid D (1990) Cairo University and the making of modern Egypt. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sawahel, W (2014) New Arab platform for MOOCs launched. University World News, May 30 2014, Issue No:322Google Scholar
  19. Science (2016) German Ivy League Gets Boost. vol 352, April 29, p. 499Google Scholar
  20. Stripling, J (2016) Obama’s legacy: an unlikely Hawk on Higher Ed. Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept 25Google Scholar
  21. Tohme G The Lebanese University: in the war years 1975–1987. Unpublished ms, n.d. in ArabicGoogle Scholar
  22. World Bank (2008) The road not traveled: education reform in the Middle East and North Africa. MENA Development Report, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  23. World Bank and CMI (2013) Benchmarking governance as a tool for promoting change: 100 universities in the MENA paving the way, Washington DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American University of BeirutBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations