Governance and Finance of Higher Education in Egypt and the UK

Governance and Finance of Higher Education in Egypt and the UK Saeed Alshamy Doctoral Researcher University of Birmingham ASA708@bham.ac.uk Assistant Lecturer (On Leave) Al-Azhar University – Cairo, Egypt

Contents • Aims • Research Design • Background about Egypt HE • Funding Mechanisms in HE in Egypt and the UK • Why autonomy, accountability, efficiency and equity? • The Main Findings • Concluding Remarks • Implications for Policy and Practice

Aims • This paper reviews funding mechanisms in HE in Egypt and the UKand investigates how they might affect universities and the people who work in them in terms of: -autonomy; - accountability; - efficiency; - and equity. • Four concepts seen as central themes in the governance and finance of HE.

Research Design Egypt The UK Cairo University (CU) University of Birmingham (UoB) Document Analysis Semi-structured Interviews 47 Interviewees (CU) 29 Interviewees (UoB)

Background about Egypt Higher Education Size of the Egyptian Higher Education System (2007-2008)* • 20 Public Universities • 17 Private Universities • 8 Technical Colleges (used to be 45 Middle Technical Institutes) • 5 Public Higher Technical Institutes • 96 Private Technical Institutions • 11 non-university institutions established by other governmental entities • 5 Private Foreign Institutions • Egyptian E-Learning University (EELU) established 2008

Background about Egypt Higher Education • 2,542,739 undergraduates; 210,022 graduates (2006-2007) • 28% of the age group 18-23 years old in Higher Education • 8.35 billion Egyptian pounds budget for Higher Education • Government is the main funding body for HE. • No funding formula available depending on actual needs or number of students admitted • HE is free for all students (apart from nominal fees) *Said, M. (2008) Higher Education Reform Efforts in Egypt: A focus on Governance & Finance [Online] http://www.mhespu.org/new/admin/uploads/resources/Higher%20Education%20Reform%20Efforts%20in%20Egypt%20-%20A%20focus%20on%20Governance%20&%20Finance-20081202063945.pdf [Accessed January 1st 2009]

Funding Mechanisms in HE in Egypt and the UK

Why autonomy, accountability, efficiency and equity? • Much of the literature on finance and governance of higher education over the last 25 years employs the concepts of autonomy, accountability, efficiency and equity* • It also recognizes that different forms of funding mechanisms have distinctive implications for what these concepts mean in practice. *(Johnstone et al., 1998; Holm-nielsen, 2001; Blondal et al., 2002; OECD, 2003; Barr, 2004; Brown, 2004; Dougherty, 2004; Goastellec, 2006; Johnstone and Marcucci, 2007; OECD, 2008).

Why autonomy, accountability, efficiency and equity? • Higher educational policies aim to give HEIs and academics a reasonable degree of autonomy to enable them to play the role that society assigns to them while, at the same time, holding them accountable to government, society and consumers of their services. • In addition, higher educational policies aim to achieve an efficient use of scarce resources and to promote a greater equality in the distribution of those resources.

The Main Findings

Autonomy: EGYPT • The majority of interviewees in CU believe funding seriously affects institutional autonomy but not academic freedom.

Autonomy: EGYPT • A few interviewees believe funding indirectly affects academic freedom.

Autonomy: The UK • The majority of interviewees in UoB view funding having no impact on institutional autonomy or academic freedom.

Autonomy: The UK • A few interviewees believe funding might restrict institutional autonomy: • Funding may also affect academic freedom:

Accountability: EGYPT • The majority of interviewees in CU believe that the system provides strong financial accountability but weak or no accountability for academics: • Even the financial accountability was found to be a rigid administrative accountability, not a technical one. • Document auditing: auditors just check that money is spent according to line-item categories, not the quality of provision or outcomes.

Accountability: The UK • All interviewees in UoB agreed that there is a fair amount of financial accountability in the system and in relation to the quality of teaching and research. • The dialogue of accountability is quite clear for both teaching and research and universities know what is expected of them. • However, almost all interviewees see weak accountability for teaching as there is no quality measure linked to funding, unlike research. • There are several concerns about QAA.

Efficiency: EGYPT • Almost all interviewees in CU see the funding system as inefficient:

Efficiency: The UK • The majority of interviewees in UoB view the system of funding as reasonably efficient:

Efficiency: The UK • However, they also agreed that there are some inefficiencies which should be addressed:

Equity: EGYPT • The majority of interviewees in CU cannot decide whether the system of funding is fair or not as they do not have enough information about the criteria for distributing funding between universities or between faculties in the same university. • A few interviewees see the system as unfair: Lack of transparency & favouritism. Funding is too low to meet the real cost of teaching. Unfair competition between public & private universities.

Equity: The UK The majority of interviewees at UoB see the funding system as reasonably fair: However, they agreed that funding may be fair in one sense and unfair in another: Transparency HEIs are adequately funded The system favours institutions that have done well in the past (such as Oxbridge universities) The system might be unfair for post 1992 universities

Concluding Remarks • Line-item funding in Egypt HE has negative impact on institutional autonomy and may have indirect negative impact on academic freedom. • It weakens the dialogue of accountability as it provides an administrative accountability, not technical accountability. • It also has negative impact on efficiency as it lacks flexibility and does not provide incentives for efficiency gains. • Lack of transparency and favouritism have been reported to affect fairness in distributing funding both between universities and faculties in the same university.

Concluding Remarks • In the UK, the block grant has been found to provide universities with a reasonable degree of institutional autonomy and flexibility. • This has improved the dialogue of accountability through systems of financial, research and teaching accountability. • It is also perceived as improving the efficiency of the system as it has brought more competition between universities, driving up quality. It also provides incentives for efficiency gains and makes universities more responsive to the needs of students and society. • Although interviewees did not give clear-cut answers on the fairness of the system, the majority agreed that the system is reasonably fair as it is transparent and HEIs are adequately funded.

Concluding Remarks • The perceptions of academics and administrators in Cairo and Birmingham indicate that different forms of funding mechanisms have different consequences for the autonomy, accountability, efficiency and equity of HEIs and the people working in them. • It also appears that there are contested perspectives between policy pronouncementsand the experience of those working in the sector.

The Balance AccountabilityAutonomy Efficiency Equity

Concluding Remarks There are overlapping contextual factors of governance and culture that contribute to the impact of funding mechanisms.

Implications for Policy and Practice • Thus, funding mechanisms cannot be understood as stand-alone ‘objective phenomenon as they are shaped and reshaped by the regulatory and cultural environment. • This leads to the conclusion that changes to funding in Egypt need to be reformed and developed in ways that address issues of governance and culture.

Implications for Policy and Practice A set of pilot projects is proposed to test their feasibility and build support for change: - Developing a funding formula - Developing methods of cost-sharing - Greater flexibility in managing staff

Thanks for your attention. SaeedAlshamy ASA708@bham.ac.uk Saeed.alshamy@gmail.com

Governance and Finance of Higher Education in Egypt and the UK