Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Higher Education at the Crossroads pp 59–81Cite as

Institutional Autonomy and the Attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area – Facts or Tokenistic Discourse?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

In the discourse of the Bologna Process, the notion of competitiveness as the focal goal of Bologna Process, and university autonomy as one of its founding principles are consistently linked. Autonomy is framed as a precondition of competitiveness, while competitiveness is framed in terms of attractiveness of European higher education and higher education institutions. This paper examines their relationship, discussing whether there is ground for the repeated policy argument of their going hand in hand. Do the more attractive countries have higher autonomy, are the countries with higher autonomy more attractive? Or are these phenomena linked only in the simplified arguments of the policy discourse? The analysis of OECD and other mobility data shows that there is no consistent link between autonomy and attractiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A more updated version of the autonomy data is available in Estermann et al. (2011). However, at the time of writing this chapter, that was still under embargo.

  2. 2.

    Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom.

  3. 3.

    EU19: AT, BE, CZ, DK, FI, FR, DE, GR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, PL, PT, SK, ES, SE, UK.

  4. 4.

    I consciously refrain from using the statistical terminology such as dependent and independent variables and correlation.

  5. 5.

    OECD uses the concept of foreign students to denote those students who do not have the citizenship of the country in which they study, and international students to denote the students who have entered the country specifically with the intention to study there. The measure of foreign students is selected in the following, as many countries do not differentiate between international and foreign students, and thus the figures for international students are less often available.

  6. 6.

    Tertiary type A – programmes are ISCED5A level, and are typically theory-based and last at least 3 years. As this paper focuses on universities rather than other tertiary education, the tertiary type A figure is chosen instead of the total tertiary education.

  7. 7.

    Index pertains to total tertiary enrollments as no tertiary type A figure is available.

  8. 8.

    EU19.

  9. 9.

    It must be noted though, that in Poland tuition fees are paid only by part time students, who make a very significant part of the overall student population.

  10. 10.

    More comprehensive picture is available in Estermann et al. (2011).

  11. 11.

    Countries included in the study were Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and UK. Robinson et al. (2007), cited in European Commission (2008, 15–16).

  12. 12.

    After that, there have been some changes e.g. in Finland, where the universities in 2010 gained full employer position (see www.minedu.fi) and Ireland, where the universities have faced restrictions in recruitment and conditions of employment since the outset of the severe economic depression in 2008 (see www.hea.ie).

  13. 13.

    However, looking at the 2010 autonomy data, the situation would look somewhat different Estermann et al. (2011).

References

  • Ackers, L. (2005). Moving people and knowledge: Scientific mobility in the European Union. International Migration, 3(5), 99–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackers, L., & Gill, B. (2005). Attracting and retaining ‘early career’ researchers in English higher education institutions. Innovation, European Journal of Social Science Research, 18(3), 277–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackers, L., & Gill, B. (2008). Moving people and knowledge: Scientific mobility in an enlarging European Union. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adelman, C. (2009). The Bologna Process for U.S. Eyes: Re-learning higher education in the age of convergence. Washington: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2008). Higher aspirations: An agenda for reforming European universities (Bruegel blueprint series V). Brussels: Bruegel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amaral, A., & Magalhães, A. (2004). Epidemiology and the Bologna saga. Higher Education, 48(1), 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergen Communiqué. (2005). Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Bergen_Communique1.pdf

  • Berlin Communiqué. (2003). Retrieved January 11, 2011, from http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Berlin_Communique1.pdf

  • Böhm, A., Davis, D., Meares, D., & Pearce, D. (2002). Global student mobility 2025: Forecasts of the global demand for international higher education. Sydney: IDP Education Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bologna Declaration. (1999). Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION1.pdf

  • Bologna Process Policy Forum. (2010, March 12). Bologna Policy Forum statement. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved September 1, 2011, from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/forum2010/Vienna_BPF_Statement.pdf

  • Budapest-Vienna Communiqué. (2010). Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Budapest-Vienna_Declaration.pdf

  • Corbett, A. (2011). Ping pong: Competing leadership for reform in EU higher education 1998–2006. European Journal of Education, 46(1), 36–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cradden, C. (2007). Constructing paths to staff mobility in the European Higher Education Area: From individual to institutional responsibility. Brussels: Education International.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & File, J. (2010). Progress in higher education reform across Europe: Governance reform. Report commissioned by the Directorate General for Education and Culture of the European Commission. Brussels: EC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estermann, T., & Bennetot Pruvot, E. (2011). Financially sustainable universities II: European universities diversifying income streams. Brussels: EUA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estermann, T., & Nokkala, T. (2009). University autonomy in Europe I. Exploratory study. Brussels: EUA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estermann, T., Nokkala, T., & Steinel, M. (2011). University Autonomy in Europe II. The scorecard. Brussels: EUA.

    Google Scholar 

  • EUA. (2001). Salamanca Declaration. The Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area. Brussels: EUA.

    Google Scholar 

  • EUA. (2011). Aarhus Declaration. Investing today in talent for tomorrow. Brussels: EUA.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2008). Evidence on the main factors inhibiting mobility and career development of researchers. Report by Idea-Consult, Frauenhofer –ISI, NIFU-STEP, PREST, SPRU and Technopolis. Brussels: EC.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2011). Erasmus statistics. Retrieved September 1, 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc920_en.htm

  • Eurostat. (2007). How mobile are highly qualified human resources in science and technology. Statistics in focus, 75/2007. Luxembourg: Eurostat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackl, E. (2001). The intrusion and expansion of community policies in higher education. Higher Education Management, 13(3), 99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iredale, R. (1999). The need to import skilled personnel: The factors promoting and hindering its international mobility. International Migration, 37(1), 89–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongbloed, B., De Boer, H., Enders, J., & File, J. (2010). Progress in higher education reform across Europe: Funding reform. Report commissioned by the Directorate General for Education and Culture of the European Commission. Brussels: EC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Maldonado, A., & Rhoades, G. (2008). The political economy of international student flows: Patterns, ideas, and propositions. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 21, pp. 545–590). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué. (2009). Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communiqu%C3%A9_April_2009.pdf

  • Maassen, P., & Olsen, J. P. (Eds.). (2007). University dynamics and European integration. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Rovet, T. (2003). Opportunities for outstanding young scientists in Europe to create an independent research team. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miguélez, E., Moreno, R., & Suriñach, J. (2009). Inventors on the move: Tracing inventors’ mobility and its spatial distribution. Research Institute of Applied Economics (Working papers 2009/16). Barcelona: University of Barcelona.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2000). Education at a glance 2000. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2006). Education at a glance 2006. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007, March 28). Workshop on the international mobility of researchers. Paris, France. Retrieved September 1, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/document/5/0,3343,en_2649_34269_38004805_1_1_1_1,00.html

  • OECD. (2010). Education at a glance 2010. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pépin, L. (2007). The history of EU cooperation in the field of education and training: How lifelong learning became a strategic object. European Journal of Education, 42(1), 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontén A. and the Bologna Process Working Group on Social Dimension and the Data on the Mobility of Staff and Students in Participating Countries. (2007). Key issues for the European Higher Education Area – Social dimension and mobility. Stockholm: The Ministry of Education and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prague Communiqué. (2001). Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/PRAGUE_COMMUNIQUE.pdf

  • Regeringskansliet. (2010). Competing on the basis of quality – Tuition fees for foreign students. The Ministry of Education and Research U10.007, February 2010. Stockholm: The Ministry of Education and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, S. (2008). Europe/Asia regionalism, higher education and the production of world order. Policy Futures in Education, 6(6), 718–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S., Mentrup, A., Barjak, F., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Collection and analysis of existing data on REsearchers CAReers (RESCAR) and implementation of new data collection activities – The research team survey, Final report. Brussels: ERAWATCH Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sporn, B. (2002). Building adaptive universities: Emerging organisational forms based on experiences of European and US Universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 7(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stretenova, N. (2003). Scientific mobility and ‘brain drain’ issues in the higher education sector in Bulgaria (CSLPE research report 2003-2). Leeds: University of Leeds.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbik, L., & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends. London: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wächter, B. (2004). The Bologna Process: Developments and prospects. European Journal of Education, 39(3), 265–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, G. (2007). Skills and education – Is Europe on the right way? Österreichhischer National Bank 35. Volkswirtschaftliche Tagung 2007. Wien: ÖNB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zgaga, P. (2007). Looking out: The Bologna Process in a global setting. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, 35, FIN-40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Terhi Nokkala

Authors
  1. Terhi Nokkala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terhi Nokkala .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

    Adrian Curaj

  2. Institute of Education, London, United Kingdom

    Peter Scott

  3. , Sociology Department, Bucharest University, Bucharest, Romania

    Lazăr Vlasceanu

  4. European University Association, Brussels, Belgium

    Lesley Wilson

Appendices

Annex 1: Students

Country

Foreign students/all students, tertiary type A (%)a

Percentage of foreign/international students coming from EU19  a,b

Index of changes in the number of foreign students, 2008 (2000  =  100  a)

Share of tuition fees of university revenues (%) in 2008c

Tuition fees per annum BA (€)c

Tuition fees per annum MA (€)c

Small freedom in opening progs (accreditation or other restrictions)d

Large freedom in opening progs (universities may freely open)d

Small freedom to set fees (no fees, set by external or ceiling by external)d

Large freedom to set fees (free to set fees or cooperation)d

Small freedom in student intake (free admission, state decides)d

Large freedom in student intake (uni decides, split system, negotiation)d

AT

18.8

60.6

176

6

726

726

×

 

×

 

×

 

CY

   

12

0

2,500

×

  

×

 

×

CZ

7.5

73.4

510

5

0

0

×

 

×

  

×

DK

7.6

30.1

149

2

0

0

×

 

×

  

×

EE

3.6

64.7

281

13

0

0

×

  

×

 

×

FI

3.3

20.3

203

0

0

0

×

 

×

  

×

FR

12.4

14.2

178

5

169

226

×

 

×

 

×

 

DE

12.2

22.3

131

 

0–1,000

1–1,000

×

 

×

  

×

GR

4.1

3.6

304

 

0

1,000–6,000

×

  

×

×

 

HU

3.9

32.2

156

15

0

0

×

  

×

 

×

IS

4.8

61.0

202

0

0

0

×

 

×

  

×

IE

7.2e

26.7

173

35

0

3,000–25,000

 

×

×

  

×

IT

2.9

15.9

274

12

80–2,600

80–2,600

×

 

×

 

×

 

LV

   

15

1,500

1,500

×

  

×

 

×

LT

   

25

150

150

×

  

×

×

 

LU

   

2

0

17,500

×

  

×

 

×

NL

6.9

51.6

291

6

1,565

1,565

×

 

×

 

×

 

NO

7.1

29.2

185

0

0

0

 

×

×

 

×

 

PL

0.7

16.5

244

22

0

0

×

  

×

 

×

PT

4.7

16.8

175

10

700–900

VARIABLE

×

 

×

  

×

ES

2.4

16.9

255

21

600–1,000

1,000–3,000

×

 

×

 

×

 

SK

2.2

68.7

344

1

0

0

×

 

×

  

×

SE

7.9

14.1

135

0

0

0

 

×

×

  

×

CH

17.9

24.3

175

2

800–1,300

800–1,300

 

×

×

 

×

 

TR

1.0

7.8

115

4

70–200

100–300

×

 

×

 

×

 

UK

20.8

28.1

151

24

3,500

4,000–8,000

×

  

×

 

×

  1. aOECD (2010)
  2. bEU19: AT, BE, CZ, DK, FI, FR, DE, GR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, PL, PT, SK, ES, SE, UK
  3. cJongbloed et al. (2010)
  4. dEstermann and Nokkala (2009)
  5. ePercentage of foreign students out of the tertiary education

Annex 2: Staff

Country

Foreign students/all students, advanced research programmes 2004 (%)a

Foreign students/all students, advanced research programmes 2008 (%)b

Change in share of foreign students 2004–2008 (percentage points)c

Erasmus incoming 2004–2005d

Erasmus incoming 2009–2010d

Changes in incoming Erasmus 2004–2009d

Erasmus outgoing 2004–2005d

Erasmus outgoing 2009–2010d

Changes in outgoing Erasmus 2004–2009d

% of highly-cited researchers born in this country and working elsewheree

% of highly-cited researchers working in this country and born elsewheree

% of highly-cited researchers with any non-home work experiencee

Average salary junior (€)f

Average salary senior (€)f

Large freedom to decide on salaries (freely decide for all or some)g

Small freedom to decide on salaries (prescribed or other restrictions)g

Large freedom to recruit staff (freely)g

Small freedom to recruit staff (all other options)g

AT

21.1

26.0

4.9

649

788

1.21

647

759

1.17

     

×

  

×

CY

   

54

105

1.94

39

58

1.49

      

×

 

×

CZ

7.1

9.9

2.8

720

1,250

1.74

1,226

1,804

1.47

     

×

  

×

DK

20.4

16.5

−3.6

340

456

1.34

325

319

0.98

   

41,333

86,400

 

×

 

×

EE

 

4.7

 

165

356

2.16

243

286

1.18

     

×

 

×

 

FI

7.0

8.5

1.5

1,216

1,281

1.05

992

1,020

1.03

   

25,150

56,604

 

×

 

×

FR

33.9

39.8

5.9

2,281

2,598

1.14

2,093

2,555

1.22

7

18

22

  

×

  

×

DE

   

2,623

2,947

1.12

2,575

2,850

1.11

43

27

53

  

×

 

×

 

GR

   

613

656

1.07.

417

422

1.01

      

×

 

×

HU

7.4

7.7

0.3

595

850

1.43

528

884

1.67

      

×

 

×

IS

13.7

17.4

3.7

47

83

1.77

54

60

1.11

      

×

 

×

IE

   

221

223

1.00

188

189

1.00

      

×

×

 

IT

3.6

7.0

3.4

1,897

2,698

1.42

1,086

1,626

1.5

19

0

61

11,857

 

×

  

×

LV

   

170

411

2.41

205

385

1.88

   

2,688

13,406

 

×

×

 

LT

   

347

691

1.99

571

968

1.7

      

×

 

×

LU

   

9

7

0.77

0

2

       

×

×

 

NL

   

558

695

1.25

656

709

1.08

10

10

50

 

49,420

 

×

×

 

NO

18.2

25.0

6.8

290

418

1.44

295

362

1.23

   

43,841

62,600

×

 

×

 

PL

 

2.6

 

1,026

1,819

1.77

1,394

2,967

2.13

      

×

 

×

PT

7.8

11.0

3.2

945

1,322

1.40

570

777

1.36

     

×

  

×

ES

17.5

24.0

6.5

1,853

2,686

1.45

2,115

2,914

1.38

   

18,368

56,000

×

  

×

SK

1.2

5.5

4.3

234

811

3.47

291

641

2.2

      

×

 

×

SE

19.9

23.7

3.8

503

619

1.23

484

521

1.08

   

42,499

75,720

 

×

 

×

CH

42.4

45.9

5.5

      

0

64

88

   

×

×

 

TR

 

2.7

 

218

1,116

5.12

339

1,236

3.65

      

×

 

×

UK

40.3

47.7

7.4

1,343

1,390

1.03

1,308

1,513

1.16

9

19

45

38,485

87,507

 

×

×

 
  1. aOECD (2006)
  2. bOECD (2010)
  3. cOECD (2006, 2010)
  4. dEuropean Commission (2011)
  5. e,fCradden (2007)
  6. gEstermann and Nokkala (2009)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nokkala, T. (2012). Institutional Autonomy and the Attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area – Facts or Tokenistic Discourse?. In: Curaj, A., Scott, P., Vlasceanu, L., Wilson, L. (eds) European Higher Education at the Crossroads. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation