Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ED 167 011
AUTHORTITLE
INSTITUTION`
SPANS AGENCYREPORT NO --
PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FRC--
EDRS.PRICEDE -__RIPTORS
ABSTRACTrart'ofa series of studies cn higher gdscatiOd.
different countries, this essay examinea reit, t ens" 4 weer'universities and govertIments frcm a ccmparitive perspective. TwOma for themes that appear in the literature are the determinants ofincreased government control and the extent of that pcwer; six recentbooks that address these themes are discussed. The most frequentlycited determinant of increased government control of universities issystem expansion. Newe'r institutions generally lack the power of moreestablished institutions (the size, tradition, or alumni)`, andproliferaktion increases the need. for active coordination- Expansionhas also changed intra-university structures in away that stimulatesgovernment involvement. DemaUds that universities meetsocial,economic, and political needs beyond the campus also affectgovernment control. Government control over the university hasincreased as overall, government control Ihs increased in mostsocio-economic spheres. The extent of goverrment control and patternsof control in different countries are examined. Centralized control;autonomy and academic freedom; the power of, coordinating boards; andcontrol over appointive, academic, and financial policies areconsidered. (sW)
OC BENT RISME
ME 0 993
Levy, Daftiel, C. 'Universities and Government The ComparativePolitics of.Hiqher Educatton. A Review Essay. YaleHigher Education Research-Group Noticing raper 31.Tile Univ., New Haven, coon,. Inst. for Social andPolicy Studies.Lilly Endowment Inc.;.Indienapoli-, Ind.THERG-31Dec 78
'Higher Education Research -Group,'InstituticwforSocial and Policy. Studies, ,Yale University, 1732 -l--Station New Haven, CT .06520
M1140.83 HC-A2.06 Plus Postage.College Administration; *Comparative Educe iEducational Coordination; *Federal Regulation;Foreign'Countries4 Government Role; *GovernmentSchool Relatioftship; *Higher Education:.*Institutiotal Autoney; Literature Reviews;Political,Influences; *Postsecondary Education As aField of Study; Social Influences
* * *** ***************** *4.*****4***** ****************Reproductions supplied by ERRS are the best that can be made *
*, from the original document.**************************************** siott***********************
w UNIVERSITIES ANDTHE COMPARATIVE P(
HIGHER EDUCATA Rvyiew Ess
YALE HIGHER EDUCATION RESEWWORKING PAPER
YHERG7-31
2vEirmIssioN10 IWPILODHCV
THISMA TEHIALILAN ILEEN
LILIAN r111'
December 1978,,
*Daniel C. LevyResearch AcsociaHigher Education Research G oUp
i I II I(0NAL frrsoimeEsENr(mmnisoN(SI-N 1E11 fl III(_) ANC)THU VIM: S?; IOM co N fa
r..L/ 9 DEPARTMENT
OF FIEACTN,EDUCATIONwELgANENATIONAL 1NsTITutt of flkoucitnopo
THIS pot:I/MENT HAS BEEN REPO'DOCED EXACTLY- AS, RECEIVED
PROMtHE PERSON
OR ORGANIZATIONORIGIN-
A T 1NG ITPOINTS OF
VIEW OR OF'INIONSSTATED NDNOT NECESSARILY
RERE."EplSENT,
OFF IC DIALNATIONAL/IsiSTITUTE
OriC4TION POSITION
OR POLICY
The research reported in this paper has been part of the work conductedby the Yale Higher Education Research Cronn. It has been supported by ,
research funds from the Lilly Endowment for the comparative study ofacademic organization and governance. The paper will appear as a reviewarticle in_a forthcoming Issue of Comparative Politics. /y
In the interest of fullest possible circulation of information and ideas,the Higher Education Research Group reproduces and distributes theseWorking Papers- at the request of author9Nwhe are affiliated with the
-tGroup. -The views expressed are those of the authors.
Content of this WorkAkg Paper is not for publication or for quotationwithout permission. A list.of the:Working Papers of the Group may beobtained, from the address below.
Highe Education Research GroupInstitution for Social and Policy Studies
Yale University- 1732 Yale Station ,
New Haven, Connecticut 06520
John 1L7an de Craaff, BOrton R.achmidt, and Donald Wheeler,ln'Seven Nationtil S stefis of1978)
A
erry Haar, The: Pol les o H h-Praeger, 1977)
Dorotea'Furth,likietrdem cwPowery Patterns o
her Educa ion (New York:
dueation in Sraz 1 (New York:
Galo C6mez O. '.Chile de ho -_educ ci6n, et Alra y ciencia (Mexico-city: Ca de Chile,_1976 I
Lawrenee E. Gla4e6x And-ThomasThe National PoliticsMeath, 1976)
Congress- and the Colleges:due on Lexington, Ma D.C.
Vincent ChukweeMeka Ike, University D 14no n in Africa: The N erianExperience -(Ibadan, Nigeria: d University Press., 1976
Dunlop Nowlan, The Politics of :.-her Education: Lathe Academ _n Illinois (Urbana, Illinois: University o19,76)
makers Andlinois,
A .r2iLul--A
The ,myth that the univerY
belated and painful death.
y_
somehoW above politics has'been dying a
However noble the image of a community of scholars
immune from the tainting influences f politics, are increasingly forced
to realize that there is, after all, a politics of higher education. But it
has taken Ark evidence of blatant government involvement, following hard on
the heels of tumultuous intra-university politicization. Scholars have lagged
behind government officials in adequately appreciating the political aspects
of such functions As: training of government leaders, bureaucrats, techno-
crats and professionals, satisfaction of middle -class asOirations, research
relevani,fa'rlevelopment or nationalism _ simply expenditure of substantial
public funds. Even when the politi_ of primary and secondary education began
receiving attention, spurred by community'power studies in the fifties and
sixties, the univer y _ "self - evident virtue, professional dignity and
innocence" protected its sanctuary status from political scientists' -crutiny.1
6
Notwithstanding imPortant pockets of recent /improvement, political scientists
still. lag behind their. brethren in enonom cd, bistoryc and sociology in the
study:of higher educationon; Even in wha should be our special sub - domain:
"Until 'recently most of the work. on t ei,politite of higher education as
carried out by scholars in educatio Political scientists showed little
3Interest..
One reasonable explanation or this inactivity is the recency of the
dramatic rise in gdvernment co .01. Study did not come until the university
ctramunitY itself perceived _Eminently clear and present danger4
But this
timetable explanation has limited validity. In fact, strong government con-
trol is not so new as co nly portrayed. Emerging literature on government
control in the U.S. to n ignores theAegacy of strong state inVolvement.5
At' any rate, governmen_ involvement is historically more marked in many other
_ .
nations. One-need. ony think of the Napoleonic model, accenting centralized
control:by the ministry, long prominent in,EuroPe and, through export and
adaptation, parts Latin America. S- there is clear need for historical
as well as contem rrary research. Such research might help identify what
sort of government control i_ indeed new, in scope or type.
ThiS essay concerns itself specifically with relations between Universi-
ties and goVertritents, cross-nationally. Thus, it focuses on the least treated,
aspects within the literature. These aspects can be ranked in the following
ascending order of neglect: the politics of education, the politics of
4
higher edUcation, university-government relations, the comparative study'
those relations.- Even by the time we reach, the politics of higher education,
there ip so little study that it would be highly gratuitous to advocate any
particlar substantive ix sue or methodological approach for political scien-
.Comparativists have scarcely appeared on the scene. This may
bit surprising given the classic perception of the university as an'eminently
international Institution, and, especially, given certain definite cross-
national trends in higher education. But it is quite understandable given the
dearth of work available on nations individually. 7. It follows naturally-
that, "in the comparative analysis of academic power, the state of the art
remains primitive. 118 "Comparison" still generally refers to interstate con-
.parison within the U.S. The best attempts at such Com-parison with state
coordinating or regulatory'boards.9 -hurt of actual comparisons, among nations,
we have mostly edited volumes with highly individual chapters on particular
nations -- and even these focus only partly on politics.10
I.
Ironical the politics of higher education would see to offer a tsxt-,
book example'o the de -rabil ty of comparative analysis.11
in which the efficacy of present practices is often questioned/ one might
First, in an eta
well be interested in policy lessor's from (or for
in both North and South America favor movement toward certain European modes
abroad. Many policy-makers
of central planning. Meanwhile, some European nations are themselves experi-
menting with the perceived virtues of greater system decentralization and
university autonomy! Yet we know very little'about different policy outcomes
across different U.S. state systems, lone different national systems.1 2
A
Second, appreciation and understanding of particular policies is enhanced
when we know how general or idiosyncratic'they are. Which elements of a given
,nation's politics of higher education are attributable to cross-nationil pat-4
terns in highet education and which to particular characteristics of that
nation's politics? A related, third reason for comparative analysis is that
such'analysis is a prerequisite to accurate assessments of the extent
growing or actual government control. cannot appreciate the individual
trees until we know s- ething,ofAhe forest.
The immediate usefulness of-a review essay on the comperat politics of
higher education, especially for comparativists not expert in th_ subject
ter, lies in synthesizing some significant aspects of a small bUt extremely
diffuse literature. Many works on.higher educhtion in partiCular nations now
devote some section to politics. As interest in the politics of higher educa-
tion gathers,momentum,,it is time to take stock of what has been said inn,
scattered sources. in the hope of structuring present (and even future) research
around salient themes. Two major themes which preoccupy the literature are:
the determinants of increased government power and the extent of`that power.
Special attention is given here to, six very recent books which deal sub-.
stantially with these themes. Pue to the proliferation of works which par-
tially treat university - government relations, amidst the dearth irks
which treat them as their central theme, the idea here is tp establish Impor-
tant cross-national patterns morej*an to review a few "must" books closely.
Inlact, sad to say, there really are no "must" works in_the recent literature.
Thus, after a few summary comments on the si-- books themselves, the essay-
proceeds .directly to an exploration of those patterns.
It would seem petty to belabor the obvious individual weaknesses of the
six works in terms -f socialgcience scholarship.. They are all highly
descriptive. -They rarely achieve systematic analysis or explanation. Even
the few political scientists represented tend to deal somewhat superficially
with central disciplinary tenets and hypotheses. Instead, some of the accounts
by participant-observers,(Nowlan, a former state representative, Gladieux,
legislative assistant, Glimez, a rector -- and then political prisoner
offer a crisp, lively quality. Other accounts draw heavily on secondary
sources. Both types often lapse into tedious detail of formal provisions,
promulgated or ,simply propoaed, often into, bewildering repetition. Finally,
there is veryilittle.effort at comparison. Only Van d Graaff et al., make.
a syatematic effort. Hut one should not be too harsh on works appearing'
a relative vaedum. We should not slay young. Taken as a group, these
six works fairly representative
our
e somewhat better, e tainly no worse
of a 1stiltimitivelerature. Thus they are most welcome, contributions.
Foisibly the closest we have to, a. "must" work is the Nen-nation study
by Van de Graaff et al. There are seven separate country chapters, giving
gOod coveKage of the industrialized democracies., Ihter_sting contrasts
develop between four centralized systems of-state Control over higher educe-
tion.(France, Italy, Sweden, West Germany) and three less centraliied systems
-Ong land, Japan, and espegially the U.S.). An interactive dynamic emerges
between the conceptually-oriented introductory and (two) concluding chapters
and the detailed country chapters. This imparts a cohesiveness too, often
lacking ,multiple- authorship works. One can truly compare the countries
__analyzed. Unfortunately for our purposes, the authors devote substantialfi
attention to matters of iritra- university policyb but,_happily, these are
often related to university-government affairs.
The toughest country of the seven to analyze -at the national level is
the U.S., owing to the absence of an overarching federarstructure. But
Cladieux and Wolanin, focusing on the Educationfil Amendments Act of,1972,
document the recent ascendency of aderal role. By their own .account
(p. 249), the authors attempt little more than a traditional narrative case-.
study of "fascinating slice of political life." But they do provide a
rare look.at the national policy - making process as it -gains importance.
Still, the preponderance of government authority remains at _te level.
We therefore need more monographs like.Nowlan's on Illinois. 'Nowlan explores
the role of tate le ature, especially the House Higher Education
Cotimittee. His study is insightful. Unfortunately, neither the Nowlan nor
the Gladieux and Wolanin accounts, due to their focus on the legislative
branch, gives a clear perspective on the overall growth of gOvernment pow
or all its shortcomings, actIolarship on the politics of higher educe-
tion in more developed countries fares well compared to seholarhhip on the
less developed countries. Judging from its title, The politics Of Hi her
14ducation in Brazil seem to offer more of an exception than it does
fact,'silice it actually limits itself largely to admissi,onn policy.- None-
theless, the treader gain6 some unde ,tanding of he role.of the twat' _ratian,
military junta which assumed power, in 1964. A broader, if more subjective,
account of even more repressive government policy in action is found in
G6mez's analysis of Chile since its military coup in 1973. This work give.,
fearful look at,something perhaps apprdaching the "ex _11 of
gpvernment contra in Latin America. It is more difficult to fend n recent
work principally devoted to African university-government relations. Most,
like Ikes,- teally concentrate on, university development or the role of the
university in nation-building. .Within this latter category, h never, one
does get a feel for- bow political issues
Drawing continually on these six and num
impinge on the university.,
other works,
now considers th o principal themes. - -- the growth
essay
nd-extent of government
control over the universities -- selected to 'Nip synthesize the literature
on university government relations.
Determinants
Although the determinants of.increaRed government control obviously vary,
from nation to nation, it is interesting for compnraptiv srs to note
WIEsble imllaritiea found An very dive.rne settings. The most frelrently
eited'determinant. in sy_tem expansion, Fabulous post-war growth in enrol
ments, in more end less.deieloped nations alike, eroded the traditional
elitist aura of he university. Expanding numbers meant expanding needs,
icing expectations_-- and greater dependence on government funds. The
ivory tower faced crumbled. Skyrocketing costs ended the debate within
many U.S. univerniUieH as to desirability of seeking' greate gOv nment
aid.-3
Responding to the ever greater burden, government officials w rld-.
4wide naturally concluded that more accountability wan'proper compens ion.
1
Concomitantly, many privte sectors declined in proportional size, ns in the
U.S., or became "less private," as in Brazil and Japnii.- The 11-- gov-
ernmenell' irnt set a limit on the amount private universi
WCAM fes and then offered compensating subsidies only if these. univer-
ies loined the nationally - unified
brenkirv,, sharply
15system. The Japar _ government,
h its post-war policies, assumed A major burden for pri-
vats universities' expenses.16
Paradoxica
not only g-
rationales for
nnd this symbolizes the momentum toward government action,
wing scale, but limited car stagnating scale, are
contlool. `African govexnments insist thn.t limited
enrAllments and research capnbi ies make inherited traditions of university
autonomy unaffordable luxuries. Governments which a few years back insisted
that expansion required greater direction now argue that sharp reversals in
enrollment rates, coupled with hard economic times, require imposed prioriti
and economies,. Maurice Kogan's analvnis of the Pnglish evolution from c_otitrol
predicated on growth to control predicated on stagnation, is il.lust,rative.17
Retu rnin; to factors associated with growth, multiplying enrollments
institutional. proliferation, bajedten led to dr
to increasing government control: There are two Neale ways in which prolifa.
eration is associnte1 with control. First, newer institutions generally
lack the-size, tradition, AlUmni, or, in short, entrenched power hich help
shield more established institutions from external control. Moreover,
disproportionate percentage of theme new institutions helong to the non-
university sector. Where technical Institutes Are created largely out o
government dissatisfaction with the manpower performanre of traditional uni-
ver , and are charged with more "applied" tankn, greater external con-.
"binary system, " -In which polv-trol is a logical consequence, England'
'technics labor un
do, is a good ex
ter government supervision than universities
11 rly, -year institutions or "community
coll n" have been gaining steam throughout the American. Within it doe le
the big surge started in the late fifties, the U.S. had over 1,000
such institution
1
-regional collegft
t 307; of thr high' .ducati 1 enr llment. ChIl
mark one imt r_ont Latin American
foray; Mexico's regional inntltuces, started in 1)4R, hut proliferating
rapidly after 1970, mark
The second honk. reason
increased
coord inat icn . Smelsv
is Eh._
pr(hing
Issue of how t ms change durir-
California) twut led to it
imnulatcd eff rts-st coord
established prestige univers
net
In
iiiilarnertta l
II in tiny lead to
active
filet -.11- func tionalist
finds' that m:_- ducat ion (in
ntional diversification, which, turn, has
20, even f,t,tnrf rrdizat1 nu. Of course, the
resist effort S at external coordination,
especially when sra dnrdizntiopv'er --go e-sharing are Imp] ied. The 1 ue
then hecomea --iher the external nuthor1t
. The State of California so
hag the power to
did, w4tlr Berkeley, the Fast,Afr__ n
o
9
PpderAt.ton genern ly 111d not with n dn'n Mnkr
or cenntiturnt root
ttt r of ef fart
curb the
Univernit- Co
rtinn within the tinivert ity of finnt Africa).21,
ntnndnrd17ntion, enordinntinn rnnv hr deemed nerennnry
"wnnteful duplication",found in hpont neaumly proUfrrnting
Ti inntn prnvtrlrn an extrrmr exnmplr,22 tlr, n r
mny be n renponne to the romplox Ind rntnhrtine ( ,ndn of nn "ever- ive -n
frig" highrr 7ninc tion ttvrrtrm, lot) nhown Illinois. /Nino, an innt
tut Orollfcrote and ompete against one another, the le,
1t id heyn.eonnidered thrir natural n(:dn in t.hrown in 1""
what
on. Thin en-
coorngn ser sr-t lny of 'atoll vonerdhle innult tIons an the Univers!
thy Central University tl
V
i iv) t11(., 7-lat fonal UniveLnIty of
)1ne7ueir. In num, fnntit
ntl
)nal prol
thIfshed al -wv11 alt thp
enth'i tr !et) It
.1 tin t Itnt Int
Expansion hot'; alno (11,int 1ntra-onlyersIty In a woy that
pit, and Inom of
Lion, oft.rtt 1rat1fur to
.err hln I don yynI around t:onlo pro-
Latin Ami4In
the_hreal-dtpwn or
-fessors or ch.
Inmrnt flivc)Irment. ln
only )1Inft:r pro
anal I fueled demands for m
Wento 11
Y-
orad fro] thi* 'crea !t1 A v.;trrrnm Into which not
rn and hnt nlso p.overnmentn would move. To take
an examply trom another Fryef
the univer- :.tratned
;fits inf on-o kern within
-riphon n on acht:evinp, consennus
In} the innti t'It Lotta l,ntruntury onki
Crosn-notloi Ilv, rrovfrry unf 117,or
ahas -11-eN you
un I vvrq Lv 111! ;t rat lc
as it links perso
tappeninr in I'lexicor
feet 4.'111(71.U:op outside Inter
rIiv problciil, el
hemnylven
24ence .
nniversity worke)
rt1 to power which
's communitIi ical
national labor IcTislation, as
Probably the mastlballyhpoed aspect o intra-university, politica has
been student attivism. West GerMan students, pursuing iquest popularised
by Argentine students fifty years lier, demanded "co- government" with
strong student nnd'junlor faculty participation. And', around the world,
activism has often spilled over into violencebeyondeampua enclaves. Many
authors have argued that activism shattered the university- government
ffair, d 611ahed the university special aura) and killed the myth O
the university dispnssioned judgment.25
Specific examples
government reactions abound. In many_pntl mentary democraci the student
disorders of the late sixties led directly to sprites of gove _ment legisla-.
ti n.26
Lerman lawn which so recently head promoted autonomy and intro-
university democratization, now (Hideo. 1973) have 'dem nded reduced autonomy
and greater state involvement. Janan ministry of Education (1969) passed
its p law on internal university ove_ -ancj4 .'71-1e Brazilian
junta, which upon its asornsion had responded to student leftism by abolish-
ing the? 4ational -Union of Students, responded to renewed activity (1967-8).
with renewed repression.27
Chile' Univerflity Reform Movement (1967-1973),
which (reflecting turbulent national politicat-events ) involved unprecedented$ u
politicization, would he dealt with similarly by that nation's junta. 28
Thus the ab ontof all student political activity to eradicate the
Mar st eauee Compared to these cases, tr.S. vernment reaction was
minimal. But higher Education Act
dents involved in dlrrulticns, encOmaged many
968, barring aid to stu-
efforts to infrInge on
university authority; though most efforts never were promulgated, they some-
times compelled desired measures by "sending a message.."
Adjuiting the focus a bit, there are certain',basica ra-university-
factors which, while interrelated ithother factors,
attention as determinants of government control.
Van de Graaff and Furth write of the growing belief in the "politiciza-.
tion ' principle that university performance should be gauged by national
needs and social standards.29
overnments increasingly demand that univer-
sities meet needs beyond the campus. The sanctuary principle is in general
disrepute, nowhere more starkly evidenced than in those Latin American
countries, like Venezuela, where the traditional claim to "extraterritori-
ality" has been suppressed30
Many Third World governments, such as the
Mexican and the Tanzanian, have decreed that all graduates devote some
specified time to social service, decrees which inevitably lead to university
protests and only sometimes (Tanzania) to apnarent government sdecess.31
Those governments, such as the Tanzanian and the Cuban, which demand that
their universities produce "new" or "socialist" citizens, have obvious
rationales for great control. Throughout the world, less intense but still
significantly increasing government pressure is found, again often despite
university resistance, for programs of "lifelong" or "recurrent" or Wen"
(non-classroom) education. Even in the U.S., not generally cited to illustrate
active: government involvement egalitarian social ends, the trend in
clear. Gladieux and Wolanin (p. 95) describe the evolution of legislation
aimed at "equal opportunity" or even "college as a matter of right." And
everybody -is- talking about court pressures for affirmative action or
"reverse'discrimination.
Beyond such social ends, governments worldwide are increasingly pressing
their universities to achieve definite political and economic ends. In
Afr a as Ike shows or Nigeria, the watchword is fon-building.1 2
lint 1
independence, Nigeria's "university colleges" were intimately tied to the
University of London, attempting to replicate cu
13
Alum rather than to adapt
12-
o
to local exigencies. Dependency continued to manifest itself during nationhood,
as reflected in the predominant role of foreign scholars and advisors. And the
problem of nation-building persisted as regional divisions, reaching tragic pro-'1,J!
portions in the 1967 Civil War, obstructed the junta's centralization policies.
Whatever the frustrations, however, widespread progress toward Africanization
has taken place; the main point here is that it generally came first in the gov-
ernment sector, which then authoritatively demanded it in the university sector.
Similarly, Rudolph a &Rudolph cite the nationalistic pressures aimed at making
Indian higher education "less like an exotic transplant` from an alien culture.
Meanwhile, many Latin American govtrnment- have been insisting on nation-
u33
rebuilding. Cd1mez and Haar detail the application of the Chilean and Brazilian
juntas' counter - revolutionary ideologie_ .to higher education.- The university
must be a spearheading force to create a strong, centralized, technocratic,
"moral" society. Of special interest is the role of Brazil's Superior War
College. Its training not only in warfare but administration, management,
planning -- yes and even social science -- contributed to the military's self-
.
perceived readiness to rule.34
To a lesser extent, national regeneration has
Spurred government involvement in the more developed, nations Also. A common
example is the Natiothil Defense Education Act in response to Sputnik; like-
wise, the English government soon became concerned lest its universities liot
keep scientific pace with the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.
Recently, a number of governments have become more extensively involved
in manpower policy, and therefore in university admiSsions policies. The premium
is on sound "articulation between manpower needs and university career enroll-
men-- Meanwhile, a number of Latin American governments have been impressed
with planning models focused on human capital.
A final cross-national determinant of increased government control has
received distressingly little treatment in the literature. Perhaps it is too
obvious. Probably the literature simply has not paid due attention to distinctly
political variables. Government control over the university has increased
overall government control has increased in most socioeconomic spheres. The
last few decades have witnessed a secular growth in governments' welfare-state
-----Towers in most. Western industrialized nations. But the secular growth or
govbrnment power in the mdc's pales in comparison to the dramatic groWth of
government power in many ldc's. Ike describes how English advocacy of autonomy
for Africa's newly independent universities was rendered impotent not only byi
the quest for African .zation but, more definitively, by the advent of authoritarian
35 _
one-par y states and then military juntas. The Niger an government moved in
increasingly determined fashion after the 1966 coup and the 1967 Civil War.
Similarly, there is no more prominent ca t& of the growth of government control
over universities in South America than shocking regime transformation.
Expansion, proliferation, politicization, and the ideology of development
doubtless would have stimulated significant changes in control in any case--
but nothing like the repressive grip felt today in Brazil, Chile, Argentina,
Uruguay, __ for that matter, Cuba. It is interesting to note, in tlaar's
and.G6mez's accounts, how highly overall government repression correlates with
repressive universit=y policies. The Brazilian evolution to increased authoritat-
Lianism, 1964-1968, included university purges and depolitiza ion, The Chilean
junta's initial counter - revolutionary wrath focused on the particular personnel,
curricula and universities associated with the'marxist left, while its evolving
repression of middle-class democratic sectors inevitably intensified control over,
for example, the Catholic universities associated with the "recessed" Christian
Democr36Ac Party. How fasclnatUn-, it would be to explore what both Haar's and
G6rez's work are already too dated to do: how government control. may he receding
-14-
as the regimes become somewhat less repressive.
Comparative Extent of Government Control
Fundamentally similar problems emerge in considering the cross-national
extent as well as determinants of increased governmental control. Again
there is a proliferation of scattered information but woefully little systematic
analysis. One searches in vain for criteria or methods by which to assess
relative degrees of autonomy and control. In fart, the literature scarcely
attempts anything approaching an operational definition of autonomy. There is
only ad hoc consideration of different relevant issues. Consequently, there is
a decided lack of objectively comparable data. Thus it is understandable that
the literature has generally refrained from attempting cross-national assessments.
But it is also lamentable. Only very broad statements about high or low autonomy
are possible. Invidious ordinal ranking aside, we can rarely compare different
patterns of government control. A reading of Ike on Nigeria and Naar on Brazil,
for example, allows us to compare patterns only where there are infrequent
coincident emphases. What is more distrubing is that a reading of Ike
Nigeria and, for example, Okafor on Nigeria, produces so little common grqund.37
In fact, Okafor seems to imply a wider range of government control -- despite
the greater recency of Ike's account, covering years in which the government's
role has-expanded.
Again, the unusual value of the Van de Craaff et al. study is evident.
khile it does not allow for any definite one-seven national ranking, it does
give us certain grounds for distinguishing cases of relatively greater and lesser
control, and, more importantly, for comparing patterns of control. The authors
establish- floral and specific differences between "statist" political
educational -ystems and the more autonomous ones. A good deal of diverse
- 15 -
literature tends to support their broad conclusions. Traditional respect for
autonomy in England and the fJ.S. certainly contrasts with continental faith
in centralized administrative planning. Similarly, the U.S. or even Japanese
,emphasis on vibrant private sectors finds no parallel ifi.the continental bias
for higher education 4s an in egral part of the public welfare sector. Excepting
only West Germany's Land strati es, those European nations have concentrated
- government power at the national level. Excepting,,to some extent, Brazil and
Mexico, the same is true of Latin America. The contrast again is sharp` to th4'
U.S., perhaps even sharper to Canada.3S
And as in soymany policy areas, the
plural checks and balances among U.S. branches of government ,impose limits on
government control which appear, quite unusual in cross-national perspective.
But numerous quaiifications,-to these broad comparisons have now led some
scholars to speculate, about "cnnvergence"9 syst'emsjwith centralized control
experiment with autonomy, while more autonomous ones move toward the "Swedish
model." Much attention has focused on France's 1968 "Orientation Law,"
ostensibly geared to increase institutional initiative and autonomy, and on
40Sweden's 1977 Reform as a "far-reaching attempt to decentralize authority.'
Perhaps there is some relevancehere to the genet 1 hypothesis, suggested by-
Huntington, and others, that certain political systems which had previously
pursued centralized power in order to harness energies will consider partial
decentralization in order to achieve the flexibility necessary to cope with
increasing complexities.41 But even after a full decade, decentralization in
French higher education is probably not fundamental.42
if cross-national
convergence is occurring, it still seems destined to take place far closer to
the government control pole than to a median point.
A particularly dramatic, and much-noted, manifestation of increased
government control over universities (at least in the previously less centralized
- 16 -
tlystemS) is the growing power of coordinating boards. The' literdture's classic
case is Great Britain's University Grants Committee (UGC). Originally established
as a buffer between the univerAties and the government, a mechansim by which
external coordination could be imposed by professional peers cognizant of
government needs 4it could forestall imposition by government officials themselves.
There is, however, growing despair in academic circles that the UGC is evolving
into that most sinister of all institutional creatures -- a government bureau.
"It appears to many that the UGC now merely puts an acceptable face. upon a
broad policy decided In WhitehalL"4 3
This fate would repTesent a particularly
dire symbol for the-cause of university autonomy because the UGC has been so
widely heralded as an alternative to government control.
6 clearest cases of UGC institutional transference naturally involve
commonwealth countries. Nigeria established a National Universities Commission
in 1962. In the ensuing decade government representation increased and the
Commission's powers expanded; Canada and Australia face similar prospects for
their UGC-like buffers, found at the provincial level.44
Despite important
limits qn its power, India's UGC "is by far the most important influence at
the national level on higher education."45
-B t even the U.S. seems to be
turning its back on itsycherished pluralist beliefs in competition among
....;I, ,146
1.--..autonomous institutions as it "closes the f ontier There is a definite___
evolution of.state
coo dilating boards from advisory, to regulatory bodies.
\. ,
Also remarkable is the hdvent of stroag coordinating boards in nations, such
47as Brazil and Chlle", with histories of extreme isolation among universities.
Brazil's Federal Education Council, comprised of twenty-four members nominated
by the President, has broad powers over:academic policy. The Chilean junta
has tried hard to transform the previously ineffective Council of Rectors into
a potent coordinating body. New boards in less repressive Latin American
1
setti
-17-
have followed less certain trajectoriet.48
And there are some real
efforts, in many nations, at voluntary inter-university coordination to stall
the government offensive.
Turning more specifically to what governments have actually come to
control, the literature is especially unorganized. There are hopelessly ad hoc
references to control over some particular aspect here, some partiCular aspect
there. It seems useful, tentativelyat least, to categorize the major issues
in academic governance according to three broad policy areas. Appointive,
academic, and financial policies appear to fom pretty inclusive, if not so
mutually- exclusive, categories for a range of_issnes diffusely discussed in
the literature.
The appointive category deals mostly with the selection of students,
professors and administrators. Of these, no single issue has attracted as
much attention as student admission, especially in those democracies with nationally-,
based, rather than university baked, policies. The continental tradition of
fairly open admissions and career choice for secondary-School graduates has
largely given way to "government-determined enrollment capacities and controlled
access and admissions."49
The Swedish government has gone furthest toward
explicit linking of access to manpower policies. Certain other systems are
becoming increasingly nationalized, government-style. In Japan, recent laws
limit admissions to provincial universities and impose a stand _dized entrance.
exam for national universities. Similarly, as Haar analyzes in detail (pp. 65-
149), Brazil has moved from university exams to a single nationally-standardized
exam. Perhaps the most striking example of government control over access
policy, found in Brazil or especially Chile, is the emphasis on restrictive
political-ideological criteria. Of course, Cuba now has nearly two decades of
,50experience with such criteria, its adaptation of "red and expert.'
With certain modifications; many of these comparisons seem to hold for
the hiring (and firing) of professors. Whereas .professors are hired as
employees of the national civil service in the centralized systems, they are
hired as employees of the individual universities in the less centralized.
systems. Again certain authoritarian' cases show the extreme pattern of
strong government intervention- according to highly politicized criteria But,
judging from the Brazilian case, professorial appointments still usually
emain within the university's purvie
Not so
51
th administrative appointments. Most authoritarian governments
control these very carefully. Each of Chile's eight universit ectors is a
military officer: In a vivid illustration of blunt authoritarian coercion, a
Nigerian military governor, lacking the constitutional means to fire a univer
sity vice-chancellor (chief executive simply called him into his office and
"showed" him his gun; the vice-chancellor resigned.52
Even in the U.S. there
is considerable government representation on public university governing
boards, let alone on statewide coordinating boards.
Three related cross - national hypothese merit suggestion here. The first
that governments generally exert stronger control over important adMinistra0.1
tive appointments than over ongoing academic policy. By vesting authority,in
officials they can.trust, governments need not attempt to deal with the com-
plexities of specialized academic tasks. The second is that governments
insist on direct control over appointments or ongoing governance. Thus one
author, perhaps excessively influenced by the Swedish case, goes so far as to
suggest an inverse relationship between the two concerns53
The third hypo-
thesis is that strong university administrations are inversely related to
strong ministerial rule. Thus U.S. and English universities head of govern-
.\
ment involvement by lodging responsible, coordinating, bureaucratic authority
in university- authorities -- precisely 'the,opposite of European practice,
where universities e controlled simultaneously by individual "chairs" and
national ministries,.54 Perhaps it in this context 4that recent French and
West German attempts to strengthen university rectors accompany attempts to
lessen ministerial control. Of course, as our authoritarian cases show most
clearly, strong university-wide authority may go hand-in-hand with strong
government authority. There is a pronounced need for furtl3er investigation
of these three hypotheses relating appointments and ongoing academic auto
The category of academic autonomy could encompass academic freedom from
external control, as well as university authprity over degree nting, cur-
riculum, careers and the like. Academic freedom warrants somewhat special
analysis, however, because it does not necessarily constitute a part of insti-
tutional autonomy. In'many West European nations, an enviable degree of
Academic freedom of individual thought and expression traditionally has been
55coupled with considerable ministerial control over institutional policies.-
Only at certain points does the distinction between the concepts of academic
freedom and institutional autonomy actually blur to the point where a viola-
-ion of one is a serious violation of the other. For example, ministerially-
imposed standardized curricula in France and Italy necessarily restrict
individual professors' freedom.
'Academic_freedom and institutional autonomy over - academic policy correlate
more strongly both in authoritarian settings, where each is limited, and in
less ministerially - oriented democracies, where each'is substantial. Our
authoritarian cases show clear.violations of one which simultaneously violate
ther. Brazil's "cornerstone").Z68 Reform abolishes student and professor
dissent, imposes stiff penalties for acts of subversion, and demands int
university reorganization with increased government regulatioh of curriculum
and course con ent.--56
Thus, for example, the junta determines disciplinary
,frenrollments, eliminating "marxist" or 'superfluous courses, especially in
the social sciences, and substituting courses consistent with its "national
!ecuricy" doctrine. The general blueprint has been xeroxedC? export to
Chip little lost in handling or translation.
-So it is only in certain democracies, those where education ministries
do not play very strong roles in higher educati4
that one finds relatively.;
high levels of both individual academic freedom and institutional autonomy,
ove academic affairs. Universities usually set academic policy, while aca-
demic freedom has been relatively respected, when assessed, in cross-national
perspective. (This is not to overlook significant abuses, not Only by govern-
ments but by other extra-university powers such as private donors, profes-
sional associations or external examiners.)
Btit even in these less ministerially-oriented democracies, rising govern--
went intervention chips away at institutional autonomy over academic affa
UGC guidelines ongly favor" careers like computer sciences while they
57Kogan writ,es that the UGC"strongly discourage" careers like architec.ure
)imposes disciplinary distributions by n within national percentages
58fixed by the ministry. If central cont_o over disciplinary choice and
human regourCes emerges as one of the most salient manifestations of rising
government control, the comparatively mihimal government role in the U.S.
probably reflects on the relative strength of the market system.59
Finally, we may speak of financial policy. No other realm of government
control see
cial
to quantit
ticularly
ms so omnipotent. And yet, despite the fact that certain finan-r--
rs potentially :Lep(' themselves more than other governance matters
Ave empirical analysis, there is less literature on them. Par-
iking is the lack of study on the political ramifications
-2
,different forms of financing. Tuitions, 'loans and subsidies are more often
treated as economic or equity issues. But even before one considers the
ifications of who pays, the:very question of who determines who pays
merits gfeater attention than it ,has received. Within Latin America, for
example, it would be interesting to compare the dramatic government impo
tion of tuition in Chile to the moderate -overnment actions in Brazil and
Colombia, to the relative failure in Mexico.60
For those cases in'which government subsidies sustain the universities,
the literature's widespread )tion is that funding means control. The
correlation seems especially clear -cut for the more authoritarian regimes
and the state systems of the continent.
federal government did not hesitate to
rites (p. 163): '"In sum, the
e both sanctions, and rewards.
to pursue its policy goals." European ministries have generally involved.
themselves dired-ly in line-budgeting, even to
pre-auditing expenditures.
even in ministerial systems,
supposed.61
Some of the European countries are tentatively moving toward
treme, in France, of ,'
is not clear that government funding,
ually leads to the de-- of control common
greater autonomy over; -distribution at, the lower levels of the governance
structure and for example, the French Treasury now demands only post-
auditing.62
There-are, however, sure signs of increasing government financial control
in the previously more autonomous systems. Kogan notes the portance of the
UGC's shift away from Treasury, "notoriously bad at con lling anythini
directly," to Education, where "there i4 now hardly a category of universityx.
n63' _expendituye is not conditioned by VGC:prescrin ls. Similar comm 1 s
coult-rbe-m1(_ many of the UGC offspring. And V. S. governments
insist on significantly increased financial ov lght. Even the
-22-
government, via the GAO, has gained the authority to assess the cost-,
64effectiveness of programs it finances.
Still, we do not in fact know the degree and type of control accompany-
ing government financing. Surely there is abundant, and growing, evidence
of a correlation. At the extreme, universities in Communist suf
great external control with their 1007 government financing, while certain
private universities in Mexico and the U.S. suffer little Such control in
iving only token,
versities rec
universities derive 75% of their income f rom the governnie
But
dramatic example.. which defy the as,umed correlation. The nos
thin a single nation, South Africa' black nni-
ve government financing while the more auttnomous white
65
he who pays the piper n calls the tune, there arc also
governments in South America have ent=thcir prop
tionc as
a -1- Ian
Tonal financial contrihn-
N substantially increase their control. Ilenwhile, national uni-
versities in countries like Mexico and Venezuela maintain relatively high
levels of autonomy despite nearly total dependence on government funds. Many
Latin Americans wouid (lisp( _ the plural logic, so self-evi. ent to most
North Ameri and repeatedly sustained- to CoMmission and,
that matter, endo by tog Robbins C.nmmittee on Higher Education,
fjtt
-'heIps ire.nre intitnt ant iomv. The/
fie insfoati that multiplicity may lead to duplicity. l e sponttiblltty is
that a mul iplicity
not clearly fixed. Each of the donors can he fickle, evasive or punitive.
Thus, if funding necessarily implie.s some
clear that a linear correlat n holds. Even
.4% amol it is not at n11
ramont givIiu the
university 's Income id more intineneo than giving 207, tt doe"
not follow that Bove _amen e 1 (1 the most
correlations still womld not prove ionships.
urthermor in ar
- 23 -
ess Trove
_Focusing as it does on the growth of government power, -merging liter
tore on the politics of higher education in different nations presents a
bleak picture for university autonomy. It sugges s powerful explanations or
i c ased government cont and compellin manifestations of_ it. Un.for
natelv, however, it ha devoted far ton little attention to the limits to this
1. A tair overview of current It ra nvev's the impre don of an
alm n xornb
gover- n
of government power, a one-way dynamic: what the
to the univeraltv. Dig ing deeper i__
i however . one finds intriguing
limited take an example discussed above: Institutional proliferation
the subject mat
government po
clearly .ti,nttlatesa Increased efforts; at artive coordination, but by increasing
'Ins'; at and complexi
coord nation. 1;11
_future reeareh.
Difficult to tl
cool d votively al
; worth au
pro{litce girt ric rtionately
a few relevant hyp theses
1, as ;y::, wouli he a range of political citltut
var 1 that are tb, difinse effects of cherished tradi t ions; of autonomy
(fat ; Amer 1 fear of
In naual rather than imposed doe
ii 11 1 (U.!;. ), or beliefs
n °tn.ik ing (Japan Wht II;
d fl ont entra at ion within the gov Inmca
ectora? f;01-1 government , vane(' - ti
nc,torin.n,ly inefficient ministries, marshal the capa
coot
!IV
r from vibrant, private
developed With
necessary for
what extent are ,rsIties s..tfc, and their lobbiv
few governments chit hope to cope whit alit' spec la I f: t =d lot ot-
to ttion and taaks th it are part and par
lio ally poworfnl the yersity's°J1
acatdenilc enterprise
.nally middle °c lass)
24--
constituency of students, professors, and alumni?.7-1 Are these privileged
eonstituencies and specialized tasks especially conducive to cooperative,
even "corporatist," rather than subordinate, relations with government
elites?72
:flow much strength does the university derive from its vital role
not only in primary funttiqns like scientific research, but secondary ones
like political trceeruttp nt?73
To what -Xtent,do all the above factors add
up to greatly iodyt-,
in sed control t
-y strength which. at leaSt slows government efforts at
incremental pace?74
of the reason that the emerging 1 eratureon university-government
relations has neglected inherent university strengths is that it has ectiticett-
NI disproportionately on "recent reforms" and changes. The sobering
is that we cannot properly contemplate changes until we understand what
is changing. The literature readily demonstrates that government power,
cross-nationally, is on the rise significantly so. But a review of works,
on different nations also sensitizes us to
this literature -- its laundry list approaer-to explaining the growth of
government control, its ad hoc assessments of the extent of that control,
ively primitive state of
and, of course,
4-
of common la
cove_ra;e of the field. It still lacks the sort
methods, and historical and comparative data put
rvahle. trends into persepetive.- Whatever constraints all this imposes
on studies of particular tions, it imposes far greater constraints on cross-
national analysis.
25
rOOTNCri5
1`Step B.miley, Eaducation lnterestGr's Capitol
Olaohi American Coutc11 on Education, 1975) , 1-2; Samuel CoveAnd Barbara Whiteside. Solomon, "'The Politics of llighet Education: ABiblio graphic Essay ,",, ..Tournal o f duEcati on 34 , no. 4 (1968) , PP. 181-182 ; Sluntsel Ooye. and Carol Everly Floyd, 'Research on Higher EducationAdministration, and Tolicy A Uneven Report," Public Adrninistr on Rev35, no . 1 (975) p 112_ jloo see'Terr-y Hartle , "Public ;Policy p.nd HigherEducat:itiet;" Public ldrrrin st ratfign evict./ 37, rio. 2 (1977), pp. 196-201.
2 Burton R.. ,C lark and Ted 1, K. yea un, Aca emi c ower in the, United Sta(Washingt on, t .0 The Arne rican As sociati for Higher ducation, 1976pp. 35 -36 .
G. 5, lama The ofiof Queensland, 1974 PP 62-6
-matt on (Queensland, Australia : University
Lauri R . King, "I h Wash in T.eht?-1stii _her EducationLocingto ass, D. C. Heath, 1975) , 17.
J ohr S 3 j hi teh cad,Yale Univers 19 73
ell e and St ate (New Haven :
6 Although th:.Es essay co1Icentrat es on the government role, it should beclear than there are other iMPtOr elcternal actors impinging on. autonomy.Arnong the very best hooks or intra-uni-versity 2overnance is Graeme Moodieand lowland lustace, Power and Are thori twin Br t i sh Uri five rs itien (London:Geor2e Allen and twin Lt d. , 1974 ). t Leon. Epstein analyzes "universitygovernmene broadly ; a rare attempt by a- political scientist. Governingthe1.Inivessi.Ay (San Francisco; Josney-Bass 1974 ), pP . 1 -2. Especially inLatin America, most -work liar facuee: on student p of tics, sometimes relatedto national politics . See, for eiarnple, the review article by Danl. Thomasand fielard Craig " Student DiOSQilt in La tire, kEner ica: .Toward a ComparativeAnalysis, Latin American Research Itcvi is 0, rio. 1 (1973), pp. 71-96.
7 _The tins t not ed though ncir dated, exception is Robert Berdahl' s BritishUniversAti e A t he _State lerke2ey : University of California Press, 1959). Of uriusually 14 gh gtal ty , and of fering cogent in.tranational comparisons, isEd<ucetion and n Tad aF (Cani1ridgc, Mass.: Harvard UniversityProse, 197 2) Tdited ley Susame 1-loe bet [ZIA° 1pla and Lloyd 1. Rudolph, thisvolurne def ie rnan;, of my general cr1 tioisns of the literature.
Burton R. Ciarlo, ice.derriie er 1 nal (Chicago : University of Chicago,1977) , p. 16S.
For maniple, Robert lerdabl, State Cootdication(Washingtotl, D. C. Arne -tic an co until on Educati on, 1971) ; Kenneth Mortimerand T. R. NeConvell, il-J2LtIgi Au thorityElkstlyely= (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978). See also lyrnan Clenr:y mparative work on financing. For
27
-26-
example, StateFityketing_for Higher Education: _IntersgentyConfAipt 044Consensus (Berkeley: Center for Research and Development in Higher Educe.--ton, University of:California, 1976). A rare attempt at broader basedinterstate comparison riot surprisingly reads as (four) rather interesting.cases stapled together. The papers, originally presented at the annual,Midwest Political Science Association meetings in 1971 and 1972 appear inJoseph Tucker, "The Politics of Public Higher Education," AAUP_ Ballatin?_
vol. 59 (1973), pp. 286-323.
10Philip Aitbach, ed., University- Reform (Cambridge, Mass. Schenkman,
1974); Barbara Burn et al., Hi her Education in Nine Countries (New York:
McGraw Hill, 1971); James Perkins, ed., EkghtTI4astioxiA4tonon-to Systems (Nev York: International Council for Educational Development,1972); Paul Seabury, Universities of the Western World (New York: The Free
Press, 1975). Recently, the International Council for Educational Developmentproduced'a twelvenation study, §yk5E111Lliwia-_,ILm, 1978. The
OECD produces Reviews of National Policies for Education. Journals mostlikely to carry articles on the comparative politics of higher educationinclude Minerva, Highar_Educatian, and Com arative Education Review. Fora general compilation of citations see Robert Derdahl and Ceofge AltomaTe,CeM arative Higher Education: Sources of Information (New York: InternationalCouncil on Educational Develppment,-Occaaional Paper no. 4, 1972). For
sources on developing nations see Philip-Altbach and David Kelley, Higher_Education in Developing Countries: A SelectedBihliagraphy096971974rTYTiecc:Praeger, 1974).
11A disarmingly succinct rationale for comparative analysis is found in
Charles Anderson, "System and Strategy in Comparative Policy Analysis,"in W. D. Gwyn and C. C. Edwards, eds., periastlyt_qLiblicPolic-Makin (New Orleans: Tulane University;' 1975), pp. 240-Al.
14
12On the 11-.S.: Cove and Floyd, p. 116.
13Glad eux and Wolanin, p. 22.
RudolphR and Rudolph, The Political System and the EduCation System4,An Analysis of Their Interaction," in Rudolph and Rudolph, P. 29.
15I -pp.-- 92, 160-63.
16Do n ald Wheeler, "Japan," in Van de Graaff et al., P. 143. Also see'
T. J. Pempel, "The Politics of Enrollment Expansion
nJapanese Universities,'
Journal of As _dies 33, no. 1 (November 1973), 67-86.
17Maurice Kogan, Educational_ 13.2119T7MSkin (Hamden, CT: George Allen and
Dnw,in, Ltd. 1975 ) , pp. 26-44.
18Hugh Livingstone, The Universit) An orianizationalAnalyais (Glasgow:
Mackie, 1974), p. 105; Van de Graaff, "Great Britain;" in Van de Graaff,p. 86. On France University Institutes of Technology see John Van de Graaff,
28
-27-
"The F'olitic8 of Innovation in French higher Edu ation," Piper Education,no. 5: (1976), pp. 189210. Of course some institutes elsewhere are morecontrolled by private than government sectors.
19Gladieux and Wolanin, p. 19.
20Neil" J. Smelser, "Growth, Structural Change, and Conflict in California
VulAic Higher Education, 1950-1970,'" in ELIblicKbe-Ed,ed. Smelser and Gabriel Almond (Berkeley: University of California, 1974)9,
9-141.
Southall, Feder he_ EduKarst African Publishing flous 1974
22 ,Gomez, PP. 55-59.
obi:
23Nowlan, p: 64; Daniel Levy, "Government Efforts to Cope with Giantism,"
Lors.421111gicsiti-herEplement, #324 (1978); Orlando Albornoz,"Higher Education and the Politics of Development in Venezuela," Journalof Interame can Studies and world Affairs 19, no. 3 (1977), PP. 302711.
24eler, pp. 135-38.
P125
26
-Glad eux and Wolanin, p. 26; Nowlan, p. 76; King, p. Kogan, p. 198.
Van de Craaff et al., passim. The definitive work should be HansDaalder, ed., i_,FiLlatpid Universitie(forthcoming).
27Haar , pp. 64-65.
2Gilmez, pp. 47-49.
29: "Introduction," Van de Craaff, p. 10.
30 John Har,son,
America (Austin: Univers of Texas, n.d.).
31Southall, pp. 113-20.
32Ike, pp. 221-32; Southall, 112; Marshall Murphree, "Universalism,
Particularism and Academic Freedom," pp. 103-107 and Leonard Thompson,"Seine Problems of Southern Aftican Universities," pp. 282-84; in The Futureof the UniELt]E, ed. U. W. Van der Merwe and David Walsh (Cape Town:David Philip, 1977); Pierre 1. van den Berghe, Power and Privil!gf_2tanAfrican University (Cambridge, .Hass.: Schenkman, 1973), pp. ,28 -32 and,pass M;Eric Ashby, African Universities and Western Tradition (London: OxfordUniversity, 1964); T. esu u, ed., Creatin fire African Univ :si
(Ibadan Oxford University Press, 1973). Also see Eric Ashby, Bniversttiesl:British,- Indian, African (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1066)$'and James Coleman, ed., Education and Political Development: (Princeton, ,s
N. J.: PrincetOn University, 1965),
33Rudolph and Rudolph . 5.
Haari.25-26. For more on the political role of War Colleges see.Alfred Stepan and Luigi:Einaudi, Latin American instijitional Development(Santa Monica: Rand4 1971). On higher education and national developmentin democratic SouthtAmerica, see Kalman Silvert and:Leonard Reissman,Education Class and' Nation: The Ex erience of Chile and Venezuela (NewYork: Elsevier, 1976)1 Patricia Weiss Fagen Chilean_ veraitiea:Problems of Autonomy and Dependence Oeverly Hills: Sage ProfessionalPapers in Cpmparative Politics 01 04& 1973); Orlando Albornoz, !IiigherEducation," pp. 291-314.
35Ike, p. 206, and pp 204-220, assim.
36 ,
'O6Triez, pp. 78 -89. On the relationship between university andgovernhent under a far milder authoritarian regime see Daniel Levy,"University.Autonomy and Regime Authoritarianism: The Case of the'NationalUniversity of Mexico," Latin American Research Review 14, no. 3 (1979,-forthcoming).
37Nduka Okaior, The Development Univ ondon:
Camelot Press, 1971).
38On Canada: Murray Ross, The University: The AnatomyofACademe (New
York: McGraw Hill, 1976); Commigsion on the Relations Between Universitiesand Governments, The University, Society and Government (Ottawa: Universityof Ottawa, J970); William Mansfield Cooper, Governments and the University(Toronto: Macmillan, 1966).
39James Perk ns, "The Future of the Univer- y," in Perkin , 301.
ADRune Fremfors, "Public Policies for Institutional Governance in Prance,
Sweden anti the United Kingdom," paper prepared for,rhe Joint ECPR/IMHEWorkshop on "University Governance: Policies, Problems and Performance,May 1978, Paris, p. 7.
41SamuelS Huntington, Political Orde
Yale University, 1968), p. 138.(New Haven:
42An atypically harsh view on the lack of change appears in Raymond
Boudon, "The:French University Since ;968," Comparative:Politics 10,
no. 1(1978)', pp. 89-120,', A survey of attitudes is presented in Alain.Bienayme: lystems of Higher Education: France (New York; InternationalCO-melt for Educational Development, 1978).
0
-29
43% Livingstone, 108..
44Ike, pp. 205, 216; Ros 232; Robert McCraig., ed., Policy And Planning
in Higher Education (Queensl d, Australia: University of Queensland, 1973).
45Rudolph and Rudolph, p.
46
47Haar, p. 38; G6mez,1 '5455.
48George R. Waggoner, "University Autonomy and Natibnal Planning in
Latin AMerica," ReVista/Reviewinteramericana 7, no. 1 (1977), pp. 125-27.Possibly the principle attempt to adapt the UGC form is Colombia's NationalUniversity Fund. 'See Richard Pelczar, "University Reform in Latin America:The Case of Colombia," in Altbach, ed., University Reform, pp. 43-52;John J. Bailey, "Government and Educational Policy in Colombia 1957-1968,"Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1972.
F.
Berdahl, Statewide,
49Dietrich Coldschmidt, "Systems of Higher Education," in Van Graaff
et al., p. 155.
50A distinctly anti - Revolution account is given by Luis Boza Domfnquez
La situaci6n universitaria en Cuba (Santiago, Chile: Editorial del Peel._ co,S.A., n.d.).
51Haar, p.
52Ike, p. 175.
53Jan-Erik Lane, "University Autonomy--A New Analysis," a. working paper
of the Center for Administrative Studies, Ume& University (1977), p. 46.Perhaps the second hypothesis seems more applicablethan the- first. toEuropean countries where rectors haVe'been selected by university faculties,while ministerial control over e.g., curriculum has been substantial.But,ene would have to probe the role of "out-- stationed" administrative officialsof the ministry.
54 Burton R. Clark, "Academic Power:_. Concepts, -odes, and Perspectivesin Van de Graaff at al., pp. 174-75:
55Jack Embling,1A Fresh LOok at' Hl .,her Educationutopean--Implications
oftheCareCorprmissionReorts (Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1974), pp. 99-100.
56Haar p. 67.
57Embling, p.
58,gan, p. 200.
59' Joseph Ben-David, Trends in Amer=ican Higher Educationof Chicago, 1972).
60 C6mez,p0. 5-51, 59-68; Haar, pp. 60-62, 191; Daniel Levy, "Theolitical,Struggle over Tuition in Mexico," Revista del Centro de E-udiosEducativoa (forthcoming).
61Burton, R. Clark, Academic Power in Italy, P. 50.
62Jacques Fotherand, "Policy Formation and Change in Gaullist France:
1968 Orientation Act of Higher Education," Comparative Politics 8, no. 1(1975), p. 60.
63 Kogan, pp. 196-97.
64Gladieux and Wolanin, p. 229
65Academic-Freedom Committee The teen Uniyersities in outh__Africa and
Academic Freedom (Cape Town: Jute, 1974), p. x.
66Daniel Levy, "Limits on Government's Financial Control of the University:
Mexico," working paper published by the Institution for :So ial and PolicyStudier, Yale University. (1977), PP. 1 -3 and passim.
67See, for example, Margaret Ann Goodman, "The Politica Role of t14
University in Latin America:" Comparative Politics 5, n 2 (1973), pp. 279-92; Hein-z Eulau and H. Quinley, 'State Officials and Hi her Education _(NewYork: McGraw Hill, 1970); Wheeler, pp. 1357.38.
68See, for example, Carnegie Commission, The Capitol and the CaTpus NeW
.York: McGraw Hill, 1971), pp. 11-15,-63-66.mr
69See, for example, Guy Benveniste
-exiccu (New York: Praeger, 1970).
70
71See,
in,Elites(London:
for example, No-len, pp. 14-15.
r example,'Dgrcy Ribeiro, "Universities and Social Development,"n Latin America; edited by Seymour Martin Lipset and Aldo Sopari
Oxford University, 1967), pp.-343-381,
Plannin in
72See, for example, Dietrich Goldschmidt, "Sweden,' in Van de Graaff at
'al., pp'. 69-74. ,
-31-
73See for example, Joel D. Harkin, An African Dilemma: University
Students Develo ment and Politics in Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda (Nairobi:d University, 1975
,
74 See, for Jacques Fbmerand's thesis, in "Policy For-on incrementalism in policy7making in French higher education.
INSTITUTION FOR SOCIAL AND POLICY 'STUDIES"
The mission of the Institution for Social andforicy Studies (ISPS) isto encourage and undertake multidisciplinary, research and educa-tion. The ISPS is oriented to the exploration of social oblems ratherthan to the refinement of discipline-based methodolNyAn recentyears, ISPS research hes focused on the problems of the city, educ-tion, health service delivery; and on the modeling of social systems.Currently, research is also being d el: ed on criminal justice, goy-einmyrilal reform, environment, incom_ distribution, aging, the policy,making process, and value problemViri public policy. ISPS is not a_Consulting organization but an instrument for enriching the socialsciences and relate disciplines in the University.
Higher Education Research GroupInstitutionlor Social and Policy Studies1732 Yale Station (36 Mansfield Street)Now Haven, Connecticut 06520