CC BY
3"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
HIGHER EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT. A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE
JBruno Dallago, 2Sara Casagrande
1,2Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Italy 1bruno.dallago@unitn.it, 2sara.casagrande@unitn.it https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10155160 Abstract. Universities in the European Union are called to support European integration along with pursuing education, research, innovation and economic value. This is evidenced in both European and national strategies, when European higher education institutions strengthen the value of their education and knowledge output while reinforcing their economic basis. A particular feature of higher education institutions in the European Union is their role in supporting a unified labour market. The European Commission has endeavoured on moving governments and universities to integrate national education systems, by proposing strategies and goals and providing part of the necessary resource basis. National governments in turn are called to implement the necessary reforms. The fundamental component of this approach is the so-called Bologna Process that created the European Higher Education Area. The core of the Process is to ensure comparability in the standards and quality of higher-education qualifications among European countries. The outcome of these processes has been important, but much remains to be done. The paper critically analyses the evolution of the European higher education and research system within the frame of European integration and with a view to the goals pursued, the results achieved and the challenges ahead.
Keywords: European Union, Higher education, Integration, Universities JEL Classification: A22, A23, O30, O52
1. Introduction: the growing and changing role of universities
Research and the education of high-quality human capital continue to be fundamental important missions of any university. The spread of access to high education has led to proliferation in the number of universities, most of them with an important regional role. This, together with the increasing cost of research and the difficult financial situations of most governments, make it perhaps inevitable that universities will look for additional external resources by pursuing economic relevance. Large corporations are more interested in incremental innovation and rely extensively on their internal laboratories, complementing their activity with extensive networks of universities and research laboratories so as to acquire knowledge of a more general character. At the same time, small and medium-size enterprises are increasingly active in frontier, risky innovation and are more and more interested in cooperating with universities. National governments and supranational institutions such as the EU are keen to promote the appropriate conditions for their countries to compete successfully in the international arena through accelerated and widespread innovation by promoting and supporting, among other things, closer cooperation among universities and industry. Local governments have more power and more responsibilities than in the past for the economic activity under their jurisdiction and are interested in promoting goals similar to those of national governments, but with the intent of benefitting from localized returns.
The goals of the EU and its member countries towards universities are not limited to these issues. Indeed, within the European Union (EU) universities are required to contribute to strengthening European integration as well as supporting the cooperation between universities and
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
industry. This means universities have to pursue two distinct goals. Fostering the development of a single European approach to higher education requires that national systems are integrated and moving from one system to another one is possible without disadvantages and costs for students and educators alike. This is done through the circulation of students and teachers and completing the recognition of diplomas. Important would also be the integration of administrative approaches and standards, but this turned out being more complex and difficult. The second goal, the integration between universities and industry, in spite of the EU effort, is still largely a national responsibility. In the EU institutional architecture, national governments have predominant competences in education and, less so, research, while EU only has complementary competences, but provides a substantial share of research funds and runs transnational programs. The national nature of universities is still at odds with the essence of European integration and the aim of developing a European labour market and education and research space.
This paper analyses higher education and the contribution of universities in the frame of European integration using an economic perspective. The next section is devoted to illustrating the needs and limits of the European integration process and looks at the consequences of European institutions and their relations with national institutions, with particular concern for higher education. As explained in Section three, there are strong and resilient national traditions and cultures within the EU, while the EU has only partial and soft competences in the field of higher education. A fundamental issue is how these diversities could and should be managed in order to support European integration, with particular concern for the economy. Section four looks at the achievements that the drive to integration of European universities has actually reached and concludes that, along with important outcomes, many problems are still open such as the growing fault between the countries of Northern Europe and those of Southern and Eastern Europe, with important consequences for universities. Section five concludes.
2. The problems of European integration and higher education The distribution of competences in higher education between national or local governments and the EU is defined in the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon and based on the EU fundamental principles. In the field of education, the EU has competences supporting member countries and in that of research it has competences parallel to those of member countries. Particularly in the former case, the role of the EU is indirect and has to relay on the willingness of national governments to develop and be part of a European educational system. Conversely, the EU role is more direct and effective in the case of research (Dakowska et al. 2018).
Such a distribution of competences is a problem for European integration. The soft EU approach is at odds with the fundamental role of states and the differences among national systems of education based particularly on the varieties of the relationship between universal values and the search for a national identity (Horner et al. 2015). Moreover, the success of integration requires that educational systems are at least mutually compatible, for both cultural, social and economic reasons. In spite of its limited competences, the EU has devolved a great deal of attention, effort and resources to the field of education, with fair success. However, if member countries do not converge in the economy and education systems converge, new problems may appear in the form of brain and skill drain to the disadvantage of more vulnerable member countries.
There are two main reasons behind the EU drive to education integration: first, create a homogeneous European cultural space fostering and supporting the cooperation and integration of European societies. Education belongs in the founding and fundamental values of the European
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB
CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
Union and is essential for promoting cultural, social and political integration (EC 2018a, Rome Declaration 2017). Second is the importance of education for economic and social reasons.
Labour mobility is fundamental for EU integration, particularly so in the Euro area. Yet the actual role of labour mobility in reducing the differences in economic development between the states is relatively low and labour mobility is not particularly important in reducing disparities among EU countries. Although free circulation of people within the EU for labour reasons is one of the fundamental principles of the EU, effects are modest. Rules in the labour market remain mostly national, due to political and cultural factors, different languages, social interests, institutional and real constraints, such as the different recognition of degrees and the rigidity of the housing market in many countries. The EU also tried to foster integration by supporting the circulation of migrants, with doubtful outcomes and national opposition.
Institutional variety of labour markets across countries and different legal systems lead to different behaviour of economic actors, different types and features of contracts among parties, as well as different ways and intensity of the transmission of shocks (La Porta et al. 2008; Menard and Marais 2006). Welfare systems are typically important in Europe, but they have different features and organizations, different dimension and costs, different incentive effects, and different consequences for economic activity, in spite of some convergence (Bouget 2003; Sapir 2006).
Low labour mobility and weak contribution of immigration have two distinct effects, most significant in Southern Europe. First, adjustment processes must go through more problematic channels to regain competitiveness, such as through internal devaluation. Second, the low mobility of labour opens the possibility for policies to take an anti-labour stance, e.g., in the form of bad quality labour contracts. The intent is to increase competitiveness through cheaper labour and not through investment, with negative consequences for the size of the domestic market and international specialization.
Differences in labour market efficiency are large within the EU and the Eurozone (Eurostat 2018, WEF 2018) and the bulk of labour mobility is within regions of the same country (Gakova and Dijkstra 2010). Under these conditions, common policies become more difficult and less effective. Increasing labour mobility is fundamental in order to weaken the probability and effect of asymmetric consequences from shocks and upgrade the effect of common policies. The EU action in higher education finds a strong motivation in these issues.
3. Higher education and the EU strategy and goals
European Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are subject to a double set of pressures: those typical of any developed area and those deriving from the European integration (EC 2017). As to the former, universities in the European Union are called to pursue economic value to support innovation (Forge et al. 2013). This is evidenced in both European and national strategies and is more stringent in countries fighting with budget and financial problems (particularly in Southern Europe) and those characterized by neo-liberal political views (such as Great Britain until Brexit). A fault line is evident between Northern European countries - where higher education is generally free of charge and much of research is government-sponsored - and Southern European and Anglo-Saxon countries, where economic value is fundamental in both education and research. This distinction makes difficult setting up joint education and research programs among HEIs belonging in different groups of countries. Since most of the competences - and all primary competences in the field of higher education - belong in national countries (central governments in most countries,
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB
CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
regional governments in others, such as Germany), countries follow idiosyncratic paths and the EU does not have any compulsory role.
Pressures coming from European integration include ideals and aims and economic and organizational needs of integration to coordinate countries in moving towards mutually compatible and effective higher education systems without jeopardizing inter-country cultural differences. These pressures led the EU to take the lead in setting up a European system of higher education, including the development of European universities, and moving towards a European Education Area. Although these moves have HEIs as their primary target and are based on ideal and scientific motivations, their final goals have social and economic nature (EC 2017).
Erasmus (EuRopean Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students) is the forerunner of European programs in education, an EU student and teacher exchange program established in 1987 after a 1981-1986 period of pilot student exchanges. Later accomplishments include different versions of the Erasmus program and the Bologna Process and are "aimed to promote civic participation and raise social capital within European democracies, reduce unemployment and improve skills required in the labour market, especially among young people" (Ribeiro 2022, p.177). Additional programs involve cooperation with universities of particular countries, such as former countries in transformation (Phare, Tempus). Erasmus+ is the European Commission's Programme that combines all the EU's previous schemes for education, training, youth, and sport since the 2014-2020 budget period. Erasmus+ finances educational projects that have among their priorities: digital transformation, diversity, environment, inclusion and participation in democratic life (de Castro and Garcia-Penalvo 2022). The program provides, through home institutions, grants for study, work placement, training and cooperation actions for students, teachers and administrators in another country. Erasmus+ has also funded several types of transnational innovation networks (e.g. strategic partnerships and knowledge alliances), to help graduates to face an ever-changing labour market environment and foster institutional innovation in teaching and learning (Fumasoli and Rossi, 2021). The program was extended over the budget cycle 2021-2027, with a doubled budget of €30 billion. Its goals contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Sustainable Development Goals in 2030 Agenda; in particular it should promote the achievement of quality education (goal 4), gender equality (goal 5) and decent work and economic growth (goal 8) (Nogueiro et al., 2022).
The achieved organizational stability of Erasmus+ also needs that the home university fully recognizes the period and related activities that students spend at the host university. To do so, European universities adopted a set of mutually compatible organizational and academic principles through the so-called Bologna Process (EC 2018c). The Bologna Process is a voluntary intergovernmental cooperation of 48 European countries, including non-EU countries, that the European Commission initiated in 1999. Its aim is improving the compatibility between national features and internationalization of higher education, also to make European universities more competitive and attractive. It is considered a sort of international regime, a foreign policy tool for the EU (Zahavi and Friedman, 2019). The Process guides and coordinates the activity of institutions and persons directly involved in higher education (universities, teachers, and students), national authorities, stakeholders (associations, employers, quality assurance agencies, international organizations), and the European Commission.
Along with increasing inter-country compatibility, the Bologna Process supports the modernization of education and training systems to make sure these meet the needs of a changing
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB
CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
labour market in the digital era. Key focus areas include lifelong learning, employability, funding, degree structures, international openness, data collection, quality assurance and learning outcomes, i.e., the definition of what students should know and can do on completing their degrees. Implementing these goals fosters mobility, supports qualifications and skills and improves the effectiveness and efficiency of the labour market. Placed under the Lisbon Recognition Convention, the Process created the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in 2010, introduced the three cycle system (bachelor/master/doctorate), and strengthened quality assurance. It also introduced a common system of ECTS credit points (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) and the diploma supplement to ease the recognition of qualifications and periods of study abroad. However, differences exist among countries in the level of implementation and the exact definition of what one credit means (Faber and Westerheijden 2011).
The Commission identified three key priorities for making higher education "more European": a network of European universities, the automatic mutual recognition of diplomas to remove barriers to student mobility, a European student card to facilitate the secure exchange of student information and reduce administrative burden for higher education institutions (EC 2019). Equally important is that "...European Universities will also contribute to the sustainable economic development of the regions where they are located, as their students will work closely with companies, municipal authorities, academics and researchers to find solutions to the challenges their regions are facing." (EC 2018b). More recently, the European Commission (EC, 2021) introduced the Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027), a policy initiative aimed at promoting an inclusive, accessible and high-quality digital education among European member countries' education and training systems. It contributes to the Next Generation EU, supports the Recovery and Resilience Facility and it has as a goal the achievement of a European Education Area by 2025.
These priorities pursue distinct goals through various processes: a) improve the interconnection among European HEIs and students' mobility; b) create a set of supranational agreements for the mutual recognition and acceptance of diplomas based on the comparability of standards and quality of higher-education qualifications covering bachelor, master and, since 2003, also doctoral levels ("Bologna Process"); and c) increase the level and the quality of higher education (Europe 2020 strategy). With similar purposes, in 2018, with the support of Erasmus+, the European Universities Initiative (Arnaldo Valdés and Gómez Comendador, 2022) was launched. All these actions are based on the free will of member countries to participate and coordinate their policies with other countries, also supported by other organizations, such as the European University Association. National idiosyncrasies remain, but are placed in a common framework. Fundamental competences continue to belong in member countries; the EU provides a coordinating frame and a set of common goals and adds further resources to the primary resources that continue to come from member countries. The end outcome is a more standardized and perhaps better-quality system of higher education, more and better opportunities for students, teachers and universities, and better integration of labour markets.
4. Outcomes and achievements
Achievements have been remarkable, particularly so if one thinks at the complexity of the issue and the resilience of national systems. However, the European higher education system is not fully integrated: national idiosyncrasies remain and barriers that students have to afford for having their international experiences fully recognized at home continue to be significant.
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB
CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
Transaction costs for academic teachers and the system complexity increased significantly, particularly for evaluation and assessment procedures. One should neither overlook the potentially negative consequences of stronger standardization on innovation and quality and variety of teaching and research, the impact of the pandemic and the consequences of the introduction of remote teaching (Vlachopoulos, 2022), and the challenges of super-mobility (Czerska-Shaw and Krzaklewska, 2022).
Analyses and assessments of outcomes and effects of reforms concentrate on higher education, but hints also exist on more general economic and social effects, with particular concern for the labour market. According to some recent studies, the participation in international mobility programs positively affects academic performance, the willingness to move to find a job, the probability of being rapidly employed but not of getting a job coherent with the qualification acquired (De Benedetto et al., 2023). The development of communication skills and the willingness to work in an international context seems to be the principal acquirable skills following the Erasmus+ Programme and spendable in the labour market (Andreou et al., 2023).
Enders et al. (2011) present one of the first comprehensive analyses putting the evolution of the European higher education system into a dynamic perspective: "While signatory countries have to some extent interpreted the [Bologna] Declaration in their own ways, the process rapidly achieved a wide acceptance. Focusing at first on reforming study programmes into the two-cycle 'bachelor-master' structure, concerns about comparability soon pushed quality assurance and accreditation and degree recognition firmly into the mix" (Enders et al. 2011a, p. 2). This recognition led to include Ph.D. courses as the third cycle and to link the European Higher Education Area with the European Research Area, a decision taken in Berlin in 2003 (Kottmann 2011). The relation between common aims and achievements and national idiosyncrasies and goals was and remains today the most intractable issue of the Bologna process. The process was initiated to streamline national higher education systems to a common "European" system, but also to provide support for initiating or strengthening the reform of national systems, in spite of the non-binding nature of the Bologna process. This created a unitary European frame based on national diversities (Faber and Westerheijden 2011).
Pursuing economic value is a common thread at both Union and national level. Universities need to attract an increasing amount of external resources and to rely progressively on market-type governance solutions, replacing bureaucratic governance (Jongbloed 2010). Also important is the political call to universities to play a useful role for the country's competitiveness, in both education and research. Universities should consequently increase their willingness and capacity and that of their teachers and researchers to produce economically and socially useful knowledge and restructure teaching programs and methods so to increase the employability of their students (Dill and van Vught 2010).
The traditional governance structure of European universities, particularly in continental countries where most universities are state-owned, was centred on the state. However, since the 1990s, there was a growing involvement of more actors and a move towards greater autonomy and indirect governance. The reform of governance has, among others, the aim of attracting external resources from the private sector and through the participation to national and international competitive calls for education programs and research funding. Achievements are mixed: while universities rely more on external resources that until the 1990s, the private sector contribution increased only marginally. More important are international resources, in particular from the
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
European Union. However, national public expenditure and investment continue to be fundamental. According to a study by Aghion et al. (2008), government appropriations are the dominant although decreasing source, exceeding two-thirds of the total revenue, in all EU countries except UK and Ireland (Bennetot Pruvot and Estermann 2022, ETER 2019).
Although government funding continues to dominate, its allocation has progressively lost the nature of grants and is increasingly allocated on pre-established performance formulas and competitive mechanisms (Bennetot Pruvot and Estermann 2022, Curaj et al. 2015). The situation varies remarkably through countries, depending on the features of higher education, the aims of public education and the availability of reliable indicators. Overall and compared to the United States and Japan, universities in many EU countries continue to be under-funded (Bennetot Pruvot et al. 2019). However, more prominent is the divergent evolution of long-term public funding trends in different countries (Table 1). Over the period 2008 to 2017, Austria, Germany and Sweden had both significant and comparatively sustained funding growth. In France and the Netherlands investment was more limited, although on a relatively stable trajectory. In Luxembourg and Turkey public funding nearly doubled in the period.
Table 1: Public funding to universities and GDP growth
Category Description Systems
Funding t > GDP t Investment above economic growth AT, DE, DK, LU*, NL, NO, SE, TR, CH*
Funding t < GDP t Investment below economic growth FR, HU, IS, PL
Funding t - GDP | Investment despite economic decline HR, PT
Funding | - GDP t Disinvestment despite economic growth CZ, EE*, ES, FI*, IE, LT, LV*, RS, SK
Funding | > GDP 1 Disinvestment greater than economic decline GR*, IT, SI*
Public funding to universities and GDP growth Systems not included: BE-fr, BE-fl, UK (all 4 systems). *Shorter time frames: CH (2008-09/2014-15); EE, GR, LV, SI (2008-09/201516); FI (2010-11/2015-16); LU (2009-10/2016-17). Source: Bennetot Pruvot et al. (2019)
In various countries higher education budgets were the target of repeated cuts. Particularly large were cuts in Greece, while Italy stabilized at low funding level after significant cuts until 2013. Only in the Czech Republic and Spain there was a modest recovery in 2017. Other countries with negative patterns are Estonia, Lithuania, Great Britain and Serbia. A third group of countries show a recovery pattern after years of severe cuts (Hungary, Latvia, Ireland, Island) or less severe cuts (Slovakia, Croatia) or mild cuts followed by significant recovery (Poland, Portugal). In most cases, improvements took place after 2013.
The need to rely increasingly on external resources allocated in competitive ways gave an advantage to universities which could set up the necessary structures and competences. These are mostly large universities from more developed and better organized countries. Within universities, the differentiation between individuals and research groups was equally noteworthy. Although many took a passive attitude, others became proactive, took initiative and competed successfully. The distinction was in part based on reputation and positive outcomes of research and education assessment. However, in many cases the strength of the home university and the ability to be part of strong networks also played important roles. In a survey undertaken in 2017 with responses from 303 institutions from 43 higher education systems, the European University Association
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
(EUA) found that "National strategies, where existent, seem to give impetus and serve as a driver for institutions, although they do not stand out as the first source of inspiration for institutional learning and teaching strategies. Overall, institutions that have a learning and teaching strategy seem more influenced by university alliances at the national, regional, or international level." (Gaebel and Zhang 2018, p. 7). National strategies exist in 78% of responding institutions, while external quality assurance and funding and financial incentives to foster compliance exist in more than half of respondents, supported by European instruments, such as the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area and the European Qualifications Frameworks. Although all these measures are generally considered to be useful for the quality of higher education, there is concern for the growth of bureaucracy, the restriction of autonomy and academic freedom and the risk of decreasing traditional institutional funding.
Overall, "... governments remain the primary funding source for higher education institutions. The figures and trends show that European investment in education and R&D, especially from private sources, is not pushing Europe towards parity with its global competitors...." (Enders et al. 2011a, p. 9). Moreover, European countries are different, with the countries of Southern Europe and even more so of Eastern Europe in disadvantaged situations. "Any effort at integrating higher education into a European Higher Education Area will invariably need to accommodate an increasingly rich variety of systems with regard to cultural norms, economic policies, organizational structures and GDP levels." (Enders et al. 2011a, p. 9). The added value of the Bologna process in this perspective is that of mutual adjustment: ".a process in which national governments continue to adapt their policies nationally, but in response to, or in anticipation of, the policy choices of other governments" (Faber and Westerheijden 2011, p. 15).
However, there are still problems in the implementation of the commonly agreed standards and structures, with countries often going their own way in both the degree of implementation and the particular features of the implemented standards (EC 2018d). Idiosyncrasies concern both EHEA foundations (three-cycle degree structure including ECTS and Diploma Supplement, recognition of qualifications and quality assurance) and priorities added subsequently (learning and teaching, social inclusion and employability). Employability is particularly important for the labour market, yet problems are still significant and differences among countries important. Systematic efforts are needed to improve the relationship and match between higher education and the labour market. The problem is particularly significant in some countries, where graduate unemployment remains a significant problem.
Universities play different roles and the achievements of higher education differ considerably within the EU, although in recent years there was a general improvement in all member countries, at least in quantitative terms. Strong differences in the levels of expenditure per enrolled student continue to persist. The strategy prevalent in Southern and Central-Eastern European countries is based on cost-cutting, as envisaged in the European Competitiveness Pact of 2011. Stabilization policies in financially unbalanced countries, such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy until 2013, strengthened this approach. While technical innovation was pushed to the background, this strategy foresees countries gain competitiveness by decreasing wages and weakening welfare through internal devaluation and austerity policies. Inevitably, these countries are pushed to specialize in productions where competitiveness through cost cutting may compensate for a lack of innovation and higher productivity. These are productions where the competition from emerging countries is strong and growing. Consequently, the role of universities
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB
CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
as producers of knowledge and skills becomes weaker and universities may be seen as a cost and not a resource for the country. In these countries the allocation of public resources to universities decreased. Cheaper labour means less demand for highly-educated people and lower return to human capital (Corak 2013).
The case of Northern European countries is remarkably different. Their EU references are the Lisbon Strategy and Europe 2020. The key elements of these strategies are investments in innovation, knowledge infrastructure and human resources, plus high-quality services to support investment and attract resources. The role of universities is central for both high level education, the number of degrees, research and their cooperation with enterprises (Nielsen 2018). This strategy appears economically stronger and socially stable. Moreover, it guarantees remunerations in line with the existing level of income and quality of life. Northern European countries thus outperform other member countries in innovation, level of education, resources devoted to education, standard of living, social stability, and international competitiveness.
Financial stability is another factor that may have important consequences for universities. Following the international crisis, government expenditure on education as a ratio to GDP decreased by 0.5% in the EU over the 2003-2017 period: it was 5.1 % of GDP in 2003 and decreased to 4.6 % of GDP in 2017 and 4.8% in 2021, of which 0.8% was for tertiary education. As a share of government expenditure, and considering that overall government expenditure as a ratio to GDP decreased by 0.4% over the period, the share of expenditure on education in total expenditure decreased more, from 11.0 % in 2003 to 10.2 % in 2017 and 9.4% in 2021 (Eurostat 2019, 2023).
The implementation of austerity policies made the situation particularly difficult in countries of Southern Europe, where the financial situation of universities worsened dramatically for two reasons. First and foremost, governments decreased their financing. In distressed countries, governments gave priority to fund primary and secondary education. As a consequence, public funding for tertiary education decreased as a share of overall funding for education, while private funding increased only marginally. Second, austerity worsened the financial situation of families and persons, many of whom had difficulties in pursuing university studies. As a consequence, the number of enrolled students in distressed countries decreased (OECD 2018). Similar observations hold for research expenditures, both public and private.
Although consequences were direct and negative for universities' financial and human resources, negative effects did not necessarily translate directly and fully in the quality of their work. Universities in distressed countries relied on their traditions and implemented resilience strategies, sometimes successfully. Pastor and Serrano (2016) find that research output does not depend exclusively on the amount of available resources. A more refined analysis needs a distinction among sciences in both inputs (human and financial resources) and output (such as number of students obtaining degrees and publications).
5. Conclusion
The paper critically analyses the evolution of European higher education and research systems within the frame of European integration, stresses achievements under the leadership of the European Commission, highlights problems, drawbacks, fault lines and challenges ahead. Part of these problems comes from the external context, particularly unfavourable for universities following the international crisis and austerity policies. However, many difficulties come from the very nature of the EU: a club of countries with different national educational and research systems,
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
with different specializations and strategies, separated national labour markets. Although countries keep sovereignty in education and in part also research, the EU successfully coordinates member countries in the far reaching and ambitious process of transforming higher education institutions and pursuing increasing integration of research and the educational system. Unfortunately, integration of labour markets did not match this effort and the consequences are particularly disadvantageous in the Eurozone and contributing to high levels of youth unemployment, including highly educated people in selected countries.
In spite of problems and disparities, results are important and overall positive. Among the most important positive outcomes are growing numbers of students having the opportunity to spend significant periods of their academic life in another country, while continuing their career at the home university. It is expected that these persons, once active in the labour market, will effectively take European values ahead and actively support European integration, although so far evidence is not conclusive.
On the minus side and in spite of EU efforts, universities are still largely funded through national public resources, while fiscal rules hardly stimulate private donors. Administrative approaches still dominate national public financing, i.e., financing after the number of students enrolled, or the number of teachers, with a modest role given to outcomes. European responses to the international crisis magnified these features and led to severe cuts in financing universities in various countries. Even the recognition of degrees within the EU, a goal pursued with determination, is still partial and meets various obstacles. This hinders the integration of the European labour and skill markets. Universities were not particularly successful in establishing stable inter-country and interregional knowledge and research networks, in spite of EU programs and support, although lately some interesting institutional progress is taking place. Finally, although the new system led to growing education and research level and quality, growing standardization, bureaucratization, transaction costs and burdens on teachers and researchers had negative effects on academic life and the traditional critical role of universities.
REFERENCES
1. Aghion, Philippe, Dewatripont, Mathias, Hoxby, Caroline Mas-Colell, Andreu and Sapir, André (2008), Higher aspirations: An agenda for reforming European universities, Brussels: Bruegel Blueprint Series, Volume V
2. Andreou, Efthalia, Deliou Cleopatra, and Malagkoniari, Maria (2023). 'Graduate students' perspectives on their acquired skills following the Erasmus+ Programme', Futurity Education, Vol.3, No.3, pp.6-19.
3. Arnaldo Valdés, Rosa María, and Victor Fernando Gómez Comendador (2022). 'European universities initiative: How universities may contribute to a more sustainable society', Sustainability Vol.14, No.471, pp.1-23.
4. Balan, Robert S. (17 Nov 2022). Tuition Fees at Universities in Europe in 2023 - Overview and Comparison (https://www.mastersportal.com)
5. Bennetot Pruvot, Enora, Thomas Estermann and Valentina Lisi, (2019), Public Funding Observatory Report 2018, Brussels and Geneva: European University Association
6. Bennetot Pruvot, Enora and Thomas Estermann (2022), Allocating core public funding to universities in Europe: state of play & principles, March, Brussels: European University Association (https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/funding%20models%20v2.pdf)
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
7. Bouget, Denis (2003), 'Convergence in the social welfare systems in Europe: From goal to reality', Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 37, No. 6, December, pp. 674-693
8. Corak Miles (2013), 'Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility', Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 27, N. 3, Summer, pp. 79-102
9. Curaj, Adrian, Liviu Matei, Remus Pricopie, Jamil Salmi and Peter Scott (2015) (Eds.), The European Higher Education Area Between Critical Reflections and Future Policies, Cham: Springer
10. Czerska-Shaw, Karolina and Ewa Krzaklewska (2022). 'Uneasy belonging in the mobility capsule: Erasmus Mundus students in the European Higher Education Area', Mobilities, Vol.17, No.3, pp. 432-445.
11. Dakowska, Dorota and Kathia Serrano-Velarde (2018), 'European Higher Education Policy', in: Hubert Heinelt and Sybille Münch, Handbook of European Policies: Interpretive Approaches to the EU, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar pp.260-272
12. de Castro, M. Goretti Alonso and Francisco José García-Peñalvo (2022). Examples of Good Practices in Erasmus+ Projects that Integrate Gender and STEM in Higher Education. In: Francisco José García-Peñalvo, Alicia García-Holgado, Angeles Dominguez and Jimena Pascual (Eds.) Women in STEM in Higher Education. Good Practices of Attraction, Access andRetainment in Higher Education, pp.181-197.
13. De Benedetto, Marco Alberto, Maria De Paola, Vincenzo Scoppa and Janna Smirnova (2023). Erasmus Program and Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence from a Fuzzy Regression Discontinuity Design. IZA Institute of Labor Economics. Discussion Paper No. 16181, Bonn, Germany.
14. Dill, David D. and Frans A. van Vught (2010), 'National Innovation Policies: Governments as Innovation Agents of Higher Education and Research'. In Luc E. Weber and James J. Duderstadt (eds), University Research for Innovation, London, Paris and Geneva: Economica, pp. 107-124
15. EC (2017), Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture. The European Commission's contribution to the Leaders' meeting in Gothenburg, 17 November 2017, Strasbourg, 14 November, C0M(2017) 673 final
16. EC (2018a), Building a stronger Europe: The role of youth, education and culture policies, European Commission, Brussels, 22 May, C0M(2018) 268 final
17. EC (2018b), About higher education policy. EU activities are designed to bring an additional international dimension to studying, teaching, researching or making policy in higher education, European Commission, Brussels.
18. EC (2018c), The EU in support of the Bologna Process, Brussels: European Commission,
19. EC (2018d), The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report, European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
20. EC (2018e), National Student Fee and Support Systems in European Higher Education -2018/19, Eurydice - Facts and Figures, European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
21. EC (2019), First 17 "European Universities" selected: a major step towards building a European Education Area, 26 June, Press release, Brussels: European Commission
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI" MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
22. EC (2021). Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027): Resetting Education and Training for the Digital Age (https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/digital-education-action-plan_en)
23. Enders, Jürgen, Harry De Boer, Jon File, Ben Jongbloed and Don Westerheijden (2011a), "Reform of Higher Education in Europe", in Enders et al. (2011), pp. 1-10
24. Enders, Jürgen, Harry F. de Boer and Don F. Westerheijden (2011) (eds.), Reform of Higher Education in Europe, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers
25. ETER (2019), How are European Higher Education Institutions funded? New evidence from ETER microdata, Brussels: European Commission (https://www.eter-project.com/uploads/analytical-reports/ETER_AnalyticalReport_02_final.pdf)
26. EU (2018), European Innovation Scoreboard 2018. Annex B. Performance per indicator, Brussels: European Union.
27. Eurostat (2018), Smarter, greener, more inclusive? Indicators to Support the Europe 2020 Strategy. 2018 edition, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
28. Eurostat (2019), Government expenditure on education, March
29. Eurostat (2023), Government expenditure on education, February (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/SEPDF/cache/42735.pdf)
30. Faber, Marike and Don Westerheijden (2011), European Degree Structure and National Reform: Constitutive Dynamics of the Bologna Process, in Enders et al. (2011), pp. 11-28
31. Forge, Simon, Colin Blackman, Itzhak Goldberg and Federico Biagi (2013), Comparing Innovation Performance in the EU and the USA: Lessond from Three ICT Sub-Sectors, JRC Technical Report, European Union
32. Fournier, Yann, Florence Lefresne and Robert Rakocevic (2019), Education in Europe: Key Figures 2018, Paris: French Ministries of national education, higher education and research.
33. Fumasoli, Tatiana and Federica Rossi (2021). 'The role of higher education institutions in transnational networks for teaching and learning innovation: The case of the Erasmus+ programme', European Journal of Education, Vol.56, No. 2, pp. 200-218
34. Gaebel, Michael and Therese Zhang (2018), Trends 2018. Learning and teaching in the European Higher Education Area, Brussels: European University Association
35. Gâkovâ, Zuzana and Lewis Dijkstra (2010), 'Labour Mobility between the Regions of the EU-27 and a Comparison with the USA', Princeton Working Paper 100976,
36. Hörner, Wolfgang, Hans Döbert, Lutz R. Reuter and Botho von Kopp (2015) (eds), The Education Systems of Europe, Cham: Springer
37. Jongbloed, Ben (2010), Funding higher education: a view across Europe, Brussels: ESMU -Modern Project
38. Kottmann, Andrea (2011), Reform of Doctoral Training in Europe: A Silent evolution?, in Enders et al. (2011), pp. 29-43
39. La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes and Andrei Shleifer (2008), 'The economic consequences of legal origin', Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 285-332
40. Ménard, Claude and Bertrand du Marais (2006), 'Can we rank legal systems according to their economic efficiency?', in Peter Nobel (ed.), New Frontiers of Law and Economics, Zürich: Schulthess Verlag, pp. 7-28
41. Nielsen, Peter (2018), 'Innovation modes and knowledge relations: The learning match between university and enterprises in a regional perspective', in Bruno Dallago and Ermanno
"RAQOBATBARDOSH KADRLAR TAYYORLASHDA FAN - TA'LIM - ISHLAB CHIQARISH INTEGRATSIYASINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH ISTIQBOLLARI " MAVZUSIDAGI XALQARO ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYA 22 - noyabr, 2023-yil
Tortia, eds., Entrepreneurship and Local Economic Development A Comparative Perspective on Entrepreneurs, Universities and Governments, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 165-185.
42. Nogueiro, Teresa, Saraiva, Margarida, Jorge, Fátima, Chaleta, Elisa (2022). 'The Erasmus+ Programme and Sustainable Development Goals—Contribution of Mobility Actions in Higher Education', Sustainability, Vol.14, No. 1628, pp.1-16.
43. OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, Paris: OECD Publishing,
44. Pastor, José Manuel and Lorenzo Serrano (2016), 'The Research Output of Universities and its Determinants: Quality, Intangible Investments, Specialisation and Inefficiencies', SPINTANProject: Smart Public intangibles, Working Paper Series No. 5, Valencia: Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas
45. Ribeiro, Alexandra (2022). Erasmus at 30: Institutional Mobility at Higher Education in Perspective. In: Cairns, David ed., The Palgrave Handbook of Youth Mobility and Educational Migration. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 177-185.
46. Rome Declaration (2017), The Rome Declaration, Council of the EU, Statements and Remarks 149/17, 25 March,
47. Sapir, André (2006), 'Globalization and the reform of European social models', Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 369-390
48. Vlachopoulos, Dimitrios (2022). 'How the "Lessons Learned" from emergency remote teaching can enrich European higher education in the post-COVID-19 era', Higher Learning Research Communications, Vol.12, No.0, pp. 147-156.
49. WEF (2018), The Global Competitiveness Report 2018, Klaus Schwab (ed.), Geneva: World Economic Forum
50. Zahavi, Hila and Yoav Friedman (2019). 'The Bologna Process: An International Higher Education Regime', European Journal of Higher Education, Vol.9, No.1, pp. 23-39.
