Browse by: "U"

The goal of this paper is to provide tools to understand and analyse waves of "agencification" in transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Agencification is a shorthand for the process of delegation and devolution, in which more autonomy, particularly in personnel and financial issues, is granted to public bodies, which either remain legally part of the state or acquire their own legal personality. It can also mean creating or moving functions to bodies, which are subsidiary or separate from ministries/departments (Gill, 2002). In transition countries, most public organisations inherited a legal personality already from communism, with consequences which are both procedural and substantive. Therefore, agencification in transition countries usually means the creation of new autonomous bodies for new functions or a significant increase in the autonomy of existing legally separate bodies either on an individual or a collective basis.

In times when excellence is at the top of the research  agenda of all research and innovation policies, especially in Europe, research universities are the implicit reference model of most policy makers and most public debates. However, the implications, that is a major geographical concentration of public means and the existence of a dual system of training, are rarely highlighted; it is on the contrary, often when there are references to "cohesion". This paper suggests that, although this trend is clearly visible, the situation is more complex. In particular, the analysis overlooks another central role of universities: they have also become the main proximity knowledge provider. Both trends combine and result in radical transformation of university organisation – the separation of teaching departments from research structures, may these be called groups, units, centres, institutes or laboratories. This leads to question whether their present organisation is relevant to the socio-economic environment: I argue that the very fast increase of not-for-profit associations/foundations closely linked to universities are a lasting and promising feature of the university-society connection. These changes call for more study of university governance, certainly a pressing issue in countries like France.

The substantial pressures upon higher education systems and institutions are impacting upon individual roles and career paths. Yet recent research on academic identities (Henkel, 2000) suggests the responses are largely adaptive and evolutionary. This article starts by briefly revisiting some of the key aspects of the study by Kogan, Moses and El-Khawas (1994), and the paper by Gordon (1997), before turning to a short discussion of the principal trends which have affected the scene subsequently. It then explores three scenarios in terms of roles and career paths: evolution, selective restructuring, and step-change restructuring. The possible characteristics and implications for various stakeholders of each are considered, as is the connection to current trends, and indicators of change. The paper concludes with suggestions as to how institutions and systems might strategically plan for, and manage, changes in roles and career paths in order to ensure that individuals are motivated and perceive the changes positively and creatively...

Trade globalisation is beginning to affect universities worldwide. In response to this outside pressure, institutions have become more geared to gaining international repute through research than to maintaining their reputation at home for the quality of their teaching. As a result of this focus on research, French universities, for example, are losing ground to other kinds of higher education institutions. One of the main reasons is that research encourages specialisation, whereas the market increasingly requires multi-disciplinary and cross-cutting skills. In order to explore how society’s contradictory demands can be met, two opposing models will be presented, one that seeks to preserve the universalist role of universities and another that would prompt higher education institutions to become increasingly specialised in pursuit of research excellence. Between these two extremes, there is perhaps a middle way that is difficult to follow, but that is exceptionally enriching for the university community, provided that university management is rethought. The primary mistake that can be made in any process of change is to seek to merge the role of individuals with that of institutions. Although universities can continue to pull together all the various threads that contribute to economic development, individuals cannot be expected to have the same multi-faceted profile. This means that the quality of tomorrow’s universities will depend on the quality of interpersonal relationships and how they are managed....

The last decade has seen a growing increase in policy discourse in many countries on entrepreneurship and innovation with a prominent emphasis on the role to be played by universities. However, it is far from clear to what extent institutional behaviours are influenced by this enterprising policy discourse based on the broad assumption that “knowledge” is the most precious asset for economic growth in the knowledge economy. This article examines the links developing between the universities and innovation processes especially at the regional level as observed in the United Kingdom, highlighting interactions between public policy and institutional behaviour in a multi-level governance (MLG) structure of knowledge production. Different strategic processes of networking between universities and the links universities are developing with Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and other partners in nine English regions are illustrated in light of recent government policies which influence the resources and strategies of universities. Universities need to be analysed as critical actors in regional development processes, and their wide range of activities and strategies at different geographical levels need to be strategically co-ordinated as part of a territorial development process within the globalising knowledge economy.

This report provides guidance to members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) on using ODA more effectively to mobilise private investment for development (investment-enhancing ODA). It focuses on how development agencies can help influence the conditions that lead to increased levels of private investment and on how investment can better contribute to the achievement of broader societal goals, including poverty reduction. A fundamental objective is to help staff in development agencies, both in headquarters and the field, to pursue a more strategic and co-ordinated approach when they design and deliver investment-enhancing ODA.

This report presents numerous examples of the variety of tools for presenting and illustrating PRTR data and the types of uses of PRTR data in OECD member countries. It presents examples of uses for the purposes of the public, community groups, industry, the government, and academic and independent research institutions. The intent of this report is not to describe all of the many programmes, activities, and tools that use PRTR data, but to present examples in each category to illustrate the wide variety of current and evolving uses of such data.