1.1 Introduction

In 1991, a grand if unintentional experiment in University governance began. Fifteen countries once under a unified and tightly controlled and regulated higher education system were all given a unique opportunity to evolve their own University systems in their own ways starting from the same place and at the same point in time. The dissolution of the Soviet Union set off a chain reaction of University reform that proceeded at assorted paces, through different iterations, and in various directions across the former Soviet states (Froumin & Kouzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Smolentseva, Reference Smolentseva, Hoffman and Välimaa2016; Uvaleyeva et al., Reference Uvaleyeva, Mukhiyayeva, Baranova, Valieva and Kopylova2019). The fifteen sovereign nations that emerged or reemerged each had a different history before incorporation into the Soviet Union and then a period of forced commonality. But after 1991, the countries’ economic, political, and social systems developed in mutual but also independent ways (Baris et al., Reference Baris, Knox and Pelizzo2021). So did their University systems. “The similarities and differences between the national contexts, together with the challenges of the independence period, created a unique constellation of political, economic, sociocultural and demographic conditions in each country” (Smoletzeva et al., Reference Smolentseva, Huisman, Froumin, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018, p. 2). Each constellation of factors in turn influenced the direction of the newly independent countries’ higher education systems and how they are governed.

The region continues to change and be challenged by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the damage and instability that has created. The story of change and independence in the region, starting from the common point in 1991, is dynamic and ongoing. What the war’s impact is on the region’s universities and how they are governed is unknown and will continue to be for some time.

1.2 Governing Universities in Former Soviet Countries

The former Soviet countries’ higher education institutions (HEIs) during Soviet times were very similar, regardless of their location and local history. This was due to a highly coordinated, centralized, and well-funded approach to post-secondary education reflecting the unique goals of the Communist government (Azimbayeva, Reference Azimbayeva2017; Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008). The system was intentionally structured to remove competition between HEIs. They were immune from market and economic forces (Rezaev & Starikov, Reference Rezaev and Starikov2017) but not political or ideological ones (Kuraev, Reference Kuraev2016). Soviet higher education institutions had a sociopolitical role that was different from Western and Asian universities in that they were “specialized parts of a state-controlled machine for manpower production … and for reshaping the social and ethnic structure of the state” (Froumin & Kouzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018, p. 46). Throughout the USSR, HEIs taught in a common language, regardless of geolinguistic tradition; they shared the same degree structures, curricula, and textbooks; they were vocationally oriented and conducted little research, which was the domain of scientific institutes and academies (Froumin & Kouzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008). The missions of HEIs tended to be discipline- and field-specific – for example, agriculture, economics, pedagogy, engineering, medicine. At the end of the Soviet era, only 8 percent of universities were comprehensive, offering degrees across an array of disciplines and fields (Smolentseva et al., Reference Smolentseva, Huisman, Froumin, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). The governance of HEIs was scattered, with many HEIs falling outside the control of the Ministry of Higher Education. One count noted that by 1990 the approximately 900 HEIs across the Soviet Union were governed by over 70 ministries and organizations (Avis, Reference Avis1990).

However, in some countries, such as Armenia, Imperial Russia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, universities existed before the Soviet Union (Ait Si Mhamed et al., Reference Ait Si Mhamed, Vārpiņa, Dedze, Kaša, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Froumin & Kouzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Karakhanyan, Reference Karakhanyan, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Leisyte et al., Reference Leisyte, Rose, Schimmelpfenning, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Saar & Roosalu, Reference Saar, Roosalu, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). Here, universities with local focus and language instruction put down roots. These institutions were either absorbed into the Soviet structure or were closed during the Soviet period. Nevertheless, they often left a lasting impact on the mindset of the country, as a reminder about education for local relevance, and often became a starting point for post-independence higher education development and evolution.

Post-Soviet governments and their HEIs have faced a series of challenges since independence including finding their way in newly established market economies amid financial and political uncertainty and downturns; updating and broadening curricula and removing Soviet ideology; developing research capacities; coping with brain drain; and updating infrastructure, data systems, and facilities (Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008; Smolentseva et al., Reference Smolentseva, Huisman, Froumin, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). They did this in newly competitive educational marketplaces with the entrance of private universities and providers and sizeable numbers of students who pay tuition fees and operating in a policy context that was in flux. The result was a range of varying higher education system transformations.

From this common starting point, today’s universities in the former Soviet states have evolved in different ways and at difference paces. Universities in some countries, such as Belarus and Turkmenistan, reflect their pre-independence forms with strong governmental presence, little autonomy, controlled curricula, and government-appointed leadership (Clement & Kateva, Reference Clement, Kataeva, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Gille-Belova & Titarenko, Reference Gille-Belova, Titarenko, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). Universities in other countries, such as Estonia and Latvia, have changed greatly, for example by joining the Bologna Process shortly after independence (Gorga, Reference Gorga2008; Rauhvargers, Reference Rauhvargers2003). And universities in Kazakhstan and Moldova reflect a mixed level of reform with some universities strongly reflecting Soviet roots in terms of structure, control, and curricula, and others moving much more toward Western research University models, such as Nazarbayev University (Ruby, Reference Ruby2017) and the Moldovan Technical University (Eckel, Reference Eckel2019).

The dominant post-secondary institutions in most of the fifteen countries are public or state universities (Smolentseva, Reference Smolentseva2020). They educate most of each country’s students (except in Kazakhstan at 48 percent) and they are the preponderance of universities in number across these countries, with four exceptions: Armenia (at 48 percent), Georgia (at 29 percent), Kazakhstan (at 33 percent), and Latvia (at 41 percent) (Platonova, Reference Platonova, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). They are the responsibility of governments, the beneficiaries of public funding, are often the most visible, and tend to be the key vehicle for broad and deep economic development and social reform. State universities have broad nation-building missions, which often stand in contrast to more narrowly targeted private University missions with their vocational purposes and profit motives; and they are expensive to run. Thus, there are incentives to develop effective governance mechanisms for state universities. And because these universities are public, even though individual University missions and their organizational structures can be different (Razaev & Starikov, Reference Rezaev and Starikov2017), their governance structures tend to be consistent within each country as the approaches to University governance are set by the state via laws and statutes and to change them requires government action.

1.3 Bodies That Govern

This book focuses narrowly on University governance and does so with even more of a focus on university-level or institutional governance, as compared to state governance, such as at the ministerial level. It draws upon two definitions of governance. The first, by John Fielden (Reference Fielden2008) in his comparative University governance study for the World Bank, defines governance as “all those structures, processes and activities that are involved in the planning and direction of the institutions and people working in tertiary education” (p. 2). The second, by Peter Maassen (Reference Heyneman, Heyneman and DeYoung2003), notes that governance is “the frameworks in which universities and colleges manage themselves and about the processes and structures used to achieve the intended outcomes” (p. 32). Both definitions indicate that governance concerns itself with processes and activities that occur through and are shaped by decision, communication, and coordination structures. However, the governance processes and outcomes that are captured in both definitions are notoriously difficult to study regardless of context and organizational type (Chait et al., Reference Chait, Holland and Taylor1993; Daily et al., Reference Daily, Dalton and Cannella2003; Forbes & Milliken, Reference Forbes and Milliken1999; Stevenson & Radin, Reference Stevenson and Radin2015). The remaining element of the governance definitions, and the one we focus on in this book, is the definable, describable, and therefore comparative element: structure.

Admittedly, this is a narrow focus. This effort does not look at how these structures function. We instead exchanged depth for breadth and look across fifteen countries. This is a limitation and one we hope to address in future work. Nevertheless, our approach aims to better understand University structures that frame the dynamics of higher education decision-making and power play. The description of the fifteen University governance models spanning north-east Europe to Central Asia allows for the mapping of University governance models in this Eurasian region, presenting a systematic review of University governance structures.

The universities in former Soviet countries, indeed around the world, have discernible, different mechanisms for governance that determine mission, approve strategy, set policy, monitor University well-being, and oversee quality and compliance (see Feildin, Reference Fielden2008; Henard & Mitterle, Reference Henard and Mitterle2010; Saint, Reference Saint2009). System-level governance in the Soviet area was provided by a range of ministries and other oversight bodies tied directly to the state (Avis, Reference Avis1990; Froumin & Kouzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). Three decades later, there are multiple actors and structures involved with governance (Austin & Jones, Reference Austin and Jones2016; Henard & Mitterle, Reference Henard and Mitterle2010; Larsen et al., Reference Larsen, Masseen and Stensaker2009). We seek to understand the range and variety and how they reflect the University governance contexts. In all varieties of University governance forms and functions, some type of authority balance exists between government and institution. As explored later in this volume, in some instances University governance is mainly a state responsibility with most decisions held centrally and little notable independence at the institutional level. In other instances, governance is a University responsibility with indirect state roles. The variation reflects the degree of autonomy granted to universities by government (Austin & Jones, Reference Austin and Jones2016; de Boer et al., Reference de Boer, Jongbloed, Enders and File2010; Hartley et al, 2015).

The primary mechanism for institutional-level governance are governing bodies that go by a series of different labels, commonly including Academic Councils or Senates, Boards of Trustees, and Boards of Overseers. These bodies, regardless of name, are the essential bridge that spans governmental and institutional boundaries. They are increasingly recognized as the key link in the governance framework that includes macro-, meso-, and institutional-level structures (Austin & Jones, Reference Austin and Jones2016; Fielden, Reference Fielden2008; Maassen, Reference Maassen, Amaral, Meek and Larsen2008). In some national contexts, such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, institutional-level structures are responsible for setting and overseeing the trajectory of a University, ensuring fidelity to mission and approving strategy, monitoring quality and relevance, safeguarding resources and assets, approving policy, and ensuring financial health. They are also responsible for the hiring, review, and termination of the administrative head, in these cases the rector (Chait et al., 2006; Committee of University Chairs, 2014). Many Asian countries follow a different model with tighter state control. Japan, for instance, reformed its tightly ministerially controlled universities to be slightly more autonomous, with governing boards appointed by the University president; however, the ministry still appoints the president (Oba, Reference Oba and Shattock2014). Scandinavia historically has strong academic-based governance: a rector elected from within the academic staff, who also chairs the board; and active Councils (Stensaker, Reference Stensaker2014). In Finland, the academic collegium appoints and can remove external governing board members (Salmela-Mattila, Reference Salmela-Mattila2014).

This book investigates the form and function of institutional-level governance bodies in former Soviet countries. The shared Soviet history provides a natural laboratory for innovation and such a comparison has not been done before. The fifteen national cases described and analyzed in this volume centers on the authoritative governing body at the institutional level for several reasons. First, we focus on what is arguably the most important element in the governance schema – the institutional-level governance mechanism. These are the supreme decision-making structures within each University, as compared to a ministerial or buffer-body level (Austin & Jones, Reference Austin and Jones2016). This is the point at which policy intersects with practice and where, metaphorically speaking, the rubber meets the road. As Vossensteyn (Reference Vossensteyn2016) notes in a World Bank report, “Internal governance arrangements can be considered the backbone of every higher education institution’s capacity for coordination and strategic development” (p. 9). This level is different from but works in conjunction with systems- or policy-level governance (for example, see Dobbins et al., Reference Dobbins, Knill and Vogtle2011).

Second, University governance is a complex system with a lack of clarity about what it is and what it consists of. The concept of University governance can include governmental agencies, buffer bodies, institutional-level structures, and unit-level decision bodies (Austin & Jones, Reference Austin and Jones2016; Fielden, Reference Fielden2008; Shattock, Reference Shattock2014). This complexity makes comparisons challenging at best and ill-informed at worse. Thus, we seek to narrow the scope of comparison to the supreme governing bodies at the institutional level, allowing for what should be a somewhat parallel comparison.

Third, governing bodies, while long-established and consistent in some countries such as the United Kingdom and United States, are changing elsewhere as the governance and policy ecosystem and context evolve (de Boer et al., Reference de Boer, Jongbloed, Enders and File2010; Fielden, Reference Fielden2008; Shattock, Reference Shattock2014). Thus, it is interesting to understand if and how these bodies are being developed and the forms the reforms take. In some instances, such bodies might have substantial authority, or they may be simply constituted as advisories with the Ministry holding tight the reins, either explicitly or implicitly.

Fourth, governing bodies provide a window into the broader structures and assumptions of governing systems and of the development of universities as independent and complete organizations (Brunnson & Sahlin-Andersson, Reference Brunnson and Sahlin-Andersson2000; Krucken & Meier, Reference Kruken, Meier, Drori, Meyer and Hwang2006; Musselin, 2007). Structures reflect assumptions of work and coordination (Hammond, Reference Hammond2004) and “are selected to achieve an internal consistency or harmony, as well as a basic consistency with the organization’s situation” (Mintzberg, Reference Mintzberg1993, p. 3). Governance structures therefore codify assumptions of control, coordination, responsibility, and accountability. They become the embodiment of policies, conventions, and preferences and are not impartial (Hammond & Thomas, Reference Hammond and Thomas1989).

Finally, many countries and intergovernmental agencies, such as the World Bank (Arnold & Malee Bassett, Reference Arnold and Malee Bassett2021), are showing an increased interest in institutional governing bodies as the predominant governance mechanism. Many countries have reformed University governance or are experimenting with University governance reforms that have pursued different approaches and led to different structures (Azmbayeva, Reference Azimbayeva2017; Hartley et al., 2015; Oleksiyenko, 2019, Shattock, Reference Shattock2014).

1.4 Post-Soviet Space as a Natural Laboratory

Because of their recent and shared starting point, the fifteen countries that once made up the Soviet Union create an interesting opportunity for comparison and analysis of university-level governance structures and how they have evolved over the past three decades. Outside this region, most University governance structures emerge from long histories and traditions that in some cases develop over centuries. Oxford and Cambridge created their governing structures in the Middle Ages, which not only continue to today but also became models for others. In the United States, Harvard and Yale Universities established their bodies in the 1600s and 1700s respectively. Thus, the 1990s are a comparatively short chronological distance away. Governing bodies in the former Soviet countries are relatively new and, as the case profiles in this volume demonstrate, they often undergo periodic transformation. Both Kazakhstan and Latvia changed their University governance structures during the writing of this book. This investigation takes a snapshot of the reforms that these countries have advanced as of 2019–2021, just three decades from a common starting point and a common Soviet-mandated governance framework.

The shared historic foundations of the former Soviet countries create a common starting place for evolution. University governance and its reforms are shaped by historic contexts (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, 1982; Larsen, Maassen & Stensaker, Reference Larsen, Masseen and Stensaker2009). Local government expectations, variation in institutional missions, and the role of external stakeholders lead to institutional-level governance differences. Shattock (Reference Shattock2014) notes, “national histories and cultural traditions determine that there are widely different starting points [for University governance reform] and that these starting points themselves often determine the direction for the change process” (p. 184). This is not the case across these fifteen countries. They all started from the same Soviet place three decades ago.

Today’s variations within this set reflect recent local contextual changes and intentional decisions. While it is common to acknowledge what Rezaev and Starikov describe as the “fifteen independent journeys, which resulted in different patterns of social and economic development” (Reference Rezaev and Starikov2017, p. 129), to what extent do University governance mechanisms also have independent, divergent journeys, or do patterns of common approaches exist?

Finally, most current research sheds little insight on the actual mechanisms for institutional-level University governance (Gornitzka et al., Reference Gornitzka, Maassen and de Boer2017) even though there are significant investigations into the changing governing approaches around the world (de Boer & File Reference de Boer and File2009; Fielden, Reference Fielden2008; Larsen et al., Reference Larsen, Masseen and Stensaker2009; Vossensteyn, Reference Vossensteyn2016). Understanding the form and means through which university-level governance is conducted provides a ground-level view that is often missing from governance comparisons.

This book pursues a set of questions related to governing universities within former-Soviet countries:

• What are the current governing bodies across the public universities in the fifteen former-Soviet countries?

• In what ways are they the same or different, and what patterns exist across countries?

• What are the possible implications of the structural similarities or differences in University governance for their host countries?

Given their shared, historic starting point, this effort seeks to describe, compare, and analyze institutional-level governance structures. We maximize breadth and minimize depth, and we think this breadth to be important and relevant. A common challenge of comparative governance work is the difference that the political and social foundations of universities can have on governance understanding. For example, comparing Napoleonic, Humboldtian, and market models can be difficult (Dobbins et al., Reference Dobbins, Knill and Vogtle2011; Shattock, Reference Shattock2014). The underlying conditions are different as are the policy assumptions and even the legal structures by which they operate. For example, Kazakhstan adheres to a civil legal structure as compared to the United States, which follows a case law structure, meaning that University governance is underpinned not only by different legal structures but also different assumptions (Eckel & Apergenova, Reference Eckel and Apergenova2015). But we use the current contextual differences to advantage and explore the appropriateness of the structures identified to the context in which they are operating in the book’s analytic chapters.

By focusing this investigation on countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, the project benefits from broad coverage and it compares similarities and differences across what was a common foundation. It is through patterns of comparison across the set that interesting insights emerge that could be missed with a more traditional regional focus, such as on the Baltic countries or Central Asia. Because higher education’s evolution across a diverse set of countries has varied over time (Rezaev & Starikov, Reference Rezaev and Starikov2017; Smolentseva et al., Reference Smolentseva, Huisman, Froumin, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018), the comparisons reflect important developments and choices worthy of exploring. This approach, however, does have its limitations as discussed below.

1.5 Getting to Grips with University Governing Bodies

This book focuses on institutional level governance structures: What are institutional governance bodies? How are they structured? Who serves on them and through what selection mechanisms? What do they do? How do they compare across contexts? This undertaking describes and compares institutional governing bodies across fifteen countries and their higher education systems that all emerged at the same point in time and from a common recent history.

But first a challenge: What are comparable governance bodies? The diversity of institutions is vast across this region and in some cases within countries, as are their governance structures (Gornitzka et al., Reference Gornitzka, Maassen and de Boer2017). In some countries, this choice is simple. There is one governing body per institution. Depending on the higher education system and country, institutional governance tends to take one of two forms (Esterman & Nokkala, Reference Estermann and Nokkala2009). The first are unitary bodies, in which a single body, such as a Board of Trustees, has the ultimate authority. This is the governance body. However, other institutions have multiple bodies, in which various authorities share governance responsibilities often for academic decisions and for operational and strategic ones. Most public universities in Canada follow this bicameral model (Shanahan, Reference Shanahan2019). In some instances, the different bodies have complementary authority, but in other instances one of the bodies is advisory or consultative (Esterman & Nokkala, Reference Estermann and Nokkala2009). For instance, the University of Zurich in Switzerland has four governance bodies according to the description by Gornitzka et al (Reference Gornitzka, Maassen and de Boer2017).

The book adheres to as clear a definition as possible. The first part of the answer to what are comparable bodies focuses on the scope of work, differentiating those bodies with authority, what de Boer and File (Reference de Boer and File2009) label, but do not define, as supervisory boards from those that are advisory. Many institutions are creating advisory boards under a variety of names with external representation to help create linkages between institutions and the societies and sectors they serve (Esterman & Nokkala, Reference Estermann and Nokkala2009; Hartley et al, 2015). In the North American context, we would argue the interest is in fiduciary boards, a legal threshold (AGB, 2015; Shanahan, Reference Shanahan2019) with duties of care, obedience, and loyalty. To differentiate governing boards from advisory bodies, we suggest the following definition: Governing bodies have tangible higher authority that transcend the authority of other bodies.

Second, we differentiate governance work from a focus on management and academic administration. For example, the description of the University of Zurich’s four-part governance structure includes one part, the extended rectorate (Erweiterte Universitätsleitung in German), which includes the rector, four vice-rectors, and all the deans, as well as others (Gornitzka et al., Reference Gornitzka, Maassen and de Boer2017). While this body does address issues of governance, it likely has (or at least shares) management duties. Thus, we can say governing bodies are those that are not intended to manage (or not very much nor consistently), relative to other University bodies; and that separate management positions and bodies (such as rector and vice rectors or management Councils) exist outside or concurrent with governance positions.

However, discerning governance from management in practice can be difficult. It is more than saying that boards set policies and management implements them or that boards establish the ends and administration the means (Chait et al., Reference Chait, Ryan and Taylor2005). Looking at governing bodies in Europe, some of their activities are distinct from those responsibilities of the chief executive (management); but in other instances, the work of the supervisory body and that of the executive are merged or at least overlap (de Boer & File, Reference de Boer and File2009). This may be particularly true for governance bodies chaired by the executive. Thus, governing bodies are those that work to safeguard the long-term interests of the institution through steering and setting policy and are accountable for institutional progress on agreed upon goals. Composition of these bodies and the role of the chief executive (rector, vice chancellor, president) are factors to be investigated. Management, on the other hand, is the effort to get the work done, develop means and processes, and deliver on policy and objectives. Management is accountable to governance.

Finally, other universities have what seems like competing governance bodies. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (or KU Leuven), for instance, has both a Board of Directors and a Board of Trustees (Gornitzka et al., Reference Gornitzka, Maassen and de Boer2017) and some Kazakhstani universities in recent times have both Boards of Trustees and Boards of Overseers (Hartley et al, 2015). To differentiate among these bodies, we focus on those bodies with what the UK’s Committee of University Chairs says, have “a responsibility for all decisions that might have significant reputational or financial implications” (CUC, 2014, p. 11). Again, there may be overlap with other University decision-making bodies. The governing body may not make each decision that has reputational or financial implications, but they are accountable for those decisions and their outcomes.

Even with this definitional parameter, there exists a risk that identifying institutional governing bodies may not be an apples-to-apples comparison, but the threshold here is at least to be comparing apples to other fruit. In sum, the focus on governance here refers to those bodies that:

• have tangible higher authority that transcend the authorities of other decision-making bodies;

• work to safeguard the long-term interests of the institution through steering and setting policy and are accountable for institutional progress on agreed upon goals;

• do not manage (or not very much nor consistently), relative to other University bodies and are separate from management positions and bodies that exist outside or concurrent with governance positions; and

• have the primary responsibility and accountability for decisions that might have significant reputational or financial implications.

1.6 Conceptual Approach and Research Design

The book approaches these research questions through a lens of comparative case studies. For each of the fifteen countries we have developed case profiles. The cases are snapshots in time (2019–2021) that provide the opportunity for comparison. The case profiles are presented through a common structure. Each case describes the national context that likely impacts and informs higher education and its governance such as the economic, political, and demographic factors. The profiles then describe the shape and structure of the higher education sector in each country, with an emphasis on state or public universities as indicated above. It describes characteristics of the governing context, including higher education laws, levels and types of autonomy, and other factors that inform University governance. The first two sections of each chapter are intended to describe the context for what is the heart of each profile – the final section that describes the University governing structure, including the governing body of the most authoritative; the membership and composition of that body; its selection or appointment processes; leadership; and its accountability and scope of work. Each element is described below:

• Structure. Governing boards seem to range in size, sometimes codified through law or mandate, but other times through practice, precedent, and history. In this category we include the number of body members and the connection to the rector or executive of the University.

• Membership and Appointment Process. Of interest is the membership on the governing bodies. What is the mix of representation and affiliation? Internal staff versus non-employed individuals? What are their backgrounds, such as representatives of the Ministry, if selection is dependent upon it? What is the proportion of governing body members internal to the institution and external to it? Is the rector or chief executive a voting member of the body?

• Chair Appointment Processes. Through what means is the body head identified and selected? This may be done by the government (ministry head of state, etc.), from representation (stakeholder groups), elected by the governing body, or part of the position held at the University, such as rector.

• Accountability. Governing bodies are accountable for the institutions they govern. The question is to whom are they accountable: Ministry or other governmental entity; a buffer body; or an independent organization, such as US private institutions. This is the most difficult element to discern and admittedly we struggled.

• Scope of Work. What is the scope of work of the governing body? If these bodies are developed related to levels and types of autonomy, then Esterman and Nokkala’s four types of autonomy (2009) may be a useful framework for understanding governing body work: (1) organizational structures and institutional governance – in particular, the ability to establish decision-making structures and determine University leadership and structure performance accountability; (2) financial issues – in particular, the different forms of acquiring and allocating funding, the ability to set and charge tuition fees, accumulate surplus, and borrow and raise money, as well as the ability to own real property and buildings and be responsible for financial accountability procedures; (3) staffing matters – in particular, the ability to hire staff and determine the responsibility for terms of employment such as job duties, salaries, and issues relating to employment contracts; and (4) academic matters – in particular, the capacity to define the range of academic offerings, introduce or terminate degree programs, define the structure and content of degree programs, determine the roles and responsibilities with regard to the quality assurance, and make decisions regarding student admissions.

As a set, the country profiles were developed in 2019 and 2020, with some timely updates in 2021. We understand that the countries and their higher education systems continue to evolve after this manuscript was submitted. Latvia, for instance, changed its law on higher education and governing structure in 2021. Thus, the profile was rewritten to reflect the most recent policy. Furthermore, the Russian invasion of Ukraine occurred at the end of our work on this book, creating much uncertainty not only for the Ukrainian University system but even for the sovereignty of Ukraine and its well-being. Armenia’s anticipated update of its law on higher education is overdue.

The profiles were created via desk research during the pandemic drawing on primary and secondary materials including publicly available documents such as published laws and statues, materials produced by others, and national and international reports. We reviewed institutional websites for examples of governing bodies, their structures and the scope of their work. Some of the materials were in English, either written or translated, and others were in the local language. The obtained materials are documented in each case. Among the book’s contributors are individuals who speak several but not all of the languages represented in the region.

This approach is not without limitations. First, we relied on documents and materials that were published at a particular point in time for particular purposes that likely are different from our use. Second, many of them were translated. We cannot vouch for the quality or accuracy of the translations, nor about the consistency in language. For example, in Russian, there is often inconsistency in translating the different English notions of University management versus governance, two different concepts in the West. It is possible that two documents from the same country may have used either of these terms indiscriminately and without definition leading to confusion on our part. Third, variation likely exists on the ground and in practice. We may not have always understood within-country differences, if they exist between different types of universities or between the structure as stated and practice. Fourth, it would have been ideal to have an in-country collaborator for all cases. We had some, and this was a role fulfilled by members of the research team in some countries (Kazakhstan, Latvia, Tajikistan). We also sought feedback on the case profiles from a range of knowledgeable individuals. Fifth, we focused on a narrow window of time. We did not want to be reporting on and comparing structures from points drastically different in time and laws continue to change and University governance continues to evolve. Finally, and likely most importantly, given our approach, we cannot discern how the governance structures are used and the extent to which they fulfill their objectives. We did not observe the structures working, nor do we have outcomes data. We can only report on how they are organized and intended. For example, we know that in Armenia, a governing body structure intended to be inclusive of multiple stakeholders was populated by individuals with strong ties to the government. For instance, student representatives were only selected to the governing body if they were approved by the political party, which was not as intended (Smith & Hamilton, Reference Smith and Hamilton2015). Thus, what is designed may not be how it is used.

1.7 Overview of the Book

This book is organized into four parts. Part I sets the stage for this book. It introduces University governance as a dynamic enterprise and its importance to University success. Chapter 2 looks at the Soviet legacy and the governing context when independence was gained. It is the ground zero from which the current approaches emerged. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the now fifteen independent countries found themselves with opportunities to develop a public University system or systems and develop their own approach to governing higher education. To understand their current structure and why these changed the way they did in common and uncommon ways, it is important to understand the Soviet context and its legacies impacting higher education. History shapes organizational structures but also organizational identities. The organizational future can be shaped by the past (Wadhwani & Bucheli, Reference Wadhwani, Bucheli, Bucheli and Wadhwani2014).

Part II presents the country profiles of all fifteen countries that formerly comprised the Soviet Union. The case profiles are organized alphabetically and presented in a common structure as described above with each case reviewing the national context that likely impacts and informs higher education and its governance, the shape and structure of the higher education sector in each country, and factors that likely inform University governance. The final section of each profile presents the University governing structure.

Part III of the book includes our analysis and contains three chapters. While the set of descriptions in Part II have value, an analytic investigation adds depth, explanation, and understanding. We adopt a set of alternative and complementary frameworks to explore and analyze the current governing structures that reflect the different academic traditions and analytic tools we as a group bring to the topic. Chapter 18, the first chapter in Part III, describes the variation and commonalties across the countries’ approaches to University governance. It identified four emergent models across the fifteen countries – state-extended, academic-focused, internal/external stakeholder, and external civic. Chapters 19 and 20 explore questions of appropriateness as a surrogate for effectiveness through leveraging two different frameworks linked to context relevance. Chapter 19 applies the Fukuyama model of governance, concerning itself with levels of autonomy and governmental quality (Fukuyama, Reference Fukuyama2013). Chapter 20 pursues a complimentary model by Aghion et al. (Reference Aghion, Dewatripoint, Hoxby, Mas-Colell, Spair and Jacobs2010), using autonomy and competition as evaluative lenses.

Part IV consists of a single chapter that pulls together the insights from the descriptions and different analyses to make sense of the various findings and their explanatory insights. It explores the ways that these emerging governance models may address four common dilemmas of governance (Larsen et al., Reference Larsen, Masseen and Stensaker2009). Chapter 21 outlines future research questions and identifies implications for policy makers and University leaders.

This book aims to make four significant and original contributions: First, it focuses on a topic that is gaining in importance – University governance and governance reform. As more countries around the world seek to improve their University systems, modifying their governance structures seems to be a common approach. Many seek to create what the World Bank’s Jamil Salmi notes is “favorable governance” (Reference Silova, Cowen and Kazamias2009, p. 8) to advance their universities. Yet countries often lack intentional models suited for local contexts and needs or they look to the West to adopt approaches that might or might not be context relevant. This book offers an examination into a variety of structures that surfaced after the collapse of a centrally planned and governed system to describe how they work and to analyze of their approaches.

Second, the book focuses on former Soviet countries as a comprehensive set. These fifteen countries provide a unique laboratory to study the evolution and trajectory of governance bodies given the common starting place of each due to the legacy of the Soviet Union and their various patterns of development over the past three decades. In that sense, they are post-Soviet. This is a dynamic part of the globe, and in turn, so is the higher education space. Some countries within this set look toward Europe and the West. Others look to Russia or are caught in its gravitational pull. Some try to look both ways and often find themselves caught in between. All are charting their new courses and adapting to local circumstances and responding to global trends as part of an increasingly global education sector. Progress on reform varies across this set as does the level of sophistication of their University systems.

Third, there is little written on University governance at the institutional level outside of the high-income countries. Furthermore, most governance scholarship focuses on European, North American, and British Commonwealth countries. And those that do look beyond the typical North American and European contexts tend not to have comparisons across country income levels. Finally, governance scholarship tends to look at state actors rather than at institutional level efforts. This book proposes to investigate governance at the institutional level, which is the nexus of higher education policy and institutional decision-making.

Finally, most books that offer a comparative investigation of higher education and more specifically of higher education governance are edited volumes. While they benefit from the breadth of authors, they struggle with continuity across chapters and lack a framework for cross-country comparison beyond a concluding summary. Their focus is on the individual chapter rather than as the set as a whole. This book takes a different, integrated approach, drawing on a single team of scholars to address the breadth of countries.

The intended audiences for this book are many. Academics interested in understanding University governance and scholars who focus on post-Soviet countries and regions such as Central Asia, the Caucuses, and Eastern Europe will find the insights of interest. Policy makers seeking higher education reform, particularly those that are pursuing increased autonomy or changing accountability schema may also find this book of interest. University leaders and members of University governing bodies may also find this work helpful as it describes alternative as well as common models and approaches and the contexts in which they operate to help them make choices on how to function. Finally, individuals driving University reform, consultants, and staff from international agencies and NGOs will also benefit from the descriptions and analysis. This book might offer ideas to move their University systems forward as they seek to spur reforms and improvements.

While some may find this volume worth reading front to back, we anticipate that others will pick and choose select profiles and analyses chapters. We understand that those in the former group may find the fifteen country profiles possibly repetitive given that they share a common structure. On the other hand, those readers who are interested in only select countries or groups of countries should find the structure helpful and efficient.

University governance is a complex phenomenon across the world, even in countries where institutional-level governance is a long and strong tradition. This natural experiment in University governance across fifteen different countries that evolved from a common place at a shared point in time is an immense opportunity. The ideas shared here will be relevant to those interested in this wonderful and dynamic part of the world. They should also be of interest to those who study and are curious about University governance.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union creates a unique laboratory for studying University governance. Before 1991, the now independent nations had a common University system, structure, and philosophy guided by the ideas of a planned economy (Eliutin, Reference Eliutin1984; Huisman et al., 2018). With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the now fifteen independent countries found themselves with opportunities to develop a public University system appropriate to their country and, with those systems, to develop an approach to governing higher education. To understand their current structure and the extent to which these structures evolved in common and uncommon ways, it is crucial to understand the Soviet context and its legacies impacting higher education. History shapes organizational structures but also organizational identities. The organizational future can be shaped by the past (Wadhwani & Bucheli, Reference Wadhwani, Bucheli, Bucheli and Wadhwani2014). Thus, this chapter attempts to highlight the main historical events and underlying ideologies that shaped Soviet universities and their organizational and governance features, providing the foundation from which the current fifteen approaches began. Section 2.2 explores and analyzes initial common challenges of the newly independent higher education systems in the post-Soviet period to set a context for the later transformations.

2.1 Before the Soviet System

Before the creation of the Soviet Union, there were approximately sixty-three universities in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania with their unique features and characteristics (Ait Si Mhamed et al., Reference Ait Si Mhamed, Vārpiņa, Dedze, Kaša, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Froumin & Kouzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Karakhanyan, Reference Karakhanyan, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Leisyte et al., Reference Leisyte, Rose, Schimmelpfenning, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Rumyantseva & Logvynenko Reference Rumyantseva, Logvynenko, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018; Saar & Roosalu, Reference Saar, Roosalu, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). For instance, the establishment of pre-Soviet universities in Russia was initiated by the Peter the Great’s time in the eighteenth century. He established the fundamental organizational principles of the pre-Soviet Russian universities that were based on the integration of the Academy of Sciences, the University, and the gymnasium, where University professors acted as both teachers and researchers and the graduates of the gymnasiums would enroll in universities to develop and disseminate scientific knowledge (Avrus, Reference Avrus2001). This model was based on European, specifically Dutch, universities, where Peter I spent a considerable amount of time. The first University was established by Peter I in Saint Petersburg in 1724 and named Academic University. However, the operation of this University was complicated by various challenges including lack of professors to teach and students to enroll (Avrus, Reference Avrus2001). As a result, the University struggled to become sustainable.

The first Ukrainian higher education institutions were opened in the sixteenth century (Rumyantseva & Longvynenko, Reference Rumyantseva, Logvynenko, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). According to Rumyantseva and Longvynenko (Reference Rumyantseva, Logvynenko, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018), the Ostrozska Academy, established in 1576, was one of the important centers of innovation and research performing as a model for universities in the East of the country. In eastern Ukraine, universities that appeared at the beginning of the nineteenth century in Kharkiv, Kiyv, and Odessa were established under the Russian Empire at that time (Rumyantseva & Longvynenko, Reference Rumyantseva, Logvynenko, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). By the beginning of the twentieth century, Ukraine had approximately 27 higher education institutions with more than 35,000 students (Rumyantseva & Longvynenko, Reference Rumyantseva, Logvynenko, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). Because the Ukrainian universities in the eastern part of the country were functioning under Russian rule, universities were under strict control of the Imperial government.

In Estonia, one of the critical events for education development was the reopening of the University of Tartu in 1802, which trained more than 5,000 graduates, including lawyers, doctors, and agronomists, with a quarter of graduates being female (Saar & Roosalu, Reference Saar, Roosalu, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). Pre-Soviet Estonian higher education institutions mirrored the Humboldtian and Statist models with the governing of academic bodies, but the budget was controlled by the state government (Saar & Roosalu, Reference Saar, Roosalu, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). The first higher education institution, Riga Polytechnic Institute in Latvia, was opened in 1862 under the Russian Empire (Ait Si Mhamed et al. Reference Ait Si Mhamed, Vārpiņa, Dedze, Kaša, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). One of the oldest universities in Lithuania, Vilnius University, was established in the country in 1579 but was closed between 1831 and 1919 under Russian rule (Leisyte et al., Reference Leisyte, Rose, Schimmelpfenning, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). By the time of the Soviet annexation, Lithuania had eight higher education institutions (Leisyte et al., Reference Leisyte, Rose, Schimmelpfenning, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018).

Furthermore, the University of Gladzor in Armenia was one of the first medieval universities. The country has a long history of institutions of higher learning where medieval universities set degrees for successful graduates (Karakhanyan, Reference Karakhanyan, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). In Azerbaijan, the Baku State University was established in 1919; however, the University did not have time to develop fully due to Soviet rule, which arrived in 1920 (Isakhanli & Pashayeva, 2018).

As observed, the history of higher education before the creation of the Soviet Union was grounded by different historical, political, and social changes in each of the countries. For example, the establishment of universities for Imperial Russia was important for its social and political cohesion (Froumin & Kuzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). The current Moscow Lomonosov State University was founded in 1755. It became the first University with its own charter and had relative autonomy and academic freedom, which was uncommon for Russia. The charter determined the duties of professors, adjuncts, students, administrators, and the University’s organizational operations. Notably, the relative autonomy allowed universities to have textbooks from abroad while foreign literature for universities was free of censorship. Universities also had the right to establish special scientific societies for the joint study of any science, the statutes of which were approved by the minister (Avrus, Reference Avrus2001). Despite these elements, the autonomy within Russian universities was still limited since the universities of that time were under the jurisdiction of the Russian Imperial Government (Avrus, Reference Avrus2001; Froumin & Kuzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018).

Historical analysis shows that pre-Soviet universities operated according to diverse models of governing, including Humboldt’s idea of linking teaching and research, the Static model, and elements of the French model with significant changes and additions (Avrus, Reference Avrus2001). Most of the universities taught general courses in the first years allowing students to major at senior years. There was a fair connection between scientific research and teaching and rigorous requirements for master’s and doctoral dissertations. All these ensured significant achievement for universities and their governance, which drastically changed in light of the political transformations in 1917 (Avrus, Reference Avrus2001).

2.2 In Soviet Times

During seven decades of Soviet rule, the country built an extensive and integrated education and post-secondary education system (Counts, Reference Counts1957). However, the Soviet universities were characterized by limited academic freedom, highly politicized organization, and held under the tight control of the Soviet government. The literature during Soviet times proclaimed that education in the Soviet Union was inspired by an era of Enlightenment and the Marxist views about the structures of society. The Soviets aimed to not only provide education but also to bring socialism to the country through an ideology-driven approach (Eliutin, Reference Eliutin1984). Education policy and practices of that time promised to give equal rights to all citizens and education to all children. In addition, education was the vehicle for economic advancement and ideological cohesion. Marxist-Leninist–based education aimed to create the new Soviet “socialist” citizen (Eliutin, Reference Eliutin1984). Thus, the school was the site both for socialist enlightenment and development of a labor force for economic growth. In addition, the creation and dissemination of a new socialist culture would be linked to the emergence of new forms of societal life and new forms of societal relationships (Eliutin, Reference Eliutin1984).

Enormous losses in central funding brought about by the Revolution in 1917 and the subsequent civil war posed challenges to both socialism and the evolution of the educational system. Furthermore, Stalin’s purges and mass arrests of teachers and the professoriate weakened the economic and educational systems as Stalin had subjected all aspects of Soviet society under control, not tolerating expression of any views that deviated from those of his government. The state was particularly threatened by the professors, scientists, and teachers whose creative thinking and efforts could threaten the state’s power (David-Fox, Reference David-Fox2012). World War II brought even more challenges; twenty-seven million people died, and most of the cities, schools, industries, universities, and other buildings were destroyed. Nevertheless, total enrollment in elementary and secondary schools increased from twelve million to twenty-one million children during first decades of the postwar era (Ewing, Reference Ewing2002).

In the next decades, the Soviet Union grew its higher education system. For instance, Imperial Russia had only about a hundred tertiary education institutions, including eight comprehensive universities located in the major cities of its European parts in 1914. After the creation of the Soviet Union and over the next four decades, the higher education system in the country grew rapidly and expanded its geographic presence. By 1959, there were 766 institutions all over the country. For example, in Central Asia, there was no formal higher education institution (University) before 1917. At the time of the Soviet Revolution, only religious-based schools, madrasas, existed. They taught religious books and fields such as geography, astronomy, mathematics, and geometry. However, madrasa education was not acceptable in Soviet times, due to its religious connections, and these institutions of higher learning were closed in favor of newly developed state-run postsecondary institutions (DeYoung et al., Reference DeYoung, Kataeva, Jonbekova, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). By 1979, Tajikistan, for example, had thirty-three specialty and technical institutions or schools, eight higher education institutions, and an Academy of Sciences (DeYoung et al., Reference DeYoung, Kataeva, Jonbekova, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). However, the inequality in terms of economic conditions, the level of urbanization, and the cultural and ethnic and demographic diversity in the territory of the Soviet Union was profound. The number of higher education institutions and the number of students also differed in each of the republics (Smolentseva et al. Reference Smolentseva, Huisman, Froumin, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). Nevertheless, the state support and massive public investments meant that Soviet secondary and higher education experienced some of the most rapid growth in the world during that time frame (Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008), all driven in support of the planned economy and to advance Soviet ideology. Driven through central planning, Soviet higher education became one of the largest systems of higher education and research in the postwar era (Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008). Yet, in reality, the Soviet government could not overcome the sociocultural and economic disparities across the republics.

The growth of higher education was also shaped by the widened access to postsecondary education, especially for peasants, women, working-class young people, and national minorities (Fitzpatrick, Reference Fitzpatrick1979; Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008). The system was organized collectively around a series of principles advanced by the State in line with Soviet ideology. First, the system was designed to prepare students for professional careers in line with the state, planned economy. Second, education sought to promote classlessness, which meant that the school should be built as a structure to fight against any signs of the class system, and promote gender equality, so that girls and boys attended the same school and were to be taught in the same way. The third principle focused on equality of the ethnicities and nationalities; different treatment of any nationalities living in the territory of the Soviet Union was to be abandoned. Finally, the fourth principle included a “world view,” where the Soviet Union welcomed all nations of the world to become socialist and pursue Soviet education and its ideology (Zajda, Reference Zajda1980b). Despite the principles set by the Soviet government, Soviet education was deeply stratified, creating an elite higher education system and the restricting access to higher education institutions.

The Law on Higher Education, in turn, promoted objectives such as the training of highly qualified specialists educated in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, “well-versed in both the latest achievements of science and technology, at home and abroad, and in the practical aspects of production, capable of utilizing modern technology and of creating the technology of the future”; the production of research that will contribute to the solution of the problems of building Communism; and providing advanced training for working in various fields of the national economy, the arts, education, and health services (Zajda, Reference Zajda1980a, p. 94). As a result, higher education, professional training, research, and science became systematically linked with the planned economy, technological development, and the ideological mission of the Communist Party and Soviet leadership (Johnson, Reference Johnson, Heynemn and DeYoung2004, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008).

The educational system of the Soviet Union consisted of primary, lower, and secondary education. Primary education included first to fourth grades, lower education included fourth to eighth grades (after eighth grade, a student could enter technikum [technical school] or continue his or her education in the lower school), while secondary education included eighth to tenth grades. General educational schools came in part- and full-time varieties, some offering only primary classes, some primary and lower secondary, and some all three levels. In time, schools offering all three levels predominated. Because Marxist and utopian socialist ideology prioritized school education over tertiary education, differing opinions about the purpose, function, and organizational features of higher education among Communist Party leaders emerged (Froumin & Kuzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). For example, the first idea reflected the universalist education available for marginal groups based on European ideals, driving the state to open so-called Proletariat universities (Froumin & Kuzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018, p. 50). The second idea was to establish educational institutions to train future communist political leaders. Examples included communist universities under Sverdlov (Froumin & Kuzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). By the 1930s, there were forty-five communist universities in the Soviet Union (Froumin & Kuzminov Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018, p. 50). And the final idea, similar to the second one, was to train specialists in specific fields, for example, polytechnic education combining the theoretical and practical skills for students, which developed to be one of the peculiarities of the Soviet higher education (Froumin & Kuzminov Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018).

That said, a common idea existed among the country’s leaders that post-secondary education should not be separated from but “connected to politics” (Lenin, 1957, p. 354, as cited in Froumin & Kuzminov Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018, p. 49). As a result, Stalin, as a part of his industrialization policy, opened so-called rabfaks (workers’ colleges) that prepared workers for industry. Rabfaks prepared low-level workers with basic training in engineering. Later, these workers’ colleges were replaced by technikums in which students could enroll after the eighth grade. The technikum was developed to prepare the young generation for careers of middle qualification or semiprofessional grade in different branches of industry, construction, transport, communications, and agriculture (Counts, Reference Counts1957). These too offered technical-focused education that aligned with the needs of the planned economy.

Soviet institutions of higher education were divided by specialties, unlike most other higher education systems worldwide, where one University can accommodate many specialties. Universities; technical institutes; agricultural institutes; medical institutes; institutes of economics, law, and art; and pedagogical institutes were established separately; each of these institutions prepared students for different, specific economic-orientated specialties. For example, technical institutes (polytechnics) offered courses in technological subjects such as electrical engineering, metallurgy, energy, and chemical engineering. Agricultural institutions prepared specialists in agronomy, veterinary medicine, and agricultural subjects. Institutes of economics prepared economists needed for the planning and management of the country, with subjects varying from political economy to finance and transportation. The curriculum of the economics subjects was based on Marxist ideas of economy and management.

Admission to a University or to an institute was based on entrance examinations that included both written and oral elements. To enter a University, a student had to pass the examinations required by each University. Courses of study usually lasted for five years. After completing one’s education at a higher education institution, a student was given a diploma that confirmed his/her graduation.

The Soviet government invested around 10 percent of its state budget in education and even more in the development of science that resulted in launching of different space programs such as Sputnik I. By 1984, one-third of the Soviet Union population were enrolled in different types of formal educational institutions (Eulitin, Reference Eliutin1984).

2.3 Governing Soviet Higher Education

The governance of higher education in the Soviet Union was carried out by the Ministry of Higher and Specialized Secondary Education. The Ministry held close control. It was responsible for all curricula, syllabi, textbooks, entrance examination requirements, and the planning of professional training. There was no autonomy as it is understood today (Pruvot & Esterman, Reference Pruvot and Estermann2018a). “Soviet higher educational institutions had no institutional enrollment policies or curriculum development; rather, they were training facilities executing governmental instructions” (Kuraev, Reference Kuraev2016, p. 187). Some universities with a specific focus were governed through governmental partnership between ministries; for example, the medical University was coordinated with the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Agriculture supervised agricultural institutes. Compliance mattered and was the evidence of quality (Kuraev, Reference Kuraev2016). The Ministry of Higher and Specialized Secondary Education regulated academic standards and conducted regular inspection tours (Counts, Reference Counts1957; Gerber & Hout, Reference Gerber and Hout1995).

Decision-making originated at the highest levels of government and local administrators were responsible for implementing, not making, decisions. Kuraev (Reference Kuraev2016) offers a very interesting discussion not only of governmental top-down control but of what he calls the “one-man management principle” (p. 188) that existed throughout the Soviet higher education system. The chief administrator, following a military-like tradition, issued commands that those below followed. “The administrative practice of every rector of an academic institution was based on the same principle of one-man management. The rector of a Soviet higher educational establishment was a key administrator who bore full responsibility for its activities in front of superiors.” (Kuraev, Reference Kuraev2016, p. 188). Governance was thus a coordinated activity between the ministries responsible and the institutional administration accountable.

Burton Clark (Reference Clark1983) in his work The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective provides a comparison framework for higher education institutions and their types and levels of authority. In his triangle of coordination, Clark placed the USSR in the upper bottom corner indicating overwhelming authority coming from the State with little sources of influence from markets or academics (See Clark, Reference Clark1983, p.143). Froumin and Kuzminov (Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018) argue that Clark’s model is a “simplification” given that his Western perspective separated government and market forces. Instead, they argue that the purpose of the Soviet system “was not just state control over the higher education system” but “the fact that the state combined the functions of manpower producer and principal employer that defined the system” (Froumin & Kuzminov, 2018, p. 47). The State played two functions in terms of educational oversight. It both exercised state authority and because of a centrally planned economy it also served as the primary economic engine, fulfilling the role of markets in the Western context. Thus, the State’s higher education system was an integral part of a whole that included the production of employees for a planned economy. The State both created the supply of workers and the demand for them (Froumin & Kuzminov, Reference Froumin, Kuzminov, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018).

The functioning and planning of the system were divided into several government-run stages. In the first stage, individual ministries identified the need for specific specialists and submitted documents to the USSR’s State Planning Committee. Then the Committee developed a plan and mandated parts of this plan to the corresponding ministries, which in turn governed the specific higher education institutions; for example, the Ministry of Education was responsible for the training of teachers. The ministries reviewed the plan, made changes if necessary, and then rolled out this plan to higher education institutions. Institutions would then work according to the Ministerial plan and accept students into the relevant, predetermined academic programs. If the number of applicants was more than the plan required, universities accepted the best students. The unified curriculum did not allow students to study more than five years (as opposed to Western universities) and the preparation of the specialists trained in different higher education institutions was very similar. After graduation, students were sent to their workplaces, which were identified by the State Planning Committee. Employers had the right to complain about quality of graduates to the State, which consequently was communicated to the ministries and higher education institutions (Vakhitov, Reference Vakhitov2017).

Universities were funded directly by the ministries “at a very high level of public investment” (Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008, p. 167). Given the structure of the planned economy and Soviet ideology, universities received their resources directly from the State. Each year, the State planning system specified the number of students in certain fields for further job placements and distributed funding among responsible ministries, which supervised related higher education institutions. The education system required no tuition fees for students and parents. In fact, all students were paid a stipend to support their living expenses while in college.

Although the system of education and the rapid development of higher education contributed to the Soviet Union’s economic development, tight bureaucratic control became both a “strength” and a “weakness” of Soviet higher education (Johnson Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008, p. 5). For instance, the control over education inherent in the state socialist higher educational system allowed for no private institutions or alternative models of education in the Soviet Union (Huisman et al., 2018; Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008). As higher education and research directly served the Soviet system’s goals of economic and ideological development, this alignment created several factors that contributed to the weaknesses of Soviet higher education, such as narrow and rigid vocational and professional curricula; restrictions on certain fields and disciplines, such as history, linguistics, genetics, and sociology, in the service of political ideology; and poor management of financial and human resources (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Pomfret, Usseinova, Heyneman and DeYoung2004; Heyneman, Reference Heyneman2010; Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008). The Soviet Union was also characterized by massive militarization that meant that almost 70 percent of research funding was directed to the development of military priorities (Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008; Smolentseva, Reference Smolentseva2003).

One of the most important features of Soviet higher education and research was the role of the Academy of Sciences. Research in the Soviet Union was conducted primarily at institutions under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences, while universities focused on teaching (Huisman et al., 2018; Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008; Kataeva & DeYoung, Reference Kataeva and Egea2018; Smolentseva, Reference Smolentseva2003). This separation of teaching and research was a fundamental difference between Soviet and Western higher education, and this compartmentalized approach to research meant that research was not deeply integrated into University instruction (Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008).

The tight control of universities by the State created numerous strengths when viewed through the lens of an ideologically driven and centrally planned economy. Universities produced graduates for well-defined and sufficiently provided jobs. They benefited from strong and consistent financial support from the State. They had a supply of academic workers. However, this lack of autonomy meant that higher education was excruciatingly uniform, with little variability across what is geographically and culturally a vast region and there was little room for professional prerogative (Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008). From the Soviet perspective, its strengths outweighed its weaknesses. “It was free of charge; equally assessable; professionally focused; and state-owned” (Kuraev, Reference Kuraev2016, p. 182). It was “the best academic system at work” (Bubnov, 1959, as cited in Kuraev, Reference Kuraev2016, p. 182).

Overall, the higher education system in the Soviet Union was built to respond to ideologically driven politics and a tightly controlled economy. The Soviet higher education institutions mainly served as teaching institutions with no academic freedom, a top-down control model, and weak involvement of students and faculty members in governing universities and institutes. The research, taking place mainly in the Academy of Science and its research institutions, was also tightly controlled by the Soviet government and separate from universities. These characteristics of higher education were challenged following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

2.4 The Initial Post-Soviet Period

Higher education across the former USSR has experienced dramatic transformations since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The former Soviet republics strived to establish their national identities through economic and political policies and organizational and institutional changes. Educational institutions in all post-Soviet countries have experienced sharp declines in funding, simultaneously adapting to new market and neoliberal relations (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Pomfret, Usseinova, Heyneman and DeYoung2004; Brunner & Tillett, Reference Brunner and Tillet2007; Heyneman, Reference Heyneman2004a; Mertaugh, Reference Mertaugh, Heyneman and DeYoung2004). Over more than two decades of independence, the countries have been adopting educational reforms to respond to economic and political changes related not only to internal transformations but also to global trends in higher education (Dailey & Silova, Reference Dailey, Silova, Silova and Steiner-Khamsi2008; Silova, Reference Silova2005; Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008).

After independence, many of the reforms in higher education across the region were similar (Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008; Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008; Smolentseva et al. Reference Smolentseva, Huisman, Froumin, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). They included marketization, developments in the structure of higher education, curricular content independence, admission procedures, the establishment of unified entrance examinations, internationalization, and the inclusion of the Bologna process (Smolentseva et. al Reference Smolentseva, Huisman, Froumin, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). These changes in structures involved the privatization of educational property, the introduction of tuition fees for students, and changes to the curriculum taught in higher educational institutions. The curriculum was found wanting in post-Soviet countries, especially in the fields of history and political science. Subjects like dialectical materialism, the history of the Communist Party, and the study of Marxism and Leninism were considered useless (Heyneman, Reference Heyneman2010). Striving to establish national identities, many republics have also adopted language policies to raise the status of national languages within the countries, which has influenced higher educational systems (Korth, Reference Korth, Heyneman and DeYoung2004).

The Soviet model of higher education and research that was tightly constrained by centralized policy coordination and public investment appeared to adapt inadequately to the rapid shift toward market-based economies post 1991 (Amsler, Reference Amsler, Seddon and Levin2012; Johnson, Reference Johnson, Baker and Wiseman2008; Silova Reference Silova, Cowen and Kazamias2009). Post-Soviet countries often implemented policies of “borrowing and lending” that were not thoroughly assessed and when implemented led to uncontrolled consequences to higher education (Silova, Reference Silova2005). Researchers reported deteriorating educational quality, underdeveloped curricula, and weaknesses in the establishment of transparent financial mechanisms in some of the newly independent states (Heyneman, Reference Heyneman2010).

Although different educational reforms appeared across the region – for example, student-centered learning, liberalization of textbook publishing, privatization, and decentralization of higher education – this was used to legitimatize the maintenance of authoritarian regimes in some countries and included ideological indoctrination in schools (Silova, Reference Silova2005, Reference Silova and Silova2011). In addition, according to Johnson, “the absence of state regulatory power, adequate mechanisms for political accountability and chaotic privatization contributed to the ways that undermined the ability of post-Soviet states to sustain and reinvent the rule of law, social institutions, social cohesion, and social trust” (2008, p. 166). Many post-Soviet countries experienced a massive “brain drain” in the aftermath of the collapse. Massive numbers of intellectuals, faculty members, and researchers migrated to developed countries, resulting in a loss of human resources that seriously affected education (Heyneman, Reference Heyneman2010).

Reforms aiming to decentralize the system attempted to provide more autonomy to educational institutions. In addition, the introduction of a non-state and private sector grew rapidly allowing private colleges and universities to open in Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and other post-Soviet countries except Tajikistan and Turkmenistan (Huisman et al., Reference Smolentseva, Huisman, Froumin, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). Tuition fees in the public sector have become widespread. Internationalization of higher education has also become one of the features in a few countries (Smolentseva et al. Reference Smolentseva, Huisman, Froumin, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018). On the whole, the higher education landscape grew rapidly over the past three decades by doubling and tripling of institutions of higher learning. The number of students has also grown in many countries except a few. Many countries transformed their institutions into universities and opened regional institutions (Huisman et. al Reference Smolentseva, Huisman, Froumin, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018).

One of the important transformations in the early post-Soviet period involved countries joining the Bologna Process (Jones, Reference Jones and Silova2011; Merrill, Reference Merrill2011a; Tomusk, Reference Tomusk and Silova2011). Almost all post-Soviet countries sought membership in the Bologna Process except the four Central Asian countries of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Higher educational reforms, according to the Bologna principles, included changes of degrees that were inherited from Soviet higher education (specialists, kandidat, and doctor nauk) into bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD degrees (Merrill, Reference Merrill2011a; Tempus, 2010). They also emphasized the improvement of educational quality through independent accreditation and licensing organizations, recognition of degrees, and student and academic mobility. However, adoption of these policies had unclear purposes for many stakeholders including faculty and students (Kataeva, Reference Hasse and Krucken2020; Merrill Reference Merrill2011b; Smolentseva et al., Reference Smolentseva, Huisman, Froumin, Huisman, Smolentseva and Froumin2018).

To a large extent, for the past three decades, the countries of the former Soviet Union have undergone significant transformations with similarities but also many divergences. Many publications are now dedicated to specific countries examining a range of issues and problems in higher education in the post-Soviet states, including several edited books that showcase the ongoing debates on the higher education and its future in each of the countries of the former Soviet Union.

Post-Soviet countries inherited a centralized governance model with government and higher education functioning as an apparatus to produce an ideal citizen for the economic development in the country. The breakup of the Soviet Union gives higher education across the former Soviet space an opportunity to revise its governance model and possibly to decentralize its education systems. As history affects organizational structures, and organizational identities as well the organizational future can be shaped by the past (Wadhwani & Bucheli, Reference Wadhwani, Bucheli, Bucheli and Wadhwani2014), the transformation of governance models is an uneasy task. The following chapters provide overviews of the governance models and their contexts in fifteen former-Soviet countries.