in Indonesia (1978-1998)
Seeking Autonomy within a Bureaucratic Polity
Submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Education
Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies
I would like to thank Dr. Daniel C. Levy who has encouraged me to further explore this research, in the process challenging me to continuously attempt to reach for the highest quality of scholarly work. Undoubtedly, he has been a beacon of support for me to ‘ultimately’ finalize the project.
I also thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Gilbert Valverde and Dr. Anthony Cresswel, for their critical reflections.
I would also like to thank all the people who have contributed during the long path to this point and for their continued interest. A special word of thanks goes to the interviewees who took time to share their personal views and experiences on this research.
The support and encouragement of my wife, Christel, made this project possible and worth the effort. A special word of thanks goes to Eli, Aaron and Noa who provided the ‘necessary interruptions’ on a long term process.
This dissertation investigates goals and efforts of international assistance to Indonesia’s higher education from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, and explores how they have affected and responded to changing State-university relations in Indonesia over that period. In depth analysis of institutional documents over the years, interviews with key players and graphical analysis of existing quantitative data lead to the conclusion that international assistance in Indonesia facilitated and at times actively encouraged changing patterns of State-university relations from direct State control towards policies and steering mechanisms inducing increased institutional autonomy.
Case studies reveal empirical evidence of a mutually reinforcing dynamic involving donors and domestic reformers that had a profound impact on the way higher education is managed in Indonesia. International donor goals and ideologies about institutional capacity building –while often ambitious— responded surprisingly well to domestic and international contextual conditions and were picked up by actors supporting more decentralized decision making, and in the process helped develop domestic rationales for a changing government role. International assistance efforts have been instrumental in changing, expanding and diversifying the resource basis for higher education in general and of selected institutions specifically, and in building critical capacities at specific places within the system. Donors have helped create enabling conditions conducive to increasing autonomy at Indonesia’s public universities. Regarding effects on institutional management and decision-making, however, the results have been mixed. On the one hand, the analysis of outcomes does indicate a prominent role of international assistance efforts in developing and in some cases implementing institutional strategies to diversify resources or to generate income, both of which are considered to be significant elements of financial autonomy. International donors, however, centered predominantly on planning and capacity strengthening activities directed at either the central level (i.e. national) or the level of the academic unit (i.e. faculty, department, study program) and overall have remained much less convincing at the institutional level.
TABLE OF CONTENT p. v
Acknowledgments p. iii
Abstract p. iv
Chapter i: INTRODUCTION p. 1
I. Background and Justification p. 2
1. International Assistance to Education in Indonesia p. 2
2. State-University Relations in Indonesia p. 5
II. Problem Statement, Research Questions, and Time Line p. 11
III. Conceptual Framework p. 16
1. International Assistance as Independent Variable p. 16
2. Autonomy and Control in Higher Education p. 20
3. The Role of the State in Higher Education p. 22
4. International Agendas and Domestic Reform p. 24
IV. Theme and Sub-Themes p. 28
V. Methods and Data p. 34
VI. Organization of the Study p. 41
Chapter II: INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE GOALS p. 47
I. Dutch Assistance to Higher Education p. 47
1. Modest Beginnings p. 47
2. Growing Ambitions: Institution Building p. 51
2.1 The Development University p. 51
2.2 University Development p. 52
2.3 Conceptual Distinctions p. 54
2.4 Operative Donor Goals in Indonesia: Selecting p. 55
Institutions and Fields
a. Selecting Institutions p. 56
b. Selecting Fields and Projects p. 57
2.5 University Administration: the Missing Link? p. 60
3. From Partnership to Project p. 64
4. Conclusion p. 68
II. World Bank Lending to Higher Education in Indonesia p. 70
1. Origins p. 70
2. Evolving Goals in Higher Education p. 73
2.1 Manpower Development p. 77
2.2 Institutional Development p. 82
2.3 Strategic Decentralization p. 87
Conclusion p. 95
III. Summary p. 98
Chapter III: INTERNATIONAL DONOR EFFORTS p. 100
I. The Context of International Development Assistance in Indonesia p. 102
1. International Donors in Indonesia: Actors, p. 106
Magnitude, and Shape of International Aid to Indonesia
2. Turning Points in Foreign Assistance to Indonesia, 1978-1998 p. 109
3. Overseas Training p. 113
Case Studies p. 114
The World Bank and the Government of Indonesia: Nourishment p. 114
of a “Special Relationship”?
Dutch Aid in Indonesia: High Intensity/High Context p. 117
II The Political Economy of Higher Education in Indonesia p. 120
1. General Principles and Practices p. 120
2. Limited Bureaucratic Pluralism in Higher Education p. 122
3. Economic Development in the Decade of Deregulation p. 123
4. Domestic Indicators p. 124
5. International Assistance in the State Budget p. 125
International Assistance Efforts in Higher Education p. 126
IV. Donor Efforts and Funding Patterns at the Institutional Level p. 130
IV. Conclusion p. 132
Chapter IV: OUTCOMES p. 134
I. Introduction p. 134
II. Words Matter: Donors and the Language of ‘Reform’ in p. 139
Indonesia’s Higher Education
III. Process Outcomes and Variables p. 151
1. Consultation – Imposition p.152
2. Embedded – Isolation p. 159
3. Socialization – Opposition p. 164
4. Incremental – Revolutionary (shock therapy) p. 168
Product Outcomes: Integrating Conditions for Institutional Autonomy p. 174
1. International Assistance and the Enabling Conditions in the p. 177
1.1 Institutional Differentiation and Stratification p. 177
1.2 Performance Based Competition and Quality Assurance p. 180
1.3 Decentralized Funding p. 182
1.4 Normative Framework p. 186
2. International Assistance and the Formative Conditions at the p. 191
2.1 Increased Centralization p. 192
2.2 Winds of Change: Differentiation within, Decentralized p. 197
3. International Assistance and the Enacting Conditions p. 202
at the Academic Level
Chapter V: CONCLUSIONS p. 207
I. Relevance to Theoretical Frames and Literature Review p. 211
II. Relevance to Policy and Practice: (how) Can International p. 225
Assistance be Made (more) Autonomy Compatible?
Annexes p. 228
Notes p. 246
Bibliography p. 272
International Assistance and State-University Relations
in Indonesia (1978-1998)
Seeking Autonomy within a Bureaucratic Polity
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be the master –that’s all” (Lewis Carrol)
International assistance to developing countries has received its share of controversy and debate over the recent past, and its motives, goals, resources and effectiveness continue to be the subject of much debate in both academic and policy circles. While already a considerable body of research has examined goals, efforts and results of international aid, much less attention so far has been given to studies of specific types of assistance in particular domestic policy environments. In education specifically, questions regarding the impact of international (f)actors –assistance arguably being only one of those— in relation to educational development have interested scholars for some time (Schriewer & Holmes, 1988).
Designed as a case-study of international assistance, this dissertation explores how goals and efforts of two selected international donors of Indonesian higher education over the past decades have affected and responded to domestic State-university relations in that country. This introductory chapter first of all provides the contextual background for the study, and states the research problem in relation to conceptual frameworks suggested by the literature. In the next section I will discuss the methods, type of data, and analytical procedures that have been applied. Finally, the chapter sets out the organization of the study, introducing the core theme and sub-themes that will be elaborated in the ensuing chapters.
I. Background and Justification
1. International Assistance to Education in Indonesia
During most of Indonesia’s relatively young history, international assistance has figured prominently in the development of its educational system in general, and of its of higher education specifically (Cummings & Kasenda, 1989)1. Three general features of international assistance in Indonesia merit particular attention here as they provide the general context of this study. First, the magnitude of the effort as measured in both the absolute and relative volume of resources invested by international donor agencies has been remarkable, and this in at least two respects. Not only has the overall volume of external assistance been noteworthy in relation to the country's overall public investments2, Indonesia overall has also consistently represented an extraordinary large share of the assistance portfolio’s of some of the world’s major multilateral and bilateral donors, and this especially in education3. International donor agencies and bilateral programs for many years have invested heavily and consistently in supporting Indonesian education and continue to do so (ADB, 1998; USAID, 1988; World Bank, 1990, 1998b).
Secondly, international assistance to education in Indonesia stands out because of its specific focus on higher education in particular, an observation which again is reflected in figures and program priorities of donors individually and collectively4. This emphasis is furthermore reflected in the prominent place that international funding has taken in the country’s overall public resources for higher education, at times accounting for more than half of the total higher education development budget5. And while these indications of international effort in and by themselves are not necessarily viable indicators of specific outcomes or impact, they do provide overall context and justification for empirical analyses of particular aspects of that assistance.
Third, while donors in Indonesia have given for a variety of purposes and in a variety of ways, they have often pursued the development of higher education institutions as a justified goal of their activities in that country. To be sure, and as elsewhere, assistance programs in Indonesian higher education have also served broader sectoral (e.g. training teachers for secondary schools) and even cross-sectoral objectives (e.g. supporting the country’s research capacity for industrial or technological development)6. But in addition to that, activities of many donors have included goals that can be more narrowly related to the higher education sub-sector per se. The World Bank in particular draws attention in that regard. Earlier analyses of its lending activities worldwide have cited Indonesia as one of only two of its client countries (with China) illustrating an integrated sub-sector approach of its lending for higher education based on years of sustained policy dialogue and sector analysis (Eisemon, 1992)7. But also other multilateral (especially the ADB) and bilateral donors (among them, Japan, Australia, the United States, and the Netherlands most prominently) over the years have supported higher education development with a plethora of initiatives and projects ranging from programs for staff development, overseas training, maintenance and upgrading of laboratory facilities, to the support of broad-based inter-university partnerships or linkages with institutions at home or elsewhere.
Clearly, the rationales and priorities, efforts and outcomes of these various programs vary among donors and may have changed considerably over time. This dissertation in particular investigates goals (policies), efforts (resources and processes) and effects (outcomes) of two selected international assistance agencies from the perspective of the changing relationship between the State and ‘its’ public universities in Indonesia (see next section). The two cases –i.e. the World Bank and Dutch bilateral assistance— broadly represent two different modes of assistance. One is multilateral, the other bilateral. One is a very big donor internationally as well as in Indonesia, the other has been historically well connected to the Indonesian context for a long time, but even at that time has remained comparatively small in terms of resources. One is in essence a Bank, which raises capital from the international financial market in order to lend money to client-governments for investment projects and programs in sectors deemed productive in terms of development; the other is a government, mostly providing grant money for a range of projects and programs often with substantial components tied to inputs (i.e. personnel, training places…) from the giving country. This study is not set up to compare the two types of assistance on a predetermined set of parameters, but rather will highlight conceptual and empirical differences in light of explicit or implied effects on State-university relations.
Specifically, the World Bank's assistance to Indonesian higher education was selected because of its volume, its longstanding sub-sectoral strategy in higher education, its higher education policy dialogue with the Indonesian government, and its broader political significance in Indonesia in general (USAID, 1988). Excluding this donor’s activities in Indonesian higher education indeed would be particularly hard to justify. On its part, the Dutch bilateral programs in education assistance too have been prominent internationally and as noted used to be heavily concentrated on Indonesia in particular8. Specifically, Dutch assistance in the area of higher education has been well known internationally for its support of linkages between universities in the Netherlands and institutions in the developing countries (Coombe, 1989; de Gast, 1995). The decentralized nature and mode of implementation of these university-to-university linkages provide a contrasting perspective to the policy-oriented interventions of the other donor. Finally, Dutch assistance to Indonesia has been prominent through the 1980s and up to 1992, when its country representative headed the already mentioned group of donors to Indonesia, but came to a sudden and complete standstill in 1992, when Jakarta rejected all further assistance in response to a Dutch decision to link further aid to progress in human rights (Grant & Nijman, 1998). Even though the rupture per se has not been central to this dissertation, it does underscore the intrinsically political nature of the aid-relationship –even in education— and at least in that sense provides further context to the study.
2. State-University Relations in Indonesia
The analysis of changing relations between governments and higher education over the past decade has received growing attention from both scholars and practitioners worldwide (Levy, 1986; Neave, 1994). As in other East and South East Asian countries, a markedly powerful central State has traditionally shaped the relationship between the State and the universities in Indonesia. While the dominant pattern of State-control has been attributed by some to the country's politically turbulent history (Thomas, 1973), its main structural features at the same time reflect rather well main characteristics of the so-called Asian human resource approach (Cummings, 1995; Tilak, 2002). Core components of that pattern include the central coordinating role of the State in planning, funding, and regulating the national education system (Thomas, 1992), an overall preference to invest public funds for education primarily in primary education (Lewin, 1998), relatively more limited and selective public funding for higher education overall, and the presence of a very large private sector of higher education. Specific to Indonesia, albeit again not unique, is furthermore the centralizing tendency resulting from the State's firm emphasis on higher education's role in attending to and maintaining the unity of the country (Balderston & Balderston, 1993).
Indonesia’s higher education system expanded rapidly from a very small base at the time of independence (about 250 university graduates and three institutions) to a currently massive system which in 1996 served 2,6 million students in 77 public institutions and 1,228 private schools (Ministry of Education and Culture, 1997). While the public institutions represent a minority in number of institutions and enrollments (65% of the students are in private institutions), it is the key sector in public funding and policy, provision in strategic areas, academic, social and political status and prestige. Within Indonesia's higher education, direct State control – i.e. centralized funding and standardized regulation — has traditionally been found to be the dominant mode at public institutions and specifically so in areas of finance and resource allocation (Thomas, 1992). Notably, and in sharp contrast with private institutions, which receive over 90% of their income from tuition and registration fees (Pardoen, 1998), public institutions until recently have remained almost entirely dependent on the central government allocation9. The practice of line item budgeting has been most common, although lately alternative funding mechanisms (i.e. block grants, competitive funding schemes) have been introduced in the allocation of research grants and development funds. Extra-governmental sources of income for public institutions include earnings from tuition and other fees from students, contracts (including foreign aid that is directly channeled to the institutions), and private donations. Following the Education Law of 1989, the Ministry in 1990 formally granted institutions more autonomy in determining how to spend the proceeds of this self-generated income. Since public institutions up to that point were at least formally considered as integrated parts of the education ministry itself (universities were formally referred to as ‘service units’ of the State ), this self-generated income in principle could only be recognized and accounted for as ‘non-tax State income’, which not only had to be reported to the Ministry of Finance, but for which the institutions also needed to get the necessary spending approvals from ‘the center’. Even after the 1990 regulation, however, and until very recent (legislation in 2000 introduced a new legal status for public universities which so far has been granted only to six leading institutions), the degree of financial autonomy continues to be widely regarded by informants as relatively restricted in practice, in particular regarding these self-generated resources10. Moreover, and as noted, the self-generated income represents only a small – albeit possibly growing — share of the public institutions’ overall income. One conservative estimate indicates that even the most enterprising of the nation’s state universities typically received 80% or more of their revenue from the central government budget, yet at the same time acknowledges that reliable data are particularly hard to get (Bray & Thomas, 1998). More recent data (1997-1998) indicate that the share of self-generated income at the country’s four leading State universities ranges from 22% up to 45% of their respective total institutional budgets (Team for University Autonomy, 1999). Most recent reforms indicate that income-generating activities are being regularized by changing the legal status of these institutions.
Apart from the formal regulatory framework and the financial constraints, Indonesia’s State-university relations have traditionally evidenced a range of informal decision-making processes, which not only run counter to most normative ideas of what autonomy should or should not contain, but also make clear institutional boundary lines between the university and the State particularly hard to draw. For instance, it is common practice for decision-makers at the ministry’s directorate general to consult regularly and at times systematically with rectors and vice-rectors of State universities –specifically those of leading public universities— in special task forces or committees11. At the same time, top officials in the ministry’s directorate-general for higher education are typically recruited from the former rectors or academics of these universities. Rectors, in turn, are appointed by the (Head of) State. Not surprisingly, decision making at public universities has been characterized by some observers as a “process of negotiation and compromise between top university leaders and government officials, who in most cases have a university affiliation of their own” (Cummings, Malo, & Sunarto, 1997). The characterization fits snugly with the concept of ‘bureaucratic polity’, defined by Riggs as a polity “dominated by appointed officials” (Riggs, 1993), and which provides the broader framework of this period. This context of blurred State-university division lines furthermore leaves little ample room for institutional autonomy as such. Instead, the perspective of the ‘institutional middle’ (Clark, 1983) appears to be lacking altogether.
In the past decade, Indonesia has embarked on a comprehensive reform of its higher education system involving a new role of the State and entailing a more decentralized system of management and funding for its public institutions. Significantly, the reform process was initiated by the Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC), which in late 1994 established a Higher Education Task Force charged to prepare a new concept for a higher education strategy for the coming decade. The concept paper resulted in the so-called 'New Paradigm', the intent of which was to further the quality of Indonesia's higher education by establishing new mechanisms to enhance decentralized planning and performance-based resource allocation at the institutional level (DGHE, Ministry of Education and Culture, 1996). As noted, earlier government decrees that intended to increase the autonomy of higher education institutions remained relatively restricted in scope and implementation. The language of the New Paradigm, however, suggested a fundamentally altered role of the State, instead involving greater autonomy and accountability of the institutions. Rather than providing detailed regulation and a centrally controlled implementation mechanism, the ministry's role at the center would become one of setting the rules of the game (and leave oversight of implementation to newly established intermediary bodies), providing incentives so that resources are directed to high-priority areas and that all institutions are encouraged to raise their standards, and provide public funding more selectively and competitively to that end. At the institutional level, increasing responsibilities will imply greater autonomy (from the State), new forms of accountability (towards State and society at large), and quite possibly changing governing structures and power configurations. The focus of these reform efforts was initially on transforming the public institutions –specifically targeted on only 4 of the leading State universities— but has in the meantime been broadened to include not only the other public institutions but also the private institutions. As for the latter, legislation was introduced in 2001 with the explicit purpose to ensure the institutional autonomy of private universities vis-à-vis the private foundations (ie. the so-called ‘Yayasans’).
In summary, the autonomy-accountability mix for some time now has become the subject of major reform efforts in Indonesia's higher education landscape directly touching upon some of its traditional structural features. The boundaries that make up "the zone of negotiation" (Tight, 1992) between the State and academe are in flux. Given the country's history of centralized State control, and taking into consideration the lack of managerial traditions at the intra-university level centrally, the outcome of this change effort remains highly uncertain to date, even more so in light of the on-going political transformation and change of regime. Of more immediate interest to this study, however, is how international actors have responded to –possibly even contributed to— changing patterns of State-university relations in Indonesia.
II. Problem Statement, Research Questions, and Time Line
The dominant themes of Indonesia's higher education policy reforms resonate remarkably well with the major tenets of the international reform agenda now actively pursued in various parts of the world and promoted by many governments and international agencies (Levy, 1997; Schwartzman, 2001). The relationship between governments and higher education institutions has been under close scrutiny in many parts of the world for some time now, and this not only in developing countries (Neave, 1994). At many places where traditions of centralized control and standardization run deep, policy makers have been experimenting with alternative approaches and mechanisms to provide, fund, manage or otherwise direct higher education opportunities, in the process often increasing or attempting to increase the autonomy and accountability of institutions to extra-university forces. To be sure, reports of international tendencies and reforms are not new to the field and their significance and even validity under otherwise widely different circumstances continues to preoccupy many scholars and practitioners in education. Conceptual similarities with broader international agendas nonetheless provide a useful starting point in a study that sets out to empirically analyze the actions and interactions of selected international actors within the domestic policy environment of one particular country.
Specifically, this dissertation investigates goals and efforts of international assistance to Indonesia’s higher education from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, and explores how they have affected and responded to changing State-university relations in Indonesia over that time period. The study focuses in particular on the goals and efforts generated by two selected donor agencies and furthermore zooms in on the ways in which their goals and interventions have affected the relative autonomy of public institutions in matters of finance and resource allocation. The analysis will be conducted at three related yet conceptually different levels involving the following specific research questions:
(1) What are stated and implicit goals of the two international assistance agencies in relation to their support of higher education in Indonesia –in general as well as pertaining to specific programs and activities- and to what extent do these goals correspond with patterns of State-university relations identified in the literature?
(2) In what ways are donor efforts (i.e. resource flows and mechanisms of assistance) related to changing patterns of higher education financing in Indonesia?
(3) To what extent have international assistance goals and efforts –either intentionally or inadvertently– affected the financial autonomy of public institutions?
The three-part breakdown helps to organize analytically distinct aspects of international assistance while recognizing some degree of overlap. The purpose nonetheless is to achieve relatively inclusive dimensions of assistance that merit separate treatment in their own right. They are analyzed respectively in Chapters 2 through 4. The study’s design does not suggest agreement with a linear policy model, in which social effects or impacts are studied as direct outcomes of policies, which in turn are assumed to be directly related to efforts and goals. Instead, the analysis will provide relatively equal weight to the three dimensions on their own right, recognizing, for instance the ideological import of donor goals vis-à-vis the implied role of the State, or the relative weight of donor funds in relation to domestic budgets, the impact the broader international as well as domestic political and economic context etc. Changes over time and differences between the two selected agencies will be included in the analysis. Chapter 5 ties together the results of these case study analyses identifying and elaborating common themes and relationships from the evidence presented.
The search for an adequate terminology continues in the main literatures that guide this study. Cross-national variation and translation often aggravate problems of conceptual or definitional disagreements within the field concerned. This study in general pragmatically follows the literature (including government documents) whenever possible, and clarifies choices as they arise. While key concepts will be defined in the next sections, two special cases merit consideration here because they appear so prominently in the title. First, the term “international assistance” is a broad denominator to reflect the common ground of two otherwise very different cases. For that reason, it is preferable to potential alternatives such as “international aid” or “development cooperation” which each cover our case only partially. At the same time, “assistance” differentiates the topic of this dissertation from other potentially relevant international –some now argue global— forces, like finance, trade, or other types of exchange12. On the other hand, the term “State-university relations” helps to reflect the peculiarity of the Indonesian case, and more specifically the prominent place of the central State in higher education, and casts the study explicitly in relational terms, thereby underscoring the relative nature of autonomy. Use of the word “universities” in that connection furthermore provides an early indication of the real area of concentration –both thematically and in terms of donor and government attention—; it does not suggest that other sectors of “higher education” have not been included. The use of such broad terms as ‘State’ and ‘international assistance’ of course carries the substantial risk of ‘reification’, which can only be reduced through empirical analysis of specific cases of organizations, projects, and even the role of individual personalities. Thus, different ministries and agencies –and the individuals who represent them— often do have varying commitments to programs and policies and these will be mapped out as much as possible.
The time line of this dissertation runs from the late 1970s through the late 1990s. The year 1978 was a particularly turbulent year for State-society relations in general and State-university relations specifically. In the aftermath of student protests in Bandung and Jakarta against a second extension of Soeharto’s presidential term in office, the government –and its newly appointed minister of education in particular— interfered prominently with campus life, leading one informant to identify that period as a “turning point” in State-university relations13. While student protests may have sparked off the reaction, increasing government control extended to many other areas of campus life as well, including appointments and removals of university administrators, restrictions on student organizations, curriculum, finances, and academic freedom. Importantly, 1978 also was the year in which the two donor agencies selected in this study started major new programs in support of Indonesian higher education14. At the other end of the time spectrum, the study closes with the breakdown of the New Order regime in 1998. Again, this was a transition period characterized by high turbulence in society and at university campuses, as international news reports have demonstrated quite forcefully (Cohen, 1998). Increased institutional autonomy had become a core feature of stated government policy in higher education, especially in light of the New Paradigm of the DGHE. But the wider idea of autonomy now also seemed to have gained currency in many other sections of society, including local government, business, and ethnic groups. As time periods are always somewhat artificial constructs, the concluding chapter will also attempt to relate the study’s findings to recent developments and prospects regarding the role of international assistance in relation to university autonomy in New Indonesia.
III. Conceptual Framework
This section sets out the conceptual framework of the study from the literature, and connects the study’s research question to themes from previous research. A schematic presentation of the conceptual framework is attached at the end of this chapter.
1. International Education Assistance
For some time now, scholars have shown interest in the structural features of international assistance to education in developing countries, and specifically how these can be related to broader concerns in education and development. Still, in her report to the inter-agency working group of donors to education, one analyst notes that while the attention of donors in areas of social development has grown markedly in the 1990s, this focus has generally not been matched by a particularly large body of knowledge about the purposes, efforts and mechanisms –let alone the results— of educational assistance (Buchert, 1995). Similar albeit more specific complaints about the “inadequacies” of the existing knowledge basis have been formulated with regard to university assistance in particular (Levy, 2005). In her analysis of educational multilateralism, Mundy calls for a critical re-evaluation of international organizations in education, beyond the historical case studies of particular organizations, and the (neo)Marxist or (neo)institutionalist accounts (Mundy, 1998). Scholars have not only pleaded for more empirical attention, necessarily involving extensive program and project-level analyses of how educational policy making is mediated by donor agencies, but also for more critical and at the same time comparative reflection of the institutional norms and how they are emulated (or not) in domestic contexts.
Regarding donor goals and policies, Buchert's own conceptual classification of education aid policies provides a first starting point for narrowing the discussion further to the relationship between assistance and domestic policy15. Specifically, the author contrasts four types of education aid policies based on the relative support these provide for an economic growth as opposed to a social welfare development strategy16. The typology of donor aid policies is significant to our study because the basis for its distinctions feeds directly into the on-going debate on the appropriate role of the State, and the nature of its involvement in education in particular. The typology will therefore be helpful in classifying donor agencies according to the extent to which they may or may not be expected to support certain State roles in higher education.
Building on the aid-giving model developed by Pressman in connection to U.S. federal aid programs in Oakland, Kreiner suggests a model of multilateral aid-giving that portrays the intermediary role of international aid agencies (Kreiner, 1984). The author in particular calls attention to the variety of organizational objectives of those participating in the aid-giving environment and how these are mediated in the aid-giving process17. While not directly concerned with assistance to education in particular, the article is of special interest to this study as it investigates donor-recipient on its process dimension. Process variables in the study's analysis include phasing, mutuality (non-reciprocality), and formal-informal categorizations. The aid-giving process in Kreiner’s furthermore is sub-divided into two relatively independent environments, i.e. the "resource environment", where resources and conditions are negotiated and determined, and the "project environment", where donors and recipients negotiate the distribution of funds and the 'technicalities' of project implementation. It might be argued that Kreiner's portrait of intermediary multilateral aid is not typical but rather specific to the organization on which his case study was built (i.e. UNDP). However, Jones' analysis of World Bank educational lending comes to similar conclusions where he points in particular to the inevitable tensions between the Bank's twin functions, i.e. banking and development assistance (Jones, 1992). The implicit tension between 'technical' sector policy analysis and the broader mission of the donor agency at times becomes manifest in any donor organization that is not exclusively concerned with one particular sector18. Distinguishing resource and project environments of both donors at least avoids the false impression that assistance is only about education, let alone higher education.
Leaving aside donor's internal project and program evaluations, studies of the long term impact of education assistance are relatively scarce, and tend to come to rather negative assessments of the assistance enterprise (Ellerman, 2005). While theoretically or even ideologically incompatible perspectives may explain part of that criticism, some studies have supported their assessments with empirical evidence (Dichter, 2003). Of direct relevance to this study is the finding from the general literature on foreign assistance arguing that the organizational imperatives of international donors seriously hamper their effectiveness to support institutional development in general, and decentralization in particular. Tendler’s now classical formulation of a “donor-decentralization gap” captures well the meaning of the basic discrepancy between the donor’s goal of furthering decentralized decision-making, and the organizational requirements and constraints that emphasize efficient and effective operations (Tendler, 1975). As a result, tendencies to “insulate” projects from mainstream organizational set-ups, to “move money” rapidly, or to use a “blue print” approach in project design, often loom large (Schmidt, 1989). On a similar vein, the Liberian case study of Nagel and Snyder concludes that international assistance projects contributed to and at times even created organizational problems by de-coupling the domestic education system and making it less coherent (Nagel & Snyder, 1989)19. The study found that donor policies differ and lack continuity, that the structure of their projects (notably the establishment of separate project units in the local ministry of education) inhibited integration or meaningful adaptation, and that the competition for assistance funds locally in general has been harmful. Nonetheless, the assistance literature so far does not provide conclusive empirical evidence to support a general negative relationship between international assistance and decentralization in developing countries.
A much more optimistic picture emerges from Schmidt’s analysis of USAID’s support of political decentralization in Peru in the early to mid-1980s. This study suggests that donor agencies can play a critical role in securing governmental decentralization reforms and strengthen the viability of decentralized public organizations. It furthermore does not support the often cited criticism that the project mechanism significantly restricts the ability of donors to support capacity-building initiatives in such organizations (Schmidt, 1989).
Of even more direct significance to this study are the thematic parallels that can be drawn with the work by Levy on U.S. assistance to Latin American higher education (Levy, 2005). While addressing different contexts –both geographically (i.e. U.S. and U.S.-related assistance to Latin America) and time-wise (i.e. 1950s-1970s, "the golden age of assistance")— that study also investigates goals, efforts, and impacts of university assistance at both national and institutional levels. Regarding the relationship to internal university organization, the study supports the thesis that university assistance in fact pushed some degree of intra-university centralization, albeit more so under certain conditions and at certain types of partner institutions. The study is significant to this dissertation as it provides a directly applicable framework and sense of direction to the suggested relationship between international assistance in higher education and power configurations at system and institutional levels. At the same time, that framework will be relevant in highlighting similarities and differences that come from different times and places.
2. Autonomy and control in higher education
The political nature of the relationship between universities and the State has been acknowledged in the comparative literature on higher education policy (Levy, 1979; Tight, 1992). University autonomy has been defined in many ways and using different theoretical perspectives, ranging from organizational studies that emphasize processes of internal differentiation (Blau, 1994; Clark, 1978) or external (‘environmental’) influence (Baldridge, 1971), to political approaches that address either its normative or institutional features. In the latter category, many emphasized the structural limitations of autonomy in the context of an international system that puts ‘Third World’ universities in a dependent position (Altbach, 1987), whereas other scholars have taken into consideration its potential dynamic in fostering heterogeneity and pluralism in developing societies. The New Institutionalism in economic theory –while itself not directly concerned with university autonomy— puts forward the idea of ‘institutions’ as “the rules of the game in a society” (North, 1990), offering a new avenue for analysts of “institution building” processes to focus on how specific organizations (e.g. universities) interact with and are affected by institutional constraints, values, and norms in society. The central arguments that seems to emerge from that theoretical body of literature, and its relevance to the present study, are that autonomy is best not couched in absolute terms (“you either have it or you don’t”), and that State-university relations generally don’t reflect a zero-sum game.
For the purpose of this dissertation, autonomy is therefore conceptualized within an institutional perspective that acknowledges external influences and constraints, and that emphasizes its relational dimension: “an autonomous university is a power within a power” (Levy, 1980). Autonomy might then be defined as "the capacity of [university] self-government" (World Conference on Higher Education, 1998) over major components of academic life, ranging from the appointment and management of personnel, the determination of financial decisions, to the professional academic decisions about who to admit, what curriculum to offer, etc. Financial autonomy, specifically, includes the determination of who pays (including, for instance, the freedom to generate and manage income from non-public sources), or where decisions are made as to what the funding level is, what the funding criteria are, how and by whom budgets are prepared and how resources are allocated (i.e. the internal management of financial resources), and how institutions are held accountable to funders and stakeholders.
The analysis of our main research questions has approached questions of power and control in three complementary ways. The first one is by mapping out the institutional framework and regulations in order to determine who has the authority to decide what. This approach was required in order to map out changes in the regulatory environment, but falls short of appreciating the notable discrepancies between (formal) authority (‘pays légal’) and real power (‘pays réel’). A second but complementary approach therefore has been to focus on those institutions and personalities who are (or were) considered to have prestige, resources and connections, and in the process assume that those are also the power-holders. This in fact has been the general approach used to identify and select interviewees and institutions for field visits, although specific procedures for data control were included (see section on data and methods).
The third approach was to zoom in on one particular issue of State-university relations, i.e. financial autonomy, and identify key players in the decision making process. The topical focus on financial autonomy, however, does not suggest that institutional autonomy can or should be limited to financial autonomy, or even that financial autonomy is the most relevant or otherwise important component of university self-government. Rather, that focus was chosen in part to facilitate operationalization of power gains and losses at different levels in the system20, but at the same time to reflect an area that is most explicit in its recognition of the relationship between institutional autonomy and accountability.
3. State-control vs. State-supervision
As noted, State-university relations in Indonesia have traditionally been marked by patterns of State control that are strongly rooted in the country's political tradition. State-control is especially strong in regard to the public universities, as it is there that the State performs its central role as funder, provider and as regulator. In part based on empirical characteristics of higher education systems, and partly building on a conceptual distinction between two types of governmental strategies (i.e. rational planning vs. self-regulation), Neave and van Vucht in this connection have identified two ideal types or models of higher education system governance: State control and State supervision (Neave, 1994). Typical of the State control model is the role of the State as financing agent, provider, and regulator. Furthermore, and following Clark's classical depiction of the Continental model (Clark, 1983), the authors include strong academic professorial authority ('bottom-heaviness') and a weak middle-level of institutional administrators among the typical features of the State control model. State supervision, on the other hand, is characterized by a particularly strong institutional center (embodied by a corporate Board of Trustees and institutional administrators with meaningful executive powers), a much less powerful academic professorate, and a seemingly more distant, albeit not necessarily weaker, government that evaluates performance ex-post on the basis of agreed standards and criteria but otherwise leaves implementation to a larger extent to the institutions themselves. To be sure, empirical reality will always prove more complex than these ideal types tend to suggest, and the models themselves do raise further questions that typically cannot be easily answered21. Notably, the centrality of the State in both models may strike some as (too) far removed from some of the market-like features typical of the American mode (Clark, 1983), whereas others might prefer conceptual typologies that take into account the development of collegial systems (Saeed, 1996). As ideal types however, the models do suggest a framework against which changes in the role of government implied or otherwise supported by international assistance can be assessed.
4. International Agenda’s and Domestic Reforms
As noted, the international comparative higher education literature has produced several conceptual typologies (van Vucht, 1993) that have allowed scholars to identify, explore, and compare the main structural features that together constitute the "triangle of coordination" (Clark, 1983) of national systems of higher education. Unfortunately, these typologies –and their empirical explorations in particular— so far have not addressed in particular how changing patterns of State-university relations are induced or mediated by international transfers, even though Clark's own work provides significant thematic clues on the expected importance of such transfers (Clark, 1983)22. In addition, and compared to other regions and countries, relatively few studies so far have applied these conceptual frameworks to South East Asian countries in general, and to Indonesia specifically.
Scholars in comparative and international education remain fundamentally divided over the question as to what extent and in what ways international actors or forces effectively become change agents in the development and reform of education systems in developing countries. Analysts differ significantly in their assessment of the degree to which educational developments can be attributed to internationalizing tendencies and forces –international assistance arguably being just one of the more prominent ones— or in light of the domestic particularities of 'national' education systems. Intermediate positions that acknowledge international influence, yet at the same time empirically investigate the process by which such influence is brought to bare in particular domestic contexts remain rare. Two extreme theoretical positions have been articulated in the comparative literature, with probably many intermediate positions (Schriewer & Holmes, 1988). On the one hand, neo-institutionalist scholars have argued that education worldwide is becoming increasingly similar in response to globalizing political and economic forces and tendencies. The construction of a world system linked to “modern” ideas of nationhood and citizenship has lead to the establishment of internationally congruent education systems. Notably, these studies have pointed at the worldwide expansion of (Western) formal schooling (Meyer & Hannan, 1979). In that same vein, some have contended that education institutions in developing countries have successfully emulated Western –some argue American—forms and reforms (Ginsburg, Cooper, Rajeshwari, & Zegarra, 1990). More recent work has focused on the mechanisms of external effects in education reforms, including the study of phenomena such as international educational borrowing, learning, harmonization, convergence, standardization, international interdependence, and even imposition (Ball, 1998; Dale, 1999). Proponents of this view can be found among dependency scholars and world systems perspectives as much as they are represented in literatures under the modernization banner.
On the other hand, other comparativists have rejected internationalists perspectives either on epistemological or substantive grounds, and have instead attended to the fundamental differences in domestic structural conditions and culturally endogenous responses (Cummings, 1995).
This dissertation by design takes a moderately international perspective: 'international' because the object of study (independent variable) has been regarded by many as a prominent vehicle for widespread internationalization; 'moderately' international because:
it attends not only to effects or outcomes of international assistance, but also to donor goals and efforts;
it seeks to uncover patterns of relationships between international and domestic actors.
Support for this position is found also in fields outside international education assistance. Notably, scholars of international organizations explored why so many developed States established new and seemingly uniform science policy bureaucracies in the 1950s and 1960s (Finnemore, 1993). Finnemore’s study found little empirical support for demand-driven hypotheses, and instead uncovers how an international organization (in this case UNESCO) 'taught' new States the value, utility, as well as the form of science policy organization. Her later work confirms the influence of international bureaucracies in the development of new institutional roles (Finnemore, 1997), changing norms and ways of managing and policy making (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). This line of research is significant to our research proposal in a number of ways. First, it indicates that forces external to States can shape choices about internal State structures. Further, the study reveals that international system actors can be active rather than just reactive to client States or domestic interest groups, a finding which appears particularly relevant to the field of multilateral assistance (Jones, 1997, 1998; Kreiner, 1984). Finally, this research suggests that States are responsive to norms developed in wider international entities more so than is generally recognized. In other words, States adopt policies in response to socially constructed norms promulgated by the wider international community. Regarding international education assistance in particular, one might argue that this latter point is now also echoed in Jones' observation that the World Bank has moved from the world of money and banking into the world of ideas or knowledge (Jones, 1992).
IV. Themes and sub-themes
This section is meant to present a brief preview of common themes extracted from the case study analyses. These themes, however, will be further elaborated in the concluding chapter, where they will be placed within a broader conceptual framework for thinking about the relationship between international assistance and domestic reforms in higher education.
The general theme of the study is that the goals and efforts generated by international assistance in Indonesia indirectly have facilitated and at times actively encouraged changing patterns of State-university relations towards less-direct State control. First, donor assistance has –often implicitly— promoted and significantly furthered processes of differentiation among and within institutions, notably through selection or competition. These processes of institutional differentiation and competition have not only provided a fruitful platform for increasing university autonomy at the institutional level. The growing diversification of institutional missions and capacities furthermore has steadily complicated centralized system management following the typical State-control mode of more or less standardized operations. Secondly, donor ideas (goals and ideology) about institutional capacity building –while often ambitious and only partially implemented— responded rather well to contextual factors and actors supporting more decentralized decision making, and in the process helped develop domestic rationales for a changing government role. In the case of the World Bank, goals explicitly included support for institutional reforms as well as the introduction of innovative forms and mechanisms through specific projects. Depending on the project mechanism, donors in some cases successfully transcended some of the trade-offs between requirements of efficient implementation and the goal of institution building. Third, international assistance efforts have been instrumental in expanding and diversifying the resource basis for higher education in general and of selected institutions specifically, and in building critical capacities at specific places within the system. In spite of the many significant institutional constraints and weaknesses at both system and institutional level that have persisted throughout the period under study, higher education assistance overall have helped create conditions conducive to increasing autonomy at Indonesia’s public universities.
Donor impact on institutional management and decision-making nonetheless has been mixed. On the one hand, the analysis does indicate a prominent role of international assistance efforts in developing and in some cases implementing institutional strategies to diversify resources or to generate income, both of which are considered to be significant elements of financial autonomy. On the other hand, and regardless of institution-building goals, efforts have centered predominantly on planning and capacity strengthening activities directed at either the central level (i.e. national) or the level of the academic unit (i.e. faculty, department, study program) and overall have remained much less convincing at the institutional level. Nonetheless, the mismatch between goals and efforts offers only a partial explanation for perceived donor failures in supporting stronger university management. Especially in the case of the World Bank, efforts in that particular area have been significant and early on included specific initiatives to train university administrators, develop institutional management information systems, and enhance institutional planning. At least as important as the extent and quality of donor efforts have been the domestic political conditions, especially the general reluctance on the part of the government to let foreign agencies become involved in local institutional decision making. Frustrated by the plurality of institutional constraints and structural weaknesses (e.g. bureaucratic policy framework, prevailing norms and traditions, lack of incentives to develop management capacity, financial limitations, standardized reward system…) operating at the institutional level, donor support instead (further) encouraged de facto decentralization to individual academic units. Notable exceptions notwithstanding, the central executive powers typical of the U.S. model of university organization remained largely undeveloped during the period of this study. In the immediate post Suharto period (1998-99), the plans to effectively grant (legal) institutional autonomy to a selected number of State institutions, however, did gain prominent ground and their implementation did involve a good deal of centralization at the institutional level, as will be explored in chapter 4.
Finally, regarding the overall policy framework of State-university relations in general, and financial autonomy in particular, international donors have largely operated within the boundaries and institutional constraints imposed by the domestic policy environment –occasionally exploring “windows of opportunity”— rather than taking a proactive stance vis-à-vis institutional change. Significantly, few of the informants regarded international assistance as the vehicle for the “external imposition” of policy agendas for which it is often taken (Dale, 1999), nor was it even considered by many to be a major driving force behind the changes in State-university relations since the mid-1980s, when the idea of financial autonomy was first introduced in government planning language. Rather, changes in the domestic policy framework seemed to have developed domestically –albeit quite possibly as a result of broader international forces— then received important external follow-up and backup, rationales and explicit support. Even so, the strong efforts invested by one of the donor agencies selected in this study (i.e. the World Bank) in the development (or continuation) of a (sub)-sector policy dialogue with the Indonesian government have provided this donor with notable, and perhaps atypical influence in that regard.
These broad assessments definitely require further qualification and empirical elaboration, to be provided in the ensuing chapters. Not all assistance has had the same –or even similar— goals, efforts, and effects. The scale and scope of activities varied significantly, as did specific instruments and processes. In addition, goals and efforts of both donors have changed considerably over time. In that connection, the case study material suggests that both agencies in their approach have gone through a number of stages ranging from ‘exemplification’ (i.e. providing extensive support to selected number of institutions or selected units within them) to attempted institutionalization (i.e. by encouraging government and institutions to change the institutional framework). The central theme is nonetheless remarkable in the sense that it does seem to offer room for a more positive and possibly also more optimistic assessment of the relationship between assistance and decentralization than is generally awarded in the literature. More positive, because the findings appear to suggest the possibility and even likelihood of decentralizing outcomes of assistance even in the face of significant constraints such as suggested by the ‘donor-decentralization gap’. Only possibly more optimistic, because the overall impact and significance of that outcome still remains uncertain.
The study’s findings underscore the impact of the “international transfer mode of change” (Clark, 1983) while at the same time recognizing “the indigenous Indonesian drive for distinctiveness” (Cummings, Malo, & Sunarto, 1997) reflected in policy as well as implementation (or lack thereof). In that sense, the dissertation is thematically related to a wider scholarly debate that addresses the tension between international –some say global— patterns of 'seeming convergence' of higher education systems worldwide, and the need for both scholars and policy makers to attend to locally or regionally specific conditions and contexts (Ball, 1998).
Formulated at this general level, the material as such do not necessarily imply a direct cause-effect relationship between international assistance and institutional university autonomy, nor do they suggest an entirely unambiguous sense of direction of that relationship. Instead, the analysis allows identifying those conditions and circumstances that have made such relationship more or less direct and explicit, and highlighting where it has remained ambiguous. Further, the study design chose not to deal with international assistance as a monolithic independent variable, instead calling attention to different types of assistance, as well as to different perspectives and views within the organizations that deliver them.
Finally, while ‘international assistance’ is regarded as one facilitating factor it is not regarded as the only factor contributing to particular patterns of funding, decision-making structures, norms or practices. Changes with regard to State-university relations overall corresponded well with broader macro-developments in Indonesian society. Notably, the incremental deregulation of the Indonesian economy from 1983 onwards23, the growing financial constraints imposed on government budgets as a result of sharp declines in the oil price in the early and late 1980s, the emergence of an urban socio-economic class, and the increasing role of private capital in the economy at large, these are all important factors that add to the domestic policy context in which the political economy of State-university relations is played out. The existence of these exogenous, intervening and moderating variables therefore needs to be taken into consideration. As suggested in a recent economic analysis of aid over many countries (World Bank, 1998a), domestic socio-economic and political variables (e.g. macro-economic stability, institutional capacity, a legal system, corruption climate) do mediate the impact of international assistance efforts. They can therefore not possibly be captured by studying only part of that picture, even if a significant part.
V. Methods and Data
The study combines content analysis of documents, graphical analyses of quantitative trend data on financial resources, and interviews with former participants and privileged observers. Further, preliminary research of secondary information sources was conducted over the past 6 years, resulting in an historical analysis of patterns of State-university relations in Indonesia (Bastiaens, 1999) and an in-depth case study of one of the specific projects included in the study. Primary data were collected predominantly during field research at donor archives in Indonesia and in the Netherlands from August through late October 1999. Prior contacts and approvals by the organizations involved ensured relatively easy access to people and documents. Approval to conduct and to tape interviews was granted by the Institutional Review Board of the University at Albany in May 1999.
Donor agency staff kindly gave full access to their archives and even filing cabinets thereby greatly expanding volume of documents analyzed (separate listings of primary documents from both donors as well as from government are included in annex). Formal project documentation overall has been most systematic in the case of the World Bank in Jakarta, where access was granted to the full sets of appraisal and completion reports24, as well as project audit and performance reports, of all the Bank’s higher education projects. In addition, I received permission to browse through and copy from the filing cabinets that pertained to the more recent projects (older project files were not kept locally), resulting in a relatively more complete documentation data set with regard to the preparation of the latter. The level of detail of the available documentation, however, allowed me to pursue in-depth case studies of specific projects adding much detail to the analysis. Nonetheless, project level documents usually do not contain detailed information on the actual interactions between donor-staff and government representatives, so that written information needed to be supplemented with interviews with current and/or former staff. Formal project documents furthermore have been extended with a number of analytical studies conducted by staff and consultants in the framework of the Bank’s prominent sector work in Indonesian higher education since the mid-1970s. All studies and documents are listed with the World Bank material in the bibliography.
The Dutch archives, both at NUFFIC and at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while less systematically organized, were probably more complete as they contained project files, internal correspondence, minutes of grant-decision-making meetings, as well as other relevant and less relevant documentation in relation to Indonesia that first needed to be sorted out. Typically, and with the exception of the evaluation reports pertaining to the early 1980s when the Dutch supported broad institutional university linkages with a selected number of Indonesian universities, project documentation tends to be of a more technical or academic content oriented nature (e.g. ‘evaluation of the earth science project’). While the analysis of these reports provides important indications of the priorities of Dutch assistance in general and of the implementation of its projects more specifically, these project level documents needed to be placed in the broader perspective of Dutch higher education assistance policy. As a result, and while there are some exceptions, most of the basic policy documents related to Dutch higher education assistance do not relate exclusively to Dutch assistance in Indonesia. Dutch documents have been listed in the bibliography.
Also Government documents can be found in the bibliography listed. These include consecutive long term development plans from the Directorate General for Higher Education, statistical data published by the Ministry of Education and Culture, regulations published by the legal bureau of the Secretariat General of the Ministry, and policy notes made available to this researcher during discussions with interviewees. Financial data and statistics pertaining to the early time period of this study (i.e. late 1970s and early 1980s) have generally not been as readily available as for later periods, even though annual reports by the Director General of Higher Education have been traced on microfiche. In addition, various secondary sources, including analytical studies conducted in the framework of international assistance programs, have been used to fill the gaps and complete the data set.
Given the wealth of material, following steps were taken to reduce and analyze the data contained in these documents. First, documents were chronologically indexed by donor allowing for a broad historical reconstruction of donor interventions in higher education. A further distinction was made between documents pertaining to agency policy and/or strategy on the one hand, and those pertaining to particular projects. As a second step, documents were analyzed using the conceptual framework as a guide for marking and annotating in the margin. Documents were read with a particular eye for disconfirming evidence, that is, evidence suggesting either a neutral or a negative relationship between international assistance and State-university relations. For each document, separate cards were kept listing the main concepts emerging from this analysis. Meanwhile, project information was summarized in overview tables including goals, dates, and budget information. Together with the write up summaries of the interview sessions (cf. infra), these cards were later used as the basis for identifying common themes.
Content analysis of primary documents was supplemented as much as possible with interviews of (former) participants and privileged observers. Formal interviews gave the researcher opportunities to test interpretations arrived at by analytic induction and content analysis. The interviews were generally not conducted according to a standard script or protocol, as the specific content and nature of the questions differed widely amongst interviewees, depending on nature and time of his or her individual involvement. Nonetheless, general areas for questions were prepared for each audience separately (i.e. donor staff, government staff, project staff, other observers), which were then further adjusted and/or specified before and during the interviews. In total, 44 formal interviews were conducted with key informants and participants, including current and former government personnel, (former) university administrators, (former) donor agency staff and consultants, and privileged observers (a full list of interviewees, with their current or former affiliation, is provided in annex). Given the historical perspective of the study, a balanced representation of participants and observers over the entire period of the study was actively pursued but not easily achieved. The analysis of interview data after the interview consisted of the following steps. First, detailed write-ups were prepared containing a minimum of analysis or inference, but each time listing additional questions at the end. Whenever practically feasible, these summaries were sent back to the interviewee concerned for feedback and/or factual corrections, and/or for suggestions or advise on some of the further questions. Summaries were then re-read and annotated in the margin with the purpose of identifying disconfirming evidence. Summaries were mixed with cards from document analysis to distinguish patterns and arguments and highlight eventual contradictions.
Apart from these formal interviews, consultations were held with individuals and groups of faculty, administrators, and students in the margin of field visits to various study programs at 5 different universities (a list of institutions and departments visited is included in annex). Furthermore, a seminar on the subject of institution building conducted with a group of Master students in public policy at the UI provided an additional forum for group discussion of institutional university autonomy as a specific case in point. Both the informal consultations and the group discussions have greatly expanded this researcher’s perspective on how autonomy is defined and understood by different stakeholders at the operational level of the academic enterprise in Indonesia. The site visits furthermore have provided exposure to project sites supported by some of the international assistance projects included in the study.
While the emphasis is mainly on qualitative data –in particular documentary text and interviews— statistical data from existing documents and statistics has been integrated for both descriptive and analytical purposes. From donor documents and available secondary statistical information, a data set was constructed that brings together information on resource flows generated by assistance programs over time with data of public funding patterns over that same period. Notably, chapter 3 includes a graphical presentation of the higher education portfolio’s of the two donors over time, and an analysis of how these trends might be related to domestic policies. Apart from providing a tool to describe the aid portfolios of the donor agencies in quantitative terms, the graphical presentation of these quantitative data was used also to supplement the evidence found in documents and interviews. The analysis graphically highlights trends and patterns of relationships between the agencies' respective portfolios and domestic patterns of higher education funding (Valverde, 1994). By providing indications of the extent to which international assistance programs have either complemented or substituted the regular funding provisions of Indonesian universities some of the more direct effects international assistance programs have had on universities’ institutional strategies of resources diversification25.
Secondary data that have been used in the analysis include scholarly accounts of international assistance in higher education, studies pertaining to Indonesian higher education in general, and public higher education funding and financial autonomy in particular, as well as statistical and financial information from Government, donor agencies, or other institutions. Secondary data will be cited throughout as regular bibliographic citations and have been included in the bibliography.
Institutional data sources for primary data include:
- the Ministry of Education and Culture, Directorate General for Higher Education, DGHE or DIKTI (Jakarta)
- the National Development Planning Board, BAPPENAS (Jakarta)
- the Ministry of Finance, Bureau of the Budget (Jakarta)
- the World Bank Resident Staff in Indonesia (Jakarta)
- the Ministry of Education and Culture (the Hague)
- the NUFFIC (the Hague)
- universities visited, i.e. ITB (Bandung), UI (Jakarta-Depok), IPB (Bogor), UGM (Yogjakarta), UNSOED (Purwokerto), Universitas Katolik Atma Jaya (Jakarta), and UNILA (Lampung)
Non-institutional data sources include mainly former participants and outside experts who are not (or no longer) affiliated with one or more of the above organizations. Many of the informants have been involved either as consultant, former agency or government staff, or as outside observers of higher education assistance to Indonesia. Current and/or former affiliations have been included in the listing of key informants.
VI. Organization of the study
Chapter 2 analyzes the changing policy objectives of the selected donor agencies in light of evolving State-university relations. Dutch assistance ambitiously aimed for ‘institution development’ and did so by supporting a limited number of broad based institutional links with selected universities and departments and in the course of a decade scaled down to funding a large number of small academic linkages. The Bank started out by supporting the establishment of an entirely new type of institution (i.e. the polytechnics) quickly followed by institutional development projects at selected university institutions and departments, which in turn were followed-up by more focused support of centers of excellence at the country’s leading public institutions. In the late 1980s, this donor explicitly became prominent in supporting higher education development through (sub)-sector policy lending, but more recently shifted back to again to more selective efforts to merry the goal of increasing implementation and sustainability of project performance with the more complex objective of institutional change. The goals-analysis will differentiate donors’ policies on the basis of their implicit vs. explicit orientation towards changing State-university relations in general and financial autonomy more specifically. The chapter explores to what extent these goals correspond to patterns of State-control and reviews both supporting and counter evidence of such a relationship.
Chapter 3 centers on the efforts (i.e. resources and implementation mechanisms) which donor agencies have brought to bear supporting higher education in Indonesia. While the analysis will concentrate on the resource flows (i.e. funding level, awards-disbursements, and counterpart funds) it will also review implementation mechanisms and procedures. Notably, our analysis will highlight significant qualitative differences between the mechanisms used by the two selected agencies in light of the research questions. The World Bank worked almost exclusively through government or government-assigned project units, whereas the Dutch linkage system chose to channel its assistance predominantly through Indonesian universities often selected by Dutch partner institutions or their intermediary agent. In other words, to the extent that institutional innovation and self-determination was the purpose (chapter 2), the two agencies chose different ways to achieve that goal.
Chapter 4 ties together the evidence presented in the previous two chapters with an assessment of outcomes of donor efforts and goals with reference to changing patterns of State-university relations. First, the chapter explores the ways in which international assistance contributed to the changing policy language regarding higher education reforms. We will see how ideas such as decentralization, autonomy and accountability, already suggested in some the early donor project evaluation reports, gradually seeped into DGHE policy documents and ultimately found their way official government strategy. Thematically, the chapter substantiates the ways in which international assistance has been instrumental in the establishment of domestic conditions that are needed in order to ensure increased levels of autonomy at the institutional level. Suggesting Clark’s “Places of inquiry” as a guiding analytical frame of reference, the analysis follows his distinction between the enabling conditions, the formative conditions, and the enacting conditions that on the whole constitute the basis for institutionally integrating basic functions of higher education in Indonesia. At the operational level, the chapter explores how assistance has contributed to institutional differentiation, institutional capacity building, resource diversification, and domestic changes in the institutional policy framework. As a corollary to assessing the results of assistance in these areas, the chapter will also review its limitations, shortcomings, and constraints, as well as possible alternative explanations. The lack of implementation following the formal introduction of financial autonomy in 1990 will reflect some of the structural constraints that impede the kind of institutional change advocated by donors and reformers.
Chapter 5 identifies common themes and patterns presented in the preceding chapters, and will feed these back to the literature. Trying to avoid drawbacks associated with analyses based all too exclusively on current events, the chapter essentially intends to summarize in what ways international donors so far have responded to increasing university autonomy (and in what ways not) in order to arrive at a balanced account of constraints and opportunities.