This thesis presents the argument that the World Bank’s education policies are discursively inconsistent due to the concurrent adoption of conceptual frameworks – namely the neoliberal and global public goods frameworks – which are arguably in conflict with one another. More specifically, the World Bank presents education as both a public and a private good. This assessment is reached via a critical analysis of the Bank’s education policy discourse. The Bank’s policies are furthermore argued to be grounded in market economics and therefore are in tension with the notion of education as a human right – a legal and political framework, advocated by other development organizations, but neglected by the Bank. Over the course of this thesis, neoliberal influences on the World Bank’s education policies are critiqued on several levels, including potential ethical ramifications concerning equity, discursive logic and questionable use of evidence. This dissertation furthermore suggests that the Bank can re-conceptualize education in a light that does not engender these critiques, by embracing a rights-based vision of education. It is argued that it is not necessary for the Bank to relinquish an economic conceptualization of education, and that it is possible for the human rights and economic discourses to go hand-in-hand. Despite some tensions, education can be supported by both a public goods and rights-based framework, and that via such measures as collaboration with organizations that conceive of education as a right and reducing the dominance of economists within the organization, the Bank’s policies will become aligned with this rights-based vision. This thesis argues that World Bank education policies can take steps toward improvement if the neoliberal notion of education as an exclusive, private good is abandoned in favour of education as a non-exclusive, public good, and a right.

This thesis presents the argument that the World Bank’s education policies are discursively inconsistent due to the concurrent adoption of conceptual frameworks – namely the neoliberal and global public goods frameworks – which are arguably in conflict with one another. More specifically, the World Bank presents education as both a public and a private good. This assessment is reached via a critical analysis of the Bank’s education policy discourse. The Bank’s policies are furthermore argued to be grounded in market economics and therefore are in tension with the notion of education as a human right – a legal and political framework, advocated by other development organizations, but neglected by the Bank. Over the course of this thesis, neoliberal influences on the World Bank’s education policies are critiqued on several levels, including potential ethical ramifications concerning equity, discursive logic and questionable use of evidence. This dissertation furthermore suggests that the Bank can re-conceptualize education in a light that does not engender these critiques, by embracing a rights-based vision of education. It is argued that it is not necessary for the Bank to relinquish an economic conceptualization of education, and that it is possible for the human rights and economic discourses to go hand-in-hand. Despite some tensions, education can be supported by both a public goods and rights-based framework, and that via such measures as collaboration with organizations that conceive of education as a right and reducing the dominance of economists within the organization, the Bank’s policies will become aligned with this rights-based vision. This thesis argues that World Bank education policies can take steps toward improvement if the neoliberal notion of education as an exclusive, private good is abandoned in favour of education as a non-exclusive, public good, and a right.

This thesis presents the argument that the World Bank’s education policies are discursively inconsistent due to the concurrent adoption of conceptual frameworks – namely the neoliberal and global public goods frameworks – which are arguably in conflict with one another. More specifically, the World Bank presents education as both a public and a private good. This assessment is reached via a critical analysis of the Bank’s education policy discourse. The Bank’s policies are furthermore argued to be grounded in market economics and therefore are in tension with the notion of education as a human right – a legal and political framework, advocated by other development organizations, but neglected by the Bank. Over the course of this thesis, neoliberal influences on the World Bank’s education policies are critiqued on several levels, including potential ethical ramifications concerning equity, discursive logic and questionable use of evidence. This dissertation furthermore suggests that the Bank can re-conceptualize education in a light that does not engender these critiques, by embracing a rights-based vision of education. It is argued that it is not necessary for the Bank to relinquish an economic conceptualization of education, and that it is possible for the human rights and economic discourses to go hand-in-hand. Despite some tensions, education can be supported by both a public goods and rights-based framework, and that via such measures as collaboration with organizations that conceive of education as a right and reducing the dominance of economists within the organization, the Bank’s policies will become aligned with this rights-based vision. This thesis argues that World Bank education policies can take steps toward improvement if the neoliberal notion of education as an exclusive, private good is abandoned in favour of education as a non-exclusive, public good, and a right.

This thesis presents the argument that the World Bank’s education policies are discursively inconsistent due to the concurrent adoption of conceptual frameworks – namely the neoliberal and global public goods frameworks – which are arguably in conflict with one another. More specifically, the World Bank presents education as both a public and a private good. This assessment is reached via a critical analysis of the Bank’s education policy discourse. The Bank’s policies are furthermore argued to be grounded in market economics and therefore are in tension with the notion of education as a human right – a legal and political framework, advocated by other development organizations, but neglected by the Bank. Over the course of this thesis, neoliberal influences on the World Bank’s education policies are critiqued on several levels, including potential ethical ramifications concerning equity, discursive logic and questionable use of evidence. This dissertation furthermore suggests that the Bank can re-conceptualize education in a light that does not engender these critiques, by embracing a rights-based vision of education. It is argued that it is not necessary for the Bank to relinquish an economic conceptualization of education, and that it is possible for the human rights and economic discourses to go hand-in-hand. Despite some tensions, education can be supported by both a public goods and rights-based framework, and that via such measures as collaboration with organizations that conceive of education as a right and reducing the dominance of economists within the organization, the Bank’s policies will become aligned with this rights-based vision. This thesis argues that World Bank education policies can take steps toward improvement if the neoliberal notion of education as an exclusive, private good is abandoned in favour of education as a non-exclusive, public good, and a right.

25 Jahre nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion sind aus einem unitären Hochschulsystem 15 einzigartige nationale Systeme hervorgegangen. Deren Entwicklung wurde von je eigenen ökonomischen, kulturellen und politischen Kräften beeinflusst und geprägt, sowohl nationalen wie internationalen Ursprungs (Johnstone and Bain 2002). Die vorliegende Doktorarbeit untersucht die Veränderungen der Governance von Hochschulsystemen der drei postsowjetischen Staaten Russland, Kasachstan und Moldau über den Zeitraum von 1991 bis 2015, analysiert, zu welchem Grad diese Entwicklungen einem Prozess der Konvergenz hin zu einem „globalen Modell“ oder einem „postsowjetischen Modell“ folgen und formuliert Hypothesen über die treibenden Kräfte und Pfadabhängigkeiten, welche auf nationalem, regionalen und globaler Ebene diese Entwicklungen befördert, gehemmt oder auf idiosynkratische Art und Weise geprägt haben. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass global propagierte Governanceinstrumente – wie z.B. Globalbudgets, erweiterte Befugnisse der Hochschulleitung, externe Qualitätssicherung, Stakeholdergovernancegremien – in allen drei untersuchten Ländern Verbreitung finden und ein Prozess der Konvergenz hin zu einem „global Modell“ der Hochschulgovernance stattfindet. Gleichzeitig zeigen die Ergebnisse, dass die spezifischen Eigenarten der nationalen Governancearrangements durch die Einführung dieser neuen Instrumente in der Regel nicht ersetzt werden und dem Bestehenden stattdessen als zusätzliche Ebenen hinzugefügt werden. Wo die Logiken der neuen mit den alten Strukturen kollidieren, zeigt sich, dass sich die tradierten Strukturen und Prozesse in der Regel durchsetzen. Zudem zeigt sich, dass die Governancearrangements der drei untersuchten Länder eine große Zahl spezieller Eigenschaften teilen, durch die sie sich systematisch von jenem propagierten globalen Modell abheben. Jenes „Postsowjetische Modell“ der Hochschulgovernance zeichnet sich durch dominante Rolle des Staates, Hierarchie als primäre und legitime Form der Governance sowie einen geringen Grad an Vertrauen zwischen den zentralen Akteuren des Hochschulsystems aus. Zuletzt illustriert die Dissertation die Divergenzen und Besonderheiten der Governancemodelle in Russland, Kasachstan und Moldau. Die vorliegende Dissertation leistet somit einen Beitrag zum Verständnis der Entwicklung der Governance der Hochschulsysteme in einer sich dynamisch entwickelten Weltregion, welche in der akademischen Literatur bislang nur wenig Aufmerksamkeit erhalten hat.:Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5 Preliminary remarks and acknowledgements .................................................................................. 6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Research Topic ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Starting point and personal research interest ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Research approach ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Relevance to research and practice ........................................................................................ 16 2.5 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 16 3 Steps towards a framework of analysis ........................................................................................ 17 3.1 The Governance of Higher Education Systems ..................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Higher Education systems ............................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Governance in higher education .................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Summary: Making sense of higher education governance ............................................ 32 3.2 The changing governance of higher education systems ........................................................ 33 3.2.1 Conceptualizing forces of change in the governance of higher education systems: The ‘Glonacal’ agency heuristic ........................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Global trends and the emergence of a “global model” of higher education governance36 3.2.3 Instruments of Governance of Higher Education Systems ............................................ 49 3.2.4 Conclusion: A global model of HE governance? .......................................................... 66 3.3 State of research on the governance of higher education in post-Soviet countries ............... 67 3.3.1 European Integration in the post-Soviet space .............................................................. 70 4 Framework of Analysis and Research Design .............................................................................. 73 4.1 Research Questions and Scope of Analysis ........................................................................... 73 4.2 Research Methodology, Case Study Design, and Data Collection ........................................ 74 4.2.1 Case Studies and data collection ................................................................................... 74 4.2.2 Comparing the governance of higher education systems and assessing convergence .. 77 4.2.3 Discussion of validity and reliability of the chosen case study design .......................... 78 4.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................................... 79 5 The Point of Departure: The Soviet Union ................................................................................... 80 5.1 Introduction - Key features of the Soviet Higher Education system ..................................... 80 5.2 Structure of the HE system .................................................................................................... 83 5.3 The governance of higher education in the Soviet Union ..................................................... 85 5.3.1 Actors and their capabilities .......................................................................................... 85 5.3.2 Educational Standards and Quality Assurance .............................................................. 86 page 3 5.3.3 Regulation of admission into higher education ............................................................. 88 5.3.4 Institutional governance, decision-making and institutional autonomy ........................ 89 5.3.5 Financing of HEIs.......................................................................................................... 90 5.4 The HE Reforms of 1987 ...................................................................................................... 91 5.5 The break-up and transition of the Soviet higher education system ...................................... 94 6 The Russian Federation ................................................................................................................ 99 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 99 6.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Russia .................... 99 6.2.1 De-regulation and marketization of higher education (1991-2000) ............................ 100 6.2.2 Renaissance of state control, internationalization and renewed investment into higher education (2000-2004) ................................................................................................................ 105 6.2.3 Asserting state control and promoting differentiation of the higher education system (2004-2012) ................................................................................................................................. 110 6.2.4 Differentiated state steering (2012-2016) .................................................................... 119 6.3 The governance model of the Russian HE system by 2015 ................................................ 128 7 The Republic of Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................ 134 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 134 7.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Kazakhstan .......... 135 7.2.1 Establishing statehood and institutions (1991-1999) ................................................... 136 7.2.2 Curbing corruption and saddling the market (1999-2004) .......................................... 139 7.2.3 Preparing to join the Bologna Space (2005-2010) ...................................................... 146 7.2.4 Differentiation and expanding autonomy (2011-2017) ............................................... 153 7.3 The governance model of the Kazakh HE system by 2015 ................................................. 171 8 The Republic of Moldova ............................................................................................................. 173 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 173 8.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Moldova .............. 176 8.2.1 Experimentation and laisser-faire after independence (1991-1994) ............................ 177 8.2.2 Attempts to establish impartial instruments to regulate quality (1994-2001) ............. 178 8.2.3 Re-Centralization of powers in the Ministry of Education (2001-2006) ..................... 181 8.2.4 Creation of dysfunctional public structures (2006-2009) ............................................ 183 8.2.5 The long struggle for a new system of governance (2009-2015) ................................ 184 8.3 The governance model of the Moldovan HE system by 2015 ............................................ 194 9 Cross-National Comparison of Developments and Discussion of Results ................................... 197 9.1 How has the governance of higher education systems changed between 1991-2015? ....... 197 9.1.1 Common challenges and similar answers .................................................................... 197 9.1.2 Diverging paths ........................................................................................................... 200 9.1.3 Two-track state steering system in Russia ................................................................... 203 9.1.4 Marketization and expanding state-overseen stakeholder governance in Kazakhstan 205 page 4 9.1.5 Imitation of “European” institutions in Moldova ........................................................ 207 9.2 Is there a convergence towards a “post-Soviet” or global model of governance of higher education systems? .......................................................................................................................... 208 9.2.1 Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................... 208 9.2.2 Institutional Governance and University Autonomy ................................................... 210 9.2.3 Regulation of access .................................................................................................... 211 9.2.4 Financing ..................................................................................................................... 212 9.2.5 Conclusion: Is there a common model of governance? ............................................... 213 9.3 The interplay of national, regional and global factors on the development of the governance of higher education .......................................................................................................................... 218 9.3.1 Global and European forces ........................................................................................ 218 9.3.2 Regional forces ............................................................................................................ 224 9.3.3 National-level: Governments and Ministries responsible for higher education .......... 225 9.3.4 National-level: Stakeholder organizations................................................................... 232 9.3.5 National-level: Higher Education Institutions ............................................................. 234 9.3.6 National-level: Institutional factors of path dependence ............................................. 235 10 Discussion and Outlook .............................................................................................................. 244 10.1 Concluding reflections on the contribution of this study to the field of research ................ 246 11 References .................................................................................................................................. 247 12 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 269 12.1 Annex 1: Russia - The governance of the higher education system .................................... 269 12.1.1 Russia: Structure of the higher education system ........................................................ 269 12.1.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 273 12.1.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Russia ............................................... 283 12.1.4 Competitive programs for investment and differentiation of higher education........... 295 12.2 Annex 2: Kazakhstan – The governance of the higher education system ........................... 299 12.2.1 Kazakhstan: Structure of the higher education system ................................................ 299 12.2.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 302 12.2.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Kazakhstan ....................................... 310 12.3 Annex 3: Moldova – The governance of the higher education system ............................... 322 12.3.1 Moldova: Structure of the higher education system .................................................... 322 12.3.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 325 12.3.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Moldova ........................................... 328 12.4 Annex 4: The European “infrastructure” of quality assurance ............................................ 336 / After 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in post-Soviet countries, the single Soviet model of higher education has evolved into fifteen unique national systems, shaped by economic, cul-tural, and political forces, both national and global (Johnstone and Bain 2002). International agencies such as the World Bank and the OECD have lobbied for a set of policies associated with the Washington Consensus (Neave, G. R. & van Vught, 1991). The Bologna Process has created isomorphic pressures, supported by EU policies and funding. Many post-Soviet States have responded to these influences, albeit with different motivations and unclear outcomes (Tomusk, 2011). Comparative research on these developments, however, is scarce and has primarily discussed them in terms of decentralization, mar-ketization and institutional autonomy (Heyneman 2010; Silova, 2011). This PhD thesis aims to 1) reconstruct the developments of governance of higher education systems, 2) analyze to what degree the developments represent a convergence towards a “global model” or a “Post-Soviet model” and 3) formulate hypotheses about driving forces and path dependencies at national, regional and global level which have driven or impeded these changes. Following work by Becher & Kogan (1992), Clark (1983), Jongbloed (2003), Paradeise (2009); Hood (2004); Dill (2010) and Dobbins et al. (2011), the research analyzes the object of analysis, the govern-ance of higher education systems, on five dimensions: 1. Educational Standards, quality assessment, and information provision; 2. Regulation of admissions to higher education; 3. Institutional structures, decision-making, and autonomy; 4. Higher education financing and incentive structures; and 5. The relationship of higher education and the state. Explanatory approaches draw upon perspectives of path dependence and models of institutional change drawing on work by North (1990), Steinmo (1992), Weick (1976), Pierson (2000) and Witte (2006). Three post-Soviet, non-EU, Bologna signatory states were selected to represent a diverse geographical sub-sample of the 15 post-Soviet States. The three countries studied in-depth are Russia, Moldova and Kazakhstan. The period of analysis comprises the changes taking place over a 25-year period between 1991 and 2015. Methodologically, the study rests on extensive literature analysis of previous academic publications, reports by international organizations such as the World Bank, OECD, and the EU, and national strategy papers. Building on this document analysis, over 60 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with representatives of State organizations, HEIs and other stakeholder groups engaged in the govern-ance of higher education. The outcomes of interviews were used to situate developments in the particular page 12 social-political and societal contexts and to triangulate policy documents with various stakeholder per-spectives, in order to reconstruct how and why specific policy changes came about, were implemented or abandoned. The results show a differentiated picture: The governance instruments promoted by OECD, WB and EU are clearly recognizable in the 2015 governance arrangements in all three case countries. On this instru-ments-level “surface”, a process of convergence towards the “global model” is clearly taking place. While these new instruments are being adopted, however, the specific national governance arrangements persist and continue to matter. Only in isolated instances are old instruments fully displaced. More com-monly, new structures are added as additional layers to existing governance arrangements. The three countries continue to share a number of unique characteristics which sets them apart from the Anglo-Saxon higher education systems, which have inspired the “global model”. The dominating con-trolling role of the state has remained in place in all countries. This is strongly reinforced by national-level institutions and mental models which affirm hierarchy as the legitimate principle in governance and a lack of trust between actors in the system. In all case countries, the mutual expectation of state and HEIs alike remains that the state should be steering the higher education sector. This it does (Russia and Kazakhstan) or attempts to do (Moldova). Clearly, the adoption of governance instruments which are inspired by the “global model” does in no way equate with a retreat of the state. While the elements of university autonomy and stakeholder governance are slowly expanded, even this very process of loosening the reigns of the state is in great measure overseen and steered by the state. Shared character-istics, such as centralized control over admission; a state claim to steer and, in many cases, control the system; a hierarchical, authoritarian, personalized style of governance, management, leadership, as well as accountability form the discernable core of a common “post-Soviet” model of HE governance. The shared institutional past of the Soviet era, as well as common challenges, have facilitated and maintained these commonalities. As time passes, however, these post-Soviet commonalities are getting weaker. Divergent national-level forces and actors are driving or impeding reforms: While in Moldova, political volatility and underfund-ing have repeatedly undermined substantial reforms, Russia and Kazakhstan have each adopted govern-ance and management practices from New Public Management in new idiosyncratic ways: Kazakhstan has embarked on an authoritarian-driven decentralization program. Russia has created a two-tier system of state steering through financial incentivization and evaluation on the one hand, and tight oversight, control and intervention on the other. This dissertation sheds light on the developments, driving forces and mechanisms behind the convergence and divergence of approaches to higher education governance in an under-studied region of the world.:Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5 Preliminary remarks and acknowledgements .................................................................................. 6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Research Topic ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Starting point and personal research interest ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Research approach ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Relevance to research and practice ........................................................................................ 16 2.5 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 16 3 Steps towards a framework of analysis ........................................................................................ 17 3.1 The Governance of Higher Education Systems ..................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Higher Education systems ............................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Governance in higher education .................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Summary: Making sense of higher education governance ............................................ 32 3.2 The changing governance of higher education systems ........................................................ 33 3.2.1 Conceptualizing forces of change in the governance of higher education systems: The ‘Glonacal’ agency heuristic ........................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Global trends and the emergence of a “global model” of higher education governance36 3.2.3 Instruments of Governance of Higher Education Systems ............................................ 49 3.2.4 Conclusion: A global model of HE governance? .......................................................... 66 3.3 State of research on the governance of higher education in post-Soviet countries ............... 67 3.3.1 European Integration in the post-Soviet space .............................................................. 70 4 Framework of Analysis and Research Design .............................................................................. 73 4.1 Research Questions and Scope of Analysis ........................................................................... 73 4.2 Research Methodology, Case Study Design, and Data Collection ........................................ 74 4.2.1 Case Studies and data collection ................................................................................... 74 4.2.2 Comparing the governance of higher education systems and assessing convergence .. 77 4.2.3 Discussion of validity and reliability of the chosen case study design .......................... 78 4.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................................... 79 5 The Point of Departure: The Soviet Union ................................................................................... 80 5.1 Introduction - Key features of the Soviet Higher Education system ..................................... 80 5.2 Structure of the HE system .................................................................................................... 83 5.3 The governance of higher education in the Soviet Union ..................................................... 85 5.3.1 Actors and their capabilities .......................................................................................... 85 5.3.2 Educational Standards and Quality Assurance .............................................................. 86 page 3 5.3.3 Regulation of admission into higher education ............................................................. 88 5.3.4 Institutional governance, decision-making and institutional autonomy ........................ 89 5.3.5 Financing of HEIs.......................................................................................................... 90 5.4 The HE Reforms of 1987 ...................................................................................................... 91 5.5 The break-up and transition of the Soviet higher education system ...................................... 94 6 The Russian Federation ................................................................................................................ 99 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 99 6.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Russia .................... 99 6.2.1 De-regulation and marketization of higher education (1991-2000) ............................ 100 6.2.2 Renaissance of state control, internationalization and renewed investment into higher education (2000-2004) ................................................................................................................ 105 6.2.3 Asserting state control and promoting differentiation of the higher education system (2004-2012) ................................................................................................................................. 110 6.2.4 Differentiated state steering (2012-2016) .................................................................... 119 6.3 The governance model of the Russian HE system by 2015 ................................................ 128 7 The Republic of Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................ 134 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 134 7.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Kazakhstan .......... 135 7.2.1 Establishing statehood and institutions (1991-1999) ................................................... 136 7.2.2 Curbing corruption and saddling the market (1999-2004) .......................................... 139 7.2.3 Preparing to join the Bologna Space (2005-2010) ...................................................... 146 7.2.4 Differentiation and expanding autonomy (2011-2017) ............................................... 153 7.3 The governance model of the Kazakh HE system by 2015 ................................................. 171 8 The Republic of Moldova ............................................................................................................. 173 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 173 8.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Moldova .............. 176 8.2.1 Experimentation and laisser-faire after independence (1991-1994) ............................ 177 8.2.2 Attempts to establish impartial instruments to regulate quality (1994-2001) ............. 178 8.2.3 Re-Centralization of powers in the Ministry of Education (2001-2006) ..................... 181 8.2.4 Creation of dysfunctional public structures (2006-2009) ............................................ 183 8.2.5 The long struggle for a new system of governance (2009-2015) ................................ 184 8.3 The governance model of the Moldovan HE system by 2015 ............................................ 194 9 Cross-National Comparison of Developments and Discussion of Results ................................... 197 9.1 How has the governance of higher education systems changed between 1991-2015? ....... 197 9.1.1 Common challenges and similar answers .................................................................... 197 9.1.2 Diverging paths ........................................................................................................... 200 9.1.3 Two-track state steering system in Russia ................................................................... 203 9.1.4 Marketization and expanding state-overseen stakeholder governance in Kazakhstan 205 page 4 9.1.5 Imitation of “European” institutions in Moldova ........................................................ 207 9.2 Is there a convergence towards a “post-Soviet” or global model of governance of higher education systems? .......................................................................................................................... 208 9.2.1 Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................... 208 9.2.2 Institutional Governance and University Autonomy ................................................... 210 9.2.3 Regulation of access .................................................................................................... 211 9.2.4 Financing ..................................................................................................................... 212 9.2.5 Conclusion: Is there a common model of governance? ............................................... 213 9.3 The interplay of national, regional and global factors on the development of the governance of higher education .......................................................................................................................... 218 9.3.1 Global and European forces ........................................................................................ 218 9.3.2 Regional forces ............................................................................................................ 224 9.3.3 National-level: Governments and Ministries responsible for higher education .......... 225 9.3.4 National-level: Stakeholder organizations................................................................... 232 9.3.5 National-level: Higher Education Institutions ............................................................. 234 9.3.6 National-level: Institutional factors of path dependence ............................................. 235 10 Discussion and Outlook .............................................................................................................. 244 10.1 Concluding reflections on the contribution of this study to the field of research ................ 246 11 References .................................................................................................................................. 247 12 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 269 12.1 Annex 1: Russia - The governance of the higher education system .................................... 269 12.1.1 Russia: Structure of the higher education system ........................................................ 269 12.1.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 273 12.1.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Russia ............................................... 283 12.1.4 Competitive programs for investment and differentiation of higher education........... 295 12.2 Annex 2: Kazakhstan – The governance of the higher education system ........................... 299 12.2.1 Kazakhstan: Structure of the higher education system ................................................ 299 12.2.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 302 12.2.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Kazakhstan ....................................... 310 12.3 Annex 3: Moldova – The governance of the higher education system ............................... 322 12.3.1 Moldova: Structure of the higher education system .................................................... 322 12.3.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 325 12.3.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Moldova ........................................... 328 12.4 Annex 4: The European “infrastructure” of quality assurance ............................................ 336

La pedagogia dell’ambiente può offrire nuove prospettive interpretative rispetto a talune rilevanti questioni ambientali. Delineando contributi progettuali sostenibili per formare ad una cittadinanza responsabile in una civiltà planetaria, essa dischiude la possibilità di elaborare una cultura della sostenibilità educativa. Significare un nuovo modello di sviluppo, secondo un pensiero pedagogico orientato alla centralità della persona in stretta congiunzione con la dottrina sociale della Chiesa, caratterizza il quadro teorico della tesi. E’ in questa cornice che si inserisce la presente ricerca, la quale, in una prospettiva pedagogica, compie un’esplorazione orientata ad approfondire il rapporto tra pedagogia e politica dell’ambiente nello scenario dell’Unione Europea. L’elaborato mira a proporre un’articolata disamina critica delle attuali politiche ambientali europee in merito a ricerca e innovazione dell’istruzione e formazione. L’interpretazione pedagogica di emblematici documenti dell’Unione Europea circa l’educazione allo sviluppo sostenibile evidenzia elementi imprescindibili per delineare una progettazione educativa sostenibile finalizzata a generare un cambiamento culturale nel segno della sostenibilità e per elaborare possibili linee di orientamento rivolte a policy makers. / Environmental pedagogy can offer new interpretational perspectives with respect to certain significant environmental issues. By outlining sustainable projects aimed at forming a responsible population in a planetary civilization, environmental pedagogy discloses the possibility to develop a culture of educational sustainability. Representing a new development model, according to a pedagogical thought oriented towards the central nature of the person, in close conjunction with the social doctrine of the Church, characterizes the theoretical picture of the thesis. It is this frame that encloses the present research, which, from a pedagogical perspective, carries out an investigation aimed at deepening the relationship between pedagogy and environmental policy in the scenario of the European Union. The paper intends to propose a well-structured and critical examination of the current European environmental policies on the subject of research and innovation in education and training. The pedagogical interpretation of emblematic documents issued by the European Union concerning education for sustainable development shows elements which are crucial for the purpose of outlining a sustainable educational plan aimed at generating a cultural change in the sign of sustainability and for developing possible guidelines aimed at policymakers.

Text in Afrikaans / Die ontstaan en verloop van Christelik-nasionale onderwys as die histories-geworde onderwysideaal van die Afrikaner word in hierdie studie ondersoek en evalueer ten einde die moontlike toekomstige voortbestaan daarvan in Suid-Afrika te kan aantoon. Die verband tussen lewensbeskouing en onderwys is allereers aangetoon, met besondere verwysing na die ontstaan en wese van die Christelik-nasionale lewensbeskouing en onderwysleer. In die terugskou is die verloop en posisie van Christelik-nasionale onderwys vanaf 1652 tot en met 1997 van nader beskou. Aandag is aan die volgende onderwysfasette gegee: onderwysdoelstellinge, onderwysbeheer, onderwysinhoud (met spesiale verwysing na godsdiensonderrig) en medium van onderrig. Ten slotte is bevindinge en 'n gevolgtrekking rakende Christelik-nasionale onderwys in Suid-Afrika verwoord. Enkele aanbevelings vir die voortbestaan van Christelik-nasionale onderwys is ook gemaak. / In this study, the genesis and course of Christian National Education, as historic cultivated educational ideal of the Afrikander, are examined and assessed in order to be able to predict its future in times to come. First of all, the relation between view of life and education is indicated, with special reference to the genesis and nature of the Christian National view of life and doctrine of education. In the historical survey the course and position of Christian National Education from 1652 to 1997 are indicated. Attention is focused on the following educational aspects: aim of education, governance of education, content of education (with special reference to religious instruction) and medium of instruction. Finally, findings and a conclusion regarding Christian National Education in South Africa are expressed. Some recommendations for its continued existence are also provided / Educational Studies / M. Ed. (Historiese Opvoedkunde)

Text in Afrikaans / Die ontstaan en verloop van Christelik-nasionale onderwys as die histories-geworde onderwysideaal van die Afrikaner word in hierdie studie ondersoek en evalueer ten einde die moontlike toekomstige voortbestaan daarvan in Suid-Afrika te kan aantoon. Die verband tussen lewensbeskouing en onderwys is allereers aangetoon, met besondere verwysing na die ontstaan en wese van die Christelik-nasionale lewensbeskouing en onderwysleer. In die terugskou is die verloop en posisie van Christelik-nasionale onderwys vanaf 1652 tot en met 1997 van nader beskou. Aandag is aan die volgende onderwysfasette gegee: onderwysdoelstellinge, onderwysbeheer, onderwysinhoud (met spesiale verwysing na godsdiensonderrig) en medium van onderrig. Ten slotte is bevindinge en 'n gevolgtrekking rakende Christelik-nasionale onderwys in Suid-Afrika verwoord. Enkele aanbevelings vir die voortbestaan van Christelik-nasionale onderwys is ook gemaak. / In this study, the genesis and course of Christian National Education, as historic cultivated educational ideal of the Afrikander, are examined and assessed in order to be able to predict its future in times to come. First of all, the relation between view of life and education is indicated, with special reference to the genesis and nature of the Christian National view of life and doctrine of education. In the historical survey the course and position of Christian National Education from 1652 to 1997 are indicated. Attention is focused on the following educational aspects: aim of education, governance of education, content of education (with special reference to religious instruction) and medium of instruction. Finally, findings and a conclusion regarding Christian National Education in South Africa are expressed. Some recommendations for its continued existence are also provided / Educational Studies / M. Ed. (Historiese Opvoedkunde)

This thesis presents a case study of Microsoft Corporation’s Partners in Learning (PiL) program, an example of transnational policy authority in education, with two embedded case studies of PiL in Jordan and South Africa. The constructivist and rationalist approaches highlight the changing nature of governance through the cultural and strategic shifts that led to Microsoft’s policy role in education. Microsoft’s strategic profit interests and its corporate-social-responsibility aspiration to play a policy role in education influenced its educational footprint. From a top-down perspective, Microsoft used supranational forms of power by implementing its global PiL blueprint through similar PiL programs worldwide. From a bottom-up perspective, Microsoft used “localization practices” by engaging different subnational agents and used different strategies to gain footholds in two very different political and policy contexts. Microsoft’s top-down and bottom-up approaches link the supranational policy arena to the subnational or subgovernmental. Microsoft’s economic power and strategic engagement gave it entry into education. It gained expert authority from its extensive history and experience in education. Its expert authority was experessed through strategic relationship building through diplomacy and partnerships, policy networks, and the sharing of best practices. The company was however not able to claim absolute legitimacy because of resistance in both countries. This thesis highlights that at the governmental level, sovereignty does not disappear when transnational corporations become involved in education at the national level. Instead, nation- states become strategic sites for the restructuring of global policy roles. The Jordanian government became a public facilitator, by working with Microsoft to implement a stand-alone PiL program. The South African government became a public integrator, by implementing the PiL program within government policies and programs. Power was also redistributed within both countries, moving away from government education officials towards the monarchy in Jordan and the presidency in South Africa. The findings of the study highlight the need for corporations engaged in public education to be governed within instituted accountability measures, for appropriate partnership frameworks, and for governance tools that can both effectively engage companies in education and ensure that they work within common goals and values set out by international education organizations.

This thesis presents a case study of Microsoft Corporation’s Partners in Learning (PiL) program, an example of transnational policy authority in education, with two embedded case studies of PiL in Jordan and South Africa. The constructivist and rationalist approaches highlight the changing nature of governance through the cultural and strategic shifts that led to Microsoft’s policy role in education. Microsoft’s strategic profit interests and its corporate-social-responsibility aspiration to play a policy role in education influenced its educational footprint. From a top-down perspective, Microsoft used supranational forms of power by implementing its global PiL blueprint through similar PiL programs worldwide. From a bottom-up perspective, Microsoft used “localization practices” by engaging different subnational agents and used different strategies to gain footholds in two very different political and policy contexts. Microsoft’s top-down and bottom-up approaches link the supranational policy arena to the subnational or subgovernmental. Microsoft’s economic power and strategic engagement gave it entry into education. It gained expert authority from its extensive history and experience in education. Its expert authority was experessed through strategic relationship building through diplomacy and partnerships, policy networks, and the sharing of best practices. The company was however not able to claim absolute legitimacy because of resistance in both countries. This thesis highlights that at the governmental level, sovereignty does not disappear when transnational corporations become involved in education at the national level. Instead, nation- states become strategic sites for the restructuring of global policy roles. The Jordanian government became a public facilitator, by working with Microsoft to implement a stand-alone PiL program. The South African government became a public integrator, by implementing the PiL program within government policies and programs. Power was also redistributed within both countries, moving away from government education officials towards the monarchy in Jordan and the presidency in South Africa. The findings of the study highlight the need for corporations engaged in public education to be governed within instituted accountability measures, for appropriate partnership frameworks, and for governance tools that can both effectively engage companies in education and ensure that they work within common goals and values set out by international education organizations.