Rastislav Havaj

Tufts University

 

After recovering its independence in 1991, Azerbaijan faced many challenges but none more important to its future and to the future of its citizens than the reform of its higher educational institutions.  Reforming a higher education system is enormously difficult, invariably expensive and political.  Azerbaijan brings to the task both advantages and disadvantages.  On the one hand, the rapid growth of the country’s economy and Azerbaijan’s historical cosmopolitanism give it the resources and the willingness to explore new approaches.  But on the other, the continuing impact of Soviet-era traditions of low pay for staff, the rigidity of rote learning, and widespread corruption mean that any reform must confront all these problems or face almost certain defeat.

 

It is not always a good idea to adopt or imitate educational initiatives from other countries, for they do not necessarily justify an objective for change.  Each society is unique and therefore common approach may not satisfy the purpose of reform.  Nevertheless, there are at least three existing models of educational systems currently widely used in many other countries that Azerbaijan could selectively draw upon in its efforts to reform the country’s shattered education system.  First is the Anglo-Saxon model which stresses academic flexibility, broad choice of teaching tasks and most of all the autonomy of administration.  Besides, this model has a highest contribution to the quality and quantity of research output.  The Continental model, which is largely used across Europe, shares much in common with the first but is more bureaucratic in that it promotes faculty largely on the basis of seniority rather than academic productivity, which may not be always beneficial for it reduces motivation for academic performance and creates relatively stagnating results.  The third model, Scandinavian, is in many ways similar to the previous two models except that it is based on temporary faculty appointments and concentrated cooperation between public and private institutions.  None of these systems can alone satisfy Azerbaijan’s needs in the education field, but each of them has some elements that Azerbaijan could cautiously pick up to design its own – unique – system. 

  

One of the most critical areas in the country where much reform is needed is the funding process.  Even with the resources available, Azerbaijan faces a difficult task in transforming the funding process to ensure that universities are better staffed, that faculty are more productive and less corrupt, and that higher education will produce not only well-trained graduates but useful research.  At present, the government has near total control over the way in which money is allocated and has shown little willingness to invest in the private sector.  A far better distribution system would exist if Azerbaijan drew on the Scandinavian model where both public and private institutions greatly benefit from a proportioned allocation of public funds.  It is also important to engage business and non-profit sector, which can provide significant contribution toward academic research.  Reasonable and most of all transparent distribution of public resources should be the focus of Azerbaijan’s educational reform.     

Central planning is in almost every case detrimental to academic growth, the autonomy of educational institutions, the improvement of curricula, selection of faculty, and the mobility of both faculty members and students.  And because each of these must be changed if Azerbaijan is to have a modern and internationally respected educational system, it is useful to start with the funding question but only if both the ministry and university administrators understand that this is a first step toward changing all the other parts of this equation.  Here Azerbaijan could benefit from the Anglo-Saxon and Continental models where there is a firewall between the state and universities. 

 

Universities should be self-governing, with elected rectors and with faculties choosing not only their own members but governing bodies within their institutions.  In moving in that direction, Azerbaijan should avoid being as bureaucratic as the continental system is and use the Anglo-Saxon model in which selection, retention and promotion are based on productivity and teaching rather than simple longevity.           

If the government respects academic autonomy, it should also see the benefits that the country receives if the authorities provide universities with sufficient funds to keep tuition costs low, something that will not only allow more Azerbaijanis to take advantage of higher education but will attract more foreign students to Azerbaijan as well.  Thus, Azerbaijan will want to follow more closely the Scandinavian and Continental models where costs for students are kept low, rather than the Anglo-Saxon one in which tuition costs are often prohibitive.   

Attracting more foreign students must be part of a more general effort to integrate Azerbaijan’s higher educational institutions into the world.  Some foreign institutions are already involved in partnerships with those in Azerbaijan, but these networks must be dramatically expanded if Azerbaijan is truly going to become an important regional node of the international educational network.  And Azerbaijan should enter this process with enthusiasm, unafraid because of its own enormous economic resources that doing so could cause a serious brain drain abroad.  

Doing all this will be hard given that Azerbaijan must overcome the habits of highly bureaucratic central planning.  But five steps are clear if Azerbaijan wants to improve the state of higher education, something that in today’s world is a precondition for social, political and economic development:

First of all, Azerbaijan must commit itself to shifting decision making in this sphere from the government to the universities as all three foreign models do.

Second, it should ensure that resources in this area are spread proportionally and transparently among all higher schools, public and private as the Scandinavian model does. 

Third, it must take steps to select and promote on the basis of achievement as the Anglo-Saxon model requires. 

Fourth, it must democratize the internal workings of the universities as all three foreign models do.  

And fifth, it must ensure the closest possible cooperation between the government and the universities as the Continental model specifies.

      

Making progress on each and every one of these will not be easy, especially as they all must be done together.  But the stakes are high: If Azerbaijan does not make this transition, it will fall behind the rest of the world.  If it does make it, then it will have the kind of brighter future that only greater integration with the rest of the advanced industrial world will make possible.