Inter-Sectoral Dynamics

Before moving to describing the HE dynamics in Hungary, clarification of the key terms employed is in order. In the Hungarian context, institutions owned and operated by the state are referred to as ‘state’ institutions. In this study terms ‘state’

and ‘public’ in connection with institutional types are used interchangeably.

Delineation of terms employed for extra-governmentally provided HE poses more confusion though. Although it does not provide the clear definition, the Higher Education Law of 1993 differentiates between and respectively addresses separately to non-state Church and non-state private institutions operated by foundations.

According to the Higher Education Law, 2005 which provides a more explicit definition of institutional types, the non-state sector comprises the private (or foundation) and church institutions. Institutions that are founded and ‘maintained’ by other than the state and church are categorized as private, whereas those operated by religious legal entities that provide training in theology or other fields are grouped as

church institutions (sections 137 and 139).²³ By classifying institutions in this manner, the new law in actual fact sanctioned the status quo that had crystallized. As indicated in the introductory chapters, to facilitate definitional complexities that arise in similar situations, we accept the legal nomenclature as given and investigate the empirical realities along the four criteria recognized to be crucial as for public-private as well as for country-to-country comparison (Levy 1986, 1987). This is why the study will follow the official taxonomy and employ the above terms in accordance to how they are used in the Hungarian context.

Even a brief look at the figures representing the evolution of HE enrollments (Table 4.1) makes apparent an attribute that distinguishes the Hungarian intersectoral dynamics from the countries under consideration and from the region in general. This is a remarkable increase in the public sector enrollments. One immediate outcome of the diminished control of the state, as a unitary actor, over HE that nearly all post-communist countries share is a movement toward mass HE. Whereas an initial expansion of the enrollments elsewhere was largely a result of unregulated processes, initiated by poorly paid academics in response to unleashed student demand, in

23 Passed in 2005, the new higher education law ACT CXXXIX is effective from January 1, 2008.

This study concentrates on previous law and its effects on higher education dynamics but inevitably refers to the new act, especially when there is a need for more complete account of issues involved, like with the definition of non-state private and church institutions, largely missing from the previous legal act. Section 137 (1) of the new law classifies private non-state institutions in the following way:

Where a higher education institutions is not maintained by the state, local government or a national minority government (hereafter the entities listed in this subsection – except for higher education institutions maintained by religious legal entities – jointly referred to as ‘private higher education institution’), it may operate as an institutions committed to a certain religious or secular conviction, and may incorporate in its educational programme philosophical, ethical and cultural knowledge relevant to its religious or secular conviction. Private higher education institution – unless they receive funds from the budget for training provision – may stipulate as a precondition of admission the acceptance of a religion or ideology and the attestation of such acceptance (Higher Education Act 2005). Whereas, according to Section 139 (1) training in religious practice together with studies in theology (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘religious training’) may be provided by higher education institutions maintained by a religious legal entity (hereinafter” ‘church higher education institution’).

Church higher education institutions may provide training other than religious training (Higher Education Act 2005).

Hungary the initiative came from the government itself. ”To equate the number of students entering higher education from the appropriate age group to that of developed democratic society” was amongst the central objectives set forth by the Higher Education Law passed in 1993. A steady rise in the public enrollments from the beginning of the 1990s thus reflects the fact that widening access to HE was assumed by the government as its own responsibility.

Table 4.1: Numerical Overview of the State and Non-State Higher Education Sectors in Hungary, 1990-2007

Non-State Institutions

Year State Institutions Church Institutions Private Institutions Total

Inst. Students Inst. Students Inst. Students Inst. Students

1990/91 66 107 607 10 550 1 219 77 108 376

1991/92 66 113 788 10 623 1 179 77 114 690

1992/93 61 121 447 26 3 298 4 1 129 91 125 874

1993/94 59 135 695 28 6 110 4 2 755 91 144 560

1994/95 59 157 404 28 7 154 4 5 382 91 169 940

1995/96 58 177 482 28 9 005 4 9 049 90 195 586

1996/97 56 191 291 28 10 629 5 13 195 89 215 115 1997/98 56 224 695 28 12 655 6 17 343 90 254 693 1998/99 55 243 007 28 14 291 6 22 029 89 279 397 1999/00 55 266 144 28 16 227 6 23 331 89 305 702 2000/01 30 283 970 26 17 590 6 25 729 62 327 289 2001/02 30 300 360 26 18 922 9 30 019 65 349 301 2002/03 30 327 456 26 19 821 10 34 283 66 381 560 2003/04 31 351 154 26 21 626 11 36 295 68 409 075 2004/05 31 363 961 26 22 666 12 34 893 69 421 520 2005/06 31 366 797 26 24 078 14 33 286 71 424 161 2006/07^a 31 359 758 26 24 403 14 32 187 71 416 348 Source: Statistical Guide, Higher Education 2005/06. The Ministry of Education and Culture, 2006. ^a Preliminary data from the Ministry of Education and Culture in Berde and Vanyolos 2008.

Furthermore, Table 4.1 reveals a trait of Hungary’s HE developments that could seem at first sight incongruous: while public enrollments have swelled, there has been a major cut in the number of public institutions facilitating that increase. One aspect of the Hungarian HE traditions that sheds light on much of the contemporary policy practices and for that matter bears mentioning is an extreme institutional fragmentation (Hrubos 2000). Fragmented institutional structure had already been

perceptible before the communist takeover but was further reinforced after the advent of communism placed new exigencies upon HE. As a number of new highly specialized institutions were established and separation of old universities continued, they, in addition, were placed under the control of different ministries so as to permit higher degree of ministerial oversight. Binary differentiation between university and non-university sectors is by no means uncommon, but what had made the Hungarian HE system decidedly more complex is that, aside from horizontal differentiation between universities (egyetem) and colleges (főiskola) based on duration of studies, high degree of specialization existed within the each sector respectively (The Ministry of Education 2002).

Extreme fragmentation of institutional structure, of course, went hand in hand with the projections of Soviet planned economy as well as proletarian ideology of the communist party, and so did the fluctuations in admission policies – a practice that has traditionally been subject to political manipulations in Hungary. Stated differently, growing share of highly specialized non-university sector, which is commonly held resulted in falling in the academic standards, was effective means for both meeting industrial needs and for allowing increased participation of children of working-class parents. The extent to which these policies in actual fact contributed to enhancing the access of the latter group to HE remains questionable. It is worth noting that empirical studies that had appeared well before the demise of communism in Hungary verified against the declared official rhetoric.²⁴ Whatever the genuine impact of the strategies favoring short-cycle highly specialized programs on social equity, the relevant point is that notwithstanding these efforts, HE in Hungary

24 The point was suggested by Balázs Váradi.

remained, if not qualitatively than at least quantitatively, elitist. Participation rate of about 12 percent at best, in fact, constituted the second lowest in Europe (after Romania). To come to the point, by 1989 Hungary’s HE system was elitist as well as extremely fragmented. Seen in the light of the historical developments, it is easily explicable why the main thrust of the restructuring efforts of the first decade of transformation turned around expanding access to HE and overcoming institutional fragmentation by institutional integration.