Accountability of higher education institutions. Background paper prepared for the 2017/8 Global education monitoring report, Accountability in education: meeting our commitments
The paper covers the issues of accountability of higher education institutions (HEIs) in five countries: Brazil, Canada, Italy, Portugal, and Russia1 . National frameworks and their implementation are examined. The special focus of the review is performance-based evaluation and funding. The reflection on outcomes is followed by the recommendations to policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. This paper was commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report as background information to assist in drafting the 2017/8 GEM Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the Global Education Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments”.
Hungary, Romania and Turkey, which previously had much in common (including huge external imbalances), now seem to be following different paths. Hungary was able to orchestrate a fast but painful transition to a positive current account (and thus stabilized its external debt/GDP ratio), Romania's current account deficit has decreased, although the balance remains negative, and Turkey is still struggling to finance its external deficit of over 7% of GDP.
The cumulative effects of a significantly changing climate are projected to have disastrous implications on the world’s natural habitats, and along with that, are projected to drastically increase the rate and likelihood of violent conflict globally, particularly in high-density, urban, poverty hotspots. Limiting the effects of a changing climate is thus critical in influencing multiple societal goals including equitable sustainable development, human health, biodiversity, food security and access to reliable energy sources.
This paper argues that the G7/8 has led global climate governance in ways other international environmental institutions have largely failed to do. It has done so largely by placing climate protection at the forefront of its policy objectives, alongside economic, health, energy and security goals, and reaching consensus repeatedly amongst its leaders on the importance of stabilizing emissions through energy efficiency, conservation, investment and technological innovation. Moreover, this chapter argues that the summit’s predominant capability, its constricted participation, democratic convergence and political cohesion – as well as the combined effects of global shocks – have all had positive impacts on the G7/8’s success in mitigating climate change.
Following a detailed process-tracing exercise over the summit’s 40-year history in which clear surges and retreats on global climate governance are outlined, this paper concludes by assessing the G7/8’s accountability record on climate mitigation and outlines a set of prescriptive recommendations, allowing for the delivery of a more tangible, coherent, results-driven accountability process for global climate governance.
Since November 2008, G20 leaders have been meeting to discuss and act on matters of global urgency, with economic and financial matters taking centre stage. At their four summits, hundreds of commitments have been made, including refraining from raising new trade barriers, cracking down on tax havens, reforming voice and vote at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, implementing higher and better quality capital requirements for banks, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, cancelling debt in Haiti and stepping up efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals. On the eve of the fifth summit in Seoul, it is important to ask what the G20 has done to take stock of the delivery of its growing number of promises.
For the past 37 years, the annual G8 summits have generated a wide breadth of declarations and communiqués binding the leaders to hard commitments across a diverse range of global policy issues. The extent to which the G8 members comply with their annual commitments has, in recent years, become a hotly contested topic, pitting academics, politicians, policy wonks and newsmakers against each other in an effort to understand whether commitments by the G8 do, in fact, matter. Given this era of ongoing domestic political constraints and conflicting global demands, does the G8 have the ability and, indeed, the capacity not only to make, but also to keep the commitments its members collectively generate at their annual summits?
In this paper, we discuss the methods of endowment management existing in the world and their applicability to the Russian university system. The endowment spending research focuses on the following issues: reinvesting endowment income; identifying the size of expendable endowment income; using the endowment body, not onlyincome; choosing endowment spending policy, rule and rate endowments, etc. We provide an overview of endowment fund financial indicators and endowment spending allocationin Russia. Based on the example of the HSE Endowment Fund, we analyze the use of endowment spending rulesand model of financial indicators for 2008–2014. The University’s Endowment Fund endowment spending policies implement the preservation principle, which may be reasonable in a stable economy. However, the viability of the principle is questionable in the crisis, the more so since the endowment is mostly in rubles. Using net asset valuation methods, the HSE Endowment Fund could provide equity betweengenerations with annual distribution of income in favor of the next and current generations.
This paper covers the issues of student accountability with special regard to post-Soviet countries, especially Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Latvia, and Russia. Primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education are examined. These countries share a common past but have also taken different paths regarding policy choices on student performance evaluation, assessments, and the introduction of national policies on student accountability (e.g. nation-wide examinations). This paper was commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report as background information to assist in drafting the 2017/8 GEM Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the Global Education Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments”.
Accountability and transparency are important elements in ensuring that the G20 is delivering on its commitments, but few formal mechanisms exist for holding member countries answerable for their decisions and the subsequent effects.
The article is devoted to the study of the authoritarianism prevalent in the mass consciousness of Russians. The article describes a new approach to the consideration of the authoritarian syndrome as the effects of the cultural trauma as a result of political and socio-cultural transformation of society. The article shows the dynamics of the symptoms of the authoritarianism, which appear in the mass consciousness of Russians from 1993 to 2011. This paper proposes a package of measures aimed at reducing the level of the authoritarianism in Russian society.
This work looks at a model of spatial election competition with two candidates who can spend effort in order to increase their popularity through advertisement. It is shown that under certain condition the political programs of the candidates will be different. The work derives the comparative statics of equilibrium policy platform and campaign spending with respect the distribution of voter policy preferences and the proportionality of the electoral system. In particular, it is whown that the equilibrium does not exist if the policy preferences are distributed over too narrow an interval.
The article examines "regulatory requirements" as a subject of state control over business in Russia. The author deliberately does not use the term "the rule of law". The article states that a set of requirements for business is wider than the legislative regulation.
First, the article analyzes the regulatory nature of the requirements, especially in the technical field. The requirements are considered in relation to the rule of law. The article explores approaches to the definition of regulatory requirements in Russian legal science. The author analyzes legislation definitions for a set of requirements for business. The author concludes that regulatory requirements are not always identical to the rule of law. Regulatory requirements are a set of obligatory requirements for entrepreneurs’ economic activity. Validation failure leads to negative consequences.
Second, the article analyzes the problems of the regulatory requirements in practice. Lack of information about the requirements, their irrelevance and inconsistency are problems of the regulatory requirements in Russia.
Many requirements regulating economic activity are not compatible with the current development level of science and technology. The problems are analyzed on the basis of the Russian judicial practice and annual monitoring reports by Higher School of Economics.
Finally, the author provides an approach to the possible solution of the regulatory requirements’ problem. The author proposes to create a nationwide Internet portal about regulatory requirements. The portal should contain full information about all regulatory requirements. The author recommends extending moratorium on the use of the requirements adopted by the bodies and organizations of the former USSR government.