tir tir COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 20.09.1996 
COM(96) 428 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
EVALUATION OF THE FIRST PHASE 
OF TEMPUS 
1990/91 - 1993/94 

A 
Evaluation of the First Phase of TEMPUS 1990/91 -1993/94 
1. Research Design, Methods and Procedures 
On May 7, 1990 the TEMPUS Programme was launched by the Council of European Com­
munities. The aim of the Programme was to promote a reform of the higher education sys­
tems and to effectively support the adjustment of Central and Eastern European countries to 
the needs of a market economy. The collaboration between the CEE partner countries, the 
EU Member States, as well as other G24 countries in the field of higher education, based on 
co-operation, knowledge transfer, equipment aid, structural and curricular development, stu­
dent and staff exchange, was supposed to provide the necessary prerequisites for an edu­
cation and training system to fit the new requirements. 
To comply with the goals of providing a comprehensive evaluation and an accurate over­
view, a description and analysis of the programme activities is necessary according to their 
structure, their administrative support and their actual realisation in the higher education in­
stitutions. The study presented here focusses on the following lines of inquiry: 
- The policy framework of the TEMPUS Programme: What are the general rules of the 
TEMPUS Programme? Who are the major actors in policy formation on the national and 
the supra-national level? What role do they actually play? How are the national priorities 
in the CEE partner countries established and how do they function? etc. 
- The administration of the TEMPUS Programme on the national and the supra-national 
level: What are the major tasks of the EC TEMPUS Office and the National TEMPUS Of­
fices in the CEE partner countries? What is the quantity and quality of information about 
TEMPUS-related issues? What is the quality of advice and support for applicants? Do 
they organise the dissemination of results? Are the procedures established for TEMPUS 
administration functioning well? etc. 
- The participating institutions and institutional settings: What kind of institutions participate 
in TEMPUS? In which countries are the institutions located? Which role is played by size 
and type of higher education institutions from CEE partner countries for participation in 
TEMPUS? What is the role of the central level of higher education institutions in fostering 
TEMPUS activities? What kind of support is provided to TEMPUS Joint European Proj­
ects by the institutions? etc. 
- The financial conditions of TEMPUS Joint European Projects (JEPs): What is the propor­
tion of the TEMPUS budget spent on JEPs? How is the overall budget assessed by part­
ners in the JEPs? What are the major financial problems JEP partners and the central 
level of institutions have experienced? etc. 
- The cooperation within the JEPs: What is the role played by partners from Western and 
CEE countries in initiating the establishment of JEPs? What kind of prior contacts did the 
JEP partners have among each other? What are the reasons for participation in JEPs? 
How many partners participate in JEPs? In which language(s) do the partners communi­
cate? From whom do the partners receive information about the TEMPUS Programme? 
etc. 
- The administration of the JEPs: In which countries are the JEP management functions, 
coordinator and contractor, located? How many hours per week do the partners spend on 
administrative work related to TEMPUS? What kind of information related to the overall 
administration of the JEP is available to the partners? On what basis was the JEP grant 
administered? etc. 
- The educational activities: What kind of educational activities (i.e., cooperation measures 
in the field of teaching and education, structural development, staff and student mobility) 
are undertaken within the JEPs? What are the objectives of the individual activities? With 
which subject areas are the JEPs concerned? What are the major difficulties which were 
encountered? etc. 
- Outcomes and impacts of TEMPUS: To what extent are the envisaged goals of TEMPUS 
JEPs realized? How do the JEP partners assess the impact on the targeted depart­
ment/institution? Are there synergy effects among the various educational activities? Are 
there spin-off activities from the activities of ihe JEPs? Do the JEP partners continue their 
cooperation after the end of TEMPUS support for their JEP? etc. 
In order to cover the broad range of topics related to the main goals of the evaluation and to 
ensure a high validity and representativity of results, two different surveys were undertaken. 
In addition, available statistics were re-analysed, interviews were carried out with key actors 
for TEMPUS in all CEE partner countries and a broad range of official documents and written 
material was taken into consideration. In detail the evaluation study is based on the following 
approaches: 
- Surveys: First, with the help of highly standardised written questionnaires, all participants 
(coordinators, contractors and partners) of TEMPUS Joint European Projects were asked 
to state their experiences and assessments. Second, all higher education institutions in 
the Central and Eastern European Countries involved in TEMPUS were sent a written 
questionnaire mainly concerned with the effects of the TEMPUS Programme on the re­
structuring and development of the institutions. 
- Interviews: To become acquainted with the decision-making and administrative structure 
and processes above the institutional level, interviews in the Central and Eastern Euro­
pean partner countries were undertaken with the responsibles for TEMPUS and Phare in 
the ministries, the representatives of the European Commission and the directors of the 
National TEMPUS Offices. Further interviews were undertaken with the main actors in 
selected higher education institutions and departments participating in TEMPUS. Last but 
not least, mobile students and staff members were asked about their experiences. 
- Analysis of databases: as far as possible, the data bases of the European Training Foun­
dation (ETF) in Torino were analysed in order to provide basic quantitative data about the 
various institutions and measures involved in TEMPUS. 
- Desk research: in order to validate the own research results as well as to get the neces­
sary background information about the TEMPUS Programme, existing documents and 
written material (guidelines, annual reports, country studies, evaluation studies, etc.) were 
analysed. 
2. Basic Information on the TEMPUS Programme 
In the aftermath of the political changes of 1989 in Central and Eastern Europe a compre­
hensive programme of financial assistance and expertise was agreed by the European 
Council to help the Central and Eastern European countries concerned in the restructuring of 
their economies and political systems. Thus, the Phare Programme was inaugurated in De­
cember 1989 providing a framework for Community assistance to support the economic and 
social reform processes in Central and Eastern Europe. Phare operations began in 1990. 
In January 1990, the Commission submitted two proposals to the Council and the Parlia­
ment: the TEMPUS Scheme and the establishment of the European Training Foundation. 
The TEMPUS objectives are based on the objectives of the Phare Programme. The main 
objectives of TEMPUS I are the following: 
- to facilitate the coordination of the provision of assistance to the CEE partner countries in 
the field of exchange and mobility, particularly for university students and teachers, 
whether such assistance is provided by the Community, its Member States or the third 
countries of the G24 group; 
- to contribute to the improvement of training in the CEE partner countries and to encour­
age their cooperation with partners in the European Community, taking into account the 
need to ensure the widest possible participation of all the regions of the Community in 
such actions; 
- to increase opportunities for the teaching and learning in the CEE partner countries of 
those languages used in the Community and covered by the LINGUA Programme, and 
vice-versa; 
- to enable students from the CEE partner countries to spend a specific period of study at 
university or to undertake industry placements within the Member States of the Commu­
nity, while ensuring equality of opportunity for male and female students as regards par­
ticipation in such mobility; 
- to enable students from the Community to spend a similar type of period of study or 
placement in a CEE partner country: 
- to promote increased exchanges and mobility of teaching staff and trainers as part of the 
cooperation process. 
TEMPUS is funded by the CEE countries from within the allocation they receive under the 
Phare Programme. The Phare budget for each of the CEE partner countries is determined 
annually by the EU Commission on the basis of fixed criteria and after consultation with the 
national authorities of the partner countries. The disposition of funds within this national 
budget is determined by the national authorities on the basis of national indicative pro­
grammes which are developed according to the framework of objectives and aims to be 
achieved with the help of Phare. A certain proportion of the Phare budget is allocated to 
TEMPUS on an annual base by the national authorities in consultation with the Commission. 
The national authorities of the CEE partner countries involved in this process are the Educa­
tion Ministries, the national Phare Coordinators, other Ministries involved in Phare activities 
and as a rule - to decide about the final version of the proposed allocations - the Council of 
Ministers. 
The administration of the TEMPUS Programme is a decentralised activity involving key ac­
tors on various levels. Overall responsibility for the TEMPUS Programme was given to the 
EU Commission's Task Force Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth which is 
now the Directorate General XXII (DG XXII). There is a close liaison between the Task 
Force/DG XXII and the Phare Operational Service of DG I with regard to TEMPUS. 
On the Community level the implementation of the TEMPUS Programme and all relevant 
programme decisions are assisted by the TEMPUS Management Committee consisting of 
two representatives of each EU Member State and being chaired by the TEMPUS represen­
tative of the EU Commission. The Committee also assists the Commission by commenting 
on and adopting the general guidelines governing TEMPUS, including the financial guide­
lines, all questions relating to the geographical and content related balance of TEMPUS ac­
tivities and arrangements for monitoring and evaluation of the Programme. For the technical 
assistance in the management of the Programme an EC TEMPUS Office was established, 
first in Brussels and since 1995 a special Department of the European Training Foundation 
(ETF) in Torino has taken over the technical assistance for the Programme. 
In each Member State of the European Union a National Contact Point was established to 
provide assistance, information and advice to all institutions and organisations interested in 
participating in the TEMPUS Programme. In each of the CEE partner countries a National 
participating in the TEMPUS Programme. In each of the CEE partner countries a National 
TEMPUS Office (NTO) was established being responsible for the administration of TEMPUS in 
the country and providing all necessary help and support to participating institutions. 
The TEMPUS Programme consists of three actions each of which covers a number of activities. 
Action 1 provides support for Joint European Projects (JEPs), Action 2 provides support for 
Individual Mobility Grants (IMGs), and Action 3 provides support for Complementary Activities or 
Measures (CMEs). 
Joint European Projects (JEPs), which represent about 90 % of the total TEMPUS budget, are 
consortia of at least one institution of higher education from a CEE partner country and partner 
organisations from at least two different EU Member States, one of which must be a higher 
education institution. JEP grants are designed to promote the development and reform of higher 
education in the CEE countries and to encourage cooperation between higher education 
institutions of the CEE countries and higher education institutions, enterprises and other 
organisations of the EU Member States. Institutions, organisations and enterprises from G24 
countries may participate as partners in a JEP consortium. There are four basic areas in which 
activities can take place: structural development, cooperative educational activities, staff and stu­
dent exchange. 
Mobility Grants serve to support mobility of university staff, staff of enterprises and students in 
both directions. In the second year of TEMPUS I the Individual Mobility Grants (IMGs) for students 
were discontinued. From that time on student mobility was only supported within the framework of 
a JEP. 
Complementary Measures under TEMPUS I provide support for four, in the last year of TEMPUS I 
for five groups of activities. Complementary Measures projects in the first three groups comprise 
information, publication and research activities about TEMPUS matters as well as the integration 
of CEE associations into European ones and are called CMEs; activities in the fourth group are 
Youth Exchange Projects (YEX), and projects in the fifth group which was introduced in 1993/94, 
are carried out in the framework of Joint European Networks (JENs). 
There are three groups of countries eligible for participation in the TEMPUS/Phare Programme: 
- eleven Central and Eastern European Countries supported in the framework of Phare, 
- originally twelve, meanwhile fifteen EU Member States, 
- and the remaining G24 countries not being members of the European Union, namely Australia, 
Canada, Iceland, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the 
U.S.A. 
There are three groups of institutions or organisations which can participate in the TEM­
PUS/Phare Programme: 
- "Universities": universities and other higher education institutions accredited in their respective 
country as well as consortia of higher education institutions, such as ERASMUS ICPs or 
COMETT UETPs. 
- Enterprises: enterprises or companies in the strict sense. 
- Organisations: other kinds of organisations, such as professional or scientific organisations, 
industrial federations, trade unions, employers organisations, chambers of commerce, etc. 
Since the start of the TEMPUS Programme preference was given to project applications planning 
to develop and establish activities in so-called priority areas which were identified by the Central 
and Eastern European countries. Priority areas were supposed to be closely linked to the Phare 
priorities and then translated into fields and disciplines of university studies. Over time, the 
process of establishing these priorities did not only become more and more complex involving a 
consultative process with a number of policy makers in the CEE partner countries as well as in 
the EU Commission, but also the priorities themselves frequently became increasingly detailed 
frequently became increasingly detailed and were given an increased importance for the 
selection of applications. In this process they became more detailed and refined and were 
formulated as a mixture of structural or thematic and subject-related priorities. 
The selection procedure of JEP applications is a co-determination process involving the 
Commission and the CEE partner countries in several stages. 
As a rule, JEP applications are assessed in terms of four different aspects. The technical 
assessment is concerned with completeness and correctness of all forms and a check 
whether all letters of endorsement are submitted. The initial quality grading is a first check 
on the consistency and academic level of the proposed activities as well as on the distribu­
tion of tasks, the level of cooperation among partners and the management of the proposed 
project. The third aspect concerns the assessment by academic experts in terms of corre­
spondence with national needs and academic quality of the proposals. The last assessment 
is more concerned with the correspondence of applications with the overall TEMPUS and 
Phare objectives and national higher education policies and involves the NTOs, Phare re-
sponsibles as well as the Ministers of Higher Education from the CEE countries and the EU 
Commission. 
The selection of applications for Individual Mobility Grants (IMGs) also has a number of 
stages but is a less complex procedure. The NTOs receive and assess the applications 
from academic staff of their own country, the EC TEMPUS Office receives and assesses 
the applications from academic staff of the EU Member States. The EC TEMPUS Office 
then coordinates the submission of all IMG applications to the Commission for approval of 
those proposed for support. After the Commission has approved the selection of proposals 
the contracts are issued by the EC TEMPUS Office. Contracts for academic staff from the 
CEE countries are sent to the NTOs for distribution. 
3. The Quantitative and Structural Development of Joint European Projects 
During the first three years of TEMPUS the number of Joint European Projects, the number 
of participating organisations and the number of partners increased continuously. In the 
fourth year, however, only a few new activities were awarded grants. Altogether 749 Joint 
European Projects were awarded support. About 6,150 partners from 2,200 organisations 
were involved in the TEMPUS I JEPs. 
Joint European Projects comprised about 8 partners on average. Between two and three of 
these partners were from Central or Eastern European countries while the majority was 
from Western countries. About 80 percent of the partners represented higher education 
institutions, 8 percent enterprises and 12 percent other organisations. 
The proportion of Joint European Projects involving partners from enterprises was more or 
less stable over the time (about one quarter). However, the proportion of JEPs comprising 
only higher education institutions increased from 44 percent in the first year of TEMPUS to 
62 percent in 1993/94. The proportion of JEPs involving other organisations decreased from 
48 percent to 28 percent. 
Higher education institutions participated on average in four Joint European Projects. In 
contrast to this, participation in more than one JEP was rather an exception for enterprises 
and other organisations. 
Slightly more than one third of the JEPs involved one Central or Eastern European country 
and two Western countries, i.e. the minimal configuration required for TEMPUS support. A 
single CEE country and three or more partners from EU or other "G24" countries partici­
pated in 42 percent of JEPs (see Table 3.1). About one fifth of the JEPs were "multi-CEE 
JEPs", i.e. included organisations from two or more of CEE countries. The proportion of 
multi-CEE JEPs was highest (37 percent) in 1990/91, and decreased continuously to only 8 
percent of those newly established in 1993/94. 
Table 3.1 
Country Configuration of TEMPUS Joint European Projects, by Year of Start (percent 
of JEPs*) 
Year of start Total 
1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 
1 CEE and 2 EU Member States 32 36 43 23 37 
1 CEE and 3 or more EU or other 
Western countries 32 44 42 69 42 
Multi-CEE 36 20 15 8 21 
Total 100 100 100 100 100 
OT) (152) (318) (240) (39) (749) 
* Configuration of JEPs in the first year of TEMPUS-support. Not including possible changes in the configuration 
during the second or third year of operation of the JEP. 
Source: Database of the European Training Foundation 
In absolute numbers, Poland, Hungary and the former Czechoslovakia were the most often 
represented Central and Eastern European countries in Joint European Projects whereas 
the Baltic States and Albania participated each in only about two percent of the JEPs. 
Among the EU Member States, the United Kingdom participated most often in TEMPUS 
Joint European Projects (62 percent). Germany participated in 47 percent and France in 41 
percent of TEMPUS JEPs. The Netherlands (31 percent) were strongly represented. Each 
of the non-EU G24 countries, which did not receive TEMPUS support for their activities, was 
represented in less than 5 percent of the JEPs (see Table 3.2). 
Altogether, about one quarter of the TEMPUS Joint European Projects were coordinated by 
partners from Central or Eastern European countries. The respective proportion increased 
from 28 percent of the JEPs starting in the second year of TEMPUS, to 32 percent in the 
third year and 52 percent in the fourth year. Partners from Hungary (6 percent), Romania (5 
percent) and Poland (4 percent) more often acted as coordinators of JEPs than.partners 
from the other CEE countries. The 'contractor' function was only taken over in a few cases 
(4 percent) by partners from Central or Eastern Europe. 
Partners from the United Kingdom were clearly dominant in taking the role of JEP coordina­
tors and/or contractors. Many other coordinators and contractors were from France, Ger­
many and the Netherlands, whereby the frequency of management functions by and large 
reflected the frequency of involvement on the part of EU Member States. 
Two subject areas were strongly supported in Joint European Projects during the first phase 
of TEMPUS: engineering/applied sciences (20 percent) and management/business admini­
stration (18 percent). Undoubtedly these two areas were seen as most important for the 
economic development of the Central and Eastern European countries. All other subject 
areas were represented by less than 10 percent each: social sciences (9 percent), com­
puter sciences (8 percent), medical sciences and environmental protection (7 percent each), 
while we note the humanities, art and design, architecture/urban planning and law at the 
end of the scale (1-2 percent each) (see Table 3.3). 
7 
Table 3.2 
Number of TEMPUS Joint European Projects, Partners and Organisations 1990/91 -
1993/94 per CEE and Western Country (absolute number and percent*) 
* All partners and organisations; including those not participating the whole period. 
Source: Data base of the European Training Foundation ALB 
BG 
CZ 
cs1) 
GDR1) 
EE 
H 
LT 
LV 
PL 
RO 
SK 
SLO 
YU1) 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
GR 
I 
IRL 
L 
NL 
P 
UK 
AT 
AUS 
CDN 
CH 
Fl 
J 
N 
SE 
TR 
USA 
Total . Joint European Projects 
Number Percent 
14 1.9 
89 11.9 
81 10.8 
170 22.7 
12 1.6 
18 2.4 
211 28.2 
18 2.4 
20 2.2 
258 34.4 
109 14.6 
46 6.1 
44 5.9 
71 9.5 
203 27.1 
349 46.6 
97 13.0 
168 22.4 
304 40.6 
117 15.6 
85 11.3 
219 29.2 
2 0.3 
231 30.8 
81 10.8 
467 62.3 
34 4.5 
4 0.5 
7 0.9 
11 1.5 
36 4.8 
3 0.4 
14 1.9 
32 4.3 
3 0.1 
29 3.9 
749 100.0 Partner 
Number Percent 
16 0.3 
177 2.9 
168 2.7 
143. 2.3 
19 0.3 
24 0.4 
512 8.3 
27 0.4 
32 0.5 
514 8.4 
209 3.4 
62 1.0 
68 1.1 
62 1.0 
317 5.2 
634 10.3 
148 2.4 
236 3.8 
668 10.9 
164 2.7 
379 6.2 
98 1.6 
2 0.0 
366 6.0 
101 1.6 
798 13.0 
4 0.1 
4 0.1 
7 0.1 
12 0.2 
38 0.6 
4 0.1 
16 0.3 
36 0.6 
3 0.0 
35 0.6 
6146 100.0 Organisations 
Number Percent 
4 0.2 
60 2.9 
56 2.6 
39 1.8 
10 0.5 
9 0.4 
130 6.0 
13 0.6 
12 0.6 
163 7.5 
77 3.5 
22 1.0 
24 1.1 
27 1.1 
100 4.6 
228 10.5 
64 2.9 
74 3.4 
354 16.3 
60 2.8 
131 6.0 
24 1.1 
2 0.1 
105 4.8 
34 1.6 
243 11.2 
21 1.0 
2 0.1 
5 0.2 
8 0.3 
16 0.7 
2 0.1 
8 0.4 
16 0.7 
3 0.1 
30 1.4 
2171 100.0 
8 
Table 3.3 
Subject Area of TEMPUS Joint European Projects, by Year of Start (percent of JEPs) 
Year of start 
1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 Total 
Agricultural sciences/agrobusiness 4 
Humanities/philological sciences 1 
Social sciences 7 
Management and business 24 
Natural sciences and mathematics 7 
Medical sciences 6 
Engineering studies/applied sciences 18 
Computer sciences 8 
Environmental protection 7 
Architecture, urban/regional planning 1 
Art and design 1 
Language studies 7 
Teacher training 3 
Law 3 
Other subjects 5 6 
2 
9 
17 
6 
7 
23 
8 
5 
2 
2 
7 
3 
2 
2 6 
1 
10 
16 
6 
9 
19 
8 
8 
3 
0 
4 
5 
2 
3 15 
3 
8 
13 
10 
10 
13 
10 
3 
3 
0 
3 
8 
0 
3 6 
1 
9 
18 
6 
7 
20 
8 
7 
2 
1 
6 
4 
2 
3 
Total 
(n) 100 
(152) 100 
(318) 100 
(238) 100 
(39) 100 
(747) 
Source: Data base of the European Training Foundation 
The proportion of Joint European Projects established in the various subject areas changed 
significantly over time. The proportion of newly established JEPs in business administration 
decreased from 24 percent in 1990/91 to 13 percent in 1993/94. JEPs in engineering in­
creased from 18 percent in the first year of TEMPUS to 23 percent in the second year and 
then decreased to 19 percent in the third year and to 13 percent in the fourth year. On the 
other hand the proportion of JEPs in agriculture, medical sciences and teacher training in­
creased continuously. 
Most of the JEPs were concerned with activities in several areas of support: 15 percent were 
awarded TEMPUS support for all three areas (cooperative educational measures, structural 
development of the CEE institutions and mobility of students and staff), and more than half 
for two areas each: 22 percent for cooperative educational measures and for structural de­
velopment, 22 percent for cooperative educational measures and for mobility of students and 
staff, and 7 percent for structural development and for mobility of students and staff. The 
remaining 34 percent of the JEPs received TEMPUS support only for activities in a single 
area. 
Activities differed according to subject areas. Joint European Projects in computer sciences 
(68 percent), engineering (55 percent) and natural sciences (48 percent) were concerned 
most frequently with upgrading of facilities whereas this activity only played a marginal role in 
teacher training (13 percent), art and design (14 percent), management sciences (16 per­
cent) and social sciences (17 percent). Support for mobility of students and staff was 
awarded to all JEPs in arts and design and to 79 percent in language studies but only to 38 
percent in law. Curriculum development was most common in architecture (83 percent) and 
engineering (68 percent) and least frequent in art and design (43 percent) and teacher 
training (45 percent). 
Altogether 16,891 students were awarded mobility grants in the framework of Joint European 
Projects. The vast majority of these grants (87 percent) were provided to students from 
Central and Eastern Europe to spend a period abroad in an EU Member State. TEMPUS 
was expected from the outset to serve primarily students from CEE countries. The number of 
mobility grants awarded to students increased from 1,218 in 1990/91 to 6,408 in 1992/93 
and then decreased slightly to 6,166. Poland and Hungary clearly stood out in the number of 
students sent to the EU but also in the number of students received from Member States of 
the EU. 
TEMPUS mobility grants for academic and administrative staff were provided for a broad 
range of activities. Altogether, about 26,000 staff members received grants during the first 
phase of TEMPUS. About 60 percent went from Central and Eastern European countries to 
EU Member States. West-East mobility was substantially more frequent for staff than for 
students. The number of mobility grants awarded to staff increased from 1,308 in 1990/91 to 
9,870 in 1992/93 and then slightly decreased to 9,518 in 1993/94. Poland, Hungary and Ro­
mania were most active in the exchange of staff members. 
Due to the full-funding approach of TEMPUS and the ambitious and expensive activities 
supported, Joint European Projects were awarded about 400 000 ECU on average over a 
period of three years. The average annual support increased from 100 000 ECU in the first 
year to 150 000 ECU in the second and 166 000 ECU in the third year of operation (see Ta­
ble 3.4). 
Table 3.4 
Average Amount of TEMPUS-Support Allocated to Joint European Projects in Each 
Year of Operation, by Year of Start (mean in ECU) 
Year of start Total 
Year of operation 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 
First year 105,279 86,042 122,356 111,072 102,874 
(152) (315) (237) (39) (743) 
Second year 158,484 146,829 149,906 * 150,388 
(134) (275) (220) (629) 
Third year 180,169 159,096 * * 166,311 
(126) (242) (368) 
Source: Database of the European Training Foundation 
* Information not available 
TEMPUS funds allocated for administrative matters of the Joint European Projects increased 
on average slightly from about 44 000 ECU in the first year of operation to about 50 000 
ECU in the third year, whereby its proportion of the overall annual budget decreased from 48 
percent to 35 percent. 
TEMPUS funds allocated for the provision of equipment remained more or less stable during 
the years of operation of the Joint European Projects (about 30 000 ECU per year). How­
ever, the proportion of TEMPUS funds allocated for equipment decreased from 30 percent in 
the first year of operation to 20 percent in the third year. Mobility funds increased substan­
tially from 30 000 ECU on average in the first year of operation to 86 000 ECU in the third 
10 
year, i.e. from 22 percent to 45 percent of the overall annual budget. The role of mobility 
increased notably in Joint European Projects newly established in 1992/93 or 1993/94. 
In each of the first three years of TEMPUS, about 40 projects each were awarded support 
for Complementary Measures (not including youth exchange). In 1993/94, the last year of 
TEMPUS I, the number of projects decreased to 19. Slightly less than half of complementary 
measures project were concerned with surveys and studies, about one third with publication 
and provision of information and about one quarter of the projects received support for es­
tablishment and fostering associations and consortia of higher education institutions. 
During the first phase of TEMPUS grants were awarded for Youth Exchange between CEE 
partner and Western countries. Because this activity was generally considered as not much 
linked to the other activities supported by the TEMPUS Programme, it was discontinued by 
the end of TEMPUS I. The number of Youth Exchange projects was 65 in 1990/91, 66 in 
1991/92, 106 in 1992/93 and 114 in 1993/94. On average, about 300 young people partici­
pated in one project. Information about the home country of participants and the directions of 
mobility is not available. 
4. The Administration of the TEMPUS Programme in the CEE Partner 
Countries 
The TEMPUS Programme is highly appreciated and can be considered as successful in the 
CEE partner countries. Nevertheless, the role of the EU is sometimes still somewhat too 
prescriptive and not living up to their own promotion of moving "from assistance to partner­
ship". The growing expertise which was found in several CEE partner countries in terms of 
acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary for successful participation in and local ad­
ministration of European education programmes is not always adequately recognized and 
taken into account by EU key actors. 
Against the background of the key areas of national policy formation and the various inter­
ests of the actors involved in the respective processes and procedures, TEMPUS can be 
characterised as a programme needing a continuous formal as well as informal dialogue of 
all actors involved. The procedures which have been established in all CEE partner countries 
to arrive at the necessary policy decisions do not clearly separate actors and levels of deci­
sion-making power (e.g. supra-national, national, institutional level) but rather have intensi­
fied the efforts at coordination and cooperation. 
In all CEE countries similar models and procedures have been developed to ensure the nec­
essary coordination processes. In all countries bodies have been created - called TEMPUS 
advisory or supervisory boards or TEMPUS steering committees - in which all relevant actors 
are members and groups of actors are represented. The main functions of these boards are 
to balance the various interests coming into play in the steering of the TEMPUS Programme 
and to give legitimacy to TEMPUS policy decisions. 
The National TEMPUS Offices play a major role for TEMPUS policy formation and decision­
making which goes far beyond their official and primarily administrative tasks. They have 
frequently become a moderator in case of conflicts among key actors of TEMPUS. More 
important, however, the task of preparing all major policy decisions by drafting proposals or 
recommendations which are widely accepted by the other actors has been informally dele­
gated to them in many of the CEE countries. This is due to an increasing proficiency and 
professionalisation. 
Towards the end of the TEMPUS I period we found a relatively smooth functioning of policy 
formation including all relevant actors and a routinized steering and administration of the 
TEMPUS Programme in almost all CEE countries. Because of the increased profes­
sionalisation of the National TEMPUS Offices and the work of the national TEMPUS advisory 
11 
or supervisory boards there was a high degree of stability and continuity in the operation of 
the Programme on the national level. 
The example of the EU Delegation in Romania shows that there is a certain role to play in 
TEMPUS for EU Delegations in the CEE partner countries which goes beyond support in 
legal matters, although help is needed and provided in this respect in several countries. As 
long as a visible commitment to and involvement in national TEMPUS policies is offered in 
the form of expert advice rather than programme control or administrative control it has pos­
sibly helped to improve links between Phare and TEMPUS and thus, impacts of TEMPUS 
Programme itself. 
The role of the Education Ministries in TEMPUS related processes of policy formation and 
decision-making varies from country to country but is generally not highly pro-active. Many of 
the tasks involved in filling out these responsibilities are delegated to the TEMPUS advisory 
or supervisory boards which are usually chaired by a representative of the Ministry of Edu­
cation. The lack of national higher education development plans in most CEE partner coun­
tries has contributed to the fact that there was no real basis for a focussed and overall strat­
egy to provide a framework for TEMPUS activities. To a certain degree ministerial involve­
ment in and procedural commitment to TEMPUS also seemed to be dependent on the pro­
portion of TEMPUS support in the overall budget for higher education in any one of the CEE 
partner countries. 
With regard to the actual influence of the Phare representatives on the TEMPUS Programme 
three partly contradictory conclusions can be drawn: 
- In some CEE countries conflicts between Phare and TEMPUS actors about the direction 
and the administration of the TEMPUS Programme are existing but the relatively smooth 
cooperation as regards the establishment of the budget for TEMPUS was on the whole 
remarkable. Compared to its other sub-programmes Phare has allocated considerable 
funds to TEMPUS which can be seen as an indicator for the high value assigned to the 
reform and renewal of higher education on the national level. During TEMPUS I the 
overall TEMPUS budget has increased in absolute figures as well as in percentage of the 
national Phare budget. 
- Content related criteria or conditions had no major importance for budget negotiations. 
Although Phare preferences were taken into consideration to a certain extent in recom­
mendations or decisions of the TEMPUS advisory boards, the allocation of the TEMPUS 
budget was done as a lump sum determination based on the TEMPUS budget of the 
previous year and the annual Phare indicative programme. The incompatibility of Phare 
and TEMPUS decision-making schedules and sequences contributed to the choice of 
lump sum budget negotiations rather than direct allocation to selected projects and activi­
ties as is the case in the other Phare sub-programmes. 
- While the first overall objective of TEMPUS is to support higher education reforms and 
renewal in the CEE partner countries, its second overall objective is to contribute to eco­
nomic restructuring of the CEE countries involved. During TEMPUS I the attention of 
some the Phare responsibles increasingly focused on this second TEMPUS objective and 
efforts have been undertaken to better define the links between TEMPUS and Phare. 
Nevertheless, we still found quite frequently an avoidance of overlaps or complementarity 
between TEMPUS projects and other Phare activities. In none of the CEE countries a 
policy of matching TEMPUS and other Phare resources or initiating cooperation of proj­
ects (e.g. in fields like environmental protection, urban planning or transport) was visible. 
Phare representatives became involved mostly in the context of general educational pol­
icy discussions for TEMPUS. The possibility of sector or subject specific relations be­
tween Phare and TEMPUS activities was not seen as an important issue. 
Representatives of the higher education institutions are usually involved in TEMPUS policy 
formation through their membership in the TEMPUS advisory or supervisory boards. On the 
institutional level a certain amount of infrastructural support and services has been provided 
12 
for the TEMPUS activities in the faculties and departments. However, apart from formal con­
sent by signing the letters of endorsement strategic management which would integrate 
TEMPUS activities into an institutional development plan could be found only in exceptional 
cases. To a considerable degree this is due to the fact that faculties and departments have a 
high degree of autonomy and often prefer to organize TEMPUS related matters themselves. 
TEMPUS support during TEMPUS I tended to concentrate and thus, to open a gap between 
the haves and the have-nots concerning institutions as well as faculties and departments, 
and even among individual academic staff members in terms of the accumulation of new 
knowledge and international contacts. 
Striving for sensible balances is more often the result in those CEE countries in which aca­
demic experts are cooperating in the assessment and have to reach an agreement concern­
ing their recommendations as a group. Concentration on quality regardless of possible im­
balances in the chances for successful applications and distribution of funds is frequently a 
result in those CEE countries in which the names of the academic experts are kept secret 
and experts don't know each other. 
Towards the end of TEMPUS I a broader coverage of subject areas had been achieved ei­
ther through introduction of balancing mechanisms into the priorities (i.e. additional prefer­
ences and conditions) or by rotation. 
The process of establishing national TEMPUS priorities has been refined in most of the CEE 
countries during the TEMPUS I period and priorities are widely accepted and acknowledged. 
Concern about the validity of published priorities for the selection of applications was only 
voiced in those two cases in which priorities were changed by the EU Commission and then 
published without feed-back to the national actors. 
The level of funding of TEMPUS activities is mostly sufficient and satisfying. More problems 
are caused by delays in the transfer of grants and funds. A positive development has been 
the growing awareness to make arrangements for the time when TEMPUS support has 
ended so that achievements will not be lost. 
The impacts of such programme revisions as introduction of new JEP types and their dis­
continuation after a short time can disrupt the structure and the logic of the Programme as 
such and prevent the building up of a stable knowledge and routines in terms of planning of 
applications. 
Although the majority of applicants and JEP partners felt and still feel well informed about 
those TEMPUS aspects most relevant to them, information about national TEMPUS priorities 
often comes a bit too late to structure applications in such a way that they are fully complying 
with the priorities. 
5. Educational Activities in the JEPs 
5.1 Perceptions of the Policy Framework 
The TEMPUS Programme was obviously perceived in most of the Central and Eastern 
European universities, notably during the first years of the Programme, as a Manna falling 
from heaven: one could not fully explain why and how it came, it was a lot (for those who 
were blessed), and it was available only for the chosen few. 
The complex setting of the general rules of the TEMPUS Programme, their annual modifica­
tions and specifications by the European Commission, the national priorities possibly revised 
annually (both their distinct and their vague elements), a multitude of rumours about the 
"real" underlying political intentions and selection criteria created initially a considerable de­
gree of irritation. First, complaints were frequent about lack of information, notably during 
13 
first years TEMPUS support was provided in the respective country. In the beginning there 
was a noteworthy proportion of proposals the writers of which obviously had not been aware 
of the target areas, the national priorities and the publicly stated selection criteria. Second, 
the harsh watersheds of support, the inclusion of subject area x and exclusion of subject 
area y, the rich support for activity a and the complete neglect of activity b, were and still are 
regarded as somewhat arbitrary. 
Many potential participants from CEE countries perceived it as crucial to find smart, prestig­
ious and powerful partners in the West, even if their insight regarding the needs of the part­
ners in the CEE countries was limited. Many hoped that the right connections to the national 
government or to the various layers of the TEMPUS administration was essential. 
The major thrusts of TEMPUS support set by the Commission were largely seen as pre-con­
ditions one could not challenge. In some respects, the donor was perceived as being too 
almighty to be criticised. However, many of the beneficiaries and also of the losers in the 
competition for support considered the immediate needs in terms of equipment and the need 
for provision of opportunities for first encounters with higher education in the West as more 
urgent than the pursuit of heroic goals of curriculum development, than faculty restructuring 
or student exchange. This issue was more salient in countries in which TEMPUS was initially 
or even until today, more or less the only source of support for new equipment. Some bowed 
opportunistically, many eventually accepted the bundle of support as a reasonable strategy 
for their development. One area stood out where amazement and criticism continued to pre­
vail even after the initial uncertainties vanished: the Commission's strict emphasis on support 
for teaching without support for research. 
Most of those wishing to be awarded support by TEMPUS did not initially share the view that 
TEMPUS had a "bottom up"-approach. One rather felt very much at the mercy of a super­
structure of conditions and constraints irrespective, whether they were seen as the out­
growth of targeted policies from above, coincidental barriers or constraints due to inertia. 
Over the years, however, the beneficiaries in the CEE countries noted that conditions for 
support were relatively open and allowed for specific thrusts of innovation. 
There is hardly any generalisation possible about the ways the universities experienced and 
perceived national TEMPUS policies on the part of the eligible CEE governments. They were 
regarded as too diverse in the extent they were targeted or vague, or to the extent they met 
or questioned the views held by the various representatives of the higher education institu­
tions and departments. However, altogether we note that frequent changes of governments 
and vagueness of national policies were more often criticised in the interviews than very tar­
geted government policies, but we cannot exclude a bias of the interviews in this respect 
because the interviews addressed more beneficiaries of TEMPUS support than unsuccessful 
applicants. 
The nervous debates and the frequent policy changes in some countries harmed the con­
tinuous support over three years for the JEPs to a much lesser extent than it was initially 
feared. As already shown before, the proportion of PHARE support for TEMPUS was rela­
tively stable in most countries, and shifts of national priorities seldom led to a reduction or 
cancellation of support for already existing JEPs after the first or the second year of support. 
Altogether, we note a high level of trust at the higher education institutions as far as informa­
tion, advice and support of most of the National TEMPUS Offices are concerned. They were 
generally considered very supportive in their attitude to departments asking for advice, and 
the later the participants were awarded TEMPUS support for the first time, the more they 
underscored the role the National TEMPUS Office had played for the application. On top, 
they tend to be perceived as a rock in the various policy storms potentially affecting TEM­
PUS support. 
14 
5.2 The Institutional Setting 
Most persons involved and most external observers seem to agree that TEMPUS supported 
activities during the first four years of the TEMPUS Programme were more or less a matter 
of the respective faculties or departments \n the CEE partner countries. The university as an 
institution did not come into play very much in CEE countries: 
- Here and there, the prestige and the political influence of the rector or another top execu­
tive of the university was regarded as instrumental in influencing national" TEMPUS poli­
cies or as helpful in other ways of ensuring support for the decision to award grants to the 
respective JEP and department. 
- Resources for administrative support were mostly provided through decisions in the re­
spective departments, and funds to complement the TEMPUS supported activities were 
hardly made available at all. 
- The university administration was not infrequently viewed as inexperienced in those mat­
ters and not very supportive in their attitude. In some countries, however, a change to­
wards more active support of the departments involved in international cooperation 
seems to be underway. 
- TEMPUS support addressed the cooperating departments in an institutional environment 
prevailing in most CEE countries which was shaped considerably by a traditional and 
strong formal competence and influence of the faculty. 
At various institutions, a strengthening of the international offices was observed. This tended 
to be seen as helpful for information and for the improvement of some administrative proc­
esses. Few, however, considered this as becoming instrumental to major internationalisation 
policies of the respective university. 
Views varied less about the respective facts than about the question whether a more pro­
active role of the university administration should be deplored or not, how important coun-
termeasures were and in what direction they should head eventually. 
5.3 Financial Conditions 
In response to a respective question the majority of partners in Joint European Projects from 
Central and European countries rated the funds provided to them as "generous". However, 
the proportion of those rating the financial conditions positively was clearly smaller than the 
proportion of those praising the educational outcomes of JEP activities. Although the sums 
seem to be impressive, notably in those countries in which TEMPUS continues to be the 
major source of funding beyond funding of the basic institutional needs, limits always come 
into the picture as well: more would be helpful. This notwithstanding, the interviews confirm 
as well that the beneficiaries of TEMPUS tend to appreciate the amount provided rather than 
emphasizing the shortages which remain. 
It is very clear that concerns regarding financial issues on the part of beneficiaries primarily 
were expressed as regards the financial administration. Five issues deserve attention: 
- The delay of the provision of funds by the European Commission was viewed as the most 
serious drawback. Responses to the questionnaire show that the participants also note 
delays caused by the coordinators and contractors of JEPs, the banking problems, and 
the university administration in the CEE countries, but delays caused by the Commission 
were clearly viewed as the most deplorable aspect (see Table 5.1). 
- The problems of transfer of funds to CEE countries were serious notably in the first years, 
but continued in some countries for an extended period. Frequently, money had to be 
carried as cash, equipment had to be delivered personally, tickets had to be purchased in 
the West and mailed, etc. This inflated the administrative burden and frequently led to a 
reduction of educational activities originally envisaged. 
15 
- A considerable number of participants from the CEE countries were amazed to note that 
a considerable proportion of the TEMPUS funds eventually ended up in the West. This is­
sue will be addressed below (see 5.4). 
- Some interview partners criticised the TEMPUS administration for not allowing to use 
funds initially earmarked for certain activities to be eventually used for other activities. 
- An uncertainty was felt frequently as regards the continuity of funding. In practise, how­
ever, the JEPs established in TEMPUS I were provided support for an average period of 
2.8 years. In addition, the uncertainty was redressed in the last year of TEMPUS I by the 
introduction of a pluri-annual funding system. 
There is finally the issue of the three-year limit of support. This approach seems reasonable 
as a support device for reform "take-offs", but many beneficiaries mentioned drawbacks of 
this approach. A library support intended, for example, for the purchase of foreign periodicals 
is seen as a waste if the subscription has to be cancelled afterwards. Somewhat more than 
10 percent of the respondents to the questionnaire from the CEE countries observed already 
deficiencies of the laboratory or office equipments. Those deficiencies were possibly gravest 
in the most ambitious reform projects. Staff exchange might bear fruit, if not limited to a short 
period. Last but not least, a substantial proportion of the participants in the CEE countries 
pointed out that the development of teaching material stopped short of its implementation 
because no funds were available for printing or other means of material reproduction, espe­
cially textbook production. 
Table 5.1 
Financial Problems Encountered by the Departments Participating in JEPs, by Status 
of Respondent (percent*) 
Coordinator Coordinator Contractor 
and 
contractor Partner Total 
Delay in provision of the grant 
by.the European Commission 31 
Delay in provision of the grant 
by the bank 18 
Delay in provision of the grant 
by the JEP Contractor 1 
Delay in provision of the grant 
by your institution 7 
Difficulties with the institutional 
administration of the grant 14 
Difficulties with the administration 
of the grant within the JEP 8 
Unbalanced distribution of funds 
among partners 4 27 
24 
12 
6 
10 
8 
4 19 
17 
2 
18 
25 
12 
5 23 
20 
16 
5 
10 
7 24 
20 
14 
6 
11 
8 
7 
* Rating 1 or 2 on a scale from 1 = "very considerable" to 5 = "not at all" 
Question 4.14: Please state the extent to which your department encountered financial problems regarding the 
following aspects. 
Source: Survey "Experiences of JEP Contractors/Coordinators/Partners in the First Phase of TEMPUS" 
16 
Altogether, we note that the TEMPUS support by the end of TEMPUS I played a strikingly 
different role in the various CEE countries in the total setting of financial support for higher 
education reforms. While it was one of the available sources of support of innovation and 
renewal in some countries, it was the key fund beyond bare subsistence in others. 
5.4 Cooperation within the JEPs 
Most TEMPUS funds were made available for educational activities undertaken in the 
framework of networks comprising partners from the CEE partner countries and the West. In 
most cases, the cooperation within the Joint European Projects was positively assessed by 
the persons in charge at the participating departments from Central and Eastern European 
countries. 
The initiative for cooperation came frequently from the Western partners. Also, most partici­
pants from CEE countries interviewed emphasized that the Western partners dominated the 
scene initially. Many participants from the CEE countries were grateful for the initiative, inspi­
ration and effort shown by their Western partners. 
However, reservations were expressed not infrequently. There were many cases of high 
praise, but some cases of bitter criticism as well. Reservations were put forward notably in 
five directions: 
- The Western partners were often seen as having played a too dominant role, notably at 
the beginning of the cooperation. Some of the CEE partners underscored that they ac­
cepted uncritically reform concepts or proposals for activities which they later regretted 
when their knowledge about possible options had expanded. Communication was fre­
quently shaped by a status imbalance. If CEE partners noted a low academic quality of 
support from the West, they often did not dare to express their concerns or even to drop 
the respective partner. 
- As already noted, a considerable number of partners from CEE countries were amazed to 
note that their Western partners reserved substantial proportions of the TEMPUS support 
for themselves, though dramatic shortages were evident on the part of the CEE partners. 
Obviously, they expected more solidarity as regards the problems of the universities in 
the CEE countries. 
- On the other hand, most of the Western partners claimed that their administrative efforts 
were reimbursed only in part and the TEMPUS scheme was not financially attractive. 
- In response to the questionnaire, about one third each of the CEE participants reported 
that they were not fully informed about details of financial plans and accounts and that 
they did not receive copies of the reports sent to the Commission. About one tenth ex­
pressed strong criticism about the imbalance of the budget allocation between partners. 
- Finally, a considerable proportion of departments from CEE institutions faced problems of 
attracting partners from the West. 
Obviously, there were general dynamics in the cooperation between the partners: 
- The minimum configuration of two partners from the EC countries was not infrequently on 
paper only. In those cases, one partner from the West was in charge, while the other 
served as a "sleeping partner" to fulfil the official requirements. 
- The more partners were officially part of the network, the lower was the proportion of 
partners the participants from Central and Eastern European countries actively cooper­
ated with. 
- In various CEE countries more partners from the same country were taken on board. 
- The cooperation of departments from different CEE countries was stimulated by TEMPUS 
only to a limited extent. The proportion of "regional" or multi-CEE JEPs was small from 
17 
the beginning and was further reduced, although the survey suggests that "regional" JEPs 
were slightly more successful. 
- Other partners, i.e. enterprises or other organisations (for example research institutions), 
were frequently official partners within JEPs, but obviously most of them played neither a 
central role in the administration of the JEP nor in its major activities. 
These dynamics are so obvious that they call for a reconsideration. Should one Western 
partner be sufficient? Should cooperation with other partners be encouraged? What are the 
drawbacks and potentials of "regional" JEPs? 
Overall, the cooperation was frequently unbalanced because many representatives of the 
West considered themselves not only as donors and carriers of information, but also as aca­
demically superior partners. Over the years, however, the latter attitude changed somewhat. 
5.5 The Administration Functions of the JEP Participants 
The management of TEMPUS-related activities in general is viewed as a very important task 
in the CEE countries. Rectors, deans, vice-deans, heads of departments, their deputies or 
influential professors tend to be in charge. Partners from CEE countries without coordinating 
function report that they spent more than six hours on average per week for administrative 
functions related to the TEMPUS Programme. Those in charge of coordination spent about 
twice as much time on average. Some of them saw this function as advancing their aca­
demic career whereas others viewed them as a drawback, i.e. a reduction of their opportu­
nity to be academically active and productive. A gradual transfer of the coordination and 
contracting function from the Western to the CEE partners was viewed as a matter of 
course. 
Many participants from CEE countries wanted administrators of their department to be in 
charge of the administration of TEMPUS rather than administrators from the central level of 
the university. They saw the need to train the administrators and to be closely in touch with 
them. 
5.6 The Educational Activities 
Most participants of Joint European Projects were officially involved in all of the four major 
areas of educational activities supported by TEMPUS I, i.e. educational reform measures, 
structural development, staff mobility and student mobility. Undoubtedly, some considered 
the concurrent involvement in the various activities as a convincing reform approach. Some 
had clear preferences for a few of these activities, but got involved in the others in reaction 
to the support scheme and eventually put an emphasis on the combination of all activities. 
There are some participants as well for whom preferences for a few activities remained and 
the others were pursued only nominally or, if more than nominally, merely for the sake of 
being awarded support for what they conceived to be the core activities. 
Altogether, the extent to which ambitious reform goals were successfully pursued but not 
successfully implemented or rather pretended varied substantially. Most observers, however, 
seem to agree that the proportion of real success stories is remarkable and that useful 
changes could be observed in most cases. More than 90 percent of the JEP participants in 
the CEE countries expressed a high extent of satisfaction with the achievements eventually 
reached (see Table 5.2). 
18 
Table 5.2 
Overall Assessment of the Achievements of the JEP, by Country Group (percent) 
Country group Total 
CEE country Western country 
Very satisfied 59 32 43 
2 33 45 41 
3 7 15 12 
4 15 4 
Very dissatisfied 0 2 1 
Total 100 100 100 
(n) (685) (963) (1648) 
Question 10.10: How satisfied are you overall with the achievements which were accomplished with this JEP? 
Source: Survey "Experiences of JEP Contractors/Coordinators/Partners in the First Phase of TEMPUS" 
Staff development activities and intensive courses were frequently regarded to be useful as 
collective exercises of getting to ,know partners in other countries, their activities and their 
ways of thinking. In general, they are regarded as being useful to a similar extent as staff 
mobility. The impacts of acquiring a basic knowledge and becoming part of international 
networks of scholars were often seen as more important and more likely to be achieved than 
the official purpose stated for the individual measures. 
Curricular development and teaching material production varied in their intensity. More than 
half of the respondents to the questionnaire survey claimed that they undertook substantial 
changes. There was also quite a number of respondents who just modified individual 
courses or produced texts of minor relevance to the respective courses. In a few cases, it 
was not more than a franchising relationship: the Western partners just transferred their own 
modes and materials to the CEE partners. 
New equipment was the pride of the respective departments in the CEE' countries, often a 
cause of envy of the neighbours in the respective university and sometimes even of their 
partners in the West. While in some cases it was closely linked to the respective educational 
measures, it was in most cases seen as an improvement useful anyway, i.e. for the quality of 
educational activities in general, for easing future international cooperation, for supporting 
the research infrastructure, etc. Structural development met the highest consensus as being 
an important element of support. 
Student exchange tended to be regarded as very helpful for those actually going abroad, but 
altogether less intertwined with the other reform activities. Obviously, there were only few 
cases of close links between student exchange and the major thrusts of educational reform, 
notably because regular exchange of most students was not viewed as a feasible goal. In 
some cases, students or doctoral candidates were supported who were expected to serve as 
junior academic staff upon return. In this context it is worth noting that the "brain drain" effect 
of the TEMPUS Programme generally was seen as being small. 
19 
5.7 Outcomes and Impacts 
The first and most significant outcome of the TEMPUS activities obviously was the integra­
tion of the CEE partners into an international community of scholars and in some cases of 
administrators. They became accustomed to and versatile in this framework, they were inte­
grated into smaller and larger networks, and they received some training and generally im­
proved their competences and their status. 
Besides, the TEMPUS Programme had tremendous socialising impacts. The efforts under­
taken for improvement became feasible and worthwhile. Working in the framework of inter­
national networks became a promising innovation strategy. 
TEMPUS support ensured significant provision of equipment for most of the beneficiaries. In 
a substantial number of departments in CEE countries, far-reaching curricular innovations 
were achieved, and the development of new teaching material of a strategic nature was real­
ised frequently. Curricular development and other educational activities, however, varied 
substantially in scope and achievement. 
The outcomes in the CEE countries tend to depend on many factors. By and large, we note 
the highest appreciation of results in countries, institutions and departments which neither 
were relatively rich and prestigious nor were very poor and of little attraction to Western par­
ticipants. Thus, if we compare according to country, it may not come as a surprise to note 
that our findings suggest the highest assessment of the outcomes of TEMPUS support in 
Bulgaria. 
Compared to this, the rationales for supporting certain subject areas and not supporting oth­
ers could be viewed nowadays as having been somewhat arbitrary. National policies shifted 
not infrequently, good reasons could be presented for almost all and against almost all sub­
jects. The rating of achievements of the actual TEMPUS activities varied little according to 
subject area. 
The successes are mostly seen as achievements on select islands of innovation privileged to 
be chosen in the framework of the TEMPUS Programme. Impacts on the institutional setting 
remained moderate or mostly marginal (see Table 5.3). There are no reasons to assume, 
however, that substantial impacts or spin-offs for the respective institution of higher educa­
tion could be expected. If the major thrust is educational innovation within subject area net­
works, the spin-off within the institution tends to be limited as a matter of course. 
Table 5.3 
Accessibility of Equipment Acquired with TEMPUS Support (percentage of JEP partners 
from CEE countries purchasing respective equipment) 
Accessibility Computer Literature Lab eq. Office eq. 
Only for JEP department 44 21 46 59 
Other departments 31 20 31 21 
All depts. of institution 23 56 20 19 
Accessibility not specified 2 3 3 1 
Total 100 100 100 100 
(n) (537) (491) (287) (278) 
Question 7.3: What type of equipment was acquired and who has access to the equipment within the targeted 
institution? 
Source: Survey "Experiences of JEP Contractors/Coordinators/Partners in the First Phase of TEMPUS" 
20 
A substantial proportion of participants being actively involved in regional cooperation within 
the Central and Eastern European countries considered this as a worthwhile and promising 
experience. Some interview partners criticised that little has been done to spread successful 
experiences within the subject areas in the respective CEE country. Regional cooperation 
also could be more easily taken into account a few years after the rapid political change, and 
could also lead to more promising results than it might have been possible in the early 
1990s. 
6. The Institutions of Higher Education Participating in TEMPUS 
TEMPUS has supported institutions of higher education in Central and Eastern Europe 
which underwent substantial change since 1990. According to persons at the central level of 
the institutions responding to a respective questionnaire, about 40 percent of the degree 
programmes offered in 1995 had been newly established, almost 30 percent had changed 
substantially during that period, and only slightly more than 30 percent remained more or 
less unchanged. 
According to those in charge at the central level of higher education institutions, TEMPUS 
has strongly helped to establish international contacts and substantially contributed to staff 
exchange (see Table 6.1). At many institutions, its contribution to the improvement of 
equipment and to its various educational targets is remarkable. There is a lesser impact, 
though, on staff development, reorganisation of course programmes and on university man­
agement. Also, the faculties and departments involved in JEPs are frequently viewed as 
more active than others in change-oriented educational activities, but not so much more ac­
tive in administrative rearrangements and university-industry relationships. Altogether half of 
the respondents concluded that TEMPUS activities have had a strong impact on the 
changes that took place at their institution. 
TEMPUS activities have some impact beyond the respective institution of higher education. 
As many as half of the respondents stated that teaching material developed at their institu­
tion in the context of TEMPUS cooperation became a standard in the respective country, 
and about one third reported a similar dissemination of course programme developments in 
JEPs (see Table 6.2). 
The central level at higher education institutions jn Central and Eastern Europe is not seen 
as weak by the respondents as far as contributions to change are concerned. Thus, it does 
not come as a surprise that many ways are stated in which the central level encourages in­
ternational activities, supports project activities administratively and provides various related 
services. What remained an exception though, is financial support from the central level to 
the faculties involved in JEPs and facing the need for complementary funding. 
Most of the institutions claim to undertake strategic planning in the framework of which some 
or all TEMPUS activities are strongly emphasized. However, the central level plays an active 
role in setting objectives for TEMPUS applications only at one seventh of the institutions. At 
one tenth of the institutions, applications were sometimes not confirmed by letters of en­
dorsement. 
The findings of the survey suggest that a strong involvement of the central level and strate­
gic planning emphasizing TEMPUS might be helpful here and there. On average, however, 
the perceived success of TEMPUS activities at the faculties and departments does not seem 
to differ strikingly according to the extent in which the central institutional level is involved. 
21 
Table 6.1 
Perceived Contribution of TEMPUS to the Change at Institutions of Higher Education 
in Central and Eastern Europe, by Number of JEPs (percent of institutions) 
Substantial contribution of TEMPUS to change* 
Number of JEPs 
1-2 3-5 6-10 Hand Total 
more Substantial changes occurring** 
Number of JEPs 
1-2 3-5 6-10 Hand Total 
more 
Establishment of interna­
tional academic contacts 56 
Increase of staff exchange 63 
Improvement of equipment 
e.g. computer centres, 
laboratories, libraries etc. 61 
Introduction of new 
teaching methods 56 
Establishment of new 
course programmes 50 
Increase of student 
exchange 47 
Introduction of new 
contents/paradigms 57 
Establishment of interna­
tional research cooperation 33 
Reorganisation of staff de­
velopment and continuous 
education programmes 38 
Establishment of new 
faculties/departments 29 
Changes of the degree 
structures 18 
Reorganisation of higher 
education management 0 
Establishment of cooper­
ation between institution 
and industry/commerce 8 
Establishment of technolo­
gy transfer units or centres 9 
Reorganisation of admini­
strative structures and 
procedures 8 64 
52 
63 
44 
43 
44 
60 
29 
26 
17 
29 
15 
16 
0 71 
68 
62 
55 
70 
53 
52 
30 
27 
29 
25 
9 
10 
11 
0 82 
90 
69 
82 
64 
83 
61 
43 
42 
35 
24 
17 
8 
14 
14 70 
69 
64 
60 
59 
58 
57 
34 
33 
27 
25 
11 
10 
9 76 76 88 86 
67 44 82 72 
76 72 82 79 
53 48 45 59 
75 68 76 67 
63 44 55 83 
62 72 55 74 
50 38 43 64 
38 42 23 35 
56 52 57 59 
43 57 30 42 
13 14 25 38 
21 11 16 16 
29 5 29 13 
7 26 27 22 83 
68 
78 
51 
71 
61 
66 
49 
33 
56 
42 
24 
16 
19 
23 
* Percentage of respondents stating 1 or 2 on a scale from 1 = "very substantial changes" to 5 = "no changes at 
all" among all responding to the respective area 
** Percentage of respondents stating 1 or 2 on a scale from 1 = "very substantial contribution" to 5 = "no changes 
at all" among all responding to the respective area 
Question 3.5: Please rate the extent to which changes occurred since about 1990 at your higher education insti­
tution in the following areas and the extent to which TEMPUS activities contributed to these changes. 
Source: Survey on the development and restructuring of institutions participating in TEMPUS 
22 
Table 6.2 
Spin-off Activities from the TEMPUS Activities at the Higher Education Institution, by 
Number of Full Time Students (percent; multiple reply possible) 
Current full time students Total 
Up to 1000 1001 - 2501 - 5001 and 
2500 5000 more 
Formal partnership agreements with 
the partner institution(s) 46 59 48 83 60 
Teaching material developed in TEMPUS 
projects becomes a standard in the country 46 55 48 57 51 
Establishment of special units/courses 
for language training 27 23 31 50 34 
Courses/course programmes developed 
were adopted by other institution(s) in the 
country 38 32 38 27 34 
Introduction of a system for recognition 
of study periods abroad 27 23 38 37 32 
Provision of training courses for staff 
members from departments/institutions 
not involved in TEMPUS 23 36 28 33 30 
Establishment of special unit/office 
responsible for international activities 8 23 21 43 24 
Membership of department/institution in 
international networks 12 9 17 33 19 
Establishment of inter-library loans services 12, 14 14 7 11 
Other 0 0 3 3 2 
Not ticked 12 5 3 3 6 
Total 250 277 290 377 302 
(n) (26) (22) (29) (30) (107) 
Question 3.17: Are there any spin-off activities from the TEMPUS activities at your higher education institution? 
Source: Survey on the development and restructuring of institutions participating in TEMPUS 
Most internal problems being named by those providing information from the perspective of 
the central institutional level concerned the provision of resources: notably covering the costs 
not borne by TEMPUS funds and pre-financing of activities because the receipt of TEMPUS 
funds was delayed. 
Most institutions of higher education in Central and Eastern Europe tend to be more or less 
satisfied with the communication with their National TEMPUS Offices and with the informa­
tion flow in general. If problems of information are expressed, they are likely to imply criti­
cism as far as the acceptance of decisions and their transparency are concerned. On the 
other hand, about a third of the respondents believe that their institution has some influence 
on the priorities set and almost one quarter stated that it has some influence on the pre­
selection of JEPs. 
Persons from the central level of the CEE higher education institutions confirm the problem 
also stated by JEP partners from CEE countries concerning the delays in the transfer of 
funds. Delays of funds seem to be most frequently the source of problems whereby delays 
23 
caused by the Commission are more frequently named (by more than one third) than those 
caused by the TEMPUS contractor at the partner institution (by about one quarter of the re­
spondents). 
The actors on the central level of higher education institutions notably advocated an in­
creased flexibility of the funding arrangements, further a continuation and increase of TEM­
PUS support and a decrease of bureaucracy, as far as details of book-keeping and reporting 
are concerned. Some changes of the overall administrative procedures are called for, and 
some suggest a reconsideration of priorities whereby increased student mobility is favoured 
most often. 
7. Final Assessment 
^ (1) The TEMPUS Programme is characterised by a complex dynamic of decision­
making and administration which has to (a) ensure a balance between the Western ini­
tiators and donors and the CEE partner countries; (b) establish a balance between the 
autonomous views of the higher education institutions and the economic and social 
demands of society; (c) involve a broad range of actors; (d) ensure a smooth coordina­
tion of the various stages of programme-related decision-making and the selection and 
award processes. In theory there is a clear model of stages of decisions in which a 
single key actor is defined for each stage. In practice, however, the inter-relationships 
of the various stages as well as the constant overlaps have created a centripetal pres­
sure towards (a) a single major decision-making arena, and (b) a managerial unit 
serving as a moderator for most key administrative processes. The national TEMPUS 
advisory or supervisory boards serve the former and the National TEMPUS Offices 
serve the latter function. The establishment of national TEMPUS advisory or supervi­
sory boards in all CEE countries to serve as an arena for dialogue and cooperation of 
all key actors involved in TEMPUS policy decisions has turned out to be a reasonable 
option for the necessary coordination processes. The functioning of these boards re­
quires the willingness of all actors to cooperate with each other. If this is not the case, 
the decision-making and operation of the TEMPUS Programme becomes vulnerable 
on the national level. 
^ (2) Although the dynamic conditions and aims of the TEMPUS Programme are fre­
quently emphasized, actual changes in the structure and activities of the Programme 
were rather moderate during TEMPUS I. There are two reasons which might have 
contributed to this: (a) Because of existing regulations and arrangements for the financ­
ing of JEPs the leeway for changes became smaller each year. The necessity to pro­
vide funding for a growing number of JEPs in their second and third year of operation 
on the basis of annual renewal applications gradually decreased the available amount 
of funding for new JEPs. (b) The supra-institutional decisions with regard to the annual 
revision of priorities and re-definitions of measures and activities in the TEMPUS Pro­
gramme did not disrupt the structure and logic of the Programme to such an extent 
that institutions were confronted with a discontinuation of existing project activities. 
^ (3) The major areas of support in JEPs were constructed as a bundle of activities: 
structural development, cooperative educational measures, staff and student mobility. 
The majority of JEPs opted for carrying out all four of these activities, although prefer­
ences for the provision of equipment and for staff mobility were clearly visible. The 
combination of all four activities contributed considerably to the success of curricular 
reforms. In addition, the bundle of activities in its current combination is also a pre­
ferred option for the future. Two deficits stand out, however. First, it was often regret­
ted that a contribution of TEMPUS to research was explicitly excluded. This exclusion 
24 
was difficult to understand because TEMPUS aims to contribute to structural reforms 
of higher education in countries in which there was previously an institutional separa­
tion of research and teaching and the integration and cross-fertilization of these tasks 
is considered to be one of the major targets of reform. Second, student mobility has 
been least integrated into the bundle of JEP activities. It was considered worthwhile for 
those who went abroad but less important in the context of the combined impact of the 
other three activities. Insofar, some open questions are left concerning the combination 
of activities eligible for support within JEPs. 
^ (4) Although we can state a certain degree of continuity in national policies and budget 
allocation procedures, the annual re-definition and re-determination of TEMPUS re­
sources and national priorities as well as their rather late announcement led to some 
disquiet among applicants and recipients of grants. Until the last moment they could 
not be sure whether their applications would match the priorities or whether their ac­
tivities would still coincide with policy decisions and further support would be granted. 
^ (5) The national TEMPUS priorities and their annual revision do not only reflect the 
divergence in the development of the various CEE partner countries but also deter­
mine the balance of participation as regards institutions and subject areas. During 
TEMPUS I a broader inclusion of various types and sizes of higher education institu­
tions has been achieved. Approximately 70 percent of all higher education institutions 
in the CEE partner countries participated in TEMPUS. Vis-à-vis the pronounced domi­
nance of business studies and engineering in the beginning of TEMPUS, a somewhat 
broader coverage of subjects can be stated for the second half of TEMPUS I. How­
ever, certain disciplines and subject areas are still rather underrepresented in TEM­
PUS which deserve stimulation for reform in the context of socio-economic transfor­
mation. 
^ (6) The distribution of tasks in the management of the TEMPUS Programme has 
changed considerably in the second half of TEMPUS I. The gradual political consolida­
tion and the continuing progress concerning the tranformation in the CEE partner 
countries as well as the increasing professionaljsation of the National TEMPUS Offices 
have led to a transfer of more and more responsibilities and tasks from the EC TEM­
PUS Office/TEMPUS Department in the ETF to the NTOs. This has not only influenced 
the relationship between the EC TEMPUS Office/TEMPUS Department in the ETF and 
the NTOs but the time seems to have come to reconsider the role and responsibilities 
of the EC TEMPUS Office/TEMPUS Department in the ETF. A higher degree of inde­
pendence of the NTOs might be connected with a different set of tasks for the TEM­
PUS Department in the ETF. 
^ (7) In general, the overall JEP grants were regarded as generous by most recipients 
from the CEE countries even though differences might exist among countries in what is 
considered as generous. Criticism concerning the amount of support awarded to JEPs 
was rather directed at issues of continuity in support. It was a typical feature in TEM­
PUS I that support came like "manna from heaven" and after three years it stopped 
without offering any solution to smooth the transition from the fat years to the meagre 
ones. With the introduction of JENs in the last year of TEMPUS I this problem has 
been somewhat redressed, but any radical take-off solution for TEMPUS award and 
support policies must be questioned. 
^ (8) Overall, the administrative process concerning the transfer of TEMPUS support and 
the inflexibility in utilization of funds was criticized by the recipients. The most serious 
criticism was voiced in terms of the delays in the transfer of funds for JEPs and mobil-
25 
ity grants. The causes for these delays were sometimes attributed to the banks and 
also to the JEP contractors. Most frequently, however, they were attributed to the 
transfer arrangements of the EU. Delays in the transfer of funds combined with typical 
project dynamics aggravate the problem of inflexibility in the utilization of funds, i.e. the 
impossibility to use funds for other than the ear-marked cost items even if there were 
delays in the transfer of specific funds (e.g. for mobility), if money could be saved be­
cause of spending less on certain activities than originally envisaged or if shifts in pri­
orities for certain activities occurred due to the dynamcis of a project. 
O (9) The higher education institutions are usually represented in the national TEMPUS 
advisory or supervisory boards. Thus, they participate in the annual establishment and 
revision of national TEMPUS priorities and can bring institutional interests and strate­
gies into play. In general, the higher education institutions are quite satisfied with the 
communication and information activities of the NTOs. There was no serious concern 
voiced with regard to the functioning of communication structures among higher edu­
cation institutions, JEP partners and actors on the national level. Furthermore, suffi­
cient feed-back opportunities exist in both directions: from the institutional to the na­
tional level and vice versa. 
^ (10) TEMPUS has contributed to substantial change at higher education institutions 
since 1990. Only slightly more than 30 percent of the degree programmes at institu­
tions responding to a respective questionnaire remained unchanged. TEMPUS has 
also helped strongly to establish international contacts and to organise staff exchange. 
It has had less consequences, however, for strategic planning. Overall, the perceived 
success of TEMPUS activities at the faculties and departments does not differ strik­
ingly according to the extent in which the central institutional level is involved. 
^ (11) Concerning the cooperation within the networks four issues should be pointed out: 
the relationship between CEE and Western partners, the number of partners within 
JEPs, the number of institutions from one country and the role of enterprises. 
- The relationship between CEE and Western partners is dominantly seen as friendly 
and cooperative. Many CEE partners are grateful for the tremendous amount of 
support and commitment they received from their Western partners. Cooperation 
has increased respect for each other. Nevertheless, complaints of CEE partners 
were not infrequent about a domineering attitude of some Western partners and the 
very high amount of administrative costs they sometimes claimed were necessary 
for their efforts. In contrast to this, Western partners frequently stated that TEMPUS 
support for their administrative costs would not by far cover all the direct and indi­
rect costs incurred. 
- Problems concerning the configuration among partners within JEPs varied accord­
ing to the size of the JEP. The more partners were officially part of the network, the 
lower was the proportion of partners with whom participants from CEE countries ac­
tively cooperated. Cooperation was more intensive in JEPs with a smaller number 
of partners. 
- In some CEE countries national governments stimulated the cooperation of several 
institutions from the same country within one JEP. This was done in order to reduce 
the imbalance of a few winners and many losers in the competition for TEMPUS 
support and provide an opportunity for less successful institutions to participate in 
TEMPUS and to acquire the necessary know-how for successful applications and 
JEP management. 
- On the whole, enterprises did not play a very strong role in JEP activities. The num­
ber of enterprises participating in JEPs decreased during the period of TEMPUS I. 
Frequently, enterprises were just "sleeping partners" or were merely involved by 
26 
offering places for internships. Higher education institutions did not comment much 
on the importance or influence of enterprise involvement in JEPs and did not state 
any preferences in this respect either. 
^ (12) JEPs in which partners from different CEE countries cooperated, i.e. multi-CEE or 
"regional" JEPs, were quite successful and offered special opportunities for trans-
border cooperation. The combination of decentralisation and nationalisation in TEM­
PUS promoted the influence of national priorities and did not only reduce the role of 
multi-CEE cooperation but also made successful applications considerably more diffi­
cult because they had to comply with the national priorities of two or more CEE partner 
countries. This development has reduced a certain potential and quality of cooperation 
which should be reconsidered. 
^ (13) Issues of administrative cooperation within the JEP networks and among the part­
ners as well as between the central level of the higher education institutions and the 
faculties and departments involved in JEP activities are frequently stated as a source 
of disagreement and differences in perception. However, a certain focal point in which 
these differences would concentrate is not visible and thus, a clear direction for change 
cannot be indicated. 
^ (14) The opportunity to build up personal contacts and to become integrated into an 
international community of scholars was certainly one of the most visible as well as 
highly appreciated impacts of TEMPUS for CEE partners. However, once such con­
tacts and cooperation are stabilized and have become normal the TEMPUS Pro­
gramme will lose its importance as the only or main source of opportunities for interna­
tional contacts and integration. 
^ (15) Impacts of TEMPUS concerning the modernisation of equipment and the renewal 
of teaching and learning have been highly rated by faculties and departments involved 
in TEMPUS. They were also more direct and visible than impacts in other areas of 
structural development supported by TEMPUS. It is therefore not surprising that, for 
example, substantial changes in the structure of degree programmes were undertaken 
less frequently and regarded less as a direct impact of TEMPUS activities in those 
cases in which such changes had been introduced. 
^ (16) Only towards the end of TEMPUS I has student mobility become more important 
in the perception of faculties and departments involved in TEMPUS activities. This is 
mainly due to the expectation that participation in SOCRATES will soon be possible for 
most of the CEE countries. In this context Mobility-JEPs are regarded as an appropri­
ate preparation. It must, however, be noted that TEMPUS support for student mobility 
can not be compared to ERASMUS student mobility. TEMPUS supported student 
mobility is not characterized by a reciprocity of exchanges, it is not as highly organised 
as in ERASMUS and also still lacks frequently curricular integration and recognition ar­
rangements. Student mobility in TEMPUS was, however, successfully used to a certain 
extent as an instrument in the selection of potential junior academic staff. 
^ (17) Spin-offs of educational and curricular activities for the same subjects and de­
partments at other higher education institutions in the country have been achieved 
within TEMPUS. A certain extent of dissemination of results and adoption of curricula 
and teaching material developed in the framework of JEPs can be noted, although it 
could be improved by increased support for dissemination, publication of material de­
veloped within JEPs and increased communication and exchange. The same kind of 
spin-offs were a potential of the multi-CEE JEPs and could have led to an exchange of 
27 
special curricular innovations or outstanding material and course programmes among 
CEE countries. Overall, the dissemination of results of JEP activities was not strongly 
promoted and supported during TEMPUS I. When TEMPUS support for JEPs ended 
after three years there was often no funding left over or no additional funding available 
to publish developed material or organize the dissemination of results. Spin-offs might 
also be increased if they were part the TEMPUS support system and if a more targeted 
approach towards dissemination of results were adopted. 
^ (18) The island character of innovation achieved by JEPs was a frequent and wide­
spread argument when JEP participants and actors on the central level of the institu­
tions were asked about possible spin-offs for the institutional setting. This is insofar 
understandable as subject-related activities do not automatically lead to spin-offs for 
the governance and administrative structures of the institution as a whole. The island 
character may, however, also be due to resistance against change from other aca­
demic staff members in the same faculty or department and/or to an unwillingness of 
those involved in the JEP to share innovation and new resources because there is a 
high degree of competition. 
^ (19) There are different perceptions of the JEP participants on the one hand and the 
central institutional level on the other about the service function of the central level for 
the JEP activities and the integration of JEP activities into an institutional development 
strategy. JEP participants perceive the support of activities through services offered by 
the central level of their institution as considerably lower than the central level itself. 
Various styles of institutional management do not seem to influence the success of 
JEP activities in any direct way. The validity of the different perceptions is hard to de­
termine apart from the fact that both sides direct their attention rather to new develop­
ments (i.e. in the framework of TEMPUS II) and base it less on an assessment of pre­
vious developments. 
In contrast to other European programmes, TEMPUS is bound to be unstable because of its 
logic. The reasons for this are: 
- The more successful TEMPUS is the more diminishes the role of its support provided to 
the CEE partner countries. 
- As a consequence of political and economic stabilisation as well as of growing profes-
sionalisation and self-confidence in international settings the role of the CEE countries 
vis-à-vis the European Union will be more determined and influential in the relevant deci­
sion-making processes. 
- Similarly, the role of the National TEMPUS Offices seems to be growing vis-à-vis the 
TEMPUS Department in the ETF. 
The instability inherent in the logic of the TEMPUS Programme is also reflected on the level 
of the JEPs. Most JEPs were active in all four major areas for which TEMPUS support was 
granted, although - as already stated - individual activities tended to be pursued to varying 
degrees. Nevertheless, the bundle of activities created an incentive to be more active in 
educational innovation than initially intended by the JEP partners in the CEE countries so 
that the creation of such a bundle can be considered as relatively successful. The time has 
come now to reconsider this bundle as emphases and targets of reform and renewal start to 
shift in CEE partner countries: 
- After four to six years aims and objectives will have to take into account how the take-off 
and emergency character of TEMPUS has changed. 
28 
- The national dimension of the Programme is gradually complemented by a European di­
mension in the CEE partner countries. 
- Individual areas might still need support without, however, being integrated into a bundle 
of activities. 
- New tasks and activities might acquire new importance. 
TEMPUS has successfully contributed to a considerable amount of development and change 
in the higher education institutions of the CEE partner countries. In the face of growing politi­
cal consolidation and progress in social and economic transformation TEMPUS has lost its 
original character as an emergency aid programme for the majority of the CEE partner 
countries. This implies that the time has come for new basic decisions concerning the direc­
tion in which the TEMPUS Programme should develop. For these decisions the successes 
and achievements of the TEMPUS Programme up to now have to be taken into considera­
tion just as much as the remaining problems and changed conditions in the CEE partner 
countries. As a result of our findings three major directions for TEMPUS emerge as possible 
issues for further considerations about the future of the Programme. 
W The first direction can be characterized by "decentralisation and nationalisation". The 
trend towards a transfer of TEMPUS-related responsibilities and tasks to the CEE 
partner countries continues. This does not only suit the various degrees of stability and 
economic development which have been reached in the CEE countries but also the 
various foci in terms of TEMPUS activities. As a consequence, TEMPUS would be 
bound to become very heterogeneous. The potential for regional spin-offs and coop­
eration among CEE countries would be further reduced and the European dimension 
of activities would remain weak or become even weaker. 
w The second direction can be characterized by "Socratization and residualisation". This 
means that some CEE countries would move towards participation in SOCRATES (and 
LEONARDO) as is currently already visible, and the remaining CEE countries would 
form the rest of CEE partner countries in TEMPUS. This scenario matches widespread 
ambitions of some CEE countries although many educational activities supported in 
TEMPUS are not strongly represented in SOCRATES. Those CEE countries with 
ambitions in this direction might not yet be able to provide the complementary re­
sources required for participation in SOCRATES but it is frequently a matter of prestige 
and a feeling to be on a par with higher education institutions in the EU Member States 
which comes into play as a decisive factor. 
W The third direction can be characterized by a "Europeanization" of the TEMPUS Pro­
gramme combined with a restructuring of tasks and administration. The EU might take 
the lead in stimulating activities which have a strong European dimension and at least 
a medium-term life-cycle while allowing the individual CEE countries to take care of 
other remaining take-off support which is short-term in its orientation and national in its 
approach. This could lead to a higher degree of permanence in the TEMPUS Pro­
gramme although it would probably require additional financial support not made avail­
able by national Phare funds and not yet taken into account in the national decision­
making processes established for the allocation of Phare funds for the TEMPUS Pro­
gramme. 
29 
8. General Conclusions 
The TEMPUS Programme is highly appreciated and well accepted in the CEE partner coun­
tries. Although the overall quality of applications has continuously increased the majority of 
applications could not be supported because of the limited TEMPUS budget. 
The projects supported by TEMPUS I can be considered by and large as successful and 
important for the development of higher education in the CEE partner countries. Neverthe­
less, not all potentials and possibilities were used to foster dissemination of results and spin­
offs of project activities beyond the "islands" of innovation in individual departments or facul­
ties supported. 
The policy formation for the TEMPUS Programme in the CEE partner countries has gradu­
ally become more targeted to the needs of the individual countries. This development under­
lines the increasing awareness of all actors concerned with higher education on the national 
level in terms of the potentials of the TEMPUS Programme. 
The administration of the TEMPUS Programme in the CEE partner countries can be consid­
ered as efficient and appropriate in the face of the complexity and necessity for continuous 
adaptation of the Programme, the number of institutions and subject areas included and the 
range of measures of support within the Programme. 
Although a substantial contribution of TEMPUS I to the development of higher education in 
the CEE partner countries can be observed, further efforts will be necessary at least in some 
of the CEE partner countries to reach a level of achievement and progress in higher educa­
tion renewal and restructuring which utilizes the potentials of the TEMPUS Programme to a 
fuller extent in order to reach the aims and objectives of the Programme. 
f\ \r\ *\ ex 
TEMPUS BUDGET (MECU) 
Albania 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Estonia 
Hungary 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Poland 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Sub-total 
Regional funds 
former DDR 
Yugoslavia 
Grand total 1990 
2.46 
6.18 
12.35 
1.23 
22.23 
0.93 
23.16 1991 
5.00 
6.00 
12.00 
13.50 
10.00 
3.00 
49.50 
15.00 
6.00 
70.50 1992 
1.20 
8.00 
10.00 
1.00 
16.00 
1.50 
1.50 
26.00 
13.00 
2.30 
5.00 
85.50 
12.50 
98.00 1993 
4.90 
15.00 
8.00 
3.60 
16.00 
4.70 
5.20 
35.00 
18.00 
3.50 
5.00 
118.90 
10.25 
129.15 total 
6.10 
28.00 
26.46 
4.60 
50.18 
6.20 
6.70 
86.85 
41.00 
5.80 
14.23 
276.13 
37.75 
0.93 
6.00 
320.81 



ISSN 0254-1475 J,1 
COM(96) 428 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 16 il 
Catalogue number : CB-C0-96-428-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-08008-X 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg