COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(93) 29 final 
Brussels, 3 February 1993 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Evaluation of the Tempus programme 
(May 1992) 
Coopers 
&Lybrand 
Europe 
EVALUATION OF TEMPUS 
Contents 
Section Paragraphs 
Executive Summary 1 - 20 
(Dansk, Deutsch, EA.XT7VIK<4, Espanol, Français, Italiano, Nederlands, Português) 
I Introduction 101 - 108 
II Implementation 201 - 228 
Overview of spending and activity in 1990/91 201 - 206 
Implementation process 207 - 216 
The origins of JEPs 207 - 208 
Selection process 209 - 210 
JEP management 211-214 
Views on the programme 215 - 216 
Practical problems 217 - 228 
III Impact of TEMPUS on eligible countries 301 - 337 
Departmental level 302 - 318 
Institutional level 319 - 323 
Higher education sector level 324 - 332 
Wider impact on economic and social restructuring 333 - 337 
IV Impact on Western European partners 401 - 406 
Benefits of involvement 401 - 406 
V Conclusions and recommendations 501 - 516 
Annexes 
1 List of interviews undertaken 
2 List of case studies chosen 
Coopers & Lybrand 
May 1992 
Coopers 
&Lybrand 
Europe 
Executive Summary 5 
1 The TEMPUS programme, established on 7 May 1990 by a Council decision 
(90/233/EEC - OJ L 131), aims to promote the development of the higher education 
and training systems in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe designated as 
eligible for economic assistance under the PHARE programme. The European 
Commission's Task Force for Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth, is 
responsible for the implementation of the TEMPUS scheme. The programme 
facilitates cooperation between institutions in eligible countries and partners 
(universities and enterprises) in the European Community and other Western 
countries through Joint European Projects (JEPs) and enhancing staff and student 
mobility between Eastern and Western institutions. 
2 Coopers & Lybrand Europe was appointed by the European Commission to 
carry out an external evaluation of the TEMPUS programme. The main aim of our 
evaluation was to undertake a detailed examination of the functioning of the TEMPUS 
scheme in its initial phase with regard to its objectives. We focused our evaluation on 
1990/91 JEPs as they have been in existence the longest and are the most likely to 
show impact. As part of the evaluation, we conducted interviews with government 
officials and local TEMPUS offices in the eligible countries, analysed 17 JEPs in depth 
as case studies and reviewed one third of the final reports from the first year JEPs. 
3 In the full report, we present a section on Implementation where we give a 
brief overview of the 1990/91 JEPs considered in our evaluation and our assessment 
of the function of the programme. This is followed by a section on the Impact on 
eligible countries where we attempt to identify the benefits and impact of TEMPUS 
to the participating countries in Eastern Europe in the higher education system 
(departmental, institutional and the sector as a whole) and the wider economic and 
social effects. In a more restricted manner, we do the same for the Western 
European partners in the section titled Impact on Western European partners. 
Finally, we present our Conclusions and recommendations at the end of the report. 
Implementation 
4 There were 152 JEPs in 1990/91 in subject areas ranging from agriculture to 
humanities. Several activities were present in a single JEP. The most frequent 
included staff mobility from eligible countries (86%), equipment acquisition (84%), 
development/revision of curricula (62%), development of teaching materials (58%) 
and visiting professors from the West (58%). In terms of spending, 46% of the funds 
were dedicated to acquisition of equipment and materials to be delivered to Eastern 
Europe. Expenditure for non-academic personnel involved in organisation and 
administration made up 18% of the total while missions and other organisation 
expenditure accounted for 14%. Actual expenditures for Action 1 (JEPs) went over 
budgeted levels by 2.5%. This was more than compensated by the underspending of 
10% in the budget for Action 2 (Individual Mobility Grants). 
5 The majority of the JEPs seem to have resulted form previous contacts between 
East and West. These were mostly personal contacts between individuals but, in some 
Coopers 
&Lybrand 
Europe 
cases, some form of previous collaboration existed. Typically, Western organisations 
initiated project cooperation and were in charge of project management. 
6 Initial problems encountered could be deGned as "teething problems" in the 
sense that they are likely to occur at the beginning of a project. These included 
communications between partners, dealing with ECU payments was well as other 
problems related to the mechanics of international cooperation. These early problems 
were sorted out in each country during the first year of the projects, as partners 
learned how to deal with each other and the programme requirements. 
7 Our evaluation did not reveal any fundamental practical difficulties with JEPs. 
The programme achieved an impressive start given the timescales set at the beginning. 
Most JEPs managed to spend their budget in the first year of the programme by 
concentrating on equipment acquisition; our assessment suggests that almost a third 
of first year JEP costs were spent on administration as opposed to direct project 
activities. This relatively high proportion reflects the need to set up the projects as 
well as the size of the projects and the number of partners involved. 
Impact on eligible countries 
8 Generally, TEMPUS' impact is more significant at the departmental level 
within a university and diminishes as one attempts to assess its effect in the broader 
environment of the entire institution. 
9 At the departmental level, the most direct benefits were access to updated 
equipment and materials and the increased contact with Western European visiting 
staff. Student and staff mobility have increased tremendously. This new exposure to 
the West results in motivation and attitudinal change in participating departments in 
the form of new ideas, status and excitement about changes. Concern has been 
expressed about brain drain but we found no evidence of problems so far. Also, many 
participants regarded the experience of participating in international cooperation 
projects as a benefit in itself. 
10 At the institutional level, there were instances of sharing of equipment and 
experience (usually informal). Project management skills and opportunities for 
younger staff were also cited as benefits. The full effect of institutional changes, 
however, is undermined by the general state of universities in the East which include 
severe financial constraints and lack of staff motivation. 
11 TEMPUS' impact on higher education systems is much harder to assess at this 
early stage although there is some evidence that it is happening in some countries. 
Most of it is a "bottom up" impact via staff attitudes and increase in the training 
capacity. There appears to be a limited fit with wider reforms in most countries due 
to the weak linkage of the programme to national training priorities. 
Benefits to Western partners 
12 The benefits to Western partners are less significant than those to Eastern 
European partners as would be expected given the objectives of the programme. 
Benefits mentioned include additional funding, widening of curricula and staff 
Coopers 
&Lybrand 
Europe 
horizons, expansion of academic contacts in Eastern and Western Europe as well as 
the prestige and interest in participating in activities sponsored by the European 
Community. 
Conclusions and recommendations 
13 The TEMPUS programme has made an impressive start and enjoys wide 
popularity in both East and West. There are several reasons that account for this. 
Projects have been implemented and shown results in a relatively short timeframe 
compared with other aid programmes. The "bottom up" approach that allows JEP 
ideas to emanate from the institutions themselves creates a feeling of ownership and 
acceptance of the reforms it achieves. 
14 Our findings indicate that TEMPUS projects resulted in a good degree of 
additionality. Although previous contacts between partners (on a personal level) was 
the norm, we estimate that around two-thirds of the projects were inspired by the 
TEMPUS concept and would not have carried out collaborative activity without it. 
15 Within TEMPUS, our early assessment is that purchase of equipment, 
curriculum development and visits of staff from Western Europe are likely to be most 
cost-effective, with student mobility the least cost-effective mechanism for reforming 
higher education. 
16 Wliilst TEMPUS projects are influencing higher education at departmental 
level and having some wider effect on the institution, we conclude that their impact 
is likely to be more limited on wider reforms of higher education or on wider 
economic restructuring. This is partly because of the way that JEPs were identified 
and selected in 1990/91 - with limited influence from national policy. This has been 
recognised by the Task Force and in subsequent years steps were taken to improve 
the situation. It also reflects the broad objectives of TEMPUS, with the risk that the 
impacts will be dissipated if they are not more clearly targeted. 
17 We therefore conclude that there is a need to clarify the objectives and role of 
TEMPUS in each country. The first choice is between the emphasis on long-term 
reform of higher education and shorter term, manpower needs of economic 
restructuring. Once this balance is determined, a strategy should be developed to 
tailor TEMPUS to the needs of each eligible country, in order to maximise its impacts. 
18 If the intention is for TEMPUS to support higher education reforms, then we 
recommend that: 
• a review of higher education policy and the strategy for reform identifies clearly 
the role for TEMPUS, 
• the scale and nature of JEPs is reviewed to identify how they can best support 
reform. This might be to continue small academic-subject based JEPs. 
Alternatively, JEPs could be used, for example, to reform management in 
higher education institutions, or to establish new types of institutions, 
Coopers 
&Lybrand 
Europe 
• changes in JEP scope may require larger scale or longer JEPs. In addition, we 
suggest limiting the number of JEP partners (particularly from Western 
European institutions) in order to keep down administrative costs; and focusing 
on West to East transfers of expertise and materials and on staff rather than 
student mobility. 
19 If the intention is to use TEMPUS to help address manpower and skill 
shortages during economic reform, then we suggest that: 
• the priority skill needs must be identified and clearly specified in the invitations 
for TEMPUS applications, 
• where large numbers need to be trained, JEPs may need to be larger in scale 
and/or last for longer; there may also be a case for supporting 
academics/trainers in eligible countries who are key to providing the training, 
• where numbers required are small, student mobility may be more cost effective. 
20 The next steps are for eligible countries to review the role of TEMPUS and the 
priorities for its use, and to agree with the Commission of the European Communities 
how TEMPUS can best be tailored to meet the country's particular needs. The 
strategy will need to consider the format and scope of JEPs and the arrangements for 
inviting and selecting bids. 
} 
I Introduction 
101 The TEMPUS Scheme (Trans-European Mobility Scheme for University 
Studies) was adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European Communities on 
7 May 1990 (decision 90/233/EEC - OJ L 131) with a timescale of five years, including 
an initial pilot phase of three years beginning on 1 July 1990. 
102 The European Commission's Task Force for Human Resources, Education, 
Training and Youth, is responsible for the implementation of the TEMPUS 
programme. An EC TEMPUS Office working under contract to the European 
Commission, following a call for tender, looks after the operational aspects of the 
programme, under the control and supervision of the Task Force for Human 
Resources. 
103 TEMPUS is designed to promote the development of the higher education and 
training systems in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe designated as 
eligible1 for economic aid under the PHARE programme. The TEMPUS programme 
supports cooperation between institutions in eligible countries and partners 
(universities and enterprises) in the European Community and other Western 
countries through Joint European Projects (JEPs) and through staff and student 
mobility between Eastern and Western European institutions. TEMPUS also includes 
support for youth exchange activities. 
104 The major goal is not only to have a powerful short-term impact, but also to 
make a significant contribution to the medium- and long-term development of both 
the higher education systems and the process of economic and social restructuring in 
the countries concerned. Thus, TEMPUS is not a programme primarily about mobility, 
but rather a scheme which endeavours to support structural change of which mobility 
is one instrument. 
105 Coopers & Lybrand Europe was appointed by the European Commission to 
carry out an external evaluation of the TEMPUS programme. The main objective of 
our external evaluation was to undertake a detailed examination of the functioning of 
the TEMPUS Scheme in its initial phase with regard to its objectives. This has the 
aim of providing advice to the Commission regarding any adaptations, modifications 
or changes considered necessary for the next phase of the programme. An assessment 
was also to be made of the effectiveness of TEMPUS in developing appropriate higher 
education systems in the eligible countries, as well as its contribution to the process 
of economic and social restructuring. 
106 The evaluation was carried out to allow the following issues to be addressed: 
• Are JEPs operating effectively and as planned? 
The eligible countries comprise: 
- in 1990/91 Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, ex-DDR 
- in 1991/92 Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, ex-Yugoslavia 
- in 1992/93 Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, 
Lithuania, Estonia 
• What are the reasons for difficulties? 
• What impact are JEPs having on the Eastern European institutions 
involved and on student and staff mobility, ie are the JEPs consistent 
with the aims of TEMPUS? 
• Are the JEPs contributing to the development of education and training 
in accordance with the needs of the Eastern European countries? 
• Are the JEPs having an impact on social and economic restructuring? 
• Would the same results have been achieved without EC funding (ie has 
the funding been additional)? 
• Is the programme efficiently administered? 
• Can the programme be improved? 
107 We focused our evaluation on 1990/91 JEPs because they have been going the 
longest and therefore are the most likely to show meaningful impact. We recognise 
that changes have been made to the TEMPUS programme in the subsequent years, 
in particular concerning the selection procedure, and we have taken these changes into 
account in analysing the results. 
108 In the course of the evaluation study we carried out: 
• interviews with government officials and local TEMPUS offices in the 
Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. 
A complete list of officials interviewed is provided in the Annex 1. 
• case studies of 17 JEPs in the eligible countries. This comprises a series 
of face to face interviews with Eastern European partners, plus a 
number of telephone interviews with the Western European partners. 
• review of a sample (one third) of the 152 TEMPUS final reports for the 
1990/91 JEPs in Brussels. 
109 In the main body of this report, we first present a brief overview of the 1990/91 
JEPs and some of the implementation problems and views identified during the 
evaluation. We then present our assessment of the programme at three levels: 
• the impact on higher education in the eligible countries; 
• the wider impact on economic and social restructuring in the eligible 
countries; 
• the impact of JEP participation on Western European partners. 
Finally, we present our conclusions and pertinent recommendations for consideration 
by the European Commission. 
II Implementation 
Overview of spending and activity in 1990/91 
201 In total, following the 1990 selection round, 1813 contracts were issued, divided 
up by and within Actions as follows: 
No. of contracts 
Action 1, Joint European Projects, 
(including Action 2 mobility grants within projects) 152 
Action 2, Individual Mobility Grants 
• Students East/West 733 
• Teachers East/West 474 
• Students West/East 35 
• Teachers West/East 315 
Action 3, Complementary Measures 
• Association, Publication, Studies 40 
• Youth Exchange Activities 63 
Our evaluation focused on activities developed within the framework of Joint 
European Projects as agreed with the EC. 
202 There are 17 JEP subject areas ranging from agriculture to humanities. Two 
areas, however, account for almost 50% of all the JEPs: Management & Business 
Administration/Applied Economics (19%) and Engineering, Applied Sciences & 
Technologies (29%). 
203 Figure 1 shows the average breakdown of expenditure for 152 JEPs in 1990/91. 
Under Action 1, the single most important item has been the acquisition of equipment 
and materials to be delivered to the eligible countries, which accounted for 46% of 
expenditure. Expenditure for non-academic personnel involved in organisation and 
administration of the JEPs made up 18% of the total while missions and other 
organisational expenditure accounted for 14%. 
204 The total planned expenditure for Action 1 was ECU 10 954 000. The total 
actual expenditures were ECU 11 232 726 or 2.5% above budget. A closer financial 
analysis of the 17 case studies indicates that several JEP partners actually had higher 
costs than budgeted, that were funded by other sources such as the universities or 
departments themselves. Typical costs absorbed included travel and subsistence costs, 
secretarial support and coordinators' salaries. 
205 Action 2 mobility costs were primarily spent on grants to holders (92% of 
expenditures) as specified in the programme. Total planned expenditure was ECU 
5 457 100 while actual disbursements represented ECU 4 917 810 or around 10% 
below budget. Our review of final reports showed that a number of JEP coordinators 
had very little time in academic year 1990/91 to comply with deadlines set for Action 
2 and could not use the funds completely. This may account for some of the 
underutilisation. Most JEPs that had these left over funds requested (successfully on 
FIGURE 1 
BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURES 
1990/91 JEPS 
ACTION 1 
ECU 11 232 726 ACTION 2 
ECU 4 917 810 
Linguistic Preparation 
2% 
Overhead 
6% 
Academic Personnel 
7% 
Other costs 
8% 
Equipment 
46% Institutional costs 
7% Replacement costs 
a 
the whole) to have them transferred to cover Action 1 deficits. Overall, the total 
expenditure on Action 1 and 2 was within the budget for the year. 
206 In terms of training contents, most JEPs included components aimed at several 
levels. Around 80% of JEPs concentrated on short courses or continuing education 
programmes. Initial degree and post-graduate level courses were present in 38% of 
the total while language training appeared 30% of the cases. Training content usually 
overlapped. Actual activities carried out sometimes demonstrated variances from the 
JEPs' self-assessment in the final reports. Our sample review of the final reports 
yielded evidence of activities as per the table below: 
Activity Frequency 
Staff mobility (from eligible country) 86% 
Equipment acquisition 84% 
Development/revision of curricula 62% 
Development of teaching materials/aids 58% 
Visiting professors (from Western institutions) 58% 
Student mobility 54% 
Development of new departments 18% 
Industry placements 12% 
Implementation Process 
The origins of JEPs 
207 The majority of the JEPs 1990/91 seem to have come about as a result of 
existing contacts between East and West institutions that predate TEMPUS. These 
were mostly personal contacts between individual but a few already had some form 
of collaboration experience. In Hungary, the moderate openness of Hungarian society 
prior to 1989 allowed universities to develop their contacts with western counterparts 
before they were institutionalised. In Poland and the Czech and Slovak Republics, the 
majority of the projects analysed also resulted from previous contacts. 
208 In the first year of implementation, Western institutions took the leading role 
in defining JEPs. Some well known universities in the East were bombarded with 
offer letters. In later years, we were told that the Eastern side has taken a more 
active role in identifying possible projects and partner institutions. Most Western 
European institutions surveyed (77%) cited their reason for joining the TEMPUS 
programme as being the chance to work with Eastern European institutions, while 
59% were motivated by the chance to work with other Western European institutions. 
Only 14% claimed to have joined the programme for reasons of additional finance. 
Selection process 
209 As far as the selection procedure is concerned (in the eligible countries and EC 
TEMPUS office), there are two key issues that stand out. Firstly, there have been 
high number of bids submitted compared to the number of accepted projects. The 
most recent approval rate for 1991/92 JEPs is 22.7%. One reason for this is that the 
criteria for projects and national priorities specified in the VADEMECUM are 
broadly defined, allowing wide interpretation of project possibilities. Secondly, whilst 
IV 
the selection process varies between the eligible countries, in each case there is a 
strong presentation of academic concerns and interests, with limited 
involvement/influence of Government Officials. Academic advisors are appointed to 
review the applications with a view to their academic quality rather than their fit with 
national priorities. There is then some scope for the selection of projects by the 
TEMPUS eligible countries on broader criteria. There was concern in the first year 
that Brussels had too much influence on the choice of projects; recent changes have 
given eligible countries more say and this is to be welcomed. 
210 It is clear from our interviews that a large volume of effort is put into the 
TEMPUS bids. Most of these efforts are not charged to the projects but funded by 
the partners. In the case of some Eastern European countries, this effort is regarded 
as a useful exercise and an important experience in learning how to deal with 
international cooperation projects. It was also mentioned that some of the rejected 
projects could be reutilised to seek other sources of funding. They also appreciate the 
competition aspect of the bidding procedure. Our view is that the preparation of 
many bids which are unlikely to be funded is inefficient. We would recommend a 
tighter specification of the priorities and types of projects which TEMPUS will be used 
to support. Competitive bids can then be invited, and the selection process can focus 
on choosing the best bids in the priority areas. We return to this in section 5. 
JEP management 
211 In the 1990/91 JEPs, the management of the projects was largely the 
responsibility of Western partners. This generated some negative reactions on the 
part of Eastern institutions who cited several instances of not being properly informed 
about the state of application or finances. Some Eastern partners also felt their 
Western counterparts took an unfair share of the JEP funding. 
212 Our analysis of the financial reports for the 17 case studies showed that, on 
average, 77% of the funds in Action 1 and 2 related to direct project expenses and 
23% of the funds to administration and planning expenses. The percentage spent on 
administration goes up if Action 2 costs are taken out. For the purposes of the 
analysis, we considered all Action 2 expenses (Mobility Grants for staff and students) 
as direct project expenses. Figure 2 on the opposite page shows our cost analysis of 
the 17 case study JEPs. By looking only at Action 1 costs, the weighted average 
spending on administration and planning goes up to 33%. In four cases, 
administration costs exceeded 50% of total costs for Action 1. This raises the issue 
of whether JEPs should have fewer partners or last longer in order to improve the 
administration efficiency. However these are only the costs of the first years of the 
JEPs. Analysis of data for subsequent years and more recent JEPs would give a better 
picture of the administrative efficiency of JEPs. 
213 In terms of our survey of Western European partners, around 82% had seen 
their project implemented as planned. Amongst those projects which had not be^n 
implemented as planned, the overwhelming reason was a delayed start. Only 10% 
quoted problems with the EC as having been a contributory factor. Two thirds of 
those surveyed asserted that they had completely met their project objectives, with 
only 2% claiming to have met none of their objectives. 
FIGURE 2 
COST ANALYSIS OF 17 CASE STUDY JEPS (1990/91) 
TOTAL COSTS = ACTION 1 ONLY 
CO 
T3 
C 
O 
Q> 
CO 
eg 
c 
CD 
o 
CD 
Q_ weighted average 
spending on 
Administration & 
Planning (33%) 
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Case Study JEPs 
• Direct Project Expenses 
• Administration & Planning 
iv 
H 
214 In terms of project design, the initially rather passive attitude displayed by 
Eastern institutions has been gradually replaced by a more active one and a more 
equal partnership is now sought. This process sometimes took more than one year 
depending on the subject such as the case of the ICTR (International Centre for 
Technical Research) proposal on the introduction of a full time postgraduate 
environmental course in Hungary. One of the typical problems encountered was the 
poor knowledge of the Western partner about the level and content of Hungarian 
higher education, the country and the current situation. Eastern European institutions 
would like to be regarded more as full-fledged partners in a JEP rather than passive 
"aid recipients". There has been a tendency on the part of some Western European 
partners to regard their involvement with Eastern European institutions in projects as 
an act of philanthropy. 
Views on the programme 
215 The overall opinion of all the institutions concerned was that TEMPUS is a 
useful and positive programme. The programme is very popular with the eligible 
country institutions. Given the relatively short existence of the programme, the views 
expressed by participants reflect a rather early judgement. The following were widely 
viewed as strengths of the programme: 
the general concept of a Western-sponsored programme to support the 
education system in the East and the associated prestige and credibility; 
access to Western training and know-how; 
funds for equipment renewal; 
creation of stronger links between institutions in the East and West; 
the complimentary nature of the more technical, theoretical, Eastern 
European approach to higher education with the more practical 
approach of Western European institutions; 
• good means of understanding the problems of the countries in Eastern 
Europe. 
216 Perceived weaknesses reported in our interviews included the following points. 
As will be clear in the following sections, we are not necessarily in agreement with 
these views: 
• limited funds for covering costs of mobility programmes, TEMPUS 
coordinator's work and teaching; 
• lack of significant links with industry; 
• lack of funding for research activities (not eligible within TEMPUS); 
• lack of involvement of Eastern partners in coordination activities and 
financial control of projects; 
•u' 
• too many partners which result in coordination problems, high 
administrative costs and compound possibilities of misunderstanding. 
Practical Problems 
217 The initial problems encountered can be seen as "teething problems" in the 
sense that they occurred at the beginning of the programme and in individual projects, 
but were resolved during the first year. These early problems were sorted out in each 
country. Another set of difficulties related to the mechanics of international 
cooperation projects and involved sorting out responsibilities between partners, 
reporting structures and requirements, getting used to each other's cultural attitudes 
and behaviourial patterns and establishing effective communication links (usually 
resolved by purchase of fax equipment), transfer of foreign exchange and meeting 
TEMPUS-imposed deadlines. Most Eastern partners were not used to the 
requirements of administering international aid projects and, in fact, mentioned 
acquisition of such a skill as one of the direct benefits of the programme. 
218 On the Eastern side, continuing practical problems which have been 
encountered in implementing exchanges with the West caused most of the delays. 
Among the problems cited were the level of grants for mobility, visas, insurance and 
accommodation in the West. The amount of funds made available for student and 
staff mobility (East to West) was judged insufficient by some participants. It is 
claimed that high air fares and travel costs absorb much of the grants, so that what 
remains is not enough to survive in Western countries. Eastern European academic 
salaries are very low and, therefore, insufficient to cover the differences. Some 
Western European institutions have attempted to top up their Eastern European 
colleagues' funds from their own resources, but this is not a sustainable option for 
many institutions. Difficulties in obtaining visas to enter Western Europe also added 
to the delays and sometimes to the financial strain on the participants. Eastern 
mobility participants also complained about difficulty obtaining affordable 
accommodation during their stay in the West and limited information available on 
health insurance while abroad. Despite these comments, we concluded that the level 
of funding has not reduced the extent of East-West mobility. There should however, 
be regular review of the grant levels. 
219 A second cause of delays mentioned by most Eastern participants had to do 
with timing of money transfers from the West. It is common for transfers to take up 
to four or five weeks to arrive. Eastern European JEP participants were able to 
bridge the financial gap with their own means. Since self-financing is normally difficult 
(for example, in Romania many Western countries demand payment with visa 
applications which can cost up to two months salaiy for a Romanian national) in many 
cases the result was that implementation of planned activities was delayed until the 
funds arrived. Again, these delays have not had a major harmful effect on the project 
implementation. 
220 Eastern partners (except Hungarians) expressed some disappointment at their 
lack of control of equipment purchases. It was usually the JEP coordinator who 
decided where and what type of equipment will be acquired. More often than not, the 
sourcing is done in the coordinator's country and, in the cases investigated, it was 
never done in Eastern Europe. An interesting point to mention is that some eligible 
\c 
countries had problems importing the purchased equipment due to the fact that old 
COCOM restrictions are still in effect and prevent the export of "sensitive technology" 
to former members of the East bloc. We concluded that the Eastern partners should 
have more say in the selection of equipment, and, where it is sensible for cost and 
servicing/maintenance reasons, be able to purchase equipment locally. 
221 Another related issue was that very few Eastern European JEP members had 
seen their contracts and were, accordingly, not aware of the levels of funding that they 
should be receiving from the Western contractors. This is linked to the fact that 
Eastern European partners were not initially allowed to be the coordinator or main 
contractor for JEPs and, in some cases, were not treated on an equal footing by 
Western partners. This led to resentment by Eastern partners and a concern that the 
Western partners were taking an unfair share of JEP resources. This situation should 
improve as Eastern European institutions come to play a more important role in JEP 
coordination and implementation. We understand that, from 1992/93 onwards, 
institutions of eligible countries can act as coordinator and contractor. 
222 In Romania, the country's late inclusion in the TEMPUS programme has also 
been seen as a source of problems. Romania was only accepted into the programme 
in 1991 a few weeks before the deadline for submission of applications, leading to 
many projects being proposed that were viewed as "second best solutions". It is hoped 
that this situation will be reversed in the current year. 
223 On the Western side, JEP coordinators are also critical about some aspects of 
funding. Complaints about the lack of financial support for the TEMPUS coordinator 
arose in the majority of institutions surveyed in the West. Their argument was that 
coordinators already have a full-time job and the TEMPUS task usually loads them 
with another substantial workload. They claimed that altruistic reasons have played 
a major role in motivating coordinators so far but that their willingness to participate 
in TEMPUS may decrease in the future if there is no funding. We were not 
convinced by this argument. In the West, coordinators already receive salaries for 
their work and JEP administration will not typically form a major part of their 
workload. Furthermore, the have tended to use a significant part of the JEP funds for 
support costs, and receive funding to cover replacement of academic staff. However, 
we return below to the question of Eastern European countries where salary levels are 
low. 
224 The ability of Eastern students to operate in Western European languages was 
seen as disappointing in a minority of cases. Lack of adequate linguistic abilities can 
seriously hinder the learning process, especially when exchanges are short-term and 
do not allow the students/staff a "grace period" to come to grips with the use of a 
foreign language. The standard of Eastern European students was also viewed as 
inadequate by some Western partners. This has implications for the way students and 
staff are selected for mobility. 
225 JEP coordinators disapprove of the amount of paperwork required to comply 
with reporting requirements and think the system should be streamlined. The 
programme is seen to have, for example, complicated application forms, changes in 
rules from one year to another and onerous requirements for detailed interim and 
final reports. They claim to spend a considerable amount of their coordinating time 
n 
in getting the necessary reports to Brussels on time. The information provided in 
these reports, they claim, is not necessarily useful for an understanding of the project 
by the Commission. While they agree that some measure of control and reporting is 
necessary, they would like to see it reduced from its present levels. We would expect 
this sort of reaction in such a scheme, but suggest there may be some scope for 
simplifying reporting requirements - we return to this later. 
226 A few Western partners also expressed their concern about what they regard 
as lack of appropriate information from the TEMPUS office in Brussels. Several JEP 
coordinators mentioned difficulty in getting information on TEMPUS aims and 
clarification on the rationale for changing policies or budget cuts. This was not a 
complaint in Eastern Europe, where TEMPUS offices provide a good source of 
information and advice. 
227 The TEMPUS offices in Eastern Europe seem to have had a helpful role in 
providing information and dealing with administrative issues during the first phases of 
the programme. The importance of this role could decrease as the programme gets 
more established in the countries. 
228 Eastern and Western partners view inflexibility of rules as one of their most 
important problems. Specifically, they claim that the deadlines and administrative 
rules are too strictly enforced to the point of causing damage to the projects in 
question. They would like to see more flexibility when it comes to adapting planned 
activities to changing conditions. A specific example involves selection of students for 
mobility actions which cannot normally be changed at a later date. Some JEPs 
admitted in their reports to having taken hurried decisions to meet strict deadlines for 
student mobility and sending less qualified student and staff abroad. This may be 
another explanation for the "lack of student quality" mentioned in the previous 
paragraphs. Timetable pressures were exacerbated because of the announcement of 
which JEPs were selected for funding in June, just as many of the academic staff were 
about to go on holiday. 
lî 
III Impact of TEMPUS on Eligible Countries 
301 We have identified four main levels of impact within the eligible countries: 
departmental level in the higher education institutions, institutional, higher education 
system as a whole and country level. Generally, TEMPUS' impact is more significant 
at the department level within a university and, as might be expected, diminishes as 
its effects spread to the entire institution, the higher education system and the wider 
economy of impact in the countries affected. 
Departmental level 
302 Improvements to resources constitute the single most important and tangible 
benefit as a result of the first year of JEP actions. Departments have managed to 
purchase up-to-date equipment (some previously unavailable) which is used for 
teaching. This is particularly the case with computers, language materials and 
laboratory equipment which are already utilised beyond the original scope of the JEPs. 
One example is the technical upgrading of a language lab at the Humanities Studies 
Department of the University of Szeged in Hungary. 
303 In more technical subject areas, upgrading of facilities usually results in spillover 
effects since several courses can make use of laboratory equipment acquired for one 
specific course. The Czech Technical University in Prague received equipment to 
establish a new theoretical field in control engineering. The newly outfitted lab will 
also be used in conjunction with other courses in the Engineering Department and 
consequently upgrade the education of a wider group of students. 
304 Up to now, the purchasing decision has usually been the Western partners' 
responsibility. As discussed earlier, we see value in Eastern partners having more say 
regarding this part of the process. By doing so, the department in the eligible country 
will be able to consider the eventual cessation of TEMPUS funds and the need to 
purchase equipment according to the wider needs of the institution. The same 
comments apply to books and other non-technical teaching materials purchased or 
developed in the course of the JEPs. 
305 Seminars and training of staff and students represent the second direct benefit 
to departments as a result of JEP activities. Visiting scholars and trainers bring first­
hand information of new areas and technologies and the possibility of direct 
interaction with sources previously unavailable (or available on a restricted basis). 
Visiting teachers/lecturers from the West offering on site courses have a more direct 
and immediate multiplier effect than visits from East to West, as wider audiences are 
reached and can benefit from the contacts and interaction. Holding a course or 
seminar on site also gives Eastern partners an opportunity to play a larger role in 
organisation and management of the programme. 
306 Generally speaking, mobility and exchange of student and staff have increased 
tremendously, albeit in some cases the student exchange programme has not started 
yet. Some of the institutions did not have any student exchanges prior to TEMPUS 
and now send a number of students abroad a year. At the Catering School in 
Budapest, for example, 4-5 undergraduates finished their course abroad in the first 
year (1990-91) but in the second year 20-30 are expected to do the same. In the past, 
(4) 
lï 
in most of eligible countries, even language teachers were not allowed to visit their 
subject country (and even when they were allowed, there was still the financing 
problem for the visits). Around 20% of the planned East-West student mobility did 
not take place. This could be the result of the deadline problems previously 
mentioned and linked in particular to the first year of TEMPUS operations. By 
contrast, East-West teacher mobility exceeded plans by about 20%. Most Western 
staff and students spend only very short periods in Eastern Europe, whereas the 
Eastern Europeans tend to spend longer times abroad. 
307 Some JEPs have already acquired a life of their own and continue to evolve in 
different contexts. Selection procedures for staff and students, for instance, have 
already started to break old structures that dictated who could go abroad. As 
selection is now by and large independent of political affiliations, younger people with 
better language skills are being given preference over older candidates. In that regard, 
some JEP officials in Bratislava referred to the fact that in the past only those people 
with the "right" political views had the opportunity to go abroad and that these persons 
often did not have any academic skills to absorb and pass on information. This new 
generation currently being selected under TEMPUS auspices is less identified with the 
previous regimes and is accordingly likely to be more open-minded and more likely 
to implement changes over a longer period of time. 
308 Teacher mobility also has a direct impact on the department. Returning 
teachers bring back considerable amounts of new books and materials that are made 
available to the rest of the staff and students. They typically have to write reports on 
their experiences and present their findings in formal or informal talks. In Hungary, 
returning teachers give oral presentations at departmental meetings, where they can 
recommend and discuss any of their reform proposals. They can apply the lessons 
learned directly in their own teaching. It becomes therefore important for the 
departments to retain such individuals in order to benefit from their views and ideas 
over the medium to long-term. However, staff who studied abroad, and particularly 
those who gain some professional experience with Western industries, stand to gain 
the most when they come back. Their exposure to the West and newly acquired skills 
are likely to make them more "marketable" to the private sector in their own 
countries. This could undermine the benefits of staff mobility for higher education. 
Some JEPs have instituted rules that require candidates for mobility to commit 
themselves to staying in the department for a period of time before moving on. 
309 Concern has been expressed about possible brain drain from Eastern Europe 
but we only found evidence of one case where two students decided to stay abroad. 
We believe that a large proportion return primarily because they only have short term 
work visas. There is thus no trend to justify concern at this point, but there should be 
continued monitoring. 
310 The mobility of students has some similar immediate effects to the mobility of 
staff, as students report on their experience abroad to the rest of the department. 
Some institutions had noted increased interest in language learning with the availability 
of TEMPUS exchange. It is too early to assess the longer term effects of student 
mobility, which will need to take into account the students' post graduation career 
paths. Some universities have a policy of choosing students that are most likely to 
return to occupy university posts upon their return. However, this strategy may be 
ZQ 
undermined by low university salaries in Eastern Europe with the effect this has on 
retention (we return to this in our conclusions in Chapter 5). 
311 The purchase of equipment together with seminars to staff and students on site 
provide direct and immediate benefits to the department concerned. In contrast, staff 
mobilities, and to a greater degree student mobilities, provide much less in the way of 
immediate or visible benefits. 
312 It is still early to talk about specific changes such as improved teaching styles 
and methods although JEP reports give us some indication that TEMPUS is 
contributing to the conditions that will make such changes possible. Our interviews 
indicate that there is a positive effect in motivation and attitudes. Some of the 
interviewees alluded to new motivation which is spreading around the institutions and 
pointing in the direction of reform. The status and reputation of a department, faculty 
or the whole institution have grown with their involvement in TEMPUS. Departments 
and individuals who have been associated with these programmes are now seen as the 
forerunners of reform and perceived as being better prepared than the average. The 
participants themselves believe more in the need for change and are less threatened 
by it since they have been given some tools and training that allow them to play a 
useful role. 
313 In assessing the impact of the TEMPUS programme, we also considered two 
important issues: the sustainability of the changes and the additionality of the effects. 
314 Sustainability is the likelihood that the changes brought about by TEMPUS will 
continue to exist beyond the scope of the project. It also relates to the level of effort 
required for this likelihood to exist i.e. the duration of the JEPs. Additionality 
attempts to estimate whether TEMPUS support leads to additional activities rather 
than mere funding of existing plans. 
315 Every JEP would like to see continued TEMPUS support for its efforts. The 
majority of JEPs expressed their desire to apply for extension and further funding in 
interviews with us and their final first year reports. Many pointed out that activities 
would be discontinued and important developments would be wasted should further 
funding not be forthcoming. Others implied that they would (some already are) look 
for alternative sources of funding in Western Europe or the United States. We do not 
share this negative view of the future. 
316 As a result of our interviews and research, whilst we agree with funding sound 
projects for two or three years, we have not been convinced that efforts would be 
wasted if TEMPUS financial support then comes to a halt. Eligible partners in the 
East would prefer a longer time span (5 or 6 years) but we feel that most of the 
current JEP activities (upgrading of facilities, staff training, curricula development, etc) 
can realistically be carried out in the existing 3-year time frame. We believe that, in 
the majority of the JEPs, the pattern of changes is wide enough to penetrate into both 
institutional and personal life and make the changes irreversible. 
317 As far as additionality is concerned, TEMPUS support has played a major role 
in making collaboration, upgrading of facilities and modernisation of teaching a reality. 
Although most of the institutions visited had previous contacts with the West, these 
& 
would have been unlikely to develop without TEMPUS. Contacts and ideas appear 
to have been present before but it was the introduction of TEMPUS that provided the 
impetus in the form of a framework for planning, funding and implementation of 
projects. Bilateral governmental programmes exist as well and predate TEMPUS but 
they tend to be on a much smaller scale and their funds are not necessarily 
educationally targeted. Within an intergovernmental agreement between Hungary and 
Austria, for example, one college was able to send 3 teachers abroad for 3 days. 
318 TEMPUS has consequently played an "enabler" role in providing partners in 
the East and West with a suitable structure to develop projects that were previously 
confined to the idea stage. The impact of TEMPUS is thus additional in the sense 
that it was instrumental in achieving structural changes in academic departments which 
would either not have occurred or would have taken a longer time to come about. 
Institutional level 
319 TEMPUS projects also have an effect on the institution as a whole. 
Educational reform in a department or faculty may provoke further change via ripple 
effects within the entire organisation. In this sense, many of the comments made at 
the departmental level also apply to the institution as a whole, albeit to a lesser 
degree. 
320 Ripple effects were present in several of the JEPs. New equipment purchased 
for one department can be shared with other departments; for example, photocopiers 
or computers. This is notably the case with JEPs in more technical subject areas. 
321 The prestige of being associated with an EC initiative is another motivator for 
sharing of experiences between different areas of an institution. The Art Academy in 
Warsaw, for instance, claims that their successful JEP has increased the interest of 
other academic teachers regarding the creation of new JEPs under the TEMPUS 
programme. Other JEPs reported that their new status as a partner in an EC-funded 
scheme has given them higher profile within their institutions and prompted several 
inquiries into the nature of their project as well as interest in the TEMPUS operation 
itself. 
322 Eastern European institutions have also learned project management skills 
through their involvement with TEMPUS. Several universities listed as an 
achievement their learning how to run and coordinate projects with several partners, 
how to write an application for funds, etc. Two of the institutions we visited in 
Hungary are already planning to run new TEMPUS projects as project leaders on 
their own on the basis of the skills acquired in the implementation of the present 
JEPs. 
323 Institutions in Hungary mentioned that a large number of students and 
academics with Western European experience is necessary to generate change. The 
same is true in Poland where one of the JEP partners brands the entire university as 
"fossilized" and prescribes a large number of different projects to achieve some impact 
at this level. Institutions that host several JEPs already feel that the combined impact 
of several projects create a cumulative effect and a more conducive environment for 
change. It is reasonable to assume that continued TEMPUS involvement through 
22 
establishment of JEPs in different departments of the same university would have an 
even greater effect on institutional change. 
Higher education sector level 
324 TEMPUS' impact on the higher education systems of the eligible countries is 
much harder to assess at this early stage although there is some evidence that it is 
happening in some countries. 
325 In Hungary, TEMPUS is seen as supporting the restructuring of the higher 
education system. Universities are beginning to revise their earlier approach to 
teaching with more independent student work compared to the old lecture-led learning 
process. The intention is to build on students' own work and introduce the Western 
concept of a triad degree system (BA, MSc, postgraduate). Hungarians agree that 
these changes would have occurred anyway as a result of their own reform 
programme. At the same time, they consider that TEMPUS is helping to support the 
"top down" reforms by complementary "bottom up" changes at departmental level. 
TEMPUS has also stimulated changes to the current foreign language teaching system. 
326 In Poland, the government is also trying to dismantle the centralised model 
established in the 50's in order to give a larger degree of autonomy to universities. 
The publication of the new education act coincided with the start of TEMPUS. Polish 
governmental institutions that were interviewed all agreed that TEMPUS can have a 
positive impact on the restructuring of the educational system through establishment 
of contacts with Western partners, teacher training and general transfer of knowledge 
and improvement of quality of studies. These improvements, however, can only be 
ascertained in the long term. Polish JEPs interviewed were hard put to provide 
evidence of impact at this level. 
327 In the Czech and Slovak Republic it is even more difficult to assess the impact 
at this level. Our discussion with government officials indicate that TEMPUS 
presently has very limited linkage to overall educational policy and objectives in the 
country because the decision making process for TEMPUS is largely independent of 
the Ministries of Education. On the other hand, the impetus for change in educational 
policy may be outside the Ministries of Education. However, as in the other eligible 
countries, the national TEMPUS offices are established by the national authorities 
who also appoint the academic experts responsible for selection and are asked for 
final opinion on projects to be selected. Whilst some policy reforms are being 
introduced, the overall policy direction was less clear to us; this impedes the 
assessment of TEMPUS' contribution. 
328 In Bulgaria, the TEMPUS programme is viewed as fitting in ideally with the 
changes that are being proposed to the higher education system. It is the consensus 
of opinion that the programme will have a significant impact in 5 years time, although 
in the shorter term it is only likely to have a modest impact given the entrenchment 
of outmoded attitudes. Its impact is seen as being likely to continue, albeit at a 
reduced level, even if funding was to be discontinued. 
23 
329 Up to the present, TEMPUS is not seen as having been very successful in 
Bulgaria2. This is due to a number of factors: 
• there have been wide-ranging changes in the personnel and Ministries 
responsible for administering the programme and priorities established 
by the old Ministries are no longer seen as being relevant; 
• the programme is not yet well targeted and the money available is not 
seen as being sufficient - Bulgaria would like at least 10% of the total 
PHARE funds available to be directed towards it; 
• not enough projects with mobility elements have come forward and 
there is not a sufficient level of industry involvement. There is also 
perceived to be a severe bias towards projects based in Sofia. 
The government is attempting to address these issues, for example, by mounting an 
information campaign to attract more industry interest. 
330 Romanian3 authorities have not yet decided on their policy to reform of higher 
education. As a result it is difficult to ascertain the effects of TEMPUS. During our 
interviews a difference of views emerged among relevant Romanian authorities as to 
the effectiveness of TEMPUS. There is limited cooperation between the Romanian 
National Agency for Development (NAD - coordinating the PHARE programme in 
Romania) and the Ministry of Education, which coordinates TEMPUS. NAD have 
questioned the rationale behind putting in so much money to the education sector 
(ECU 14 million out of ECU 130 million) at the expense of other sectors. NAD also 
questions the extent to which changes introduced by TEMPUS will be disseminated 
throughout the system, as well as questioning whether students and staff will actually 
return. 
331 As a general comment valid for all eligible countries, we would like to note that 
the full effect of TEMPUS' impact at this level, however, is being severely undermined 
by the precarious state of most higher education systems in the East. 
332 The situation in Hungary is indicative of the entire region. Hungary is usually 
cited as one of the better-off countries in the East but as the country goes through its 
political-economic restructuring, education funding has been constrained. The need 
for reform has been recognised, with plans to increase student numbers and to 
harmonise with the European Community's standards. However, the salaries of young 
lecturers are extremely low, which endangers staff stability within institutions and 
within the country. Institutions currently receive 70% of their running costs and, while 
struggling to cover the deficit, have no funds to expand their facilities or modernise 
their technical infrastructure. The TEMPUS programme is designed to provide 
marginal funding for the extra costs of JEPs and mobility, assuming the basic 
education system is funded. It cannot work without a base level of support to higher 
education institutions. 
2 limited involvement in initial year - see footnote 1 in Introduction 
3 limited involvement in initial year - see footnote 1 in Introduction 
IH 
Wider impact on economic and social restructuring 
333 In a wider sense, TEMPUS has an impact on both students and academic staff 
that should result in knock-on effects for the economy at large. After they have been 
abroad for a period of time, they return with a better appreciation of the Western 
Europe, culture, customs and people in addition to the formal training received as part 
of the JEP activities. They will thus represent a well trained, good quality employee 
group equipped to deal with a market-driven economy and Western counterparts in 
the future. 
334 A short-term impact of TEMPUS is the emphasis and importance it has lent 
to language training. In a modest way, TEMPUS has contributed to raise the level of 
foreign language proficiency and, at the very least, the awareness of its importance for 
future dealings with the West. 
335 Contact development with industry, as a result of JEP actions, has been very 
modest. This is not surprising in Eastern Europe, where industry is preoccupied with 
restructuring attempts. Some individual achievements have been recorded but they 
are not the norm. For example the Czech Technical University reported that other 
universities and local companies have shown keen interest in using JEP findings on 
control engineering to develop products on a commercial basis. In Poland, the 
Agricultural University in Cracow plans to install equipment purchased under the JEP 
at a Regional Milk Processing Cooperative so that students can practice in a real work 
environment. This will also have a positive impact on the cooperative's output and 
the level of skills of the workers involved. From these examples it seems that 
practical, technical applications resulting from JEPs in technical subject areas are more 
likely to have a modest, short to medium effect on the overall economic situation of 
the countries concerned. 
336 The changes in attitudes and its desired impact on economic and social 
restructuring are long term goals and no real evidence is apparent yet. 
337 The potential is there to train people in more modern, westernised standards 
and to build up Eastern European institutions' capacity to train. However, the issue 
seems to be whether the JEPs currently running focus on priority training needs. In 
order to do so, the eligible country governments need clear strategies for restructuring 
their economies and which identify their requirements for retraining. As discussed in 
section 2, the definition of country priorities in the VADEMECUM currently tends 
to be broad, excluding little. Clearer specification of training priorities could be used 
as a means of targeting JEPs to the needs of the economy. We discuss further 
whether this is appropriate in our conclusion in section 5. 
I s 
IV Impact on Western European Partners 
Benefits of involvement 
401 The impact on Western European JEP partners is not expected to have been 
as significant as that of the Eastern European partners, given that the programme was 
specifically designed to assist restructuring in Eastern Europe. However, our survey 
also investigated the positive and negative impacts of the programme on Western 
European partners. 
402 As mentioned in Section 2, many of the Western European partners listed 
altruistic reasons of being able to be seen to assist Eastern European institutions as 
being the main reason for their involvement in TEMPUS (around 73% of those 
surveyed). Two thirds of respondents claimed that their project was entirely inspired 
by TEMPUS, with another 30% claiming that the project was larger because of 
TEMPUS. 
403 More than half of those surveyed had already undertaken student exchanges, 
while almost 80% had seen some staff exchanges. Exchanges of materials and 
equipment had also been seen in a quarter of our survey respondents. Some Western 
institutions also mentioned their surprise at the high technical level of Eastern 
institutions and the fact that they learnt from the Eastern theoretical approach, which 
led to benefits for their courses. 
404 Other benefits that accrue to Western partners have included: 
• an expanded network of academic contacts, particularly with Western 
European institutions 
• more funding 
• prestige of being involved with EC-funded activities 
• widening of personal horizons for staff and students personally involved 
in projects 
• good technical capabilities of many Eastern European students 
• improved mobility of staff and students 
• interesting cultural exchanges. 
405 The aspect of additional funding as having been the motivating factor appears 
to have been played down by most of the respondents. Nevertheless, we believe that 
the monetary aspect was important to the Western institutions. 
406 On balance, however, most participants were enthusiastic overall and did not 
regret their participation in the programme. 
7f 
V Conclusions and Recommendations 
501 TEMPUS has made an impressive start, with a wide range of collaborative 
projects established in the first year, and expansion of the programme since then. We 
identified no fundamental practical problems which are hindering implementation; 
early difficulties have been overcome through proposals made by the eligible countries, 
through experience or through modifications to the rules and procedures introduced 
by the Task Force for Human Resources. 
502 The TEMPUS programme has enjoyed wide popularity in both East and West. 
There are several main reasons that account for that. Projects have been 
implemented in a relatively short timeframe if considered against other programmes 
(including other elements of PHARE). It adopted a "bottom up" approach by creating 
a framework that allows JEP ideas to emanate from the institutions themselves. It 
thus creates a feeling of ownership and acceptance of the reforms it achieves. This 
approach has also helped to achieve the quick start of the projects and the changes 
in attitudes and teaching methods in higher education in the target countries. 
However, the question remains of how well it fits with national policy for higher 
education and the social and economic reconstruction of Eastern Europe. 
503 It is an early stage to be assessing the impact of TEMPUS, as the first round 
of projects are not yet complete, and the programme is intended to have long-term 
impact on the eligible countries. Despite that, we found that in its short period of 
existence, TEMPUS has already had some direct impact on the institutions concerned 
in the eligible countries. Impact ranges from concrete results such as upgrading of 
laboratory facilities and computers to institutions learning to participate in cooperation 
projects. To a lesser extent, it has had some impact on the social and economic 
restructuring of these countries, by helping to build a cadre of staff with Western 
exposure and linguistic ability. Industry links remain limited although there are some 
isolated cases which point to successful collaboration in technical areas. 
504 Our findings indicate that TEMPUS projects resulted in a good degree of 
additionality. Although previous contacts between partners (on a personal level) was 
the norm, we estimate that around two-thirds of the projects were inspired by the 
TEMPUS concept and the vast majority would not have carried out collaborative 
activity without it. 
505 Considering the relative cost effectiveness of the components within TEMPUS 
actions, we conclude that the highest impact is achieved by funding of equipment and 
transfer of know-how on site in Eastern Europe as opposed to staff and student 
mobility to the West. We drew this conclusion on the basis of both 
coordination/monitoring costs, benefits to date and our own assumptions with regards 
to costs per output as indicated in the table below: 
Student Mobility 
Staff Mobility 
Equip/konw-how Monitoring effort 
HIGH 
MEDIUM 
LOW Costs/person 
HIGH 
MEDIUM 
LOW Benefits/person 
LOW/untested 
MEDIUM 
HIGH 
9 
506 Whilst the JEPs and associated mobility are succeeding in upgrading and 
modernising higher education at departmental level, we conclude that the impact of 
TEMPUS has been, and is likely to remain, limited in terms of the programme's 
broader objectives of reforming higher education systems and supporting economic 
and social restructuring. This limited impact reflects both by the limited linkage 
between the JEPs selected and national higher education policies on economic 
priorities as well as the ambitious scope of present TEMPUS objectives. 
507 In considering how TEMPUS can be developed in order to enhance its impact, 
we have concluded that the programme should develop in different ways, depending 
whether it is primarily to support higher education reforms or to contribute directly 
to social and economic restructuring. Because eligible countries are taking different 
approaches to higher education reform and are at different stages of restructuring, we 
conclude that the choice of objectives, and the way the programme develops within 
those objectives, should be determined at country level. Once the primary objectives 
of TEMPUS in each country are determined, then a strategy for targeting TEMPUS 
can be agreed. 
TEMPUS targeted to reform of Higher Education. 
508 If TEMPUS is to be used to support planned reforms to the higher education 
system, then we recommend that the first step must be a review of how TEMPUS can 
best be used to support the planned reform policies in each eligible country. The role 
of TEMPUS will need to be considered in the light of other funding and reform 
mechanisms. Clearly, ministries of education in the eligible countries will take a 
leading role in this process. 
509 Many of the reforms planned in eligible countries are intended to move towards 
Western European models, for example, in the structure of degrees and teaching 
approaches, as well as modernising equipment and curricula. The JEPs, by providing 
opportunities for collaboration with Western European higher education, seem to be 
a valid and useful mechanism for assisting the transfer of approaches and expertise. 
There is still a need to consider how best JEPs can support planned higher education 
reforms and whether their current scale and scope should be modified to target them 
where they are most needed. 
510 The current size and nature of JEPs may still be the most appropriate use of 
TEMPUS funding. As discussed in section 3, a series of relatively small JEPs in 
various departments within an institution are likely to have a cumulative effect on 
attitudes and teaching methods in the institution. If this approach is favoured, then 
one of the criteria for JEP selection could be that the department should not have had 
JEP support in the past, and JEPs should continue to be limited to size and duration 
as at present. 
a 
511 There may also be a case for considering new types of JEPs which will support 
planned reforms, for example: 
• JEPs focused on reforming the management of higher education institutions, 
• JEPs to develop new types of institutions, 
• JEPs to disseminate and share the results of earlier JEPs (e.g. new curricula) 
between institutions. 
Depending on the purpose of the JEPs, the scale and duration of support may need 
to be adapted, for example, establishment of a new type of institution may well mean 
support for longer than 3 years. In this case, funding should be granted for the 
duration of the project but made conditional on the results of annual reviews by 
TEMPUS. On the other hand, dissemination of new curricula and equipment 
upgrading may be achievable in one year. 
512 If the JEPs are to have a sustained impact on attitudes and teaching methods 
within higher education, then our findings suggest that mobility of staff will be more 
effective than student mobility - although the impact of staff mobility from East to 
West will only be maximised if there is a strategy for retaining relevant staff within 
higher education. Provision of equipment and materials, curricular development and 
visiting staff from West to East are likely to be the most cost effective ways of 
achieving curricular change. 
TEMPUS targeted to economic restructuring needs. 
513 If TEMPUS is seen as an instrument to support short term economic reforms, 
then we suggest that its main contribution should be to meet the high level manpower 
needs and skill shortages which emerge with restructuring. If this is the priority 
objective for TEMPUS, then we suggest that the programme be developed along the 
following lines: 
• Eligible country governments need to identify key skill shortages and retraining 
required in order to support planned economic reforms (with a leading role for 
economic ministries in identifying these skill needs); 
• TEMPUS applications would be requested to address the identified and clearly 
specified training needs. The JEP mechanism can still be appropriate to obtain 
the expertise required. For some skill needs, the large numbers requiring 
training will merit larger JEPs, involving several (possibly all) of the relevant 
institutions in the eligible country; a longer time scale may also be justified. As 
in the previous alternative, funding should be granted for the duration of the 
JEP and made conditional on the results of annual review by TEMPUS; 
• Where difficulty retaining staff is likely to undermine the capacity to provide 
training, there may be a case for supporting key academies or trainers from the 
eligible countries with TEMPUS funds; 
?ï 
If there are small numbers requiring training in particular specialist areas, then 
student mobility may be cost effective; in general, however, we conclude that 
transfer of staff, equipment and materials from Western Europe are likely to 
be the most efficient way of achieving training objectives; 
Depending on the training needs, there may also be a case for greater 
industrial involvement. In practice, however, this has been difficult to achieve 
with Western enterprises and we see limited scope at present. Closer 
involvement of employers in eligible countries is desirable and should be 
achievable where the training is linked to their needs. 
Next Steps 
514 We recommend that each eligible country reviews how best it can apply 
TEMPUS to support its reform programme - whether as a source of funding and 
expertise for relatively short term training needs, or as a mechanism for reform of 
higher education. The choice will depend in part on the availability of other sources 
of funds, as well as on national priorities. 
515 We would then recommend development of a strategy for using TEMPUS, 
which would consider the scale and scope of JEPs, the arrangements and criteria for 
selecting JEPs and for managing TEMPUS and identify targets for the mix of activities 
and use of funds under TEMPUS. This strategy would need to be discussed and 
agreed with the Task Force for Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth of 
the Commission of the European Communities. 
516 The new focus and targeting of TEMPUS could then be introduced in the next 
annual round. If eligible countries develop very different strategies, then separate 
application and monitoring procedures may be needed. 
& 
Annex 1 
List of interviews undertaken 
List of people met in Bulgaria 
1 Ministry of Finance 
Plamen Gogov 
Phare Country Coordinator/Dept of International Relations 
102 Rakouski Str 
Sofia 1040 
2 Ministry of Education/lempus Office 
Prof. Jordon Stoychkov DSc 
Director International Relations Department 
Ministry of Eduction and Science 
18 Stamboliiski blvd 
1000 Sofia Bulgaria 
Tel 880494 8481/244 
Telex 23255 
Fax (2) 880600 
Miss Pravda Slateva 
Tempus Office 
Ministry of Finance - International Cooperations 
Tel 869430 
3 University Coordinators/JEP representatives 
(a) Sofia Higher Institute of Chemical Technology 
Sofia Technological University 
Department of Chemical Engineering 
Ivan Pentchev Pentchev 
Assoc professor 
JEP 2630 911 
Tel 359-2-62 441/601 
Fax 68 54 88 
Professor Ivan Vuchkov 
Doctor of technical sciences 
Department of Automation 
Higher Institute of Chemical Technology 
1156 Sofia Bulgaria 
Tel 62 441 ext 492 
Prof Dr Eng Stoyan K Stoyanov 
Higher Institute of Chemical Technology 
Dept of Automation of Industry 
JEP-18915-91/1 
JEP-2168-91/1 
Bui Kl. Ohridski, 8 
Sofia 1156 Bulgaria 
Tel 62-441 (492 345) 
Tel 68-10-21 
Fax +(3592) 68-14-80 
Fax +(3592) 68-54-88 
32 
(b) Ibchnical University of Sofia 
JEP 
Assistant Professor Ilerio Astinov 2605 - 91/1 
Assistant Professor Racho Ivanov 2374 - 91 
Professor Vladim Ganovski 1864 - 91/1 
Associate Professor Tskankove 1674 - 91 
Associate Professor A Moskov 2154 - 91 
Associate Professor Dgranchev 1728 - 91 
Professor B Alvassov 1718 - 91/1 
Professor M Mikhailov 1881 - 91 
Assistant Professor W Vitanov 2388 - 91 
Professor B Cheshankov 2262 - 91 
Associate Professor K Krachanov 2614-91 
Associate Professor D Dimitriov 
Deputy Dean Georgi Tsvetkov 
List of people met in Romania 
1 Ministry of Education and Science 
Mr Rosu 
Vice-Minister 
Ministry of Education and Science 
30 me Général H. Berthelot 
RO-70738 Bucharest 
Romania 
Mr J Beju Ph. D 
Head of Mechanical Engineering Division 
Department of Engineering Sciences 
University of Bucharest 
Splaiul Independentei 313 
77206 Bucharest 
Romania 
2 Romanian Development Agency 
Maria Angela Stolnicu 
Desk Officer 
Economic Assistance Division 
7 Blvd. Magheru 
Bucharest 
Romania 
3 Tempus Office 
Carmen Batatorescu 
Administrative Officer 
Individual Mobility Grants 
Romanian Tempus Office 
Stefan Furtuna Str. 140 
79782 Bucharest 6 
.i 4 
List of people met in Slovakia 
1 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of Republic 
Ing. Marta Simkovà 
Head of Section 
Department of Foreign Relations 
Hibokà 2 
813 30 Bratislava 
Ing. Klaudius Kosnàô 
Department of Foreign Relations 
Hibokà 2 
813 30 Bratislava 
.35 
People met in the Czech Republic 
1 Tempus Office 
JUDr. Josef Vochozka 
Tempus Office 
U Luiickèho seminàfe 13/90 
118 00Praha 1 
Ing. Ivana Cerhova 
Tempus Office 
U Luiickèho seminàfe 13/90 
118 00Praha 1 
2 Institute of Biotechnology 
Professor Jaroslav Drobnik 
Director 
Institute of Biotechnology 
Charles University 
Viniénà 5 
128 44 Prague 2 
3 Federal Ministry of Economy 
Dipl. Ing. Jaroslav Jarovyi 
Nâbfeii kpt. JaroS 1000 
170 32 Prague 7 
36 
List of people met in Poland 
1 Council of Ministers 
Tadeusz Zoltowski Ph.D.,D.Sc 
Directorate Education, Training, 
Science and Environment 
Council of Ministers 
Al. Ujazdowskie 9 
00-583 Warsaw 
Poland 
List of people met in Hungary 
1 Tempus Office 
Professor Dr. Tamàs Lajos 
Chairman 
Tempus Office 
H-1440 Budapest 70 
Dr Andrâs Szucs 
Director 
Tempus Office 
H-1146 Budapest 
Ajtôs Durer sor 19-21 
2 Commission of the European Communities 
Bales Dajka 
conseiller, chef de service 
Ministère de l'Education et de la Culture 
République de Hongrie 
H-1055 Budapest 
Szalay u. 10-14 
3 Coopers & Lybrand 
Dr Berry Gajdos Mârta, MSc 
Vagyonértékelo Csoport 
Lovohâz utca 30 
Budapest 1024 
Si 
Annex 2 
List of case studies chosen 
37 
CASE STUDIES CHOSEN 
1138 
0886 
1189 
1302 
0567 
0971 
0035 
1073 
0972 
0021 
0182 
0070 
0238 
0445 
0725 
0145 
0005 SUBJECT 
20 
30 
60 
80 
10 
30 
40 
50 
70 
10 
30 
40 
60 
80 
70 
92 
98 ELIGIBLE 
COUNTRY 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
P 
P 
P 
P 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
CHPR 
HP 
CHPBY CONTRACTOR 
E 
F 
NL 
I 
UK 
F 
UK 
UK 
NL 
IRL 
F 
D 
UK 
D 
NL 
UK 
I 
CASE STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA 
MIX ACROSS 
- ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES 
- EC PARTICIPANTS 
- COORDINATING COUNTRY 
- SUBJECT MATTER 
- SIZE (FUNDING) 
$ 
CASE STUDIES : CHARACTERISTICS 
ELIGIBLE 
COUNTRY POLAND 
4 HUNGARY 
5 CZECHOSLOVAKIA 
5 MULTI 
COUNTRY 
3 
SUBJECT 
AREA 10 
2 20 
1 30 
3 40 
2 50 
1 60 
2 70 
2 80 
2 92 
1 98 
1 
CONTRACTOR 
COUTNRY E 
1 F 
3 NL 
3 I 
2 UK 
5 IRL 
1 D 
2 
EC PARTNERS All EC members represented 

tffc 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM (93) 29 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 16 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-032-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-52437-5 
Office for Offidal Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg