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
Date: 1996-09-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Central and Eastern European countries, EU programme, economic development, higher education, school-industry relations

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

tir 

tir 

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 

Evaluation of the First Phase of TEMPUS  1990/91  -1993/94 

A 

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 
1 CEE and 3 or more EU or other 
Western countries 
Multi-CEE 

32 

32 
36 

36 

44 
20 

43 

42 
15 

23 

69 
8 

37 

42 
21 

Total 
OT) 

100 
(152) 

100 
(318) 

100 
(240) 

100 
(39) 

100 

(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). 

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*) 

.  Joint European  Projects 

Partner 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

Organisations 

Number 

Percent 

7 

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 

14 

89 

81 

170 

12 

18 

211 

18 

20 

258 

109 

46 

44 

71 

203 

349 

97 

168 

304 

117 

85 

219 

2 

231 

81 

467 

34 

4 
7 
11 

36 

3 
14 

32 
3 
29 

1.9 

11.9 

10.8 

22.7 

1.6 

2.4 

28.2 

2.4 

2.2 

34.4 

14.6 

6.1 

5.9 

9.5 

27.1 

46.6 

13.0 

22.4 

40.6 

15.6 

11.3 

29.2 

0.3 

30.8 

10.8 

62.3 

4.5 

0.5 
0.9 
1.5 

4.8 

0.4 
1.9 

4.3 
0.1 
3.9 

16 

177 

168 

143. 

19 

24 

512 

27 

32 

514 

209 

62 

68 

62 

317 
634 
148 
236 
668 
164 
379 
98 
2 
366 
101 
798 

4 

4 

7 
12 
38 

4 
16 
36 
3 
35 

0.3 

2.9 

2.7 

2.3 

0.3 

0.4 

8.3 

0.4 

0.5 

8.4 

3.4 

1.0 

1.1 

1.0 

5.2 
10.3 
2.4 
3.8 
10.9 
2.7 
6.2 
1.6 
0.0 
6.0 
1.6 
13.0 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 
0.2 
0.6 

0.1 
0.3 
0.6 
0.0 
0.6 

4 
60 
56 
39 
10 
9 

130 
13 
12 

163 
77 
22 
24 
27 

100 
228 
64 

74 
354 

60 
131 

24 

2 

105 
34 
243 

21 
2 
5 
8 

16 

2 
8 

16 
3 
30 

0.2 
2.9 
2.6 
1.8 
0.5 
0.4 

6.0 
0.6 
0.6 

7.5 
3.5 
1.0 
1.1 
1.1 

4.6 
10.5 
2.9 

3.4 
16.3 

2.8 
6.0 

1.1 

0.1 

4.8 
1.6 
11.2 

1.0 
0.1 
0.2 
0.3 

0.7 

0.1 
0.4 

0.7 
0.1 
1.4 

749 

100.0 

6146 

100.0 

2171 

100.0 

* All partners and organisations; including those not participating the whole period. 

Source: Data base of the  European Training  Foundation 

8 

Table  3.3 
Subject  Area  of  TEMPUS  Joint  European  Projects,  by  Year  of Start  (percent  of  JEPs) 

Year  of  start 

Total 

1990/91 

1991/92 

1992/93 

1993/94 

Agricultural sciences/agrobusiness 
Humanities/philological  sciences 
Social sciences 
Management and business 
Natural sciences and mathematics 
Medical sciences 
Engineering studies/applied sciences 
Computer sciences 
Environmental protection 
Architecture, urban/regional  planning 
Art and design 
Language studies 
Teacher training 
Law 
Other subjects 

4 
1 
7 
24 
7 
6 
18 
8 
7 
1 
1 
7 
3 
3 
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 operation 

1990/91 

1991/92 

1992/93 

1993/94 

Year of start 

First year 

Second year 

Third year 

105,279 

(152) 

158,484 
(134) 

180,169 
(126) 

86,042 

(315) 

146,829 
(275) 

159,096 
(242) 

122,356 

(237) 

149,906 
(220) 

* 

111,072 

(39) 

* 

* 

Total 

102,874 

(743) 

150,388 
(629) 

166,311 
(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 

Perceptions  of the Policy  Framework 

5.1 
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. 

Financial  Conditions 

5.3 
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 
and 
contractor 

Coordinator 

Contractor 

Partner 

Total 

Delay in provision of the grant 
by.the European Commission 

Delay in provision of the grant 
by the bank 

Delay in provision of the grant 
by the JEP Contractor 

Delay in provision of the grant 
by your institution 

Difficulties with the institutional 
administration of the grant 

Difficulties with the administration 
of the grant within the JEP 

Unbalanced distribution of funds 
among partners 

31 

18 

1 

7 

14 

8 

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. 

The Educational  Activities 

5.6 
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) 

Very satisfied 

2 

3 

4 

Very  dissatisfied 

Total 

(n) 

Country group 

Total 

CEE country 

Western country 

59 

33 

7 

15 

0 

100 

(685) 

32 

45 

15 

2 

100 

(963) 

4 

43 

41 

12 

1 

100 

(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 

Other departments 

All depts. of institution 

Accessibility  not specified 

Total 

(n) 

44 

31 

23 

2 

100 

(537) 

21 

20 

56 

3 

100 

(491) 

46 

31 

20 

3 

100 

(287) 

59 

21 

19 

1 

100 

(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* 

Substantial changes occurring** 

Number of JEPs 

Number of JEPs 

1-2 

3-5 

6-10  H a nd  Total 
more 

1-2 

3-5 

6-10  H a nd 

Total 

more 

Establishment  of interna 
tional academic  contacts 

56 

Increase of staff exchange  63 

64 

52 

71 

68 

82 

90 

70 

69 

76 

67 

76 

44 

88 

82 

86 

72 

83 

68 

61 

63 

62 

69 

64 

76 

72 

82 

79 

78 

56 

44 

55 

82 

60 

53 

48 

45 

59 

51 

50 

43 

70 

64 

47 

44 

53 

83 

59 

58 

75 

68 

76 

67 

71 

63 

44 

55 

83 

57 

60 

52 

61 

57 

62 

72 

55 

74 

Establishment  of interna 
tional research cooperation  33 

29 

30 

43 

34 

50 

38 

43 

64 

38 

26 

27 

42 

29 

17 

29 

35 

18 

29 

25 

24 

33 

27 

25 

38 

42 

23 

35 

33 

56 

52 

57 

59 

43 

57 

30 

42 

0 

15 

9 

17 

11 

13 

14 

25 

38 

16 

10 

8 

10 

21 

11 

16 

16 

0 

11 

14 

9 

29 

5 

29 

13 

61 

66 

49 

56 

42 

24 

16 

19 

Improvement of equipment 
e.g. computer centres, 
laboratories, libraries etc. 

Introduction of new 
teaching methods 

Establishment  of new 
course programmes 

Increase of student 
exchange 

Introduction of new 
contents/paradigms 

Reorganisation  of staff de 
velopment and continuous 
education programmes 

Establishment  of new 
faculties/departments 

Changes of the degree 
structures 

Reorganisation  of  higher 
education management 

Establishment  of cooper 
ation between  institution 
and industry/commerce 

Establishment  of technolo 
gy transfer  units or centres 

Reorganisation  of admini 
strative  structures  and 
procedures 

8 

9 

8 

0 

14 

7 

26 

27 

22 

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 - 
2500 

2501 - 
5000 

5001 and 
more 

Formal partnership agreements with 
the partner institution(s) 

46 

Teaching  material developed  in TEMPUS 
projects  becomes a standard in the country  46 

Establishment of special  units/courses 
for language training 

Courses/course  programmes  developed 
were adopted by other institution(s)  in the 
country 

Introduction of a system for  recognition 
of study  periods abroad 

Provision of training courses for staff 
members from  departments/institutions 
not involved in TEMPUS 

Establishment of special  unit/office 
responsible for international activities 

Membership of department/institution  in 

international networks 

27 

38 

27 

23 

8 

12 

Establishment of inter-library  loans services  12, 

Other 

Not ticked 

Total 

(n) 

0 

12 

250 

(26) 

59 

55 

23 

32 

23 

36 

23 

9 

14 

0 

5 

277 

(22) 

48 

48 

31 

38 

38 

28 

21 

17 

14 

3 

3 

290 

(29) 

83 

57 

50 

27 

37 

33 

43 

33 

7 

3 

3 

377 

(30) 

60 

51 

34 

34 

32 

30 

24 

19 

11 

2 

6 

302 

(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 
the  source  of  problems  whereby  delays 
funds.  Delays  of  funds  seem  to  be  most  frequently 

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-

O 

^ 

^ 

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. 

(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 

w 

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. 

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. 

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 

Albania 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Estonia 
Hungary 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Poland 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 

Sub-total 
Regional  funds 
former DDR 
Yugoslavia 

Grand  total 

TEMPUS  BUDGET  (MECU) 

1990 

1991 

2.46 

6.18 

12.35 

1.23 

22.23 

0.93 

23.16 

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 

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 

98.00 

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