An efficiency and quality enhancing reform or authoritarian power grab? Understanding stakeholder positions towards the semi-privatization of the Hungarian higher education sector

Political decisions regarding higher education must increasingly be legitimised towards economic stakeholders, fee-paying students, and society in general (Vukasović, 2018). Consequently, in recent decades managerialism has been the rule throughout the world in university governance, supposedly making academic work more efficient and more responsible. Critics of this processes pointed out that marketization fundamentally jeopardizes not only institutional autonomy, but also freedom of teaching and research (Cann et al. 2020). The impact of global competition in higher education, however, recently exacerbated the shift towards marketization and managerialism (e.g., see Ka Ho Mok 2000 for an example in Hong Kong and Singapore or Zahavi & Friedman 2019 on the Bologna Process). These questions have become even more relevant in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), as governments are coping with permanent austerity despite the importance of science and research for generating human capital. CEE countries spend less on higher education as a proportion of GDP than the OECD average (2018 data, see OECD, 2021) and score poorly in international university rankings (Boyadjieva, 2017). Meanwhile, academic freedom is being contested also by an increasingly authoritarian political context, particularly in Hungary and Poland (Kováts & Rónay 2021; Vlk et al. 2021; Labanino & Dobbins 2022). Our analysis focuses on the critical case of Hungary, which is the worst ranked EU member state in academic freedom (Kinzelbach et al. 2021). During the last two years, the Hungarian government implemented the most consequential higher education reform since the 1993 Higher Education Act. Except for five universities – without exception in the capital, Budapest – all academic institutions of the country were reorganized into public foundations (with all their assets transferred). The foundation boards – equipped with far-reaching powers over the appointment of university leadership, finance, institutional structure and even research and teaching – are filled with government loyalists with lifetime appointments. Furthermore, the faculty lost their public employee status. The EU Commission suspended the participation of all reorganized Hungarian universities in the Erasmus+ and Horizon schemes in December 2022. Yet in contrast with the 2012 attempt at a radical reduction in state financed student places, this speedy process lacking any semblance of social dialogue did not lead to any nation-wide protest movement. The government was able to implement the changes and even gain the consent of the senates without much resistance. Why was this the case? Our analysis concentrates on the actors, public bodies in higher education (e.g., the Rectors’ Conference) and interest groups (unions, student groups, professional groups) to solve the puzzle. First, we explore the perceptions and understanding of academic freedom, efficiency, and managerialism among key stakeholders. Then we explore the external and internal constraints on their inability to build a collective front against ongoing government intrusions into the internal working of universities. The analysis is situated in an interdisciplinary framework of social movement studies, interest group research, and state-labor relations, and applies a process tracing methodology. We rely on interviews with stakeholders and interest group leaders and activists, as well as secondary sources.