Following the firing of the Rector of Tashkent’s ‘most corrupt university’ in August 2019, another university leader has been shown the door.
Rector Bahodyr Khodiev of Tashkent State University of Economics (TSUE) was suspended in November 2019 on the grounds of corruption. Details of Khodiev’s alleged activities have not been made public, but this very high profile removal comes as part of the Uzbekistan government’s drive for greater transparency during the university admissions process, which now carries ‘severe penalties’ for those who violate the process.
Khodiev had been at TSUE since May 2016, although this was not his first stint there as Rector. He had previously also been in charge prior to moving over to several senior government positions in 2010.
Khodiev has been replaced by Kongratbay Sharipov who has come over from the Ministry of Higher and Professional Education to take charge at TSUE. Sharipov left school at 15 to work as a mechanic, turning to teaching in the late 1980s and turning fully to academia as Uzbekistan became independent in the 1990s. In the 2000s he appears to have combined academic work with business operations – in 2009 alone he had positions as both the general manager of new projects at GM Uzbekistan and was briefly the rector of Turin Polytechnic University!
Watch this space to see who’s next to go in the anti-corruption drive in Uzbekistan.
My latest piece for University World News, a global online publication for anyone with a passing interest in higher education, was published on October 19. I wanted to bring UWN’s readership up to date with recent developments in Uzbekistan, which have been taking place at breakneck speed over the past couple of years.
Please find the article at https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20191017104759957; a copy of the text is below:
A breathtaking shift from autocracy to an open HE system
The higher education landscape in Uzbekistan, Central Asia, has been changing rapidly over the past three years. Since the passing of Uzbekistan’s first president, Islam Karimov, in 2016, who had been in power since 1991, the country has seen an about-face under the leadership of his successor, Shavkat Mirziyoyev.
Under Mirziyoyev, a swathe of policies aim to transform higher education into what one government minister has called ‘Universities 3.0’.
These policies will give universities more autonomy to choose their own leaders and to manage their own affairs through their governing bodies, will give universities greater control over student numbers and course offerings and will liberalise price controls on tuition fees and increase the number of public-private partnerships.
In October 2019, these and other ideas were formalised through the ratification of the Higher Education Development Plan to 2030.
Although Uzbekistan was the first of the Central Asian states to permit international branch campuses, having hosted the United Kingdom’s University of Westminster and Russia’s Plekhanov Russian University of Economics since 2001-02, the number of foreign higher education institutions remained very limited at just five.
However, under Mirziyoyev, regulation was introduced in late 2017 offering tax breaks and other financial incentives. Since then, international branch campuses have spread ‘like mushrooms’, according to Yekaterina Kazachenko, a journalist with the independent Russian agency Fergana News.
Much fanfare accompanied the opening of the American Webster University, where bilateral talks on opening campuses in Tashkent and Samarkand had apparently begun under the previous leadership in 2012. However, it was not until the 2019-20 academic year that the campuses were inaugurated, with just under 500 students.
According to the university, this makes the Uzbekistan branches the largest population of Webster students outside of the university’s St Louis, Missouri, main campus.
Interest from Russia and Asia
It’s not just English-speaking countries that are getting in on the branch campus act. Russia, which is the largest provider of branch campuses to the countries of the former Soviet Union, has also been increasing its efforts to expand the presence of its universities in Uzbekistan.
Campuses linked to six Russian universities opened in 2019 alone and talks are ongoing to create other branches.
With the country’s strategic location between Europe and Asia, it is unsurprising that interest in opening branch campuses in Uzbekistan is also emanating from the south and east.
The relatively well established presence of Singapore (Management Development Institute of Singapore) and South Korea (Inha University) is being joined by Malaysia’s University of Technology and India’s Amity University, among others.
There are also rumours that China will be creating not just a branch campus but a fully-fledged university in the capital Tashkent.
The flourishing of branch campuses is one obvious area of change for the size and shape of the higher education system in Uzbekistan. Other reforms have also had a demonstrable impact, such as the resumption of the teaching of political science in 2019 after it was banned under Karimov, ostensibly because it did not represent the then president’s ideological leanings.
The speed of reform
Many of the plans being put forward adhere to what we might think of as a ‘standard operating procedure’ global template for higher education reform. It’s not only Uzbekistan that is welcoming international branch campuses, creating university rankings, opening science parks and pushing for publications in ranked international journals, as readers of University World News will be well aware.
Arguably, however, there are two things that make the reforms in Uzbekistan stand out. The first is the sheer speed with which a systemic overhaul is being introduced. Mirziyoyev has been at the helm for less than three years, but he has already made a significant impact, not only in higher education but in the media, economy, social policy and other areas.
The second is the distance that these reforms are taking Uzbekistan from the previous authoritarian regime.
In September 2019, academics in Uzbekistan and around the world rejoiced at the wonderful news that the scholar Andrei Kubatin had been acquitted of all charges and released from jail. Kubatin, a well-known Turkic studies expert and historian, had been imprisoned in 2017 and subjected to torture after being sentenced to an 11-year term on false charges of treason.
Human rights watchers and academics alike are hopeful that the reversal of Kubatin’s charges could lead to the re-examination of other politically motivated cases.
Nevertheless, Uzbekistan’s higher education sector continues to experience significant challenges. One is systemic corruption, which ranges from bribing professors for grades to using connections to obtain places on popular courses.
Another challenge is the limitation on who can access a degree. Although a record number of students applied to get into university in 2019, participation rates in higher education are still low at 10% (the gross enrolment ratio in tertiary education for 2018).
This figure is even less encouraging for women (8%), who continue to experience gender discrimination and inequality. It is also known that students from rural areas find it more difficult to get into higher education.
A third barrier comes from the top-heavy governance of the system, where university leaders are appointed (and removed) at the state’s behest.
Yet, as experienced journalist Navbahor Imamova has recently pointed out, despite continuing curtailments on citizens’ liberties and low trust in government, the reforms in Uzbekistan to date nevertheless reflect a “remarkable shift, one that stands in sharp contrast to what often seems like a relentless international trend toward greater repression, increasing autocracy, and eroding liberties”.
Uzbekistan watchers must be exhausted with the near-constant flow of news about reforms in the country, but as the reforms appear to be supporting people in the country to live better and happier lives, this is a fatigue worth accepting.
I’ve written a summary of the reforms that are affecting higher education and about a wave of new higher education institutions with plans to open. That post already has three updates based on additional news releases – a good indication of the scale and speed of change.
The latest announcement is that politics – political science for the North Americans among you – is to make a return to the university curriculum [en] later in 2019. Admissions to politics courses stopped in 2010, teaching ended in 2013 and the subject was banned in 2015 under the previous Uzbek President, who decreed it a ‘pseudoscience’. (no snarky comments from natural scientists, please!)
Politics will be back on the menu at the state-run University of World Economy and Diplomacy [ru] (UWED) from autumn/fall 2019. 20 lucky school leavers will get to join the undergraduate class, 25% of whom will also get a state scholarship to pay for their studies. UWED will also take ten students for an Applied Politics Master’s degree (20% to be funded) and a handful of PhD and Doctor of Science students too.
The presidential decree may seem unexpected, but experts have been advocating for the lifting of the ban for some time. Professor Alisher Faizullaev, a Professor at UWED, wrote in June 2017 in defence of politics [ru], pointing out the subject’s long roots in Uzbekistan and around the world. He argues that the need for political analysis had never gone away and that it would be in the country’s strategic interests to now bring the subject back.
As UWED prepares to admit its new students in the coming months and as Uzbekistan watchers consider just how much caffeine another year of reform will require, Professor Faizullaev’s parting words in his 2017 article [ru] are worth repeating:
Но есть одно очень важное условие для адекватного развития политологии в любой стране. Политология должна быть наукой, а не проявлением идеологии или конъюнктурных соображений. Государство и общество только выиграют, если политология будет развиваться именно как независимая наука.
But there is one very important condition for political science to develop appropriately – in any country. Political science must be a science, not a display of ideology or opportunism. State and society can only benefit if political science develops as an independent science.
If you should find yourself in Pittsburgh, PA, today – October 27, 2018 – please join us at the Central Eurasian Studies Society’s 2018 Annual Conference for our roundable on Global Bolognaization: Central Asian Encounters with the European Higher Education Area.
Followers of my blog may remember the call for proposals that co-convenor Aliya Akatayeva and I put out at the end of last year when we first started planning the roundtable. We had an excellent response and our original line-up of panellists included colleagues from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (and me!) all ready to share experiences and analyses of the impact of the European Union inspired Bologna Process reforms on higher education in Central Asia.
At our roundtable today, we will be taking three directions of travel to reflect the research and experiences of the three panellists who will be present:
Professor Gulnara Mendikulova, a distinguished scholar of Kazakh and world history, will set the general scene for the roundtable, considering questions such as: what is the history of the Bologna Process across Central Asia? What were the drivers for Kazakhstan to adopt the Bologna Process? What have been the challenges and opportunities presented by the reforms?
Aliya Akatayeva, Head of the Social Studies Department at Satbayev University (Kazakhstan), will focus on the knotty issue of academic freedom. Whilst academic freedom – including autonomy for universities – is a core value of the European Union higher education ‘package’, there are a number of tensions and challenges in embedding this broad principle in Kazakhstan. As one of the universities in the country that has been given some degree of autonomy under a 2017 law, she will offer a case study of the journey of Satbayev University towards academic freedom.
I will discuss Tajikistan, not (yet) a signatory to the Bologna Process but aspiring to follow in the footsteps of Kazakhstan and become one. By highlighting findings from in-depth interviews in two cities in the country, I will draw out the experiences of some of the faculty members who are on the front line in living with the new higher education reforms. Whilst many are positive about the potential of related changes to the curriculum on the quality of the learning experience, others expressed resistance and resentment towards a series of changes they felt they were not consulted on or given time to adapt to.
We’d love to see you at the roundtable – 11am today in Posvar 4217!
In an interview with Gazeta.uz [ru] published on 18 September, Uzbek Deputy Prime Minister Aziz Abdukhakimov offers some insights into higher education reforms in the country. The list is impressively long, indicative of broader reform trends taking place across government and in society as a whole.
In higher education, I’ve already flagged Uzbekistan’s growing interest in cooperation with neighbour and former arch-enemy Tajikistan, the release of the first national university ranking and the role of higher education in the country’s international relations.
Now let’s add to those efforts the reforms described by Abdukhakimov earlier this week:
- Autonomy – there’s a proposal for Rectors (Vice-Chancellors) to be elected by faculty under an open vote. This makes the state one step further away, and the open voting is intended to avoid the possiblity of what Abdukhakimov calls ‘clan politics’ entering the higher education system. However, Abdukhakimov notes that the state will retain the right to veto the choice of Rector in state universities, so let’s not get carried away with too many ideas about academic freedom and the like;
- Decentralization – universities are to bring in their own managers to deal with finance and local administration, and should establish governing bodies (usually called boards of trustees in former Soviet systems) to oversee their affairs;
- Expansion – universities will be allowed to recruit more students (within the limit of the number of faculty they have and capacity of their facilities – classrooms, dormitories etc) and offer a wider range of course ‘in order to respond to the demands of the market more flexibly’;
- Income – connected to the point on expansion above, universities will be able to admit students who did not achieve the required admissions test score by charging them tuition at between 1,5 and 3 times the amount of the regular fee. Whilst Abdukhakimov does not encourage universities to admit students who did not meet the requirements [ru], it’s hard to see how the prospect of extra income that these ‘super-contract’ [ru] students will bring with them will deter HEIs;
- Privatization – the legal system will recognize private higher education institutes (HEIs) and the government is planning tax breaks and other incentives to encourage more such HEIs to open. The government also wants to encourage more public-private partnership HEIs e.g. by offering state-owned buildings for privately run use;
- Internationalization – the country wants more international students and has ambitions – rather like Kazakhstan – to become a regional education hub. Abdukhakimov asserts that these international students will then return home to be brand ambassadors for Uzbekistan, ‘which is very advantageous for the country’s image’;
- Choice – new admissions processes will be introduced allowing prospective students to apply earlier and to more HEIs than the current system permits;
- Access – the state will fund a small number of students from disdvantaged or rural backgrounds to attend privately run universities (a grant system already exists in publicly funded HEIs). Former military personnel will be able to get funding from a specific grant scheme rather than applying to the main grant pot;
- Commercialization – the state is going to invest in 80 HEIs and provide free places so that they can turn into what Abdukhakimov calls ‘Universities 3.0’. Beyond teaching and research (as making up 1.0 and 2.0 if you want to think about it like that), these HEIs will emphasize the commercialization of knowledge – so I’m imagining the government is thinking of US models like Stanford or MIT that has many highly successful spin-off companies and opportunities for students to be involved in social and business entrepreneurship.
The interview is followed by a fairly lively discussion which mainly focusses on the financial aspects. The idea of ‘super-contracts’ [ru] is new and is quite clever if you think about it from the government’s point of view. By legitimizing practices they know are already happening (I too have heard about this in other universities in neighbouring countries – e.g. you pay a ‘double contract’ – two years’ fees – for the first year of study if you didn’t quite make the grade), the state gets to take the credit for giving HEIs more flexibility and income, all the while arguing that this low stakes because if the students aren’t smart enough to make the admissions cut-off, they’ll probably drop out – but not before paying at least a year’s worth of fees. But on the other hand, as one commentator suggests: “The name ‘super-contract’ makes it sound like an achievement, but really it’s just a straight path into university for rich idiots’.
There’s an awful lot to digest in this short summary of the Uzbekistan government’s plans, and it’s an exciting time for those of us (OK, for me!) interested in how higher education is changing in the Central Asia region. Almost all of what Abdukhakimov is proposing puts Uzbekistan squarely in the growing group of nations seeking to conform to what they see as ‘global best practices’ in higher education, which basically means attempting to emulate the US research university system and neoliberal funding models where higher education is seen as primarily a private good.
Many of the ideas for reform are also underway in neighbouring countries, although as far as I know, the ‘super-contract’ is unique to Uzbekistan. I’m planning to discuss the prospects for regional integration in the Central Asian higher education systems in a future blog post, and something I will consider there is the extent to which the convergence on the type of reforms being pursued helps or hinders those prospects.
There’s much more to say about the direction Uzbekistan is choosing to travel in when it comes to higher education, but that’s enough for today.
Avaz Saifiddinov, a journalist with as-independent-as-is-possible-in-Tajikistan Asia-Plus media group, this week reports [ru] – in almost apocalyptic terms – on the devastating impact that a lack of education and skills training can bring to a nation. He calls this qualification deficit the single biggest problem facing Tajikistan today, more so than corruption, lack of electricity and absence of democracy. He even suggests that neighbouring Afghanistan has greater levels of human capital than Tajikistan. Controversial? Yes – but the devastating fact is that despite some exaggerations in the article, much of it rings true.
Saifiddinov offers some good proposals to avoid what may lay ahead for the country if changes are not made. Business owners should be creative in thinking about different types of business and identifying their markets. Education should be properly financed. A renewed importance needs to be place on vocational education and training. Public administration should be reformed.
But – and here’s the big ‘but’… Saifiddinov points out that transformation would have to start from the top, something that’s very easy to say but in reality is unlikely without a change of government. And if you follow Saifiddinov’s logic, that won’t happen unless top government officials advocate for change and in so doing effectively write themselves out of a job… Saifiddinov is absolutely right to point out the importance of having the leadership on board for any major change project to succeed, but doesn’t seem to see or want to admit the terrible irony of this suggestion.
I second the requests from some of the people commentating on the article for more on this theme from Saifiddinov. This article makes a lot of big statements and comes up with some big suggestions. Let’s break those down, qualify and quantify the issues and look at pragmatic ways that individuals can make change happen.
English translation below is mine but the article in all languages is © Asia-Plus.
Lack of qualified staff could threaten terrible poverty
It’s scary to think about whose hands and brains will build and develop the country in 10-15 years’ time when the older generation has passed on…
If you were to ask what the most pressing problem in the country is at the moment, I would be bold enough to say it’s not a lack of communication or a lack of electricity. It’s not even high levels of corruption, the absence of democracy and a poor investment climate.
Our main problem is a lack not just of qualified, but even just competent, staff at absolutely every level…
That’s partly against a backdrop of poor overall understanding of very elementary things and concepts, such as knowledge of geography, basic mathematics, physics and grammar. It is undoubtedly the case that this is a real problem in many countries, especially poor countries, but it seems nowhere more acute than in Tajikistan, particularly among young professionals and government officials.
This is so much so that the Dushanbe City Council has openly stated that it will give preference in recruitment to candidates who graduated from Tajik universities before 1992 and graduates of foreign universities. This is further confirmation that both state and private higher education institutions are producing so-called ‘specialists’ who are either incompetent – or, with a few exceptions, have such a low level of qualification that it’s not appropriate for the modern workplace.
You might say that the problem is exaggerated and that there are countries where the situation with professional qualifications is worse? Maybe there are some countries where the overall socio-economic situation is worse (for example, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Syria, Sri Lanka and other extremely poor countries). But even in Afghanistan, for example, the level of competence and qualification of government officials, business and private sector workers is higher than ours. Our saving grace is the workforce trained up to the late 20th century, but this generation will pass on either with age or through migration.
Our problem is really so critical that even if all other fundamental issues were somehow resolved, the lack of qualified personnel would simply not allow the country take advantage of these newly favourable conditions to develop the country’s social and economic sectors. The problem of incompetence often leads to erroneous decisions, ill-considered investments of public and private resources into projects with low returns or projects destined to fail, and these can cause serious damage to the state, private businesses and the public. For example, ambitious projects for new buildings and business centres designed without business plans or for someone’s personal benefit.
It’s unacceptable that in all these years of independence, the drive for high quality education, professional competence, honesty and integrity has been lost. The most ‘successful’ and richest people in the country generally don’t have the professional qualifications appropriate to their status in society or position in the civil service. Then they pass this ‘legacy’ to their children and extended family. This ‘role model’ behaviour is also transmitted more widely in society, undermining its foundations and creating unrealistic outlooks for young people, where they don’t put high quality education and professionalism first. When asked about their future, rural high school students usually say that leaving to work in Russia is their ultimate life ambition.
As a result, everyone suffers, both rich and poor:
– A Minister makes ignorant statements or can’t coherently argue the state’s position;
– A government official can’t make an educated decision about recruiting staff and allows corruption and misuse of public funds;
– A Member of Parliament makes a declaration in all seriousness that marriages between Tajiks and foreigners (non-Muslims) should be banned;
– Builders build poor quality houses and take too long, leading to many contracts being given instead to Turkish or Chinese companies;
– There’s a lack of qualified plumbers and electricians;
– A doctor makes a wrong diagnosis, often leading to fatal consequences;
– Teachers make students learn songs, history and poems by heart, instead of offering them basic knowledge;
– Students often do not have a basic grasp of elementary mathematics and can’t write properly, whilst at the same time most textbooks aren’t even in the state language;
– A traffic inspector doesn’t even know the rules of the road and doesn’t know how to control traffic;
– Lawyers and judges don’t know the law, and economists have no idea what the model of supply and demand is;
– Trader don’t know anything about the goods in their shops other than their price…
This lamentable list goes on and on.
Separately, we should also mention our migrant workers who through blood, sweat and tears earn a living in Russia, and in so doing uphold the country’s economic solvency and social security. However, due to their extremely low level of education and qualifications and ignorance of their rights, they are employed in the lowest paid and the most difficult jobs. This leads to low earnings, widespread violation of human rights, extortion and a high death rate. And so the story of the lack of education of our migrant workers is becoming the talk of the town.
As for the local labour market, there is a serious and imminent prospect of our local workforce being replaced by invited [foreign] specialists not only in high-tech sectors, but also in construction and even in agriculture.
On the plus side, however, the problem of incompetent staff is a universal one for rich and poor, the powerful, the oligarchs and ordinary citizens. The funds of rich and successful businessmen, bank and factory owners are also affected: whilst they have money and the desire to invest it profitably, they often – through ignorance – are unable to find a decent and professional team of employees to be entrusted with management and business development. Distrust between company owners and their managers is a particular problem. The owner doesn’t pay the employee for poor performance, and the employee tries to steal or cheat it out of the company. The state itself often does the same when it comes to public property, public services or state-owned enterprises.
Among company owners, there’s also an extreme shortage of ideas for the development of a productive and interesting business. Everyone’s building houses, business centres, hotels, supermarkets, pharmacies, restaurants, and demand for these is not that high. Or things are done without consideration about whether there are workers qualified enough to take the business forward. Few people are thinking where money could be invested effectively, for example, in private medical clinics, quality nurseries and children’s centres (in a country where many children), private tourism, consulting, and so on.
And even if you have ideas and investment, it’s impossible to find specialists who could make them into reality, whether these are educated waiters and good cooks, traders, educators and so on. Where such specialists exist, there is a fear that a successful business will be forcefully taken over. When this happens, the new ‘owners’ aren’t in a position to support and develop these ideas to make a profit for themselves and society, because once a team leaves, the business often goes too, even if there’s money in it.
The problem of unprofessionalism and incompetence is fundamental and universal. This does not mean that the people in themselves aren’t good, but it means that for a number of reasons they don’t have a competitive advantage or professional skills. At the highest level, this means that the entire country is not able to develop effectively and compete in the region, to defend and promote our interests in both foreign and domestic policy.
It is very sad that the phrase ‘Made in the Tajik way’ (‘Tojiki’) is increasingly associated with poor quality, poor service, but high cost.
But there is a solution
The solution to this problem must also be fundamental. Starting right from the top, we must fundamentally change the way people are motivated towards a high quality education, putting professionalism at the forefront, particularly for the leaders of the country (instead of regionalism and tribalism). It will demonstrate a new scale of values for the entire population which in turn will help to bring in a new wave of civil servants from top to bottom. This should be followed by major reform of public administration and the civil service.
The education system needs to be radically reformed at both school and university level, so that pupils and teachers stop being undervalued in themselves and as a profession, and so that schools and universities are properly financed by the state and not by parents’ pockets.
And finally, the system of vocational education needs to be restored so that, as before, the role of the worker and the master become more valued professions – instead of the tax inspector or the state worker. This would also improve the competence and skills of potential migrants. And for that we need incentives and people, people, people – experts in their field, of whom we have so few left.
The very first step must be made from the top, otherwise the best case scenario is that we’ll continue to remember our glorious past, praising the greatness of culture and poetry of the 10th century. At worst, we will be absorbed by the new great empire of the East.