Suchergebnisse

Im Oktober 2001 wurde in der Ukraine die nationale Bildungsdoktrin verabschiedet, die eine Strategie zur beschleunigten innovativen Entwicklung von Bildung und Wissenschaft im ersten Viertel des 21. Jahrhunderts beinhaltet. Darin wird der Bildung politische Priorität zuerkannt. Die Autoren erörtern, wie diese Leitidee durch entsprechende Finanzierung umgesetzt werden kann. Gliederung: 1. Bildung als politische Priorität in der Ukraine. - 2. Zielorientierte Bildungsfinanzierung. - 3. Bildungsfinanzierung in der Transformationsgesellschaft. Diversifizierung der Finanzierungsquellen. - 4. Bildungsfinanzierung in der Ukraine der 1990er Jahre - privat vs. staatliche? - 5. Demokratisierung und Dezentralisierung - mehr Autonomie für die Bildungseinrichtungen. - 6. Gemeinnützige (nicht-kommerzielle) Bildungseinrichtungen - ein Novum in der Ukraine. - 7. Entwicklungsperspektiven des ukrainischen Bildungswesens. (HoF/Text übernommen)

The modern approaches towards higher education systems management often tend to focus on separate universities' performance, lacking the systemic view of the overall higher education systems' competitiveness. Thus, the policymakers often fail in tailoring the higher education strategies to the mission of higher education in contemporary society. The article focuses on providing a systemic insight into the global competitive positioning of the national higher education systems. Based on the suggested ranking methodology, the authors perform the evaluation and ranking of 94 higher education systems, highlighting the limitations of this method, and the cluster analysis, identifying 3 types of their competitive positioning: leaders, followers, and underperformers. Based on Pearson coefficients of skewness and kurtosis calculation, the article shows that globally the inequalities in terms of higher education enrolment rate are decreasing, while those of R&D institutions quality and university-industry collaboration in research remain unchanged. Therefore, upgrading higher education quality assurance systems becomes the main strategic priority for the developing countries in terms of ensuring their higher education systems' competitiveness. Given the levelling of higher education attainment and its quality worldwide, the authors anticipate further specialization of the universities and broadening of their role within the national innovation system. The article shows that the more comprehensive the approach for evaluating the higher education systems performance – the better the policymakers may benefit in terms of higher education strategic management.

The formation of knowledge economy issues of leadership is being actualized in today's global environment under the influence of globalization. An important aspect is the provision of subjects of various levels of intellectual leadership, which means achieving a high position in the competition due to high quality and intensity of the implementation of intellectual resources. The purpose is to justify methodological approaches to the assessment of intellectual leadership and to analyze its manifestation at the level of intellectual resources. The object is the processes of competition and achievement of intellectual leadership of countries in the global environment. The methodical approaches to the evaluation of intellectual leadership of different subjects at three levels (resources, results, outcomes) are offered. The intellectual leadership of countries at the level of resources is empirically analyzed by using the methods of comparative, system-structured, quantitative and qualitative analysis.By the level of intellectual leadership of the first order (accumulated intellectual resources), 32 countries have been identified as leaders, including highly developed countries and emerging active players. The unconditional leaders are the United States and China, whose relative figures are lower due to the large GDP and the population. Norway and Sweden have the highest presence in all TOP lists (6 indicators), in the second place – Finland and Switzerland (5 indicators), Australia, Brazil, New Zealand at all share the third position (4 indicators). Developed countries are predominantly leaders in terms of the formation of intellectual leadership. Outsider countries get on the list of leaders by individual indicators.