Emerging entrepreneurial universities in university reforms: the moderating role of personalities and the social/economic environment

CEPS Journal 4 (2014) 2, S. 9-26
University education, research and other services are increasingly becoming private goods as opposed to the traditional public goods concept. This trend is a highly debated process, and its consequences for universities are unquestionable. One of the consequences may be the diffusion of entrepreneurship in the higher education sector. The aim of the present paper is to highlight some of the characteristics of this process. Starting with the classics of entrepreneurship literature, Schumpeter defined the entrepreneur as somebody who goes against the stream. A new combination of production factors is the soul of entrepreneurship, and of any changes such as university reforms. Earlier research by Clark shed light on the environment of emerging entrepreneurial universities, which happened to be mainly new, relatively small universities. He found five indicators that are components of entrepreneurial universities. Taking this concept as a point of departure, we extended it in two directions. First, we go back to the economics literature and collect several other indicators/statements about entrepreneurship that are also worth considering in higher education. Second, we present a number of successful entrepreneurial cases of large top universities, looking for other indicators. Summarising these indicators in a table, two reforms of the Corvinus University of Budapest and its predecessors are discussed. Both of the reform processes lasted about five years, and there was a gap of approximately 20 years between the two processes. We would expect this to be successful, as a university needs to be reformed every 20 years, but this was not the case. We come to the surprising conclusion that, at least in case of the Corvinus University of Budapest, the two reforms in the socialist period were more entrepreneurial than the reforms we are experiencing now in a market economy environment. The explanation for this situation is twofold: the general socioeconomic environment is not really supportive of reform initiatives, and there is a lack of charismatic leadership. (DIPF/Orig.)