Introduction

2Considering its “socialist” initial path and its adaptation to the market economy in the mid-1980s, the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM), the historical, oldest and biggest university in Tanzania, is a notable model of evolution of public policy in a neoliberal context. UDSM was first established in 1961 as a college of the University of London. In 1963, it became a constituent college of the University of East Africa. A clear division of labour was introduced: Makerere was a pre-eminent institution in East Africa, with an established strength in medicine and great reputation in Liberal Arts and Agriculture; Nairobi concentrated on Engineering and Business; and the college of Dar es Salaam specialized in Law and Development studies. UDSM became an independent national university in July 1970 (Cooksey et al., 2003: 1).

3In this paper, I examine the impact of budgetary restrictions on reforms introduced in the 1990s. This approach based upon quantitative data deals with the articulation between state and external donors investments to understand how, finally, a new higher education market get structured.

The process of the university reforms

4In the 1980-1990’s, the government of Tanzania initiated some global reforms to answer political and economical crises (Kelsall, 2002). The education sector in the country was then facing major constraints arising out of economic hardships: the war against Idi Amin Dada’s Uganda, the sharp increase in prices of petroleum products and the drastic fall in volume and prices of agricultural product exports (Luhanga, 2009: 43). The higher education sector itself was confronted to a serious financial crisis in terms of both recurrent and capital development budgets. For instance, the number of government fellowships available was very limited. The public system of higher education was caught between these declining governmental revenues and a growing demand from secondary sector.

5The Tanzanian state was hugely dependent upon international aids and consequently upon donors’ “recommendations,” which focused on the central role of primary education in national development. From 1986, the World Bank put forth in a series of policy papers an array of concrete recommendations to change universities. The central idea was based on the controversial argument that the rate of return on investment in higher education was much lower than in primary education: “Within the education sector, however, there is evidence that higher education investments have lower social rates of return than investments in primary and secondary education… In these countries, the Bank’s involvement in higher education will continue to be mainly to make its financing more equitable and cost-effective, so that primary and secondary education can receive increased attention at the margin” (World Bank, 1994: 84-85). Between 1992 and 1998, 61% of the Tanzanian budget for education went to primary education and only 21% to higher and technical institutions.

Table 1: The sharing of the budget for education sector, 1992-1998 (%)

	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998
Primary education	51	52	63	65	67	67	62
Secondary education	15	14	10	7	7	9	7
Teaching of teachers	5	4	3	2	2	3	2
Higher and technical institutions	20	23	20	21	20	17	24
Administrations and others	9	7	5	5	4	5	5

References: Kimambo et al. (2008: 234); Oxford Policy Management (2000: 8)

6During the same period, UDSM embarked upon major transformations through the implementation of financial and managerial reforms. This process led to the adoption of the Institutional Transformation Programme (ITP), the university’s reform guidelines, in 1991. The rationale of this programme was that university infrastructures, governance and curricula did not match the needs of society and market. The role of the university, fixed in the 1960-1970’s, appeared to be in contradiction with new political, social and economic realities (Luhanga et al., 2003: 136-151).

7The adoption of the ITP followed different steps. In the 1988-1989 academic years, the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Dar es Salaam undertook a major review of its activities. The School wanted to stop brain drain at the Faculty, improve professional productivity and teachers’ wages, enhance linkages with market and expand research and postgraduate training (Luhanga, 2003: 1). This review resulted in the reorganisation of the Faculty’s organisational structure, including the setting up of new units which can be considered as pioneers in UDSM reform process. At the same time, the central administration of the university prepared a report, the Management Effectiveness Review. This report synthesized all previous studies and recommendations concerning university dysfunction (esp. governance, infrastructure and budgetary difficulties). Discussions were concluded in 1991 with the adoption of ITP, also referred to as “UDSM 2000” (Luhanga, 2003: 2). A committee, called the Program Steering Committee (PSC), was set up to manage the transformation program. It was aimed at creating quantitative data to evaluate lacks within the university and organizing some debates with internal and external actors around the drafting of the Corporate Strategic Plan (CSP). This document covered all the aspects of the institution, from the basic concepts of higher education to aspirations, goals, objectives and the philosophy upon with the envisaged reform process was to be built (Cooksey et al., 2003: 15-16).

The reinstituting of cost-sharing policy and the status of public institution

8In response to its financial crisis, UDSM turned to private revenues. The policy of cost-sharing, whereby costs are shared by governments, parents and students, was prioritize as the main source of private revenues. The policy of cost-sharing in higher education was not new to Tanzania. It existed during the colonial period and post-independence Tanzania until 1967 (Baroin & Constantin, 1999; Crozon, 1996; Martin, 1998). During the colonial period and even after independence, students in higher education institutions paid tuition fees. In 1967, the Tanzanian government decided to grant scholarships to all students admitted to UDSM, which was then the only public university. Cost-sharing in higher education sector was officially reinstated in January 1992. The policy was implemented in three phases. In phase 1 (1992-1993), students and parents were required to pay transportation, application registration, entry examination and student union fees; in phase 2 (1993-1994), they had to pay for food and accommodation only; in the last phase (2004-2005), they were required to pay tuition and examination fees, books, stationary costs and medical insurance. The notion of “producer responsiveness” is premised on the assumption that cost-sharing through tuition fees and other modalities will make students and theirs families more discerning consumers and universities more cost-conscious providers (Ishengoma, 2004: 104). The other argument is grounded on the idea that it induces greater independence for the university structure and actors, as they do not depend exclusively on government budget. Despite the existence of privately sponsored programs, such student admissions have remained very low. In 2002, privately sponsored students on the main campus of UDSM numbered only 13%. Compared to the Makerere University success story of privately sponsored students (Mamdani, 2007), the Tanzanian policy is a failure.

Table 2: The enrolment of private students, 2002-2004

	2002	2003	2004
Main campus	945	1,451	2,142
UCLAS	48	54	63
MUCHS	182	197	212
Total	1,175	1,702	2,417

Reference: UDSM (2005: 43)

9Despite the financial crisis, especially between 1991–1994, the study of UDSM budgetary evolution shows an important increase in funding allocated by the government: from USD 7,797,373 in 1987-1988 to USD 16,544,895 in 2004-2005. Though rising, this investment is nonetheless insufficient compared to the increasing number of students enrolled. In other words, there is a manifest inadequacy of the budget to match the needs of the university, all the more so as UDSM is compelled to create new faculties and curricula to answer an increased demand for higher education. The decrease in the amount allocated by the Tanzanian government to one student clearly reveals this inadequacy: from USD 2,697 in 1987-1988, it dropped to USD 1,362 in 2004-2005 (see Table 3).

10A hybrid model of scholarship and student loan is currently in place. Since the academic year 2002-2003, the government has imposed quotas for scholarships which cover all university fees. The system of student loans, introduced in 2005-2006 to partly cover tuition fees, other academic fees, room and board, finances the great majority of student in B.A. At the end of their studies, students have to repay their loans but many do not. This situation produces considerable economic damage for the state. On 24^th and 25^th December 2009, the governmental institution HESLB (Higher Education Students’ Loans Board), which coordinates loans of students, engaged a great advertising campaign in the national press. Around 30,000 students, over 48,000 since fifteen years, did not recover their loans, namely a damage estimated at USD 32 million by the Ministry of Higher Education. The students’ names were published in several newspapers through an official press release. The director of the communication of HESLB, M. Samson Mwaisoba, declared that the “cheating students” had to recover their loans as quickly as possible. In fact, students had to draw the authorities’ attention to begin procedures of recovering. Several sanctions (as academic and banking) were set up to encourage students to start applications. The Tanzanian government wishes to better follow refunds of borrowers (Provini, 2012).

Year	Budget allocated by the government (USD)	Student population	Budget allocated by the government for one student (USD)
1987	7,797,373	2,891	2,697
1988	8,070,521	2,743	2,942
1989	9,161,054	2,839	3,227
1990	10,436,304	-	-
1991	15,025,497	2,801	5,364
1992	10,930,898	2,992	3,653
1993	8,336,914	2,968	2,809
1994	7,810,904	3,869	2,019
1995	8,356,847	4,291	1,948
1996	10,778,142	4,589	2,349
1997	9,685,495	5,220	1,855
1998	11,493,644	5,483	2,096
1999	12,427,426	6,318	1,967
2000	16,754,605	7,089	2,363
2001	13,935,690	7,493	1,860
2002	15,391,693	9,233	1,667
2003	16,689,547	9,769	1,708
2004	16,544,895	12,144	1,362

References: UDSM (2005: 43); Cooksey et al. (2003: 8); UDSM (2000: 23-24); Luhanga et al. (2003: 112); Kimambo et al. (2008: 235)

The main role of donors

11Since the beginning of official development assistance, the education sector is a main area of intervention of the international community (Vinokur, 1987). This investment fluctuates with dominant economic thinking. Although in the 1980-1990’s, the top priority was lending for primary and secondary education rather than for higher education, two World Bank documents in the 2000’s show a radical turn in higher education in Africa and is now giving emphasis to universities across the continent (World Bank, 2000 & 2002; Brock-Utne, 2003: 27). The budget allocated by external donors is fundamental for the university operations. At UDSM, between 1998 and 2004, the university received around USD 71 million in bilateral aid, especially from the Swedish International Development Agency/Swedish Agency for Research Co-operation (USD 29,918,588), the Joint Financing Programme for Co-operation in Higher Education from Netherlands (USD 14,012,456) and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (USD 9,766,521). In 1998, funds allocated by external donors represented 46% of UDSM’s budget and 36% in 2004 (See Table 4).

12If the government is the main investor in UDSM’s budget, it drastically reduced its investment in the research sector. Research at the university has long been strongly subsidized by the Tanzanian state (Harrison et al., 2009), but since the 2000s, the research sector has mainly been financed by external public organisms. External agencies contribute up to 99% to the university research sector in 2000-2005.

Table 4: Budget allocated by external donors, 1998-2004 (USD)

External donors	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	Total
SIDA/SAREC	3,785,714	3,989,571	4,685,714	4,450,400	4,166,000	2,831,189	6,010,000	29,918,588
MHO/NPT	1,241,472	2,148,438	2,148,438	2,363,281	3,286,964	2,823,863	-	14,012,456
NORAD	2,682,851	1,185,641	906,500	1,241,529	1,250,000	1,250,000	1,250,000	9,766,521
VIR	643,789	601,643	613,514	613,513	339,772	-	-	2,812,231
NUFU	475,844	500,138	931,804	836,711	755,344	423,257	701,699	4,624,797
CARNIEGE	-	-	1,964,410	1,288,848	1,237,742	1,856,751	1,207,022	7,554,773
Others	1,011,942	1,010,800	360,228	-	-	-	-	2,382,970
Total	9,841,612	9,436,231	11,610,608	10,794,282	11,035,822	9,185,060	9,168,721	71,072,336

References: Luhanga et al. (2003: 113); Cooksey et al. (2003: 8 and 32); UDSM (2000 & 2005: 83 and 91-93)

Table 5: Funds allocated by external donors in UDSM budget, 1998-2004 (USD)

Year	Budget allocated by the government	Budget allocated by external donors	Total	Percentage of funds allocated by external donors in budget (%)
1998	11,493,644	9,841,612	21,335,256	46
1999	12,427,426	9,436,231	21,863,657	43
2000	16,754,605	11,610,608	28,365,213	41
2001	13,935,690	10,794,282	24,729,972	44
2002	15,391,693	11,035,822	26,427,515	42
2003	16,689,547	9,185,060	25,874,607	35
2004	16,544,895	9,168,721	25,713,616	36

Table 6: Budget in research sector at the UDSM, 1999-2005 (USD)

Year	Budget allocated by the government for research sector	Budget allocated by donors for research sector	Others	Total	Percentage of funds allocated by donors in budget of research sector (%)
1999	526,529	2,306,958	0	2,833,488	81
2000	12,580	2,519,871	0	2,532,451	99
2001	10,395	1,832,944	0	1,843,339	99
2002	11,747	1,120,230	535,285	1,667,262	99
2003	12,861	2,178,537	399,743	2,591,141	99
2004	13,163	2,822,569	285,830	3,121,562	99

Reference: UDSM (2005: 54)

13Donors invested in staff training, scholarships, infrastructures and the research sector. Relations between donors and UDSM can be developed through two channels, either by direct relations between an external agency and a faculty, or by indirect relations between donors and the university central administration. In this case, it is the university, with agreement of a given donor, which reallocates money to several faculties. These modalities of financing reveal the unequal market-attractiveness of faculties. The university report titled “Self-Evaluation of the Sida/SAREC Bilateral Research Cooperation Programme 1998-2008” shows that social sciences are the “losers” of such investments (UDSM, 2007: 43-63). Moreover, the key transformation brought about by external funding is the withdrawal of the government in the research sector. This huge dependence can generate perverse effects for curricula but, more generally, is a danger for research, which is dependent on internal reorganisations of these organisms. For instance, the Norway embassy (Havnevik & Isinika, 2010: 57-70), through its agency NORAD/Oslo, recently reduced its investments, especially in humanities departments, for the reason that its development strategy now focuses on climate and energy. NORAD/Oslo has now developed a partnership with another state university, Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), in Morogoro. This new configuration directly impacts on the global functioning of faculties, and more generally, on the university. Furthermore, Sida/SAREC support accounts for about fifty per cent of the donor support. This support has lasted for over thirty years. For UDSM, the challenge is to ensure that Sida/SAREC maintains, increases and diversifies its support. This interference is harmful to the independence and autonomy of the university in the short- and mid-term.

14With the reducing of state investment in university research, a main evolution is the increase of consultancy practices. One ITP priority was the development of relations between academic staff with donors and society through consultancies. Currently consultancy is becoming one priority of teachers’ missions of teachers and UDSM’s functions, as stipulated in the strategic plan for the period 2003-2008: “to be a producer and supplier of key policy makers, experts and personal for national development” (Lawi, 2008: 45; Luhanga et al., 2003: 106-107). Consultancy is an important condition for teachers’ careers advancement. Though the economic factor is an obvious reason (to improve their wages), consultancies can also ease UDSM staff’s research conditions, especially for publications. At UDSM, these projects increased from 308 in 1999-2000 to 531 in 2003-2004.

Year	Project of consultancies
1999	308
2000	447
2001	487
2002	403
2003	531

Reference: UDSM, 2005: 58

Conclusion