Need for additional funding

In situations in which universities are characterised by insufficient funding, Etzkowitz et al. (2000) note, the significance of funding shortages pushing such universities to carry out some TM activities should not be underestimated. Accordingly, the recent trends in the TM at MUK, particularly the explicit recognition of networking and partnerships as a core function of the university, could be interpreted as part of the wider organisational reforms carried out at MUK in the early 1990s to diversify funding sources to address a financial crisis that the university faced in the late 1980s (Clark, 2004; Court, 1999; Mamdani, 2007).⁴⁹ Since until around 1990 MUK relied on the government for funding (Oboko, 2013), the character of its finances, Mamdani (2007) observes, “reflected the budgetary crisis in government—[that is] the university’s budget faced cuts whenever the government

49 By 1990, MUK exhibited, in extreme form, the resource constraints facing universities throughout Africa—a lack of new physical structures, a deferral of maintenance, a lack of journal subscriptions and laboratory equipment, limited government subsidy and minimal research output (Clark, 2004; Court, 1999).

Although the national financial crisis was responsible for the financial crisis at MUK, the sharp decline in state funding of HE was a result of not only the national crisis but also a public policy based on the World Bank’s argument that the rate of return on investment in HE was much lower than that of primary and secondary education (Mamdani, 2007).

faced [an] unexpected budgetary problem” (p. 5). Besides the cuts, the relationship between the university and the treasury was characterised by the following:

1. The differences between the proposed and approved budgets (see Table 17 for details);

2. The difference between the approved amounts and the released amounts;

3. The change in the release of funds from quarterly to monthly instalments and 4. The decision by government to distinguish between the expenses it deemed core and

compulsory—for which funds were released automatically—and those it considered discretionary—that is, those that necessitated extended correspondence between the university and the treasury. (Mamdani, 2007, p. 7.)

Table 17. Government Recurrent Funding for MUK (1987/1988–2001/2002) Year University proposed

budget (UGX) Government approved

funding (UGX) Approved funding as a % of proposed budget

1987/1988 953,376,840 621,397,000 65.2

1988/1989 2,713,454,955 1,591,958,206 58.7

1989/1990 6,920,898,437 2,426,369,000 35.1

1990/1991 10,656,533,898 3,570,694,000 33.5

1991/1992 13,240,824,584 6,285,819,000 47.5

1992/1993 15,773,370,717 8,183,429,000 51.9

1993/1994 19,426,395,301 8,641,950,000 44.5

1994/1995 32,938,968,033 12,766,675,000 38.8

1995/1996 37,926,408,573 20,328,433,000 53.6

1996/1997 37,900,000,000 20,579,406,000 54.3

1997/1998 47,800,000,000 21,041,938,000 44

1998/1999 51,700,000,000 23,300,000,000 45.1

1999/2000 51,700,000,000 22,900,000,000 44.3

2000/2001 71,800,000,000 23,228,973,000 32.4

2001/2002 71,800,000,000 27,635,238,000 38.5

Source: Mamdani (2007, p. 8).

To address the above situation, the university, starting in 1992, instated a number of financial, management and academic reforms that have enabled it to diversify its funding sources, to reduce financial reliance on government (Clark, 2004; Court, 1999) and to

“move from a situation of hands-to-mouth dependency to one where autonomous initiative, planning and allocation are possible” (Court, 1999, p. 8). The restructuring process, Court (1999) notes, has had three key interrelated thrusts:

1. The implementation of alternative financing strategies—that is, the diversification of funding sources, for example, the introduction of a self-sponsorship scheme and tuition fees for self-sponsored students in 1992, the commercialisation of service units (e.g., the bookshop, bakery and guesthouse), the introduction of user fees, and

the institutionalisation of consultancy arrangements through the establishment of the Makerere University Consultancy Bureau⁵⁰ (pp. 4–6);

2. The introduction of demand-driven academic reforms, for example, offering courses for which individuals and companies were willing to pay, and the introduction of multiple study schedules—day, evening and weekend; and

3. The introduction of decentralised and participatory management structures—

moving from hierarchical top-down management towards more inclusive representation, including the recent transformation of MUK into a collegiate university.

Due to the above reforms, the university has shifted from a state of reliance on the state for funding to a situation in which a growing proportion of university finances is sought from auxiliary sources such as paid-for consultancy and continuing education. The above discussion shows that recent developments concerning the TM can be interpreted as part of the wider organisational changes undertaken at the university to diversify funding sources and to reduce dependence on state funding. In her commentary about the emergence of the School of Women and Gender Studies at MUK, Sicherman (2006), for example, noted that because the school was determined not to become an “Ebony Tower”—producing irrelevant knowledge—it, starting in 1995, developed three types of non-degree courses.⁵¹ The courses had three distinct goals: to bridge the town–gown divide, to generate income for the school, as mandated by the structural reforms of the early 1990s⁵² and to contribute to capacity building (Sicherman, 2006, p. 231).

The above discussion shows that some of the TM activities at MUK help the university to generate additional income and, therefore, it would not be imprudent to explain their existence using the need-for-funding argument. In fact, the university’s strategic plan (2008/09–2018/19) lists consultancy among a strategic mix of sources that the university intends to use to raise funding to augment its financial resources by the end of 2016 (MUK, 2008a). However, it would be foolhardy to assert that the TM is entirely justified by the need for extra funding; the interview data revealed that most of the TM-related activities carried out at MUK do not generate the university enough income. The most plausible explanation, then, is that the university looks at the TM as a mechanism through which

50 A limited liability company established to offer research, training and consultancy to private and public institutions. Makerere University and Makerere University staff as individuals owned 51% and 49% of the shares respectively. Unfortunately, the company no longer exists. Its creation, however, reflects an effort that the university undertook to explore the intellectual resources of its academic staff and to institutionalise consultancy.

51 Professional development training to serve Uganda and other African countries, evening short courses for Ugandans working in organisations in need of gender training and workshops tailored to the needs of the clients (Sicherman, 2006).

52 For example, demand-driven academic reforms, the decentralization of management, the diversification of funding sources, the admission of self-sponsored students, the institutionalisation of consultancy arrangements, the commercialisation of service units and cost-sharing (introduction of user fees and abolition of student allowances) (Clark, 2004; Court, 1999; Mamdani, 2007).

it can generate extra funding but also contribute directly to socioeconomic development, demonstrate accountability for the public and private funding it receives, enhance the relevance of teaching and research, boost its institutional prestige and exchange information with external communities (Lyytinen, 2011).