The call for universities to become more entrepreneurial has gathered strength all over the industrialized world -- first in the United States, then in Britain, then in the EU countries, and finally in the post-socialist countries. The idea that public universities should operate efficiently, make good use of public money and be accountable is uncontroversial. We may imagine academics analyzing their activities, discovering and removing inefficiencies (duplicated courses, needless research, underused space and equipment) and generating funding through offering a range of paid services to companies and to the public, winning research contracts, putting on new types of study programmes, registering intellectual property, etc. The money saved and generated could be shared equitably among individuals, teams, departments, faculties, universities, and society as a whole. Part of the savings and part of the income generated would go to increased academic salaries.

The idea of the entrepreneurial university is linked with ideas of technology transfer -- establishing closer links between university research, on the one hand, and industry and commerce, on the other. Research done at European universities has too often been developed and exploited by north American and Asian companies. Why should not European companies help to fund the universities by paying them for research & development and for consultancies, and at the same time benefit much more from the services that the universities are able to offer?

Especially in Europe, university funding has traditionally come from the public purse. As massification of higher education and proliferation of research has placed growing demands on the public purse, the politicians have wanted the universities to look for additional sources of funding. For those on the political right, the answer to the problem is simple: a high degree of self-funding by universities is seen as wholly beneficial. Even those leaning to the left may concede that the state is not the only beneficiary of a well-educated work force, or of research findings, and that graduates and employers of graduates can reasonably be expected to make a direct contribution to the costs. All over Europe, questions are raised, such as: Why should students not pay tuition fees? Why should not more research be performed as a paid service for industry and commerce? Why should university classrooms be used for only 30 weeks per year? Why should university dormitories lie empty during the vacations? Why should expensive equipment used for research not be exploited in a more entrepreneurial manner? Why should not entrepreneurial universities at the same time contribute more to the national and European economy and also require less public funding?

Historically, however, European universities have separated themselves from enterprise. Pure research has traditionally enjoyed higher prestige than applied research and development. The universities have traditionally taught their students `how to think' and not `how to make money'. They have evolved as an alternative to industry and commerce, and have thrived as non-commercial, sometimes anti-commercial institutions.

Universities are in fact very successful institutions of an alternative type, and are not failed or failing institutions. Would not private industry like to know the secret of how universities manage to recruit and retain very highly qualified and talented staff to work happily and devotedly for a fraction of what they could earn in industry or commerce? University staff members usually admit with cheerful frankness that they work in inefficient institutions, and willingly provide examples of bad practice, and are scathing about their managers and about `bureaucrats' in general. They are used to making an analysis and expressing a frank opinion. Private companies, on the other hand, expend great resources on projecting an image of efficiency and dynamism that does not necessarily stand up to close examination.

In the last 50 years universities have taken in ever-larger proportions of talented school leavers as students, and have produced ever-growing amounts of research -- so much so that there is little room for expansion in traditional areas of university activity. In order to grow further, universities will have to draw mainly on non-traditional students and non-traditional sources of funding. If they are to grow, a more entrepreneurial approach seems inevitable.

Throughout Europe, however, entrepreneurial ideas have taken root slowly and unsurely in the universities. It is not only the conservatives inside the universities that consider their proven successful methods should be retained. Let those who want to make lucre go into the world of industry and commerce, and let those who want to pursue science remain inside the universities, accepting a lower salary in return for an inspiring workplace and a better quality of life. Why `industrialize' the university, when it has succeeded greatly as a non-industrial institution?

In Europe as a whole and in the Czech Republic in particular, industrialization of the university environment has nevertheless already started taking place. Czech academics have had to learn to compete for research funding, like their counterparts in the EU countries and North America, but do not necessarily agree that their time is well spent on filling in funding applications rather than getting on with their research. Paperwork in relation to teaching has also increased: it is particularly heads of departments and heads of research teams who find that their time is increasingly taken up by fund-raising and form-filling, rather than by the traditional university business of teaching, scholarship and research, or by the newer requirement that the university should provide services for society. In countries where the entrepreneurial university is better established, more and better administrative support is available for heads of department and leaders of research teams: in the Czech universities, on the other hand, there seems to be no idea of protecting and supporting these key university personalities. In general, the universities have experienced the pains of `industrialization', but none of the bonuses - the working day has become longer and less congenial, while salaries have lagged farther than ever behind private sector salaries.

Politicians and society in general may put the comparative failure of Czech universities to become entrepreneurial down to various causes: lack of entrepreneurial know-how, weak management, and the conservative attitudes of mainly ageing staffs. No doubt these are contributing factors, but the main cause has been the lack of incentive for university staff to embrace the entrepreneurial university.

The Czechoslovak Higher Education Act of 1991 did not take the entrepreneurial aspects of universities into account. University property, taken over by the state under socialism, remained with the state, and income generated from university property was handed over to the exchequer. It was unattractive for university administrators, who had long regarded all government with extreme suspicion, to generate moneys that would have to be handed straight over to the state. When the 1998 Higher Education Act finally arrived, it gave university property to the universities, though plenty of unclear situations remain. However, the Act prohibited universities from making entrepreneurial investments.

Fourteen years after the Changes in 1989, Czech universities are still seeking ways of becoming entrepreneurial. A few departments have been consistently successful in winning research funding, and have been able in this way to supplement the incomes of team members, departments and even faculties. Few departments have made a financial success of new teaching activities, or of providing services for society. Some of the universities have successfully developed conference facilities and now exploit their accommodation extensively, especially during the summer vacation months. Business Innovation Centres have had some success in incubating innovative companies and supporting technology transfer.

Tuition fees for students have been under discussion for several years, but have not yet been generally implemented. The public universities would be more enthusiastic about them if they believed that a good proportion of the income raised would remain with the university, and that it would not be taken away by cuts in direct funding from government sources.

Entrepreneurship in the Czech universities has mainly developed in an unplanned, ad-hoc manner. Attempts to make the universities more entrepreneurial have rarely led in the desired direction, and have introduced new sets of problems without solving the old problems. The Czech government (unlike the EU) has failed to invest in change. Government funding has been allowed to lag before ensuring that the universities are in a position to generate for themselves the extra funding that they will need. The government has generally failed to provide an infrastructure for entrepreneurial universities. The universities have improvised in ways that may be considered generally unsatisfactory.

Few profitable entrepreneurial activities have grown up inside the universities. Basically, university staffs have preferred to, and been allowed to, generate extra income on a personal basis, by free-lancing, setting up companies, or doing a second job for another employer. Plenty of entrepreneurial activities have grown up around the universities. These can be categorized as a) criminal, b) dishonest, c) unethical, d) questionable, e) acceptable, and f) commendable.

Criminal activities, such as selling the entrance examination, accepting bribes from students and stealing university equipment are probably fairly rare. Much more common are dishonest acts, where university property (computers, telephones, photocopiers, paper, paperclips, etc.) are used for private purposes. Widespread unethical practices include offering services (consultancies, teaching) in undeclared competition with the university. There is a considerable grey area, where acceptable activity remains undefined. For example, the large number of university staff who have set up their own companies, do second jobs, or who free-lance are likely to infringe on a strict definition of `working in the university's time'. Writing or translating a textbook seems to be considered a private activity here, and the university would not expect any share in the intellectual property rights over the book. It is only the fortunate few who are able to supplement their basic income from the university by being paid to do research and development, or by doing work that draws on and enhances their academic skills.

A considerable proportion of the staff consists of old gentlemen supplementing their pensions by doing a bit of teaching. Most academics spend long hours just earning extra money as best they can from a variety of part-time and free-lancing jobs. As a result, little time or energy remains for producing research of any quality or for preparing innovative teaching materials.

With many admirable exceptions, Czech academics have been blown by the tide of money making and entrepreneurial activities away from full-time science and teaching. Most of those remaining in the profession have had to learn 'entrepreneurial' ways of supplementing their inadequate basic incomes -- mainly by setting up a grey economy that misuses their working time and their employers' hardware and software, and has taken their eyes off the main tasks of a healthy university: research, teaching and providing services for society. All that can be said in favour of this entrepreneurial activity is that it has to some extent introduced academics to the `real world' and has enabled them to avoid abandoning the academic profession altogether. Arguably, it has prevented or delayed the complete collapse of the universities.

The Czech style of entrepreneurial university is far removed from the dynamic, efficient, well-devised ideal model, which would in theory provide undeniable benefits to industry and commerce, to the universities themselves, and to society as a whole. Forcing the universities into enterprise through long-term underfunding has created more problems than it has solved. Low investment has brought low returns. The Czech universities are showing signs of undernourishment and neglect, and the unhealthy development of entrepreneurial activities in the universities is just one symptom of this.

Robin Healey,

Prague 2003

(Robin Healey has worked as a teacher of English and as an international officer at the Czech Technical University since 1991. Before that he taught at universities in Europe, Africa and Asia.)