The Higher Education Policy of Theeu Ropeanunion1

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/250002800
The Higher Education Policy of the European Union. With or against the
Member States?
Chapter · January 2001
CITATIONS READS
51 921
2 authors:
Kurt De Wit Jef C. Verhoeven

KU Leuven KU Leuven
67 PUBLICATIONS 485 CITATIONS 311 PUBLICATIONS 1,123 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Research in University Colleges in Europe View project
School-based management: possibilities and limits View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jef C. Verhoeven on 17 October 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CENTRE FOR SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
The Higher Education Policy of the European Union. With

or Against the Member States?
The final publication is available at http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Education-Nation-State-

Issues/dp/0080427901
DE WIT, K. & J. C. VERHOEVEN (2001) 'The Higher Education Policy of the European Union. With or against
the Member States?' in: HUISMAN, J., P. MAASSEN & G. NEAVE(eds) Higher education and the nation state.
Oxford : Pergamon Press pp. 194-250
Kurt De Wit & Jef C. Verhoeven

The Higher Education Policy of the European Union
With or Against the Member States?
KURT DE WIT AND JEF C. VERHOEVEN 1
Introduction
The European Union is a complex organisation. Instead of being a coherent and balanced
construction, the EU resembles a Greek temple, consisting of three different pillars (i.e. the European
Communities; foreign and security policy; and police and judicial co-operation). Each pillar has specific
characteristics and defines the role of the European institutions in a particular way (Kerremans, 1992).
The balance between the power of the EU and of the Member States differs both between and within
these pillars. This complexity is the result of a long process of negotiations between states, which had
to choose between co-operation and loss of autonomy on the one hand, and safeguarding their own
sovereignty on the other. Given the long 'tradition' of war between the nation states of Europe, the
former option was not self-evident. But as the success of European integration increased, fully
retaining national sovereignty was perceived by more and more states to be the least preferable
(Davies, 1996: 1057).
The same dynamics can be seen in the development of a higher education policy at
EU-level. Education is an important feature of the nation state and is closely related to the
establishment and continuation of the nation-state (Green, 1997). Nevertheless, countries
increasingly compare their education systems and policies (Neave, 1995), and a certain degree
of convergence between education systems is widespread (Green, 1997: 174). The growing
importance of the EU in education matters is at once an indication, a result, and a catalyst of
this process of internationalisation.
This chapter will describe and try to understand the development of the higher education policy of the
European Union from the perspective of national sovereignty vs. Europeanisation. The focus will be on
policies and programmes that specifically regard the educational function of higher education
1 This chapter is based on data of the research project "Governmental policies and programmes for
strengthening the relationship between higher education institutions and the national economy
(HEINE)" (SOE-CT97-2018), carried out within the framework of the Targeted Socio-Economic
Research (TSER) programme of the European Union.
institutions (student mobility, language proficiency, international co-operation,) or only partly bear upon
this educational function (higher education - industry co-operation, R&D programmes…). This chapter
comprises three parts, each corresponding to a particular phase in the development of EU higher
education policy, and each providing an overview of the EU education programmes of the period under
attention.
The first phase began with the first meeting of the Ministers of Education of the EC-countries in 1971.
After subsequent meetings, a framework agreement was reached on an Action Programme in the field
of education (1976). Established and executed in what has been termed the 'dark ages' of European
integration (Keohane & Hoffman, 1991), the programme was scarcely more than a symbolic starting
point for higher education co-operation in Europe. The second phase in the EU higher education policy
(1983-1992) was initiated by both legal (lawsuits before the European Court of Justice) and political
developments (the Solemn Declaration on European Union, the Single European Act). These pointed
to a (gradual and contested) shift in interpretation vis a vis the authority of the European Community in
the field of education, making possible incentive-driven action programmes at community-level
(COMETT, ERASMUS).
The Treaty on European Union (1992), also known as Treaty of Maastricht, marks the beginning of the
third period. The acquis communautaire in the field of (higher) education, i.e. the whole of acquired
rights and obligations, was formally confirmed, leading to a rationalisation, reorganisation, and
elaboration of the Community action programmes. At the same time, however, the authority of the EU
in relationship with the Member States was limited and strictly defined.
The first agreements between the national governments (1971 - 1983)
A weak basis for action
The project of European integration was not intended to be limited solely to economics and trade. The
‘founding fathers’ of the European Union (Jean Monnet, Robert Schumann) believed that the economic
integration of the countries of Europe was the stepping stone for bringing about political integration and
accordingly, peace. They sought to create a 'European Civil Society' (Schmitter, 1996: 229). They were
aware, however, that this ‘political’ view on European integration was not generally accepted. The goal
of the Monnet-Schumann plan, therefore, was to establish unity through concrete achievements,
aiming at a real solidarity. This plan marked its first step in 1951, when six countries (Belgium, France,
West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) founded the European Coal and Steel
Community. The choice for this particular sector was no coincidence. It represented not only the
economic importance of the coal and steel, but also possessed symbolic value: European conflicts
since 1870 had strongly focussed on the small area around the Ruhr where a high concentration of
coal and steel ore was to be found. (Van De Meerssche, 1990: 56). Economic co-operation was further
developed in the new sector of atomic energy (the European Atomic Energy Community, 1957) and,
more generally, in the shape of a customs union (the European Economic Community, 1957).
For years to come, different views about the ultimate aim of the Communities - economic co-operation
alone vs. broader-ranging integration - would limit their activities to the economic domain. It comes as
no surprise, then, that education -a subject not mentioned as such in the founding treaties of the
Communities - was not considered a priority (by many, it was not even deemed to be an issue) for the
European Communities. Yet, the founding treaties already contained the basis for later initiatives in the
field of education. The basis for such developments rested on the treaty articles dealing with vocational
training, which received some attention because the level of employee training could be construed as
an economic factor. The Treaty which established the European Coal and Steel Community
mentioned retraining of employees (article 56). Likewise, the Treaty setting up the European Economic
Community (EEC) touched upon the vocational training of farmers (article 41) of employees (article
118), and also the mutual recognition of academic qualifications (article 57). But the most important
article -not immediately but later in the early 1980s, as we shall see - was article 128. It enabled the
European Community to lay down general principles on vocational training.
Vocational training was however not considered as a priority policy issue either. In 1963, the Council
issued a Decision that laid down general principles for a common policy on vocational training2. These
principles remained without follow-up, however, until 1971, when the Council adopted general
guidelines for a Community-level programme in the field of vocational training 3 which sought to
improve the scope and quality of vocational training systems. For the first time, these guidelines
acknowledged the connection between economic policy, social policy and education. Despite the
setting up of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) in 19754 in
effect, action was limited. Several reasons account for this (Neave, 1984: 61). First, Member States did
not regard public intervention in vocational training a priority. Second, the Commission had no real
specific legal grounding upon which to act. Third, the Commission had only limited staff and financial
resources. And finally, in the Member States the responsibility for vocational training was often
dispersed across different ministries.
The Communities were in the first place economic ventures. Neither vocational training nor education
was considered priority policy issues. Nevertheless, the need for co-operation in education, particularly
higher education, was acknowledged already in the 1960s (e.g. the Declaration of Bonn in 19615). But
this ‘commitment’ to educational co-operation did not go further than general statements. The Ministers
of Education of the EC-countries only met for the first time in 1971.
To make such a meeting possible, a special arrangement was created. The Ministers of Education met
as a formal session of the Council of Ministers, which is the main legislative body of the EC and
consists of one minister for each Member State government 6 . But the meeting of the Ministers of
Education was also a diplomatic conference. This formula of 'the Council and the Ministers of
Education meeting within the Council' expressed the difficult relationship between a developing
Community and the sovereignty of the Member States. Because education was not a formal part of the
founding treaties, it was neither legally nor politically straightforward to co-operate at the Community
2 Official Journal of the European Communities, 1963: 1338-1341.
3 Official Journal, 1971 Communications (C) 81: 5-11.
4 Official Journal, 1975 Legislation (L) 39: 1-4.
5 Bulletin of the European Community, 1961, 7-8: 40-42.
6 Given its composition, the Council of Ministers represents the national interests.
level in this area. Since the meetings of the Ministers of Education were both diplomatic meetings as
well as formal Council meetings, more flexible decision-making procedures were possible than those
imposed on the Council in this respect (De Witte, 1993: 194). In this way, the Ministers of Education
could discuss all matters and issue resolutions if they liked, without their being legally binding upon
Member States 7 . This proviso was important. Not all Member States were willing to extend the
powers of the Community into non-treaty areas. France for example, played up its national sovereignty
and preferred therefore intergovernmental rather than Community-level co-operation (cf. the inclusion
of the European Council, i.e. the heads of state and government 8 , in the formal structure of the
Communities - a proposal put out by the then president of the French Republic, Valéry Giscard
d'Estaing).
The meeting of the Ministers of Education in November 1971 was held in response to the perceived
need to add to the guidelines on vocational training by co-operation in the field of education. Five items
figured on the agenda: 1) the mutual recognition of diplomas; 2) the foundation of a European
University Institute; 3) co-operation in the field of higher education, and secondary education; 4) the
foundation of a European centre for educational development; and 5) the foundation of transfrontier
institutions for higher education.
The main outcome of the meeting was the weighing up of how far political will would, in effect, permit
steps to be taken towards realising each of these items. Co-operation in education still gave rise to
many second thoughts. Several reasons account for this. At a more general level - although the
discussion revolved around education - the juridical interpretation of the founding treaties was not
without its problems, especially since it touched upon another issue at the political level, namely the
purpose of the European Communities: Was their goal to be confined to the economic dimension or
was it also to embrace the political, social, and cultural? In this period, political integration was ruled
out. The Europe of sovereign states (Europe des états) envisaged by the former French president,
Charles De Gaulle, was still dominant. Thus, it was not surprising that disagreements on the political
level between Member States affected the basis of educational agreements (inside or outside the
formal EC-structure), and also the institutional structure (establishing a committee - permanent or ad
hoc - with the European Commission 9 or with the Council), quite apart from the principle of co-
operation itself (Community-level or on the level of the Member States) (Brouwer, 1996: 121). More
specifically, grounds for reserve towards European educational co-operation sprang on the one hand
from the fact that education systems were - and tend still to be today - primarily nationally oriented.
Such differences as followed from this made co-operation delicate indeed. On the other hand, the view
which emerged from time to time that co-operation in education, culture, … should be based upon a
broader association like the Council of Europe (Neave, 1984: 6).
7 Resolutions are not legally binding acts, that are merely the expression of the political will of the
Member States.
8 The heads of state and government of the Member States, and the president of the European
Commission, meet at least twice a year in the European Council. The European Council decides on
broad policy lines and political guidelines to be followed by the European Community. It is not to be
confused with the Council of Ministers.
9 The Commission is independent of national governments and acts in the interests of the Community
only.
Despite these difficulties, the development of a European educational policy could not be gainsaid.
The Heads of State and Government at their Paris meeting in October 1972 clearly stated that the goal
of European Union was not economic expansion as such, but economic expansion as a means to
improve the quality of life (Neave, 1984: 62). In February 1973, Henri Janne, one time Minister of
Education for Belgium, then consulted as an independent expert, presented the report For a
Community Policy in Education10. An irreversible recognition of an education dimension of Europe had
begun, it argued, and such a situation led on to an educational policy at Community level. The Janne
Report reiterated the view of the Ministers of Education that the Treaty of Rome (i.e. the EEC-Treaty)
could be interpreted in such that clauses dealing with vocational training could arguably be extended to
cover a wider ambit. The Commission presented draft proposals for the development of Community-
level action, the main points of which were contained in the report of Ralph. Dahrendorf 11 , then
director-general of Directorate General (DG) XII, which exercised responsibility for Education since the
enlargement of the Community through the adhesion of Denmark, Ireland and the UK on 1 January
1973.
The second meeting of the Ministers of Education, in June 1974, agreed12 to the proposals of the
Commission that co-operation should proceed and should apply to specific priority areas (these areas
reappeared in the Resolution of February 1976, see below). Three of the priority areas involved higher
education: 1) to increase co-operation between higher education institutions; 2) to improve possibilities
for academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study; and 3) to encourage the freedom of
movement and mobility of teachers, researchers and students. An ad-hoc Education Committee was
established, encharged with drafting an action programme and preparing the future agenda of the
Education Ministers.
The Action Programme in the Field of Education
The activities of the Education Committee led to two meetings of the 'Council and the Ministers of
Education meeting within the Council' in 1975 and 1976 and subsequently to the formal unveiling in
1976 of an Action Programme in the Field of Education13. The Action Programme provided only a
frame agreement. But, by setting out the main objectives of an education policy at Community level, it
laid down the basis for future co-operation in the field of education. Among the objectives were
improving education and training facilities, improving foreign language teaching, achieving equal
opportunities for free access to all forms of education, and promoting closer relations between
educational systems in Europe.
10 Bulletin, Supplement 10, 1973.
11 Bulletin, 1973, 5, 2237–2241.
12 Official Journal, 1974 C 98: 2.
13 Official Journal, 1976 C 38: 1-5.

In higher education the Action Programme concentrated on the three priority areas. First, an increase
in co-operation between higher education institutions was to be urged on by the development of:
1. links between organisations representing higher education institutions (for example the European
Society for Engineering Education, the Association for Teacher Education in Europe);
2. Short study visits; and
3. Joint programmes of study or research.
Second, turning its attention to mobility, the programme initiated a discussion which revolved around
the admission of students, the drafting of a report on the extension of national schemes, and the
examination of recommendations to remove obstacles to student mobility. Third, the programme
sought to extend academic recognition of diplomas and study periods, by means of a report analysing
the current situation and containing proposals for its improvement. In addition, consultations had to be
held and co-operation organised. At Member State level, the programme called for periods spent
abroad teaching or conducting research to be taken into account when calculating seniority and also
pension entitlements.
This agreement set out a basic framework, general and not very far-reaching, it has to be admitted.
Nevertheless, it marked an important milestone. Negotiations over the programme led to regular
meetings of the Council and the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council. For its part, the
Education Committee assumed a permanent status in the decision-making of the EC. From the outset,
the Community's educational policy derived from the principle of co-operation, not harmonisation.
Finally, whilst the Action Programme entailed in the main action at the intergovernmental level, the
Commission was entrusted with promoting co-operation in the field of higher education, albeit under
the strict proviso that it should respect the autonomy of institutions and should limit action in the area of
higher education to those means and goals set down by the Action Programme.
Elaborating – slightly - the basic agreement.
Because the Education Action Programme constituted only a framework, detailed and more elaborate
executive measures had still to be worked out. This task, however, was far from obvious. Nor was it
without either challenge or dissent. In 1978, the Danish government pointed out that the EC was
nothing more than an economic entity and that education was not part of the treaties. Hence, the
Danish government observed, the Commission had no competence to act in this field. Furthermore,
transfer of national authority to the EC was not negotiable (Brouwer, 1996: 144). Such a line of
argument had direct repercussions on the Action Programme itself. Because the Action Programme
reposes for the greater part on intergovernmental co-operation and only partially on co-operation at
Community level, its status hung in the balance. Several dossiers (teaching about Europe in schools;
teaching of foreign languages; teacher training; education and training for the disabled) were brought
to a halt. (Neave, 1984: 125-148). Likewise, the meetings of the Council and the Ministers of
Education meeting within the Council which were suspended until 1980. Any compromise seemed
excluded. Far more to the point and in consequence of this brouhaha, the education budget for 1981
and 1982 was pared to an uncharitable minimum.
Even so, part of this curtailed budget was assigned to grant programmes in the field of higher
education, programmes which the Commission's initiative had already established. Such grant
programmes were in effect the implementation of the Action Programmes the first priority, to wit, co-
operation between higher education institutions.
The most important of these programmes was the Joint Study Programme Scheme 14, intended to
promote study abroad programmes in higher education. The JSP scheme directed Community aid to
the development and the implementation of agreements between two or more institutions of higher
education across different Member States. It supported:
1. student exchange for periods of study abroad integrated as part of their normal courses (with
particular weight being attached to the formal recognition of the study period) by each institution;
2. integrated teaching assignments in another Community country for staff members; and
3. joint curricular development of modules for insertion into the programmes of the participating
institutions.
Given the major dispute over the legitimate authority of the EC to develop such programmes, it is easy
to see why resources remained fairly modest - about 2 million ECU for the academic year 1984/85 to
cover programmes across ten Member States. The scheme did not provide maintenance funding for
the projects. Such responsibility was deemed to fall to the institutions themselves.
The second element in spurring on the cross-frontier co-operation of higher education was the Short
Study Visits Scheme (SSV) The Short Study Visits Scheme15 enabled individual teachers, researchers,
and administrative staff to study particular aspects of the organisation and administration of different
systems of higher education and higher education institutions, and especially their relationship with
local, regional, and national structures. SSVs were often used to prepare a joint study programme.
Though not very important per se, nevertheless they were not wholly bereft of significance. Indeed,
they can be regarded as a species of 'pilot projects' for the more financially robust initiatives that were
later to emerge in the shape of ERASMUS, the European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University
Students.
The discussion of student admission policy to higher education (priority 2 of the Action Programme)
proceeded with great difficulty. Some countries raised obstacles to the admission of foreign students
(for example Belgium, Ireland, and the UK introduced differential fees for overseas students). To this
situation, a Community-level solution was sought. Furthermore, Denmark questioned the treaty basis
on which EC action in this domain rested. (See above). Though the Commission drew up a range of
common principles to deal with this issue, the 'Council and the Ministers of Education meeting within
the Council' could only agree on a framework (Neave, 1984: 82-83). The framework contented itself
with advising on such matters as numerical limitations, criteria of admission, financial aspects,
language proficiency, and procedures administrative.
The Action Programme's third priority area - academic recognition of diplomas - has always been
problematic. The programme itself was not greatly ambitious: the drafting of a report and the organising
14 th
Resolution of February 9 1976. For an evaluation of the JSP scheme, see Dalichov and Teichler,
1986.
15 General Report of the Education Committee of 27 June 1980.

of consultations. Six years later the aims had not in essence, altered. On 24 May 1982 the Member
States agreed on a programme which involved no more than the drawing up of reports and the
dissemination of information, in addition to which a policy of including such measures in bilateral
agreements between Member States was to be urged on, students were to be encouraged to study in
another Member State once the qualification was recognised, and authorities were to be cajoled into to
adopting a favourable attitude (Neave, 1984: 88).
Nation-States and intergovernmentalism
Solidarity through co-operation was the key idea upon which three European Communities were
established, first among six States, and later among twelve. Yet, right from the beginning one question
remained unanswered: Co-operation of what kind? Participating States certainly drew upon the
benefits of economic co-operation. Political integration, or a spillover from the economic domain to
other areas, was however not readily accepted. Individual governments of the Member States, through
the European Council and the Council of Ministers, dominated European policy-making. Thus, most
actions were of an intergovernmental nature; that is, they were established outside the framework of
the Communities.
The European Commission, the representative of the interest of the Community, could not easily play a
significant role. Its staff numbers was limited. It had no unchallengeable legal basis upon which to act:
education was not mentioned in the Treaties, and vocational training figured only in so far as general
principles were concerned. Finally, its financial resources were limited. It could not draw upon EC-
funded budget to fund an area which was not part of the Treaties.
Because of this fragility and despite the fact that the Commission in fact was given the authority to act
in the field of higher education, only a small number of limited and partial measures could be initiated -
the Joint Study Programme Scheme was perhaps the most visible example. It is then, premature to
speak of a 'policy' of the EC in respect of higher education in this period - and a fortiori when one
examines other levels of education.
Yet, the importance of the Action Programme in the Field of Education of 1976 and the undertakings
based on this framework agreement, should not be underestimated either. For the first time, Member
States recognised the (economic) importance of higher education for the Community. The Ministers of
Education began regular meetings. An Education Committee was established.
Clearly, the EC in the period up till the mid-1980s was mainly an economical-technical venture, in
which the Member States saw little need for social, cultural or political co-operation. Even so, the
debate on the possibility of Community action in education was joined. In the sphere of higher
education, the Commission was even endowed with a scope for action, marginal it is true, in the face of
the considerable weight the Member States laid upon national sovereignty.
Increasing community-level co-operation 1983 - 1992

Other interpretations, new possibilities
At the start of the 1980's. European integration was in deep crisis. For more than a decade, building a
united Europe had kindled little enthusiasm. The economic crisis in Europe had reinforced the
tendency, prevalent all too often, of States to withdraw within themselves, and conceding little room for
other than intergovernmental agreements. That this state of affairs applied also to the field of higher
education is evident. The Action Programme remained a framework agreement which barely aroused
concrete measures let alone significant and concrete acts.
This nadir in European relations did not mark the end of integration, however. On the contrary, it
proved to be a new starting point, especially for economic co-operation and integration, both of which
were symbolised in project '1992'. Even in higher education, important developments stood in the
offing. Within the European Commission, the conviction gradually took hold that Member States,
acting individually could not overcome the economic recession. A strong and efficient Community was
needed to restructure the European economy in keeping with the demands of globalisation. Not
surprisingly, the Member States that pursued opposite or even incompatible economic policies (Van De
Meerssche, 1990: 197) were not at first eager to follow this precept. Initiatives within both the European
Parliament and the Commission itself brought about an astonishing conversion.
In 1984, the European Parliament adopted a draft treaty, which proposed to strengthen the position of
the European institutions and to increase the financial means of the EC. In a counter move, the
European Council established two committees - the Dooge Committee on institutional reform, and the
Adonnino Committee on a People's Europe. Their mandate was to prepare an intergovernmental
conference. By such a tactic, the fundamental decision to strengthen the EC and to diminish the
sovereignty of the Member States was postponed.
Meanwhile, a new chairman of the Commission had been appointed: Jacques Delors. Under his
leadership the Commission presented to the European Council a White Paper on the completion of the
internal market. On this basis, the intergovernmental conference of December 1985 could agree to
amend the EEC-Treaty. The agreement was to form the basis for the Single European Act (see 2.4).
Although aimed in the first place on economic matters, these manoeuvrings were not without
consequence for other domains and, from this perspective, may be seen as another example of the
'spill-over effect' which the Founding Fathers of the Communities had anticipated. In the domain of
higher education, a new interpretation of the role and authority of the EC began to make its way.
Within the European Community, co-operation in the field of education under went change as well. The
second phase of implementing the Action Programme in the Field of Education began increasingly to
work its effects upon Community-level co-operation. This was true for other areas which, since 1976,
had taken aboard elements of co-operation, as was the case of the transition from school to working
life programme and its counterpart dealing with disadvantaged groups. Likewise, higher education,
which had been very much an exception inasmuch as the Commission could (at least in principle) take
initiatives there, co-operation at Community level expanded.
Both legally and politically, the symbolic turning point for higher education fell in 1983. In the legal
sphere, the European Court of Justice16 played an important role. In its judgement on the 'Forchieri'
and 'Gravier' cases,17 the Court stated that admission and the conditions of admission to, vocational
training were fell within the legal ambit of the EEC-Treaty. Furthermore, in the 'Blaizot' case 18 it
confirmed that university studies could also be regarded as a form of vocational training. Effectively,
the Court of Justice re-interpreted article 128 of the EEC-Treaty on vocational training in a new and
unexpected way. Formerly confined to laying down general principles at the European level, the scope
of article 128 was enlarged and that substantially.
The Court upheld the basic principle that discrimination on the ground of nationality was illegal. It
argued that migrant workers and their families could already claim educational rights within the
framework of the free movement of workers (Verbruggen, 1994: 53) - and on this basis, it confirmed
the individual educational rights of all European citizens. The Court stated that if a country allowed an
advantage to its nationals, it had equally to confer the same right or treatment equally upon all EC-
citizens - for example, the right to enter higher education, or the right to work for higher education
institutions. In other words, each citizen had a self-standing right to equal treatment in access to
vocational training. For those moving to another Member State for the sole purpose of studying,
however, this equality in treatment could be restricted by general conditions of access (e.g. study
qualifications, language proficiency). Only access restricted on grounds of nationality was ruled out.
The statement and upholding of these principles by the Court of Justice de facto broadened the legal
basis for community-level co-operation in the field of education. Thus, the authority of the EC and
hence the right of initiative of the Commission in the field of education, although not included in any
treaty, obtained formal and legal recognition.
In the political domain too, a different interpretation of the role of the EC in (higher) education emerged.
Revived interest in the process of economic integration within the Community, together with the belief
that economic integration alone could not gain the support of Europe's citizens, lent a new urgency to
the demand for new and imaginative measures above all in areas beyond the rigidly economic. Bit by
bit, higher education moved gradually into the focus of attention amongst Europe's political leaders.
One of the first signs in this new direction came from the European Council in its Solemn Declaration
on European Union (1983) 19 . The Heads of State and Government agreed to promote closer co-
operation between higher education institutions. That same year, the 'Council and the Ministers of
Education meeting within the Council' determined that the prime objective of co-operation in higher
education should be to spur on free movement and mobility for teachers, students and researchers20.
16 The European Court of Justice is the supreme court of the EC. It ensures that the Treaties are
respected and applied. In its preliminary rulings, it guarantees a uniform implementation of
Community law in all Member States.
17 Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (Jur.) 1983, 2323-2338; Jur. 1985, 606-615.
18 Jur. 1988, 398-408.
19 Bulletin, 1983, 6, no. 1.6.1.
20 Bulletin, 1983, 6, no. 2.1.84.

Thus, the will to extend both intergovernmental co-operation and to give weight to the complementary
function of the EC-initiatives as compared to national initiatives gradually took root.
Against this background of putting European integration back on track, of changing legal
interpretations, and shifting political views, the Commission came forward with the proposal to launch
two incentive programmes. The first was to advance co-operation between higher education institutions
and also between those institutions and business especially in the area of technological training; and
the second was to forward the mobility of students, teachers and researchers. The two programmes,
known respectively as COMETT and ERASMUS for the first time placed higher education before a
tangible European reality (2.2). They also faced Member States with an unprecedented intervention in
their national education systems (2.3).
COMETT and ERASMUS
The Community Action Programme for Education and Training in Technology (COMETT)21 was the
first major Community action programme in the field of education. First adopted in 1986 for a four-year
period with a budget of 45 million ECUs, it was renewed in 1988 for five more years with funding
amounting to 250 million ECUs.
COMETT sought to impart a new level of intensity to co-operation between higher education and
industry in the sphere of advanced training in new technologies. Amongst other, more focused goals
were to insert a European dimension into co-operation between universities and firms; to foster the
joint development of training programmes and the optimum use of training resources; to improve the
supply of training; and to develop the level of training to meet technological and social changes. The
programme supported the setting-up and development of a European network of university-enterprise
training partnerships (UETPs); trans-national exchanges for trainees and staff of universities and
companies. It developed joint projects for on-going training and multimedia training systems. It opened
the path for the exchange of information and experience. Over the years, the focus has shifted from
advanced to initial training. It has come to centre more on trans-national networks for projects. The
programme came to be aligned increasingly on the specific needs of small and medium-sized
businesses.
In terms of the numbers of individuals, universities and firms participating, the COMETT programme
was heralded - at least by the Commission - as a success. In the first phase of its operation, more than
1,300 projects were launched throughout the EC. They involved more than 6,000 firms, 1,500 higher
education institutions, and 1,000 assorted other organisations of various types. Together, COMETT
projects involved establishing 125 UETPs and 329 joint on-going training and multimedia projects,
sponsored more than 4,000 traineeships for students in enterprises and awarded 232 grants for staff
exchanges between universities and enterprises.
The second phase of COMETT saw some 3,000 projects started. Within this framework, 2,000 UETPs
were created, 40,000 trans-national exchanges and 10,000 advanced training courses organised.
More than 4,500 different types of training materials, often based on software or video, were
developed. The total number of higher education institutions participating exceeded 30,000. More
21 Official Journal, 1986 L 222: 17-21, and 1989 L 13: 57-63.

than 20,000 firms (mostly SMEs) and 5,000 other types of organisations were involved. During the
programme's lifetime, the spread of participation among European countries, and the representation of
technology-related sectors assumed a happier balance.
Across Europe, so great was the demand from organisations for funding (funding was granted on the
basis of quality and merit) that only 10 to 15 % of those applying were successful, despite the very
substantial increase in the budget set aside for the second phase. Clearly, here is some pointer to the
popularity of COMETT, although one does well to look beyond mere participation rates if one seeks the
programme's real significance. The fact that 'free money' became available to many higher education
institutions and for some for the first time, funds which often also served as 'seed money' to draw
others (local authorities, firms…) in the joint- financing of a project (Cerych, 1996: 329).
The second major action programme initiated by the Commission, the European Action Scheme for the
Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS) 22 , is important for similar reasons: it provided a new
source of funding. But the influence of ERASMUS reached further. The requirements to be met by
higher education institutions if they were to receive incentive funding, brought about changes in higher
education similar across Member States, and that largely independent of national intervention. A
particularly striking example has been the establishment of international relations offices by many, if
not all, higher education institutions. ERASMUS also reinforced the tendency, already evident at the
national level, to look across borders and borrow from one's neighbours (Neave, 1995: 378).
ERASMUS is probably the most influential, and certainly the best-known EC-programme. It is often
referred to as the 'flagship of the EC educational programmes'. For these reasons, we will examine its
characteristics and its attainments in more detail.
ERASMUS evolved across two phases. First established in 1987 for a period of four years, it was
extended with five years in 1989. Compared to the educational budget available before the start of
ERASMUS, the annual sum now available rose by ten times (85 million ECU was available for the first
phase) (Teichler and Maiworm, 1997: iii). ERASMUS' main objective was defined in economic terms: to
increase significantly the number of higher education students spending an integrated period of study
in another Member State. This was seen as a step towards creating a pool of suitably qualified
manpower with first-hand experience of economic and social conditions in other Member States.
To meet these objectives, ERASMUS concentrated on a student grants scheme, which dispensed
financial support (2,000 ECU on average, 5,000 ECU maximum) to students following a period of study
in another Member State. The goal was to provide 10 % of all students in EC higher education with
such an opportunity. The grants supported mobility costs (travel, cost of language study, cost of living
allowance in the host country). They were distributed proportionately in keeping with the number of 18
to 25 year olds and the number of students in each Member State. Later, account was taken of the
distance between Member States and estimated differences in the cost of living between them. Whilst
administration of the other activities within the ERASMUS programme was carried out by the
ERASMUS Bureau (an autonomous body of the European Cultural Foundation), student mobility
grants were handled by National Grant Awarding Authorities (NGAAs) thereby allowing limits to be
placed on the amount granted to individual students in accordance with national circumstances. The
22 Official Journal, 1987 L 166: 20-24, and 1989 L 395: 23-27.

NGAAs were also responsible for national supplementary grant schemes, which were set up in France,
Spain, Italy, and Belgium.
To support the grant scheme, the ERASMUS programme promoted co-operation between higher
education institutions by means of a European University Network which, in turn, supported Inter-
university Co-operation Programmes (ICPs). An ICP involves universities of several Member States
concluding agreements for student exchange and thus fully recognising study periods spent outside
the home university as an integral part of the student's diploma or academic qualification. An ICP can
also include teacher exchange and co-operation.
In addition, ERASMUS backed a modest attempt to bring academic recognition of diplomas and
periods of study nearer to fruition. As we have said earlier, this has always been a delicate issue.
Within the ERASMUS framework, one condition involved the home university fully recognising the
period of study as counting towards the final diploma. Amongst the voluntary activities undertaken by
universities in several Member States was joint curriculum development. The ERASMUS programme
also introduced a credit transfer system (ECTS) and developed an information network (NARIC).
The ECTS (European Community Course Credit Transfer System) was a pilot project designed to test
a mechanism for the transfer of study credits between institutions. Institutions participating voluntarily
in this pioneering work, awarded 60 credits per year for each course subdivided according to the
workload of the course units included. On moving to a partner institution, the student received full
recognition of work previously undertaken, whilst the home institution could easily ascertain the results
achieved. For its part, the NARIC (Network for Academic Recognition Information Centres) brought
together national centres whose task was to inform both institutions and individuals about higher
education systems and their different qualifications.
Surprisingly, the decision to develop ERASMUS also called upon Member States to lend their weight to
those activities which served to establish ERASMUS' goals, an unusual step since generally speaking,
Member States would only agree that action at Community-level was complementary to measures
taken at national level, and not the other way round.
ERASMUS was evaluated in detail by an inquiry carried out by the Comprehensive University of Kassel
(Germany) and the final report published in 1997 (Teichler & Maiworm, 1997)23. What were its main
conclusions?
First, participation both of institutions and of students had grown from year to year, as the following
tables show.
Table 1. Actual number of ICPs, partner units, and institutions in ERASMUS
1987/88 1993-94
23 This report brought together the results of 18 studies (statistical analyses and surveys) carried out
by the ERASMUS evaluation research team at the Centre for Research on Higher Education and
Work of the Comprehensive University of Kassel.
ICPs 293 2,228
Partner units 823 13,184
Institutions 416 1,458
Average number of students per ICP 11.1 26.7
Average number of students per institution 7.8 41.1
Source: Teichler & Maiworm, 1997 (several tables).
Table 2. Actual number of students in ERASMUS, LINGUA (Action II), and ECTS
Students in ICPs Free-movers ECTS Total
ERASMUS LINGUA ERASMUS LINGUA

(Action II) (Action II)
1987/88 3,244 - - - - 3,244
1988/89 9,330 - 584 - - 9,914
1989/90 18,354 - 615 - 487 19,456
1990/91 25,835 1,095 391 - 585 27,906
1991/92 32,160 2,685 719 50 700 36,314
1992/93 44,335 4,453 1,527 39 1,340 51,694
1993/94 54,379 5,161 1,383 26 1,413 62,362
Source: Teichler & Maiworm, 1997 (table 12).
Yet, ERASMUS did not reach its numerical goal of 10 percent of higher education students studying
abroad. Although student numbers rose from about 3,200 in 1987-88 to about 62,000 in 1993-94 (see
Table 2), the target figure was about 150,000. Of the total number of foreign students at higher
education institutions, ERASMUS students were a minority. Small scale mobility dominated: "more
than one-third of the partner units involved sent and received only one or two students per year and a
further third only three or five students" (Teichler & Maiworm, 1997: 188). Certainly, as centralisation in
the administration of the ERASMUS scheme at institutional level later grew, so small scale mobility
tended to decline. "The success of ERASMUS (was), as the evaluation team noted, less often
dependent on the all-round activity of a devoted local director" (Teichler & Maiworm, 1997: 190).
Even so, ERASMUS' organisation and administration threw up many problems. Amongst them were:
- The need for complementary resources (quite apart from the overall funding level and the level of
support given to institutions);
- Delays in both the decision to fund and in the payment of the award;
- Difficulties in co-operating with partners in other European countries;
- The overall administrative overload;
- The plethora of detailed rules and regulations which ERASMUS entailed;
- The lack of continuity in resourcing.
To add to this cahier de doléances, funds were insufficient to support even those students recognised
as eligible in the original allocation of the grant. Nor did allocation formulas provide equal support for
extra costs incurred abroad for all students. Countries with a widely known language (notably Great
Britain) received a disproportionately high number of students. Half the ERASMUS students reported
having a knowledge of a foreign language inadequate for their successfully learning abroad. Staff
exchange was not greatly esteemed. Yet, many students faced the unpleasant fact that their original
period of study was prolonged by almost half the duration of the period spent abroad.
That said, in summary, the report described the triumph of ERASMUS in the following terms: "Not only
has it stimulated and reinforced enthusiasm; temporary student mobility has become a regular feature
of higher education in Europe, and dedicated academic and administrative measures for
Europeanisation and internationalisation of higher education are generally viewed now as essential for
a dynamic institution of higher education. ERASMUS has turned out to be a mobilising mobility
programme" (Teichler & Maiworm, 1997: 202).
Surveys conducted by the Kassel team amongst those in charge of ERASMUS activities at the level of
the individual institution, show that ERASMUS funding was highly appreciated as a catalyst for
international mobility and co-operation. Modest financial support gave rise to many other activities.
Thus, the general purpose of ERASMUS (with its emphasis on temporary study abroad, its
commitment to curricular integration, and its preference for highly organised student mobility…)
became widely accepted.
ERASMUS' main outcome would seem to involve changing the attitudes of students towards
internationalisation and Europeanisation generally but especially among those students participating in
it. More than the average, former ERASMUS students chose to continue their studies or advanced
professional training, and subsequently opted to work or study abroad. Amongst the most positive
features of their time abroad in Europe was less their academic progress as such, so much as the
broadening of their cultural horizon and their improved language proficiency. The evaluation of
ERASMUS identified several elements of 'good practice' which produced good results and, for that
reason, will be important in the future: language preparation at a high academic level; assistance
during the stay abroad; a broad range of activities undertaken together; and curriculum development.
Intergovernmental vs. supranational decision-making
The COMETT and ERASMUS Action Programmes forced Member States to face up to some of their
own potential weaknesses. Here were programmes, developed by a supranational body (the
Commission), based on incentive funding from a supra-national source, which had direct impact on a
traditionally nation-based institution. Reactions were not slow in coming. Both programmes were
subject to legal challenge. The issue on which battle was joined focused on the procedure used to
establish them.
Programmes relating vocational training came under the terms of article 128 of the EEC-Treaty. This
stated that "The Council shall, acting on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the
Economic and Social Committee, lay down general principles for implementing a common vocational
training policy capable of contributing to the harmonious development both of the national economies
and of the common market". In this particular instance, the procedure employed involved qualified
majority voting.
As we have seen the scope of article 128 and, hence, the use of qualified majority voting, had been
gradually extended by the European Court of Justice. As a consequence, the Commission had greater
room for initiative, and this, in turn, increased the likelihood that measures at Community level could
taken be against the wishes, or even the policies, of one or more Member States. Hence, whenever a
programme seemed to exceed the scope involved in the legislation on vocational training, an additional
article had to be drawn up to guarantee the legality of that programme. Article 235 provided the EC
with the possibility of taking actions in fields, which, if unspecified in the treaties, were necessary for
the operation of the common market. But it also stipulated that such decisions were to be taken
unanimously: "If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the
operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community and this Treaty has not
provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the
Commission and after consulting the Assembly, take the appropriate measures". Member States often
argued that article 235 should be included in the legal basis of the programmes, since this would mean
that each Member State had a right of veto.
The decision defining the legal basis of both ERASMUS and COMETT was pursued right up to the
European Court of Justice. In the case of ERASMUS, the Council supported by the UK, Germany and
France, argued that article 128 of the EEC-Treaty did not allow the Council to take measures which
went beyond the initial stages of a vocational training policy. Because ERASMUS included stimulation
measures, the Council added article 235 to the legal basis of the programme. On 7 August 1987 the
Commission started an appeal procedure at the Court of Justice against the addition of this article24.
In the 'ERASMUS' case25 the Court of Justice ruled that article 128 did indeed provide the legal basis
for Community-level action by the Council, because all means necessary to execute the common
policy intended by this article could not be withheld from the Community. But the Court also stated
that the ERASMUS-programme included measures which not only concerned vocational training but
24 Official Journal, 1987 C 242: 4.
25 Jur. 1989, 1432-1435.

also concerned scientific research as well. Therefore, article 128 of the EEC-Treaty did not constitute a
solid legal basis. In the end the Commission lost its case but won its suit: it was obliged to accept the
addition of article 235, but only because the programme included action in the field of scientific
research. Thus, the Court followed the Commission in its broad interpretation of article 128 of the EEC-
Treaty. As a consequence, when the second phase of ERASMUS was approved, it was rested only on
article 128.
In the case of COMETT, the first phase of the programme had been based on articles 128 and 235 of
the EEC-Treaty and Decision 63/266/EEC of 2 April 1963. The Commission proposed to apply article
128 alone to establish COMETT II. But France, Germany and the UK started an appeal procedure at
the Court of Justice, seeking the nullification of the programme26. In their opinion, the programme
contained measures unrelated to vocational training but rather about research and technological
development. The three Member States argued that it also contained measures relating to the field of
advanced training. They concluded therefore that the Council's authority as applied to this programme
could not be legally based solely on article 128 of the EEC-Treaty. The Court of Justice, overruling
their arguments 27 , stated that the programme involved initial and advanced training and was thus
complementary to other research activities. Article 128 did not, in the Court's opinion, distinguish
between initial and advanced training.
In short, the European Court of Justice broadened the scope of 'vocational training' as it figured in the
EEC-Treaty. In this way, the authority of the European Community to take supranational - albeit
complementary - measures, became less subject to challenge.
The Single European Act and '1992'
COMETT and ERASMUS did not come from out of the blue, nor did the discussion about supranational
decision-making. Rather, they have to be set against a more general dynamic in the EC, and in
particular against the bid to give new vigour to European integration. The White Paper on the
completion of the internal market, issued by the Commission (see 2.1), looked forward to a fully
integrated market by 1 January 1993. It proposed a range of measures to remove barriers both to trade
and to mobility within the EC. Such a strategy, however, required a major overhaul to the institutions of
the EC, to improve its decision-making capacity and its effectiveness. The Dooge Committee however
remained riddled with disagreement on account of the tensions between the minimalists (notably the
UK), which proposed to act on intergovernmental gentleman's agreements, and the maximalists (Italy,
Belgium, Ireland), who sought to strengthen the EC (Van De Meerssche, 1990: 227). The Adonnino
Committee for its part, concluded that if the involvement of citizens in the affairs of the Community was
to improve, the Community should stand for more than a purely economic, technocratic organisation. It
had to advance in non-economic areas as well.
The intergovernmental conference on institutional reform could not entirely break through the deadlock
of the Dooge Committee. However, it did agree to amend the EEC-Treaty. To reconcile divergent views
26 Official Journal, 1989 C 80: 6 (case 51/89); Official Journal, 1989 C 136: 5 (case 90/89); Official
Journal, 1989 C 153: 10 (case 94/89).
27 Jur. 1991, 2786-1796.

amongst Member States, a package deal was hammered out. It struck a balance between reducing
national sovereignty and providing benefits for all Member States.
The Single European Act was signed in February 1986 and took effect on 1 July 198728. The intention
to complete the internal market by the end of 1992, was confirmed and closer co-operation in foreign
policy, called for. The authority of the EC was extended to new policy areas, - social policy, economic
and social coherence, and research and technological development. Finally, the Act changed the
institutional profile of the EC, which included the introduction of the so-called 'co-operation procedure'.
The co-operation procedure applies when the Council votes by qualified majority. It enables the
European Parliament (EP) to subject a legislative proposal to two readings. Should the European
Parliament reject the Bill submitted, only by unanimous decision can the Council overturn this
rejection29.
The adoption of the Single European Act and project '1992' did not end the debate over the possible
scope of supranational decision-making. Did the Act complete the project started in 1951? Or was the
abolition of internal economic barriers simply an intermediate step towards further integration? At the
time, the Act set down the ultimate limits of integration.
The Commission played up the principles of diversity and subsidiarity30. In the coded language of
Bruxelles, the principle of diversity signified that co-operation in education could only take place whilst
the traditions of each country and the diversity in education policy and education structures, were
respected. (Brouwer, 1996: 88) This principle had already been evoked in the Janne and Dahrendorf
reports (see 1.1), though both Dahrendorf and Janne made abundantly clear that a certain functional
coherence or convergence between the national education systems was unavoidable. In point of fact,
the principle of diversity amounted to a compromise between European institutions in favour of
harmonisation, at least in certain areas on the one hand, and on the other, Member States which stood
by intergovernmentalism as the sole basis for action.
The principle of subsidiarity states that decisions should be taken at the appropriate administrative
level and as proximate as possible to those affected; power should flow to that level best suited to
achieve a given purpose. As a doctrine, subsidiarity can be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand,
it may serve as an argument for those who seek to extend Community authority: Thus, if a particular
goal can be achieved better at European level rather than at national level, the Community has a right
to act. Yet, subsidiarity also means that goals, achievable at the national level, need not be subject to
Community policies or programmes. By taking this latter stance, Member States have discovered 'a
Heaven-sent way of channelling the Commission's field of influence.' (De Groof, 1994b: 105)
However, as we shall see, Commission intent was to highlight the options these principles opened for
Community action.
29 The procedure is as follows. The Commission proposes legislation. Parliament gives its opinion in a
first reading. The Council adopts a so-called common position by qualified majority. When the EP
amends or rejects the common position in its second reading, the Commission can amend its
proposal. The Council then takes the final decision by unanimity.
30 Commission document (COM) (89) 236 final of 2 June 1989; Bulletin, 1989, 6, no. 2.1.106.
The Commission's higher education policy started out drawing on both principles. This much was clear
in the stance taken in relation to COMETT and ERASMUS, where the autonomy of the institutions, the
bottom-up approach and voluntary participation were stressed. No obligations were imposed on the
Member States. In the light of the Single European Act and the reform, then current, of the Structural
Funds (the purpose of which is to eliminate structural and regional disparities, by combating, for
example, long-term unemployment and improving training opportunities for young people), the
Commission opened up a new perspective on education and training31. Both education and training
were now held to bear upon the economic and social coherence of the Community. This new policy of
improving ‘coherence’ brought together a number of hitherto disparate elements: free movement of
persons, development of economically less-favoured regions, preparation of young people for entry to
the labour market, reduction of long-term unemployment, and enhancement of technological co-
operation.
The Ministers of Education agreed on the main lines of policy to be followed by the Community32. It
should rest on five objectives: Europe should be pluri-cultural and open to the world, it should
guarantee training for all, and should create more opportunities for mobility and skills acquisition. The
Education Committee was entrusted with evaluating the Commission's proposals against these
objectives and means, and it should seek other ways of extending co-operation, whilst paying attention
to the need for efficient management and the limited money available.
With the completion of the internal market by 1992 in mind, the Commission broached a discussion on
the anticipated growth in demand for EC students with European experience (that is, they had worked
or lived in another Member State, were linguistically proficient etc.). In the course of the exchange, the
Commission issued three memoranda.
The Memorandum on Higher Education in the European Community 33 concentrated on preparing

Member State education systems for the forthcoming unification on the one hand, and on the issues
posed by the wish of several other countries to join the EC on the other. It laid further issues before
higher education institutions, how should the remaining barriers to student mobility be dismantled; how
to shape co-operation between higher education institutions at a European level; how to take account
of the central importance of language; and how to develop a procedure for recognising diplomas and
study periods abroad?
At the same time, the Commission unveiled the Memorandum on Vocational Training in the EC in the
nineties34. Noting the pace of economic globalisation and the accompanying technological changes,
the memorandum argued that a qualitatively better (advanced) training of young people, particularly
women, grounded in co-operation agreements between Member States, was required to push back
long-term unemployment and to reduce skills shortages.
31 COM (88) 280 final of 18 May 1988; Bulletin, 1988, 5, no. 1.2.3.-1.2.9.
33 COM (91) 349 final of 5 November 1991; Bulletin, 1991, 11, no. 1.2.82.
34 COM (91) 388 final of 12 November 1991; Bulletin, 1991, 11, no. 1.2.83.
The third document, published at the end of 1991, was the ‘Memorandum on Open and Distance
Learning in the European Community’35. It saw several advantages in open and distance learning for
improving the level of skills and facilitating access to education for those in less developed regions.
The Commission put forward several suggestions for dealing with the more obdurate shortcomings
involved, amongst which the inadequate development of open and distance learning; the limited
availability of courses; and their mismatch in relation to the needs of participants.
All three memoranda brought about a lively exchange in Member States. Within the Commission itself
the future agenda for (higher) education was discussed. The Commission thus reached its goal of
bringing into debate the problems it identified. Several Member States were less smitten by the
increasing list of activities. They called than for a more selective agenda and thus, in future, more
concentration on fewer issues.
Replying to the general debate, the Commission brought out a working paper on 5 May 1993, which
made further proposals for the field of education and training36. It was the first document to contain
proposals for rationalising and reorganising activities and programmes already in place in keeping with
the overall policy on education and training. The Commission proposed incorporating such activities
and programmes in two all-embracing programmes: one involving institutions of higher education, the
other dealing with training and qualifications.
Both here and in certain other aspects of the memoranda (broader scope than existing programmes,
greater stress upon open and distance learning, European experience for non-mobile students…) we
see the early shape of what later would emerge as the SOCRATES and LEONARDO programmes.
(See 3.2)
Specific policies and programmes 1989-1992
Before turning our attention to the shape of things to come, let us examine the other education action
programmes which developed between 1989 and 1992. We will distinguish three kinds of programmes:
1. programmes within the EC;
2. co-operation with international partners;
3. research and development programmes.
Two programmes figure in the field of education within the EC: JEAN MONNET, and, more important,
LINGUA. In addition, new and further attempts were made to improve the recognition of diplomas and
study periods abroad.
35 COM (91) 397 final of 11 December 1991; Bulletin, 1991, 12, no. 1.2.136.
36 COM (93) 183: the so-called Ruberti -report (see also 3.1).
The JEAN MONNET 37 programme backed up the initiatives of higher education institutions in the
domain education and research into European integration. Since 1989, it gives financial aid for setting
up Jean Monnet Chairs, for permanent courses, and for European modules given over to studies on
European integration. From 1998, it provides for Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence which is in effect
a pooling of resources for the advance of issues on European integration.
The LINGUA programme 38 complemented the ERASMUS programme in the field of language
proficiency. It seeks to improve, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the knowledge of foreign
languages, and thus to better communication and understanding within the Community39. Over five
years from 1 January 1990, LINGUA disbursed 200 million ECUs for five areas of activity, of which the
second focused on higher education.
LINGUA-Action II gave grants for ICPs, more specifically for individual students studying a foreign
language as principal or subsidiary subject and for teachers and administrators. It bears considerable
resemblance to the European university network of ICPs, and to the grant system for student and
teacher mobility and exchange found in ERASMUS.
Like COMETT and ERASMUS, LINGUA strengthened voluntary co-operation and a bottom-up
approach and stressed the complementary nature of EC-actions. It also played up the fact that the
content and the organisation of education systems were the exclusive competence of the Member
States. Here are remarkable differences between the proposal as originally put forward by the
Commission and the programme as finally adopted by Council. Thus, 'enhancement of foreign
language instruction' mutated into 'enhancement of the knowledge of foreign languages'. The clauses
dealing with school exchanges were left out at the insistence of the UK and Germany that felt they
conflicted with general educational policy. Such differences underline yet again the precarious position
of the Commission as a supranational body vis-à-vis the sovereign Member States.
At the same time, the issue of the recognition of diplomas and study periods abroad, re-opened. Both
still remained problematic. The COMETT-programme included trans-border industrial work placements,
which brought academic recognition in their train. The ERASMUS-programme concentrated on the
further development of National Academic Recognition and Information Centres (NARICs) and
established the European Credit Transfer Scheme. Their success, however, depended entirely on the
voluntary participation of universities and other higher education establishments.
On the other hand, recognition of diplomas for professional purposes progressed considerably with the
introduction in 1989 of a general system of recognition 40 . Previously, only specific diplomas
38 Official Journal, 1989 L 239: 24-32.
39 ‘Foreign’ languages must be understood as the languages of EC-countries taught as a foreign

language.

(medicine41, pharmacy42, and architects43) were recognised by EC directives. Under this new system,
every citizen of the Community could practice his/her profession in every Member State, regardless of
where the original higher education diploma had been awarded. This procedure applied to all
professions which required higher education training of at least three years duration, and which were
not covered by specific directives. Although recognition was the basic principle, the arrangement
anticipated certain exceptions, in those instances where important differences existed between
education systems or in the organisation of the profession. It provided for recognition after a period of
adaptation, after the administration of an aptitude test or following evidence of further professional
experience. In 1992, these provisions were extended to higher education of less than three years
duration and also to some secondary education courses44. In both cases it took some years - well
beyond the period foreseen for implementation - before Member States incorporated them into national
legislation. This was not the first nor the last time that changes to the appropriate legislation - despite
judgements of the European Court of Justice - were not carried out by Member States (De Groof,
1994a: 42) or carried out with much dragging of feet.
The EC opened up a number of programmes for co-operation between higher education in the EC and
countries that lay outside it. On the European mainland, 1989 marked the dawn of a new epoch. The
fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Eastern-European communist regimes put an
end to the Cold War. For the EC as well, these heady days meant a new challenge and a break with
the past. The threat of the Cold War had been an important incentive for West-European integration.
Now, European integration had the possibility to extend across the whole European continent, provided
that the acquis communautaire was not imperilled.
Poland and Hungary were already granted economic support in 1989 45 . The following year, this
venture was supplemented by the Trans-European Mobility Programme for University Studies
(TEMPUS)46. TEMPUS follows almost the same goals as ERASMUS, but focuses on mobility between
Eastern and Western Europe. At first, the programme was limited to Poland and Hungary, but later
extended to the rest of Eastern and Central Europe47. Funding became available for Joint European
Projects (JEPs) between higher education institutions and enterprises in the eligible countries and in
Member States. JEP grants covered a wide range of activities geared to the needs of participant
41 For a codification of all directives since 1975, see Directive 93/16/EEC of the Council of 4 April 1993
(OJ 1993 L 165).
42 First recognised in Directive 85/433/EEC of the Council of 16 December 1985 (OJ 1985 L 253).
43 First recognised in Directive 85/384/EEC of the Council of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 223).
46 Official Journal, 1990 L 131: 21-26; 1993 L 112: 34-39; 1996 L 306: 36-39.
47 First to Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Rumania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and
the Czech Republic; and in the second phase of TEMPUS to the republics of Russia, Belarus, and
Ukraine (from 1993 onwards) and the republics of Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and
Kyrgyzstan (from 1994 onwards).
institutions: the development of integrated study courses and teaching materials, distance learning and
training, the retraining of teachers. TEMPUS also included a mobility grants scheme, which provided
direct financial support to students from eligible countries in Central and Eastern Europe, to follow a
period of full-time study at a Member State university. It also supported teaching or training
assignments, industrial or practice-based placements, and short study visits for training experts.
Investment of the EC in the development of higher education in Eastern and Central Europe is also
evident with the establishment of the European Training Foundation (ETF)48. The ETF supports reform
of initial and advanced vocational training in Eastern and Central Europe, thus advancing co-operation
Europe-wide.
The openness of the EC was not confined to Eastern and Central Europe. Participation in the higher
education action programmes of the EC reached out to countries of the European Free Trade
Association (EFTA). EFTA, originally established in 1959 by seven countries49 rejected the transfer of
authority to a supranational body (the EC). Instead, they agreed to establish an area of free trade,
without further inroads on national sovereignty. Several EFTA-countries later joined the EC, including
EFTA's key promoter, Great Britain.
The EC also concluded co-operation agreements outside Europe, amongst which the fourth Lomé
Convention with the African-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) countries. This too provided student
scholarships, the provision of trainers and teaching materials, and co-operation between higher
education institutions (in the form of institutional links and exchange of staff).
With the USA and Canada agreement was reached in a Joint Statement (22 November 1990), which
set out common goals and principles for co-operation, and consultation. A study group was established
to explore further avenues of co-operation.
In 1992 the programme MED-CAMPUS was established. It laid down co-operation between the EC
and the Mediterranean countries50. The programme set out to improve the exchange of information
and experience between higher education institutions (preferably within networks), the enhancement of
higher education structures, to forge stronger links between higher education institutions and local
firms, and a deepening and widening of cultural bonds.
There is one final element in this panoply of initiatives. Once the Single European Act included
'research and technological development', European programmes were established that also bore
down upon higher education from this angle. Specifically, they included provision for training R&D staff.
49 Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, UK, Sweden, and Switserland.
50 Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Cyprus, Malta, Morocco, Syria, Tunesia, Turkey, and the
Occupied Territories.
Four programmes were launched within the so-called Second Framework Programme for Research
and Technological development (1987-1992).
First, the programme Stimulation des Coopérations Internationales et des Echanges Nécessaires aux
Chercheurs en Europe (SCIENCE) 51 provided 167 million ECU over five years, to promote
international co-operation and exchange of European researchers in the exact and natural sciences.
SCIENCE's objectives were to forward training through research (grants for researchers), to expand
the mobility of researchers, and to support intra-European co-operation and exchange projects and
networks (grants for laboratories and projects).
In the field of economics the Stimulation Plan for Economic Science (SPES), a plan similar to
SCIENCE was launched52, with 6 million ECUs over four years. The establishment of a network of co-
operation and exchange between highly qualified economists was its prime purpose. More specifically,
it stimulated mobility amongst economists and co-operation by means of joint research projects or
networks.
Supplementary ACCESS TO LARGE-SCALE FACILITIES53 was introduced. This programme provided

financial support of a temporary nature (30 million ECU in all) to give access to large-scale scientific
and technical facilities and installations in the Community for researchers and scientists of a Member
State who normally would be without it.
In the sub-field of educational technology, the programme Developing European Learning through
Technological Advance (DELTA)54 aimed at the promotion of research and development of techniques,
aids and infrastructure in the field of advanced learning technology, including open and distance
learning.
In 1992 another step was accomplished. SCIENCE, SPES and ACCESS were prolonged, elaborated,
and brought together under the umbrella programme Human Capital and Mobility (HCM)55 within the
third Framework Programme (1990-1995). A budget of 483.07 million ECU was set aside for:
1. grants for researcher training;
2. establishing and extending research networks for scientific and technological co-operation;
3. promoting access to large scale facilities;
4. the development of Euro-conferences (scientific meetings concentrating on issues at the cutting
edge of scientific or technological knowledge).

The emergence of supranational policy
For some fifteen years, higher education policy at European level had been dominated by the Member
States, despite the responsibility accorded to the Commission to promote co-operation in this area. In
the 1980s, the situation changed. This is not to say that the Member States became less involved in
education policy - on the contrary. But the bodies representing (at least in principle) the interests of the
European Community, that is, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and to a certain
degree the European Court of Justice, began to play a role more prominent.
Strictly speaking, the European Court of Justice does not have 'an interest' save in the proper
application of the Treaties. Yet clearly the jurisprudence it developed was unabashedly pro-European
jurisprudence. It interpreted 'laying down general principles for vocational training' as 'taking all
measures regarding higher education necessary for reaching the goals of the EEC-Treaty'. This is a
remarkable shift. Nor was it readily accepted by the Member States as witness the many lawsuits
between Member States and individual parties, as well as between Council and Commission.
The European Parliament (EP) injected new life into the process of integration by adopting a draft
treaty which strengthened the Community. So too did the stance it espoused during discussions on
establishing EC action programmes. The flaccid powers of the European Parliament, incarnated in the
infamous notion of the 'democratic deficit', most certainly acted as a spur to the Parliament's
enthusiasm for strengthening the European Community in all domains - not least as a functioning
democracy.
Under the chairmanship of Jacques Delors, the European Commission gained in momentum and
boldness. It was able to perform as a 'real-European' institution. In a delicate display of political
acrobatics with the national interests of the Member States, it put in place supranational action
programmes which disbursed 'free' money to higher education. Thus, supranational policy became
more acceptable to Member States, and 'Europeanisation' and 'internationalisation' - hideous
grammatical expressions though they might be - became features more common upon the landscape
of higher education.
The question remains, of course, whether the emergence of supranational policies and programmes
has affected the sovereignty of the Member States in the field of higher education and, if so, to what
extent? In general, the impact of the EC on Member States' autonomy depends on the degree of
integration in such domains as market, welfare, culture, and polity. In other words, it depends on the
political agenda of regulation, redistribution, re-interpretation, and reorganisation (Olsen, 1996: 264-
266). How does this apply in the area of higher education? Let us take each of these domains in turn.
Certainly, regulation, or 'to take actors as given and create rules of fair competition', posed a major
issue within the EC between the years 1983 and 1992. Higher education was conceived - at least, in
the EC's policies and programmes - as an economic factor in the competition taking place within a free
market. The neo-liberal idea of removing hindrance to the free movement of capital, goods, services,
and people thus 'spilled over' to the area of higher education.
Redistribution may be taken to be coterminous with taking 'actors as given, yet influence the
distribution of resources in order to ensure diversity and the ability to compete'. After the adoption of
the Single European Act, the cohesion of the EC became a matter of concern. Yet, an effective re-
distribution of resources to strengthen the higher education systems in less favoured regions was
remarkably absent. Programmes like ERASMUS distributed available resources on a proportional
basis, based on the number of students in a given Member State as a proportion of all students in the
Community.
Re-interpretation, or '(re)-constructing a culture', was not successful during the period under
examination. The EC was looked upon by most of its citizens as an economic entity of little personal
interest to them. Turnouts for direct elections to the European Parliament were as dismal as they
decreased. In higher education, however opinion of students and that of staff involved in European
programmes gradually became more positive about Europeanisation.
Finally, reorganisation, in the sense of developing a political organisation more democratic took place
only to a minor extent. Some educational rights of EC-citizens were confirmed by the European Court
of Justice. Generally speaking, little changed for the individual. As in other areas, the EC's concern lay
more with practical results than with democracy (Olsen, 1996: 266).
The higher education policy of the European Community which shaped up over the years 1983-1992,
was more substantial than might previously have been expected. The effects, however, of this policy
were limited in the main to the area of regulation. The EC was especially active in fostering mobility
and voluntary networking. Areas of greater centrality to national education policy, for instance, the
recognition of diplomas, clearly remained the responsibility of Member States. Milward's (1992) thesis -
that nation-states did not wither because of European integration, but instead reached their prime
stage thanks to it - seems to apply in higher education as well. What could not be achieved at national
level, was transferred upward to the European level.
The Treaty on European Union: a new beginning?
The Treaty on European Union
Project '1992' succeeded in rallying forces around a common goal: an integrated European market.
As time passed, it became clear that the achievement of this goal remained as yet outstanding and
beyond reach. The first phase of the economic and monetary union (EMU), involving closer macro-
economic and monetary co-operation between the Member States and control by the Commission,
entered into force in 1990, although the goal of a European Monetary Union was enshrined in the EEC-
Treaty of 1957. Despite hope, the reforms contained in the Single European Act were insufficient to
achieve this condition. At the end of 1990, therefore, two intergovernmental conferences were held.
One concentrated on EMU. The other dwelt upon the European Political Union (EPU). In their wake,
the European Council agreed on a draft treaty to amend the basic treaties for the second time of
asking. By so doing, the groundwork could be laid, establishing an EMU by 1999 at the latest,
including the introduction of a single currency (ECU).
The Treaty on European Union, better known as Treaty of Maastricht, was signed on 7 February 1992,
and took effect on 1 November 1993, after all Member States had completed its ratification.
Ratification was, however, far from self-evident. In Denmark, the Treaty on European Union was
approved only after a second referendum. Initially rejected and only after the stipulation of special
terms for Denmark accepted by the European Council was the desirable result forthcoming. Other
countries were not particularly fired with enthusiasm. In France, referendum resulted in the barest of
majorities in favour of the Treaty. For its part, the UK refused to include the chapter on social policy in
the Treaty, with the result that a social protocol had to be attached that remained unsigned by the UK.
Others foreswore the very idea of a referendum on grounds that it would divide more than it united.
Lukewarm or not, the ratification of the Treaty on European Union strengthened the Communities,
which henceforth were translated into the European Union (EU). The EU consists of three pillars. The
first pillar encompasses the three European Communities, bringing them together in a single legal
framework. The two other pillars upheld intergovernmental co-operation within the EU respectively in
the fields of foreign and security policy (second pillar) and justice and home affairs (third pillar).
By the first pillar the Treaty extended the authority of the EU to new policy areas. Amongst them was
the aim of economic and monetary union. But, it also brought in areas such as trans-European
networks, developmental co-operation, public health, and education. Several reasons made for the
inclusion of education as part of the Treaty. First, many education programmes with calls upon the
EC-budget already existed and could not be ignored, despite the sometimes-uneasy acceptance by
Member States. Second, disagreements over the action programmes had prompted a series of
judgements by the European Court of Justice. These judgements opened the way for the EC to
develop such programmes further. But, they still did not constitute a satisfactory legal basis for raising
the education budget. Third, with the need to extend the authority of the EC in social and economic
policy now recognised, the importance of education as an element in social and economic policy was
re-asserted. For these reasons, the Treaty on European Union introduced two new articles under the
heading “Education, vocational training and youth” in the shape of Article 126 on education and Article
127 on vocational training.
Both articles confirmed the acquis communautaire in the field of education and vocational training and
confirmed the right of the EU to take action in this field: 'The Community shall contribute to the
development of quality education by encouraging co-operation between Member States and, if
necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action' (art. 126, sub 1); 'The Community shall
implement a vocational training policy which shall support and supplement the action of the Member
States' (art. 127, sub 1).
Whilst education was firmly embedded in the Treaty, at the same time, the authority of the EU was
restricted in three ways. First, both the responsibility of Member States and the undesirability of
harmonisation were stressed: 'while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the
content of teaching and the organization of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity'
(art.126, sub 1) and likewise for vocational training (art. 127, sub 1); and in both articles (sub 4):
'excluding any harmonization of the laws and regulations of the Member States'.
Second, the fields of authority of the EU were strictly defined. In the field of education, 'Community
action shall be aimed at:
• developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and
dissemination of the languages of the Member States;
• encouraging mobility of students and teachers, inter alia by encouraging the academic recognition
of diplomas and periods of study;
• promoting co-operation between educational establishments;
• developing exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the education systems
of the Member States;
• encouraging the development of youth exchanges and of exchanges of socio-economical
instructors;
• encouraging the development of distance education.' (Art. 126, sub 2).
In the field of vocational training, 'Community action shall aim to:

• facilitate adaptation to industrial changes, in particular through vocational training and retraining;
• improve initial and continuing vocational training in order to facilitate vocational integration and
reintegration into the labour market;
• facilitate access to vocational training and encourage mobility of instructors and trainees and
particularly young people;
• stimulate co-operation on training between educational or training establishments and firms;
• develop exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the training systems of the
Member States.' (Art. 127, sub 2).
•
Third, the Treaty clearly set out the procedures applying to education and vocational training policy. In
the field of vocational training, the Council can adopt measures by acting in accordance with the co-
operation procedure (art. 127, sub 4). In education, the Council 56 must act in accordance with the
newly introduced co-decision procedure to adopt incentive measures (art. 126, sub 4).
In the co-decision procedure, the power of the European Parliament (EP) balances that of the Council.
Whilst the co-operation procedure consists of two readings by the EP, the co-decision procedure
involves three. Should the Council not accept the opinion of the EP after the second reading, the EP
can prevent the adoption of the proposal. In this event, a conciliation committee is constituted. Made
up of Members of the European Parliament together with representatives of Council and Commission,
56 The Treaty enables the Ministers of Education to assemble formally as Council of Ministers.
its purpose is to find a compromise before Parliament's third reading. If agreement is still not reached,
the EP can reject the proposal definitively.
The imposition of these three restrictions was grounded in the principle of subsidiarity (see 2.4), which
also figured in the Treaty (article 3b). They are clearly the outcome of negotiations between Member
States both to limit the authority of the EU and to prevent an extension of this authority by the
European Court of Justice. The de facto authority which the Community secured by broadening its
range of education activities during the 1980s, was thus confirmed and strengthened. But more
intrusive Community policies were contested.
Restrictions upon the EU did not halt debate over national sovereignty vs. supra-nationality. The
Member States cannot entirely prevent - even if they would wish to - an extension of Community
action. Article 126 states that the Community can supplement Member States' action 'if necessary' and
that the Council can adopt 'incentive measures'. But how to define 'necessary' and 'incentive'? That the
Commission will argue in favour of community-level actions being taken sooner than would a Member
State, bent on pursuing a particular aspect of national policy, is to be expected. Furthermore, two
objectives of Community policy defined in article 126 (developing the 'European dimension in
education' and 'quality education') extend beyond the fields of authority outlined in the same article
(sub 2). Thus for the EU, they have the potential to open up an even wider scope of action (De Groof,
1994b: 92-94).
The operational limits of articles 126 and 127 were to be defined during the establishment of action
programmes, which henceforth could be comprehensive programmes covering all educational sectors.
The first moves to develop more encompassing programmes were outlined in 1993, in the so-called
Ruberti report57. They were given further weight in the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and
Employment, put out by the Commission at the behest of the European Council and in the action plan,
based on the White Paper, issued by the European Council58.
Together, these documents assigned a key role to education and training in meeting new socio-
economic developments, in particular the drive to cut unemployment, to improve the competitiveness of
industry and business, and to guarantee the cohesion of the Union. As with the Single European Act,
so the general objective was defined in terms of human capital development. Specifically, the White
Paper called for further reform of education and training systems to ensure better ties between
education and industry. At national level, it proposed developing training vouchers, to extend training
through new technologies, and to decentralise the management of education. At Community level, it
favoured above all the development of the European dimension in education (networking inter-
university co-operation programmes, fostering mobility and exchange amongst students and staff and
recognition of diplomas…).
57 COM (93) 183 final of 9 May 1993; Bulletin, 1993, 5, no. 1.2.62 (4).

Building out from the White Paper and the European Council's action plan, the Commission suggested
developing new action programmes. Its propositions also reposed on the outcome of discussions about
the three memoranda of 1991. Its intention was to bring together the different actions within an overall
framework (see 2.4). Using the broader authority which the Treaty on European Union vested in the
EU, Commission sought to avoid both the fragmentation of these initiatives - hoping thereby to
increase their mutual impact and interactivity - and to develop programmes which would envelop all
levels of education and form a comprehensive unity.
The Commission saw Community policy evolving along three major tracks, each corresponding to the
fields of authority outlined in the Treaty on European Union: education (SOCRATES), training
(LEONARDO) and youth (YOUTH FOR EUROPE 59 ). The Council adopted LEONARDO on 6
December 1994. SOCRATES was signed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on
14 March 1995. These programmes will now be analysed in more detail.
A new generation of education programmes: SOCRATES and LEONARDO
With SOCRATES and LEONARDO, European-level education programmes entered a third phase. The
1976 Education Action Programme and the modest, mainly inter-governmental initiatives that followed
after, constituted the first phase. The second phase turned around the more elaborate, partly EC-
funded incentive programmes (COMETT, ERASMUS…) which still operated within the framework of
the Action Programme. The Treaty on European Union furnished a new basis for action through
articles 126 and 127, by confirming and broadening the potential scope of Community action.
This dual dynamic of confirmation and broadening is also present in the SOCRATES programme
(1995-1999) 60 . The programme continued and extended a number of previous programmes
(ERASMUS and LINGUA) whilst introducing new ventures (COMENIUS, open and distance learning,
adult education, exchange of information). SOCRATES covers all levels of education and forms part of
the strategy to promote lifelong learning. The general aim of SOCRATES is to help improve the quality
and relevance of education for children, young people and adults. It does so by intensifying European
co-operation and opening access to learning opportunities across the Union. The programme sets
priority on the participation of less-favoured regions and of disadvantaged persons, notably the
disabled, and on providing equal opportunities for men and women. The whole programme was
budgeted at 850 million ECU at the outset, an amount subsequently raised to 920 million ECUs.
59 The Youth for Europe programme does not concern higher education and will therefore not be
further discussed.
60 Official Journal, 1995 L 87: 10-24, and 1995 C 68: 28-30.

The main part of SOCRATES (accounting for at least 55 % of the overall budget) is SOCRATES-
ERASMUS. It continues the former ERASMUS programme (encouragement of student mobility and
financing ERASMUS grants). It also promotes the European dimension in universities. The procedures
involved in tying universities to the 'European Dimension' are interesting in themselves. Universities
enter into an institutional contract with the Commission. The contract requires a statement of principle
by the institution as to its commitment to European co-operation and proposals setting out the type of
co-operation envisaged. This may be, for example, the organisation of student mobility, the
introduction of the European Credit Transfer Scheme, curriculum development, teaching staff mobility;
or preparatory study visits. The Community will then lend its support to so-called "Thematic Networks",
which are co-operation projects between academic associations and university faculties or
departments on subjects of mutual interest.
There are other elements in SOCRATES. COMENIUS deals with activities at the secondary school
level. Alongside this are horizontal measures, into which fall supplementary actions involving language
skills (LINGUA), open and distance learning, and the exchange of information and experience
(EURYDICE61, NARIC…), They too are eligible for support under SOCRATES-ERASMUS, provided
they involve universities, their students or their staff.
An assessment of the SOCRATES programme for the years 1995 and 1996 pointed to increasing
participation 62 : 316,000 students followed a recognised period of study in one of the participating
countries. 2,673 inter-university co-operation programmes were set up, involving 1,800 higher
education institutions. 28 major thematic networks in the higher education sector were created, each
with over 70 participating establishments. More recently, however, the mobility (in all its forms) has
stagnated and even decreased (Van der Perre, 1998: 1).
Regardless of whether SOCRATES has been successful or not, it is important to note the balance
between centralised and decentralised actions within the programme, a characteristic negotiated when
the Commission proposal for the programme was discussed according to the co-decision procedure.
Major disagreement broke out between Commission and European Parliament on the one hand, and,
on the other, the Council of Ministers, representing the interests of Member States. The latter to
reinforce the intergovernmental character of SOCRATES changed the Commission's proposal to the
Council. It cut back the remit of the proposed SOCRATES Committee from an advisory to an
administrative capacity, and pressed hard for the active participation of national executive bodies.
During the second reading, both the European Parliament and the Commission once again reasserted
the importance of the Community level, which not surprisingly remained unacceptable to the Council. A
Conciliation Committee was created, but with Germany's refusal agreement was still out of reach. No
one wanted to proceed; no one wanted to leave the proposal undecided. A final compromise
dissociated the general text from the text relating to the programmes. 'Cosmetic' changes were
injected; and the text was approved in two steps. Formal approval followed on 14 March 1995. The
upshot was a Community-level programme, with actions and implementation decentralised.
61 European Information Network in the field of Education.
62 COM (97) 99 final.

If the Council reduced Community-level action in the case of SOCRATES, LEONARDO the other
major EU education action programme63 found this dimension drastically pruned. Since it was based
on article 127 of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission's proposal had to pass through the
co-operation procedure. According to this procedure, the Council has the last word. Attempts by
Commission and European Parliament allied to amend the Council's text, withered on the vine. Hence,
LEONARDO was tilted towards decentralisation.
The LEONARDO programme (1995-1999) continued the active life of a number of programmes,
among which COMETT and LINGUA. In its application to higher education, LEONARDO's goals
emphasised 'promoting vocational training in the light of the results of technological research and
development programmes, particularly by means of co-operation between universities and companies
in the sphere of training in technologies, their application and their transfer'. The programme supports
trans-national pilot projects in the areas of (technological) innovation within vocational training. It also
encourages technological transfer between higher education institutions and companies; investments
in continuing vocational training for workers; and the promotion of equal opportunities for men and
women. LEONARDO also funds trans-national programmes for placements and exchanges of
students, graduates, and people in charge of training. Similarly, it sponsors language preparation for
participants in such schemes and presses for skills acquired in Member States' systems to be
recognised.
The LEONARDO programme in 1995 and 1996 funded 1,542 projects, permitted more than 50,000
individuals, including 22,000 young people in initial training, 10,000 young workers and 13,000 higher
education students or graduates, to undergo periods of guidance and training throughout the Member
States and participating countries64.
Specific policies and programmes 1992-1996
The Union's higher education policy was not limited to SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Articles 126 and
127 of the Treaty on European Union both contain a paragraph on international co-operation: 'The
Community and the Member States shall foster co-operation with third countries and the competent
international organizations' (sub 3).
64 COM (97) 399 final.

Already in 1992, the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement was signed between the EC- and the
EFTA-countries. The agreement entered into force in 1994, opening the way for the remaining EFTA-
countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway)65 to participate in the Union's action programmes.
Two years later, the Commission approved a programme for co-operation between Europe and Latin
America in the field of higher education. The main objective of the ALFA programme (America Latina -
Formación Académica) was to overcome the imbalances between Europe and Latin America, to
contribute to regional integration within Latin America by co-operating in institutional management, and
by working together in the field of scientific and
technological training.
Co-operation with the United States and Canada, which began with a joint statement in 1991, was
extended by two treaties dealing with higher education and vocational training over the period 1995-
66
2000 . Improving the quality of higher education and vocational
training and, in general, learning to know each other are the main purposes of this bond. Joint projects
cover, among other things, student and staff exchange in higher education institutions and firms,
guarantee full academic recognition, the development of study programmes and short intensive
courses are also amongst the activities supported.
The EU-China Higher Education Co-operation Programme (1996-2000) and the EU-India Economic
Cross-Cultural Programme (1997-2000) promote mutual interest and understanding and more
specifically, joint research projects, European Studies Centres, and institutional networking.
In research and technological development too, new programmes focused on higher education. The
Fourth Framework Programme 66 (1994-1999) included the programme Training and Mobility of
Researchers (TMR)67. It continued (with the necessary adaptations) the Human Capital and Mobility
programme and the previous programmes SCIENCE, SPES, and ACCESS.
The TMR programme awarded grants to research networks based on teams from different countries
joining together around one research project. It supported researchers and rare or unique large-scale
facilities, gave subventions to make access to those facilities easier; and encouraged training through
research. It fostered mobility between disciplines, universities, research institutions and enterprises.
65 Austria and Finland, together with Sweden, joined the EU on 1 January 1995. Norway too had
applied for membership, but a national referendum threw the idea out (the same had already
happened in 1972).

Also set within the Fourth Framework the Targeted Socio-Economic Research programme gives
financial support to research in education and training.
The five years 1998 - 2002 is covered by the Fifth Framework Programme68 , which concentrates
economic on competitiveness and social needs, arranged in seven programmes of research and
technological development. They include 'improving human research potential and the socio-economic
knowledge base'. This programme evolved out of the former TMR and TSER programmes. It consists
of three specific tracks:
1. support for researcher training and mobility;
2. extending access to research infrastructures;
3. nurturing scientific and technological excellence (for example sponsoring high level scientific
conferences and awarding distinctions for outstanding research).
The Fifth Framework Programme also includes what is termed a 'key-action' - that is, a flexible
instrument designed to achieve solutions to topics of paramount concern to Europe. In this instance,
the 'key action' seeks to improve "the socio-economic knowledge base" in the area of:
1. societal trends and structural changes;
2. the interdependency between technology and science;
3. responsibility, accountability, and capacity as agents of change at all levels of governance in
Europe;
4. the concept of citizenship across Europe;
5. new models of development to foster growth and employment.
EU-policy could not extend in all domains without causing friction. In the academic recognition of
diplomas saw the Commission forced to admit to Community level action being utterly ruled out. Until
the Treaty on European Union was promulgated, Community authority was curtailed to recognising
diplomas for the practice of certain professions in another Member State. Today, however, the
situation has evolved. The EU can also undertake measures relating to academic recognition. As a
result, the European Credit Transfer Scheme was rapidly brought forward and a communication from
the Commission 69 set out new lines of action to be followed. The Commission also drew up an
inventory of initiatives which, at Community level, dealt with academic and professional recognition of
diplomas. Two forms of recognition emerged from this:
1. voluntary recognition on the basis of accumulation - that is, further studies in another Member State
following on recognition of the diploma already obtained) or through substitution - that is, recognition
by the home institution of a study period passed in another Member State. This latter pattern had
developed in COMETT and ERASMUS agreements.
68 COM (1998) 305 final.

2. professional recognition de jure (based on Directives themselves grounded in the EC-Treaty) or de
facto in effect involving the comparability of certificates of professional skills.
The Commission concluded that these forms of recognition were not mutually replaceable. Thus it saw
no other way to progress in the recognition of diplomas than by improving mutual knowledge, trust, and
voluntary co-operation. A genuine Community-level solution, it admitted, was not to hand. The
approach proposed focused primarily on the exchange of information and the establishment of
networks of teachers and professionals, and as a second order priority on promoting initiatives which
concentrated on mutual adjustment of both contents and structures in training programmes.
However, appetite often comes with eating. Having established multi-sector programmes in education
and vocational training (SOCRATES and LEONARDO), one failure did not deter the Commission from
musing on the possible delights that might come from expanding the sphere of higher education co-
operation itself. There was no little interest in the vistas opened up by the learning society, by life-long
learning, and by cross-national mobility. For each of these topics the Commission sought to set
tongues wagging and to put forward guidelines for action.
In 1995, the Commission presented the White Paper ‘Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning
Society’.70 It focused on ‘three factors of upheaval’ at work in European society: the impact of the
information society, the consequences of internationalisation, and the outcome of a world grown
scientific and technological. Education and training, so the White Paper argued, must respond to such
upheaval by raising the level of knowledge amongst the population at large as a prior condition to the
acquisition of new technical skills. Employability should be fostered by encouraging mobility,
developing all types of dual structures of work and training, by validating skills, and offering a second
chance to those who have not profited from the first. Moving towards the learning society posed a
twofold challenge, the White Paper asserted. How to consolidate and improve the competitiveness of
European industry is the main economic challenge. The social challenge, however, was to combat
social exclusion. Both required investment in people and upgrading their qualifications and adaptability.
With this diagnosis in mind, the White Paper proposed guidelines for action aligned with five general
objectives:
1) encourage the acquisition of new knowledge (personal skills cards);
2) bring schools and the business sector closer together (apprenticeship / traineeship);
3) combat exclusion (second chance through school);
4) proficiency in three Community languages;
5) treat capital investment and investment on training on an equal basis.
70 COM (95) 590 final.

In the same year (1995) the decision was taken to make 1996 the ‘European Year of Lifelong
Learning’71. The year was launched officially in Venice on 2 February 1996 and closed in Dublin on 6
December 1996. Its purpose was to make European citizens aware of the importance of lifelong
learning, to set a European standard of competitiveness and employment-intensive growth, and to
create better co-operation at all levels between education and firm-based training systems. Among
the 550 activities, which marked this joyous, round and funded by the EU were conferences,
information campaigns, contests and activities of a similar sort.
The Green Paper ‘Education - Training - Research: The Obstacles to Transnational Mobility’ 72
analysed those practices hindering the mobility of people under training. Amongst the range of
hindrances were:
• legal or administrative: issues relating social security, legal status, taxation, etc.;
• socio-economic: inadequate financial support, lack of legal guarantee of finding a job, etc;
• linguistic: inadequate knowledge of a foreign language and of certain cultural aspects;
• practical: lack of information, lack of affordable or suitable accommodation, difficulties arising from
family commitments, and so on.
The Green Paper proposed ways to remove these obstacles, amongst which introducing tax
incentives, putting on classes in language and culture, ensuring social protection, making the
information available better etc.
The Treaty of Amsterdam and Agenda 2000
When the European Council adopted the Treaty on European Union, the Heads of State or
Government also agreed to assess how it worked and for this an intergovernmental conference (IGC)
was held in 1996. A major issue on the IGC agenda was the possible enlargement of the EU. When
the IGC met, 13 countries had officially applied for EU membership73. In preparation for this event, the
European Council overhauled the basic treaties. On 2 October 1997 the Treaty of Amsterdam was
signed74. It entered into force on 1 May 1999, two months after ratification by the 15 Member States.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Amsterdam the EU set itself a further range of tasks. It should move
closer to its citizens, guarantee their rights; remove obstacles to free movement. Europe should
become an area of security; its international position improve and its institutions become more efficient
- all in the name of clearing the decks for further enlargement.
73 Turkey, Cyprus, Malta, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland, Roumania, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia,
Lithuania, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic.
74 Official Journal, 1997 C 340.

For responsibility in these new domains to be met, a partial revision to the structure and authority of the
Union was introduced. Co-operation in the third pillar (renamed Police and Judicial Co-operation in
Criminal Matters) will incrementally become a Community responsibility75. The Schengen agreement76
abolishing border controls was brought within the framework of the treaties. Similarly, the social
protocol attached to the Treaty on European Union was integrated into the Treaty. In the first pillar, a
new title was introduced, which made employment a priority and empowered the Council of Ministers to
adopt guidelines, based on conclusions adopted by the European Council. More to the point, the new
title allowed the Council of Ministers to monitor how far compliance had resulted. In addition, the co-
decision procedure was extended, while its procedural aspects were rendered less complex. Qualified
majority voting in the Council was also introduced by the Treaty.
At the same time, the third and first pillars saw the advent of the concept of flexibility. Flexibility by
definition is a flexible term. In this specific context, however, it possesses a specific meaning. Should
a number of Member States wish to move ahead in applying European regulation among themselves,
they are free to do so, provided they form a majority and provided of course, no single Member State is
so unsporting as to pose a veto. Such is flexibility à l'Européenne. This accommodating notion in fact
enshrines a well-honed technique which some have termed 'differentiation'. Faced with 'conflicts,
stalemates, and reversals', differentiation (l'Europe à la carte, concentric circles…) has been used to
keep the integration process going, and will probably become more important with the enlargement of
the Union.' (Olsen, 1996: 263-264). It is, in short, a slight twist to the old Roman adage "divide et
impera" now held to read "Divide to move forward quicker."
Enlargement to 28 countries has major consequences for both the EU and for those applying. Agenda
2000, which the Commission unveiled in July 1997, sets out a detailed strategy to prepare both parties
for the anticipated changes. Agenda 2000 received the agreement of the European Council in March
1999.
Candidate countries have to meet a number of criteria, defined by the EU: 'Membership requires that a
country has a stable democracy that guarantees the rule of law, human rights and the protection of
minorities, a functioning market economy and that it has a public administration that is able to apply
and manage EU rules and regulations' (European Commission, 1999: 16). The EU will monitor
progress the applicant countries make in these areas. It has also doubled the budget set aside for
candidate States during their period of transition. The sum now envisaged is 3.120 million Euro per
annum from 2000 to 2006.
75 Excluding the UK, Ireland and Denmark.
76 The Schengen agreement was originally concluded in 1985 between Germany, France, Belgium, the
Netherlands and Luxembourg. It entered into force in 1995. The UK and Ireland still do not
participate in the Schengen area.
Preparing for enlargement, Agenda 2000 rigorously defined the financial framework for the years 2000-
2006. It also set out the unavoidable revisions to the common agricultural policy. The road to reform
for EU institutions now lies open, and was discussed at an Inter Governmental Conference in
December 1999. Finally, to add cohesion within the Union, the Structural Funds are - restructured.
Nowadays, they flow for 70% of their worth to economically backward regions (Objective 1). Money
will also be paid to regions in structural crisis (Objective 2), as well as those needing support for
education, training and jobs (Objective 3).
Education programmes within the EU-framework
The Treaty of Amsterdam left the articles on education, vocational training and youth virtually intact.
Indeed, the changes introduced were scarcely visible to the naked eye. In article 149 (formerly 126), for
instance, the term 'socio-economic instructors' was changed in 'socio-educational instructors' (sub 2);
whilst the decision-making procedure relating to article 150 (formerly 127) henceforth included the
Committee of the Regions (sub 4).
But strengthening internal policies also flowed on to education and vocational training. Agenda 2000
envisaged developing a 'knowledge' policy by stimulating research and technology, whilst education
and training programmes would foster mobility amongst young people in the information society. It was
a topic taken further in the Commission document Towards a Europe of Knowledge77 which, as is
usual in documents of this nature, came up with guidelines for action in education, training and youth
for some six years beginning in 2000. Innovations, research, education, training - the so-called "
Knowledge-based policies " - were seen as key elements in the EU's internal policies. The intention
behind such activities was to give each European citizen the means continuously to update his or her
skills and knowledge as a condition of getting work. The new programmes, the document observed
sagely, should build on what had already been achieved, and should focus on a few objectives: to give
European citizens access to all education resources; to inject a goodly element of innovation into these
resources; and in education to disseminate good practice.
To meet these objectives six lines of action were spelt out:
- Action to develop physical mobility;
- Action to ensure 'virtual mobility' - a term taken to mean communication and information networks;
multimedia goods and services;
- Action to build co-operation networks up to exchange experience and good practice;
- Action to promote language skills;
- Innovation in pilot projects;
77 COM (97) 563 final.

- Action to improve Community sources of reference (key figures, databases…).
Building on objectives and actions justified in Towards a Europe of Knowledge, the Commission
submitted two proposals to prolong the SOCRATES and LEONARDO programmes up to 200478. The
co-decision procedure for SOCRATES II is still dragging on. Mercifully, the basic structure of the
programme is already set out. In the case of LEONARDO II, the co-operation procedure functioning
with habitual smoothness saw the programme adopted by the Council on 26 April 1999.
Both programmes are engaged in creating a European area for education, underpinned by sustained
co-operation at Community level among those in the education field (SOCRATES II) or training, lifelong
education and training (LEONARDO II).
Each programme has its own goals. SOCRATES II (proposed budget: 1,400 million ECU) focuses on
language learning, on staff and student exchange, wider recognition of diplomas and periods of study,
and innovation (particularly in the field of new technologies). Its target group was enlarged (the
Grundtvig Action for example is aimed at opening up training opportunities for young premature school-
leavers, and adults who want to take up or complete their studies). LEONARDO II (proposed budget:
1,000 million ECU) pays special attention to apprenticeship, access to continuing training, and
reintegration into the labour market of individuals with few or out-dated skills. Experimental pilot
projects are backed. The programme is carried out jointly with CEDEFOP and the European Training
Foundation.
The goal set for SOCRATES II and for LEONARDO II is ambitious. Together, they should allow some
1.2 million students, 200,000 teachers, and 400,000 young people on a training scheme to be mobile.
Apart from three 'traditional' activity tracks (physical mobility, the development of co-operation networks
and the fostering of language skills), there are three more: virtual mobility (i.e. developing new
information and communication technologies to provide a 'virtual' European experience for those who
are unable to study abroad); in SOCRATES II, such activities are part of the programme which parades
under the acronym ATLAS - that is, action to encourage open and distance learning. The final action
track sees innovation as a separate item in the programmes.
All activity tracks supplement others undertaken at Member State level. Each programme has a
Committee, made up of representatives of the Member States, to help the Commission in carrying out
the programme.
Both programmes share responsibility between the EU, Member States, and other interests.
Projects connected with these programmes must draw on institutions from more than one Member
State and preferably 3 or 4. Each individual educational institution can take an Institutional Contract
78 Official Journal, C 314 and C 309.

with the Commission for all activities eligible for support. Although the selection of projects tends to
vary depending on the particular action or programme, the following elements often figure:
1. The European dimension of the projects;

1 the added value added to the project when carried out at European level;
2 the undertaking to continue the project beyond the financing period (in general, Community support
cannot exceed 50% of the cost of the project);
3 The geographic distribution of participants (participation of remote and/or new states).
The third phase of the TEMPUS programme covering the period 2000-2006 was approved by the
Council 79 in April 1999. TEMPUS III helps higher education systems in the eligible countries 80 to
address:
- issues relating to the development and reshaping of teaching syllabuses;
- the reform of higher education structures and establishments and their management;
- development and training leading to qualifications, particularly by strengthening links with industry;
- the contribution of higher education and training to citizenship and the strengthening of democracy.
In the strategy of Agenda 2000, TEMPUS-PHARE prepares applicant States to take over the acquis
communautaire in the field of education.
Alongside these major programmes, there appeared a recommendation81 calling on Member States to
improve higher education's quality. The Council recommended Member States introduce quality-
assessment and quality-assurance mechanisms into their higher education systems. It also suggested
that those responsible for this function should work together and form networks. Originally, the
Commission had called for 'the creation of a European Quality Assurance Network by the Commission'.
This somewhat self-serving suggestion was replaced by a dilute form indeed which hinted at
'promoting networking between national authorities by the Member States'. This is a different tune
indeed and one not entirely unfamiliar once one bears in mind the nature of the negotiations that
accompanied the development of SOCRATES and LEONARDO. European co-operation began to
take on the trappings of decentralised control over both implementation and oversight.
79 Official Journal, L 12.
80 The list of eligible countries includes:
- PHARE (Poland and Hungary Assistance for University Studies): Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;
- TACIS (Technical Assistance Commonwealth of Independent States): Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,

Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Mongolia.
81 Official Journal, L 270.

The dilemma abides: supranational or international?
The Treaty of Maastricht marked the beginning of a new phase in the European Community's higher
education policy. Expansion of the Community's authority during the 1980s rested on precarious
grounds, grounds created in the main by reinterpreting the EEC-Treaty. With the passing of the Treaty
on European Union by contrast, the EU acquired firm legal basis for its initiatives in higher education.
It is important to remember that adopting a treaty is a voluntary act by Member State governments.
Extending integration, which was the issue behind the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam, is
likewise a voluntary decision by Member States. It suggests that Member States 'considered joint
problem-solving more attractive than preserving their national autonomy' (Kohler-Koch, 1996: 175).
Yet, national interests were not absent, and their reassertion restricted the EU's scope of action.
Member State responsibility for the content and organisation of education was heavily underlined.
Likewise, the EU's fields of authority were strictly pegged out and defined. The procedure of co-
decision, long and tortuous, was introduced.
Such strictures were intended to confine EU action (despite the extension of its scope) to the
framework as set down in the text of the treaty. However, the exact wording leaves room for
interpretation. Even so, the new generation of action programmes does not seem to stray beyond the
limits of the treaty. Several reasons may account for this willingness of the Commission to abide by
the rules. One of them is that the debate about the appropriate level of responsibility which marked
negotiation prior to the launching of the new generation action programmes, was far from dead. As
many times before, Member States (particularly the Council of Ministers) laid weight on the primacy of
national policy and thus on decentralisation in the carrying out of EU programmes.
Another reason, which recently has assumed a new significance, is - paradoxically - the extension of
the EU's higher education policy, not in terms of its greater depth, so much as in its widening. The
acquis communautaire has yet to be adopted by many Member States to be, which do not subscribe to
the same traditions as Western-European Member States. Deepening the EU overhastily could ill serve
the process of widening it.
What of the EU's further evolution? Will it become a state, making nation-states obsolete? Will inter-
governmental dimension remain the main basis for action? Or will the European Union become
something else? The answers to these questions remain as yet obscure. Schmitter's four ideal types
go some way in giving a picture of the EU's future shape (1996: 222-227). They derive from two
principles of indirect representation: functional aggregation, and territorial aggregation (which can be
either fixed or variable). The first ideal type is the confederatio. This is an inter-governmental
organisation, 'limited to the collective pursuit of those tasks, which protect and enhance the sovereign
autonomy of its member states'. The stato or federatio is a supranational state taking over from the
nation states. Both have fixed functional constituencies. Third, the consortio is territorially fixed, but
functionally variable, meaning that national authorities remain sovereign but 'pool their capacities to act
autonomously in domains that they can no longer control at their own level of aggregation'. Finally, in a
condominio, 'there would be multiple regional institutions acting with relative autonomy to solve
common problems and produce different public goods'. There would be many 'Europes', with
'dispersed and overlapping domains'.
With enlargement at hand, the ultimate direction in which the EU will evolve is far from clear. However,
some tendencies can already be discerned. The Federatio arrangement is unacceptable to most
Member States. The development of a higher education policy at EU-level, not forgetting the myriad
conflicts between supra- and inter-nationality, clearly indicate that a supranational state sticks in the
gullet of many. The Confederatio is the model to which what those who uphold the sovereignty of the
nation sought to confine the EU, especially when integration was not going well. Since the mid-1980s,
however, such an inter-governmental organisation is no longer adequate to perform the Community's
tasks or to fulfil its functions (Hoffman, 1996). Pooling of capacities does take place, but it does so
more between national, regional and supranational bodies than between states as such. Finally, we
arrive at what Schmitter calls 'a marginal possibility': the condominio. He cited the establishment of the
Committee of the Regions as a step along this road (Schmitter, 1996: 231). In the Treaty of
Amsterdam, another element pointing in the same direction was introduced, in the shape of the
concept of flexibility. A group of Member States can co-operate more extensively than the EU as a
whole. This raises the possibility - albeit, marginal - of different 'Europes' formally emerging from within
a general frame of the European Union.
The way ahead of higher education policy making and co-operation at the level of the European Union
will depend on the kind of polity that the EU will turn into. Thus, the development of this area is
uncertain too. The consequences of enlargement at hand are still unclear, although it requires further
modification to the structure of the EU.
The European Union and the EU's higher education policy remain under the influence of two
competing forces. On the one hand, the strength of Member States has been reasserted since the
Treaty on European Union. The Commission for its part has lost its driving force. Both developments
suggest that national sovereignty is likely to flourish in the near future. On the other hand, the process
of integration continues almost inevitably and certain inexorably. The authority acquired by the EU is
already considerable, making spillover effects more likely. Recently, integration has acquired further
depth, with the Treaty of Amsterdam and Agenda 2000, with the establishment of a real economic and
monetary union (although not among all Member States). It may with the forthcoming
intergovernmental conference in 2000, acquire more.
For higher education co-operation to build up in depth is not to be expected in the near future. Other,
and more important, issues are at stake. However, Europe's higher education policy continues to
converge. The balance between the EU and its constituent nation-states is still flexible82.
Conclusion: With and against the Member States
The leading question throughout this chapter was: how has the tension between the nation-states and
the European Union, between sovereignty and integration, influenced the development of a higher
education policy at the level of the EU? In answering this question, we distinguished three periods.
In the first period (1971-1983) education gradually became a topic of debate between the Member
States, but opinions remained too divergent to make substantial co-operation possible. Member States
could agree on an Action Programme in the field of Education (1976). This framework programme was
the fruit of five years of negotiations. But, it did not end disagreements about the effective scope which
European-level co-operation in education might assume. Since the Founding Treaties made provision
for economic co-operation only, for many it was unacceptable that Member States should yield
authority to the European Communities in non-economic spheres as well. From this it followed that the
EC was not free to take initiatives with budgetary consequences. As a result, the material results
achieved by the Action Programme were minimal. Even in the sphere of higher education, an area in
which more responsibilities were accorded to the Community, only limited programmes (both in terms
of scope and of budget) could be established. Yet, the notion of educational action on a supra- or inter-
national level began to receive attention, experience was being accumulated, and the debate taken
further.
In the second period (1983-1992), supra-national policy and action programmes emerged, for the most
part in the teeth of resistance by the Member States. The de facto educational authority of the EC was
extended considerably during these years. That enduring and high levels of unemployment was a
European-wide problem finally penetrated the political consciousness. The idea that (higher) education
and training could play an important role in combating unemployment, became part of conventional
wisdom. In subsequent modifications to the founding treaties (the Single European Act and the Treaty
on European Union) education figured more prominently in Community policies. It was aligned with the
need to attend to human resources and to develop human capital. Member States reluctantly yielded
authority over education. But the pro-European jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice,
convergent with the Commission proposals, extended the authority of the EC over every action which
could be justified as leading to achieving the goals set in the treaties. This series of decisions opened
the way for Community incentive programmes in higher education. They had impact on the EC-
budget. They brought substantial results in their train. Grounded in voluntary co-operation and in
mutual trust, Community funding was intended both to marshal the enthusiasm of Europe's citizens
and to inject money into higher education institutions. ERASMUS in particular turned out to be
82 A protocol on the application of the subsidiarity principle was added to the Treaty of Amsterdam. The
principle is defined as a dynamic concept, delimiting the roles of the European Union and of the
Member States in areas of mixed or shared competence. Community action must leave as much room
as possible for national decision.
incentive programme of considerable popularity, even if it did not wholly attain its objectives. The
programme even called upon the Member States to complement Community action, standing the usual
relationship between Community and national initiatives on its head.
Finally, in the third phase in the saga of a European-level higher education policy (from 1992 until
today), two important events occurred. First, the resistance of Member States to the Community's
higher education policy virtually evaporated, but only as far as the policy development (or acquis
communautaire) of the second phase was concerned. Second, the Member States made further
intrusion by the EU into the education policy of Member States more difficult. In other words, the
explicit mention of education and training in the Treaty on European Union both consolidated the
achievements of the programmes and actions developed in the 1980s, and ensured the Member
States' dominant position. The scope of EU-action is however still subject to interpretation. The Treaty
on European Union itself is not very specific in its restrictions. The new generation of action
programmes (in particular SOCRATES and LEONARDO) have been subject to varying interpretations
and difficult negotiations in the course of co-decision and co-operation procedures establishing them.
To date, the upshot of these procedures has been to limit the programmes to the framework as defined
in the Treaty.
The Community's action programmes established during these three periods have a number of
characteristics in common. In particular, the education programmes, as well as the programmes
concerning R&D and co-operation with third countries, underline the importance of mobility (of
students, staff, trainees, etc.) and networking (among higher education institutions, between those
institutions and industry, etc.). These are areas in which the influence of the EU is most tangible. They
were already among the goals defined in the first agreements between the Member States on co-
operation in higher education, and have remained the core of the Community's higher education policy.
Amongst the goals of increasing importance, is raising the level of language proficiency and language
learning.
Mobility and networking are areas in which the EU can act without infringing the core education policies
and responsibilities of Member States. Programmes, which include these two processes, are based on
voluntary co-operation between higher education institutions, and on a bottom-up approach. But the
grants in these programmes come with strings and conditions attached, so convergence between
national education systems would to some extent, appear inevitable in the areas they cover.
For over thirty years then, the importance of the supra-national level has increased significantly,
although time and time again the discussion about the right of the Communities to act in the field of
education has surfaced. Member States face an encroachment on their responsibility for (higher)
education from several angles. Individual citizens can invoke European rights that run counter to
national legislation. Higher education institutions can participate in European programmes at their own
discretion. The European Commission has the right to develop incentive programmes, without the
assent of all Member States.
Nevertheless, the Member States still retain strategic control in education. This is symbolised by the
failure of the EU to create a common framework for the academic recognition of diplomas throughout
the Union. Strictly voluntary interstate co-operation remains still the rule here. There are no signs
(certainly not in the short term) that point towards changes in the core responsibilities of the nation-
state in (higher) education. The EU is an organisation that is concerned for the most part with
regulation, i.e. 'to take actors as given and create rules of fair competition' (Olsen, 1996: 264). Also in
higher education, the EU is evolving towards a competitive market, rather than a substitute for the
Member States' education policies. Some functions (notably supporting mobility and networking) are
being aggregated at the European level. But they do not concern the central functions of nation-states
in higher education. In other words, national states still protect their sovereignty, even when supporting
internationalisation. Education as a part of the national heritage remains a key element in cultural
sovereignty. Not surprisingly, national sensitivities play an important role in the higher educational
policy of the European Union.
Although the nation-state as organiser of education is still very much alive, the future role of the
European Union remains uncertain. Considerations such as the enlargement of the Union and the
possibility of 'flexibility' within Europe are unpredictable in their consequences. Moreover, the relation
between the European Union and the Member States always has been, and still is, dynamic. The
history of the higher educational policy of the European Union is the history of supra-national bodies in
search for their proper identity. The European Commission and the European Parliament try to
strengthen the supra-national level, the European Council and the Council of Ministers (as
representatives of the Member States) stress national sovereignty. These dynamic relationships, and
the broader process of European integration, determine the development of the European Union's
higher educational policy, which proceeds both with the consent of the Member States, and against
their claims to national sovereignty.
Bibliography
General Bibliography
Brouwer, J. (1996) De Europese Gemeenschap en onderwijs. Geschiedenis van de samenwerking en

het communautair beleid op onderwijsgebied (1951-1996). Baarn: BKE.
Council of the European Communities (1987) European Educational Policy Statements. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Council of the European Communities (1993) European Educational Policy Statements. Supplement to
the third edition. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Council of the European Communities (1993) European Educational Policy Statements. Supplement
No 2 to the third edition. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
Cerych, L. (1997) 'Higher Education and Europe after 1992: The Framework', in: Darvas, P. (ed.)
Higher Education in Europe. New York / London: Garland Publishing, 5-16.
Dalichov, F., U. Teichler (1986) Higher education in the European Community. Recognition of study
abroad in the European Community. The findings of a survey of 'joint study programmes'.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Davies, N. (1996) Europe. A History. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.
De Groof, J. (1994a) 'The overall shape of education law: status of comparative and supra-national
education law. An outline', in: De Groof, J. (ed.) Subsidiarity and Education: aspects of
comparative educational law. Leuven / Amersfoort: Acco, 19-45.
De Groof, J. (1994b) 'The scope of and distinction between articles 126 and 127 of the Treaty on
European Union and the implementation of the subsidiarity principle', in: De Groof, J. (ed.)
Subsidiarity and Education. Aspects of Comparative Educational Law. Leuven / Amersfoort:
ACCO, 77-114.
De Witte, B. (1993) 'Higher Education and the Constitution of the European Community', in: Gellert, C.
(ed.) Higher Education in Europe. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 185-202.
European Communities (1973) Treaties establishing the European Communities, treaties amending
these treaties, documents concerning the accession. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities.
European Communities (1992) Treaty on European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications
European Communities (several volumes) Bulletin. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities.
European Communities (several volumes) Official Journal. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications
European Union (1997) Treaty of Amsterdam: amending the treaty on European Union, the treaties
establishing the European communities and certain related acts. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.
Green, A. (1997), Education, Globalization and the Nation State. Houndmills: Macmillan.
Hoffman, S. (1996), ‘Europa in de knel. Gezichtspunten van een waarnemer op afstand’, in:
Van Staden, A. (ed.) De nationale staat: onhoudbaar maar onmisbaar? Het perspectief
van Europese integratie en mondialisering. Assen: Van Gorcum, 145-152.
Keohane, R.O., S. Hoffman (1991) 'Institutional change in Europe in the 1980's', in: Keohane, R.O., S.
Hoffman (eds.) The new European Community. Decisionmaking and institutional change.
Boulder: Westview, 1-39.
Kerremans, B. (1992) 'Een nieuwe Griekse tempel in Europa: de Europese Gemeenschap na

Maastricht, Gids op Maatschappelijk Gebied, 1992, 5, 411-424.
Kohler-Koch, B. (1996) 'The Strength of Weakness: The Transformation of Governance in the EU', in:
Gustavsson, S., L. Lewin (eds.) The future of the nation state: essays on cultural pluralism and
political integration. London: Routledge, 169-210.
Milward, A.S. (1992) The European Rescue of the Nation-State. London: Routledge.
Neave, G. (1984) The EEC and Education. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Neave, G. (1995) 'On Living in Interesting Times: higher education in Western Europe 1985-1995',
European Journal of Education, 30, 4, 377-393.
Olsen, J.P. (1996) 'Europeanization and Nation-State Dynamics', in: Gustavsson, S., L. Lewin (eds.)
The future of the nation state: essays on cultural pluralism and political integration. London:
Routledge, 245-285.
Schmitter, P. (1996) 'If the Nation-State Were to Wither Away in Europe, What Might Replace It ?, in:
Gustavsson, S., L. Lewin (eds.) The future of the nation state: essays on cultural pluralism and
political integration. London: Routledge, 211-244.
Teichler, U., F. Maiworm (1997) The Erasmus experience: major findings of the Erasmus evaluation
research project. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Van De Meerssche, P. (1990) Van Jalta tot Malta. Politieke geschiedenis van Europa. Antwerpen:
Kritak.
Van der Perre, J. (1998) 'Europese mobiliteit daalt', Universiteit en Beleid, 1998, 13: 1.
Verbruggen, M. (1994) 'European Community educational law. A short overview', in: De Groof, J. (ed.)
(1994) Subsidiarity and Education: aspects of comparative educational law. Leuven: Acco, 47-
68.
XXX (1993) 'External Appraisal says ERASMUS achieves main Aims', ERASMUS Newsletter, 1993,
17, 5-6.
http://europa.eu.int
Publications by the European Commission (published by the Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg)
European Commission (1987) Higher Education in the European Community - Study Abroad in the
European Community.
____ (1992) European Higher Education - Industry Co-operation : Advanced Training for Competitive
Advantage.
____ (1992) The Evaluation of COMETT. Final Report.
____ (1993) COMETT II. Evaluations.
____ (1995) Samenwerking op onderwijsgebied in de Europese Unie 1976-1994.
____ (1996) Key Data on Education in the European Union.
____ (1996) LEONARDO da Vinci Programme Vade-Mecum.

____ (1997) Access to Large-Scale Facilities.
____ (1997) Human Capital and Mobility Annual Report 1994/95 (2 vol.).
____ (1997) Key Data on Vocational Training in the European Union.
____ (1997) Research Training Networks 1995/96.
____ (1999) Europe's Agenda 2000. Strengthening and widening the European Union.
____ (several volumes) TEMPUS Annual Report.
____ (several volumes) ERASMUS Directory of Programmes.
____ (several volumes) ERASMUS and LINGUA Action II Directory.
View publication stats

The Higher Education Policy of Theeu Ropeanunion1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Higher Education Policy of Theeu Ropeanunion1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Chapter · January 2001

Kurt De Wit Jef C. Verhoeven

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Research in University Colleges in Europe View project

School-based management: possibilities and limits View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Higher Education Policy of the European Union. With

The final publication is available at http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Education-Nation-State-

Kurt De Wit & Jef C. Verhoeven

With or Against the Member States?

KURT DE WIT AND JEF C. VERHOEVEN 1

The first agreements between the national governments (1971 - 1983)

A weak basis for action

2 Official Journal of the European Communities, 1963: 1338-1341.

3 Official Journal, 1971 Communications (C) 81: 5-11.

4 Official Journal, 1975 Legislation (L) 39: 1-4.

5 Bulletin of the European Community, 1961, 7-8: 40-42.

The Action Programme in the Field of Education

10 Bulletin, Supplement 10, 1973.

11 Bulletin, 1973, 5, 2237–2241.

12 Official Journal, 1974 C 98: 2.

13 Official Journal, 1976 C 38: 1-5.

Elaborating – slightly - the basic agreement.

15 General Report of the Education Committee of 27 June 1980.

Nation-States and intergovernmentalism

Increasing community-level co-operation 1983 - 1992

18 Jur. 1988, 398-408.

19 Bulletin, 1983, 6, no. 1.6.1.

20 Bulletin, 1983, 6, no. 2.1.84.

COMETT and ERASMUS

21 Official Journal, 1986 L 222: 17-21, and 1989 L 13: 57-63.

22 Official Journal, 1987 L 166: 20-24, and 1989 L 395: 23-27.

Table 1. Actual number of ICPs, partner units, and institutions in ERASMUS

Partner units 823 13,184

Institutions 416 1,458

Average number of students per ICP 11.1 26.7

Average number of students per institution 7.8 41.1

Source: Teichler & Maiworm, 1997 (several tables).

Students in ICPs Free-movers ECTS Total

ERASMUS LINGUA ERASMUS LINGUA

1987/88 3,244 - - - - 3,244

1988/89 9,330 - 584 - - 9,914

1989/90 18,354 - 615 - 487 19,456

1990/91 25,835 1,095 391 - 585 27,906

1991/92 32,160 2,685 719 50 700 36,314

1992/93 44,335 4,453 1,527 39 1,340 51,694

1993/94 54,379 5,161 1,383 26 1,413 62,362

Source: Teichler & Maiworm, 1997 (table 12).

- Difficulties in co-operating with partners in other European countries;

- The overall administrative overload;

- The plethora of detailed rules and regulations which ERASMUS entailed;

- The lack of continuity in resourcing.

24 Official Journal, 1987 C 242: 4.

25 Jur. 1989, 1432-1435.

The Single European Act and '1992'

27 Jur. 1991, 2786-1796.

28 Bulletin, Supplement 2, 1986.

The Memorandum on Higher Education in the European Community 33 concentrated on preparing

32 Official Journal, 1989 C 277: 5-6.

Specific policies and programmes 1989-1992

37 Official Journal, 1989 C 308: 13-14.

38 Official Journal, 1989 L 239: 24-32.