ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM OF KAZAKHSTAN

2024

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.47832/2757-5403.25.16
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Resource management is crucial for ensuring quality education and research in higher education institutions. The higher education system in Kazakhstan has undergone various reforms to improve resource allocation and utilization. This paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of the current resource management system in Kazakhstan's higher education. The centralized governance model concentrates decision-making powers regarding resource allocation with the Ministry of Education and Science. This allows aligned strategic development and coordinated quality assurance across all higher education institutions. However, centralized control limits institutional autonomy and flexibility in resource utilization. The norms-based financing methodology promotes equitable distribution of resources based on objective workload indicators. But it overlooks qualitative outcomes and contextual requirements of individual institutions. The focus on per capita financing norms overlooks the need for optimal allocation across different expenditure heads. The analysis suggests that the resource management system has ensured stability and quality control in Kazakhstan's higher education system. However, there is a need for calibrated reforms to allow greater institutional autonomy along with accountability; balanced financing across different inputs; and linking resource allocation with qualitative outcomes. The recommendations include development of institutional leadership capabilities, clustered/differentiated approach to financing, linking funding with outcomes, and adoption of total quality management principles in resource governance.