SOME NOTES ON RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS
| Pages | 220-235 |
| Date | 01 February 1976 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009756 |
| Published date | 01 February 1976 |
| Author | NORMAN F. DUFTY |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME XIV, NUMBER 2 OCTOBER, 1976
SOME NOTES ON RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN
TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS
NORMAN F. DUFTY
The financial problems of the 1970's are forcing universities and C.A.E.'s to give increasing
attention to the resource allocation process. In considering this issue one of the first
problems encountered is the lack of goal clarity, a lack which makes rational budgeting a
difficult task. The nature of the budgetary process is strongly influenced by the structural
character of university decision-making which is primarily political, despite the use of
quasi-bureaucratic devices such as formula budgeting. There is empirical evidence to sup-
port the political model and internal pressure groups play the major role in this although the
external funding of research is also a significant factor. One of the predominant influences
is the incentive system of the institution and the fact that there are few rewards for improv-
ing the efficiency of the educational process has implications for resource allocation.
Modern techniques which have proved to be useful in government institutions such as
program budgeting, do not appear to have wide application in tertiary education.
The current financial stringency imposed on tertiary institutions has
stimulated considerable interest in budgetary process, especially as that
stringency is seen by many observers as likely to continue indefinitely. The
purpose of this article is to draw attention to a number of theoretical and
practical issues which are relevant to the budgetary process in universities
and colleges of advanced education. No easy answers or coherent and
comprehensive theories emerge from these considerations and the title
chosen reflects the somewhat fragmentary nature of available material on
the
topic.
Nevertheless it is felt that such material can help in the practical
problem of budgeting in tertiary institutions by drawing the attention of
those concerned to a number of significant factors which might be taken
into account.
THE PROBLEM OF GOALS
Very few universities and similar organizations have specifically and
operationally identified their objectives. Most statements of goals and
missions are couched in vague generalities such as "to provide a liberal
education", "to foster an integrated approach to knowledge", etc. Even
broad overall goals such as teaching, research and public service are rarely
given explicit priority rankings.1 The obvious moral issues are rarely
faced, should the tertiary education sector adopt a pure manpower ap-
proach or should students be given a free choice? Should tertiary educa-
NORMAN F. DUFTY (Ph.D., U. of W.A.) is Dean of Social Sciences at the Western
Australian Institute of Technology. Dr. Dufty has published extensively in Australia and
abroad. His most recent book is Changes in Labour/Management Relations in the
Enterprise (O.E.C.D., 1975).
Resource Allocation
221
tion be liberal or vocational or a proportion of each and are these
categories mutually exclusive? These issues are often mentioned in public
addresses but very infrequently in terms of priorities expressed as firm
policies and budgetary allocations.2 This is probably because there is no
institutional philosophy which transcends the variety of scholarly purposes
within the organization.5
Selznick has referred to the need for "socially integrating myths" to
hold together loosely co-ordinated organizations with abstract goals such
as "to provide a liberal education".4 The evidence indicates that university
leadership has been unable to provide these myths with sufficient strength
to act as an efficient organizational bond, University organization is
basically political and the direction of the causal connection between this
fact and the lack of goal clarity, if any, is a matter of speculation. On the
one hand, the vagueness of university goals may lead to political decision-
making. If questions cannot be settled by resorting to political processes.3
On the other hand, the lack of decision structure clarity characteristic of
political and other non-bureaucratic organizations may contribute sub-
stantially to the lack of effective goal formation.6
Even when goals and objectives are stated with reasonable clarity they
tend to be among the weakest constraints on organizational behaviour. A
statement of goals is usually nothing more than an agreement on a range
of resource allocations which will be tolerated by those who participate in
their formulation. Individual interpretation of the goals usually results in
sufficient latitude for the members of the organization to realize their own
goals.
This is especially true in non-bureaucratic organizations. It would
be more realistic to view goal statements as limits on the use of collective
resources rather than purposive targets. The net result of this is often the
attainment of the particular set of
goals
desired by the dominant coalition
in the institution rather than the goals reached by consensus or specified
by society at large.7 In any case, in the context of both British and
American universities there is great difficulty in getting any agreement on
institutional objectives and there is little perceived need for solidarity or
collective discipline.8 One of the most interesting examples of lack of
agreement on goals was an attempt by one of the regents of
the
University
of California in 1967 to obtain a clear statement of the university's pur-
pose.
The attempt failed because none of the many drafts produced
satisfied those internal decision-making bodies whose approval was
needed. As Stadtman comments, the failure was "... more eloquent than
any success might ever have been".9 Not unnaturally, this state of affairs
has led governments, as the main providers of funds to the universities, to
become increasingly restive with university government and anxious to
replace it by a more subservient relationship between the universities and
its own bureaucracy.10
A similar example, in this case a lack of interest rather than a lack of
agreement, can be found much closer to home. The Western Australian
Institute of Technology is exceptional in that two Ph.D. theses have been
written on its organizational goals as perceived by its
staff,
students and
relevant bodies." Neither of these pieces of research has attracted more
To continue reading
Request your trial