KYRGYZSTAN TODAY Policy briefs on - Department of Geography

Many factors contribute to this corruption. As a country in transition, Kyrgyzstan
developed additional conditions that foster multi-layer corruption in higher education.
As the state reduced its financial support of educational institutions, the latter were
forced to look for their own sources, which was conducive to various types of corruption
in universities. Facing these new conditions, many higher-education facilities started
looking for money from sources other than their budget, which was most effectively
realized through introducing popular new study programs and charging tuition.
However, the commercial overtone in public education, or the so-called contract-based
study, failed to ensure a desirable quality of education. Not only did the rapidlyincreasing
scale of contract-based study lead to a deterioration in quality, but it also
resulted in uncontrolled financial management. The pursuit of profit nurtured even
greater corruption.
The reduction in state financing during the transition period increased the number
of channels through which high-skilled professionals left universities. As a result,
corruption was a way to preserve the faculty of higher education facilities, and not let it
disappear completely.
However, as the faculty situation became somewhat stable, two negative factors
came into play.
First and foremost, given the high rate of corruption in higher education facilities
and cases of bribes determining enrollment, taking examinations and receiving
diplomas not based on personal merit, universities become places of corruptionrelated
socialization. Young graduates get comfortable with the idea that corruption
is an appropriate and convenient tool for solving problems, and also a way to enrich
themselves. Secondly, as corruption remains active, grows and takes root in the system,
it may lead to the establishment of organized corruption networks. By developing a
market of corruption-oriented services, such networks tend to negate the profile activities
of higher education institutions, which are professional socialization, and the selection
and advancement of the most skillful, talented students. More often than not, those who
can pay have more opportunities to enter a university than others who deserve it more.
This may have disastrous long-term consequences, such as de-intellectualization and
deprofessionalization of the nation.
The most important source of administrative corruption in higher education
facilities is the lack of transparency in both managerial decision-making and in budgetrelated
issues. Students who contribute most to the budget in their universities have
no access to the information about many activity areas of their educational facilities.
The faculty, too, has restrictions in participating in the management, including financial
management. Surprisingly, since the tuition paid by students is quite high, instructors
are still paid low salaries, and universities are poorly equipped and furnished. This, of
course, affects the quality of education. Another concern is that students remain loyal to
corruption, since they are directly involved in various illicit activities.
The economic causes of corruption in universities are considered some of the
most important. At the same time, low salaries among the faculty encourage a
poor-quality education. Many experts conclude that, if subjects are taught properly, it
is due to professionalism and the personal initiatives of the faculty. The existing system
does not provide any incentives for high-quality education.
The system of education is a marketplace. Often, young people buy their seats on
university benches, and then buy working places upon graduation. It is another source
of corruption, referred to as “staff corruption.” The higher education system should
153