Governance of Public Higher Education in Cambodia and South Korea

Abstract

This paper attempts to explore the governance of public higher education in Cambodia and South Korea, at both the system and institutional levels. At the system level, it looks into the state structure (i.e. competencies of key state and non-state institutions) that has a stake to play in public higher education governance. This is followed by the examination of institutional level governance with a focus on the working of the three key institutional actors: the governing board, the executive, and the academic board as well as the issues of financial management, personnel management, and academic affair and freedom.

Full text

1"
"
GOVERNANCE OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION
IN CAMBODIA AND SOUTH KOREA
BY: LEANG UN, PHD1, SAY SOK, PHD2 AND SOKHA OM, PHD3
WITH THE ASSISTANCE FROM RIYA SEAK4
2017
- DRAFT-
A paper written for Cambodia-Korea Research Center under the larger project “Korean Studies
Research in Cambodia and the Korean Studies Education Program at RUPP”.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
1 Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia and
Education Research Council, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, Cambodia.
2 Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia and Higher
Education Quality and Capacity Improvement Project, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, Cambodia.
3 Faculty of Education, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh and Junior Researcher, Education Research
Council.
4 Junior Researcher, Education Research Council, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport.

2"
"
Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS"......................................................................................"3"
INTRODUCTION".............................................................................................................................."4"
THE"SCOPE"OF"THE"STUDY"............................................................................................................."4"
HIGHER"EDUCATION"IN"CAMBODIA"AND"KOREA"AT"GLANCE"........................................................"5"
Figure 1: Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP)".........................................."6"
Figure 2: Government expenditure per tertiary student (% of GDP per capita)"........................."6"
Figure 3: Gross enrolment ratio, tertiary, both sexes (%)".........................................................."9"
SYSTEM"LEVEL"GOVERNANCE"........................................................................................................"9"
GOVERNMENT"STRUCTURE"......................................................................................................."9"
Competencies"of"the"parliament"............................................................................................"9"
"Figure"4:"Committee"Proceedings"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""11"
Competencies of the government"........................................................................................."14"
Table"1:"Divisions,"duties"and"functions""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""16"
Table"2:"University"policy"office,"Ministry"of"Education"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""17"
Other"Public"Structures"and"Participation"of"Stakeholders"....................................................."19"
National Mechanisms of Quality Assurance"........................................................................"19"
Other"Stakeholders"in"Higher"Education"System"Governance"............................................."23"
INSTITUTIONAL"LEVEL"GOVERNANCE".........................................................................................."24"
GOVERNING"BOARD"................................................................................................................."25"
ACADEMIC"BOARD"..................................................................................................................."26"
THE"EXECUTIVE"........................................................................................................................"27"
Some"key"governance"issues"...................................................................................................."29"
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS"....................................................................."30"
REFERENCES"............................................................................................................................"32"

3"
"
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACC Accreditation Committee of Cambodia
ADB Asian Development Bank
BK21 Brain Korea 21
DHE Department of Higher Education
DSR Department of Scientific Research
ESP Education Strategic Plan
HEI Higher Education Institution
HEQCIP Higher education Quality and Capacity Improvement Project
KCUE Korean Council for University Education
KEDI Korean Educational Development Institute
MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance
MIST Ministry of Science and Technology
MoE(ST) Ministry of Education (Science and Technology)
MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
MoL Ministry of Labor
MoLVT Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training
PAI Public Administrative Institution
RCC Rector Council of Cambodia

4"
"
INTRODUCTION)
This paper attempts to explore the governance of public higher education in Cambodia and South
Korea, at both the system and institutional levels. At the system level, it looks into the state
structure (i.e. competencies of key state and non-state institutions) that has a stake to play in
public higher education governance. This is followed by the examination of institutional level
governance with a focus on the working of the three key institutional actors: the governing
board, the executive, and the academic board as well as the issues of financial management,
personnel management, and academic affair and freedom. This paper is exploratory in nature,
and relies mainly on the literature on Cambodia and available existing literature on Korea, but as
for the Cambodian case, it is also drawn from the authors’ years-long involvement in the sector.
Such an access to information is lacking on the Korean case as it still an early journey for the
authors in this comparative study, despite the fact that some of the authors used to read, study
and visit Korea.
Within this context, this writing may surprise many of its readers, even those who are not
familiar with public higher education of both countries. First why such a paper is written by
these authors and second given that comparing Cambodian and Korean public higher education
can be like comparing an orange and an apple. However, there are many justifications that this
study is important. Answering to the first question, Cambodia-Korea Research Center under the
larger project “Korean Studies Research in Cambodia and the Korean Studies Education
Program at RUPP attempts to build capacity for Cambodian researchers in general and faculty
member at RUPP in particular, especially in the field of comparative study. This is the reason
why these authors are invited to be part of this project. Answering to the second question why
higher education governance is because the successful story of the Korean development that can
be achieved within a generation has drawn global attention: i.e. how poor developing countries
can learn from the Korean development model. One of the explanations for the differences in
development performance is the knowledge gap between Korea and poor developing countries.
Recently, the emphasis on the importance of higher knowledge is intensified due in part to the
global move towards knowledge-based-society and global openness of the economy. As the
development of higher knowledge will depends on the development of higher education which in
turn depends on the governance of the sector, this is the why this paper attempts to do this
comparative analysis in order to provide an overall picture of the governance of higher education
in both countries and what lessons can be drawn out of this study.
THE)SCOPE)OF)THE)STUDY)
In this study, governance is broadly understood as an ‘interactive and collaborative process
including state and non-state actors in a proactive role, determining who is allowed to make
decisions [over certain issues], and under what conditions’ (Jones and Sok, 2015, as cited in
Mak, Sok & Un, forthcoming). This definition is very much close to the notion of shared
governance, which is commonly seen in higher education especially public universities (see
Cramer, 2017). In this sense, the authors wish to investigate the structures (actors), processes and
objects of decision-making in higher education at the national level as well as the institutional
level. Given the limited data as well as the lack of authors’ expertise on the last two issues,

5"
"
especially for the case of Korea, the study leans more heavily on the investigation over the
structures of decision-making to understand higher education governance in both countries.
HIGHER)EDUCATION)IN)CAMBODIA)AND)KOREA)AT)GLANCE)
Before discussing public higher education governance in both countries, it is worth taking a
quick snapshot of their higher education. Cambodian public higher education is much younger
than Korean one by more than a half of century and underwent more tragic destruction. The first
Cambodian modern university was established in 1960, and before the country plunged into
prolonged civil wars and genocide, more than a dozen public higher education institutions (HEIs)
were established. The first Korean public university was established in 1902 and experienced
significant development. When the Japanese colonial rule ended in 1945, there were only 19
HEIs in the countries. The sector later underwent a brief setback when the country went into total
war with North Korea, which lasted for three years (1950-1953).
Immediately after the Korean War, the higher education sector began to expand again and
experiences a sustained and uninterrupted development, especially in the past few decades when
Korean universities have enjoyed an intense investment from the state and the public.
Cambodian public higher education, on the other hand, were totally demolished under the Khmer
Rouge regime between 1975 and 1979, when a majority of ‘the educated’, including many
university lecturers and administrators, perished through targeted execution and starvation and
after the regime majority of the educated survivals fled the country. That an estimated 50
university staff members remained in the country after the Khmer Rouge genocide (Ross, 1987)
indicates the challenges in rebuilding the sector. After the genocide, the country was under
Western international embargo for more than a decade, blocking it from receiving international
assistance for rebuilding itself, including its higher education, which received some support from
the Eastern bloc countries, especially the former Soviet Union. Since the Paris Peace Agreement
in 1991, the country has received significant investment in education from its so-called
‘development partners’; however, almost all the investment has gone to rebuilding its general
education, and there has been little investment (from the state and its development partners) into
higher education.
In Cambodia, it was not until 2010 that a first ‘large-scale’ investment project for higher
education started. Through the Higher Education Quality and Capacity Improvement Project
(HEQCIP) (2010-2017), $23 million dollars (half of which was loan from the World Bank) was
invested in its higher education. A second phase (2018-2023) is under preparation and by the
time of writing this report, there is an attempt made by the government to increase the budget up
to $90 million. In Korea, project intervention on higher education is very heavy, just the project
Brain Korea 21 (1999-2012) alone which introduced at the end of the millennium has the total
budget of 1.4 billion and its second phase (2008-2013) increases to 2.1 billion and recently BK21
PLUS (2013-2019), with the current GDP of over 1.4 trillion, the promise to increase budget to
nearly 1%, this project might reach over $10 billion investment.
In Cambodia, there is a fragmentation of the systematic intervention. As for the HEQCIP, the
only institution that plays a leading role is the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. By the
time of this writing, the Ministry of Planning is running the research foundation for science and

6"
"
technology with limited involvement from the MoEYS and HEQCIP project. Very interesting to
note is that the second phase of HEQCIP under the discussion also does not engage the MoP. On
the contrary, in Korea, the three leading institutes that play an important role in transforming
higher education work closely 1. The Ministry of Education: Securing a budget and forming a
social consensus 2) The Korean Council for University Education (KCUE): Applying solutions
and suggesting alternatives as well as giving a voice to universities 3) The National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF): Constructing the collaboration system between Ministry of
Education and KCUE
Figure 1: Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP)
Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=KH-KR
Figure 2: Government expenditure per tertiary student (% of GDP per capita)
Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TERT.PC.ZS?locations=KH-KR

7"
"
Broadly speaking, HEIs in both countries are classified into public and private, based on their
founding bodies. In Cambodia, on the legal basis public HEIs can be classified into a university
and institute, according to the Sub-Decree on Criteria for Establishment of HEIs issued in 2007,
based on the scale of disciplines/fields of study they offer. A university refers to a post-
secondary education institution that is comprehensive in mission; offers degrees from bachelor’s
level upward, and has at least five broad faculties, three of which are mandatory: faculty of arts,
humanities and languages, faculty of mathematics and sciences, faculty of social sciences, and
two other faculties can be decided by the HEIs. The sub-decree does not clearly specify what
constitutes an institute. However, according to Article 9 it refers to a post-secondary education
institution that offers one or more specializations such as health sciences; engineering and
computer sciences; agriculture; law; education, etc.
In Korea, Article two of the Higher Education Act also stipulates that "The following types of
schools shall be established for higher education." 1) Universities, 2) Industrial Universities, 3)
Teachers Colleges, 4) Junior Colleges, 5) Air & Correspondence Universities, 6) Technical
Colleges, 7) Miscellaneous Schools. The act provide an overall purpose of the different types of
schools, but does not provide how many faculty and field of study that each types of schools
should constitutes and provide as in the case of Cambodia. In addition to the types of institutions
detailed in the tertiary education law (universities, junior colleges, industrial universities,
university of education, open universities, technical universities, and miscellaneous universities),
there are extension schools, corporate universities such as Samsung Electronics’ engineering
university, Korea Technical education and polytechnics universities established by the Ministry
of Labor, Korea Science and Technology Institute and Kwangju Science and Technology
Institute established by the Ministry of Science and Technology
In actual practices, there are shortcomings in the enforcement of the regulation in Cambodia,
resulting in the majority of HEIs named as university, although they do not fulfill all the legal
requirements. Further, there is one more de facto category of public post-secondary institutions
like the Royal Academy of Cambodia; the National Institute of Education, and a few Provincial
Teacher Training Colleges which are allowed to offer specialized professional post-secondary
education leading to degrees even offering up to doctoral level in the case of Royal Academy of
Cambodia, yet are not covered in this sub-decree. In Cambodia, The sub-decree has never been
updated to catch up with the reality. In Cambodia, there is little linkage between this
categorization and public funding and support while in Korea, the act stimulates clearly the
attempt made by the state and local government to support the schools. Article 7 of the higher
education act states “The State and local governments may support or subsidize funds necessary
to achieve the goal of the school”.
In terms of degree of institutional autonomy, Cambodian public HEIs can be divided into public
HEIs and public administrative institute (PAI) HEIs. On the legal basis, a PAI HEI has more
institutional autonomy, including the ability to generate and spend self-generated income for
‘institutional development’, management of on-contract staff, and having a board of directors as
the institutional top-decision maker. In actual practice, however, there is little difference between
a PAI HEI and a public HEI given that the latter also has de facto power in these areas.

8"
"
In Korea, public HEIs can be categorized into two broad categories, based on their supervising
agencies and funding sources: i.e. national institutions funded and managed by the Ministry of
Education, Science and Technology (MEST) later renamed as Ministry of Education and public
HEIs funded and managed by local management boards or local governments. In terms of scale
of disciplines/fields of study, public HEIs can be classified into comprehensive and specialized
universities (including university of education and air/correspondence university) constituting a
majority of the public HEIs5 (KCUE, 2011; Kim, 2000).
Since the liberalization of the higher education industry since the late 1990s, Cambodia has
experienced alarming rate of increase of HEIs (both private and public) and self-sponsored
students, especially in the past decade. It can be said that it has reached a point where quality
monitoring, inspection and institutional accreditation (let alone program accreditation) by the
central government have been running very much behind the system growth; this is specially the
case given the limited investment to expand and strengthen the monitoring and evaluation
systems at the system level and no political good will to take any measure to consolidate HEIs,
especially the public ones. There are currently 121 HEIs (of which 48 are public). This is a rapid
increase from 55 (13 public) in 2005 and merely 8 public HEIs in 1996 with non-existence of
private HEIs. This is compromise by the lack of centralized university entrance examination and
quota for enrollment. Access to higher education in Cambodia is based on purchasing power and
not so much on merit, capacity of the institution and the need of the country and industry.
Korea has a larger higher education sector both in terms of HEI numbers and gross student
enrolment. Available date indicates that there are more than 400 HEIs – making the number of
HEIs in Korea some 3.5 times higher than that of Cambodia’s. Of this figure, 50 are national and
8 are public HEIs (or 13% of the total HEIs). This is an increase from 19 HEIs in 1945, when the
country was liberated from the Japanese colonial rule.
There is a big difference in gross tertiary enrolment rate in both countries too. While Korea has
virtually achieved the universal coverage of tertiary education (at 93%) in 2015 (UNESCO
Institute of Statistics, 2015), Cambodian higher education is still very much struggling from
graduating from an ‘elitism’ to ‘massification’. It is very important to note that in Korea, despite
the attempt to introduce University Entrance Liberalisation Policy in 2008, Korean government
still play a significant role in setting up the quota for enrollment in each institution and access to
higher education is based more on merit such as students’ school records, College Scholastic
Ability Test (CSAT) grades, practical skills tests and essays (OECD, 2016).
In Cambodia, in 2016, there were a total of 217,840 tertiary students, comprising of 23,746
associate degree students; 174,142 bachelor’s degree students, and 19,952 post-graduate
students, including 1,229 doctoral/ PhD candidates (MoEYS, 2017). There is no report of
students enrolling in all public HEIs. According to the survey for the draft Higher Education
Action Plan 2018-2022, in 2015 some 65,000 students enrolled in the 15 public HEIs, many of
which are big HEIs by student populations, covered in the higher education roadmap. An
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
5 These are HEIs that gain approval from the Ministry - to offer post-secondary degree programs. However, because
they are still ‘lack a sufficient liberal arts core or basic general education program to meet the standards for an
accepted undergraduate program in Korea’ they are entitled to offer a ‘diploma’ rather than a decree for its four-year
programs.

9"
"
estimate can be that around half of the entire student population enrolled in the 48 public HEIs.
Of this figure, less than 20% of the students are on scholarships ‘mainly free seats’ sponsored by
the respective HEIs and the rest are fee-paying students (cf. Mak, Sok, and Un, forthcoming). In
the same year, the entire higher education sector in Korea registered 3,516,607 students. Of this
figure, merely 818,684 (or 23% of the entire student population) enroll in predominantly the
national and the few public HEIs (MoE, 2016, 35). In term of absolute number of student
enrollment, the figure for Cambodia is only around 10% of that of Korea (Un & Sok, 2014).
Figure 3: Gross enrolment ratio, tertiary, both sexes (%)
Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR?locations=KH-KR
The number of faculty members is a few times different too. According to the Education
Congress Report 2017, there were a total of 12,916 local faculty members (with no
disaggregation of full-time or part-time staff) working at the public and private HEIs. Amongst
them, 2,990, 8,985 and 941 held bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral/ PhD degrees, respectively
(MoEYS, 2017). There are many instances of counting duplication; given that a lot of lecturing
staff teach at more than one HEI in the same year, with some as many as 4 HEIs. There were a
small number of foreign faculties, nearly 600, who taught in Cambodia, mostly at the private
HEIs. Data on staff of public HEIs are not readily available, but according to the survey of the 15
HEIs covered in the higher education roadmap, in 2017 there are 3,151 faculty members, of
whom 1,385 are reportedly full-time. Compared to Cambodia, Korean faculty members are 9
times higher in number. There are 90,371 in total. Amongst them, 20,224 work at national and
public HEIs (MOE, 2016, 36) and majority of the faculty hold a Ph.D. degree.
SYSTEM)LEVEL)GOVERNANCE))
GOVERNMENT)STRUCTURE))
Competencies)of)the)parliament)
Cambodia adopts a bicameral parliamentary system with the National Assembly as the Lower
House and the Senate the Upper House while Korea adopts unicameral national legislature

10"
"
commonly known as national assembly. In Cambodia, at each house, there are ten commissions
each working on a number of sectors. The Commission on Education, Youth, Cults, Religion,
Culture, Fine Arts and Tourism, known as Commission 7, assists the law-making bodies as
regards educational affairs. This includes, inter alia, providing recommendations and suggesting
modifications to proposed/draft bills, once in a while inviting government agencies to clarify
proposed/draft bills and collecting information on education. The legislature does not appoint or
elect any structures that have competencies in higher education, and although the Constitution
specifies that the Commission members have the authority to initiate bills, in reality the
Commission’s main role is approval of and debates on proposed/draft bills, including the Law on
Education (see Un & Sok, 2014, 70). In actual practice, the roles of both houses in higher
education development are quite limited. In each mandate, there are few occasions that they
invite the government or its ministers to answer in the parliaments.
Since 1993, no law directly governs higher education has been passed or nor has higher
education been stated clearly in the constitution. Two laws that have some relevance to higher
education. 1. is the Constitution where some few articles guarantee the universal access to
general education and tasks the government with education quality assurance and monitoring and
2.is the 2007 Law on Education, which have some key stipulations on higher education,
including its governance. The other law relevant to higher education is the Law on National
Budget, which determines the government budget allocation every year and which needs
endorsement from both houses on the annual basis. None of these laws are initiated by the two
bodies, and their roles are more of a reviewer and endorser.
In Korea, there are 16 standing committees which examine bills and petitions falling under their
respective jurisdictions, and perform other duties as prescribed by relevant laws. In some cases, a
cross-committees examination can happen. Among the 16 committees, there are few committees
that related to higher education such as National Policy Committee, Strategy and Finance
Committee, Science, ICT, Future Planning, Broadcasting and Communications Committee and
the one which directly deals with higher education is Education, Culture, Sports and Tourism
Committee. Each committee may have sub-committees to examine certain matters under its
jurisdiction6. Legally, the bills can be formulated in two ways; submission by executive power or
members of the National Assembly where the concurrence of ten or more National Assembly
members is required. Where a bill accompanying measures on budgets or funds is proposed by
members or submitted by the Executive, a written estimate of anticipated expenses related to
execution of the relevant bill must be submitted at the same time.7
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
6 For more information please see http://korea.assembly.go.kr/int/org_06.jsp
7 For more information please see https://www.loc.gov/law/help/national-parliaments/southkorea.php

11"
"
!
Figure!4:!Committee!Proceedings!
In his study on the organisation and workings of standing committees in the Korean National
Assembly, Chan Wook Park. (1998) found that the performance of the standing committee is not
up to the central role for committees in the legislative process. He observes that the committees
are not always neutral. The political parties control committee appointment and policy
deliberation in committees. He also notes that the committees lack autonomy visàvis the

12"
"
parental body and the executive branch. These overall features of the committees
notwithstanding, there exist significant crosscommittee differences in member goals, policy
environments, decisionmaking processes and decisional outputs.8
Like Cambodia, the Korean Constitution provides a broad guidance to higher education
governance – i.e. it is ‘highest law governing Korean tertiary education’ (KEDI, 2006, 22). The
constitution article 31 guarantees the autonomy of institution of higher learning, through must be
under the act. There are a number of acts on or related to higher education. In 1997, the country
passed the Basic Education Act, which provides broad umbrella for related education acts
(KEDI, 2006). Difference from Cambodia, the Higher Education Act was passed by the Korean
Parliament in 2009. The 2009 Act is the most comprehensive one; covering all of aspect of
higher education system including the specification of the right of the minister of education,
school types, enrollment, credit and credit transfer, assessment, school performance report
among others. Other acts that are related to higher education in some way include9:
1. Framework act on education
2. Education tax act
3. Act on the educational support, etc. for overseas Korean
4. Public education officials act
5. Local education finance subsidy act
6. Vocational education and training promotion acct
7. Lifelong education act
8. Act on special cases concerning the disclosure of information by education related
institutions
9. Special act on establishment and management of foreign educational institutions in free
economic zones and Jeju free international city
10. Local education autonomy act
In Korea, though the acts provide broad regulation over higher education. In practice, there is a
need for executive regulations to support the implementation of the acts. This includes
presidential decrees and prime ministerial and ministerial ordinances. Selected key decrees and
ordinances related to higher education include10:
1. Enforcement degree on higher education act
2. Degree on the appointment of public education officials
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
8 Chan Wook Park. (1998). “The national assembly of the republic of Korea”. The Journal of Legislative
Studies 4:4, pages 66-82.
9 http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?searchCondition=Ttl&searchKeyword=education&pageIndex=1;
http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?searchCondition=Ttl&searchKeyword=education&pageIndex=2;
http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?searchCondition=Ttl&searchKeyword=education&pageIndex=3;
http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?searchCondition=Ttl&searchKeyword=education&pageIndex=4
10 http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?searchCondition=Ttl&searchKeyword=education&pageIndex=1;
http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?searchCondition=Ttl&searchKeyword=education&pageIndex=2;
http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?searchCondition=Ttl&searchKeyword=education&pageIndex=3;
http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?searchCondition=Ttl&searchKeyword=education&pageIndex=4

13"
"
3. Enforcement degree of the promotion of industrial education and industry-academic
cooperation act
4. Enforcement decree of act on special education for disabled person, etc.
5. Enforcement rule of act on special education for disabled person, etc.
6. Enforcement regulation of the local education subsidy act
7. Enforcement degree of the local education subsidy act
8. Enforcement decree of the vocational education and training promotion act
9. Enforcement degree of the lifelong education act
10. Enforcement decree of the special act on establishment and management of foreign
educational institutions in free economic zones and Jeju free international city
11. Enforcement of the local education autonomy act
12. Promotion of industrial education and industry-academic cooperation act
Unlike Korea which have a separate law governing higher education, Cambodia is yet to have
such a law or even a royal decree on higher education. The Law on Education passed a decade
ago has a few stipulations on higher education. Higher education is, therefore, governed by
numerous sub-laws with varying degrees of legal supremacy, ranging from a royal decree
enacted by the King and a Sub-decree passed by the Prime Minister, which can have a legal force
across all concerned government agencies to a Prakas and Notification from a concerned
ministry, which is generally applied to the concerned ministri(es) only. It is important to note the
law enforcement in Cambodia is rather very selective and week.
More than a dozen sub-laws on higher education are currently in force, and the first one was
issued in 1992 under the State of Cambodia. Given that they are passed at different time
spanning a period of 25 years and that they are initiated and prepared by a few different
ministries with little meaningful coordination and collaboration, certain stipulations can be
obsolete and even contradicting (Un & Sok, 2014). The following are the key sub-laws on higher
education:
1. Sub-decree on Establishment and Management of Higher and Technical Education
Institutions (1992)
2. Royal Decree on Legal Statute of Public Administrative Institutions (PAI) (1997)
3. Sub-decree on Criteria for University Establishment (2002)
4. Royal Decree on Public Universities (2002)
5. Prakas on Master’s Degree Education (2003)
6. Royal Decree on HE Accreditation (2003)
7. Sub-decree on Preparation and Functioning of Accreditation Committee of Cambodia
(2003)
8. Decision on Credit and Credit Transfer Systems (2004)
9. Decision on Requirements for Issuance of Foundation Year Certificates at HEIs (2004)
10. Prakas on Conditions and Detailed Criteria for HEI Licensing (2007)
11. Sub-decree on Preparation and Functioning of MoEYS (2009)
12. Sub-decree on PhD Education (2010)
13. Royal Decree on the Professoriate (2013)

14"
"
14. Sub-decree on Cambodian National Qualification Framework (2014)
15. Royal Decree on the Legal Statute of Public Administrative Institutions (2015)
16. Regulation on Public Autonomous Universities (in draft)
Adopted from Mak, Sok & Un (CDRI, forthcoming).
Competencies of the government
The two key ministries overseeing HEIs in Cambodia are MoEYS and the Ministry of Labor and
Vocational Training (MoLVT). Both ministries supervise some 2/3 of the 121 public and private
HEIs. The rest of the HEIs are under the supervision of other 14 ministries and central public
authorities. With a total of 16 technical supervising ministries and state agencies, the Cambodian
higher education system governance is one of the most fragmented in the region (Sok, 2016).
The technical supervising ministries are poised to increase over the years unless there is a
political good will to put virtually all HEIs under the supervision of one or two ministries.
Having considerably less authority than its Korean counterpart, MoEYS oversees 60% of both
public and private institutions, i.e. 73 out of 121 or 13 of the 48 public HEIs – excluding the two
recently promoted Provincial Teacher Training Colleges. According to the Sub-Decree on the
Functions and Operation of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (RGC, 2016), which
covers the functions and operation of the ministry, the Directorate General of Higher Education
(DGHE) is responsible for higher education management, facilitation, and development of post-
secondary education, scientific research and technical education through its two departments:
Department of Higher Education (DHE), which works mainly on undergraduate education, and
Department of Scientific Research (DSR), which works on post-graduate education. While the
two departments are tasked to develop higher education in Cambodia, there have been
complaints that their current roles and practices focus more on routine, administrative regulation
and they play much less active roles in proactive support and funding the advancement of the
sub-sector (see HRINc, 2010; Cuyno, 2009; Un & Sok, 2014, Sok, 2017). In MoEYS, another
department under the Directorate General of Education has some roles in higher education,
namely the Department of Training and Teacher Colleges, which oversees the provincial teacher
training centers and colleges. With financial support from the World Bank to upgrade the
qualifications and qualities of secondary school teachers, initially two regional colleges are
upgraded to offer bachelor’s degrees in education to selected number of senior high school
teachers. Despite the fact that they now offer ‘post-secondary education’, they are still directly
supervised by the Department of Training and Teacher Colleges.
In Cambodia, besides MoEYS, the other ministry supervising the second largest HEIs (both
public and private) is MoLVT, which was upgraded from the Department of Technical and
Vocational Training of MoEYS before 2005. Since its establishment, the ministry has been
tasked to oversee technical and vocational training. Currently, 25 HEIs (of which 12 are public)
are under its supervision. The Directorate General of Technical and Vocational Training is
responsible for supervision of the HEIs. According to the Sub-Decree on the Functions and
Operation of MoLVT passed in 2014, this directorate general is tasked with preparation on
technical and vocational training system development, and supervision over technical and
vocational training, apprenticeship, local and international labor market information, technical
and vocational training quality assurance, and standard and curriculum development.

15"
"
Theoretically, there can arguably be a clear distinction between ‘higher education’ and ‘technical
training’ – with the former focusing on a more academic stream and the latter a more technical
(practical) stream. In actual practice, there is little distinction in the roles, responsibilities, and
jurisdictions between the two key ministries responsible for ‘higher education’ and ‘technical
training’. HEIs under both ministries offer both higher education and technical training up to
doctoral/ PhD degrees – i.e. doctoral/ PhD degrees for the former and the so-called doctor of
technology for the latter. Interestingly, some HEIs or branch campuses that are not granted a
license by MoEYS to operate are granted such a license by MoLVT, and perhaps vice versa.
Coupled with the fact that 14 other so-called technical supervising ministries and state
instrumentalities also have HEIs under their supervision, the higher education sub-sector in
Cambodia can be said to be in a quite big mass. This has posed a big threat in supervision and
quality and a big challenge in moving the sub-sector forwards holistically. Some observers of
Cambodian higher education are of the opinion that there is no ‘higher education system’ in
Cambodia, let alone a ‘higher education eco-system’ (Sok, 2016).
Apart from the ‘technical supervision’ which fall under the 16 ministries or public authorities,
the supervision of the ‘non-technical’ affairs of public higher education falls under a few other
key ministries and public authority. That is, the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF)
determines and oversees financial allocation and management of public HEIs; the Ministry of
Civil Service on civil servant management; the Ministry of National Assembly and Senate
Relation and Inspection on institutional inspection, and the National Audit Authority on
institutional audit, especially on financial matter.
In Korea, the Ministry of Education plays critical roles in guiding and supervising a majority of
the public and private HEIs (Young-Chul, 2008, KEDI, 2006, Kim, 2000). As Kim (2000) wrote,
“Under the Korean Education Law and subsequent presidential and ministerial decrees, all
higher education institutions (whether national; other public, including municipal; or private)
come under the purview of the Ministry of Education, which exercises control over such matters
as student quotas by academic fields, qualifications for teaching staff, curriculum and degree
requirements, and general education courses. The ministry is supported by eleven key divisions
with portfolio on higher education-related affairs as follows:
Table!1:!Divisions!and!Duties!and!Functions!
"
Division
Duties and Functions
Policy Supervision
Division
Plans and supervises HR policies, planning and support for regional
university innovation projects.
Manpower Planning
Division
Forecasts mid-to long-term manpower supplies; fosters talent for next-
generation demands and for strategic national sectors.
Assessment and
Evaluation Division
Supervises funding for tertiary educations; establishes an evaluation
agency for tertiary education; plans and supports a comprehensive
university evaluation program; plans and supports an evaluation program
for university subjects; plans an evaluation program for junior college
departments; funds an evaluation of colleges; supports work scholarships

16"
"
at colleges; evaluates and funds specialization efforts at universities in the
capital; plans, funds and manages a national university development
program.
Lifelong education
policy division
Plans and manages comprehensive policies for lifelong education;
establishes and operates the necessary facilities; establishes and supports
corporate and open university programs; supports the operation of open
universities; formulates policies for elderly education; accredits schools;
evaluates independent study programs; fosters international collaboration
for lifelong education.
Research and
Development
Division
Implements 2nd phase of Brain Korea (BK) 21; pursues establishment of
professional law schools.
University-Industry
Cooperation
Division
Selects industry-academic centered universities and supports school
corporations; supports technical, vocational, and corporate universities;
promotes foreign internship programs.
Higher Education
Policy Division
Prepares and implements balanced development in education and HR;
improves faculty system in graduate programs; formulates policies for
opening tertiary education to the international market; supports the
operation of national university hospitals.
Division for
Academic Affair of
Higher Education
Formulates basic plans for college entrance exams; helps improve
university programs; implement BK21; supports special research staff
system and military service system; supports the operation of the Korean
Council for University Education; implements a university evaluation
system.
Private Higher
Education Division
Formulates basic policies for financial affairs and accounting practices of
private universities; supervises tuition policies; oversees establishment,
closure, and operation of private institutions; manages the budgetary
management of private institutions; oversees funding and evaluation;
supports the operation of foundation for private education.
International
Education
Cooperation
Division
Oversees international education cooperation and collects related
information; international cooperation for HR development; implements
international educational exchanges in line with education and cultural
agreements; supports the Korean Commission for UNESCO; supports the
international exchange of the Korean education model; formulates
policies for students who want to study abroad.
Overseas HR Policy
Division
Develops policies for overseas study, overseas HR development, spreads
of Korean education, etc.
KEDI, 2006,18-19.

17"
"
In 2013, after the restructuring the cabinet and ministry, the main body of the ministry of
education that oversees that all university affair is the University Policy Office with its three
main bureau; university policy bureau, university support bureau, and academic research affairs
and financial aid bureau. Each bureau is divided into four divisions.11
Table!2:!University!Policy!Office,!Ministry!of!Education!
Ministry of Education
University Policy Office
University Policy Bureau
University policy division
University Evaluation division
University admission policy division
Private university system division
University Support Bureau
Industry university
Cooperation policy division
Regional university development division
Junior college policy division
Youth employment and entrepreneurship
education support division
Academic Research Affairs
and Financial Aid Bureau
Academic research affairs division
University finance division
University affairs and policy division
Scholarship and finance aid division
Though the main actors playing essential roles in governing, funding and supporting HEIs is the
Ministry of Education, to a lesser extent Ministry of Labor (MoL), and recent established one,
the Ministry of Information, Science and Technology (MIST) and regional authorities (local
governments) also play a significant role in supervising HEIs. The Ministry of Labor supervises
24 polytechnic universities (KEDI, 2006) and a few other HEIs such as corporate universities
and Korea technical education universities. A few other HEIs such as the Korea Science and
Technology Institute and Kwangju Science and Technology Institute are under the supervision of
the Ministry of Science and Technology, currently named ministry of science, ICT and future
planning12. A few other public HEIs are sponsored by regional authorities (local governments).
Despite the fact that a few other state agencies (national and local) have HEIs under their
jurisdiction, Ministry of education supervises an absolute majority of the HEIs.
In recent years, in order to promote ‘Industry-Academia’ linkages to improve mutual benefits,
the government has invited other key ministries such as the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and
Energy; the Ministry of Information, Science and Technology to play a role in bridging the gap.
Another way for the government to drive higher education development besides preparation and
implementation of the relevant laws and regulations prescribed in the section above is to steer the
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
11 For the detail chart please see http://english.moe.go.kr/sub/info.do?m=0105&s=english
12 In 2008, the Ministry of Science and Technology was combined with another ministry and renamed the Ministry
of Education, Science and Technology. However the current Korean government under Park Geun-hye has re-
launched the ministry with the name under the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning.

18"
"
sector through preparation of relevant higher education policies and plans and implementation of
concerned programs and projects.
Comprehensive higher education policies and plans are few in Cambodia. Generally, Cambodian
experience in developing sub-sectoral policies and plans is quite young. For higher education, it
was not until 2014 that the first stand-alone policy on higher education was produced and
endorsed, before then development of the broader education sector was guided by an education
sectoral plan. MoEYS issued its first sectoral plan, i.e. the Education Strategic Plan (ESP) 1996-
2000, in 1996; however, this first plan made no mention of higher education, given that the core
focus back then, in line with the global agenda, was ‘education for all’ and universal access to
basic education. The subsequent plans, i.e. ESP 2001-2005; 2006-2010; 2009-2013 (update), and
2014-2018, integrate higher education as a sub-sector. However, it is only in the latest ESP that
higher education is covered to quite an extent. It should be of note that with multi-donor support
between 1995 and 1997, there was a first attempt to produce the Action Plan for Higher
Education 20 years ago. However, given some political calculation, the preparation of the plan
was done under the Council for the Development of Cambodia with limited involvement of
MoEYS. The draft document was never endorsed by the ministry of education or the
government. Since its establishment in 2005, MoLVT has its own 5 years strategic plan with the
timeframe as ESP; the ministry has had some projects funded by its main donor, ADB, especially
in the past decade.
Development of higher education policies and plans only gained more momentum under
HEQCIP. Under the project, the first Higher Education Vision 2030 was issued in 2014, and the
interim Higher Education Reform Action Plan 2015-2018 was passed in 2015. At the time of the
writing, a few more policies and plan have recently been passed or drafted. The Cambodian
Higher Education Roadmap 2030 and Beyond and Policy on Higher Education Governance and
Finance for Cambodia were endorsed in August 2017. The roadmap identifies four key goals for
Cambodian higher education: Quality and Relevance; Access and Equity; Internationalization,
and Governance and Finance. The Higher Education Action Plan 2018-2022, which is a plan to
operationalize the first phase of the roadmap, has been drafted. Despite the fact that there are
policies and plans in place or in the pipeline, how and how much they will be financed and
implemented seriously are yet to be seen. However, given limited public funding; donor-driven
development and piecemeal intervention, previous experience in other sub-sectors indicates that
policies and plans can merely exist on paper and the actual project intervention might take a
rather completely different direction.
So far there have been few investment projects on higher education. Such projects are funded by
development partners, namely the Asian Development Bank (ADB) together with other co-
financing institutions and World Bank (mainly through grants and loans and later mainly loans
and for some cases, with government counter-part funding), especially in the past decade. These
projects focus on three main areas: improving tertiary access and equity; enhancing quality and
relevance (mainly to the labor market), and reforms in institutional governance and management.
Key projects include:
1. Strengthening Technical and Vocational Education Project (2010-2016) with an
investment of $24.5 million from ADB;

19"
"
2. Technical and Vocational Education and Training Sector Development Program (2015-
2021) with an investment of $47.6 million from ADB, and
3. Higher Education Quality and Capacity Improvement Project (2010-2017) with an
investment of $23 million from the World Bank.
At the time of the writing, the government is negotiating with the World Bank on the second
higher education project, whose investment can be four times of HEQCIP. Excluding the
recurrent expenditure via MoEYS, which is slightly over 10 million dollars per annum, and
perhaps of the same amount of expenditure via MoLVT, together with some extra capital
investment to build some buildings, the large-scale project/program investment into higher
education has been less than 100 million dollars to date.
As can be seen above, a university policy office with its three main bureau and 12 divisions
within MoE are responsible for higher education policy formulation and planning and program
and project execution. At the early year of education higher reform, the comprehensive higher
education sectoral guidance was shifted from a ‘restrictive colonial’ to liberal, laissez-faire
policies lead to the quantity expansion, then quality assurance through the adoption of the
‘University Establishment Standards Law’. The successful highlight of Korean education
policy/planning reform is the focus on setting the right priority for investment and intervention in
a systematic and sequential manner after the end of Korean War; starting from primary and
secondary, then technical and vocational training after the war till 1990s, then heavily investment
and intervention turn to higher education, with a sequential and systematic intervention moving
from quality towards world class research and development; the project Brain Korea 21 (1999-
2012), known as BK21, its second phase (2008-2013) known as the push towards “World-Class
University” and its current third phase BK21 PLUS (2013-2019). An estimated total investment
of these three project is more than $10 billion. It is important to note the intervention in higher
education in Korea is not focusing only on economic development, but also on social
development and balanced development between the more advanced city and Seoul, Korea, and
Yonsei -Universities and regional universities. This is reflected in the current policy focusing on
regional university and the role of local government. All of these responses are to answer the
pubic crisis of the underdevelopment. A common complaint is that the attractiveness of
institutions outside of Seoul is low, and many of them have a hard time filling their quotas of
students. The overall objective of the regional intervention is to strengthen the role of regional
universities in promoting the development of local communities through structural reforms,
diversification, and specialization programs to increase the competitiveness of regional
universities, encouraged industry-academia cooperation, increased support services for
companies by expanding space and technical guidance programs, and increased efforts to meet
the needs of the industry with programs such as "custom education" with the aim of making the
regional universities as the center of local community innovation.
Other)Public)Structures)and)Participation)of)Stakeholders)
National Mechanisms of Quality Assurance
Cambodia has a very young history and culture of accreditation. The Accreditation Committee of
Cambodia (ACC), the sole governmental body responsible for external accreditation of higher

20"
"
education institutions in Cambodia, was only established in 2003, after a few years of backdoor
wrangling between the Cambodian government and the ‘donor community’ on the status of the
committee. According to the sub-decree which establishes ACC, the committee is tasked with
accreditation of HEIs operating in Cambodia, and the day-to-day operation of the committee
shall be handled by its secretariat. The committee and its secretariat were housed under the
Council of Ministers until 2014, after then its secretariat was moved to MoEYS. According to
the Royal Decree on the Amendment of Higher Education Accreditation passed in 2014 the
committee shall comprise of three permanent members (i.e. Minister of Education, Youth and
Sport; MoEYS Secretary of State, and ACC Secretary General) and at least 11 appointed
members. The appointed members have a term of three years with possible re-appointment. In
2016, the first new committee was established.
Since its inception up to 2014 before it was moved to MoEYS, ACC played an active role in
accreditation. Over a course of a decade, it managed to (re)accredit the foundation year programs
of almost all HEIs. In 2013, it began to assess five HEIs for accreditation; however, it did not
manage to issue any institutional accreditation given that this was done amid the preparation to
transfer the body to MoEYS. According to the Cambodian law, accreditation can result in three
results: full accreditation (lasting for 5 years); provision accreditation (lasting for 3 years) and
candidacy accreditation (lasting for 2 years). In the conduct of its mission, there were complaints
from various stakeholders of bureaucratic process in applying for and carrying out of
accreditation; qualities of accreditation, assessors and ACC staff in accreditation; lack of internal
agreement, commitment and weak leadership, as well as poor management in the accreditation
process (see Chet, 2006; Vann, 2012; Un & Sok, 2014).
Since its transfer to MoEYS, ACC has postponed accrediting the foundation year programs, and
this has created some limbo and confusion amongst HEIs amid a lack of clarification as to
whether there will be any further foundation year accreditation. With partial support from the
World Bank under HEQCIP, the body managed to revise and pass the national standards for
institutional accreditation and a guideline for accreditation, and then with the approval from the
Minister began to conduct a ‘pilot assessment’ of a number of institutions, pending conduct of
formal accreditation in the near future. In 2015, it ‘pilot assessed’ 11 HEIs, and then pilot
assessed 38 HEIs in 2016, and 5 in mid-2017. While there was praise from the stakeholders for
the pilot assessment in 2015, there were some complaints of irregularity of the accreditation in
2016. People inside ACC correctly justified that it was not possible for the body to accredit up to
38 HEIs a year given the small pool of external assessors it has (around 100 assessors – many of
whom are drawn from private HEIs, including presidents, vice presidents, owners and
shareholders) as well as the limited number of committed staff the secretariat has (personal
communication, May 2017). There is an expectation that the body can start institutional
accreditation in 2019.
By law, external accreditation is compulsory in Cambodia and HEIs that are not accredited are
not allowed to recruit students. However, interestingly or not in the course of 14 years,
Cambodia has yet to accredit any of its HEIs, let alone to accredit any single academic program –

21"
"
a common practice in more advanced countries in the region. Should there be no drastic
institutional reforms and political good will to guarantee higher education quality, many people
within the sub-sector are of the opinion that there is small ray of hope that the body (to be fair,
the state, more broadly) can make any big positive change to higher education quality in the
short to medium terms (see also Chet, 2006; Un & Sok, 2014).
While ACC is to play the role of external quality assurance, internal quality assurance is tasked
to respective HEIs. In mid-2000, MoEYS issued a notification to all HEIs to establish an internal
quality assurance unit. In its revised national standards, the ACC puts Internal Quality Assurance
as one of the 9 national standards. In actual practice, the notification from MoEYS is practiced
more in a breach. Many HEIs (both public and private) are yet to have an internal quality
assurance unit, and those that are set up are yet to be fully operational. They are often staffed
with a few (or even one) lecturers on the part-time basis, and there is limited training opportunity
as well as technical and financial support (offered by both the respective HEI and MoEYS) for
them to conduct internal quality assurance. Some public HEIs complain that they are not able to
formalize the internal quality assurance offices given that this structure is not stated in the
previous sub-decree which established the respective institutions. In a sense, internal quality
assurance is neglected and conducted pro forma at best (see Vann, 2012; Un & Sok, 2014).
The quality assurance system in Korea was first adopted by the Ministry of Education in 1973.
Different from Cambodia, where external accreditation is solely under the responsibility of ACC,
in Korea, at the national level, quality assurance relies largely on accrediting mechanisms, where
different institutions are accredited or evaluated by one of several agencies: the Korean Council
for University Education (KCUE), the Korean Council for College Education (KCCE), the
Korean Education Development Institute (KEDI), the Accreditation Board for Medical
Education in Korea (ABMEK), the Accreditation Board for Engineering Education in Korea
(ABEEK), and the Accreditation Board for Nursing Education in Korea (ABNEK)13.In addition,
there is one private and unofficial form of “quality assurance”: the JoongAng Daily publishes an
annual ranking of universities and colleges, following the kinds of procedures developed by U.S.
News and World Report for American universities. These procedures have been widely criticized
in the U.S. for their lack of both validity and reliability, and they have enabled universities to
“game” the system by exaggerating the numbers that affect the final rankings.
The existing accreditation “System” of HE has been heavily criticized. One among many
criticisms are that too many agencies -without a coherent framework- are involve with
accreditation where procedures vary among these different agencies Another is that
accreditation is often seen as a result of request rather than a result of an attempt to improve
quality education. Since then, it experienced major changes, especially since the late 2000.14The
most recent development required all quality assurance-related organizations to develop a
revised system of accreditation in which relevant organizations apply for and receive recognition
from MEST to conduct institutional or programmatic accreditations. The Council’s Center for
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
13 W. Norton Grubb, Richard Sweet, Michael Gallagher and Ossi Tuomi (2009). OECD Reviews of Tertiary
Education Korea. OECD Publishing.
14 Jung Cheol Shin, Quality assurance systems as a higher education policy tool in Korea: International convergence
and local contexts

22"
"
University Accreditation was recognized as Korea’s only institutional accrediting authority.
Universities will now be evaluated every five years. However, the status ranking seems to apply
to entire HEIs, not to particular department where quality of the program can be assured.
Programmatic Accreditation
In addition to its role as the institutional accreditor, the Council also conducted programmatic
evaluations at the early stage of its development then move to formal programmatic
accreditations. The purpose of these evaluations was to assess the quality of specific academic
fields through systematic analysis of universities’ educational and research capacity, facilities,
and administration, publish assessment results, and thereby encourage improvement. University
departments were evaluated primarily through peer review on a rotating basis with 1-3 fields
selected each year. Under the new system implemented in 2010 in which all accreditation
organization involve in this peer review are required to apply for recognition from MEST,
Industry-Perspective University Evaluation
Though industry-perspective university evaluations are currently voluntary and not connected to
formal institutional accreditation or funding formulas, most of the Council’s members have
participated since the introduction of this process in 2008. The evaluation enables university
curricula to reflect the needs of industries and society and furthermore, to improve national
competitiveness.15 Specific fields to evaluate are selected each year, and representatives of major
firms participate in evaluating and consulting on institutions’ academic curricula, internship
programs, graduate skills, etc. In 2015, 99 universities and 1,703 firms in the field of metal,
games, media and food industries participated in the program.16
Different from Cambodia where the actual accreditation is seen rather as a symbolic to fulfill the
legal status, in Korea, beside the legal status to assure the quality, the main objective of
accreditation is to strengthen universities’ responsibility with the expansion of institutions’
Autonomy and to fulfilling the public’s right to be informed the quality of university education.
Further, quality assurance and accreditation are key tools for the Korean government to decide
on the level of funding for HEIs and degree of autonomy to be granted to HEIs. In other words,
based on the results, MoE can decide on financial support and degree of autonomy given to each
HEI. The evaluation results must be disclosed to the public; thus parents and students can make
better decision as well as the HEI has more possibility of getting funded by the private sector.
Such a practice is totally absence in Cambodia where funding to public HEIs is mainly based on
a historical/political funding model. For historical funding model, funding for the each year
mainly depends on how much each HEIs received last year, plus inflation. For political funding
model is mainly depends on the bargaining power the leadership of each HEIs.
University Self-Review
Each institute has a unique approach to their university quality assurance. Certain aspects of their
programs (Teaching, learning and research) are subject to meet certain criteria of establishment
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
15 http://english.kcue.or.kr/resources/resources_01_01.php)
16 http://english.kcue.or.kr/resources/resources_01_01.php)

23"
"
and development. The evaluation could also be off due to university key stakeholders doing the
evaluation. It is also mainly based on their academic and research achievement. The Council
encourages its members to conduct self-studies, which is required every two years. The council
develops and publishes guidelines to ensure member university compliance, provide consultation
and administers professional development programs among other things. Results of self-reviews
are mandatory in institutional accreditation process. Certain information in self-reviews are
available to the public through the Council’s Higher Education Transparency service17.
Other)Stakeholders)in)Higher)Education)System)Governance)
"
In Cambodia, the involvement of non-state stakeholders in higher education system governance
has been a new phenomenon and there are only few organizations and associations playing active
roles at the system level (Un & Sok, 2014). Some observers even argue that sometimes the
involvement is more to protect respective self-interest or group interest rather than to contribute
meaningfully to advancing the sub-sector (see Feuer, 2016).
The Cambodian Higher Education Association established in 2004 with partial support from the
government of Australia could be regarded as a first non-state actor working on higher
education. As the name suggests, it was supposed to have membership from both public and
private HEIs. However, it turned out that it later became a club of a few dozen private HEIs and
more recently private high schools as well. Currently, it has some 80 members, of which around
50 are private high schools. The association envisions itself as an institution that strengthens
quality of private higher education through exchange of ideas and information and promotion of
members’ interest (Un & Sok, 2014). The association is sometimes invited to attend stakeholder
meetings and workshops conducted by MoEYS and ACC and vis versa. Given that they are led
by quite influential individuals, they also have occasional access to and discussion with the
Prime Minister and the Ministry of Economy and Finance.
In 2014 for the first time, rectors/directors of 12 public HEIs formed the Rector Council of
Cambodia (RCC). The membership has now increased to 15 public HEIs. According to the
decision to establish RCC, this council shall work ‘to strengthen cooperation and development
amongst and to improve education quality in Cambodian public HEIs.’ Each HEI is required to
contribute financial support to the council for its operation. The rectors of the HEIs take turn to
lead this council for a period of two years, and the HEI where the rector works serves as the
secretariat. Since its inception in the past few years, a number of meetings (some presided over
by the Minister of Education, Youth and Sport and participated by a representative of DGHE) are
conducted annually. However, it seems that the council has done nothing substantial together for
the advancement of higher education in the past few years.
In July 2017, Magnus 7 (M7), a loose alliance of the seven oldest universities and an agriculture
institute all based in Phnom Penh was established. According to the MoU, M7 promises to 1.
fostering the culture of academic excellence to achieve success and to serve the public interest, 2.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
17 Detail information are all published online (currently only available in Korea).

24"
"
fostering the collective action for civic engagement and social responsibility and 3. provide a
forum for ideas and wisdom sharing to advance human understanding. Nevertheless, how and
how much the MoU will be translated into action at all is yet to be seen, although to date nothing
significant has ever happened.
With support from HEQCIP, the Cambodian Forum for Research and Development (CFRD) was
established and it has been registered as a non-profit organization with the Ministry of Interior in
early 2017. How much it will participate in the sector governance is yet to be seen. There are a
few other formal and non-formal professional societies and groups as well, although their
activities in higher education development are quite restricted (some are virtual groups) given the
limited funding. The Mechanical Engineering Community Forum is an example of an active
virtual group.While in Cambodia there is rector forum initiated by Minister, Ministry of
Education, in Korea, the higher education Act Article 10 provides a legal forum to have establish
school council18 similar to that of Rector Council in Cambodia, but with broader participation.
Since the 1990s the Ministry of Education has regularly devolved more responsibility for
governance of the higher education sector to the Korean Council for University Education
(KCUE), which is a representative association of four-year universities in Korea. By law, all
presidents of four-year universities in Korea are required to be members of the KCUE. In 2015,
the KCUE had 204 members (OECD, 2016, p.14). Other bodies also shape education policy such
as The Korean Education Development Institute, a national educational research institute, who
conducts research and education policy reviews. A number of other educational research
institutes work within specific system or policy areas. These include the Korea Institute of
Curriculum and Evaluation, the National Institute for Lifelong Learning, the Korean Research
Institute for Vocational Education and Training, the Korean Women’s Development Institute, the
National Youth Policy Institute, the Korea Education and Research Information Service and the
Korea Institute of Child Care and Education. Other stakeholders include parents’ groups and
voluntary citizens’ groups, teachers’ and school workers’ unions, and bodies responsible for the
development of international and special education (OECD, 2016, p.14).
INSTITUTIONAL)LEVEL)GOVERNANCE))
Institutional level governance of public HEIs in Cambodia is partly governed by whether it is a
public administrative institution (PAI) or public HEIs. Institutional level governance of public
HEIs in Korea are governed by either it is a national HIEs under national agency or regional
HEis under local governments.
In Cambodia, so far some 10 HEIs are classified as PAI HEIs, and they are supposed to have
more freedom and rights to self-manage compared to public HEIs. In August 2015, under the
initiative of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the government issued a new decree on PAIs.
However, there was subtle backstage tension between MEF and selected public HEIs in the
preparation to apply this new regulation on public HEIs across the board, leading the government
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
18 The Act states “Universities, industrial universities, university of education, colleges and cyber universities may
operate a council composed of representatives from each school for the development of higher education”.

25"
"
to suspend this regulation until further notice. During this transition, PAI HEIs are still somewhat
governed by the old sub-decree on PAIs passed in 1997. The PAI sub-decree, amongst others,
stipulates the governing boards, top institutional administrators, and roles, responsibilities and
freedom of PAI HEIs in managing certain institutional issues.
GOVERNING)BOARD)
According to the 1997 Decree, PAI HEIs are to be governed by governing boards, which have
membership of 5-11, and five members are mandatory and a minimum requirement of
representatives from technical supervising ministry; MEF; Council of Ministers; a staff
representative, and the rector. The composition of the governing board shall be passed by a sub-
decree, with a mandate of three years and members are entitled to re-appointment or re-election.
With the exception of the sole staff representative, who is elected for a period of two years with
possible re-election, and the rector (who is no longer granted the voting right on the board,
according to the new decree), all other members shall be selected (in the case of the government
representatives) and appointed by the government. While legally the maximum number of
members is small in number compared to practices in many other countries, in actual practice
some PAI HEIs even choose to merely meet the minimum requirement of board composition.
The boards are generally chaired by the representative for the technical supervising ministry.
Even those that choose to have more members, the others are likely selected from government or
government-affiliated institutions with few external non-state stakeholder representatives and
additional number of internal stakeholder representatives. In a sense the governing board is
government central and dominant rather than in the form of stakeholder, trustee or corporate
boards as customarily practiced in many other countries in the region.
According to the Prakas on Detailed Criteria and Conditions for Establishing an HEI issued by
MoEYS in 2007, the governing board of public HEIs shall conform to the regulation on PAI
HEIs. In actual practice, none of the public HEIs adheres to this stipulation, and thus there is
quite a large variation in the governing board composition and selection. There are those public
HEIs that still do not have a governing board or ones that are not functional – i.e. rarely hold
meetings (see Chan, et al., 2008; Un & Sok, 2014, Sok, 2016); those that have small number of
members and who are not drawn from the relevant ministries (per the decree) such as RUPP, and
those that have quite large membership but mainly selected from central government institutions
and provincial authorities (mainly provincial HEIs). In a sense, they are still very much
government centric and dominant, with few external non-state stakeholder representatives and/or
internal representatives. The Institute of Technology of Cambodia (ITC) is perhaps the only
public HEI with the most number of stakeholder representatives (both in terms of number and
stakeholder representation) and hence is closest to the stakeholder-type of governing boards. The
Chairperson is generally a politician (mainly career) with the most senior position in the
government, including in some cases Deputy Prime Minister and Ministers. The establishment of
the governing boards of many public HEIs contradicts the decree at least on three counts: the
mandatory government representatives are absent or underrepresented; many are established by
prakas rather than sub-decrees, and many have members (e.g. career politicians and foreigners)
that are prohibited by laws. This is, however, not to say that the legal stipulation is appropriate.
In these public HEIs, where there are government representatives, they are selected by the
concerned ministries, and other members are selected or approached by the concerned HEIs.

26"
"
Like PAI HEIs, the elected members (solely the staff representative) have a term of two years,
while the appointed members have a mandate of three years, with potential re-election and re-
appointment. Election of staff representatives varies from HEI to HEI, and for some this is
mainly done pro forma. Some boards are virtually non-functional, and those that are quite
functional work in a manner that mainly endorse proposals, plans and policies prepared by the
rectorate (for further discussion see Un & Sok, 2014; Sok, 2016). The roles of strategic,
visionary planning and funding mobilization are quite limited, and they play a more advisory
role and conduct general routine progress check. Unlike practices in some other countries where
governing boards are supported by a permanent secretariat and sub-committees, governing
boards of public HEIs work more like a stand-alone body, making them depend on the executive
for information and initiatives.
The Public Education Establishment Act decrees that “public universities do not have a separate
board of directors, and the president or dean is the representative of the school”. As discussed
below, recent efforts to bring external stakeholders into institutional governance has instead
resulted in the incorporation of the external stakeholders into the university senate. This absence
has led to debates on the institutional checks and balances and accountability issues at public
HEIs (Byun, Jun, & Kim, 2012; Shin, 2011). In 2010, however, despite the contentious debate
and contest, especially from the academic, the government passed the national university
incorporation act, starting with the application of incorporation onto Seoul National University
(SNU), beginning in 2012. With this latest reform, SNU and other incorporated universities shall
be governed by a Board of Trustees, which is the ‘highest decision making body’ at the
university. At SNU, the current board comprises of seven internal members and eight external
members, mainly people from the industries and government agencies, including political
appointees. In these corporatized HEIs, a secretariat general stationed by MOE is tasked to
oversee school matters, with the exception of the faculty appointment. Such control from the
government discourages the flexible and creative management and daily operation at the
institutional levels, some argue. The Chairperson of the board is elected by and from within the
board.19
ACADEMIC)BOARD)
"
Management of the academic affairs by the academic council is still alien to Cambodian public
HEIs (irrespective of whether they are PAI or not). There is no HEI that has a permanent
academic council and associated committees. Nor is there such a similar body at the faculty
level. Academic affairs such as curriculum development and management; quality improvement;
academic promotion (if exists) is generally done on the ad hoc basis with establishment of an ad
hoc committee, which is dissolved once the task is done. Such an arrangement does not promote
the concept of institutional shared governance; the appropriate involvement of the academic in
institutional management; a culture of community of practice and collegiality, and empowerment
of the academic in institutional management. The absence can be said to have an unfavorable
impact on efficiency and efficacy of institutional governance and by extension higher education
management and quality promotion. With the absence of the academic council and its associated
committees, together with the weak governing boards and fragmented institutional
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
19 See http://www.useoul.edu/organization/board-of-trustees, as of 12 November, 2017.

27"
"
administration, rule-based governance, i.e. management and leadership through institutional
statutes; regulations and policies and procedures, is a far-fetch dream for Cambodian public HEIs
(see Un & Sok, 2014; Sok, 2016; Mak, Sok and Un, forthcoming), and institutional management
is a rather fragmented and individualized affairs.
Before the 1987 revolution, the president, appointed by the central government, was the most
powerful person in any public HEI in Korea. The immediate institutional reform after the 1987
event and subsequent reforms were the establishment and empowerment of a ‘professors’
association’ and the university senate as a representative of the professors’ association to help
run the institutional affairs. In the past few decades, the governance by the university senate has
been a prominent and unchallenged feature of public HEIs. This body was initially mainly made
up of full-time professors. Subsequent reforms attempt to involve other external representatives
(i.e. representatives from industries and local governments) in institutional governance. This has
resulted in the incorporation of such people into the university senates. However, studies seem to
indicate that their involvement in the senate meetings has been limited, signaling their limited
contribution to institutional governance. The university senate, ‘a de facto supreme governing
body’ at many public HEIs, is quite powerful in Korean public HEIs, with some HEIs indicating
in their statutes (seemingly contrary to the national legislation) that all important decisions made
by the presidents ‘should’ get approval from the senate (Byun, 2008, 197).
In 2010, the government initiated a reform in order to corporatize selected public HEIs. This act
took effect in 2012, first onto the Seoul National University (SNU). With the reform, the
composition, selection/election, and responsibilities of the senate of the incorporated universities
have changed to an extent. The senates of the corporatized universities have now become a
deliberative body, especially on academic affairs and personnel management. All the senators,
including the Chair, are faculty members. Regulations also stipulates that all members of the
trustee boards and virtually all university administrators cannot be senate members. At SNU, an
absolute majority of the senators (44 out of 50) are elected by the faculty of each college and
school apportioned to the full-time tenure-track position professors on a formula determined by
its by-law, the staff representatives elected a few staff senators (4 at SNU) to sit on the senate as
well, and a few members (two at SNU) are appointed by the Senate Chair from the faculty and/or
staff, upon approval from the senate. The senate is served by a secretariat headed by a secretary
general, and a few permanent and special committees. All members sit on the senate for a term
of two years, with a possible re-election. Two student representatives are allowed to join the
senates as observers (see Byun, Jun, & Kim, 2012). The various senate committees each works
on different areas, ranging from academic affairs, financial affairs, and staff promotion.20
THE)EXECUTIVE))
Higher education institutional management (in both PAI and public HEIs) in Cambodia can be
said to be quite outdated in a number of counts. The rectorate/ directorship is the highest
executive body tasked with the day-to-day management of the institutions. The royal decree on
PAI HEIs and Prakas on the Conditions and Criteria of HEI Establishment lay out the roles and
responsibilities of the rector as well as deans or directors of dependent institutes and heads of
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
20 For SNU senate, see http://senate.snu.ac.kr/en/senators/present/setup &
http://senate.snu.ac.kr/en/about/role/functions as of 12 November, 2017.

28"
"
departments. Ideally, according to the university shared governance approach, the institutional
administrators at all levels; the supporting staff and the academic shall share the responsibilities
and work together closely in institutional management. However, such an arrangement is still
very much ideal for Cambodian HEIs given its historical and cultural traits; political
(mis)calculation; and a lack of reforms towards institutional shared governance.
In actual practice, there are many instances where the top administration is not a united body
with the rector/ director the most powerful person and vice rector/ director playing a more
assistant roles with little formal delineation and delegation of authority. There are instances
where implicit disagreement or limited cooperation amongst the (vice) rectors/ directors exists.
The vice rectors/ directors can be said ‘to assist/ support’ the rector/ director in the management
of the institution, and reportedly many lack the necessary knowledge and skills (and authority) to
properly conduct core activities under their portfolio. They are assigned to work on different
portfolio – however, when the issues are related to making financial decision and personnel
management, there is little formal authorization of decision making. Like vice rectors/ directors,
(deputy) deans and (deputy) heads of departments generally have quite limited formal authority,
especially when it comes to financial management and to some extent personnel management.
They are mainly delegated to take care of academic matters and in some cases to a lesser extent
personnel management (see Un & Sok, 2014; Sok, 2016). The selection and appointment of
institutional administrators are still centralized and dominated by the central government, with
political affiliation and seniority generally prioritized over academic prominence/ excellence and
integrity and adherence and promotion of academic values and principles (Ahrens and
McNamara, 2013; Sok, 2016). Nomination of candidates for vice rectors and below shall be done
by the rector with approval from the governing board (where one exists or is functional), and the
case of deans and below the initial nomination shall be done by ‘the academic’ of respective
faculty/ department, although in actual practice variation exists. Unlike global common practice,
the appointment to all administrative positions is still done ‘for life’. In recent years, there has
been implicit advocacy for setting terms of appointment and limit, especially for the
rectors/directors and vice rectors/ deputy directors of public HEIs, by some senior technocrats
and even the rectors themselves, but this proposal is yet to be picked up by politicians and policy
makers. Key performance achievements and performance indicators are yet to be considered in
daily institutional management or applied in promotion and retention.
In Korea, despite the greater degree of autonomy, the government still greatly influences the
institutional management and operations of national and public HEIs. Various aspects of the
institutional management and operations are under the control of government through ‘salutatory
provisions’, namely parliamentary acts and presidential decrees. The following matters still need
approval from the government: (i) HEI establishment; (ii) institutional regulations; (iii) faculty
personnel; (iv) students; (v) programs and academic standards; (vi) financing, budgeting and
facilities; and (vii) reporting and auditing (Ullah, 2005, pp. 338-339). In a sense, the government
still dictates institutional governance to a large degree. According to the Higher Education Act,
the public institution is under the direct supervision of the Minister of Education (KEDI, 2006).
The following section discusses some of the key institutional governance issues in Korean
national and public HEIs.

29"
"
At the institution level, the HEI presidents play the key role in managing the internal affairs,
faculty supervision, and student education (KEDI, 2006). The presidents and deans are ‘the
highest-ranking decision implementers’ at the university and faculty level, respectively. Before
1987, the president was the most powerful individual at the institutional level, and she/he was
appointed by the central government. After 1987, this practice has been discontinued, and the
president as well as the deans has been elected from and by the full-time professors. While
professors were skeptical of the previous system of central appointment, concerns have been that
the current election system of the president has put him/her ‘hostage to the senate majority’
given that he/she is elected by the full-time professors and are thus less likely to carry out any
measures that displease them and to take measures that are of benefit to the broader society.
Legally speaking, however, the president holds the “ultimate authority on all important
institutional matters” (Byun, 2008, 197; Shin, 2011, 325). According to Michalski, Kolodziej and
Piasecka (2013), Confucian culture strongly influences both external and internal intuitional
management style. The general practice of centralized system provides the institution limited
autonomy to the lower position levels. As a general practice, the line of authority and decision
making are in vertical order from the pro-chancellors or pro-rectors to the lower levels of faculty
boards and deans.
Some)key)governance)issues)
"
The management of the three core businesses of public HEIs: academic management; personnel
management, and financial management is worth discussing in brief.
Academic management is quite decentralized at public HEIs. Such issues as curriculum
development and management; textbook management, and decision over faculty workload are
mainly the responsibility of respective departments or at best the concerned faculties in some
HEIs. There is a general understanding that the academic freedom is often not restricted,
especially when it comes to teaching and classroom management, although there is some degree
of self-censorship, especially in research and publication.
Personnel management, especially of the on-contract academic and supporting staff, e.g.
recruitment, payment and termination, is mainly the responsibility of the concerned faculty or
department, with often in/formal consultation with the rector or concerned vice rector, especially
when the issues deal with financial matter or pay rise.
Financial management, irrespective of the sources of budget, is the most centralized to the top
executive, especially the rector and governing board, and generally knowledge over the financial
matter is confined to a few individuals, especially the rector; vice rector for finance;
accountant(s), and governing board (where one is functional). Formal financial authorization to
subordinate units is virtually absent or at best applied to petty cash management (see Un & Sok,
2014; Sok, 2016; Mak, Sok, and Un, forthcoming).
According to the Korean Educational Public Service Law, no faculty member has tenure.
Following an initial appointment, an evaluation is conducted to determine whether the faculty
member should be reappointed for another period (professors and associate professors for a six-
to ten-year period; assistant professors and full-time instructors for a two-to three-year period).

30"
"
Although the law states that professors’ contracts have to be renewed periodically, the actual
appointment system amounts to a kind of permanent tenure system. Once appointed as a full-
time faculty member, a professor normally holds the position until reaching retirement.
Professors are promoted in rank over the years as long as they meet the promotion criteria, which
are not particularly demanding. There is no rigorous, systematic evaluation of faculty by students
or by the institution in either public or private sector higher education institutions. Consequently,
Korea may be called a paradise for faculty. In fact, a 1990 survey published in Dong-Ah Daily
News showed that the position of professor topped the list of job preferences by Korean higher
education students (p.118)
In Korea, the government still put strong hands on the organizational structures, academic
affairs, management of human resources and financial resources through imposition of national
laws and regulations. University ranking is another mechanism to maintain their authority to
control and to maintain quality. Arguably, the centralized system is meant to maintain the daily
operations, whereas institutional development and innovation and shared vision created by the
staff are hardly achieved. This top-down approach allows limited involvement of the internal key
stakeholders in the institutional development and transformation. The institutional leadership and
management and faculty members’ functions become mainly to fulfill the ‘paper-based’ and/or
administrative works (Byun, 2008; Byun, Jun, & Kim, 2012). As a consequence, Byun (2008,
198) added that “this lack of legitimacy within universities and the ensuing half-heartedness of
university constituencies have led to the delay in the implementation of the reforms”.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
"
Given the different historical and different level of socio-economic development as well as
educational development and investment between Cambodia and Korea during the time of the
writing, the lessons that Cambodia should/can learn from Korea is to be very careful; avoiding
any danger out of the copy-paste behavior as taught by an ancient Khmer saying- “If you see an
elephant poop, don’t try to poop as an elephant ( )”. Following this ancient
Khmer wisdom, this paper is not going to draw all the lessons from all the comparative analysis
above. We will instead choose the following four lesson-learned for policy makers in Cambodia
to take into consideration in the next reform program;
1. Legal framework on higher education
In Korea, not only there is an overarching law on higher education, but its legal
frameworks are very pro-active and more toward developing its higher education system.
While in Cambodia, there is no such an overarching law on higher education. Through
the analysis, we notice that Cambodian legal framework is not only fragmented, but also
reactive and regulatory in nature and even not update enough to catch up with the higher
education reality, to say nothing about the development of its higher education system.
Some observers note that in actual reality, Cambodian higher education is under the silent
revolution or having a life of its own.

31"
"
2. Funding, ranking, tier system and autonomy
In Korea, the higher education act stimulates clearly the attempt made by the state and
local government to support the HEIs. Accreditation ranking and different types of HEIs
are used to not only determine the level of public funding, but also to the degree of
autonomy. While in Cambodia, there is little linkage between different types of HEIs and
public funding and support. Accreditation ranking is totally absent and public funding to
HEIs is based on a historical/political funding model which is not appropriate to steer the
higher education sector to meet the national development need.
3. Quota system for enrollment and enrollment requirement
The Korean government set a clear quota for HEIs enrolment each year. With the
introduction of the University Entrance Liberalisation Policy in 2008, Korean universities
were able to accept students in accordance with their own admissions criteria, such as
students’ school records, College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) grades, practical skills
tests and essays, but the central test which is based on CSAT grades is still in force. In
Cambodian case, access to higher education is not purely based on merit, but based on
purchasing power, the ability to pay the tuition fees and there is quote for each university
to recruit the student. This raise the question of both the quality of the graduate as well as
the number of graduates in certain discipline needed for industry and national
development.
4. Regional university and the role of local government
Recently, Cambodian higher education is very decentralized, especially with the newly
established regional universities across the country. However, there is no overarching
body to oversee the development of the regional universities as well as an intensive
project to facilitate the role of these regional university in the local development. The
engagement of the local authority with these regional university is rather none-existence,
in term of facilitation the academic cooperation between local community and industry.
In Korea, there is not only regional university development division within Ministry of
Education to oversee these universities, but also the policy that focusing on the
development regional university and the role of local government with the objective to
strengthen the role of regional universities in promoting the development of local
communities through "custom education" with the aim of making the regional
universities as the center of local community innovation.

32"
"
REFERENCES
Ahrens, L., and McNamara, V. (2013). Cambodia: evolving quality issues in higher education. In
Education in South-East Asia, edited by Lorraine Pe Symaco. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Byun, K., (2008). New public management in Korean higher education: Is it reality or another
fad? Asia Pacific Education Review 9 (2), 190-205.
Byun, K., Jon, J. E., & Kim, D. (2013). Quest for building world-class universities in South
Korea: Outcomes and consequences. Higher Education, 65(5), 645-659.
Chan, R., et al. (2008). Directory of higher education institutions in Phnom Penh. Phnom Penh:
Camprobe.
Chet, C. (2006). Cambodia. Higher education in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO.
Cramer, S. F. (ed.) (2017). Shared governance in higher education: demands, transitions, and
transformation. Albany: State University of New York.
Cuyno, R. V. (2009). Overview and context and a systems perspective to improve higher
education in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: DHE.
Feuer, H. N. (2016). Recovering from runaway privatization in Cambodian higher education: the
regulatory pressure of ASEAN integration. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast
Asia, 31(2), 648-683.
HRINC. (2010). Higher education and skills for the labor market in Cambodia. Phnom Penh:
HRINC.
Kim, B., J. (2000). Appendix A: institutional information. In J., C. Weidman and N., Park (eds).
Higher education in Korea: tradition and adaptation (vol 17). New York. Taylor & Francis.
Korean Council for University Education (2016). Bring change and innovation to university
2015-2016.
Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI) (2006). OECD thematic review of tertiary
education country background report for Korea.
Mak, Ng.; Sok, S., & Un, L. Governance and finance of public higher education in Cambodia.
Phnom Penh: CDRI, forthcoming.
Michalski, B., Kołodziej, G., & Piasecka, A., (2013). Organization and functioning of South
Korea higher education system.

33"
"
Ministry of Education & Korean Education Development Institute (2016). Brief statistics on
Korean education.
MoEYS (2014). Decision on the establishment of the Rector Council of Cambodia. Phnom Penh:
MoEYS.
MoEYS. (2007). Prakas on conditions and detailed criteria for HEI licensing. Phnom Penh:
MoEYS.
MoEYS. (2017). Education congress report. Phnom Penh: MoEYS.
OECD (2016), Education policy outlook: Korea. at a glance 2016. OECD Publishing
W. Norton Grubb, Richard Sweet, Michael Gallagher and Ossi Tuomi (2009). OECD Reviews of
Tertiary Education Korea. OECD Publishing.
RGC (Royal Government of Cambodia). (1997). Royal Decree on Legal Statute of Public
Administrative Institutions. Phnom Penh: RGC.
RGC. (2002). Sub-decree on criteria for university establishment. Phnom Penh: RGC.
RGC. (2007). Law on Education. Phnom Penh: RGC.
RGC. (2014). Royal decree on the amendment of higher education accreditation. Phnom Penh:
RGC.
RGC. (2014). Sub-decree on Cambodian national qualification framework. Phnom Penh: RGC.
RGC. (2014). Sub-decree on the functions and operation of the Ministry of Labor, and
Vocational Training. Phnom Penh: RGC.
RGC. (2016). Sub-decree on the functions and operation of the Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sport. Phnom Penh: RGC.
Ross, R.R. (1987). Cambodia: a country study. Washington DC: Federal Research Division,
Library of Congress.
Shin, J. C. (2011). South Korea: Decentralized Centralization–Fading Shared Governance and
Rising Managerialism. In Changing Governance and Management in Higher Education (pp.
321-342). Springer Netherlands.
Sok, S. (2016). Higher education governance reforms in Thailand and Malaysia and policy
implications for Cambodia. Phnom Penh: MoEYS.
Sok, S. (2017). Functional review of the Department of Higher Education and Department of
Scientific Research of Directorate General of Higher Education. Phnom Penh: MoEYS.

34"
"
Ting, L. (2014). A policy paper on Cambodia’s higher education financing and financial
management. Phnom Penh: MoEYS.
Ullah, A., A., (2005). Changing governance in South Korean higher education: exploring some
impacts. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (Hum), 50(2005), (335-51).
Un, L., & Sok, S. (2014). Higher education governance in Cambodia. Leadership and
governance in higher education: handbook for decision-makers and administrators. Germany:
RAABE Publishing.
Un, L., & Sok, S. (Higher) Education policy and project intervention in Cambodia: Its
development discourse (book chapter). Springer, forthcoming.
Vann, M. (2012). Stakeholders’ perceptions of quality in Cambodian higher education (PhD
thesis). RMIT University.
Young-Chul, K., (2008). Understanding Korean educational policy. Universalization of tertiary
education Vol. II. Korean Education Development Institute.
http://senate.snu.ac.kr/en as of November, 12, 2017.