Open and secure systems: UK, the Netherlands, Scandinavia

The United Kingdom is the largest and one of the most open academic job markets in Europe. In 2013–3014, there were 194,000 academic employees in the United Kingdom, 25% of whom were foreigners (Higher Education Statistics Agency 2014). In a survey of researchers in economics, sociology and political science conducted by Marimon et al. (Reference Marimon, Guardiancich, Mariathasan and Rossi2011), 48% of UK-based respondents were not British, even if we do not possess data on where they obtained their doctoral degree. British academia is an attractive destination for international scholars for a number of reasons. English makes it easier for foreign academics to access teaching and research positions. Moreover, the British system provides permanent entry-level positions with good levels of job security and transparent prospects of career progression. Academic ranks range from lecturer (assistant professor) to senior lecturer and reader (associate professor) to professor. In 2013–2014, 64% of British academics were employed on open-ended contracts (Higher Education Statistics Agency 2014). This, however, did not include PhD students. Unlike the US, where the possibility that tenure is denied is a serious possibility, the stabilization of employment contracts for lecturers in British universities is a more routine process. When hired, the prospect for a lecturer passing probation is almost certain aside from major professional failings.

Another factor that makes the UK an open market for foreign academics is a system of funding that partly ties the income of universities to research performance, thereby making non-competitive appointments costlier. British universities are evaluated at regular intervals on the basis of the publications and—to a lesser extent—the “societal impact” of their employees in what is currently called the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Because of its financial consequences, this provides incentives for departments to hire scholars with a competitive publication record. This has made the transition from the PhD to a permanent job more difficult, as there is often a clear discrepancy between the profile of PhD graduates and the profile required for permanent positions, creating a gap filled by international applicants. PhD programs in political science in the United Kingdom are usually less structured than their US equivalents, especially when it comes to methods training. The introduction of a different system of funding with more emphasis on teaching quality (a so-called Teaching Excellence Framework) announced in summer 2015 may change this system of incentives, even if it is difficult to predict in which direction.

Unlike other countries where salary scales are centralized, British universities have some leeway in wage-setting, especially for senior positions. This explains the greater wage differentials between academic ranks (figure 1). Wages in London and more prestigious institutions tend to be higher, even if this is largely offset by much higher costs of living in the capital. Outside this relatively regulated and secure career path, however, many universities have sought, like elsewhere, to expand their workforce via flexible terms of employment. Many departments resort to a growing extent to fixed-term contracts (teaching fellowships), and there have been report of the use of so called “zero-hour” contracts with similar conditions as part-time teaching staff in the United States (The Guardian 2013).

The Netherlands is another country where the academic job market is fairly open and where entry-level positions are characterized by reasonable levels of job security. Forty percent of social scientists based in the Netherlands who answered Marimon et al.’s (Reference Marimon, Guardiancich, Mariathasan and Rossi2011) survey reported a foreign nationality. First, teaching in English is possible at most universities. Most tertiary institutions have MA programs in English, and a number of institutions (Amsterdam, Leiden, Utrecht, Maastricht) have started Liberal Arts-style BA degrees with a political science component taught in English. The Dutch higher education sector is competitive internationally, with good rankings for political science in particular. For instance, 8 of the 12 Dutch universities were in the Times Higher Education ranking of the best 100 universities for social sciences. A commitment to be able to teach in Dutch (at the BA level), usually after two years, is a common requirement for entry-level appointments, however. Dutch is then a requirement for higher positions (universitair hoofddocent – associate professor and hoogleraar – professor). Career progression is usually less transparent than in the UK. Compared to Germany, for instance, levels of job security for junior faculty are typically higher. Employment conditions and salary scales are set by one national collective bargaining agreement, and there is therefore little leeway for universities to negotiate individual salaries (Jongbloed Reference Jongbloed and Altbach2012). Funding opportunities for research (from the NWO) make it possible to reduce teaching loads significantly. Generous tax rebates are also available for international staff. In spite of this fairly open and transparent labor market, gender biases are fairly pronounced, with only 17% of women among full professors (De Volkskrant Reference De Volkskrant2015).

Other countries which can be classified in the open and secure category are Scandinavian countries, notably Denmark, Sweden and Norway (Finland being more closed). In these countries, entry-level positions are usually permanent and enjoy a civil servant status. However, requirements to teach in the local language usually limit the attractiveness of positions in these countries, and local contacts seem to play a more important role than in Great Britain and the Netherlands.

Open and insecure: Switzerland

Switzerland’s academic labor market shares many similarities with the German system, but it is significantly more open (Felli, Goastellec, and Leresche Reference Felli, Goastellec and Leresche2007). Indeed, data from the European tertiary education register indicates that nearly half of all academics employed in Swiss universities in 2012 did not have Swiss citizenship. For political science, a study from the 1990s indicated that 40% of full professors had another nationality at birth (Armingeon Reference Armingeon1997), and this proportion has certainly increased. Internationally attractive salaries make Switzerland one of the only countries that can compete with US first-tier institutions in spite of their public status and rigid salary scales. ^{Footnote 4} Universities also enjoy a very good reputation in international rankings. A large percentage of international staff come from neighboring countries: primarily Germany, France, and Italy. This mainly relates to language requirements for most teaching-related activities. In spite of this, however, entry-level positions are characterized by a fairly low level of job security. The Swiss university system is decentralized and employment conditions vary between cantons. In French-speaking Switzerland, permanent positions exist below the rank of professor (maître d’enseignement et de recherche). In German-speaking universities, however, entry- and middle level positions are essentially on fixed-term contracts, similar to the German system. Tenure-track positions, however, are becoming more common. Internal recruitment is still widespread in a number of institutions.

Closed and secure systems: France, Spain, Italy

Academic labor markets in France, Spain, and Italy are characterized by high barriers to entry for outsiders (not necessarily to non-nationals, but to doctoral graduates from other countries) and highly regulated labor markets. The most common obstacle to internationalization is the prevalence of endogamous recruitment based on contacts rather than research or teaching performance, besides centralized systems of “accreditation” designed to control the labor supply by insiders. An interesting paradox is that this system of national quality control originally devised to limit endogamy, often acts as a bureaucratic barrier for outsiders, and does not really prevent local and endogamous recruitment.

In France, for instance, potential candidates for entry-level positions (maître de conférences) need to go through a process of “qualification” by a committee of French academics, with different modalities across disciplines. This takes place once a year in the fall and aims at assessing whether candidates have a strong enough profile to apply for permanent posts. Applicants who have not obtained qualification beforehand will not be considered for job openings. In theory, the system was designed to ensure homogeneous standards and prevent purely local recruitment. In practice, however, this system potentially rules out external applicants who are not familiar with French academic bureaucracy. In political science, for instance, PhD theses and articles written in English need to be accompanied by extensive summaries in French in order to be considered for qualification even before actual job offers are made public. This is aimed at proving the ability of applicants to master the language of instruction (Conseil National des Universités 2014). For professorships in political science (and law, economics, and management), there is a national competition called the Agrégation. Over a period of six months, applicants are assessed, interviewed and ranked by a national jury, and depending on their ranking, can choose from a set of available positions at universities. Again, these procedures contribute to a great degree of closure of the market to international applicants. This does not necessarily mean that it excludes applicants with a foreign nationality (the share of foreign citizens in university posts in social sciences is actually fairly high, at 31% (Marimon et al. Reference Marimon, Guardiancich, Mariathasan and Rossi2011)—but certainly of holders of a PhD acquired abroad. In spite of these centralized procedures supposed to prevent it, endogamy is still very prevalent. Godechot and Louvet (Reference Godechot and Louvet2008) show for instance that local applicants are 18 times more likely to obtain a position than external applicants. For political science, these odds were even higher: 71% of recruited applicants were local, and local applicants were 32 times more likely to be hired than external applicants.

Once these (high) barriers are overcome, however, French academics are civil servants and enjoy relatively high levels of job security in the two broad types of permanent academic posts (maître de conférences and professeur), even if salaries are relatively modest in international comparison. Outside this protected core labor market, however, parallel tracks are developing, both at the top and at the bottom. On the one hand, there has been a movement of dualization of the labor market characterized by the increase in fixed-term positions (ATER-Attaché Temporaire d’Enseignement et de Recherche), especially in the early 2000s. This movement has been scaled down in the recent period, contributing to a decrease in the total size of academic personnel. On the other hand, some private and elite institutions such as Sciences Po in Paris have started to hire foreign scholars on private law contracts to overcome the constraints set by the French public service. It should also be noted that France has a dual system dissociating teaching and research, with a fairly large number of research-only positions within the CNRS.

Spain has a relatively similar system of control of the labor supply whereby applicants to academic positions need to be accredited by a central agency called ANECA. Holders of foreign PhDs need to be “validated.” This is also the case for fixed-term entry-level positions. However, the level of control of the national level over the local level is weaker than in France, and the overwhelming majority of hires are the result of internal or local recruitments, which also makes jobs weakly accessible for outsiders. Reports from the Spanish Ministry of Education indicate for instance that 73% of all faculty obtained their PhD at the university where they are appointed, and 95% of professors obtaining new positions already had a position in the same institution (El Pais Reference El Pais2014). This contributes to the closure of Spanish academia to the outside: data form the tertiary education register indicated that only 2.2% of Spanish academic staff were not Spanish. Appointments still often work through sponsorship and log-rolling by senior academics in appointment committees. In this context where contacts often matter more than research or teaching quality, exile is often the only option for young internationally-oriented Spanish academics. Substantial spending cuts in higher education in the aftermath of the Eurozone crisis have significantly added to this situation. Behind these barriers, employment is relatively secure even if, again, salaries are relatively low by international standards. Similarly, to France, however, a number of institutions in Barcelona and Madrid stand out through their more international and competitive outlook.

Italy shares many commonalities with Spain, with a strong prevalence of local, often non-competitive recruitment and closure to the outside in many universities. Connections, and sometimes even family ties, seem to play an important role in recruitment (Durante, Lbartino, and Perotti Reference Durante, Labartino and Perotti2011). Besides this, the profession is characterized by a clearly aging workforce, and prospects for entry for younger staff are severely undermined by grim prospects for university funding. There are three types of permanent functions in Italian universities, namely ricercatore (equivalent to assistant professor, but which can be conserved throughout a career), associate, and full professor. The average age of academics in these positions was 46, 53, and 59 respectively in 2013, pointing also to a clear problem of renewal (ANVUR 2014). Recent media coverage showed for instance that there were only six professors under 40 among the 13,000 full professors in Italian universities (L’Espresso Reference L’Espresso2015). The movement of casualization observed elsewhere has also happened, as the share of non-permanent academic staff increased from 23% in 2008 to 33% in 2013. Only 1% were foreign (ANVUR 2014). However, a new law passed in 2010 also introduced a mechanism similar to a tenure-track path and placed more emphasis on performance rather than seniority alone in career progression (Rebora and Capano Reference Rebora, Capano and Altbach2012).

Closed and insecure: Germany

Germany stands out in European academia as the system where the insider-outsider has been the most institutionalized (Musselin Reference Musselin2005). The German academic labor market is clearly divided between two groups. On the one hand, full professors have civil servants’ contracts and enjoy high levels of job security. On the other hand, all other types of teaching and research staff (Mittelbau) have fixed-term contracts and work under the patronage of professors. Fixed-term employment tends to be the rule for most academics (as scientific staff, Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter) until they can obtain a professorship, usually in their 40s. In the 1990s, the average duration between the doctorate and the first professorship in political science was nearly 13 years, with a steady increasing trend (Arendes and Buchstein Reference Arendes and Buchstein2004). This insecurity is not accompanied by such a great degree of openness as in Switzerland, even if the job market is clearly more open than in southern European countries. Indeed, there is certainly a much greater level of mobility across universities within the country, partly because promotion can only happen through the external labor market (internal promotions are not possible). However, besides language barriers, the importance of the Habilitation—a second, more advanced PhD degree—for access to professorships still acts as a barrier for international candidates. In the 1990s, only 5% of political science professors in German universities held the citizenship of another country at birth (Armingeon Reference Armingeon1997). For academic staff in all disciplines, the figure is about 12% according to the European Tertiary Education Register.

These strong patterns of dualization may have worsened in recent years. A number of Länder (states) and the federal government have made massive investments in time-limited research programs resulting in larger numbers of PhD graduates, but have not committed the financial resources to create the corresponding number of permanent positions, creating a clear bottleneck in the post-PhD phase. There have been, however, a number of changes to try to temper the precariousness of entry-level positions. For instance, a number of junior professorships have been created for recent PhD which confer higher levels of autonomy vis-à-vis full professors. However, many of them are also fixed-term, and debates about the establishment of a real tenure-track system are still ongoing (Die Zeit Reference Die Zeit2015).