Caption: Bridging Traditions, Building Futures: Embracing South and East Asian Insights to Empower Bangladesh’s Private Universities through Autonomy and Accountability.”
“Actual autonomy is not absence of control, it is presence of prudent, enabling governance.”
The Paradox of Private Higher Education
Now, the private universities of Bangladesh have reached a paradox in their presence. Founded in the early 1990s as a response to the overwhelming demand that public universities could no longer handle, the colleges have become pillars of tertiary education, providing a haven for nearly half of the nation’s tertiary-level students. They have opened doors for middle-class families, created entry points of opportunity for first-generation entrants, and infused badly needed human capital into a rapidly diversifying economy. Briefly, private universities have transformed higher education from an elite indulgence to a national phenomenon.
However, this stellar performance has been left unaccompanied by a regulatory framework that could replicate or exacerbate it. Private universities are still hindered by an outdated regulatory system that often prioritizes control over cooperation, inflexibility over flexibility, and bureaucratic approval over academic innovation. While their vast potential is being stifled, their space for innovation is hindered by a multiple layering of clearances and micromanagement that slows down their evolution into world-class institutions.
The issue, then, is not whether or not to hold such universities accountable—any credible system of education must be capable of functioning without flaws in quality, financial management, and ethical supervision. The question is how accountability should be arranged. Should it continue to be a dense thicket of approvals, inspections, and hard-liner compliance requirements that dissuade innovation and smother leadership? Or does accountability have to be an intelligent, more open system based on performance metrics, peer review, and public trust—a system that delivers responsibility while allowing creativity to fly?
Around the world, the best higher education systems already have. East Asia’s Singapore, South Korea, and Malaysia demonstrate how to grant universities great freedom, backed by measurable performance contracts, and transform them into world-class institutions. South Asia offers only cautionary tales: where paranoia takes hold, excessive regulation suffocates, and universities sink into the middle depths, even when demand and promise are booming.
Bangladesh is at precisely this juncture today. It can either continue with the existing model of bureaucratic micromanaging, which makes its universities rule-abiders only, or it can adopt an innovative model of smart governance that encourages innovation, ensures academic freedom, and demands accountability in terms of transparency and outcomes.
This article aims to address how Bangladesh can reconcile the dichotomy of autonomy and responsibility by drawing comparative lessons from South Asia and East Asia. It envisages the establishment of a Higher Education Commission for Private Universities (HEC-PU)—not another gatekeeper bureaucrat but a visionary enabler that fights for academic freedom with a plea for responsibility. Such a well-designed commission can take private universities from being institutions of intellectual ego to being drivers of national advancement, preparing Bangladesh to flourish in a time when higher education is not just a degree mill but an engine of innovation, competitiveness, and global presence.
Academic Autonomy: Why It Matters
Higher education autonomy is not merely a procedural entitlement but the very atmosphere of scholarly innovation and institutional prestige. Universities stand on the ideals of their autonomy to think, challenge existing frontiers, and predict social and technological progress. Without academic autonomy to make independent choices, they are reduced to administrative shells and go through the formality of compliance instead of steering knowledge development.
Curricular freedom is the first pillar. Universities should be in a position to design courses that respond to emerging global trends such as artificial intelligence, renewable energy, biotechnology, and creative industries. Incorporating a lengthy delay of years to obtain regulatory approval to introduce new disciplines effectively freezes responsiveness in developing economies. Nations offering curricular flexibility are better placed to align graduates with market demand.
Studies on academic freedom form the second tenet. Teachers must have the freedom to explore unconventional or controversial ideas without being hindered by bureaucratic red tape. Innovations often come from unexpected sources, and societies that overly restrict research end up stifling the very findings that have the potential to alter their destinies.
The third pillar of autonomy is governance flexibility. Boards of trustees, academic senates, and departmental committees must be able to make prompt, strategic decisions. When universities are reduced to seeking permission for minor administrative decisions, leadership is ceremonial rather than visionary.
Financial independence completes the model. Universities require autonomy to raise funds, manage budgets, and make strategic investments, provided they also have clear financial accountability expectations. Excessive regulation of financial power drives off philanthropy, business partnerships, and international partnerships.
Yet, autonomy is not unqualified. Society trusts universities with young minds, public faith, and sometimes substantial financial endowments. Autonomy must therefore always be balanced with accountability. Institutions must demonstrate responsibility in terms of curriculum quality, financial integrity, ethical practices, and social engagement. The issue is not autonomy or accountability, but autonomy with accountability.
The South Asian Experience: Control Over Trust
South Asia serves as a case study on what can go wrong when control is prioritized over trust in regulatory systems.
In India, the higher education system is regulated by various specialist councils, including the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for engineering, the Medical Council of India (MCI) for medicine, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) for general regulation. Though originally established to maintain professional standards, such councils have become too readily identified with bureaucracy, corruption, and inefficiency. Universities of all kinds complain that it can take years to launch a new program due to regulatory hurdles, during which time industry demand may have shifted. Private universities often struggle to respond quickly to the needs of the knowledge economy in such instances. To counter this, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has proposed the concept of “graded autonomy,” where institutions with high-quality performance are afforded greater academic and financial autonomy. This change acknowledges that not all individuals need to be equal, and the more capable ones should be accorded autonomy to lead, while weaker ones will also continue to be stringently monitored.
Pakistan is another case in point. The Higher Education Commission (HEC), under the leadership of Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman, initially enhanced quality assurance, improved connectivity to the world, and offered competitive research grants. Political instability and budget shortfalls ultimately undermined its effectiveness. Private universities are naturally suspect, given their reputation for being “degree shops,” despite having a significant responsibility to stay current with rising student demand. Instead of being welcomed as partners in national development, the majority of private institutions are kept at arm’s length in suspicion.
Sri Lanka and Nepal have even more limited trends. The prevalence of public universities and the political power of student unions made private higher education contentious in Sri Lanka. Controls continue to protect public monopolies, leaving private organizations weak and politically delegitimized. Nepal’s smaller system also has poor capacity and stringent control, failing to permit private universities to become legitimate alternatives.
The South Asian experience is clear: when regulators begin with a suspicious frame of mind, universities are crippled. Instead of generating innovation and excellence, they are struggling to overcome the administrative hurdles. The results are slow response, lost credibility, and lost opportunities.
The East Asian Contrast: Autonomy with Performance Contracts
East Asia, though, demonstrates how a balance between autonomy and accountability can drive universities to world-class status. The formula is simple: give universities autonomy to try things out but hold them accountable for measurable outcomes.
Singapore is arguably the best example. Singaporean universities enjoy considerable curricular and governance autonomy but sign performance contracts with the government. These contracts outline performance measures, including graduate employment placement, publication of research, global rankings, and collaboration with industry. Universities determine the mechanisms for delivering these outcomes, and the government enforces accountability. This results-oriented strategy has placed NUS and NTU at the top of world rankings. Autonomy is maintained, but accountability is infused into the system.
Malaysia has followed a divergent path with its Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA). Instead of micromanaging the curriculum, the MQA focuses on quality assurance through program accreditation, institutional audits, and periodic reviews. Private universities—some with international brand names like Monash and Nottingham—operate autonomously under the watchful eye of open-quality monitoring. Such a model fosters trust among students and parents because results, rather than approvals, are emphasized.
South Korea is another compelling case. South Korea has invested significantly in higher education, correlating spending with research output, patent applications, and international collaboration. Universities are rated annually, with the best-performing ones rewarded with greater autonomy and additional funding. This has transformed institutions like KAIST and Seoul National University into world-class research universities.
China, as politically centralized as any country, also shows how managed autonomy can produce superior results. Through initiatives like Project 985 and the Double First-Class University Plan, the government invested billions of dollars in a select group of universities, under the premise that they would produce world-class research results and foster global collaborations. Autonomy here is conditional and strategic: universities have authority over their internal affairs but are answerable to national goals.
The East Asian model of experience demonstrates how independence can be most effective when combined with accountability for outcomes. Universities are accountable for outcomes, not for forms. It inspires creativity and maintains public trust.
Transparency and Dispute Resolution: Building Trust
Accountability mechanisms function only if they are transparent and trusted. Otherwise, if not transparent, then accountability turns to arbitrariness, and universities will be penalized instead of being helped. Transparency in university performance mechanisms and regulatory supervision is the solution.
Public dashboards are one example. Graduation employment rates, faculty credentials, research output, and financial integrity can be reported annually by universities. Singapore has institutionalized this, with universities publishing comprehensive graduate employment surveys that allow parents and students to make informed choices. Such openness is a form of holding the universities accountable without intrusive micromanagement.
Independent audits are also necessary. In Malaysia, the MQA conducts periodic institutional and program audits, and the reports are made publicly available. These make regulators’, institutions’, and society’s confidence by their impartial views regarding quality and compliance.
Conflict resolution mechanisms are also important. Universities are dynamic environments where conflicts are inevitable—between administration and faculty, universities and students, or universities and regulators. Possession of an independent ombudsman or grievance redressal mechanism ensures that grievances are addressed fairly and constructively. In South Korea, conflicts are resolved through neutral arbitration processes, preventing ongoing institutional stalemates.
There are no open systems like these in Bangladesh. There is, therefore, suspicion: parents question the value of private university degrees, employers doubt the quality of graduates, and regulators suspect financial impropriety. Instruments of open accountability and redressal would not only restore trust but also reduce excessive regulation.
Toward a Policy Blueprint: Higher Education Commission for Private Universities
What the hour demands is an independent Higher Education Commission for Private Universities (HEC-PU) for Bangladesh, not a replica of the University Grants Commission (UGC), but a facilitating body granting freedom with accountability.
The default principle must be that of autonomy. One must have faith in private universities to innovate in curriculum, government, and money management. Regulation must not include second-guessing the decisions made but rather ensure that the outcomes meet national quality and ethical standards.
Accountability must be outcome-based, not process-based. Instead of requesting pre-approvals for every incremental modification to a program, regulators should hold universities accountable for graduate employability, return on research, financial disclosure, and ethical integrity.
Transparency should be the bridge of confidence. Annual reports, financial disclosure, and accreditation audits should be compulsory and open to public examination. Electronic media may enable reporting, placing data in the open for all stakeholders and confining room for capricious interference.
The commission itself must be representative and independent. It must be led by academics, industry leaders, civil society members, and global experts. It must not become another bureaucratic fortress led by career bureaucrats.
Finally, grievance redressal must be institutionalized. A conflict resolution unit that addresses disputes in a just and reasonable manner can convince universities, teachers, and students to trust the regulatory mechanism.
This Human Dimension: Why This Matters
Policy language can be abstruse, but the government has a direct impact on the lives of citizens. Students are injured when universities fail to maintain curricula aligned with business requirements due to slow approval processes. Professors are demoralized when research concepts fall on deaf ears or when grants are impossible to obtain because of discriminatory policies. Administrators lose trust when they are relegated to figurehead status rather than being strategic leaders.
One vice-chancellor summed this frustration well on just such an occasion: “Give us accountability for outcomes but give us space. Without trust, we are custodians of paperwork, not architects of institutions.”
Governance, therefore, is not a question only of institutional structure, it is a question of creating a context in which students, faculty, and administrators can thrive.
Vision for Balanced Governance: A Bangladeshi Model
Bangladesh does not need to replicate any one model wholesale. Instead, it can develop its own distinctive Bangladeshi model that draws lessons from both East Asia and South Asia.
Lessons are to be drawn from both regions. From South Asia, the lesson is a negative one. Suspicion by regulators, control by bureaucrats, and meddling by politicians can destroy trust and inhibit institutional growth. From East Asia, the lesson is a positive one. Autonomy can thrive when combined with performance contracts, transparent audits, and competitive incentives.
A Bangladeshi model must strike a balance between firm accountability and earned autonomy. Those universities that prove themselves to be of quality must be given maximum freedom, and those that are performing poorly must be kept under stricter supervision until they can improve. Such a system will not only bring about excellence, but the public can also be confident that accountability is being maintained.
The Private University Higher Education Commission has to be a capacity-building partner, rather than just a regulator. It must aim to make private universities world-class competitors, contributors to the country, and local innovators.
Conclusion: True Autonomy, True Accountability
Autonomy without accountability is a recipe for corruption and complacency. Accountability without autonomy is a recipe for mediocrity and mistrust. The future of Bangladesh’s higher education depends on finding the right balance.
South Asia has cautionary tales of control-based administration that discourages trust. East Asia has inspiring stories of performance-based administration that encourage excellence. Bangladesh faces a choice.
Creating a Higher Education Commission for Private Universities is a historic opportunity. If it is designed well, it can contain academic freedom, ethical accountability, and performance outcomes. If it only imitates the control culture of UGC, it will replicate the same fallouts.
As one veteran scholar so concisely stated: “Great universities are built by great leaders, and great leaders need space to lead. The future of the private universities of Bangladesh—and of Bangladesh as a whole—depends on giving them that space, while simultaneously holding them accountable for the greatness they vow to achieve.”.