Assessing Impacts of University Autonomy Policies on Universities’
Competitiveness in Vietnam
NGUYEN ANH TUAN1, NGUYEN NGOC TRANG2
1University of Education, Vietnam National University,
Xuan Thuy Road, Hanoi,
VIETNAM
2Nguyen Tat Thanh University,
Nguyen Tat Thanh Street, Ho Chi Minh City,
VIETNAM
Abstract: - This research aims to assess the impacts of factors in university autonomy policies on universities’
competitiveness in Vietnam. It has been revealed that since university autonomy policies were implemented,
universities have paid greater attention to the formation and improvement of their competitiveness, targeting
sustainable and stable development. The survey related to Vietnam’s universities’ competitiveness was
administered to 486 individuals. Through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA), five factors affecting institutions’ competitiveness were identified, including Academic and training
autonomy, Financial autonomy, Organization and staffing autonomy, International cooperation autonomy, and
Quality assurance autonomy. Hypothesis testing and regression analysis showed that institutions granted great
autonomy tend to focus more on forming and improving their competitiveness, and financial autonomy is the
factor with the biggest impact on their competitiveness. As a result, from the authors’ perspective, it is crucial
that the Ministry of Education and Training quickly accelerate autonomy delegation, and each university
invests more time and effort in forming and improving their competitiveness based on the level of autonomy
granted.
Key-Words: - competitiveness, university, higher education, university’s competitiveness, university autonomy,
university autonomy policies.
Received: May 12, 2023. Revised: February 26, 2024. Accepted: March 17, 2024. Published: April 12, 2024.
1 Introduction
The term “competitiveness” originated from
Economics, referring to the ability of an economy or
a specific business to compete in terms of capital,
technology, human resources, customer attraction,
economic efficiency, and so on. The term has then
been used in the field of higher education. In fact, in
higher education in the world and Vietnam,
competition among universities is becoming so
intense that many of them have resorted to mergers
or dissolution due to weak or no competitiveness.
Such competition can be witnessed at national,
regional, and global levels. Several factors lead to
and have impacts on universities’ competitiveness,
including their rights and levels of autonomy. Up to
the present, to the authors’ knowledge, there has not
been any research assessing the impacts of factors in
university autonomy policies on universities’
competitiveness in Vietnam.
This research served as a useful source of
information and insights which scholars, macro
policymakers, lecturers, university students, and
postgraduates may resort to to make comparisons
and contrast between the current impacts of
university autonomy policies on universities’
competitiveness in Vietnam and in South East
Asia countries (which have similar levels of socio-
economic and education development), and such
impacts on universities around the world of the
same rakings.
2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Theories on Competitiveness
According to [1], amid globalization, education
socialization, and university autonomy,
universities’ needs for formation and improvement
of competitiveness have recently reached a new
level. Each of their activities in any aspect is
affected by the surroundings and the universities
themselves, requiring higher competitiveness for
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.80
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Ngoc Trang
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
957
Volume 21, 2024
survival and sustainable development in the current
context. When higher education institutions start to
marketize, competition is inevitable. As a result,
they no longer focus solely on teaching, but have
attempted to do research, transfer knowledge, and
offer community and social services as well.
However, identifying the target “customers' of
research and social services is more complex than
that of teaching as in teaching, the first and foremost
“customers” are students accompanied by their
families, and businesses (or employers). Therefore,
the quality of research and research staff, as well as
the quality of knowledge transfer and social services
have become indices denoting universities’
competitiveness.
Discussing competitiveness, there are currently
three ways to interpret the term. Firstly, some
researchers have viewed universities’
competitiveness purely from a business perspective.
It means universities’ competitiveness is the same as
that of businesses aiming at profits in general, [2].
Secondly, universities’ competitiveness is
considered the outcomes of the institutions in the
university ranking system, [3]. Such an approach is
different from the first perspective as the important
factors involved in the latter such as revenue or
profits are excluded in the former. Lastly,
combining both of the above viewpoints, some
scholars took into account elements of businesses’
competitiveness and typical features of universities
when discussing universities’ competitiveness, [4].
The above approaches may either contradict or
support each other from time to time, which at the
same time, have pointed out that there is a research
gap in association with universities’
competitiveness, leading to the need of developing a
solid theoretical base for the subject matter.
According to [1], universities’ competitiveness
refers to their ability to meet the expectations of
stakeholders such as students, the government,
businesses, and the community in a way that
outperforms their rivals of the same class.
In [5], the author stated that universities’
competitiveness is reflected through their
capabilities to satisfy the demands of both internal
and external stakeholders based on the prevalent
competitive advantages (which are established based
on the internal and external conditions).
According to [4], universities’ competitiveness
is identified in association with the analysis of their
rankings including the ratio of students and
lecturers, the percentage of citations per lecturer, the
ratio of international students/lecturers, profits from
innovation activities, and profits per
student/lecturer.
In [6], the author thought that universities’
competitiveness involves (1) their ability to
maintain their position using their knowledge-
related offerings in a certain educational segment
on the global scale, (2) their ability to compete in
scientific research globally, (3) their ability to
offer quality training services of international
standards in each discipline, and (4) their ability to
carry out further social missions.
From the authors’ observation and perspective,
the conception of universities’ competitiveness in
[6], is of high consensus and could be adopted and
is highly suitable with the nature of this particular
paper.
2.2 Theories on University Autonomy
Since 2014, by Resolution 77/NQ-CP, Vietnam’s
Government has piloted university autonomy in
certain higher education institutions, which as a
result, has led to unprecedented competition
among public ones. It can become the driving
force boosting universities’ proactiveness,
creativity, increased performance, and
diversification of training modes, better meeting
the nation’s labor needs. On the other hand,
autonomy means universities will no longer be
subsidized by the State, which has served as a
major income source for most public institutions.
Pressure from competition for survival without
financial support from the State budget requires
the institutions to make greater efforts to be able to
stand out. Despite increasingly intense competition
in various forms and patterns, higher education
institutions are still struggling to improve their
competitiveness, which partly results from their
inability to identify the concept and constituents of
competitiveness acting as the basis for solutions.
Several studies have pointed out that
university autonomy includes the following
factors: Training autonomy, financial autonomy,
Organizational autonomy, and Facility autonomy.
University autonomy is inevitable and will be
granted to institutions on a bigger scale.
In [7], the author pointed out the five factors
of university autonomy, which are Academic and
training autonomy, Financial and asset autonomy,
Staffing and organizational autonomy,
International cooperation autonomy, and Quality
assurance autonomy. This viewpoint has proved
itself to be the most comprehensive, reflecting the
nature of university autonomy, and is used in this
research.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.80
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Ngoc Trang
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
958
Volume 21, 2024
3 Research Model, Sample,
Hypotheses and Methodology
3.1 Research Model
Based on previous studies, the authors
developed research model which is illustrated in
Figure 1:
Fig. 1: Factors in university autonomy affecting universities’ competitiveness
(Source: Author’s analysis)
The independent variable is university
autonomy which includes five factors: (1)
Academic and training autonomy, (2) Financial and
asset autonomy, (3) Organizational and staffing
autonomy, (4) International cooperation autonomy,
and (5) Quality assurance autonomy (Le Ngoc
Hung, 2018). These factors were conceptualized
and utilized in the questionnaire design step with
23 observed variables.
The dependent variable is competitiveness
which consists of (1) an institution’s ability to
maintain its position using its knowledge-related
offerings in a certain educational segment on the
global scale, (2) its ability to maintain competitive
advantages in scientific research globally, (3) its
ability to offer quality training services of
international standards in each discipline, and (4)
its ability to carry out further social missions, [6].
3.2 Research Sample
The authors administered the survey to 502
individuals, and in return, got 486/502 valid
responses, accounting for 96.81%. The respondents
include managing, teaching, and administrative
staff from 10 universities in Vietnam. Among these
10 universities, there are two affiliated ones under
Vietnam National University, Hanoi: International
School and University of Social Sciences and
Humanities. Vietnam National University, Hanoi
was established by Decree 97/CP issued on
December 10, 1993, by the Government which
ordered the reorganization of three big institutions
in Hanoi. VNU started operations under the Prime
Minister’s Regulations on September 5, 1994. The
other eight participating institutions are all based in
Hanoi and follow a multidisciplinary model. All of
the participating universities have been granted
great autonomy and held a place in the top
prestigious institutions in the country. Besides,
among the 10 universities, nine of them are public
institutions, while FPT University is a private one
established by FPT Group.
Table 1 illustrates the details of the
respondents.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.80
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Ngoc Trang
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
959
Volume 21, 2024
Table 1. Description of the research sample
No.
Criteria
Number
(people)
1
Affiliation
International School, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
39/486
Foreign Trade University
44/486
Hanoi University of Science and Technology
69/486
University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
40/486
University of Science, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
47/486
Ha Noi University of Business and Technology
38/486
Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam
50/486
Banking Academy
45/486
Hanoi University
53/486
FPT University
61/486
2
Gender
Male
257/486
Female
229/486
3
Qualifications, academic titles, degrees
Master
268/486
Doctor
182/486
Associate Professor, Doctor
29/486
Professor, Doctor
7/486
(Source: Author’s analysis)
3.3 Research Hypotheses
In this particular paper, the authors tested the following
hypotheses:
(1) Academic and training autonomy is proportional to
universities’ ability to offer training services of
international standards in each discipline;
(2) Financial and asset autonomy is inversely
proportional to their ability to carry out further
social services;
(3) Quality assurance autonomy is proportional to their
ability to maintain their position using their
knowledge-related offerings in a certain educational
segment on a global scale.
3.4 Research Methodology
This research made use of the specific methods as
follows: (1) Exploratory factor analysis to explore
factors in university autonomy that affect institutions’
competitiveness, (2) Confirmatory factor analysis to test
the research model and identify factors in university
autonomy that affect their competitiveness, (3)
Hypothesis testing to identify whether the original
hypotheses were to be accepted or rejected, and (4)
Linear regression analysis to identify the impact weights
of the factors in university autonomy that affect
institutions’ competitiveness. Moreover, the authors also
made use of an expert research method in treating two
keywords (university autonomy policy and
competitiveness), facilitating the development of the
research model and questionnaire design. This method
was also adopted when the authors needed to give
feedback and make a contrast and comparison
the analysis results with the findings of
previous studies by other researchers. Last but
not least, interviews were used to gather the
necessary data for theoretical framework
development. To be more specific, the authors
conducted interviews with stakeholders
regarding the competitiveness of ten
participating universities. This method
allowed the authors to quickly and directly
collect useful information, facilitating the
following research activities.
3.5 Coding Observed Variables
The observed variables were coded as shown
in Table 2 for input in SPSS software.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.80
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Ngoc Trang
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
960
Volume 21, 2024
Table 2. Coding observed variables
No.
Code
Detail
Independent variables
1
TCHT1-TCHT6
Academic and training autonomy (6 observed variables)
2
TCTC1-TCTC4
Financial and asset autonomy (4 observed variables)
3
TCNS1-TCNS3
Organizational and staffing autonomy (3 observed variables)
4
TCHTQT1-
TCHTQT3
International cooperation autonomy (3 observed variables)
5
TCDBCL1-
TCDBCL3
Quality assurance autonomy (3 observed variables)
Dependent variables
1
NLCT1
Universities’ ability to maintain their position using their knowledge-related offerings in a
certain educational segment on a global scale
2
NLCT2
Their ability to maintain competitive advantages in scientific research globally
3
NLCT3
Their ability to offer quality training services of international standards in each discipline
4
NLCT4
Their ability to carry out further social missions
(Source: Author’s analysis)
4 Findings and Discussion
4.1 Scale Testing Results
Table 3 exhibited the Cronbach’s Alpha results of all
scales. To be more specific, the Cronbach’s Alpha
results of all scales of the independent variable
(University autonomy) met the requirement
(ranging from 0.759 to 0.788) and could be
used in the following quantitative analysis.
Those of the scales of the dependent variable
(competitiveness) also met the requirement
(ranging from 0.712 to 0.799).
Table 3. Cronbach's Alpha of the scales
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item- Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
Independent variable
TCHT1
72.18
35.725
0.514
0.761
TCHT2
72.43
35.884
0.472
0.763
TCHT3
72.31
35.085
0.525
0.759
TCHT4
72.34
35.459
0.490
0.761
TCHT5
72.36
34.899
0.509
0.759
TCHT6
72.33
35.799
0.469
0.763
TCTC1
72.20
37.657
0.251
0.778
TCTC2
72.43
39.379
0.078
0.788
TCTC3
72,48
37,464
0,311
0,774
TCTC4
72.52
38.919
0.152
0.783
TCNS1
72.42
36.448
.470
0.764
TCNS2
72.60
36.990
.388
0.769
TCNS3
72.57
36.914
.428
0.767
TCHTQT1
72.53
36.393
0.472
0.764
TCHTQT2
72.69
36.499
0.468
0.764
TCHTQT3
72.63
36.094
0.462
0.764
TCDBCL1
73.01
37.646
0.195
0.784
TCDBCL2
73.06
38.320
0.128
0.790
TCDBCL3
71.98
38.717
0.087
0.793
Dependent variables
NLCT1
70.15
31.641
0.378
0.799
NLCT2
72.44
32.358
0.478
0.712
NLCT3
73.18
33.792
0.367
0.782
NLCT4
71.62
37.415
0.98
0.761
(Source: SPSS)
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.80
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Ngoc Trang
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
961
Volume 21, 2024
4.2 KMO and Bartlett’s Test Results
Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s test results
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
.791
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
1356.538
df
171
Sig.
.000
(Source: SPSS)
Table 4 shows the KMO and Bartlett’s test results. It
could be seen that all of the results were satisfactory.
EFA results using Principal Component Analysis and
Varimax Orthogonal Rotation which stopped when the
Eigenvalue of the observed variables of independent
factors reached or went over 1. The EFA results met the
standards and all 23 observed variables could be used
for further analysis. Besides, Bartlett's test results with
Sig. = 0.000 < 0.05 and KMO test result of 0.791 > 0.5
were also satisfactory.
4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis
The Exploratory factor analysis results are shown in
Table 5. In detail, the observed variables of the
independent variable were all convergent and
categorized for the right factors for which they had been
assumed in the first place.
Table 5. Exploratory factor analysis
1
2
3
4
TCHT3
.940
TCHT6
.917
TCHT4
.894
TCHT1
.889
TCHT5
.870
TCHT2
.857
TCHTQT1
.866
TCNS2
.857
TCHTQT2
.845
TCNS3
.831
TCHTQT3
.790
TCNS1
.774
TCDBCL1
.936
TCDBCL3
.935
TCDBCL2
.933
TCTC2
.828
TCTC3
.769
TCTC4
.762
TCTC1
.619
(Source: SPSS)
The EFA results showed that five factors of the
independent variable (university autonomy policy) all
affected the universities’ competitiveness. The factors
included (1) Academic and training autonomy, (2)
Financial and asset autonomy, (3) Organizational and
staffing autonomy, (4) International cooperation
autonomy, and (5) Quality assurance
autonomy. This result was similar and aligned
with what had been found in [7].
4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA)
Figure 2 presented the CFA results, which
showed that the developed research model was
appropriate and needless of adjustments, the
factors were organized logically and reflected
the true conceptions of each factor.
CFA results revealed that there were six
observed variables related to Academic and
training autonomy, four related to Financial
autonomy, and three related to Quality
assurance autonomy. Such results were similar
to and aligned with what had been shown in
[1] and [7]. Besides, Organizational and
staffing autonomy and International
cooperation autonomy could be grouped into
one factor with six observed variables. In an
in-depth interview with experts, the author
found that as the ten participating universities
held great autonomy, they were able to invite
experts and lecturers from prestigious higher
education institutions around the world to be
engaged in their training and research
activities. The interviewed experts said that
such cooperation was common and followed
the academic norms globally.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.80
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Ngoc Trang
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
962
Volume 21, 2024
Fig. 2: CFA results
(Source: SPSS)
4.5 Correlation Analysis
The correlation analysis results are illustrated in Table 6.
The observed variables of the factors in the independent
and dependent variables in the research models were
correlated.
Table 6. Correlation analysis results
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.80
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Ngoc Trang
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
963
Volume 21, 2024
The Correlation matrix among variables can be
seen in Table 7.
Table 7. Correlation matrix among variables
All in all, considering the analysis results, the
authors saw that the independent variables were
correlated to the dependent ones (sig < 0.05) and they
reached the differentiation value. Therefore, all of the
variables were able to enter multiple linear regression
analysis stages for identifying their impacts on the
dependent variables.
4.6 Regression Analysis
Multiple linear regression analysis results
using SPSS software and the Enter method are
presented in Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10.
Table 8. Regression analysis results
Model
R
R 2
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
Durbin-Watson
1
.736
.542
.535
.53610
1.873
a. Independent variables: (Constant) TCHT (Academic and training autonomy); TCNS (Organization
and staffing autonomy); TCTC (Financial and asset autonomy); TCHT (International cooperation
autonomy); TCDBCL (Quality assurance autonomy)
b. Dependent variables: NLCT (competitiveness)
(Source: SPSS)
Table 9. ANOVA results
Model
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
106.902
5
21.380
74.391
.000
Residual
90.245
314
.287
Total
197.148
319
a. Dependent Variable: NLCT.
b. Predictors: (Constant), TCHT; TCNS; TCTC; TCHT; TCDBCL.
(Source: SPSS)
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.80
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Ngoc Trang
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
964
Volume 21, 2024
Table 10. Regression weights
Model
Unstandardized
regression coefficients
Standardized
coefficients
t
Sig.
Multicollinearity statistics
B
Standard
deviation
Beta
Variable
acceptability
Variance
inflation
factor (VIF)
1
(Constant)
.253
.203
1.009
.218
TCHT
.199
.044
.112
2.109
.004
.806
1.112
TCNS
.185
.019
.234
2.317
.001
.728
1.378
TCTC
.244
.047
.275
4.238
.003
.798
1.469
TCHT
.0199
.025
.103
4.876
.004
.629
1.902
TCDBCL
.217
.047
.102
6.510
.002
.815
1.112
a. Dependent Variable: NLCT
(Source: SPSS)
Table 11 shows the regression analysis results of
five variables. It showed that these five variables
entering the regression analysis had statistically
meaningful impacts on competitiveness. The factors
included TCHT (β=0.112), TCNS (β=0.234), TCTC
(β=0.275), TCHT (β=0.103), and TCDBCL(β=0.102)
with Sig. < 0.05. Moreover, TCTC or financial and asset
autonomy is the factor with the biggest impact, followed
by organization and staffing autonomy and academic
and training autonomy, while quality assurance
autonomy had the least influence.
These findings reflected the actual situation of
university autonomy policy enforcement in Vietnam. To
be more specific, autonomy is among the most
complicated issues regarding the real owners of
universities faced by institutions in Vietnam. When
being interviewed, the experts pointed out that a large
proportion of Vietnamese universities’ income sources
still come from the state budget. It means universities
can only be highly competitive and can invite prestige
experts and lecturers for cooperation, offer high salaries,
and invest in facilities and modern teaching equipment if
the state budget is large.
4.7 Research Hypothesis Testing Results
The hypothesis testing results pointed out that
the official research hypotheses (whose P
value of under 0.05) were all accepted. This
allowed the authors to make the following
confirmation:
(1) The more autonomous in academics
and training a university is, the better its
ability to offer training services of
international standards in each of its
disciplines.
(2) The more autonomous in finance and
assets a university is, the better its ability to
carry out further social services.
(3) The more autonomous in quality
assurance a university is, the better its ability
to maintain its position in its knowledge-
related offerings in a certain education
segment on a global scale.
The findings were the same as those
reflected in the interviewed experts’ feedback.
The detailed hypothesis testing results can
be seen in Table.
Table 11. Research hypothesis testing results
Hypothesis
Content
P value
Testing
results
H1
Academic and training autonomy is proportional to
universities’ ability to offer training services of international
standards in each discipline.
P < 0.05
Accepted
H2
Financial and asset autonomy is inversely proportional to their
ability to carry out further social services.
P < 0.05
Accepted
H3
Quality assurance autonomy is proportional to their ability to
maintain their position using their knowledge-related offerings
in a certain educational segment on a global scale.
P < 0.05
Accepted
(Source: SPSS)
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.80
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Ngoc Trang
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
965
Volume 21, 2024
5 Conclusion
The research findings have shown the impacts of
university autonomy policies on universities’
competitiveness via five variables, which are
academic and training autonomy, organizational
and staffing autonomy, financial and asset
autonomy, international cooperation autonomy, and
quality assurance autonomy. In more detail,
financial and asset autonomy has the biggest impact
with the highest regression weights. The findings
also implied that universities should be granted
autonomy in a faster and stronger manner. Similar
to other scholars, the authors of this particular
research also realized that Vietnam’s universities
would continue to grow towards greater autonomy
and stronger competition. To achieve sustainable
development and make real socio-economic
contributions to improve the competitiveness of the
whole nation in general, and of the higher
education system in particular, universities need to
enhance their competitiveness. To do that,
research-oriented universities must pay more
attention to carrying out research and social
services through innovation and technological
transfer.
Due to several objective and subjective
reasons, this particular research was only conducted
for ten universities in Vietnam. Moreover,
university autonomy is only one of the factors
affecting institutions’ competitiveness. Therefore,
there should be more studies on the subject matter
conducted in more universities and expanded to
more aspects. Moreover, apart from university
autonomy policy, it is important to research
policies on educational quality assurance, staffing
and finance, etc. because all of these factors have
certain impacts on universities’ competitiveness at
different levels.
References:
[1] Nguyen Thi Minh Phuong. (2022). Public
higher education institutions’
competitiveness amid university autonomy
delegation in Vietnam: A quantitative study.
Journals of Education, 22(19), 36-40.
[2] Ashmarina, S. I., Khasaev, G. R., &
Plaksina, I. A. (2015). Methodological Basis
of Higher Education Institution
Competitiveness Assessment. Review of
European Studies, 7(2), 49-57,
https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v7n2p49.
[3] Dimitrova, G., & Dimitrova, T. (2017).
Competitiveness of the universities:
measurement capabilities. Trakia Journal of
Science, 15(1), 311-316,
https://doi.org/10.15547/tjs.2017.s.01.055.
[4] Kireeva, N, Slepenkova, E., Shipunova, T.,
& Iskandaryan, R. (2018). Competitiveness
of higher education institutions and academic
entrepreneurship. Espacios, 39(23).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333
661817_Competitiveness_of_higher_educati
on_institutions_and_academic_entrepreneurs
hip (Accessed Date: August 8, 2023)
[5] Ashmarina, S. I., Khasaev, G. R., &
Plaksina, I. A. (2015). Methodological Basis
of Higher Education Institution
Competiveness Assessment. Review of
European Studies, 7(2), 49-57,
https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v7n2p49.
[6] Satsyk, V. (2018). Determinants of
Universities’ Global Competitiveness:
Higher Education Development Strategies in
Ukraine. Educational Studies Moscow, 1,
134-161, https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-
9545-2014-1-134-161.
[7] Le Ngoc Hung. (2018). University autonomy
as a development trend in fundamental and
comprehensive educational innovation.
Journals on Political Theories, 10.
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
The authors equally contributed in the present
research, at all stages from the formulation of the
problem to the final findings and solution.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.e
n_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.80
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Ngoc Trang
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
966
Volume 21, 2024