Government-University Relations: IMB or No IMB - A Comparative View of Alberta and British Columbia

Oct 15, 2026

The study examines government-university relations in Alberta and British Columbia, focusing on how intermediary bodies (IMBs) influence autonomy, budget allocation, and planning. Alberta abolished its IMB in 1972, while British Columbia has had a Universities Council since 1974. Results show very few differences between the provinces in these areas, but highlight key requirements for effective university operation under the financial realities of the 1980s.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Résumé

Introduction

# Government-University Relations:IMB or No IMB?A ComparativeView of Alberta and British Columbia LEE SOUTHERN*and JOHN D.DENNISON** ## ABSTRACT The concept ofan intermediary body(IMB)between government and universitieshas often been debated in the literature of higher education in Canada.Whilemuch of the discussion has centred around the theoretical advantages for bothorganizations which would accrue from the establishment of an IMB,there havebeen few attempts to assess whether these advantages occur in practice. This paper reports on the result of a study of government-university relationsin Alberta and British Columbia.The major purpose was to analyse differences inmatters of autonomy,budget allocation,and planning,existing between Alberta,which abolished its IMB in 1972,and British Columbia,which has had aUniversities Council since 1974. The results indicated very few differences between the two provinces in thematters under review.What did emerge,however,were some importantrequirements for the effective operation of universities during the financialrealities of the eighties. ## RESUMÉ L'on a souvent discuté dans la littérature couvrant I'éducation tertiaire auCanada la question d'une agence intermédiaire entre le gouvernement et lesuniversités.La plupart de ces discussions traitent des avantages théoriques pourles deux groupes derivant de I'établissement d'une telle agence.Il y a eu,parcontre,peu détudes faites sur la facon dont ces avantages se manifestent dans lapratique. Le présent article décrit une étude faite sur les relations entre le gouvernementet les universités en Alberta et en Colombie Britannique:il analyse les différencesď'autonomie,ď'allocation budgétaire,et de planning qui existent entre I'Alberta,oùl'agence intermédiaire a été abolie en 1972,etla Colombie Britannique,où unConseil des Universités existe depuis 1974. *Universities Council of British Columbia**The University of British Columbia Les résultats indiquent très peu de différence entre les deux provinces sur lesquestions couvertes par la présente enquête.Par contre,I'étude démontre qu'ilexiste d'importants criteres nécessairesàl'opération efficace des universités pourfaire face aux réalités financiaires des années quatre-vingt. ## INTRODUCTION One of the most controversial issues in the study of higher education in Canadaduring the past decade has been the nature of the relationship between governmentand universities.Since the publication of the Duff-Berdahl Report(1966)a varietyof bureaucratic arrangements has developed in various provinces to facilitatematters such as the allocation of funds among institutions,program approval andthe coordination of postsecondary institutions. Most provincial jurisdictions have created an“intermediary”or"“buffer"agencyinterposed between government and the institutions,an organizational structureused in the United Kingdom and throughout the United States.Usually,the agencyis in the form of a board,council or commission with either advisory or executivepowers.A recent paper by Sibley(1982)outlined in some detail the nature,roleand powers of the various provincial intermediary bodies in Canada(IMBs)andalso discussed many of the concomitant issues which must be addressed by theseagencies in the future. A question which was not raised in the Sibley paper,however,was whether theIMB has been of value to the universities,or the government,or both.In thiscontext,"value"is generally interpreted as applying to such issues as thepreservation of institutional autonomy,effective planning or responsiveness tospecific needs,financial accountability,and the furtherance of public policy. Given the potential advantages of intermediary bodies in their buffer rolebetween government and postsecondary institutions,the question which follows isto what extent these theoretical advantages are actually realized in practice.Morespecifically,in the context of Canadian higher education,how do intermediarybodies affe

FAQs

What is the paper’s main purpose in comparing Alberta and British Columbia?

To analyze differences in autonomy, budget allocation, and planning between Alberta and British Columbia in the context of whether an intermediary body exists.

Why were these two provinces selected for the case study?

They are comparable in size and in the structure of their postsecondary education systems, with similar expansion timelines and related system conditions, while their intermediary-agency histories differ.

What were the study’s key findings regarding autonomy, budgets, and planning?

The results indicated very few differences between the provinces on these matters, though important requirements for effective university operation under 1980s financial conditions emerged.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Rainbow Cat