Abstract
This study examines the characteristics and employment patterns of Hungarian higher education lecturers. It briefly outlines the development of Hungarian higher education after the change of the socialist regime (post-1990) and describes the force field in which lecturers work. It then presents some of the lecturers' characteristics (age, gender, ratio) in an international comparison and studies the rules governing their appointment and employment under the Hungarian Higher Education Act. The paper investigates the structure of university teaching staff by their function and evolution. It also analyses the lifetime earnings of doctoral graduates in the Hungarian context, including the rise in the number of doctoral students. Finally, the authors look at a critical piece of instructive research that surveys the situation of young Hungarian teachers and researchers in higher education.
Introduction: topics, data, and methods
This study examines the characteristics and employment patterns of Hungarian higher education lecturers.
The first part of the paper briefly outlines the development of Hungarian higher education following the post-socialist transition (after 1990). The analysis addresses trends in student enrollment and compares participation rates internationally. The investigation is based on higher education statistics from the Hungarian Educational Authority and the Central Statistical Office, as well as databases from the World Bank and Eurostat. Subsequently, the study reviews several characteristics of faculty members in higher education (age, gender ratio) in an international comparison. The analysis utilizes data from the Educational Authority and the Central Statistical Office, along with databases from the World Bank and the OECD. The investigations are presented using simple tables and figures.
Next, the study reviews the main regulations regarding the appointment and employment of higher education lecturers. In terms of methodology, this review is carried out through a documentary analysis of Hungarian higher education legislation.
Following this, the paper examines the structure and evolution of academic positions and monthly and lifetime earnings on academic career paths, both internationally and domestically. The data sources for this analysis are the National Employment Service and the Central Statistical Office. The analysis is conducted using simple comparative charts and tables.
Finally, the study addresses the international comparison of the number of doctoral students, who represent the future supply of higher education faculty members, using the UNESCO database. This examination is based on a simple tabular analysis.
Some characteristics of the development of Hungarian higher education after the change of regime
First, we review the most important features of the development of Hungarian higher education following the system change. Several studies analyze the development of the period. Berács et al. (2015), Berács et al. (2017), and a Polish analysis (Donina & Jaworska, 2022) are worth mentioning among the studies of Hungarian higher education. But several international comparative studies can be mentioned, of which we highlight only two here: Scott (2007), Keczer (2014).
Hungary entered the democratic social order after the change of regime with a somewhat fragmented and low-capacity higher education system. In 1990, there were less than 1,000 students per 100,000 inhabitants (see Table 1), compared with 5,500 in North America. This figure may have almost doubled in the five years to 1995 – not coincidentally the year in which Hungary's first Higher Education Act set the goal of achieving1 the participation rate in higher education of advanced democratic societies – but it was still only three-quarters or half that of the developed European countries taken as examples (e.g. Austria 2,970, Germany 2,628, France 3,600, UK 3,125, Finland 4,190).2
Institutions, faculties, number of students and lecturers
| Institutions | Faculties | Total tertiary education students | Lecturers | Higher education students per 100 thousand inhabitants | |
| 1990./91. | 77 | 117 | 102,387 | 17,302 | 986.9 |
| 1991./90. | 77 | 118 | 107,079 | 17,477 | 1032.3 |
| 1992./93. | 91 | 132 | 117,463 | 17,743 | 1132.3 |
| 1993./94. | 91 | 137 | 135,483 | 18,687 | 1307.1 |
| 1994./95. | 91 | 137 | 157,137 | 19,103 | 1518.2 |
| 1995./96. | 90 | 138 | 183,021 | 18,098 | 1770.5 |
| 1996./97. | 89 | 139 | 202,762 | 19,329 | 1964.6 |
| 1997./98. | 90 | 140 | 237,662 | 19,716 | 2307.2 |
| 1998./99. | 89 | 141 | 263,398 | 21,323 | 2562.2 |
| 1999./00. | 89 | 143 | 285,452 | 21,249 | 2784.1 |
| 2000./01. | 62 | 155 | 305,256 | 22,873 | 2986.3 |
| 2001./02. | 65 | 156 | 324,743 | 22,863 | 3183.8 |
| 2002./03. | 66 | 157 | 354,745 | 23,151 | 3486.4 |
| 2003./04. | 68 | 169 | 382,001 | 23,288 | 3766.5 |
| 2004./05. | 69 | 170 | 395,529 | 23,787 | 3909.5 |
| 2005./06. | 71 | 172 | 399,095 | 23,188 | 3952.2 |
| 2006./07. | 71 | 172 | 394,445 | 22,076 | 3914.3 |
| 2007./08. | 71 | 173 | 378,942 | 22,376 | 3764.6 |
| 2008./09. | 70 | 172 | 363,439 | 22,475 | 3618.1 |
| 2009./10. | 69 | 171 | 353,403 | 21,934 | 3523.1 |
| 2010./11. | 69 | 184 | 345,627 | 21,495 | 3451.4 |
| 2011./12. | 68 | 183 | 344,754 | 21,357 | 3452.4 |
| 2012./13. | 66 | 181 | 323,413 | 20,555 | 3256.3 |
| 2013./14. | 66 | 185 | 300,412 | 21,137 | 3031.7 |
| 2014./15. | 67 | 184 | 289,154 | 21,080 | 2927.5 |
| 2015./16. | 66 | 185 | 278,829 | 21,668 | 2829.0 |
| 2016./17. | 65 | 186 | 271,382 | 22,436 | 2760.8 |
| 2017./18. | 64 | 187 | 266,920 | 23,110 | 2724.2 |
| 2018./19. | 64 | 190 | 264,511 | 22,519 | 2705.2 |
| 2019./20. | 64 | 191 | 269,315 | 23,383 | 2755.7 |
| 2020./21. | 62 | 189 | 271,149 | 23,511 | 2775.3 |
| 2021./22. | 63 | . | 276,402 | 24,903 | 2840.4 |
| 2022./23. | 63 | . | 273,755 | 26,357 | 2825.4 |
Source: Higher education statistics of the Education Office and data from the Central Statistical Office.
Note: Number of students without further education.
Table 1 shows the changes in Hungarian higher education policy and the contradictions of thirty years of development. This educational policy environment constitutes the force field for the employment of higher education lecturers, and it is worth briefly reviewing the most significant changes of the period that (also) affect them.
One of the critical elements of this environment is the introduction of pluralism in the establishment and maintenance of institutions in 1990, which led to the creation of many non-state institutions (church and foundation universities and colleges). As a result, by 2020, almost a third of all higher education teachers and lecturers were employed in non-state higher education (11% in church and 20% in foundation institutions).3 The privatization (outsourcing) of most public universities reduced the number of teachers employed in public higher education to 25%, in church higher education to 13%, and in foundation higher education to 62% by 2023.
The other such element includes higher education admission policies and the development of student numbers. Several factors have influenced the development of student numbers.
One of the most crucial factors is the demographic trend, i.e. the change in the number of people seeking higher education. After the third-generation effect of the demographic wave of the 1950s, which was the result of the government's demographic intervention (the abortion ban), the population aged 18–22 began to decline after peaking in the mid-1990s, resulting in a decline in the number of applicants to higher education (See Fig. 1 for the number of 18–22-year-olds.). Until the change of the regime, another influencing factor was the exhaustion of the demand for further education, which was postponed due to the low enrolment in higher education.
The population aged 18–22, as well as the number of students and academic staff in Hungarian higher education from the regime change to the present day
Source: Higher education statistics from the Office of Education and data from the Central Statistical Office.
Citation: Hungarian Educational Research Journal 2025; 10.1556/063.2024.00309
A further impact was the introduction of two-cycle education. The two-cycle system was introduced in 2005 in the framework of the Bologna-reform (creation of the European Higher Education Area). The two-cycle education radically reshaped the system of higher education (the introduction of bachelor's education makes the degree process faster, while the introduction of master's degree shortens the second-degree process, which accounts for an increasing share of adult education).
Moreover, perhaps the higher education admissions policy had the most sizeable effect.
At the end of the 1990s – until 1998, when the new government abolished tuition fees – a reimbursement system was introduced for some of the admitted students (those who did not meet the ministry's state funding threshold in the entrance exam) instead of the state support previously available to everyone. In other words, most of the students paid tuition fees, and those who got in under one point limit paid an expense reimbursement fee (this was 2.2% for students in 1998). This system had a significant deterrent effect on applications. It should be added that the abolition of the tuition fee did not mean the abolition of the cost reimbursement, so those students who did not reach the funding threshold score continued to pay cost reimbursement (in 2000, 6.4% belonged to this category).4
Then, in 2013, the illiberal5 (conservative), populist government that came to power in 2010 significantly reduced state support for higher education and increased tuition fees for paying students, reducing the number of state-funded students and, in the longer term, pursuing an elitist policy of reducing enrolment.6 In 2020, conditions were further tightened by making the advanced final exams compulsory for access to higher education.7 The high requirement for the advanced final exam led to a radical drop in enrolments in some crucial courses (STEM8 and teacher training), which attracted students from weaker secondary schools. The decline in enrolments and admissions resulted in an immediate change in higher education policy.9 From 2021, admissions requirements were radically relaxed.
All these effects are visible in the evolution of the specific number of students (per 100,000 inhabitants) and the overall participation rate (Figs 1 and 2).
Gross enrollment ratio of higher education in Hungary, as well as the EU and OECD average
Source: Author's editing based on the World Bank database.
Citation: Hungarian Educational Research Journal 2025; 10.1556/063.2024.00309
Analyses show (Polónyi, 2023a) that the impact of illiberal education policies over the last decade and a half reduced the opportunities of certain groups (women, young people from disadvantaged areas, and those in vocational education and training with a final exam, vocational secondary school/technical high school) to enter higher education – i.e., increased inequality in access to higher education.
Finally, the higher education policy slowed down the development of tertiary education over the last fifteen years. It missed a historic opportunity to increase the proportion of graduates, offered by the decline in the number of the age group. As a result, social mobility slowly froze; the share of young graduates fell in 2014 and has since stagnated at a low level, well below the 40% proposed by the EU 2020 strategy (Fig. 3).
The proportion of graduates within the 25–34-year-old population
Source: Author's calculation and editing based on Eurostat data.
Citation: Hungarian Educational Research Journal 2025; 10.1556/063.2024.00309
These changes in the higher education policy and, consequently, in higher education have formed and continue to impact the force field in which Hungarian higher education educators work.
The characteristics of lecturers in Hungarian higher education
From the data presented earlier (Table 1 and Fig. 1), we can see that the number of lecturers has not moved in line with the student population since 2005, while between 1990 and 2004, there was a robust positive correlation of (+0.9752) between the number of students and lecturers. The period of 2005 and 2022, however, saw a weak negative correlation of (−0.3135). Between 1997 and 2004, the number of lecturers increased by just over a third (6.5 thousand), followed by a decrease of around 15% (3 thousand). Between 2012 and 2022, there was an increase of almost 28% (6 thousand people). The student-teacher ratio increased from 5.9 in 1990 to 17.9 in 2006 and then decreased to 10.4 in 2022 (Fig. 4).
Evolution of academic staff and student-teacher ratio in Hungarian higher education, 1990–2022
Source: higher education statistics of the Education Office and data from the Central Statistical Office.
Citation: Hungarian Educational Research Journal 2025; 10.1556/063.2024.00309
Looking at the trend in the number of lecturers more closely, we can observe that it correlates with three main factors. There is a relatively strong negative correlation with the number of institutions (−0.7338) and a similarly significant positive correlation with the number of faculties (+0.7700) and the student population (+0.7221). The increase in the number of lecturers until the early 2000s was quite clearly related to the increase in the number of students. The subsequent decline in the number of lecturers is understandable as it coincided with a decline in the student population and a significant integration into state institutions in 2000, leading to a cutback in the number of universities. The reduction in budget support following the government change in 2010 further exacerbated the downward trend. Since 2015, however, the number of lecturers has increased again, probably due to the higher education strategy formulated at that time, which aimed to develop higher education in certain areas (teacher training and STEM), and the budgetary conditions have also improved somewhat.
Assuming that the teaching load can be compared over the period, we can conclude that the teaching load tripled by 2006, and, despite the increase in teaching staff, it was still about twice the level of 1990, even in 2022.
Looking at the international data on student-teacher ratios for OECD and EU countries between 1990 and 2017, we see that the average of the 39 reporting countries10 is just over 14. Hungary's data for the last decade was more favorable than this – thanks to the policy limiting the number of students in higher education during this period.
The analysis of the age distribution of lecturers in higher education (Table 2) shows that the Hungarian teaching staff in higher education is older than the average in developed countries. Nevertheless, Hungary is in the middle range in terms of age composition. In 2021, Hungary ranked 21st among the 30 OECD reporting countries for those aged 30–49 and 16th for 30–39 years. In the same year, Hungary ranked 16th out of the 30 reporting countries for those under 30 and 15th out of 30 for 50 years and over.
Distribution of lecturers working in higher education by age
| Less than 30 years old | Between 30 and 49 years old | Over 50 years old | Total | |||||
| Hungary | OECD average | Hungary | OECD average | Hungary | OECD average | Hungary | OECD average | |
| 2013 | 5.6 | 9.0 | 53.7 | 51.0 | 40.7 | 40.0 | 100 | 100 |
| 2015 | 4.5 | 8.9 | 54.0 | 50.7 | 41.5 | 40.4 | 100 | 100 |
| 2017 | 6.1 | 8.9 | 53.5 | 51.1 | 40.4 | 40.0 | 100 | 100 |
| 2019 | 5.7 | 8.6 | 54.5 | 51.6 | 39.8 | 39.8 | 100 | 100 |
| 2021 | 5.6 | 8.3 | 53.7 | 51.2 | 40.7 | 40.4 | 100 | 100 |
Source: OECD.
In higher education, the proportion of women among lecturers is increasing in parallel with massification. In terms of national data, we see a similar trend in Hungary – with a correlation of (+0.5778) between the number of students and the proportion of women in the case of Hungarian data. However, there is a non-insignificant fluctuation11 (Fig. 5). In 2020, Hungary ranked 80th among 144 reporting countries with a share of 41.5% of female lecturers in higher education, which was significantly lower than in the case of the leading countries.
Proportion of women in academic staff in Hungary
Source: World Bank database.
Citation: Hungarian Educational Research Journal 2025; 10.1556/063.2024.00309
Employment rules for lecturers working in higher education
Before the Second World War, academic qualifications were a privilege of universities. One consequence of the Soviet-style transformation of universities was the separation of research and academic qualifications from universities. In 1951, a decree with the force of law12 stipulated that “as a first step in systematically ensuring scientific succession following the example of the training of the leading scientific cadre in the Soviet Union”, the academic title of the Candidate of Sciences should be introduced for novice researchers, since “the previous degrees (old-style doctorate, private lecturer) do not adequately contribute to raising the general level of our scientific life.” The decree set out that the Hungarian Academy of Sciences would award the degrees of Doctor of Sciences and Candidate of Sciences through a Scientific Qualification Committee. The legislation also stated that the committee would review the scientific work of former title-holders at their request to determine whether they were eligible for the Doctor of Sciences or Candidate of Sciences degrees. Thus, in 1951, the scientific qualification became centralized and at the same time it was used as a tool for cadre selection, serving the establishment and selection of a scientific elite loyal to the “the party and the government” (Polónyi, 2018).
The Scientific Qualification Committee and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences played this role until the fall of communism. Moreover, even after that, at least to a small extent, since the 1993 Higher Education Act, which restored the right of universities to award PhDs and degrees, it allowed the Academy to retain the rights associated with the Soviet system of awarding doctorates (“senior professorship”). It was indeed renamed the “Doctor of Sciences” (but its holders also retained their lifelong, non-performance-related honorary degrees) – and this is still the case today, in the first quarter of the 21st century (which, except for one or two post-socialist countries, is very different from international practice). It should be added that one of the reasons why it took three years for the first law on higher education to be introduced into Parliament after the change of regime was the veto of the Academy, which had long wanted to keep the academic qualification for itself and would have insisted on the exclusive right to award doctorates (Polónyi, 2020).
The first law on higher education after the change of regime (Act LXXX of 1993) stipulated that universities had the right to provide doctoral education and to award doctoral degrees (PhD), to develop and implement the habilitation13 procedure.14 The law established the National Accreditation Committee,15 which had the right to decide which disciplines and fields of study a university could provide doctoral education and award doctoral degrees (PhD). The law also stated that universities and colleges might establish academic researcher statuses for university and college teachers, associate professors, assistant professors, assistant professors, language, sports, art and college teachers, and other teaching and scientific research posts.16
The law also stipulated that university professors had to hold a doctorate (PhD), a master's degree and a habilitation and that associate professors have a doctorate (PhD) and a master's degree. University professors and associate professors must also have demonstrated through their teaching, scientific, and artistic activities that they could supervise the academic, scientific, and artistic work of students, doctoral candidates, and teaching assistants and that they could give lectures in a foreign language.17 University professors were appointed or dismissed by the President of the Republic on the recommendation of the Minister of Education, who acted on a proposal from the institutional council (senate) (or, in the case of a non-state university, the maintenance body).18
According to the 2000 and 2003 amendments to the law, before proposing a professor, the university was required to obtain the opinion of the Accreditation Committee on the candidate and, taking this into account, submit it to the Minister.19 The appointment of an associate professor was made by the rector after the senate gave its opinion. University and college assistant professors and assistant lecturers were appointed for a fixed term of up to four years. Appointments of university and college assistant professors could be renewed twice, while those of assistant lecturers could be renewed once. Although the law did not explicitly require it, it was generally the case that teaching assistants were required to start their doctoral studies by the end of the four years, and assistant professors had to pursue their ongoing doctoral studies.20 Employees of state institutions were considered civil servants. A salary scale determined their remuneration compared to the basic salary of a university professor. The salary scale was determined by the country's annual central budget law.21 The 2003 amendment introduces a mandatory retirement age of 70 for university professors.22
The Higher Education Act of 2005 (Act CXXXIX of 2005) essentially failed to make much difference. In the case of university professors, it added the requirement of international recognition to the previous requirements. The law extended the requirement of public competition to the positions of assistant professors and teaching assistants. It consolidated the above-mentioned practice that the commencement of doctoral studies was a prerequisite for employment as a teaching assistant, and the establishment of a doctoral relationship was a prerequisite for employment as an assistant professor. It also tightened their employment conditions by stipulating that lecturers who had not obtained an academic degree within twelve years of their employment could not be further employed.23
The effective Higher Education Act of 2011 (Act CCIV of 2021), which entered into force, introduced a number of innovations. Among other things, it stipulated that granting the right to use the title of university professor did not have the effect of establishing or terminating an employment relationship. The employment relationship of a college or university professor could be established or terminated by the rector, who exercised the authority of an employer in the higher education institution.24 In other words, the President of the Republic's appointment of a university professor essentially became an (academic) title. It did not automatically entail the employment relationship of a university professor.25 The conditions for appointment as a university professor now included a stronger emphasis on international recognition requirements and the obligation to publish in a foreign language. The regulation allowed for the dismissal of lecturers who failed to fulfil the requirements of the position.
In line with the aims of the populist higher education policy, the Act and its 2014 amendment significantly reduced the autonomy of higher education institutions. It introduced the chancellor system, which meant the Prime Minister appointed a ‘chief manager’ to run the institutions. The appointed official had exclusive authority over all economic, financial, and personnel policy decisions, radically reducing the powers of the senate and the rector26 (Kováts, 2023; Kováts & Zsátku, 2023). The composition of the accreditation committee was also radically changed to ensure that the government appointed the majority of delegates.27 The law diminished the powers of the committee by making it possible to bypass the opinion of both the university senate and, consequently, the accreditation committee. This was achieved by allowing proposals for the appointment of university professors to be made by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in the case of academic appointments, the Hungarian Academy of Arts in the field of the arts, and the Hungarian Olympic Committee in the field of sport.28 (It should be added that the intervention of the Minister of Education was also quite common.)
It is essential to mention that considering or ignoring the opinion of the Accreditation Commission has been a critical point in the procedure almost since the introduction of the Accreditation Commission's power to qualify university professors was introduced in 2000. In the case of the Minister of Education, we find more than one case in which the Accreditation Commission, despite its negative recommendation, referred a candidate for a university professorship to the President of the Republic. It is noteworthy that the decisions of the Accreditation Commission were subject to pressure from various institutional, professional, and political lobbies, which the Commission had never really been able to resist since its creation. The extent to which university autonomy was violated by the Accreditation Commission's interference in personnel matters was still a matter of debate, as was the extent to which the Minister's similar interference, or overstepping his role as a mere postman, was also unlawful.
A crucial innovation of the 2011 Act was the regulation of working hours.29 According to this law, lecturers were obliged to devote the following time (averaged over two consecutive academic semesters) to lectures, seminars, exercises, and consultations for the preparation of students, depending on their classification.
At least eight hours per week for university or college lecturers,
at least 10 hours per week for associate professors,
at least 12 hours per week for assistant professors and teaching assistants.
Lecturers were required to devote at least twenty per cent of their working time to academic research and perform all duties related to the operation of the higher education institution, which required the expertise of the lecturer, as determined by the employer.
The latest development is that in 2020, the illiberal government reorganized the vast majority of state higher education, 22 institutions (excluding five universities, all state institutions) into a public foundation (officially known as a “public trust for the performance of public tasks”).30 The government appointed separate five-member boards of trustees for each university, known as “model changers”, above the senates and rectors, thereby eliminating their autonomy. These boards of trustees (loyal to the government) were empowered to make decisions on all matters relating to assets, finances, management, human resources, research organization, and educational content. The government privatized and brought the major part of public higher education under political control. Consequently, the civil service status of those employed in these universities was abolished and replaced by employment in the labour market. The employees of the reorganized universities lost the advantages of civil service employment (the stability and predictability of employment, the legally guaranteed – albeit relatively low – salary) and were placed in labor market employment that is more vulnerable to the will of the employer.31
However as a result, lecturers at the “model-changing” universities received a relatively substantial pay rise. However, their pay was linked to a detailed performance evaluation system, including standardized requirements and measurements of teaching, educational organization, research and publication activities. Meanwhile, staff at the remaining state universities remained employed as civil servants.
Some characteristics of the structure of the academic staff in higher education
Before turning to the situation of the higher education lecturer in Hungary, it is worth pointing out that there is a relatively modest literature on this issue in Hungary. However, there is a relatively large number of international publications. To mention just a few, the work of the renowned labour economist Ehrenberg (Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2005) should be highlighted. A similar analysis is provided by (Bettinger & Long, 2004). A relatively recent work is an analysis by the Higher Education Policy Institute, Odgen (2023).
Turning to the situation of Hungarian higher education lecturers The number of lecturers in Hungarian higher education has shown a pronounced fluctuation trend since the change of regime, as we have already seen (Fig. 1). Looking at the different job categories, we can find that the fluctuation trend is also reflected here. It is striking that while the total number of lecturers employed in higher education has more or less stagnated since 2005, the proportion of lecturers in each category – especially university and college professors – has fallen, while the proportion of lecturers in other categories32 has risen. Notably, the number of university and college professors fell by two-thirds between 2005 and 2020 (Table 3, Fig. 6).
The structure of the academic staff in Hungarian higher education
| University and college professor | University and college associate professor | Assistant professor | Assistant lecturer and teaching assistant | Other lecturer and teacher | Total | |
| 2000 | 2,999 | 5,196 | 5,387 | 3,517 | 5,775 | 22,874 |
| 2005 | 3,224 | 5,870 | 5,506 | 3,756 | 4,832 | 23,188 |
| 2008 | 3,239 | 5,892 | 4,933 | 3,638 | 4,773 | 22,475 |
| 2012 | 2,851 | 5,604 | 4,305 | 3,229 | 4,566 | 20,555 |
| 2016 | 2,320 | 5,266 | 4,176 | 2,935 | 7,721 | 22,418 |
| 2020 | 2,100 | 5,335 | 4,301 | 2,781 | 8,994 | 23,511 |
| 2020/2005 | 65% | 91% | 78% | 74% | 186% | 101% |
Source: Author's calculation and editing based on data from the National Employment Service and the Central Statistical Office.
Changes in the number of teaching posts in higher education 2000–2020
Source: Education Office statistics on higher education, and Statistical Information on Higher Education 2000/2001 and 2005/2006 based on own editing.
Citation: Hungarian Educational Research Journal 2025; 10.1556/063.2024.00309
There has been no analysis of the decline in the number of university and college professors, but the drop is likely due to several factors. One is the consequence of demographic processes, as those born at the demographic peak in the 1950s reached retirement age in the 2020s. Another factor is the cut mentioned above in higher education funding in 2011, which meant that universities hired fewer new professors at universities due to a lack of resources rather than replacing retiring professors. The stricter requirements for university professors mentioned in the law (international recognition, high-level foreign language publications) also played a noticeable role.
Another probably fundamental factor is the salary. The guaranteed salaries of civil servant lecturers in higher education are determined based on the ratios projected onto the salary base of university professors at grade 1 as defined in the Budget Act. The salary base of university professors at grade 1 in the Budget Act was 437,300 HUF/month from 2009 to 2016, then 528,000 HUF/month in 2017, and 554,400 HUF/month in 2018, which remained the same in 2023 (despite an inflation rate of over 30% between 2018 and 2022). It is about half the monthly income of a 40–49-year-old unit manager in industry or public administration and a third of the monthly income of a unit manager in a financial institution. The salaries of assistant professors and assistant lecturers are even lower than those available in the non-university labour market (this situation has changed in the case of “model-changing” privatized universities, where salaries have been increased by around 70–80% as an incentive to compensate for the loss of institutional autonomy).
The living wage of academic lecturers with scientific qualifications
The situation of Hungarian higher education lecturers raises the question of how profitable an academic career is and whether it is worthwhile to obtain a doctorate.
International research indicates a favorable return on investment in doctoral education, especially in developed Western countries. An analysis of 2009 data in the United States found that individuals with a doctorate earned about 22% more than those with a master's degree (Carnevale, Rose, & Ban Cheah, 2011). A similar study conducted in the UK (Britton et al., 2020) found similar results. It revealed that the pay advantage of doctorate holders over master's graduates (taking into account average salaries) was evident for men in their late thirties and women in their early thirties compared to master's graduates (taking into account average salaries) (Britton et al., 2020: 27, Fig. 6).
Hungarian analyses (Polónyi, 2022) of the careers of doctoral graduates in higher education teaching and research show that the highest salaries in academic employment are at the end of the career, similar to the public sector, where earnings tend to increase with the age of the employee. According to Hungarian data, the earnings of graduates working in the business sector are characterized by a peak in earnings at the end of their 30s – in the mid-2010s (Fig. 7). It can also be seen that the earnings of graduates working in the academic sector are the lowest in this period – under the age of 37 – compared to all graduates in the education sector. Essential to note that the monthly earnings of academic graduates in the academic sector remain below those of university graduates in both the public and business sectors until around their late twenties and early thirties. Those with a doctorate working in the academic sphere roughly reach the average salary of all graduates in the national economy at the end of their forties, and in their early to mid-fifties they catch up with university graduates working in the business sphere. This situation is not conducive to attracting the best people into academia.
Average monthly earnings of MSC graduates working in the public and competitive sectors compared to PhD graduates working in higher education teaching and research
Source: Author's editing based on data from the National Employment Service and the Central Statistical Office.
Citation: Hungarian Educational Research Journal 2025; 10.1556/063.2024.00309
International comparisons (Table 4) of the earnings ratios between different categories of higher education teachers show that the domestic ratios between full professors and associate professors were broadly in line with international practice, while the earnings ratios between assistant professors and assistant lecturers were below the international practice.
The salary ratios of lecturers rank in higher education (around the 2015–16 data)
| Professor | Associate professor | Assistant professor | Assistant lecturer | |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 0.50 | ||
| Germany | 1 | 0.80 | 0.71 | |
| Sweden | 1 | 0.73 | 0.61 | |
| Switzerland | 1 | 0.93 | ||
| Denmark | 1 | 0.76 | 0.66 | |
| Netherlands | 1 | 0.80 | 0.53 | |
| France | 1 | 0.73 | ||
| Belgium (Fl) | 1 | 0.68 | 0.60 | |
| Finland | 1 | 0.69 | ||
| USA | 1 | 0.78 | 0.69 | |
| Canada | 1 | 0.78 | 0.62 | |
| Hungary 2016 (according to legal classification) | 1 | 0.76 | 0.52 | 0.38 |
| Hungary 2016 (according to total earnings) | 1 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.40 |
Source: Author's calculation based on international data https://academicpositions.com/career-advice/professor-salaries-from-around-the-world.
The financial situation of university graduates was much more clearly reflected in the development of lifetime earnings than in monthly earnings. We examined lifetime earnings using discounted cumulative earnings with Hungarian wage data. The data showed that the lifetime earnings of young people entering academia after a doctorate were below the average lifetime earnings of all university graduates in the national economy and only slightly above the average lifetime earnings of public sector graduates (Fig. 8).
Cumulative lifetime earnings based on 2016 data at a discount rate of 2% (HUF million)
Note: during the 4 years of doctoral studies, the statutory scholarship is deducted from the loss of earnings calculated on the basis of the average total earnings of graduates in the national economy for the age group.
Citation: Hungarian Educational Research Journal 2025; 10.1556/063.2024.00309
These data make it clear that, in the Hungarian earnings context, the loss of earnings associated with obtaining an academic qualification and the financial opportunities related to starting an academic career were significant disadvantages in the development of lifetime earnings. In terms of education economics, therefore, obtaining a PhD in Hungary seemed to pay off only for those university graduates who, without the academic qualification, would have found a job in the budgetary sector. It was far from rewarding for those who would have found a career in the competitive sector (business sector). It is noteworthy that these analyses referred to doctorate holders working in public higher education institutions, whereas higher salaries in private or privatized higher education and research institutions might have been more favorable for those concerned.
The shortage of scientific researchers – doctoral students
The number of young researchers, i.e. doctoral students, is crucial for future scientific and innovative results. According to UNESCO 2015 data, there were 2.9 million doctoral students worldwide in 2015, and this number was expected to increase by 14% to 3.3 million by 2020. Almost a quarter of this total is concentrated in the United States and China. However, the ranking of the top 20 countries with the highest number of doctoral students has changed since 2000. The US dropped to second place behind China, and India moved up to third place. It can also be seen that while eight European countries (including five EU Member States) were in the top twenty in 2015, only six European countries (including three EU Member States) remained in there. Two European countries (Poland and Italy) and one African country (Egypt) dropped out of the top 20 and were replaced by one Asian country (Malaysia), one South American country (Mexico), and one African country (Morocco) (Table 5).
Ranking of countries by world share of doctoral students and number per 100,000 inhabitants
| Share of all doctoral students worldwide | PhD students per 100,000 inhabitants | ||||||||||
| 2015 | 2020 | 2015 | 2020 | ||||||||
| 1 | USA | 13.6% | 1 | China | 13.4% | 1 | Finland | 362.6 | 1 | Liechtenstein | 492.8 |
| 2 | China | 11.1% | 2 | USA | 10.1% | 2 | Liechtenstein | 305.2 | 2 | Macao | 446.6 |
| 3 | Germany | 6.8% | 3 | India | 6.1% | 3 | Switzerland | 286.1 | 3 | Finland | 333.7 |
| 4 | Russian Fed | 4.2% | 4 | Germany | 5.5% | 4 | Austria | 278.4 | 4 | Switzerland | 300.4 |
| 5 | India | 4.1% | 5 | Iran | 4.4% | 5 | Greece | 264.9 | 5 | Greece | 291.3 |
| 6 | UK | 3.9% | 6 | Türkiye | 4.1% | 6 | Australia | 241.4 | 6 | Germany | 219.8 |
| 7 | Brazil | 3.5% | 7 | Brazil | 3.7% | 7 | Germany | 240.2 | 7 | Austria | 213.2 |
| 8 | Iran | 3.2% | 8 | UK | 3.3% | 8 | Czechia | 233.1 | 8 | Australia | 212.1 |
| 9 | Türkiye | 2.7% | 9 | Spain | 2.8% | 9 | Estonia | 220.7 | 9 | Portugal | 209.8 |
| 10 | Japan | 2.5% | 10 | Russian Fed | 2.7% | 10 | Sweden | 218.0 | 10 | Czechia | 197.8 |
| 11 | Korea Rep | 2.5% | 11 | Japan | 2.4% | 11 | Macao | 202.8 | 11 | Spain | 195.6 |
| 12 | France | 2.4% | 12 | Korea Rep | 2.4% | 12 | New Zeal. | 191.4 | 12 | New Z. | 192.1 |
| 13 | Algeria | 2.3% | 13 | Algeria | 2.2% | 13 | Portugal | 186.4 | 13 | Sweden | 181.9 |
| 14 | Australia | 2.0% | 14 | France | 2.0% | 14 | Denmark | 174.9 | 14 | Ireland | 178.4 |
| 15 | Canada | 1.8% | 15 | Canada | 1.7% | 15 | Ireland | 174.5 | 15 | Estonia | 173.2 |
| 16 | Poland | 1.5% | 16 | Australia | 1.6% | 16 | UK | 173.2 | 16 | Norway | 171.7 |
| 17 | Egypt | 1.5% | 17 | Mexico | 1.5% | 17 | Algeria | 169.7 | 17 | Algeria | 171.4 |
| 18 | Malaysia | 1.3% | 18 | Indonesia | 1.5% | 18 | Slovak R. | 167.2 | 18 | Iran | 168.9 |
| 19 | Italy | 1.1% | 19 | Malaysia | 1.4% | 19 | Iceland | 156.9 | 19 | UK | 164.2 |
| 20 | Spain | 1.1% | 20 | Morocco | 1.1% | 20 | Canada | 147.2 | 20 | Turkiye | 163.0 |
| 53 | Hungary | 0.2% | 49 | Hungary | 0.3% | 28 | USA | 123.1 | 38 | USA | 102.1 |
| 47 | Hungary | 73.4 | 42 | Hungary | 96.6 | ||||||
| World | 2,9 mill. | World | 3,3 mill | 76 | China | 23.4 | 78 | China | 31.7 | ||
Source: Author's calculation based on UNESCO database.
A radically different position is obtained when the countries are ranked according to the number of doctoral students per 100,000 inhabitants (right-hand side of Table 5). In this ranking, the US was only 28th in 2015 and 38th in 2020, while China was 76th and 78th, respectively. It is also striking that 15 of the top 20 countries in 2015 and 2020 were European (and within them, 11, i.e. 10 EU Member States). Hungary is in a worse position than 40th in both rankings.
However, the number of doctoral students per 100,000 inhabitants seems to be a co-variable with scientific performance. If we examine the relationship between the number of doctoral students per 100,000 inhabitants and the number of international publications per 1,000 inhabitants (taking into account all internationally published documents between 1996 and 2018) for the fifty most developed countries33 we observe a relatively close correlation. We find a reasonably strong (+0.7257) and significant correlation between the specific number of PhDs and the specific number34 of international publications (See Polónyi, 2023b for more details).
Evidently, doctoral students form the foundation of future educators and researchers in higher education. If this foundation is weak, the human resources for the country's higher education and research may be at risk. It is feared that Hungary may be facing this danger.
Summary
Hungary's higher education system has undergone a period of intense development in an attempt to move away from the constraints of state socialism and towards mass education. However, this massification was halted when the illiberal, populist government came to power in the 2010s, and was replaced by an elitist, recruitment-restrictive higher education policy that has led to one of the lowest rates of young graduates in the European Union. These changes in higher education policy and higher education in its wake have created and continue to create the force field in which Hungarian higher education teachers work. As a result of the decline in the student population due to the cutbacks in higher education, which has not been accompanied by a similar decline in the number of lecturers (although their number has declined), the student-teacher ratio in Hungarian higher education has remained relatively low over the past decade. The age distribution of teaching staff in higher education is in the international middle range.
The traces of the post-war communist reorganization of the Hungarian scientific qualification system are still visible today. They are manifested in the Hungarian system of scientific qualification in that the Academy has retained some elements of the Soviet system of scientific qualification and has sought to position its doctoral degree above the doctoral degree awarded by universities. Although this hierarchical positioning is not explicitly stated in the laws, it can be observed in the practices of particular institutions.
The Hungarian Higher Education Act regulates the academic qualification and performance requirements for teaching posts in detail (university professor, associate professor, assistant professor, assistant lecturer), and these requirements have become more stringent over the past decade and a half, in line with the elitism of higher education policy. As a result, the number of university professors has fallen significantly. Nevertheless, there are other factors behind this decline, in particular, low levels of funding.
In the context of Hungarian earnings, the lifetime earnings of doctoral graduates entering higher education teaching and research are significantly lower than those of graduates working in the business sector. Our data analysis shows that the loss of earnings suffered during doctoral studies, the modest starting salaries and the low early earnings of those who choose a career in higher education teaching and research are significant disadvantages in terms of lifetime earnings. This situation is not conducive to attracting the best people into teaching and research careers in higher education. The data also show that Hungary does not perform well in the international comparisons of the number of doctoral students.
Further analysis of the employment and earnings of lecturers in higher education is also essential in the domestic context because, as (Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2005) point out, lecturers' employment conditions affect both graduation rates and doctoral training.
Finally, it is worth mentioning the findings of another analysis. A 2018 study conducted among young researchers and educators at universities and research institutes highlighted several factors that could prevent higher education and research and development in Hungary from serving the country in the best possible way regarding intellectual and material capacities (Alpár et al., 2018). Some of these factors include low incomes, career abandonment, emigration, rigid and hierarchical institutions, lack of transparency in grant applications, disadvantages for women and those with families, limited access to foreign connections and exchange experiences, infrastructure problems, and the lack of advocacy for young educators and researchers (Alpár et al., 2018, pp. 3–4).
For the future of Hungarian higher education, it would be essential for higher education policymakers to reconsider the position of educators and address the factors that hinder progress.
References
Alpár, D., Barnaföldi, G. G., Dékány, É., Kubinyi, E., Máté, Á., Munkácsy, B., … Toldi, G. (2018). Fiatal kutatók Magyarországon. Felmérés a 45 év alatti kutatók helyzetéről, karrierterveiről, nehézségeiről. Kutatási jelentés (Young researchers in Hungary. Survey on the situation, career plans and difficulties of researchers under 45. Research report). https://mta.hu/data/dokumentumok/fiatal_kutatok_helyzete_felmeres_eredmeny.pdf [Download date 2023.12.05].
Berács, J., Derényi, A., Kádár-Cobot, P., Kováts, G., Polónyi, I., & Temesi, J. (2017). Hungarian higher education 2016 strategic progress report Budapest. Magyarország: Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, Nemzetközi Felsőoktatási Kutatások Központja.
Berács, J., Derényi, A., Kováts, G., Polónyi, I., & Temesi, J. (2015). Hungarian higher education 2014: Strategic progress report Budapest. Magyarország: Corvinus University of Budapest.
Bettinger, E., & Long, B. T. (2004). Do college instructors matter? The effects of adjuncts and graduate assistants on students' interest and success, National Bureau of Economic Research working paper no W10370, Cambridge. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10370/w10370.pdf.
Britton, J., Buscha, F., Dickson, M., van der Erve, L., Vignoles, A., Walker, I., Waltmann, B., & Zhu, Y. (2020). The earnings return to postgraduate degrees in the UK. Research report. GDR. https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/PG_LEO_report_FINAL.pdf.
Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Ban Cheah, B. (2011). The college payoff. Education, occupations, lifetime earnings. Washington DC: Georgetown University. https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/collegepayoff-complete.pdf [Download date 2021.10.09].
Donina, D., & Jaworska, M. (2022). Higher education governance in Poland: Reform pathway from the communist regime to law 2.0. Higher Education Policy, 37(oct), 40–58.
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). The changing nature of faculty employment [Electronic version]. In Clark, & J. Ma (Eds.), Recruitment, retention and retirement in higher education: Building and managing the faculty of the future (pp. 32–52). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Jakab, N., Prugberger, T., & Tóth, H. (2020). A magyar munka- és a közszolgálati jogi szabályozás alakulása a rendszerváltás után Polgári Szemle (pp. 287–313). 16. évf. 1–3. szám https://doi.org/10.24307/psz.2020.0718.
Keczer, G. (2014). Higher education in Eastern Europe: Post crisis policies and trend. In Proceedings of the 10 th conference of ASECU (pp. 35–47). Organized by Babeș-Bolyai University Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Cluj Napoca, Romania. https://www.asecu.gr/files/proceedings_10th_conference.pdf.
Kováts, G. (2023). University governance reforms in an illiberal democracy. In B. Broucker, C. Milsom, J. Calleja, & M. O'Hara (Eds.), Accelerating the future of higher education. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Kováts, G., & Zsátku, B. (2023). The impact of institutional governance reforms on organizational culture – Two case studies from Finland and Hungary. HERS, 13(1).
Odgen, E. (2023). Comparative study of higher education academic staff terms and conditions higher education policy institute (HEPI). https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Comparative-Study-of-Higher-Education-Academic-Staff-Terms-and-Conditions.pdf.
Polónyi, I. (2018). A gazdaságtudomány az ötvenes évektől a rendszerváltásig. (Economics from the 1950s to the change of regime in Hungary). Educatio, 27(1), 46–63.
Polónyi, I. (2020). A felsőoktatás politikai gazdaságtana, (The political economy of higher education). Gondolat Kiadó.
Polónyi, I. (2022). Is it worth getting a doctorate? Central European Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 142–149.
Polónyi, I. (2023a). Bejutás a felsőoktatásba – növekvő egyenlőtlenségek. (Access to higher education – Growing inequalities). Új Pedagógiai Szemle, 73(5–6), 80–99.
Polónyi, I. (2023b). A humán erőforrások és a vezető hatalmak a 21. század közepén (Human resources and the leading world powers in the mid-21st century). Világpolitika és közgazdaságtan, 1(2), 49–69.
Polónyi, I., & Kozma, T. (2020). Gender and higher education: The Hungarian case. In C. Fontanini, K. M. Joshi, & S. Paivandi (Eds.), International perspectives on gender and higher education (pp. 93–11). Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Scott, P. (2007). Higher education in Central and Eastern Europe. In J. J. F. Forest, & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education. Springer international handbooks of education (Vol. 18). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_21.
Statisztikai tájékoztató Felsőoktatás 2000/2001. (Statistical information note higher education 2000/2001) (2002). Oktatási Minisztérium.
UNESCO (1998). World statistical outlook on higher education: 1980–1995 working document world conference on higher education higher education in the twenty-first century: Vision and action UNESCO. Paris 5–9 October 1998.
According to the preamble of Act LXXX of 1993 (on Higher Education), “Parliament feels a special responsibility for higher education as a sector of special importance, and in this spirit, it shall do its utmost to ensure that the number of students of the appropriate age group entering higher education can be raised to the level achieved in developed democratic societies.”
Source of data: (UNESCO, 1998).
Source of data: Higher education statistics of the Oktatási Hivatal (Office of Education): https://dari.oktatas.hu/firstat.index.
Source of data: Statisztikai Tájékoztató Felsőoktatás 2000/2001.
The Prime Minister himself has called his system illiberal. See Viktor Orbán's speech at the XXX Bálványos Summer Free University and Student Camp, 27 July 2019, Tusnádfürdő https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/hu/a-miniszterelnok/beszedek-publikaciok-interjuk/orban-viktor-beszede-a-xxx-balvanyosi-nyari-szabadegyetem-es-diaktaborban (Retrieved 22.05.2023). Most political analysts do not consider the government in power in Hungary since 2010 to be conservative in the classical political sense but instead use the adjective populist or illiberal. In this paper, we also use these two terms.
The allowed number of state-funded students was reduced in the case of some programs (scientific fields), and the highest amount was increased. Since the HEIs received less funding, they were pressed to require the higher or the highest tuition fee.
Until 2020, the higher-level baccalaureate – i.e. centrally organized with higher-level tasks – was only compulsory for specific subjects and certain specializations, while for most specializations, the baccalaureate organized by the secondary school was sufficient.
STEM: summary name of higher education training fields in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Source of data: Oktatási Hivatal https://www.felvi.hu/felveteli/ponthatarok_statisztikak.
Data calculated based on data from the World Bank.
The reason for the increase after 2016 is probably that family-friendly measures were strengthened in the government's higher education strategy (Polónyi & Kozma, 2020).
Decree-Law No 26 of 1951 and Ministerial Council Decree No 184/1951 (X. 16).
Habilitation is the highest post-PhD (doctorate) degree awarded by the university, recognizing that the lecturer is ready to teach at university level (habil for short) https://jelentese.hu/idegen-szavak-szotara/habilitacio
According to the Higher Education Act: habilitation is an institutional recognition of teaching and lecturing ability and academic achievement.
Act LXXX of 1993, § 3.
Act LXXX of 1993, § 80.
Act LXXX of 1993, § 13.
Act LXXX of 1993, §§ 17–19.
In the case of a college professor, the requirements are similar—except habilitation—and the appointment authority rests with the Prime Minister.
According to the amendment, the following point j) shall be added to paragraph (2) of Article 81 of the Higher Education Act: [(2) The MAB shall issue an opinion at the request of the Minister of Education, the FTT or a higher education institution] “j) on the appointment of university or college teachers pursuant to paragraph (4) of Article 17 or paragraph (2) of Article 18.”
Section 6 of Act XXXVIII of 2003 amended Section 14 (2) of the Higher Education Act of 1993 in the sense described above.
Act XXXV of 2004 defined the term “university professor I.” which is also the salary base for university staff. At that time, a table was added to Annex 2 to the Public Servants Act (Act XXXIII of 1992), which sets the salaries of university teachers in relation to the salary of “university teacher I”.
Article 7 (1) of Act XXXVIII of 2003 amended Article 17 of the Higher Education Act of 1993 so that the President of the Republic shall exonerate a university professor if he or she has reached the age of seventy.
Act CXXXIX of 2005, § 91.
Act CCIV of 2011, § 27.
Therefore, a university lecturer employed under a contract at one university, does not automatically become a university professor when he or she moves to another university. It is at the discretion of the universities to decide whether a university professor appointed by the President will be employed as a university professor.
Section 19 of Act XXXVI of 2014 adds a new section to the Higher Education Act of 2011, which reads as follows: “Section 13/A (1) In a public higher education institution, the Chancellor shall be responsible for the operation of the institution.” The Chancellor, appointed by the Prime Minister, does not have to consult the Senate or the Rector. Then, Act CXXXI of 2015 clearly delimits the powers of the rector, the senate and the chancellor, resulting in a significant reduction of autonomy in institutional self-governance.
Act CCIV of 2011, § 71.
The 2014 amendment of the Higher Education Act (Act XXXVI of 2014) introduced the possibility for the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the Hungarian Academy of Arts and the Hungarian Olympic Committee to propose to the President of the Republic of Hungary the appointment of a university professor, bypassing the Senate of the higher education institutions.
Act CCIV of 2011, § 26.
First, Act XIX of 2019 placed Corvinus University in public foundation status, followed by Act LXXV of 2020 and Act LXXXV of 2023, which placed all but five (22 in total) universities and universities of applied sciences in public foundation status.
For a comparison of public employee and labor market employment, see: (Jakab, Prugberger, & Tóth, 2020).
The increase is the result of the reclassification of teachers from practicing schools as employees of higher education institutions in 2011.
Number of OECD, EU27 and G20 countries combined until 2018.
Author's calculation based on data from Elsevier's reference search database Author's calculation based on data from Elsevier's reference search database.
