Problem

The emergence of a conflict of functions in the formulation and implementation of state policy in the field of education and science is primarily due to the fact that the same executive authority is vested with powers that may contradict each other.
For example, the functions of licensing of educational activities in higher education, state oversight over compliance with the requirements of license conditions by the relevant license holders (powers in the field of inspection and oversight activities) are vested in the agency that simultaneously exercises the powers to manage many of the license holders and is therefore certainly interested in their successful licensing.
At the same time, one of the principles of state policy in the field of licensing is its application only to such kinds of economic activity, the implementation of which poses a threat of violation of the rights, legitimate interests of citizens, human life or health, the natural environment and/or security of the state, and only if other means of state regulation are insufficient (clause 4 of part one of Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine On the Licensing of Kinds of Economic Activity), which clashes with the licensing procedure in the field of higher education.
Moreover, a number of laws contain certain provisions that are not clearly defined (do not contain specific powers of the central executive authorities), which creates factors fostering corruption.
The education legislation does not clearly regulate the powers of other central executive authorities, local state administrations, and local self-government bodies as governing bodies in the field of education and as founders of state and municipal institutions of education (research institutions). Specifically, at the level of the Law of Ukraine On Local Self-Government in Ukraine, the powers of executive bodies of village, town, and city councils are defined according to the outdated Soviet concept as "management of educational institutions". This concept is vague, which is why it is often interpreted broader than the exhaustive list of powers in specialized laws, and thus leads to a conflict of powers between different governing bodies in the field of education.
In addition, provisions of other laws also contain outdated norms that are not consistent in terms of their substance with education and budget legislation, and thus create factors fostering corruption.
The procedure for the allocation of public funds for the training of specialists with higher education and for research among educational institutions and research institutions also contains corruption risks due to insufficient legislative regulation and therefore needs to be improved.