THE INSTRUMENTARIUM FOR EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT OF AUTONOMOUS INNOVATIVE UNIVERSITIES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS

The article is aimed at studying the potential of the Autonomy Scorecard instrumentarium (based on the EUA methodology), the world ranking methodologies for assessment of autonomous, innovatively active universities and their effectiveness. The relevance of the research is increasing due to the transition to a new generation university with a change in models (from the academic model (University 1.0) to an innovatively active research model (University 2.0) and an innovatively active model of entrepreneurial university (University 3.0). As a result of the study, 1) the features and limitations of the assessment of the compo nents of university autonomy of the innovatively active research and entrepreneurial universities using the Autonomy Scorecard instrumentarium (based on the EUA methodology) are defined and systematized; 2) an in-depth analysis is carried out and recommendations on the possibilities and/or limitations of both the academic and the independent ratings for evaluating the effectiveness of autonomous, innovatively active universities are provided. The next steps of research are: 1) development of a system of indicators of autonomy of university, which will take into account the peculiarities of the activities of innovatively active research and entrepreneurial universities; 2) taking into account the components of academic freedom (according to the AFi index) in the external assessment of the effectiveness of autonomous, innovatively active universities.

ЕКОНОМІКА ОСВІТА І НАУКА www.business-inform.net E very university, especially one that carries out innovative activities, has (or at least should have) the capability to make decisions about their own activities [17]. The capability of a university is its integral feature, which combines: the presence of the right ("I have the right") in accordance with a certain regulatory framework to make decisions about its own activity; the capacity ("I have the necessary institutional qualities / potential") to exercise the existing right to make decisions about its own activity; realization of the right and ability ("action") to make decisions on its own activity. As the experience of different countries shows, the autonomy and effectiveness of universities are crucial to maintaining their competitiveness. In general, scientists are unanimous in the opinion that those higher education institutions, or HEIs, are more productive, which are autonomous and compete with each other for the consumer and financial resources. If autonomy is provided in a non-competitive environment, there is an increased likelihood that HEIs use autonomy for purposes other than improving the general effectiveness of their activity. Therefore, it is pointless to stimulate competition between universities if they do not have a sufficient level of autonomy [15; 21].
Analysis of recent research and publications. Foreign scholars, studying the process of university autonomization, focus on the following issues: the essence of the HEIs' autonomy and its components (Th. Estermann [30; 33; 34], P. Aghion, M. Dewatripont, C. Hoxby, A. Mas-Collel, A. Sapir [26], P. Altbach, J. Salmi [8; 27], T. Nokkala, M. Steinel [33], I. Ordorika [41], E. B. Pruvot [34], R. Raza [47], and others); interdependence of academic freedom and academic autonomy (R. Berdahl [28], K. Guruz, G. Moodie [39]); models of university autonomy (O. Verdenhofa [5]); features of the autonomous management of research universities (P. Aghion, M. Dewatripont, C. Hoxby, A. Mas-Collel, A. Sapir [26]); the research quality, which increases with the increasing of university autonomy (Glasgow Declaration [31], J. Ritzen [48]); and so on. The "Transition to University Autonomy in Kazakhstan" (TRUNAK) [32] international project has resulted in determining the following: peculiarities of implementing institutional autonomy (by components) by university types, namely: in public (national, state) universities; in universities that have the status of a joint stock company; and in private universities; existing barriers to university autonomy; challenges to (and/or areas of) reforms (at the level of the national higher education system, as a whole and at the level of universities, in particular). And this experience, together with the results of assessing the autonomy of educational systems in European states in 2011 [33] and in 2016 [34] using the Autonomy Scorecard (according to the EUA methodology), is very interesting and useful.
The issues of university autonomy are especially relevant in the transition to a new generation university, i.e. from the academic model (University 1.0) to innovatively active research models (University 2.0.) [8; 9], and to the entrepreneurial university (University 3.0) [10-13; 23; 29; 37]. A study conducted by P. Aghion, M. Dewatripont, C. Hoxby, A. Mas-Collel, and A. Sapir for both European and American universities [26] shows that university autonomy and competition are positively correlated with the results of research universities measured by patents and world rankings of university research ( Fig. 1) (the size of the circles varies depending on the size of the universities, for which the national averages have been determined and weighed by size).
Given the transition of HEIs from the academic model (University 1.0) to innovatively active research models (University 2.0.) [8; 9] and entrepreneurial model (University 3.0) [10-13; 37; 23; 29; 40; 49], it is necessary to determine the following: what indicators can be used to assess the activity of innovatively active universities; whether the university autonomy level (by components) influences the activity of HEIs, and if it does, then to what extent; whether academic freedom really is the key to the effectiveness of an innovatively active university.
Autonomy Scorecard, the universal method of assessing the autonomy of European education systems, developed by the European University Association (EUA) in 2007 in accordance with the Lisbon Declaration [33; 34], allows researchers to determine the university autonomy level by components of organizational autonomy, financial autonomy, personnel autonomy, and academic autonomy upon indicators.
Based on the analysis and synthesis of data on the autonomy level and ranking achievements of higher education institutions in 26 European countries, including Ukraine, the following conclusions were made [  autonomy, especially organizational, personnel and academic autonomy, is an important factor for achieving high positions in the leading international universities rankings (The Times Higher Education World University Rankings [52], Shanghai World University Rankings [25]);  autonomy in itself, if not supplemented by other developed components of activity, e.g. research, cannot guarantee the competitiveness of HEIs, because though autonomy is a necessary condition [17], it is not sufficient for the successful work of higher education;  an integrated university autonomy has a greater impact than its differential components (organizational, financial, personnel, academic). C ontinuing the research made by O. Rayevnyeva, K. Azizova, V. Ostapenko [18] as for the phenomenon of "autonomous, innovatively active university", one should explore the potential of Autonomy Scorecard tools (according to the EUA methodology) to evaluate innovatively active research university (University 2.0) and innovatively active entrepreneurial university (University 3.0) (Tbl. 1), taking into account the key criteria for the HEI development and its innovatively active educational environment, which are discussed in detail in the publication by G. Polyakova, G. Bilokonenko [16].
We are currently facing a conflict, because the autonomy of research is an integral part of university autonomy.
It is no coincidence that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in its official documents emphasizes the necessity to ensure autonomy for HEIs on the basis of academic freedom in research, which provides for the freedom of expression, action, information, research. and knowledge dissemination without restriction. But the Autonomy Scorecard (according to the EUA methodology) does not contain indicators that will allow it to be determined, measured, and evaluated, nor does it take into account the impact of the "academic freedom" factor. The system of university autonomy indicators for all intents now rather allows measuring the autonomy level of the academic University 1.0 by components, and partly the autonomy level of the University 2.0 with regard to the implementation of educational activities. Peculiarities of implementing research activity and entrepreneurial-innovative activity remain beyond consideration.
J. Iwinska and L. Matei in their methodological recommendations for assessing the autonomy level of the university [38] suggest to measure and evaluate the "Institutional autonomy to decide on issues related to research and freedom to publish" indicator.
This issue was studied in more detail by Kazakh researchers, who worked on a project on implementing a flexible form of HEI management and developed a strategic framework for HEIs in the field of academic, financial, personnel, and management policy to be used at the institutional level [14]. Tbl. 2 gives a fragment of this strategic framework (as for the financial autonomy component), containing indicators for research autonomy.
Currently, various international and independent rankings exist assessing the research and innovative activities of research universities (model 2.0) and rankings of research and / or innovative activities of entrepreneurial universities (model 3.0) [25; 46; 50; 52], in particular: international and independent rankings of entrepreneurial universities [24], HEIs training future businessmen, the international ranking measuring the impact made by HEIs on society [

Indicators of financial autonomy (FA)
The context in which the indicator matters. Does the content of the university autonomy components take into account the features of:

innovatively active research university innovatively active entrepreneurial university
Ability to charge tuition fees for national/EU students The indicator is important (with regard to training highly qualified specialists (master's degree-postgraduate-doctoral)). Takes into account on a general basis The indicator is important (with regard to training specialists (at the bachelor's or master's level) who will be able to / already can initiate new activities, create new industries / jobs in existing industries (participate in high-tech projects, startups). Takes into account on a general basis Ability to charge tuition fees for non-EU students The indicator is important (with regard to training highly qualified specialists (master's degree-postgraduate-doctoral)). Takes into account on a general basis The indicator is important (with regard to training specialists (at the bachelor's or master's level) who will be able to / already can initiate new activities, create new industries / jobs in existing industries (participate in high-tech projects, startups). Takes into account on a general basis

Indicators of staffing autonomy (SA)
The context in which the indicator matters. Does the content of the university autonomy components take into account the features of:

innovatively active research university innovatively active entrepreneurial university
Capacity to decide on recruitment procedures (senior academic staff) The indicator is important (with regard to competition with other HEIs for the best researchers / scientists [50], heads of scientific schools, etc.). Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis The indicator is important (with regard to attracting active academic staff, ready not only to conduct research, but also to commercialize innovations). Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis Capacity to decide on recruitment procedures (senior administrative staff) The indicator is important (with regard to recruitment of heads of research institutions, doctoral schools, research centers, centers for improvement and organization of research services, research and production facilities, etc.). Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis The indicator is important (with regard to search for / recruitment of managers: 1) of independent legal entities -centers for the organization of research and cooperation with firms and government agencies involved in the creation and dissemination of information; 2) of research and service organizations (on the initiative of university staff). Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis Capacity to decide on salaries (senior academic staff) The indicator is important (with regard to competition with other HEIs for the best researchers / scientists [50], heads of scientific schools, their stimulation, etc.); promoting innovative behavior of employees, increasing their research productivity. Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis The indicator is important (with regard to incentives for active academics willing to conduct research and commercialize the results of their own research, promoting their innovative behavior. Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis Capacity to decide on salaries (senior administrative staff) The indicator is important (with regard to incentives for the heads of research institutions, doctoral schools, research centers, centers for improvement and organization of research services, research and production complexes, etc.). Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis The indicator is important (with regard to incentives for managers: 1) of independent legal entities -centers for the organization of research and cooperation with companies and government agencies involved in the creation and dissemination of information; 2) research and service organizations (on the initiative of university staff). Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis Capacity to decide on dismissals (senior academic staff) The indicator is important (with regard to competition with other HEIs for the best researchers / scientists [50], heads of scientific schools, etc.). Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis The indicator is important (with regard to protection / retention of active academics ready to conduct research and commercialize innovations).
Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis

Continuation of Table1
www.business-inform.net

Indicators of financial autonomy (FA)
The context in which the indicator matters. Does the content of the university autonomy components take into account the features of:

innovatively active research university innovatively active entrepreneurial university
Capacity to decide on dismissals (senior administrative staff) The indicator is important (with regard to dismissal of heads of research institutions, doctoral schools, research centers, centers for improvement and organization of research services, research and production complexes, etc.). Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis The indicator is important (with regard to dismissal of managers: 1) of independent legal entities -centers for the organization of research and cooperation with companies and government agencies involved in the creation and dissemination of information; 2) research and service organizations (on the initiative of university staff).
Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis Capacity to decide on promotions (senior academic staff) The indicator is important (with regard to competition with other freelancers for the best researchers / scientists [50], heads of scientific schools, their stimulation, promotion of innovative behavior of employees, increasing their research productivity, etc.).
Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis The indicator is important (with regard to incentives for active academics ready to conduct research based on joint / internal resource and commercialize their results). Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis Capacity to decide on promotions (senior administrative staff) The indicator is important (with regard to promoting heads of research institutions, doctoral schools, research centers, centers for improvement and organization of research services, research and production complexes, etc.). Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis The indicator is important (with regard to promoting managers: 1) of independent legal entities -centers for the organization of research and cooperation with companies and government agencies involved in the creation and dissemination of information; 2) research and service organizations (on the initiative of university staff).
Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis

Indicators of academic autonomy (AA)
The context in which the indicator matters. Does the content of the university autonomy components take into account the features of: innovatively active research university innovatively active entrepreneurial university Capacity to decide on overall student numbers The indicator is important (with regard to students admission (at the level of master or doctor of philosophy) -to train highly qualified professionals; with regard to students admission (at the bachelor's level)as a source of additional income that will allow competing for the best researchers / scientists [50]. Takes into account on a general basis The indicator is important (with regard to students admission (at the bachelor's and master's levels), who in the future will be able to initiate new activities, create new industries / jobs in existing industries / to participate in high-tech projects, startups). Does not take into account / takes into account on a general basis Capacity to select students The indicator is important with regard to choosing applicants to train highly qualified professionals; (master's-post-graduatedoctoral).

Partially takes into account
The indicator is important (with regard to choosing applicants (at the bachelor's, master's level), who in the future will be able to initiate new activities, create new industries / jobs in existing industries) /to participate in high-tech projects, startups). Partially takes into account Capacity to introduce and terminate programmes (bachelor, master, PhD) The indicator is important (with regard to the introduction and termination of educational programs) (at the level of master of doctor of philosophy).

Takes into account on a general basis
The indicator is important (with regard to introduction and termination of educational programs (at the bachelor's and master's level), continuous professional education programs). Partly takes into account on a general basis The value of the indicator is enhanced by the necessity to ensure the quality of educational and scientific-and-educational programs in accordance with international and national standards. Partially takes into account on a general basis The value of the indicator is enhanced by the necessity to ensure the quality of educational programs and continuous professional training programs in accordance with national and international educational and professional standards.
Partially takes into account on a general basis Capacity to select QA providers Capacity to design content of degree programmes The indicator is important (with regard to regulating the content of educational and scientific-and-educational programs in accordance with national educational and / or professional standards).

Takes into account on a general basis
The indicator is important (with regard to regulating the content of educational programs (in accordance with national educational and / or professional standards) and continuous professional training programs (in accordance with international / national professional standards) Source: author's development. Table 2 A fragment of the strategic framework for the financial policy of universities Indicator, % 0 1 2-5 6-7 8-10 The share of income from research projects commercialization in the overall revenue structure of HEIs The share of income from companies ordering HEIs to carry out research projects The share of income from activities other than research The share of income from Monitoring and Assessment The share of each funding source in the HEI revenue structure Source: compiled by [14].
tional [22] rankings as for the potential for external evaluation of the effectiveness / competitiveness of an autonomous and innovatively active university (Tbl. 3 -Tbl. 5) and determines the acceptability of some of them as tools for external evaluation of research and innovative activity and effectiveness of both foreign and national HEIs (University 1.0, University 2.0, University 3.0) (Tbl. 6). As Tbl. 3 -Tbl. 6 show, individual methodologies used by academic rankings of universities differ greatly, but so far none of them contains an indicator that would make it possible to assess the level of academic freedom enjoyed by HEIs. However, regardless of the chosen method, the academic ranking of universities should include respect for academic freedom in their assessments [35]. B eing a benchmark for academics, university management, and governments, such academic rankings as Academic Ranking of World Universities [25], Times Higher Education World University Ranking [52], QS World University Ranking [46], or U-Multirank [55][56][57][58] have a unique opportunity to improve academic freedom by changing incentive structures for students, academics, universities, and governments.
Academic freedom is an important factor that makes a university a more attractive place for students and scholars. If a certain country performs poorly with regard to academic freedom, this must be taken into account.  Weaknesses: -minor informational and methodological openness, which complicates using the results of participation in international rankings for the HEIs selfassessment; -the presence of only aggregate assessments by relevant indicators, which passes over the comparison of the absolute indicators on the basis of which the university ranking is made; -the level of university coverage is constantly changing; -a significant share is taken by subjective expert assessments -55% of the regional ranking is inter alia accounted for by assessing the quality of research activity (International research network) (10%) and its effectiveness (academic reputation of an HEI (30%), the publishing activity of scientists (in Scopus per 1 academic) (10%), recognition and citation (5%), which is based on the quality of its research and teaching staff (5%)  Table 3 www.business-inform.net Table 3   1  2  3  4  5 U-Multirank

Regional Engagement
(Bachelor graduates working in region; Student internships in region; Regional joint publications; Income from regional sources; Master graduates working in region; Strategic research partnerships in the region) -based on the results of HEIs participation in the ranking, the development trends of HEIs in priority areas are determined, the priorities for HEIs development in the following periods are selected.

Strengths:
-focus on training highly qualified specialists (Doctorates-awardedto-academic-staff (6%) and Doctorate-tobachelor's ratio (2.25%) indicators); -assessment of the quality of educational, and scientific and educational programs (15% is given to the survey to determine (teaching) reputation); -assessment of the quality and effectiveness of scientific and innovative activities (18% is given to the survey to determine (research) reputation; research productivity of the HEI (6%); demand and impact of research by the HEI researchers (30% is given to the citations of publications in Scopus); research income (6%)).

Weaknesses:
-as for a ranking assessing, first of all, the scientific activity of an innovatively active research HEI (University 2.0), it has a surprisingly low interest in international relations and prospects (the weight of the corresponding indicators is 7.5% (the share of joint publications with foreign authors in Scopus is the only indicator accounting for 2.5% of the overall ranking)) Weaknesses: -this ranking hardly takes into account the possibility of knowledge transfer from HEIs to the business environment (only 1 indicator (Industry income) is calculated, accounting for 2.5% of the overall ranking) www.business-inform.net Table 4 Possibilities of rankings with regard to assessing the effectiveness / competitiveness of a research university

Strengths and weaknesses of the ranking as a tool for assessing the effectiveness / competitiveness of an innovative research university (University 2.0) (quality of its educational and R&D activities)
The Top American Research Universities [50] Total Research, Federal Research, Endowment Assets, Annual Giving, National Academy Members, Faculty Awards, Doctorates Granted, Postdoctoral Associates, SAT Scores  Table 5 Possibilities of tools for the external evaluation of the effectiveness of an autonomous, innovatively active entrepreneurial university in the educational services market

Criteria and indicators for ranking (positioning) HEIs
Strengths and weaknesses of the ranking as a tool for the external assessment of the effectiveness / competitiveness of an innovatively active entrepreneurial university (University 3.0) (and the quality of its educational, research, and entrepreneurial activities) Ranking of entrepreneurial universities and business schools [24] The ranking is based on 7 indicators, grouped into 2 groups: scale and success (65%): number of startup graduates (20%); number of startups (20%); share of supported projects (20%); the amount of investment in a startup founded by graduates (5%); demand (35%): average number of visits to the project site during the last 6 months (15%) Strengths: -sources of information are: Crunchbase, AngelList, Startup Ranking international databases, and LinkedIn and Facebook services (Crunchbase and AngelList databases contain a large number of indicators of the activity and success of startups collected from various sources by machine learning methods and verified by the community of already registered startups and site moderators).

ОСВІТА І НАУКА
www.business-inform.net 1 2 3 average number of views / visits per 1 project (15%); app downloads in the App Store / Google Play (5%) Weaknesses: -the ranking includes only those universities that have more than 4 startups visible in international databases (Crunchbase, AngelList, Startup Ranking); -the activity of an HEI on training innovatively active businessmen is assessed, while the innovative activity of an entrepreneurial HEI is not assessed Strengths: -assessment of innovative, organizational, service, and educational activities of an entrepreneurial HEI The Times Higher Education. THE Impact Ranking [51] Measuring the success of an HEI in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the UN for the period up to 2030: SDG 1 -no poverty; SDG 2 -zero hunger; SDG 3 -good health and well-being; SDG 4 -quality education; SDG 5 -gender equality; SDG 6 -clean water and sanitation; SDG 7 -affordable and clean energy; SDG 8 -decent work and economic growth; SDG 9 -industry, innovation and infrastructure; SDG 10 -reduced inequalities; SDG 11 -sustainable cities and communities; SDG 12 -responsible consumption and production; SDG 13 -climate action; SDG 14 -life below water; SDG 15 -life on land; Strengths: -the THE experts try to assess the third mission of the HEIs, considering an HEI as an open system; to determine the extent to which an HEI is integrated in public life and its social environment; how much its partnership is developed; what ecosystem it forms around itself; -different HEIs are assessed on the basis of different sets of SDG, depending on their orientation (Table 1.21); -for each SDG, a specific query is created in Scopus that narrows the scope to articles related to that very SDG.

Weaknesses:
-most HEIs will not be able to properly fill in the "Research" and "Teaching" areas due to their specifics of the fields of study; -the academic approach to assessing the success of innovative activities of the University 3.0 in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (by the number of publications and their citations). Only starting with SDG9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) the following indicators appear: "Research income from industry" (weight 38.4%), "Patents citing university research" (15.4%), and "University spin-offs (companies registered at least three years ago, that continue operating, and are created in order to exploit intellectual property originating from an HEI) (weight 34.6%)

Continuation of
QS Graduate Employability Rankings [45] The ranking is based on the following indicators: Employer Reputation (according to the QS Global Employer Survey) (30%); Alumni Outcomes (through inclusion in the lists of successful people) (25%). Partnerships with Employers (25%) 1) knowledge transfer cooperation with 2000 leading global Fortune and/or Forbes companies (according to Scopus data, two or more joint projects during 2013-2017); 2) partnerships related to student employment) per 1 academic). Employer-Student Connections (10%) (due to the employers' "active presence" at the university (participation in career fairs, organization of company presentations or any other self-promotion). Graduate Employment Rate (10%) (excluding those who choose to continue their studies or are unavailable for work) full-time or part-time within 12 months after graduation.

Strengths:
-orientation of the ranking indicators on the educational mission of University 3.0, i.e. training specialists who will be able to initiate new activities, transform the internal environment and modify the interaction with the external environment: 1) the HEI reputation level among employers (30%) (QS Global Employer Survey): the Survey places those HEIs on top, which train the most competent, innovative and effective graduates; 2) QS own survey (25%) of those people who appear in more than 220 lists of successful people (among more than 40,000 richest and most innovative, creative, entrepreneurial, and / or charitable people in the world) to determine, which HEIs train people who change the world; 3) partnership with employers (with regard to student employment); 4) close links between employers and students (10%); -assessment of the success of cooperation / partnership between HEIs and global Fortune and Forbes companies on knowledge and research transfer (according to Scopus data).

Weaknesses:
-"academic" cooperation in knowledge and research transfer (published research results are assessed, while income from research is not taken into account); -graduates' achievements are assessed by their appearing on the list of successful people (instead of the number of start-ups that are supported by investors and / or the amount of investment in a startup founded by graduates, etc.) Source: author's development. Table 5 ЕКОНОМІКА ОСВІТА І НАУКА www.business-inform.net

End of
To solve this problem, analysts from the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) (K. Kinzelbach, I. Saliba, J. Spannagel, & R. Quinn) have developed the methodology for the Academic Freedom Index (AFi) [35] and conducted calculations by country (by year).
The Academic Freedom Index (AFi) consists of eight components [35]:  three components are based on actual data ("Constitutional Protection of Academic Freedom"); "International Legal Commitment to Academic Freedom Under International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)"; "Existence of Universities");  the other five are determined by expert surveys ("Freedom to Research and Teach"; "Freedom of Academic Exchange and Dissemination", "Institutional Autonomy") (an integrated indicator), "Campus Integrity" (degree of freedom of campuses from politically motivated supervision or security violations [36] ("Freedom of Academic and Cultural Expression") (Fig. 2). The results of the current year are presented in Tbl. 7. The division between institutional autonomy and freedom of research and teaching is presented in Fig. 3.
T he developers of the index claim that university rankings can be adjusted up or down according to the conditions of academic freedom in the countries in which they are located: «Academic Freedom Index (AFI) country scores can be used to improve established university rankings. At present, leading rankings narrowly define academic excellence and reputation as a function of outputs. As a result, institutions in repressive environments have climbed the reputation ladder www.business-inform.net 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Table 7 Grouping of countries according to the Academic Freedom Index (AFI) [35] Institutional Autonomy and now occupy top ranks. They thereby mislead key stakeholders and make it possible for repressive state and higher education authorities to restrict academic freedom without incurring a reputational loss» [35].

Freedom to Research and Teach
Taking into account all these features of assessing the level of autonomy of universities, the possibility of taking into account the subjective component, i.e. academic freedom through the AFi index, and using the existing external rating of innovative universities (see Tbl. 3 -Tbl. 6), we tried to analyze, whether they can be applied to fulfilling our task (Tbl. 8). According to the results of the EUA analysis of the university autonomy level carried out in 2011 [33], 2017 [34] (by component), we have identified countries whose higher education systems show excellent results (according to indicators), which should have encouraged the innovative activity of universities, but the results of the ranking assessment of the HEIs in these countries are somewhat unconvincing. A ccording to the results of positioning European leading states with regard to components of university autonomy and the academic freedom index in the top 100* academic and independent rankings that can assess the activities of innovative universities (   End of Table 8 www.business-inform.net China and Japan rank the 10 th , 14 th and 16 th , respectively. So it's just a matter of time and government policy (Chinese version) to reorient from innovative models of research (University 2.0) to the entrepreneurial university model (University 3.0).

CONCLUSIONS
Thus, the existing system of assessing university autonomy by components (according to the EUA methodology) should, but cannot assess the autonomy of innovative universities, because it: 1) does not contain any of the direct indicators (by components); 2) does not take into account the degree of academic freedom of universities in the country. The above also refers to the existing methodologies of academic and independent university rankings, which differ greatly, but so far none of them contains an indicator that would make it possible to assess the level of academic freedom of HEIs.
Further research should: 1) develop a system of university autonomy indicators, which would take into account the peculiarities of innovative research and entrepreneurship universities; 2) take into account the academic freedom component (AFi index) in the external assessment of autonomous and innovatively active universities.  LITERATURE