Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Same Governance Template but Different Agencies

Types of Evaluation Agencies in Higher Education. Comparing England, France, and Italy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In both higher education and other policy sectors, agencies have become a popular instrument adopted by governments to regulate the behavior of universities from a distance. This paper addresses this apparently common trend by proposing a typology of these agencies that assumes that evaluation agencies’ autonomy is dependent upon not only legal powers but also the government’s capacity to behave as a principal and to design, over time, coherent systemic governance modes. This typology is assessed through a comparative analysis of the roles and functions of evaluative agencies within the field of higher education in the UK, France, and Italy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AERES (2012) Rapport d’évaluation de l’Université de Strasbourg, http://www.aeres-evaluation.fr/.

  • Bache, T., Niklasson, B. and Painter M. (2012) ‘The role of agencies in policy-making’, Policy and Society 31(3): 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. and Kogan, M. (1992) Process and Structure in Higher Education, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • BIS (2011) Higher Education: Students at the heart of the system, http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-innovation-skills.

  • Brennan, J. and Williams, R. (2004) ‘Accreditation and Related Regulatory Matters in the United Kingdom’, in S. Schwarz and Don F. Westerheijden (eds.) Accreditation and Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 465–490.

  • Boffo, S. and Dubois, P. (2005) ‘The weakness of university legislative bodies: The cases of France and Italy’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 71(1): 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boitier, M. and Riviere, A. (2013) ‘Freedom and responsibility for French universities: From global steering to local management’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 26(4): 16–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (2004) Quality Assurance in Higher Education. The UK Experience Since 1992, London: Routledge Falmer.

  • Browne, J. (2010) Browne report – Securing a sustainable future for higher education, http: www.delni.gov.uk/index/publications/pubs-higher-education/browne-report-student-fees.htm.

  • Capano, G. (2010) ‘A Sisyphean Task. Evaluation and Institutional Accountability in Italian Higher Education’, Higher Education Policy 23(1): 39–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G. (2011) ‘Government Continues to Do Its Job. A Comparative Study of Governance Shifts in the Higher Education Sector’, Public Administration 89(4): 1622–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G. (2014) ‘The Re-regulation of the Italian University System Through Quality Assurance. A Mechanistic Perspective’, Policy and Society 33(3): 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevaillier, T. (2004) ‘The Changing Role of the State in French Higher Education: From Curriculum Control to Programme Accreditation’, in S. Schwarz, and Don F. Westerheijden (eds.) Accreditation and Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 159–174

  • Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (2007) ‘Regulatory agencies – The challenges of balancing agency autonomy and political control’, Governance 20(3): 499–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, H. (1992) ‘Walking Tightropes in Higher Education’, Higher Education Policy 5(3): 36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbins, M. and Knill, C. (2014) Higher Education Governance and Policy Change in Western Europe, London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Döhler, M. (2007) Die politische Steuerung der Verwaltung, Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. (2012) ‘How Bureaucratic Structure Matters: An Organizational Perspective’, in B.G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Public Administration, Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 157–166.

  • El-Khawas, E. (1992) ‘Are buffer organizations doomed to fail? inevitable dilemmas and tensions’, Higher Education Policy 5(3): 18–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ENQA (2011) External review report of the French evaluation agency for research and higher education (AERES), http://enqa.eu/files/Review. Report of AERES.pdf

  • Ferlie, E. and Andresani, G. (2009) ‘United Kingdom from bureau professionalism to new public management’, in C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie and E. Ferlie (eds.) University Governance. Western European Comparative Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 177–195.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gains, F. (2003) ‘Executive agencies in government: The impact of bureaucratic networks on po1icy outcomes’, Journal of Public Policy 23(1): 53–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulick, L. (1937) ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization. In Papers on the Science of Administration, in L. Gulick and L. Urwick (eds.) Papers on the Science of Administration, New York: Institute of Public Administration, pp. 1–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, A.G. (2008) ‘Changing pressures on the research process: on trying to research in an age when curiosity is not enough’, European Accounting Review 17(1): 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecocq, J. and Pizarz, S. (2013) First steps of an impact analysis in France. Presentation made at the INQAAHE Conference; 8–11 April, Taipei, Taiwan.

  • Lewis, R. (2010) ‘The external examiner system in the United Kingdom’ in D.D. Dill and M. Beerkens (eds.) Public policies for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 21–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B.R. (2011) ‘The research excellence framework and the “Impact Agenda”: Are we creating a Frankenstein Monster?’ Research Evaluation 20(2): 247–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B.R. and Whitley, R. (2010) ‘The UK Research Assessment Exercise: A Case of Regulatory Capture?’, in R. Whitley, J. Gläser and L. Engwall (eds.) Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 51–80.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. and Paradeise, C. (2009) ‘France: From Incremental Transitions to Institutional Change’, in C. Paradise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie and E. Ferlie (eds.) University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 21–49.

  • Musselin, C. (2013) ‘How peer-review simultaneously empowers the academic profession and university managers: evolution of the relationships between the state, the universities and the professiorate’, Research Policy 42(2): 1165–1173.

  • Ongaro, E. (2010) Public Management Reform and Modernization: Trajectories of Administrative Change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain, Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.

  • Overman, S., Genugten, M. Van and Thiel, S. Van (2015) ‘Accountability after structural disaggregation: Comparing agency accountability arrangements’, Public Administration 93(4): 1102–1120. doi:10.1111/padm.12185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I. and Ferlie, E. (eds.) (2009) University Governance. Western European Comparative Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. and Talbot, C. (2004) Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (2005) ‘Ministries and Agencies: Steering, Meddling, Neglecting and Dependency’, in M. Painter and J. Pierre (eds.) Challenges to State Policy Capacity, London: Palgrave, pp. 112–136.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rebora G, and Turri M. (2011) ‘Critical Factors in the Use of Evaluation in Italian Universities’, Higher Education 61(5): 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebora G, and Turri M. (2013) ‘The UK and Italian Research Assessment Exercises Face to Face’, Research Policy 42(9): 1657–1666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, S. and Westerheijden, D.F. (2004) Accreditation and Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area, Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. (2007) A Personal View of the Funding Council: Perspectives on Success and Failure, Occasional Paper 31. CHEPS: University of Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shattock, M. (2014) International Trends in University Governance, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapper, T. and Salter, B. (2004) ‘Governance of higher education in Britain: The significance of the research assessment exercises for the funding council model’, Higher Education Quarterly 58(1): 4–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapper, T. (2007) The Governance of British Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turri, M. (2014) ‘The New Italian Agency for the Evaluation of the University System (ANVUR): a need for governance or legitimacy?’, Quality in Higher education 20(1): 64–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turri M. (2016) ‘The difficult transition of the Italian University system: growth, underfunding and reforms’, Journal of Further and Higher Education 40(1): 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vught, F. (1989) Governmental Strategies and Innovation in Higher Education, London: Jessica Kinsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Verschuere, B., Peters, B.G. and Bouckaert, G. (2004a) ‘Controlling autonomous public agencies as an indicator of New Public Management’, International Management 9(1): 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Verschuere, B., Peters, B.G. and Bouckaert, G. (2004b) “The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review.” Public Administration and Development 24(2): 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Roness, P., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K. and Carthaigh, M.M. (2010) Autonomy and Control of State Agencies. Comparing States and Agencies, London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Thiel, S. van, Bouckaert, G. and Laegreid, P. (2012) Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries, London: Palgrave.

  • Yesilkagit, K. (2004) ‘The design of public agencies: overcoming agency costs and commitment problems’, Public Administration and Development 24(2): 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarka, Y.C. (2009) ‘L’évaluation: un pouvoir supposé savoir’, Cités 37(1): 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scuola Normale Superiore, Florence, Italy

    Giliberto Capano

  2. University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Matteo Turri

Authors
  1. Giliberto Capano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matteo Turri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giliberto Capano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Capano, G., Turri, M. Same Governance Template but Different Agencies. High Educ Policy 30, 225–243 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0018-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0018-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation