Advertisement

Eurasian Business Review

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 37–54 | Cite as

Approaching effects of the economic crisis on university efficiency: a comparative study of Germany and Italy

  • Erik E. Lehmann
  • Michele Meoli
  • Stefano Paleari
  • Sarah A. E. Stockinger
S.I. : Comparative entrepreneurship

Abstract

In this paper, we compare the efficiency of the Italian and German universities in the process of transforming public funding into the multiple outputs of a university, i.e. graduating students, publishing research, and patenting activity. We do this with a particular focus on the policies implemented following the financial crisis in 2008. Using a sample of 133 public universities, of which 73 public universities in Germany and 60 public universities in Italy observed over the period 2006–2011 we find that Italian universities perform significantly better in terms of output maximization than German universities. The crisis does not show a general impact, while the treatment effect indicates that Italian universities coped better during the crisis than their German counterparts at a highly significant level.

Keywords

Higher education Economic crisis Governance Data envelopment analysis Scale efficiency 

JEL Classification

H11 H12 I2 N30 

References

  1. Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: A data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22(1), 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Afonso, A., & Santos, M. (2005). Students and teachers: A DEA approach to the relative efficiency of portuguese public universities. ISEG-UTL Economics Working Paper (07).Google Scholar
  4. Agasisti, T. (2009). Market forces and competition in university systems: Theoretical reflections and empirical evidence from Italy. International Review of Applied Economics, 23(4), 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agasisti, T., Catalano, G., Landoni, P., & Verganti, R. (2012). Evaluating the performance of academic departments: An analysis of research-related output efficiency. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Agasisti, T., & Haelermans, C. (2016). Comparing efficiency of public universities among European countries: Different incentives lead to different performances. Higher Education Quarterly, 70(1), 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Agasisti, T., & Johnes, G. (2009). Beyond frontiers: Comparing the efficiency of higher education decision-making units across more than one country. Education Economics, 17(1), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Agasisti, T., & Pérez-Esparrells, C. (2010). Comparing efficiency in a cross-country perspective: The case of Italian and Spanish state universities. Higher Education, 59(1), 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Agasisti, T., & Pohl, C. (2012). Comparing German and Italian public universities: Convergence or divergence in the higher education landscape? Managerial and Decision Economics, 33(2), 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Agrawal, A., & Cooper, T. (2015). Insider trading before accounting scandals. Journal of Corporate Finance, 34, 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ahn, T., & Seiford, L. M. (1993). Sensitivity of DEA to models and variable sets in a hypothesis test setting: The efficiency of university operations. In Y. Ijiri (Ed.), Creative and innovative approaches to the science of management (pp. 191–208). New York: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  12. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2014). Mastering metrics: The path from cause to effect. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Arcelsus, F., & Coleman, D. (1997). An efficiency review of university departments. International Journal of Systems Science, 28(7), 721–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Athanassopoulos, A. D., & Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative efficiency of higher education institutions in the UK by the means of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 5(2), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Do University policies make a difference? Research Policy, 34(3), 343–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2016). The seven secrets of Germany: Economic resilience in an era of global turbulence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Paleari, S. (2014). Academic policy and entrepreneurship: a European perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(3), 363–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Autor, D. H. (2003). Outsourcing at will: The contribution of unjust dismissal doctrine to the growth of employment outsourcing. Journal of Labor Economics, 21(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Beasley, J. E. (1990). Comparing university departments. Omega, 18(2), 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Besley, T., & Coate, S. (2000). Centralized versus Decentralized Provision of Local Public Goods: A Political Economy Analysis. NBER Working Paper Series, 7084.Google Scholar
  21. Bogetoft, P., & Otto, L. (2010). Benchmarking with Dea, Sfa, and R. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  22. Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C., & Simar, L. (2006). Advanced indicators of productivity of universities. An application of robust nonparametric methods to Italian data. Scientometrics, 66(2), 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bozio, A., Emmerson, C., Peichl, A., & Tetlow, G. (2015). European public finances and the great recession: France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom compared. Fiscal Studies, 36(4), 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Brown, J. R., Dimmock, S. G., Kang, J.-K., & Weisbenner, S. J. (2014). How university endowments respond to financial market shocks: Evidence and implications. The American Economic Review, 104(3), 931–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Caldera, A., & Debande, O. (2010). Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 39(9), 1160–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using stata. College Station: Stata press.Google Scholar
  27. Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., & Signori, A. (2016). Performance-based funding and university research productivity: The moderating effect of university legitimacy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chu Ng, Y., & Li, S. K. (2000). Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions: an application of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 8(2), 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2006). Introduction to data envelopment analysis and its uses: With DEA-solver software and references. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  31. der Smitten, S. I., & Jaeger, M. (2012). Ziel-und Leistungsvereinbarungen als Instrument der Hochschulfinanzierung. Hannover: HIS Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH.Google Scholar
  32. Duygun, M., Prior, D., Shaban, M., & Tortosa-Ausina, E. (2016). Disentangling the European airlines efficiency puzzle: A network data envelopment analysis approach. Omega, 60(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Emrouznejad, A., Parker, B. R., & Tavares, G. (2008). Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity: A survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature in DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 42(3), 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Erkens, D. H., Hung, M., & Matos, P. (2012). Corporate governance in the 2007–2008 financial crisis: Evidence from financial institutions worldwide. Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(2), 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. European University Association (2012). EUA’s public funding observatory June 2012. http://www.eua.be/Libraries/governance-autonomy-funding/June_2012_report_FINAL.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Accessed 22 Feb 2017.
  37. European University Association (2016). EUA’s monitoring of the impact of the economic crisis on public funding for universities in Europe. http://www.eua.be/activities-services/projects/eua-online-tools/public-funding-observatory-tool.aspx. Accessed 08 Sept 2016.
  38. Froehlich, A. C. (2016). Does the curricular structure affect doctoral enrolment? Journal of Business Economics, 86(9), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gawellek, B., & Sunder, M. (2016). The German excellence initiative and efficiency change among universities, 20012011. Working Paper, Universität Leipzig, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.Google Scholar
  40. Johnes, J. (2006a). Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnes, J. (2006b). Measuring teaching efficiency in higher education: An application of data envelopment analysis to economics graduates from UK Universities 1993. European Journal of Operational Research, 174(1), 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnes, G., & Johnes, J. (1993). Measuring the research performance of UK economics departments: An application of data envelopment analysis. Oxford economic papers, pp. 332–347.Google Scholar
  43. Kempkes, G., & Pohl, C. (2008). Do institutions matter for university cost efficiency? Evidence from Germany. CESifo Economic Studies, 54(2), 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kempkes, G., & Pohl, C. (2010). The efficiency of German universities–some evidence from nonparametric and parametric methods. Applied Economics, 42(16), 2063–2079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2015). University–industry collaboration and regional wealth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1–24.Google Scholar
  46. Lehmann, E. E., & Seitz, N. (2016). Freedom and innovation: A country and state level analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s10961-016-9478-3.
  47. Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2002). Teaching or research? What affects the efficiency of universities. Diskussionsbeiträge: Serie 1, Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
  48. Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2004). Effizienz von universitäten: Anwendung der data envelopment analyse für britische hochschulen jahrbuch für handlungs-und entscheidungstheorie (pp. 69–93). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Leitner, K.-H., Prikoszovits, J., Schaffhauser-Linzatti, M., Stowasser, R., & Wagner, K. (2007). The impact of size and specialisation on universities’ department performance: A DEA analysis applied to Austrian universities. Higher Education, 53(4), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meoli, M., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2013). Completing the technology transfer process: M & As of science-based IPOs. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Molin, M. D., Turri, M., & Agasisti, T. (2017). New public management reforms in the italian universities: managerial tools, accountability mechanisms or simply compliance? International Journal of Public Administration 40(3), 256–269.Google Scholar
  52. Porter, M. E. (2008). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rostan, M., & Vaira, M. (2011). Faltering effects of market-oriented reforms on italian higher education public vices, private virtues? (pp. 327–343). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Sav, G. T. (2016). Recession and post-recession efficiency and productivity changes in United States public universities: The good, bad, and ugly. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 6(3), 1–15.Google Scholar
  55. Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (1998). Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: How to bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. Management Science, 44(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American Economic Review, 49(3), 253–283.Google Scholar
  57. Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161–176.Google Scholar
  58. Sueyoshi, T., & Goto, M. (2013). Pitfalls and remedies in DEA applications: how to handle an occurrence of zero in multipliers by strong complementary slackness conditions. Engineering, 5(1), 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson, R. G., Dharmapala, P., & Thrall, R. M. (1993). Importance for DEA of zeros in data, multipliers, and solutions. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 4(4), 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Toutkoushian, R. K., Porter, S. R., Danielson, C., & Hollis, P. R. (2003). Using publications counts to measure an institution’s research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 121–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Warning, S. (2004). Performance differences in German higher education: Empirical analysis of strategic groups. Review of Industrial Organization, 24(4), 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Williamson, O. E. (1973). Markets and hierarchies: some elementary considerations. The American Economic Review, 63(2), 316–325.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Eurasia Business and Economics Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik E. Lehmann
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Michele Meoli
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Stefano Paleari
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Sarah A. E. Stockinger
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Chair of Management and OrganizationUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  2. 2.University of BergamoDalmineItaly
  3. 3.CISAlpino Institute for Comparative Studies in Europe, CCSEDalmineItaly
  4. 4.CISAlpino Institute for Comparative Studies in Europe, CCSEAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations