Higher Education

, Volume 65, Issue 1, pp 5–23 | Cite as

Regulatory autonomy and performance: the reform of higher education re-visited

  • Jürgen EndersEmail author
  • Harry de Boer
  • Elke Weyer


The main aim of this article is to contribute to the understanding of organizational autonomy and control in higher education reform and related expectations as regards the performance of universities. Our analyses draws on principal-agent models as a normative theory of policy reform, and institutionalist approaches in public policy and institutional design as an analytical theory of policy reform. We discuss how the dominant narrative of political reform moves away from traditional beliefs in university autonomy that are built on institutional trust and linked to professional autonomy. In the emerging narrative of political change, autonomy becomes re-defined as the ‘new organizational autonomy’ of universities as both strategic actors and as an addressee of governmental control. The concept of ‘regulatory autonomy’ captures the use of organizational autonomy of universities as a tool of a new regime of governmental control. Exemplified by the Dutch case, we analyze autonomy policies for strengthening managerial discretion and internal control of universities that are combined with regulatory policies for external control that steer organizational choices. Regulatory autonomy thus aims at aligning universities more closely with governmental goals and improve respective performance. Our literature review shows, however, that there is scarce, inconclusive and methodologically problematic evidence for a link between ‘organizational autonomy and performance’. We point at promising avenues for further research on autonomy and performance as two core concepts in the contemporary higher education debate.


University autonomy Organizational control Performance Higher education reform 



We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of our paper for their constructive reviews and suggestions. We are indebted to Rajani Naidoo for her commentary and invaluable advice on an earlier version of this paper.


  1. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, C., Hoxby, M., Mas-Colell, A. & Sapir, A. (2007). Why reform Europe’s universities? Bruegel Policy Brief (04).Google Scholar
  2. Aghion, P. M., Dewatripont, C., Hoxby, M., Mas-Colell, A. & Sapir, A. (2008). Higher aspiration: An agenda for reforming European universities, Bruegel Bleuprint, 5.Google Scholar
  3. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, C., Hoxby, M., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2009). The governance and performance of research universities: Evidence form Europe and the U.S. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). University autonomy in twenty countries. Washington: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  5. Ballou, K. (1998). A concept analysis of autonomy. Journal of Professional Nursing, 14(2), 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berdahl, R. (1990). Academic freedom, autonomy, and accountability in British Universities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151–164.Google Scholar
  7. Bleiklie, I. (1994). The new public management and the pursuit of knowledge. Notat 9411. Bergen: LOS.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, T. (2009). University governance reform—Potential problems or more autonomy?. Oslo: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. (2004). Regulatory agenciesthe challenges of balancing agency autonomy and political control. Paper presented at the 20th anniversary conference of the Structure and Organization of Government Research Committee of the International Political Science Association, Vancouver, June 15–17, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2006). Autonomy and regulation. Coping with agencies in the modern state. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. de Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Boer, H., & Huisman, J. (1999). The new public management in Dutch universities. In D. Braun & F. X. Merrien (Eds.), Towards a new model of governance for universities?: A comparative view (pp. 100–118). London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  16. de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & File, J. (2010). Governance reform. Progress in higher education reform across Europe. Volume 1: Executive summary and main report. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  17. Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public Money & Management, 14, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Egeberg, M. (2003). How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 116–126). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Enders, J. (2006). The academic profession. In J. J. F. Forest & P. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 5–22). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Estermann, T., & Nokkala, T. (2009). University autonomy in Europe. Exploratory study (Vol. 1). Brussels: European University Association.Google Scholar
  21. Eykamp, P. W. (1995). Political control of state research universities: The effect of the structure of political control on university quality and budget. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation AAT 9544136, University of California-San Diego. Available at:
  22. Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, L. (2009). The ‘Steering’ of higher education systems: A public management perspective. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleikle, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University governance: Western European perspectives (pp. 8–29). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Furubotn, E., & Pejovich, S. (1974). The economics of property rights. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goedegebuure, L., & Westerheijden, D. (1991). Changing balances in Dutch higher education. Higher Education, 21(4), 495–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(spring), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hood, C., & Peters, G. (2004). The middle age of new public management: Into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 76(3), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jongbloed, B., de Boer, H., Enders, J., & File, J. (2010). Funding reform. Progress in higher education reform across Europe. Volume 1: Executive summary and main report. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  29. Knott, J. H., & Payne, A. A. (2004). The impact of state governance structures on management and performance of public organizations: A study of higher education institutions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(1), 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levy, D. C. (1980). University and government in Mexico: Autonomy in an authoritarian system. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  31. Majone, G. (1996). Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1983). Organizing political life. What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77, 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Mayntz, R., & Scharpf, F. W. (1975). Policy-making in the German federal bureaucracy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  35. Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moses, I. (2007). Institutional autonomy revisited: Autonomy justified and accounted. Higher Education Policy, 20(3), 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Musselin, C. (2007). Are universities specific organizations? In G. Krücken, A. Kosmutzky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 63–84). Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Naidoo, R. (2004). Fields and institutional strategy: Bourdieu on the relationship between higher education, inequality and society. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naidoo, R. (2008). The competitive state and the mobilised market: Higher education policy reform in the United Kingdom (1980–2007). Paris: Critique Internationale/Presse de Science Po.Google Scholar
  40. Neave, G. (1988). On being economical with university autonomy: Being an account of the retrospective joys of a written constitution. In M. Tight (Ed.), Academic freedom and responsibility (pp. 31–48). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Olsen, J. P. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European University. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (pp. 25–54). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Olsen, J. P. (2009). Democratic government, institutional autonomy and the dynamics of change. Oslo: ARENA working papers, 01.Google Scholar
  43. Ordorika, I. (2003). The limits of university autonomy: Power and politics at the Universidad Autónoma de México. Higher Education, 46, 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parsons, T., & Platt, G. M. (1973). The American University. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Perkin, H. (1991). History of universities. In P. Altbach (Ed.), International higher education: An encyclopedia (pp. 175–198). Chicago: St. James Press.Google Scholar
  46. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Pratt, J. W., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (Eds.). (1991). Principals and agents: The structure of business. Boston: Harvard.Google Scholar
  48. Van der Ploeg, F., & Veugelers, R. (2008). Towards evidence-based reform of European universities. CESifo Economic Studies, 54(2), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Vught, F. (Ed.). (2009). Mapping the higher education landscape. Towards a European classification of higher education institutions. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Van Vught, F., & Ziegele, F. (Eds.). (2012). Multidimensional ranking: The design and development of U-multirank. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Verhoest, K., Peters, G. B., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organizational autonomy: A conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Verhoest, K., Verschuere, B., Meyers, F., & Sulle, A. (2010). Performance of public sector organizations: Do managerial tools matter? In P. Lægreid & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations. Proliferation, autonomy and performance (pp. 211–224). Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. Volkwein, J. F., & Malik, S. M. (1997). State regulation and administrative flexibility at public universities. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Westerheijden, D. F., de Boer, H., & Enders, J. (2009). Netherlands; An ‘Echternach’ procession in different directions; oscillating steps towards reform. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleikle, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University governance: Western European perspectives (pp. 103–126). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Whitley, R. (2007). Constructing universities as strategic actors: Limitations and variations. Paper presented at the conference ‘The university in the market’, Stockholm, Wenner-Gren Center, 1–3 November.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Higher Education Policy StudiesUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations