Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Budgetary allocation and organizational characteristics of higher education institutions: a review of existing studies and a framework for future research

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Budgeting—i.e. the decision on the level of expenditures and on the repartition of resources among organizational subunits—can be conceived as a critical organizational process, which is closely related to key choices concerning strategic priorities and to resources acquisition strategies. Overall, it is increasingly being recognized as one of the central places where steering and governance take place, and where higher education institutions are supposed to take initiative. Accordingly, this paper pursues two aims: first, it provides a review of existing studies about budgeting in higher education, according to the literature on changes in its organizational characteristics, and with a focus on approaches from Organizational Theory and Sociology. Second, it identifies some future directions of research, thus easing the integration of these two bodies of literature. This integration may help in providing researchers with a deeper understanding of the current functioning of budgeting processes, their variations across higher education institutions and countries, as well as their implications for organizational behavior.

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

  • Amaral, A., Meek, & Larsen. (2003). The higher education managerial revolution?

  • Astley, W., & Zajac, E. (1991). Interorganizational Power and Organizational Design: Reconciling Rational and Coalitional Models of Organization, 2(4), 339–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, M. C. (2003). The concept of routines twenty years after Nelson and Winter (1982). A review of the literature.

  • Biggart, N., & Delbridge, R. (2004). Systems of exchange. The Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 28–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I., Enders, & Lepori. (2009). Some thoughts on the TRUE perspective.

  • Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., Lepori, B., & Musselin, C. (2011b). New public management, network governance and the university as changing professional organization. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid(Eds.) Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management Aldershot: Ashgate.

  • Bleiklie, I., Enders, Lepori, B., & Musselin, C. (2011a). Universities as Penetrated Hierarchies. Organizational Rationalization, Hierachization and Networking in Higher Education.

  • Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2007). Theoretical perspectives on university strategy. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 3–30). Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: The example of the public sector reform. Organization Studies, 721–746.

  • CHEPS. (2010). Progress in higher education reform in Europe. Funding reform. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, (1988). An institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation and fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4), 562–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covaleski, M. A., Evans, J. H., Luft, J. L., & Shields, M. D. (2003). Budgeting research: Three theoretical perspectives and criteria for selective integration. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 15, 3–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daraio, C., Bonaccorsi, A., Geuna, A., Lepori, B., et al. (2011). The European university landscape: A micro characterization based on evidence from the Aquameth project. Research Policy, 40(1), 148–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, O. A., Dempster, M. A. H., & Wildavsky, A. (1966). A theory of the budgetary process. The American Political Science Review, 60(3), 529–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., & Greve, H. R. (1997). Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in england, the netherlands, austria, and germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations—disciplinary approaches, interfaces and integration (pp. 137–154). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. (2009). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dozier Hackman, J. (1985). Power and centrality in the allocation of resources in colleges and universities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • EUA European University Association. (2008). Financially sustainable universities. Towards full costing in European Universities. Brussels: European University Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezzamel, M. (1994). Organizational change and accounting: understanding the budgeting system in its organizational context. 15/2, 213–240.

  • Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, (2008). The steering of higher education systems: A public management perspective. Higher Education, 56(3), 325–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, J. M. (1992). A contractual approach to higher education performance: With an application to Australia. Higher Education, 24(4), 503–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautier, A., & Wauthy, (2007). Teaching versus research: A multi-tasking approach to multi-department universities. European Economic Review, 51, 273–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding strategic change. The contribution of archetypes. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1052–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), Organizational institutionalism (pp. 1–46). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Han, S. (1994). Mimetic isomoprhism and its effects on the audit services market. Social Forces, 73(2), 637–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C. (1988). The rational approach to budget cuts: One university’s experience. Higher Education, 7(2), 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic contingencies' theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2), 216–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills, F. S., & Mahoney, T. A. (1978). University budgets and organizational decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 454–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P. (2002). Centralised or decentralised? Strategic Implications of Resource Allocation Models., 56, 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnes, G. (1999). The management of universities. Scottisch Journal of Political Economy, 46(5), 505–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongbloed, B. (2000). Spending strategies. A closer look at the financial management of the European university 2000: European University Association.

  • Jongbloed, B. (2007). Reforming the Dutch academic research entreprise: Universities’ responses to project funding and performance monitoring CHER Conference, Kassel.

  • Jongbloed, B. (2008). Creating public-private dynamics in higher education funding. A discussion of three options. In J. Enders & B. Jongbloed (Eds.), public-private dynamics in higher education funding (pp. 113–138). Bielefeld: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jongbloed, B., & van der Knoop, H. (1999). Budgeting at the institutional level: Responding to internal pressures and external opportunities. In B. Jongbloed, P. Maassen, & G. Neave (Eds.), From the eye of the storm. Higher education’s chaning institutions (pp. 141–164). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. (1996). Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: Causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American Sociological Review, 61(5), 812–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization. World society and organizational change (pp. 209–240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascoumes, P., & Le Gales, (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2006). The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33(7), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepori, B., Benninghoff, M., Jongbloed, B., Salerno, C., & Slipersaeter, S. (2007a). Changing models and patterns of higher education funding: Some empirical evidence. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 85–111). Bodmin, Cornwall: MPG Books Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepori, B., Dinges, M., Reale, E., Slipersaeter, S., Theves, J., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2007b). Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change? Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 372–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 469–489.

  • Lopez Gonzales, M. J. (2006). Towards decentralized and goal-oriented models of institutional resource allocation: The Spanish case. Higher Education, 51(4), 589–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massy, W. F. (1996a). A dynamic equilibrium model for university budget planning. Management Science, 23(3), 248–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massy, W. F. (1996b). Resource allocation in higher education.

  • McCubbins, M., Noll, R., & Weingast, B. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 3(2), 243–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modell, S. (2006). Institutional and negotiated order perspectives on costs allocations: The case of the Swedish university sector. 15(2), 219–251.

  • Moll, J. & Zahirul. (2004). Rational-legal budgeting, notions of legitimacy and power within a university environment: A case study.

  • Musselin, C. (2007). Are universities specific organisations? In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 63–84). Bielefeld: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1997). Competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J. F. (1980). Managing gargabe can hierarchies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 583–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Moore, W. L. (1980). Power in university budgeting: A replication and extension. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 637–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1974). Organizational decision making as a political process: The case of a university budget. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 453–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schick, A. (1985). University budgeting: Administrative perspective, budget structure, and budget process. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 794–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations. Ideas and interests. Thousands Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York: Wiley.

  • Thomas, H. (2000). Power in the resource allocation process: The impact of “rational” systems. 2, 127–137.

  • Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958–1990. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, E. W. (1982). Internal allocation of funds: Changes and challenges for Australian universities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. C. (2002). Markets from networks. Socioeconomic models of production. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (2008). Constructing universities as strategic actors: Limitations and variations. In L. Engwall & D. Weaire (Eds.), The university in the market (pp. 23–37). Colchester: Portland Press Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston & Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.

  • Wildavsky, A. (2002). Budgeting. A comparative theory of budgetary processes. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A., & Caiden, N. (2004). The new politics of the budgetary process.

  • Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahirul, H. (2006). Methodological issues in accounting research. Theories, methods and issues.

  • Zajac, E., & Westphal, J. (2004). The social construction of market value: Institutionalization and learning perspectives of stock market reactions. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 433–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation under the European Science Foundation EUROHESC programme. The authors wish to thank for comments and discussion their colleagues in the TRUE project, namely Ivar Bleiklie, Jürgen Enders, Christine Musselin, Jeroen Huisman, Barbara Kehm, António Magalhães, Svein Michelsen, Nicoline Frølich, Stig Slipersæter, Emanuela Reale, as well as three anonymous referees.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Organisational Research, Faculty of Economics, University of Lugano, Lugano, Switzerland

    Benedetto Lepori & Martina Montauti

  2. Policy and Strategy, Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada

    John Usher

Authors
  1. Benedetto Lepori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Usher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martina Montauti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benedetto Lepori.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lepori, B., Usher, J. & Montauti, M. Budgetary allocation and organizational characteristics of higher education institutions: a review of existing studies and a framework for future research. High Educ 65, 59–78 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9581-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9581-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation