Abstract
Universities have been forced to change their internal management and leadership procedures along with the changing state steering. In Finland, changes in financial steering during last ten years have had the strongest effective impact on internal university management.
Budget allocation is a policy instrument that can be used by governments to influence the behaviour of universities. The same applies to the situation within institutions. The way budgets are allocated depends on the relationships between the central university administration and faculties.
Finnish universities have started to use the same fund allocation models as are in use at the national level, although the amount of funds to be allocated differs markedly from the national level funding. The increase in external funds, and the increase of state funds to be competed for, create new management procedures inside the university and its faculties. Universities have started to implement entrepreneurial activity models in their management processes.
Universities have to find a new way for management to take into account the changing state steering and the increasing external funds, as well as the nature of the academic community. This is a growing challenge for university management and leadership.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Clark, B.R. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press, 146-161.
Heinonen, O-P. (1996). What Are National Authorities Expecting from Higher Education Institutions? Higher Education Management.OECD/IMHE 9(2), 16.
Helsingin yliopiston vuosikertomus (1997). Helsinki Yliopistopaino 1998.
Hölttä, S. (1995). Towards the Self-regulative University. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Publications in Social Sciences.
Kekäle, J. (1997). Leadership Cultures in Academic Departments. University of Joensuu Publications in Social Sciences 1997:26. University of Joensuu, 11.
Kogan, M. (1997). University-state Relations: A Conparative Perspective. Paper presented in OECD/IMHE Workshop, Riga, June 1997.
Ministry of Education (1996). Higher Education Policy in Finland, Helsinki.
Ministry of Education, Department for Education and Science Policy/Universities Branch (1998). Management by Results in Higher Education, Helsinki, 37.
Opetusministeriö, Koulutus-ja tiedepolitiikan osasto, Taulukoita KOTA-tietokannasta 1997, Helsinki 1998.
Otten, C. (1996). Principles of Budget Allocation at the Institutional Level, Higher Education Management 8(1).
Shattock,M. (1997). The Managerial Implications of the New Priorities, Higher Education Management.OECD/IMHE. 9(2), 27-28.
Strom, G. (1996). Financing Higher Education in the Nordic Countries, Higher Education Management 8(1), 99.
Tiihonen, P. & Tiihonen, S. (1990). Keskitetyn suunnittelun nousu ja tuho (The rise and the fall of the centralized planning). Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus, 19.
Wagner, A. (1996). Financing Higher Education: New Approaches, new issues, Higher Education Management OECD/IMHE. 8(1), 12.
Williams, G. (1998). Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversified Funding in Universities, TEAM Tertiary Education and Management 4(2), 85-92.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rekilä, E., Larimo, M. & Tauriainen, K. Do Changing State Steering Mechanisms have an Impact on Academic Leadership at Universities. Tertiary Education and Management 5, 261–277 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018732207025
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018732207025