Public Policy Design and University Reform: Insights into Academic Change
The massification and increasing global competition of higher education pose major challenges to the design of effective national policies to steer universities. A generalization of contemporary studies of higher education is that significant changes within universities are being caused primarily by government policy reforms reflecting the “New Public Management” (NPM). NPM has been influenced by the “new institutional economics,” emphasizing transaction costs, property rights, and principal-agent relationships. Following this framework national reforms of higher education often seek to make the nature and distribution of information on academic behavior much more explicit. But the “new institutional economics” also perceives organizational change to be a result of the complex interactions among the regulations of the state, the forces of the market, and social norms. Therefore this chapter reviews the impact of contemporary government reforms, changing market forces, and alterations in the academic professions on the process of change within universities, exploring what we are learning about the role of information in the functioning of higher education.
KeywordsAcademic Staff Academic Program Academic Quality Academic Profession Research Assessment Exercise
- Adams, J. D., & Clemmons, J. R. (2009). The growing allocative inefficiency of the U.S. higher education sector. In R. B. Freeman & D. L. Goroff (Eds.), Science and engineering careers in the United States: An analysis of markets and employment (pp. 349–382). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Aghion, P. (2006). A primer on innovation and growth. Bruegel Policy Brief, 6, 1–8.Google Scholar
- Barzelay, M. (2001). The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Beerkens, M., & Dill, D. D. (2010). The CHE university ranking in Germany. In D. D. Dill & M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments (pp. 65–86). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Brewer, D. J., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2002). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.Google Scholar
- Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Crespi, G., & A. Geuna (2004). The productivity of science. Brighton: SPRU Report prepared for the Office of Science and Technology (OST), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), UK. http://akgul.bilkent.edu.tr/inovasyon/crespiost2.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
- Dill, D. D. (2009). Convergence and diversity: The role and influence of university rankings. In B. M. Kehm & B. Stensaker (Eds.), University rankings, diversity, and the new landscape of higher education (pp. 99–118). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- Dill, D. D. (2010). The United States. In D. D. Dill & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective (pp. 387–437). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Dill, D. D., & van Vught, F. A. (2010). National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Dill, D. D., Mitra, S. K., Jensen, H. S., Lehtinen, E., Mäkelä, T., Parpala, A., Pohjola, H., Ritter, M. A., & Saari, S. (2006). PhD training and the knowledge society: An evaluation of doctoral education in Finland. Helsinki: The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC).Google Scholar
- Foltz, J. D., Barham, B. L., Chavas, J., & Kim, K. (2005). Efficiency and technological change at US research universities (Agricultural and Applied Economics Staff Paper Series, No. 486). University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
- Geiger, R. L. (2010). State policies for science and technology: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In D. D. Dill & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in international perspective (pp. 438–479). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
- Henkel, M., & Kogan, M. (2010). National innovation and the academic research enterprise: The UK case. In D. D. Dill & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in international perspective (pp. 337–386). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
- Hicks, D. (2008). Evolving regimes of multi-university research evaluation (Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy Working Papers #27). http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/23496/wp27.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
- Hood, C. (2004). Conclusion: Making sense of controls over government. In C. Hood, O. James, B. G. Peters, & C. Scott (Eds.), Controlling modern government: Variety, commonality, and change (pp. 185–205). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- Hoxby, C. M. (1997). How the changing market structure of U.S. higher education explains college tuition (National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper No. W6323). http://www.nber.org/papers/w6323.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
- Jongbloed, B. (2010). The Netherlands. In D. D. Dill & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective (pp. 286–336). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Kean, S. (2006). Scientists spend nearly half their time on administrative tasks, survey finds. Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/article/Scientists-Spend-Nearly-Half/23697/. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
- Lester, R. K. (2007). Universities, innovation, and the competitiveness of local economies: An overview. In R. K. Lester & M. Sotarauta (Eds.), Innovation, universities, and the competitiveness of regions (pp. 9–30). Helsinki: TEKES.Google Scholar
- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Higher education and regions: Globally competitive, locally engaged. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzeni, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Vol. 2. A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Sorbonne Joint Declaration. (1998). Joint declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system by the four Ministers in charge for France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. Paris, the Sorbonne, May 25. http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Sorbonne_declaration.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
- Van Bouwel, L., & Veugelers, R. (2009). The determinants of student mobility in Europe: The quality dimension. Department of Managerial Economics, Strategy & Innovation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/256921/3/MSI_0912. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
- Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
- Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (1996). Economics. In D. F. Kettl & H. B. Milward (Eds.), The state of public management (pp. 92–117). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Zumeta, W. (2010). The public interest and state policies affecting academic research in California. In D. D. Dill & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in international perspective (pp. 480–526). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar