Advertisement

Public Policy Design and University Reform: Insights into Academic Change

  • David D. Dill
Chapter
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 41)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Academic Staff Academic Program Academic Quality Academic Profession Research Assessment Exercise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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
  2. Aghion, P. (2006). A primer on innovation and growth. Bruegel Policy Brief, 6, 1–8.Google Scholar
  3. Barzelay, M. (2001). The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Black, G. C., & Stephan, P. E. (2010). The economics of university sciences and the role of foreign gradate students and postdoctoral scholars. In C. T. Clotfelter (Ed.), American universities in a global market (pp. 129–161). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Dill, D. D., & Beerkens, M. (2010). Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. El-Khawas, E. (2010). The Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) in the USA. In D. D. Dill & M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Greif, A., & Laitin, D. D. (2004). A theory of endogenous institutional change. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(5364), 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. Kim, E. H., Morse, A., & Zingales, L. (2009). Are elite universities losing their competitive edge? Journal of Financial Economics, 93, 353–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Massy, W. F. (2010). Academic quality audit as applied in Hong Kong. In D. D. Dill & M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments (pp. 203–225). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Musselin, C., & Paradeise, C. (2009). France: From incremental transitions to institutional change. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University governance: Western European comparative perspectives (pp. 21–49). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Higher education and regions: Globally competitive, locally engaged. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  34. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzeni, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Vol. 2. A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  35. Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  36. Scott, G., Ball, I., & Dale, T. (1997). New Zealand’s public sector management reform: Implications for the United States. Journal of Public Policy Analysis and Management, 16(3), 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.
  38. Teixeira, P., Jongbloed, B., Dill, D., & Amaral, A. (2004). Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.
  40. Van Vught, F. A. (2008). Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public PolicyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations