Reforming Portuguese Public Sector: A Route from Health to Higher Education

Chapter
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 41)

Abstract

To analyze changes in HE from a comparative perspective, between countries or within the same country, may highlight differences in the global tendencies and contribute to dismantle the convergence myth. This study develops such a comparative perspective. Assuming NPM and managerialism as the referential concepts it tries to analyze changes in HE in a comparative ‘inter country’ perspective. Taking Portugal as a case study it aims to understand the similarities and differences between the two most symbolic sectors of the welfare state: higher education and health. These changes involved transformations at the organizational level, in presence of decentralization and deregulation processes, with consequences for professionals translating attempts to replace the traditional organizational and professional order, based on professionals’ self-regulation by a new one based on market assumptions. A qualitative study has been developed based on content analysis of legal documents and semi-structured interviews with academics and nurses working in public hospitals and higher education institutions. Data analysis shows that traditional bureaucratic way of organizing public institutions has given way to a more rational one, that professionals’ deregulation is not similar for professionals in health and higher education, and that there are significant differences between the two sectors.

Keywords

High Education National Health Service Welfare State High Education Institution Legal Document 
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. Addicott, R., McGivern, G., & Ferlie, E. (2006). Networks, organizational learning and knowledge management: NHS cancer networks. Public Money and Management, 26(2), 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allsop, J., & Mulcahy, L. (1996). Regulating medical work: Formal and informal controls. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Amaral, A., & Carvalho, T. (2004). Autonomy and change in Portuguese higher education. In A. Barblan (Ed.), Academic freedom and university institutional responsibility in Portugal (pp. 35–46). Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Amaral, A., Correia, F., Magalhães, A., Rosa, M., Santiago, R., & Teixeira, P. (2002). O Ensino superior pela mão da economia. Coimbra: FUP.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, R. (1994). Annual review article 1993: British public sector industrial relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 32, 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barry, J., Berg, E., & Chandler, J. (2006). Academic shape shifting: Gender, management and identities in Sweden and England. Organization, 13(2), 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bleiklie, I., & Michelsen, S. (2008). The university as enterprise and academic co-determination. In A. Amaral, I. Bleiklie, & C. Musselin (Eds.), From governance to identity, a Festschrift for Mary Henkel (pp. 57–80). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Campos, A. (1996). Yellow light at the crossroads: Wait for green or cross on yellow. Uncertainties about the future of the Portuguese NHS. Lisboa: APES – Associação Portuguesa de Economia da Saúde.Google Scholar
  9. Carvalho, T. (2012). Shaping the ‘New’ academic profession: Tensions and contradictions in the professionalisation of academics. In G. Neave & A. Amaral (Eds.), Higher education in Portugal 1974–2009. A nation, a generation (pp. 329–352). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Carvalho, T., & Santiago, R. (2008). Gender differences on research: Is it a problem of professional behaviour? Tertiary Education and Management, 14(4), 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carvalho, T., & Santiago, R. (2009). Gender as a ‘strategic action’: New public management and the professionalization of nursing in Portugal. Equal Opportunities International, 28(7), 609–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carvalho, T., & Santiago, R. (2010). New public management and ‘middle-management’: How do deans influence institutional policies? In L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, R. Santiago, & T. Carvalho (Eds.), The changing dynamics of higher education middle management (pp. 165–196). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (1997). The managerial state. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Courpasson, D. (2000). Managerial strategies of domination: Power in soft bureaucracies. Organization Studies, 49, 166–178.Google Scholar
  15. Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism. The changing management of UK universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dent, M., Chandler, J., & Barry, J. (2004). Introduction: Questioning the new public management. In M. Dent, J. Chandler, & J. Barry (Eds.), Questioning the new public management (pp. 1–4). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  17. Derber, C. (1982). The proletarization of the professional: A review essay. In C. Derber (Ed.), Professionals as workers: Mental labor in advanced capitalism (pp. 13–33). Boston: G. K. Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Diefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark sides of managerialistic ‘enlightenment’. Public Administration, 87(4), 892–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Enders, J., de Boer, H., & Leisyte, L. (2008). On striking the right notes: Shifts in governance and organizational transformations of universities. In A. Amaral, I. Bleiklie, & C. Musselin (Eds.), From governance to identity. A Festschrift for Mary Henkel (pp. 113–130). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Estanque, E. (2008). Jovens, estudantes, ‘repúblicos’: Culturas estudantis e crise do associativismo em Coimbra. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 81, 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Estanque, E. (2010). Juventude, Boémia e Movimentos Sociais – culturas e lutas estudantis na universidade de Coimbra. Revista Política e Sociedade, 9(16), 257–290.Google Scholar
  22. Exworthy, M. (1998). Localism in the NHS quasi-market. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 16(4), 379–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Exworthy, M., & Halford, S. (1999). Professionals and managers in a changing public sector: Conflict, compromise and collaboration. In M. Exworthy & S. Halford (Eds.), Professionals and the new managerialism in the public sector (pp. 1–17). Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Farnham, D., & Horton, S. (1996). Managing people in the public services. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferrera, M. (1996). The southern model of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6(1), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fitzgerald, L. (1994). Moving clinicians into management. A professional challenge or threat? Journal of Management in Medicine, 8(6), 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freiberg, A. (2005). Managerialism in Australian criminal justice: RIP or KPIs? Monash University Law Review, 31(1), 12–36.Google Scholar
  29. Freidson, E. (1977). The futures of professionalisation. In M. Stacey, M. Reid, C. Heath, & R. Dingwall (Eds.), Health and the division of labour (pp. 14–38). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  30. Freidson, E. (1986). Professional powers. A study of the institutionalization of formal knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Freidson, E. (1988). Profession of medicine. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  33. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism, the third logic. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, R. (1975). Occupations and the social structure. Princeton: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Harley, S., Muller-Camen, M., & Collin, A. (2003). From academic communities to managed organizations: The implications for academic careers in UK and German universities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(2), 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harrison, S., & Ahmad, W. (2000). Medical autonomy and the UK state 1975 to 2025. Sociology, 34(1), 129–146.Google Scholar
  37. Hayek, F. A. (2001). The road to Serfdom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Henriksson, L., Wrede, S., & Burau, V. (2006). Understanding professional projects in welfare service work: Revival of old professionalism? Gender, Work and Organization, 13(2), 174–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoggett, P. (1996). New modes of control in the public services. Public Administration, 74(1), 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Homburg, V., Pollit, C., & Thiel, S. V. (2007). Introduction. In C. Pollitt, S. Van Thiel, & V. Homburg (Eds.), New public management in Europe: Adaptation and alternatives (pp. 1–9). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Johnson, T. (1972). Professions and power. Londres: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Kirkpatrick, I., & Ackroyd, S. (2003). Archetype theory and the changing professional organization: A critique and alternative. Organization, 10(4), 731–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kirkpatrick, I., Ackroyd, S., & Walker, R. (2005). The new managerialism and public service professions. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  44. Kogan, M., & Bauer, M. (2000). Change and continuity: Some conclusions. In M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie, & M. Henkel (Eds.), Transforming higher education, a comparative study (pp. 199–214). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Larson, M. (1977). The rise of professionalism. A sociological analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. MacDonald, K. (1995). The sociology of the professions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Meek, L. (2003). Introduction. In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek, & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution? (pp. 1–29). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller, H. (1995). The management of change in universities. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University.Google Scholar
  49. Mintzberg, H. (1994). Le management, voyage au centre des organizations. Paris: Les Éditions D’Organization.Google Scholar
  50. Murphy, R. (1988). Social closure. The theory of monopolization and exclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Musselin, C. (2008). Towards a sociology of academic work. In A. Amaral, I. Bleiklie, & C. Musselin (Eds.), From governance to identity, a Festschrift for Mary Henkel (pp. 47–56). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Ongaro, E. (2009). Public management reform and modernization. Trajectories of administrative change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oppenheimer, M. (1973). The proletarization of the professional. In P. Halmos (Ed.), The sociological review monograph (pp. 213–227). Keele: Keele University.Google Scholar
  54. OPSS. (2002). Relatório de primavera de 2002. O estado da saúde e a saúde do Estado. Lisboa: Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública.Google Scholar
  55. Parkin, F. (1979). Marxism and class theory. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Pereira, J., Campos, C., Ramos, F., & Reis, V. (1997). Health care reform and cost containment in Portugal (Working Paper 2/97). Lisbon: APES.Google Scholar
  57. Pettigrew, A. (1992). On studying managerial elites. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pollitt, C. (1993). Managerialism and the public services. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  59. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Reed, M. (2002). New managerialism, professional power and organizational governance in UK universities: A review and assessment. In A. Amaral, G. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 163–185). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  61. Santiago, R., & Carvalho, T. (2004). Effects of managerialism on the perceptions of higher education in Portugal. Higher Education Policy, 17(4), 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Santiago, R., & Carvalho, T. (2008). Academics in a new work environment: The impact of new public management on work conditions. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3), 204–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Santiago, R., Carvalho, T., Amaral, A., & Meek, L. (2006). Changing patterns in the middle management of higher education: The case of Portugal. Higher Education, 52, 215–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Santiago, R., Carvalho, T., & Relva, R. (2008). Research and the universities’ image. European Journal of Education, 43(4), 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Salter, B. (2001). Who rules? The new politics of medical regulation. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 871–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Salter, B. (2004). The new politics of medicine. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  67. Tervonen-Gonçalves, L., & Lehto, J. (2004). Transfer of health for all policy – What, how and in which direction? Health Research Policy and Systems, 2(8), 1–13.Google Scholar
  68. Wrede, S. (2008). Unpacking gendered professional power in the welfare state. Equal Opportunities International, 27(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES)PortoPortugal
  2. 2.DCSPT-CIPESUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations