Abstract
Historically, decisions relating to resource allocation in British universities were largely left to the universities themselves,1 but in the 1980s the Conservative government attempted to introduce accountability and performance measurement into the public sector and this also applied to the universities. This involved not only selectivity in the distribution of resources but also rationalisation and, where appropriate, the closure of small departments, firmer financial control and attempts to improve the standard of teaching (Cave and Weale, 1992). Two reasons for this intervention were suggested in a 1991 white paper, Higher Education: A New Framework, namely the considerable growth in student numbers and the development of competition among institutions as a result of changes to the funding mechanism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adams, J. (2000) ‘The Role of Selectivity and the Characteristics of Excellence’, report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Higher Education Policy Unit, University of Leeds, October.
Arestis, P. and Young, A. (1994) ‘The Economics of Assessment and the Assessment of Economics: The 1992–93 SHEFC Exercise’, Royal Economic Society Newsletter, no. 87 (October), pp. 2–4.
Cave, M. (1994) ‘Why Students Need (Consumer) Protection’, Royal Economic Society Newsletter, no. 87 (October), pp. 18–20.
Cave, M. and Weale, M. (1992) ‘The Assessment: Higher Education, the State of Play’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 8, no. 2 (Summer), pp. 1–18.
Cohn, E., Rhine, S. L. W. and Santos, M. C. (1989) ‘Institutions of Higher Education as Multi-Product Firms: Economies of Scale and Scope’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 71 (May), pp. 284–90.
Dearing Report (1997), The National Committee into Higher Education, London, HMSO.
De Groot, H., McMahon, W. W. and Volkwein, J.F. (1991) ‘The Cost Structure of American Research Universities’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 73, pp. 424–31.
Euwals, R. and Ward, M. (2000) ‘What Matters Most: Teaching or Research? Empirical Evidence on the Remuneration of British Academics’, IZA working paper (Bonn: IZA, August).
Geuna, A. (2001) ‘The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are there Negative Unintended Consequences?’, Journal of Economic Issues, vol. xxxv, no. 3 (September), pp. 607–32.
Hare, P. and Wyatt, G. (1992) ‘Economics of Academic Research and its Implications for Higher Education’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 8, no. 2 (Summer), pp. 48–66.
Harrison, M. and Lockwood, B. (2001) ‘What Price Teaching Quality?’, Royal Economic Society Newsletter, no,. 113 (April), pp. 3–5.
HMSO (1987), A Strategy for the Science Base, London.
James, E. and Neuberger, E. (1981) ‘The University Department as a Non-Profit Labour Co-operative’, Public Choice, vol. 36, pp. 585–612.
Johnes, G. (1988) ‘Research Performance Indicators in the University Sector’, Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2 (Winter), pp. 54–71.
Johnes, G. (1990) ‘Measures of Research Output: University Departments of Economics in the UK, 1984–88’, Economic Journal, vol. 100, no. 401 Uune), pp. 556–60.
Johnes, G. and Taylor, J. (1992) ‘The 1989 Research Selectivity Exercise: A Statistical Analysis of Differences in Research Ratings Between Universities at the Cost Centre Level’, Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 1 (Winter), pp. 67–87.
Johnes, G., Taylor, J. and Francis, B. (1993) ‘The Research Performance of UK Universities: A Statistical Analysis of the Results of the 1989 Research Selectivity Exercise’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, series A, part 2, vol. 156, pp. 271–86.
McNabb, R. Pal, S. and Sloane, P. J. (2002) ‘Gender Differences in Student Attainment: the Case of University Students in the UK’, Economica, vol. 69, pp. 481–503.
McNay, I. (1997) The Impact of the 1992 RAE on Institutional and Individual Behaviour in English Higher Education (Bristol: HEFC, May).
Moore, W. J., Newman, R. J. and Sloane, P. J. (2001) ‘Effects of Research Assessment Exercise in Research Productivity of UK Academic Economists’, unpublished manuscript, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University.
Nerlove, M. (1972) ‘On Tuition and Costs of Higher Education: Prolegomena to a Conceptual Framework’, Journal ofPolitical Economy, vol. 80, pp. S178–218.
Talib, A. A. (1999) ‘Simulations of the Submission Decision in the Research Assessment Exercise: The Who and Where Decision’, Education Economics, vol. 7, no. 1 (April), pp. 39–52.
Taylor, J. (1995) ‘A Statistical. Analysis of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, series A, vol. 158, part 2, pp. 241–62.
Taylor, J. and Izadi, H. (1998) ‘The 1992 Research Assessment Exercise: Outcomes, Outputs and Impacts in Economics and Econometrics’, Bulletin of Economic Research, vol. 48, no. 1 (January), pp. 1–26.
Williams, B. (1991) University Responses to Research Selectivity (London: CHES).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2004 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sloane, P.J. (2004). The Impact of Research Assessment and Teaching-Quality Exercises on the UK University System. In: Checchi, D., Lucifora, C. (eds) Education, Training and Labour Market Outcomes in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522657_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522657_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-51508-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-52265-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)