Conclusion

Abstract

Rapid changes in tertiary education began to gather force in the 1990s. These changes have proven complex and heterogeneous, with substantial variation by national system illustrated by the various chapters in this volume. Nonetheless, these changes share a general tendency toward less direct regulation/provision of education. In place of central controls, policymakers have tended to employ competition-based steering mechanisms that incent universities to behave in particular ways. Such mechanisms are familiar in the US, as documented in the several chapters that we authored or coauthored (Chaps. 4–6 and 8). Notably, the European Union (EU) has adopted somewhat similar initiatives, as Slaughter and Cantwell (2012) document with respect to research and as Karseth and Solbrekke (Chap. 11) elucidate with respect to instruction. Moreover, competition-based mechanisms are increasingly common within some European national systems, in which their adoption and effects are mediated by national traditions. Thus, for example, English university “imaginators” analyzed by Susan Wright (Chap. 7) could plot rapid, sweeping changes by repurposing existing administrative offices and governance structures. By contrast, German universities, in Jennifer Olson’s account (Chap. 12), proceeded more slowly and with greater central planning in their efforts to secure advantage in competitions for international students. In both of these cases distinctive national histories, structures, and traditions shape policies. At the same time, however, the direction of policies appears much the same. Relative to their twentieth century forebears, policymakers appear less interested in centralization and direct governance, and more interested in competitions, incentives, and steering.