Abstract
This chapter focuses on the implementation of HE policies in European universities and how it varies across countries. Two aspects of policy implementation are focused. One is the substantive policies that are put in place in terms of policy instruments such as legislation, financial incentives and organizational arrangements. The second aspect is the process of implementation understood as patterns of participation and trust among the actors involved. The aim is to explain cross-national variation focusing on the relationship between political-administrative structures, implementation processes, policy instruments and substantive outcomes. By analyzing variation in the use of policy instruments as well as characteristics of the implementation processes, the approach goes beyond simplistic generalizations, categorizing countries globally as respectively high or low implementation performers.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bezes, P. (2010). Path-dependent and path-breaking changes in French administrative system: The weight of legacy explanations. In M. Painter & G. Peters (Eds.), Tradition and public administration. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bleiklie, I., & Michelsen, S. (2013). Comparing HE policies in Europe. Higher Education, 65(1), 113–133.
Bleiklie, I., Høstaker, R., & Vabø, A. (2000). Policy and practice in higher education reforming Norwegian university. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., Lepori, B., & Musselin, C. (2011). New Public Management, Network Governance and the university as a changing professional organization. In T. Christensen, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management (pp. 161–176). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Brunsson, N., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: The example of public sector reform. Organization Studies, 21(4), 721–746.
Cerych, L., & Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Great expectations and mixed performance: The implementation of higher education reforms in Europe. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative science quarterly, 1–25.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (1999). New public management—design, resistance or transformation? A study of how modern reforms are received in a civil service system. Public Productivity and Management Review, 23(2), 169–193.
Clark, B. R. (1986). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Univ of California Press.
De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. New forms of governance in research organizations (pp. 137–152). Netherlands: Springer.
Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2014). Higher education governance and policy change in Western Europe: International challenges to historical institutions. New York: Springer.
Ferlie, E. & Andresani, G. (2009). United Kingdom from bureau professionalism to new public management? In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University Governance. Western European Comparative Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gornitzka, Å., Kyvik, S., & Stensaker, B. (2005). Implementation analysis in higher education. In Å. Gornitzka, M. Kogan, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Reform and change in higher education: Analyzing policy implementation (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hill, M. J., & Hupe, P. L. (2002). Implementing public policy: Governance in theory and practice (No. 04; H97, H5.). London: Sage.
Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1–21.
Howlett, M. (2005). What is a policy instrument? Tools, mixes, and implementation styles. In P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 31–50). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Høstaker, R. (2006). Policy change and the academic profession. In M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie, & M. Henkel (Eds.), Transforming higher education. A comparative study. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kohoutek, J. (2013). Three decades of implementation research in higher education: Limitations and prospects of theory development. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(1), 56–79.
Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In Globalization and organization: World society and organizational change (pp. 241–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhlmann, S., & Wollmann, H. (2014). Introduction to comparative public administration: Administrative systems and reforms in Europe. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Larsen, I. M. (2000). University research policy in Norway-Walking the tightrope between internal and external interests. European Journal of Education, 35(4), 385–402.
Larsen, I. M., & Langfeldt, L. (2005). Profiling comprehensiveness? Strategy formulation and effects of strategic programmes at traditional universities. In Å. Gornitzka, M. Kogan, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Reform and change in higher education (pp. 343–361). Netherlands: Springer.
Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2006). Autonomy and control in the Norwegian civil service: Does agency form matter. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Autonomy and Regulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Musselin, C. (2007). Are universities specific organisations? In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 108–131). Bielefeld: Transcript.
Nyhagen, G. Mathisen. (2015). Between slow and comprehensive reformers: Comparing government’s funding policies of Universities in three European Countries. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(8), 533–543.
Ongaro, E., & Valotti, G. (2008). Public management reform in Italy: Explaining the implementation gap. Journal of Public Sector Management, 21, 174–204.
Painter, M. J., & Peters, B. G. (2010). Tradition and public administration. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I. & Ferlie, E. (2009). University Governance. Western European Comparative Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Peters, Guy. (2000). Policy instruments and public management: Bridging the gap. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 35–47.
Peters, B. G. (2010). Public administration in the United States: Anglo-American, just American or which American? In M. Painter & B.G. Peters (Eds.), Tradition and Public Administration. Palgrave: MacMillan: Basingstoke.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. USA: Oxford University Press.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1973). How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ramirez, F. (2006). The rationalization of universities. In M. J. Djelic, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), Transnational governance. Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reale, E., & Poti, B. (2009). Italy: Local policy legacy and moving to an ‘in between’ configuration. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University Governance. Western European comparative perspectives (pp. 77–102). Dordrecht: Springer.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview press.
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(02), 510–529.
Schofield, J. (2001). Time for a revival? Public policy implementation: A review of the literature and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 245–263.
Sousa, S. B., & Magalhães, A. (2013). Discourse analysis in higher education research. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research. Bingley: Emerald.
Sætren, H. (2005). Facts and myths about research on public policy implementation: Out-of-Fashion, allegedly dead, but still very much alive and relevant. Policy Studies Journal, 33(4), 559–582.
Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. Rist, & E. O. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks, and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (Vol. 1). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
Yesilkagit, K. (2010). The future of administrative tradition. Tradition as ideas and structure. In M. Painter & B. G. Peters (Eds.), Tradition and public administration. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Public documents
Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. (2011). Quality in diversity. Strategic agenda for higher education, research and science.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2013). Rammer for arbeidet til styrene for universiteter og høyskoler.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nyhagen, G.M., Bleiklie, I., Hope, K. (2017). Policy Instruments in European Universities: Implementation of Higher Education Policies. In: Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., Lepori, B. (eds) Managing Universities. Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53865-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53865-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53864-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53865-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)