Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analysing the differential impact of the Bologna Process: Theoretical considerations on national conditions for international policy convergence

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although there is a growing interest of policy makers in higher education issues (especially on an international scale), there is still a lack of theoretically well-grounded comparative analyses of higher education policy. Even broadly discussed topics in higher education research like the potential convergence of European higher education systems in the course of the Bologna Process suffer from a thin empirical and comparative basis. This paper aims to deal with these problems by addressing theoretical questions concerning the domestic impact of the Bologna Process and the role national factors play in determining its effects on cross-national policy convergence. It develops a distinct theoretical approach for the systematic and comparative analysis of cross-national policy convergence. In doing so, it relies upon insights from related research areas—namely literature on Europeanization as well as studies dealing with cross-national policy convergence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Hogwood and Peters “All policy is policy change” (1983, p. 25). From this point of view, the consideration of cross-national policy convergence allows for systematic comparisons of all kinds of policy change resulting in convergence and/or divergence. Therefore it should serve as a useful tool structuring comparisons on the direction and degree of policy change and the dynamics of higher education systems. In this regard, the case of the Bologna-Process seems particularly suitable for comparatively analysing the national conditions for international policy convergence, by means of transnational communication as a distinct causal mechanism. Whereas voluntariness and the stimulation of information exchange as well as learning are highlighted, other convergence mechanisms like the legal obligation to harmonize national policies play only a minor role. Also it is an international policy instrument that gives policy change a direction by actually aiming at cross-national policy convergence in higher education (Huisman and Wende 2004).

  2. Of course, the categories we describe a relatively broad and partly overlapping. Think about institutional approaches encompassing both structure as well as agency-related theoretical assumptions. Also cultural factors often mix up with institutions blurring the difference between these two categories of explanatory factors (Hall and Taylor 1996, p. 14).

  3. This also means that intra-institutional factors like organisational characteristics of higher institutions themselves can be excluded from our analysis.

  4. The term ‘compliance’ refers to “the extent to which agents act in accordance with and in fulfilment of the conditions prescribed by international institutions” (Checkel 2000).

  5. One has to keep in mind that regardless of the Bologna Process’ (intergovernmental or supranational) character (Cerych 2002, p. 123; Neave 2003, p. 156) it does not matter what kind of actors decide on the course of the Bologna Process to explain its impact. More important for analysing its national effects are the underlying mechanisms causing national policy change and cross-national policy convergence.

  6. By now Albania, Latvia, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Armenia, Lithuania, Austria, Luxembourg, Azerbaijan, Malta, Belgium, Moldova, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Norway, Croatia, Poland, Cyprus, Portugal, Czech Republic, Romania, Denmark, Russian Federation, Estonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Finland, Slovak Republic, France, Slovenia, Georgia, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Greece, Switzerland, Holy See, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Hungary, Turkey, Iceland, Ukraine, Ireland, United Kingdom, Italy, and the Republic of Montenegro.

  7. As research on cross-national policy convergence is still lacking a systematic integration of theoretical arguments (Braun and Gilardi 2006; Braun et al. 2007) we do not discuss the potential relationship between the different variables. Such a task would need further (and more extensive) theoretical elaborations which we can not solve in such a short article. Surely one can expect cumulative interaction effects i.e. if a country is characterized by both cultural and institutional characteristics strengthening the domestic impact of the Bologna Process than we can expect even more convergence than in a case were only one of these factors is present.

  8. See footnote seven.

  9. Note that the underlying findings are based on the implementation of EU-directives when testing this hypothesis.

References

  • Almond, G. A., & Powell, G. B. (1966). Comparative politics. A development approach. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altbach, P. G. (1998). Comparative perspectives on higher education for the twenty-first century. Higher Education Policy, 11, 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aus, J. P. (2005). Conjunctural causation in comparative caseoriented research. Exploring the scope conditions of rationalist and institutionalist causal mechanisms. ARENA—Centre for European Studies, Oslo (ARENA Working Papers WP 28/2005).

  • Bennett, C. J. (1991). What is policy convergence and what causes it? British Journal of Political Science, 21(2), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergen-Communiqué (2005). The European higher education area—communiqué of the conference of European ministers responsible for higher education. Bergen, 19th–20th May.

  • Beukel, E. (2001). Educational policy. Institutionalization and multi-level governance. In S. Andersen & K. Eliassen (Eds.), Making policy in Europe (pp. 124–139). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • BFUG (2005). Bologna Process stocktaking. Report from a working group appointed by the Bologna Follow-up Group to the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19th–20th May 2005. Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG), Bergen.

  • Bleiklie, I. (2001). Towards European convergence of higher education policy? Higher Education Management, 13(3), 9–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bologna-Declaration (1999). The European higher education area. The Bologna declaration of 19 June 1999. Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education.

  • Braun, D., & Gilardi, F. (2006). Taking ‘Garlton problem’ seriously. Towards a theory of policy diffusion. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18(3), 298–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D., Gilardi, F., Flüglister, K., & Luyet, S. (2007). Ex pluribus unum: Integrating the different strands of policy diffusion theory. In K. Holzinger, C. Knill, & H. Jörgens (Eds.), Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken (pp. 39–55). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castles, F. (1994). On religion and public policy: Does Catholicism make a difference? European Journal of Political Research, 25, 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerych, L. (2002). Sorbonne, Bologna, Prague: Where do we go from here? In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalising world. International trends and mutual observations (pp. 121–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. T. (2000). Compliance and conditionality. ARENA—Centre for European Studies, Oslo (ARENA Working Papers WP 00/18).

  • CHEPS (2005). The cheps unplugged interview series. Frans van Vught. Cheps Unplugged. An Essential Newsletter, 5(2), 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D., & Sporn, B. (Eds.) (1995). Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: Through a glass darkly. Oxford Pergamon.

  • Drezner, D. W. (2001). Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review, 3, 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J. (2002). Higher education, internationalisation, and the nation-state. German Policy Studies, 2(3), 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). Three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M., & Leiber, S. (2005). Complying with Europe: EU harmonisation and soft law in the member states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feick, J., & Jann, W. (1988). “Nations matter”—Vom Eklektizismus zur Integration in der vergleichenden Policy-Forschung? In M. G. Schmidt (Ed.), Staatstätigkeit. International und historisch vergleichende Analysen (pp. 196–220). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedkin, N. E. (1993). Structural bases of interpersonal influence in groups. A longitudinal case study. American Sociological Review, 58, 861–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellert, C. (1999). The changing conditions of teaching and learning in European higher education. In C. Gellert (Ed.), Innovation and adaption in higher education (pp. 9–30). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedegebuure, L., & van Vught, F. (1996). Comparative higher education studies: The perspective from the policy sciences. Higher Education, 32, 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackl, E. (2001). Towards a European area of higher education: Change and convergence in European higher education. European University Institute, Florence (EUI Working Paper RSC No. 2001/09).

  • Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heichel, S., Pape, J., & Sommerer, T. (2005). Is there convergence in convergence research? An overview of empirical studies on policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 817–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidenreich, M. (2003). Die Debatte um die Wissensgesellschaft. In S. Böschen & I. Schulz-Schaeffner (Eds.), Wissenschaft in der Wissensgesellschaft (pp. 25–51). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, A., & Knill, C. (2001). Differential responses to European policies: A comparison. In A. Héritier, D. Kerwer, C. Knill, D. Lehmkuhl, M. Teutsch, & A.-C. Douillet (Eds.), Differential Europe. The European union impact on national policymaking (pp. 257–294). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogwood, B. W., & Peters, G. B. (1983). Policy dynamics. New York: St. Martin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzinger, K., & Knill, C. (2005). Causes and conditions of cross-national policy-convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 775–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzinger, K., & Knill, C. (2007). Ursachen und Bedingungen internationaler Politikkonvergenz. In K. Holzinger, C. Knill, & H. Jörgens (Eds.), Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken (pp. 85–107). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzinger, K., Knill, C., & Jörgens, H. (Eds.) (2007). Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, J., & van der Wende, M. (2004). The EU and Bologna: Are supra- and international initiatives threatening domectic agendas? European Journal of Education, 39(3), 349–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1989). Kultureller Umbruch. Wertwandel in der westlichen Welt. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, C. (1983). The future of industrial societies: Convergence or continuing diversity? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C. (2001). The Europeanisation of national administrations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C. (2005). Introduction: Cross-national policy-convergence: Concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 764–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C., & Lehmkuhl, D. (2002). The national impact of EU regulatory policy: Three Europeanization mechanisms. European Journal of Political Research, 41(2), 255–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler-Koch, B. (1999). The evolution and transformation of European governance. In B. Kohler-Koch & R. Eising (Eds.), The transformation of governance in the European Union (pp. 14–35). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laver, M., & Hunt, W. B. (1992). Policy and party competition. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenschow, A., Liefferink, D., & Veenman, S. (2005). When the birds sing. A framework for analysing domestic factors behind policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 797–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1975). The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies, 8(2), 158–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luijten-Lub, A., Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, G., van der Wende, M., & Williams, G. (2004). International comparative analysis. In J. Huisman & M. van der Wende (Eds.), On cooperation and competition. National and European policies for the internationalisation of higher education (pp. 249–275). Bonn: Lemmens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luijten-Lub, A., van der Wende, M., & Huisman, J. (2005). On cooperation and competition: A comparative analysis of national policies for internationalisation of higher education in seven Western European countries. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(2), 147–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens, K., Balzer, C., Sackmann, R., & Weymann, A. (2004). Comparing governance of international organizations—The EU, the OECD and educational policy. University of Bremen, Collaborate Research Centre 597, Bremen (TranState Working Papers 7).

  • Martens, K., & Wolf, K. D. (2006). Paradoxien der Neuen Staatsräson. Die Internationalisiserung der Bildungspolitik in der EU und der OECD. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 13(2), 145–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastenbroek, E. (2005). EU compliance: Still a ‘black hole’? Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 1103–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastenbroek, E., & van Keulen, M. (2006). Beyond the goodness of fit. A preference-based account of Europeanization. In R. Holzhacker & M. Haverland (Eds.), European research reloaded: Cooperation and integration among Europeanized states (pp. 19–42). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R., & Scharpf, F. W. (Eds.) (1995). Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, M. K. (2003). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research agenda. Educational Policy, 17(1), 165–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moses, J., Rihoux, B., & Kittel, B. (2005). Mapping political methodology: Reflections on a European perspectice. European Political Science, 4, 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, A.-K. (2006). Der Bologna-Prozess als Politiknetzwerk. Akteure, Beziehungen, Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: DUV Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (2003). The Bologna declaration: Some of the historic dilemmas posed by the reconstruction of the community in Europe’s systems of higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 141–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Introduction: The problem-solving capacity of multi-level governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 4, 520–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimank, U., & Stölting, E. (Eds.) (2001). Die Krise der Universitäten. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. A. (2002). Europeanization and the mechanics of economic policy adjustment. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(6), 894–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seibel, W. (1997). Historische Analyse und politikwissenschaftliche Institutionenforschung. In A. Benz & W. Seibek (Eds.), Theorieentwicklung in der Politikwissenschaft – eine Zwischenbilanz (pp. 357–376). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, B. A., & Elkins, Z. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review, 98, 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S. (2001). Problems in comparative higher education: Political economy, political sociology and postmodernism. Higher Education, 41, 389–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmo, S., & Thelen, K. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth, (Eds.), Structuring politics. Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis (pp. 1–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steunenberg, B. (2007). A policy solution to the European Union’s transposition puzzle: Interaction of interests in different domestic arenas. West European Politics, 30(1), 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22, 487–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teichler, U. (1996). The changing nature of higher education in Western Europe. Higher Education Policy, 9(2), 89–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tews, K. (2002). Der Diffusionsansatz für die vergleichende Policy-Analyse. Wurzeln und Potenziale eines Konzeptes. Eine Literaturstudie. Forschungsstelle für Umweltpolitik. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin (FFU-report 02-2002).

  • Theisens, H. C. (2004). The state of change. Analysing policy change in Dutch and English higher education. Enschede: Centre of Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Treib, O. (2005). Die Bedeutung der nationalen Parteipolitik für die Umsetzung europäischer Sozialrichtlinien. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartism. British Journal of Political Science, 25, 289–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, G. (1999). Veto-players and law production in parliamentary democracies: An empirical analysis. American Political Science Review, 93(3), 591–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2003). Measuring and monitoring the information and knowledge societies: A statistical challenge. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework of analysis. Higher Education, 48, 483–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Wende, M. (2001). The international dimension in national higher education policies: What has changed in Europe in the last five years? European Journal of Education, 36(4), 431–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Wende, M., & Huisman, J. (2003). The role of Europe in higher education policy: Expansion across borders and levels. Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs, 21(1), 30–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Vught, F., van der Wende, M., & Westerheijden, D. (2002). Globalisation and internationalisation: Policy agendas compared. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalising world. International trends and mutual observations (pp. 103–120). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veiga, A. (2005). Europeanization of higher education area: Towards a framework of analysis. Paper presented at the 2nd EUREDOCS Conference “Transformations of higher education and research policies, systems and institutions in European countries”, Bergen, May 20th–21st.

  • Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2006). The open method of coordination and the implementation of the Bologna process. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(4), 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, T. (2006). Der Bologna-Prozess. Ein Wendepunkt europäischer Hochschulpolitik? Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, H. A. (2004). Higher education in Germany: Reform in incremental steps. European Journal of Education, 39(3), 359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte, J. (2004). The introduction of two-tiered study structures in the context of the Bologna Process: A theoretical framework for an international comparative study of change in higher education systems. Higher Education Policy, 17, 405–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte, J. (2006). Change of degrees and degrees of change. Comparing adaptions of European higher education systems in the context of the Bologna Process. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this article has been presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions of Workshops in Helsinki 2005. The authors thank the conference paper discussants and anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of European Integration, Otto-Suhr-Institute for Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin, Ihnestr. 22, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Torben Heinze

  2. Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, Box D 91, 78457, Konstanz, Germany

    Christoph Knill

Authors
  1. Torben Heinze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Knill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Torben Heinze.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heinze, T., Knill, C. Analysing the differential impact of the Bologna Process: Theoretical considerations on national conditions for international policy convergence. High Educ 56, 493–510 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9107-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9107-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation