Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The steering of higher education systems: a public management perspective

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article focuses on the steering of higher education systems in the light of political science and public management approaches. It first recalls that an important part of the existing literature on higher education is focused on public policies in terms of reforms and decision-making, while the other part is dedicated to discovering and understanding the policy network or the policy regimes producing these policies. Both perspectives tend to look at higher education as a specific field. By contrast, the authors state that the transformations experienced in higher education are similar to those experienced by other key public services, an can be understood as a redefinition of the role of the nation state in the public generally. They therefore suggest to look at the steering patterns in higher education by investigating the underlying ‘narratives’ of public management reform and their variation or combination from one European nation state to another. Three main narratives of public services reform are discussed: the New Public Management (NPM), the Network governance and the Neo-Weberian narrative. For each narrative, the authors try to predict some ‘signs and symptoms’ that should be observed in higher education. Drawing on this reflection, the authors finally suggest further research perspectives which could be developed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The notion of policy network is used here in its descriptive heuristic meaning (following Rhoades and Marsh for instance) and not as an alternative model to pluralism and neo-corporatism to rethink state society relationships (as suggested by Lehmbruch 1995 for instance).

  2. As defined by Bleiklie (2000, p.54): “the network of patterns of influence that are particular to a policy area or an entire polity”.

  3. We agree with the distinction by Bleiklie et al. (2000) between the idealist and the functionalist approaches but in this article we want to stress their convergent conceptions about the role of the state.

  4. This includes politicians and university reformers but also the tenants of the “strong programme” (among many others Bloor 1976; Latour 1987; Lynch 1993) who fight against the idea of science as a different activity and of scientists as a group outside the society.

  5. In their analysis of the transformation of the British higher education system, Kogan and Hanney (2000) provide an interesting analysis of what they call the “co-opted elite”, i.e. mostly academics who are recognised as interlocutors by the political and ministerial actors and contribute to the definition of the forthcoming reforms.

  6. In a comparison between academic labour markets in France, Germany and the United States, Musselin (2005, Chap. 7) argued that French universities first of all work as shelters for French academics, while German universities (at least until 2001 and the progressive introduction of merit salaries) behave as investors betting on their professors when they recruit them, and US universities are engaged in a employer-wage earner relationship.

  7. This only happens for professors (Professoren), not for assistants (Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter) and the ministry intervenes in the negotiation when extra-funding is needed to attract a top level academic. For others, the role of the ministry is to control the conformity of the hiring process. It can, and sometimes does, decide to modify the ranking established by the hiring commission.

  8. The research led by Lamont with other colleagues on how some American research funding bodies make decision and select the project to be funded shows the interest such “internal” studies can have (Mallard et al. 2002; Guetzkow et al. 2002).

  9. In many countries this recreated the situation prevailing before the Second World War when the development of universities was deeply intertwined with the trajectory of the local territory where they were located.

  10. In France the laws of decentralisation did not concern higher education which remains a national issue. But since the mid 1980s, local actors (regions, departments or cities) claim involvement in decisions pertaining to higher education and affect part of their budgets to fund equipments, buildings, fellowships, research projects and even some faculty positions.

  11. But the EU, and more precisely the Commission, is part of the process and Racké (2006) for instance argues that this process, although intergovernmental, facilitates the (indirect) intervention of the Commission on higher education and legitimates the production of “commission papers” on this topic.

  12. The perspective adopted in this third section is close to Braun’s (2006) contribution and analysis of different rationales in of S&T policies. In particular what he calls the “modernisation cluster” can be associated to the NPM narrative while the “postmodern cluster” can be related to the network governance narrative.

  13. It is again close to Braun’s (2006) approach when the author questions the link between the instrument link in S&T policies and the mix of policy rationales.

  14. But also the 40 best graduate programmes and the 30 scientific clusters. 1, 9 billion Euros will be allocated.

  15. Empty or real threat? Some British observers mentioned the possibility for Oxford and Cambridge of threatening the British government to recruit only overseas students if no increases of fees occurred.

References

  • Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard law and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54(3), 421–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesi, B., Bürger, S, Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2005). Bachelor and master courses in selected countries compared with Germany. Bonn: BMBF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amaral, A., Meek, L., & Larsen, I. M. (Eds.). (2000). The higher education managerial revolution? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andresani, G., & Ferlie, E. (2006). Studying governance within the British public sector and without: Theoretical and methodological issues. Public Management Review, 8(3), 415–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, R. (2003). Beyond all reason living with ideology in the university. London: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezes, P. (2001). Defensive versus offensive approaches to administration reform in France (1988–1997): The leadership dilemmas of French prime ministers. Governance, 14(1), 99–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezes, P. (2005). Le modèle de ‘l’Etat—stratège’: Genèse d’une forme organisationnelle dans l’administration française. Sociologie du Travail, 47(4), 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I. (2000). Policy regimes and policy making. In M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie, & M. Henkel (Eds.), Transforming higher education: A comparative study (pp. 53–87). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I., Høstaker, R., & Vabø, A. (2000). International study of higher education: Norway. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borraz, O., & Le Galès, P. (2001). Gouvernement et gouvernance des villes. In J.-P. Leresche (Ed.), Gouvernance Locale, Coopération et Légitimité: Le cas Suisse Dans une Perspective Comparée. Paris: Pedone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D. (2002). ‘Regulierungsmodelle und Machtstrukturen an Universitäten. In E. Stölting & U. Schimank (Eds.), Die Krise der Universitäten. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D. (2006). The mix of policy rationales in science and technology policy. Melbourne Journal of Politics, November.

  • Braun D., & Merrien, F.-X. (Eds.). (1999). Towards a model of governance for universities? A comparative view. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresser-Pereira, L. C. (2004). Democracy and public management reform: Building the republican state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir Dans un Monde Incertain: Essai sur la Démocratie Technique. Paris: le Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. F. J. (2003). The evaluation of university research in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. In P. Shapira & S. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Learning from science and technology policy evaluation (pp. 98–131). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cave, M., Hanney, S., & Kogan, M. (1991). The use of performance indicators in higher education: A critical analysis of developing practices. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerych, L., & Sabatier, P. (1986). Great expectations and mixed performance: Implementation of European higher education reforms. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. (2005). Universities and the Europe of knowledge. Ideas, institutions and policy: Entrepreneurship in European Union Higher Education Policy, 1955–2005. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, H., Denters, B., & Goedegebuure, L. (1998). ‘Dutch disease or Dutch model? An evaluation of the pre-1998 system of democratic university government in the Netherlands. Policy Studies Review, 15, 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2001). On limitations and consequences of change: Dutch university governance in transition. Tertiary Education and Management, 7(2), 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLeon, L. (2005). Public management, democracy and politics. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Swaan, A. (1988). In care of the state: Health care, education, and welfare in Europe and the USA in the modern era. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. (1996). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher Education Policy, 10(3–4), 167–185.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J. (1996). Die Wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter: Ausbildung, Beschäftigung und Karriere der Nachwuchswissenschaftler und Mittelbauangehörigen an den Universitäten. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J. (2000). A chair system in transition: Appointments, promotions, and gate-keeping in German higher education. In P. Altbach (Ed.), The changing academic workplace: Comparative perspectives (pp. 25–50). Boston: Boston College Center for International Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J. (Ed.). (2001). Academic staff in Europe: Changing contexts and conditions. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1998). Dits et Ecrits. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederickson, G. (2005). Whatever happened to public administration? Governance, governance everywhere. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M. et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedegebuure, L., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek, L., & de Weert, E. (Eds.) (1993). Hochschulpolitik im internationalen Vergleich. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, Å. (2006). What is the use of Bologna in national reform? The case of Norwegian quality reform in higher education. In W. Tomusk (Ed.), Creating the European area of higher education: Voices from the periphery (pp. 19–41). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths Report. (1983). NHS management enquiry. London: Department of Health.

  • Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., Fournier, M., Mallard, G., & Bernier, R. (2002). Evaluating creative minds: The assessment of originality in peer review. In Contribution for the Symposium ‘Creativity’, International Association of Sociology, Brisbane, 2002.

  • Halsey, A. H. (1992). Decline of donnish dominion: The British academic professions in the twentieth century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinings, C.R., & Greenwood, R. (1988). The dynamics of strategic change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinings, C.R, Greenwood, R., & Cooper, D. (1999). The dynamics of change in large accounting firms. In D. Brock, M. Powell, & C. R Hinings (Eds.), Restructuring the professional organisation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1995). The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organisation and Society, 29(2–3), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C., James, B., Peters, G., & Scott, C. (2004). Controlling modern government. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarrett Report. (1985). Report of the steering committee for efficiency studies in universities. London: Committee for Vice Chancellors and Principals.

  • Joss, S., & Durant, J. (Eds.). (1995). Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. Science Museum.

  • Kehm, B. M., & Lanzendorf, U. (2006). Germany: 16 Länder approaches to reform. In B. M. Kehm & U. Lanzendorf (Eds.), Reforming university governance—changing conditions for research in four European countries. Bonn: Lemmens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, W., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M (Eds.). (1997). Managing complex networks. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E.-H. (2005). Networks and interorganisational coordination. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, M., Bauer, M., Bleiklie, I., & Henkel, M. (2000). Transforming higher education: A comparative study. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, M., & Hanney, S. (2000). Reforming higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G. (with Bunzmann, J., Hürter, L., Kandzorra, M., Kloke, K., Körnert, J., Ludwig, S., Podolšak, B., & Prill, Y.). (2005). Hochschulen im Wettbewerb: Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Einführung von Bachelor-und Masterstudiengängen an deutschen Universitäten. Report. Bielefeld: Department of Sociology, University of Bielefeld.

  • Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (Eds.). (2004). Gouverner par les instruments. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Galès, P. (1995). Du gouvernement local à la gouvernance urbaine. Revue Française de Science Politique, 45(1), 57–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmbruch, G. (1995). Organisation de la société, stratégies administratives et réseaux d’action publique: Éléments d’une théorie du développement des systèmes d’intérêts. In P. Le Galès & M. Thatcher (Eds.), Les Réseaux de Politique Publique: Débat Autour des Policy Networks. Paris: L’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social study of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2005). The black box revisited: The relevance of theory-driven research in the field of higher education studies. In M. Henkel & I. Bleiklie (Eds.), Governing knowledge: A study of continuity and change in higher education—a festschrift in honour of Maurice Kogan (pp. 213–226). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallard, G., Lamont, M., & Guetzkow, J. (2002). The pragmatics of evaluation: Beyond disciplinary wars in the assessment of fellowship proposals in the social sciences and the humanities. In Contribution for the Conference Sociological Theory and Empirical Research, American Sociological Association Meetings, Chicago, 2002.

  • Manin, B. (1996). Principes du gouvernement représentatif. Paris: Flammarion.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. M., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Discovering institutions. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R. A. (Eds.). (1992). Policy networks in British Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiasen, D. (2005). International public management. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R. (2002). University councils: Institutional innovation in German universities. European Journal of Education, 37(1), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. (2001). La Longue Marche des Universités Françaises. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. (2004). The long march of French universities. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. (2005). Le Marché des Universitaires: France Allemagne, Etats-Unis. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. The side-effects of the Bologna Process on national institutional settings. In Amaral, A., Maassen, P., Musselin, C., & Neave, G. (Eds.), European integration and the governance of higher education and research: The challenges and complexities of an emerging multi-level governance system. Dordrecht: Springer (forthcoming).

  • Neave, G. (1986). On shifting sands: Changing priorities and perspectives in European higher education from 1984 to 1986. European Journal of Education 21(1), 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G., & van Vught, F. (1991). Promotheus bound: The changing relationship between government and higher education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G., & van Vught, F. (Eds.). (1994). Government and higher education relationships across three continents: The winds of change. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. (2001). Modernising governance: New labour, policy and society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padron, L. (2006). Is NPM the management paradigm of UK HE: Or better, is it still? Working paper, SUN PRIME collaboration. London: Royal Holloway, Centre for Public Services Organisations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, E. C., & Wright, V. (2006). From the active to the enabling state. The changing role of top officials in European nations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradeise, C. (1998). Pilotage institutionnel et argumentation: le cas du département SHS au CNRS. In A. Borzeix, A. Bouvier, & P. Pharo (Eds.), Sociologie et Connaissance—Nouvelles Approches Cognitives. Paris: CNRS Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A., & Fenton, E. (2000). The innovating organisation. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierre J. (Ed.). (2000). Debating governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Bourckeart, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1997). The audit society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Racké, C. (2006). The Bologna Process and the E.U.: Neither within nor without. In Workshop on Analysing the Implementation of the Bologna Analysing Change in Higher Education Policies: The Bologna Process under scrutiny, AFSP—CSO—CIERA, Paris.

  • Radaelli, C. M. (2000). Logiques de pouvoir et récits dans les politiques publiques de l’Union européenne. Revue Française de Science Politique, 50(2), 255–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravinet, P. (2005). The Sorbonne meeting and declaration: Actors, shared vision and Europeanisation. Paper presented at the Third Conference on Knowledge and Politics, University of Bergen, 18–20 May, 2005.

  • Reed, M. (2002). New managerialism, professional power and organisational governance in UK universities: A review and assessment. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 163–185). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W (1997). Understanding governance. Buckingham: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W (1998). Beyond Westminster and Whitehall. London: Unwin Hyman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouban, L. (1988). L’Etat et la Science. Paris: Editions du CNRS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saint Martin, D. (2005). Management consultancy. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, S., Westerheijden, D. (Eds.). (2004). Accreditation and evaluation in the European higher education area. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shattock, M. (1999). Governance and management in universities: The way we live now. Journal of Educational Policy, 14, 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stölting, E., Schimank, U. (Eds.). (2002). Die Krise der Universitäten. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teichler, U. (2005a). Hochschulstrukturen im Umbruch: Eine Bilanz der Reformdynamik seit vier Jahrzehnten. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teichler, U. (2005b). Hochschulsysteme und Hochschulpolitik: Quantitative und strukturelle Dynamiken, Differenzierungen und der Bologna-Prozess. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Meulen, B. (1998). Science policies as principal-agents games: Institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science. Research Policy, 27, 397–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vught, F. (Ed.). (1989). Governmental strategies and innovation in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vught, F. (1995). Policy models and policy instruments in higher education: The effects of governmental policy-making on the innovative behaviour of higher education institutions. Vienna: Institut für Höhere Studien (Series no. 26).

  • Witte, J. (2006). Change of degrees and degrees of change: Comparing adaptations of European higher education systems in the context of the Bologna Process. Enschede: CHEPS, University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ute Lanzendorf (INCHER, University of Kassel) for providing them with a very complete bibliography on steering in higher education in some European countries. They are also grateful to Patrick Le Galès who discussed this article at the HELF seminar held in Paris, and to all participants to this Paris meeting.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CPSO, School of Management, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surray, UK

    Ewan Ferlie

  2. CSO, Sciences Po and CNRS, Paris, France

    Christine Musselin

  3. University of Hull, Hull, UK

    Gianluca Andresani

Authors
  1. Ewan Ferlie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Musselin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gianluca Andresani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Musselin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferlie, E., Musselin, C. & Andresani, G. The steering of higher education systems: a public management perspective. High Educ 56, 325–348 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9125-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9125-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation