Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article we provide an integrated framework for the analysis of higher education governance which allows us to more systematically trace the changes that European higher education systems are currently undergoing. We argue that, despite highly insightful previous analyses, there is a need for more specific empirically observable indicators of policy change and inertia. We therefore propose a systematic classification of empirical indicators of higher education governance. To do so, we look at three historically entrenched and still highly relevant European models of higher education—academic self-governance, the state-centered model and the market-oriented model. Based on these broader overarching models which reflect the tensions between the state, market and academia, we develop three ideal-types that take internal university governance as well as the role of the state and external stakeholders into account. Against this background, we derive empirical indicators with regard to the institutional balance of power, financial governance, personnel autonomy and substantive matters. Our analytical contribution shall enable scholars, and in particular political and social scientists, to trace ongoing patterns of change and convergence as well as persistence and inertia in higher education governance arrangements.

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. With regard to governance regimes in polytechnic, non-research higher education, see Kyvik (2009).

  2. See also Gornitzka and Maasen (2000), who distinguish between a sovereign state steering model, an institutional steering model, a corporate-pluralist steering model and a supermarket steering model.

  3. Olsen (2007) also puts forward a notion of the university as representative democracy, which falls back on the work of Habermas (1967) and de Boer et al. (1999). Here the university is linked to enhancing democracy at large in society and bears components of direct democracy and student sovereignty. However, elements of student sovereignty, egalitarianism, and democracy can also be found in other models in various ways. Moreover, the concept of the university as a direct democracy has proven to impact the reform efforts after 1968 and influence other governance systems without fully establishing itself as a broadly practiced model.

  4. In the German case, this generally consists of input-based overhead funds allocated to professorial chairs combined with third-party funds allocated through research proposals by individual chairs or conglomerates of chairs.

  5. Differences exist to a certain degree in Germany between universities and Fachhochschulen (polytechnics), with approximately 60% of university professors receiving additional external funding for research activities, compared to 33% of professors at polytechnics (Enders and Teichler 1995). Private-sector funding is more prevalent in polytechnics.

  6. For example, in the US in 2001 only one-fourth of newly hired faculty members had the opportunity for tenure (see Keller 2006: 230 for the US; Dill 1997 for Great Britain).

  7. Market-based academic cultures (e.g. the United States) are often marked by the co-existence of public colleges and university with private institutions. In public institutions, the state assumes a greater role in the development of higher education policy. Personnel policy and funding are generally set down by the state executive and authorized by the legislature. Nevertheless, institutions maintain a considerable degree of substantial, procedural and financial autonomy with regard to the allocation of funds (see Horton 1999: 269).

References

  • Arthur, L. (2006). Higher education and the knowledge society: Issues, challenges and responses in Norway and Germany. Research in Comparative and International Education, 1(3), 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aust, J. (2007). Le sacre des présidents d’université. Une analyse de l’application des plans Université 2000 et Université du 3ème millénaire en Rhône-Alpes. Sociologie du Travail, 49(2), 220–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berdahl, R. (1990). Academic freedom, autonomy, and accountability in British Universities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bieber, T. (2010). Playing the multilevel game in education—The PISA study and the bologna process triggering swiss harmonization. In K. Martens, N. Alexander-Kenneth, W. Michael, & W. Ansgar (Eds.), Transformation of education policy—The impact of the bologna process and the PISA study in comparative perspective (pp. 105–131). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • Braun, D. (2001). Regulierungsmodelle und Machtstrukturen an Universitäten. Die Krise der Universitäten. Leviathan Sonderheft, 20, 243–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D., & Merrien, F.-X. (1999). Governance of Universities and modernisation of the state: Analytical aspects. In D. Braun & F. X. Merrien (Eds.), Towards a new model of Governance for Universities? A comparative view (pp. 9–33). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, J. (1999). France: A centrally-driven profession. In D. Farnham (Ed.), Managing academic staff in changing university systems (pp. 74–93). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1983). The higher education system. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon-Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Boer, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2003). New rules of the game? Reflections on governance, management, and systems change. In J. File & L. Goedegebuure (Eds.), Real-time systems—Reflections on higher education in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia (pp. 207–234). Enschede: Logo CHEPS Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Boer, H., Maassen, P., & de Weert, E. (1999). The troublesome Dutch university and its Route 66 towards a new governance structure. Higher Education Policy, 12, 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delanty, G. (2001). Challenging knowledge: The university in the knowledge society. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. (1997). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher Education Policy, 10(3–4), 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbins, M. (2011). Higher education policies in Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence towards a common model? Basingstoke: Palgrave (forthcoming).

  • Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2009). Higher education policies in Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence towards a common model? Governance, 22(3), 397–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J., & Teichler, U. (1995). Der Hochschullehrerberuf im internationalen Vergleich: Ergebnisse einer Befragung über die wissenschaftliche Profession. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estermann, T., & Nokkala, T. (2009). University autonomy in Europe. Exploratory study. Brussels: European University Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2003). Higher education in Europe. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/higher.html (consulted 15 June 2008).

  • European Commission. (2006). Delivering on the modernisation agenda for Universities: Education, research and innovation—Communication from the commission to the council and the European Parliament, 12.09.2009. http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc1320_en.

  • Felt, U. (2003). University autonomy in Europe: Changing paradigms in higher education policy. Paper presented at the EAU convention of European Higher Education Institutions, Graz 39-31 May, 2003. http://eua.uni-graz.at/Ulrike_Felt.pdf (consulted 12 May 2006).

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G. (2009). The steering of higher education systems: A public management perspective. Higher Education, 56(3), 325–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedberg, E., & Musselin, C. (1993). L’Etat face aux universités. Paris: Anthropos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedegebuure, L., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek, L., van Vught, F., & de Weert, E. (1993). Hochschulpolitik im internationalen Vergleich: Eine länderübergreifende Untersuchung im Auftrag der Bertelsmann Stiftung. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, Å., & Maassen, P. (2000). National policies concerning the economic role of higher education. Higher Education Policy, 13(3), 225–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, Å., Maassen, P., Olsen, J., & Stensaker, B. (2007). Europe of knowledge: Search for a new pact. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (pp. 181–214). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, Å., Stensaker, B., Smeby, J. C., & de Boer, H. (2004). Contract arrangements in the Nordic countries: Solving the efficiency/effectiveness dilemma. Higher Education in Europe, 29(1), 87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1967). Universität in der Demokratie—Demokratisierung der Universität. Merkur, XXI(5), 416–433.

  • Herrschel, T. (1999). Germany: A dual academy. In D. Farnham (Ed.), Managing academic staff in changing university systems. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hölttä, S., & Rekilä, E. (2003). Ministerial steering and institutional responses: Recent developments of the finnish higher education system. Higher Education Management and Policy, 15(1), 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, S. (1999). The United States: Self-governed profession or managed occupation. In D. Farnham (Ed.), Managing academic staff in changing university systems (pp. 260–289). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R., & Anderson, D. (1998). University Autonomy in Twenty Countries, Centre for Continuing Education. The Australian National University. April 1998, 98/3. www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip98-3/eip98-3.pdf (consulted 28 Feb 2006).

  • Jongbloed, B. (2003). Marketization in higher education, Clark’s triangle and the essential ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 110–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, F. (2007). Higher education in France: Country report, CHEPS—Twente.

  • Keller, G. (2006). Higher education management: Challenges and strategies. In P. Altbach & J. Forest (Eds.), International handbook of higher education: Part one (pp. 229–242). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., Kosmützky, A., & Torka, M. (2007). Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 108–131). Bielefeld: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S. (2009). The dynamics of change in higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Governance and reinvention in Australian higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, O. (1996). The paradigms of governance in higher education systems. Higher Education Policy, 9(2), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, O. (1997). The effects of government politics on higher education: In search of alternative steering methods. S’Gravenhage: VUGA Uitgeverij B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, V. L. (2000). Diversity and Marketisation of higher education: Incompatible concepts? Higher Education Policy, 13(1), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meister, S. (2007). Russlands Hochschulpolitik zwischen Wettbewerb und staatlicher Kontrolle. Russlandanalysen, 132, 4–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizikaci, F. (2006). Higher education in Turkey. UNESCO-CEPES. Monographs on higher education. http://www.cepes.ro/publications/pdf/turkey.pdf.

  • Musselin, C. (2001). La longue marche des universités françaises. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C., & Paradeise, C. (2009). France: From incremental transitions to institutional change. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University governance: Western European perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (1996). Homogenization, integration, and convergence: The chershire cats of higher education analysis. In L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, & R. Rinne (Eds.), The mockers and the mocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (1998a). Quatre modèles pour l’Université. Courrier de l’UNESCO, 33(3), 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (1998b). The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 265–284.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (2004). Mr Prometheus—unbound, shackled or released on parole? Being certain adumbrations on the marvellously changing relationship between government and higher education in Western Europe. Paper presented at the Fulbright Brainstorms 2004—New Trends in Higher Education. Lisbon, 24–25 Sep 2004. http://www.ccla.pt/brainstorms/release1.0/pdf/09_GuyNeave.pdf (consulted 15 Apr 2005).

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemann, D. (2010). Turn of the tide—New horizons in German education policymaking through IO influence. In K. Martens, N. Alexander-Kenneth, W. Michael, & W. Ansgar (Eds.), Transformation of education policy—The impact of the bologna process and the PISA study in comparative perspective (pp. 77–104). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niklasson, L. (1995). State, market, hierarchy in higher education—A typology and an outline of the debate. Higher Education Management, 7(3), 345–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niklasson, L. (1996). Quasi-markets in higher education a comparative analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 18(1), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nybom, T. (2003). The Humboldt legacy: Reflections on the past, present and future of the European university. Higher Education Policy, 16, 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European University. In M. Peter & O. Johan (Eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleikle, I., & Ferlie, E. (2009a). University governance: Western European perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradeise, C., Reale, E., & Goastellec, G. (2009b). A comparative approach to higher education reforms in Western European countries. In E. Reale, I. Bleikle, E. Ferlie, & C. Paradeise (Eds.), University governance: Western European perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillip, C. (2000). Auf dem Wege zum europäischen Bildungsmarkt: Supranationale Hochschulpolitik oder Wettbewerb der Hochschulsysteme? Dissertation, Universität Köln. Josef Eul Verlag, Köln.

  • Sadlak, J. (1995). In search of the “post-communist” university—the background and scenario of the transformation of higher education in Central and Eastern Europe. In K. Hüfner (Ed.), Higher education reform processes in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 43–62). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimank, U. (2002). Governance in Hochschulen, Vortrag zur Veranstaltung „Professionelles Wissenschaftsmanagement als Aufgabe” des Zentrums für Wissenschaftsmanagement, 22.10.2002. Wissenschaftszentrum Bonn. www.zwm-speyer.de/VortragSchimank.pdf (consulted 16 March 2006).

  • Schimank, U. (2005). Die akademische Profession und die Universitäten: „New Public Management” und eine drohende Entprofessionalisierung. In T. Klatetzki & V. Tacke (Eds.), Organisation und profession (pp. 143–164). Wiesbaden: VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. (2002). Reflections on the reform of higher education in Central and Eastern Europe. Higher Education in Europe, 27(1–2), 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sporn, B. (1999). Responsive university structures: An analysis of adaptation to socioeconomic environments of US and European universities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sporn, B. (2006). Governance and administration. In P. Altbach & J. Forest (Eds.), International handbook of higher education. Part one (pp. 141–157). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • t’Veld, R., Füssel, H.-P., & Neave, G. (1996). Relations between state and higher education. The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theisens, H. (2003). Statism by stealth? Market orientation in British higher education. In: B. Denters, O. van Heffen, J. Huisman, & P. J. Klok (Eds.). The rise of interactive governance and quasi-markets (pp. 203–216). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Trow, M. (1990). American higher education: Exceptional or just different? In B. E. Schafer (Ed.), Still different? A new look at American exceptionalism (pp. 138–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • 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. Institut für Höhere Studien (HIS), Wien.

  • van Wageningen, A. C. (2003). De Staat van de Universiteit: Een rechtsvergelijkende studie naar de institutionalisering van de universiteit in Nederland, Frankrijk en Nordrhein-Westfalen. PhD thesis at the University of Twente.

  • Vartiainen, P., & Viiri, A. (2002). Universities and their local partners: The case of the University of Joensuu, Finland. Industry and Higher Education, 16(2), 83–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2005). Bulgaria—Education and skills for the knowledge economy—A policy note executive summary. http://www.siteresources.worldbank.org/INTBULGARIA/Resources/EducationPolicyNote_EN.pdf (consulted 5 March 2007).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

    Michael Dobbins, Christoph Knill & Eva Maria Vögtle

Authors
  1. Michael Dobbins
    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

  3. Eva Maria Vögtle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Dobbins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dobbins, M., Knill, C. & Vögtle, E.M. An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance. High Educ 62, 665–683 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9412-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9412-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation