Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Universities Need a Market Orientation to Attract Non-Traditional Stakeholders as New Financing Sources

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reflecting the level of priority currently attributed to public university financing in ongoing discussions, the objective of this article is to debate alternative forms of attracting resources from stakeholders not normally associated with the financing of public universities. We begin by detailing sources of university financing as it slowly migrates from the public sector to the market. After we move on to describe the main public university stakeholders and the respective relationships between the parties. Finally, our discussion focuses on different means and alternatives ways, to finance public universities through use of non-traditional stakeholders giving some examples. In conclusions we find that despite university managers normally being aware of such entities, the other internal university actors show a lack of pro-activeness regarding the opportunities presented by different stakeholders. So the public universities need to actively engage with the marketplace, and this reality can be achieved if at internal level they are assigned priorities for the relationships with these new stakeholders.

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

References

  • Altbach, P. (2009). Peripheries and centers: research universities in developing countries. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2006). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management, 18(1), 571–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amaral, A., & Maassen, P. (2007). Preface. In D. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker, & M. Rosa (Eds.), Quality assurance in higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation (pp. xi–xii). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amaral, A., & Magalhães, A. (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance. In A. Amaral, G. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 56–79). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Amaral, A., Magalhães, A., & Santiago, R. (2003). The rise of academic managerialism in Portugal. In A. Amaral, L. Meek, & I. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution? (pp. 101–123). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arnett, D., German, S., & Hunt, S. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: the case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorkquist, C. (2008). Continuity and change in stakeholder influence: reflections on elaboration of stakeholder regimes. Reflecting Education, 4(2), 24–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, J. (2001). Universities in crises? Knowledge economies, emanicipatory pedagogies, and the critical intellectual. Educational Theory, 51(3), 353–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I., & Kogan, M. (2007). Organization and Governance of Universities. Higher Education Policy, 20, 447–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, H., & Fincher, C. (1996). Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education (2nd ed.). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. (1999). A systemic perspective on higher education in the United Kingdom. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(2), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrows, J. (1999). Going beyond labels: a framework for profiling institutional stakeholders. Contemporary Education, 70(4), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture: vol. 1. The rise of the network society (pp. 35–59). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organisational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costin, H. (2001). An empirical study of strategy-structure-performance relationships of graduate business schools and AACSB accredited MBA programs. PhD Thesis, School of Management, Boston University, Boston, USA.

  • Coulson, A. (2004). Forging consensus: Can the school choice community come together on an explicit goal and a plan for achieving it? Midland: Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coxhead, F., Grauberg, J., Joyce, P., Knox, C., Lawes, T., & Massey, A. (2010). New development: adapting university education for changing expectations of public services leaders and managers-guidance for designing and delivering MPAs. Public Money & Management, 30(3), 138–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J. (1987). The entrepreneurial and adaptative university. Institutional Management in Higher Education, 2(1), 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denhardt, R., & Denhardt, J. (2000). The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dopson, S., & McNay, I. (1996). Organizational culture. In D. Warner & D. Palfreyman (Eds.), Higher education management (pp. 137–162). Buckingham: SRHE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubbini, S., & Iacobucci, D. (2004). The development of entrepreneurial competences: Entrepreneurship education in Italian universities and firms’ organizational models’. Paper presented at the EUNIP Conference, Birmigham, UK.

  • Duderstadt, J. (2003). Higher education in the new century: Themes, challenges, and options. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, C. (2001). Cultural change and the machinery of management. Higher Education Management, 13(3), 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalisation, and the nation-state: recent developments and challenges for governance theory. Higher Education, 47(3), 361–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engwall, L. (2007). Universities, the state and the market: changing patterns of university governance in Sweden and beyond. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(3), 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrel, M., & Oczkowski, E. (2002). Are market orientation and learnin orientation. Necessary For superior organizational performance? Working paper Nº 52/02, School of Management. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholders approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, R. (2003). Mapping the education industry: Public companies and international higher education (pp. 9–10). Boston: Boston College Centre for International Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassol, J. (2005). The effect of university culture and stakeholders’ perceptions on university-business linking activities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(1), 489–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, A. (1999). Governmental policies and organizational change in higher education. Higher Education, 38(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L. (2000). New realities: the relationship between higher education and employment. Tertiary Education and Management, 6(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student loyalty: an approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 331–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, S. (2010). Analysis of the cash flow of United Kingdom universities. Public Money & Management, 30(4), 251–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, P., & Lethbridge, S. (2008). New development: creating a lean university. Public Money & Management, 28(1), 53–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R. (2008). Universities and knowledge-based venturing: finance, management and networks in London. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20(2), 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: interconnections, interdependencies and research agenda. Higher Education, 56(1), 303–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, C. (1995). The uses of the university (4th ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, Y. (2001). Economic rationalism and education reforms in developed countries. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 346–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, Y., & Pang, S. (2003). The relative effects of environmental, internal and contextual factors on organizational learning: the case of Hong Kong schools under reforms. The Learning Organization, 10(2/3), 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. (2002). Unanticipated development: perspectives on private higher education’s emerging roles, PROPHE Working Papers Series, no. 1 (pp. 1–30).

  • Levy, D. (2003). How South Africa epitomizes the global surge in commercial private higher education, PROPHE Working Papers Series, no. 2 (pp. 1–42).

  • Levy, D. (2004). The new institutionalism: Mismatches with private higher education’s global growth, PROPHE Working Papers Series, no. 3 (pp. 1–34).

  • Liu, W., Cheng, Z., Mingers, J., Qi, L., & Meng, W. (2010). The 3E methodology for developing performance indicators for public sector organizations. Public Money & Management, 30(5), 305–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainardes, E., Alves, H., & Domingues, M. (2009). Which factors are important to attract students for undergraduate administration courses? The FedUni Journal of Higher Education, 4(1),84–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainardes, E., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). Identifying university stakeholders. Paper presented at the Congreso Internacional de Economistas de La Educación (OEE), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

  • Meek, L. (2002). On the road to mediocrity? Governance and management of Australian higher education in the market place. In A. Amaral, G. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 235–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mehralizadeh, Y. (2005). New reforms in the management of the university: transition from to decentralized (university-based management) in Iran. Higher Education Policy, 18(1), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, H. (1995). The management of changes in universities: Universities, state and economy in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, H., & Edwards, T. (1995). Managerialism, markets and the changing character of the academic profession. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Conference of Society for Research in Higher Education, Edinburgh, Scotland.

  • Mok, K. (2003). Decentralization and marketization of education in Singapore: a case study of the school excellence model. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4/5), 348–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J., Slater, S., & Tietje, B. (1998). Creating a marketing orientation. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 2, 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishimura, J., & Okamuro, H. (2009). Has the industrial cluster project improved the R&D efficiency of industry-university partnership in Japan?. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Conference in European Association for Research in Industrial Economics, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

  • O’Hare, P., Coaffee, J., & Hawkesworth, M. (2010). Managing sensitive relations in co-produced planning research. Public Money & Management, 30(4), 243–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007). Higher education and regions: Globally competitive, locally engaged. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paytas, J., Gradeck, R., & Andrews, L. (2004). Universities and the development of industry clusters. Report prepared for Economic Development Administration of the United States, Department of Commerce.

  • Peters, B. (1996). The future of governing: Four emerging models. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polonsky, M. (1995). A stakeholder theory approach to designing environmental marketing strategy. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 10(3), 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (1994). Piloting higher education change: a view from the helm. In S. Weil (Ed.), Introducing change from the top (pp. 45–58). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. (2002). New managerialism, professional power and organisational governance in UK universities: a review and assessment. In A. Amaral, G. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher educations: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 163–186). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, M., & Amaral, A. (2007). A self-assessment of higher education institutions from the perspective of the EFQM excellence model. In D. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker, & M. Rosa (Eds.), Quality assurance in higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation (pp. 181–207). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Santiago, R., & Carvalho, T. (2003). Effects of managerialism on the perceptions of higher education in Portugal. Paper presented at the 16th CHER Annual Conference - Reform and Change in Higher Education: Renewed Expectations and Improved Performance, Porto, Portugal.

  • Shattock, M. (2000). Research, administration and university management: what can research contribute to policy? In R. Begg (Ed.), The dialogue between higher education research and pratice (pp. 55–66). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slantcheva, S., & Levy, D. (2007). Private higher education in post-communist Europe: in search of legitimacy. In S. Slantcheva & D. Levy (Eds.), Private higher education in post-communist Europe (pp. 1–23). New York: Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive university structures. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessema, K. (2009). Consequences of expanding higher education in Ethiopia: massive universities, massive challenges. Higher Education Quarterly, 63(1), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valderrama, T., & Sanchez, R. (2006). Development and implementation of a university costing model. Public Money & Management, 26(4), 251–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vught, F. (2008). Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21, 151–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston, G. (1999). For-profit education: godzilla or chicken little? Change, 31(1), 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodruff, J. (2000). Marketing Darwinism: successful brand evolution in a product-driven culture. Paper presented at the Symposium for the Marketing of Higher Education, Chicago, USA.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Portuguese Science Foundation through NECE – Center for Studies in Management Science (Núcleo de Investigação em Ciências Empresariais – Programa de Financiamento Plurianual das Unidades de I&D da FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior/Portugal).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FUCAPE Business School and NECE – R&D Centre on Business Sciences, Av. Fernando Ferrari, 1358, Boa Vista, 29.075-505, Vitória/ES, Brazil

    Emerson Wagner Mainardes

  2. Management and Economics Department and NECE – R&D Centre on Business Sciences, University of Beira Interior (UBI), Estrada do Sineiro, Polo IV, 6200-209, Covilha, Portugal

    Mário Raposo & Helena Alves

Authors
  1. Emerson Wagner Mainardes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mário Raposo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helena Alves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mário Raposo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mainardes, E.W., Raposo, M. & Alves, H. Universities Need a Market Orientation to Attract Non-Traditional Stakeholders as New Financing Sources. Public Organiz Rev 14, 159–171 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-012-0211-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-012-0211-x

Keywords

JEL code

Search

Navigation