Norway: From Tortoise to Eager Beaver?

Previous analyses of Norwegian higher education reforms and their effects on the higher education system have depicted Norway as a slow reformer characterised by localism and incrementalism that makes planned reforms difficult (Bleiklie, 2004; Bleiklie et al., 2000; Kogan et al., 2006). However, with the latest reform, implemented from 2003 on, there are clear signs that policy change is picking up speed and that Norway as a higher education policy maker is in the process of transforming itself into an eager and rapid implementer of comprehensive reforms. It is still early to make a final judgement because of the comprehensiveness and complexity of the latest reform. There are at least three perspectives that may help formulate expectations and possible explanations of the pace and direction of current policies. The first is the institutionalist interpretation according to which policy change tends to be path dependent and slow since new reforms, particularly those that aim at radical changes, need time to be adapted to existing norms, habits and conceptions about appropriateness. This expectation is strengthened when we are looking at the challenges facing reforms aiming at integrating and standardizing a diversified higher education system. Theoretically this institutionalist perspective of policy change tends to portray it as a gradual, incremental affair that may become abrupt only if circumstances create a situation in which existing policies are considered inadequate to sustain institutionalized systems of values, norms and practices in a given policy field (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993; March et al., 1989). The alternative is an actor's perspective where policies are regarded as the product of the actions of major players such as policy makers and affected groups where policies are understood in terms of the preferences of the actors involved in the decision process (Ostrom, 1990; Scharpf, 1997; Tsebelis, 1999). In such a case, the degree and pace of change depend on the aims of the actors and may be explained either by changing values and aims among actors or changes in the constellation of actors involved. A third perspective is based on the functionalist assumption that structural change tends to be based on evolving needs generated by developing pressures on social systems that e.g. cause them to grow, differentiate, and develop procedures to manage growth and differentiation. According to this perspective, change depends on external pressures and how social systems respond to them in order to remain stable (Ben-David , 1968, 1971, 1991; Parsons and Platt, 1973). The specific organizational forms of concrete universities depend on how society's need for cultural functions is expressed.

In this chapter I shall analyse Norwegian higher education reforms since about 1960 and try to understand the development in terms of the theoretical narratives presented in chapter 1. The narratives shall be used to emphasise and make explicit different change dynamics. Thus the New Public Management (NPM) narrative as it is applied here, assumes the following causal structure of change processes in public higher education systems. Changing ideas about appropriateness of public steering, its purpose, its prominence and its instruments lead to redefinition of the policy problems with which governments are faced and the adoption of reforms that espouse new steering instruments reflecting the new ideas. Thus, the NPM narrative bears a strong similarity to the normative or sociological institutionalist notion of policy change. The Network Governance narrative assumes a causal structure consistent with an actor's perspective. In this case, policy change is the outcome of changing actor constellations that lead to redefinition of policy problems, bring with them new ideas about the content and process of policy reform and adopt reforms intended to address these new or redefined policy problems. In addition to these narratives, a third neo-Weberian narrative is applied in this chapter. The change model borne out by this perspective is of a functional character in that it assumes the following causal sequence of events. Pressures from the environment of higher education, e.g. greater demand, results in growth and differentiation. This makes it necessary for public authorities to implement structural change in order to stabilize the function of higher education provision by controlling costs more efficiently and strengthening the efforts to steer the increasingly diverse sector more tightly. The two former narratives emphasize change away from traditional policy instruments and the adoption of new more market-like instruments (NPM). This may weaken traditional state steering and represents a move towards governance by networks that include state as well as non-state actors (NG). The latter narrative emphasizes continuity. Policy change is interpreted as an expression of the continued strength and versatility of the state. This is demonstrated by its ability to adjust to new kinds of pressures by adopting new policy instruments, yet retaining and strengthening its efforts at maintaining and extending its bureaucratic influence over an increasingly complex and costly higher education sector.