Advertisement

Structural Reform in European Higher Education: An Introduction

  • Harry de BoerEmail author
  • Jon File
  • Jeroen Huisman
  • Marco Seeber
  • Martina Vukasovic
  • Don F. Westerheijden
Chapter
  • 702 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education book series (PSGHE)

Abstract

This chapter starts with a reflection on what we know about structural reforms in higher education. Subsequently, the nature and types of the structural reforms analysed in this volume is explained. The cases are all European reforms in which governmental agencies played a leading role. The reforms aimed either at horizontal differentiation (e.g. introducing a new sector in higher education), vertical differentiation (e.g. developing initiatives for ‘world-class’ universities) or interrelationships (cooperation between different types of higher education institutions, including mergers). Short summaries of the case studies are presented, followed by an introduction of the conceptual framework, used to analyse the case studies.

Keywords

High Education High Education Institution Policy Instrument Goal Achievement Policy Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56(04), 947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and poverty: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bartelse, J. (1999). Concentrating the minds. The institutionalisation of the graduate school innovation in Dutch and German higher education. Utrecht: Lemma.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D., & Mortensen, P. B. (2014). Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In P.A. Sabatier & C.M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press (3rd edition), 59–103.Google Scholar
  5. Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. (Eds.). (1998). Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Benson, D., & Jordan, A. (2011). What have we learned from policy transfer research? Dolowitz and Marsh revisited. Political Studies Review, 9(3), 366–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berry, J. M. (2002). Validity and reliability issues in elite interviewing. Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 679–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkland, T. A. (2001). An introduction to the policy process. Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  10. Bleiklie, I. (2003). Hierarchy and specialisation: On the institutional integration of higher education systems1. European Journal of Education, 38(4), 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bleiklie, I., & Michelsen, S. (2013). Comparing HE policies in Europe. Higher Education, 65(1), 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bovens, M., Hart, P. t., & Peters, B. G. (2001). Success and failure in public governance. A comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bovens, M., & Hart, P. t. (2016). Revisiting the study of policy failures. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(5), 653–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bryk, A. S. (1983). Stakeholder-based evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Cerych, L., & Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Great expectations and mixed performance: The implementation of higher education reforms in Europe. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  16. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Democracy and administrative policy: Contrasting elements of New Public Management (NPM) and post-NPM. European Political Science Review, 3(01), 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cobb, R., Ross, J. K., & Ross, M. H. (1976). Agenda building as a comparative political process. American Political Science Review, 70(01), 126–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cremonini, L., Westerheijden, D. F., Benneworth, P., & Dauncey, H. (2014). In the shadow of celebrity? World-Class University policies and public value in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 27, 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Boer, H. (2003). Who’s afraid of red, yellow and blue? The colourful world of management reforms. In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek, & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution? (pp. 89–108). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeGroff, A., & Cargo, M. (2009). Policy implementation: Implications for evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 124, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2009). Higher education policies in central and eastern Europe: Convergence toward a common model? Governance, 22(3), 397–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dunn, W. N. (2004). Public policy analysis. An introduction (3rd edn.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. EACEA. (2012). The European higher education area in 2012: Bologna process implementation report. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.Google Scholar
  25. Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Elmore, R. F. (1987). Instruments and strategy in public policy. Policy Studies Review, 7(1), 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. European Commission. (2003). Communication on the role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge (58 final). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  28. Fairweather, J. S., & Blalock, E. (2015). Higher education: The nature of the beast. In Huisman, J., Boer, H. de, Dill, D.D. & Souto-Otero, M. (eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance (pp. 3–19). Houndmills/Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 44(1), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2007). University expansion and the knowledge society. Theory and Society, 36(4), 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goggin, M. L., Bowman, A. O. M., Lester, J. P., & O’Toole Jr., L. J. (1990). Implementation theory and practice. Toward a third generation. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  33. Gornitzka, A., Kogan, M., & Amaral, A. (2007). Reform and change in higher education. Analysing policy implementation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Gornitzka, Å., & Maassen, P. (2011). University governance reforms, global scripts and the “Nordic Model”. Accounting for policy change? In J. Schmid, K. Amos, J. Schrader, & A. Thiel (Eds.), Welten der Bildung? Vergleichende Analysen von Bildungspolitik und Bildungssystemen (pp. 149–177). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heinze, T., & Knill, C. (2008). Analysing the differential impact of the Bologna process: Theoretical considerations on national conditions for international policy convergence. Higher Education, 56(4), 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hood, C. (2006). Gaming in the target world: The targets approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20(1), 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hood, C. C. (1983). The tools of government. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hood, C. C., & Margetts, H. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. Houndsmills Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the “hollow state”: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 412–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Howlett, M. (2004). Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: Instrument mixes, implementation styles, and second generation theories of policy instrument choice. Policy and Society, 23(2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Science, 42, 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Ingram, H., & Mann, D. (1980). Policy failure. An issue deserving attention. In H. Ingram & D. Mann (Eds.), Why policies succeed or fail. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Jenkins, W. I. (1978). Policy analysis: A political and organizational perspective. New York: St. Martin´s Press.Google Scholar
  47. John, P. (1998). Analyzing public policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Jordan, G., & Schubert, K. (1992). A preliminary ordering of policy network labels. European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kim, Y. M. (2009). Convergence of tertiary education policies in Europe and implications for the United States of America. Higher Education in Europe, 34(1), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. King, R., Locke, W., Puncher, M., Richardson, J., & Verbik, L. (2008). Counting what is measured or measuring what counts? League tables and their impact on higher education institutions in England. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Google Scholar
  51. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  52. Kogan, M., Bauer, M., Bleiklie, I., & Henkel, M. (2006). Transforming higher education: A comparative study. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kogan, M., & Hanney, S. (2000). Reforming higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Kohoutek, J., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2014). Opening up the black box: Drivers and barriers in institutional implementation of the European standards and guidelines. In H. Eggins (Ed.), Drivers and barriers to achieving quality in higher education (pp. 167–175). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2007). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives. Washington, DC: CQ press/Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Krücken, G., & Drori, G. S. (2009). World society: The writings of John W. Meyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Land, R., & Gordon, G. (2013). Enhancing the future: Context and fidelity. In R. Land & G. Gordon (Eds.), Enhancing quality in higher education: International perspectives (pp. 259–274). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(01), 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  60. Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2011). The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications. Higher Education, 61(6), 757–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Marginson, S. (2010). Higher education in the global knowledge economy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(5), 6962–6980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 306–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. May, P. J. (2015). Implementation failures revisited: Policy regime perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3–4), 277–299. doi: 10.1177/0952076714561505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McConnell, A. (2010). Understanding policy success: Rethinking public policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  65. Musselin, C. (2005). Change or continuity in higher education governance? In I. Bleiklie & M. Henkel (Eds.), Governing knowledge: A study of continuity and change in higher education (pp. 65–79). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Musselin, C. (2009). The Side Effects of the Bologna process on national institutional settings: The case of France. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maassen (Eds.), European integration and the governance of higher education and research (pp. 181–205). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Neave, G. (1998). The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 265–284.Google Scholar
  68. Neave, G. (2012). The evaluative state, institutional autonomy and re-engineering higher education in Western Europe. The prince and his pleasure. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., & Ferlie, E. (2009). University governance: Western European comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Pawson, R., & Tilly, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  73. Peters, B. G. (2015). State failure, governance failure and policy failure: Exploring the linkages. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3–4), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., & Aarrevaara, T. (Eds.). (2015). Mergers in higher education: The experience from Northern Europe. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.Google Scholar
  75. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis: New public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  77. Pruvot, E. B., Estermann, T., & Mason, P. (2015). DEFINE thematic report: University mergers in Europe. Brussels: European University Association.Google Scholar
  78. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition model of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning. An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  81. Salamon, L. M. (Ed). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing World-Class Universities. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sanderson, I. (2000). Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation, 6(4), 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play. Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  85. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  87. Shattock, M. (2005). European universities for entrepreneurship: Their role in the Europe of knowledge the theoretical context. Higher Education Management and Policy, 17(3), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Taylor, J. S., Ferreira, J. B., Machado, M. D. L., & Santiago, R. (2008). Non-university higher education in Europe. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Teichler, U. (1988). Changing patterns of the higher education system. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  90. Teisman, G. (2000). Models for research into decision-making processes: On phases, streams and decision-making rounds. Public Administration, 78(4), 937–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Torenvlied, R. (1996). Political control of implementation agencies. Policy Sciences, 8(1), 25–57.Google Scholar
  92. Trowler, P. R. (2002). Higher education policy and institutional change: Intentions and outcomes in turbulent environments. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 48(4), 483–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. van der Knaap, P. (2004). Theory-based evaluation and learning: Possibilities and challenges. Evaluation, 10(1), 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. van Vught, F., & de Boer, H. (2015). Governance models and policy instruments. In J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. D. Dill, & M. Souto-Otero (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance (pp. 38–56). Houndmills/Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. van Vught, F. A. (1989). Governmental strategies and innovation in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  97. van Vught, F. A. (1995). Policy models and policy instruments in higher education. The effects of governmental policy-making on the innovative behaviour of higher education institutions. IHS Political Science Series 26 October 1995.Google Scholar
  98. Voss, J. P. (2007). Designs on governance. Development of policy instruments and dynamics in governance. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  99. Westerheijden, D. F. (1987). The substance of a shadow: A critique of power-measurement methods. Acta Politica, XXII(1), 39–59.Google Scholar
  100. Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (2007). Quality assurance in higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Westerheijden, D. F., Beerkens, E., Cremonini, L., Huisman, J., Kehm, B., Kovač, A.,…Yagci, Y. (2010). The first decade of working on the European higher education area. Bologna process independent assessment volume 1: Main report. Enschede: CHEPS.Google Scholar
  102. 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
  103. Wu, C.-Y., & Knoke, D. (2013). Policy network models. In E. Araral Jr., S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  104. Yeh, S. S. (2010). The Cost effectiveness of 22 approaches for raising student achievement. Journal of Education Finance, 36(1), 38–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry de Boer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jon File
    • 1
  • Jeroen Huisman
    • 2
  • Marco Seeber
    • 2
  • Martina Vukasovic
    • 2
  • Don F. Westerheijden
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations