Advertisement

Institutions and Ideas: The Political, Economic, and Social Context for the Bologna Process

  • Beverly BarrettEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Institutions and ideas provide the political economy explanations for higher education policy reform in Europe since the Bologna Process was launched on June 19, 1999. The idea originated with the countries of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom with the Sorbonne Declaration on May 25, 1998. The political economy context interacts with educational reforms through three explanatory policy processes: (1) globalization, (2) intergovernmentalism, and (3) Europeanization. The focus is on national policy reform for degree-structure criteria within the EHEA, as part of the evolution of the Bologna Process action lines. The theoretical foundations are regional integration and institutional change. This book has a mixed methodological research approach and provides the rationale for the case study countries, Portugal and Spain. The policy reforms are to complement the EU’s common market, known as the Single Market, strengthening the case for the Bologna Process.

References

  1. Amaral, A. (2013). Founding Director, Centre for Research on Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Matosinhos (Porto) and President of the Administration Council, A3ES Portuguese National Qualifications Agency‚ May 28‚ 2013.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, A. (2004). Case study methods: Design, use, and comparative advantages. In D. F. Sprinz, & Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias (Eds.), Models, numbers, and cases: Methods for studying international relations (pp. 19–55). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (2014). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bickerton, C. J., Hodson, D., & Puetter, U. (2015). The new interngovernmentalism: States and supranational actors in a post-Maastricht era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bologna Process. (1999). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999: Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education.Google Scholar
  6. Bologna Process. (2001). The Prague Communiqué of 19 May 2001: Towards the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of the meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  7. Bologna Process. (2009, April 28–29). Communiqué of the conference of European ministers responsible for higher education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar
  8. Bologna Process Researchers’ Conference. (2014, November 24–26). Report: The future of higher education, 2nd ed. Bucharest, Romania.Google Scholar
  9. Börzel, T. A. (2000, Spring). From competitive regionalism to cooperative federalism: The Europeanization of the Spanish state of the autonomies. The Journal of Federalism, 30(2), 17–42.Google Scholar
  10. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2012). From Europeanisation to diffusion: Introduction. West European Politics, 35(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Börzel, T. A., & Thomas R. (2000). When Europe hits home: Europeanization and domestic change. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 4(15). Retrieved from http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000–015a.htm.
  12. Cerych, L., & Sabatier, P. (1986). Great expectations and mixed performance: implementation of higher education reforms in Europe. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  13. Christiansen, T., Jorgensen, K. E., et al. (2001). Social construction of Europe. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Egan, M. (2015). Single markets: Economic integration in Europe and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EHEA Ministerial Conference. (2012). Bucharest Communiqué: Making the most of our potential: Consolidating the European higher education area. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/%281%29/Bucharest%20Communique%202012%281%29.pdf.
  16. EHEA Ministerial Conference. (2015). Yerevan Communiqué. Retrieved from http://bologna-yerevan2015.ehea.info/files/YerevanCommuniqueFinal.pdf.
  17. European Commission. (2015, November 26). European semester thematic fiche: Tertiary education attainment.Google Scholar
  18. European Higher Education Area. (2010, March 12). Budapest-Vienna Declaration on the European Higher Education Area.Google Scholar
  19. Eurydice: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. (2012). The European higher education area in 2012: Bologna process implementation report. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/138EN.pdf.
  20. Eurydice/European Commission/EACEA. (2015). The European Higher Education Area in 2015: Bologna process implementation report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  21. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gornitzka, Å. (2007). The Lisbon process: A supranational policy perspective: Institutionalizing the open method of coordination. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Haas, E. B. (1964). Beyond the nation state: Functionalism and international organization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, P. A. (2010). Historical institutionalism in rational and sociological perspective. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, P. A., & Taylor R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, XLIV, 936–957.Google Scholar
  27. Kania, K. (2012, 2016). European Commission, Policy Officer, Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC). Directorate A—Lifelong learning: horizontal policy issues and 2020 strategy, Unit A1—Education and Training in Europe 2020; country analysis. Correspondence December 2012; September 7, 2016.Google Scholar
  28. Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: The European commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keohane, R. O., & Hoffmann, S. (Eds.). (1991). The new European community: Decisionmaking and institutional change. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  30. Keohane, R. O., & Milner, H. M. (Eds.). (1996). Internationalization and domestic politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lagier, H. (2013, 2016). Direction des Relations Européennes et Internationales et de la Coopération (DREIC). Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche. Program Officer, European and International Cooperation, Ministry of Higher Education and Research, France. Correspondence February 2013; September 1, 2016.Google Scholar
  32. Lavdas, K. A., Papadakis, N. E., & Gidarakou, M. (2006). Policies and networks in the construction of the European higher education area. Higher Education Management and Policy, 18(1), 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in 36 countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Llavori de Micheo, R. (2013, 2016). Director of International Relations ANECA (National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation of Spain) and Board Member, ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education), May 24, 2013; November 16, 2016.Google Scholar
  35. Maassen, P., & Olsen, J. P. (Eds.). (2007). University dynamics and European integration. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Mill, J. S. (1843). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation.Google Scholar
  37. Milner, H. V. (1992). Theories of international cooperation among nations: Strengths and weaknesses. World Politics, 44(3), 466–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milner, H. V. (1997). Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mitrany, D. (1943). A working peace system. An argument for the functional development of international organization. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  40. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Moravcsik, A., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). Liberal intergovernmentalism. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European integration theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Nokkola, T. (2007). The Bologna process and the role of higher education: Discursive construction of the European higher education area. In J. Enders & B. Jongbloed (Eds.), Public-private dynamics in higher education: Expectations, developments and outcomes (pp. 221–245). Piscataway: Transaction.Google Scholar
  43. Nokkola, T. (2012). Institutional autonomy and the attractiveness of the European higher education area—Facts or tokenistic discourse. In A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, & L. Wilson (Eds.), European higher education at the crossroad: Between the Bologna process and national reforms. Parts 1 and 2. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  44. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olsen, J. P. (2009a). Change and continuity: An institutional approach to institutions of democratic government. European Political Science Review, 1(1), 3–32.Google Scholar
  47. Olsen, J. P. (2009b, January). Democratic government, institutional autonomy and the dynamics of change (Working Paper No. 01), ARENA Working Paper. Retrieved from http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-publications/workingpapers/.
  48. Olsen, J. P. (2010). Governing through institution building: Institutional theory and recent European experiments in democratic organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Peters, B. G. (2012). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism (3rd ed.). New York: Continuum Books.Google Scholar
  50. Pierson, P. (1996). The path to European integration: A historical institutionalist analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), 123–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, analysis, and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Putnam, R. D. (1988, Summer). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.Google Scholar
  53. Rauhvargers, A., Deane, C., & Pauwels, W. (2009). Bologna process stocktaking (Report 2009): Report from working groups appointed by the Bologna follow-up group to the ministerial conference in Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve. Benelux: Bologna Process.Google Scholar
  54. Reinalda, B., & Kulesza, E. (2006). The Bologna Process—Harmonizing European’s higher education (2nd revised edition). Opladen & Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  55. Risse, T. (2009). Social constructivism and European integration. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European integration theory (2nd ed., pp. 144–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Rodrik, D. (2000). Institutions for high-quality growth: What they are and how to acquire them. Studies in Comparative International Development, 35(3), 3–31.Google Scholar
  57. Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  58. Rosamond, B. (2002). Imagining the European economy: ‘Competitiveness’ and the social construction of ‘Europe’ as an economic space. New Political Economy, 7(2), 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189–220). Cambridge: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schmidt, V. A. (2009). The EU and its member states: From bottom up to top down. In D. Phinnemore & A. Warleigh-Lack (Eds.), Reflections on European integration: 50 years of the treaty of Rome (pp. 194–211). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Spring, J. (2009). Globalization of education: An introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Tyson, A. (2012, 2016). Acting Director for Strategy and Evaluation, Former Head of UnitC1, Higher Education and Erasmus, Directorate-General Education and Culture, European Commission, April 25, 2012; September 6, 2016.Google Scholar
  63. Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2009a). Policy implementation tools and European governance. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maassen (Eds.), European integration and the governance of higher education research (pp. 133–157). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2009b). Survey on the implementation of the Bologna process in Portugal. Higher Education, 57(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations