The Role of Stakeholders in Internationalization in Portugal

  • Beverly BarrettEmail author


Continuing from Chap. 5 and the qualitative analysis of Portugal, the points of analysis are (1) policy reform: role of stakeholders and (2) modernization of higher education institutions. The major stakeholders in policy reform are the academic sector of higher education institutions, the public sector government, and the private sector businesses. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is applied to understand the role of the stakeholders in the policy process. The unitary structure of government in Portugal has contributed to the widespread implementation of institutional reforms that took place during the academic year 2008–2009. The modernization of institutions includes partnerships with research institutions that support national objectives and objectives of the European Research Area.


  1. AEP: Associação Empresarial de Portugal. (2013). Retrieved from
  2. 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
  3. Amaral, A., Magalhães, A., & Veiga, A. (2015). Differentiated integration and the Bologna Process. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 11(1), 84–102.Google Scholar
  4. Amaro de Matos, João. (2012). Associate Dean for International Affairs. NOVA University School of Business. Lisboa, Portugal.Google Scholar
  5. Cantwell, B., & Kauppinen, I. (Eds.). (2014). Academic capitalism in the age of globalization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Correia Fernandes, Maria de Lurdes. (2012, 2013). Professor of the Humanities; Former Vice-Rector, University of Porto, Portuguese Member of the Bologna Follow Up Group (2011–2014), July 23, 2012 and May 29, 2013.Google Scholar
  7. Council of Europe. (1997). The Lisbon convention on the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education in the European region. Retrieved from
  8. Delicado, A. (2012). Researcher, Institute of Social Sciences (ICS-Instituto de Ciências Sociais). University of Lisbon, July 24.Google Scholar
  9. Doyle, M. (1983). Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3), 205–235.Google Scholar
  10. Esping-Anderson, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. EHEA Ministerial Conference. (2012). Bucharest Communiqué: Making the most of our potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area. Retrieved from
  12. European Commission. (2000). Towards a European research area. COM(2000) 6 final. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. January 18, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. European Students’ Union. (2012). Bologna with student eyes 2012. Brussels: Education and Culture Directorate General.Google Scholar
  14. Eurostat. (2012). European Commission statistics historical database.Google Scholar
  15. Eurostat. (2016). European Commission statistics historical database.Google Scholar
  16. Fishman, R. (2013). How Civil Society Matters in Democratization: Theorizing Iberian Divergence. Paper prepared for presentation at the 20th International Conference of Europeanists.Google Scholar
  17. Forelle, C. (2011, March 25). A nation of dropouts shakes Europe. The Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  18. Freire, M. R. (2013). Assistant Professor, International Relations in Faculty of Economics. Portugal: University of Coimbra, May 28.Google Scholar
  19. Furlong, P. (2010). Bologna’s deepening empire: Higher education policy in Europe. In K. Dyson & A. Sepos (Eds.), Which Europe? The politics of differentiated integration. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Iversen, T. (2005). Capitalism, democracy, and welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2014). The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In P. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kant, I. (1795). Perpetual peace. Indianapolis: The Library of Liberal Arts, 1957.Google Scholar
  23. Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in 36 countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Magalhães, A., Veiga, A., Ribeiro, F. M., Sousa, S., & Santiago, R. (2013). Creating a common grammar for European higher education governance. Higher Education, 65, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neave, G. (2009). The Bologna Process as alpha or omega, or, on interpreting history and context as inputs to Bologna, Prague, Berlin, and Beyond. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maassen (Eds.), European integration and the governance of higher education and research (pp. 17–58). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neave, G., & Amaral, A. (Eds.). (2012). Higher education in Portugal 1974–2009: A nation, a generation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Nóvoa, A. (2011, March 25). Video interview. In C. Forelle (Ed.). A nation of dropouts shakes Europe. The Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  28. Page, M. (2002). The first global village: How Portugal changed the world. Lisbon: Casa das Letras.Google Scholar
  29. Royo, S. (Ed.). (2012). Portugal in the twenty-first century: Politics, society and economics. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  30. Sabatier, P. A., & Christopher, M. W. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189–220). Cambridge: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156.Google Scholar
  33. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simmons, B. & Elkins, Z. (2004). The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Political Economy. American Political Science Review, 98(1):171–189.Google Scholar
  35. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Teixera, P. (2016). Vice-Rector and Professor of Economics. University of Porto, June 14.Google Scholar
  37. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2013). Issues: Postsecondary education policy. Retrieved from
  38. Vasques, I. (2016). Office of Director General for Higher Education (Direção-Geral do Ensino Superior), Ministry of Education and Science (Ministério da Educação e Ciência), Government of Portugal, June 1.Google Scholar
  39. Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2009). Survey on the implementation of the Bologna Process in Portugal. Higher Education, 57(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2006). The open method of coordination and the implementation of the Bologna Process. Tertiary Education and Management, 12, 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations