Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rise of Global Rankings and the Competitive Logic

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Rankings and Global Knowledge Governance

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education ((PSGHE))

  • 549 Accesses

Abstract

The development of the numbers-based knowledge governance framework is a relatively recent undertaking, but much has happened over the last 20 years. This chapter explores the rankings landscape as it was at the beginning of the 2000s, focusing on the most prominent “first generation” of measures of good governance, competition, and academic performance, characterized by aggregation of data and attempt for maximal geographical scope. It shows how measurement has actually functioned to depoliticize the notion of good governance and how rankings have reinforced atomistic subjectification processes that project higher education institutions as self-governing entities solely responsible for their own success. We see ideational and operational interlinkages between the measurements that we think have come to define global knowledge governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    V-Dem: Global Standards, Local Knowledge [http://www.v-dem.net].

  2. 2.

    The table is based on information and classification provided in http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#doc-sources (accessed May 2017).

  3. 3.

    Types of Expert Assessments: CBIP, Commercial Business Information Provider; GOV, Public Sector Data Provider; NGO, Nongovernmental Organization Data Provider.

  4. 4.

    Worldwide Governance Indicators [http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#doc].

  5. 5.

    Worldwide Governance Indicators [http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#doc].

  6. 6.

    Global Competitiveness Report 2014–2015 [http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2014-15.pdf].

  7. 7.

    Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 [http://www3.weforum.org/docs/gcr/2015-2016/Global_Competitiveness_Report_2015-2016.pdf].

  8. 8.

    IMD. 2014. World Competitiveness Yearbook. Lausanne: IMD, page 489.

  9. 9.

    Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016 [http://www3.weforum.org/docs/gcr/2015-2016/Global_Competitiveness_Report_2015-2016.pdf], page 43–44.

  10. 10.

    Methodology, factors and criteria [http://www.imd.org/wcc/world-competitiveness-center-mission/methodology/].

  11. 11.

    IMD. 2014. World Competitiveness Yearbook. Lausanne: IMD, page 489.

  12. 12.

    IMD. 2014. World Competitiveness Yearbook. Lausanne: IMD, page 489.

  13. 13.

    History of the Center [http://www.imd.org/wcc/world-competitiveness-center-mission/center-history-bris-garelli/].

  14. 14.

    Global Competitiveness Report 2008–2009 [http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2008-09.pdf] page 43.

  15. 15.

    Global Competitiveness Report 2008–2009 [http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2008-09.pdf] page 43.

  16. 16.

    Frequently Asked Questions [http://www.imd.org/globalassets/wcc/docs/faqs.pdf].

  17. 17.

    IMD Methodology and principles of analysis [http://www.imd.org/globalassets/wcc/docs/methodo/methodology-yearbook-presentation2.pdf].

  18. 18.

    WCY List of Indicators [http://www.imd.org/globalassets/wcc/docs/all_criteria_list.pdf].

  19. 19.

    WCY List of Indicators [http://www.imd.org/globalassets/wcc/docs/all_criteria_list.pdf].

  20. 20.

    Sources: http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2016.html; http://universityrankings.ch/methodology/times_higher_education

  21. 21.

    From 2010 onward, the methodology represents the QS World University Rankings.

  22. 22.

    “Indeed universities go about their business in an increasingly globalized environment which is constantly changing and is characterized by increasing competition to attract and retain outstanding talent, and by the emergence of new requirements for which they have to cater. Yet European universities generally have less to offer and lower financial resources than their equivalents in the other developed countries, particularly the USA” (European Commission 2003, 3).

  23. 23.

    “Two recent surveys emphasising research found that apart from a handful in Britain, there are no European Union universities in the top 20 in the world and relatively few in the top 50. The rapid growth of Asian universities, both public and private, are now also challenging Europe—and the US—in terms of doctoral candidates in science and engineering” (European Commission 2005a, 3).

  24. 24.

    Top 20 ways to improve your world university ranking [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=410392].

  25. 25.

    “European higher education institutions accept the challenges of operating in a competitive environment at home, in Europe and in the world, but to do so they need the necessary managerial freedom, light and supportive regulatory frameworks and fair financing, or they will be placed at a disadvantage in cooperation and competition” (European Universities Association 2001, 7).

  26. 26.

    “The over-regulation of university life hinders modernisation and efficiency. … Minute ex ante control hinders universities. … Universities failing to undertake these changes—for want of drive, power to act or available resources—will create a growing handicap for themselves, their graduates and their countries. … In an open, competitive and moving environment, autonomy is a pre-condition for universities to be able to respond to society’s changing needs and to take full account for those responses” (European Commission 2005a, 4 and 7).

  27. 27.

    “In short, European universities are not currently in a position to achieve their potential in a number of important ways. As a result, they are behind in the increased international competition for talented academics and students, and miss out on fast changing research agendas and on generating the critical mass, excellence and flexibility necessary to succeed. These failures are compounded by a combination of excessive public control coupled with insufficient funding. … Universities will not become innovative and responsive to change unless they are given real autonomy and accountability” (European Commission 2006b, 4–5).

  28. 28.

    “The challenges faced by higher education require more flexible governance and funding systems which balance greater autonomy for education institutions with accountability to all stakeholders. Autonomous institutions can specialise more easily, promoting educational and research performance and fostering diversification within higher education systems. But legal, financial and administrative restrictions continue to limit institutional freedom to define strategies and structures and to differentiate themselves from their competitors. The efficiency of higher education institutions and so the effectiveness of public investment can be enhanced by reducing restrictions: on raising private revenue, on capital investment, on the ownership of infrastructure, on the freedom to recruit staff, on accreditation. Investment in professional management can provide strategic vision and leadership while allowing teachers and researchers the necessary academic freedom to concentrate on their core tasks” (European Commission 2011, 9).

References

  • Ahola, S., and J. Mesikämmen. 2003. Finnish Higher Education Policy and the Ongoing Bologna Process. Higher Education in Europe 28 (2): 2017–2227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacchi, C.L. 1999. Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomqvist, Carita. 2007. Avoin koordinaatiomenetelmä Euroopan unionin koulutuspolitiikassa. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Management Studies, University of Tampere.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer, Harry de, J. Enders, and U. Schimank. 2007. On the Way towards New Public Management? The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration, ed. D. Jansen. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K.A. 1980. Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy. American Sociological Review 43 (3): 370–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. 2012. Principles, Problems, Politics … What Does the Historical Record of EU Cooperation in Higher Education Tell the EHEA Generation? In European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms, ed. A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, and L. Wilson, 59–81. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutright, P. 1963. National Political Development: Measurement and Analysis. American Sociological Review 28 (2): 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkkilä, Tero, and Ossi Piironen. 2009. Politics and Numbers. The Iron Cage of Governance Indices. In Ethics and Integrity of Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, ed. Raymond W. Cox III, 125–145. Armonk: ME Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014a. Shifting Fundaments of European Higher Education Governance: Competition, Ranking, Autonomy and Accountability. Comparative Education 50 (2): 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014b. (De)politicizing Good Governance: The World Bank Institute, the OECD and the Politics of Governance Indicators. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27 (4): 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.850020.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2003. The Role of the Universities in the Europe of Knowledge. COM(2003) 58 final. Brussels: European Commission, 5 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005a. Mobilising the Brainpower of Europe: Enabling Universities to Make Their Full Contribution to the Lisbon Strategy. COM(2005) 152 final. Brussels: European Commission, 20 April.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005b. Annex to the Communication from the Commission. Mobilising the Brainpower of Europe: Enabling Universities to Make Their Full Contribution to the Lisbon Strategy. European Higher Education in a Worldwide Perspective. SEC(2005) 518. Brussels: European Commission, 20 April.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Delivering on the Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, Research and Innovation. COM(2006) 208 final. Brussels: European Commission, 10 May.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. From Bergen to London. The Contribution of the European Commission to the Bologna Process.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. Commission Staff Working Document. Accompanying Document to the Report from the Commission to the Council on the Council Resolution of 23 November 2007 on Modernising Universities for Europe’s Competitiveness in a Global Knowledge economy. SEC(2008) 2719. Brussels: European Commission, 30 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Commission Staff Working Document. Progress Towards the Lisbon Objectives in Education and Training: Indicators and Benchmarks 2009. SEC(2009) 1616. Brussels: European Commission, 23 November.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Supporting Growth and Jobs—An Agenda for the Modernisation of Europe’s Higher Education System. COM(2011) 567 final. Brussels: European Commission, 20 September.

    Google Scholar 

  • European University Association. 2001. Salamanca Convention 2001: The Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area. Geneva: European University Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fougner, Tore. 2008. Neoliberal Governance of States: The Role of Competitiveness Indexing and Country Benchmarking. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 37 (2): 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasiorowski, M.J. 1990. The Political Regimes Project. Studies in Comparative International Development 25 (1): 109–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadenius, A. 1992. Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, Ellen. 2007. The Impact of League Tables and Ranking Systems on Higher Education Decision Making. Higher Education Management and Policy. 19 (2): 87–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Rankings and the Battle for World-Class Excellence: Institutional Strategies and Policy Choices. Higher Education Management and Policy 21 (1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, Richard F. 2011. Measuring Performance in US Municipalities: Do Personnel Policies Predict System Level Outcomes? Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 13 (1): 11–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, J., and M. van der Wende. 2004. The EU and Bologna: Are Supra- and International Initiatives Threatening Domestic Agendas? European Journal of Education 39 (3): 349–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IMD. 2014. World Competitiveness Yearbook. Lausanne: IMD.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Association of Universities. 1998. Academic Freedom, University Autonomy and Social Responsibility. IAU Policy Statement.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Roger. 2009. Governing Universities Globally: Organizations, Regulation and Rankings. Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S.M. 1959. Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy. The American Political Science Review 53 (1): 69–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Nian Cai, and Ying Cheng. 2005. The Academic Ranking of World Universities. Higher Education in Europe 30 (2): 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720500260116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, William, Line Verbik, John T. T. Richardson, and Roger King. 2008. Counting What Is Measured or Measuring What Counts? League Tables and Their Impact on Higher Education Institutions in England. Report to HEFCE. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morphew, C.C., and C. Swanson. 2011. On the Efficacy of Raising Your University’s Rankings. In University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education, ed. J.C. Shin, R.K. Toutkoushian, and U. Teichler, 185–199. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Munck, Gerardo L., and Jay Verkuilen. 2002. Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies 35 (1): 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, Guy. 2009. Institutional Autonomy 2010–2012: A Tale of Elan—Two Steps Back to Make One Very Large Leap Forward. In The European higher Education Area: Perspectives on a Moving Target, ed. Barbara M. Kehm, Jeroen Huisman, and Bjørn Stensaker. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neubauer, D.E. 1967. Some Conditions of Democracy. The American Political Science Review 61 (4): 1002–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nokkala, Terhi. 2012. Institutional Autonomy and the Attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area—Facts or Tokenistic Discourse? In European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms, ed. A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, and L. Wilson, 59–81. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2008. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. http://www.oecd.org/std/42495745.pdf

  • Paradeise, Catherine, Emanuela Reale, and Gaële Goastellec. 2009a. A Comparative Approach to Higher Education Reforms in Western European Countries. In University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives, ed. Catherine Paradeise, Emanuela Reale, Ivar Bleiklie, and Ferlie Ewan. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paradeise, Catherine, Emanuela Reale, Gaële Goastellec, and Ivar Bleiklie. 2009b. Universities Steering Between Stories and History. In University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives, ed. Catherine Paradeise, Emanuela Reale, Ivar Bleiklie, and Ferlie Ewan. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Piironen, Ossi. 2013. The Transnational Idea of University Autonomy and the Reform of the Finnish Universities Act. Higher Education Policy 26 (1): 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Transnational Governance by Numbers: Rankings as Mechanisms of Governing. Academic Dissertation, Department of Political and Economic Studies, University of Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauhvargers, A. 2011. Global University Rankings and Their Impact: EUA Report on Rankings 2011. Brussels: European University Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, S., and R. Keeling. 2008. Stirring the Lions: Strategy and Tactics in Global Higher Education. Globalisation, Societies and Education 6 (3): 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, Giovanni. 1970/2009. Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. In Concepts and Method in Social Science: The Tradition of Giovanni Sartori, ed. David Collier and John Gerring. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, Quentin. 1969. Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas. History and Theory 8 (1): 3–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. 1997. Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel: Resolution Adopted on the Report of Commission II at the 26th Plenary Meeting, on 11 November 1997. UNESCO, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. 2008. The Global Competitiveness Report 2008–2009. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. The Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zgaga, P. 2012. Reconsidering the EHEA Principles: Is There a ‘Bologna Phiulosophy’? In European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms, ed. A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, and L. Wilson, 59–81. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Tero Erkkilä

  2. Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Helsinki, Finland

    Ossi Piironen

Authors
  1. Tero Erkkilä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ossi Piironen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Erkkilä, T., Piironen, O. (2018). Rise of Global Rankings and the Competitive Logic. In: Rankings and Global Knowledge Governance. Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68941-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68941-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68940-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68941-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation