Advertisement

Rankings and Global Knowledge Governance

  • Tero Erkkilä
  • Ossi Piironen
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education book series (PSGHE)

Abstract

Though the new indicators that are entering the field propose new methodological and conceptual openings, they instead offer mild contrasts to the previous figures and do not challenge the epistemic knowledge and practices of the field. In making these connections and their consequences visible through our analysis, we propose that rankings are a constitutive element of global knowledge governance. We observe a thickening of the political imaginary of competition, traversing the different levels of assessment from global to local. The fragmentation of indicators dents conceptual coherence and limits their relevance as tools of evaluation. Yet, their policy relevance remains high. Moreover, as indicator knowledge has become a universal language of transnational governance, it also limits what can be argued and presented as valid knowledge.

References

  1. A.T. Kearney. 2016. Global Cities 2016. A.T. Kearney.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Government. 2016. Australian Innovation System Report 2016. Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Office of the Chief Economist. https://industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Documents/Australian-Innovation-System/2016-AIS-Report.pdf
  3. Azubuike, Abraham. 2008. Accessibility of Government Information as a Determinant of Inward Foreign Direct Investment in Africa. In Best Practices in Government Information: A Global Perspective, ed. Irina Lynden and Jane Wu, 85–98. München: K.G. Saur.Google Scholar
  4. Baert, Patrick. 1991. Unintended Consequences: A Typology and Examples. International Sociology 6 (2): 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858091006002006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger, T., and G. Bristow. 2009. Competitiveness and the Benchmarking of Nations—A Critical Reflection. International Advances in Economic Research 15 (4): 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-009-9231-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cleantech Group and WWF. 2014. The Global Cleantech Innovation Index 2014. Cleantech Group and WWF.Google Scholar
  7. Compass. 2015. The Global Startup Ecosystem Ranking 2015. Startup Compass Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Copenhagen Capacity. 2016. Denmark No. 8 in Global Innovation Index 2016. August 22. http://www.copcap.com/newslist/2016/denmark-no-8-in-global-innovation-index-2016
  9. Cornell University, INSEAD and WIPO. 2015. The Global Innovation Index 2015: Effective Innovation Policies for Development. World Intellectual Property Organization.Google Scholar
  10. Dahler-Larsen, Peter. 2013. Constitutive Effects of Performance Indicators: Getting Beyond Unintended Consequences. Public Management Review 16 (7): 969–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.770058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, Glyn. 2015. Poor Research-Industry Collaboration: Time for Blame or Economic Reality at Work? The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/poor-research-industry-collaboration-time-for-blame-or-economic-reality-at-work-50306
  12. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emirates 24/7. 2016. UAE Leads Arab World on Global Innovation Index. Emirates 24/7, August 31. http://www.emirates247.com/news/uae-leads-arab-world-on-global-innovation-index-2016-08-31-1.640115
  14. Erkkilä, Tero, ed. 2013. Global University Rankings. Challenges for European Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2016. Global Governance Indices as Policy Instruments: Actionability, Transparency and Comparative Policy Analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 18 (4): 382–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1023052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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, edited by Raymond W. Cox III, 125–145. Armonk: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2015. Autonomisation and Individualisation: Ideational Shifts in European Higher Education. In Academic Identities and the Changing European Landscape, ed. Jon Nixon and Linda Evans, 47–62. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  18. Freistein, Katja. 2016. Effects of Indicator Use: A Comparison of Poverty Measuring Instruments at the World Bank. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 18 (4): 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1023053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gackstatter, Steffen, Maxim Kotzemir, and Dirk Meissner. 2014. Building an Innovation-Driven Economy—The Case of BRIC and GCC Countries. Foresight 16 (4): 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-09-2012-0063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giddens, Anthony. 1986. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0745665284.html
  21. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Godin, Benoît. 2005. The Knowledge-Based Economy: Conceptual Framework or Buzzword? The Journal of Technology Transfer 31 (1): 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-5010-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gornitzka, Åse. 2013. Channel, Filter or Buffer? National Policy Responses to Global Rankings. In Global University Rankings. Challenges for European Higher Education, ed. Tero Erkkilä, 75–91. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haas, Peter M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hammergren, Linn. 2011. Indices, Indicators and Statistics: A View from the Project Side as to Their Utility and Pitfalls. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (02): 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hazelkorn, Ellen. 2011. Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hobsbawm, Eric. 1987. Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. 2016. Contributors and Detractors: Ranking Countries’ Impact on Global Innovation. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. http://www2.itif.org/2016-contributors-and-detractors.pdf
  29. Innovation and Science Australia. 2016. Performance Review of the Australian Innovation, Science and Research System 2016. https://industry.gov.au/Innovation-and-Science-Australia/Documents/ISA-system-review/Performance-Review-of-the-Australian-Innovation-Science-and-Research-System-ISA.pdf
  30. Jackson, Paul, Jochen Runde, Philip Dobson, and Nancy Richter. 2016. Identifying Mechanisms Influencing the Emergence and Success of Innovation within National Economies: A Realist Approach. Policy Sciences 49 (3): 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9237-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joyce, Steven. 2016. NZ Moves Up Global Competitiveness Index. The Beehive, September 29. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-moves-global-competitiveness-index
  32. Kamola, Isaac. 2014. The African University as ‘Global’ University. PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (03): 604–607. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096514000705.Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan, D.E. 2003. Measuring Our Competitiveness—A Critical Examination of the IMD and WEF Competitiveness Indicators for South Africa. Development Southern Africa 20 (1): 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835032000065499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kauppi, Niilo, and Tero Erkkilä. 2011. The Struggle Over Global Higher Education: Actors, Institutions, and Practices. International Political Sociology 5 (3): 314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kehm, Barbara M. 2014. Global University Rankings—Impacts and Unintended Side Effects. European Journal of Education 49 (1): 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knoll, Martin, and Petra Zloczysti. 2012. The Good Governance Indicators of the Millennium Challenge Account: How Many Dimensions Are Really Being Measured? World Development 40 (5): 900–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.11.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koselleck, Reinhart. 2004. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lall, Sanjaya. 2001. Competitiveness Indices and Developing Countries: An Economic Evaluation of the Global Competitiveness Report. World Development 29 (9): 1501–1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00051-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lopez-Claros, Augusto, Klaus Schwab Klaus, and Michel E. Porter, eds. 2006. The Global Competitiveness Report 2006–2007. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Marginson, Simon, and Marijk van der Wende. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mastercard. 2008. Worldwide Centers of Commerce Index. Mastercard.Google Scholar
  42. Mazzarol, Tim. 2013. At the Bottom of the Top, Australia and the 2013 Global Innovation Index. The Conversation, July 19. http://theconversation.com/at-the-bottom-of-the-top-australia-and-the-2013-global-innovation-index-16246
  43. Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 1997. World Society and the Nation-State. The American Journal of Sociology 103 (1): 144–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Michener, Gregory. 2015. Policy Evaluation via Composite Indexes: Qualitative Lessons from International Transparency Policy Indexes. World Development 74 (October): 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.04.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moisio, Sami, and Anni Kangas. 2016. Reterritorializing the Global Knowledge Economy: An Analysis of Geopolitical Assemblages of Higher Education. Global Networks 16 (3): 268–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mulatu, Abay. 2016. On the Concept of ‘Competitiveness’ and Its Usefulness for Policy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 36 (March): 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2015.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Münch, Richard. 2013a. The Colonization of the Academic Field by Rankings: Restricting Diversity and Obstructing the Progress of Knowledge. In Global University Rankings. Challenges for European Higher Education, ed. Tero Erkkilä, 196–219. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. ———. 2013b. Academic Capitalism: Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. New Zealand Government. 2012. NZ Moves Up Global Innovation Index. The Beehive, July 9. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-moves-global-innovation-index
  50. NITI Aayog. 2016. 1st Workshop on Global Innovation Index 2016. NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India), Government of India. http://niti.gov.in/content/1st-workshop-global-innovation-index-2016
  51. Rauhvargers, Andrejs. 2013. Global University Rankings and Their Impact. Report II. Brussels: European University Association. http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/EUA_Global_University_Rankings_and_Their_Impact_-_Report_II.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  52. Republic of Mauritius. 2016. Global Competitiveness Index: Mauritius Ranks First in Sub-Saharan Africa. October 4. http://www.govmu.org/English/News/Pages/Global-Competitiveness-Index-Mauritius-ranks-first-in-Sub-Saharan-Africa.aspx
  53. Saisana, Michaela, and Andrea Saltelli. 2011. Rankings and Ratings: Instructions for Use. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (02): 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Science Foundation Ireland. 2015. SFI—Science Foundation Ireland Welcomes Ireland’s Global Innovation Index Ranking. http://www.sfi.ie/news-resources/press-releases/science-foundation-ireland-welcomes-ireland%E2%80%99s-global-innovation-index-ranking.html
  55. Shin, Jung Cheol, and Barbara M. Kehm, eds. 2012. Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition. 2013th ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2012. CNA: S’pore Ranked Most Innovative Country in Asia. https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/media_centre/archived-singapore-headlines/2012/201207/news_20120706.html
  57. Sinodinos, Arthur. 2017. National Press Club Address. Speech. Minister for the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, March 22. http://minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/sinodinos/speeches/national-press-club-address
  58. Stubbs, Rebecca. 2009. The Millennium Challenge Account: Influencing Governance in Developing Countries Through Performance-Based Foreign Aid. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42 (2): 621–682.Google Scholar
  59. Tan, Leandro. 2014. WEF Declares Philippines Most Improved Country in Global Competitiveness. The Asia Foundation (Blog). September 10. http://asiafoundation.org/2014/09/10/wef-declares-philippines-most-improved-country-in-global-competitiveness/
  60. The Economist Intelligence Unit. 2013. Hot Spots 2025. Benchmarking the Future Competitiveness of Cities. The Economist Intelligence Unit.Google Scholar
  61. The Indian Express. 2016. Innovation Index: Govt to Rope in Experts to Find Ways to Boost India’s Ranking. The Indian Express, August 20. http://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/innovation-index-govt-to-rope-in-experts-to-find-ways-to-boost-indias-ranking-2986056/
  62. The Mori Memorial Foundation. 2015. Global Power City Index 2015. Summary. The Mori Memorial Foundation.Google Scholar
  63. Thompson, E.R. 2002. Competitiveness Concerns in Hong Kong: Business Fears and Government Incomprehension. Pacific Review 15 (3): 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740210152876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Turnbull, Malcom. 2015. Launch of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. Speech. Prime Minister of Australia, December 7. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-12-07/launch-national-innovation-and-science-agenda
  65. UK Government. 2015. UK Ranked as World-Leader in Innovation. Press Releases. GOV.UK, September 17. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-ranked-as-world-leader-in-innovation
  66. USAID. 2016. Advancing Philippine Competitiveness (COMPETE) Project. August 17. https://www.usaid.gov/philippines/partnership-growth-pfg/compete
  67. World Economic Forum. 2006. The Global Competitiveness Report 2006–2007. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2006-07.pdf
  68. ———. 2009. The Global Competitiveness Report 2009–2010. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2009-10.pdf
  69. ———. 2016. The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tero Erkkilä
    • 1
  • Ossi Piironen
    • 2
  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Ministry for Foreign Affairs of FinlandHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations