Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Do We Mean by Privatization in Higher Education?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research

Part of the book series: Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research ((HATR,volume 27))

Abstract

The recent scholarship on higher education policy and governance places a great deal of emphasis on how privatization has changed the higher education. Yet, despite the consensus that privatization is important as a concept and causal driver of changes in the environment, there is little consensus on what privatization involves, how it can be operationalized, and how it is linked to other important concepts. This chapter draws on theories in public administration and political science to offer a framework for conceptualizing and operationalizing privatization by considering two dimensions of privatization—which are becoming less public and becoming more private. The chapter then outlines directions for future research and suggests ways in which these concepts could be measured.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Clearly defining the market is a tricky thing to do, but generally this refers to basic norms of a free private sector market, including competition, low levels of regulation, and private sources of revenue.

  2. 2.

    In many ways, this concept of the blurring of the sectors probably best describes the overall feeling in higher education.

  3. 3.

    Recent examples of a shift in political control over private companies include the increased oversight of the auto industry and calls for increased regulation of the oil industry.

  4. 4.

    For example, the current economic downturn has often been linked to privatization, with many scholars discussing state economic shortfalls, decreasing appropriations in higher education, and institutional reliance on private sources in ways that make it nearly impossible to identify causal drivers and the relationships among these issues.

  5. 5.

    Much of this work compares public and private organizations without leaning on the concept of publicness.In reviewing the literature, comparisons of public and private organizations are conceptually similar to comparisons of more public and less public organizations.

  6. 6.

    See Boyne (2002) for details on the decision rule for which studies would be included in the meta-analysis.

  7. 7.

    The term privateness will be used in a quicker way to reference the ways in which institutions become more private or display characteristics of more private institutions.

  8. 8.

    Fortunately, much of the work on privatization offers a great foundation for developing a more general measure of privateness.

  9. 9.

    Although this discussion is focused on four-year institutions, scholars interested in studying certain community college issues may want to differentiate between state and local ownership, but the focus, in that situation, may be more about the primary locus of control than of legal ownership.

References

  • Abernathy, S. F. (2007). No child left behind and the public schools. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderman, C., & Carey, K. (2010). Ready to assemble: Grading state higher education accountability systems. Education Sector. Accessed 1 June 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R., Boyne, G., & Walker, R. (2008). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Presented at the Conference on Publicness at the University of Georgia. October (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Atwater, L. E., & Wright, W. J. (1996). Power and transformational and transactional leadership in public and private organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 19(6), 963–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, M. H. (1995). Regulating business by independent commission. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogg, J., & Cooper, C. (1995). Job satisfaction, mental health, and occupational stress among senior civil servants. Human Relations, 8(3), 327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, K. (1978). In praise of inefficiency. AGB Reports. January-February, pp. 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1994). The ‘publicness puzzle’ in organization theory: A test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 197–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Reed, P., & Scott, P. (1992). Red tape and task delays in public and private organizations. Administration and Society, 24, 290–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coursey, D., & Bozeman B. (1990). Decision making in public and private organizations: A test of alternative concepts of “publicness.” Public Administration Review, 50(5), 525–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coursey, D., & Rainey, H. G. (1990). Perceptions of personnel system constraints in public, private, and hybrid organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 10(2), 54–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics, and welfare. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1967). Inside the bureaucracy. New York: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W. R., & Delaney, J. A. (2009). State spending on higher education: Testing the balance wheel over time. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, P. D., & Morphew, C. C. (2009a). The organizational dynamics of privatization in public research universities. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 88–108). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, P. D., & Morphew, C. C. (2009b). Toward a clearer understanding of privatization. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 181–192). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, J. (2010). Going ahead with gainful employment. Inside Higher Ed. www.insidehighered.com. Accessed 21 April 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., & Healey, P. (1998). Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, M. K., & Rainey, H. G. (2010). Personnel Flexibility and Red tape in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 801–826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodsell, C. (2003). A case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Washington: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gore, A. (1993). Creating a government that works better and costs less: Report of the National Performance Review. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearn, J. C., & Griswold, C. P. (1994). State level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. postsecondary education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2), 161–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearn, J. C., & McLendon, M. K. (2011). Governance research: From adolescence to maturity. In M. Bastedo (Ed.), The organization of higher education: Managing colleges for a new era. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicklin, A. K. (2006). The quest for diversity: Increasing minority student representation at American public universities. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicklin, A. K., & Meier, K. J. (2008). Race, structure, and state governments: The politics of higher education diversity. Journal of Politics, 70, 851–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicklin, A., Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. (2009). Managing higher education: A comparison of public and private universities. Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Conference. April 2, 2009. Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, S. O. (2009). Privatizing the public research university. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 1–6). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Integrated postsecondary education data system (IPEDS). (2010). IPEDS Data Center. http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, G. (2009). Governing the privatized public research university. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 109–133). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. J. (2004). Obtaining integrity? Reviewing and examining the charter between higher education and society. Review of Higher Education, 24(4), 429–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlmeier, L. M. (1969). The regulators. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knott, J. H., & Payne, A. A. (2004). The impact of state governance structures on management performance of public organizations: A study of higher education institutions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(Winter), 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurland, N. B., & Egan T. D. (1999). Public v. private perceptions of formalization, outcomes, and justice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 437–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., & Lentz B. F. (2004). Do costs differ between for-profit and not-for-profit producers of higher education? Research in Higher Education, 45(4), 429–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light, P. C. (2002). The Troubled state of the federal public service. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute. www.brook.edu/views/papers/light/20020627.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, R. C. (2001). Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university prices and spending. American Journal of Political Science, 45(10), 845–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, R. C. (2009). Incomplete contracts and the political economy of privatization. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 33–59). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyall, K. R., & Sell, K. R. (2005). The true genius of America at risk: Are we losing our public universities to de facto privatization? Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, L. E. (1987). Managing public policy. New York: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, M. K. (2010). Mission, markets, and states: Developments reshaping U.S. public higher education. Remarks given in Edward Douglass White Lecture Series. Louisiana State University School of Law. 13 Apr 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, M. K., & Mokher, C. (2009). The origins and growth of state policies that privatize public higher education. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 7–32). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, M. K., Heller, D. E., & Young, S. (2005). State postsecondary education policy Innovation: Politics, competition, and interstate migration of policy ideas. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 363–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J.C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, M. K., Mokher, C. C., & Doyle, W. (2009). Privileging public research universities: An empirical analysis of the distribution of state appropriations across research and non-research universities. Journal of Education Finance, 34(4), 372–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morphew, C. C., & Eckel, P. D. (2009). Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. L. (2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of PSM. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 471–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. L., & Rainey H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. The Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, H. G., & Bozemen, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, H. G., & Chun, Y. H. (2005). Public and private management compared. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynn Jr., C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, H. G., Pandey, S. K., & Bozeman, B. (1995). Research note: Public and private managers perception of red tape. Public Administration Review, 55, 567–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salerno, C. (2009). Privatizing the public European university. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 160–180). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, J., & Milton, S. (2004). The effects of performance budgeting and funding programs on graduation rate in public four-year colleges and universities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(22).

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2009). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stater, M. (2009). Policy lessons from the privatization of public agencies. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 134–159). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelin, J. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toutkoushian, R. (2009). An economist’s perspective on the privatization of public higher education. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Ed.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkwein, J. F. (1987). State regulation and campus autonomy. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. III). New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkwein J. F., & Malik, S. M. (1997). State regulation and administrative flexibility at public universities. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkwein, J. F., & Parmley, K. (2000). Comparing administrative satisfaction in public and private universities. Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkwein, J. F., & Tandberg, D. A. (2008). Measuring up: Examining the connections among state structural characteristics, regulatory practices, and performance. Research in Higher Education, 49, 180–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wamsley, G. L., & Zald, M. (1973). The political economy of public organizations. Lexington: Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector—benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 387–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2010). Mission and money: Understanding the university. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. B., & Caiden, N. (2002). New politics of the budgetary process. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, L. R. (1999). The use of innovative practices in the public and private sectors: The role of organizational and individual factors. Public Productivity and Management Review, 23(2), 150–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zumeta, W. (2001). Public policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons from the past and present for the new millennium. In D. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oklahoma, 455 West Lindsey Street, Room 205, 73019, Norman, OK, USA

    Alisa Hicklin Fryar

Authors
  1. Alisa Hicklin Fryar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alisa Hicklin Fryar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CEPR, 100 Ball Hall, Memphis, TN, 38152-3570, USA

    John C. Smart

  2. Dept. Educational Policy, &, Leadership Studies, University of Iowa, Lindquist Center N491, Iowa City, 52242-1529, Iowa, USA

    Michael B. Paulsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fryar, A.H. (2012). What Do We Mean by Privatization in Higher Education?. In: Smart, J., Paulsen, M. (eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2950-6_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation