Abstract
One of the characteristics of the university reform in the last quarter century has been an increasing marketisation of higher education. In response to fears that universities represent classic dominant producers, governments have sought to stimulate efficiency and innovation in the higher education sector with a mix of increasing autonomy and competition for funding. The concept on which this lies is that stimulating competition drives out inefficiency by underperforming institutions. The most successful universities can recruit more students and win more research projects, allowing them to thrive. Conversely, less successful institutions will see their funding drop. They will either have to improve service levels or witness their gradual disappearance. Whilst the empirical value of the efficiency of higher education markets remains to be proven, marketisation is an undeniable landmark of the contemporary policy field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ackoff, J. (1999). Ackoff’s best: His classic writings on management. New York: John Wylie.
Baumunt, Z. (1997). Universities: old, new and different. In A. Smith & F. Webster (Eds.), The post-modern university? Contested visions of higher education in society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Barnett, R. (2000). Realising a compact for higher education. In K. Moti Gokulsing & C. DaCosta (Eds.), A compact for higher education. Aldershot: Ashgate.
De Boer, H. (2002). Trust, the essence of governance? In A. Amaral, A. J. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 43–62). Dordrecht/ Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Börzel, T. A. (1998). Organizing Babylon—On the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Administration, 76, 253–273.
CEC. (1995). Green paper on innovation. Com 95–688. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/documents/comm/green_papers/pdf/com95_688_en.pdf
CEC. (2005). Working together for growth and jobs a new start for the Lisbon strategy. Brussels: Author, COM (2005) 24. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/archives/ a). Putting knowledge into practice: A broad-based innovation strategy for the EU. COM (2006) 502. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0502:FIN:en:PDF
CEC. (2006b). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the council establishing the European Institute of Technology. Brussels: Author, SEC (2006) 1313. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/eit/doc/com604_en.pdf
CHEPS, INCHER & NIFU-STEP. (2009). Progress in higher education reform across Europe governance reform. Brussels: DG Education.
Consoli, D., & Patrucco, P.-P. (2008). Innovation platforms and the governance of knowledge: Evidence from Italy and the UK. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(7), 699–716.
Deitrick, S., & Soska, T. (2005). The University of Pittsburgh and the Oakland neighborhood: From conflict to cooperation or How the 800-Pound Gorilla learned to sit with—and not on—its neighbors. In D. C. Perry & W. Wiewel (Eds.), The university as urban developer: Case studies and analysis. New York: M.E Sharpe.
Dowding, K. (1995). Model or metaphor? Review of the policy network approach. Political Studies, XLIII, 136–158.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.
EIT. (2009). Call for proposals EIT-KICS-2009 – Knowledge and innovation communities. Budapest: Author. Retrieved from http://eit.europa.eu/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/kics/KICS_call_2009_04_02.pdf
Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new american political system (pp. 87–124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
ICT_Labs. (2009). Future information and communications society: Partners. Berlin: Author Retrieved from http://eit.europa.eu/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/Designated_KICs/EIT_ICT_Labs_Partners.pdf
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.
Kickert, W. (1995). Steering at a distance: A new paradigm of public governance in Dutch higher education. Governance, 8, 135–157.
Kickert, W. J. M., & Klijn, E. H., et al. (Eds.). (1997). Managing complex networks. Strategies for the public sector. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Kok, W. (2004). Facing the challenge. The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Koppenjan, J. F. M., & Klijn, E. H. (2004a). Mananging uncertainties in networks. London: Routledge.
Longden, B. (2001). Funding policy in higher education: Contested terrain. Research Papers in Education, 16(2), 161–182.
Maassen, P. A. M. (1996). Governmental steering and the academic culture. Utrecht: De Tijdstroom.
Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (1992). Policy communities and issue networks. Beyond typology. Policy networks in British government. In D. Marsh & R. A. W. Rhodes (Eds.), (pp. 249–268). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mayntz, R. (1997a). Soziale dynamik und politische steuerung. Theoretische und methodologische uberlegungen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
Nauta, F. (2008). Het innovatieplatform: Innoveren in het centrum van de macht. Dordrecht: Academic Service.
Neave, G., & van Vught, F. A. (Eds.). (1991). Prometheus bound: The changing relationship between government and higher education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon.
OECD. (2008). Tertiary education for the knowledge society: Vol. 1, Special features. Governance, funding, quality. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 299–252.
Romanainen, J. (2001). Cluster approaches in technology policy. In E. M. Bergman, P. den Hertog, D. R. Charles, & S. Remoe (Eds.), Innovative clusters: Drivers of national innovation systems. Paris: OECD.
S&TC. (2005). ‘Strategic science provision in English Universities’, science and technology committee eighth report of session 2004–05. London: HMSO, HC 220-I.
Scharpf, F. W. (1994). Games real actors could play. Positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(1), 27–53.
Scott, P. (2007). The ‘nationalisation’ of UK universities 1963–2007. In J. Enders & F. van Vught (Eds.), Towards a cartography of higher education policy change. Enschede: UT/CHEPS.
Veugelers, A., Breznitz, E., Murray, O., Hyytinen, K., Ketokivi, L., Maliranta, M., et al. (2009, October 28). Evaluation of the finnish national innovation system – policy report. Taloustieto Oy.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dassen, A., Benneworth, P. (2011). Understanding the Limits to Higher Education Policy Networks. In: Enders, J., de Boer, H.F., Westerheijden, D.F. (eds) Reform of Higher Education in Europe. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-555-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-555-0_8
Publisher Name: SensePublishers
Online ISBN: 978-94-6091-555-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)
