Advertisement

Bologna Process Implementation Problems

  • Cristina Sin
  • Amélia Veiga
  • Alberto Amaral
Chapter
Part of the Issues in Higher Education book series (IHIGHER)

Abstract

This chapter analyses the implementation problems of the Bologna Process in relation to the steering mechanisms based on the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). In areas such as education, which the European treaties have reserved for the legal command of national authorities (subsidiarity principle), the traditional ‘Community method’ of passing European legislation cannot be used and the European Union needs to resort to a soft law approach such as the OMC, which is an instrument of the Lisbon strategy and takes place in areas of member states’ competence (e.g. employment, social protection, social inclusion, education, youth and training). An important goal is to understand how far soft law methodologies, even when adequate to foster change, are adequate to ensure convergence and embeddedness of policy implementation and coordination, as there are successive levels (national, regional, institutional, etc.) with influence on the dynamic process of structural change. This is particularly relevant in the case of the Bologna Process as the implementation ultimately depends on the activity of autonomous institutions—the higher education institutions—where traditionally academic freedom does not allow for the direct top-down command of the central administration. Hence, implementation in conceptual terms is being challenged.

Keywords

Policy Implementation High Education System High Education Policy Lisbon Strategy Lisbon Agenda 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Amaral, A., & Veiga, A. (2012). The European Higher Education Area: Various perspectives on the complexities of a multi-level governance system. Educação Sociedade & Culturas, 36, 25–48.Google Scholar
  2. Amaral, A., & Neave, G. (2009). On Bologna, Weasels and Creeping Competence. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maassen (Eds.), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research (pp. 281–299). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Amaral, A., & Neave, G. (2009a). On Bologna, weasels and creeping competence. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maassen (Eds.), European integration and governance of higher education and research (pp. 271–289). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amaral, A., & Neave, G. (2009b). The OECD and its influence in higher education: A critical revision. In A. Maldonado & R. Bassett (Eds.), International organizations and higher education policy: Thinking globally, acting locally? (pp. 82–98). New York and London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Andersen, S. S., & Sitter, N. (2006). Differentiated integration: What is it and how much can the EU accommodate? Journal of European Integration, 28(4), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bache, I. (2008). Europeanization and multilevel governance—Cohesion policy in the EU and Britain. London: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, S. (2004). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Oxford: Rowman Littlefield.Google Scholar
  9. Beukel, E. (2001). Educational policy: Institutionalization and multi-level governance. In S. S. Andersson & A. K. Eliassen (Eds.), Making policy in Europe (pp. 124–139). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biagi, M. (2000). The impact of European employment strategy on the role of labour law and industrial relations. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 16(2), 15–173.Google Scholar
  11. Borras, S., & Jacobsson, K. (2004). The open method of coordination and new governance patterns in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(2), 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Börzel, T. A. (2003). How the European Union interacts with its member states. Political Science Series, 93. Retrieved 7 July 2015, from https://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/pol/pw_93.pdf.
  13. Bowe, R., Ball, S., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Capano, G., & Piattoni, S. (2011). From Bologna to Lisbon: The political uses of the Lisbon ‘script’ in European higher education policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(4), 584–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cerych, L., & Sabatier, P. (1986). Great expectations and mixed performance: The implementation of higher education reforms in Europe. Trentham: European Institute of Education and Social Policy.Google Scholar
  16. CHEPS and INCHER-Kassel and ECOTEC consortium. (2010). The Bologna Process independent assessment—The first decade of working on the European Higher Education Area. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  17. Crosier, D., Purser, L., & Smidt, H. (2007). Trends V: Universities shaping the European Higher Education Area. Brussels: EUA.Google Scholar
  18. De la Porte, C. (2002). Is the open method of coordination appropriate for organising activities at European level in sensitive policy areas? European Law Journal, 8(1), 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De la Porte, C., & Nanz, P. (2004). The OMC—A deliberative-democratic mode of governance? The cases of employment and pensions. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(2), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Neve, J.-E. (2007). The European onion? How differentiated integration is reshaping the EU. Journal of European Integration, 29(4), 503–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dehousse, R. (2002). The open method of coordination: A new policy paradigm?. Paper presented at the First Pan-European Conference on European Union Politics: The Politics of European Integration: Academic Acquis and Future Challenges, Bordeaux. Retrieved 20 February 2012, from http://eucenter.wisc.edu/OMC/Papers/Dehousse.pdf
  22. Elmeskov, J. (1998). The unemployment problem in Europe: Lessons from implementing the OECD jobs strategy. Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Emmanouilidis, J. A. (2007). Institutional consequences of differentiated integration. [Discussion Paper]. C.A.P. Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  24. Enders, J., & De Boer, H. (2009). The mission impossible of the European University. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maaasses (Eds.), European integration and the governance of higher education and research (pp. 159–178). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ESU. (2010). Bologna at the finish line: An account of ten years of European higher education reform. Brussels: ESU.Google Scholar
  26. European Council. (2000). Conclusions of Lisbon European Council. Lisbon: European Council.Google Scholar
  27. European Commission. (2006). Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training: Report based on indicators and benchmarks. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  28. Goetschy, J. (2004). The open method of coordination and the Lisbon strategy: The difficult road from potentials to results. Paper presented at the IIRA 7th European Congress, Estoril, Portugal, September 7–11.Google Scholar
  29. Gornitzka, Å. (2005). Coordinating policies for a “Europe of Knowledge”: Emerging practices of the “Open Method of Coordination” in education and research. Oslo: ARENA—Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  30. Gornitzka, Å. (2007). Historical legacies and new modes of governance in European higher education policy—The inception of the open method of coordination. In J. Enders & F. van Vught (Eds.), Towards a cartography of higher education policy change (pp. 165–172). Enschede: CHEPS/University of Twente Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gornitzka, A. (2009). Networking administration in areas of national sensitivity: The commission and European higher education. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maassen (Eds.), European integration and the governance of higher education and research (pp. 109–132). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gornitzka, Å. (2010). Bologna in context: A horizontal perspective on the dynamics of governance sites for a Europe of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(4), 535–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gornitzka, Å., Kogan, M., & Amaral, A. (Eds.). (2005a). Reform and change in higher education: Analysing policy implementation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Gornitzka, Å., Kyvik, S., & Stensaker, B. (2005b). Implementation analysis in higher education. In A. Gornitzka, M. Kogan, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Reform and change in higher education (pp. 35–56). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Hemerijck, A. (2002). The Self-transformation of the European social model(s). Retrieved 20 February 2012, from http://www.eucenter.wisc.edu/OMC/Papers/Hemerijck.pdf Google Scholar
  36. Hemerijck, A., & Visser, J. (2003). Policy learning in European Welfare State. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  37. Holzinger, K., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2012). Differentiated integration in the European Union: Many concepts, sparse theory, few data. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(2), 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  39. Kaiser, R., & Prange, H. (2004). Managing diversity in a system of multi-level governance: The open method of co-ordination in innovation policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(2), 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kjaer, A. (2010a). Governance. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  41. Kjaer, P. (2010b). Between governing and governance: On the emergence, function and form of Europe’s post-national constellation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Kok, W. (2004). Facing the challenge—The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment. Luxembourg: European Communities.Google Scholar
  43. Kölliker, A. (2001). Bringing together or driving apart the union? Towards a theory of differentiated integration. West European Politics, 24(4), 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lascoumes, P., & Galès, P. L. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 20(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Magalhães, A., Veiga, A., Ribeiro, F., Sousa, S., & Santiago, R. (2013). Creating a common grammar for European higher education governance. Higher Education, 65(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Manouvelos, E. G. (2011). The theory of multi-level governance: Conceptual, empirical and normative challenges—By S. Piattoni. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(3), 690–691.Google Scholar
  47. Mosher, J. (2000). Open method of coordination: Functional and political origins. Paper presented at the conclusion of the Lisbon sumit, 23–24 March.Google Scholar
  48. Musselin, C. (2009). The side effects of the Bologna Process on national institutional settings: The case of France. In A. Alberto, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maassen (Eds.), European integration and the governance of higher education and research (pp. 175–198). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Neave G. (2002). Anything goes: Or, how the accommodation of Europe’s Universities to European integration integrates—An inspiring number of contradictions. Boletim da Universidade do Porto, 10.35.Google Scholar
  50. Neave G. (2004) ‘Europhiliacs, Eurosceptics and Europhobics: Higher education policy, values and institutional research’, 26th Annual Forum. Barcelona: Presidential Address to the 26th Annual Meeting of EAIR.Google Scholar
  51. Neave, G. (2005).On snowballs, slopes and the process of Bologna: some testy reflections on the advance of higher education in Europe. ARENA – Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  52. Neave, G., & Amaral, A. (2008). On process, progress, success and methodology or the unfolding of the Bologna Process as it appears to two reasonably benign observers. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(1–2), 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Neave, G., & Amaral, A. (2012). Introduction. On exceptionalism: The nation, a generation and higher education, Portugal 1974–2009. In G. Neave & A. Amaral (Eds.), Higher education in Portugal 1974–2009—A nation, a generation (pp. 1–48). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Neave, G., & Veiga, A. (2013). The Bologna Process: Inception, ‘take up’ and familiarity. Higher Education, 66(1), 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Netherlands Council for Social Development. (2004). European coordination, local effects? Towards an effective implementation of the European social inclusion strategy in the Netherlands. The Hague: Netherlands Council for Social Development.Google Scholar
  56. Osborne, S. (2010). The new public governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Pressman, L. J., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation—How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why it’s amazing that Federal Programs work at all, this being a Saga of the economic development administration. California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  58. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rosenau, J., & Czempiel, E. (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coallition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 117–166). Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  61. Salamon, L. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Schäfer, A. (2002). Vier Perspektiven zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der "Europäischen Beschäftigungspolitik.Google Scholar
  63. Scharpf, W. F. (2001). Notes toward a theory of multilevel governing in Europe. Scandinavian Political Studies, 24(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sin, C., & Manatos, M. J. (2014). Student assessment in Portugal: Academic practice and Bologna policy. Higher Education Policy, 27(3), 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sin, C., & Saunders, M. (2014). Selective acquiescence, creative commitment and strategic conformity: Situated national policy responses to Bologna. European Journal of Education, 49(4), 529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sin, C. (2012a). Academic understandings of and responses to Bologna: A three-country perspective. European Journal of Education, 47(3), 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sin, C. (2012b). Loose policy and local adaptation—A comparative study of Master Degrees in the context of the Bologna Process. Doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, Lancaster.Google Scholar
  68. Sin, C. (2012b). The Bologna master degree in search of an identity. European Journal of Higher Education, 2(2–3), 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sin, C. (2013). The devil in the detail: Contradictory national requirements and Bologna master degrees. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(1), 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sin, C. (2014a). Lost in translation: The meaning of learning outcomes across national and institutional policy contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1823–1837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sin, C. (2014b). The policy object: A different perspective on policy enactment in higher education. Higher Education, 68(3), 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sin, C. (2015). Les résultats d’apprentissage entre essor politique et pratiques disciplinaires. In A. Gorga & J. P. Leresche (Eds.), Transformations des disciplines académiques: Entre innovation et résistance (pp. 181–194). Paris: Editions des archives contemporaines.Google Scholar
  73. Stubb, A. (1996). A categorization of differentiated integration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(2), 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tömmel, I., & Verdun, A. (Eds). (2009). Innovative governance in European Union: The politics of multilevel policymaking. German Law Journal. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  75. Trowler, P. (2003). Education Policy. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. Veiga, A. (2010). Bologna and the institutionalisation of the European Higher Education Area. Doctoral dissertation, Universidade do Porto, Porto.Google Scholar
  77. Veiga, A. (2012). Bologna 2010. The moment of truth? European Journal of Education, 47(3), 378–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Veiga, A. (2014). Researching the Bologna Process through the lens of the policy cycle. In A. Teodoro & M. Guilherme (Eds.), European and Latin American higher education between mirrors (pp. 91–108). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2006). The open method of coordination and the implementation of the Bologna Process. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(4), 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2009a). Policy implementation tools and European governance. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maassen (Eds.), European integration and the governance of higher education and research (pp. 133–157). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2009b). Policy implementation tools and European governance. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maassen (Eds.), European integration and governance of higher education and research (pp. 127–151). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  82. Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2012). Soft Law and the implementation problems of the Bologna Process. Educação Sociedade & Culturas, 36, 121–141.Google Scholar
  83. Veiga, A., & Neave, G. (2015). Managing the dynamics of the Bologna reforms: How institutional actors re-construct the policy framework. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(59). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1891.
  84. Veiga, A., Magalhães, A., & Amaral, A. (2015). Differentiated integration and the Bologna Process. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 11(1), 84–102.Google Scholar
  85. Yerevan Communiqué. (2015). Yerevan Communiqué. Conference of Ministers responsible for higher education, Yerevan, 14–15 May.Google Scholar
  86. Zeitlin, J. (2005). Social Europe and experimental governance: Towards a new constitutional compromise?. La Follette School, Working Paper no. 2005–001. Retrieved 20 February 2012, from http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workingpapers

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Sin
    • 1
  • Amélia Veiga
    • 1
  • Alberto Amaral
    • 1
  1. 1.CIPESMatosinhosPortugal

Personalised recommendations