Search results

There is a consensus that transnational soft governance has unleashed the forces of change in higher education. However, individual national HE systems are still anchored in country-specific regulatory regimes, which reflect national-historical, institutional, and cultural developments. Against this background, three crucial questions guide our study: How does the state react to transnational pressures for change? How is transnationally inspired policy change 'digested' by the preexisting country-specific governance structures? And to what extent have national HE systems converged on a common governance model? To address these questions, we conduct a multi-level comparative analysis of developments in Germany, France, and Italy. We first break down the concept of higher education governance into sub-dimensions and derive concrete policy indicators for three historically embedded governance ideal types. Drawing on historical institutionalism and institutional isomorphism, we explore how historical legacies and transnational communication have impacted policy pathways over the past 30 years. We graphically illustrate the policy trajectories using our 'governance triangles', which encompass the balance of power between multiple actors, including the state and universities, university management and the academic profession, and external stakeholders.

There is a consensus that transnational soft governance has unleashed the forces of change in higher education. However, individual national HE systems are still anchored in country-specific regulatory regimes, which reflect national-historical, institutional, and cultural developments. Against this background, three crucial questions guide our study: How does the state react to transnational pressures for change? How is transnationally inspired policy change 'digested' by the preexisting country-specific governance structures? And to what extent have national HE systems converged on a common governance model? To address these questions, we conduct a multilevel comparative analysis of developments in Germany, France, and Italy. We first break down the concept of higher education governance into sub-dimensions and derive concrete policy indicators for three historically embedded governance ideal types. Drawing on historical institutionalism and institutional isomorphism, we explore how historical legacies and transnational communication have impacted policy pathways over the past 30 years. We graphically illustrate the policy trajectories using our 'governance triangles', which encompass the balance of power between multiple actors, including the state and universities, university management and the academic profession, and external stakeholders.

This article examines the oxymoronic issues regarding the role of the state in higher education under the implementation of New Public Management (NPM) advocated by neoliberal ideology. According to its proponents, NPM can increase success and productivity and, thus, foster more democratic governance. In this NPM‐driven web of relationships, the central issue always lies in whether the state should play minimal or maximal roles via a set of performative measurements. This article analyzes this interaction and relationship between the state and higher education, taking Indonesia as an object of analysis. It seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the theory and practice of public administration and public policy on education, particularly regarding the role of state in a particular context, like that of Indonesia, in which NPM and the neoliberal agenda are taking root.

Determining whether change does or does not prevail over continuity is a classical question insociology and political science. Higher education studies do not escape this recurrentquestioning. In particular one can wonder how much change should be documented, whatfactors or dimensions should have been affected by change, which characteristics shouldchange processes bear, for an analyst to be allowed to state that change indeed occurred. Nosimple answer can be given to these questions. Furthermore, depending on the focus chosenby the researcher – actors versus structures, micro versus meso or macro levels, local versusnational perspectives, long term versus short term perspectives, individual versus institutionalsettings, norms versus practices, etc. – the balance between change and continuity may bedifferently assessed. A further difficulty results from the fact that change is not always radicaland provoked by identified reforms but may also be incremental (Lindblom, 1959) whensuccessive limited moves produce fairly profound change in the long run. [first paragraph]

Determining whether change does or does not prevail over continuity is a classical question insociology and political science. Higher education studies do not escape this recurrentquestioning. In particular one can wonder how much change should be documented, whatfactors or dimensions should have been affected by change, which characteristics shouldchange processes bear, for an analyst to be allowed to state that change indeed occurred. Nosimple answer can be given to these questions. Furthermore, depending on the focus chosenby the researcher – actors versus structures, micro versus meso or macro levels, local versusnational perspectives, long term versus short term perspectives, individual versus institutionalsettings, norms versus practices, etc. – the balance between change and continuity may bedifferently assessed. A further difficulty results from the fact that change is not always radicaland provoked by identified reforms but may also be incremental (Lindblom, 1959) whensuccessive limited moves produce fairly profound change in the long run. [first paragraph]