Policy aspects of innovation governance. Central and regional governance of innovation in Hungary
In: Társadalomkutatás, Band 32, Heft 3, S. 295-304
ISSN: 1588-2918
4 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Társadalomkutatás, Band 32, Heft 3, S. 295-304
ISSN: 1588-2918
In: Társadalomkutatás, Band 32, Heft 2, S. 176-191
ISSN: 1588-2918
In a series of studies I analyze the past and present of Chinese higher education. The topic may be justified by the fact that up to now no comprehensive study has been published in Hungary about the long way China went along from the darkest years of communism to nowadays' education. In this second paper I summarize the four main phenomena of the reforms after the Mao-era: decentralization, marketization, privatization and internationalization. In the frame of decentralization, the external and internal governance of the universities changed resulting in a power shift from the central level to regional and institutional level. Marketization brought about significant change in the funding of higher education: instead of the state private actors pay for education. Privatization let private actors in the higher education arena, while internationalization means opening up China for foreign institutions and students and letting Chinese students to study abroad. I build my analysis on international literature and statistical data.
BASE
This article considers the relationship between centralised, exogenous institutions and the embedded, endogenous institutions of rural governance in Europe through an examination of the evaluation procedures of the European LEADER programme. LEADER is presented in the literature as progressive in terms of innovation and stakeholder engagement. Yet, while the planning and management of LEADER embraces heterogeneity and participation, programmatic evaluation is centralised and is held at arms length from the delivery organisations. The article reviews previous efforts to improve evaluation in LEADER and considers alternative strategies for evaluation, contrasting LEADER practice with participatory evaluation methodologies in the wider international context. Can evaluation in itself be valuable as a mode of social learn-ing and hence a driver for endogenous development in rural communities in Europe? The article concludes by examining the challenges in producing a hybrid form of evaluation that accommodates both endogenous and exogenous values.
BASE