Suchergebnisse

European higher education (HE) systems experienced major changes, and many publications have already proposed to assess and analyse this evolution. But looking at the state of the art on this issue, as will be done in the first section of this introduction, it appears that none adopted a public management perspective and considered wider patterns of public sector 'reforming' and how they have been applied to higher education systems within the EU. Although most HE systems in Europe, but also in the US, are publicly funded, admit the highest share of students and, by contrast with the US benefit from higher reputation than many private institutions, HE has rarely been studied as a public policy or management topic, so has not been one of the traditional areas covered by generic political scientists or public management scholars'Bringing in' more generic concepts from political science and public management more fully into the study of HE institutions (HEIs) is a promising avenue to explore academically, and may re-invigorate the study of HEIs. Often the HE sector is seen as a 'stand alone' sector, which is not directly or easily comparable with other types of organization, even within the public sector. The ideology of academic and institutional autonomy as described by Merton, which is so well developed within the HE sector supports this sectoralist approach. There may be some evidence to support this notion of difference even at the organizational level: for example, UK universities retain more self direction and less central control than some other UK public sector settings, such as the National Health Service (the very name describes a national rather than a local service). Yet at a more fundamental level, the organizational similarities with other professionalized public sector settings such as health care are more important than the differences: European universities are largely dependent on the state for financing; the state is concerned to regulate their behaviour as they influence citizens' life chances significantly; they contain a mix of professional and bureaucratic elements and they operate within strongly structured institutionalized fields. There are many fundamental similarities with other public service settings such as health care. Within organizational analysis, they fit well with the more general archetype of the professionalized organization developed by Mintzberg (1979).

International audience ; European higher education (HE) systems experienced major changes, and many publications have already proposed to assess and analyse this evolution. But looking at the state of the art on this issue, as will be done in the first section of this introduction, it appears that none adopted a public management perspective and considered wider patterns of public sector 'reforming' and how they have been applied to higher education systems within the EU. Although most HE systems in Europe, but also in the US, are publicly funded, admit the highest share of students and, by contrast with the US benefit from higher reputation than many private institutions, HE has rarely been studied as a public policy or management topic, so has not been one of the traditional areas covered by generic political scientists or public management scholars'Bringing in' more generic concepts from political science and public management more fully into the study of HE institutions (HEIs) is a promising avenue to explore academically, and may re-invigorate the study of HEIs. Often the HE sector is seen as a 'stand alone' sector, which is not directly or easily comparable with other types of organization, even within the public sector. The ideology of academic and institutional autonomy as described by Merton, which is so well developed within the HE sector supports this sectoralist approach. There may be some evidence to support this notion of difference even at the organizational level: for example, UK universities retain more self direction and less central control than some other UK public sector settings, such as the National Health Service (the very name describes a national rather than a local service). Yet at a more fundamental level, the organizational similarities with other professionalized public sector settings such as health care are more important than the differences: European universities are largely dependent on the state for financing; the state is concerned to regulate their behaviour as they influence citizens' life chances significantly; they contain a mix of professional and bureaucratic elements and they operate within strongly structured institutionalized fields. There are many fundamental similarities with other public service settings such as health care. Within organizational analysis, they fit well with the more general archetype of the professionalized organization developed by Mintzberg (1979).

European higher education (HE) systems experienced major changes, and many publications have already proposed to assess and analyse this evolution. But looking at the state of the art on this issue, as will be done in the first section of this introduction, it appears that none adopted a public management perspective and considered wider patterns of public sector 'reforming' and how they have been applied to higher education systems within the EU. Although most HE systems in Europe, but also in the US, are publicly funded, admit the highest share of students and, by contrast with the US benefit from higher reputation than many private institutions, HE has rarely been studied as a public policy or management topic, so has not been one of the traditional areas covered by generic political scientists or public management scholars'Bringing in' more generic concepts from political science and public management more fully into the study of HE institutions (HEIs) is a promising avenue to explore academically, and may re-invigorate the study of HEIs. Often the HE sector is seen as a 'stand alone' sector, which is not directly or easily comparable with other types of organization, even within the public sector. The ideology of academic and institutional autonomy as described by Merton, which is so well developed within the HE sector supports this sectoralist approach. There may be some evidence to support this notion of difference even at the organizational level: for example, UK universities retain more self direction and less central control than some other UK public sector settings, such as the National Health Service (the very name describes a national rather than a local service). Yet at a more fundamental level, the organizational similarities with other professionalized public sector settings such as health care are more important than the differences: European universities are largely dependent on the state for financing; the state is concerned to regulate their behaviour as they influence citizens' life chances ...

This article looks at the role of the state with respect to Internet control & regulation. Specifically, the author discusses the blurring line between who & what controls in computable terms; how control is enforced & subverted; & the need to alter the discussion from solely focusing on state-centric notions of control to include nonhuman agents (cyber-organisms, computer automated systems, & Internet-embedded media messages) which are significant variables in this debate. Goger, C.

ABSTRACTThis study investigates the impact of investor protection on firm ownership and capital growth in a model where investor protection is allowed to vary between firms. Using panel data for Italy, we construct firm‐level variables to capture the degree of investor protection, which is observable to all shareholders. Empirical evidence indicates that the stronger the investor protection the lower the fraction of equity that is owned by insiders. Results show that higher insider equity ownership is linked to larger risk premiums and higher costs of capital. Implications suggest that the magnitude of capital stock distortions is particularly important when shareholder protection is weak and ownership concentration is high.

The role and capacity of the state are changing. Some researchers argue that the state is transforming, strategically adapting to new circumstances, while others see a development of governing arrangements that are autonomous from the state, governing 'without' government. This article assesses the governing without government thesis through the case of forest certification introduced in Sweden in the late 1990s. This is a case of private governance, the governing capacity of which is based on voluntary self‐regulation rather than government authority, seemingly a prime example of governing without government. The results show that government nonetheless is involved with forest certification through governance‐oriented modes of governing: enabling and influencing the arrangements. Thus, what appeared to be a prime example of governing 'without' government is better understood as governing 'with' government.