Interplay between Politics and Institution in Higher Education Reform

Year 2019, Volume: 8 Issue: 3, 671 - 681, 15.07.2019

Saber Khelifi

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.3.671

Abstract

The advent of the new economy brought university reforms to the limelight, and higher education research concentrated on the study of interactions of multi-level, multi-actor policy reforms, to the detriment of studying policy implementation. The ebbing of implementation analysis in the mid-1980s has probably put researchers off following up policies to the point of delivery, resulting in what critics dubbed a 'missing link'. Policymakers more pronounced need to evaluate the impact of the policies they adopt, inter alia, has led to a renewed interest in bottom-up implementation in other public policy fields, but not as much in higher education research. The article builds on a Network Governance-informed approach for studying policy reform in higher education and adapts it to study of policy implementation with a focus on transition systems. Witte's actor-centered new institutional framework is taken as a springboard, and some of its underlying assumptions are reviewed for that purpose, adding insights from public administration literature (NPM) and Lipsky's street-level bureaucracy (SLBy). Ultimately, it proposes a politics-institutions framework to account for the institutional change entailed to the reforms.

Keywords

Politics, higher education, reform

References

• Adelman, C. (2008, June 12). The Bologna club: What US higher education can learn from a decade of European reconstruction. Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501332.pdf
• Allaste, A. A., & Cairns, D. (2016).Youth political participation in a transition society. Studies of Transition States and Societies, 8(2), 1-9.
• Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074.
• Bologna Declaration. (1999, June 19). The European higher education area. Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education convened in Bologna. Retrieved from http://www.upv.es/upl/U0450829.pdf
• Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992) Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London, UK: Routledge.
• Brodkin, E. Z. (2012). Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: Past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 940–949.
• Borzel, T. A. (2010). Governance with/out government: False promises or flawed premises? Berlin, Germany: SFB-Governance Working Paper Series.
• Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy? Higher Education, 62(4), 503-517.
• Clark, B. (1983). The contradictions of change in academic systems. Higher Education, 12(1), 101-116
• Denzau, A. T., & North D. C. (1994).Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos, 47(1), 3–31.
• Eggins, H. (2014.). Drivers and barriers to achieving quality in higher education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
• Ellis, K. (2011). Street‐level Bureaucracy’ revisited: The changing face of frontline discretion in adult social care in England. Social Policy Administration, 45(3), 221-244.
• Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2009).Evolution of the university’s role in innovation and the new Asia model. In J. Douglass, J. King, & I. Feller (Eds.), Globalization’s muse: Universities and higher education systems in a changing world (pp. 229- 246). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Public Policy Press.
• Faber, M., & Westerheijden, D. (2011).European Degree Structure and National Reform. In J. Enders, H. J. de Boer & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of Higher Education in Europe (pp. 11-28). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
• Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G. (2009). The governance of higher education systems: A public management perspective. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, E. Bleiklie& E. Ferlie (Eds.), University governance: Western European comparative perspective (pp. 1-19). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
• Frenkel, S. J., Tam, M., Korczynski, M., & Shire, K. (1998).Beyond bureaucracy? Work organisation in call centres. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(6), 957–979.
• Gaston, P. L. (2010). The challenge of Bologna: what United States higher education has to learn, and why it matters that we learn it. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Gilson L. L. (2015). Michael Lipsky, street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. In M. Lodge, E. C. Page, & S. J. Balla (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.19
• Gornitzka, A., Kyvik, S., & Stensaker, B. (2005). Implementation analysis in higher education. In A. Gornitzka, M. Kogan & A. Amaral (Eds.), Reform and change in higher education: Analysing policy implementation (pp. 35-56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
• Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936-957.
• Hoareau, C. (2009). Does deliberation matter? The impact of the Bologna process on attitudes and policies in European higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
• Hoyle, L. (2014). ‘I mean, obviously you're using your discretion’: Nurses use of discretion in policy implementation. Social Policy and Society, 13(2), 189-202. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746413000316
• Hudson, J., & Lowe, S. (2009). Understanding the policy process: Analysing welfare policy and practice (2nd ed.). Bristol, England: Policy Press University of Bristol.
• Kauko, J. (2013). Dynamics in higher education politics: a theoretical model. Higher Education, 65(2), 193–206.
• Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., & Purcell, J. (2000). Fun and surveillance: the paradox of high commitment management in call centres. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(5), 967-985. http://doi.org/10.1080/095851900422375
• Kolster, R., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2014). Employability of professional bachelors from an international perspective: final report. Center of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://ris.utwente.nl
• Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy, 30th ann. ed.: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Marginson, S. (2009, February). Global imaginings and strategies in higher education. Paper presented at the International Studies Association Conference. New York, NY: International Studies Association.
• Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher education, 43(3), 281-309.
• Mayntz, R. (1993). Governing failures and the problem of governability: some comments on a theoretical paradigm. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern governance: New government-society interactions (pp. 9-20). London, UK: Sage.
• Mikkola, A., Brus, S., Aberg, N. G., Mac Sithigh, D., Tuck, C., & Carapinha, B. (2007). Bologna with student eyes 2007 edition. London, UK: ESIB - The National Unions of Students in Europe.
• Neave, G. (1988). Education and social policy: Demise of an ethic or change of values? Oxford Review of Education, 14(3), 273-283.
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Goastellec, G., & Bleiklie, I. (2009). Universities steering between stories and history. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University governance: Western European comparative perspective (pp. 227-246). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
• Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, 94(2) 251–267.
• Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Sabatier, P. (2005). From policy implementation to policy change: A personal odyssey. In A. Gornitzka, M. Kogan & A. Amaral (Eds.), Reform and change in higher education: Analysing policy implementation (pp. 17-34). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
• Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993), Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalitions approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Schafer, A. (2006). A new form of governance? Comparing the open method of coordination to multilateral surveillance by the IMF and the OECD. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(1), 70-88.
• Scharpf, F. W. (1997) Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Sursock, A. (2015). Trends 2015: Learning and teaching in European universities. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/EUA_Trends_2015_web
• Taylor, I., & Kelly, J. (2006). Professionals, discretion and public sector reforms in the UK: re-visiting Lipsky. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(7) 629–642.doi: 10.1108/09513550610704662
• Teichler, U. (2011). Bologna–Motor or stumbling block for the mobility and employability of graduates? In H. Schomburg, & U. Teichler (Eds.), Employability and mobility of bachelor graduates in Europe (pp. 3-41). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
• Thelen, K., & Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical Institutionalism in comparative politics. In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth (Eds.), Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis (pp. 1-32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Tolofari, S. (2005). New public management and education. Policy Futures in Education, 3(1), 75-89. http://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2005.3.1.11
• Tomusk, V. (Ed.). (2006). Creating the European area of higher education: Voices from the periphery. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
• Tummers, L., Vermeeren, B., Steijn, B., & Bekkers, V. (2012). Public professionals and policy implementation: Conceptualizing and measuring three types of role conflicts. Public Management Review, 14(8), 1041-1059.
• Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework for analysis. Higher education, 48(4), 483-510.
• Veiga, A. (2012). Bologna 2010. The moment of truth? European Journal of Education, 47(3), 378-391. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2012.01532.x
• Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2009). Survey on the implementation of the Bologna process in Portugal. Higher Education, 57(1), 57–69.
• Wastell, D., White, S., Broadhurst, K., Peckover, S., & Pithouse, A. (2010). Children’s services in the iron cage of performance management: street-level bureaucracy and the spectre of Svejkism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(3), 310-320. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00716.x
• Witte, J. K. (2006). Change of degrees and degrees of change: Comparing adaptations of European higher education systems in the context of the Bologna process (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
• Zedekia, S. (2017). Street level bureaucrats as the ultimate policy makers. Journal of Political Sciences & Public Affairs, 5(4), 306. http://doi.org/10.4172/2332-0761.1000306
• Zgaga, P. (2006, May 13). Looking out: The Bologna process in a global setting: On the external dimension of the Bologna process. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Global%20context/Bologna_Process_in_global_setting_finalreport.pdf