New Public Management and Academic Freedom in Higher Education: Towards an Ethical Managerialism Framework

Öz

This article proposes a theory-informed conceptual governance framework grounded in comparative document analysis to examine the ethical implications of New Public Management reforms in higher education. Focusing on the tensions between efficiency, accountability, and academic freedom, the study compares Turkey, Estonia, and the United Kingdom as analytically distinct governance contexts. While NPM-inspired reforms have introduced performance-based evaluation, strategic planning, audit mechanisms, and competitive funding arrangements, they have also reshaped collegial governance and transformed the ethical conditions of academic work. Drawing on policy documents, legislative frameworks, institutional reports, international monitoring sources, and scholarly literature published between 2000 and 2024, the analysis is structured around three dimensions: efficiency orientation, ethical safeguards, and the protection of academic freedom. The findings suggest that the ethical consequences of managerial reform are context-dependent rather than uniform. In Turkey, centralised political authority and limited collegial participation appear to intensify ethical vulnerability and constrain institutional autonomy. Estonia illustrates how digital transparency, participatory administrative traditions, and rule-of-law safeguards may mediate performance-oriented reforms. The United Kingdom indicates that advanced performance regimes, particularly research assessment and competitive funding systems, can enhance transparency while also generating pressures on academic labour, collegial trust, and professional autonomy. The study contributes to higher education governance literature by proposing ethical managerialism as a conditional governance framework that embeds managerial instruments within legal, institutional, professional, and public-sector ethical safeguards. Rather than treating efficiency and academic freedom as inherently incompatible, the framework explains how managerial reforms may become ethically defensible when constrained by transparency, participation, collegiality, and academic integrity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• New Public Management
• University Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Ethics
• Accountability

Yükseköğretimde Yeni Kamu Yönetimi ve Akademik Özgürlük: Etik Yönetselcilik Çerçevesine Doğru

Öz

Bu makale, yükseköğretimde Yeni Kamu Yönetimi reformlarının etik sonuçlarını incelemek üzere karşılaştırmalı doküman analizine dayanan teori temelli kavramsal bir yönetişim çerçevesi önermektedir. Etkinlik, hesap verebilirlik ve akademik özgürlük arasındaki gerilimlere odaklanan çalışma, Yeni Kamu Yönetimi temelli reformların performans değerlendirmesi, stratejik planlama, denetim mekanizmaları ve rekabetçi finansman düzenlemelerini yükseköğretime taşırken meslektaşlık temelli yönetişimi ve akademik çalışmanın etik koşullarını nasıl yeniden şekillendirdiğini analiz etmektedir. Çalışma, 2000–2024 yılları arasında yayımlanan politika belgeleri, yasal düzenlemeler, kurumsal raporlar, uluslararası izleme belgeleri ve akademik literatüre dayanarak Türkiye, Estonya ve Birleşik Krallık örneklerini analitik olarak farklı yönetişim bağlamları olarak karşılaştırmaktadır. Analiz; etkinlik yönelimi, etik güvenceler ve akademik özgürlüğün korunması olmak üzere üç boyut etrafında yapılandırılmıştır. Bulgular, yönetsel reformların etik sonuçlarının tek biçimli olmadığını, bağlama göre değiştiğini göstermektedir. Türkiye’de merkezî siyasal otorite ve sınırlı meslektaş katılımı etik kırılganlığı artırmakta ve kurumsal özerkliği sınırlandırmaktadır. Estonya örneği, dijital şeffaflık, katılımcı idari gelenekler ve hukuk devleti güvencelerinin performans odaklı reformları dengeleyebileceğini göstermektedir. Birleşik Krallık ise özellikle araştırma değerlendirme ve rekabetçi finansman sistemleri gibi gelişmiş performans rejimlerinin şeffaflığı artırırken akademik emek, meslektaş güveni ve mesleki özerklik üzerinde baskı oluşturabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, yönetsel araçları yasal, kurumsal, mesleki ve kamu etiği temelli güvenceler içine yerleştiren koşullu bir yönetişim çerçevesi olarak etik yönetselcilik kavramını önererek yükseköğretim yönetişimi literatürüne katkı sunmaktadır. Çerçeve, etkinlik ve akademik özgürlüğü doğası gereği birbiriyle uyumsuz olarak ele almak yerine, yönetsel reformların şeffaflık, katılım, meslektaşlık ve akademik bütünlük tarafından sınırlandırıldığında etik açıdan savunulabilir hâle gelebileceğini açıklamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yeni Kamu Yönetimi
• Üniversite Yönetişimi
• Akademik Özgürlük
• Etik
• Hesap Verebilirlik

Kaynakça

1. Alemdaroğlu, A., & Babül, E. (2021, February 23). Boğaziçi resists authoritarian control of the academy in Turkey. Middle East Report Online. https://www.merip.org/2021/02/bogazici-resists-authoritarian-control-of-the-academy-in-turkey/
2. Altbach, P. G. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher Education, 41(1–2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026791518365
3. Alzahmi, R. A., Syed, R. T., Singh, D., Arshi, T. A., & Kutty, S. V. (2025). Organizational change in higher education institutions: Thematic mapping of the literature and future research agenda. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 1282. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05650-w
4. Anderson, G. (2008). Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university. Organization, 15(2), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508407086583
5. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
6. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge. Brew, A., & Lucas, L. (2009). Academic research and researchers. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
7. Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.
8. Carvalho, T., Videira, P., de Andrade, L. A., et al. (2026). University boards and institutional governance after New Public Management reforms: A comparison across four European countries. Higher Education Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-025-00435-x

9. Dan, S., Lægreid, P., & Špaček, D. (2024). NPM reconsidered: towards the study of enduring forms of NPM. Public Management Review, 26(9), 2531–2541. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2375561
10. Danner, L., Holliman, R., Grand, A., Khalil, B., & Gladding, T. (2025). Comparing transparency, consistency and burden in UK research assessments between 1986 and 2021 [Conference paper]. 29th STI Conference, Bristol, UK. Open Research Online, The Open University. https://oro.open.ac.uk/104638/
11. Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2005). Management as ideology: The case of “new managerialism” in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980500117827
12. Drechsler, W. (2005). The re-emergence of “Weberian” public administration after the fall of New Public Management: Comparative remarks. Halduskultuur – Administrative Culture, 6, 94–108. https://halduskultuur.eu/journal/index.php/HKAC/article/view/2005.6.06
13. Estonian Ministry of Education and Research. (2019). Peer review of the Estonian research and innovation system: Final report (Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility). European Commission. https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/pr_estonia_-_final_report_.pdf
14. Estonian Research Information System. (n.d.). Estonian Research Information System. Retrieved June 9, 2026, from https://www.etis.ee/
15. European Parliament. (2025). Academic Freedom Monitor 2025. European Parliamentary Research Service.
16. European University Association. (2021, January 22). Turkey and university autonomy: Criticism rises as government appoints new rector. https://www.eua.eu/news/eua-news/turkey-and-university-autonomy-criticism-rises-as-government-appoints-new-rector.html
17. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press. Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Haymarket Books.
18. Higher Education and Research Act 2017, c. 29. (2017). Higher Education and Research Act 2017. UK Parliament. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/contents
19. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
20. Human Rights Watch. (2018). Turkey: Government targeting academics. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/14/turkey-government-targeting-academics
21. Kallio, K.-M., Kallio, T. J., Huusko, M., Pyykkö, E., & Kivistö, J. (2022). Academic identity and the changing governance of universities: A comparison of Finland and the UK. Higher Education, 84(1), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00764-2
22. Kinzelbach, K., Saliba, I., Dicks, A., & Anger, N. (2024). Academic Freedom Index Update 2024. Global Public Policy Institute. https://academic-freedom-index.net/research/Academic_Freedom_Index_Update_2024.pdf
23. Leišytė, L. (2025). Conceptualising external governance of higher education: Towards multi-level and multi-actor hybrid arrangements. In L. Leišytė, M. Marquina, & G. A. Jones (Eds.), University governance, management and the academic profession (pp. 21–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86889-4_2
24. Lott, L. (2024). Academic freedom growth and decline episodes. Higher Education, 88(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01156-z
25. Macfarlane, B. (2017). The paradox of collaboration: A moral continuum. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(3), 472–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1288707
26. Mineiro, J. (2025). Managerialism and democratic governance in Portuguese higher education: Assessing the impact of the legal framework. Higher Education Policy, 38, 106–126. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-023-00334-z Office for Students. (n.d.). About us. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk
27. Pekşen, S., Rose, A. L., Leišytė, L., & Želvŷs, R. (2025). The impact of managerialism on control and autonomy in the academic profession in Europe. In L. Leišytė, M. Marquina, & G. A. Jones (Eds.), University governance, management and the academic profession (pp. 91–112). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86889-4_6
28. Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Open University Press.
29. Randma-Liiv, T. (2008). New public management versus Neo-Weberian state in Central and Eastern Europe. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 1(2), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10110-009-0005-3
30. Research England. (2021). Research Excellence Framework 2021: Overview report. https://www.ref.ac.uk/
31. Scholars at Risk. (2022, February 2). Restore academic freedom and autonomy at Boğaziçi University. https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/2022/02/restore-academic-freedom-and-autonomy-at-bogazici-university/
32. Scholars at Risk. (2024). Free to Think 2024: Report of the Academic Freedom Monitoring Project. Scholars at Risk Network. https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/resources/free-to-think-2024
33. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2015). Audit culture revisited: Rankings, ratings, and the reassembling of society. Current Anthropology, 56(3), 421–444. https://doi.org/10.1086/681534
34. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
35. Tõnurist, P. (2015). Framework for analysing the role of innovation labs in public sector innovation ecosystems. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 20(3), 1–21. https://www.innovation.cc/scholarly-style/tonurist_innovation-labs-final3.pdf
36. Ültanır, Y. G. (2025). Autonomy and academic freedom in universities: Country examples based on types of governance. Higher Education Governance & Policy, 6(1), 68–86.