Introduction
Attila Pausits, Gaoming Zheng, Rediet Tesfaye Abebe
New public management & governance equalizer
Since 1980s, the New Public Management (NPM) has been the dominant paradigm in public administration theory and practice. Its rise, which mainly dated back to UK experience, is one of the striking international trends in public administration. (Levy, 2010; Hood,1991, Leisty & Dee, 2007; De Boer, Enders, & Schimank 2007; Ziegele, 2008). According to Hood (1991), NPM’d rise can be interpreted to be related to: 1) attempts to slow down or reverse government growths in terms of overt public spending and staffing; 2) the shift towards privatization and quasi-privatization and away from core government institutions, with renewed emphasis on ‘subsidiarity’ in service provision; 3) the development of automation, particularly in information technology, in the production and distribution of public services; 4) the development of a more international agenda, increasingly focused on general issues of public management, policy design, decision styles and intergovernmental cooperation, on top of the older tradition of individual country specialism in public administration. Though the concept of NPM still lack clear definitions, several scholars devote their effort to clarify the key issues related with NPM (Hood, 1991; Ziegele, 2008; Leisty & Dee, 2007). Bruggenmeier once provided a more substantive definition of NPM, emphasizing on its strong foundation in empiricism, the central importance of management, the significant of intending to achieve efficiency and effectiveness. (Ziegele, 2008, first cited from Bruggenmeier, 2001). NPM could be viewed as a simple terms with the application of business-management tools in the public sectors (Ziegele, 2008). “Less state” and “More market” are key terms associated with NPM (De Boer et al, 2007). Hood (1991) observes that NPM has been stressed in different aspects of doctrine: 1) ‘hand-on professional management’ in the public sector; 2) explicit standards and measures of performance; 3) greater emphasis on output controls; 4) shift to disaagregation of units in the public sector; 5) shift to greater competition in public sector; 6) Stress on private sector styles of management practice; 7) Stress on greater discipline and parsimony in resource use. Similarly, Leisyte (2010) concludes some common features of NPM include: 1) introduction of performance indicators and benchmarking; 2) priority setting by government and institutions; 3) the assessment of targets and outputs; 4) strengthening the administrative and leadership functions within universities; 5) adoption a client orientation; 6) new budget allocation schemes where more influence comes from output than inputs; 7) diversification of university funding mechanisms; 8) stimulation of new actors in university management councils and boards, quality control, and research funding agencies; 9) a value-for-money logic, with an increased emphasis on costs and returns.
When it comes to the employment of NPM in the field of higher education, the term ‘management’ involves both the state management of higher education institutions and the management of decentralized levels within a single institutions, e.g. faculties, institutes, central units, by a particular management level (Ziegele, 2008). The reform from old public management to new public management in higher education, is a shift of management from ‘government to governance’, or more accurate, to be ‘less government and more governance’ (Leisyte, 2007; De Boer et al, 2007; Ziegle, 2008). The shift from old public management to the new was further depicted into four aspects : from input-oriented to output-oriented, from process-political single interventions to regulatory policy framework, from ex-ante management to ex-post management, and from precision management to macro management (Ziegele, 2008). The analysis of higher education and research governance system has been at the center of higher education research for decades. Several efforts have been contributed to develop the analytical framework on the issue (Leisyte, 2007; De Boer et al, 2007). One of the most well-known and classic example is Clark’s ‘triangle of coordination’(1983) (the state, the market, and the academic oligarchy). De Boer et al (2007) viewed the governance perspective provides a general analytical framework for studying all kinds of coordination problems in higher education system concerning NPM and developed a governance equalizer model as an analytical tool for that. The governance equalizer includes five dimensions: state regulation, stakeholder guidance, academic self-governance, managerial self-governance, and competition. De Boer et al (2007) believed that ‘a configuration of governance is made up of a specific mixture of the five dimensions at a particular point of time’ (p.139). The five dimensions are further depicted as follows:
1) State regulation concerns the traditional notion of top-down authority vested in the state. This dimension refers to regulation by directives; the government prescribes in detail behaviors under particular circumstances.
2) Stakeholder guidance concerns activities that direct universities through goal setting and advice.
3) Academic self-governance concerns the role of professional communities within the university system.
4) Managerial self-governance concerns hierarchies within universities as organizations.
5) Competition for scarce resources – money, personnel, and prestige – within and between universities takes place mostly not on “real” markets but on “quasimarkets” where performance evaluations by peers substitute the demand pull from customers. (p.138-139)
In this e-book, the governance equalizer is used as an analytical framework to described what has happened in the five countries (New Zealand, Scotland, Romania, China, and Ethiopia) under observation, using NPM as a common benchmark.
Background information of the creation of the NPM e-book
This e-book is a selected collection of student papers on the course ‘New pubic management’ in MARIHE program. The course “New public management’, led by Prof. Dr. Frank Ziegele and Prof. Dr. Volker Gehmilich from Osnabruck University of Applied Science, aims to enalble students to: 1) understand the rationales and objectives of the major changes in the tertiary education and research system towards new public management, deregulation, autonomy and marketization; 2) analyze these developments with theoretical approaches of New Public Management, institutional economics, governance theories and principal-agent theory, and gain insights from these approaches for practical problems of tertiary education and research management; 3) analyze and deal with the tensions between New Public Management and academic culture: 4) recognize and deal productively with the potentials and limitations of management tools and economic thinking in a tertiary education and research context; 5) be aware of the relationship between development of the system, governmental policy and institutional management. Through guiding students’ self-learning and group-work, lectures and workshops, the course introduces new public management as the starting point managerial reforms in the academic sector (as well as the starting point of MaRIHE program), discusses economic theories relevant for steering and management and application and applicability of management tools to higher education, potentials and limits of managerialism, and the use of market mechanisms in higher education and research, and also analyze several cases in the aspect of application of NPM, concerning the differences, as well as similarities, between higher education institutions and other public sectors, between tertiary education and primary and secondary education, and between different countries at system level.(MARIHE, 2013)
Introduction of MARIHE program
In Europe as well as in other regions of the world fundamental transition processes are taking place in the systems of research, innovation and higher education: from regulation to deregulation and competition, from steering to market, from administration to management. Higher education and research institutions need highly trained experts who are able to analyse these new contexts and who have management and leadership skills to deal with the changes. The Master in Research and Innovation in Higher Education (MARIHE) is an Erasmus Mundus Masters Course offered by a consortium of Danube University Krems (Austria), University of Tampere (Finland), Beijing Normal University (China) and University of Applied Sciences Osnabrück (Germany).
MARIHE provides students a unique opportunity to develop a sound understanding of higher education systems and university development around the world. Students have the opportunity to study in at least three different universities and countries. During an internship provided by international enterprises and organisations they get insight into fields of practice.
As an Erasmus Mundus Masters Course, MARIHE is supported by the Erasmus Mundus Programme of the European Commission. By these standards, it is one of the leading master programmes in Europe. MARIHE addresses university graduates that want to pursue a career in the higher education and research sector as managers, administrators, consultants, policy analysts, researchers and decision makers. Possible employers are higher education and research institutions, public bodies such as ministries for science and education, enterprises specializing in education, think tanks and non-governmental organizations. Graduates of MARIHE are able take the lead in the future management and development of research and innovation in higher education.
International and European reform agendas have recently focused on a number of measures that are argued to lead to the modernisation of higher education as a sector and turn the higher education institutions into strategic organisational actors to develop countries and societies. The programme supports the development with respect to the professionalisation of institutional leadership and management functions accompanied by an emerging training and support structure for institutional managers and leaders. MARIHE is a cooperation and mobility programme in the field of higher education that aims to enhance the quality of European higher education and to promote dialogue and understanding between people and cultures through cooperation with Third-Countries. In addition, it contributes to the development of human resources and the international cooperation capacity of higher education institutions in Third Countries by increasing mobility between the European Union and these countries.
The curriculum of MARIHE reflects on three perspectives on the change logics involved in the worldwide developments in higher education and in higher education institutions:
Furthermore, modules on Theoretical Background introduce fundamental issues of higher education management. Another emphasis is given to Transferable Skills (e.g. research methods, presentation skills, languages).
Structure of the e-book
The selected course papers included in this e-book provide important perspectives of higher education governance as it takes place in countries from different continents. The discussion of diverse experiences, contexts, and on-going development paths of NPM in the setting of higher education enriches readers with insights from various corners of the world:
Mihut begins by discussing the governance equalizer and other conceptual delimitations to help set the scene. Each of the governance equalizer components are then brought to in-depth analysis by means of which Romania’s higher education governance is scrutinized. Mihut’s paper concludes by making rather critical remarks such as questioning the importance of all the governance equalizer elements for the Romanian context, challenging the completeness of the approach used to define the concept of stakeholders, calling for a growing awareness to the importance of nonlinear evolutions in the NPM approach, and suggesting the incorporation of international dimension as a separate element to the governance equalizer model.
Calugareanu also discussed the governance structure of Romanian higher education. She looked into the Romanian higher education system, starting with its history, the analysis of Romanian higher education system by applying governance equalizer, and closing with its strengths and weaknesses.
Nestorowicz examines the governance structure of the higher education system in Austria. Her paper is structured in two main parts. The first, more theoretically oriented part refers to the definition of the concept of governance in the context of Higher Education. Furthermore, the different dimensions of governance of universities will be identified which form the basis of the governance equalizer. The second part has a more practical approach by applying the governance equalizer to the specific case of the Austrian higher education system. Thus, the governance structure of the Austrian higher education system will be analysed over time in order to illustrate the development of the governance dimensions in the governance equalizer.
Holubek and Milutinović's paper analyses the governance mode of HE system in Serbia. This is done by positioning Serbia on five dimensions of governance (state regulation, stakeholder guidance, academic self-governance, managerial self-governance, and competition) and examining past, present and future expectations. Opinion of HE community in Serbia is also taken into consideration in outlining the governance mode in Serbian HE sector.
Geleski and Mihut use the governance equaliser framework to comparatively analyse and discuss the state of affairs of NPM in Slovenia, Romania, Serbia and Macedonia. Additionally, as the selected countries vary according to EU membership status, evidence suggesting the impact of the supranational institution on national higher education systems is discussed. Trends counterweighting to NPM ideals are presented for all selected countries, with the impact of EU membership status on the use of NPM in higher education governance being nonlinear and limited.
Tung brings some insight of higher education governance in Vietnam. Since 1993, after a resolution on radical education reform adopted by the Communist Party of Vietnam, the higher education system of the country has undergone a radical reform with a rapid growth in size but also in the number of problems and predicaments it has been facing. At the same time new actors and forces affecting the dynamics of governance in higher education have been introduced. This complexity makes it more difficult to find out which factors are pulling the strings in the new context and to what extent and more importantly which are causing problems. Often the new dynamics is interpreted too simply as the shift from state control to state supervision and the rise of market force. In other words, this could be interpreted that Vietnam HE Governance is adopting New Public Management (NPM). However by using The Governance Equalizer as an analytical instrument, Tung is able to break down and get to the core of the governance of Vietnam's higher education, and argues that Vietnam's higher education governance components are not approaching NPM configuration but balancing themselves, moving from extremes.
Zheng explores the Chinese university governance in the post-Mao era. This interesting paper centers its arguments at the very heart of conflict and dynamics between western impacts and the reality of Chinese. Zheng makes the case that China has been struggling to follow its own method governing its higher education in the face of a more “active” Western influence to adopt the NPM approach and the “subtle” impact of the ongoing process of globalization. The various rounds of educational governance reform in the Post-Mao period are discussed. This is followed by an overview of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the present Chinese higher education system. The paper then devotes most of its effort to analyzing how the Chinese higher education governance can be explained by based on the concepts embedded in the elements of the NPM model. By doing so, Zheng shows how the governance of higher education has been developing and transforming in this quickly growing nation.
Traveller presents the higher education governance in the context of a country from the continent Australia. Traveller examines the situation in the Southwestern Pacific Ocean island of New Zealand. He starts off by giving a brief overview of the major economic transformations that led New Zealand from a welfare state to an early pioneer of neo-libralism whereby a push to a more market-oriented agenda of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization were made. The country’s diverse tertiary education sector is also pinpointed. The meaning of the NPM approach and the governance equalizer model then is explained. In the main part of the paper, Traveller extensively analyses the mix of governance equalizer of New Zealand. For each equalizer element, he scrutinizes what has happened in the past, what is happening at present, and to which direction in the future the situation is going regarding the country’s higher education governance.
The discussion of higher education governance in Ethiopia – in the horn of Africa – is made by Woldegiyorgis. The paper begins by making three major points in setting its scene. He gave an overview of the history of Ethiopian higher education and the progress to a “massive expansion”. The dynamics of the “precarious relationship” between higher education and politics of the country is also noted. This is followed by a discussion of the concept of the governance equalizer. Woldegiyorgis then presents an in-depth analysis of the Ethiopian higher education from the perspectives of the five major elements of the governance equalizer model. Past, present and future circumstances are well scrutinized. In the end, critical concluding remarks are made and the way for better higher education governance is pointed.
References:
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
De Boer, H., Enders, J., Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forums of governance in research organizations (pp. 137-152). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5831-8
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3-19. doi:ISSN 0033-3298
Leisyte, L. (2007). University governance and academic research, case studies of research units in Dutch and English universities. (ph.D, University of Twente).
Leisyte, L., & Dee, J. R. (2007). Understanding academic work in a changing institutional environment; faculty autonomy, productivity, and the identity in Europe and the United States. Unpublished manuscript.
Levy, R. (2010). New public management: End of an era? Public Policy and Administration, 25(2), 234-240. doi:10.1177/0952076709357152
Ziegele, F. (2008). Budgeting and funding as elements of new public management , Management of financial resources, un-published course material (pp. 1-18)
Website:
Course information of ‘New public management’:
http://moodle.donau-uni.ac.at/marihe/course/view.php?id=7 (2013.05.24)
There has been error in communication with Booktype server. Not sure right now where is the problem.
You should refresh this page.