Policy models and policy instruments in higher education. The effects of governmental policy-making on the innovative behaviour of higher education institutions

"This article presents the major theoretical frameworks regarding governmental policy-making in the field of higher education. It first discusses two basic and general “policy models”, after which these models are specified for the policy context of higher education. In addition, an overview is presented of the various policy instruments that can be used by governments with respect to public sector regulation. In the second part of this article the policy models and policy instruments are evaluated from the perspective of their capacity to stimulate innovations in the field of higher education." [author's abstract]"Der Artikel stellt im ersten Teil die wichtigsten theoretischen Konzepte zur politischen Regulierung im Bereich der Hochschulpolitik dar. Zuerst werden zwei grundlegende und allgemeine “Politikmodelle” analysiert, die dann für den Kontext der Hochschulpolitik spezifiziert werden. Darüberhinaus wird ein Überblick über Politikinstrumente geboten, die zur Regulierung des öffentlichen Sektors prinzipiell zur Verfügung stehen. Im zweiten Teil des Artikels werden die Politikmodelle und -instrumente im Hinblick auf ihre Fähigkeit untersucht, Innovationen im Hochschulbereich zu fördern." [Autorenreferat

Impact of rankings

This chapter discusses the influence league table performance can have on an institution, affecting its student recruitment, its funding and even its leadership. It goes on to discuss the impact on the sector as a whole in encouraging a frantic reputation race and leading institutions to concentrate their efforts and resources on a single area of activity, research, with detrimental effects on individual institutions and the sector. The chapter also looks at the potential positive impact that a well-designed ranking system could deliver and outlines the basic principles and ‘lessons learned’ that would shape the design of such a system

Producing detailed guidelines for appraisals:And OECD experience

In the 70s, the OECD set up an interdisciplinary team to develop and test guidelines for the appraisal o f multipurpose water projects (dams, flood control, irrigation, etc). Two prerequistes were identified: the customer must have sufficient knowledge to define the terms of reference, and the study leader must be conversant with the other disciplines involved.The team produced guidelines for the kinds of report to be prepared at each of five stages in appraising and evaluating such projects. These guidelines were then tested by local teams in seven countries, and final revisions were incorporated into an OECD book published in 1985

Negative incentive steering in a policy network

In this article the process of developing a policy for the recent comprehensive retrenchment operation in the Dutch university system is analysed from a theoretical point of view on decisionmaking. The article especially addresses the question whether some empirical evidence can be found for the rationalist view of collective decision-making, which states that a process of social communication should eventually lead to a unanimous and rational consensus concerning the selection of the optimal policy.\ud \ud The actual analysis concerns the way a retrenchment policy has been developed in a process of social communication between the most important actors: the Minister of Education and Science and the thirteen Dutch universities. It is assumed that the various communicative linkages between these actors can be interpreted as a policy network in which both governmental and non-governmental actors operate.\ud \ud The article concludes that in the Dutch university policy-network a complicated balance of interdependencies exists and that several sub-networks can be distinguished. It is also concluded that the Minister, while recognizing the interdependencies in the network, was able to use a special kind of (negative) incentive, inducing the universities to act as he wished.\ud \ud This negative incentive steering, however, also persuaded the universities to go to the utmost in their consultation efforts, thus trying to reach the rationalist ideal of collective decision-making. The final conclusion therefore is that the rationalist view of collective decision-making does not appear to be unrealistic. The article ends with a warning against a common mistake made regarding the normative appearance of the rationalist perspective

Policy models and policy instruments in higher education. The effects of governmental policy-making on the innovative behaviour of higher education institutions. IHS Political Science Series 26, October 1995

This article presents the major theoretical frameworks regarding governmental policy-making in the field of higher education. It first discusses two basic and general “policy models”, after which these models are specified for the policy context of higher education. In addition, an overview is presented of the various policy instruments that can be used by governments with respect to public sector regulation. In the second part of this article the policy models and policy instruments are evaluated from the perspective of their capacity to stimulate innovations in the field of higher education

A public administration perspective on the study of higher education

This article explores the relationship between higher education research and the study of public administration, the concpetual perspectives of which are useful for understanding the links between government policy‐making and higher education. A short introduction to the study of public administration is followed by the presentation of six newly evolved concepts of public administration which are labeled as follows: comprehensive rationality, the community action approach, the public choice approach, political systems theory, policy sciences, and contingency and inter‐organizational approaches. All of these have contributed to the eclecticism and the conceptual pluralism of the discipline of public administration as a whole. Having been adapted to the theoretical underpinnings of the administration of higher education, these six concepts have stimulated the development of four theoretical models for the analysis of decision‐making processes in higher education: the analytical or rational actor model, the garbage can or organized anarchy model, the collegiality model, and the political model. Specific problems in higher education administration have been addressed, as they have arisen, with reference to one or more of the six concepts and the four decision‐making models. For the future, the public administration approach to higher education will be most likely to draw upon the study of co‐ordination mechanisms in collective decision‐making processes and the comparative analysis of the external functions and performances of government