Franciscus A. van Vught

Mission Diversity and Reputation in Higher Education

In this contribution both the literature and the present-day policies regarding diversity in higher education systems will be discussed. The first part presents an overview of the theoretical and empirical studies on differentiation and diversity. Based on this, a conceptual framework is presented, which intends to explain the processes of differentiation and dedifferentiation in higher education systems. Two crucial variables are identified, and both have a crucial impact on the behaviour of higher education institutions: the level of uniformity in the environment of higher education institutions and the level of influence of academic norms and values in these institutions. The second part of this contribution focuses on current higher education policies. Hoping to create better and stronger contributions by higher education institutions to the ‘knowledge society’, many governments nowadays develop policies of less state control and more autonomy. It will be argued that these policies do not automatically lead to more diversity in higher education systems. The reason for this is simply that markets work imperfectly in higher education systems and that the behaviour of higher education institutions is triggered by competition for reputation, a process producing several unintended consequences. In this latter context the recent rankings and typologies in higher education are also discussed.

Higher Education Policy. An International Comparative Perspective

Higher education policy in international perspective: an overview (L. Goedegebuure, F. Kaiser, P. Maassen, E. de Weert). Higher education policy in Australia (L. Meek). Higher education policy in Califomia (W. Fox). Higher education policy in Denmark (P. Bache, P. Maassen). Higher education policy in France (F. Kaiser, G. Neave). Higher education policy in Germany (E. Frackman, E. de Weert). Higher education policy in Japan (A. Arimoto, E. de Weert). Higher education policy in the Netherlands (L. Goedegebuure, F. Kaiser, P. Maassen, E. de Weert). Higher educational policy in Ontario (G. Jones). Higher education policy in Sweden (G. Svanfeldt). Higher education policy in Switzerland (K. Weber). Higher education policy in the United Kingdom (J. Brennan, T. Shah). International perspectives on trends and issues in higher education policy (L. Goedegebuurre, F. Kaiser, P. Maassen, L. Meek, F. Van Vught, E. de Weert).

Combining planning and the market: an analysis of the Government strategy towards higher education in the Netherlands

This article discusses and analyses the government strategy towards higher education in the Netherlands as it has been designed and implemented since the publication of an influential policy document in 1985. This strategy intends to be a significant break with the traditional government attitude of detailed planning and control. It tries to strengthen the autonomy of the higher education institutions and to enlarge their adaptability to the needs of society. In this article the government strategy is characterized as a combination of two fundamental mechanisms of coordination: planning and the market. It is argued that the strategy shows that the Dutch government tries to address both market and non-market failures. However, by doing so, it has created a mixed bag of policies and instruments, demonstrating that government has not yet abandoned its confidence in its own capacity to successfully steer the higher education system.The article discusses and analyses the government strategy towards higher education in the Netherlands as it has been designed and implemented since the publication of an influential policy document in 1985. This strategy intends to be a significant break with traditional government attitude of detail planning and control. It tries to strength the autonomy of the higher education institutions and to enlarge their adaptability to the needs of the society. In this article the government strategy is characterized as a combination of two fundamental mechanisms of coordination: planning and the market. It is argued that the strategy shows that the Dutch Government tries to address both market and non-market failures. However, by doing so, it has created a mixed bag policies and instruments, demonstrating that government has not yet abandoned its confidence in its own capacity to successfully steer the higher education system.

Comparative higher education studies: The perspective from the policy sciences

The article explores the historical background of comparative policy studies. These studies are traced back to the comparative approaches in political science and public administration. Following a discussion on the methodological aspects of the comparative approach, an overview and assessment of a number of recent comparative policy studies in higher education is presented.

International perspectives on trends and issues in higher education policy

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses international perspectives on trends and issues in a higher education policy. Privatization and market competition can be mere fads in the higher education policy, but the pursuit of these trends from a variety of different directions would lead one to believe otherwise. Also, the significance of the lean toward competition, de-regulation, and entrepreneurialism is given some credence by the fact that it seems that kindred forces are pushing different higher education systems in similar directions. Governments in different places are formulating similar responses to the problems facing their respective higher education systems. This can be due, in part, to similar responses to similar environmental circumstances. Economic instability, rising unemployment, flagging export markets, trade imbalances, and inflation know no national boundaries. Traditional manufacturing industries are being replaced by the so-called “knowledge processing sector,” to which higher education has a particular economic contribution to make. The social service burden on national treasuries is rising everywhere, coupled with “pressures to cut government expenditure and to demand greater efficiencies from public sector institutions and enterprises.”

Benchmarking in European Higher Education: A step beyond current quality models

This paper presents the findings of a two-year EU-funded project (DG Education and Culture) Benchmarking in European Higher Education, carried out from 2006 to 2008 by a consortium led by the European Centre for Strategic Management of Universities (ESMU), with the Centre for Higher Education Development, UNESCO-CEPES, and the Universidade de Aveiro. Quality assurance as currently practised may ensure accountability, yet it does not sufficiently enhance the quality of higher education. The application of industrial quality models has shown its limitations. Going beyond current quality approaches, benchmarking is a modern management tool to set targets for increased performance through inter-organisational learning.

Public expenditure on higher education: a comparative study in the EC-member states, 1975-1990.

This article is an exercise in cross‐national comparative research on the financing of higher education, the countries involved being the EC countries. Before relevant comparisons could be made, agreement had to be reached as to what “higher education” is and what “students” are. It was then necessary to find some way of making accurate comparisons of monetary units and of dealing with contradictory ways in which educational statistics were and still are collected and collated. A research strategy was developed using existing sources, a specially developed questionnaire, and consultation with national experts. The results displayed biases for which corrections had to be made. They also, however, displayed a wide variety in the level of higher education expenditure in the EC countries. The project gave rise to the creation of the first comprehensive database that covers public expenditure on higher education in the twelve member states of the EC. It can be regarded as the first step in the creation of the ...

Transparency in higher education : The emergence of a new perspective on higher education governance

Reliable information and transparency on the benefits that higher education institutions offer their students, funders and communities are key to their legitimacy, their funding and their competitiveness. Worldwide, relationships between governmental authorities and higher education institutions are changing, particularly because of the increased demands for transparency about outcomes and impacts of higher education. In our contribution, we discuss three higher education ‘transparency tools’: accreditation, rankings and—briefly—performance contracts. We present some recent developments regarding these tools in the broader context of governance and policy-making and analyse how they aim to address the growing need for more transparency. The transparency tools are part of a recently emerging governance paradigm in higher education, networked governance; a paradigm that explicitly acknowledges the diverse information needs of a wide variety of higher education stakeholder groups.

Performance agreements in higher education: a new approach to higher education funding

Increasingly, governments have introduced elements of performance in the funding mechanisms for their higher education institutions. One particular development is the rise of Performance Agreements (PAs), which are contracts signed between funding authorities and individual universities or colleges. The key characteristics of the PAs in place in several OECD countries are summarized before turning to the Netherlands, where an experiment with PAs was recently (2016) concluded. The question is whether this experiment improved performance in the higher education system, where ‘performance’ is understood in terms of the students’ graduation rates, the quality of teaching and learning and the diversity in the provision of education and research. What has been achieved in these areas? And what can be learned from the Dutch performance agreements experiment in general?