Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Policy design spaces in reforming governance in higher education: the dynamics in Italy and the Netherlands

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Governments continuously design and redesign higher education policies, and governmental capacities are the pillars for undertaking these tasks during the formulation stage. This paper considers the assumption that different governmental political and technical capacities shape different spaces for action and thus different types of policy design. The usefulness of this theoretical perspective is tested by comparing the dynamics of the policy designs that have been pursued in higher education in Italy and the Netherlands over the past 25 years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A well-crafted design should be characterized by “coherence” (the ability of multiple policy goals to coexist with each other in a logical fashion), “consistency” (the ability of multiple policy tools to reinforce each other in achieving the expected goal), and “congruency” (the ability of the chosen instruments to fit the expected goal and thus work in a unidirectional way) (Howlett and Rayner 2007, 2013; Kern and Howlett 2009).

  2. The space restriction/word count limit has obliged me to take shortcuts and make some discretionary choices in extracting the most relevant design decisions made in the two analysed countries. I am well aware that some of the empirical descriptions and interpretations may cause raised eyebrows among observers of Italian and Dutch higher education.

  3. In particular, three interviews were conducted in the Netherlands and four in Italy.

References

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendor, J., Kumar, S., & Siegel, D. A. (2009). Satisficing: a ‘pretty good’ heuristic. The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 9, 1. doi:10.2202/1935-1704.1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D., & Merrien, F. X. (1999). Towards a new model of governance for universities?: a comparative view. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G. (1998). La politica universitaria. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G. (2008). Looking for serendipity: the problematical reform of government within Italy’s universities. Higher Education, 55(4), 481–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G. (2010). A Sisyphean task. Evaluation and institutional accountability in Italian higher education. Higher Education Policy, 23(1), 39–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G. (2011). Government continues to do its job. A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher education sector. Public Administration, 89(4), 1622–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G. (2014). The re-regulation of the Italian university system through quality assurance. A mechanistic perspective. Policy & Society, 33(3), 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G., Zito, A., & Rayner, R. (2012). Governance from the bottom up: complexity and divergence in comparative perspective. Public Administration, 90(1), 56–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G., Regini, M., & Turri, M. (2016). Changing governance in universities. Italian higher education in comparative perspective. London: Palgrave-MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G., & Turri, M. (2017). Same governance template but different agencies. Types of evaluation agencies in higher education. Comparing England, France, and Italy. Higher Education Policy, 30(2), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1977). Academic power in Italy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1983). The higher education system. Academic organization in cross national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti, N., & Marangoni, F. (Eds.). (2015). The challenge of coalition government: the Italian case. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daalder, H. (1982). The Netherlands: University between the new democracy and the new management. In H. Daalder & E. Shils (Eds.), Universities, politicians, and bureaucrats (pp. 173–231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee, D. (1998). De Kanteling Van Het Universitaire Bestuur (Rapport Van De Commissie Klankbordgroep Invoering Mub). Zoetermeer: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuuren Wetenschappen.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, H. (2007). Change and continuity in Dutch internal university governance and management. In J. Enders & F. Van Vught (Eds.), Towards a cartography of higher education policy change. A Festschrift in honour of Guy Neave (pp. 31–37). Enschede: Twente: CHEPS.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, H., & Huisman, J. (1999). The new public management in Dutch universities. In D. Braun & F. X. Merren (Eds.), Towards a new model of governance for universities?: a comparative view (pp. 100–118). London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, H. D., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, H., & Stensaker, B. (2007). An internal representative system: The democratic vision. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (pp. 99–118). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2014). Higher education governance and policy change in Western Europe. London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Döring, H., & Hallerberg, M. (Eds.). (2004). Patterns of parliamentary behaviour: passage of legislation across Western Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2011). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J., de Boer, H. F., & Weyer, E. (2013). Regulatory autonomy and performance: the reform of higher education re-visited. Higher Education, 65(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goedegebuure, L., & Westerheijden, D. (1991). Changing balances in Dutch higher education. Higher Education, 21(4), 495–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, A., Kogan, M., & Amaral, A. (2005). Reform and change in higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: principles and instruments. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2014). From old to new policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. (2013). Tales from the crypt: the rise and fall (and re-birth?) of policy design studies. Administration & Society, 45(3), 356–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs. packaging in policy formulation: assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2014). Policy design and non-design: Towards a spectrum of policy formulation types. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Rayner, J. (2014). The elements of effective program design: a two-level analysis. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Woo, J. J. (2015). From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: the new design orientation towards policy formulation research. Policy & Politics, 43(2), 291–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, J. (2009). International perspectives on the governance of higher education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, J., & Hendriks, F. (2013). The Netherlands. In C. Russo (Ed.), Handbook of comparative higher education law (pp. 217–238). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, A. (2007). Tense layering and synthetic policy paradigms: the politics of health insurance in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 579–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kern, F., & Howlett, M. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klumpp, M., De Boer, H., & Vossensteyn, H. (2014). Comparing national policies on institutional profiling in Germany and the Netherlands. Comparative Education, 50(2), 156–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazzaretti, L., & Tavoletti, E. (2006). Governance shifts in higher education: a cross national comparison. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litjens, J. (2005). The Europeanisation of higher education in the Netherlands. European Educational Research Journal, 4(3), 208–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maassen, P., & Olsen, J. (2007). University dynamics and European integration. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change (pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S., et al. (2007). OECD review of higher education. The Netherlands, Paris: Oecd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscati, R. (2014). Autonomy for what? The university mission in a centralised higher education system—the case of Italy. In M. Shattock (Ed.), International trends in university governance (pp. 89–104). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • MOCW–Ministerie OCW. (1985). Nota Hoger Onderwijs: AutonomieenKwaliteit HOAK. White paper higher education: autonomy and quality. The Hague: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuuren Wetenschap.

    Google Scholar 

  • MOCW Ministerie OCW. (1988, 1990, 1992, 2000, 2007,2009, 2011, 2013, 2015). Ontwerp HOOP Higher Education and Research Plan of 1988, 1990, 1992, 2000, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, Ministerie van Onderwijs Cultuuren Wetenschap: The Hague.

  • Moury, C. (2013). Coalition governments and party mandate: how do coalition agreements constrain ministerial action. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradeise, C., et al. (Eds.). (2009). University governance. Western European comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritoni, A. (2015). Decision-making potential and ‘detailed’ legislation of Western European parliamentarygovernments (1990–2013). Comparative European Politics. doi:10.1057/cep.2014.55.

  • Radaelli, C. M., & Dunlop, C. A. (2013). Learning in the European Union: theoretical lenses and meta-theory. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 923–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reale, E., & Primeri, E. (2014). Reforming universities in Italy. Towards a new paradigm? In C. Musselin & P. N. Teixeira (Eds.), Reforming higher education: public policy design and implementation (pp. 39–64). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rebora, G., & Turri, M. (2009). Governance in higher education: an analysis of the Italian experience. In J. Huisman (Ed.), International perspectives on the governance of higher education. Alternative frameworks for coordination (pp. 13–31). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebora, G., & Turri, M. (2013). The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face. Research Policy, 42(9), 1657–1666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shattock, M. L. (2014). University governance in the UK: bending the traditional model. In M. Shattock (Ed.), International trends in university governance (pp. 89–104). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidney, M. S. (2007). Policy formulation: design and tools. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics and methods (pp. 79–87). New Brunswick, N. J: CRC Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans, A., & Moury, C. (2006). Coalition governance in Belgium and The Netherlands: Rising government stability against all electoral odds. Acta Politica, 41(4), 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trakman, L. (2008). Modelling university governance. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(1–2), 63–83.

  • Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: how political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press-Russell Sage Foundation.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turri, M. (2014a). The new Italian agency for the evaluation of the university system (ANVUR): A need for governance or legitimacy? Quality in Higher Education, 20(1), 64–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turri, M. (2014b). The difficult transition of the Italian university system: growth, underfunding and reforms. Journal of Further and Higher Education. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2014.895303.

  • Turri, M. (2016). The difficult transition of the Italian university system: growth, underfunding and reforms. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(1), 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vught, F. (1991). The Netherlands: governmental policies. In G. Neave & F. Van Vught (Eds.), Prometheus bound (pp. 109–127). New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veerman Committee. (2010). Committee on the Future Sustainability of the Dutch Higher Education System. Differentiëren in drievoud, omwille van kwaliteit en verscheidenheid in het hoger onderwijs. Parliamentary Papers 31288, no. 96, April

  • Westerheijden, D., de Boer, H., & Enders, J. (2009). An ‘Echternach’ procession in different directions: oscillating steps towards reform. In C. Paradeis et al. (Eds.), University governance. Western European comparative perspectives (pp. 103–125). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witte, A. (2006). Changes of degrees and degrees of change. Comparing adaptations of European higher education systems in the context of the Bologna Process, PhD dissertation, University of Twente

  • Zucchini, F. (2016). The republic of vetoes: legislative change and stability in the Italian political system. In R. Kaiser & J. Edelmann (Eds.), Crisis as a permanent condition? The Italian political system between transition and reform resistance (pp. 153–174). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, Scuola Normale Superiore, palazzo Strozzi, Florence, Italy

    Giliberto Capano

Authors
  1. Giliberto Capano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giliberto Capano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Capano, G. Policy design spaces in reforming governance in higher education: the dynamics in Italy and the Netherlands. High Educ 75, 675–694 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0158-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0158-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation