1. . 1 What Is University Governance and Does It Matter? Presentation at the international Conference organised by SEAMEO RETRAC, 28 – 29 June 2012 in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Prof. Dr. Barbara M. Kehm kehm@incher.uni-kassel.de

2. . 2 Structure of Presentation 1.What Is Governance 2.Governance at the Systems Level 3.Governance at the Institutional Level 4.Conclusions

3. . 3 1. Introduction GOVERNANCE: the new “buzz word” for higher education reforms. Refers to changes in the relationship between higher education, the state and society. More institutional autonomy (self-regulation) but also public accountability. Inclusion of stakeholders (private societal actors) into decision-making processes.

4. . Main Issues:  Shape of leadership and administrative structures  Multi-level governance  Good governance: efficiency, accountability, transparency, legitimacy, participation, rule of law  The „how“ of governance not the „who“ and the „why“ 4

5. . Forms of coordination:  Intentional forms of regulation and coordination  Modes of coordination: hierarchy, market, communities, networks Multi-level Governance:  Moving up: shift to supra-national level  Moving down: decentralisation from state to universities and from central level to departments and faculties  Moving to the side: delegation to independent agencies 5

6. . 6 2. Governance at the Systems Level Focus: How do universities react to changing conditions and external challenges? More institutional autonomy implies less state control but also a more professionalised institutional management with more efficiency, effectiveness and public accountability. The environment and stakeholders want to see more market-like behaviour. Universities start to compete against each other (for best students and staff, for better ranking positions).

7. . 7 Ongoing debates:  Higher education as a public or a private good?  The rise of the evaluative state.  Accountability between trust and (stakeholder) control  The growing role of supra-national actors  The increasing power of the agencies

8. . 8  Actorhood of higher education institutions  Responsibilities of the state (hierarchy, market, or network?) The state does not become weaker but policy making takes place in new and different arenas.

9. . 9 3. Governance at the Institutional Level Governance and New Public Management (NPM): Shifts in the distribution of power and changes of internal decision-making processes. Double transformation: development into more integrated organisations and competition on markets to increase performance.

10. . Withdrawal of the state fom detailed control  Increases institutional autonomy  Requires more public accountability More institutional autonomy requires strengthened and professionalised management. Goal: to improve institutional performance and with that improve system performance as a whole. However, we do not know whether there is a (causal) relationship between these dimensions nor whether measures are appropriate to improve performance. 10

11. . 11 Variety of instruments to reform internal structures:  Lump sum budgets  Introduction of boards  Professionalisation of central management and deans  Weakening of collegial decision-making bodies  Performance oriented budget allocation and salaries  Goal / target agreements

12. . 12  Evaluation and accreditation of programmes and institutions  Quality management  Establishment of institutional profiles / branding  Higher education „pacts“  New higher education professions  Impacts of competition and rankings

13. . 13 4. Conclusions If universities become organisations and with this more autonomous actors on markets, is the state still responsible for protecting them from market failure? Higher education institutions are „specific“ or „incomplete“ organisations lacking hierarchy, identity, and rationality.

14. . 14 No national government has completely opted out of being responsible for higher education. State functions are repositioned rather than shrinking. Governance and NPM have emerged because of changing beliefs about appropriate steering instruments (network governance rather than public bureaucracy). Despite more independence and market orientation state involvement is still required. Only the ideas about what should be steered and how have changed.

15. . 15 Thank you for your attention!