The Transformation of University Governance Abroad Under the Perspective of New Public Management

Authors

  • Hanzhong Liang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/zfkeag92

Keywords:

New Public Management, Quality of Foreign Universities, Transformational Development

Abstract

Known as New Public Management (NPM) or New Managerialism, this approach has been the predominant guiding philosophy in Western university governance since the 1980s. The core of this philosophy emphasizes customer supremacy and market competition, advocating for customer needs and orientations by incorporating market mechanisms to stimulate innovation in universities. Additionally, NPM emphasizes clear accountability, output orientation, and performance evaluation. It requires universities to set clear goals and plans in their operations, quantify their outputs, and proactively accept market supervision and evaluation. Influenced by this theory, Western university governance has undergone significant transformation. The role of the government has shifted from that of a manager to a service provider, offering more policy support and resource guarantees for students. Meanwhile, after introducing market mechanisms, university governance has shifted from government-dominated to multi-centric governance, granting universities greater autonomy and decision-making power, allowing them to independently adjust their development strategies according to market needs and social changes. These transformations have injected new vitality into the development of Western universities and provided useful references for university governance reforms in other countries.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Broucker, B., De Wit, K., & Leisyte, L. (2015). New public management or new public governance for the higher education sector? An international comparison. Paper presented at the EGPA Annual Conference, 2015, Toulouse.

Campbell, D. F. (2006). Nationale Forschungssysteme im Vergleich. Strukturen, Herausforderungen und Entwicklungsoptionen. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft (ÖZP), 35(1), 25–44.

Campbell, D. F., & Carayannis, E. G. (2016). Epistemic governance and epistemic innovation policy in higher education. In: Technology, Innovation and Education, 2/2.

Janger, J., Campbell, D. F., & Strauss, A. (2019). Attractiveness of jobs in academia: A cross-country perspective. In: Higher Education, 78, 991–2010. (https:// doi. Org/ 10.1007/s10734-019-00383-7, retrieved on 2021–07–30).

Kneucker, R. (2020). Bürokratische Demokratie, demokratische Bürokratie. Ein Kommentar zu Struktur, Gestalt und System der Bürokratie in Europa, Studien zu Politik und Verwaltung. Wien/Vienna.

Kuhlmann, S. (2001). Future governance of innovation policy in Europe – Three scenarios. Research Policy, 30, 953–976.

Pechar, H. (2005). Backlash or Modernisation? Two reform cycles in Austrian Higher Education. In A. Amaral, M. Kogan, & Å. Gornitzka (Eds.), Reform and Change in Higher Education, 269–285. Analysing Policy Implementations.

Representative of the University of Helsinki. (2019). Completed questionnaire. Finland.

Representative Scotland (SCO). (2018). Interview conducted by the author. Wien/Vienna, United Kingdom.

Stransky-Can, K. (2019a). Paths of influence from Higher Education Policy paradigms on innovating institutional autonomy, in: Carayannis, Elias G. (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York.

Downloads

Published

22-05-2024

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Liang, H. (2024). The Transformation of University Governance Abroad Under the Perspective of New Public Management. Academic Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 7(2), 6-9. https://doi.org/10.54097/zfkeag92