Pushkinskaya st. 43. office 10
Rostov-on-Don, Russia
344082
e-mail: info@hjournal.ru 
tel. +7(863) 269-88-14

cubsEN (2)

Reshaping Organizational Mechanisms in Higher Education: Analysis of Institutional Complementarity

Reshaping Organizational Mechanisms in Higher Education: Analysis of Institutional Complementarity

Journal of Economic Regulation, , Vol. 9 (no. 4),

The paper presents an attempt to analyze institutional change in higher education in Russia in the context of institutional complementarity. Institutional complementarity refers to a situation when institutions create rules (and incentives) which do not contradict each other. The author adopts a methodological approach by Bruno Amable who have classified institutional complementarity depending on competitive parameters, employment relationship, model of financial system, model of social policy, and educational model. The research findings show incoherence in the ongoing institutional reform in higher education in the Russian Federation. The reform process frequently appears as incoherent or illogical one. Rather contradictory than complementary, the elements of emerging institutions tend to motivate the agents in higher education arena to act not in line with their declared priorities. That situation affects all relevant groups of actors, including students, who are becoming demotivated towards studies and research process, and university academics (professional/teaching staff) facing enormous paperwork. One serious challenge results from the increasing necessity for part-order, or contractual arrangements for academic staff (including those within the grant policy framework and «commissioned» research agreements), that results in lack of motivation for the current teaching process.


Keywords: institution; institutional complementarity; competitive environment; transformation; higher education; reform; organizational mechanism

References:
  • Amable, B. (1999). Institutional complementarity and diversity of social systems of innovation and production. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozial forschungg, GmbH. (In German).
  • Amable, B. (2005). Les cinq capitalismes: Diversité des systems économiques et sociaux dans la mondialisation. P. Seuil. (In French).
  • Deeg, R. (2005). Complementarity and Institutional Change: How Useful a Concept? Philadelphia, Temple University.
  • Deeg, R. (2007). Complementarity and institutional change in capitalist systems. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(4), 611–630. DOI: 10.1080/13501760701314433.
  • Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic Restructuring: Organizational Change and Institutional Imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67–91.
  • Lipov, V. V. (2012). Institutional complementarity as a factor in the formation of socioeconomic systems. Journal of Institutional Studies, 4(1), 25–42. (In Russian).
  • Odintsova, A. V. (2010). Institutional complementarity (theoretical aspect). Federalism, 3. (In Russian).
  • Volchik, V. V. (2009). Complementarity and hierarchy of institutions in the framework of economic order. Nauchnyyetrudy DonNTU. Seriya: ekonomicheskaya, 1, 35–41. (In Russian).
  • Volchik, V. V. and Berezhnoy, I. V. (2009). The hierarchy and complementarity of institutions and within the framework of economic order. Terra Economicus, 7(2), 65–73. (In Russian).
  • Volchik, V. V., Zhuk, A. A. and Korytsev, M. A. (2017). Competitive Environment Of The Higher Education Market In The Rostov Region. Terra Economicus, 15(3), 178–196. (In Russian).
Publisher: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Founder: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Online ISSN: 2412-6047
ISSN: 2078-5429