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

cubsEN (2)

Reforms of Higher Education in Context of New Managerialism

Reforms of Higher Education in Context of New Managerialism

Journal of Economic Regulation, , Vol. 10 (no. 4),

The paper focuses on the analysis of reform of higher education. The reform bases on the ideology of new managerialism. It is reflected the interrelation between this reform and liberal ideological discourse. It is grouped formal institutional norms (regulative norms) consisting of the rules of professional societies, market participants and government public acts as the general type. In the case of the reform of higher education in Great Britain, general events are classified into three broad groups: modernization, marketization and corporatization. It is also identified general stages of this reform. It is detected important negative effects engendered by such reform i. e. asymmetry of information, an increase of dichotomy “efficiency-justice” in public sector (higher education) and the problem of higher education in the setting of proportion and balance between technological and economic development, and creative (artistic) activities as intrinsic value for human beings. Developing and implementing the conception “the New Public Service” will help to correction of the direction of the reform in higher education and stimulate the values of collaboration, trust and productive accommodative assistance in this sector


Keywords: new managerialism; reforms in higher education; quasi-markets; public sector; efficiency; universities; liberal ideology

References:
  • Alach, Zh. (2016). Performance measurement and accountability in higher education: the puzzle of qualification completions. Tertiary Education and Management, 22 (1), 36–48.
  • Borisov, V. K., Bocharova, E. J. (2013). Modern conceptions of public management: Ethical aspect. Gerald of Moscow university. Ser. 21. Management (state and society). 2, 32–43. (In Russian).
  • Collini, S. (2016). What are Universities for? M.: Higher School of Economics Publisher. (In Russian).
  • Deem, R. (1998). ‘New managerialism’ and higher education: the management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8 (1), 47–70.
  • Deem, R., Brehony, K. J. (2005). Management as ideology: the case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31 (2), 217–235.
  • Deming, D. J., Figlio, D. (2016). Accountability in US education: Applying lessons from K–12 experience to higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30 (3), 33–56.
  • Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Guthrie, J., Neumann, R. (2007). Economic and non–financial performance indicators in universities. Public Management Review, 9 (2), 231–252.
  • Jarvis, D. S. L. (2014). Regulating higher education: Quality assurance and neo–liberal managerialism in higher education – A critical introduction. Policy and Society, 33, 155–166.
  • Jennings, J., Sohn, H. (2014). Measure for measure: How proficiency–based accountability systems affect inequality in academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 87 (2), 125–141.
  • Kalfa, S., Taksa, L. (2016). Employability, managerialism, and performativity in higher education: a relational perspective. Higher Education. November.
  • Kallio, K.-M., Kallio, T. J. (2014). Management–by–results and performance measurement in universities – implications for work motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 39 (4), 574–589.
  • Le Grand, J. (2011). The Other Invisible Hand: Delivering Public Services through Choice and Competition. M.: Institute Gaidara (In Russian).
  • Lumino, R., Gambardella, D., Grimaldi, E. (2017). The evaluation turn in the higher education system: Lessons from Italy. Journal of Educational Administration and History. DOI: 10.1080/00220620.2017.1284767
  • Naidoo, R., Williams, J. (2016). The neoliberal regime in English higher education: Charters, consumers and the erosion of the public good. Critical Studies in Education, 56 (2), 208–223.
  • Obolonski, A. V. (2011). On the way to new model of bureaucracy. The West and Russia. Social sciences and modernity, 5, 5–20. (In Russian).
  • Pettersen, I. J. (2015). From metrics to knowledge? Quality assessment in higher education. Financial Accountability & Management, 31 (1), 23–40. 0267-4424
  • Santiago, R., Carvalho, T. (2012). Managerialism rhetorics in Portuguese higher education. Minerva, 50, 511–532.
  • Spence, C. (2018). ‘Judgement’ versus ‘metrics’ in higher education management. Higher Education. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-018-0300-z
  • Ter Bogt, H. J., Scapens, R. W. (2012). Performance management in universities: Effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement systems. European Accounting Review, 21 (3), 451–497.
  • Unterhalter, E. (2017). Negative capability? Measuring the unmeasurable in education. Comparative Education, 53 (1), 1–16.
  • Volchik, V. V., Korytsev, M. A., Maslyukova, E. V. (2018). Institutional traps and new public management in education and science. Upravlenets – The Manager, 9 (6), 17–29. (In Russian).
  • Watts, R. (2017). Public Universities, Managerialism and the Value of Higher Education. Palgrave Critical University Studies.
  • Woelert, P., Yates, L. (2014). Too little and too much trust: Performance measurement in Australian higher education. Critical Studies in Education. DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2014.943776.
Publisher: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Founder: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Online ISSN: 2412-6047
ISSN: 2078-5429