Search

This paper scrutinises organisational change in Japanese and UK universities which are engaged in entrepreneurial activities. The study focuses on recent changes in governance, management, leadership, and funding in these universities. The paper argues there are convergent trends between Japanese and UK universities in terms of increasing entrepreneurial activities, a review of institutional strategies, a review of the organisation, the application of market-oriented institutional policy, links with the industrial sector, the notion of a public financial crisis and changing external environment, strong leadership of the university President or Vice-Chancellor, and the notion of the accountability of the university to society as a whole. However, the application of particular institutional strategies, entrepreneurial culture, and the way in which an institution relates itself to the private sector significantly differs among institutions. The paper suggests that those differences are related to different institutional history and characteristics – including those between national and private universities in Japan, and old and new universities in the UK – as well as different government policies between Japan and the UK. The paper first proposes a theoretical model for the five types of entrepreneurial culture of the institutions. It then examines the model by using case studies: Nottingham Trent University (UK), University of Surrey (UK), University of Tokyo (Japan), and Waseda University (Japan). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims at investigating Japanese government’s subsidy policy for private universities by applying statistical approaches to various types of quantitative data. Firstly, we briefly describe the history of the government subsidy policy to identify the dominant factors behind it and also explain the structure and mechanism of this subsidy. Secondly, by using 2005 data, we try to find influential factors in allocating both general subsidies and special subsidies for private universities. Thirdly, using the data in two periods given as 1975–1979 and 2000–2004, we try to elucidate the structural properties of the subsidy policy by applying correlative rank analyses approaches in order to measure the “dominance power” of the top-ranking subsidy-recipient schools. The results show that the number of faculty members is the most influential for general subsidies, while the number of students is the most dominant variable for special subsidies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]