Search

This chapter focuses on developments in governance in European higher education, with a focus on Western Europe. It presents an overview of the literature on this topic, including the various modes of governance as well as the changes in European higher education in recent decades. The chapter starts by describing different conceptual models used to address and analyse higher education governance. Next, it portrays general tendencies with regard to governance and shows that states have been delegating some of their powers to other levels in the higher education system in four directions: an upward shift to the supranational level, a horizontal shift to ‘independent’ agencies, a downward shift to the institutions (‘autonomy’), and an outward shift (‘privatization, contracting’). As a result of these shifts, often cited as a move from government to governance, the modes of system steering and coordination have become more complex and dynamic, including more stakeholders at different policy levels. The chapter then considers that governance configurations in European higher education not only have similarities, but also differ in various ways.

This chapter suggests that that the similarities in approaches to internationalization lead to convergence across higher education systems, actual practices and governance arrangements also show continued divergence. By adopting a cultural / phenomenological approached as part of the world society theory perspective (Meyer et al., 1997), this chapter aims to provide a cultural rather than a functional explanation for the remarkable degree of convergence, while not losing sight of divergence. Taking this cultural perspective to both frame and explain the proliferation of the internationalization discourse in higher education — and the resulting convergence and divergence — has, to the best of our knowledge, not been done before in the academic literature. To further our understanding of the internationalization discourse and the implications for governance of higher education, we ask the following research question: how can the rationales and practices underpinning the internationalization of higher education be understood from a world society perspective? To answer this question, we first outline the world society theory. We then highlight patterns of convergence, followed by signs of divergence, in rationales and practices.

Many governments are encouraging participation, but what happens when the participatory group one government agency encourages develops a solution that places unanticipated regulatory burdens onto another agency? In the two water infrastructure cases analyzed here, government agencies in Brazil and Thailand promoted the creation of a participatory group that then developed an innovative solution to its problems. In both cases, however, that new solution required the permission of another agency in the same government, and that permission was initially withheld. The initial rejections were reasonable, given the mandate of the agencies involved, and yet they threatened the success of the participatory programs that the two governments had initiated to supplement their traditional service delivery. Luckily, in both cases the participatory groups were able to (a) apply sufficient pressure to bring the resisting agencies to the table for negotiations and (b) negotiate t” to balance its efforts to encouraging local stakeholder participation in water infrastructure development and its responsibility to protect the public interest. Tempered responsiveness requires regulators to consider and respond to stakeholder innovations while also encouraging stakeholders to be aware of and responsive to the needs and limitations of the regulatory system. Negotiations played a crucial role in enabling these successful negotiations and we argue that they will continue to do so if tempered responsiveness is to be implemented in the water sector. While more research is needed on these negotiations in developing countries, the effectiveness of these processes can, in the meantime, be improved by drawing upon the literature on public dispute resolution and negotiated rulemaking.