Skip to main content
Log in

Organizational Change in Higher Education Ministries in Light of Agencification: Comparing Austria and Norway

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines organizational change in national ministries responsible for higher education in light of public sector reforms. The article suggests an analytical framework based on authority/autonomy and capacity developments, paying special attention to the creation of agencies. Empirically, this is exemplified by two cases: the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science, and Research, and the Ministry of Education and Research in Norway, each in relation to two subordinate agencies. Both ministries initiated structural governance reforms for their national higher education systems in the early 2000s. The results of this study indicate that although similar intentions were driving the reforms in both countries, the way in which the ministries transformed was somewhat different. In Austria, the reduction in ministerial capacity, an absent agency structure, and increased institutional autonomy might have created a potential policy vacuum in system-level governance right after the new higher education law was introduced in 2002. In Norway, ministerial capacity remained stable, while central agencies experienced substantial capacity growth and influence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Source: author's illustration.

Figure 2

Source: author's illustration.

Figure 3

Source: author's illustration.

Figure 4

Source: author's illustration.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L. and Rumbley, L.E. (2009) Trends in global higher education: tracking an academic revolution; a report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO.

  • Amaral, A. (2009) European integration and the governance of higher education and research, Dordrecht; New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, I. and Jones, G.A. (2016) Governance of higher education: global perspectives, theories, and practices, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, T. (2016) ‘Administrative Autonomy of Public Organizations’ in A. Farazmand (ed.). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Cham, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beerkens, M. (2015) ‘Agencification Challenges in Higher Education Quality Assurance’, in E. Reale and E. Primeri (eds.). The Transformation of University Institutional and Organizational Boundaries, Rotterdam: SensePublishers, pp. 43–61.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I. (2009) ‘Norway: From Tortoise to Eager Beaver?’ in C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie and E. Ferlie (eds.). University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 127–152.

  • Bleiklie, I. and Michelsen, S. (2013) ‘Comparing HE policies in Europe: Structures and reform outputs in eight countries’, Higher Education 65(1): 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., Hart, P.’t and Peters, B.G. (2001) Success and failure in public governance: a comparative analysis, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D. (2008) ‘Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies’, Science and Public Policy 35(4): 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G., Regini, M. and Turri, M. (2017) Changing Governance in Universities: Italian Higher Education in Comparative Perspective, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (2006) Autonomy and regulation: coping with agencies in the modern state, Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (2007) ‘Regulatory Agencies? The Challenges of Balancing Agency Autonomy and Political Control’, Governance 20(3): 499–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., Lægreid, P. and Roness, P.G. (2007) Organization Theory and the Public Sector: Instrument, culture and myth, Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dippelreiter, M. (2011) 50 Jahre Bildungsmobilität: Eine kleine Geschichte des OeAD, Innsbruck: Studienverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. and Trondal, J. (2009) Political Leadership and Bureaucratic Autonomy: Effects of Agencification, Governance 22(4): 673–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research’, Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie, E., Musselin, C. and Andresani, G. (2008) ‘The Steering of Higher Education Systems: A Public Management Perspective’, Higher Education 56(3): 325 – 348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie, E. (2006) ‘Quasi strategy: strategic management in the contemporary public sector’, in A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas and R. Whittington (eds.). Handbook of Strategy and Management, London, SAGE Publications Ltd., pp. 279–298.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorioli, E. (2014) ‘Entwicklungslinien und Strukturentscheidungen der Qualitätssicherung in Österreich’, in M. Fuhrmann, J. Güdler, J. Kohler, P. Pohlenz and U. Schmidt (eds.). Handbuch Qualität in Studium und Lehre, Berlin: DUZ Verlags- und Medienhaus GmbH, pp. 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (2013) ‘What is governance?’, Governance 26(3): 347–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. and Cojocaru, L. (2016) ‘Selecting Cases for Intensive Analysis: A Diversity of Goals and Methods’, Sociological Methods and Research 45(3): 392–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, A. and Maassen, P. (2017) ‘European Flagship universities: Autonomy and change’, Higher Education Quarterly 71(3): 231–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, H.F. (2014) ‘The development of regulating and mediating organizations in Scandinavian higher education’, in M.-H. Chou and Å. Gornitzka (eds.). Building the knowledge economy in Europe. New constellations in European research and higher education governance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 188–218.

  • Huisman, J. (2009) International perspectives on the governance of higher education: alternative frameworks for coordination, New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jungblut, J. and Woelert, P. (2018) ‘The Changing Fortunes of Intermediary Agencies: Reconfiguring Higher Education Policy in Norway and Australia’, in P. Maassen, M. Nerland and L. Yates (eds.). Reconfiguring Knowledge in Higher Education, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 25–48.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krüger, K., Parellada, M., Samoilovich, D. and Sursock, A. (eds.) (2018) Governance reforms in European university systems: the case of Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands and Portugal, Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwiek, M. and Maassen, P. (eds.) (2012) National Higher Education Reforms in a European Context: Comparative Reflections on Poland and Norway, Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M. and Wegrich, K. (2014) ‘Introduction: Governance Innovation, Administrative Capacities, and Policy Instruments’, in M. Lodge and K. Wegrich (eds.). The Problem-solving Capacity of the Modern State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggetti, M. and Verhoest, K. (2014) ‘Unexplored aspects of bureaucratic autonomy: a state of the field and ways forward’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 80(2): 239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overman, S. and Van Thiel, S. (2016) ‘Agencification and Public Sector Performance. A Systematic Comparison in 20 Countries’, Public Management Review 18(4): 611–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Painter, M. and Peters, B. G. (2010) ‘Administrative Traditions in Comparative Perspective: Families, Groups and Hybrids’, in M. Painter and B. G. Peters (eds.). Tradition and Public Administration, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 19–30.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paradeise, C., Reale E., Bleiklie, I. and Ferlie, E. (eds.) (2009) University governance: Western European comparative perspectives, Dordrecht; London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (2005) ‘Ministries and Agencies: Steering, Meddling, Neglect and Dependency’, in M. Painter and J. Pierre (eds.). Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 112–136.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2011) Public management reform: a comparative analysis: new public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state (3rd ed.), Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Pollitt, C., Thiel, S. van and Homburg, V. (2007) New public management in Europe: adaptation and alternatives, Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K. (2012) Government agencies: practices and lessons from 30 countries, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winckler, G. (2003) ‘Die Universitätsreform 2002’, in A. Khol, G. Ofner, G. Burkert-Dottolo and S. Karner (eds.). Österreichisches Jahrbuch für Politik 2003, Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, pp. 127–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winckler, G. (2012) ‘The European Debate on the Modernization Agenda for Universities. What happened since 2000?’, in M. Kwiek and A. Kurkiewicz (eds.). The Modernization of European Universities. Cross-National Academic Perspectives, Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, pp. 235–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, X., Ramesh, M. and Howlett, M. (2018) Policy Capacity: Conceptual Framework and Essential Components, in X. Wu, M. Howlett, and M. Ramesh (eds.). Policy Capacity and Governance: Assessing Governmental Competences and Capabilities in Theory and Practice, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–25.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Peter Maassen and Jens Jungblut for their continuous support and feedback. Further thanks to my colleagues from the SCANCOR cohort 2018 at Stanford University for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philipp Emanuel Friedrich.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Friedrich, P.E. Organizational Change in Higher Education Ministries in Light of Agencification: Comparing Austria and Norway. High Educ Policy 34, 664–684 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00157-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00157-x

Keywords

Navigation