Scandinavian Higher Education Governance—Pursuing Similar Goals Through Different Organizational Arrangements

Abstract

The differences and similarities among the three Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have been discussed by social scientists on several occasions. Focusing on higher education (HE) governance systems, this paper raises three questions. (1) What are the differences and similarities among the three countries? (2) How can the similarities and differences be explained? (3) Are the similarities strong enough to justify the common label of a Scandinavian model of HE governance? The three HE governance systems are briefly described and compared. They are then analyzed as, respectively, outcomes of partisan politics or politico-administrative regimes. The paper argues that similarities such as publicness, massive investments, and emphasis on access are best explained in terms of partisan politics, while the variation in governance arrangements can best be explained by path dependencies following choices made at critical junctures within similar politicoadministrative regimes.Gobernanza de educaci on superior en Escandinavia -Perseguir objetivos similares a trav es de diferentes configuraciones organizacionales Los cient ıficos sociales han discutido las diferencias y similitudes entre los tres pa ıses escandinavos, Dinamarca, Noruega y Suecia en varias ocasiones. Centr andose en los sistemas de gobierno de la educaci on superior (HE), este documento plantea tres preguntas. (1) ¿Cu ales son las diferencias y 190 similitudes entre los tres pa ıses? (2) ¿C omo pueden explicarse las similitudes y diferencias? (3) ¿Son las similitudes lo suficientemente fuertes como para justificar la etiqueta com un de un modelo escandinavo de gobierno de la HE? Los tres sistemas de gobernanza de HE se describen y comparan brevemente. Luego se analizan como resultados respectivos de pol ıticas partidistas o reg ımenes pol ıtico-administrativos. El documento sostiene que las similitudes, como el car acter p ublico, las inversiones masivas y el enfasis en el acceso, se explican mejor en t erminos de pol ıticas partidistas, mientras que la variaci on en los acuerdos de gobernabilidad puede explicarse mejor por las dependencias de la trayectoria siguiendo las decisiones tomadas en coyunturas cr ıticas dentro de reg ımenes pol ıticoadministrativos similares.PALABRAS CLAVES: pol ıticas p ublicas, administraci on p ublica, educaci on superior, pol ıticas partisanas, reg ımenes pol ıticos administrativos

Theoretical foundations of the Programmatic Action Framework (PAF)

“…In this way, the PAF sheds light on the formation but also on the endurance and eventual decline of programmatic groups shaping policy change and policy content. The PAF is intended as a mid‐range framework applicable to diverse policy sectors in fully institutionalized political systems and sectors close to the state, including transport policy (Bleiklie & Michelsen, 2019; Döhler, 2019). As with all frameworks, there are cases that promise to emphasize in a particular manner its added value.…”

National policies as drivers of organizational change in universities: A string of reinforcing reforms

“…Denmark, previously characterized as a slow and pragmatic adopter of international research policy ideas (Aagaard & Mejlgaard, 2012;Hansen, 2002), has during the latest decade repeatedly been singled out as a trailblazer among the European countries (Aagaard & de Boer, 2017;Bleiklie & Michelsen, 2019;Hansen, Geschwind, et al, 2019;Kallerud, 2006). In particular, the intensity of reform accelerated after a change of government in 2001, which led to a sweeping reform process with the aim of transforming Danish universities into key players in the global knowledge economy.…”

Policymaking in multiple European cases

“…接下来的三篇文章是欧洲视角在国家案例中的实证应用，其中各案例能进行部分比较。作者Bleiklie 和Michelsen（）的文章与EPA收录的有关新公共管理（NPM）影响的文章(ter Bogt, )相联系。通过比较丹麦、挪威、瑞典三国的高等教育治理体系，作者发现，之前的斯堪的纳维亚模式发生转变，从而国家体系中出现更多差异，这些差异源于各自的路径依赖，而保留下来的相似点则归因于社会‐民主党派的强烈影响。与EPA前几年发行的一期特刊相关的是，作者Marian Döhler () 分析了委托代理（PA）关系背景下的德国铁路治理。他对委托人和角色这一多重背景下的“不情愿委托人”的研究，能被用于提高PA在公共政策中的应用。德国铁路政策同样还能完美诠释其他视角，例如施展“将对手邪恶化，以提升团队协调性”的计谋（devil shift）和施展“美化盟友”的计谋（angel shift）(Vogeler & Bandelow, )、以及NIMBY问题(Lindloff, Lisetska, Eisenmann, & Bandelow, ) ，这些视角有可能被置于“更大的基础设施冲突”背景之下，该背景是EPA第3卷第2期(Biegelbauer, Lindloff, & Sager, )的主题。…”

“…Los tres artículos posteriores son aplicaciones empíricas en parte comparativas de las perspectivas europeas en casos nacionales. La contribución de Bleiklie y Michelsen () se vincula con otros artículos de la EPA sobre la influencia de la Nueva Gestión Pública (NPM) (ter Bogt, ). Al comparar los sistemas de gobernanza de la educación superior de los países de Dinamarca, Noruega y Suecia, los autores encuentran que hay una desviación del antiguo modelo escandinavo hacia más diferencias en los sistemas nacionales, que tienen sus raíces en las dependencias de la ruta, mientras que las similitudes restantes son un resultado de fuertes influencias partidistas socialdemócratas.…”

“…The three subsequent articles are partly comparative empirical applications of European perspectives to national cases. The contribution by Bleiklie and Michelsen () ties in with other articles in EPA on the influence of New Public Management (NPM) (ter Bogt, ). Comparing the higher education governance systems of countries Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, the authors find that there is a depart from the former Scandinavian model toward more differences in the national systems, which have their roots in path dependencies, while the remaining similarities are a result of strong social‐democratic partisan influences.…”