How is European governance configuring the EHEA?

This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 01 August 2014, At: 15:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rehe20

How is European governanceconfiguring the EHEA?António Magalhães a b , Amélia Veiga a c , Sofia Sousa a & FilipaRibeiro aa Centre for Research on Higher Education Policies (CIPES) ,Matosinhos , Portugalb University of Porto , Porto , Portugalc Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education ,Lisbon , PortugalPublished online: 13 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: António Magalhães , Amélia Veiga , Sofia Sousa & Filipa Ribeiro (2012) How isEuropean governance configuring the EHEA?, European Journal of Higher Education, 2:2-3, 160-173,DOI: 10.1080/21568235.2012.693843

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.693843

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rehe20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/21568235.2012.693843

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.693843

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

How is European governance configuring the EHEA?

Antonio Magalhaesa,b, Amelia Veigaa,c*, Sofia Sousaa and Filipa Ribeiroa

aCentre for Research on Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Matosinhos, Portugal; bUniversityof Porto, Porto, Portugal; cAgency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education,

Lisbon, Portugal

(Received 17 February 2012; accepted 9 May 2012)

This article focuses on the interaction between the European dimension driven bythe creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and thedevelopment of national reforms to fulfil that objective. On the basis of datagathered in eight countries involved in EuroHESC project TRUE (TransformingEuropean Universities), the curricular and the governance reforms are examinedin order to identify the tension between the European dimension and theimplementation of reforms in national contexts. European higher educationpolicies take the momentum of the implementation of the Bologna Process atnational level and European Union (EU) governance brings to the forefront theneed for political coordination.

Keywords: EHEA; European governance; higher education reforms

Introduction

This article examines the interaction between the roles played by the European

Union (EU) in promoting European-level higher education policies and the national

higher education policies. The analysis is based on data gathered for a transversal

study on the influence of the European governance in the countries involved in

the EuroHESC project TRUE (Transforming European Universities) in the

United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and

Switzerland.

Even though the Bologna Process was initiated outside the EU, the European

Commission (EC) used it to build the EHEA. This was combined with the EU

strategy designed at the Lisbon Council, 2000, by the European Council. The reform

dynamics enacted by this combination of instruments and strategy has produced

multi-level processes of change encompassing countries and institutions far beyond

EU membership.

Curriculum, governance and funding were suggested by the EC as areas of

‘possible reform’ (European Commission, 2007) raising the question whether the

EHEA results from the changes in curriculum and governance and how they

promote European governance. In this article, these areas of reform are examined in

order to analyze the interaction between the European dimension driven by the

creation of the EHEA and the reforms in national contexts. In other words, it

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

European Journal of Higher Education

Vol. 2, Nos. 2�3, June�September 2012, 160�173

ISSN 2156-8235 print/ISSN 2156-8243 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.693843

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.693843

http://www.tandfonline.com

examines the interaction between the re-nationalization (Musselin 2009) processes

and the EU governance (Kjaer, 2010).The first part of the article is focused on the setting up of the EHEA, emphasising

the need for political coordination at European level. European governance emerges

as the conceptual alternative to national and multi-level analysis. From this

perspective, in the second part the curricular and governance reforms undertaken

in the eight countries are analysed. Thirdly, we will discuss the European governance

in shaping the EHEA. The goal is to learn how far implementing the Bologna

Process requires and enhances European governance.

Setting up of the EHEA

To analyze the political drivers underpinning the reforms in European higher

education one must look beyond the Bologna Process. The reform trends and

rationales can be traced back to the changing relationship between the state and

higher education systems and the institutions initiated in the 1980s by the rise of the

‘evaluative state’ (Neave 2008, 2009). On the other hand, the EU has developed its

political agenda, strategies and governance instruments in interaction with already

existing political structures, contexts and circumstances, transforming the objectives

and goals of higher education policies into ‘moving targets’ (Kehm, Huisman, and

Stensaker 2009; Neave and Maassen 2007).The Bologna Process has been strongly marked by inter-governmental features,

rather than assuming a supra-national character. Firstly, the increasing centrality of

the EU institutions in the configuration and implementation of the Bologna Process

has its own history (Corbett 2005). Secondly, the politics and policies of the EU have

been in tune with those from international organizations such as UNESCO, World

Bank and OECD (Amaral and Veiga 2010). Finally, EU policies reflect and promote,

in variable proportions, the Zeitgeist (e.g. neo-liberalism, managerialism) and the rise

of new governance paradigms (Peters 2001).

Coordinating the development of higher education sectors by establishing

common norms, landmarks and calendars, that the signatory countries were invited

to accept, was the modus operandi of the Bologna Process aligned with the Open

Method of Coordination (OMC). The implementation process is probably better

described as a process of interaction and interpretation, occurring at national and

institutional levels, without binding the European level.

When referring to the French reform, Musselin (2005), emphasised the absence of

a European dimension in the representations of those at national and institutional

levels of the Bologna implementation process. The outcome of a questionnaire-based

survey sent to academic staff, administrators and students in seven universities in

Germany, Italy, Norway and Portugal in 2008, also confirmed this trend at

institutional level (Veiga 2010). In the development of the Bologna Process agenda

the signatory countries were mainly motivated by the need to reform their own

higher education systems.

The Bologna Process aimed at establishing the EHEA, emphasising the need for

European coordination as: ‘The question was no longer if national policies should be

coordinated but how they could be’ (Gornitzka 2007: 163).

European Journal of Higher Education 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

The ‘areas of possible reform’

The strategic goal of establishing the EHEA is linked to the aim of modernising the

education systems. The European Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture

and Youth considers that the implementation of the Bologna Process is effective in

producing change, emphasising that voluntary work around a set of common

objectives is the way EU is approaching policies (Fıgel 2007). The European-level

efforts linking the Bologna Process with the need to modernise education and

training systems contribute to make no distinction between what the Bologna

Process is and what the EC policy goals are. Thus EC considers that universities

should modernise the content of their curricula, create virtual campuses, reform their

governance and professionalise their management of human resources, investment

and administrative procedures, diversify their funding and open up to new types of

students, businesses and society in general (Fıgel 2007).

The EC made clear its mission and commitment to promote the roles of higher

education, research and innovation in the creation of a ‘Europe of Knowledge’

targeted by the Lisbon agenda. It assumes that ‘Modernisation is needed in order to

face the challenges of globalisation and to develop the skills and capacity of the

European workforce to be innovative’ (European Commission 2007, 1) pointing out

three areas of ‘possible reform’ in higher education: curricular, governance and

funding.

The relationship between the Bologna Process, as an instrument for the creation

of the EHEA, and the ‘modernisation’ agenda is clearly established. The curriculum,

in spite of the coverage of subsidiarity, was suggested to be a priority, not only in the

sense of ‘what is taught’ to ‘whom’ but also referring to the need of the

reorganisation of learning, the competences to be achieved (learning outcomes)

and the use of qualifications for mobility purposes. The second way that

modernisation is to be achieved is by means of the assumption of university

autonomy seen by Ministers as a requirement for higher education institutions

(HEIs) to participate in the establishment of the EHEA (Bergen Communique 2005;

Berlin Communique 2003; Bologna Declaration 1999). Increasing autonomy

normally means relative leeway with regard to state regulation, but it is generally

accompanied by a growing influence of external stakeholders, as well as by extended

external quality assurance procedures and outcome-based funding mechanisms

(Eurydice 2009; Reichert and Tauch 2003). The governance reform entails and

reflects the rise of new forms of regulation. This means that institutional autonomy

does not imply merely a flexible regulatory framework as the complexity of the

reforms and the need for coordination calls for higher levels of governance or meta-

coordination (Magalhaes et al. 2012).

To grasp the impact of European policies, one needs European governance (Kjaer

2010) as a conceptual alternative used to understand the role of political discourses

and practices in shaping the environment of higher education systems and HEIs. The

European governance approach is based on the argument that the creation of a

common political grammar for higher education affects policy implementation

(Magalhaes et al. forthcoming). It focuses on EU policy processes and analyses the

consequences on national policymaking, complementing the perspective offered by

Gornitzka (2010) on the horizontal dynamics of the Lisbon strategy. European

governance emphasises the interaction between EU processes and national policies

162 A. Magalhaes et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

seen as a political system rather than a process of integration. It refers to complex

and non-hierarchical systems and processes, not necessarily multi-level though. For

instance, on the one hand, the national inputs on European-led reforms were visible

when the text of the Bologna declaration was carefully analysed and changed to

eliminate fears of possible homogenisation of the European systems, the term

harmonisation being replaced with convergence thus gaining the support of an

enlarged group of governments (Veiga 2010). On the other hand, the Bologna

Process gave an important input to legitimize national reforms. Afterwards the

Bologna Process was widely used by the European Commission (EC) to increase the

level of concern about European higher education. The European Commission has

been strengthening the development of policy perspectives built on the basis of

official communications and recommendations that grew swiftly from 2002 onwards

(Veiga 2010).

The curricular and the governance reforms in the selected countries

The curricular reforms

The three-cycle system was declared to be in place by 95% of institutions (Sursock

and Smidt 2010). When compared to 53% seven years previously (Reichert and

Tauch 2003), it is apparent that the situation around Europe is moving. Moreover,

less than 2% of the institutions stated that they were not planning to have a Bologna

degree structure, against 7.5% four years before. From the European perspective, the

reform of the degree system included in the curricular reform is having an impact on

the entire higher education sector.

In France the first decrees of application to switch to the Bachelor�Master study

structure were published in April 2002. Since 2007 all universities have implemented

the reform. Research has pointed out that, on the one hand, French authorities

widely used the reform to achieve their objectives, mainly to promote university

autonomy, change the relationships between state and institutions and to standardize

the degree supply (Musselin 2009), reflecting re-nationalization processes of the

reform. On the other hand, the university presidents have used the reform as leverage

to strengthen their leadership over the power of the disciplines and simultaneously

assert institutional autonomy vis-a-vis the state (Barraud and Mignot-Gerard 2005).

Although ‘France played a crucial role in the genesis of the Bologna Process’ (Witte

2006, 255), the process of the Bologna reform has enhanced the fragmentation of the

higher education system. For example, the masters degree include sub-categories

(‘mention,’ ‘specialty,’ ‘course’) and were embedded in a larger unit, called ‘domain,’

which roughly corresponds to disciplinary fields. With the definition of the

‘domains,’ each university has indeed posted the core competencies in a largely

non-convergent pattern. Moreover, the structure of the master degree also differs

within each institution. This fragmentation and non-convergence reflects the lack of

coordination of the reform.Switching to the two-degree cycle system in state-regulated programmes remains

a significant concern for German higher education policy. It is a goal to be gradually

achieved, as stated in the National Report (Germany 2009). With regard to the

implementation of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) it is still being

handled randomly (Kehm and Teichler 2006). The analysis of the progress made


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

indicates that ECTS is established only in a number of study programmes, close to

50% (European Commission 2012), reflecting a lack of coordination. However, as the

responsibility for achieving the Bologna objectives rests simultaneously upon the

institutions of higher education, the Lander and the Federal Government, an

important coordination effort has been made to achieve a certain degree of

coherence between the different Lander’s education policies, including higher

education.Moscati argues that the fact that the Italian system was the most traditional

higher education system in Europe (Moscati 2009, 219) and that the self-perception

of academia ‘of being committed to the training of the country’s elite’ (Moscati 2009,

221) had important impacts on the Bologna curricular reforms. The elitist focus and

the lack of co-operation between disciplinary fields has prevented ‘genuine

transformation of the courses’ and caused ‘the absence of an institutional framework

able to support the reform process’ (Reale and Potı 2009, 90), reflecting the lack of

political coordination at national level. The 2009 Italian National Report (Italy

2009) identified the following priorities: the need to overcome institutional

diversities, to develop learning outcomes to guarantee transparency, legibility and

quality procedures, to prioratize European issues and deadlines. However, Reale and

Potı (2009), argued that, despite resistance, the Bologna Process ‘drove universities to

modify curricula, by differentiating them according to existing educational needs,

attempting to eliminate dropping out and reducing the number of students not

graduating promptly’ (85).The Netherlands is a good an example of the inclusion of the European mandate

for higher education into the national agenda. While stressing the importance of the

national and institutional influence in curricular innovation, Witte adds that ‘many

HEIs took the initiative to move to the new degrees even before the legal framework

was established, so that the full transition to the new degree structure after the

passing of the Amendment proceeded quickly’ (Witte 2006, 215). The implementa-

tion of the Bologna Process was concerned with converging degree structures,

organising programmes according to ECTS as well as some aspects concerned with

the governance reform focusing on quality assurance. Still, the Netherlands is among

the countries where a unique 240 ECTS model can be found ‘the share of

programmes of 240 ECTS is around 45%, the share of students in this model is

70%’ (European Commission 2012, 34).

In Norway, the higher education reforms started before the implementation of

the Bologna Process, closely linked to the ‘Nordic dimension,’ a reflection of a strong

national character, which was less based on the homogenisation of degree structuresthan the Bologna Process is (Gornitzka 2006, 24). The national reform has paved the

way for the Bologna Process and the European process was widely used to tackle

domestic issues (Gornitzka 2007). The Bologna Process ‘represents more than

‘‘international trends’’ in higher education; it is formally acknowledged as a political

commitment. The reference to it served as political clout when the reform was

adopted’ (Gornitzka 2007, 37). The two-cycle degree system has been introduced

throughout. The grading-scale change and the ECTS were part of a larger package

that has received the bulk of attention in the responses to and in the debates held

within the framework of the Quality Reform.

In Portugal, the implementation of the curricular reform resulted into major

changes in the higher education degree structures following the Bologna pattern. In


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

2009, 98% of the initial training courses were already organised in accordance with

the Bologna Process. The success of the implementation of the Bologna Process

consists of a stabilisation of first-cycle degrees and the maintenance and reinforce-

ment of the binary system, the latter being a major domestic issue. The legalframework has also established that HEIs must report on the methods and practices

they employed in the design of their curricula and on their use of the ECTS (Portugal

2009), clearly reflecting the need to coordinate the institutional curricular reforms.

Veiga and Amaral underline the fact that Portugal shows some shared problems

(already highlighted in Trends reports) in using the Bologna tools, namely in what

respects ‘the incorrect and superficial use of the ECTS, the disappointing use of the

Diploma Supplement and the lack of involvement of HEIs in the development of the

National Qualifications Framework’ (2009, 61). There is no evidence that HEIs areusing the same references for the ECTS and a comparable definition of learning

outcomes (Veiga and Amaral 2009). This is confirmed in the report on the

implementation of the Bologna Process as it states that in Portugal ‘all parts of

programmes are linked with learning outcomes in less than 50% of programmes’

(European Commission 2012, 48).

The Bologna Process is perceived in Switzerland as the main instrument for

change in the last decade (Lepori and Fumasali 2010), and its implementation is part

of a co-ordinated renewal of Switzerland higher education. The introduction of theBologna degree structure had a substantial impact, not only on the curricula, but

also on the strategy of HEIs and the overall system functioning, namely with regard

to the relationship between universities and the Universities of Applied Sciences

(UAS).

The curricular reform in the United Kingdom (UK) had an institutional focus as

the degree structure has some specific characteristics when compared to the other

countries. At a political level the reforms did not promote a national response to

European developments. In the UK the Bologna degree structure did not developinto an overall instrument for higher education reform, as it did in other countries.

The governance reform

Governments widely used the implementation of the Bologna Process to force

reforms on domestic systems and issues in a multi-level approach. The 2007 CHEPS

report The Extent and Impact of Higher Education Governance Reform Across Europe

argues that ‘since the late-1990s [. . .] the rate of change has accelerated tounprecedented levels, largely on the shoulders of three key developments: the

Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations . . . and the Lisbon Strategy (2000)’ (CHEPS

2007a, 9). In the case of the governance reform a broader perspective should be

convened as the transformations in higher education steering and governance started

in the 1980s, with the rise of the evaluative state and integrated in the reform trends

of public administration and management in Western and Eastern Europe (Pollit and

Bouckaert 2004).

The first reform wave changed the relationships between the state and highereducation systems and institutions as a consequence of the rise of the evaluative

state, the enhancement of institutional autonomy and the emphasis on quality

assurance and accountability. The emphasis on the interaction between national and

European scales of policymaking and implementation underlines the presence of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

parallel discourses and policies at national and European levels (Dale 2008). The

relationship between these parallel stances may vary according to national

interpretations which, in turn, use European-level discourses and policies to

strategically deal with domestic issues. The responses to the CHEPS survey indicate

a growing influence of the EC on national higher education policy but ‘without

denying the importance of domestic agendas’ (CHEPS 2007a, 14). It is important to

add that the influence of the EC is also linked to its role in other policy areas, mainlythe area of research and innovation.

The diversity of European higher education systems also reflects on the fact that

the governance reforms differ in terms of pace and content (CHEPS 2007a, 2007b;

Paradise, Emanuela, and Gostellec 2009). Institutional autonomy was attributed to

institutions but their national and institutional configuration varies between the two

Janus faces: the enhancement of institutional self-regulation and the use of

autonomy by the state to remotely steer systems and institutions (Amaral and

Magalhaes 2001). At a discursive level, there is a significant convergence of using the

argument focusing on the enhancement of institutional autonomy to carry on the

reforms while ‘at the operational level (‘‘action level’’) diversity reigns’ (CHEPS

2007a, 27).

National governments and institutional leadership and management appear as

the most influential factors in the eight areas of institutional autonomy that the

CHEPS report has focused on.1 At least in the Continental countries the trendtowards the enhancement of institutional autonomy and of managerial bodies is

visible. However, within HEIs the decline of collegial academic bodies in the

decision-making processes is not compensated by increasing the influence of other

stakeholders � industry, students and national agencies (CHEPS 2007b).

The UK was engaged in long-term processes of reform and it appears as a front-

runner in the managerial paradigm and often as a model case of New Public

Management (NPM) (Ferlie and Andresani 2009). As a result of ‘powerful reform

ideas’ and ‘purely tactical policy responses,’ the UK higher education system is

significantly ‘larger, more managed, more internationalised, more market-driven’

(194). Since the early 1980s, NPM ideas and instruments were applied to higher

education as they were in other UK public services. The Research Assessment

Exercise, the Quality Assurance Agency, the introduction of corporate managerial

models in higher education governance and competition mechanisms among HEIs,

are examples of NPM-driven policies and instruments. However, in UK higher

education governing and governance processes ‘hybrid influences’ from other

governance models and practices can be detected (e.g. post-NPM policy rhetoric,remains of the bureau-professional model such as the role attributed to peer review

and professional collegiality, etc.) (195). The UK might be a case in which the

influence of the implementation of the Bologna Process on the governance reform

was not visible, as, on the one hand, the curricular reform was not an issue and, on

the other hand, policymakers did not promote a national strategy in line with

European policies.

In the Netherlands, the concept of ‘governing from a distance’ was introduced in

the mid-1980s with a strong role played by the government via the introduction of

stakeholders guidance (Westerheijden, de Boer, and Enders 2009) and a decrease in

state regulation. The trend towards intra-organisational hierarchy and inter-

organisational networking was reinforced as HEIs were induced to develop their


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

own strategies to deal with the shift from a priori control to ex post regulation. The

increase of the stakeholder’s presence in the governing bodies reconfigured the

research and teaching agendas of institutions influenced by bodies other than

academic communities or their collegial bodies. State regulation was developed by

means of de-regulation, institutional autonomy, accountability and quality assess-

ment. In the 1990s, by changing the steering instruments from regulations to

financial incentives, the managerial approach to governance was reinforced, asuniversities were expected to enact market-type attitudes. Although not acting as

private corporations, Dutch universities have transformed themselves into the

position of ‘more tightly coupled systems’ (de Boer, Enders, and Leisyte 2007).

The mixture between the NPM and other governance narratives appear as

complementary (state regulation, stakeholders guidance, academic self-governance,

managerial self-governance and competition).

In Italy, in the 1990s, the government decided to accelerate the process of

modernisation by means of a comprehensive reform of the entire education system.

The reform was imposed by law and was largely resisted by the academic community

(Moscati 2009). The Bologna Process introduced ‘some dramatic changes to the

structure and functions of the university’ (207). The elitist ethos of the Italian

universities and the type of political coordination of the system, namely with regard

to quality assessment, left the university governance to traditional leadership ‘who

have for decades functioned in a centralised system’ (207). In spite of the fact that the

1997 Bassanini law introduced some measures inspired by the NPM narrative, thelegalist governance culture tending towards uniformity and national procedural

homogeneity, combined with weak management capacity of the public sector, might

explain ‘the gap between the rhetoric of the reforms and the effectiveness of their

implementation’ (Reale and Potı 2009: 78). This meant that, not only was the

institutional autonomy not enhanced by means of institutional governance

empowerment but also ‘a trend toward the restoration of centralised powers with

a top-down approach in relations with the university system’ (88) has emerged. NPM

market-oriented and competitive-driven policies did not penetrate either the

governing of the system or the institutions’ governance.

Germany was a latecomer to the governance reform. NPM had been introduced

in the debates on public management in the mid-1980s, but only appeared in the

higher education field in the mid-1990s. Presently, hybrid arrangements of university

traditional governance and NPM-inspired models of governance can be identified

(Schimank and Lange 2009). Indeed, the reduction of academic self-governance and

the strengthening of managerial self-governance are explicit goals of the current

NPM regime in the German higher education system. Competition between andwithin institutions was combined with parts of the traditional governance regime and

has produced hybrid arrangements, namely with regard to fund allocation.

In France, mainly as a result of the contractual policy initiated in 1988, the

changing relationship between the state and universities had as a consequence the

‘institutional empowerment of French universities’ (Musselin and Paradeise 2009,

28). The university presidents became more pro-active and more management-

oriented. The deliberative bodies became more effective; the universities became

more tightly-managed organisations and were able to improve the management of

curricula, which is of particular importance in the framework of the Bologna Process.

The changes that empowered institutions and enhanced their autonomy were


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

triggered by procedures (the contracts) that were not introduced as a reform, a

paradigm change or an ideological shift (Musselin and Paradeise 2009).

In Portugal, the managerial approach to governance was initiated in 2007. Time

will reveal its main impact, but one can expect that the effects of the implementation

of the legal framework will further transform the Portuguese higher education

landscape and cause it to be in tune with other countries; namely the tendency of

European university organisation and governance to create powerful managerial

infrastructures that parallel, and even replace, the academic structures built around

traditional academic leaders (Bleiklie and Kogan 2007).In Norway, the 2003 Quality Reform introduced a different pattern in the

implementation processes, hitherto marked by localism and being implemented by

increments (Bleiklie 2009, 127). The reform introduced changes in Norwegian higher

education governance structures: institutional autonomy was reinforced and the

boards were given authority to decide upon how institutions were to be organised.

This reform is an example of how the national adjustment to the Bologna Process

was driven by the goals of improving academic quality, the efficacy and efficiency of

higher education systems and institutions. It aimed at changing the governance and

managerial structures, the funding formula, with a deeper focus on results and

institutional output, accreditation and quality assurance. The assumption of the

NPM narrative was apparently present in the broader process of modernising the

public sector. The 2007 CHEPS report (2007b) suggested that the Quality Reform

had significant effects such as:

a reduction in the number of students failing during examination [. . .]; an increase in thenumber of credits (ECTS) taken and in the number of graduates [. . .]; an increase in thenumber of students in higher education of non-western ethnic background [. . .]; anincrease in scientific publications in peer review journals [. . .]. (25)

Bleiklie (2009) argues that the Quality Reform may support the interpretations that

‘assume that policies have changed fundamentally since 1980’ (151), namely those

informed by NPM that assumed a more comprehensive role within this process.In Switzerland, it is also possible to identify the features of the reform of

governance, namely the enhancement of institutional autonomy and the power of

institutional leadership. The higher education governance reforms have also

occurred, linked to reforms in public administration (Baschung, Benninghoff, and

Goastellec 2009, 157) and referring to European patterns.

European governance in shaping the EHEA

EU governance is enhancing higher education policies which contribute to configure

the EHEA, even though it depends on the coordination of national policies at least in

the areas of curricular and governance reforms. This appears to be a European

governance model emerging to circumvent the incapacity to pass European laws in

the field of education policies protected by European Treaties.

The EC has expanded its governance using the OMC to promote the so-called

exchange of good practices and also became involved at institutional level (Keeling

2006). Over the last decades, the EC has visibly increased its financial involvement in

higher education and has created the conditions for making its coordination more


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

active and efficient by means of their expanding programmes and initiatives.

European governance is made by means of instruments such as: common indicators;

the bi-annual National Reports (which include the National Action Plans for

Recognition), drafted according to common guidelines and reporting on progressmade towards the objectives to be attained; the stocktaking exercises, along with

Eurostat, and Eurydice data gathering. This illustrates how European governance

was put in motion by means of governance networking between bodies, associations,

agencies and committees in charge of the implementation process of ‘soft laws.’ This

networked, loose coordination also reflects in the nature of the instruments used that

are significantly shaping the ‘perceptions and expectations regarding the course of

events . . .’ (Witte, Huisman, and Purser 2009, 209). The EU enacts this governance

system by providing human and material resources to promote and manageeducational initiatives with the aim of promoting convergence of European higher

education systems.

The fact that it is possible to identify different paces of implementation of the

Bologna tools amongst countries does not mean that there is less impact of these

governance instruments, but rather that the Bologna reform framework is re-

interpreted at national level. When looking at the curricular and the governance

reforms in the eight selected countries, we can see these reforms entailing aspects

related to different dimensions of governance. As argued, the reforms had differenttimelines, developments and outcomes. The governance reform has started in the

mid-1980s within the framework of public administration and management reforms,

before the Bologna Process (e.g., the Netherlands) and even outside its inspiration

(e.g. the UK). However, as they conflated with the Bologna Process they were

enhanced by it, accelerated and, as in the Portuguese case, carried on its shoulders.

Conclusion

While education policies remain a national remit, and we are far off standardisation

in the degree structure, and despite of loose, let alone insufficient, coordination

between differing higher education systems, there are signs of the establishment of

European governance in higher education. Its impact, however, is far from clear.

European documents and national reports on the development of the Bologna

Process oversell the transformations occurred. European policies aiming at creating

the EHEA have been disseminated and implemented by means of coordination, by

diffusing concepts and ideographs and by instruments and procedures. Countriesand institutions are acting, reacting and pro-acting in a context where common

norms of action ‘may escape the control of any particular member state and yet

decisively influences the behaviour of public policy actors’ (Corbett 2005, 5).

The national impacts of European policies aiming at creating the EHEA resent

the tension between the European level political coordination and the national level

strategies to deal with it and, simultaneously, with domestic priorities. The

governance of the process is being developed by ‘coordination of coordination,’ by

the creation of a common grammar that provides models, concepts and resourcesand influences national discourses and decisions on higher education issues; and by

‘technical’ governance’ (Balzer and Kerstin 2004). To this, one may add ‘procedur-

alism.’ It ‘acts as the analytical handmaiden to ‘‘soft law’’’ (Neave 2012, 18). In

Neave’s view, the efficiency of such governance is based on the fact that it is easier to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

build consensus around operational procedures and shared common administrative

practices rather than to accommodate and converge in common visions and values

about higher education.

The analyses have shown that EU governance is contributing to shape the

EHEA. The combination between these forms of governance is variable across

national contexts and further analysis of the instruments and discourses (e.g. on

quality of higher education) put in place to govern and consolidate the EHEA is

needed. Countries and regions beyond the EHEA taking keen interest in the Bologna

Process are probably unwittingly signed up for EU governance.

Interpretations about the harmonization effects enacted by development of

European governance instruments and the implementation of the EHEA appear as

polarised: are they a trend towards an effective harmonization project? Or are they

plot towards convergence? The answer to this relies on the ongoing process of

implementation and configuration of the EHEA are assuming. Further research is

needed as this process develops.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by National Funds through the support of FCT (Fundacao para aCiencia e a Tecnologia) under the framework of the EuroHESC/0001/2008 project.

Note

1. Institutional mission/strategy development; internal governance structures; the introduc-tion of new study programmes; the quality of teaching and learning; internal financialpolicies; conditions of employment of staff; access policies and admission policies, and thedevelopment of public-private partnerships (CHEPS 2007a).

Notes on contributors

Antonio Magalhaes is Associated Professor at the Faculty of Psychology and EducationSciences at the University of Porto, Portugal, and senior researcher at the Centre for Researchin Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Porto. His expertise lies in education policy analysisnamely on the relationship between the state and higher education system and institutions. Hehas been developing national and international projects, and has been publishing on theseissues.

Amelia Veiga is researcher at Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES) and atthe Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education (A3ES). She holds a PhDfrom the University of Porto, Portugal. Her main research interests lie in higher educationpolicy, in particular European integration and governance and the institutionalisation of aEuropean dimension in education.

Sofia Sousa is a researcher at Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES),Porto, Portugal. Trained as an educationalist her main research interests lie in the fields ofhigher education studies and sociology of science, with a particular interest on knowledgeproduction and academic/research careers. She has been involved in national and internationalprojects about academic profession, governance structures, mergers, networks and knowledgesociety.

Filipa Ribeiro is a researcher at the Centre for Research on Higher Education Policies (CIPES)and a PhD student at the University of Porto. Her research areas focus on sociology of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

knowledge, social networks and higher education. Besides her research activities, she alsoworks as a science writer and trainer.

References

Amaral, A., and A. Magalhaes. 2001. On markets, autonomy and regulation the Janus Headrevisited. Higher Education Policy 14, no. 1: 7�20.

Amaral, A., and A. Veiga. 2010. The European higher education area: Various perspectives onthe complexities of a multi-level governance system. Paper presented at the 17thInternational Conference of Council for European Studies, 15�17 April in Canada.

Balzer, C., and M. Kerstin. 2004. International higher education and the Bologna Process:What part does the European Commission play? Paper presented at the epsNET 2004Plenary Conference, 18�19 June at Charles University in Prague.

Barraud, P., and S. Mignot-Gerard. 2005. The implementation of the bachelor-master studystructure in French Universities. A European reform in the hands of academic tribes. Paperpresented at the Second Euredocs conference ‘Transformations of higher education andresearch policies, systems and institutions in European countries’, 20�21 May, in Bergen.Retrieved from http://euredocs.sciences-po.fr/en/conference/2005/barraud_mignot.pdf.

Baschung, L., M. Benninghoff, and G. Goastellec. 2009. Swizterland: Between co-operation and competition. In University governance: Western European comparativeperspectives, ed. C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, and E. Ferlie, 153�75. Dordrecht:Springer.

Bergen Communique. 2005. The European higher education area � Achieving the goals. Bergen.Berlin Communique. 2003. Realizing the European higher education area. Berlin.Bleiklie, I. 2009. Norway: From tortoise to eager beaver. In University governance:

Western European comparative perspectives, ed. C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, and E.Ferlie, 127�52. Dordrecht: Springer.

Bleiklie, I., and M. Kogan. 2007. Organization and governance of universities. HigherEducation Policy 20, no. 4: 477�94.

Bologna Declaration. 1999. The European higher education area. Bologna, Italy.CHEPS. 2007a. The extent and impact of higher education governance reform across Europe �

Final report to the Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the EuropeanCommission (Vol. 1). Enschede: CHEPS.

CHEPS. 2007b. The extent and impact of higher education governance reform across Europe �Final report to the Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the EuropeanCommission (Vol. 3). Enschede: CHEPS.

Corbett, A. 2005. Universities and the Europe of knowledge: Ideas, institutions and policyentrepreneurship in European Union higher education, 1955�2005. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

Dale, R. 2008. Repairing the deficits of modernity � The emergence of parallel discourses inhigher education in Europe. In World yearbook of education, ed. D. Epstein, R. Boden,R. Deem, F. Rizvi, and S. Wright, 14�31. London: Routledge.

de Boer, H., J. Enders, and L. Leisyte. 2007. Public sector reform in Dutch higher education:The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration 85, no. 1: 27�46.

European Commission. 2007. From Bergen to London � The contribution of the EuropeanCommission to the Bologna Process. European Commission: Brussels.

European Commission. 2012. The European higher education area in 2012: Bologna Processimplementation report. Brussels: Eurydice.

Eurydice. 2009. Key data on education in Europe 2009. Brussels: European Commission(Directorate-General for Education and Culture).

Ferlie, E., and G. Andresani. 2009. United Kingdom from bureau professionalism tonew public management. In University governance: Western European comparativeperspectives, ed. C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, and E. Ferlie, 177�95. Dordrecht:Springer.

Fıgel, J. 2007. Welcome address. Paper presented at the London Ministerial Conference,London, 18�19 May in London.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

http://euredocs.sciences-po.fr/en/conference/2005/barraud_mignot.pdf

Germany. 2009. National report (Germany) 2007�2009. Available at: http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Documents/National_Report_Germany_2009.pdf.

Gornitzka, A. 2006. What is the use of Bologna in national reform? In Creating the Europeanarea of higher education � Voices from the periphery, ed. V. Tomusk, 19�41. Dordrechet:Springer.

Gornitzka, A. 2007. The Lisbon Process: A supranational policy perspective � Institutionaliz-ing the open method of coordination. In University dynamics and European integration, ed.P. Maassen and J.P. Olsen, 3�22. Dordrecht: Springer.

Gornitzka, A. 2010. Bologna in context: A horizontal perspective on the dynamics ofgovernance sites for a Europe of Knowledge. European Journal of Education 45, no. 4:535�48.

Italy. 2009. National report 2007�2009. Available at: http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Documents/National_Report_Italy_2009.pdf.

Keeling, R. 2006. The Bologna Process and Lisbon Research Agenda: The EuropeanCommission’s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education41, no. 2: 203�23.

Kehm, B. J. Huisman, and B. Stensaker, eds. 2009. The European higher education area:Perspectives on a moving target. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Kehm, B., and U. Teichler. 2006. Which direction for bachelor and master programmes? Astocktaking of the Bologna Process. Tertiary Education and Management 12, no. 4: 269�82.

Kjaer, A. 2010. Governance. Cambridge: Polity.Lepori, B., and T. Fumasali. 2010. Reshaping the Swiss higher education system: Governance

reforms and fields reconfigurations. Swiss Political Science Review 16, no. 4: 811�4.Magalhaes, A., A. Veiga, S. Sousa, F. Ribeiro, and A. Amaral. 2012. Governance and

institutional autonomy: Governing and governance in Portuguese higher education. CIPES:Matosinhos.

Magalhaes, A., A. Veiga, S. Sousa, F. Ribeiro, and R. Santiago. forthcoming. Creating acommon grammar for higher education governance. Higher Education (special issue).

Moscati, R. 2009. The implementation of Bologna Process in Italy. In European integrationand the governance of higher education and research, ed. A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin,and P. Maassen, 207�25. Dordrecht: Springer.

Musselin, C. 2005. Is the Bologna Process a move towards a European higher education area?Paper presented at the 3rd Conference on Knowledge and Politics ‘The Bologna Processand the Shapping of the Future Knowledge Societies’ in Bergen.

Musselin, C. 2009. The side effects of the Bologna Process on national institutional settings. InEuropean integration and the governance of higher education and research, ed. A. Amaral, G.Neave, C. Musselin, and P. Maassen, 281�99. Dordrecht: Springer.

Musselin, C., and C. Paradeise. 2009. France: From incremental transitions to institutionalchange. In University governance: Western European comparative perspectives, ed.C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, and E. Ferlie, 21�49. Dordrecht: Springer.

Neave, G. 2008. From guardian to overseer: Trends in institutional autonomy, governance andleadership. In Reforma do Ensino Superior: Quatro Temas em Debate, ed. A. Amaral, 45�70.Lisboa: Conselho Nacional de Educacao.

Neave, G. 2009. Institutional autonomy 2010�2020. A tale of Elan � Two steps back tomake one very large leap forward. In The European higher education area: Perspectives on amoving target, ed. B. Kehm, J. Huisman, and B. Stensaker, 3�22. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

Neave, G. 2012. The evaluative state, institutional autonomy and re-engineering higher educationin Western Europe � the prince and his pleasure. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave.

Neave, G., and P. Maassen. 2007. The Bologna Process: An intergovernmental policyperspective. In University dynamics and European integration, ed. P. Maassen and J.P. Olsen,3�22. Dordrecht: Springer.

Paradise, C., R. Emanuela, and G. Gostellec. 2009. A comparative approach to highereducation reforms in Western European countries. In University governance: WesternEuropean comparative perspectives, ed. C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, andE. Ferlie, 197�225. Dordrecht: Springer.

Peters, G. 2001. The future of governing. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Documents/National_Report_Germany_2009.pdf

http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Documents/National_Report_Germany_2009.pdf

http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Documents/National_Report_Italy_2009.pdf

http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Documents/National_Report_Italy_2009.pdf

Pollit, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2004. Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Portugal. 2009. National report (Portugal) 2007�2009. Lisbon, Portugal.Reale, E., and B. Potı. 2009. Italy: Local policy legacy and moving to an ‘in between’

configuration. In University governance: Western European comparative perspectives, ed.C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, and E. Ferlie, 77�102. Dordrecht: Springer.

Reichert, S., and C. Tauch. 2003. Trends 2003 progress towards the European higher educationarea Bologna four years after: Steps toward sustainable reform of higher education in Europe.Belgium: European University Association.

Schimank, U., and S. Lange. 2009. Germany: A latecomer to new public management. InUniversity governance: Western European comparative perspectives, ed. C. Paradeise,E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, and E. Ferlie, 51�75. Dordrecht: Springer.

Sursock, A., and H. Smidt. 2010. Trends 2010: A decade of change in European highereducation. Brussels: European University Association.

Veiga, A. 2010. Bologna and the institutionalisation of European higher education area.University of Porto: Doctoral Thesis (2 vols.), Porto.

Veiga, A., and A. Amaral. 2009. Survey on the implementation of the Bologna Process inPortugal. Higher Education 57, no. 1: 57�69.

Westerheijden, D., H. de Boer, and J. Enders. 2009. An ‘Echternach’ procession in differentdirections: Oscillating steps towards reform. In University governance: Western Europeancomparative perspectives, ed. C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, and E. Ferlie, 103�25.Dordrecht: Springer.

Witte, J. 2006. Change of degrees and degrees of change: Comparing adaptations of Europeanhigher education systems in the context of the Bologna Process. Doctoral Thesis, Universityof Twente, Enschede.

Witte, J., J. Huisman, and L. Purser. 2009. European higher education reforms in the contextof the Bologna Process: How did we get here, where are we, and where are we going? InHigher education to 2030, Vol. 2, ed. OECD, 205�29. OECD Publishing.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

5:03

01

Aug

ust 2

014