Chapter 2 Literature review part one: theoretical framework
2.3 Public administration and public management
2.3.1 New public management and higher education institutions
New public management (NPM) principles in the higher education sector has been inevitable, but has controversy. The main reason for the controversy is that public higher education systems have traditionally been regarded as a stand-alone sector, not easily or often compared with other public sector systems (Ferlie, Musselin &
Andresani, 2008:326). The uniqueness of HEIs from other public institution has been expressed in Parsonian tradition in reference to the American university (Schimank, 2005:361) and the Humboldtian concept in reference to the traditional German university (Schimank, 2005:363).
Schimank (2005:361) states that, the Parsonian notion of the university saw universities as institution run by academics even more so that hospitals managed by medical doctors. In this view, universities are indispensable to society, but are subordinated to the power of the academic professions. The Humboldtian idea of solitude and freedom saw the state in control of the university, through funding and other privileges, but with the academic professors having full autonomy over the university's functioning (Schimank, 2005:363). In these perspectives of the traditional university, the state's role is largely to ensure the autonomy of higher education. This tradition regards academics as "producers, users and owners of an esoteric knowledge whose quality of costs cannot be assessed or controlled by 'profanes' (public authorities, members of the civil society, etc.)” (Ferlie et al., 2008:327). Thus, despite its dependence on public funding, the higher education system has, for centuries, been protected from government steering.
39
However, Strehl, Reisinger & Kalatschan, (2006:7) state that NPM concepts and theories which have been developed within the public sector generally have been adapted and introduced into the higher education sector . The authors also state that the paradigm shift that is discernible through the introduction of NPM thinking into higher education which entailed several challenges for both governments and individual institutions. The authors further indicated that the state's focus is now on political/strategic issues and "steering at arm's length” and there is a strict demarcation of policy formulation and policy implementation. There is also a change from the traditional input- and formula-based funding to a system that emphasises output and performance. In response to the emphasis on output and performance, managerial practices within public HEIs have assimilated practices associated with the business sector. Thus, within the higher education sector, there has been the adoption of "new” functions such as marketing, strategic planning, fundraising, cost accounting, patents management and public relations.
The introduction of NPM into higher education in many countries has been controversial. Many concerns have been raised about the fact that self-regulation has led to a loss of autonomy and the traditional values associated with a university.
As an illustration of these concerns, Schimank (2005:362) laments the loss of autonomy and the invasion of the market in higher education in Germany, asserting that
Simultaneous growth and loss of autonomy are now dominant features of the German university system. Since the 1980s, 'new public management (NPM) has become the keyword. Its basic slogans – 'more market', 'less regulation;, and 'strong leadership' – have become commonplace. The universities, like other public services – such as transport, telecommunications, hospitals, and schools – have become sites of application of NPM…. It has gathered strength from a coincidence of factors, including a growing sense of public unease with academic autonomy and an expanding opportunity that favours political intervention. If allowed to continue unchecked in its present form, it is argued, the process may threaten the most distinctive features of academic life.
The challenge facing the university, according to Schimank (2005:375), is to ensure that public trust is restored in academia. This should be achieved by a balance between professorial autonomy and professional responsibilities. However, the
40
author argues that government policies in respect of evaluation, resource allocation and recruitment should not be passively accepted. Rather, Schimank (2005:375) argues, that "academics should no longer leave evaluations to others, but should invest in self-defined measures of quality, relevance and efficiency in the collection of data, as is done in the United Kingdom and Australia”.
Schimank (2005:375) states that “self-regulated quality control at German universities is understandable, as it is in line with the historical ethos prevailing at universities for decades”. However, as Orr, Jaeger and Schwarzenberger (2007:4) point out, “the German higher education system has been subjected to many pressures created by system expansion, and higher education has not been able to cope with these pressures on its own”. The number of new entrants into higher education rose significantly between 1998 and 2003, from 258 000 students to 347 000 – an increase of 35%. This increase was accompanied by an increase in the demand for academically qualified workers in the labour force. However, the performance of German higher education as a whole pointed to the fact that the demand for an increase in the number of graduates was not going to be met easily, as the following data suggest:
“Students in German higher education take an average of five years and four months to complete their courses.
Less than 25% of all students at universities complete their courses in less than five years, and a further 25% take more than eight years to complete.
The number of graduates decreased by 7% between 1998 and 2002” (Orr et al., 2007:4).
Education reform using NPM principles has thus begun to be seen in Germany.
According to Orr et al. (2007:3), there have been reforms in funding allocations to German higher education institutions following indicator-based models. The key NPM element implemented in German higher education has been the emulation of the market through "state-included competition” (Orr et al., 2007:4).
The issue of whether performance management as a NPM-derived management tool is applicable to developing countries is raised by de Waal (2007:70). According to
41
this author, NPM is increasingly being introduced into developing countries, including African countries, but, many of these countries have only introduced certain elements of NPM such as privatisation and downsizing. Performance management is an element of NPM which is fairly new to many African countries, and usually restricted to performance-oriented staff appraisal systems. In his study of performance management at a Tanzanian HEI, de Waal (2007:81) concludes that the tool of performance management is used to keep the concept alive in the organisation. de Waal (2007:81) further stated that organisations in developing countries can learn much from Western organisations, which have been dealing with these issues for over two decades.
2.3.2 A theoretical framework for the study of bullying and harassment at