Abstract
The last years have been characterized by tremendous institutional change in the university sector induced by far-reaching Higher Education Reforms (e.g. Bologna). Building on loose-coupling theory, we hypothesize that smaller universities were better able to adapt to the Higher Education Reforms of the recent years, triggering a decline in the optimal size of universities in the reform period. Using a 12-year panel data set on the inputs and outputs of German universities, we find a tremendous decrease in optimal university size, which is driven by the decline in the optimal scale for the provision of teaching activities. Our results also suggest this drop is also due to fact that the relatively higher administrative overheads of larger universities become an organizational liability in times of rapid institutional change.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e9afa/e9afaa38ee0957869ade18ae961f74f43370bfc3" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/67d12/67d1234e7ad07fcf3a1cb18d7b81e9802bcf555f" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2778b/2778b75bd9c329debf75aafe706157e5a5527d7d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5ab31/5ab31a23db06e7a3c1c7a339919560f5ab138f5d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f0060/f0060094afd9b92023c1e008c5bd1d02800e2f7e" alt=""
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This is not to belittle the changes induced by modern Information Communication and Technology (ICT), allowing e-learning, for example. However, it may be argued that despite these changes in communication, the lecture is still the central “technology” of teaching students.
Many state-regulated professions, like teachers, medical doctors, lawyers or judges had other one-cycle programs (e.g. Staatsexamen) followed by regulated internship. Many of these schemes are still in operation today despite the Bologna reforms.
It should be noted that some few universities (e.g. the Erfurt University) started with the implementation of BA/MA degrees as a main element of the Bologna reforms considerable earlier. But this is an exception.
Our use of partial versus comprehensive is closely related to a distinction in institutional theory that is made between the broader institutional context and the more localized relational context. For more details on this we refer the reader to Dacin et al. (2002).
The CCR frontier is defined mathematically as \(EF = \left\{ {\left( {X,Y} \right) \in PPS_{CCR} \left| {{\text{there}}\;{\text{is}}\;{\text{no}}\;\left( {\bar{X},\bar{Y}} \right) \in PPS_{CCR} \;{\text{such}}\;{\text{that}}\;\left( { - \bar{X},\bar{Y}} \right)} \right\rangle \left( { - X,Y} \right)} \right\}\). We can define BCC frontier similarly.
Because there are only personnel data from 2000 to 2010 (i.e. no data in 2011), the numbers of observations of the latter three variables are 715 instead of 780.
The curves are parallel to each other, because the MPSS is determined for each university-specific scaling factor that is the same for each input and output.
Indeed there was one curious peak in 2007, which, however, is solely due to the University of Cologne experiencing an unexpected reduction in the expenditures in that year. This reduction of inputs was matched by a reduction in outputs, although not in the same year, suddenly rendering this university efficient. Because the University of Cologne is one of the largest German universities (in terms of students), the average MPSS peaks in this year and then declines after its expenditures return to normal in 2008.
References
Avkiran, N. K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of Australian Universities through data envelopment analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35, 57–80.
Balk, M. (2001). Scale efficiency and productivity change. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 15, 159–183.
Banker, R. D. (1984). Estimating the most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 17, 35–44.
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.
Banker, R. D., Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., Thrall, R. M., & Zhu, J. (2004). Returns to scale in different DEA models. European Journal of Operational Research, 154, 345–362.
Banker, R. D., & Kemmerer, C. F. (1989). Scale economies in new software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(10), 1109–1205.
Banker, R. D., & Thrall, R. M. (1992). Estimation of returns to scale using data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 62(1), 74–84.
Brandt, T., & Schubert, T. (2013). Is the university model an organizational necessity? Scale and agglomeration effects in science. Scientometrics, 94, 541–565.
Braun, D., & Merrien, F. X. (1999). Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Brunsson, N., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: The example of public sector reforms. Organization Studies, 21, 721–746.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.
Choudhury, P., & Khanna, T. (2014). Toward resource independence—Why state-owned entities become mulitnationals: An empirical Study of India’s public R&D laboratories. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 943–960.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clark, K. (2001). The uses of the university (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.
Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2007). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Dacin, T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 45–56.
De Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.
de Groot, H., McMahon, W. W., & Volkwein, J. F. (1991). The cost structure of American research universities. Review of Economics and Statistics, 71, 284–290.
Deal, T. E. (1985). The symbolism of effective schools. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 601–620.
Elmore, R. (1983). Complexity and control: What legislators and administrators can do about implementing policy. In L. S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy. NY: Longman.
Enders, J. (2001). A chair system in transition: Appointments, promotions, and gatekeeping in German higher education. Higher Education, 41, 3–25.
Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General), 120(3), 253–290.
Glass, J. C., McCallion, G., McKillop, D. G., Rasaratnama, S., & Stringer, K. S. (2006). Implications of variant efficiency measures for policy evaluations in UK higher education. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 40, 119–142.
Glass, J. C., McKillop, D. G., & Hyndman, N. (1995a). Efficiency in the provision of university teaching and research: An empirical analysis of UK universities. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 10, 61–72.
Glass, J. C., McKillop, D. G., & Hyndman, N. (1995b). The achievement of scale efficiency in UK universities: A multiple-input multiple output analysis. Education Economics, 3, 249–263.
Glassman, R. B. (1973). Persistence and loose coupling in living systems. Behavioral Science, 18, 83–98.
Gumport, P. J., & Sporn, B. (1999). Institutional adaptation: Demands for management reforms and university administration. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XIV). Bronx: Agathon Press.
Hallonsten, O. (2014). How scientists may ‘benefit from the mess’: A resource dependence perspective on individual organizing in contemporary science. Social Science Information, 53, 341–362.
Hinings, C. R., Casebeer, A., Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., Pablo, A., & Greenwood, R. (2003). Regionalizing healthcare in Alberta: Legislated change, uncertainty, and loose coupling. British Journal of Management, 14, 15–30.
Izadi, H., Johnes, G., Oskrochi, R., & Crouchley, R. (2002). Stochastic frontier estimation of a CES cost function, the case of higher education in Britain. Economics of Education Review, 21, 63–71.
Jansen, D., Wald, A., Franke, K., Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2007). Third party research funding and performance in research. On the effects of institutional conditions on research performance of teams. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59, 125–149.
Johnes, G. (1999). The management of universities: Scottish economic society/royal bank of scotland annual lecture. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 46, 505–522.
Johnes, G., Johnes, J., & Thanassoulis, E. (2008). An analysis of costs in institutions of higher education in England. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 527–549.
Kaplan, R. E. (1982). Intervention in a loosely organized system: An encounter with non-being. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 415–432.
Kehm, B. M. (2010). The future of the bologna process—The bologna process of the future. European Journal of Education, 45(4), 529–534.
Kerr, C. (1963). The idea of a multiversity. In C. Kerr (Ed.), The uses of the university (pp. 1–45). Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press.
Kneip, A., Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (2008). Asymptotics and consistent bootstraps for DEA estimators in non-parametric frontier models. Econometric Theory, 24, 1663–1697.
Koshal, R. K., & Koshal, M. (1995). Quality and economics of scale in higher education. Applied Economics, 27, 773–778.
Kounetas, K., Mourtos, I., & Tsekouras, K. (2009). Efficiency decompositions for heterogeneous technologies. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(1), 209–218.
Krücken, G., Kosmützky, A., & Torka, M. (2007). Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions. In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 7–16). Bielefeld: Transcript.
Laband, D. N., & Lentz, B. F. (2003). New estimates of economies of scale and scope in higher education. Southern Economic Journal, 70, 172–183.
Larivière, V., Macaluso, B., Archambault, É., & Gingras, Y. (2010). Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations. Research Evaluation, 19, 45–53.
March, J. G. (1987). Ambiguity and accounting: The elusive link between information and decision making. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 153–168.
March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Free Press.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 623–647.
Minssen, H., & Wilkesmann, U. (2003). Lassen Hochschulen sich steuern? Soziale Welt, 54, 123–144.
Münch, R. (2007). Die akademische Elite. Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Musselin, C. (2007). Are universities specific organisations? In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 63–84). Bielefeld: Transcript.
Ordorika, I. (2003). The limits of university autonomy: Power and politics at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Higher Education, 46, 361–388.
Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1988). Toward a theory of the loosely coupled system. Working paper No. 586, University of Michigan, School of Business Administration, Division of Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.
Ouchi, W. G. (1978). The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 173–192.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, clans, and hierarchies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 129–141.
Rammer, C., Penzkopfer, H., Stephan, A., & Grenzmann, C. (2012). FuE- und Innovati-onsverhalten von KMU und Großunternehmen unter dem Einfluss der Konjunktur, Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, ZEW, IFO, DIW, SV, Mann-heim, München. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF): Berlin und Essen.
Ray, S. C., & Desli, E. (1997). Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries: Comment. American Economic Association, 87(5), 1033–1039.
Reichert, S. (2010). The intended and unintended effects of the Bologna reforms. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 1–20.
Reichert, S., & Tauch, C. (2003): Trends in learning structures in European Higher Education III, Conference Presentation, Graz http://www.aic.lv/ace/ace_disk/Bologna/Bol_semin/Oth_conf/Graz/Trends3pres.pdf.
Rousseau, S., & Rousseau, R. (1997). Data envelopment analysis as a tool for constructing scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 40(1), 45–56.
Sav, G. T. (2004). Higher education costs and scale and scope economies. Applied Economics, 36, 607–614.
Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2009). Sustainability of incentives for excellent research—The German case. Scientometrics, 81, 195–218.
Schubert, T. (2009). Empirical observations on new public management to increase efficiency in public research—Boon or bane? Research Policy, 38, 1225–1234.
Schubert, T. (2014). Are there scale economies in scientific production? On the topic of locally increasing returns to scale. Scientometrics, 99, 393–408.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Spender, J. C., & Grinyer, P. H. (1995). Organizational renewal—top managements role in a loosely-coupled system. Human Relations, 48, 909–926.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
Weick, K. E. (1982). Management of organizational change among loosely coupled elements. In P.S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.), Change in organizations (pp. 375–408). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weinberg, A. M. (1961). Impact of large-scale science on the United States. Science, 21, 161–164.
Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, J. (2012). Vorwort. In U. Wilkesmann & J. Schmid (Eds.), Hochschulen als Organisation (pp. 7–14). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Wilson, B. L., & Corbett, H. D. (1983). Organization and change: The effects of school linkages on the quantity of implementation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19(4), 85–104.
Worthington, A. C., & Higgs, H. (2011). Economies of scale and scope in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 61, 387–414.
Worthington, A. C., & Lee, B. L. (2008). Efficiency, technology and productivity in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27, 285–298.
Yang, G. L., Ahlgren, P., Yang, L. Y., Rousseau, R., & Ding, J. L. (2016). Using multi-level frontiers in DEA models to grade countries/territories. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 238–253.
Yang, G. L., Rousseau, R., Yang, L. Y., & Liu, W. B. (2014). A study on directional returns to scale. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 628–641.
Zhang, D. Q., Banker, R. D., Li, X. X., & Liu, W. B. (2011). Performance impact of research policy at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Research Policy, 40, 875–885.
Acknowledgments
This work is financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, No. 71201158) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD, No. A1394033). We thank Wolfgang Glänzel, the editor of the Scientometrics, and two anonymous referees for valuable comments which helped us to significantly improve this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Schubert, T., Yang, G. Institutional change and the optimal size of universities. Scientometrics 108, 1129–1153 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2015-1
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2015-1