Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Institutional change and the optimal size of universities

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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).

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balk, M. (2001). Scale efficiency and productivity change. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 15, 159–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D. (1984). Estimating the most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 17, 35–44.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., & Kemmerer, C. F. (1989). Scale economies in new software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(10), 1109–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, T., & Schubert, T. (2013). Is the university model an organizational necessity? Scale and agglomeration effects in science. Scientometrics, 94, 541–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D., & Merrien, F. X. (1999). Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: The example of public sector reforms. Organization Studies, 21, 721–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K. (2001). The uses of the university (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deal, T. E. (1985). The symbolism of effective schools. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 601–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J. (2001). A chair system in transition: Appointments, promotions, and gatekeeping in German higher education. Higher Education, 41, 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General), 120(3), 253–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glassman, R. B. (1973). Persistence and loose coupling in living systems. Behavioral Science, 18, 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes, G. (1999). The management of universities: Scottish economic society/royal bank of scotland annual lecture. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 46, 505–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. E. (1982). Intervention in a loosely organized system: An encounter with non-being. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 415–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kehm, B. M. (2010). The future of the bologna process—The bologna process of the future. European Journal of Education, 45(4), 529–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Koshal, R. K., & Koshal, M. (1995). Quality and economics of scale in higher education. Applied Economics, 27, 773–778.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kounetas, K., Mourtos, I., & Tsekouras, K. (2009). Efficiency decompositions for heterogeneous technologies. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(1), 209–218.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., & Lentz, B. F. (2003). New estimates of economies of scale and scope in higher education. Southern Economic Journal, 70, 172–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1987). Ambiguity and accounting: The elusive link between information and decision making. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 623–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minssen, H., & Wilkesmann, U. (2003). Lassen Hochschulen sich steuern? Soziale Welt, 54, 123–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münch, R. (2007). Die akademische Elite. Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ordorika, I. (2003). The limits of university autonomy: Power and politics at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Higher Education, 46, 361–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. G. (1978). The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, clans, and hierarchies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, S. C., & Desli, E. (1997). Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries: Comment. American Economic Association, 87(5), 1033–1039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichert, S. (2010). The intended and unintended effects of the Bologna reforms. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 1–20.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sav, G. T. (2004). Higher education costs and scale and scope economies. Applied Economics, 36, 607–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2009). Sustainability of incentives for excellent research—The German case. Scientometrics, 81, 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T. (2009). Empirical observations on new public management to increase efficiency in public research—Boon or bane? Research Policy, 38, 1225–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T. (2014). Are there scale economies in scientific production? On the topic of locally increasing returns to scale. Scientometrics, 99, 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C., & Grinyer, P. H. (1995). Organizational renewal—top managements role in a loosely-coupled system. Human Relations, 48, 909–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, J. (2012). Vorwort. In U. Wilkesmann & J. Schmid (Eds.), Hochschulen als Organisation (pp. 7–14). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worthington, A. C., & Higgs, H. (2011). Economies of scale and scope in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 61, 387–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worthington, A. C., & Lee, B. L. (2008). Efficiency, technology and productivity in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27, 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Fraunhofer Institute for System and Innovation Research ISI, 76139, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Torben Schubert

  2. CIRCLE, Lund University, Sölvegatan 16, 22100, Lund, Sweden

    Torben Schubert

  3. Institute of Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 8712, Beijing, 100190, China

    Guoliang Yang

Authors
  1. Torben Schubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guoliang Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guoliang Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2015-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation