Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBleiklie, Ivar
dc.contributor.authorMichelsen, Svein
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-05T12:46:34Z
dc.date.available2020-05-05T12:46:34Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.PublishedBleiklie IB, Michelsen SM. Scandinavian Higher Education Governance – Pursuing Similar Goals through Different Organizational Arrangements. European Policy Analysis. 2019;5(2):190-209eng
dc.identifier.issn2380-6567
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1956/22096
dc.description.abstractThe differences and similarities among the three Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have been discussed by social scientists on several occasions. Focusing on higher education (HE) governance systems, this paper raises three questions. (1) What are the differences and similarities among the three countries? (2) How can the similarities and differences be explained? (3) Are the similarities strong enough to justify the common label of a Scandinavian model of HE governance? The three HE governance systems are briefly described and compared. They are then analyzed as, respectively, outcomes of partisan politics or politico-administrative regimes. The paper argues that similarities such as publicness, massive investments, and emphasis on access are best explained in terms of partisan politics, while the variation in governance arrangements can best be explained by path dependencies following choices made at critical junctures within similar politicoadministrative regimes.en_US
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherWileyeng
dc.titleScandinavian Higher Education Governance – Pursuing Similar Goals through Different Organizational Arrangementseng
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.date.updated2020-01-29T14:01:37Z
dc.description.versionacceptedVersion
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2019 Policy Studies Organizationen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1056
dc.identifier.cristin1682095
dc.source.journalEuropean Policy Analysis
dc.source.pagenumber190-209
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Policy Analysis. 2019;5(2):190-209
dc.source.volume5
dc.source.issue2


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record