RESEARCH PAPER
The Evolution of Institutional Logic in Poland’s Higher Education System under Reform
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Katedra Ekonomii Instytucjonalnej, Uniwersytet Łódzki, Polska
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Piotr Urbanek   

Katedra Ekonomii Instytucjonalnej, Uniwersytet Łódzki, Polska
Publication date: 2020-06-30
Submission date: 2019-12-18
Final revision date: 2020-02-23
Acceptance date: 2020-04-16
 
GNPJE 2020;302(2):95–122
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
ABSTRACT
Neo-institutional theory highlights the impact of the institutional environment on organisations. This leads to the emergence of homogeneous institutional structures due to the existence of a dominant institutional logic that is an independent determinant of organisational processes. University reforms focused on marketisation mean that the institutional logic associated with academic governance needs to undergo an evolution. The success of university transformation depends on whether a new logic referring to the idea of managerialism and based on the principles of strong leadership can be reconciled with an academic logic based on collegial decision-making processes. In the empirical part of the article, the author assesses changes in the management structures of Polish universities that are a result of reforms to the higher education system. Based on an analysis of the statutes of 36 public universities, two groups of universities have been identified, those that try to maintain the conservative academic status quo, and those that adapt their authority structures to a changing institutional environment. The results show that the scale of changes is determined by the prestige of a university. While highly-rated universities are trying to maintain traditional academic authority structures, lower-ranked universities are more likely to implement ideas typical of a managerial institutional logic.
 
REFERENCES (60)
1.
Bartell M. [2003], Internationalization of universities: a university culture-based framework, Higher Education, 45: 43–70.
 
2.
Bebchuk L. A., Roe M. J. [1999], A Theory of Path Dependence in Corporate Ownership and Governance, Stanford Law Review, 52: 127–170.
 
3.
Beckert J. [2010], Institutional Isomorphism Revisited: Convergence and Divergence in Insti¬tutional Change, Sociological Theory, 28 (2): 150–166.
 
4.
Bleiklie I., Enders J., Lepori B., Musselin C. [2011], New Public Management, Network Governance and the University as a Changing Professional Organization, Christensen.
 
5.
Bleiklie I., Enders J., Lepori B., Musselin C. [2011], New Public Management, Net-work Governance and the University as a Changing Professional Organization, Christensen, Tom, Laegreid, Ashgate, Per. The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management: 161–176.
 
6.
Bourdieu P. [1993], The field of cultural production, Cambridge, Polity Press.
 
7.
Bourdieu P., Wacquant L. [1992], An invitation to reflexive sociology, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
 
8.
Clark B. R. [1979], The many pathways of academic coordination, Higher Education, 8 (3), 251–267.
 
9.
David P. A [2000], Path Dependence, its critics, and the quest for ‘historical economics’, Working Papers 00011, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
 
10.
DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. (eds.) [1991], The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
 
11.
DiMaggio P. J., Powell W. W. [1983], The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and col¬lective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, 48 (2): 147–160.
 
12.
Dobbins M., Knill C. [2009], Higher Education Policies in Central and Eastern Europe: Conver¬gence toward a Common Model? Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Adminis¬tration, and Institutions, 22 (3): 397–430.
 
13.
Eisenhardt K. M. [1988], Agency – And Institutional-Theory Explanations: The Case of Retail Sales Compensation, Academy of Management Journal, 31 (3): 488–511.
 
14.
Gornitzka A., Maassen P., de Boer H. [2017], Change in university governance structures in con¬tinental Europe, Higher Education Quaterly, 71: 274–289.
 
15.
Guliński J. [2017], Od reformy do reformy, Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 2 (50): 279–287.
 
16.
Gumport P. J. [2000], Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional Impera¬tives, Higher Education, 39: 67–91.
 
17.
Hazelkorn E. [2014], Rankings and the Global Reputation Race, New Directions for Higher Education, 168: 13–26.
 
18.
Hopner M. [2005], What Connects Industrial Relations and Corporate Governance?, Socio-Economic Review, 3: 331–59.
 
19.
Jaszczyk A. [2017], Szkolnictwo wyższe – potrzeba całościowej reformy, Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 2 (50): 77–90.
 
20.
Izdebski H. (red.) [2017], Założenia do projektu Ustawy „Ustawa 2.0. Założenia systemu szkol¬nictwa wyższego”, Uniwersytet SWPS, Warszawa.
 
21.
Keohane R. O. [1988], International Institutions: Two Approaches, International Studies Quar¬terly, 32 (4): 379–396.
 
22.
Kloot B. [2009], Exploring the value of Bourdieu’s framework in the context of institutional change, Studies in Higher Education, 34 (4): 469–81.
 
23.
Kohler J., Huber J. (red.) [2006], Higher education governance between democratic culture, aca¬demic aspirations and market forces, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing.
 
24.
Kwiek M., Antonowicz D., Brdulak J., Hulicka M., Jędrzejewski T., Kowalski R., Kulczycki E., Szadkowski K., Szot A., Wolszczak-Derlacz J. [2016], Projekt założeń do ustawy Prawo o szkol¬nictwie wyższym, Poznań, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza.
 
25.
Kwiek M. [2017], Wprowadzenie: Reforma szkolnictwa wyższego w Polsce i jej wyzwania. Jak stopniowa dehermetyzacja systemu prowadzi do jego stratyfikacji, Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 2 (50): 9–39.
 
26.
Kwiek M. [2018], Ustawa 2.0 a mierzalność i porównywalność osiągnięć naukowych, Nauka, 1: 65–86.
 
27.
Lang T. [2018], Institutional Theory, New, w: G. Ritzer, C. Rojek (eds.) The Blackwell Encyclo¬pedia of Sociology, JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.
 
28.
Leja K. [2013], Zarządzanie uczelnią. Koncepcje i współczesne wyzwania, Warszawa, Oficyna Wolters Kluwer business.
 
29.
Levy D. C. [2004], The New Institutionalism: Mismatches with Private Higher Education’s Global Growth, PROPHE Working Paper Series, 3.
 
30.
Liebowitz S. J., Margolis S. E. [1995a], Path dependence, lock-in, and history, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11 (1): 205–226.
 
31.
Liebowitz S. J., Margolis S. E. [1995b], Policy and path dependence: from QWERTY to Windows 95, Regulation: The Cato Review of Business & Government, 3: 33–41.
 
32.
Mahoney J., Thelen K. [2010], Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, Cambridge University Press.
 
33.
March J. G., Olsen, J. P. [1989], Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics, New York, The Free Press.
 
34.
Merton R. K. [1973], The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
 
35.
Meyer J., Rowan B. [1977], Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.
 
36.
North D. C. [1991], Institutions, Journal of Economic Perspective, 5 (1): 97–112.
 
37.
North D. C. [1990], Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
 
38.
North D. C. [1993], Economic Performance through Time, Nobel Prize Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, December 9, 1993.
 
39.
North D. C. [2005], Institutions and the Performance of Economies over Time, w: Menard C., Shirley M. M. (eds.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, New York, Springer, 21–30.
 
40.
Olsen J. P. [2007], The institutional dynamics of the European University, w: Maassen P., Olsen J. P. (eds.), University dynamics and European integration, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Springer: 25–55.
 
41.
Ostrom E. [2005], Doing Institutional Analysis: Digging Deeper than Markets and Hierarchies, w: Menard C., Shirley M. M. (eds.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, New York, Springer, 819–848.
 
42.
Paradeise C., Reale E., Bleiklie I., Ferlie E. (eds.) [2009], University Governance. Western Euro¬pean Comparative Perspectives, Springer Science.
 
43.
Peters G. P., Desmond J. K. [2005], The Politics of Path Dependency: Political Conflict in Histori¬cal Institutionalism, The Journal of Politics, 67 (4): 1275–1300.
 
44.
Radwan A. (red.) [2017], Plus ratio quam vis consuetudinis. Reforma nauki i akademii w Ustawie 2.0, Kraków.
 
45.
Readings B. [2017], Uniwersytet w ruinie, Warszawa, Narodowe Centrum Kultury.
 
46.
Rowlands J. [2013], Academic boards: less intellectual and more academic capital in higher education governance?, Studies in Higher Education, 38 (9): 1274–1289.
 
47.
Sadowski I. [2014], Współczesne spojrzenie na instytucje: ewolucja pojęć, problem modelu aktora i poziomy analizy instytucjonalnej, Przegląd Socjologiczny, 63 (3): 89–114.
 
48.
Sawyer K. R., Johnson J., Holub M. [2009], Decline in academe, International Journal for Edu¬cational Integrity, 5 (2): 10–28.
 
49.
Scott P. [2001], Universities as Organizations and their Governance, w: Hirsch W. Z., Weber L. E., Governance in Higher Education: The University in a State of Flux, London, Economica.
 
50.
Scott R. W. [1987], The Adolescence of Institutional Theory, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 493–511.
 
51.
Scott W. R. [1995], Institutions and organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 
52.
Sporn B. [1999], Managing university culture: an analysis of the relationship between institu¬tional culture and management approaches, Higher Education, 32: 41–61.
 
53.
Szczepański J. [1993], Granice reform szkolnictwa wyższego, Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 2: 5–10.
 
54.
Thelen K. [1999], Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics, Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 369–404.
 
55.
Thornton P., Ocasio W. [2008], Institutional logics, w: Greenwood R., Oliver C., Sahlin K., Suddaby R. (eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, London, Sage: 99–129.
 
56.
Urbanek P. [2009], Teorie ładu akademickiego, Gospodarka Narodowa, 4 (300): 3–30.
 
57.
Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2005 r. Prawo o szkolnictwie wyższym (Dz.U. 2005, nr 164, poz. 1365).
 
58.
Ustawa z dnia 20 lipca 2018 r. Prawo o szkolnictwie wyższym i nauce (Dz.U. 2018, poz. 1668).
 
59.
Williamson O. E. [2000], The New Institiutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead, Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (3): 595–613.
 
60.
Williamson O. E. [2000], Contract and Economic Organization, Revue d’économie industrielle, 92: 55–66.
 
eISSN:2300-5238
ISSN:0867-0005