Do we see economies of scale in universities? (or: differentiate, not merge at all cost) Inserire qui il logo del proprio ateneo d’appartenenza! Andrea Bonaccorsi, University of Pisa Cinzia Daraio, University of Pisa Léopold Simar, Institute of Statistics, UCL Tarmo Raty, VATT Finland
48
Embed
Do we see economies of scale in universities? (or: differentiate, not merge at all cost) Inserire qui il logo del proprio ateneo d’appartenenza! Andrea.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Do we see economies of scale in universities? (or: differentiate, not merge at all cost)
Inserire qui il logo del proprio ateneo
d’appartenenza!
Andrea Bonaccorsi, University of PisaCinzia Daraio, University of Pisa Léopold Simar, Institute of Statistics, UCLTarmo Raty, VATT Finland
Outline
• Introduction• Background• Data• Methodology• Preliminary results• Further developments
Economies of scale
Key issue
– Widespread belief among policy makers that increasing returns and critical mass effects are at place in universities
– Large debate on assumed European “fragmentation” in the university landscape
– Arguments: (a) economies of scale (b) economies of variety (Jacob)
However, empirical evidence is ambiguous– Brinkman (1981), Brinkman and Leslie (1986), Cohn et al. (1989), de Groot, McMahon and
Volkwein (1991), Nelson and Hevert (1992) and Lloyd, Morgan and Williams (1993) – Verry and Layard (1975), Verry and Davies (1976) and Adams and Griliches (1998)– Narin and Hamilton (1996), Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2003) – Bonaccorsi and Daraio (2004,2005), Bonaccorsi, Daraio and Simar (2006, 2007)
Important practical policy implications• aggregation of universities (e.g. Australian government in the ‘90s; current
debate in UK and other EU countries on critical mass);• aggregation of institutes in large public research organisations (e.g. CNRS
in France, CNR in Italy).
Background
• Most empirical investigations done on a country base, at university level or on specific (but limited) subjects
• Lack of systematic comparisons across countries at discipline level:– Microdata not easily available– Comparability issues are important (Bonaccorsi, Daraio, Lepori,
Slipersaeter, 2007)
• Multi-output production should be taken into account explicitly
• Any sensible efficiency analysis should take into account the discipline-wise structure
Data and empirical background
Data
Aquameth coverage July 2007
Reasonable sample, July 2007
aquaM E T H
aquaM E T H
Data
COUNTRYNUMBER OF UNIVERSIT.
Last year availab.FINLAND 20FRANCE 93GERMANY 72HUNGARY 16ITALY 79 NETHERLAND 13NORWAY 4PORTUGAL 14SPAIN 48SWITZERLAND 12UNITED KINGDOM 116
Aquameth coverage November 2007, including France (487 universities)
• Economies of scale should not be examined at the level of universities at aggregate level
• Differentiated pattern by discipline• Also some country-level differences emerge
No empirical support for a generalized policy of pressure on universities to grow or merge
Rather, each scientific/ educational field must find its own “optimal” scale
Policies of concentration/ merger should be aimed at helping universities to find their own optimal configuration among disciplines, each of which follows differentiated patterns
University as a strategic multi-divisional agent
The key to strategic behaviour is differentiation
Differentiation of European universities in PhD education• PhD education crucial in knowledge society
• Internationalization and mobility
• Competition
• Institutional adaptation
• Differentiation and “division of academic labor” as response to enlargement of the market and competition
Variable observed
Number of graduate students/ Number of undergraduate students (ratio)