In times of financial strain, universities often resort to reorganisations. But how do such far-reaching changes actually come about? And what are their consequences? Van Berckel Smit delved into the history of university governance in the Netherlands and Flanders, examining how, between the 1970s and 2010, the so-called New Public Management (NPM) gained a foothold at four universities: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Leiden University, KU Leuven, and Ghent University.
Managerial Thinking as a Response to Financial Pressure
NPM is a governance model that applies business management techniques to public organisations, such as universities. Think of the introduction of performance indicators, steering based on measurable results, and the use of financial incentives to influence behaviour. According to Van Berckel Smit, these ideas were rarely adopted as a complete package. Instead, various elements of NPM were implemented in response to specific – often financial – challenges.
A striking insight from his research is the pivotal role played by individuals: administrators, managers, and staff themselves shaped how NPM policies took form. Their decisions determined which reforms were introduced and how these spread from one institution to another. As a result, no uniform model emerged, but rather a diverse, hybrid practice in which classical governance methods and modern management ideas intermingled.
Why This Research Matters Now
Insights from the past are more relevant than ever. Dutch universities are once again facing significant budget cuts, while their funding structures and internationalisation strategies are under scrutiny. Major organisational changes seem inevitable – and in some places, they are already underway.
Van Berckel Smit’s research does not offer ready-made solutions, but it does provide valuable lessons. Those involved in university governance, policymaking, or participation bodies can gain insight into how past reorganisations were handled – with what intentions, by whom, and to what effect. This understanding can help inform more thoughtful decisions today.
What It Means for Society
For society as a whole, Van Berckel Smit’s research is relevant because it helps explain why universities operate the way they do today: why is there such an emphasis on measurability and output? Why do so many lecturers feel more like managers? By studying the past, we can avoid repeating the same mistakes in future reforms. As Van Berckel Smit puts it: “History opens the mind.” This is especially true in turbulent times like these, when fundamental choices about the organisation of higher education are once again on the table.
A Message
“I hope the government comes to its senses and starts investing in higher education again – it’s an investment in our future. Many universities are currently in financial distress, leading to difficult decisions. A historical perspective can be valuable in such times: financial pressure is nothing new, and history shows us there are multiple courses of action. In my thesis, I describe organisational changes at Dutch and Flemish universities, from failed attempts to successful reforms. One example is the financial Antenna System at KU Leuven, which combined centrally standardised yet locally embedded processes. It led to greater efficiency: with the same number of FTEs, more than double the turnover was processed,” says Van Berckel Smit.