New Public Management aan de universiteit? Veelvormige organisatieveranderingen aan Nederlandse en Vlaamse universiteiten, 1970-2010

This dissertation examines manifestations of New Public Management (NPM) within Dutch and Flemish universities during the period 1970-2010. NPM is an umbrella concept involving the implementation of methods, techniques, and concepts developed in or inspired by the private sector in public and semi-public organizations. The dissertation comprises historical research using a social science analytical model. The research questions are: 1) To what extent do organizational changes within Dutch and Flemish universities between the 1970s and 2010s align with NPM? 2) How are NPM organizational changes related to developments in the broader context and trends within the organization? The dissertation shows that, rather than a full 'wholesale' NPM reform package being introduced and adopted at the macro level in the Netherlands and Flanders, there was a 'pick-and-mix' process in which different elements from the NPM toolkit were implemented at different times. Reforms in the Netherlands were more frequent and generally more far-reaching than in Flanders. Comparing manifestations of NPM across the four universities reveals a volatile process, with different elements from the ‘NPM toolkit’ employed during different periods of organizational change. Analysis shows that the introduction of new management styles and techniques occurred at all universities during all analyzed periods of organizational change. All universities implemented forms of hierarchization in business operations and governance. While external developments like the Bologna Process were mentioned in discussions about organizational, internal organizational problems often played a more significant role, such as grievances over the university’s organizational quality, financial problems, and crisis. NPM organizational changes were primarily instigated by internal individuals. Illustrative is KU Leuven’s rector André Oosterlinck, who extensively involved his business network in organizational changes and introduced private sector techniques. Conversely, in some cases, key actors had backgrounds outside the university, such as VU board chairman René Smit, who had held various executive positions in the public and semi-public sector. Interestingly, key actors sometimes had more intentions to implement NPM reforms than were actually implemented. This was sometimes due to internal opposition, but more often to legal restrictions. For instance, both Leiden chair Vredevoogd and Leuven rector Oosterlinck favored forms of privatization, but this proved impossible as governments maintained control over tuition fees. The dissertation demonstrates NPM’s multifaceted manifestation. First, through the ‘pick-and-mix’ process where different elements from the ‘NPM toolkit’ were introduced at different times. Second, through pseudo-NPM elements: (1) elements of organizational change resemble NPM, but there is some doubt as to whether they really are instances of NPM because actors do not recognize and acknowledge them as such; (2) the source of inspiration was not in the style of NPM; (3) developments weren’t new. Third, findings indicate contradictions: a reform might show NPM elements while simultaneously moving in the opposite direction. Fourth, hybridity existed: traditional university governance was mixed with elements of NPM. Fifth, NPM ideas were proposed more often than reforms were actually implemented. Overall, the implementation of NPM was more nuanced than some NPM critics suggest. Combining a historical approach with social science conceptualization generated important insights. First, the analytical framework helped identify change processes as manifestations of NPM, enabling better understanding of recent Dutch and Flemish university history. Second, important nuances of the concept of NPM became visible, such as NPM’s multifaceted nature and context dependency. Third, using organizational archives provided relevant insights about NPM changes at the university level, overlooked when examining system-level changes only. Fourth, the historical perspective emphasized the roles of specific actor, clarifying when, how, why, and by whom NPM ideas were introduced. Finally, the research showed the importance of actors: their decisions were decisive in shaping the university as an organization.