This article explores the link between modes of funding, governance and performance in higher education with the help of a case study involving three engineering colleges in West Bengal, India. It examines the major factors driving performances in the selected higher education institutions. It explains how the ability to adopt and implement performative policies depends on the objective functions, mode of funding and the reputation of the institutions. The findings suggest that the obsession with performance and its linkage with funding may not necessarily lead to a sustained and inclusive improvement in quality in the higher education sector. On the other hand, institutions driven by an objective of maximising prestige may ensure quality without any performative governance policies in place. The findings are contextualised in the larger debate about implementing neo-liberal policies for the improvement of quality in the higher education sector at the national and global level.
AltbachP. A., & JayaramN. (2010, December 1). Can India garner the demographic dividend? The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/Can-India-garner-the-demographic-dividend/article15575550.ece
2.
BallS. J. (2000). Performativities and fabrications in the education economy: Towards the performative society?The Australian Educational Researcher, 27(2), 1–23.
3.
BerganS. (2004). A tale of two cultures in higher education policies: The rule of law or an excess of legalism?Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(2), 172–185.
4.
BolandJ. A. (2005). Student participation in shared governance: A means of advancing democratic values?Tertiary Education and Management, 11(3), 199–217.
5.
BolmanL. G., & DealT. E. (1991). Reframing organizations. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
6.
BessJ. L. (1988). Collegiality and bureaucracy in the modern university: The influence of information and power on decision making structures. Teachers College Press.
7.
BlomA., & SaekiH. (2012). Employability and skill-sets of newly graduated engineers in India: A study. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 6(4), 7.
8.
ChattopadhyayS. (2016). Neoliberal approach to governance reform in the universities: A critique and a possible alternative. In R. Kumar (Ed.), Neoliberalism and educational crisis in South Asia: Alternatives and possibilities (pp. 243–260). Routledge.
9.
ChattopadhyayS. (2019). State market dynamics in higher education financing. In N. V. Varghese, & J. Panigrahi, (Eds.), India higher education report 2018: Financing of higher education. SAGE Publications.
10.
ChowdharyT. H. (2001). Do we need the AICTE?Economic and Political Weekly, 36(7), 595–596.
11.
ClotfelterC. T. (1996). Buying the best: Cost escalation in elite higher education. Princeton University Press.
12.
DavisJ. H., SchoormanF. D., & DonaldsonL. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.
13.
DeshpandeJ. V. (2000). AICTE as politicians’ handmaiden. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(49), 4307–4308.
14.
DreesJ. M., & HeugensP. P. (2013). Synthesizing and extending resource dependence theory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1666–1698.
15.
EckelP. D., & KezarA. (2016). The intersecting authority of boards, presidents, and faculty: Toward shared leadership. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges. JHU Press.
16.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.
17.
HirschW. Z. (2001). Initiatives for improving shared governance. In W. Z. Hirsch, & L. E. Weber (Eds.), Governance in higher education: The university in a state of flux (pp. 143–154). Economica.
18.
IngramP., & SimonsT. (1995). Institutional and resource dependence determinants of responsiveness to work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1466–1482.
19.
JongbloedB. (2007). Creating public-private dynamics in higher education funding. A discussion of three options. In J. Enders, & B. Jongbloed (Eds.), Public-private dynamics in higher education: Expectations, developments and outcomes (pp. 113–138). Verlag.
20.
JensenM. C., & MecklingW. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
21.
KarranT., & MallinsonL. (2019). Academic freedom and world-class universities: A virtuous circle?Higher Education Policy, 32(3), 397–417.
22.
KingR. P. (2007). Governance and accountability in the higher education regulatory state. Higher Education, 53(4), 411–430.
23.
LyotardJ. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (Vol. 10). University of Minnesota Press.
24.
MajumdarT. (1983). Investments in education and social choice. Cambridge University Press.
25.
MarginsonS. (2011). Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 411–433.
26.
MehrotraS. (2015). The employability of tertiary-level graduates in India (p. 251). India Higher Education Report.
27.
Nasscom. (2009). Perspective 2020: Transform business, transform India. Nasscom and McKinsey & Company.
28.
Nasscom-McKinsey. (2005). Extending India’s leadership of the global IT and BPO industries. Nasscom and McKinsey & Company.
29.
PfefferJ., & SalancikG. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press.
30.
PlanasA., SolerP., FullanaJ., PalliseraM., & VilàM. (2013). Student participation in university governance: The opinions of professors and students. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 571–583.
31.
ScottW. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. SAGE Publications.
32.
SharmaS. L. (2014). Quality of education: Private and public. In S. L. Sharma, B. S. Ghuman, & S. Parkash (Eds.), Higher education in India: The changing scenario. Rawat Publications.
33.
SudarshanA., & SubramanianS. (2013). India infrastructure report: Private sector’s role in Indian higher education. Routledge.
