A central question in public administration is whether public organizations differ from private ones. While organizational publicness theory has advanced this debate, research on its outcomes remains limited. This study examines how three dimensions of publicness—regulative, normative, and cultural—individually and jointly influence universities’ efforts to promote affordable higher education. Using data from 211 Korean universities and focusing on three indicators—equal opportunity admissions, tuition waivers, and scholarships—the study identifies both direct and interactive effects. The results show that regulative, normative, and cultural dimensions are significantly associated with affordability, though their influence varies across policy instruments. Importantly, the findings reveal that interactions between regulative and normative publicness do not always reinforce one another; instead, under certain conditions, they may attenuate or redirect the effects of one another. These results underscore the complexity of publicness, demonstrating that dimensions can complement or conflict with one another in shaping outcomes.
AndrewsR.BoyneG. A.WalkerR. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl_3), i301–i319.
2.
AntonsenM.JørgensenT. (1997). The ‘publicness’ of public organizations. Public Administration, 75(2), 337–357.
3.
BarrN. (2001). Funding higher education: Policies for access and quality. House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, Post-16 Student Support, Session 2, 24.
4.
BaumS.MaJ. (2010). Trends in college pricing. College Board.
5.
BaumS.KuroseC.McPhersonM. (2013). An overview of American higher education. The Future of Children, 23(1), 17–39.
6.
BeckerG. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. University of Chicago Press.
7.
BowenW. G.KurzweilM. A.TobinE. M. (2005). Equity and excellence in American higher education. University of Virginia Press.
8.
BozemanB. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories. Jossey-Bass.
9.
BozemanB. (2007). Public values and public interest. Georgetown University Press.
10.
BozemanB.BretschneiderS. (1994). The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: A test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 197–224.
11.
BozemanB.MoultonS. (2011). Integrative publicness: A framework for public management strategy and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 3), i363–i380.
12.
BreznikK.LawK. M. (2019). What do mission statements reveal about the values of top universities in the world?International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(5), 1362–1375.
13.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C.StoneM. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663.
14.
ChaeJ. E.HongH. K. (2009). The expansion of higher education led by private universities in Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(3), 341–355.
15.
ConferC.MamiseishviliK. (2012). College choice of minority students admitted to institutions in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Journal of College Admission, 217, 4–15.
16.
DiMaggioP.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–60.
17.
DynarskiS.Scott-ClaytonJ. (2013). Financial aid policy: Lessons from research. The Future of Children, 23(1), 67–91.
18.
EmmertM. A.CrowM. M. (1988). Public, private and hybrid organizations: An empirical examination of the role of publicness. Administration & Society, 20(2), 216–244.
19.
EssackS. Y.LingahT.MashigeK. P.MtshaliN.NaidooI.NaidooP.OosthuizenF.PillayS.SulemanF. (2010). Government funding as leverage for quality teaching and learning. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(3), 1–13.
20.
FeeneyM.WelchE. (2012). Realized publicness at public and private research universities. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 272–284.
21.
FryarA. H.HawesD. P. (2012). Competing explanations for minority enrollments in higher education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 83–99.
22.
GoffeeR.JonesG. (1998). The character of a corporation. HarperBusiness.
23.
Goldrick-RabS. (2016). Paying the price: College costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the American dream. University of Chicago Press.
24.
GoldsteinS. M.NaorM. (2005). Linking publicness to operations management practices: A study of quality management practices in hospitals. Journal of Operations Management, 23(2), 209–228.
25.
GuoC. (2007). When government becomes the principal philanthropist: The effects of public funding on patterns of nonprofit governance. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 458–473.
26.
HasbullahM. A.SelirowangiN. B.PradanaM. S.KhulelB.HudiM. (2020). Quality and affordable education through quality management systems in higher education. EDUTEC: Journal of Education and Technology, 3(2), 151–160.
27.
HeinrichC.FournierE. (2004). Dimensions of publicness and performance in substance abuse treatment organizations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(1), 49–70.
28.
HellerD. E. (2001). The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
HillmanN. W.WeichmanT. J. (2016). Education deserts: The continued significance of “place” in the twenty-first century. American Council on Education Center for Policy Research and Strategy.
30.
HoutM. (2012). Social and economic returns to college education in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 379–400.
31.
JohnstoneD. B. (2004). The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: Comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 403–410.
32.
JørgensenT. B.BozemanB. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.
33.
JørgensenT. B.RutgersM. R. (2015). Public values: Core or confusion? Introduction to the centrality and puzzlement of public values research. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(1), 3–12.
34.
KavanaghS. (2014). Defining and creating value for the public. Government Finance Review, 30(5), 57–60.
35.
KimB.ParkN. (2018). Lessons learned from financing universal higher education in Korea. International Journal of Educational Development, 58, 116–127.
36.
KnottJ. H.A. PayneA. (2004). The impact of state governance structures on management and performance of public organizations: A study of higher education institutions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23, 13–30.
37.
KoJ. W. (2017). Quality assurance system in Korean higher education. In ShahM.NairQ. (Eds.), The rise of quality assurance in Asian higher education (pp. 109–125). Elsevier.
38.
Korea Ministry of Education. (2022, February22). Partial amendment bill of the ‘Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act’ passes cabinet meeting. Korea Ministry of Education. https://blog.naver.com/moeblog/222653797928
39.
Korean Council for University Education. (2016). Handbook for university evaluation and accreditation. https://aims.kcue.or.kr/
40.
LadermanS. (2023). Does publicness matter? A mixed method analysis identifying and measuring institutional contributions to state goals for public higher education [Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver]. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2175. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/2175
41.
LattucaL. R.StarkJ. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context. John Wiley & Sons.
42.
LevinJ. S. (1999). Missions and structures: Bringing clarity to perceptions about globalization and higher education in Canada. Higher Education, 37(4), 377–399.
43.
LochnerL.MorettiE. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports. American Economic Review, 94(1), 155–189.
44.
LowryR. (2001). Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university prices and spending: Multiple means to similar ends. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 845–861.
45.
McGuinnessA. C.Jr., (1988). State postsecondary education structures handbook. ECS.
46.
MerrittC. (2014). Specifying and testing a multi-dimensional model of publicness: An analysis of mental health and substance abuse treatment facilities [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas].
47.
MerrittC. (2019). What makes an organization public? Managers’ perceptions in the mental health and substance abuse treatment system. American Review of Public Administration, 49(4), 411–424.
48.
MillerS.MoultonS. (2014). Publicness in policy environments: A multilevel analysis of substance abuse treatment services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 553–589.
49.
MinN.LeeK. H.YangK. (2020). Multidimensional publicness and collaboration for community benefits: The case of US hospitals. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 381–390.
50.
MoguesT.YuB.FanS.McBrideL. (2012). The impacts of public investment in and for agriculture: Synthesis of the existing evidence. International Food Policy Research Institute.
51.
MooreM. H. (2013). Recognizing public value. Harvard University Press.
MoultonS. (2009). Putting together the publicness puzzle: A framework for realized publicness. Public Administration Review, 69(5), 889–900.
54.
MuntzP.CrabtreeD. (2006). All together different: The world of Christian higher education. Journal of College Admission, 192, 16–21.
55.
OreopoulosP.PetronijevicU. (2013). Making college worth it: A review of the returns to higher education. Future of Children, 23(1), 41–65.
56.
PascarellaE. T.TerenziniP. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass.
57.
PuroN.MinN.Joseph KellyR. (2023). Publicness, organizational strategies, and public value outcomes: An empirical analysis of US acute care hospitals. Public Management Review, 25(12), 2344–2369.
58.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
59.
RichardsonR. C.BraccoK. R.CallanP. M.FinneyJ. E. (1999). Designing state higher education systems for a new century. Oryx Press.
60.
RutherfordA.RabovskyT. (2014). Evaluating impacts of performance funding policies on student outcomes in higher education. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655(1), 185–208.
61.
SchultzT. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, 51(1), 1–17.
62.
ScottW. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Sage.
63.
ScottW. R. (2008) Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agent. Organization Studies, 29(2), 219–38.
64.
StrachP. (2009). Making higher education affordable: Policy design in postwar America. Journal of Policy History, 21(1), 61–88.
65.
SuX. (2017). Dimensional publicness and serving the vulnerable: Analyses of specialized substance abuse treatment programs. American Review of Public Administration, 47(8), 898–913.
66.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
67.
Van GinkelH. J. A. (2001). Variety and impact: Difference that matter. Some thoughts on the variety of university governance systems and their impact on university policies and strategies. In HirschW. Z.WeberL. (Eds.), Governance in higher education: The University in a state of flux (pp. 155–166). Economica.
68.
WalkerR.HillsP. (2012). Partnership characteristics, network behavior, and publicness: Evidence on the performance of sustainable development projects. International Public Management Journal, 15(4), 479–99.
