Chapter 32

Autonomy in Higher Education

Şefika Şule Erçetin and Leyla Yılmaz Fındık

Abstract Higher education system is getting more complex due to the recent
growth and development. There has been an ongoing debate over the governmental
structures of higher education institutions. Current international debate reveals a
widespread institutional tendency to shift from centralized to decentralized system
in higher education sector. The aim of the paper is to provide global trends related
to autonomy and university autonomy and to outline the concept of autonomy. The
study also seeks to provide long-term vision for the higher education sector related
to university autonomy. The study concludes that there is heightened awareness
among university leaders and policy makers that university autonomy is the key-
stone for an effective and efficient higher education sector. It also summarizes that
universities in the UK can freely decide on all aspects of administrative structures.
Higher education institutions in Netherlands are largely free to decide on all organi-
zational, financial, staffing and academic issues. Universities in France are per-
ceived to lack freedom of action in nearly all areas of organizational, financial,
staffing, and academic issues.

Ş. Ş. Erçetin (*)
Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
e-mail: sefikasule@gmail.com
L. Y. Fındık
Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: leylayilmazfindik@gmail.com

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 463

Ş. Ş. Erçetin (ed.), Chaos, Complexity and Leadership 2016, Springer
Proceedings in Complexity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64554-4_32
464 Ş. Ş. Erçetin and L. Y. Fındık

32.1 Introduction

Higher education system has been developing rapidly since the 1980s and has been
progressing under the pressure of changes occurred worldwide. Its effects on eco-
nomics become more and more important. Higher education sector has undergone
dramatic changes, not only in terms of number of institutions but also in types of
institutions and geographical spread. Universities are expected to produce knowl-
edge, improve equality, and respond to the needs of society. They are also the key
driver for the evolution of the knowledge society and compete with private sector
and in international arena for students, for academic staff, and for research budget.
Thus, universities are expected to fulfill new roles and tasks and respond to new
challenges in an increasing complex and global environment.
Internationally increasing competition proposes a necessity to rearrange the uni-
versities’ governing structure. System higher education reaches a complex struc-
ture, and it seems impossible to ignore the rapidly changes in various contexts.
Universities and higher education system are managed to adapt these complex envi-
ronment. All these complexity brings the question of how to govern universities. It
is impossible for government to manage universities effectively in this complex
environment. Researches defended that universities having autonomy could manage
effectively in this increasing competition, adapt well to the changes, and meet the
needs of recent times. The governance of higher education tends to change on a new
administrative structure, which merges marketing power and government funding
(OECD 2003). Higher education sector has been a particular focus of reform for a
considerable time. These changes have generally been in the direction of providing
universities with more autonomy within a framework of greater external account-
ability for performance. Autonomy has been considered as an alternative adminis-
trative approach.

32.1.1 What is Autonomy?

Autonomy is a combined word that comes from both “autos” which means self
and “nomos” which means law in Greek. Turkish Language Society defined the
term of autonomy as being independent to a certain extent from external supervi-
sion while managing self-authority and leading administrative structure (TDK).
Autonomy and freedom usually replaced one another. Autonomy is a term that has
been identified based on freedom, and freedom has been used instead of auton-
omy. Technically autonomy has been rarely used in philosophy and social sci-
ences. Autonomy has various definitions in terms of philosophy (Cuypers 2010).
Feinberg (1986, 28) identified autonomy with four contexts related to each other,
and autonomy has been associated closely to four definitions: capacity to direct
yourself, actual condition of self-government and virtues related to this, ideal
character, and domination and self-determining. It is essential that autonomy is
32 Autonomy in Higher Education 465

usually associated with conditions as autonomy has existed under appropriate

circumstances (Cuypers 2010).
Wohlstetter et al. (1995, 338) defined autonomy as the capacity of the leader to
determine internal and external affairs independently, and the ability of self-
management is considered as autonomy in school. Autonomy also refers to acknowl-
edge people, treat equally, and respect people to take their own decisions without
interfering in their freedom (Duignan 2006, 82). Gawlik (2008, 786) defines auton-
omy in education as the ability to take decisions related to internal and external
affairs of the school in jurisdiction of a school principal as well as the authority and
flexibility the school principal has in order to make changes and develop the situa-
tions related to education and learning. The notion of school autonomy refers to the
ability to take decisions about the school management concerning government,
staff, curriculum, teaching method, discipline, budget, student admittance, and
learning activities, and school autonomy provides schools new areas and opportuni-
ties to produce their own practices (Agasisti et al. 2013).
Autonomy includes various definitions, and worldwide researches indicate that
the term autonomy is usually associated with participation, localization, responsi-
bility, leadership, accountability, and quality. In the past it was defined as participa-
tion in school government, supporting the meeting held for taking decisions and
implementing democracy. However, autonomy is not the synonym of participation.
Recently, autonomy is associated with both quality and quality education.
Autonomy facilitates the use of the local knowledge, (Hanushek et al. 2013) and
this enables improving school effectiveness (Nechyba 2003). Moreover, taking
decisions close to local community contributes to monitoring school by parents and
local communities (Hanushek et al. 2013; Galiani et al. 2008). Administrator could
take initiative and act while taking decisions despite lack of information. In this
circumstance administrator may use autonomy for different reasons as well as to
improve the students’ performance. Autonomy could change the quality of the deci-
sion when local policy makers have limited technical capacity, and the communities
do not have the capacity of high-quality services. All these issues indicate that the
success of autonomy reforms depends on human capital (Hanushek et al. 2013).
Autonomy is considered a notion including freedom, independence, localization,
privatization, delegation, devolution, and decentralization; however autonomy has
recently emerged including all these notions mentioned above. Autonomy and
localization are intermingled, so it is crucial to define the difference between these
two notions. In the hierarchical system, localization is the delegation from the cen-
tral government related to taking decisions and utilizing sources (Bray 1984, 5 cited
in Fiske 1996, 8). Localization also refers to delegate from central authority to local
authority (Rondinelli 1981). Brown (1990) summarized localization as delegating
authority from upper to lower government unit. The logic of localization is based on
having much more information about the needs and problems of local community.
People via localization have the opportunity to participate in the issues related to
them (Brown 1990; Hanson 2006; Sui-chu Ho 2006). Localization is identified as
delegating the authority of taking decisions related to policies, planning, adminis-
trator, and allocations of resources and power to local community and school-based
466 Ş. Ş. Erçetin and L. Y. Fındık

administrator (Zajda 2006). Hanson (2006, 10) defined localization as to delegate

authority of taking decisions and responsibility to the lower level of the government
or among organizations. Localization in education refers to the policies to improve
effectiveness, flexibility, accountability, and responsibility in both developed and
developing countries (Hanson 1991; Kim 2000; Sui-chu Ho 2006). Localization is
discussed in three different forms (Hanson 2006; Rondinelli 1981; Paqueo and
Lammert 2000; Winkler 1991; Zajda 2006):
• Deconcentration is just sharing not the authority but the assignments and duties
among units.
• Delegation is defined to delegate the authority to take decisions from central
government unit to local government units; however this authority that could be
withdrawn is needed.
• Devolution is to delegate authority to autonomous unit that acts independent and/
or without permission.
The notion of autonomy and localization in the study is considered close to each
other; however these two terms have different identifications. Autonomy is not asso-
ciated with total independence (Ekundayo and Adedokun 2009; Nybom 2008), but
autonomy is discussed as taking extensive decisions within limits. This means that
less local power but more local responsibility (Nybom 2008).

32.1.2 Autonomy in Universities

Higher education systems are at center of development and economic growth.

Higher education has had more and more complexity with the increases of public
and private institutions. For this reason, it is accepted essential to govern effectively
and monitor higher education system. Expanding higher education sector has been
changing from public-controlled institutions to public-supervised institutions.
Successful higher education systems require supportive government structure where
universities and institutions have autonomy (Estermann and Steinel 2011; Fielden
2008; OECD 2003; Raza 2009). Higher education systems are replaced with univer-
sity structures which succeed in autonomy and accountability (Babalola et al. 2007;
Estermann and Steinel 2011; Raza 2009; Weber 2006). The government empha-
sized to support institutional autonomy including academic, organization, finance,
and personal issues (Lisbon Declaration 2007).
Institutional autonomy in universities is approved across Europe, and studies
related to autonomy are supported. Graz Declaration (2003), Lisbon Declaration
(2007), and Prague Declaration (2009) emphasize improving autonomy in universi-
ties. Governments are highlighted to improve university autonomy via strengthen-
ing institutions and regulating budget and legal proceedings in Graz Declaration
(2003). Lisbon Declaration (2007) emphasizes that universities in Europe are to
support autonomy in administrative process. In addition, Prague Declaration (2009)
highlights university needs and strengthened autonomy to serve better society.
32 Autonomy in Higher Education 467

The Universitatum of Magna Charta that was signed in Europe on September

1988 indicates that institutional autonomy is a prerequisite for the modern universi-
ties’ effective and efficient operations. “Autonomy” is a journey undertaken over a
period of time rather than a destination at a single point in time. Its implementation
and context are different in different cultures, countries, and institutions.
Berdahl (1990) refers to autonomy as the university power by determining its
own goal and programs. Autonomy is a heavily value-loaded concept. University
autonomy strengthens universities to meet the request of communities efficiently
and rapidly (Nybom 2008). Autonomy should include essential components to clar-
ify its meaning. These components are (Ashby 1966, 296):
• Freedom in selecting staff and students
• Freedom in determining curriculum content
• Freedom in allocating funds
Autonomy provides universities to be free to manage their own affairs (Fielden
2008). Autonomy of universities can be defined as to give freedom to university
governing themselves (Ekundayo and Adedokun 2009). There are four types of uni-
versity autonomy: financial, staffing, organizational, and staffing. Organizational
autonomy focuses on the universities that are relatively free to decide on their
administrative structures. Financial autonomy of universities refers to autonomy
which enables an institution charging tuition fee. Autonomy of staffing includes
capacity to recruit staff. Academic autonomy includes both the capacity in defining
academic profiles, introducing or terminating degree programs (Estermann and
Nokkala 2009; Estermann and Steinel 2011).
Research claims that school autonomy has been associated with student perfor-
mance, and studies also reveal that there is a statistically positive relation between
autonomy and student performance and autonomy has a positive effect on student
performance (Allen 2010; Clark 2008, 2009; Hanushek et al. 2013; Keating 2006;
Machin and Vernoit 2011; Mizrav 2014; Paletta 2014). A study that studied the rela-
tion between university autonomy and performance indicates that universities in
top-performing countries can enjoy degrees of autonomy (Aghion et al. 2008). In
addition, autonomy helps to improve quality standards (Estermann and Steinel
2011; Lisbon Declaration 2007; Reichert and Tauch 2005; Sursock and Smidt 2010).

32.1.3 Dimensions of University Autonomy

There are autonomy’s different dimensions discussed related with higher education:
financial, organizational, academic autonomy, and staffing (Estermann et al. 2011;
Turcan et  al. 2016). In order to make a comparison between four dimensions of
autonomy, higher education system is split into four clusters: countries in “high
group” (100% and 81%), “medium-high” group (80% and 61%), “medium-low”
group (60% and 41%), and “low” group (40% and 0%) (Estermann and Nokkala
2009; Estermann et al. 2011).
468 Ş. Ş. Erçetin and L. Y. Fındık

32.2 Organizational Autonomy

Organizational autonomy refers to a university where rectors and top management

could make their own decisions related to legal existing and academic structure via
internal administrative structures (Estermann and Nokkala 2009; Estermann et al.
2011). Organizational autonomy means setting structures of university and statues,
signing contracts, and electing decision-making individuals or groups (Lisbon
Declaration 2007). Organizational autonomy includes rector election procedure,
selection criteria of rector and resignation of the rector, and external members’
selection and inclusion in governing bodies (Estermann and Nokkala 2009;
Estermann et al. 2011).
Figure 32.1 indicates that the UK has the highest scores, 100% on all indicators
in organizational autonomy. This means that universities in the UK can decide with-
out state interference on all aspects of organizational autonomy. Netherlands scor-
ing 69% in organizational autonomy is situated in the second cluster, meaning
medium high in organizational autonomy. This medium-high cluster includes that
higher education system in the second cluster is highly flexible related to academic
structures, to create profit and nonprofit legal entities. Higher education institutions
in Netherlands seem largely free in deciding on academic structure and establishing
legal entity; however there is still state interference on some aspects of organiza-
tional autonomy. On the other hand, universities in France, scoring 59%, have
medium-high autonomy that is the third cluster in organizational autonomy.
Medium-low cluster means that majority of the system faces regulatory constraints
in organizational autonomy’s most areas. Higher education institutions in France
have severely limited their capacity due to administrative issues.

100%
90% 100%

80%
70%
60%
69%
50%
40%
30% 59%
20%
10%
0%
United Kingdom Netherlands France

Fig. 32.1 Level of organizational autonomy (Source: Estermann et al. 2011)

32 Autonomy in Higher Education 469

32.3 Financial Autonomy

Financial autonomy is defined to decide without interference of state on all aspects

of financial issues. This means institutions of higher education are free in deciding
on acquired and allocated funds, tuition fees, and accumulated surplus (Estermann
and Nokkala 2009). Financial autonomy also identifies that universities have the
autonomy on budgeting system and budget allocation and in charging tuition fees
and keeping surplus (Lisbon Declaration 2007). The study conducted by Aghion
et al. (2008) claims that funding and autonomy are mutually reinforcing factors, and
more funding has bigger effect on performance in more autonomous universities.
Figure 32.2 presents that the UK scoring 89% is situated in the top cluster which
means institutions of higher education are considered to be highly autonomous in
financial autonomy. This highly autonomous indicates that higher education institu-
tions in the UK can decide on almost all aspects of financial issues without state
interference. Netherlands scoring 77% has medium-high autonomy and is situated
in the second cluster. This second cluster, medium-high financial autonomy in
Netherlands, refers to relatively flexible public funding modalities, and this size of
financial autonomy offers universities to keep surplus. Universities having medium-
high financial autonomy can borrow money and own their buildings. Higher educa-
tion institutions in France scoring 45% are in the third medium-low cluster. This
medium-low cluster offers fairly flexible public funding modalities. Universities in
France have limited financial autonomy in borrowing money, owning buildings, and
charging tuition fees, and there are many constraints related to financial issues.

90%
80% 89%
70%
60%
77%
50%
40%
30% 45%
20%
10%
0%
United Kingdom Netherlands France

Fig. 32.2 Level of financial autonomy (Source: Estermann et al. 2011)

470 Ş. Ş. Erçetin and L. Y. Fındık

32.4 Staffing Autonomy

Staffing autonomy means that higher education institutions have the responsibility
for recruitment salaries and promotions. Universities having fully staffing auton-
omy are free in recruiting and setting salary level for academicians and managerial
staff (Estermann and Nokkala 2009; Estermann et  al. 2011). Staffing autonomy
includes capacity in deciding on recruitment procedure, salary, dismissal and pro-
motion for all academicians, and managerial staff (Estermann and Nokkala 2009;
Estermann et al. 2011).
Figure 32.3 indicates that UK’s higher education institutions’ scoring 96% falls
in the top cluster in staffing autonomy. Institutions of higher education in the UK
have a high level of autonomy in staffing freely deciding on all aspect of staff such
as recruitments, dismissal and promotion procedure, and salary. Netherlands scor-
ing 73% in staffing autonomy falls in medium-high cluster. Higher education insti-
tutions having medium-high autonomy in staffing retain autonomy over certain
aspects of staffing. These universities in second cluster have some regulations
related to staffing issues. France scoring 43% belongs to medium-low cluster in
staffing autonomy. This third cluster means that higher education institutions in
France face restriction on majority of staff issues and have little flexibility on
deciding related to staffing profiles.

100%
90%
80% 96%
70%
60%
50% 73%
40%
30% 43%
20%
10%
0%
United Kingdom Netherlands France

Fig. 32.3 Level of staffing autonomy (Source: Estermann et al. 2011)

32 Autonomy in Higher Education 471

32.5 Academic Autonomy

Academic autonomy means to decide on degree supply, curriculum and teaching,

and research methods and areas. Academic autonomy refers to capacity in decid-
ing on numbers of students, to selecting students, terminating programs, choos-
ing the language of instruction, selecting quality assurance mechanisms, and
designing degree programs’ content (Estermann and Nokkala 2009; Estermann
et al. 2011).
As shown in Fig. 32.4, UK scoring 94% is included in the top cluster, and higher
education institutions are considered as highly autonomous in academic issues.
This means that institutions of higher education in the UK can freely decide on
academic autonomy’s all aspects. Netherlands scoring 48% is situated in third
medium-low cluster in academic autonomy. This means that institutions of higher
education have restriction related to deciding capacity of universities on academic
issues. France scoring 37% is included in the low group. This refers to institutions
that lack flexibility in academic issues and face heavy restriction in academic con-
tent’s most areas.

100%
90%
80% 94%
70%
60%
50%
40%
48%
30%
20% 37%
10%
0%
United Kingdom Netherlands France

Fig. 32.4 Level of academic autonomy (Source: Estermann et al. 2011)

472 Ş. Ş. Erçetin and L. Y. Fındık

32.6 Discussion

Higher education has been expanded rapidly in recent years. For this reason, higher
education sector has introduced variety of reforms to respond changing demands
more closely. The focus is nowadays on increasing decentralization and organiza-
tional autonomy in higher education sector. Integral part of this changes and related
reform grants more autonomy to institutions of higher education by governing itself.
University autonomy has been central to the intense discussions in today’s world.
Autonomy is being intensively discussed as the key driver to enhance overall effec-
tiveness of higher education system. The need for autonomy has been attributed to
the multifaceted missions of the universities and its responsibilities to create new
knowledge to engage in critical analysis and transmit a cultural heritage to succeed-
ing generations. The capacity of a university to govern itself without state interfer-
ence is defined as autonomy.
Countries have various types of autonomy in institutions of higher education,
and some universities may have more autonomous system than the other universi-
ties. The UK has a highly autonomous system of higher education with regard to
organizational, financial, staffing, and academic autonomy. Universities in the UK
can freely decide on all aspects of administrative structures. Netherlands is situated
in medium-high and low cluster which means that higher education institutions in
Netherlands are largely free to decide on all organizational, financial, staffing, and
academic issues. France is included in mostly low cluster related to university
autonomy. Universities in France are perceived to lack of action freedom in nearly
most areas of organizational, financial, staffing, and academic issues.
The long-term intention of the higher education system is to continue adding
competency and transfer responsibility to the universities and increase autonomy in
higher education sector. Regulations related to administrative structure of higher
education institutions weaken autonomy and impede effort making strategic deci-
sion to promote effectiveness and productivity.
Being autonomous seems to be an important alternative for the universities
which are responsible to the changing need of the society and economy and contrib-
ute to find answers to global problems. Consensus among higher education special-
ist is to emphasize autonomy with the aim of ensuring responsive and flexible higher
education sector. For these reasons, governments across the world are experiment-
ing with reform in higher education that inevitably involves regulating higher edu-
cation system and offering higher education institutions increased levels of
autonomy. However, autonomy should not imply state withdrawal. Proper regula-
tory and financial environment for autonomous higher education institutions to
operate well should be created by the state. It is essential to examine how the uni-
versities are occurring besides current system. The level of university autonomy can
be changed according to the pattern of public government system of the countries
and administrative structures of the institutions. University autonomy and its inte-
gration within the higher education sector are also shaped by having established its
own norms and rules. In addition, politics and tradition play an important role in
32 Autonomy in Higher Education 473

perceived and implemented autonomy. Therefore, generalizing definition of auton-

omy as well as university autonomy seems impossible. Autonomy and university
autonomy should be considered and discussed in terms of the countries’ reality and
government structures.

References

Agasisti, T., Catalano, G., & Sibiano, P. (2013). Can schools be autonomous in a centralised edu-
cational system? On formal and actual school autonomy in the Italian context. International
Journal of Educational Management, 27(3), 292–310.
Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2008). Higher aspirations:
An agenda for reforming European universities. Brussel: IPM S.A.
Allen, R. (2010). Does school autonomy improve educational outcomes? Judging the performance
of foundation secondary schools in England. Department of Quantitative Social Science,
Institute of education, University of London (DoQSS Working Paper), No.10–02. Erişim:
http://repec.ioe.ac.uk/REPEc/pdf/qsswp1002.pdf. 01 Ocak 2015.
Ashby, E. (1966). Universities, British, Indian, African. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Babalola, J.  B., Jaiyeoba, A.  O., & Okediran, A. (2007). University autonomy and financial
reforms in Nigeria: Historical background, issues and recommendations from experience. In
J. B. Babalola & B. O. Emunemu (Eds.), Issues in higher education: Research evidence from
sub-saharan Africa (pp. 277–303). Lagos: Bolabay publications.
Berdahl, R. (1990). Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities.
Studies in Higher Education, 15(2), 169–180.
Bray, M. (1984). Education Planning in a Centralized System: The Papua New Guinea Experience.
Sydney: Sydney University Press and Waigani: University Papua New Guinea Press.
Brown, D. J. (1990). Decentralization and school based management. London: Taylor and Francis.
Clark, M.L. (2008). An examination of the relationship between school leadership autonomy and
student learning. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis, Vanderbilt University.
Clark, D. (2009). The performance and competitive effects of school autonomy. Journal of Political
Economy, 117(4), 745–783.
Cuypers, S. E. (2010). Autonomy in R. S. Peters’ educational theory. Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 43(1), 189–207.
Duignan, P. (2006). Educational leadership key challenges and ethical tensions. New  York:
Cambridge University Press.
Ekundayo, H.  T., & Adedokun, M.  O. (2009). The unsolved issue of university autonomy and
academic freedom in Nigerian Universities. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 4(1), 61–67.
Estermann, T., & Nokkala, T. (2009). University autonomy in Europe I. Brussels: European
University Association.
Estermann, T., & Steinel, M. (2011). University autonomy in Europe. Beiträge zur
Hochschulforschung, 33(2), 86–91.
Estermann, T., Nokkala, T., & Steinel, M. (2011). University autonomy in Europe II, the scorecard.
Brussel: European University Association.
Feinberg, J. (1986). Harm to self: The moral limits of the criminal law (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fielden, J. (2008). Global trends in university governance. World Bank Education Paper Series.
Washington, DC: World Bank. Erişim: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/
Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079956815/Global_Trends_University_
Governance_webversion.pdf. 20 Mart 2016.
474 Ş. Ş. Erçetin and L. Y. Fındık

Fiske, E. B. (1996). Decentralization of education: Politics and consensus. Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
Galiani, S., Gertler, P., & Schargrodsky, E. (2008). School decentralization: Helping the good get
better, but leaving the poor behind. Journal of Public Economics, 92(10–11), 2106–2120.
Gawlik, M. (2008). Breaking loose: Principal autonomy in charter and public schools. Educational
Policy, 22(6), 783–804.
Graz Declaration. (2003). Graz declaration 2003: Forward from Berlin: The role of the universi-
ties. Brussels: European University Association.
Hanson, E.  M. (1991). School-based management and educational reform: cases in the USA
and Spain. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 336 832. Washington, D.C.: ERIC
Clearinghouse.
Hanson, E. M. (2006). Strategies of educational decentralization: Key questions and core issues. In
C. Bjork (Ed.), Educational decentralization: Asian experiences and conceptual contributions
(pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hanushek, E.  A., Link, S., & Woessman, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make sense every-
where? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics, 104, 212–232.
Keating, J. S. (2006). The relationship between principal autonomy and student achievement.
Unpublished Doctorate Thesis. Pepperdine University.
Kim, Y. H. (2000). Recent changes and developments in Korean school education. In Y. C. Cheng
& T.  Townsend (Eds.), Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific region:
Challenges for the future, swets and zeitlingers, lisse (pp. 83–106).
Lisbon Declaration. (2007). Lisbon declaration 2007 Europe’s universities beyond 2010: Diversity
with a common purpose. Brussels: European University Association.
Machin, S., & Vernoit, J. (2011). Changing school autonomy: Academy schools and their introduc-
tion to England’s education. London: Centre for the Economics of Education, London School
of Economics.
Mizrav, E. (2014). Could principal autonomy produce better schools? Evidence from the schools
and staffing survey. Unpublished Master Thesis. Georgetown University.
Nechyba, T. J. (2003). Centralization, fiscal federalism and private school attendance. International
Economic Review, 44(1), 179–204.
Nybom, T. (2008). University autonomy: A matter of political rhetoric? London: Portland
Press Ltd..
OECD. (2003). Education policy analysis. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Paletta, A. (2014). Improving students’ learning through school autonomy: Evidence from the
international civic and citizenship survey. Journal of School choice: International Research
and Reform, 8(3), 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2014.942173.
Paqueo, V., & Lammert, J. (2000). Decentralization in education: Q & A for the web/knowledge
nugget (external). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Prague Declaration. (2009). European universities-looking forward with confidence. Brussels:
European University Association.
Raza R (2009) Examining autonomy and accountability in public and private tertiary insti-
tutions. Washington, DC: World Bank. Erişim: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/2009/11/11643282/examining-autonomy-accountability-public-private-tertiary-institu-
tions. 21 Mart 2016.
Reichert, S., & Tauch, C. (2005). Tredns IV: European universities implementing Bologna.
Brussels: European University Association.
Rondinelli, A.  D. (1981). Government decentralisation in comparative perspective: Theory and
practice in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67, 133–145.
Sui-chu Ho, E. (2006). Educational decentralization in three Asian societies: Japan, Korea
and Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 590–603. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09578230610704800.
Sursock, A., & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European higher education.
Brussels: European University Association.
32 Autonomy in Higher Education 475

Turcan, R. V., John, E., & Bugaian, L. (2016). (Re)Discovering university autonomy: The global
paradox of stakeholder and educational values in higher education. USA: Palgrace Macmillan.
Weber, L. (2006). University autonomy, a necessary, but not sufficient condition for excellence –
being a paper presented at IAU/IAUP Presidents’ symposium. Chiang Mai, Thailand 8–9 Dec.
Winkler, D. R. (1991). Decentralization in education: An economic perspective. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The
question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9(4), 331–358.
Zajda, J. (2006). Decentralization and privatization in education: The role of the state. In J. Zajda
(Ed.), Decentralization and privatization in education: The role of the state (pp.  3–31).
Dordrecht: Springer.