Asian Higher Education Outlook

THE PERFORMANCE OF ASIAN

HIGHER EDUCATION
UNDERSTANDING PRODUCTIVITY ACROSS
INSTITUTIONS AND SYSTEMS

Edited by Gwilym Croucher, Chuanyi Wang

and Jiale Yang
The Performance of Asian
Higher Education

With contributions from several Asia-Pacific countries, this book compares per-
formance and productivity in higher education from the perspective of institu-
tional change. Using multiple methods and datasets and including case studies
from Australia, Cambodia, China, Malaysia, India and Japan, the authors focus
on shedding light on the efficacy of institutional policies and reforms.
The worldwide Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education neared
40 per cent in 2020 due to the dramatic increase in enrolments in many devel-
oping economies, especially in Asia. This significant increase in the number of
students in higher education brings great benefits but requires major ongoing
investment by governments around the world. This growth has followed waves
of internationalization and marketization, and universities are undergoing sub-
stantial change in their organization and character. The goal of many institu-
tional policies and reforms has been better performance and higher productivity.
Yet little is known about whether they have achieved this aim. Students, gov-
ernment officials and university leaders all have the right to ask whether the
outcomes of higher education justify the costs of running the system. Although
increasing attention has been paid to higher education institutions’ management
and operation, the study of higher education performance and productivity is
still in its relative infancy compared to other enterprises.
Written for students and scholars interested in higher education management
and productivity, this book will also appeal to government officials and univer-
sity leaders keen to know more about institutional reform and how to achieve
better performance.

Gwilym Croucher is a Research Academic in the Melbourne Centre for the

Study of Higher Education. A higher education analyst, he was a 2017–2018
Fulbright Scholar and has been a Chief Investigator on major Australian Research
Council-funded projects. His research focuses on questions of the management
of universities and the political economy of higher education.
Chuanyi Wang  is the Associate Professor at the Institute of Education,
Tsinghua University. He is the vice director of the Ministry of Education-Tsin-
ghua University Research Center for Educational Strategy and Policy, and the
Research Center for Graduate Education, Tsinghua University. His research
fields include graduate education and assessment of higher education. He was
awarded the first prize for the National Excellent Achievements in Educational
Science Research by the Ministry of Education, China.

Jiale Yang is a Researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Evaluation

Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Her research interests include tal-
ent and discipline evaluation. She was awarded the Future Scholar of Tsinghua
University in 2018.
Asian Higher Education Outlook
Series Editors
Zhou Zhong, Tsinghua University, China.
Hamish Coates, Tsinghua University, China.
Jinghuan Shi, Tsinghua University, China.
Chuanjie Zhang, Tsinghua University, China.

Higher education in Asia plays an instrumental and transformative role in many

millions of lives. A diverse array of universities has grown to serve far-reaching
academic and social purposes in elevating people from poverty, cultivating pro-
fessional workers, and solving complex problems. Asia’s flagship universities have
forged a particularly distinctive agenda, educating national leaders, pioneering
institutional reforms, and contributing globally influential research.
Yet the world knows remarkably little about Asian higher education, per-
haps due to the scale, speed, recency and diversity of growth. This book series
responds to the pressing need to learn more. Touching on a range of topics, the
books tackle major challenges, document practical insights, and explore imagi-
native directions.
Everyone interested in higher education will enjoy this series. This includes
people studying education, public policy and management, professionals for
whom knowledge about this domain is advantageous, faculty and institution
leaders, and experts in government and related institutions.
The series is supported by Asia’s leading universities. Each book is curated by
experienced editors and drafted by prominent scholars working across a wide
range of fields. The topics are framed to be of contemporary and enduring rel-
evance. The analyses are designed to document and impel the continuing and
robust formation of higher education in Asia.
List of titles:

Global Student Engagement

Policy Insights and International Research Perspectives
Edited by Hamish Coates, Xi Gao, Fei Guo and Jinghuan Shi

The Performance of Asian Higher Education

Understanding Productivity Across Institutions and Systems
Edited by Gwilym Croucher, Chuanyi Wang and Jiale Yang

For more information about the series, please visit www.routledge.com/

Asian-Higher-Education-Outlook/book-series/AHEO
The Performance of Asian
Higher Education
Understanding Productivity Across
Institutions and Systems

Edited by Gwilym Croucher,

Chuanyi Wang and Jiale Yang
First published 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,
an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Gwilym Croucher, Chuanyi
Wang and Jiale Yang; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Gwilym Croucher, Chuanyi Wang and Jiale Yang to be
identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors
for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book

ISBN: 978-1-032-26582-7 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-26583-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-28895-4 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003288954
Typeset in Galliard
by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.
Contents

List of figuresix
List of tablesxi
Forewordxiii
List of contributorsxvi

1 Introduction 1
GWILYM CROUCHER, CHUANYI WANG, AND JIALE YANG

2 Productivity change in Australian higher education 18

GWILYM CROUCHER AND KENNETH MOORE

3 University research productivity in Cambodia:

An analysis of Scopus-indexed publications 40
VUTHA ROS AND KIMKONG HENG

4 Economies of scale or scope? The development

strategies of university and its impact on research
productivity in China 59
XUAN HU, CHUANYI WANG, ZHE CHENG, AND JIALE YANG

5 Paradigm shift in measuring productivity in higher

education: Case of select Indian technical
education institutions 79
DR. MONA KHARE, DR. GANESAN KANNABIRAN, SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA,
AND SANDHYA DUBEY

6 Policy debates and the reality of the research productivity

of national universities in Japan 100
AKIYOSHI YONEZAWA, YIZHOU FAN, RAN NAKAO, MASATAKA MURASAWA,
AND SHINJI MATSUMIYA
viii  Contents
7 Productivity of Malaysian universities: Boon or bane? 114
CHANG DA WAN, NORZAINI AZMAN, AND MORSHIDI SIRAT

8 Concluding remarks 138

GWILYM CROUCHER, CHUANYI WANG, AND JIALE YANG

Index 142
List of figures

1.1 Global shares of researchers (FTE) by region, 2014

and 2018 (per cent) 2
1.2 Change in scientific publishing by region, 2015–2019 (per cent)5
1.3 Top 15 countries for GDP on R&D (GERD), 2008–2018,
in PPP$ billions (constant 2005 prices) 6
1.4 Researchers (FTE) per million inhabitants, by region and
selected country, 2014 and 2018 7
2.1 Range of plausible productivity trends 25
2.2 University Nine Year change profile 25
2.3 Range of plausible productivity scores with variable education
and research value weights - index 26
2.4 Range of plausible productivity scores with variable education
and research value weights - absolute 26
2.5 Comparison of productivity change estimates for
Murdoch University 28
2.6 Ideal benchmarking models identified by DEA 32
2.7 Frontier with ANU Scheme 34
2.8 Frontier with UoM scheme 34
3.1 Growth in Cambodia’s scientific output between 1999 and 201947
3.2 Number of publications by HEIs and non-HEIs 47
3.3 Cambodia’s scientific output by subject areas 50
4.1 The measurement of scope economics 63
5.1 Institutional productivity framework 89
5.2 Change in the Productivity of the Sub-Components to
the Total Productivity (2014–15 to 2018–19) 93
5.3 Share of the IITs and NITs in the two Data Elements
of Education Component in the Year 2018–19 93
5.4 Median Salary of IITs and NITs Graduates for the
Year 2018–19 (in Rs. Lakhs) 94
5.5 Share of IITs and NITs in Total of the Five Elements of
the Research Component in the Year 2018–19 95
6.1 Trends on the 18-year-old population (1955–2030) 102
x  List of figures
6.2 Distribution of national government grants amongst national
universities by student size (2019)103
6.3 Research performance and teaching quality of universities
in Japan (2016)108
7.1 Malaysian government expenditure on education and
tertiary education as a percentage of GDP and in exact value,
1970–2018115
7.2 Malaysian government expenditure on tertiary education in
exact value, 1970–2018116
7.3 Malaysia’s scores in U21 rankings for the resources, environment,
connectivity and output components, 2012–2020117
7.4 Malaysia’s scores in U21 rankings for the resources, environment,
connectivity and output components adjusted to level of
development, 2014–2020118
7.5 Number of publications by Malaysian universities in
Scopus database, 2000–2019125
7.6 Number of graduates by Malaysian public universities,
2008–2018125
7.7 Number of graduates by levels in public research
universities, 2008–2018 126
7.8 Number of publications, number of students graduated
and number of staff of five public research universities,
2008–2018127
7.9 Expenditure for fundamental research132
List of tables

1.1 Asian trends in research expenditure, 2014 and 20183

2.1 Productivity models in higher education23
2.2 Rank ordering of Australian university top five productivity
change for 2007 to 2013 using TI and DEA methods27
2.3 Input data for each DMU31
2.4 Key results from DEA model31
2.5 Institutions efficiency score versus ideal benchmark33
3.1 Number of Scopus-indexed publications from Cambodia
between 1999 and 201946
3.2 Number of Scopus-indexed publications by year48
3.3 List of Cambodian universities and HEIs and number of
publications indexed in Scopus between 1999 and 201949
3.4 List of top funding sponsors51
3.5 List of common fields supported by the top ten funding sponsors51
4.1 Means of inputs and outputs of universities from 2008 to 201762
4.2 Data source65
4.3 Research productivity by different types of universities65
4.4 T-test of the research productivity by university prestige66
4.5 T-test of the research productivity by discipline66
4.6 T-test of the research productivity by university scale67
4.7 The scale economics of different types of universities67
4.8 T-test of scale economics by university prestige68
4.9 T-test of scale economics by discipline68
4.10 T-test of scale effect by university scale69
4.11 The scope economics of different types of universities69
4.12 T-test of scope economics by university prestige70
4.13 T-test of scope economics by discipline70
4.14 T-test of scope economics by university scale71
4.15 Regression results of research productivity71
4.16 Regression results of research productivity (including
control variables)72
4.17 Changes of scale and scope economics and research
productivity in case universities73
xii  List of tables
5.1 Input-output framework90
5.2 Rank of the Select IITs and NITs as per total productivity
change (2014–2015 to 2018–2019)92
6.1 Number of universities and HEIs (2020)101
6.2 Student population by degree programs and sectors (2020)101
6.3 Economies of scale and economies of scope110
6.4 Average inefficiency over time111
Foreword

Normally considered conservative, resilient and poised counter-cyclically against

a broad swathe of volatile circumstances, higher education has experienced
sustained and volatile shocks since 2020, which highlight the sector’s societal
importance, the value-bestowing tendencies of academic work, and the urgent
need for productivity analysis.
If not dismissed outright as a dirty word, ‘productivity’ is typically weap-
onized in debates about workforce, standards, buildings, pay rates and perfor-
mance. As a result, research on productivity in higher education has languished
between scholarly rejection and real-world disputes. This is a shame, for the
idea is really elegant and powerful. Productivity is calculated as the ratio of
quality outcomes to inputs and is driven by the assumption that greater pro-
ductivity tends to be better. Once my eyes were opened to these simple ideas,
it became clear how they can shape and spark all kinds of improvement and
reform.
I began the concerted study of the productivity of higher education around
2013 after being invited by the Asian Productivity Organisation (APO) to lead
a workshop in Yogyakarta on models for assessing higher education outcomes
and performance. Discussions during this workshop with Bill Massy, my co-con-
venor and the guru of the field, persuaded me of the creative potential of pro-
ductivity analysis and its value for all kinds of research and development. I was
privileged to be able to prototype my ideas during 2015 and 2016 by leading a
pan-Asian study on the productivity of higher education.
Applying ‘productivity goggles’ to familiar higher education problems helped
clarify dead-end thinking, the gravity of the analyses, the need to redo much
ingrained thinking, and the need for better data on what counts in higher edu-
cation. It also revealed that work on productivity needed to be relished as ‘every-
one’s business’, and certainly busted free from disciplined dialogues among
economists. Productivity analysis roams within the broader tent of optimization
and estimation, and it became blindingly clear that many complex, undefined
and often inconsistent algorithms were at play.
This spotlighted several sweet spots for consequential higher education
research. While chased by universities around the globe, for instance, university
xiv  Foreword
rankings privilege research over education outcomes and are usually silent
with respect to inputs. University finances often do not enable even deans, let
alone university presidents or regulators, to understand academic and com-
munity returns on specific investments. To help advance higher education
worldwide, an obvious need arose to quantify or somehow value significant non-
priced outcomes. Proving the value of higher education to curious and even
suspicious governments, and to the public and communities, is hard without
cogent narratives around value and contribution. What are the diminishing
returns of all institutions chasing the same goals, and why not just merge them
into one?1
My expansive collaboration with Gwil Croucher and Ken Moore, then col-
leagues at Tsinghua, helped spur my investment in the analysis of higher educa-
tion productivity. Several papers, books and a dissertation were produced, many
more workshops, and substantial public conferences. In one relatively recent
paper on the productivity of leading global universities, a group of Chinese and
Australian researchers revealed the differing growth strategies which universi-
ties have made, the inherent national boundaries around ‘global growth’, and
how ‘world-class research’ has spawned ‘world-class problems’ for university
education.2
It was exciting to read this book, given this background. The introduction
paints many pictures about higher education in Asia, strategies for researching
productivity, and the country-specific chapters which follow. Framed by vary-
ing research perspectives and data availability, the following chapters tease out
various dimensions of productivity. These six analyses focus on institutions,
on particular academic functions, on sector diversity and on leadership strat-
egies. These contributions are important for readers with a specific interest in
higher education or the selected countries and also more broadly for expand-
ing robust research into higher education in Asia. The chapters contain empir-
ical insights into research, education, staffing and finance of interest in their
own right.
Productivity research, almost by definition, never ends. Work continues as
new contributions on a host of matters, not least around staffing, education
reform, and valuing the contribution graduates make to the global public good.3
Of course, in theory, boosting productivity means more success and time for rest
and reflection. Hopefully, the contributions which follow make enough of a dent
in this regard to open a few moments to read and reflect.

Professor Hamish Coates

Tsinghua University
October 2021
 Foreword xv

Notes
1. Croucher, G. & Woelert, P. (2016). Institutional isomorphism and the creation of
the unified national system of higher education in Australia: An empirical analysis.
Higher Education, 71 (4), 439–453.
2. Yang, J., Wang, C., Liu, L., Croucher, G., Moore, K. & Coates. H. (2020). The
productivity of leading global universities: Empirical insights and implications for
higher education. In Broucker, B., Borden, V., Kallenberg, T. & Milsom, C. (Eds.),
Responsibility of Higher Education Systems. What? How? Why? Leiden: Brill.
3. Croucher, G. & Woelert, P. (2021). Administrative transformation and manage-
rial growth: A longitudinal analysis of changes in the non-academic workforce at
Australian universities. Higher Education.
List of contributors

Norzaini Azman is a Professor of Higher Education at the Faculty of Education,

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. She is currently serving as the 2017–2023
Chair/President of the Malaysian Society for Research and Higher Education
Policy Development (PenDaPaT).
Zhe Cheng is currently working toward a PhD degree in Public Administration
in the Institute of Education, Tsinghua University.
Gwilym Croucher  is a Higher Education Analyst and Researcher at the
Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of
Melbourne. A Fulbright Scholar, he has been a Chief Investigator for large
government-funded research grants and for commissioned research.
Sandhya Dubey has a doctorate in the Economics of Education and is at the
National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration.
Yizhou Fan  is a graduate student at the Graduate School of Education,
Hiroshima University. He is majoring in higher education research and math-
ematical statistics.
Kimkong Heng  is an Australia Awards Scholar and a PhD candidate at the
School of Education, University of Queensland, Australia. He is also a found-
ing co-editor of the Cambodian Education Forum.
Xuan Hu  is based at the Policy Research Office in Tsinghua University. He
received a doctor’s degree at the Institute of Education, Tsinghua University,
with the honor of best doctoral dissertation.
Ganesan Kannabiran  is the Director of the Indian Institute of Information
Technology Sri City (Institute of National Importance under an Act of Par-
liament) Chittoor Dt. Andhra Pradesh.
Mona Khare  is a Professor in the Department of Educational Finance at the
National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New
Delhi. Dr Khare is an Economist with a specialization in Regional Planning
and Economic Growth, Statistical Techniques and Research Methodology.
 List of contributors xvii
Shinji Matsumiya is an administrative officer of Kobe Gakuin University. He
is also a graduate student at the Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima
University. He is majoring in higher education research.
Kenneth Moore  completed his PhD in higher education modelling at the
University of Melbourne and is currently a Senior Consultant at Nous
Consulting.
Masataka Murasawa is Deputy Director and Associate Professor of Research
Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University. His expertise is in
higher education research and sociology of education.
Ran Nakao  is a Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science. He is also a Doctoral Student at the Graduate School of Educa-
tion, Hiroshima University. He is majoring in statistics for social science and
higher education research.
Vutha Ros is a PhD Candidate at the University of Hong Kong and a co-founder
of Cambodian Education Forum. He is currently doing research on the legacy-
innovation tensions in post-Soviet higher education.
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma is Deputy Director General/Officer On Special Duty
to Honorable Minister of State for Communications, India
Morshidi Sirat  is an Honorary Professor at Universiti Sains Malaysia. He has
served as Director-General of Higher Education, Malaysia and the found-
ing director of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Facility. Morshidi has
undertaken assignments for the IIEP-UNESCO Paris, UNESCO Bangkok, the
WB, the ADB, the DAAD, the AUN and the SEAMEO-RIHED, Bangkok.
Chang Da Wan (C. D. Wan)  is Director at the National Higher Education
Research Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia. He is an EXCO Member of the
Malaysian Society for Higher Education Policy and Research Development
(PenDaPaT) and a Member of the Global Young Academy.
Chuanyi Wang is the Associate Professor at the Institute of Education, Tsinghua
University. He serves as the vice director of the Ministry of Education-
Tsinghua University Research Center for Educational Strategy and Policy,
and the Research Center for Graduate Education, Tsinghua University. His
co-authored book ‘Research on Graduate Education Structure Adjustment
in China’ was awarded the first prize for the National Excellent Educational
Science Research Achievements.
Jiale Yang is a Researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Evaluation
Studies. She completed her PhD at the Institute of Education, Tsinghua Uni-
versity, with the honour of Excellent Graduate of Beijing.
Akiyoshi Yonezawa  is Professor and Vice Director of International Strategy
Office, Tohoku University, Japan. He is a board member: Japan Society of
Educational Sociology, Japan Association for Higher Education Research
and Japan Comparative Education Society.
1 Introduction
Gwilym Croucher, Chuanyi Wang, and Jiale Yang

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought into sharp focus the question of how
effectively government, public and donor funds are spent by higher education
institutions? While important insights have come from recent research, signifi-
cant knowledge gaps remain, making analysis inadequate to inform many widely
agreed goals of higher education, including equitable access to high-quality edu-
cation and research. Assessing productivity is a formidable challenge for higher
education, as most higher education institutions (HEIs) have multiple and some-
times hard-to-measure goals. Policy interventions claiming to promote produc-
tivity have often been crudely designed and have sometimes had the opposite
effect, making academic staff less productive and ultimately undermining the
quality of education and research. The fiendish problem faced by higher educa-
tion policymakers and institutional leaders worldwide is how to improve perfor-
mance and productivity while not sacrificing educational and research quality,
diminishing academic working conditions or undermining student outcomes.
There are different dimensions to this problem. One is how to assess what are
the important inputs and outputs through a holistic approach that ensures pro-
ductivity analysis can meaningfully consider significant outcomes beyond costs,
another is to assess how trade-offs are managed between the different roles and
missions of higher education institutions. Different universities in different
countries take distinct approaches to manage these dimensions. Comparison
between countries is a powerful approach to gaining a better understanding of
higher education productivity. The chapters in this book examine productivity
in six countries located in Asia. Recent years have witnessed the dramatic rise of
higher education in Asia. Asian HEIs have made several notable achievements.
The first achievement is the improving gross enrollment rate of higher educa-
tion. According to the UNESCO statistics, people of the age cohorts have more
access to higher education in Asia. The tertiary enrollment rate of Central Asia
rose from 25.56 per cent to 30.92 per cent during 2015–2019. That rate of East
Asia and the Pacific increased from 43.73 per cent to 47.63 per cent during the
same period. Based on the theory put forward by Trow, a host of Asian countries
has evolved from the elite higher education stage (15 per cent) to the mass higher
education stage (15 per cent–50 per cent), some even enter the popularized stage
with a gross enrollment rate of higher education over 50 per cent.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003288954-1
2  G. Croucher, C. Wang, and J. Yang
The second achievement is the increasing research inputs. From the perspec-
tive of personnel input, there are more researchers than before in Asia. Those
cohorts are the main force to enhance the research productivity (Kuzhabekova
and Ruby, 2018). It can be seen in Figure 1.1 that global shares of research-
ers in Asia grew from 42.5 per cent in 2014 to 44 per cent in 2018. East and
Southeastern parts own the most researchers within Asia, accounting for
37.6 per cent of the world. Central and West Asia and South Asia also witnessed
an upward trend regarding global shares of researchers from 2014 to 2018.
From the perspective of financial input, Table 1.1 reports trends in Asian
research expenditure in the year 2014 and 2018. Rapid economic growth

Figure 1.1  Global shares of researchers (FTE) by region, 2014 and 2018 (per cent)
Source: reproduced from UNESCO (2021) Science Report: The Race Against Time for Smarter
Development.
Table 1.1  Asian trends in research expenditure, 2014 and 2018

Gross domestic expenditure

on R&D (GERD) (PPP$ Share of global GERD as a share GERD per capita GERD per researcher (FTE)
billions) GERD (%) of GDP (%) (PPP$) (PPP$ thousands)

Change Change Change

2014 2018 (%) 2014 2018 2014 2018 2014 2018 (%) 2014 2018 (%)

Asia 627.58 808.05 28.76 42.33 45.72 1.62 1.7 159.01 196.99 23.89 159.28 167.32 5.05
Central Asia 0.95 0.81 −14.74 0.06 0.05 0.17 0.12 14.72 11.72 −20.38 25.83 24.44 −5.38
Arab States 6.94 10.17 46.54 0.47 0.58 0.4 0.53 106.66 143.09 34.16 176.41 144.28 −18.21
in Asia
West Asia 15.54 26.05 67.63 1.05 1.47 0.94 1.37 150.77 242.22 60.66 71.18 93.41 31.23
South Asia 45.61 56.49 23.85 3.08 3.2 0.64 0.6 30.18 35.59 17.93 144.92 140.3 −3.19
East & Southeast 558.54 714.52 27.93 37.67 40.43 2.03 2.13 253.47 315.45 24.45 174.77 193.03 10.45
Asia

Source: UNESCO.

Introduction 3
4  G. Croucher, C. Wang, and J. Yang
empowers Asia to invest in R&D activities heavily. From 2014 to 2018,
Asian gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GER D) rose 28.76 per cent and
reached 808.05 billion (PPP$) in 2018. The share of global GER D increased
from 42.33 per cent to 45.72 per cent. Another important indicator meas-
uring R&D investment is the GER D as a share of gross domestic product
(GDP). This percentage is 1.62 in 2014 and 1.70 in 2018, reflecting Asian
nations’ strong financial support on their R&D activities. The per capita per-
formance is also striking. GER D per capita (PPP$) reached 159.01 in 2014
to 196.99 in 2018, with an increase of 23.89 per cent. GER D per researcher
(PPP$ thousands) also witnessed an upward change of 5.05 per cent, arriving
at 159.28 in 2014 to 167.32 in 2018.
Except for inputs, research outputs of Asian HEIs are impressive as well, which
constitutes the third achievement. Asia has experienced the scientific publish-
ing boom in recent years, especially for Central Asia. All publications increased
128.6 per cent, 51.7 per cent, 37.9 per cent and 37.4 per cent in Central Asia,
South Asia, East and Southeast Asia and West Asia, respectively, during the
period of 2015–2019. Cross-cutting strategic technologies grown noticeably as
well during the same period. The growth rate in Central Asia, South Asia, East
and Southeast Asia and West Asia is 171.6 per cent, 111.8 per cent, 43.6 per cent
and 31.6 per cent in turn (seen in Figure 1.2).
But the development of higher education in Asia is not at the same pace.
Certain Asian countries have achieved remarkable progress compared with
other nations. For instance, China is the most typical case of the Asian
catch-up model. Chinese universities achieve in the world university rank-
ings such as THE, QS, ARWU and the like. In the zero-sum game of global
ranking schemes, the USA, as an established leader, becomes the loser grad-
ually, whereas China, as fast followers, becomes the winner (Lee, Liu, and
Wu, 2020). Figure 1.3 presents that Chinese GERD soared from 135.2 to
439.0 PPP$ billion (constant 2005 prices) over the last decade. Ten years ago,
in 2008, the GERD of China ranked fourth in the world. It surpassed Japan
and EU successively in the following years and laid the second just behind the
United States in the year 2018.
Apart from China, other Asian countries also achieve impressive performance
with regard to their higher education. Republic of Korea and Japan, for exam-
ple, are the traditionally strong nations in the Asian high education system. As
can be seen in Figure 1.4, Full-Time Equivalent researchers (FTE) per million
inhabitants reached 7980 and 5331 in 2014 and 2018, respectively, even out-
numbering that of the USA and UK.
After realizing the significance of higher education to a country’s core compet-
itiveness, Asian governments started to back selected universities in their pursuit
for image and status in the global higher education landscape. World-class uni-
versities (WCU) are thus are legitimized as national policy in a number of Asian
countries. In Japan, though several Japanese universities have established their
world-class status during the 1990s, they are encountering strong competition
 Introduction 5

Figure 1.2  Change in scientific publishing by region, 2015–2019 (per cent)

Source: reproduced from UNESCO (2021) Science Report: The Race Against Time for Smarter
Development.

from both existing and emerging opponents nowadays. Therefore, WCU poli-
cies were implemented in succession in the first decade of the 21century, such
as the Twenty-First Century COE, Global Centers of Excellence and World
Premier International Research Center Initiative program, by the Japanese gov-
ernment to maintain the international reputation of its top universities. In the
case of Malaysia, WCU policy statements were also adopted in line with the
interest shown in developed countries. Introduced in 2007, the National Higher
Education Strategic Plan 2020 and its accompanying Action Plan 2007–2010
aim to transform Malaysia into a hub for higher education excellence by 2020.
China began to build WCUs via the ‘211’ and ‘985’ Projects since the 1990s. A
new version of the WCU construction program named ‘Double First Class’ was
launched in 2015 (Yang, Yang, and Wang, 2021). Various WCU policies bring
substantial financial investment in higher education systems on the one hand,
6  G. Croucher, C. Wang, and J. Yang

Figure 1.3  Top 15 countries for GDP on R&D (GERD), 2008–2018, in PPP$ billions
(constant 2005 prices)
Source: reproduced from UNESCO (2021) Science Report: The Race Against Time for Smarter
Development.

while require more transparency and accountability on the other hand. Funders,
policymakers, researchers and practitioners want to know how effective the huge
investment in higher education is, thereby understanding and measuring the
higher education productivity becomes the subject of renewed attention.
 Introduction 7

Figure 1.4  R esearchers (FTE) per million inhabitants, by region and selected country,
2014 and 2018
Source: reproduced from UNESCO (2021) Science Report: The Race Against Time for Smarter
Development.

The measurement of productivity in higher education

Productivity is a concept derived from economics and one of its key character-
istics is to measure the efficiency for comparing the performance. As an indica-
tion of quality in higher education (Menon, 2016), productivity has attracted
the attention of many researchers. Multiple techniques have been developed
to measure the productivity. Singh, Motwani, and Kumar (2000) group these
techniques into three umbrella measures: index measurement, linear program-
ming and econometric models. Measuring higher education productivity can
use the same toolkit yet is not necessarily a straightforward matter due to its far
from consensual input and output indicators.
Index measurement is by far the most common approach for assessing pro-
ductivity change in a wide range of industries, but still in its infant in higher
education. Some scholars follow this line of research. For example, Edvardsen,
Forsund, and Kittelsen (2017) calculated the higher education productivity
development using Malmquist Index in three Norwegian universities from 2004
to 2013. Arjomandi, Salleh, and Mohammadzadeh (2015) examined the pro-
ductivity change through an application of Hicks–Moorsteen total factor pro-
ductivity index in Malaysian public universities. Compared with the Malmquist
Index, Hicks–Moorsteen total factor productivity index makes no assumptions
about decision-making units’ returns to scale conditions. Aithal and Kumar
(2016) constructed a research index on the basis of Theory A to enhance the
research productivity in higher education sector. A more recent index measure
appears in the context of higher education is TI (Törnqvist Index). Introduced
8  G. Croucher, C. Wang, and J. Yang
by Caves, Christensen, and Diewert (1982), TI was used to estimate productivity
as a ‘superlative index’. This approach is advanced by the United States National
Research Council for assessing the education function of universities (Sullivan
et al., 2012). Based on alternative treatments of data, TI technique has notable
strengths in not only handling multiple inputs and outputs but also exploring
relationships between inputs and outputs over time. But the shortcoming of TI
lies in over-subjective value weights on data elements and the inability to bench-
mark the production frontier (Moore, Coates, and Croucher, 2019).
Linear programming includes both parametric and non-parametric
approaches to estimate the production frontiers for a set of inputs and outputs.
The most common parametric technique is stochastic frontier analysis (SFA),
and Data envelopment analysis (DEA) introduced by Charnes, Cooper, and
Rhodes (1978) is a non-parametric technique gaining the most popularity. Both
SFA and DEA can capture the change of total factor productivity, which can be
decomposed into three parts: technical efficiency change, scale efficiency change
and technical change. It’s worth noting both DEA and SFA estimate the relative
efficiency and are highly dependent on samples. What is more, the number of
assessing indicators also has an impact on efficiency results. Thus scholars and
decision-makers should view and use the efficiency evaluation conclusions care-
fully. It should not be generalized to other groups just because the efficiency
evaluation of a certain range of samples is good.
Compared with DEA method, SFA has three advantages: First, it is good at
testing hypothesis, but DEA lacks the statistical inference. To resolve this prob-
lem, Andersson and Sund (2021) used bootstrapping to assess the productivity
of 68 Nordic higher education institutions between 2011 and 2016. Second,
estimation results of SFA are relatively stable and not easily affected by outli-
ers. While since the DEA method is sensitive to measurement errors (Metters,
Vargas, and Whybark, 2001), estimation results are prone to being affected by
extreme values. Third, DEA requires higher homogeneity of samples and does
not allow missing values of each index, which makes SFA more suitable for large
sample estimation. One of the limitations of SFA is the distribution form of
inefficiency items, and the form of production function of efficiency must be set
in advance. Another limitation is its complexity to deal with multiple outputs,
which need to be combined into a comprehensive output or solved by using the
distance function (Titus and Eagan, 2016). Correspondingly, an advantage of
DEA is dealing with multiple outputs directly.
There have been other recent developments regarding linear programming
besides DEA and SFA methods. For example, Agasisti et al. (2021) adopt a
meta-frontier methodology to evaluate the higher education productivity of
Chinese and European ‘elite’ universities for the period 2011–2015. Results
show Chinese institutions’ productivity grows faster than that of their European
counterparts. Traditional productivity evaluation techniques that commonly
assume DMUs are situated in a homogeneous environment and there is only one
production frontier. But evaluated DMUs usually vary by individual characteris-
tics and environment in the real scenario. Under this circumstance, constructing
 Introduction 9
separate production frontiers rather than the single one is a must. Meta-frontier
technique, also a non-parametric approach, is thereby better than DEA when
dealing with the heterogeneity of evaluated DMUs.
Econometric models are relatively under-studied with respect to the assess-
ment of higher education productivity. This method is similar to the SFA tech-
nique as both of them need to set the function form in advance. The difference
between them is that econometric models can only estimate the average produc-
tion function instead of the production frontier.
Which of the above-mentioned three measurements should be chosen depends
on the specific research purpose. Using multiple measures interchangeably is a
feasible way to get more robust results. For example, Yang et al. (2020) synthe-
sized findings from both DEA and TI analysis in six countries and highlighted
priority areas for improving productivity measurement in Asia. Moore, Coates,
and Croucher (2019) compared productivity estimation results of both DEA and
TI models in Australian higher education institutions. Results are robust neither
in terms of the overall magnitude of results nor in terms of relative performance
ranks between institutions. The variability between those models suggests that
productivity measurements in higher education may change when choosing dif-
ferent estimation methods. They provide important insights that any single model
should serve as only the starting point for analysis. Until more universal conven-
tions for higher education productivity measurement have been established, test-
ing multiple assumptions with different treatments of data should be the routine.
Though a body of measurement is developed for assessing the higher edu-
cation productivity, researchers, practitioners and policymakers should keep in
mind drawbacks of quantitative assessment methods. First, it is hard to find
measurable quantity indicators for higher education productivity assessment
and even harder to identify quality indicators. A quality-oriented metrics is
needed, especially for measuring the productivity of learning and teaching in
higher education (Drengenberg and Bain, 2017). Second, the efficiency rank-
ings obtained by different quantitative methods are not always consistent, and
there are no mature methods or criteria to choose among those approaches.
Additional difficulties stem from the absence of an agreed-upon comprehensive
measure of outputs. The higher education sector is extraordinarily complex and
heterogeneous. Universities produce multiple outputs in addition to research
and education: social services, cultural inheritance, international exchange and
cooperation, and so on. Last but not least, no matter index measurement, linear
programming or econometric models are firstly applied in evaluating the pro-
ductivity of enterprises. However, higher education institutions and enterprises
hold different organizational goals. The former pursue higher-quality outputs
without minimizing the cost, while the latter is strive to minimize inputs within
given outputs or maximize outputs at given inputs. Therefore, whether the pro-
ductivity evaluation method in the economic production field is applicable to the
landscape of higher education remains to be further investigated.
To sum up, more robust measurement tools for evaluating higher education
productivity have to be developed in the future. In the meantime, we should
10  G. Croucher, C. Wang, and J. Yang
recognize clearly shortcomings of quantitative-oriented assessment techniques
and avoid what Frost and Brockmann (2014) called a performance paradox.

Summary of the six-country studies

Current assessment of higher education productivity is primarily focussed on
Western Europe or North America countries. Though relevant research paying
attention to the productivity of Asian higher education systems is emerging yet
still scarce, which is what this book intends to make more contributions. Our
assessment of the higher education productivity in Asia involves six countries:
Australia, Cambodia, China, India, Japan and Malaysia.

Australia
In Australia, the transformation of higher education into a major sector in the
national economy has followed significant public investment in universities and
other educational institutions. In 2018, over $17 billion of public funds went
directly to universities and other higher education providers, which brings the
assessment of higher education productivity into the research agenda. Croucher
and Moore surveyed recent approaches to productivity measurement in higher
education sector in the first place. They summarized that productivity models
in higher education usually follow the input-output framework. Though input
choices are generally limited to expenditure and student and staff data, out-
puts choice are far more diverse. Taking common-studied education outputs
and research outputs as examples. Education outputs may concern student load,
student enrolment, student achievement, degree completions, adjusted credit
hours, exceeded or passed credits, graduate employment, revenue from govern-
ment, revenue from student fees and the like. Research outputs present the same
picture and may refer to publications, citations, institutional rankings, research
degree awarded, patents and research income, you name it. Some models also
take reputation as the output variable.
Then they revealed the productivity change in Australian higher education on
the set of university data and made an excellent example for integrating different
measuring methods. Both TI and DEA approaches were used to compare the
strengths and weaknesses of these two productivity measurement techniques. TI
gives scope to show a plausible range of productivity portrayals that could arise
from a single set of data. Through the threshold analysis, TI technique describes
alternative productivity trajectories over time. The upper and lower bounds on
results are depended on different ideas about what is important to emphasize
in the data. Indeed, the rank ordering of universities in terms of positive pro-
ductivity change experienced over the period varies greatly. The change profiles
show the areas where the university has been growing fastest and slowest in rela-
tion to other variables and to other institutions. Trends of faster output growth
than input growth indicate that productivity change will be positive. Another
line of research has developed sophisticated DEA models as a tool for efficiency
 Introduction 11
analysis and benchmarking. Through the benchmarking models of DEA, it is
clear where each institution is performing best relative to its peers.
By comparing TI and DEA results, they found the rank ordering of universi-
ties in terms of positive productivity change experienced over the period is much
different. Differences between TI and DEA results reflect their comparative
advantage. TI results help clarify the relationship between data elements over
time, whereas DEA helps make clear the contrast between measured and maxi-
mum achievable productivity through the estimation of efficiency frontiers. This
has some implications for policymakers. It is important to recognize that dif-
ferent approaches have both strengths and weaknesses for effective assessment.
Therefore, allocation policies need to be based on a more comprehensive meas-
urement technique to enhance university performance, no matter in Australia
or elsewhere. Productivity indicators taking account of resources, outcomes
and intermediaries may have an important and growing role to play in national
funding decisions. In higher education sector, however, making progress likely
hinges on laying better foundations as regards the measurement of productivity
and how this informs policy settings.

Cambodia
Cambodia gained its independence from France in 1953, but it was not until the
early 2010s that research productivity of higher education received policy atten-
tion. Since then, the Cambodian government has implemented different initia-
tives to build research capacity and boost research output of its higher education
system like other Asian countries. Yet the lack of relevant data makes it difficult
to evaluate the productivity of higher education in Cambodia. Considering this
situation, bibliometric data providing publicly accessible infrastructure can be
used to measure the research productivity. Drawing upon Scopus-indexed publi-
cations, Ros and Heng studied the research productivity in Cambodian univer-
sities over the last two decades between 1999 and 2019.
Deciding which types of publications are involved is the first step to collect
the data. Some researchers considered only one kind of academic outcome,
among which journal articles is the most popular one. Some included more than
one kind such as books, book chapters and journal articles. While others even
involved various types of documents like journal articles, books, book chapters,
conference papers, editorials, letters and notes in their research. Based on the
whole publications, Ros and Heng found a gradual increase in the total number
of Scopus-indexed publications emanating from Cambodia over the last two
decades. However, such an increase is primarily confined to specific fields and a
few public institutions whose research is subject to donor agencies and individ-
ual faculty members’ commitment.
In terms of research fields, the distribution of Scopus-indexed documents
affiliated with Cambodian HEIs is highly uneven as the majority of the publica-
tions and funding are concentrated in the fields of four leading fields or subject
areas accounted for about 50 per cent of the more than 900 publications indexed
12  G. Croucher, C. Wang, and J. Yang
in Scopus. These subject areas included (1) agricultural and biological sciences
(14.6 per cent), (2) medicine (13.1 per cent), (3) environmental science (11.9
per cent). These scientific fields are predominantly located in a few public univer-
sities, while other public and private HEIs generally offer business and language
courses. The main reason for this uneven distribution of research output is that
these few public universities have often been able to secure research funds from
external funding agencies and international university partners. Such funding
is sporadically available and subject to the funders’ research agenda, potentially
making it hard for Cambodian universities and researchers to pursue their own
research agenda and priorities. Additionally, the nature of research and publica-
tion in the field of science and engineering may be another factor that explains
the higher number of publications in these fields. Research in hard sciences and
engineering is generally lab-based and collaborative in nature, and publications
often include a group of the research team and tend to go through a shorter
period of peer review, compared to publications in social sciences and human-
ities, which include fewer researchers and more extended peer review periods.
In terms of research institutions, Cambodian HEIs have yet to play a signifi-
cant role in contributing to the increase in research output, reflecting their lim-
ited capacity in knowledge production and scholarly publications compared with
non-HEIs such as research institutes located outside of the university setting.
There are two potential reasons for this limited research capacity of Cambodian
HEIs. On the one hand, insufficient public funding and the heavy reliance on
undergraduate tuition fees for operations have forced both public and private
HEIs in Cambodia to prioritize teaching over research and publication activ-
ities. On the other hand, a large number of faculty in Cambodian HEIs are
employed on a part-time contractual basis solely for teaching duties and paid
according to their actual teaching hours. Hence they have no motivation to
enhance the research productivity.

China
China has experienced dramatic advancement of higher education productivity,
especially in the research activities. The secret of achieving this progress deserves
to be explored. Using the DEA method, Hu et al. in this volume investigated
two developmental strategies adopted by Chinese universities to improve their
research productivity, i.e. scale economics and scope economics. Scale econom-
ics is defined as the long-term average total cost of universities’ decrease with
the increase of research output in the process of research production. Scope eco-
nomics is defined as the overall cost of universities’ decrease due to the expand-
ing range of research output (such as increasing different kinds of disciplines) in
the process of research production.
Findings show all types of Chinese universities increased their research pro-
ductivity from 2008 to 2017, but those selected in ‘first-class discipline construc-
tion initiative’, medium-sized and specializing in natural science improve their
research productivity more saliently. In addition, different types of universities
 Introduction 13
have varying patterns in terms of scale economics and scope economics. From
the perspective of the scale economics, the scale effect increases greatly in uni-
versities selected in ‘first-class discipline construction initiative’, developing both
natural science, humanities and social science disciplines or with the R&D full-
time equivalent personnel below 1500. From the perspective of scope econom-
ics, all types of universities show improved scope effect. This indicates there is a
common trend for Chinese universities to develop multiple disciplines. Further,
the authors examined the impact of scale economics and scope economics
on universities’ research productivity. Regression results indicate an inverted
U-shaped relationship between the research productivity and the research scale
or discipline scope. The non-linear correlation suggests Chinese universities’
research productivity first rise then fall along with the expansion of research
scale or discipline scope.
However, the influence of scale economics and scope economics on universities’
research productivity relies on university type as well. With respect to the scale
economics, the research productivity of small-scale universities (mainly focusing
on a single discipline) will increase along with the expansion of their research
scale. This indicates that although the existing discipline structure of such insti-
tutions has not been changed, the increased scale and the existing discipline inte-
grate deeply. Thus, its research productivity can be improved. Nevertheless, for
some universities with large scale (mainly comprehensive universities), expanding
the scale further will harm their research productivity. This confirms to expand
the scale of knowledge production blindly without considering the integration
may not lead to the enhancement of universities’ research productivity. With
respect to the scope economics, for universities with small discipline scope
(mainly focusing on humanities and social science), their research productiv-
ity will increase significantly when enlarging the discipline scope. This suggests
to develop natural science in liberal arts universities may stimulate innovation
so as to improve the research productivity. While if universities already have
large discipline scope (usually universities focusing on natural science), further
increasing discipline categories instead will lead to reduced research productivity.

India
India is one of the fastest-growing free-market economies in the world. It is
poised to be one of the top three economies of the world in the next couple of
decades. India’s higher education system is of paramount importance to achieve
the projected economic leadership. Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are
established to provide trained technical personnel of international class to the
nation. Considering the ambitious economic and social development goals, the
need for trained engineers in much larger numbers and in diverse disciplines
was acutely felt. National Institutes of Technology (NITs) are technological
institutions that would provide world-class technical education and would have
the dynamic characteristics to adapt themselves to rapid changes in engineering
knowledge and its applications.
14  G. Croucher, C. Wang, and J. Yang
Khare et al. in this volume traced the overall productivity change in the
select IITs and NITs using the TI method between the time period of 2014–15
and 2018–19. Under the input-output framework, they took labor, capital and
intermediaries as input elements and education, employability, research, finance
as outputs elements. To be specific, education is measured by the number of
full-time students intake and the number of full-time students who graduated.
Employability refers to the percentage of undergraduates and postgraduates
placed, as well as their median salary. Research contains five dimensions: PhDs
graduated, journal publications, patents published, total research projects and
total consultancy projects. Academic receipts, income from investment, interest
earned and others are classified as financial output.
It is found that IITs surpassed NITs in almost all the output and input sub-in-
dices in absolute terms, but NITs seemed to be outperforming a few of the most
important IITs when it comes to the productivity. One of the main reasons
behind such a result is that IITs have invested more in the inputs compared to
NITs in the given time period. In the higher education sector, it is only after
some time lag that the changes start emerging in the output after the input
investments are made. Another reason can be accorded to the merit of NITs,
namely their appreciable efforts in academic administration so as to make the
best use of available resources. What’s more, research and financial productivities
have grown more in comparison to the education and employability productivity
in the same time period. There is an inherent trade-off between the on-campus
placement of graduates and the research productivity of higher education
institutes. The higher the on-campus placement of undergraduate students, the
lower the number of graduates joining the research activities in the same insti-
tute. The most important learning from the authors’ analysis is that it is not
necessary that the institutions which may be performing better in absolute terms
are also better performing when it comes to the productivity growth.

Japan
Japanese society is facing some social and economic challenges caused by rapid
aging. Indeed, it is experiencing a continuous decrease in the youth population,
such that in 2020, about 28.7 per cent of the whole population has been reported
to be over 65 years old. This demographic pressure leads to the expectations
placed upon the higher education sector to take a more active role in science,
technology and innovation for revitalizing the national knowledge economy, in
addition, to further contributing to the development of highly skilled human
resources. To emphasize the role of university sector in the national innova-
tion ecosystem, the Japanese government is now implementing measures to
strengthen national university funding based mainly on research performance.
In Japan, the national government funding for higher education, especially
those related to basic research, has been concentrated on a limited number of top
national universities with high research productivity. Through this highly con-
centrated funding mechanism, Japan’s top research universities have attracted
Introduction
Agasisti, T. , Yang, G. , Song, Y. , and Tran, C. (2021). Evaluating the Higher Education
Productivity of Chinese and European “elite” Universities Using a Meta-Frontier Approach.
Scientometrics, 1–35. doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03978-z.
Aithal, P. S. , and Kumar, P. M. (2016). Application of Theory A on ABC Model to Enhance
Organizational Research Productivity in Higher Education. International Journal of Advanced
Trends in Engineering and Technology (IJATET), 1 (1), 142–150.
Andersson, C. , and Sund, K. (2021). Technical Efficiency and Productivity of Higher Education
Institutions in the Nordic Countries. International Journal of Public Administration, 45 (2)
107–120.
Arjomandi, A. , Salleh, M. , and Mohammadzadeh, A. (2015). Measuring Productivity Change in
Higher Education: An Application of Hicks – Moorsteen Total Factor Productivity Index to
Malaysian Public Universities. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy , 20 (4), 630–643.
doi:10.1080/13547860.2015.1045323.
Caves, D. , Christensen, L. , and Diewert, W. (1982). The Economic Theory of Index Numbers
and the Measurement of Input, Output, and Productivity. Econometrica, 50 (6), 1393–1414.
doi:10.2307/1913388.
Charnes, A. , Cooper, W. W. , and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the Efficiency of Decision
Making Units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2 (6), 429–444.
Drengenberg, N. , and Bain, A. (2017). If All You Have Is a Hammer, Everything Begins to look
Like a Nail – How Wicked Is the Problem of Measuring Productivity in Higher Education? Higher
Education Research and Development, 36 (4), 660–673. doi:10.1080/07294360.2016.1208640.
Edvardsen, D. , Forsund, F. , and Kittelsen, S. (2017). Productivity Development of Norwegian
Institutions of Higher Education 2004–2013. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68
(4), 399–415. doi:10.1057/s41274-017-0183-x.
J. Frost , & J. Brockmann , (2014). When Qualitative Productivity is Equated with Quantitative
Productivity: Scholars Caught in a Performance Paradox. Zeitschrift für
Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(6), 25–45.
Kuzhabekova, A. , and Ruby, A. (2018). Raising Research Productivity in a Post-Soviet Higher
Education System: A Case from Central Asia. European Education, 50 (3), 266–282.
doi:10.1080/10564934.2018.1444942.
Lee, J. , Liu, K. , and Wu, Y. (2020). Does the Asian Catch-Up Model of World-Class
Universities Work? Revisiting the Zero-Sum Game of Global University Rankings and
Government Policies. Educational Research For Policy and Practice, 19 (3), 319–343.
doi:10.1007/s10671-020-09261-x.
Menon, M. (2016). Productivity as an Indication of Quality in Higher Education: The Views of
Employed Graduates in Greece. Quality in Higher Education, 22 (3), 183–196.
doi:10.1080/13538322.2016.1249120.
Metters, R. , Vargas, V. , and Whybark, D. (2001). An investigation of the Sensitivity of DEA to
Data Errors. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 41 (2), 163–171. doi:10.1016/S0360-
8352(01)00050-X.
Moore, K. , Coates, H. , and Croucher, G. (2019). Investigating Applications of University
Productivity Measurement Models Using Australian Data. Studies in Higher Education, 44 (12),
2148–2162. doi:10.1080/03075079.2018.1479846.
Singh, H. , Motwani, J. , and Kumar, A. (2000). A Review and Analysis of the State-of-the-Art
Research on Productivity Measurement. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 100 (5–6),
234–241. doi:10.1108/02635570010335271.
Sullivan, T. A. , Mackie, C. , Massy, W. F. , and Sinha, E. (2012). Improving Measurement of
Productivity in Higher Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi:10.17226/13417
Titus, M. A. , and K. Eagan . (2016). ‘Examining Production Efficiency in Higher Education: The
Utility of Stochastic Frontier Analysis’. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research,
edited by M. Paulsen , 441–512. Dordrecht: Springer.
UNESCO (2021). UNESCO Science Report: The Race against Time for Smarter Development.
S. Schneegans , T. Straza and J. Lewis (eds). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Yang, J. , Wang, C. , Liu, L. , Croucher, G. , Moore, K. , and Coates, H. (2020). The Productivity
of Leading Global Universities: Empirical Insights and Implications for Higher Education. In B.
Broucker , V. Borden , T. Kallenberg and C. Milsom (eds.) Responsibility of Higher Education
Systems, 224–249. Rotterdam: Brill Sense.
Yang, L. , Yang, J. , and Wang, C. (2021). The Research-Intensive University in a Glonacal
Higher Education System: The Creation of the World-Class University in China. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 1–20. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2021.1884512.

Productivity change in Australian higher education

Abbott, M. , & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: a data
envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22(1), 89–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(01)00068-1
Agasisti, T. , & Johnes, G. (2015). Efficiency, costs, rankings and heterogeneity : the case of US
higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 40(1), 60–82.
Agasisti, T. , and C. Pérez-Esparrells . (2010). Comparing efficiency in a cross-country
perspective: the case of Italian and Spanish state universities. Higher Education, 59(1), 85–103.
Arjomandi, A. , Salleh, M. I. , & Mohammadzadeh, A. (2015). Measuring productivity change in
higher education: an application of Hicks–Moorsteen total factor productivity index to Malaysian
public universities, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 4, 630–643,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2015.1045323
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2000). Australian National Accounts: Concepts, Sources
and Methods. Australian Government
Avilés-sacoto, S. , Cook, W. D. , & Güemes-castorena, D. (2014). Competitiveness among
higher education institutions : a two-stage Cobb-Douglas Model for efficiency measurement of
Schools of Business. The Business and Economics Research Journal, 7(1), 91–115.
https://doi.org/10.7835/jcc-berj-2014-0097
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2007). Technical Information about the BLS Multifactor
Productivity Measures.
Cantu-Ortiz, Francisco J. (2017). Research Analytics: Boosting university productivity and
competitiveness through scientometrics . Auerbach Publications.
Carrington, R. , Coelli, T. I. M. , & Rao, D. S. P. (2005). The performance of Australian
Universities: conceptual issues and preliminary results. Economic Papers. 24(2), 14–16.
Charnes, A. , Cooper, W. W. , & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making
units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.
Cooper, W. W. , Seiford, L. M. , & Tone, K. (2007). Data Envelopment Analysis: A
Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software . New
York, NY: Springer.
Cui, Q. , & Yu, L.-T. (2021). A review of data envelopment analysis in airline efficiency: state of
the art and prospects. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2931734
DESE – Department of Education, Skills and Employment (2020). 2018 Higher Education
Providers Finance Table, March 2020.
Dougherty, K. J. , & Natow, R. S. (2015). The Politics of Performance Funding for Higher
Education: Origins, Discontinuations, and Transformations . JHU Press. Baltimore.
Dougherty, K. J. , Natow, R. S. , Bork, R. H. , Jones, S. M. , & Vega, B. E. (2013). Accounting
for higher education accountability: political origins of state performance funding for higher
education. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–50.
Dutta, P. , Jaikumar, B. , & Arora, M. S. (2021). Applications of data envelopment analysis in
supplier selection between 2000 and 2020: a literature review. Annals of Operations Research,
1.
Dyson, R. G. , Allen, R. , Camanho, A. S. , Podinovski, V. V. , Sarrico, C. S. , & Shale, E. A.
(2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2),
245–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00149-1
Ghobadian, A. , & Husband, T. (1990). Measuring total productivity using production functions.
International Journal of Production Research, 28(8), 1435–1446.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207549008942803
Ginsberg, B. (2011). The Fall of the Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goedegebuure, L. , & Marshman, I. (2017). Australian university productivity; some food for
thought. Improving Service Sector Productivity: The Economic Imperative (pp. 69–80).
Melbourne: CEDA.
Gralka S. (2018). Persistent inefficiency in the higher education sector: evidence from Germany.
Education Economics, 26(4), 373–392.
Gušavac, B. A. , & Savić, G. (2021). Operations research problems and data envelopment
analysis in agricultural land processing – a review. Management: Journal of Sustainable
Business & Management Solutions in Emerging Economies, 26(1), 14–26.
Hoxby, C. & Stange, K. (eds) (2019). Productivity in Higher Education. University of Chicago
Press.
Izadi, H. , Johnes, G. , Oskrochi, R. , & Crouchley, R. (2002). Stochastic frontier estimation of a
CES cost function: the case of higher education in Britain. Economics of Education Review, 21,
63–71.
Johnes, J. (2006). Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of
efficiency in higher education, Economies of Education Review, 25, 273–288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.02.005
Jongbloed, B. , & Vossensteyn, H. (2001). Keeping up performances: an international survey of
performance-based funding in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 23(2), 127–145.
Kempkes G. , & Pohl, C. (2010). The efficiency of German universities–some evidence from
nonparametric and parametric methods. Applied Economics, 42.16, 2063–2079.
Kohl, S. , Schoenfelder, J. , Fügener, A. , & Brunner, J. O. (2019). The use of Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in healthcare with a focus on hospitals. Health Care Management
Science, 22(2), 245–286.
Lacy, W. B. , Croucher, G. , Brett, A. , & Mueller, R. (2017). Australian Universities at a
Crossroads: Insights from Their Leaders & Implications for the Future. University of Melbourne
Centre for the Study of Higher Education.
Lepori, B. , & Jongbloed, B. (2018). National resource allocation decisions in higher education:
objectives and dilemmas. In Cantwell, B. Coates , King, R. , the Handbook on the Politics of
Higher Education. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. 211 – 228.
Lomax-Smith, J. (2011) Base Funding Review for Higher Education. Australian Government
Lombardi, J. V. (2013). How Universities Work. Baltimore: JHU Press.
Massy, W. F. (2016). Reengineering the University: How to Be Mission Centered, Market Smart,
and Margin Conscious. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Massy, W. F. (2017). Higher Education Productivity Metrics: An Essential Guide for Users and
Developers. Project Report. APO, Tokyo.
Middaugh, M. (2001). Understanding faculty productivity: Standards and benchmarks for
colleges and universities. John Wiley & Sons.
Miller, B. A. (2007). Assessing Organizational Performance in Higher Education. Jossey-Bass.
Kenneth,Moore . Measuring Productivity in Education and Not-for-profits: With Tools and
Examples in R. Springer Nature, 2021.
Moore, K. , Coates, H. , & Croucher, G. (2018). Investigating applications of university
productivity measurement models using Australian data. Studies in Higher Education, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1479846
Moore, K. , Croucher, G. , & Coates, H. (2019). Productivity and policy in higher education.
Australian Economic Review, 52(2), 236–247.
Moradi-Motlagh, A. , Jubb, C. , & Houghton, K. (2016). Productivity analysis of Australian
universities. Pacific Accounting Review, 28(4), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-02-2016-
0027
Nazarko, J. , & Šaparauskas, J. (2014). Application of DEA method in efficiency evaluation of
public higher education institutions. Technological and Economic development of Economy,
20(1), 25–44.
New Zealand Productivity Commission (2017). New models of tertiary education: Final Report.
Available from www.productivity.govt.nz/inquiry-content/tertiary-education
Olariu, G. V. , & Brad, S. (2017). Efficiency Assessment of Universities with DEA Method Based
on Public Data. https://doi.org/10.1515/cplbu-2017-0015
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2001). Measuring
Productivity: Measurement of Aggregate and Industry-level Productivity Growth. Paris: OECD.
Salas-velasco, M. (2018). Can educational laws improve efficiency in education production?
Assessing students' academic performance at Spanish public universities, 2008–2014. Higher
Education 77(1), 1103–1123
Singh, H. , Motwani, J. , & Kumar, A. (2000). A review and analysis of the state-of-the-art
research on productivity measurement. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 100(5),
234–241.
Sink, D. S. , & Tuttle, T. C. (1989). Planning and Measurement in Your Organization of the
Future. Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Institute of Industrial Engineers.
Sullivan, T. A. , Mackie, C. , Massy, W. F. , & Sinha, E. (2012). Improving Measurement of
Productivity in Higher Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/13417
Szuwarzyński, A. (2018). Benefit of the doubt approach to assessing the research performance
of Australian universities. Higher Education Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12184
Tandberg, D. , & Hillman, N. (2013). State performance funding for higher education: Silver
bullet or red herring. WISCAPE Policy Brief, 18.
Titus, M. A. , and K. Eagan . (2016). Examining production efficiency in higher education: the
utility of stochastic frontier analysis. In M. Paulsen (Ed.). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory
and Research, 441–512. Dordrecht: Springer.
Witte, K. D. , & López-Torres, L. (2017). Efficiency in education: a review of literature and a way
forward. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68(4), 339–363.
Wolszczak-Derlacz, A. P. J. (2013). Dynamics of productivity in higher education: cross-
European evidence based on bootstrapped Malmquist indices, Journal of Productivity Analysis,
40(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-012-0320-0
Worthington, A. C. , & Lee, B. L. (2008). Efficiency, technology and productivity change in
Australian universities, 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 285–298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.012
Yaohua, R. , Muyu, L. , Weihu, C. , & Xianyu, C. (2018). Efficiency, technology and productivity
change of higher efficiency, technology and productivity change of higher educational
institutions directly under the ministry of education of educational institutions directly under the
ministry. Procedia Computer Science, 139, 598–604.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.204
Zilvinskis, J. , & Borden, V. (Eds.). (2017). Learning Analytics in Higher Education: New
Directions for Higher Education, Number 179 . John Wiley & Sons.

University research productivity in Cambodia: An analysis of Scopus-

indexed publications
Ahrens, L. , & McNamara, V. (2013). Cambodia: Evolving quality issues in higher education. In
L. P. Symaco (Ed.), Education in South-East Asia (pp. 47–69). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Akbaritabar, A. , Casnici, N. , & Squazzoni, F. (2018). The conundrum of research productivity:
A study on sociologists in Italy. Scientometrics, 114 (3), 859–882. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-
2606-5
Altbach, P. G. (2009). Peripheries and centers: Research universities in developing countries.
Asia Pacific Education Review , 10 (1), 15–27. doi:10.1007/s12564-009-9000-9
Albert, C. , Davia, M. A. , & Legazpe, N. (2016). Determinants of research productivity in
Spanish academia. European Journal of Education, 51 (4), 535–549. doi:10.1111/ejed.12142
Altbach, P. G. , & Salmi, J. (Eds.). (2011). The road to academic excellence: The making of
world-class research universities. Washington DC: World Bank.
Barrot, J. S. (2017). Research impact and productivity of Southeast Asian countries in language
and linguistics. Scientometrics, 110 (1), 1–15. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2163-3
Becher, T. , & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the
culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Bornmann, L. , & Marx, W. (2014). How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural
and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations.
Scientometrics, 98 (1), 487–509. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1161-y
Butler, D. L. (2003). Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications – the effects of a
funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32 (1), 143–155.
Chet, C. (2019). Lessons learned from the implementation of University Research Grants
(2017−2018) at the Royal University of Phnom Penh. Insight: Cambodia Journal of Basic and
Applied Research (CJBAR), 1 (1), 149–164.
CICP . (2016). Doing research in Cambodia: Making models that build capacity. Phnom Penh:
Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace.
Clayton, T. , & Yuok, N. (1997). Cambodia. In G. A. Postiglione & G. C. L. Mak (Eds.), Asian
higher education: An international handbook and reference guide (pp. 21–35). Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Deem, R. (2008). Producing and re/producing the global university in the 21st century:
Researcher perspectives and policy consequences. Higher Education Policy, 21 (4), 439–456.
doi:10.1057/hep.2008.18
Eam, P. (2015). Factors differentiating research involvement among faculty members: A
perspective from Cambodia. Excellence in Higher Education, 6 (1&2), 1–11.
Eam, P. (2017). A study on the relationship between research ability and mindset of Cambodian
faculty members and their research outputs: A perspective from fifteen higher education
institutions . (PhD Thesis). Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Eam, P. (2018). Current state, key challenges and ways forward for Cambodian research
capacities: A review of four studies. Cambodia Education Review, 2 (1), 108–143.
Eam, P. , Ros, V. , Heng, S. , & Ravy, S. (2020). Understanding Cambodian deans' conceptions
and approaches to university accountability . Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resources
Institute.
Huisman, J. , & Currie, J. (2004). Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled
water? Higher Education, 48 (4), 529–551. doi:10.1023/B:HIGH.0000046725.16936.4c
Jarvis, H. , Lalonde, C. , & Nhean, L. (2006). Publishing in Cambodia. Siem Reap, Cambodia:
Center for Khmer Studies.
Jaspers, K. (1960). The idea of the university . London: Peter Owen.
Jung, J. (2012). Faculty research productivity in Hong Kong across academic discipline. Higher
Education Studies, 2 (4). doi:10.5539/hes.v2n4p1
Kumar, S. , Rohani, V. A. , & Ratnavelu, K. (2014). International research collaborations of
ASEAN Nations in economics, 1979–2010. Scientometrics, 101 (1), 847–867.
doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1363-y
Kuzhabekova, A. , & Ruby, A. (2018). Raising research productivity in a post-Soviet higher
education system: A case from Central Asia. European Education, 50 (3), 266–282.
doi:10.1080/10564934.2018.1444942
Kwok, K. W. , Chan, S. , Heng, C. , Kim, S. , Neth, B. , & Thon, V. (2010). Scoping study:
Research capacities of Cambodia's universities. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development
Resource Institute.
Leng, P. (2016). Mutuality in Cambodian international university partnerships: Looking beyond
the global discourse. Higher Education, 72 (3), 261–275. doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9952-0
Mak, N. , Sok, S. , Un, L. , Bunry, R. , Chheng, S. , & Kao, S. (2019). Finance in public higher
education in Cambodia . Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute.
Meho, L. I. , & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS
faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 58 (13), 2105–2125. doi:10.1002/asi.20677
MoEYS . (2014). Policy on higher education vision 2030 . Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education,
Youth and Sport.
MoEYS . (2015). Higher Education Quality and Capacity Improvement Project (Development
and Innovation Grants): Stocktaking report. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sport.
MoEYS . (2019). Education Strategic Plan 2019–2023. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education,
Youth and Sport.
Mohrman, K. , Ma, W. , & Baker, D. (2008). The research university in transition: The emerging
global model. Higher Education Policy, 21 (1), 5–27. doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300175
Moore, K. , Coates, H. , & Croucher, G. (2018). Understanding and improving higher education
productivity. In E. Hazelkorn , H. Coates , & McCormick (Eds.), Research handbook on quality,
performance and accountability in higher education (pp. 161–177). Massachusetts: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Moore, K. , Coates, H. , & Croucher, G. (2019). Investigating applications of university
productivity measurement models using Australian data. Studies in Higher Education, 44 (12),
2148–2162. doi:10.1080/03075079.2018.1479846
Ngin, C. , & Kao, S. (2017). Cambodia. In K. Moore , H. Coates , & G. Croucher (Eds.),
Productivity in higher education: Research insights for universities and governments in Asia (pp.
21–38). Japan: Asian Productivity Organization.
Nguyen, T. V. , & Pham, L. T. (2011). Scientific output and its relationship to knowledge
economy: An analysis of ASEAN countries. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 107–117.
doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0446-2
Oleksiyenko, A. , & Ros, V. (2019). Cambodian lecturers' pursuit of academic excellence:
Expectations vs. reality. Asia Pacific Journal of Education , 39 (2), 222–236.
doi:10.1080/02188791.2019.1621797
Peou, C. (2017). On Cambodian higher education and skills mismatch: Young people choosing
university majors in a context of risk and uncertainty. Journal of Education and Work, 30 (1),
26–38. doi:10.1080/13639080.2015.1119258
Pit, C. , & Ford, D. (2004). Cambodian higher education: Mixed visions. In P. G. Altbach & T.
Umakoshi (Eds.), Asian universities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges (pp.
333–362). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Postiglione, G. A. (2015). Research universities for national rejuvenation and global influence:
China's search for a balanced model. Higher Education, 70 (2), 235–250. doi:10.1007/s10734-
014-9838-6
Postiglione, G. A. , & Jung, J. (2013). World-class university and Asia's top tier researchers. In
Q. Wang , Y. Cheng , & N. C. Liu (Eds.), Building world-class universities: Different approaches
to a shared goal (pp. 161–179). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Rappleye, J. , & Un, L. (2018). What drives failed policy at the World Bank? An inside account
of new aid modalities to higher education: Context, blame, and infallibility. Comparative
Education, 54 (2), 250–274. doi:10.1080/03050068.2018.1426534
Ros, V. , Eam, P. , Heng, S. , & Ravy, S. (2020). Cambodian academics: Identities and roles.
Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute.
Ros, V. , & Oleksiyenko, A. (2018). Policy misalignments and development challenges in the
Cambodian academic profession: Insights from public university lecturers. Higher Education
Policy, 31 (1), 19–35. doi:10.1057/s41307-017-0043-y
Royal Government of Cambodia . (1994). Education sector review volume 2B: Education
statistical digest. Phnom Penh: Royal Government of Cambodia.
Sam, C. , & Dahles, H. (2017). Stakeholder involvement in the higher education sector in
Cambodia. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (9), 1764–1784.
doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1124851
Scopus . (2020). Scopus content coverage guide. Retrieved from
https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/Scopus_ContentCoverage_Guide_
WEB.pdf
Shin, J. C. , & Cummings, W. K. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across
disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85 (2),
581–594. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0236-2
Sloper, D. (Ed.). (1999). Higher education in Cambodia: The social and educational context for
reconstruction. Bangkok: UNESCO.
Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis.
Higher Education, 39 (2), 201–222.
Un, L. , Hem, B. , & Seng, S. (2017). Academic promotion of higher education teaching
personnel in Cambodia. In L. Wang & W. Teter (Eds.), Recalibrating careers in academia:
Professional advancement policies and practices in Asia-Pacific (pp. 41–72). Bangkok:
UNESCO.
White, C. S. , James, K. , Burke, L. A. , & Allen, R. S. (2012). What makes a “research star”?
Factors influencing the research productivity of business faculty. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 61 (6), 584–602. doi:10.1108/17410401211249175
World Bank . (2010). Cambodia – Higher Education Quality and Capacity Improvement Project:
Project appraisal. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank . (2018). Cambodia – Higher Education Quality and Capacity Improvement Project:
Implementation completion and results report. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Economies of scale or scope? The development strategies of university

and its impact on research productivity in China
Abramo, G. , D'Angelo, C. A. , & Pugini, F. (2008). The measurement of Italian universities'
research productivity by a non parametric-bibliometric methodology. Scientometrics, 76 (2),
225–244. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1942-2
Apon, A. W. , Ngo, L. B. , Payne, M. E. , & Wilson, P. W. (2015). Assessing the effect of high
performance computing capabilities on academic research output. Empirical Economics, 48 (1),
283–312. doi:10.1007/s00181-014-0833-7
Chavas, J.-P. , Barham, B. , Foltz, J. , & Kim, K. (2012). Analysis and decomposition of scope
economies: R&D at US research universities. Applied Economics, 44 (11), 1387–1404.
doi:10.1080/00036846.2010.541151
Cohn, E. , Rhine, S. L. W. , & Santos, M. C. (1989). Institutions of higher education as multi-
product firms – economies of scale and scope. The Review of Economics and Statistics,
LXXI(2), 284–290.
Freidoon, F. , Teimour, M. , Jamshid, P. , & Farhad, G. (2019). Efficiency and productivity of
higher education centers of Islamic Azad University units: Comparison of DEA, Malmquist Index
and truncated bootstrapped regression approaches. Fas.lnāmah-'i pizhūhish'hā-yi iqtis.ādī-i
Īrān, 24 (79), 209–248. doi:10.22054/IJER.2019.10892
Hashimoto, K. , & Cohn, E. (1997). Economies of scale and scope in Japanese private
universities. Education Economics, 5 (2), 107–115. doi:10.1080/09645299700000010
Jauhar, S. K. , Pant, M. , & Nagar, A. K. (2017). Sustainable educational supply chain
performance measurement through DEA and differential evolution: A case on Indian HEI.
Journal of Computational Science, 19 , 138–152. doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2016.10.007
Johnes, J. , & Johnes, G. (1995). Research funding and performance in U.K. University
Departments of Economics: A frontier analysis. Economics of Education Review, 14 (3),
301–314. doi:10.1016/0272-7757(95)00008-8
Lee, S. , & Lee, H. (2015). Measuring and comparing the R&D performance of government
research institutes: A bottom-up data envelopment analysis approach. Journal of Informetrics, 9
(4), 942–953. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.10.001
Munoz, D. A. (2016). Assessing the research efficiency of higher education institutions in Chile:
A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 30
(6), 809–825. doi:10.1108/IJEM-03-2015-0022
Panzar, J. C. , & Willig, R. D. (1975). Economies of scale and economies of scope in multi-
output production. Bell Laboratories Economic Discussion Paper, 33 .
Rahimian, M. , & Soltanifar, M. (2013). An application of DEA based Malmquist productivity
index in university performance analysis. Management Science Letters, 4 (1), 337–344.
doi:10.5267/j.msl.2012.10.023
Sharma, S. , & Thomas, V. J. (2008). Inter-country R&D efficiency analysis: An application of
data envelopment analysis. Scientometrics, 76 (3), 483–501. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1896-4
Thanassoulis, E. , Kortelainen, M. , Johnes, G. , & Johnes, J. (2017). Costs and efficiency of
higher education institutions in England: A DEA analysis. The Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 62 (7), 1282–1297. doi:10.1057/jors.2010.68
Tyagi, P. , Yadav, S. P. , & Singh, S. P. (2009). Relative performance of academic departments
using DEA with sensitivity analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32 (2), 168–177.
doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.10.002
Wu, P.-C. , Huang, T.-H. , & Pan, S.-C. (2013). Country performance evaluation: The DEA
model approach. Social Indicators Research, 118 (2), 835–849. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0443-
3
Zhang, L.-C. , & Worthington, A. C. (2017). Explaining estimated economies of scale and scope
in higher education: A meta-regression analysis. Research in Higher Education, 59 (2),
156–173. doi:10.1007/s11162-017-9460-4
Paradigm shift in measuring productivity in higher education
Agasisti, T. , & Johnes, G. (2009). Beyond Frontiers: Comparing the Efficiency of Higher
Education Decision-Making Units Across More Than One Country. Education Economics, 17
(1), 59–79.
Arjomandi, A. , M. I. I. S. , & Mohammadzadeh, A. (2015). Measuring Productivity Change in
Higher Education: An Application of Hicks–Moorsteen Total Factor Productivity Index to
Malaysian Public Universities. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy , 20 (4), 630–643.
Bairam, E. (1994). Homogeneous and Non-Homogeneous Production Functions: Theory &
Applications. Aldershot: Avebury.
Block, J. H. (1971). Mastery Learning: Theory and Practice, New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Bloom, B.S. (1981). All Our Children Learning, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bowen Howard R (1977). Investment in Learning, the Individual and Social Value in American
Higher Education, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Carroll, J. B. (1963). “A model of school learning”, Teachers College Record, 64, pp. 723–733.
Coates, H. (2017a). Productivity in Higher Education: Research Insights for Universities and
Governments in Asia. Asian Productivity Organisation.
Coates, H. (2017b). The Market for Learning: Leading Transparent Higher Education.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Croucher, G. (2019, September 25). Productivity and Higher Education. Retrieved from Oxford
Bibliographies: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756810/obo-
9780199756810-0227.xml
Daugherty, L. , Miller, T. , Dossani, R. , & Clifford, M. (2013). Building the Links Between
Funding and Quality in Higher Education: India's Challenge. RAND Corporation.
Drengenberg, N. , & Bain, A. (2017). If All You Have Is a Hammer, Everything Begins to Look
Like a Nail—How Wicked Is the Problem of Measuring Productivity in Higher Education. Higher
Education Research & Development, 36 (4), 660–673.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2007). What's Happening to Public Higher Education?: The Shifting Financial
Burden. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Forum for the Future of Higher Education (2007): Assessment and Accountability in Higher
Education, Forum for the Future of Higher Education, Cambridge, Mass.
Halton, C. (2019, July 23). Credence Good. Retrieved from Investopedia:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/credence-good.asp
Johnes, J. (2006). Data Envelopment Analysis and Its Application to the Measurement of
Efficiency in Higher Education. Economics of Education Review, 25 , 273–288.
Khare, M. (2020 a). Neo-Managerialism in Higher Education: A Conundrum of Conflicts.
International Seminar on Governance and Autonomy in Higher Education. New Delhi: CPRHE,
NIEPA and British Council.
Khare, M. (2020 b). Triangular Model of Outcome Based Higher Education Performance. In N.
V. Varghese , & S. Mandal (Eds.), Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher
Education. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pvt Ltd.
Krause, K. (2012). Addressing the Wicked Problem of Quality in Higher Education: Theoretical
Approaches and Implications. Higher Education Research & Development, 31 (3), 285–297.
doi:10.1080/07294360.201.634381
Lalvani, M. , Hajra, K. S. , & Pazhayathodi, B. (n.d.). Introducing Expenditure Quality in
Intergovernmental Transfers: A Triple-E Framework. Reserve Bank of India, Department of
Economic Analysis and Policy. Mumbai: Reserve Bank of India. Retrieved from
https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/bs_viewcontent.aspx?id=2037
Massy, W. (2016). Reengineering the University: How to Be Mission Centered, Market Smart
and Margin Conscious. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Massy, W. F. , Sullivan, T. A. , & Mackie, C. (2018). Improving Measurement of Productivity in
Higher Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Education, 45 (1), 15–23.
Merton (1968). The Matthew effect in Science. Science, 159 (3810), 56–63.
MHRD . (2020). New Education Policy. New Delhi: Government of India.
Miller, B. (2007). Purpose of Assessment. In B. Miller (Ed.), Assessing Organizational
Performance in Higher Education. Hoboken, NJ, United States: Jossey Bass.
Moore, K. , & Coates, H. (2019). Measuring International Higher Education Productivity:
Lessons from Nine Countries in Asia. Higher Education Forum, 16 , 69–84.
Moore, K. , Coates, H. , & Croucher, G. (2017). Deciphering Higher Education Productivity. In A.
P. Organisation (Ed.) , Productivity in Higher Education: Research Insights for Universities and
Governments in Asia (pp. 2–20). Japan: Asian Productivity Organisation.
Moore, K. , Coates, H. , & Croucher, G. (2018). Investigating Applications of University
Productivity Measurement Models Using Australian Data. Studies in Higher Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1479846
National Research Council . (2012). Improving Measurement of Productivity in Higher
Education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
Newton, J. (2002). Views from Below: Academics Coping with Quality. Quality in Higher
Education, 8 (1), 39–61. doi:10.1080/13538320220127434
OECD. (2001). Measuring Productivity: Measurement of Aggregate and Industry-Level
Productivity Growth. Paris: OECD.
OECD , (2008), “Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: a comparative review of
selected practices”, OECD Education Working Paper No. 15.
OECD 2012 Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes Feasibility Study Report
Volume 1 – Design and Implementation Karine Tremblay Diane Lalancette Deborah Roseveare.
OECD (2012a), “How is the Global talent Pool Changing?”, Education Indicators in Focus, Issue
2012/05, May 2012, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Rittel, H. , & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4
, 155–169.
Scott Ian. (2011): “The Learning Outcome in Higher Education: Time to think again?” Worcester
Journal of Learning and Teaching, 5.
Triplett, J. E. , & Bosworth, B. P. (2004). Productivity in The U.S Services Sector. Washington
D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Volkwein, J. F. , & Sweitzer, K. V. (2006). Institutional prestige and reputation among research
universities and liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education, 47 (2), 129–148.

Policy debates and the reality of the research productivity of national

universities in Japan
Aoki, S. , & Kimura, M. (2016). Nihon no Kokuritsu Daigaku no Ronbun Sensansei Bunseki [An
analysis of productivity in journal article publication at national universities in Japan]. Financial
Review, 128 , 55–66.
Asonuma, A. (2002). Finance reform in Japanese higher education. Higher Education, 43 (1),
109–125.
Cabinet Office . (2020). Togo innovation senryaku (Integrated innovation strategy ). Cabinet
Office.
Espeland, W. , & Sauder, M. (2007). Ranking and reactivity: How public measures recreate
social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (1), 1–40.
Fujimura, M. (2018). Naze Kenkyu Seisansei ga Shissoku Shitanoka?: Daigaku Kyoin no
Genzai [Why has research productivity stalled in Japan?: The state of the academic profession].
Daigaku Ronshu, 50 , 1–16.
Hayashi, T. , Saito, T. , Mizuta, K. , Yonezawa, A. , Kawamura, M. , & Ando, N. (2020). Daigaku
Hyoka to Uneihi Koufukin no Ittaiteki Kaikaku no Arikata. Integrated Reform of University
Evaluation and Funding. SciREX Center.
Horta, H. (2018). The declining scientific wealth of Hong Kong and Singapore. Scientometrics,
117 (1), 427–447.
Japan Association for National Universities . (2018, January). Koto Kyoiku ni Okeru Kokuritsu
Daigaku no Shoraizo. (Saishu Matome). [Future vision of national universities in higher
education (Final summary)]. https://www.janu.jp/voice/20180126-wnew-future-vision-final.html
Jondrow, J. et al. (1982). On the estimation of technical inefficiency in stochastic frontier
production model. Journal of Econometrics, 19 , 233–238.
Kumbhakar, S. , & Lovell, C. (2000). Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge University Press.
NISTEP . (2017). Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2017.
https://www.nistep.go.jp/sti_indicator/2017/RM261_01.html
OECD (2020). Education at a glance 2020. OECD.
OECD (2021). Science, technology and innovation outlook 2021. OECD.
Saka, A. , & Igami, M. (2015). Benchmarking scientific research 2015: Bibliometric analysis on
dynamic alteration of research activity in the world and Japan. NISTEP.
https://www.nistep.go.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/NISTEP-RM239-FullJ.pdf
Yamamoto, K. (2008). Has agencification succeeded in public sector reform? Realities and
rhetoric in the case of Japan. Asia n Journal of Political Science , 16 (1), 24–40.
Yamamoto, K. (2010). Performance-oriented budgeting in public universities. Journal of Finance
and Management, 7 , 43–60.
Yonezawa, A. (2019). National university reforms introduced by the Japanese
government—University autonomy under fire?. In C. Wan , M. N. N. Lee , & H. Loke (Eds.).
The governance and management of universities in Asia (pp. 81–93). Routledge.
Yonezawa, A. (2020). Challenges of the Japanese higher education amidst population decline
and globalization. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 18 (1), 43–52.
Yonezawa, A. , & Shimmi, Y. (2016). Transformation of university governance through
internationalization. In N. C. Liu , Y. Cheng , Q. Wang (Eds). Matching visibility and
performance (pp. 103–118). Sense Publishers.

Productivity of Malaysian universities

Allen, H.L. (1998). Faculty workload and productivity: Ethnic and gender disparities. In The
National Education Association (Ed.), The NEA 1998 Almanac of Higher Education (pp. 25–42).
Washington DC: National Education Association.
Amir, A. , Mad Ithnin, S. & Abbas M. (2015) Measuring productivity change in higher education:
An application of Hicks-Moorsteen total factor productivity index to Malaysian public universities.
Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy , 20(4), 630–643.
Azman, N. , Pang, V. , Sirat, M. & Md Yunus, A. (2014). Teaching and research in Malaysian
public universities: Synergistic or antagonistic? In Shin, J. C. , Arimoto, A. , Cummings, W. K. &
Teichler, U. (Eds.), Teaching and Research in Contemporary Higher Education: Systems,
Activities and Rewards (pp. 255–276). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bardes, C. L. , Hayes, J. G. , Falcone, D. J. , Hajjar, D. P. & Alonso, D. R. (1998). Measuring
teaching: A relative value scale in teaching. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 10(1), 40–43.
Bloomgarden, A. H. & O'Meara, K. A. (2007). Faculty role integration and community
engagement: Harmony or cacophony?. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
13(Spring), 5–18.
Bogt, H. J. , and Scapens, R. W. (2012). Performance management in universities: Effects of
the transition to more quantitative measurement systems. European Accounting Review, 21(3),
451–497.
Boring, A. (2017). Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Public
Economics, 145, 27–41.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered. Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Braxton, J. , Luckey, W. , & Holland, P. (2002). Institutionalizing a broader view of scholarship
through Boyer's four domains. In Kezar, J. (Ser. Ed.) ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol.
29, No. 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley Periodicals.
Cadez, S. Dimovski, V. & Groff, M. Z. (2017). Research, teaching and performance evaluation
in academia: The salience of quality, Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1455–1473.
Charles, M. (2018). Teaching, in spite of excellence: Recovering a practice of teaching-led
research. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 37, 15–29.
Coates, H. (2017). The Market for Learning: Leading Transparent Higher Education. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Cohen, A. , & Kisker, C. (2010). The Shaping of American Higher Education (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Colbeck, C. (2002). Integration: Evaluating faculty work as a whole. New Direction for
Institutional Research, 114, 43–52.
Crosta, P. M. , & Packman, I. G. (2005). Faculty productivity in supervising doctoral students'
dissertations at Cornell University. Economics of Education Review, 24, 55–65.
Department of Higher Education (November 2019). Senarai Daftar IPTS [Private Higher
Education Institutions Registration List]. Accessed January 8, 2020, at
http://jpt.mohe.gov.my/portal/ipts/institusi-pendidikan-tinggi-swasta/senarai-daftar-dan-statistik-
ipts
Fairweather, J. S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and
research in faculty salaries. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 401–422.
Fox M. F. (1992). Research, teaching and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition
in academia. Sociology of Education, 65, 293–305.
Hanushek E. A. and Ettema, E. (2017). Defining productivity in education: Issues and
illustrations. The American Economist, 62(2), 165–183.
Hirsch J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102, 16569–16572.
Johnes, J. (2006). Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of
efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 273–288.
Krugman, P. (1997). The Age of Diminished Expectations (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kupriyanova, V. , Estermann, T. and Sabic, N. (2018). Efficiency of universities: Drivers,
enablers and limitations. In Curaj, A. Deca, L. & Pricopie, R. (Eds.), European Higher Education
Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies (pp. 603–618). Cham: Springer Open.
Layzell, D. T. (1996). Faculty workload and productivity: Recurrent issues with new imperatives.
The Review of Higher Education, 19(3), 267–281.
Lim, H. E. , Fauziah, M. T. , Nur Adiana, H. A. & Yen, S. H. (2016). How efficient are Malaysian
public universities? A comparative analysis using Data Envelopment Analysis. Asian Academy
of Management Journal , 21(2), 75–97.
Mad Ithnin, S. (2012). An empirical analysis of efficiency and productivity changes in Malaysian
public higher education institutions . Unpublished doctoral dissertation at the University of
Wollongong.
Massy, W. F. & Archer, S. (2018). Perspectives and advances on productivity measurement in
higher education. In Hazelkorn, E. , Coates, H. & McCormick, A. (Eds.), Research Handbook on
Quality, Performance and Accountability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Meyer, K. A. (1998). Faculty Workload Studies: Perspectives, Needs, and Future Directions
(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No 26-1b). Washington, DC: The George Washington
University.
Meyer, L. H. (2012). Negotiating academic values, professorial responsibilities and expectations
for accountability in today's university. Higher Education Quarterly, 66(2), 207–217.
Middaugh, M. F. (1992). Examining academic and administrative productivity measures. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 75, 61–75.
Middaugh, M. F. (2001). Understanding Faculty Productivity. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Ministry of Education (2019). Higher Education Statistics 2018. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education
Malaysia.
Mtawa, N. N. , Fongwa, S. N. , & Wangenge-Ouma, G. (2016). The scholarship of university-
community engagement: Interrogating Boyer's model. International Journal of Educational
Development, 49, 126–133.
Ng, K. W. & Rohanin, A. (2012). Data envelopment analysis on technical and scale efficiencies
of academic departments at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Matematika, 28(1), 63–76.
O'Meara, K. (2008). Motivation for faculty community engagement: Learning from exemplars.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 9–24.
OECD (2019). OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Prathap, G. & Ratnavelu, K. (2015). Research performance evaluation of leading higher
education institutions in Malaysia. Research Communications, 109(6), 1159–1164.
Reese, H. W. (2011). The learning-by-doing principle. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 17 (1),
1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0100597
Schuster, J. H. & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American Faculty: The Restructuring of
Academic Work and Careers. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Sullivan, T. A. , Mackie, C. , Massy, W. F. & Sinha, E. (Eds.). (2012). Improving Measurement
of Productivity in Higher Education. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Suryani, Ina , Yaacob, Aizan , Hashima, Noor , Rashid, Salleh Abd & Desa, Hazry (2013).
Research publication output by academicians in public and private universities in Malaysia.
International Journal of Higher Education, 2(1), 84–90.
Trigwell, K. (2011). Measuring teaching performance. In J. C. Shin , R. K. Toutkoushian , & U.
Teichler (Eds.), University Rankings (pp. 165–181). Springer Verlag. doi:10.11007/978-94-007-
1116-7_6.
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) (2020). Education. Accessed July 30, 2020, at
http://data.uis.unesco.org.
Universitas 21 (2021) U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems. Accessed February
12, 2021, at https://universitas21.com/rankings
Uttl, B. , White, C. A. , & Gonzalez (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness:
Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in
Educational Evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42.
Webber, K. L. (2011). Measuring faculty productivity. In J. C. Shin , R. K. Toutkoushian , & U.
Teichler (Eds.), University Rankings (pp. 105–121). Springer Verlag. doi:10.11007/978-94-007-
1116-7_6
Williams, R. & Leahy, A. (2020) U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems 2020.
Melbourne: Universitas 21.
Ziker, J. (2014, March 31). The long, lonely job of homo academicus: Focusing the research
lens on the professor's own schedule. Retrieved from https://thebluereview.org/faculty-
timeallocation/