Higher education systems vary across countries and regions and may have different structures, funding mechanisms, and accreditation processes. Some countries have a centralized system with a single governing body responsible for higher education, while others have a more decentralized system with multiple institutions operating independently.

Examples of international higher education system models include:

• • • Germany: The governance system is characterized by a federal structure, with significant autonomy and academic self-governance among individual states. However, there is still a strong emphasis on national coordination and planning. Universities are focused both on research and practical training for students. The system is highly regulated, with strict standards for degree programs and accreditation. The system is praised for its focus on quality and research excellence but criticized for needing to be faster to innovate and adapt. 

    • France: The higher education system is characterized by a centralized government structure, with the Ministry of Education controlling most aspects of higher education. Universities are relatively autonomous but have limited financial resources and rely heavily on government funding. There is a strong emphasis on research and academic excellence. 

    • Japan: model involves a complex system of governance involving government officials, private sector representatives, and university administrators.

    • Australia: model involves a federal government body responsible for funding and regulating higher education institutions and a system of state-level agencies.

    • Canada: model involves a mix of provincial and federal government bodies responsible for funding and regulating higher education institutions.

To differentiate higher education institutions and systems by describing various institutions, policies, laws, and systems that govern and regulate higher education, learners will explore a global overview of higher education institutions and systems in England, the Netherlands,  Germany, and Austria, followed by a synopsis of government market pressure and influence—the cooperation between education reform transition and systems in fourth European countries. In this section, we conclude with an assessment to identify the forces of institutions and systems that influenced Vietnam's reform process. 

There are three governance paradigms used globally in higher education systems.

1. The state-controlled model is characterized by a strong government presence in higher education institutions, with the state providing funding and setting policies. This model is standard in countries such as China and France.

2. The market-oriented model emphasizes competition pressure and consumer choice in higher education, with universities and colleges acting as businesses. This model is prevalent in the U.S. and the United Kingdom (U.K.).

3. The network model emphasizes collaboration and cooperation among higher education institutions, with universities and colleges working together to achieve common goals. This model is standard in Nordic countries such as Sweden and Finland. The argument is that no single model of governance is superior to others and that each model has its strengths and weaknesses. Thus, successful administration requires an ability to balance different models with a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances and paradigms of governmental and market pressure. 

The governance of higher education systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany have shifted towards New Public Management (NPM) since the 1980s. This section briefly describes the starting point of each country's university system in the 1980s and their paths toward NPM. England and the Netherlands were the forerunners of NPM-inspired reforms, while Austria and Germany implemented changes in governance in a slower and more fragmented manner. However, all four countries eventually implemented significant changes towards NPM, with Austria experiencing a sudden and massive policy shift at the turn of the century and Germany being the most recent to adopt such changes. 

England

The relationship between the government and universities in England has undergone three phases since the regular state funding of universities began in 1919. 

1. The first phase was characterized by academic self-governance, with the government keeping itself at a distance.

2. The second phase has increased state intervention, moving towards a market-dominated governance configuration, with a strong impetus to increase competitive pressure.

3. The third phase, overlapping with the second, is characterized by a decisive move towards a market-dominated governance configuration beginning with the 1980s reforms of Mrs. Thatcher. The central point of change has been a strong impetus to increase competitive pressure.

The state-induced quality assurance mechanisms for teaching and research have ranged from establishing Research Assessment Exercises (RAE) to academic audits. These efforts have led to more accountability within universities, a more prominent role of the Higher Education Funding Council in England, and competition for resources among universities. There has been a shift towards more regulation by the state, especially for traditional universities. At the same time, the state's and other stakeholders' guidance plays a more critical role.

In the policy agenda since the 1980s, the link between research and the British economy has increased, as seen in those policies fostering partnerships between universities, industry, and businesses. The managerial self-governance of universities has strengthened, and university top and middle management have been implementing procedures while responding to the external pressures of budget cuts and quality demands. Academic self-governance is still alive, and the voice of the academic oligarchy has not disappeared. In comparison, other countries' higher education governance systems may differ from England's.

Netherlands

The Netherlands' university system has undergone significant changes in governance since the World War II. The national government's involvement has increased through various laws, regulations, and administrative supervision, but academic matters have remained mainly in the hands of professionals. In the 1980s, the government adopted a "steering from a distance" approach, which emphasized setting a general framework for universities to operate within and promoting the self-organization of the sector. This shift led to deregulation, devolving authorities, and a move towards output control. However, state regulation still exists, and the government imposes elements of reform through laws and decrees. Financial incentives and performance-based funding have become more common, leading to more market-like behavior by universities. Managerial self-governance has been strengthened, and academic self-governance has weakened within universities. Despite these changes, academic communities play a significant role in national evaluation exercises and the development of national research programs.

Austria 

Since the late 1980s, the reorganization of state-university relationships has been a constant theme of Austrian higher education policy. Deregulation became the new buzzword for university reforms in the 1990s, reversing the increasing regulatory state influence on universities. Under the Universities Act of 2002, all universities have adopted total legal capacity and have become independent public entities. Mission-based agreements and performance evaluations still allow the government to retain influence on university development, and university budgets are linked to performance evaluations. The internal organization of universities is left to the individual universities, with the decision about the future role of academic bodies also going to the universities. Universities have become independent legal entities, and recent reforms have introduced central elements of managerial self-governance by regulating the staffing, the authority, and the tasks of those positions that make up central university leadership.

Germany 

The German university system has a combination of strong state regulation and strong academic self-governance, similar to Austria. The traditional governance configuration has remained basically the same, despite some participatory rights given to assistants, students, and non-scientific staff in the 1970s. Only since the mid-1990s have some of the 16 German Länder (states) initiated initiatives in the direction of NPM, with ongoing heated debates. The state has given universities more room to maneuver concerning financial resources by abandoning many features of public budgeting and introducing lump sum budgeting. Study programme approval has been delegated from the ministries to newly founded accreditation agencies. Recently, management by objectives has become institutionalized, with mission-based contracts between ministries and universities. The influence of external stakeholders within newly created university boards varies widely. Germany has competitive solid pressure among individual university researchers, which has become more assertive with increasing dependence upon funds from various sources. Recently, the federal government suggested the creation of "elite universities," but all 16 states did not accept this. Most observers expect that fees will be introduced soon everywhere. In research and teaching, evaluations are necessary to ascertain the relative position of a university, a faculty, or an individual professor.

(Read more in de Boer, Enders, and Schimank, 2008)

Current research on comparative higher education, which focuses on national policies, markets, and systems of higher education institutions, must address global influences on higher education. The authors introduce an analytical heuristic, the "glonacal agency heuristic," below, emphasizing the significance of international, national, and local dimensions and forces. The paper critiques the liberal theory that underpins current comparative research, the conceptual shortcomings of this work, and emergent discourse about "academic capitalism." The authors provide examples of how states, markets, and institutions reconceptualization in terms of global, national, regional, and local agencies and agency. The authors argue that globalization processes in higher education are under-studied and under-theorized and call for new conceptual categories and frameworks to explain transnational activities and forces in higher education.

(Read more in Marginson & Rhoades, 2002)

In a few sentences compare and contrast at least two international examples to Vietnam.

• How do the international examples compare to the model of higher education in Vietnam?

• How, if at all, has governance changed in the international examples? In Vietnam?

• What government and market pressures influence higher education reform in Vietnam and the international examples?

De Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2008). Comparing higher education governance systems in four European countries. Governance and Performance of Education Systems, 35-54.

Levina, E. Y., Kutuev, R. A., Balakhnina, L. V., Tumarov, K. B., & Chudnovskiy, A. D. (2016). The Structure of the Managerial System of Higher Education's Development. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(15), 8143-8153.

Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43, 281-309.