1

The role of European initiatives in higher education for national policy

dynamics: cases of Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia

Prepared for the Fourth ECPR Graduate conference

Section 1: Comparative politics

Panel 4: European policies and higher education – Europe of Knowledge as a dependent and independent

variable

4-6 July 2012, Bremen

FIRST DRAFT, do not quote!

June 2012

Martina Vukasovic

Department of Educational Research, University of Oslo

martina.vukasovic@ped.uio.no

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to analyse national policy dynamics and its relationship to European initiatives in higher

education in Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia. The primary rationale lies in the specificities of European initiatives in higher

education, primarily in terms of the relatively limited competences of the EU and the voluntary character of the

Bologna Process. Furthermore, as is the case in other post-Communist countries, in the three aforementioned

countries the overall political and economic transition was marked by the idea of “return to Europe” (Héritier 2005)

which potentially makes the European initiatives in higher education relatively more important for changes on the

system level than in countries of Western Europe. The choice of countries, given that they were part of a federal

system until early 90s implies a number of similarities, but also some differences in terms of their position with

respect to the EU and participation in European higher education policy arenas. The theoretical lenses employed in

the analysis include policy transfer and Europeanization of public policy. The empirical basis consists of various policy

documents of the three countries and European initiatives, as well as secondary sources.

Notes for readers:

- This work is very much in progress. Therefore, all comments and suggestions on how to improve both the

content aspects (theoretical perspectives, argumentation, analysis) as well as more technical aspects

(organisation of the paper, readability of the empirical data) will be very much appreciated!

- More work is necessary in particular in the empirical section. The plan is to make the monster-table more

readable, perhaps by providing a chronological overview of policy developments in the form of a simple

timeline and explaining the actual content of these developments in the textual format. Having said that, big

apologies to readers who have to deal with the monster, but I simply did not have time to make it more

reader-friendly!

- In addition, concerning the empirical material, I know that there are much more observations that can be

made, but I was a bit reluctant to include all of them given that this is supposed to become an article with a

limited number of words at some point.

- In any case, thanks in advance for all comments and suggestions for improvement!

2

1. Introduction

Policy development and changes of higher education systems and institutions in the countries that

once belonged to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY)1 have been so far outside of the strong

focus of higher education researchers, at least compared to other post-Communist countries and even

more so compared to Western and Northern Europe or US. This lack of scholarly attention can be partly

connected to the turbulent period of the 1990s during which in most of the countries once part of SFRY

higher education had to compete for the spot on the policy makers’ and society’s agendas with more

pressing issues of civil wars, other armed conflicts, political instability, increasing poverty, difficulties with

political and economic transition, increase in numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons, EU

accession etc. In addition, stronger scholarly attention would require stronger capacities in the area of

higher education research than the ones currently present in the region, although an increase in the

numbers of researchers and publications focusing on these countries in the last 5-10 years can be

identified2.

However, similar to other post-Communist as well as other European countries, ex-SFRY countries

have experienced significant changes in higher education policy. These changes appear to have increased in

scope and depth with the start of (1) the Bologna Process in 1998/1999 and (2) the process which started

with the EU’s Lisbon Strategy in 2000, both of which are seen to be pillars of the Europe of Knowledge

(Elken et al. 2011; Maassen and Musselin 2009). These European processes, as will be discussed in this

paper, are of particular importance for these countries which have, similar to their Central and Eastern

European counterparts, embedded much of their political and economic transition in the process of

accession to the European Union and connected it strongly to the idea of a “return to Europe” (Héritier

2005).

Although they once belonged to the same federal system, the countries of ex-SFRY are to some

extent different in terms of the dynamics of their political and economic transition, the nature and extent

to which they were affected by the turbulent 1990s, process of accession to and current status in the EU as

well as levels of development of higher education prior to the break-up of SFRY. For all of these reasons, ex-

SFRY countries can provide interesting cases for studying national policy development, in particular in the

context of European integration processes, given that the similarities and differences (some of which will

be further discussed in the following section) allow for several lines of comparison of changes in policies

and national responses to European initiatives.

1 SFRY disintegrated into six/seven different countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo (disputed statehood), Macedonia,

Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. 2 For example, for key words “higher education” and “Croatia” numbers of publications registered in SSCI and A&HCI data bases

increased approx. six times in the period 2000-2012 compared to previous time.

3

This paper will compare national policy development from the early 90s until the present day in

three of the countries of ex-SFRY: Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia, the only three countries of ex-SFRY which

had higher education institutions prior to the WWII. The first aim of this paper is to map outputs of policy

processes in these three countries, in particular in terms of changes in different policy documents (white

papers, national strategies etc) and related policy instruments (legislation, other type of regulation etc).

The paper will not focus on mapping effects/outcomes of policy, due to the generally known difficulty with

establishing clear causal mechanisms between adopted policies and effects they may have produced in the

system. This is primarily because a number of changes in policy took place over a relatively short period of

time, thus making it difficult to empirically disentangle effects of individual policies due to layering

(Musselin 2005) and insufficient time for implementation. This mapping exercise will provide the necessary

empirical basis to analyze mechanisms of these national responses, i.e. to identify factors, both European

and domestic, that may have lead to such national responses in the three cases under study. In doing this,

the paper will also try to investigate the relationship between national policy dynamics and European

initiatives in higher education. Thus, the paper seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. What changes in higher education policy in Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia can be identified in the

since the 1990s and in particular in the 1999-2010 period?

2. What are the similarities and differences in the changes in higher education policy in the three

countries in this period?

3. How can these similarities and differences be accounted for? More specifically: (1) to what

extent and in what aspects of higher education can instances of policy transfer between the

three countries be identified and (2) to what extent and in what aspects can Europeanization of

higher education in the three countries be identified?

The paper starts with the contextual setting, i.e. a brief overview of the two major European

initiatives in higher education and an introduction to the specificities of higher education in the three

countries under study. This is followed by a discussion of two analytical perspectives on policy dynamics in

a multi-level multi-actor setting employed in the analysis, namely policy transfer and Europeanization. This

is followed by a presentation of the empirical material that is built on document analysis of national

legislation and other types of regulation (e.g. QA standards), other national policy documents, as well as

analysis of documents related to the Europe of Knowledge. Given the lack of more thorough

documentation of the policy process in the three countries under study, some factual information was

obtained from interviews with system and university level decision makers. In the concluding section....

4

2. Context3

a. Bologna Process and Lisbon Strategy: two pillars of the Europe of Knowledge

Lisbon and Bologna are often seen as two pillars of the Europe of Knowledge (Maassen and Musselin

2009)4. Both processes are characterized by emergence of a number of inter-related policy

networks/communities. Some operate on the European level and may include different collective actors

such as European Commission, Council of Europe and transnational stakeholder organizations (e.g. those

working as representatives of students – the European Students’ Union, or representatives of universities –

the European University Association). Other networks are primarily focused on linking the European and

national or local level administration (Gornitzka 2009). In addition, both Bologna and Lisbon rely on the

Open Method of Coordination (OMC) (Gornitzka 2007; Veiga and Amaral 2009) and have lead, though for

different reasons, to a multi-level multi-actor governance arrangement.

Although increasingly connected and in most cases complementary (Corbett 2011; Gornitzka 2010;

Keeling 2006), the two initiatives are different in several important aspects. The EU process connected to

the Lisbon Strategy and the Modernization Agenda is a predominantly supranational process. A number of

policy instruments exist, ranging from legally binding directives in the areas of recognition of qualifications

in regulated professions (Beerkens 2008), through decisions which have more the nature of

recommendations (e.g. in the area of qualification frameworks), through developing various instruments

and allocating funding to a number of cooperation programmes, such as the Lifelong learning programme

and the framework programmes focusing on research cooperation. Some of these instruments can (and are

often explicitly designed to) have an impact on higher education systems or institutions in the countries

that are not (yet) members of the EU. For example, various EU cooperation programmes are gradually

opened up for countries as they progress towards EU membership. The first programmes to become open

for non-EU countries are the higher education specific TEMPUS programmes and, once the country is

recognised as a potential candidate, part of the IPA (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance5) funds. At the

same time countries in this pre-accession stage are also eligible for framework programmes in research.

Once a candidate, a country also becomes eligible for the entire Lifelong learning programme6 and, once a

3 Written on the basis of a section in a literature review on ”European integration in higher education in the Western Balkan

countries”, prepared by the author for a project funded by the Norwegian Reserach Council and coordinated by the University of

Oslo. For a comprehensive literature review on Europe of Knowledge and the relationship between European integration and

transformation of higher education, see Elken et al. (2011). See also Maassen and Olsen (2007) for a more detailed analysis of the

Bologna and Lisbon processes, and a proposal of a research agenda. 4 However, it should be noted that there were important European intergration efforts in higher education well before the end of

90s, early 2000s (Corbett 2005). Corbett (2011) provides a detailed account on the expansion of higher education activities of the

EU and the merging (or taking over) of the Bologna Process in the first half of the 2000s. 5 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/how-does-it-work/financial-assistance/instrument-pre-accession_en.htm (page accessed 2

February 2012) 6 Before 2007 there was the Socrates programme, more information on http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-

programme/doc78_en.htm (page accessed 2 February 2012)

Comment [MV1]: Change title

Comment [MV2]: Shorten?

5

full member, for funds aiming at strengthening cohesion and balanced regional development (which in

2011 amounted to 32.9 billion Euros). Apart from monetary incentives, which can be seen as quite

significant given the relatively weak economic situation in the countries under study, such programmes also

offer opportunities for networking and sharing of information and experience and therefore policy transfer

(discussed later), both between the three countries under study and EU member states, as well as between

the three countries themselves.

Contrary to the EU initiatives in higher education, the Bologna Process possesses almost no

administrative capacity7 and does not have its own funding facilitating the implementation of the Bologna

Declaration. It started as a voluntary initiative with national ministries responsible for higher education

steering the process through the Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG). The European Commission is the only

supranational organization that is a full member of the BFUG, with all other transnational organizations

(EUA, ESU, EURASHE, EI, Business Europe and CoE) having an observer status. This dilutes the

intergovernmental character of the Bologna Process and does establish a link to the Commission’s

administrative capacity and EU financial resources, given that criteria for participation in e.g. TEMPUS

programmes reflect priorities of the Bologna Process, such as importance of student centred learning and

use of learning outcomes in curriculum development, quality assurance systems that are in line with the

European Standards and Guidelines for Quality assurance in higher education (ENQA 2005) etc. However,

characterization of the Bologna Process as strictly voluntary may be a bit misleading given that many

countries found it necessary to commit themselves to Bologna goals (Ravinet 2008). The Process is also

marked with a level ambiguity often seen as necessary for any agreement to take place amongst such a

diverse group of countries (Ravinet 2008), but said ambiguity also leads to significant diversity in terms of

implementation of outcomes (Westerheijden et al. 2010). In addition, the ambiguity also allows national

policy makers to promote their own policy preferences under the Bologna umbrella (Gornitzka 2006;

Musselin 2009).

Both processes are essentially “moving targets” (Gornitzka 2007; Kehm et al. 2009; Neave and

Maassen 2007): the policy content and policy instruments are continuously being developed and actors

involved in the processes (both individual and collective) are also not completely fixed. In addition, the

countries under study currently have different positions with respect to the EU and have had both

similarities and differences with respect to the dynamics of political and economic transition and EU

accession. These similarities and differences will be presented briefly in the following subsection, along

with a discussion of implications of said similarities and differences for comparing national responses to

European initiatives in higher education.

7 Only in the running up to the Ministerial Summit in 2005 was there a central secretariat and it has been rotating every two years,

including a complete change of rather small staff. Until April 2012 the Secretariat was in Romania with less than 10 employees.

6

b. Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia: specificities, similarities and differences

Compared to their Western European counterparts, higher education systems in the countries under

study are rather young. While predecessor institutions to the flagship universities of Slovenia, Croatia and

Serbia (Ljubljana, Zagreb and Belgrade) can be traced back at least to mid 19th century (Belgrade) or even

as far as late 16th century (Ljubljana) (Šoljan 1991), other higher education institutions began to emerge

only after WWII.

Universities in the former Yugoslavia8 operated within a particular multi-level multi-actor governance

arrangement of its own, given that higher education was under direct jurisdiction of the constituent

republics9 since the 70s when the federal ministry of education was abolished. However, even after that

time a plethora of federal commissions as well as a federal association of universities10 were in place (Šoljan

1991) and policy coordination was also ensured through the Communist Party11. Changes in organisation of

higher education followed the overall changes in line with the self-management principles, which lead to

disintegration of universities and awarding independent legal status to the faculties.

As part of the SFRY, Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia have all gone through a Communist period, starting

with the end of WWII and ending roughly in late 80s or early 90s. However, Communism in SFRY is widely

seen as less strict that in the countries that were under stronger control of the Soviet Union. The end of the

Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall also meant the end of Communism in the countries under study and

the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. The latter was, amongst other, marked by (1) rising nationalism, in

particular in Croatia (with the Tudjman regime) and in Serbia (with the regime of Milosevic), (2) a series of

wars fought on the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia, last of which ended in late

1995 and (3) in the second half of the 90s an armed conflict in Kosovo between Serbian forces (army, police

and paramilitary forces) and the Kosovo Liberation Army followed by NATO intervention and withdrawal of

Serbian forces from Kosovo in the summer of 199912. This complex conflict situation in the region naturally

implied difficult diplomatic relations between the three countries and by extension also largely impeded

official cooperation between higher education institutions. However, there are indications of maintained

communication between individuals or smaller research groups, as well as indications of policy borrowing13.

8 From now on referred to as “exYU”.

9 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia had the status of a republic in the former

Yugoslavia. Kosovo and Vojvodina were autonomous provinces of Serbia. 10

Reportedly, the last SFRY structure to dissolve in the early 90s was the federal association of universities (interview BG-meso-3). 11 Interview with a respondent who was both a system and university level actor in Serbia (BG-meso-3). 12

This culminated with Kosovo declaring independence from Serbia in 2008. Unlike all ex-YU countries, Serbia as well as some

other EU countries (most notably Slovakia and Spain) do not recognize Kosovo as an independent state. 13 Informal interviews as well as public statements of decision-makers indicate policy borrowing in terms of legislative changes, as

well as borrowing between universities or between departments in terms of responses to external pressures to reform.

7

In Croatia and Serbia the process of democratization lagged behind other Central European

countries. All of this slowed down and in some cases completely blocked political and economic transition,

and therefore also affected the relationship with the European Union (Freyburg and Richter 2010; Subotid

2010; Subotid 2011). Such complex political, economic and social situation affected higher education policy

development as well. Croatia and Serbia essentially spent the entire 90s in some forms of international

isolation (internally or externally inflicted) with quite limited communication with the international

academic community and with rather weak relationship with the European structures focusing on higher

education, all of which implied almost no access to European programmes in higher education or research

(be that through the EU or the Council of Europe).

This was also the time of rather limited policy development. There were attempts to introduce

reforms in Croatia, albeit with significant difficulties with respect to implementation, primarily due to lack

of capacity (see Orosz (2008)). In Serbia, the regime largely focused on diminishing the democratizing role

of higher education in society and, after a series of student protests and smaller-scale academic strikes,

introduced regulation which abolished institutional autonomy and academic freedom in 1998. However,

the end of the 90s and beginning of 2000s marks a new beginning for both Croatia and Serbia, given that in

elections both Tudjman and Milosevic political parties suffered significant defeats. These internal changes

were preceded by a new EU initiative targeting the region with a long-term conflict prevention strategy –

the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe14 – which was launched on 10 June 1999 (one day before the

official end of the NATO bombing of Serbia).

In contrast, Slovenia has had a rather stable liberal-democratic government throughout the 90s,

adopted a new law on higher education already in 1993, established buffer structures (national council for

higher education) and started focusing on quality assurance. Its accession to the EU was often seen as

almost exemplary15 and it was one of the first new members that introduced the Euro. Slovenia also

benefited from the TEMPUS and similar programmes already in the 90s, in particular because the amount

of funds programmed for the entire former Yugoslavia were not used by Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia16.

At present, the situation with respect to the EU and participation in the Bologna Process is as follows:

(1) Slovenia has been a member since 2004 and was one of the original signatories of the Bologna Process,

(2) Croatia is expected to become a full member of the EU on 1 July 2013 and joined the Bologna Process in

2001 while (3) Serbia was granted EU candidate status in 2012 and joined the Bologna Process in 2003. As is

illustrated in Table 1, the three countries are also somewhat different in terms of massification of their

higher education systems, investment into higher education and research, size of the system etc.

14

http://www.stabilitypact.org/ (page accessed 3 April 2012) 15

Out of the 10 new countries that joined in 2004, Slovenia was in the group of the first five countries (the so-called Luxembourg

group) that started negotiations in late 1997. 16

Interview with a system level actor from Slovenia (LJ-macro-1).

8

Table 1 – Comparative overview of selected higher education and research indicators for Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia (data compiled on the basis of Ivošević and Miklavič (2009), Vukasović (2011), World Bank data base for 2007 and www.herdata.org)

Country GER

Expenditure

per student

(% of GDP per

capita)

Number

of HEI

(all

types)

Number of

students

Student:

teacher

ratio

R&D

expenditure

(% of GDP)

Researchers

(per million

people)

Croatia 49% 25.2 51 160 000 23:1 0.81 1 384

Serbia 50% 40.1 89 202 000 29:1 0.35 1 196

Slovenia 67% n/a 36 97 500 23:1 1.45 3 109

In sum, the three countries exhibit both a number of similarities as well as a number of differences

with respect to higher education development as well as wider political processes. Similarities are primarily

connected with the Yugoslav Communist heritage and some aspects of higher education development,

most notably higher education policy until early 90s and high level of internal fragmentation of universities.

Differences are related to the dynamics of political and economic transition, current position with respect

to the EU and participation in European higher education initiatives, as well as size and level of investment

into higher education. This combination of similarities and differences provides an interesting empirical

setting for exploring the processes of Europeanization and policy transfer in higher education.

3. Policy transfer vs. Europeanization: horizontal vs. vertical policy convergence

In the context of this study, policy transfer is understood as “a process whereby knowledge about

policies, administrative arrangement, institutions, ideas and so on are used across time and/or space in the

development of policies, institutions, and so on elsewhere” (Bomberg and Peterson 2000). This definition

does not necessitate a formal structure to facilitate policy transfer, since it relies primarily on intentional

activities of various policy entrepreneurs, who may or may not be part of domestic governmental

structures, and who, for different reasons, promote use of foreign solutions to (perceived) domestic

problems. Policy transfer includes (a) simple copying that can go as far as copying wording in the legislation,

(b) emulation in terms of accepting particular solutions as the best practice but formulating in own words,

(c) synthesis and hybridization which involves combining solutions from several different countries to

develop a solution deemed to be best suited for domestic needs and (d) using policy developments in other

countries as source of inspiration for domestic developments (Dolowitz and Marsh 1996). When it comes to

objects of policy transfer, these can include (1) policy goals, structure and content, (2) policy instruments

and administrative techniques, (3) institutions, (4) ideology, (5) ideas, attitudes and concepts and (6)

negative lessons (ibid.). Policy transfer in higher education thus leads to horizontal policy convergence, and

one can expect a higher level of horizontal policy convergence in cases in which there is similarity of

languages, similarity of university cultures, prior similarity of higher education policies, similarity of

Comment [MV3]: Based on a section in chapter prepared by Vukasovic and Elken for Zgaga, P., Teichler, U. and J. Brennan (eds.) (forthcoming in 2012). The globalisation challenge for European Higher Education: Convergence and diversity, centres and peripheries. Peter Lang.

9

governmental policy preference, similarity of problem pressures and similarity of socio-economic structures

(Heinze and Knill 2008).

Following the top-down perspective on European integration processes, expressed both in

comparative politics and international relations literature (Börzel and Risse 2000; Börzel and Risse 2003;

Radaelli 2003) and in higher education literature (Musselin 2009; Pabian 2009), Europeanization of higher

education is understood here to be “the [process of] institutionalization of formal and informal rules

developed in a process that involves a supranational or an intergovernmental body (such as the European

Union – EU, the Council of Europe – CoE or the Bologna Follow Up Group – BFUG).” (Vukasovid submitted

for review). This definition requires that formal and informal rules being institutionalized in the domestic

context are developed within a European policy arena and are promoted as European rules. Since this

implies an existence of a European model (even if only for specific elements of higher education, e.g. the

3+2/4+1 degree structure), Europeanization can be expected to lead to a higher level of vertical policy

convergence. This will be expected in cases where there is: more clarity of demand, stronger conditionality

of rewards, lower density of veto players, balance between power and information asymmetry, stronger

administrative capacity, weaker institutional legacies, higher legitimacy of demand or process through

which demand was defined, higher resonance between European and domestic rules, more identification

with European rules, more participation in epistemic communities or issue networks, and higher

internationalization of the domestic policy arena (Börzel and Risse 2003; Schimmelfennig 2009; Sedelmeier

2011)17.

Here it should be noted that, depending on the presence (or absence) of mediating factors, both the

process of policy transfer and the process of Europeanization allow for piecemeal convergence, i.e. less

than wholesale incorporation of foreign (meaning: from another country) or European rules in the domestic

context. Similar to the situation in which policy developments from other countries can be used as a source

of inspiration for domestic developments (policy transfer), so can European rules, particularly if they suffer

from ambiguity, be used to legitimize particular national policy preferences (Europeanization). Thus, in both

process, re-nationalization of foreign or European policy preferences can take place, therefore providing

room for a variety of unintended effects, the latter being quite common in any policy implementation

process (Gornitzka 2006; Musselin 2009).

17

The literature usually groups these mediating factors into two “models”: (1) external incentives model (clarity of demand,

conditionality of rewards, density of veto players, balance between power and information asymmetry, administrative capacity,

strength of institutional legacies) and (2) social learning model (legitimacy of demand or process through which demand was

defined, resonance between European and domestic rules, identity, participation in epistemic communities or issue networks,

internationalization of the domestic policy arena). This distinction, following the distinction between the rationalist and sociological

institutionalism, or between logic of consequence and logic of appropriateness, was not seen as crucial for the analysis presented

in this paper.

Comment [MV4]: Not sure how to refer to this.

10

Table 2 – Comparative overview of policy transfer and Europeanization

Policy transfer Europeanization

Definition Use of foreign policy preferences in the

domestic context

Institutionalization of European rules in the

domestic context

Model

Not existing on a higher level of governance,

policy preferences from other national contexts

used as model

European model(s) for higher education systems, based on official Bologna Process documents and EU (EC communications and funding criteria in the Lifelong learning and TEMPUS programmes). Elements of model, amongst other are: - Particular degree structure (3+2, 4+1) - Use of ECTS and learning outcomes in

curriculum development - European Standards and Guidelines for

Quality Assurance - National qualification frameworks in line with

EQF and EHEA QF - Recognition procedures in line with the

Lisbon Recognition Convention Role of the

European level Transnational communication platform Source of particular policy preferences

Mediating

factors

- Similarity of languages - Similarity of university cultures - Prior similarity of higher education policies - Similarity of governmental policy preferences - Similarity of problem pressures - Similarity of socio-economic structures

- Higher clarity of model - Bigger rewards for adopting the model - Lower density of veto players - More power asymmetry in favour of Europe

than information asymmetry in favour of country

- Stronger domestic administrative capacity - Weaker domestic institutional legacies - Higher legitimacy of model - Higher resonance between European model

and domestic context - More identification with European model - Higher domestic participation in European

epistemic communities or issue networks - Higher internationalization of the domestic

policy arena

Outcome (if

mediating

factors

favourable)

Horizontal policy convergence – increasing

similarity between countries

Vertical policy convergence – increasing

similarity with the European model

4. Empirical section

Table 3 presents an overview of major policy changes in the three countries under study and major

developments on the European level related to higher education from late 80s until 2010 (with some

indications of most recent developments). The overview has been constructed on the basis of national

Comment [MV5]: Change title

11

policy documents (primarily legislation), as various official documents from the European level (e.g.

Bologna Process declarations and communiquées, official communication of the European Commission) as

well as secondary sources on European and national developments (Amaral and Neave 2009; Babin and

Lažetid 2009; Brankovid 2010; Capano and Piattoni 2011; Corbett 2003; Corbett 2005; Corbett 2006; Elken

et al. 2011; Gornitzka 2007; Huisman et al. 2009; Keeling 2006; Kehm et al. 2009; Kozma 2008; Maassen

and Olsen 2007; Neave 2009; Neave and Amaral 2008; Neave and Maassen 2007; Orosz 2008; Pépin 2007;

Pépin 2011; Turajlid 2004; Turajlid 2006; Turajlid et al. 2001; Veiga and Amaral 2006; Vidovid and Bjeliš

2006; Witte 2008; Zgaga 2002; Zgaga 2003; Zgaga and Miklavič 2011).

a. Mapping policy changes before Bologna

As can be seen, policy changes in the three countries under study mainly concern changes in legislation.

The three countries under study, with Slovenia possibly being an exception in the 2000s, do not seem to

have the custom of developing white papers or similar documents when launching reform of higher

education. In all three countries, quite soon after the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia, new legislation

has been adopted. These legislations set the basic characteristics of the higher education system, focusing

on various aspects of governance at the system and institutional level, curricula, academic staff promotion

criteria and students’ rights and obligations. Up until the early 2000s, changes in legislation are mostly

focused on higher education governance issues, both at the system and at the institutional level.

12

Europe Slovenia Croatia Serbia

< 90s

Gravier decision by ECJ 1985 Erasmus programme 1987 Magna Charta Universitatum 1988

Discussions about reforms of higher education, in particular during the 80s with decreasing influence of the Communist party

1990 A draft Law on HE discussed

New Law on university adopted: - outlining the basic elements of the

system, - Ministry is responsible for ensuring

that HEIs fulfil basic conditions for operations (staff, defined study programmes)

- Internal governance includes management structures where staff should make at least ½ of members and students no less than 13, while structures deciding on curricula etc include only academic staff

1991 Official dissolution of SFRY

1992

Treaty of Maastricht - subsidiarity principle, prime responsibility for (higher) education lies at the national level Legislative Reform Programme by the Council of Europe focused on higher education legislation in former Communist countries

First public debate on the new higher education legislation

Amendments to the Law, including: - Explicit reference to institutional

autonomy and academic freedom - More detailed specification of

provisions related to study programmes and students rights and obligations from 1990 Law

- Students no longer participate in governance

- Buffer structure (national council) introduced, consisting of rectors and government representatives

1993

New HE legislation adopted. First HE specific legislation. Key changes relate to: - institutional status, governance and

autonomy - university level the only level that can have legal capacity;

Amendments to the Law, introducing two categories of students (state funded and self financed), as well as minor changes related to academic staff promotions

13

- possible to have both professional and academic programmes within universities

- private HEIs allowed - legal basis for accreditation and

evaluation - buffer structures (Council for HE and

Quality Assessment Commission) introduced.

A total of six appeals to the Constitutional Court concerning constitutionality of the new legislation (most of these appeals which submitted by professors of the Faculty of Law of the University of Ljubljana)

1994 Council for higher education established

New HE legislation comes into force, introducing changes related to: - new buffer structures (National

Council for Higher Education and Higher Education Funding Council), though did not become completely operational

- quality assurance (HEI need to be evaluated every 5 years, the initial evaluation was supposed to be completed by 1999, however, problems with capacity of the NCHE meant no evaluations took place

- also reference to a credit system, though not explicitly to ECTS, and it was not implemented

1995 EU Socrates programme becomes the umbrella programme for education

First set of rulings of the Constitutional Court concerning status of universities as legal entities and autonomy of the university – dual status allowed (i.e. faculties can remain legal entities if so stipulated in university statutes)

New funding regulation, strictly input based

1996 Quality assessment commission

14

established, but did not become operational (scepticism and resistance from universities)

1997

First reference to “Europe of Knowledge” in EU official documents (Commission contribution to Agenda 2000 strategy) Lisbon Recognition Convention (UNESCO and Council of Europe)

University of Ljubljana Memorandum, requesting that “all the ranks of the teaching, research, and other staff and students” be included in decision making

1998

EU Council Recommendation on cooperation in the area of quality assurance (Bologna Process prequel) Sorbonne Declaration by France, Germany, Italy and UK: - “Europe is not only that of the Euro,

of the banks and the economy: it must be a Europe of knowledge as well”

- Focus on mobility of students and staff, “progressive harmonization of the overall framework of degrees and cycles”, incl. reference to credit systems and two cycles

Second set of rulings of the Constitutional Court concerning status of universities as legal entities and autonomy of the university – final decision that the Law on HE is not unconstitutional, clarifying that it is the university that is autonomous (not the constituent faculties) Slovenia ratified the Lisbon Recognition Convention Team consisting of ministry representatives, HE trade unions, university representatives and representatives of the Council of HE working on the new funding proposal

New Law on HE adopted, major changes related to governance structures, rectors and deans of universities as well as governing boards appointed by the government (effectively abolishing university autonomy) Serbian universities suspended from the CRE (predecessor of EUA) Expulsion of some students and professors disloyal to the regime from universities

1999

(Bologna Process) Bologna Declaration signed by 29 countries (31 signatories, 2 for Belgium and 2 for Germany). Six action lines: - Easily readable and comparable

degrees - Two cycles - Use of ECTS - Mobility - European cooperation in QA - European dimension of higher

education

Slovenia signs the Bologna Declaration Late in 1999, amendments to the Law on HE, related to: - Governance of HEIs – participation of

junior staff and students introduced - Institutional autonomy – reflecting

the Constitutional Court decisions (see above)

- Funding – introducing lump sum funding, based on both input and output criteria

15

- Admission requirements – provisions clarifying the position of graduates from vocational secondary education

- European integration and internationalization issues – rights of EU citizens once Slovenia becomes full member of the EU, introducing the Diploma Supplement

- Quality assurance

2000

EU Lisbon Strategy launched EU "to become the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010 capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion and respect for the environment". Education, as well as research and innovation seen as crucial for success. The Open Method of Coordination introduced

2001

(Bologna Process) Prague Communiqué, follow up structure set up – BFUG: including national ministries and EU as full members, and CoE, ESU and EUA and EURASHE as observers. Introducing three additional action lines: - Lifelong learning - Participation of students and higher

education institutions - Focus on attractiveness of EHEA

Croatia joins the Bologna Process

2002

Education Ministers’ Council “Work Programme for Education and Training 2010” shifts focus of the LS more towards primary and secondary education EU Copenhagen Process, similar to

National higher education development plan adopted

Lisbon Recognition Convention comes into force Debate of the new Law on HE, did not pass through

Law on HE adopted (no substantial changes, largely copied Law from 1992 to redress negative aspects of 1998)

16

Bologna in terms of action lines but focusing on VET

2003

Commission communication on “The role of universities in a Europe of Knowledge” (Bologna Process) Berlin Communiqué: - Added the focus on the third cycle

and linkages between EHEA and ERA as “two pillars of the knowledge-based society”

- Introduced Stocktaking for Bergen 2005 focusing on QA, two cycles and recognition of degrees.

- UNESCO-CEPES also added as a consultative member to the BFUG.

Working group to prepare Bologna amendments to the HE Law formed. University of Ljubljana leadership, though sceptical of the reform, did not oppose the work on the legislation.

New Law on Scientific activity and higher education - Legal and functional integration of

universities introduced, as well as move towards lump-sum funding

- New degree structure, both 3+2 and 4+1, ECTS use required

- Additional buffer structures introduced leading to a total of four structures (two national councils for HE and research each, one agency for HE and research and one HE and research funding council).

- Quality assurance of both HEIs and study programmes task of the Agency, to be completed by June 2005

Serbia joins the Bologna Process

Work on the proposal of the-so called “Bologna” Law on HE. The proposal included also provisions for more integration of universities. The proposal was not supported by all universities, with University of Belgrade being the strongest opponent. The proposal did not reach the Parliament because of early elections at the end of 2004

2004 Commission proposes new Lifelong learning programme (as successor of Socrates) for 2007-2013

Bologna amendments to the Law on HE - new degree structure, allowing both

for 3+2 and 4+1 combinations - use of ECTS required - independent national QA agency

introduced

Contents of the Diploma Supplement determined New Law concerning recognition of foreign qualifications, based on the Lisbon Recognition Convention

Serbia ratified the Lisbon Recognition Convention The minister gives the mandate to the University of Belgrade to finalize the proposal for the law

2005

EU re-launched the Lisbon Strategy due to the perception from the mid-term review that there was a multitude of tasks and actions and lack of clarity of task division, in particular between the European level and the member states. Research/innovation one of the four priority areas. Commission also focuses on how universities can “make its full contribution to the Lisbon Strategy” through “Mobilising the brain power of Europe” communication

New government proposes various reforms of the public sector, introducing also the principle of quality assurance through competition in higher education. This opened up the space for new private higher education institutions

First generation of students enrolled into the so-called Bologna study programmes

“Bologna” Law on HE. Key changes include: - Bringing vocational and university HE

under one legal framework. - Introduction of the Bologna degree

structure, both 3+2 and 4+1 allowed, - Use of ECTS and learning outcomes

in study programme descriptions. - All HEIs required to issue the

Diploma Supplement - Introduction of buffer structures

(National Council for Higher Education, Commission for Accreditation and Quality Assurance

17

(Bologna Process) Bergen Communiqué - Adopted the European Standards

and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG), developed by the so-called E4 group (ENQA, EUA, ESIB/ESU and EURASHE)

- Adopted the overarching qualifications framework (EHEA QF), claiming that NQFs compatible with EHEA QF will also be compatible with the EU’s EQF for LLL

- Took stock of changes so far (based on the Stocktaking report, as well as reports from EUA and ESIB/ESU)

- Highlighted four “further challenges and priorities”: (1) higher education and research, (2) social dimension (in particular in terms of access of disadvantaged students, (3) mobility and (4) attractiveness of EHEA and cooperation with other parts of the world

- Education International (EI), ENQA and UNICE (as employers representatives) included as consultative members into the BFUG

- Accreditation of both HEIs and study programmes started

- Student participation in faculty and university level governance structures.

- University level governance includes a number of “integrative” functions (including internal QA and approval of study programmes) but faculties can remain independent legal entities.

2006 Commission Communication on Modernisation of European universities

Additional Bologna amendments, after change of government, concerning primarily: - the relationship between the pre-

Bologna and Bologna degrees, supposedly introduced to protect the interests of pre-Bologna first degree holders in the labour market (first pre-Bologna degree was seen to be equal to Bologna master degrees)

- return of the QA agency under

Lump-sum funding introduced Law on Recognition of Foreign qualifications modified to separate procedures of recognition of vocational and university/academic qualifications

Standard for quality assurance and accreditation adopted, following to a large extent the ESG.

18

control of the Council for higher education

2007

EU Council Resolution on Modernising European universities (Bologna Process) London Communiqué - Gave the green light for

establishment of EQAR - Took stock of changes so far (based

on the Stocktaking report, as well as reports from EUA and ESIB/ESU)

- Highlighted mobility, social dimension, data collection, employability, EHEA in the global context as priorities until 2009

- Asked BFUG to consider an independent assessment of Bologna

2008

EU Parliament adopts the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong learning (Bologna Process) EQAR launched

Amendments to the Law on HE related to the: - relationship between old and new

degrees - full implementation of Bologna

provisions related to student progress and their funding status postponed for a year

2009

(Bologna Process) Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué - Reiterated social dimension, LLL and

employability as priorities - Added student centred learning, the

education-research-innovation nexus (the EU knowledge triangle), “international openness”, mobility, data collection, funding and “multidimensional transparency tools” amongst the priorities

New amendments of the Law redressing changes with respect to quality assurance introduced in 2006, i.e. QA agency again independent

Law on Quality Assurance in Higher Education and Research adopted, provisions for QA of HE largely reflect the ESG, Agency for HE and Research still the main actor

First round of accreditation of HEIs and programmes completed

2010 Commission communication to EP, EU QA agency becomes operational

19

Council, etc. Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union

(Bologna Process) Budapest-Vienna Declaration - “launched” EHEA, but also indicated

that further efforts in implementation are required

- Took note of the independent evaluation as well as ESU/ESIB and EUA reports

- Underlined principles of academic freedom, institutional autonomy and accountability of HEIs

> 2010

New Modernisation Agenda (Bologna Process) Bucharest Communiqué 2012 - Asks for further investment into HE - Although claims that “the vision of

an integrated EHEA is within reach”, “further efforts to consolidate and build on progress are required”

- Focus on: quality HE for all, enhancing employability and strengthening mobility

- Set priorities until 2015 for the national and European level. National level in particular related to areas where lack of implementation was identified. European level, amongst other, revision of ESG, coordination with regards to qualification frameworks

New master plan adopted 2011 Three new laws on HE and science discussed, did not pass the Parliament

Proposal for an overarching education strategy developed 2012 by a group of experts, no official approval in the government

20

Here, the first major differences appear: while the issue of internal structure of universities and the

relationship between the university and its constituent faculties was put at the forefront of legislative

changes in Slovenia from 1993, neither Croatia nor Serbia were addressing these issues until the 2000s.

Slovenia is also an excellent case in point concerning the extent to which this issue is controversial, given

the six appeals to the Constitutional Court and the time it took for the court to reach the decisions. This

issue will be discussed in more detail below. Additional differences between Slovenia on the one side and

Croatia and Serbia on the other lies in the scope of policy changes: Slovenia took up the major overhaul of

its higher education system in terms of governance, funding, institutional autonomy etc, changes in Croatia

and Serbia were much less ambitious (Serbia) and with rather limited implementation success (Croatia).

Further differences in the pre-Bologna period are related to quality assurance attempts, this time with

Slovenia and Croatia on the one side and Serbia on the other. While both Slovenia and Croatia made

attempts to introduce quality assurance structures at the university level, Serbia spent the entire 90s

without showing any particular concern for quality assurance issues. This is particularly interesting having in

mind that the same concerns with respect to quality and efficiency of higher education, in particular in the

light of massification of higher education which took place in the 80s and continued well into the 90s,

without significant expansion of the higher education system, existed in all three countries18. One possible

explanation for the lack of concern for quality assurance in Serbia could be that, unlike Croatia and

Slovenia, the 90s in Serbia were marked by a series of students’ (and less often academic staff) protests

against the Milosevic regime in 1991, 1992, 1996/97, 1998 and a continuous stream of small scale student

protests from the summer 1999 until the fall of Milosevic in October 2000. However, as can be seen from

Slovenia and Croatia, the fact that quality assurance made its way to legislation did not necessarily translate

into a developed QA system, given that in both countries these initiative were faced by serious obstacles,

primarily lack of capacity (Croatia) and resistance from the side of the universities (Slovenia). Given that

there was no explicit initiative at that time for quality assurance at the European level, one can not speak of

Europeanization in this case. However, it could be that at least in Slovenia the experiences of Western

European countries were taken as models19, at least in terms of ideas.

Further distinction of Serbia as compared to the two other countries during the 90s lies in the fact

that changes in higher education policy (again, mostly embodied in changes of higher education legislation)

seemed to have been much more motivated by external political events (in particular student protests

against the regime) than by inherent higher education concerns. The major event in that respect was the

higher education legislation adopted in 1998 which included provisions about appointing all governing

structures directly by the government. While it was claimed by the government at that time that these

18

Interviews with system level actors (high position within ministries and univeristies) in position during the late 80s and 90s in the

three countries. 19 In particular the Slovenian system level actors from that period state that they were looking to different Western European

countries, mostly Germany and Austria for policy ideas

21

provisions essentially constitute transfer of policy solutions from France, in the context of undemocratic

regime of Slobodan Milosevic, they had perverse (though supposedly intended by the government) effects

of abolishing the university autonomy. The legislation was also seen as abolishing university autonomy by

the academic staff and students (who protested against it in 1998) and by the international academic

community: as indicated in the overview, CRE (the predecessor organization of EUA) suspended Serbian

universities from its membership until late 2000s.

b. Mapping policy changes after Bologna

Higher education policy change after the start of the Bologna Process in the three countries under

study seems to be characterized much more by Europeanization of higher education than policy transfer.

All three countries introduced quite soon after joining the Bologna Process the so-called “Bologna” higher

education legislation, with provisions related to introduction of 3+2 or 4+1 degree structure, quality

assurance mechanisms and use of ECTS and the Diploma Supplement. In the case of Slovenia the latter

changes (ECTS) happened before Bologna but can still be considered as Europeanization given that they

were part of European initiatives (mobility programmes). Unlike changes in the 90s in Slovenia, these

changes in all three countries touch upon the core of higher education – its education function as well as

the basic degree structure and content of study programmes.

Unlike Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia introduced under the Bologna umbrella also the legal and

functional integration of universities, although with some difficulties. As was the case in Slovenia, for much

the same reasons, the issue of internal fragmentation of universities is a hot topic in the region. This is an

area where institutional legacies are strong and where a number of actors (in particular leadership of

faculties, but also leadership of universities who are essentially elected by the faculties) have significant

vested interests, both in terms of decision-making power as well as in terms of funding. This is often seen

as the reason why this issue came to the Constitutional court in Slovenia in the 90s20 in the first place. In

Croatia and Serbia, who took up this topic after the start of the Bologna Process, the strong pressure to

change the situation was largely due to the perception voiced by system level actors21 that such

fragmented universities are “not according to Bologna”. While some of them were aware that none of the

Bologna process official documents make any recommendations concerning such matters, their

interpretation is that “other” Bologna action lines (mobility, quality assurance, interdisciplinarity22) can not

be adequately implemented with such fragmented universities. This can be interpreted as particular re-

nationalization of Bologna and a situation in which different actors use European initiatives in higher

education to promote their particular interests. The issue also unfolds quite similarly as in the case of

20

Interviews with system level actors in Slovenia. 21

Interviews with system level actors (both high ministry officials as well as people who were part of university leadership) from

Croatia and Serbia. 22

None of the Bologna official document make explicit demands concerning interdisciplinarity of programmes.

22

Slovenia some years earlier: it was the professors of law of flagship universities (Zagreb and Ljubljana)

which threatened that they would take the case to the constitutional court. It is further interesting to

notice that certain stakeholders (ministers, student unions) as well as other universities in Croatia and

Serbia favoured more or less openly the abolishing of the situation in which the faculties are independent

legal entities. This issue was resolved by introducing provision for the so-called “functional integration” in

both Croatia and Serbia, a solution by which some functions are transferred to the university level while

faculties retain their legal status and funding.

Croatia and Serbia lag after Slovenia also with respect to changes in the funding arrangements.

Croatia introduced lump sum funding in 2006, following the Bologna changes in legislation. Although the

Serbian “Bologna” legislation from 2005 includes provisions requiring changes in the funding regulation (to

be adopted by the Government), funding of higher education is still done basically according to the

regulation introduced in the early 90s23.

Slovenia in the 2000s becomes an interesting case, in particular with respect to the situation with its

quality assurance system. After a long period of political stability and a series of centre-left liberal

governments, in 2004 a conservative right government came into power. Quite soon after taking power, it

started a number of reforms of higher education and pushed through the parliament (with opposition from

various stakeholders and rather tight majority in the Parliament24) legislative changes diminishing the

independence of the quality assurance agency and establishing that pre-Bologna first degrees are equal (in

terms of labour market recognition) with the Bologna second cycle (master) degrees. According to some

experts (Zgaga and Miklavič 2011), the latter change was seen as directly undermining the essence of

Bologna reforms. The counter move came again in 2009, after the government changed back to centre-left

liberal orientation, and the quality assurance became independent again. These developments in Slovenia

testify to the vulnerability of Europeanization processes to domestic circumstances – even though Slovenia

was a Bologna front-runner compared to Croatia and Slovenia, it is somewhat lagging behind them with

establishment of an ESG-compliant quality assurance system.

5. Concluding remarks

As has been demonstrated, the policy changes in the three countries under study have significantly

intensified with the start of the Bologna Process. Although Slovenia introduced quite significant changes to

higher education legislation in terms of governance and quality assurance, the core of universities – the

education function – became the focus of legislative reforms only with the Bologna Process. While policy

23 Minor changes of this funding instrument were introduced in early 2000s concerning the weight of a few input criteria. 24

Interview with a system level actor from that time, LJ-macro-5.

Comment [MV6]: Requires significant work, here just first thoughts.

23

changes in the 90s, where they were taking place, were either guided by national concerns (all three

countries) or by limited policy transfer (e.g. QA in Slovenia), changes after the emergence of major

European initiatives in higher education can be characterized as Europeanization. In addition, European

initiatives have been used by national actors to legitimise reforms in aspects of higher education not

explicitly addressed by European initiatives (funding and internal university governance), though to varying

degrees. Concerning the hot issue of internal university governance, particular elements of policy transfer

between the three countries can also be identified (the emergence of the so-called functional integration).

References

Amaral, A., and Neave, G. (2009). "On Bologna, Weasels and Creeping Competence", in A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, and P. Maassen, (eds.), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Springer Netherlands, pp. 281-299.

Babin, M., and Lažetid, P. (2009). "Financing a Disintegrated University in Serbia: an institutional case study", in M. Vukasovic, (ed.), Financing higher education in Southb Eastern Europe: Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia. Belgrade: Centre for Education Policy.

Beerkens, E. (2008). "The Emergence and Institutionalisation of the European Higher Education and Research Area." European Journal of Education, 43(4), 407-425.

Bomberg, E., and Peterson, J. (2000). "Policy Transfer and Europeanization: Passing the Heineken test." Queen's Papers on Europeanisation(2).

Börzel, T. A., and Risse, T. (2000). "When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Change." European Integration online Papers, 4(15).

Börzel, T. A., and Risse, T. (2003). "Conceptualizing the domestic impact of Europe", in K. Featherstone and C. M. Radaelli, (eds.), The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brankovid, J. (2010). Decision making on decision making: deciding governance in higher education in Serbia 2002-2005, J. Brankovic, Oslo.

Capano, G., and Piattoni, S. (2011). "From Bologna to Lisbon: the political uses of the Lisbon 'script' in European higher education policy." Journal of European Public Policy, 18(4), 584-606.

Corbett, A. (2003). "Ideas, Institutions and Policy Entrepreneurs: towards a new history of higher education in the European Community." European Journal of Education, 38(3), 315-330.

Corbett, A. (2005). Universities and the Europe of knowledge: Ideas, institutions and policy entrepreneurship in European Union Higher Education Policy, 1955–2005, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Corbett, A. (2006). "Higher Education as a Form of European Integration: How Novel is the Bologna Process?" ARENA Working Paper Series(15).

Corbett, A. (2011). "Ping Pong: competing leadership for reform in EU higher education 1998–2006." European Journal of Education, 46(1), 36-53.

Dolowitz, D., and Marsh, D. (1996). "Who Learns What from Whom: a Review of the Policy Transfer Literature." Political Studies, 44(2), 343-357.

Elken, M., Gornitzka, Å., Maassen, P., and Vukasovid, M. (2011). European integration and the transformation of higher education. University of Oslo, Oslo.

ENQA. (2005). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in European Higher Education Area., European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Brussels.

Freyburg, T., and Richter, S. (2010). "National identity matters: the limited impact of EU political conditionality in the Western Balkans." Journal of European Public Policy, 17(2), 263-281.

Gornitzka, Å. (2006). "What is the use of Bologna in national reform? The case of Norwegian Quality Reform in higher education", in V. Tomusk, (ed.), Creating the European Higher Education Area: Voices from the Periphery. Dordrecht: Springer.

24

Gornitzka, Å. (2007). "The Lisbon Process: A Supranational Policy Perspective", in P. Maassen and J. P. Olsen, (eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration. Springer Netherlands, pp. 155-178.

Gornitzka, Å. (2009). "Networking Administration in Areas of National Sensitivity: The Commission and European Higher Education", in A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, and P. Maassen, (eds.), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Springer Netherlands, pp. 109-131.

Gornitzka, Å. (2010). "Bologna in Context: a horizontal perspective on the dynamics of governance sites for a Europe of Knowledge." European Journal of Education, 45(4), 535-548.

Heinze, T., and Knill, C. (2008). "Analysing the differential impact of the Bologna Process: Theoretical considerations on national conditions for international policy convergence." Higher education, 56(4), 493-510.

Héritier, A. (2005). "Europeanization Research East and West: A Comparative Assessment", in F. Schimmelfennig and U. Sedelmeier, (eds.), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Huisman, J., Stensaker, B., and Kehm, B. (2009). "Bologna, Quo vadis?", in B. Kehm, J. Huisman, and B. Stensaker, (eds.), The European Higher Education Area: Perspective on a Moving Target. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Ivoševid, V., and Miklavič, K. (2009). "Financing Higher Education: Comparative Analysis", in M. Vukasovid, (ed.), Financing of Higher Education in South Eastern Europe: Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia. Belgrade: Centre for Education Policy.

Keeling, R. (2006). "The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: the European Commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse." European Journal of Education, 41(2), 203-223.

Kehm, B. M., Huisman, J., and Stensaker, B. (2009). The European higher education area: perspectives on a moving target, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Kozma, T. (2008). "Political Transformations and Higher Education Reforms." European Education, 40(2), 29-45.

Maassen, P., and Musselin, C. (2009). "European Integration and the Europeanisation of Higher Education", in A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, and P. Maassen, (eds.), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Springer Netherlands, pp. 3-14.

Maassen, P. A. M., and Olsen, J. P. (2007). University dynamics and European integration, Dordrecht: Springer.

Musselin, C. (2005). "Change or Continuity in Higher Education Governance?", in I. Bleiklie and M. Henkel, (eds.), Governing Knowledge. Springer Netherlands, pp. 65-79.

Musselin, C. (2009). "The Side Effects of the Bologna Process on National Institutional Settings: the Case of France", in A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, and P. Maassen, (eds.), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Dordrecht: Springer.

Neave, G. (2009). "The Bologna Process as Alpha or Omega, or, on Interpreting History and Context as Inputs to Bologna, Prague, Berlin and Beyond", in A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, and P. Maassen, (eds.), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Springer Netherlands, pp. 17-58.

Neave, G., and Amaral, A. (2008). "On Process, Progress, Success and Methodology or the Unfolding of the Bologna Process as it Appears to Two Reasonably Benign Observers." Higher Education Quarterly, 62(1-2), 40-62.

Neave, G., and Maassen, P. (2007). "The Bologna Process: An Intergovernmental Policy Perspective", in P. Maassen and J. P. Olsen, (eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration. Springer Netherlands, pp. 135-154.

Orosz, A. (2008). "The Bologna Process in Croatia." European Education, 40(2), 66-84. Pabian, P. (2009). "Europeanisation of Higher Education Governance in the Post-Communist Context: The

Case of the Czech Republic", in A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, and P. Maassen, (eds.), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Springer Netherlands, pp. 257-278.

Pépin, L. (2007). "The History of EU Cooperation in the Field of Education and Training: how lifelong learning became a strategic objective." European Journal of Education, 42(1), 121-132.

25

Pépin, L. (2011). "Education in the Lisbon Strategy: assessment and prospects." European Journal of Education, 46(1), 25-35.

Radaelli, C. M. (2003). "The Europeanization of Public Policy", in K. Featherstone and C. M. Radaelli, (eds.), The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ravinet, P. (2008). "From Voluntary Participation to Monitored Coordination: why European countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna Process." European Journal of Education, 43(3), 353-367.

Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). "Europeanization beyond Europe." Living Reviews in European Governance, 4(3). Sedelmeier, U. (2011). "Europeanisation in new member and candidate states." Living Reviews in European

Governance, 6(1). Šoljan, N. N. (1991). "The Saga of Higher Education in Yugoslavia: Beyond the Myths of a Self-Management

Socialist Society." Comparative Education Review, 35(1), 131-153. Subotid, J. (2010). "Explaining Difficult States." East European Politics & Societies, 24(4), 595-616. Subotid, J. (2011). "Europe is a State of Mind: Identity and Europeanization in the Balkans1." International

Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 309-330. Turajlid, S. (2004). "Reforma visokog obrazovanja u Srbiji", in M. p. i. s. R. Srbije, (ed.), Visoko obrazovanje u

Srbiji. Beograd: Alternativna akademska obrazovna mreža. Turajlid, S. (2006). "Institutional Approaches to Entrepreneurialism at the University of Belgrade." Higher

Education in Europe, 31(2), 129-156. Turajlid, S., Babid, S., and Milutinovid, Z. (2001). Evropski univerzitet 2001?, Beograd: Alternativna

akademska obrazovna mreža. Veiga, A., and Amaral, A. (2006). "The open method of coordination and the implementation of the Bologna

process." Tertiary Education and Management, 12(4), 283-295. Veiga, A., and Amaral, A. (2009). "Policy Implementation Tools and European Governance", in A. Amaral, G.

Neave, C. Musselin, and P. Maassen, (eds.), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Springer Netherlands, pp. 133-157.

Vidovid, V. V., and Bjeliš, A. (2006). "Entrepreneurialism at the University of Zagreb: Managing the Sustainability of Change." Higher Education in Europe, 31(2), 157-193.

Vukasovid, M. (2011). "Governance of Higher Education in the Countries and Territories of Former Yugoslavia: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Kosovo." Leadership and Governance in Higher Education, 2(2011), 109-122.

Vukasovid, M. (submitted for review). "Europeanization of Higher Education: The case of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance." Higher Education.

Westerheijden, D., Beerkens, E., Cremonini, L., Huisman, J., Kehm, B., Kovač, A., Lažetid, P., McCoshan, A., Mozuraityte, N., Souto Otero, M., de Weert, E., Witte, J., and Yagci, Y. (2010). The first decade of working on the European Higher Education Area: Executive summary, overview and conclusions.

Witte, J. (2008). "Aspired Convergence, Cherished Diversity: Dealing with the contradictions of Bologna." Tertiary Education and Management, 14(2), 81 - 93.

Zgaga, P. (2002). "Changes in Slovenian Higher Education: Governance, Autonomy, Admission, and Quality." Higher Education in Europe, 27(3), 325-332.

Zgaga, P. (2003). "The External Dimension of the Bologna Process: Higher Education in South East Europe and the European Higher Education Area in a Global World Reforming the Universities of South East Europe in|sq| View of the Bologna Process." Higher Education in Europe, 28(3), 251-258.

Zgaga, P., and Miklavič, K. (2011). "Reforming Higher Education in “Transition”: Between National and International Reform Initiatives: The Case of Slovenia." European Education, 43(3), 13-25.