Il “grande gap”: gli effetti del performance budgeting sulle politiche di reclutamento delle Università italiane


Assessing the impact of performance-based budgeting on Italian Higher Education recruitment policy

In the last thirty years, the Italian Higher Education System has faced a long and wide-ranging process of reforms inspired by quasi-market and performance budgeting intended to improve the overall performances. While these tools were aimed to change university strategies to achieve better performances, they may lead to unexpected effects (gaming policies or winner-takes-all effect).

This work focuses on the impact produced by the adoption in 2012 of a formula-based mechanism to allocate the recruitment budget to Italian universities. This work aims to identify how the composition of Universities’ personnel changed in the last years, with a specific focus on what occurred after the 2012. For this purpose, a longitudinal analysis was carried out using open data provided by the Ministry of Education. Furthermore, variations in resources allocated to each university and to each different geographical area were analysed. Lastly, professor body composition for each university has been investigated (either aggregate and by type). Results show heterogeneity throughout the country and also suggest that universities’ geographical localisation resources allocation is influenced by geographical localisation of the universities.

 Keywords: Higher education, performance-based budgeting, punti organico, quasi-market.

4_MC19_2_EZZA Tabella 1

4_MC19_2_EZZA Figura 2

  1. Agasisti T., Catalano G. (2006), Governance models of university systems—towards quasi‐markets? Tendencies and perspectives: A European comparison, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28,3, pp. 245–262. Doi: 10.1080/13600800600980056
  2. Andresani G., Ferlie E. (2006), Studying governance within the British public sector and without: Theoretical and methodological issues, Public Management Review, 8, 3, pp. 415–431. Doi: 10.1080/14719030600853220
  3. Anselmi L. (1995), Il processo di trasformazione della pubblica amministrazione: il percorso aziendale. Torino, Giappichelli.
  4. Barzelay M. (2001), The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue. Berkeley, University of California Press.
  5. Battistin E., Checchi D., Verzillo S. (2014), La riforma di decentramento dei concorsi universitari in Italia. RIV Rassegna Italiana Di Valutazione, 58, pp. 50-79. Doi: 10.3280/RIV2014-058004
  6. Beerkens M. (2013), Competition and concentration in the academic research industry: An empirical analysis of the sector dynamics in Australia 1990-2008, Science and Public Policy, 40, 2, pp. 157–170. Doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs076.
  7. Bevan G., Hood C. (2006), What’s measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public administration, 84, 3, pp. 517–538. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.x.
  8. Bianco M.L. (2002), Effetti della riforma dei concorsi universitari su carriere accademiche e dinamiche di genere. Polis, 3, pp. 417-444. .
  9. Borgonovi E. (2005), Principi e sistemi aziendali per le amministrazioni pubbliche, Milano, EGEA.
  10. Burke J. C. (1998), Performance Funding: Present Status and Future Prospects. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1998(97), 5–13. Doi: 10.1002/ir.9701.
  11. Donina D., Meoli M., Paleari S. (2015), Higher education reform in Italy: Tightening regulation instead of steering at a distance, Higher Education Policy, 28, 2, pp. 215–234. Doi: 10.1057/hep.2014.6.
  12. Dougherty K.J., Jones S.M., Lahr H., Natow R.S., Pheatt L., Reddy V. (2014), Perfoance funding for higher education: Forms, origins, impacts, and futures, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655, 1, pp. 163–184. Doi: 10.1177/0002716214541042.
  13. Ezza A., Pischedda G., Marinò L. (2017), Performance-Based Funding In Public Competition. Lights And Shadows In The Italian Higher Education System, Journal of International Business and Economics, 17, 2, pp. 5–22.
  14. Ferlie E., Musselin C., Andresani G. (2008), The steering of higher education systems: A public management perspective, Higher Education, 56, 3, pp. 325–348. Doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9125-5.
  15. Ferlie E., Musselin C., Andresani G. (2009), The governance of higher education systems: A public management perspective in Paradeise C., Reale E., Bleiklie I., Ferlie E. (eds), University Governance, Dordrecht, Springer.
  16. Frank R.H., Cook P. J. (1995), The winner-take-all society: Why the few at the top get so much more than the rest of us, New York, Penguin Books.
  17. Giarda P. (2006), Il finanziamento dell’Università italiana. Economia pubblica. 3/4, pp. 1000–1026. Doi: 10.1400/114090.
  18. Giovanelli L. (2000), Modelli contabili e di bilancio in uno Stato che cambia. Milano, Giuffrè.
  19. Giovanelli L., Rotondo F., Marinò L. (2017), A Performance Management System to Improve Student Success in Italian Public Universities: Conditions and Critical Factors of an IT System. In Corsi K., Castellano N.G., Lamboglia R., Mancini D. (eds.), Reshaping Accounting and Management Control Systems, Cham, Springer.
  20. Glennerster H. (1991), Quasi-markets for education? The Economic Journal, 101, 408, pp. 1268–1276.
  21. Hood C. (1991), A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69, 1, pp. 3–19. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
  22. Hood C. (1995), The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 2–3, pp. 93–109. Doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W
  23. Jeon J., Kim S.Y. (2018), Is the gap widening among universities? On research output inequality and its measurement in the Korean higher education system, Quality & Quantity, 52, 2, pp. 589–606. Doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0652-y
  24. Jongbloed B. (2004), Funding higher education: options, trade-offs and dilemmas. Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies.
  25. 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, pp. 127–145. Doi: 10.1080/13600800120088625
  26. Le Grand J. (1991), Quasi-Markets and Social Policy, The Economic Journal, 101, 408, pp. 1256-1267. Doi: 10.2307/2234441
  27. Marinò L. (2013), Dinamiche di finanziamento, economicità ed eguaglianza nei servizi sanitari. Condizioni, limiti ed implicazioni, in Giovanelli L. (a cura di), La valutazione delle performance in ambito sanitario. Profili teorici ed evidenze empiriche, Torino, Giappichelli.
  28. Marinò L. (2014), L’azienda pubblica nel quasi mercato. Il management sanitario tra autonomia formale ed opzioni di scelta reali, Torino, Giappichelli.
  29. McKeown M.P. (1996), State Funding Formulas for Public Four-Year Institutions. Denver, State Higher Education Executive Officers.
  30. Merton R.K. (1968), The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159, 3810, pp. 56–63. Doi: 10.1126/science.159.3810.56.
  31. Moscati R. (2001), Italian university professors in transition, Higher Education, 41(1–2), pp. 103–129.
  32. Moscati R. (2009), The Implementation of the Bologna Process in Italy, in Amaral A., Neave G., Musselin C., Maassen P. (eds.), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research, Dordrecht, Springer.
  33. Musgrave R. A. (1995), Finanza pubblica, equità, democrazia, Bologna, Il Mulino.
  34. Mussari R. (1994), Il management delle aziende pubbliche, Padova, Cedam.
  35. Rebora G., Turri M. (2008), La governance del sistema universitario in Italia: 1989-2008, Liuc Oapers, Serioe Economia Aziendale, 221, pp. 1-26.
  36. Rossi P. (2015), Il Punto Organico: una storia italiana, RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation, 3, 1, Doi: 10.13130/2282-5398/4603
  37. Umbricht M.R., Fernandez F., Ortagus J.C. (2017), An Examination of the (Un)Intended Consequences of Performance Funding in Higher Education, Educational Policy, 31, 5, pp. 643–673. Doi: 10.1177/0895904815614398