Introduction

Governance is defined as structures and processes of decision-making through which performance and accountability is ensured in the organisations. The focus on governance is a new found passion. It follows from an understanding of governance and that governance matters and makes a difference in the functioning of systems and performance of institutions. The governance of public institutions is complex primarily due to the multiplicity of actors involved in decision making. The governance of public institutions involves engaging in complex relationships between those with primary accountability/ responsibilities i.e. Parliament and ministers who are engaged in the administration of sector programmes and institutional leaders who are directly engaged with managing institutions. The governance of private sector organisation is different from this pattern primarily since the role of the actors external to the institution is minimal and accountability to public bodies is limited. Further, in many private organisations, there is a widely accepted criterion of profits and profitability to measure good governance and institutional effectiveness.

University and college governance varies from the principles of governance practiced in public sector institutions and private organizations. Universities and colleges stand for preserving the existing knowledge, generating new knowledge and transmitting the intellectual inheritance to the next generation. It is believed that effective institutional governance helps universities and colleges enhance their gains in each of these functions. However, it is very difficult to quantify the success made by the universities and colleges in each of these attributes and equally difficult to produce empirical evidence to establish a link between good governance and their success in these domains. Unlike the private sector, profitability is not considered to be an index of success of public universities and colleges. It has been observed that in many private and public sector undertakings, the outputs of the higher education system are vaguely defined, and the quality of the product varies substantially. It is difficult to quantify the higher education product and equally difficult to specify uniformity in the quality of the products. These characteristics contributed to the evolution of vaguely defined governance structures in the universities and colleges.

Given the traditional role the universities played and vaguely defined outcomes of higher education institutions, a collegial model of governance evolved in the sector. Over a period of time and more recently due to the emphasis on the notion of value for money in the context of increasing financial constraints, the traditional collegial models of decision-making in the universities and colleges gave way to managerial approaches to direct and streamline institutional functioning under the framework of New Public Management (NPM). As the higher education context has changed, the nature, content and delivery modes of study programmes changed and stakeholders pressurized universities to transform their orientation and functions within the framework of market principles of operation. 

Changing Models of Governance in Higher Education

Traditionally, the governance and institutional decision-making process in the universities were collegial and consensus based, and the interactions were informal. The institutional leader was elected from among the university’s scholars. The professoriate welcomed this model of governance since it provided academic freedom for intellectual discourses of varying viewpoints. The freedom enjoyed by the professoriate encouraged a spirit of curiosity and tolerance to differing ideological orientations. When universities became small entities and peripheral to the core economic activities, the collegial model and informal institutional interactions worked fairly well. The institutional mission to preserve knowledge, generate knowledge and transmit knowledge was neither monitored nor questioned. Any attempt to introduce accountability measures to manage activities and monitor performance was considered as an attack on academic freedom (Saint 2009).

The informal nature of intra-institutional relations underwent changes when government became more active in intervening in the affairs of the universities. The state played a dominant role in the post second world war construction period mostly in Europe. The role of universities changed, and they became active agents of change in the strategy of development. This model played an important role in designing and facilitating development in the developing countries during the post-independent period. Higher Education institutions were relied on for overcoming the constraints imposed by severe shortage of qualified human resources to plan and promote development. The role of universities changed from institutions of intellectual discourses to producing human resources to promote economic and social development. In many instances, universities became core elements in the development strategies of the government (Chandra 2017).

Following the state led model of development, universities were established, in most countries as public institutions to develop national capacities to manage the economy. The state encouragement and funding were forthcoming and helped universities to expand their spheres of influence in the debates on strategies of development and their role in human capital formation to promote economic growth. The universities in turn aligned their research and teaching activities of national priority. In many instances, the national political leaders and heads of states became heads of the governing bodies in the public universities. The ministries of education played a proactive role in the appointment of the head of higher education institutes (Vice-chancellors).

The state enjoyed monopoly in higher education development. Some governments viewed public universities as extensions of the public service and felt that the governments of the day should have an important say in organizing the services rendered by the public universities. The increased government intervention in the affairs of the academic institutions led to ‘a state control’ model of higher education, governance and management (Neave and Vught 1994). State intervention was increasingly seen in the financing, managing and appointment of institutional heads. In other words, public financing and state control characterised higher education governance in many regions of the world (Varghese 2009). The state-controlled model of higher education development had inherent limitations. Higher education as an extension of state structure worked well when the sector remained elite and access was limited. However, the state sponsored model acted as a constraint for the sector to expand, especially since the fiscal crisis of the 1980s which eroded the capacity of the state to finance an expanding higher education sector (Altbach 1989). 

The policies followed during the structural adjustment regime in the 1980s further helped marginalise the higher education sector in public resource allocation processes. The social demand for higher education and the resultant pressure to expand the system questioned the state-controlled model of expansion of higher education. The success of education for all programmes further increased the pressure on the system to expand.

The inability of the state to respond to the increasing social demand for higher education resulted in the privatisation of the existing public institutions or opening the sector for the private sector to establish institutions or both (Varghese 2009). Privatisation measures reduced state control of public institutions even when their ownership remained with the state. The private sector, on the other hand, does not rely on state funding support and represented an alternative to the state-supported model of higher education development. Public universities became more autonomous since they liberated themselves from government funding. Autonomy permitted institutions to set priorities, evolve strategies, develop study programmes and courses, recruit staff, diversify funding resources and decide on internal resource allocation criteria ( Salmi 2007). These changes redefined the relationship between the state and institutions of higher education and impacted the governance and management of institutions of higher education (Varghese 2014). The globalization processes further reinforced the market forces in higher education decision –making. 

The new governance models emerged in the market framework of New Public Management. The NPM opened the doors for market friendly reforms and managerialism as an approach to govern and manage higher education institutions. The governance paradigm that evolved from the NPM perspectives emphasized less bureaucracy; devolve management, public-private partnerships, the development of quasi-markets and the inclusion of a range of different stakeholders (Olssen 2002, Varghese and Martin 2014). All these changes produced a fundamental shift in the way public institutions are defined and the way delivery of public services are designed. Further, the underlying ethos of higher education as a spirit of curiosity and tolerance of differing views disappeared. Many professional profit- organizations have entered for personal gain introducing unscrupulous practices that seem to exploit the students and the community (Mathur 2020). Some of the seemingly corrupt activities especially in student admissions and staff recruitments became acceptable practices under the market led governance regime. Unlike public institutions, private corporations and entities are established to produce profits and are assessed on the basis of the profits they produce. The profits are expressed in measurable monetary terms. Therefore, it is easy to evaluate the success and failure of private institutions based on the profit they produce. In the absence of reliable measures to compare public and private sector entities, the profit-based assessments very often, led to conclusions that show the inefficiency of the public institutions and efficiency of the public corporate entities. Such understanding leads to reforms to introduce corporate governance structures in public higher education institutions.

Corporate governance generally refers to the processes by which organisations are directed, controlled and held accountable (IFAC 2001). There are two aspects of corporate governance: conformance and performance (Tricker 1984). Conformance consists of monitoring and supervising executive performance and maintaining accountability. Performance consists of strategy formulation and policy making. In the private sector, more emphasis is given to conformance aspect and institutional performance in matters related to governance.

Fielden (2007) attempted to sketch the evolution of institutional governance models ranging from control to autonomy as follows: (a) state control model, (b) semi-autonomous model, (c) semi-independent model, (d) independent model. The state control and semi-autonomous model can be an agency of the government, a state owned corporation or a statutory body. The semi-independent and independent model can be statutory body, charity or profit or non-profit corporation with no government participation and control linked to national strategies and related only to public funding. Fielden (2007) argued that the international trend seems to favour the increasing autonomy and corporatisation of public institutions by making them independent and self-governing organisations. Accountability in public sector governance requires established missions and goals and widespread use of performance indicators and performance systems, as well as enhanced forms of monitoring and reporting systems to hold the organisation and its workers accountable for maximum efficiency. These key principles and arrangements have become institutionalised and now form the core of good governance in transforming public sector organisations in global contexts.

These changes fitted very well because as university systems became large and complex, governments found it impossible to directly manage and control individual institutions. The new governance model ensured redistribution responsibility, accountability and decision making power among external and internal stakeholders. It seems the conflicting situation is characterised by institutional governance for academic research versus research commercialisation mission dominated by profit maximszation and corporate principles of governance (Narayan 2012). The reforms initiated for institutional survival needed decisions to be taken at the institutional level and it implied a marked shift in governance and management of higher education institutions. The shift in the locus of decision-making from ministries of education to institutions of higher education marked the beginning of an end to the state-controlled model of higher education governance and development. Some authors consider this change as a change to a stage of steering from distance or state supervision model and the ‘rise of the evaluative state (Neave 1988).

Some others consider this as a state of increased reliance on the self-regulative capacities of the universities (Kivisto 2005). The institutions of higher education became increasingly autonomous in their functioning. The institutional autonomy included academic and administrative and financial matters. However, autonomy at this stage was without state funding. The collegial model of governance was found to be less relevant since most decisions were bound more by resource constraints than by academic considerations (Austin and Jones 2016, Bush 2003). The bureaucratic models of governance and management were found to be rule-bound and less reliable to face the emerging situation. Market and managerialism became the new global themes and formed the basis for new governance structures and processes of decision-making in higher education.

Evolution of Governance Structures in Higher Education in India

The governance of higher education in India followed the global trends. The first universities were established in India in 1857 when the country was under the colonial rule. The functions of these universities were administrative in nature until the first decade of the 20th century. Teaching and academic interactions took place in the colleges. There existed no regulatory bodies until the 1930s to provide overall guidance for governing institutions of higher education. The post-independence period saw an increased focus on higher education more as an extension of self-reliance policy and the sector received priorities in policies for human resource development. 

The first commission on education was on higher education and was established immediately after independence. The recommendations of Radhakrishnan Commission (MoE 1950) laid the foundations of higher education development and establishment of regulatory bodies in higher education in India.

Indian policy on higher education development relied on promotion of public universities and institutions. Many of the private institutions were taken over by the government during the post-independence period. The state enjoyed a near monopoly in the provision of higher education in the 1950s and the 1960s. The government played an important role in planning, funding and managing higher education institutions. It was a stage of state sponsored development of higher education. However, the state funding did not imply absence of autonomy to higher education institutions in India. The universities in India enjoyed a considerable degree of academic freedom, and it was believed that academic freedom is essential to maintain and improve quality of teaching and research. This was a stage of aligning academic priorities with national compulsions of producing human resources for self-reliance in development. The harmonious coexistence between state priorities and institutional autonomy with liberal funding support defined the governance of higher education at this stage.

The trends in the 1970s disturbed the then existing harmony between the state and higher education sector. The expanding social demand for higher education and a relative decline in the public funding created social tensions especially among the youth population. The emergence of private higher education institutions was in response to these changes. The decades of the 1970s and 1980s saw proliferation of private higher education institutions in India. The private sector emerged initially as a government-supported sector receiving grants-in-aid from the centre and state governments.

Some of the institutions of higher education experimented with the introduction of self-financing courses as a strategy for diversification of sources of funding to compensate for the loss of state funding. Many institutions found that the experiment was successful and households were willing to invest in education of their children provided the institution provides study programmes which are employment friendly. Many private unaided higher education institutions especially in the domains of professional and technical education came up in the southern states of India. Given the high cost of education, these ‘capitation fee colleges’ provided an opportunity for children from well to do families with low academic scores. The next stage in the development of private higher education was the emergence of private universities with authority to award degrees. The private universities were established in India from the first decade of this century. At present, a majority of higher education institutions and a larger share of enrolment in higher education in India are in the private higher education institutions.

These changes have dramatically reduced the direct control exercised by the state. The declining public funding reduced the authority enjoyed by the government in matters related to governance and management of public institutions of higher education. The public institutions were starved of funds and were compelled to mobilize their own resources from non-traditional sources. The introduction of cost saving, cost sharing and income generating activities in institutions of higher education necessitated decisions to be taken at the institutional level. These changes helped shifts in governance structures from a state-controlled model to a state supervised model whereby institutions became more autonomous in their functioning. The state interventions became more of regulatory and supervisory nature.

It can be argued that the privatisation of public institutions reduced state control on governance and management of public higher education institutions. The public institutions became more autonomous and diversified their sources of funding. In many instances, a reduction in student subsidies, an introduction/ increase in student fees and income generating activities such as self-financing courses and programmes are measures adopted to overcome severe resource paucity experienced by higher education institutions. It seems that the centrally funded institutions are less severely affected by resource constraints than state-funded higher education institutions.

The emergence and expansion of private higher education institutions influenced the governance and management of higher education at the macro level. Most of the private institutions at this point of time were professional and technical colleges which were popularly known as capitation fee colleges. Most of these colleges were located in the states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Their prime motive was to generate profit. There were several court cases related to student admissions, and very often the court orders were putting brakes on the unsatisfied thirst for excessive profits by them. These court orders acted as a good regulatory basis for their operations. While many felt that there is a need for more regulations on the private sector institutions, the managers of the private institutions felt that there were too many regulations on their functioning.

Governance Structures at the System Level

Higher Education governance in India needs to be analyzed at three levels:

a. Relationship between the government and higher education institutions.

b. Relationship between and participation of different stakeholders within an institution and

c. Relationship between universities and their affiliated colleges.

Education is a joint responsibility of central and state governments. After the constitutional amendment of 1976, India followed a decentralised model of governance and management and regulatory arrangement at the school level and a centralised model of regulation in higher education. India established regulatory bodies and buffer institutions to mediate between the government and institutions of higher education. There were regulations related to granting of permission to open and operate an institution, to decide on the intake of students and introduction of courses and to ensure equity and social justice. The central bodies enjoyed the authority to intervene in these areas (Varghese and Malik 2016).

The regulatory bodies in higher education after independence were based on the recommendations of Radhakrishnan Commission 1948, and included the University Grants Commission (UGC) and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). While the UGC is responsible for universities and general higher education, the AICTE is responsible for technical education institutions in the country. The UGC, which was established in 1953, became a statutory body by the Parliament for coordination and determination of standards in universities since 1956. Although, it is a recommendatory body, it is influential in all major decision making in higher education.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) along with the regulatory bodies plays an important role in governance of higher education at the system level in India. Unfortunately, India has a number of regulatory bodies in higher education. The multiplicity of regulatory bodies is a reflection of the involvement of several ministries in providing higher education. Most of the ministries have their own regulatory bodies at the national level.

At the state level, the ministry of education wherever it exists and Directorate of Higher Education are important players in the governance of higher education. Following the recommendations on National Policy on Education (NPE) in 1986 and UGC guidelines of 1988, several state governments established State Higher Education Councils (SHECs). The SHECs are entrusted with planning and coordination, academic, advisory and administrative functions. Although only few SHECs were established in the 1990s, their number has increased in the current decade since it became mandatory to transfer funds under the newly initiated sponsored scheme Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) to rejuvenate higher education in India.

Governance Structure at the Institutional Level:

The institutional diversity in higher education has surprised many. Universities have more administrative functions and authority to award degrees. Teaching used to take place in colleges. The public universities in India are funded by the central or state governments. A majority of the public universities are in the state sector. India has a large number of affiliating colleges.

Universities are autonomous, and they focus more on research and teaching at graduate and postgraduate levels while the colleges are more of teaching institutions mostly at the undergraduate level and are subjected to more regulations even in academic matters. Universities are responsible for developing curriculum and syllabus for study programmes which are offered in the colleges. The colleges have the authority only to transact curriculum developed by the universities except in autonomous colleges. The Vice-Chancellor is the chief executive in the university administration. The governance structure at the university level consists of bodies such as senate/syndicate, executive council/governing body and academic council. Some of the universities have courts. The senate is responsible mainly for financial and budgetary estimations and appropriations. The executive council or the governing body of the university is responsible for all management and administrative matters. The academic council is responsible mainly for study programmes and research in the university.

The composition of the senate in affiliating state universities includes the principals of affiliated colleges, making the number too large for discussions and decision making. The syndicate wields powers and has more political clout than other bodies. The state government put their nominees into the syndicate and at times the majority of the members may be directly or indirectly connected to the government. These factors influence the decision-making process at the institutional level and at times there is a domination by the syndicate on the other bodies influencing their proceedings (Qamar 2016).

The syndicate in many affiliating universities is dominated by elected members and non-academics. This has important implications for how the university is run. In some universities, the ex-officio members of the syndicate include four directors: collegiate education, medical education, technical education and three secretaries from education, health and law. This leads to a large concentration of power in the syndicate, thus compromising the independence of the academic council and other statutory bodies.

The governance structure at the college level consists of government nominees, and the others are university nominees whose names are approved by the government: the principal, teachers from the university and from the college. 

The governing body of the colleges meets once/ twice in a year in order to discuss various issues and aspects related to the development of the college and its academic standards. The teachers in the government colleges are appointed by the public service commission and their accountability is more to the state level administration than to the head of the institution.

Institutional Autonomy and Accountability

The degree of autonomy reflects the nature of relationship between government and higher education institutions, governance structures and level of participation in decision making define the extent of decentralisation at the institutional level and the delineation of domains of decision-making indicate the nature of relationship between universities and the affiliated colleges.

The relationship between the universities and the government revolves around the issues of autonomy and accountability. The state and the universities are constantly engaged in redefining their mutual relationship, with the state introducing more and more accountability measures on the one hand, and universities demanding more autonomy, on the other hand. Universities in India were seen as autonomous entities from the very beginning. Committees and Commissions in India, starting with the Radhakrishnan Commission of 1948, emphasized on the importance of universities to be self-governing organizations and free them from interference by the government.

The subsequent commission (Kothari Commission report of 1966) also underlined the importance of institutional autonomy (GOI 1966). The UGC Committee on university governance in 1968 also underlined the same. The Gnanam committee report asked for greater autonomy of universities from the government and participation of teachers and students in managing the universities (UGC 1990). The government appointed a Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) Committee on university autonomy (MHRD 2005), which also upheld the importance of autonomy for institutions of higher education. The committees in the recent period too argued for increased institutional autonomy.

University autonomy can either be substantive or procedural. Substantive autonomy gives institutions authority to take decisions and operate with regard to their own goals and programme matters. However, procedural autonomy means freedom regarding administrative and financial matters. Substantive autonomy includes the freedom to design the curriculum, evolve research priorities and determine student admission policies and staff recruitment criteria and criteria for awarding the degrees. Procedural autonomy involves the freedom to prepare and administer budget and financial administration, appoint non-academic staff, and procure and enter into a contract with others outside the institution (Varghese and Malik 2020). The actual exercise of autonomy depends on the governance structure and management practices at the institutional level. Academic autonomy is the freedom to decide academic issues such as curriculum, instructional material, pedagogy and methods of student evaluation. Universities in India enjoy considerable degree of freedom on academic matters to decide on curriculum, instructional material, pedagogy and methods of student evaluation. The colleges affiliated to universities enjoy limited freedom on academic matters since most of the academic decisions are taken by the university.

The university and affiliated colleges enjoy freedom and authority to recruit teachers following the guidelines provided by the UGC regarding the qualifications, salary and service conditions. The government colleges on the other hand do not enjoy the autonomy to recruit teachers. 

The teachers in the government colleges are appointed by the public service commissions. They are appointed to the system and can be transferred from one institution to another. These teachers are part of the state civil services and they are governed by the rules and regulations applicable for the state civil service.

Universities, in general, enjoy limited autonomy in matters pertaining to administrative and financial issues. The resource allocation criteria and the rules governing financial management give limited scope for deviations from the established norms. Higher education institutions are starved of funds and are compelled to mobilize their own resources since the allocations may not meet even the salary expenditure of the employees. However, the government has initiated measures to give more autonomy to well-performing institutions. The new initiative is to introduce graded autonomy in institutions of higher education based on their performance. The NITI Aayog (GOI 2017) in its agenda for development released in 2017 and with the approval of UGC introduced the notion of graded autonomy to institutions of higher education. For purposes of granting autonomy, the institutions are divided into three categories. Universities either accredited by National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a score of atleast 3.5 or ranked in the top 50 institutions of the National Institutions Ranking Framework (NIRF) for two consecutive years will be under category 1; universities which have been accredited by NAAC with a score between 3.01 and 3.49 or ranked between 51 and 100 in the NIRF ranking will be under category 2 and all other institutions will be under category 3.

Category 1 institutions will have the autonomy to start a new course, department and school without the approval of UGC. They will also be exempt from UGC’s regular inspections and can collaborate with foreign educational institutions without the regulator’s permission. Their performance will be reviewed based on self-reporting. The category 2 universities will be exempt from UGC’s regular inspections but will need the UGC’s permission to sign Memorandum of Understandings with foreign universities. Their performance will be reviewed by a peer group. The category 3 will be the most regulated universities with limited autonomy.

The new financing arrangements help the universities to be free from dependence on the government for funds. The Higher Education Financial Agency (HEFA) would provide financial assistance to centrally aided institutes for promotion of world class infrastructure. It is expected that HEFA would finance the infrastructure projects through a 10 year loan and the principal portion of the loan will be repaid through the internal accruals of the institutions.

A prominent factor that explains variation in performance of individual institutions in terms of approved parameters is their internal governance structure and the way overall administrative and managerial efficiency is ensured (Feilden 2008). Unfortunately, things have not gone well on this front. The higher education system today is facing crisis of recognition and reverence. The failure of governance and management system has turned things against them and allowed the vested interest of stakeholders to collectively impugn and besiege the citadel on which these institutions stand. Quality of education has deteriorated, research has gone missing, and academic standard has also deteriorated. What we have today are selected institutions with rather impeccable record surrounded by a vast sea of mediocre and poor ones. Therefore, it is important to study the governance and management structure of HEIs spread across the nation in order to understand the flaws and capture the best practices adopted by the performers. The empirical evidence shows that there exists a strong causal relationship between good governance of public institutions and development outcomes (Kaufman 1999, Mulyadi 2012). This evidence points to an added advantage and an urgency to focus on the effective governance and management of public.

Conclusion

The emerging challenges in the higher education sector demand for appropriate skills and competencies on the part of educational administrators to prepare the institutions to take on these challenges. Administrative machinery, which is not equipped with the necessary skills, knowledge and attitude and which is not in harmony with the needs of the progress, can retard the pace of development of a university. A flexible pattern of governance, which is responsive to the changing needs of society, global trends and knowledge, can be a powerful factor in accelerating progress. In the wake of internationalization of education, coupled with globalization and competition, the higher educational institutes need to be managed more professionally. 

References

1. Altbach.P.G., (1989). ‘The New Internationalism: Foreign Student’s and Scholars’. Studies in Higher Education 14 (2: 125-136).

2. Austin.I and Jones.G.A., (2016). ‘Governance of Higher Education : Global Perspective, Theories and Practices’. New York: Routledge.

3. Chandra.P., (2017). ‘ Governance in Higher Education: A contested space ( Making the University Work)’. In Navigating the Labyrinth : Perspectives on India’s Higher Educated edited by K. Devesh and B.M.Pratap, 235-264. Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.

4. Fielden.J., ( 2007). ‘ Global Trends in University Governance’. Education Working Paper Series No.9, The World Bank, Washington,DC.

5. International Federation of Accounts ( IFAC)., (2001). ‘Governance in the Public Sector: A Governing Body Perspective-International Public Sector Study’. New York: IFAC.

6. Kivisto.J., (2005). ‘The Government- Higher Education Institute Relationship: Theoritical Considerations from the Perspective Agency Theory’. Tertiary Education & Management 11 (1): 1-17.

7. Ministry of Education (1950). ‘Report of the University Education Commission 1948-1949 (Chairman Dr. Radhakrishnan)’. New Delhi: Ministry of Education.

8. Mathur K., (2020). ‘State, Market and Governance of Higher Education’. In Governance and Management of Higher Education in India, edited by N.V. Varghese and Garima Malik. New Delhi: Sage.

9. Narayan. A.K, Olssen.K and Ramchandra, (2012). ‘Remodelling University Governance in Public Universities to respond to the Dual Challenges of Academic Research and Commercialisation’. Coorporate Ownership and Control. 10 ( 1-6): 597-606.

10. Neave. G and Vught. (1994),’Government and Higher Education Relationships across Three Continents: The Winds of Change. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

11. Neave.G., (1998). ‘The Evaluative State recosidered’. European Journal of Education 33 (3)265-284.

12. Olssen,M., (2002). ‘The Restructuring of Tertiary Education in New Zealand/ Governmentality, Neoliberalism, Democracy’. McGill Journal of Education 37 (1): 57-87.

13. Saint.W., (2009). ‘Guiding Universities: Governance and Management Arrangements around the Globe’. Human Development Network, Working Paper, the World Bank, Washington, DC.

14. Salmi. J., (2007). ‘Autonomy from the State vs Responsiveness to Markets’. Higher Education Policy 20 (4: 223-242).

15. Tricker.R.I. (1984). ‘Corporate Governance: Practices, Procedures and Power in British Companies and their Board of Directors’. Vermont: Gower Publishing Company.

16. Varghese.V. (2009). ‘Higher Education Reforms: Institutional Restructuring in Asia’. Paris: IIEP/UNESCO.

17. Varghese, N.V., (2014). ‘Governance Reforms in Higher Education in Africa’, Paris: IIEP/UNESCO.

18. Varghese. N.V and Martin. M., (2014). ‘Governance Reforms in Higher Education: A study of Institutional Autonomy in Asian Countries’. Paris: International Institute of Educational Planning/ UNESCO.