Managerialism has an ideological base to it (Bates, 1996). It is the incorporation of the theories and techniques of business management and the 'cult of excellence' into public sector institutions (Ball, 1998). Under the wave of new public management
(NPM) or 'new managerialism,6 that swept across most of the developed countries in the 1980s, performance targets and quantifiable outputs, often seen in private sector management, were being applied in the public sector. There was greater emphasis on management skills and professional skills were de-emphasised. In higher education, as Weir (2000) argues, this meant a challenge for the collegial nature of academic work that underpinned the traditional view of quality assurance. The NPM model emphasised the operation of a public sector in a similar way to private sector organisations, the assumption being that the private sector organisations were run more effectively and efficiently and arguably with higher quality.
The changes that occurred in relation to the rise of the evaluative state were largely based on models consistent with the NPM. With models of NPM there were increasing concerns with accountability. In the Australian context, it is noted that the use of performance indicators (PIs) as a basis of funding, which was proposed during the 1980s, triggered a 'revolution' in increased accountability (Vidovich & Currie, 1998), heralding a new culture of 'performativity' (Lyotard, 1984). These two scholars maintain that, in the 1990s, the accountability agenda of the government was cleverly transformed from quantitative to qualitative assessments and from PIs to the notion of quality, merely "to make it more acceptable to the academics and to achieve greater consistency within the culture of universities" (Vidovich & Currie, 1998, p.
197).
Historically, HEIs in the US functioned with a significant degree of autonomy and this has meant less external scrutiny (EI-Khawas, 2005). However, from the 1980s, institutions were increasingly required to demonstrate their performance through a whole array of indicators beginning initially with student assessment and moving on to periodic reports and indicators in several areas of institutional operation. By the late 1990s, shifts were evident towards 'performance-funding' and 'performance budgeting'. Based on this shift, from a 'hands-off approach to an 'information reporting' approach over the last two decades, EI-Khawas (2005) concludes that the US higher education policy-making environment, both at state and federal level, has moved closer to an interventionist model, in which accountability has assumed a dominant role.
6 Throughout this thesis, the term 'managerialism' is used to mean essentially the same as NPM, and 'new managerialism'.
In some of the more developed systems of higher education, it is alleged that the aim of governments, in establishing national quality regimes, is to gain greater control over the activities of higher education (Harvey, 2002; Ramsden, 2003; Vidovich, 2001). As Macintyre (2004) argues, "quality assurance is an aspect of the mass higher education system, a device for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of large, complex institutions that are vital to the nation's needs" (p. 21). This notion of QA, Macintyre also argues, has led the universities on a path of unrelenting pursuit of excellence, thus imposing a regime of continual improvement. Macintyre claims that such regimes inevitably lead to disturbing experiences, where quality becomes managed by auditors, suggesting that QA is after all an artificial exercise with a corrosive tendency.
In summary, the trends discussed above, though not exhaustive, individually and in combination contributed to the renewed interest in quality in higher education. The pursuit of quality in higher education though is not new. Quality assurance schemes for higher education understandably emerged first in the developed countries, as a response to significant changes in their higher education systems. Given the predominance of economic theories underpinning these changes, it is not surprising that QA models adopted in Western higher education systems have their genesis in the manufacturing sector (Bamett, 1992). The translocation of these 'quality models' to education have been contested on the grounds of their neglect of the specific cultural context of HEIs (Houston & Studman, 2001). Extending his argument against the adoption in higher education of a business model of quality, Bamett (1992) reminds us that QA, as the implementation of systems, regulations and procedures, constitutes a checklist approach to maintaining quality. In higher education, Bamett (1992) concludes that, "such a single-minded check-list approach to safe-guarding quality is misguided, ineffective and pernicious" (p. 119).
Different countries have articulated different and specific rationales for establishing QA agencies. Whilst some governments claim their drive to QA is driven by accountability concerns, together with mechanisms to lead improvement, others claim to protect institutions in a competitive environment (Harman, 1998). Other policy objectives, such as facilitating regional recognition of qualifications and mobility of professional labour and improving the management and planning capacity of institutions, have also been advanced. However, Vidovich (2001), with reference to the Australian context, argues that the public discourse about quality has been used to
gam greater control over the higher education sector. Similarly, Harvey (1 999) contends that external quality monitoring activities do not sufficiently engage with the students' experience of learning. Based on several observations from studies undertaken in both developed and developing countries, Harvey (2002) concludes that "external quality monitoring is primarily to ensure accountability and conformity" (p.
260).
Hodson and Thomas (2003), drawing mainly upon experiences in the United Kingdom (UK), conclude that QA procedures, with their emphasis on compliance and accountability, lead to an institutional culture that is in danger of alienating academic staff, to the detriment of the whole system. They take a more middle-of-the-road attitude and suggest that, if QA systems are to recognise the increasingly diverse culture of future higher education systems, then compliance will need to be balanced by a greater emphasis on encouraging innovation and self improvement on the part of individual staff members.
2.4 Factors Influencing Quality Assurance Policy Development: The Developing Countries
The developing countries have also witnessed unprecedented changes in their higher education systems in the past few decades. Some of the salient factors that influenced the rise of QA policies and systems in developing countries are: ( 1 ) uneven progress and the need for effectiveness; (2) crisis in higher education; (3) lowering of national barriers and; (4) the role of transnational agencies. Each of these factors will be discussed next.