Intensifying the importance of rationalising of the Finnish

The massification of the Finnish HE results from the marketisation and internationalisation of the Finnish society in the late 1980s: visi-ble transformations appeared in HE policy and government steering resulting in rapid replacement of old administrative structures and decision-making procedures as part of a reform towards deregulation and decentralisation (Gornitzka and Maassen, 2000). A new reform was launched in 2005 and since then the dual system of the Finnish HE has been undergoing significant structural reforms. As a part of the second wave, a new University Act (559/2009) was ratified. It strengthened the autonomy of the Finnish universities, but at the same time increased their accountability to society and put pressure on them to become internationally competitive (Aarrevaara, 2009). A similar kind of renewal was executed in the UASs sector via a new legislation (932/2014), which made it possible for the UASs to renew their gov-ernance and transform from the municipal federation model to the cor-porate model. Similarly to universities, the UASs became independent legal entities financed under a new steering and funding model.

The present-day system has a dense network of knowledge organi-sations: there are currently 14 universities and 23 UASs administered by the MoE. The National Defense University, the Police University College and Åland University of Applied Sciences are administered by the Ministry of the Interior. There are also 6 university centers and 12 state research centers. UASs began as provisional institutions in the early 1990s as a vast number of small vocational colleges were merged.

These institutions are mainly teaching-focused organisations offering bachelor degrees (from 210 ects to 240 ects) and master’s degrees (from 60 ects to 90 ects) with a close connection to working life and regions.

Research, development and innovation activities as part of their legiti-mate tasks were introduced in 2003 (Kosonen et al., 2015).

The new political rationale has been strengthened by several national policy initiatives and reforms. The most important reform took effect between 2009 and 2014, introducing changes both in the legislation and steering of the institutions, providing them with an independent

legal status, changing their relationship with the government in several ways, and affecting their funding and steering. According to the MoE, achieving the aims of the structural development requires not only sufficient financial resources, but also stronger strategic management and leadership, profiling and choosing areas of focus, and the ability to prioritise and make decisions. The MoE monitors and evaluates the progress and, where appropriate, provides feedback on the development needs they detect. The steering of the MoE has thus been strong and visible with regard to the achievement of these objectives (Kosonen et al., 2015). In the new legislation, students’ role is also emphasised, but not as customers (see for example Davies and Thomas, 2002), but as active members of the HE community.

Against a backdrop of a small and ageing population and increasing international competition, the current HE system is perceived as frag-mented, which is why pressures to rationalise it are increasing (Melin et al., 2015). A significant shift in the political rationale has emerged:

a country, which prides itself on its high level of education and equal access, is becoming a country which competes for the best students and scholars as well as for funding in order to deliver world class excellence (Kallio et al., 2016). Melin et al. (2015) emphasise that in order to build international competitiveness, facilitate stronger profiling of institu-tions and develop flexible access to HE and R&D services, the system is in an urgent need of re-structuring. They also remind that Finland is losing its competitive advantages in terms of a highly educated work-force and innovation capacity. Due to the fragmentation of the R&D system, the research output also suffers. Melin et al. conclude that there is a lack of large scale research infrastructures and insufficient national vision and goals for research in order to build world class excellence.

Mergers are also promoted as a means to build world class excellence.

According to extant research, there are several reasons for mergers.

Efficiency and effectiveness and the need to reduce organisational fragmentation are among the most important reasons (Pinheiro et al., 2016). Intensifying government control over HE systems, promoting autonomy through decentralisation and establishing larger HEIs are also employed in justifying mergers. The Nordic countries have been

particularly active in this respect. For example in Finland, a number of mergers have taken place due to major funding and governance reforms (Aarrevaara et al., 2009). The most well-known and probably well-re-searched is the creation of the Aalto University (Aula and Tienari, 2011; Tienari et al., 2016). Besides Aalto, there has been a number of other mergers as well: the creation of the University of Eastern Finland and the University of the Arts in Helsinki, and in the UAS sector for example Haaga-Helia UAS and Tampere UAS.

Tienari et al. (2016) ponder if the formation of Aalto sets the tone for reforming HE although there are a number of complexities and controversies related to measuring the actual merger performance and the success of it. Nguyen and Kleiner (2003) however argue that the success of mergers depend on the amount and quality of planning involved. Quite often the amount of time and resources is underesti-mated, which is why in many cases insufficient resources are allocated to establishing strategic objectives. They refer to various earlier studies which show that mergers are most likely to fail because of poor vision and strategy, incompetent change management, problems with cultural issues and insufficient communication.

Sutela and Cai (2016) address these issues in their conclusions regarding a study of a merger between Tampere UAS and Pirkanmaa UAS. The new TAMK UAS was fully operational in August 2010, but the merger outcomes concerning performance had not yet become clear after five years. Sutela and Cai point out that building a new struc-ture is much easier than reaching core-level integration, i.e. concerning interdisciplinary knowledge and RDI activities. According to Harman and Harman (2008), one particular challenge is related to managing divergent campus cultures to become culturally coherent communities that display loyalty to the new institution. To achieve such a cultural change through a merger, equivalence between dimensions such as leadership, restructuring, the management of staff relations, organisa-tional development and external pressure for change, are crucial (Curri, 2002).

Despite the challenges, mergers in HE are thought to enhance system integration (rationalisation); quality of the core activities and efficiency

are thus considered as flagships for promoting the new HE politics. A common rationale is the establishment of larger institutions, thus re-sulting in operational and administrative economies of scale (Pinheiro, 2012). Yet there seems to be an emerging shift from mergers initiated by the government towards voluntary mergers involving strong institu-tions with clear strategic objectives (Harman and Harman, 2008). For example in Finland the so called ‘Tampere 3’ case can be considered an example of such development. Despite the triggers for mergers, what seems to be crucial is an awareness of the ‘role of history’ (Cai et al., 2016). The role of history refers here to deeply institutionalised values, traditions and identities, which have an impact on how we perceive the purpose of our work and the ethics of HE.

2.2 Technologies of government in Finnish higher education