In higher education and public administration studies in general, two main arguments for understanding policy development, policy tools and institutional responses prevail. One line refers to the rapid spread of policies across the globe and emphasises policy borrowing and coping with policies. The other main argument repeatedly points out how national trajectories and path dependencies influence implementation processes, the choice and effectiveness of policy tools and the proposed policy solutions.

When analysing institutional governance structures in a systematic way it is important to point out how institutional governance structures have been developed, implemented and responded around the globe. Such a lens should be used to highlight global similarities, as well as geographical differences. Moreover, through the lens of politico-administrative regimes, the similarities within Europe are still more evident than the differences. A possible interpretation is that national trajectories are perhaps less distinct than they previously were. Yet, clear differences in the scope and influence of the reforms around the world should not be understated, and this diversity should be examined and conceptualised in future research.

Looking beyond the scientific research community on higher education, the mapping of reform processes and drivers used as a background for this text also holds relevance for policy makers and practitioners. The insight that reforms and policy initiatives are carriers of mixed and blended logics and ideas has implications regarding the kinds of processes that can be anticipated to play out in times of change. Furthermore, the insight that many drivers and responses share similarities across politico-administrative regimes should serve as an invitation for institutional learning in new and inspiring ways. What at first may seem as “most different” may in a more focused lens be more similar than first imagined.

Engaging with the down-on-the-ground variations in policy implementation and translation might push forward new initiatives and new opportunities for learning. However, in such processes it is equally important to also have a strong conceptualisation of differences, in order to delineate the important traits. It is through a fruitful dialogue between policy makers, researchers and practitioners that higher education research can contribute with terminology and insight that truly highlights idiosyncrasies and commonalities between systems and settings.

Source: State of Higher Education 2015-16, Chapter 9, Conclusion (OECD Higher Education Programme (IMHE), 2017)