an article by Graham Simons Pitcher (Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, UK) published in Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management Volume 35 Issue 4 (August 2013)
Abstract
In a changing landscape of higher education, universities have been moving towards a market-led approach to strategic management. This paper examines the case of a UK private sector education provider that gained degree-awarding powers following changes made in 2004 by the UK Government to the accreditation criteria for recognised degree-awarding bodies.
The management team, driven by the need to be seen as a legitimate organisation within the sector, made changes to the academic infrastructure to align more closely with those of the existing players in the market.
This isomorphic pressure to become similar for reasons of legitimacy created tensions between maintaining academic standards and business objectives.
The management of these tensions resulted in a reconciliation of the dual objectives – not a rationalisation or satisficing, but a realisation in action that the academic and business aims were in fact compatible rather than competing.
Showing posts with label private_sector. Show all posts
Showing posts with label private_sector. Show all posts
Monday, 19 August 2013
Monday, 3 June 2013
Wage claims in the British private sector: 1979–2003
Peter Ingram (University of Surrey, UK), Neil Rickman (Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands) and Jonathan Wadsworth (Royal Holloway College and Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK) published in Industrial Relations Journal Volume 44 Issue 3 (May 2013)
Abstract
Wage claims have been an important feature of British industrial relations during the postwar period. They help set the boundaries within which wage negotiations take place and provide an insight into the conduct of negotiations, especially during periods of change in industrial relations.
Despite this, claims remain an under-investigated area.
This article provides a unique investigation of the dimensions of wage claims over a period of free collective bargaining.
The number of wage claims declined along with unionisation but, over a period of economic turbulence, the conduct of British wage setting began to change.
We examine data on claims and investigate the influences on changes in those claims over time.
We find that external factors (inflation, unemployment and legislative control of unions) were more prominent in shaping the development of claims than changes in the composition of groups who continued to post claims.
Abstract
Wage claims have been an important feature of British industrial relations during the postwar period. They help set the boundaries within which wage negotiations take place and provide an insight into the conduct of negotiations, especially during periods of change in industrial relations.
Despite this, claims remain an under-investigated area.
This article provides a unique investigation of the dimensions of wage claims over a period of free collective bargaining.
The number of wage claims declined along with unionisation but, over a period of economic turbulence, the conduct of British wage setting began to change.
We examine data on claims and investigate the influences on changes in those claims over time.
We find that external factors (inflation, unemployment and legislative control of unions) were more prominent in shaping the development of claims than changes in the composition of groups who continued to post claims.
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
The crisis and social policy: The role of collective agreements
an article by Vera Glassneri (Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria) and Maarten Keune (Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands)published in International Labour Review Special Issue: The Crisis, Inequalities and Social Policy in the European Union Volume 151 Issue 4 (December 2012)
Abstract
Based on an analysis of collective agreements concluded across the EU in 2008–11, the authors examine their contributions to social policy through provisions for short-time work, training, wage moderation, and flexibilization of wage setting and working time.
They highlight the distinction between the public and private sectors in this respect, contrasting the former’s very limited scope for integrative bargaining in the face of mounting budget deficits and austerity with the latter’s (initially) more balanced trade-offs between cost competitiveness and maintenance of employment and wages, especially in countries with coordinated bargaining systems.
Elsewhere, the authors argue, the outcomes look set to deteriorate further.
Abstract
Based on an analysis of collective agreements concluded across the EU in 2008–11, the authors examine their contributions to social policy through provisions for short-time work, training, wage moderation, and flexibilization of wage setting and working time.
They highlight the distinction between the public and private sectors in this respect, contrasting the former’s very limited scope for integrative bargaining in the face of mounting budget deficits and austerity with the latter’s (initially) more balanced trade-offs between cost competitiveness and maintenance of employment and wages, especially in countries with coordinated bargaining systems.
Elsewhere, the authors argue, the outcomes look set to deteriorate further.
Thursday, 27 September 2012
Are public sector employees overcompensated?
an article (CEPCP377) by Alexander Danzer and Peter Dolton published in CentrePiece - The Magazine for Economic Performance (Autumn 2012)
The UK’s coalition government has suggested that both pay and pensions in the public sector are too high relative to the private sector. Alexander Danzer and Peter Dolton use the concept of ‘total reward’ to evaluate this claim, comparing the lifetime compensation available to highly educated men working in the two sectors.
Full article (PDF 4pp delightfully illustrated with hares and tortoises)
This article summarises Total Reward and Pensions in the UK in the Public and Private Sectors by Alexander Danzer and Peter Dolton, Labour Economics 19(4): 584-594, August 2012 [about which I blogged in August here]
The UK’s coalition government has suggested that both pay and pensions in the public sector are too high relative to the private sector. Alexander Danzer and Peter Dolton use the concept of ‘total reward’ to evaluate this claim, comparing the lifetime compensation available to highly educated men working in the two sectors.
Full article (PDF 4pp delightfully illustrated with hares and tortoises)
This article summarises Total Reward and Pensions in the UK in the Public and Private Sectors by Alexander Danzer and Peter Dolton, Labour Economics 19(4): 584-594, August 2012 [about which I blogged in August here]
Thursday, 9 August 2012
Total Reward and pensions in the UK in the public and private sectors
an article by Alexander M. Danzer (University of Munich (LMU), CESifo & IZA Bonn, Germany) and Peter J. Dolton (University of Sussex & Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics, UK) published in Labour Economics Volume 19 Issue 4 (August 2012)
Abstract
Recent controversy has surrounded the relative value of public and private sector remuneration. We propose a comprehensive measure of Total Reward (TR) which includes not just pay, but pensions and other ‘benefits in kind’, evaluate it as the present value of the sum of all these payments over the lifetime and compare it for the highly educated in the UK public and private sectors.
Our results suggest that TR is broadly equalised over the lifecycle for highly educated men while highly educated women have a clear TR advantage in the public sector by the end of their career.
We suggest that the current controversy over public–private sector pension differentials and the perennial issues of public/private sector pay gaps requires a lifetime perspective and that the concept of TR is appropriate.
Highlights
► We define the most comprehensive measure of total job remuneration, Total Reward.
► We estimate Total Reward differences between public and private sector in the UK.
► Our approach takes a novel life-cycle perspective.
► Men would optimally switch sector while women are better off in the public sector.
► We find that sector switching behaviour follows the actual Total Reward incentives.
Abstract
Recent controversy has surrounded the relative value of public and private sector remuneration. We propose a comprehensive measure of Total Reward (TR) which includes not just pay, but pensions and other ‘benefits in kind’, evaluate it as the present value of the sum of all these payments over the lifetime and compare it for the highly educated in the UK public and private sectors.
Our results suggest that TR is broadly equalised over the lifecycle for highly educated men while highly educated women have a clear TR advantage in the public sector by the end of their career.
We suggest that the current controversy over public–private sector pension differentials and the perennial issues of public/private sector pay gaps requires a lifetime perspective and that the concept of TR is appropriate.
Highlights
► We define the most comprehensive measure of total job remuneration, Total Reward.
► We estimate Total Reward differences between public and private sector in the UK.
► Our approach takes a novel life-cycle perspective.
► Men would optimally switch sector while women are better off in the public sector.
► We find that sector switching behaviour follows the actual Total Reward incentives.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Transition of higher education graduates to the labour market: …
are employment procedures more meritocratic in the public sector?
an article by Caroline Berggren (University of Gothenburg) published in Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management Volume 33 Issue 2 (2011)
Abstract
As an employer, the public sector might be expected to be more meritocratic than the private sector, because of its democratic values and more transparent appointments procedures. In this context meritocratic means that the employer only considers characteristics such as degree and grades, relevant for the position in question.
The individuals in this study have completed one of four higher education degrees, and are aged 30-32 years (n = 22,133). Multinomial logistic regression analyses were employed. The results show that the public and the private sector are similar in that they both seem to prefer male graduates from old and well-established universities. One slight difference is that graduates’ family and national backgrounds appear to be less relevant in the public sector than in the private sector. These differences are present even when several other educational factors are the same.
Hazel’s comment:
Just goes to show that what many of us thought was happening actually is happening – at least in Sweden it is.
an article by Caroline Berggren (University of Gothenburg) published in Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management Volume 33 Issue 2 (2011)
Abstract
As an employer, the public sector might be expected to be more meritocratic than the private sector, because of its democratic values and more transparent appointments procedures. In this context meritocratic means that the employer only considers characteristics such as degree and grades, relevant for the position in question.
The individuals in this study have completed one of four higher education degrees, and are aged 30-32 years (n = 22,133). Multinomial logistic regression analyses were employed. The results show that the public and the private sector are similar in that they both seem to prefer male graduates from old and well-established universities. One slight difference is that graduates’ family and national backgrounds appear to be less relevant in the public sector than in the private sector. These differences are present even when several other educational factors are the same.
Hazel’s comment:
Just goes to show that what many of us thought was happening actually is happening – at least in Sweden it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
