Democratisation or management and corporate capture? - Theses on the governance crisis of Australia’s semi-privatised public universities

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Ben

The paper examines how managerial capture has become a fundamental governance problem in Australia’s semi-privatised public universities, shaped by decades of largely untrammelled managerialism and likely intensified by further deregulation and de facto privatisation. It argues that this trend diverts universities from their public-good missions, produces increasingly dysfunctional internal governance, and harms workplace culture. The paper contends that democratise public universities action is overdue, highlighting ethical breaches, limited transparency, and weak oversight.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages7

Reading Time18 min

AccessFree to download

Democratisation or management and corporate capture?

Vice-Chancellor as CEO-Dictator

Weaknesses of the top-down managerialist model

Sub-optimal workplace culture and governance failures

A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W Democratisation or management and corporate capture? Theses on the governance crisis of Australia’s semi-privatised public universities Andrew G Bonnell University of Queensland This paper proceeds from the view that managerial capture has already become a fundamental problem after a couple of decades of largely untrammelled managerialism in our public universities, and that this problem is likely to be compounded by further shifts towards deregulation and de facto privatisation, which is the direction that current federal government policy is trying to take in the higher education sector. Greater managerial capture and greater susceptibility to steering by corporate interests promote greater diversion from the public good missions of public universities and increasingly dysfunctional internal governance with grave consequences for workplace culture. The paper argues that a counter-movement to democratise public universities is overdue. Keywords: university governance, managerialism, management capture, democratisation Vice-Chancellor as CEO-Dictator Defenders of the managerialist status quo in Australian universities might argue that the current regime has been remarkably successful.Despite chronic funding constraints, Australian universities continue to perform very strongly on international league tables, whatever the methodological shortcomings of these may be, and continue to attract the international students who help to pay the bills.However, in part, performance on international rankings tables reflects universities’ increasing shifting of resources to activities that are counted by these exercises (at the expense of other areas). University performance has also been on the back of high staff workloads and a highly casualised teaching workforce, with approximately half of the undergraduate teaching in universities being done by casual teachers. There are, however, clear indications ofthe weaknesses of the current top-down managerialist model. In recent years (2011-2015), vice-chancellors at two universities have had to resign after coming under investigation by state anti-corruption commissions. At another university, two successive chancellors with business backgrounds have come under investigation by the relevant state anticorruption watchdog, and one former chancellor has since been found to have acted corruptly (Independent Commission Against Corruption, New South Wales, 2014; Hare & Lane, 2014) . Limited transparency in governance and a culture in which staff feel unable to say‘no’to a vicechancellor have been factors that contribute to facilitating ethical breaches.This problem is not unique to Australia. Benjamin Ginsberg (2011) cites a string of scandals in the United States involving corruption, insider deals, and 26 Democratisation or management and corporate capture? Andrew G Bonnell vol. 58, no. 2, 2016 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W academic fraud and plagiarism which, in his view, have been made possible at least in part by weak oversight on the part of boards of trustees of universities. The existence of top-down hierarchical structures and an aggressively managerialist culture have also produced markedly sub-optimal workplace cultures in universities. Large-scale surveys periodically conducted by universities have indicated as much, despite the limitations of the survey instruments used.While staff feel a commitment to the work they carry out and a high regard for the calibre of their colleagues, there is a widespread disconnect felt by them with the university as a corporate structure. One could speak of a growing split between the university conceived of as a community of scholars, comprising staff and students, and the capital-U University as a corporate enterprise. Surveys of workplace culture also reveal a high degree of competitiveness,accompanied by behaviours of aggression on the one hand

FAQs

What is the central problem the paper identifies in Australian public universities?

It argues that managerial capture has already become a fundamental governance problem, likely worsened by further deregulation and de facto privatisation.

How does managerialism affect university governance and workplace culture?

It promotes diversion from public-good missions and contributes to dysfunctional internal governance, producing increasingly sub-optimal workplace cultures and serious workplace consequences.

What evidence does the paper cite to support the weaknesses of the top-down managerialist model?

It points to resignations and investigations involving vice-chancellors, limited transparency, staff fear of saying “no,” and weak oversight that facilitates ethical breaches.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Ben