1. Experiences with mergers in the
Norwegian university college sector
Svein Kyvik
NIFU

2. Mergers: Two different processes
1. In 1994, 98 non-university higher education
institutions were merged into 26 colleges.
This process was driven by the state.
2. After 2000, new merger processes were
initiated by the colleges themselves, or by
regional stakeholders, with the aim to
achieve university status on the basis of their
larger size.

3. The historical background for the
mergers in 1994
• Until 1994, we may distinguish between two
phases in the evolution of non-university HE:
• Phase 1: A long period of fragmented expansion
of the college sector (until 1990)
• Phase 2: Processes of contraction and
regionalisation in the college sector (1976-1994)

4. Phase 1: Fragmented expansion
(until 1990)
• Differentiation and diversification
- Establishment of independent institutions for
different occupations / professions
- Different school-owners, administrative
arrangements, funding, entrance requirements,
etc.

5. Phase 1: Fragmented expansion
(until 1990)
• Differentiation and diversification
- Establishment of independent institutions for
different vocations
- Different school-owners, administrative
arrangements, funding, entrance requirements,
etc.
• Geographic decentralization
- Establishment of schools and colleges throughout
the country

6. Phase 2: Processes of contraction and
regionalisation
• Contraction of the college sector
- Authority unification under the Ministry of
Education
- Mergers of professionally close schools and study
programs
- Standardisation of structures and procedures
across study programs

7. Phase 2: Processes of contraction and
regionalisation (1976-1994)
• Contraction of the college sector
- Authority unification under Ministry of Education
- Mergers of professionally close schools /programs
- Standardisation of structures and procedures
• Regionalisation
- Commission on higher education in the late 1960s
- Regional steering boards for colleges (1976) in
each of 17 regions
- Reform in 1994 (mergers of 98 institutions into 26
colleges)

8. The merger process in 1994 –
official objectives
• Academic objectives
– Create larger and stronger academic units
– Create better conditions for students
• Administrative objectives
– Improve the quality of administrative services
• Economic objectives
– Reduce costs through economies of scale
(teaching, administration, premises)

9. The mergers in 1994 –
unofficial objective
• Prevent the two largest colleges (in Stavanger
and Kristiansand) from achieving university
status
• These two colleges had for many years
attempted to become universities
• By merging these colleges with professional
and vocationally oriented colleges, and by
creating a binary system, the Ministry wanted
to put an end to their university ambitions

10. The mergers – part of the modernisation
program in public administration
• HE institutions came to be regarded as regular
state agencies subject to a common steering
system
• Part of ‘New Public Management’ ideas
• Decentralisation of authority required stronger
administrative capacity at the local level, leading
to mergers of agencies at the regional level
• The Ministry of Higher Education wanted to
reduce the number of colleges under its control

11. Academic outcome of mergers
• Stronger academic institutions
- Increased cooperation across study programs
- Improved infrastructure (buildings, ICT, libraries)
• More visible institutions
- Regionally
- Nationally
- Internationally

12. Administrative outcome of mergers
• Increased administrative capacity
• More professional administrations
• More complex and bureaucratic institutions (3
adm. levels compared to 1 or 2 prior to the
reform)
• Transaction costs in network colleges due to
geographical distance

13. Economic outcome of mergers
• Difficult to measure economies of scale
• For the period 1994-1997, expenditure per
student decreased by 2.2 %
• But this was due to cuts in budgets because
the state anticipated economies of scale
• No decrease in administrative costs due to
increased governmental demands to the
colleges

14. Successful reform, but
• Difficult to ‘create a common educational
culture’ across study programs
• Tensions between staff at various campuses in
network colleges
• Some argue that the 1994 reform should have
been more extensive (more mergers and
fewer colleges)

15. Unintended outcomes
• The 1994-reform formalised a binary higher
education system (universities and colleges),
• which laid the ground for institutional drift
due to the large size of some colleges,
• and to further mergers of small colleges to
qualify for university status,
• and the (coming) breakdown of the binary
system.

16. Merger processes after 2000
• From 2002 on, colleges may apply for university
status provided they have 4 doctoral programs
• Three colleges have attained university status
• One college has merged with a university
• Two colleges have merged
• Several ongoing merger processes with the
purpose to attain university status, partly as a
result of the recommendations by a commission
on higher education

17. Commission on HE (2008)
• All university colleges should be merged with
a university
• All public higher education should take place
in 8-10 multi-campus universities
• The Ministry of Education did not follow up
this recommendation, but supported the idea
that Norway should have fewer colleges
• The Ministry would not, however, force
colleges to merge

18. Problems and challenges
• New mergers will result in multi-campus
institutions
• In which campus should the ‘headquarter’ be?
• In which campus (or campuses) should the
deans be localised?
• Should administrative tasks be centralised to
the ‘headquarter’ or distributed among the
various campuses?

19. How should the faculties
be organised?
• According to discipline? (Faculty of social
sciences, humanities, natural sciences, etc.?
• According to study program? (Faculty of
teacher training, faculty of engineering, etc.)
• According to geographic localisation?
(meaning no faculties should be established
across campuses)