Governance is about execution, the ability of agents to carry out the wishes of principals. Therefore, the question explored here is how appropriately structured is the approach to governance suited for the principals’ aims given the realities of the context in which the universities operate? This chapter focuses on the nexus of two elements, bureaucratic or public sector capacity and autonomy, drawing on the framework of Fukuyama. It finds that the state-extended model appears most in low capacity and low autonomy contexts. But in other contexts with more autonomy and higher capacity different governance structures, such as the civic or internal/external models may be more appropriate. This exploration raises implications for policy makers and campus leaders. First, a group of countries have governance structures that seem out of alignment with their autonomy and bureaucratic capacity levels. It seems like some university systems have excess autonomy that may not be supported by their levels of bureaucratic capacity. Finally, those universities in countries with high capacity and high autonomy might be better served by considering a civic model of governace.

Keeping the focus on autonomy consistent, this second exploration considers the level of competition among universities as a salient contextual element important to governance.. Competition in higher education consists of a set of organizational responses to environmental pressures. It focuses on what universities must do to attract financial resources; recruit students and staff, both foreign and domestic; be part of the global research enterprise, and, for many, pursue world class status and global rankings. It also acknowledges that higher education competition is a Western, market-driven idea.The state-extended model would seem most appropriate when low competition and low autonomy exist in tandem. The state directs higher education, provides the needed resources and may put in place policies that limit competition. Internal/external model of governance is common to those university systems with higher levels of autonomy and where competition comparatively is moderate to high. The academic focused model may be outdated. The civic model is underused in PSS countries, but may be helpful in high competition/high autonomy contexts.

Systemic governance in higher education – that is, the way in which higher education policy is coordinated through institutionalized arrangements and practices – has received particular attention from scholars in recent decades, the exact period during which the inherited characteristics of HEs have been significantly changed by the effects of massification, welfare state financial crises, and globalization/internationalization. These changes have mostly been the effects of governmental policies that have apparently followed the same template to solve a common set of problems (how to make higher education more competitive, inclusive, effective and accountable). However, these consistent shifts in systemic governance of higher education do not look to have really driven to a global convergence towards the same way to organize the systemic arrangement of higher education governance. This chapter focuses exactly on the question of whether and how there has been convergence in the process of reforms of systemic higher education. The conclusion, based on a policy instrumental perspective, is that more the convergence there has been a kind of complex process of hybridization.