1. Dr. Yuzhuo Cai
Senior Researcher, Adjunct Professor
Chinese Education Research & Exchange Centre (CEREC)
Higher Education Group (HEG)
School of Management
University of Tampere
yuzhuo.cai@uta.fi

2. Main topics
 Mergers in Chinese
higher education
 Merger types vs. merger
outcomes
 Lessons from China

4. Two waves of mergers in China
 Mergers in the 1950s.
 to regroup faculties/departments in the same
fields from different institutions to one university
in order to reduce needless duplication.
 HEIs were developed mainly along specialisation
lines, while only a few multi-disciplinary
universities were retained.
 Mergers in the 1990s and onwards
 1990-1997: to achieve economies of scale and to
create comprehensive universities
 1998-2006: to upgrade institutions’ levels, to build
world-class/first -class universities and to adapt to
the dramatic enrolment expansion.

5. Characteristics of mergers since
1990
 Top-down model
 Big quantity: over 400 cases
 Large variety: different types
 Unique empirical filed for study
 Not systematically evaluated and studied yet; access to
merged institutions for study is difficult

6. Mergers in Chinese HED
100 91
90
80
70
60
50 41 44
40 31
29 29
30 23 21 22
19 17 17
20 15
9 11 9
10
0
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
Years

8. Motivations
 More efficient and effective use of resources
 To achieve economics scale
 To eliminate duplicated programs
 More academic outcomes
 To increase academic integration and collaborations
 To diversify academic profiles
 To upgrade school levels (short circle programmes to
four years programmes)
 To build first-class or world class university

9. Classifications of mergers
 Implementation models: Top-down/Bottom-up
(Skodvin,1999)
 Organizational outcomes: consolidation/acquisition
(take over) (Harman 2003, Eastman & Lang 2001)
 Extent of integration: transformative/ semi-
autonomous (Lang 2002)
 Inputs to mergers: horizontal, vertical,
diversification, conglomerate (Goedegebuure, 1992)

10. Inputs
Academic Fields
Similar Different
Similar Horizontal Diversification
Type of product
(research oriented ,
teaching only, Different Vertical Conglomerate
application oriented)

11. Classifications in China
 Strong + Strong, Strong + Weak, Weak + Weak
 Comprehensive/S&T + Medical Sciences,
Comprehensive/S&T + Teachers’ training/Economics
and Finance/Humanity and Social Science
 New name/Old name
 Upgrading school levels (changing type of product)
Y/N

12. Comparison between Chinese and
international literature
Deficiency in Chinese Deficiency in international
literature literature
 Lack normative standards  Horizontal merger does not
 Ignore some important distinguish between mergers
dimensions, such as of research universities and
implementation model and mergers of application
organisational outcomes oriented colleges
 Upgrading of school levels is
not considered
 Name issue has not been paid
sufficient attention

13. By what to evaluate merger
outcomes in China?
 Ranking position,
 Economic outcomes: administrative, managerial efficiency
and effectiveness (cost-efficiency),
 Academic outcomes: teaching and research performance ,
 Staff integration.
 Do merger outcomes depend on merger types?

14. Rankings and prestige levels
 Many post-merger universities enjoy the upgrading of
institutional levels and the improvement of ranking
positions
 ¾ top 20 institutions are post-merger ones

15. Economics of scale
Student number/Institution
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

16. Academic outcomes
 Merger s lead to cross-disciplinary cooperation and
more diversified study programmers offered to
students.
 Mergers lead to better achievement on economic
indicators than academic indicators. (Wang, 2009)

17. Staff integration as a key to success
 A successful merger ultimately depends on the
effective participation and integration of staff
members
 Staff integration is a problem
(Cai, 2007)

18. What mergers have less problems
of staff integration?
 Low integration of human resources
 The merged institutions remain relatively independent (per-
merger institutions are in different fields)
 Upgrading of institutional prestige
 After merger the new institutions’ status/reputation is upgraded
(Cai, 2007)

19. Links between types and
outcomes?
 More governmental funding on:
Strong+Strong, Strong+Weak, Comprehensive/S&T+M
edical Science
 No significant increase of external funding (from
society and industry) in any kinds of mergers
 Often Weak+Weak mergers result in new institution
name
 Academic outcomes are better in the mergers where
the level upgraded from short circle to bachelor degree
awarding status (Wang, 2009)

21. Lessons from China I
 Merger does help improve rankings or levels
 University name is an intangible asset (social
recognition)
 In most cases, there is no thorough planning before
the merger decision is made.
 Bottom-up mergers are rare
 ”A good amalgamation is one that most of the staff want”
(Mildred, 2002, p.50)

22. Lessons from China II
 The organisational reforming process lacks additional
funding support
 Cultural dimension is often neglected in both planning and
implementation
 Staff often get lost in identity and face cultural conflict.
 Factors affecting academic staff integration (cultural
dimension)
 cultural compatibility between the pre-merger institutions
 transparency of management
 school (prestige) level upgrading

23. Lesson from China III
 Merger is not a fashion: cooled down after 2006
 Merger is a completed mission or a painful experience?
 Not mentioned in the Outline of China's National Plan
for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and
Development (2010-2020)
 Cooperation as a future direction. The Outline (2010-
2020) encourages the cooperation between universities
and the cooperation between universities and
industrial/societal organisations.

24. Merger—Good or Bad?
Picture:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=417921#.TqlwY3s5o0w.twitter

25. Merger—Good or Bad?
 No good or bad concerning merger itself
 Good or bad planning and management
 Rationales behind mergers are often good
 What really works depends on the people involved
 Merger is not the only solution

26. Dissertations/books on Chinese
higher education mergers
 Min, W. (1994). A case study of an institutional merger in
Hubei Province People's Republic of China. Paris: UNESCO:
International Institute for Educational Planning.
 Nyeu, F.-Y. (2006). The implementation of higher education
mergers in China. Ed.D, Columbia University.
 Cai, Y. (2007). Academic staff integration in post-merger
Chinese higher education institutions. Tampere: Tampere
University Press.
 Wan, Y. (2008). Managing post-merger integration: A case
study of a merger in Chinese higher education.
Ph.D., University of Michigan.

27.  Thanks!