University Mergers in Finland and Norway and Their Policy Implications

핀란드와 노르웨이의 대학 통폐합 사례 분석 및 정책적 시사점

  • Chae, Jae-Eun (Dept. of Public Policy and Management, Gachon University) ;
  • Byoun, Su Youn (College of Mano General Education, Busan University of Foreign Studies)
  • 채재은 (가천대학교 행정학과) ;
  • 변수연 (부산외국어대학교 만오교양대학)
  • Received : 2019.06.30
  • Accepted : 2019.08.20
  • Published : 2019.08.28


This study analyzed the process of university mergers that took place in Finland and Norway in order to present policy implications for the Korean government considering university merger as an effective policy instrument for restructuring of the Korean higher education system. Based on reviewing the previous literature and related documents, researchers conducted a comparative case study on the context, strategies, and outcomes of the implementation of university merger policies of the two countries. The results of analyses suggested that combination of government's clear direction-setting and enhanced autonomy of merging institutions was essential for successful mergers. Considerations on upgrading the structure of the whole higher education sector to meet new needs of the future society were also suggested.


Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea


  1. OECD. (2017). Collaboration, Alliance, and Merger among Higher Education Institutions. Paris : OECD.
  2. K. S. An & E. Y. Lee. (2015). A Study on the University Restructuring Policy in Convergence Society: from the Perspective of Habermas's Communicative Action. The Journal of Politics of Education, 13(8), 439-447.
  3. J. E. Chae. (2013). The Impact of Mergers on the Experiences of Students. Korean Journal of Comparative Education, 23(5), 53-75.
  4. H. S. Lim. (2009). The Educational Realities of National Universities and Private University and Their Reform Agenda. Journal of Korean Social Trends and Perspectives, 10, 76-101.
  5. S. Y. Byoun & J. E. Chae. (2018). An Analysis of university mergers through faculty experiences: Case studies of mergers between a two-year college and an university. The Korea Educational Review, 24(2), 167-194.
  6. G. R. Kim & I. Y. Lee. (2016). Analysis of the Characteristics of Conflict Network Structure in Merger Process of Small Schools and National Universities. The Journal of Politics of Education, 23(3), 49-73.
  7. Ministry of Education. (2018). Results of the Evaluation of University Education Capacities. Seoul.
  8. J. S. Kim. (2018). A Critical Review of the University Restructuring Evaluation. Journal of Institute for Social Sciences, 29(2), 227-248.
  9. Ministry of Education & Culture. (2018). Finnish Education in an nutshell., August 7, Helsinki.
  10. P. Vartiainen. (2017). Campus-based tensions in the structural development of a newly merged university: the case of the University of Eastern Finland. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(1), 53-68.
  11. S. Reichert & C. Tauch. (2003). Trends 2003: progress towards the European Higher Education Area. Bologna four years after: steps toward sustainable reform of higher education in Europe. Brussels : Report prepared for the European University Association.
  12. T. Nokkala, J. Välimaa & D. Westerheijden. (2016). Finland - University Mergers and Institutional Profiling. Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg.
  13. Tampere University and Tampere University of Applied Sciences homepage. (2019). June 30.
  14. Aalto University webstie. (2019). May 26.
  15. J. Kerola. (2019). This is the case for the new university community in Tampere.
  16. T. Aarrevaara, I. Dobson & C. Elander. (2009). Brave new world. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(1), 1-18.
  17. J. Ursin. (2017). Transforming Finnish higher education: Institutional mergers and conflicting academic identities. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 35(2), 307-316.
  18. Government Norway website. (2019).
  19. S. Kyvik. (2009). The Dynamics of Change in the Organisational Field of Higher Education: Expansion and Contraction. Netherlands : Springer.
  20. S. Kyvik. (2002). The merger of non-university colleges in Norway. Higher Education, 44(1), 53-72.
  21. S. Kyvik & B. Stensaker. (2016). Mergers in Norwegian higher education. Mergers in Higher Education, 46, 29-42.
  22. Ministry of Education & Research. (2016). Quality Culture in Higher Education. Oslo.
  23. J. D. Norgård & O. J. Skodvin. (2002). The importance of geography and culture in mergers: A Norwegian institutional case study. Higher Education, 44(1), 73-90.
  24. P. Arbo & T. Bull. (2016). Mergers in the North: The making of the Arctic University of Norway. Mergers in Higher Education, 46, 107-127.
  25. University World News. (2018). Will Nordic model of higher education survive reforms?. April 6.
  26. Y. H. Chun. (2014). Uncertainty of Autonomy Effects in Agentification: the Case of Seoul National University. Korean Journal of Publi Administration, 52(4), 79-109.
  27. J. W. Yi, D. S. Han & D. H. Yun. (2016). Crisis at Universities and the Practical Issues of Physical Education and Sports Related Departments. The Journal of Politics of Education, 14(1), 427-436.