On Governmental Behavior In Course Of Institutional Change Of Private Higher Education

From the perspective of institutional change of private higher education, this paper explores the governmental behavior logic in the development of private higher education and shows how to change governmental behavior, taking induced institutional change as cuts into the spot and taking governmental behavior as the subject.The creation and development of China's private higher education is in characteristic of typical induced institutional change. The concept of induced institutional change has profound theory tension, which is helpful to understand Chinese governmental behavior. Induced institutional change impersonally demands Chinese government to participate in the institutional change of the private higher education as institutional provider. However, government has its needs of interest and behavior restriction. Generally, government may supply institution only if anticipating profits of institutional change exceeds anticipating costs. So Chinese government does not always actively respond to induced institutional demands of the first action group of private higher education according to its estimation of its cost-profit.Considering the maximum political profits and the maximum higher education output, central government is inclined to controlling and leading private higher education. In order to complete the private higher education policy making, central government and the inner authority elites,which are making use of national monopoly, government regulation and policy discrimination, have structured the private higher education institution from above to below according to their endogenous needs of interest by"interior-input mode". As a result, at the cost of private higher education walking with difficulty, central governmental support and encouragement is only a policy promise, and there is a negative correlation between central governmental policy making and the induced institutional demands of private higher education, which is the system environment of the creation and development of China's private higher education. So induced institutional change isn't essential content but extrinsic form of institutional change of private higher education. Institutional change of private higher education essentially is a special process of induced institutional change to which central government adds"numerical value". The numerical value is a policy variable of central government, which continually leads private higher education to central governmental needs of interest.But in the course of market economy system reform, local government has possessed comparatively unattached needs of interest and behaviour roomage. Case analysis of institutional change of Shaanxi private higher education shows the three attributes of local governmental behaviour according to its needs of interest and behavior restriction. Local governmental active behavior and negative behavior derive from the soft constraints of peripheral institution of private higher education in the charge of central government, and behavior of omission derives from the hard constraints of private higher education in the charge of central government. At the same time, the soft constraints of peripheral institution results in the area of not illegality. According to its needs of interest, local government may make use of personalized trading, seeking help in anticipation, and subsequent confirming to advance the development of private higher education by operation of informal power. Because the operation of informal power of local government has not only the implications of technical aspect but also the implications of policy change, central governmental policy making of private higher education is not only the premise but also the result of operation of informal power. The area of not illegality constitutes system roomage of China's private higher education. In here presenting a frame description of governmental behavior, the paper has opened the black box of governmental behavior and revealed the logic of governmental behavior in the institutional change of private higher education.The revealment of the logic of governmental behavior show that the needs of interest, which are from the first action group of private higher education, are always marginalized in the course of institutional change. And then relation making and result game are the main channels of aggregation and expression of interest for the first action group of private higher education. So institutional change of China's private higher education is not independent of the market mechanism but depends on governmental aggregation and expression of interest and results from governmental system supplies, which is it is the particularity of China's private higher education. Private higher education has gotten into the system platform. At present, it is suggested that the governmental role be reconstructed and adjusted in the light of the logic of governmental behavior and induced institutional demands of private higher education. Firstly, administrative organization with abundant funds should further be founded and supplied with persons committing themselves to the reform of private higher education. Secondly, government should initiatively help and support the erection of intermediary organizations of private higher education, especial the organizations partial to private higher education. Thirdly, educational hearing system should be established, and the channels of expression of interest should be unblocked for the first action group. What's more, institutional political participation should be encouraged. Fourthly, property system and diploma cognizance systems of private higher education should be improved actively and prudently, and legal rights of investors of private higher education should be detailed. At the same time, the number of private higher education engage in diploma education should be enlarged within measure. Fifthly, financial support for private higher education should be increased, and the difference of financial imbursement between private higher education and governmental private higher education should also be reduced gradually. Sixth, government should supply the inner institutional innovation of private colleges with exterior encouragements. But whatever happens, it is the core of the question whether and how to make government do something that government is reluctant to do.