The managerial ideology for two decades of its use as a management model in the system of higher education in Russia has demonstrated its inefficiency. It has become a source of higher education losing its social purpose. The purpose of the study: to establish the ability of state managerialism to ensure the effective management of the Russian institution of higher education. Methodology: neo-institutional theory. Methods: document analysis; mass sociological survey among students and teachers; in-depth interviews with vice-rectors and deans of seventeen Russian universities. Hypothesis: the effectiveness of higher education management in the practice of applying managerialism is hindered by three barriers: 1) quality inversion, that can be caused by the disinterest of social actors to work effectively in the conditions of applying managerial ideology; 2) the mismatch between the managerial understanding of efficiency and the goals of higher education. In this case, we are talking about a deliberate rejection of the traditional goals of higher education for the sake of the formal implementation of managerial norms; 3) strict regulation of the work of the teaching staff, the reverse consequence of which is predicted to be the imitative fulfilment of the prescribed rules for the professional activities of students.

Three empirical indicators were used to test the hypothesis: intensification of educational and scientific activities; stimulation of inter-university and intra-university competition among employees; increasing the professionalisation of university management.

In the course of using survey methods, the effectiveness of state managerialism was refuted through the respondents' rejection of managerial values, the negative impact of institutional barriers on the process of achieving the goals of higher education, and the recognition of the neo-optimal (inefficient) nature of the use of budgetary funds. Instead of improving management efficiency, there is the emergence of imitative practices that are a direct consequence of formal adaptation to new institutional conditions. Professionals who are forced to adapt to managerial tools develop adaptive self-regulation strategies derived from their resource capabilities. As a result, new management tools operate in idle, on their own, in isolation from the target orientations of professional activity. This gives rise to a directly opposite effect on the goal conceived by the reformers: the effectiveness of management is reduced due to a sharp increase in the costs of using managerial tools and failure to achieve traditional professional goals. A paradoxical situation arises: according to formal signs, there is an increase in efficiency, but according to real results, a sharp decrease in the level of professionalism and expected social utility.

management, managerialism, efficiency, managerial tools, higher education, social institution

1. Abramov R. N. Managerialization and labor orders of university life: Russian and international contexts. Sociologicheskij ezhegodnik, 2016: 2015–2016: 140–155 (in Russ.).
2. Avdeeva A. A. Project approach as a method of public administration aimed at the result. Mezhdunarodnyj zhurnal gumanitarnyh i estestvennyh nauk, 2021: 10-1: 190–193 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.24412/2500-1000-2021-10-1-190-193.
3. Basnukaev I. Sh. Project management by time parameters. Finansovaya ekonomika, 2020: 11: 412–417 (in Russ.).
4. Volodarskaya E. A. Systems of quantitative indicators of effectiveness of research works. Problemy deyatel'nosti uchenogo i nauchnyh kollektivov, 2020: 6: 158–171 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.24411/2414-9241-2020-10011.
5. Volchik V. V., Maslyukova E. V. Reforms, implicit knowledge and institutional traps in education and science. Terra Economicus, 2019: 17: 146–162 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.23683/2073-6606-2019-17-2-146-162.
6. Dadaev Y. E. Opportunities and risks of commercialization of higher education. Zhurnal prikladnyh issledovanij, 2022: 2-2: 135–143 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.47576/2712-7516_2022_2_2_135; EDN: RGRUQA.
7. Kirdina S. G. Institutional structure of modern Russia: evolutionary modernization. Voprosy ekonomiki, 2004: 10: 96–98 (in Russ.).
8. Kovalev V. V., Moldobaev T. Sh., Molitvin M. N., Suyazov V. V. Analysis of Efficiency of Programs to Support Russian Universities (2010-2020). Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Ekonomika, 2022: 38: 2: 208–234 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.21638/spbu05.2022.203; EDN: XCCBHV.
9. Korytcev M. A. Reforms of higher education in the context of the policy of new managerialism. Voprosy regulirovaniya ekonomiki, 2019: 4: 162–170 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17835/2078-5429.2019.10.4.162-170.
10. Leonov O. L. Reforming public administration and new managerialism: lessons for Donbass. In Innovative prospects of Donbass. Donetsk, DNTU, 2016: 48–53 (in Russ.).
11. Leontyeva V. V. Client-oriented approach in the provision of municipal services. Municipalitet: ekonomika i upravlenie, 2018: 2: 20–30 (in Russ.).
12. Lozhkina A. С. Application of principles and models of the client-oriented approach in project management. In Project Management: Ideas, Values, Solutions Coll. of art. St. Petersburg, S-PGA-SU, 2019: 229–239 (in Russ.).
13. Orlov I. B. Sovremennye teoreticheskie doktriny gosudarstvennoj politiki i upravleniya [Modern theoretical doctrines of public policy and management]. Pravo i upravlenie. XXI vek, 2013: 3: 45–52 (in Russ.).
14. Romanov E. V. Publication activity of Russian universities: from "academic capitalism" to "academic socialism". Voprosy ekonomiki, 2023: 2: 100–115 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2023-2-100-115; EDN: RLVPWI.
15. Supova M. S. Indicators of regional management effectiveness in health care. Uchenye zapiski ToGU, 2020: 11: 4: 94–99 (in Russ.)
16. Tyutin D. V. Evolyuciya novogo gosudarstvennogo upravleniya: logika effektivnosti, rezul'tativnosti i menedzhmenta publichnyh cennostej [Evolution of the new public administration: the logic of efficiency, effectiveness and management of public values]. Teoriya i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiya, 2014: 5: 179–181 (in Russ.).
17. Akerlof George A. Identity and the Economics of Organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2005: 19:1: 9–32. DOI: 10.1257/0895330053147930.
18. Aucoin P. Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums. Governance, 2005: 3: 2: 115–137. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.1990.tb00111.x.
19. Azariadis C. Implicit contracts and underemployment equilibria. Journal of Political Economy, 1975: 83: 1183–1202. DOI: 10.1086/260388.
20. Carr F. The Public Service Ethos: Decline and Renewal. Public Policy and Administration, 1999: 14: 4: 3–14.
21. Commons J. Institutional Economics. American Economic Review, 1931: 21: 648–657.
22. Considine M. The corporate management framework as administrative science: a critique. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 1988: 47: 1: 7–15. DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8500.1988.TB01042.X.
23. Denhardt J. V., Denhardt R. B. The New Public Service Revisited. Public Administration Review, 2015: 75: 5: 45–50. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12347.
24. Frederickson H. G. The Spirit of Public Administration. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, 1997: 272.
25. Heckscher C. C. The New Unionism: Employee Involvement in the Changing Corporation. Ithaca, New York, ILR, 1996: 302.
26. Hood C. A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 1991: 69: 1: 3–19.
27. Le Grand J. Equity and choice. London, Harper Collins Academic, 1999: 190.
28. North D. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, 1990: 152.
29. Osborne D., Gaebler T. Reinventing Government. How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York, Plume, 1992: 405.
30. Pollitt C. Managerialism and the Public Service: the Anglo-American experience. Cambridge, MA, Basil Blackwell, 1992: 222.
31. Terry L. D. Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement. Public Administration Review, 1998: 58: 3: 195–199. DOI:10.2307/976559.