Reform processes are multi-faceted by nature. Often a result of political compromises of different actors (e.g. national and local governments, state, and trade unions), they tend to concern multiple, frequently quite generally formulated policy goals, and potentially comprising several different policy instruments. But, coherence and consistency among and within goals and instruments is not a given (Howlett and Rayner, 2007) and this coherence and consistency is even less to be expected when it comes to interactions between concurrent reforms in the same policy domain (Bouckaert et al., 2010). This paper explores the interaction between two recent policy initiatives in Norwegian higher education: (1) the so-called Structural Reform launched in 2015, with the overarching objective of increasing quality through concentration of resources, specifically through mergers of higher education institutions and (2) the 2016 pilot scheme introducing multi-year performance contracts (development agreements) negotiated between the state and individual institutions. Although the first initiative aims at a significant change in higher education landscape and the latter focuses on a specific aspect of higher education management and funding, both cases are characterized by ambiguities as well as inconsistencies in interpretation and implementation. The empirical basis for the analysis comprises two research-based evaluation projects coordinated by the Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education. Both projects include desk research, as well as interviews with relevant state and non-state policy actors. The exploration specifically focuses on identifying under which conditions the two reform processes effectively undermine or facilitate each other, combining insights related to gradual institutional change (Mahoney and Thelen, 2010) and policy design (Howlett, 2017; Peters et al., 2018).

Bouckaert, G., Peters, B. G., and Verhoest, K. (2010). The coordination of public sector organizations : shifting patterns of public management, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Howlett, M. (2017). "The criteria for effective policy design: character and context in policy instrument choice." Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1-22. Howlett, M., and Rayner, J. (2007). "Design Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coherence in ‘New Governance Arrangements’." Policy and Society, 26(4), 1-18. Mahoney, J., and Thelen, K. A. (2010). "Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power". City: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. XIII, 236 s. Peters, B. G., Capano, G., Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., Chou, M.-H., and Ravinet, P. (2018). "Designing for Policy Effectiveness: Defining and Understanding a Concept". City: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.